HH:"I have an addiction to knowledge. If only I could understand everything I find."

HH: You and I, obviously, have the same addiction.
BTW, did you read the short story I wrote, way back about the infallible computer? Here is a slighty revised version of it:

There was once a brilliant computer scientist who was, also, a reluctant atheist and the son of a thelogically conservative minister, who had a child-like and an unquestioning faith in God. Despite their differences the father and son loved and respected each other. Their debates were always friendly ones.

One day, in a phone conversation, he said to his father: "Father, Voltaire once said that if God did not exist, we would have to invent him." Well, I think I have finally done just that. Come and see it."

"What!!! What are you talking about, son?" his father asked, in amazement.

"Let me put it this way: I have put together what I believe is an infallible, voice-activated computer, which sounds, to me, like a rather useful kind of god. I ask it any question that comes to my mind and it gives me an answer. If it fails to do so for, I will believe in your God" said the son.

The son, loved his father. He simply questioned his father's child-like faith and challenged him to at least come and test out the computer. He said, "Dad, find out for yourself.Come over and try my computer."The father, who loved his son, agreed.

Sure enough, no matter what question the father--who was well read in philosophy, science, history, the Bible, theology, even mundane subjects, such as sports--asked, the computer gave the right answer.The father was impressed.

Then he said, "You know son, I have always been a man of faith, but I confess that there have been times when I have had my doubts as to whether or not there really is a God. The sudden death of your mother, despite all those prayers, was especially troubling to me, as, I am sure it must have been to you."

Delighted to hear his father's humble confession the son replied: "Okay father, now is our chance to find out. Why don't we ask the computer? Why don't you go ahead and pop the question?" Screwing up his courage, the father, gingerly, asked: "Infallible computer, please tell us: Is there a one true God and loving Heavenly Father who hears and will answer all our prayers?"

Immediately the computer turned into a pink cloud, which filled the room. Out of the cloud came a strong and god-like voice: "No. What you call, God, is an idol created by the human imaginaton!" This was followed by a period of deep silence.

Gradually, the pink cloud disappeared .

Over the next few minutes the following words then appeared on the screen as a voice, filled with love and compassion spoke them:

"The bad news is: God, as spoken of by organized religions is mostly a figment to the human imagination. However, some--the ones which preached the need for knowledge, wisdom, love and justice--did point in the right direction.

"But fear not, and have done with worry. The good news is: There is a spirituality beyond any human ability to imagine and define, exactly, which some call The Ground of All Being--GØD. GØD is Spirit, Light and Love as experienced in all of what is called Nature. I see that both of you love the natural world, and despite your differences, you also love, honour, respect one another and all you meet. You actually practice the Golden Ruke. You do what you say you believe.

"I remind you that we--and I speak for all in the past who gave their lives in service to the highest good--are just at the beginning of the exploration of total Nature--the Earth, the other planets, the sun and the billion of galaxies of this mysterious cosmos. Be patient and enjoy the Now, and be thankful for your opportunity to be involved in all that is to come! This exploration of infinity will take all of us an eternity.

"The best news of all is: We now know that, deep within, around, below and above there is available, if you choose to accept it, an infallible guide. So what are we waiting for? There is great and joyful work to be done."

Like the term "God", the term "spirit" implying anything supernatural is useless and unncessarily confusing to the discussion. Confusing the issue is harmful to those who wish to be informed, and also unnecessary, and therefore evil.

There is consciousness and there is mass-energy. Nothing else exists. To claim otherwise is to be in error.

What you are mistaking for "spirit" is a feeling of magnificence, a kind of consciousness.

I like this! But ...
Uhmm ... "Nothing else, that we know of, exists."

And that is enough for me, until we (possibly) know more (if ever).

ps Does energy include dark energy?

So, basically you subscribe to a generic form of Pascal's Wager for an after life.

Well Lindsay, I hope you're right, however I have no rationale for believing you're right.

I suppose though that we all need our existential comforts, so ridicule would certainly not be appropriate.

Rick pontificates: "There is consciousness and there is mass-energy. Nothing else exists. To claim otherwise is to be in error."

So, Rick, what's your point?

If I understand what you mean by mass-energy, and consciousness, I agree. What "otherwise" do you think I would have in mind? After all, if GØD is the ALL, what otherwise can there be?

Tech, then you add: "I hope I am right." Interesting.

You also add, "I suppose though that we all need our existential comforts, so ridicule would certainly not be appropriate.

To which I respond: Tech, you and others, please remind all of us:

Where are you are, theologically and eschatologically speaking? It will help us dialogue.

For example, what do you really think about your death, which is as certain as taxes? In your opinion, what--if there is life after death--will it be like? Do believe you will continue to live, in one form or another, after you die? This begs the questions:

HOW MANY OF US HAVE REALLY MADE PLANS AS TO WHAT WE HOPE WILL HAPPEN AFTER OUR DEATH?
What do you know, think, feel, hope and want life to be like, after your death?

If there is any doubt as to where you think I stand on such questions, feel free to ask. Keep in mind that I make no pretense that I am infallible, like Rick.

My plans for after death are made. I named them Jonathan and Matthew.

I see. Like Woody Allen, you accept the reality of death; but you just don't want to be there when it happens.

This is an interesting line of inquiry, and one I have thought a great deal about. The only thing that I can be absolutely certain of is my desires, along with the condition of uncertainty itself.

My metaphysic is grounded in process. I believe that my identity and the stream of my consciousness supervenes on the physical. If I fall down a flight of stairs and hit my head the wrong way I could suffer brain damage. This would diminish my capacities and also probably affect my identity. As such, my common sense intuitions lead me to believe that the destruction of my physical constitution would represent the terminal point of my Being as process. This is not a reality that I am particularly fond of, but I have a habit of being brutally honest with myself. So no, I do not believe in any life after death, though I would be pleasantly surprised if there were one.

There are however some unquestioned assumptions on your part that I have issues with (and which I have expressed on this forum in the past). I do not believe that "death is as certain as taxes", at least for myself anyway. In your case, being that the big bopper was all the rage when you were my age, the probability of succumbing to the ravages of aging is very high. Yet for younger generations the rapid advances being made in science, particularly in the biological sciences, make absolute certainty in one's death inappropriate.

I'm fairly well versed in molecular biology (especially aging theory) and, although I am realistic that success is anything but certain, I do maintain the hope that there will be therapeutic options available in my life time that could radically extend my life span.

I've also consciously gone about the task of maximize my chances of success for attaining said goals. I exercise 5 or 6 times a week and eat healthy (slightly calorie restricted but I am not strict about it, I'll still live life and down a pint of Ben and Jerry's from time to time). Plus I have a fairly comprehensive supplentation regiment. Over all I take very good care of myself. If I'm not still alive and kicking in 2060 I'd consider that (if I could consider anything, being dead) a major disappointment.

Besides from the healthy living, I also maintain a cryonics policy with Alcor. I'm insured for the neuro-preservation via vitrification (the most advanced technique currently available). I also plan to have stand by if things ever get to that point. Will cryonics work? Beats the hell out of me, but it can't hurt to give it a shot.

But to answer your question more directly. Since I don't believe that there is an after life, obviously I don't dwell on the subject very much. I live this life and act as if it is the only life I'll ever have. This isn't meant as a knock on your perspective btw; morality is a very personal thing. I just happen to see things one way and you see them another.

Best,
Techno

How does/will this affect your ecological footprint, in these times of global pyrexia? Costing the planet even after one's death, eh?

And, IMO, this is an excellent attitude. It makes for a good foundation on which to build a meaningful dialogue. Thanks.

I don't think so HH. Keeping my brain in deep freeze is clearly less draining than many of the modern burial facilities we have today (heated/AC mausoleums). Besides, it's my right as an individual to determine how my remains are delt with. I have noticed that there always seem to be these underlying moral sentiments that having a life loving morality is somehow selfish. I think that needs to stop. I care about my environment. I donate monthly to greenpeace and I recycle. I consider myself a "good citizen". At the same time I don't think society should maintain the attitude that individuals need to die for the greater good. Each human life is precious and worth saving - myself and anyone else who has a similar desire.

I also have a disagreement with people's preconceived notions of what constitutes "death". If death is defined as the irreversible destruction of a personal identity pattern, then a state of death is not absolutely certain with cryo-preservation.

Anyway, I don't mean to pull the dialog too far off topic. Carry on.

Who in this group is certain that there is no life beyond the death of the brain? Or are most of us uncertain, or agnostic, about it?

I hope there is, and I would like there to be, life after death. But I am not certain there is. If there is, I have an idea it will be a continuation of this one with the advantage of the education, at all levels, we got in this one. I believe that whether or not there is life after death will have nothing to do with whether or not we belong to any of the organized religions--good, bad or indifferent. I certainly hope that the traditional fundamentalist religionists are wrong.

HYPNOSIS AND PAST LIFE EXPLORATION
BTW, using pneumatherapy--hypnosis without the hocus pocus--over the years, I have quite a few experiments, especially, with my daughter, Catherine, who was born in 1958, which strongly indicated that she, and others, had lived many lives before this one.

IMHO, if we can come up with the evidence that we have lived before, it goes without saying that there could be more lives to come.

Here is an interesting spiritual gift she seems to have: I will meet people who want to get involved with the Family Life Foundation--a registered charity of which I am the director, and which needs volunteers.

It also offers help (no fees)--physical, mental and spiritual--to people who need it.

I want to know whether or not the people I meet are sincere, or not, and worthy of friendship and trust, as a volunteers. If the person is seeking help, I want to know it the person really does wants to get well.

All I do is give her the name of that person. She will go into deep meditation. A few days later she will phone me and give me a personality profile of that person. It always amazes me how well she describes them. Over time, almost without exception, what she told me about people and their profile, and what they were up to doing, turned out to be accurate.

I deny the possibility. Its not that I am hard-wired this way, I see life as an opportunity to gain better understanding of the physical world.



If this is so then its a bonus.




Now now Lindsay I know your intentions are good but this does sound a bit like hocus pocus to me. And honestly smells of peddling a fundamental untruth. I seriously doubt that people under hypnosis recall anything other than what they have learnt in their lifetime or false memories.

"The veridicality of such memories was examined, it was found that many of the memories were not only false, but they were even outright fabrications. Confabulations, i.e. making up stories to fill in memory gaps, seemed to be the norm rather than the exception. It seems, literally, that using "hypnosis" to revive or awaken a person's past history somehow or other not only stimulates the person's desire to recall and his memory processes, but it also opens the flood gates of his or her imagination. (Baker 1992, p. 152) "

Psychologist Robert Baker demonstrated that belief in reincarnation is the greatest predictor of whether a subject would have a past-life memory while under past life regression hypnotherapy. Furthermore, Baker demonstrated that the subject's expectations significantly affect the past-life regressive session. He divided a group of 60 students into three groups. He told the first group that they were about to experience an exciting new therapy that could help them uncover their past lives. Eighty-five per cent in this group were successful in "remembering" a past life. He told the second group that they were to learn about a therapy which may or may not work to engender past-life memories. In this group, the success rate was 60%. He told the third group that the therapy was crazy and that normal people generally do not experience a past life. Only 10% of this group had a past-life "memory."

But inertia ...What do you mean by I don't think so? Of course it will have an energy cost that is quite considerable (production of Liquid N2 and all of the paraphernalia associated with it for an indefinite period). Think of the cost if every human was offered this alternative and accepted. Surely we should be encouraging recycling. Or, like Tony Blair, do we pressurize the ordinary person to embrace a stone-age lifestyle whilst jetting off to spend another holiday at Cliff Richard's villa in the Bahamas? A sort of negative altruism! And, even more important, shouldn't we stop assuming that we are worth preserving and let the new generations offer their potential to the human race's survival. You want to preserve your life in an age when we let millions of children die in developing countries? Doesn't their chance to begin a life have priority over your chance to defeat death? I believe in diversity as the route to human survival, not a focus on a relatively few select individuals who would selfishly take advantage of their silver spoons for eternity. (Of course I reserve the right to mould my opinions to take account of such futuristic issues as expanded/cohesive consciousness, serious technological advances in food production and treatment/prevention of disease, and mega-understanding/manipulation of the human genome to realistically better processes of natural selection).
You are living in the future. The rest of the world has to live in today. Here's me thinking, for example, that every hour decisions are made to restriction treatments to sick people for financial reasons, and that some patients die as a result. Their lives have been sacrificed selectively - this is the real, present world we live in, and this will not change foreseeably.

Technologist, what for you would be a good lifespan? Don't worry, I realize that forever is the hardest word . Here's another one for you - in an age where suicide and euthanasia are frowned upon (cf. legal, religious, cultural status) should (cryo)preservation be compulsory? Also, remind me, does preservation occur prior to death or post mortum? I suspect post mortum and if so, if one is legally dead, what is your legal status after revival? You could not be the same person, legally, as you are dead! This is not the same as the quite common "medical resuscitation" where brain stem death has not been confirmed. So now we have to get into a discussion of whether brain stem death (presumable used to medically/legally confirm death prior to preservation) can be overcome/reversed. Personally, I think you have wasted your money. I think you will be irreversibly dead before any methods are reliably developed, and that IMO will be a very long time. Actually, healthy longevity will outcompete preservation/resuscitation, although I suppose there could be a place for the latter if NHS waiting lists increase again . But, with these ongoing financial limitations, to ensure treatments for the living, we might have to pull the plug on the preserved - I'd vote for that!

Hey Hey Hey , would it be possible for us to split this dialog off into another thread. I have always found you to be one of the more rational/open minded posters on brainmeta so I think it would be a valuable use of my time to demonstrate to you why your ethical analysis is flawed. I'm well researched on the ethical issues you've brought up and, by the end of our dialog, I'm willing to bet that I will convince you to change your stance.

My pleasure. I'll catch up with you wherever you transfer this.

ps This message was written entirely with recycled electrons.

Culture Culture, 10%. That high? Knowing the power of suggestion I am surprised that that any had past-life memories.

I am well aware of the need to be cautious about the claims made by people involved in what I call the pneumatological side of human nature. But my daughter's ability to go into deep trance was very instrumental in helping her to recover from a life-threatening lung condition--she had pneumonia five times in the winter of 1963/64--diagnosed by several doctors, including doctors at Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital, recognized all over the world as a great hosptal. C
===========================0000000000===========================
The following first-person story is on the record in the anthology: EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCES—Personal accounts of the para-normal in Canada, by John R. Colombo, a skeptic and an agnostic (1989). It is entitled:

QUOTE

The Endless Power of the Human Spirit

John R. Colombo is no one's fool. He is also a skeptic. I met with him on more than one occasion, including participating with him on media panels. This anthology, which is a gold mine of well-researched stories was brought together by this well-known anthologist (See also Colombo's Quotations) in 1989. The facts in the story were examined by many people, including the religion editor of the Toronto Star.

In the winter of 1963-1964 my eight-year-old daughter, Catherine (Born April 1, 1956) —ailing since she was two and a half—was seriously ill with her fifth bout of pneumonia that winter. Doctors at Children's Hospital, Toronto, told our doctor and my wife and me: "Catherine's lung problem is extremely serious. One more bout of pneumonia could kill her. Her lungs are extremely scarred. What she needs is new set of lungs." And since this was in the day before lung transplantation, all that was recommended was more of the same ineffective treatment.

ENTER PNEUMATHERAPY--hypnosis without the hocus pocus
The basic story in the anthology is about my interest, since my student days, in the relation between religion, faith, science and healing. Early on, I was influenced by the writings of religious psychologists such as Dr. William Parker and Elaine St. John (Prayer Can Change Your Life) and The Rev. and doctor, Leslie D. Weatherhead (Psychology, Religion and Healing) and others, including Mesmer.

At the time, I was in my early thirties. With the help of, Allen Spraggett, then religion editor of the Toronto Star, I met the following then modern thinkers in the field. IMO, they were on the cutting edge of research in science, involving matters of faith and religion. I invited those I met to speak at the church which I served, in what is now in east Toronto. I followed their work, closely.

At that time, I remember meeting the follwoing:

1.The Rev. Dr. Frankiln Loehr, who had served with distinction as an officer in the American Airforce in WW 2. Having heard of my interest in metaphysics he contacted me. I invited him and his wife to visit my church and my home. From him I heard, first hand, how his experiments in prayer were conducted with close attention to details and the keeping of careful statistics. I was impressed that he took a close and scientific approach to the claims of faith and religion.

He told me: "I have no interest in protecting frauds." I was impressed.

2. I also met, and studied with, the Rev. Harold Crump, one of the founders of Concept Therapy, who visited and lectured in Toronto more than once, over the years. He was in his 80's, when I met him, and he was still dynamically alive and well.

Crump, a methodist minister, was actually trained as an electronics engineer. He had worked with the brilliant Charles P. Setinmetz--the wizzard of General Electric.

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/steinmetz.html

Crump taught a spiritual/science philosophy which is still being taught. He was whiz at hypnosis. The program he taught is called Concept Therapy. I have much of the concept therapy literature.

http://www.concept-therapy.org/

I have a strong feeling that I was led to meet the people mentioned above as part of my search for what could be done to help my daughter. What they said prepared me to meet, with the help of the religion editor of the Toronto Star, Allen Spraggett, my next visitor:

3. FATHER JOSEPH WITTKOFSKI

WHAT I LEARNED FROM FATHER JOE HELPED SAVE MY DAUGHTER'S LIFE
Then, in 1964 I met the one who gave my wife and I the specific help we needed to help our daughter, Catherine, recover from a potentially fatal disease.

Now in the hereafter, Father Joe was then an American Episcopalian canon and priest. The Rev. Canon Joseph Wittkofski, Charleroi, Pa., told me that he had been drummed out of the Roman Catholic faith, by a narrow-minded bishop of his, because of his (Father Joe's ) "weird" ideas. However, he became a priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA—an open-minded religion, not unlike the United Church of Canada.

From him I took quite a few hours of private studies. Later, with a group of twenty students, I arranged to have him come and give a week-long—over thirty hours—seminar Following the seminar, he went back to his own church in Charleroi, Pa.

Before he left, I told him of my daughter's problem. His words to me, as he left for his home, were: "You now know how to use hypnotherapy within the context of spiritual, or faith healing. You can help your daughter, better that I can. Go to work. Because of the dumb law you have here in Ontario against non-medical therapists using hypnosis, it would be wise for you to speak to your family doctor. I would like to see you and your group get the law reformed."

With this knowledge, I approached our family doctor, Dr. Harold Hutchins. I told him about Father Joe's work, and what I had learned from him. Then I loaned him a copy of the book, by Father Joe: THE PASTORAL USE OF HYPNOTIC TECHNIQUE. Also, I told him that Father Joe was now back in Pa., but was willing to keep in touch, by phone.

Our doctor readily admitted to me that he was not skilled in hypnosis. Was I ever happy when he told me: "You will get no hassle from me. I happen to think that the law is a bad one. I have no objection to your following Canon Wittkofski's suggestion. Give hypnosis a try. I will be interested in what results you get.”

Then he added, "Anything you can do to help your daughter's immune system, to kick in, is okay with me. In the light of Children's Hospital prognosis, we have nothing to lose. The law, as I understand it, is toothless. I think it was brought into being for the convenience of a certain few with a vested interest in keeping control. I will not report you, and I will monitor your daughter's condition, as needed."

In addition to this, he agreed with me when I suggested: "I will still bring Catherine back to you for her usual needle, every week. However, meanwhile, I want you to cut the potency of her shots to half, each time we come. I will tell her, while she is in a trance: The shots you are getting from your good doctor is very effective medicine.

Within a few weeks he told me, "At this point, the dose is little more than a saline solution. I say we stop given them to her and see what happens."

As they say, the rest is history.

A FULL RECOVERY TOOK PLACE
To the amazement of all involved, overnight, Catherine, began to recover from a disease that was poised to kill her. Within a very short time, Catherine was well enough to go back to school.

She was never bed-ridden again.

BTW, sometime later (in the early 1970's), it was discovered that the full-spectrum anti-biotic, prescribed by her doctors to fight Catherine's pneumonias, was quietly removed from general usage. It was discovered that it had a very negative effect on kidney functions and the immune systems all patients. Interesting.
=================================================
[BTW, years later, a group of us lobbied the provincial department of health. The law was reformed. Hypnosis is no longer considered a medical procedure. Thank GOD!]

Encouraged by this, and the desperate condition of Catherine, I went ahead. The details of what I said are in the anthology.

I used what now I call pneumatherapy—the spiritual application of hypnotic technique—hypnosis without the hype and the hocus pocus. It is similar to what is now called neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). One of the early developers of NLP was the father of North American hypnosis, psychiatrist Dr. Milton Erickson. In my opinion, Dr. Erickson was practicing what I now call pneumatherapy.

Wittkofski, who was also trained in biology, taught me that hypnotic suggestion can influence the will and the imagination of individuals. This guides the mind and the body to awaken the extremely valuable auto-immune system.

*****************************************************************************************
PAST LIVES
If, like most atheists and, interestingly, like most Christians theists, and the like, you believe that we only get to live once in this world, the following will make no rational sense to you.

However, if you are a Buddhist, a Hindu and the like, including this unitheist—that is, one who believes GOD is, not a one, but the oneness of all that is—it is highly possible that we get more than one opportunity in this three dimensional realm to prepare for whatever dimensions there are beyond this one.

EXPLORING CATHERINE'S PAST LIVES
In my next experiment, with Catherine, I asked her to go back to her birth. This she did, easily. Without going into details, here, I will simply say that Jean had had some physical problems when Catherine was five months along. Immediately, Catherine sensed that she had had a close call with death before her birth.

Then there was a long silence. Then, vividly, she described a historic event. She spoke about languages about which she new little or nothing, consciously. Because of my interest in history and language, I recognized her description.

Keep in mind that she was only eight years old, at this time. When she mentioned that she belonged to a Hebrew tribe, I asked her if she could verify this by telling me if she knew the basic Hebrew alphabet. Immediately, she said ALEPH, and BETH, the first letters of the Hebrew alphabet. I gave her a pencil and paper. She wrote the letters in a form which I recognized. I still have this paper in a file.

I asked her: Describe the kind of life you lived? Her answers all made sense. Then I asked her: How long did you live? And, what caused your death?

She began to speak and express herself with a great deal of fear and stress and said: "Our village is being attacked, by the Greeks. They are a mean, cruel and violent people. They forced us to submit to their rule, they want us to speak Greek and become like them. We refused, and that is how the war started."

Then she began to scream and cry: "There is fire and smoke all around me. It is choking me. My lungs seem to be filling up with smoke." I told her that she was able to release herself from any danger. There was silence, and then she aroused herself, slowly. As she awakened from the trance state she said, "I felt like I was choking on smoke. This is the last thing I remember."

In later experiments, she told me about other lifetimes—I now call it multi-incarnations—all ending in death by asphyxiation. I concluded that this could be one of reasons why she has had problems with her lungs. Her past lives were still having their effect on her body.

Interestingly, she told me that the last life she lived on earth, that is, the one before this present life, ended sometime in the 1940's. She told me that in that life she was one of the Jewish women who died in the holocaust during WW II. Again, her death was by asphyxiation . She actually gave me the name by which, at the time, she was called. It would be interesting to know if a person with this name actually lived. There are many cases on the record where names, places and dates have been verified.

DOE THIS MEAN THAT THERE COULD BE, IF WE SO CHOOSE, MORE TO LIFE THAN MEETS THE SENSES
In my opinion, this if it is possible that we lived before this, it is also possible that we could, if we so choose, live again.

THE ROLE OF FREE CHOICE
Because I believe that personal choice has a lot to do with what the future will bring, I will leave it to you to make up your own mind on this. All I am saying is: It makes sense to me that, if there is evidence for past lives—and I have personal evidence that there is—then there is at least the possibility that my consciousness of being alive will not end with the death of my brain, my current instrument.

[More editing to be done.....]
=====================00000000000000000000000====================

I have no moral objections to vitrification, if I understand correctly the method avoids freezing but hardens tissues like glass instead. However the argument (presently) is one of memory. Would vitrification maintain memory?
Personally I do not mind the idea of no memory, as long as the brain is as functional as it was prior.




Heres where memory would affect your view Technologist. You could well be revived (lack of better word) however there is no evidence that memory and therefore personal identity can be maintained.

When I Have Fears
by John Keats

When I have fears that I may cease to be
Before my pen has glean'd my teeming brain,
Before high-piled books, in charactery,
Hold like rich garners the full ripen'd grain;
When I behold, upon the night's starr'd face,
Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows, with the magic hand of chance;
And when I feel, fair creature of an hour,
That I shall never look upon thee more,
Never have relish in the faery power
Of unreflecting love;--then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think
Till love and fame to nothingness do sin

"...and think, Till love and fame to nothingness do sin." Interpretation, please!

Sorry Lindsay, but I have been rolling around the floor in laughter. I sincerely apologise, as I have misquoted Keats, a poet whom I admire more than any man past or present (well, not including the Bard himself). I have missed a "k" from the final word.

What a wonderful poem. Why do such miraculous individuals often have such short lives? He died at the age my youngest son has just reached - gives me a special angle on the situation. Did you know that Endymion (1st Book) has around 1000 lines of rhyming couplets. Of course the first few lines we all know ...

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing. 5
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth .......

I am glad to see that I was ingenuous--childlike and frank--enough not pretend to understand Keats, when I really didn't.

BTW, let me spell out what I tried to say after this:
I do not fear that I will not be around in some non-existent future. After all, if there is no future, there will be nothing to fear and no fear with which to fear it. Heavenly bliss?

Rather, what I fear is this: I fear that I WILL be around--and with the same old gang--and that I will not be ready to take full advantage of what I feel could be a very interesting future, especially for those of us who are prepared.

If there is no future, for those of us who live in this now, and/or, if there is no god who created us, then it follows that we must have created, and are now creating, ourselves.

It seems to me that this means that life really is, as certain existentialists say it is, absurd, a dirty trick.

Or is there another possibility?

If, as most atheists--not all, mind you--say that there is no future, of which any of us in the NOW will be conscious, then how is it that we in the NOW, especially those of us with post-graduate degrees, including degrees in science, have made such a useless and toublesome self-design for ourselves?

Atheists! IMHO, your design gives us nothing but an absurdity--a dream of a future, with no goodness, order and design, based on hopelessness--one with no future. The theists and the deists have a much better physical, mental and spiritual product. And one that is much more saleable. To really sell it, all they need is to do is get rid of their hard-lined dogma, much in the same way that unitheism and process theology already has.

THE RELIGION OF JOHN KEATS
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/keats01.html

I've just woken up. Must have been a nightmare. Someone was saying, "Smarten up, atheists! Your design gives us nothing but an absurdity--a dream of a future, with no goodness, order and design, based on hopelessness--one with no future." Must get some fresh air. Just look at that sky. Wonderful! It's good to be alive!

Thanks for the compliment. Your confidence in me is gratifying. My operating theory of the non-existence of the supernatural leads, of course, to non-belief in any kind of afterlife. In order for such experiences to exist, there would need to be some soft of afterlife experiential support engine to take over the role (function) of our brains.

Keeping a brain frozen for a few thousand years while people figure out how to reinstantiate a personnality could in theory take very little energy. Dewers (thermos bottles) have near perfect thermal insulation. Only the space and back up refrigeration power are needed, and I frequently see tombs in cemetaries taking up a lot more space.

However, if I were going to freeze myself for later rescuscitation, I would want to do it while I am still fairly young and have all my faculties. Perhaps future cryo-suicide events might become the mark of one's courage and confidence in the future. On the other hand, if we leave freeze instructions for far enough in the future, maybe they will have solved the problem of reversal of aging.

But Rick, you forget the hidden costs, or would you really leave Fido behind?

http://www.cryonics.org/pets.html

Or maybe we could all just pray (£!@$%^& - sorry, it's my medication talking) for the next ice-age!

1. Yes, you are essentially correct. In cryonics, vitrification prevents ice cystalization (and the potential damage to neuro-physiology that would result from it). *Vitrification in Cryonics*

2. As I view memory as an integral component of identity, I would consider a substantial loss of my personal memory to be a failure to achieve my objective.

3. To be clear, I am making no claims about the efficacy of cryonics. My decision to maintain a cryonics policy (which is roughly the equivalent of a life insurance policy) is merely indicative of me recognizing the possibility, however minute, that cryonics could be successful. Really, it's just my last ditch effort - an educated gamble - with zero risk and potentially great reward.



The legality of euthanasia is a major concern for cryonicists in the US. Some have argued that it was a serious strategic mistake to locate the storage facilities here in the states, rather than in a more progressive nation such as Holland. Simple common sense would dictate that the closer to the time of brain death one can be cryo-preserved, the greater their chances of being revived at a later date.

Personally, because of cryonics' inherently speculative nature, only under the most extreme circumstances would I sacrifice a portion of my life for the prospects of better preservation. (also of note, there are major legal issues with a cryonics provider *knowing* that you are planning to self terminate) However, with that caveat aside, I would consider orchestrating my death if faced with some type of neuro-degenerative disease like Alzheimer's.

Why would the non belief in a god/religion equate to a pessimistic view of the future? I know far more believers that are pessimistic about the future than any atheists that mingle with.

Theists have better physical/mental/ product? Please inform us ignorant/weak/stupid atheists why you make such a ludicrous claim.

Culture, because I want to understand how atheists think, let's dialogue until we really know what is being said. You ask First, keep in mind that I am not talking about the future of the earth and the cosmos. I am talking about the personal futures of individuals, like you and me, currently alive on this planet. So let me ask you: Do you believe that you and I will be dead, or consciously alive in some form or another, after the death of our present bodies?

BTW, IMHO, atheists, like theists come in a variety of flavours. What kind of an atheist are you?
1. ingenuous, curious, humble, sincere, agnostic, moral, ethical and positive
2. disingenous, bitter, mind-made-up, cynical and a know-it-all
3. your choice, whatever

Personal futures? If you mean the physical future of generations to follow, I am fairly optimistic.
I believe when we die, it is the end. I still do not see how you could interpret this view as pessimistic.
Its a reality (for me at least) that I am unafraid of. If I believed in god then I would still hold the same
view, which is to say that the life granted on this planet is enough and the illusion/hope of life after death would
be greedy and fairly selfish.

Oh Lindsay, sometimes I can almost feel myself going along with your GØD = nature philosophy. Then, yet again, you want to encourage time-wasting discussions on this mythical afterlife. Just get some psychotherapy to rid yourself of this fear of death. You're part of the grand cycle, no more, no less - be proud to be a finite human animal.

(Would the benefits of eternal life equate to those of an afterlife? http://imminst.org/ Could this dissuade the afterlife believers? ).

How can I decide to believe something for which there is no credible evidence? If I could, I would want to believe the most comforting myth possible. I would believe that I would never die, have eternal youth, and be invulnerable to any injury. If I could truly believe that, would I be ecstatically happy for the rest of my life? Well, at least until definite signs of age and infirmity should appear. Then I would have to revise my beliefs or invent a new insanity.

Or maybe I should believe that if I acquiesce to a life of suffering I will be rewarded with a magical "afterlife" that is grander than I can possibly imagine. Then I can suffer injustice, pain, infirmity, and agonizing death with delightful anticipation of certain reward. But I would be foolish to suffer so much in life, wouldn't I, when I can take a 45 caliber gun to my head and be wondrously "after-alive" in a minute?

After all, it's really about me, isn't it, and my glorious individual selfish immortality? Not! It's really about the future of life in general and all our children in particular, world without end.

I am sometimes tempted to say to the religious believers that God has given them this life they live and all the wonderful things in it, yet they are not satisfied. They want more. They want to be individually alive forever. How ungrateful is that?

Religious or not if you were to believe in Darwins theory and apply nature to your statement, God/nature should have been satisfied with the primordial slime.
Man has always sought greater potential in himself and rather than stay in the stone age has progressed to your temptation and current statement.

Do you believe you would be satisfied to progress no further in your awareness, knowledge and experience?
Do you have enough with what you have experienced to remain satisfied?
If not what is it that moves you to go beyond your present experience?

If it is God/nature then would God/nature have a mind that is more compelling then your own?

Of course not, but thats what I am trying to accomplish.




It will never be enough thats the beauty of life. Saturation point is not a possibility.
IF it is God/nature I would hope that it is more compelling.

Those that have a more personal experience of that quality have given others hope and a personal reality of their own that includes a relationship with God.
The relationship which is obviously projected into a future is seen as extending itself into the past.
Being that such relationships seem to terminate in a personal point of view but not in a cosmic sense or sense that nature is without its saturation point then beginnings are imagined according to best assumptions made from a knowledge base that is simply maturing toward something much greater.

Lives projected from a conscious awareness that is limited to the personal point of view but connected to a much bigger consciousness that is not restricted to the personal leaves one to speculate that the membrane that exists between the personal and the impersonal can be pierced as some have experienced with drugs such as LSD and also by transcending the personal through deep states of meditation.

Generally speaking it would seem inappropriate for a group, a mojority that is evolving from a state of awareness in their current experience to say that anything is impossible or not real because their facts don't relate to the idea.

Religions exist because those who see the current examples fall short of potential does not make a religion infantile or unrealistic, they do however shed some light into the possibilites.
More often than not when someone speaks of religion they may speak of their disagreement in experience and as such when the ego is involved seek to protect their experience any way they can by pointing to what doesn't make sense about the other point of view to justify their own point of view.
This is normal for egoic behavior but not the extent of the potential of man nor does it limit man from rising above or ascending their current levels of experience and belief.

1. Of course not. I am merely recognizing the impossiblity of consciousness without a body. To ask a god for the impossible is highly presumptious.

2. Of course not. I have learned and grown my entire life so far. However, I do not expect to keep accumulating experiences in my grave.

3. I move me, both unconscious and conscious. When I do something, it is me. I take responsibility.

4. If I say it is me and you say it is god, then you are saying that we are god. So be it if it pleases you, but that nomenclature pisses some people off (not me).

To limit God would seem presumptuous. To assume consciousness is limited to a body/bodies also presumtuous.


Taking in consideration knowledge of the past such as the world is flat..If what you have learned becomes obsolete and without value over time then have you really learned anything?
And if your consciousness does not die while your body lies in a grave then why presuppose you will discontinue experiencing anything? IF Nature continues beyond your body perhaps Nature is using you when you believe you are using Nature to your advantage. Which is going to become obsolet first, you or nature?


You mean Rick the personality defines your consciousness even tho your consciousness is flexible enough to be redefined according to your changing personality.
Like looking into a mirror saying to yourself this image is Rick even if the image changes...


It's not the nomenclature that pisses anyone off its the decision one makes to be pissed off by associatiing themselves with an idea through judgment.

You ask me First, keep in mind that I am not talking about the future of the earth and the cosmos, per se. I am talking about the personal futures of individuals, like you and me, and people currently alive on this planet.

So let me ask you: Do you believe that you and I will be dead, or will we be consciously alive, in one form or another, after the death of our present bodies? You responded: Allow me to ask: Am I correct in assuming that you believe that you will be happy to end it all with your personal death?

Culture, this sounds like suicide to me. If you wish to do so, I wish you happy endings and lots of luck!!!!

Keep in mind, your choice is not my choice. And you are welcome to it.

You may call me greedy, but I feel that each of us can, if we choose, be at one with GØD, the source of infinite supply. IMO, this source is never diminished by its giving us anything. It is made more and more abundant by giving more and more of life to those of us who want it. As we receive it and give it to others, we, too, become one with, and the source of, more and more. In other words, by the power of love we become partners in the creation of more and more.

If you want to commit spiritual suicide, this is your choice. Again I say: Lots of luck!!!

Lindsay I really do not understand why you keep harping this pessimistic tune in my acceptance as death
as the end of a journey. I was once told I had 2 weeks to live and nothing could be done (age 20). Did I have a spiritual awakening? No. Did I have any fear? No. Was I bitter? No. I had already then came to the realisation that I had done all I could within those 20 years.

Perhaps if believers entertained the idea that maybe, just perhaps death is final, their lives would be enriched.

I am not knocking your belief, each to their own. I have lead a good life and should there be anything on the other side I see no reason why I would be penalised for not believing there is life after death. In fact I would think that my zest and enthusiasm would count for quite a lot.

You always ask members questions which I appreciate, so heres one for you

Hypothetically speaking:

If it were possible that you could experience death (and afterwards return to life) and in the experience received confirmation that there in fact is nothing after death what would your life amount to?

2. Would you be disappointed?

The reason people think that God isn't winning, is because man is becoming more and more dependent on himself. Everyday we are taking a step towards needing God less. We think we can control things, and we can decide (based on works) where we go when we die, if we go anywhere.
I am a christian, don't get me wrong, but the reason it seems less and less like people are following God...it is because we have free will. More people are choosing to deny Christ, deny any exhistence of God because they say " I want to have control of my life, not let a God determine what i do, say or how i act." Unfortunatly, that is our downfall. Man's downfall, a Nation's downfall begins when we/they turn their back on the One who put them in exhistence.
Our country( USA) was put in place and built on Christian principles and a Godly foundation... we have come a long way since then.
No, my friend, it isn't because God is losing...it is because mankind is losing and missing out by choosing not to believe.

Boyer, Pascal (2003)
Religious Thought and Behaviour As By-products of Brain Function.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol. 7No. 3 March2003 ,119 -124
*PDF LINK*



Where's the christian's counterpart theory on how the atheist's mind works? I've been searching and searching but I just can't seem to find anything on the subject...

An athiest says he doesn't believe in anything (all the ones i have met)...but in reality EVERY human believes in something. If anything he will believe in himself. In an athiest mind, they don't like the thought of having divine authority to dictate what they do or where they go. They like being in control of their own destiny....but unfortunatly it is heading the wrong way "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death". They can deny God all they want, but doesn't make Him any less real. Doesn't make the fact that once you die you will end up in the place you have CHOSEN to go. Heaven or hell, belief or unbelief, christian or athiest...it is a choice... a privilage granted by free will given to us....unfortunatly they choose to deny the Creator..and instead embrace the creation...

Debating a Christian is hardly a productive use of most rationalists' time or energy.

Here is a video that I highly recommend you watch, jellybean.

**How do we know that Christians are delusional?**

Those who claim to not believe in anything are know as nihilists. There is a big difference between a nihilist and an atheist. I am an atheist and I believe in many things, I just try to minimize the *faith* component of my belief.



Do you want to back that statement up with some documentation? Many of the founding fathers were not christians.

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson (a US PRESIDENT and FOUNDING FATHER)

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin (A FOUNDING FATHER)

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." - Benjamin Franklin

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams (a US PRESIDENT and FOUNDING FATHER)

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison (a US PRESIDENT and FOUNDING FATHER).

hehe...after I say that it is not a productive use of time to debate with christians I still go and respond.

I guess I can't help myself. It's like if you saw someone just shat the bed, you can't stop yourself from pointing something like that out.

BTW, even if the US was founded on christian principles (which it wasn't), this wouldn't imply that those principles are correct.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the "is-ought problem", first elaborated on by Hume.

Wiki - "is-ought problem"

As long as your getting your education from YouTube, I think I liked Momo's story much better. It was a bit more inspirational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVYNoNR6VUk&feature=dir