1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.


Discussion in 'Spiritual Growth & Development' started by jimrich, Sep 29, 2018.

  1. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Got it. Next person who tells me I have lost my mind must be telling me so in a loving and kind way.
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Yes, if it happens on this website. Perhaps you are indeed beginning to get it!
  3. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

    Keep helping to derail posts? I tried to make a reasonable response to one of your posts (that I actually found interesting) that YOU yourself derailed on a thread and a new thread had to be created. Then I log back in at the wee hours of the morning and you are spilling endless of drivel that honestly at this point I will just remain silent on from here on out. But if you further feel the need to post your condescending comments towards the website owner or the Admin that is helping to manage the website I will say something regardless of the henchmen that may or may not back up what you’re saying.
  4. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

    I’ll relieve myself of this thread.
  5. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I hope your day will be lovely, dear wonderful PB!!
  6. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I meant that I would be helping keep derailing the topic further if I were to reference posts here in response to yours. I was not speaking of you derailing the topic. It wasn't written in condescension. I mentioned if you'd really like to discuss that topic, that it would be best we do so elsewhere so I wouldn't keep helping derail the original post's topic further.
  7. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Convolution, you have no need to justify yourself. Be aware that when you feel that urge it is just your ego talking and you can safely let it go. I would have posted in this thread if there ever had been the time for me to do it, and one of the things I would have said is that apparently the ego is just a protective artifact that comes with the body and is meant to help to keep us alive by making us feel defensive and self-protective. You can indeed make it sit down and shut up, and you will be much happier when you do!
  8. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

    Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
  9. Ruby

    Ruby Active Member

    I was agreeing with you, Convolution.
  10. Ruby

    Ruby Active Member

    Is the thread about "egoism" ? Just looked it up in the dictionary, which defines it as "the doctrine that we have proof of nothing but our own existence". Sorry to catch on so late.
  11. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I'm confused. You replied to Roberta. :)
  12. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I personally think that's a good place to start investigating from :)
  13. Ruby

    Ruby Active Member

    I said: "How can it help afterlife research to ban people who want to talk about science?" ie. You! Anyway, moving on. Maybe none of this can be measured by our limited human intelligence, but then, how come we can receive messages by said human intelligence? All so confusing.
    Convolution and SashaS like this.
  14. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Exactly. If there is a point of communication, some threshold where information of some kind is exchanged, then it would appear that something can be measured/observed. Some people are probing just such areas. Perhaps not all information can be acquired reliably, as Mac pointed out somewhere, but it still can be studied, even if we have to deal with percentages.
  15. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Indeed, all of this can be studied. Provided that those who have the skills to do it also are willing to do it! I realized that since you and Ruby don't have my decades of history with science, you still have the trust in science as an institution of wide-eyed children who get A's in science courses that tell you that scientists will soon have it all figured out. For a long time I was where you are now, so I understand that when I tell you they have been lying to you all along it is instinctive for you to get your backs up. I ask you not to do that here, but feel free to bash me by email if you like.

    I have just published another blog post on this topic, entitled Brain-Hacks. Perhaps I will post it here as well.
  16. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

    What on earth is going on with the forums lately.. ? Rhetorical question of course. But geez.
  17. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Personally, I don't trust science as an institution either. It is built by humans, each with a specific agenda which may or may not be in line with the pursuit of truth through inquisitive openness and rigorous process.
    I see scientism (or its equivalent in other disciplines) everywhere- people who have mistaken past discoveries with future certainty, who have invested in a world view without openness to challenge. I understand why it happens, but it still saddens me, because it could potentially be more beneficial to people over the long run if that weren't the case. Every closed system, to ensure its continuity and survivability sees a benefit in building defenses against any perceived outer threat, whether consciously or unconsciously; sometimes that goes awry.

    But I do trust in the thought process, that is conducive with acquiring knowledge, that we have learned developing science. To be open minded, to create hypothesis which may be tested for validation, to develop experiments and find conclusions. To disseminate the studies so others can validate it themselves. The institutions/culture around those tenets are flawed for sure, as they always have been, in one way or another. I can't think of a major breakthrough or shift in paradigm which wasn't met by equally major rejection as well. Perhaps the introduction of QED was one of the smoothest. It's to be expected that anything that disrupts the current establishment's way of thinking will meet major resistance. I accept that is the way of things.
    In any case, that is a long winded way of saying I am in agreement.

    I, at least, would be interested in the blog post.
    bluebird likes this.
  18. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Ask, and it shall be given to you! This post is built on info in other posts, but some of those are linked....


    One astonishing byproduct of the bogus scientific theory of materialism and its correlate certainty that consciousness has to be generated by the brain is the fact that so many scientists have become obsessed with developing brain-hacks. They are certain that your brain creates “you,” even though they have no idea how that happens; so now no effort can be spared as they struggle to find the very best ways to preserve that brain-created “you” forever!

    Dying people obsessed with the idea of immortality began in the sixties to have their brains frozen, but even if we can find a way to successfully defrost and reanimate those brains they still will be vulnerable and mortal. So by now those who feel truly inspired to keep our brain-created minds alive have come to focus on how we might upload our consciousness to a computer, while at the same time other scientists are trying to upload information to our living brains. Some of the hacks being seriously considered turn out to be quite literally to die for!

    And of course immortal minds will need immortal bodies, so scientists are figuring out now how to hack our bodies too. Modern mainstream science is so far off the rails, so dead-ended by its adherence to the thoroughly discredited dogma of materialism, that the only hope it can think to offer to all of humankind is a possible eternity as computers in the heads of robots? Scientists call this “the mind-body problem,” and while they talk a good game, they still have made precisely zero progress on any of these fronts!

    I have subscribed to Scientific American for going on two decades now. In those earlier, more hopeful days, scientists were so certain they were going to figure out how the brain creates consciousness that it seemed to be only a matter of time. As recently as a few years back, scientists still were confident that their materialist theories about the origin of consciousness absolutely had to be right. Very recently, though, these hopeful articles so full of the certainty that matter creates mind have faltered in their optimism, to be replaced in the popular scientific literature by the possibility that we may never discover the origin of consciousness unless we dare to venture beyond traditional physics and consider religious notions too. But of course we can never do that!

    Close to twenty years into the twenty-first century, theories of how the brain creates consciousness seem to have reached such a fanciful level that they are mostly expounded on places like Quora, while my beloved but deluded Scientific American has reduced its ambitions to attempts at learning how to tell if a comatose patient is aware, and how we might explain the astonishing fact that some people with “acquired savant syndrome” can gain unbelievable talents overnight. What passes for exciting consciousness news in the popular science literature is just expositions of older studies that focus on parts of the brain that seem to be in some way involved in manifesting consciousness. From what I have seen, these studies are nothing more than possible evidence of how and where an eternal non-material consciousness might attach to and work with our material brains.

    The century-old scientific certainty that matter is primary and consciousness is generated by our brains is on its pathetic last legs. And for everyone who cares about truth and understanding, that is wonderful news! This whole bogus contest between scientists and religionists is based on a fallacious assumption that goes back at least as far as Plato and Aristotle, who loosely divided all human knowledge between what is material and what is spiritual. This divide never made any more sense than it would have made to divide the study of liquids from the study of solids, but for nearly all of human history the fact that the whole idea was stupid didn’t much matter because people had so little understanding anyway.

    And that division between physical and non-physical studies always was collegial and informal. But then a little over a century ago those struggling to integrate quantum mechanics into their Newtonian physics model didn’t want to have to also consider the flood of well-documented communications that were then being received through deep-trance mediums from people that we used to think were dead. So in desperation, the scientific gatekeepers of the day – the university departments and the peer-reviewed journals – turned what had for nearly two millennia been a largely theoretical division between the study of matter and the study of spirit into what became an iron wall. From then on, the study of material facts and any non-physical speculations had to be rigidly separated! And working scientists who refused to respect the wall between the two killed their own careers.

    But there is just one reality. Surely that is common sense? The early-twentieth-century scientists who first dubbed materialism “the fundamental scientific dogma” could not have understood that nothing is solid, that religious dogmas are no threat to the truth, and that in fact there is a glorious greater reality based in consciousness of which our universe is just a part. Scientists through all of human history could not have understood any of this, but more and more working scientists are beginning to suspect it now. And they should be speaking out! But of course they have children to educate and retirements to fund. And by now there has been a century’s worth of scientific work done based on a lie, so at this point it will be hard for any respected scientist ever to point out the fact that the materialist scientific emperor is in fact buck-nekkid. Being the first respected scientist to speak the truth is going to be hard! But still, shame on every scientist at every level who suspects the truth but still lives the lie.

    All those brain-hacks meant to give us eternal physical life are laughable. It isn’t only that they turn working scientists into the equivalent of tribal primitives trying to figure out how to hack a radio so it will produce the voice of Frank Sinatra, but eternity is our birthright. It is the essence of who we are! Every human mind is inextricably part of the Mind that continuously manifests this universe, safely beyond the matter-related illusions of time and space and therefore eternal by definition. Please pause for a moment and savor that fact. You never began, you never will end, and eternal is the essence of who you are!

    Still, working scientists and clueless others continue to double down on silliness. The author of The DaVinci Code imagines that we will create and worship an artificial God. As we become ever better at detecting the fact that awareness persists after physical death, there also are people who wallow in the horror of imagining that human awareness must be trapped for long enough for the dying to be driven mad as they contemplate their imminent demise. Efforts even are being made to program computers to teach themselves to play chess in order to awaken in machines some of what might look like aspects of the mind, specifically intuition and creativity. According to those carrying on these studies, “With the advent of powerful machine learning techniques we’ve seen that the scales have started to tip and now we have computer algorithms that are able to do these very human-like activities really well.” To what purpose this is being done is difficult to say, since conscious awareness is the source of intuition and creativity, and not a product of it. Even the most creative and intuitive machine cannot go from learning how to develop hunches to ultimately becoming self-aware!

    So the beat goes on. But fortunately, those that we used to think were dead are working intensively now to invent such strong and incontrovertible methods of communication between their world and ours that soon scientists will be shamed into venturing into the study of what is not physical. And as the great physicist and polymath Nikola Tesla said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
  19. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Very interesting.
    It may have been Ray Kurzweil, one of the guys leading the ideas of the singularity, which started pitching the concept of uploading consciousness to machines in a serious manner, though some science-fiction writer probably came up with the concept long before. I read Ray's books long ago, and although I think there is a lot in there which has a strong likelihood of happening, I was always very skeptical of the idea of transferring consciousness, as we didn't even have a scientific basis for what it is. A copy of memories, intentions, likely actions would be more easily achievable, perhaps.
    Brain simulations, to a certain extent, maybe. If he is correct, we should know in the next few years, as we've just passed the processing capacity of mice, and are on the exponential curve towards the theoretical human brain capacity, ever approaching the singularity he coined. Hardware wise, that is. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel in software, but that could quickly shift.

    In terms of creativity and intuition, I think that will be very interesting to see. I've often wondered whether there would ever be any probability of implementing these mental processes in machines, as we are starting to understand a little about machine learning and reasoning, but very little to nothing about intuition and creativity- so you may well be right.

    People have made a few modest strides in the realm of consciousness. Neuroscientists have no real clue as to the solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which is really the big deal, as you highlighted.
    Modest traction has been made to other areas on the periphery of consciousness.
    For example, a group of researchers have been able to transfer memories between mice.

    Another interesting development is the capture of images subjects see, imagine or even dream, from the brain and onto a screen, by a Japanese researchers.

    If, as you say, it turns out that consciousness is indeed non-local, this technology could one day help bridge the gap between both worlds, if some mediums can indeed hear/see spirits.
    A few years back I worked in a project involving a then new EEG and the development of software towards the interpretation of emotional and cognitive inputs from people's brain, in order to command actions in a computer. Our brains encode information in a manner uniquely to each of us, so there was need for a training interface. At the time, we discussed that implementing some sort of machine learning algorithm would have greatly sped up the training process, which too 30+ minutes per person, decalibrated over time (and so required retraining every few days), and required quite a bit of concentration (accuracy). Part of it was the EEG, and part people. Now I see those folks seem to be thinking along those lines, which is great. Very different process, though. We were sending signals, whereas they are receiving. Receiving is far more fascinating, in my opinion, though they share similarities.

    Now I wonder. Supposing the non-locality/survival, and the idea that a brain is a receiver, then it would have to encode the symbolic information it receives from consciousness into actual physical synaptic structure within the brain of the human. But what I don't understand is why. Why would it need that extra step, the symbols being physically recorded in the brain, rather than in just this non physical consciousness, with the brain serving a pure antenna, like that of a TV? Does that imply that the consciousness once rupturing its link with the brain loses its capacity for the interpretation of human symbols? Why must we need this extra intermediary step of encoding memory and sensory input into the brain, decode it for consciousness, if it did have the ability to just jump that extra step? Seems it would be far simpler to have the brain function solely as an antenna. And yet, it records, encodes and decodes.

    I am very interested in projects involved on establishing reliable communication between these two realms.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018 at 1:39 AM

Share This Page