Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What do you believe happens when we die
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I prefer slowly being recycled back to stardust!
That sounds better than a rotten corpse to be honest.
Stardust is beautiful, here's something I plagerised from the net.
In billions of years when the Sun's life ends, long after we have died, the stardust that was once inside us will form part of a new nebula, from which a new star may form. You are literally made of stardust, and in the future, new stars will be made of you.
So we'll go on and on... recycling for millions of years...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Firstly - that is a response. A petulant one granted but still a response.
Secondly - this is a discussion forum. You made a statement in which you essentially made a judgement call about other posters based on a single factual phrase which made no reference to an afterlife (and the phrase you used to make your dig was used by only 2 posters - myself included). I, as one of the targets of your dig, am calling you out on it.
Now, you can explain how you managed to figure that Statement A actually means X,Y,Z and we can discuss that or you can refuse to engage in an honest discussion on a statement you made in a discussion forum. Or you can skulk off having been called out.
You like to play the victim and have claimed that the mods - myself in particular - are out to get you when as the post I called you out on clearly shows you can't help but having a go albeit by twisting what was written. You made the decision to have a go. No-one forced you. You wrote what you wrote and hit submit. A number of posters immediately called you on it.
Now, I am not writing this as a mod. I am writing this as a poster who has been 'judged' and exercising my right to reply.
If you are big enough to deal it out you should be big enough to accept when there is a push back.
It's like this now there's a lot of people who like to suggest that all we are at the end is a rotting corpse.
I've experienced atheists say this to thiests and they seem to think we're basically an organic computer that shuts down and rots.
And they play on it for a reaction.
As an artist/poet/gardener in my opinion that's a very narrow view and in itself it's my view, I'm not calling anyone out.
If I say I don't like the way so and so farm's her or his land or looks after her or his animals animals,it doesn't mean all farmers are the same.
I didn't read the post's before mine, I don't seek validation from people's posts or get rilled up because of an opinion and personalise it.
There's a lot of people getting upset or triggered in conversations on board's and that's a waste of energy, you suggested that I play the victim.
Far from it, I post metaphorically a lot I don't personalise my post's.
I'm not out to upset anyone either.
As you'll see that my post's in other forums I call a spade a spade.
My opinion shouldn't matter to you,as you're well aware that you're a good person yourself.
I've no problem with anyone who posts here, if someone wants to say whatever it's their opinion.
But if someone's Idea of all we are in the end is a rotten corpse, which stinks decays and that's it.
I've every right to suggest that's not a nice way to look at it and from my perspective it's a very narrow and shallow way to look at a lifespan.
And you're right, we do decay and maybe that's it, but the stardust sounds more adventurous and mystical than what I suggest isn't nice.
So it's better people don't get triggered by my post's, it's not worth validating your opinion on mine.
So if my post upset your good self, it wasn't my intention.
Using language like I can skulk off or I'm playing the victim is just a red rag to a sink full of bubbles and soap, so that's just trying to get an emotive response.
So we'll leave it there then
0 -
It's like this now there's a lot of people who like to suggest that all we are at the end is a rotting corpse.
I've experienced atheists say this to thiests and they seem to think we're basically an organic computer that shuts down and rots.
And they play on it for a reaction.
As an artist/poet/gardener in my opinion that's a very narrow view and in itself it's my view, I'm not calling anyone out.
If I say I don't like the way so and so farm's her or his land or looks after her or his animals animals,it doesn't mean all farmers are the same.
I didn't read the post's before mine, I don't seek validation from people's posts or get rilled up because of an opinion and personalise it.
There's a lot of people getting upset or triggered in conversations on board's and that's a waste of energy, you suggested that I play the victim.
Far from it, I post metaphorically a lot I don't personalise my post's.
I'm not out to upset anyone either.
As you'll see that my post's in other forums I call a spade a spade.
My opinion shouldn't matter to you,as you're well aware that you're a good person yourself.
I've no problem with anyone who posts here, if someone wants to say whatever it's their opinion.
But if someone's Idea of all we are in the end is a rotten corpse, which stinks decays and that's it.
I've every right to suggest that's not a nice way to look at it and from my perspective it's a very narrow and shallow way to look at a lifespan.
And you're right, we do decay and maybe that's it, but the stardust sounds more adventurous and mystical than what I suggest isn't nice.
So it's better people don't get triggered by my post's, it's not worth validating your opinion on mine.
So if my post upset your good self, it wasn't my intention.
Using language like I can skulk off or I'm playing the victim is just a red rag to a sink full of bubbles and soap, so that's just trying to get an emotive response.
So we'll leave it there then
0 -
Advertisement
-
It's like this now there's a lot of people who like to suggest that all we are at the end is a rotting corpse.
I've experienced atheists say this to thiests and they seem to think we're basically an organic computer that shuts down and rots.
And they play on it for a reaction.
As an artist/poet/gardener in my opinion that's a very narrow view and in itself it's my view, I'm not calling anyone out.
If I say I don't like the way so and so farm's her or his land or looks after her or his animals animals,it doesn't mean all farmers are the same.
I didn't read the post's before mine, I don't seek validation from people's posts or get rilled up because of an opinion and personalise it.
There's a lot of people getting upset or triggered in conversations on board's and that's a waste of energy, you suggested that I play the victim.
Far from it, I post metaphorically a lot I don't personalise my post's.
I'm not out to upset anyone either.
As you'll see that my post's in other forums I call a spade a spade.
My opinion shouldn't matter to you,as you're well aware that you're a good person yourself.
I've no problem with anyone who posts here, if someone wants to say whatever it's their opinion.
But if someone's Idea of all we are in the end is a rotten corpse, which stinks decays and that's it.
I've every right to suggest that's not a nice way to look at it and from my perspective it's a very narrow and shallow way to look at a lifespan.
And you're right, we do decay and maybe that's it, but the stardust sounds more adventurous and mystical than what I suggest isn't nice.
So it's better people don't get triggered by my post's, it's not worth validating your opinion on mine.
So if my post upset your good self, it wasn't my intention.
Using language like I can skulk off or I'm playing the victim is just a red rag to a sink full of bubbles and soap, so that's just trying to get an emotive response.
So we'll leave it there then
Yes, some here do think in the end we are all rotting corpses - although no-one had stated that in those terms - and the 2 people who used that phrase certainly said nothing of the kind -and the whole analogy was like O'Leary in the grave until you decided to use it to have a go - and yes, calling people narcissistic etc etc is being judgemental.
No one said you can't be judgemental - but if you are going to be you must also be prepared to be called on it.
When your response to being called out is trying to shut down that line of discussion that is, calling a spade a spade and a shovel full of manure a shovel full of manure, trying to skulk away.
Admitting you hadn't bothered to read the posts before you decided to call other posters empty shells is not the stunning defense you seem to think it is.
It actually makes your post look even more judgemental tbh and deeply deeply shallow.
You could have just said all of the above - wrote about what you believe. You didn't though. You jumped in said "It's interesting to see people who describe themselves as a rotting corpse when they pass, sounds like a metaphor for their lifestyle in general.
Just empty shell's, forever perputatuated in resentment, narcisissim and negativity."
You decided to write that.
I decided to call you on it.
I did that because I thought your post was a pile of steaming, judgemental, having a go, manure.0 -
-
-
-
-
Stardust is beautiful
So is the circle of life. And despite calling YOURSELF open minded earlier, while suggesting others have tunnel vision.... the fact is that through our science we can see beauty even in rot and decay. Because through our science we know what that rot and decay is. It is life (like bacteria) feeding on other ex-life in a circular process that begets further life.
So you can look at rot and decry it, and look at people who acknowledge it and insult them. But the really open minded of us look at rot and decay and see the beauty inside it too. It does not have to be happy slappy twinkly star-stuff to be beautiful. At least outside YOUR world.As you'll see that my post's in other forums I call a spade a spade.
And yet when other people do exactly that, you insult them. One rule for you and one for everyone else I guess? Because....I've every right to suggest that's not a nice way to look at it and from my perspective it's a very narrow and shallow way to look at a lifespan.
..... they call the spade a spade and all you can do is moan about it. And I mean moan given that ALSO no one at all suggested you did not have the right above. Always weird to me when people get offended they feel the need to not only assert their rights, but specifically rights no one challenged or inhibited in the first place.And you're right, we do decay and maybe that's it, but the stardust sounds more adventurous and mystical than what I suggest isn't nice.
And as I said that's just because it is happy slappy TO YOU. But those of us who know more science about the circle of life and existence can see no more (or less) beauty in the concept of star dust creating us and our bodies.... than we do rot and decay.
Because when I look at my life I do not just need to see the pretty twinkle twinkle little star of my youth to be in awe of it. Rather I can view the bigger picture of EVERYTHING, including rot and decay, that went before me that led up to the moment of my conception and instantiation. You and I are literally here BECAUSE of rot and decay, and because tiny little organisms we can not even see make a party on corpses when they die. That's beautiful too.
And no one part is more or less beautiful than any other to me, because I do not run the narratives on my neck top computer that you do to parse it all through. And that does not make me narcissistic, empty, close minded, or any other insult you want to fling mud around with in your little play box in the garden.Bannasidhe wrote: »(Hold the door. I am also getting me coat)
Makes Gay innuendos.
Gets their coats and leave together.
People will talk 0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
Makes Gay innuendos.
Gets their coats and leave together.
People will talk
Well this is a discussion forum.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So is the circle of life. And despite calling YOURSELF open minded earlier, while suggesting others have tunnel vision.... the fact is that through our science we can see beauty even in rot and decay. Because through our science we know what that rot and decay is. It is life (like bacteria) feeding on other ex-life in a circular process that begets further life.
So you can look at rot and decry it, and look at people who acknowledge it and insult them. But the really open minded of us look at rot and decay and see the beauty inside it too. It does not have to be happy slappy twinkly star-stuff to be beautiful. At least outside YOUR world.
And yet when other people do exactly that, you insult them. One rule for you and one for everyone else I guess? Because....
..... they call the spade a spade and all you can do is moan about it. And I mean moan given that ALSO no one at all suggested you did not have the right above. Always weird to me when people get offended they feel the need to not only assert their rights, but specifically rights no one challenged or inhibited in the first place.
And as I said that's just because it is happy slappy TO YOU. But those of us who know more science about the circle of life and existence can see no more (or less) beauty in the concept of star dust creating us and our bodies.... than we do rot and decay.
Because when I look at my life I do not just need to see the pretty twinkle twinkle little star of my youth to be in awe of it. Rather I can view the bigger picture of EVERYTHING, including rot and decay, that went before me that led up to the moment of my conception and instantiation. You and I are literally here BECAUSE of rot and decay, and because tiny little organisms we can not even see make a party on corpses when they die. That's beautiful too.
And no one part is more or less beautiful than any other to me, because I do not run the narratives on my neck top computer that you do to parse it all through. And that does not make me narcissistic, empty, close minded, or any other insult you want to fling mud around with in your little play box in the garden.
Makes Gay innuendos.
Gets their coats and leave together.
People will talk
Ah sure we're all different and I did say that I didn't mean to offend anyone and I apologized if I have so.
I accept that my post wasn't nice and I'll take it back.
Now I'm off collecting hazle nuts or Corylus nuts in the Burren, before they fall to the ground and rot and I won't have the chance to enjoy their flavours and benifets.
I'll be enjoying the company of the nature spirits and entities, such as the Woodwose and other cryptoids in the treelines 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Best to ask people with near death experiences
Why? Would you ask people who visit Dublin Airport what it is like to have a sunny holiday in Spain?I think they'll be able to transfer our consciousness to a computer and we all live in a world like the Matrix.
Wouldn't be too bad.
Suppose it depends which world they put you in. There is an Ian Banks book on exactly that very thing which might make you rethink things a bitNow I'm off collecting hazle nuts or Corylus nuts in the Burren, before they fall to the ground and rot and I won't have the chance to enjoy their flavours and benifets.
Funny that, I was just about to hit the road to the hills behind my house to raid all the Quince Trees Might be a bit early in the year though but I like to scope the trees out at least before everyone else in the town here does.I'll be enjoying the company of the nature spirits and entities, such as the Woodwose and other cryptoids in the treelines
Healthy imagination you have there. That or its the mushrooms not the nuts you have been eating?0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Why? Would you ask people who visit Dublin Airport what it is like to have a sunny holiday in Spain?
Funny that, I was just about to hit the road to the hills behind my house to raid all the Quince Trees Might be a bit early in the year though but I like to scope the trees out at least before everyone else in the town here does.
Healthy imagination you have there. That or its the mushrooms not the nuts you have been eating?
Lol nature's bounty in my very own county.
Quince trees, they flowerd late this year in Clare and will be late ripening here.
My favourite is the medlar fruit, some people call it the open arse fruit lol
The Burren is full of Hazelwood and hardly any body goes out collecting them..
I hope it's not as wet there s it is here...0 -
-
-
Alright, I finished the work I had to do this morning really quickly so I'm going to use this spare time to try and organise my thoughts into some sort of cohesive idea that you can make of what you will. Hopefully it'll appeal to some of you and give you solace, because ultimately that's really what we're all looking for in relation to the big question. Feel free to sh!t on it as well, if you're scatologically inclined.
If you look at lesser organisms like amoebas or plants, they don't really have the sentience that we do. Their behaviours are organised around their perceptions. Can they feel something that will result in ill outcome? They move away. Do they detect something pleasant? They move towards it.
Animal behaviours are similar, except that we have more sensory access to the world and are able to use more precise data to rationalise doing or not doing things.
When humans communicate, we are able to provide information to each other about how we are feeling and give feedback to others about experiences. We build entire frameworks of behaviour around what are generally regarded as positive and negative things. Clearly these are not always black and white but one of the things everyone agrees on is that time passes, yesterday was in the past, today we are experiencing the present and tomorrow will be the future. Or one second ago is the past, right now is the present, and a second from now is in the future.
These are apparently measurable concepts and the language we use to convey them does not deviate from categorising things in a temporal way. Because of the big bang, our universe is expanding and that's what causes time to pass in the direction that it does. But if it were any other way, would we have evolved the ability to be able to perceive the difference? It's clearly a causal relationship, but is our perception the result of the phenomenon or do we process the phenomenon leading to it feeling that way?
Infra red exists, but the naked eye can't see that. Gravity is being exerted on us at all times, but we aren't consciously aware of it keeping us on the ground, because it's just always been that way in our particular context. There are all sorts of phenomena we can't perceive and they all had to be discovered, researched and taken as theoretically sound by the scientific community at some point or another. We know so little about the human brain that it stands to reason there could be something within us which organises existence in this way for convenience and logical interpretation.
Which is where I start to become skeptical about the passage of time. I can obviously see why it's useful to be able to agree with somebody to meet at 2pm. But I think our temporal scheme is too limited to be able to grapple with concepts like life and death. We have to talk about everything as having happened, happening or being about to happen (and obviously there are other tenses, like the conditional tense, but to get into a discussion on that would bring us down the rabbit hole of parallel universes so I'll spare you the quantum mechanics).
When we die, as discussed here already, the electrical energy which sends signals in the brain and keeps it operational stops. To stop; to cease to function henceforth. And this is only possible if you presuppose that time is actually that straight line flying into the future as we perceive it. The brain is also the actual organ which causes the perception we have of time. It contains the store of information we have about language - now suddenly things past and future no longer apply.
If time no longer exists within the brain perceiving it, time technically doesn't actually exist at all (if a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? - if time is passing around a corpse, is time passing for the corpse?).
If you've followed up until now, here is the bit where I leave out the science and bring in my own personal experience. I had a brush with death when I was young. As I was lying on the ground, my life up to that point not only flashed before my eyes, but may as well have been lived again. Everything that had ever happened felt like it was happening in real time. There was no time though, it was all kind of simultaneous. When I came to, a second afterwards, everyone was standing around me and i did not have the foggiest recollection of what the hell had happened in the immediacy. I got my bearings and remembered what was going on a short while afterwards but that sensation of timelessness always stayed with me.
In that moment, for me, time had not behaved in the linear, measurable fashion that it did in my waking hours. Inside our own heads, the passage of time often feels completely different - during sleep, this is actually something we can control (but I'm not going to get into lucid dreaming right now either). Anybody who has taken psychoactive drugs will understand the flow of energy in the universe and how there is a lot more to our neurological makeup than the obvious bits we take for granted. When you use your brain in the "normal" way and take your perception of the universe as a given without seeking to explore further into consciousness you only develop limited access to what existence means. A tangible example of it is that when we're having a great time in our waking hours, the time disappears but when we're not enjoying ourselves, things feel like they're taking forever.
This has all been an oversimplification, but I'm limited by the language available to actually talk about these universal experiences because people take time as a given. I apologise if this next bit comes across as bollocks but to summarise:
I would propose that the arbitrary nature of time in relation to feeling and individual cognitive state renders the brain's cessation of function completely irrelevant, given that the brain in question will no longer have temporal access when it shuts down. My theory of individual afterlife is that when brains are in final distress or switched off suddenly, the energy within them in that last moment is not flowing through the temporal sphere anymore and although to those who will continue to experience the passage of time will miss the interactions they had with the person, the person who has died still exists in all of the moments leading up to their death and so although they won't be in the future, they will be in the past and present.
If you think about the expanding universe again, and imagine we're at a particular point in the trajectory right now. In a moment we'll be at another one. The combination of our perception and the accelerating force determines our experience of this. When we have no perception, the accelerating force no longer acts on us. I think the idea I'm getting at comes down to the platitude "when we die, we are eternal and never". Gives me a bit of comfort anyway but as I said, by all means go at it with a blowtorch for the laugh and we'll see if anything is salvageable afterwards.
I'll waive my usual subscription fee just this once.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Alright, I finished the work I had to do this morning really quickly so I'm going to use this spare time to try and organise my thoughts into some sort of cohesive idea that you can make of what you will. Hopefully it'll appeal to some of you and give you solace, because ultimately that's really what we're all looking for in relation to the big question. Feel free to sh!t on it as well, if you're scatologically inclined.
If you look at lesser organisms like amoebas or plants, they don't really have the sentience that we do. Their behaviours are organised around their perceptions. Can they feel something that will result in ill outcome? They move away. Do they detect something pleasant? They move towards it.
Animal behaviours are similar, except that we have more sensory access to the world and are able to use more precise data to rationalise doing or not doing things.
When humans communicate, we are able to provide information to each other about how we are feeling and give feedback to others about experiences. We build entire frameworks of behaviour around what are generally regarded as positive and negative things. Clearly these are not always black and white but one of the things everyone agrees on is that time passes, yesterday was in the past, today we are experiencing the present and tomorrow will be the future. Or one second ago is the past, right now is the present, and a second from now is in the future.
These are apparently measurable concepts and the language we use to convey them does not deviate from categorising things in a temporal way. Because of the big bang, our universe is expanding and that's what causes time to pass in the direction that it does. But if it were any other way, would we have evolved the ability to be able to perceive the difference? It's clearly a causal relationship, but is our perception the result of the phenomenon or do we process the phenomenon leading to it feeling that way?
Infra red exists, but the naked eye can't see that. Gravity is being exerted on us at all times, but we aren't consciously aware of it keeping us on the ground, because it's just always been that way in our particular context. There are all sorts of phenomena we can't perceive and they all had to be discovered, researched and taken as theoretically sound by the scientific community at some point or another. We know so little about the human brain that it stands to reason there could be something within us which organises existence in this way for convenience and logical interpretation.
Which is where I start to become skeptical about the passage of time. I can obviously see why it's useful to be able to agree with somebody to meet at 2pm. But I think our temporal scheme is too limited to be able to grapple with concepts like life and death. We have to talk about everything as having happened, happening or being about to happen (and obviously there are other tenses, like the conditional tense, but to get into a discussion on that would bring us down the rabbit hole of parallel universes so I'll spare you the quantum mechanics).
When we die, as discussed here already, the electrical energy which sends signals in the brain and keeps it operational stops. To stop; to cease to function henceforth. And this is only possible if you presuppose that time is actually that straight line flying into the future as we perceive it. The brain is also the actual organ which causes the perception we have of time. It contains the store of information we have about language - now suddenly things past and future no longer apply.
If time no longer exists within the brain perceiving it, time technically doesn't actually exist at all (if a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? - if time is passing around a corpse, is time passing for the corpse?).
If you've followed up until now, here is the bit where I leave out the science and bring in my own personal experience. I had a brush with death when I was young. As I was lying on the ground, my life up to that point not only flashed before my eyes, but may as well have been lived again. Everything that had ever happened felt like it was happening in real time. There was no time though, it was all kind of simultaneous. When I came to, a second afterwards, everyone was standing around me and i did not have the foggiest recollection of what the hell had happened in the immediacy. I got my bearings and remembered what was going on a short while afterwards but that sensation of timelessness always stayed with me.
In that moment, for me, time had not behaved in the linear, measurable fashion that it did in my waking hours. Inside our own heads, the passage of time often feels completely different - during sleep, this is actually something we can control (but I'm not going to get into lucid dreaming right now either). Anybody who has taken psychoactive drugs will understand the flow of energy in the universe and how there is a lot more to our neurological makeup than the obvious bits we take for granted. When you use your brain in the "normal" way and take your perception of the universe as a given without seeking to explore further into consciousness you only develop limited access to what existence means. A tangible example of it is that when we're having a great time in our waking hours, the time disappears but when we're not enjoying ourselves, things feel like they're taking forever.
This has all been an oversimplification, but I'm limited by the language available to actually talk about these universal experiences because people take time as a given. I apologise if this next bit comes across as bollocks but to summarise:
I would propose that the arbitrary nature of time in relation to feeling and individual cognitive state renders the brain's cessation of function completely irrelevant, given that the brain in question will no longer have temporal access when it shuts down. My theory of individual afterlife is that when brains are in final distress or switched off suddenly, the energy within them in that last moment is not flowing through the temporal sphere anymore and although to those who will continue to experience the passage of time will miss the interactions they had with the person, the person who has died still exists in all of the moments leading up to their death and so although they won't be in the future, they will be in the past and present.
If you think about the expanding universe again, and imagine we're at a particular point in the trajectory right now. In a moment we'll be at another one. The combination of our perception and the accelerating force determines our experience of this. When we have no perception, the accelerating force no longer acts on us. I think the idea I'm getting at comes down to the platitude "when we die, we are eternal and never". Gives me a bit of comfort anyway but as I said, by all means go at it with a blowtorch for the laugh and we'll see if anything is salvageable afterwards.
I'll waive my usual subscription fee just this once.
I've been talking to a friend about his experiences on DMT and it totally changed his concept of time and where we are.
Not saying that you've been on DMT, but what you posted about sounds like the way he described his experience.
Almost turning his conscienness inside out.
Id love to see Richard Dawkins or another agnostic try DMT and tell us what they think.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement