Afterlife theories

[Chrissi]

Re: Afterlife theories

Personally, I give up on what happens after I'm dead. I can't know, so there's no use speculating about it. I'll find out once I'm dead, and then I can't tell you guys about it, so no one will ever know.

However, I find it very intriguing that before death (or during near death experiences) the brain releases large amounts of DMT (or if not DMT, some other substance), which makes you hallucinate such things as being "out of your body", and having personally experienced the "out of your body" feeling, I can see how it would be very convincing.

Holy run-on sentence, batman.

[Mas_Tnega]

Re: Afterlife theories

I am the sum of a recursive function of every aspect of my environment, my experiences, and my reactions to them. The outcome of this defines my next environment, my next experiences, and my next response. This means that I am definitely unique, not only to humanity, but to myself.

Were this body to die, that is the end of I know to be 'me'. A linger presence could manifest again in another body, but the probability of that 'me' being the same as me, is extremely improbable. We might share the same initial state, but before long the differences will made. This means when I'm gone, I'm gone.

Whether or not I'll ever really be gone in the first place is something I doubt I'll ever come to conclusion about. That is, when situations allow me to know for sure, I suspect it'll coincide with me suddenly being too non-existent to appreciate it.

[Izzy-chandess]

Re: Afterlife theories

Um... sure... Basically, Mas_Tnega, is that karma will come back to bite your a$$ and you'll lose all consciousness of this existence... Sounds just like Hindu's belief in reincarnation, as far as I understand it.

I like studying other peoples' religions... ^-^

[aperson]

Re: Afterlife theories

I am the sum of a recursive function of every aspect of my environment, my experiences, and my reactions to them. The outcome of this defines my next environment, my next experiences, and my next response. This means that I am definitely unique, not only to humanity, but to myself.

Automaton view of self + notion of causality and dependent arising (recursive fcns) = textbook Buddhism, nice.

Were this body to die, that is the end of I know to be 'me'. A linger presence could manifest again in another body, but the probability of that 'me' being the same as me, is extremely improbable. We might share the same initial state, but before long the differences will made. This means when I'm gone, I'm gone.

Whether or not I'll ever really be gone in the first place is something I doubt I'll ever come to conclusion about. That is, when situations allow me to know for sure, I suspect it'll coincide with me suddenly being too non-existent to appreciate it.

I suspect you might be surprised how little you change; I don't think your amount of 'inherent existence' ever changes, really... Because you don't inherently exist.

Um... sure... Basically, Mas_Tnega, is that karma will come back to bite your a$$ and you'll lose all consciousness of this existence... Sounds just like Hindu's belief in reincarnation, as far as I understand it.

I like studying other peoples' religions... ^-^

I don't think you understand karma nor Hindu reincarnation.

[perkeyone]

Re: Afterlife theories

Well I suppose I'd have to wait 5-10 seconds and then respawn in my base =/

to bad youde just get sniped again

[Mas_Tnega]

Re: Afterlife theories

Automaton view of self + notion of causality and dependent arising (recursive fcns) = textbook Buddhism, nice.

Sounds like you're implying something, there.

I'm not going to let a little thing like it happening to have been written before get in the way of my already observing it to be so. Does a statement become more wrong as you increase the number of people who say it?

[aperson]

Re: Afterlife theories

Sounds like you're implying something, there.

I'm not going to let a little thing like it happening to have been written before get in the way of my already observing it to be so. Does a statement become more wrong as you increase the number of people who say it?

I think you've totally misconstrued what I've said. In my opinion, pretty much any deep, proper ontological system is constructed in some manner isomorphic to Buddhist thought. Buddhism just happens to be all about laying the system out itself, so it's a convenient grounding point to rout ontological theories in that vein.