What is the evidence for life after death?

[One]

~
Once again, a very insightful and thorough post, Detales. Thanks.

Going down the text, there are a couple of observations I’d like to bring up.

First, evidence by faith, though an oxymoron, may be emotionally useful in stabilizing someone at the time of passing.

Ah, yes… I wouldn’t deny its usefulness one bit. Faith can help people weather most any storm, and what storm seems more intense than death, or rather, the fear of death? But, my overarching point is that faith cannot be submitted as evidence, although doing so is rampant here.

I think there is more. So far, because of the form of the question and habit, we are thinking here about individual survival, in whatever form.

Bwah-ha! I’m not thinking that at all! Benadam’s question (repeated later in this post) can be read a couple of different ways, and I’m now concerned that my interpretation of the question does not quite match up to his/hers.

My interpretation comes down to this: Detales said, “Life IS, as a Principle, and doesn’t depend on forms, though it includes them.”

Perfect. I might even suggest that “Life” can be replaced with “IS”, or “Truth”, and the statement would still be accurate. So, returning to Benadam’s quote:

wouldn’t you say the ability to apprehend eternal reality that is evidently unique, point to the possibility that an eternal realm exists and that it pertains to human life ?

Human life – or form, as Detales suggests – arises within and as part of that-which-is. More properly, form and IS are not-two. From the perspective of form, humans live and humans die, clinging to the notion of an embodied life ever after at the side of God. This is an extremely limited view, one seen from the limited perspective of our senses. (IOW, our stories perpetuate our beliefs, and we’d like to think that we carry this form, this personal, individuated essence to some place beyond death.)

Were we all able to put on the mind of Christ, our perspective would be much different, and indeed, this is exactly what Christ was pointing to all along.

An eternal realm most surely exists – with the implication that ‘eternity’ is not ‘forever’, but rather timeless. Perennial wisdom calls this the Ground of Being. This Ground, this Godhead, this Void… is undoubtably what we humans glimpse when we catch a peak (!) of the divine. It pertains to human life, Benadam, in that we – form – arise from and within that eternal Ground, and indeed, are not separate from that Ground. The problem is that we live our lives believing that we are separate and distinct, or, as Detales would say, “the subject/object dualism.”

Detales:

…but life as a Principle is always already Omnipresent. That Omnipresence is equatable to God in the exoteric… systems which require faith,… and promise a reward after “death.” In the esoteric… systems that require Transcendental awareness, or Nirvanic or Beatific consciousness,… that Omnipresence is known as Self. “Self” in that denotation is very much NOT to be confused with person in the ordinary sense.

Great stuff. And why might we suppose that the search for Truth has so few successes in humankind? Because we are looking for something that is there all along. It’s right under our collective noses, and there are no noses to begin with (but there are.)

Detales:

But again, the accuracy of interpretation even of the Original Revelator is here in question, never mind that of the followers.

There is nothing we can say… including this. Yes?

Detales:

If we are alive in one sense or another, before and after “discorporation,” then there is no after “death,” only a continuity of what was already present as Essence. What that Essence is might be debated, remembering that Soul is one of the synonyms for God, along with Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Spirit, and Principle.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, friend.

 

[Joanna_Ionescu]

What evidence is there to suggest that the mind doesn’t cease to exist after death? Does anyone know of any people who have passed away and talked to anyone from the great beyond? (And if so, how can we discern if that wasn’t just a production of the living person’s mind?)

I’m sure you know as well as I do that one cannot quantify the mind, or consciousness. The best we can hope for – at this time – is to look at exterior evidence of internal mental activity, such as is seen with EEGs, anecdotal reporting, etc. While scientists come up with fascinating findings when they do things like mapping activated brain regions when a stimulus is applied, mind/consciousness is still quite a scientific mystery.

But, at the very least, there IS that external evidence for mind.

So, given the evidence, which seems more likely, mind or souls? Otherwise put, why would one believe in “souls” that have an “afterlife” if there is absolutely no reasonable evidence for it? (Other than, of course, belief in doctrine.) We can believe in “mind” because we can generate evidence of mind’s activity.

There is a lot of ambiguity here and as such, one cannot even grasp what the question is, let alone attempting some meaningul discussion.
There are therefore some clarifications needed:

1. What do you mean by ‘soul’?
2. What do you mean by ‘mind’?
3. What do you mean by ‘evidence’?

 

[Detales]

Originally Posted by Detales
*But again, the accuracy of interpretation even of the Original Revelator is here in question, never mind that of the followers. *

One~~There is nothing we can say… including this. Yes?

Yes, the realm of Reality, or Meaning, is only open by experience and subjective interpretation. Such interpretation only points similarly as a map points to the territory. The map, whether Scripture, tradition, dogma, whatever, is emphatically not the territory. This is why faith devoid of interior experience is not as fruitful as even basic self knowledge.*

We continuously mistake our symbolic understanding of an immense ALLness which is totally beyond mental comprehension as the Reality itself. We think that because we think our thoughts to be “ours,” that those thoughts constitute reality. Those thoughts in fact constitute our projection.based on patterns necessarily adopted as coping mechanisms when we were learning to be “me.” Teaching, esoteric Teaching, is pertinent to the “I” which is increasingly occluded by belief in the “reality” of learned perceptions. This is why stage magic works. We are designed “brainially” to omit most of the information available to us, and respond only to a consensus constructed “reality.”

This enables us to postulate and practice by agreement a divided world of spirit an matter, of God and Men, matter and energy, this and that, good and evil, of all of the pairs of opposites. The is in FACT only One. (No, not you, silly! Though, there is an argument for solipsism which is intriguing! I haven’t quite sorted that one out yet.) In other words, as Franklin Jones said: “This is always already the other world.”

*In fact, there is a wonderful book on esoteric Christianity by Harry Benjamin called Basic Self Knowledge

 

[Benadam]

Absolutely.

Now, if we can strip away all the stories and beliefs surrounding that apprehension, we’d be witnessing progress.

It is so often said that Truth cannot be spoken. Indeed, there is nothing we can say about that Truth – that “eternal reality” – including this statement.

If you are familiar with chaos theory and the Mandelbrot set it is a usefull tool math.utah.edu/~pa/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html
abarim-publications.com/MandelbrotSet.html

The equation produces a particular image some refer to as ‘snowman’ or ‘marshmallow man’ . It demonstrates how a complex system like human history can disseminate and refocus it’s pattern of origin. The stories that reveal man’s origin from that absolutely unique experience offer a perspective without distortion because like the Mandelbrot man it’s a perfect reassembling of the original experience but formed in the distant (small in the case of fractals) future. A singularity that expands into multiplicity. The multiplied and fractious collective with it’s various and distorted enterpretations of truth all point to that singularity and in human history that singularity is told without distortion by the people who surround the re-emergence of the snowman. The snowman’s son so to speak. Pagan traditions from a view removed from that focal experience within human history aptly symbolized this universal human experience as a dragon swallowing it’s tail. The end of an age happens when it is swallowed by it’s beginning. But from the perspective not removed so not distorted , the tail is ‘anthropomorphized’ into a foot that isn’t swallowed but struck untill the final foot or the creator of the original snowman crushes the re-emerging head and free’s man from the loop of PTSD caused by the original death threatening experience with the dragon. The authentic gnostic calling to the true self , authentic gnosis,is found in the stories that preserve without distortion the experience of the Original human.Each of us have a history that leads back to him. Enterpreted by the people that surround the final snowman that did the salvific crush, freed man from the dragons loop of repeated history and re-established man’s upward movement

 

[One]

Benadam –

Honestly, I wish I knew what that all means. I did follow the link and look around, but didn’t run the applet. In a broad sense, and although I was never adroit at mathematics, I think your point is clear, but I’m not completely sure.

Can you put it in slightly simpler language, or state your point more clearly? I sense that you’re trying to impart some information, but that I may be missing something.

Thanks,

 

[Benadam]

Benadam –

Honestly, I wish I knew what that all means. I did follow the link and look around, but didn’t run the applet. In a broad sense, and although I was never adroit at mathematics, I think your point is clear, but I’m not completely sure.

Can you put it in slightly simpler language, or state your point more clearly? I sense that you’re trying to impart some information, but that I may be missing something.

Thanks,

ok. The primordial human experience from it’s beginning to end. The first man diedl what humanity can be, good bad weak strong high low, every boundary. No one will experience paradize because he can’t return to a state of being a creature that hasn’t offended God. No human being will he generated the race.

The snowman of the mandbrot set describes that kind of thing. Although the tiny patterned grouping in the fractals isn’t anything like the pattern of the ‘echo of Adam’ that re-emerge. The cycles of natural powers would be etched on the tablet of the earth and write the name of everyman for ever. Horoscopes and taroh cards they all are tools to see that pattern. An image of the whole man that could never be percieved appears among the race in a patterned way. The mandelbrot set expresses that dynamic The patterned appearances of the mandelbrot man within the mandelbrot man would be like Adam Man and he appears within the fractals of himself as human history vyvles through the pattern of his life.

His story is every story but the truth of the story without distortion is told by the people who are that mandelbrot man in the mandelbrot set.without distortion Thanks for asking.

 

[liquidpele]

ok. The primordial human experience from it’s beginning to end. The first man diedl what humanity can be, good bad weak strong high low, every boundary. No one will experience paradize because he can’t return to a state of being a creature that hasn’t offended God. No human being will he generated the race.

The snowman of the mandbrot set describes that kind of thing. Although the tiny patterned grouping in the fractals isn’t anything like the pattern of the ‘echo of Adam’ that re-emerge. The cycles of natural powers would be etched on the tablet of the earth and write the name of everyman for ever. Horoscopes and taroh cards they all are tools to see that pattern. An image of the whole man that could never be percieved appears among the race in a patterned way. The mandelbrot set expresses that dynamic The patterned appearances of the mandelbrot man within the mandelbrot man would be like Adam Man and he appears within the fractals of himself as human history vyvles through the pattern of his life. Thanks for asking.

I think you’re reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into a simple mathematical curiosity, and projecting it’s features onto your own personal views of society and the world.

PS: Wikipedia has a nice set of pictures of some of the neater designs found in it.

 

[One]

Benadam –

Thanks for your attempt to clear up my confusion. I’m sorry to have to say, but with typos and missing punctuation, the concept and your interpretation were still not abundantly clear to this casual observer. But, never mind me; my understanding of this is not important in the overall scheme of things.

I think you’re reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into a simple mathematical curiosity, and projecting it’s features onto your own personal views of society and the world.

On this I would agree, and it doesn’t require much understanding of the idea to come to that conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a lot of ambiguity here and as such, one cannot even grasp what the question is, let alone attempting some meaningful discussion.
There are therefore some clarifications needed:

1. What do you mean by ‘soul’?
2. What do you mean by ‘mind’?
3. What do you mean by ‘evidence’?

I interpret mind and soul as interchangeable terms because this is a philosophy forum and “soul” is a theological concept. They both refer to an intangible entity. Evidence can be sense data or reasons which support a theory or belief.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam –

Thanks for your attempt to clear up my confusion. I’m sorry to have to say, but with typos and missing punctuation, the concept and your interpretation were still not abundantly clear to this casual observer. But, never mind me; my understanding of this is not important in the overall scheme of things.

On this I would agree, and it doesn’t require much understanding of the idea to come to that conclusion.

You really weren;t able to connect the mandelbrot man as a archetype of humanity and the mandelbrot equation producing a pattern similar to human history?
Admittedly I was in too much of a hurry to clarify the concepts involved this idea, But I was hoping even with a limited expression of it to convey the remarkeable parallell between Adam, the biblical archetype of man, and the figure in the mandelbrot set.* t*
I presumed too much.

 

[Benadam]

I think you’re reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into a simple mathematical curiosity, and projecting it’s features onto your own personal views of society and the world.

PS: Wikipedia has a nice set of pictures of some of the neater designs found in it.

I don’t.

And the accusation you make of projection is getting old. I don’t want to start thinking of all agnostics as having so common a script It seems whenever there is nothing intelligent to say the projection card is brought out. Do you even know what is the necessary component for a projection to happen? I doubt it since if you did you could better tell when it is happening.

 

[One]

I presumed too much.

Well, if that’s the way you feel, it’s more your issue than mine. Maybe you placed too high of an expectation on One who has never much favored mathematics.

I won’t use the term “projection”, but I think that you have overlaid your particular interpretation onto this model, and I doubt you could or would deny that. This could mean any number of things, and could be interpreted or extrapolated any number of ways – why Adam?

Anyone could just as easily place their own interpretation over the data and results, making whatever we might glean from it entirely subjective… which is how all good art should be… subject to personal interpretation.

 

[Benadam]

Well, if that’s the way you feel, it’s more your issue than mine. Maybe you placed too high of an expectation on One who has never much favored mathematics.

I won’t use the term “projection”, but I think that you have overlaid your particular interpretation onto this model, and I doubt you could or would deny that. This could mean any number of things, and could be interpreted or extrapolated any number of ways – why Adam?

Anyone could just as easily place their own interpretation over the data and results, making whatever we might glean from it entirely subjective… which is how all good art should be… subject to personal interpretation.

If you explore the bottom link you’ll find it’s a site that is using the mandelbrot set to help conceptualize the scripture stories. This gu yis a physicist and took the time to lay out a better explanation.

I usually don’t point out another’s projection without evidencing it’s psychological cause.

 

[One]

I usually don’t point out another’s projection without evidencing it’s psychological cause.

Speaking only for myself, I specifically did not use the term projection. I just want to ensure that we’re clear on that.

“Interpretation” is a whole 'nuther matter… a much more benign term that you shouldn’t find objectionable in the least.

 

[Benadam]

Speaking only for myself, I specifically did not use the term projection. I just want to ensure that we’re clear on that.

“Interpretation” is a whole 'nuther matter… a much more benign term that you shouldn’t find objectionable in the least.

ok, I’m sure you understand that anyone can claim that the other guy is looking at things with a lense of their favorite color.

With that said I think the subject is interesting. I believe all the higher faculties are evidence of an immortal soul. The ability to reason for instance. How can someone believe that man is able to reason and also believe that life just is, with no reason but to survive, persue happeness.

 

[One]

ok, I’m sure you understand that anyone can claim that the other guy is looking at things with a lense of their favorite color.

Ohhhhh… absolutely! In fact, I’d go so far as to say that everyone looks at things through their own, unique lens. Wonderful, isn’t it? So many perspectives!

 

[aball1035]

For someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible, how can one argue that the soul (let’s define the soul as thinking and conscousness) lives on?

 

[Detales]

“For someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible, how can one argue that the soul (let’s define the soul as thinking and conscousness) lives on?”

Why bother? Unless the ground is prepared, the seed will go to waste. Makes me wonder why some of us are on here. But hey, it’s fun! And once in a blue moon, you find gold! :extrahappy:

Of course, in desperation, you can refer them to near-death.com/index.html

 

[antonabe]

I really do not know if there is scientific evidence for life after death but the greatest evidence is the Words of Jesus Christ which are compiled by Matthew,Mark Luke and John.If you believe in the New testament no other evidence is required.I know Atheists and Agnostics will not accept this but we believers have no doubt that there is a soul and that we will have eternal life

 

[Joanna_Ionescu]

I interpret mind and soul as interchangeable terms because this is a philosophy forum and “soul” is a theological concept. They both refer to an intangible entity. Evidence can be sense data or reasons which support a theory or belief.

First of all, ‘soul’ has been a philosophical term long before being a theological one as is clearly evidenced by Aristotle’s rather elaborate definitions (two of them).

But in your very first post it appears that you make some distinction between soul and mind since you posit an either/or question: “So, given the evidence, which seems more likely, mind or souls? Otherwise put, why would one believe in “souls” that have an “afterlife” if there is absolutely no reasonable evidence for it? (Other than, of course, belief in doctrine.) We can believe in “mind” because we can generate evidence of mind’s activity.”

Clearly, the question of What is it? asks for a definition and cannot be asked about a thing unless one knows that there is such thing. Moreover, by asking the question of an ‘afterlife’ (i.e. after bodily, physical death) in terms of either/or presupposes an affirmation for the existence of such things as mind and soul which further presupposes having assigned a meaning to both since one cannot ask if there is such a thing as soul and mind without assigning a meaning to both.

Now, I am not asking you for someone else’s definition of the human soul but simply what is your meaning in the above quoted sentence since you make an obvious differentiation between soul and mind.