An afterlife and forgetfulness

[Immanuel Can]

You obviously have no idea what life is, since you claim nobody does. It's a bit of hubris to assume what you are ignorant of pertains to everyone.

Well, one biologist says there are as many as 123 such definitions. {Trifonov, Edward N. (17 March 2011). "Vocabulary of Definitions of Life Suggests a Definition". Journal of Biomolecuoar Structure and Dynamics. 29 (2): 259–266.} So I would say that anybody who says they have a single, tidy definition is simply unaware of the complexity of the issue.

That would be you, it seems.

See what a little education can do for hubris?

But what we all know is when life is absent or gone. We all understand when something is inanimate or dead. And we know that what once had life can end up in that state.

But we don't know what happens to that life, or whether death ends all.

Only God knows that, or could know that.

So I'm quite sure you don't.

Look, if you want to claim ignorance, fine.

I claim it for you, given that every expert in the world admits problems with the term to which you are ostensibly oblivious.

Formal education might have saved you the hubris. As it is, you're a victim of your own worship of yourself.

[RCSaunders]

Well, one biologist says there are as many as 123 such definitions. {Trifonov, Edward N. (17 March 2011). "Vocabulary of Definitions of Life Suggests a Definition". Journal of Biomolecuoar Structure and Dynamics. 29 (2): 259–266.} So I would say that anybody who says they have a single, tidy definition is simply unaware of the complexity of the issue.

That would be you, it seems.

See what a little education can do for hubris?

But what we all know is when life is absent or gone. We all understand when something is inanimate or dead. And we know that what once had life can end up in that state.

But we don't know what happens to that life, or whether death ends all.

Only God knows that, or could know that.

So I'm quite sure you don't.

Look, if you want to claim ignorance, fine.

I claim it for you, given that every expert in the world admits problems with the term to which you are ostensibly oblivious.

Formal education might have saved you the hubris. As it is, you're a victim of your own worship of yourself.

If that were so, at least what I worshipped would be a real thing, not some made-up mystical great-father-in-the-sky-spirit, or some other ineffable thing.

What makes you think I've never had any, "formal," education. If you've had any, it obviously did nothing positive for you. I've run design and technical and engineering departments in industries including chemistry, electronics, IT, and telephony from cutting edge development [mflop (you know what those are, right?) signal processing to packet-switching transmission systems] for example. That was all hands-on development as well as design department management. What have you done?

And what makes you think, "formal," education is so valuable. My father never went to school beyond high school but was self-educated, a state registered and licensed industrial engineer with over a hundred patents under his name (mostly with Sylvania Electronics) where he was an engineer most of his life.

Have you ever had a single original idea in your life? I suspect your whole life consists of repeating what you were taught in your, "formal education." which, as a matter of fact, explains a lot.

[Immanuel Can]

Look, if you want to claim ignorance, fine.

I claim it for you, given that every expert in the world admits problems with the term to which you are ostensibly oblivious.

Formal education might have saved you the hubris. As it is, you're a victim of your own worship of yourself.

If that were so, at least what I worshipped would be a real thing

But an object wholly unworthy of veneration. And I say that without insult: we all are that.

What makes you think I've never had any, "formal," education.

You said so, as I recall.

What have you done?

I don't boast about my achievements.

And what makes you think, "formal," education is so valuable.

It's a cure for what they call "midwittery."

A "midwit" is somebody who finds he is generally smarter than the others in his immediate area...maybe even including some with a more formal education...and so he gets an exaggerated sense of his own wisdom. He's smart enough to feel better than they are, but not smart enough to be better than everyone. What education does is teach somebody like that that even if there are often people he is smarter than, there are always lots of people smarter than him. So it helps him realize both how smart he is, and how smart he isn't...that is, if he pays attention to his education.

My father never went to school beyond high school

Nor mine. And he was brilliant.

But he was also humble.

Have you ever had a single original idea in your life?

[Age]

Age wrote:

See, if there was only one ultimate substance, then thee Universe would be one, infinite, solid piece of matter, or one, infinite, nothingness. Of which either does NOT exist and could NOT exist if a 'thing' or 'being' was to exist, which was able to consider ALL-OF-THIS.

But the block universe does co-exist with beings that can "consider ALL-OF-THIS".

1. I NEVER said otherwise.

2. Is this so-called "block universe" an ACTUAL 'thing' is just an ASSUMPTION or GUESS of what COULD BE true, or something else entirely?

The reason for their co-existence is that beings that can "consider ALL-OF-THIS" are limited to the phenomena that appear to us .

Who and/or what 'made up' this 'reason'?

Also, 'you', limited human beings, are NOT thee ONLY 'beings' that can exist.

Furthermore, 'your reason' here does not seem to logically follow.

How, exactly, that 'you', 'beings' are limited be the 'reason' for "their" co-existence?

We are limited by birth, death and causality but the infinite universe is not limited.

Obviously. Was there a POINT in expressing this Fact?

If yes, then what was that POINT, EXACTLY?

[RCSaunders]

And what makes you think, "formal," education is so valuable.

It's a cure for what they call "midwittery."

You recall wrong. I've said I have no use for academia, which was total waste of time and money and that all I've learned is post formal education, which I would have been better off without. Every polymath is an autodidact.

[Age]

life is not a thing, or substance, or some kind of stuff

You have no idea what it is. Nobody really does. There are over a hundred possible definitions of the term, and no conclusive one.

So your confidence is based on nothing. "Life" remains a mystery to you.

You just hope it ends at death. But you have no idea what happens at death.

You obviously have no idea what life is, since you claim nobody does. It's a bit of hubris to assume what you are ignorant of pertains to everyone.

I at least know what I mean by the word life. I mean the attribute that differentiates living organisms from mere non-living physical entities. I identify exactly what the attributes of life are that are unique to living organisms.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of when one can NOT even think for "themselves" that much, that they, in turn, can NOT even express what they think. They have to, literally, link to what ANOTHER SAYS about an idea or perspective.

Which is extremely hypocritical considering what they wrote previously in this thread in regards to:

"One of the great jokes in the world to me has always been those who say they must believe what someone else teaches them because their own intellectual ability is limited and they cannot know the truth on their own, but they are nevertheless certain they can know which teacher knows the truth."

So, what EXACTLY do 'you' mean by the word 'life'? And, what EXACTLY is 'it' that DIFFERENTIATES 'living organisms' from 'non-living physical entities', to 'you'?

Like all attributes or qualities, they only exist in those existents that have them. There is no life separate from physical living organisms.

Is this an IRREFUTABLE Truth, which EVERY one could agree with, to you?

I do appreciate your candor in admitting you have no idea what life is. Anyone who thinks life can exist independently of a living organism has no idea what life is.

And what AGAIN is 'life', itself, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

[Dontaskme]

But you have no idea what happens at death.

A period or state of inactivity or equilibrium happens at death,

You don't know that, either. Even asking somebody who claimed to have a 'near death' experience couldn't assure us of anything, since delusions are a human possibility.

Only God could say what happens after death. Only He is free from the constraints of time and space.

Anything else would be guesses.

[Dontaskme]

IC:
Only God could say what happens after death.

[Age]

But you have no idea what happens at death.

A period or state of inactivity or equilibrium happens at death,

You don't know that, either. Even asking somebody who claimed to have a 'near death' experience couldn't assure us of anything, since delusions are a human possibility.

I can VERY CLEARLY express EXACTLY what happens at - what 'you', adult human beings, call - "death".

And, which would be IRREFUTABLE, and what ALL of 'you' could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT as well.

Only God could say what happens after death.

And, yet here 'I' am INFORMING 'you' of what 'I' CAN DO.

Only He is free from the constraints of time and space.

I SEE 'you' are STILL under the False BELIEF that God is male gendered.

Also, considering what 'time' AND 'space' ACTUALLY ARE NO 'one' is 'constraint' AT ALL.

Anything else would be guesses.

ONLY to the BLIND and DEAF. Of which ALL of 'you', human beings, ARE when 'you' ASSUME or BELIEVE 'you' ALREADY KNOW what is true.

[Age]

You have no idea what it is. Nobody really does. There are over a hundred possible definitions of the term, and no conclusive one.

So your confidence is based on nothing. "Life" remains a mystery to you.

You just hope it ends at death. But you have no idea what happens at death.

You obviously have no idea what life is, since you claim nobody does. It's a bit of hubris to assume what you are ignorant of pertains to everyone.

Well, one biologist says there are as many as 123 such definitions. {Trifonov, Edward N. (17 March 2011). "Vocabulary of Definitions of Life Suggests a Definition". Journal of Biomolecuoar Structure and Dynamics. 29 (2): 259–266.} So I would say that anybody who says they have a single, tidy definition is simply unaware of the complexity of the issue.

That would be you, it seems.

See what a little education can do for hubris?

But what we all know is when life is absent or gone. We all understand when something is inanimate or dead. And we know that what once had life can end up in that state.

But we don't know what happens to that life, or whether death ends all.

Only God knows that, or could know that.

So I'm quite sure you don't.

'I' KNOW 'that'. And, 'I' ALSO KNOW NONE of 'you', human beings, could REFUTE what 'I' KNOW here.

So, according to "immanuel can's" logic here that MEANS 'I' and 'God' are thee EXACT SAME 'Thing'.

[Age]

I claim it for you, given that every expert in the world admits problems with the term to which you are ostensibly oblivious.

Formal education might have saved you the hubris. As it is, you're a victim of your own worship of yourself.

If that were so, at least what I worshipped would be a real thing

But an object wholly unworthy of veneration. And I say that without insult: we all are that.

What makes you think I've never had any, "formal," education.

You said so, as I recall.

What have you done?

I don't boast about my achievements.

NO one asked you to 'boast' about ANY thing.

You were just asked a VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING question here, and that is ALL.

If you are UNABLE to CLARIFY, then so be it.

And what makes you think, "formal," education is so valuable.

It's a cure for what they call "midwittery."

A "midwit" is somebody who finds he is generally smarter than the others in his immediate area...maybe even including some with a more formal education...and so he gets an exaggerated sense of his own wisdom. He's smart enough to feel better than they are, but not smart enough to be better than everyone. What education does is teach somebody like that that even if there are often people he is smarter than, there are always lots of people smarter than him. So it helps him realize both how smart he is, and how smart he isn't...that is, if he pays attention to his education.

Are some of 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, REALLY that STUPID that 'you' ACTUALLY NEED so-called "formal education" to "help you realize how smart you are, and how smart you are NOT"?

My father never went to school beyond high school

Nor mine. And he was brilliant.

But he was also humble.

But 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT humble AT ALL. As just PROVED here 'you' could NOT WAIT to TELL US that "your" father was BRILLIANT.

Have you ever had a single original idea in your life?

This appears to be a NO.

[Age]

A period or state of inactivity or equilibrium happens at death,

You don't know that, either. Even asking somebody who claimed to have a 'near death' experience couldn't assure us of anything, since delusions are a human possibility.

Only God could say what happens after death. Only He is free from the constraints of time and space.

Anything else would be guesses.

But I'm not talking about a ''someone'' here...I'm talking about the state prior to there ever being a ''someone''

How, exactly, do you define the word 'someone'?

See, to me, there was NEVER a state PRIOR to there ever being a 'someone'.

'someone' implies twoness.

To me, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. See, the word 'someone', literally, means or refers to just 'one' ONLY, or 'oneness'.

The word 'you', however, MEANS there is ANOTHER, which is what you call "twoness".

I'm talking about the gap between the thought of your being...the gap is ''awareness'' it's not a 'someone''...awareness is not a 'someone' ...awareness is all there is, and within that awareness are concepts known to awareness only.

Asking what happens 'after death'' ..is like asking what happens 'after life' ? as far as awareness goes, it doesn't go anywhere, except where it is always.

But NO one here is asking, "Where does 'it' go?"

They are just asking, "What happens 'after death'?" Which, by the way, can be SHOWN, and can be PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

But, OF COURSE, this can ONLY be SHOWN to those who have a True CURIOSITY.

Death is a concept known, it's a knowledge that informs itself that there is no attention being placed on anything, like when you are asleep, or in some deep meditational activity, or during sexual activity, where the thought of I switches off for awhile. . where there is no thought of 'you' there at all. That's known as death, it's a concept known, it's NOT an experience.

But who is that known as death to EXACTLY?

Concepts are NOT your experience, do you see?

'I' see, but NOT always what 'you' see.

You really do not understand what it being pointed to here in our discussion do you..?

The one who is bound in time and space in the same one who is free from the constrains of time and space.

The one who knows a concept is timelessness right here now, always now.

So, who EXACTLY is this 'someone'?

The one who knows the concept 'life' and 'death' is the timeless one. Concepts are objectively KNOWN by the timeless one, and what is objectively 'known' is a story within the one, and never the actual experience of the one.

I've already pointed this out to you many times on this forum. Stop thinking about the concept of 'otherness' which is only the reflection of the timeless one.. rather, think about yourself as the only individual timeless one,

So, 'you' want ALL of the "other" 'ones' of 'you' to think about EACH one of 'you' as the ONLY individual timeless one, correct?

If yes, then ONCE AGAIN 'you' speak VERY CONTRADICTORY.

think about how you have never experienced your own individual conception, your own birth, or your own death...conception, birth, and death, are not the experience of the timeless one.

But thee 'timeless One' observes the conception, the birth, AND the death of ALL of 'you', human beings.

And, OBVIOUSLY 'you' could NOT observe your own conception, your own birth, NOR your own death.

They are ideas ONLY..known as and through the timeless observer looking upon it's own reflection. The reflection has no reality in and of itself, because reflections are conceptual, they are illusions.

Individual is just another concept for single. Which is another concept for ONE...you are the one.

So, 'you', the one known as "dontasme" here, is saying to "others" that "you are the one". But in relation to what EXACTLY?

If 'you' are 'trying to' infer that 'you' are thee one and ONLY One, then this is just ANOTHER, illogical, CONTRADICTION of 'yours'.

[Age]

IC:
Only God could say what happens after death.

Just to come back to this statement...can you see how ridiculous that sounds.

''Only God knows what happens after death''...Huh, I mean come on..

That's like saying, only in the state of not being aware of anything at all, having no knowledge of even being aware..am I knowingly aware what the state of not being aware and having no knowledge or any awareness of anything at all.

I can be aware I am not aware, and while unaware be able to inform myself that I am indeed aware of what it is like to be in a state of not being aware.

That's basically all you are saying when you say ''Only God could say what happens after death''

Are 'you' AWARE that so-called 'death' only happens to 'that' what is NOT God?

And you know that's ridiculous surely?..and you know that you and that academical JP character are just presupposing a preposterous notion when you talk of a God that you can know personally.


You do know that the only personal relationship you will ever know is with your own self, you do know that don't you?


.

And who is "your" OWN Self if NOT God, Itself?

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

See, if there was only one ultimate substance, then thee Universe would be one, infinite, solid piece of matter, or one, infinite, nothingness. Of which either does NOT exist and could NOT exist if a 'thing' or 'being' was to exist, which was able to consider ALL-OF-THIS.

But the block universe does co-exist with beings that can "consider ALL-OF-THIS".

1. I NEVER said otherwise.

2. Is this so-called "block universe" an ACTUAL 'thing' is just an ASSUMPTION or GUESS of what COULD BE true, or something else entirely?

The reason for their co-existence is that beings that can "consider ALL-OF-THIS" are limited to the phenomena that appear to us .

Who and/or what 'made up' this 'reason'?

Also, 'you', limited human beings, are NOT thee ONLY 'beings' that can exist.

Furthermore, 'your reason' here does not seem to logically follow.

How, exactly, that 'you', 'beings' are limited be the 'reason' for "their" co-existence?

We are limited by birth, death and causality but the infinite universe is not limited.

Obviously. Was there a POINT in expressing this Fact?

If yes, then what was that POINT, EXACTLY?

Some people believe the block universe is thing; others don't.

For phenomenology see Husserl.

phenomenology, a philosophical movement originating in the 20th century, the primary objective of which is the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously experienced, without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions.

We human beings are supposedly the only beings that can abstract to the extent we do.

Not only humans but all creatures of time, space, and force are limited by these conditions whereas the block universe is infinite.

[Immanuel Can]

And what makes you think, "formal," education is so valuable.

It's a cure for what they call "midwittery."

You recall wrong.

Actually, you furnish a case-in-point. You don't know what you've missed, obviously.

You're not a bad guy, RC, and you're moderately smart, too. But there are others who are smarter...there always are...and humility teaches us to realize that.

If you knew more of the great thinking of the past, you wouldn't be nearly so confident that you are the wise man with whom wisdom itself will die.