An afterlife and forgetfulness

[Gary Childress]

I find myself forgetting many things, places I've been, things I've done, people I've known. What happens when I completely forget everything? What happens when I die? If there is being after death, then what could/would it be like without any memories or sensory experience?

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

Yes. I suppose that is a good point.

[RCSaunders]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

[Belinda]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

Gary , above, makes sense to me if instead of "the Almighty" I substitute the Absolute. Absolute existence is not differentiated into subjects of knowledge and objects of knowledge, subjects of beauty and objects of beauty, and subjects of love and objects of love. Instead, subject and object are the same.

Reincarnation, or transmigration of souls makes sense only if there are core souls that are not obliterated by death in this transient world. The Absolute is timeless, so the Absolute is all around us, unseen. It follows that the death of an individual subjectively is a non -event.

[RCSaunders]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

Gary , above, makes sense to me if instead of "the Almighty" I substitute the Absolute. Absolute existence is not differentiated into subjects of knowledge and objects of knowledge, subjects of beauty and objects of beauty, and subjects of love and objects of love. Instead, subject and object are the same.

Reincarnation, or transmigration of souls makes sense only if there are core souls that are not obliterated by death in this transient world. The Absolute is timeless, so the Absolute is all around us, unseen. It follows that the death of an individual subjectively is a non-event.

... well, if you're off with the fairies in the Alice's wonderland, death may be a, "non-event." In the real world, dead people stink, because death is the end of life, period. If you really believe that nonsense, off yourself and come back to prove you're not dead.

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

[DPMartin]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

i think i get what you're saying but, I'm speaking from the view of the Lord God of Israel. besides i don't believe i said anything about whether or not one's memory remains. but even as you say Alzheimer's is a condition that destroys memory before one hits the ground, you know the big sleep. so its lost even before one dies. which proves that the brain has to remain intact for the memory it holds to remain.

but in the case of a Everlasting Living God if He remembers you its really irrelevant what one remembers or not, also since He can restore Life to you then surly He can restore to you what He remembers of you.

[Walker]

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

Speaking for most people is more than a tad assumptive. So, what do we know for sure, and from that what can be implied rather than assumed?

Consider:

- Light is a form of energy that has no mass.
- What we see when we see something, is light reflected off that something.

Implication:

- Why should light have all the mass-less fun, particularly on Sunday? No reason, so,

- Life is also a form of energy that has no mass.
- What we see when we see life, is life animating a particular ordering of matter.

The question is, how is it that matter gets configured into a particular form that science labels, a higher order of life?
- In other words, how does order rise from entropy, and even get legs to start walking?

[RCSaunders]

... if He remembers you its really irrelevant what one remembers or not, also since He can restore Life to you then surly He can restore to you what He remembers of you.

As my Grandmother said, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." There is no evidence that what follows your, "if," is anything more than wishful thinking by someone who has failed in the only life they'll ever have, and thinks they'll do better in the next one. Good luck with that!

[Belinda]

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

Gary , above, makes sense to me if instead of "the Almighty" I substitute the Absolute. Absolute existence is not differentiated into subjects of knowledge and objects of knowledge, subjects of beauty and objects of beauty, and subjects of love and objects of love. Instead, subject and object are the same.

Reincarnation, or transmigration of souls makes sense only if there are core souls that are not obliterated by death in this transient world. The Absolute is timeless, so the Absolute is all around us, unseen. It follows that the death of an individual subjectively is a non-event.

... well, if you're off with the fairies in the Alice's wonderland, death may be a, "non-event." In the real world, dead people stink, because death is the end of life, period. If you really believe that nonsense, off yourself and come back to prove you're not dead.

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

Dead bodies are not people they are things. When you die what remains will be a thing not a person.

[RCSaunders]

Gary , above, makes sense to me if instead of "the Almighty" I substitute the Absolute. Absolute existence is not differentiated into subjects of knowledge and objects of knowledge, subjects of beauty and objects of beauty, and subjects of love and objects of love. Instead, subject and object are the same.

Reincarnation, or transmigration of souls makes sense only if there are core souls that are not obliterated by death in this transient world. The Absolute is timeless, so the Absolute is all around us, unseen. It follows that the death of an individual subjectively is a non-event.

... well, if you're off with the fairies in the Alice's wonderland, death may be a, "non-event." In the real world, dead people stink, because death is the end of life, period. If you really believe that nonsense, off yourself and come back to prove you're not dead.

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

Dead bodies are not people they are things. When you die what remains will be a thing not a person.

Right, exactly! What was a person, no longer is!

[RCSaunders]

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

Speaking for most people is more than a tad assumptive. So, what do we know for sure, and from that what can be implied rather than assumed?

What are you talking about? I'm not speaking for anyone else, just reporting what all those who pine for another life say themselves. They report they believe in another life that is superior in every way to the one they are living, and I'm only pointing out, that an individual's life experience is determine by what they choose to do with their life. If they don't like this life so much, they are willing to give it up for some promised future life they are admitting their life in this world is not the success it could be.

Consider:

- Light is a form of energy that has no mass.

Well, that's wrong. A photon has no, "rest mass," but a photon is never at rest:

The vanishing of the rest mass, m=0, doesn't mean that photons don't carry any energy or "relativistic mass". Instead, it means that
E2−p2c2=m2c4=0
i.e. that the energy E is simply equal to |p⃗ |c where p⃗ is the momentum and c is the speed of light. It's the momentum and energy that must be nonzero for us to be able to say that "something is out there" and indeed, they're nonzero for each photon around us.

You may also say that the "total relativistic mass" of the photon is nonzero and equal to mtotal=E/c2. In some sense, this nonzero quantity measures the gravitational mass as well as the inertial mass (resistance to acceleration). We usually don't use the term "mass" for this quantity and prefer to talk about the energy E=mtotc2, reserving the term "mass" for the rest mass defined above.

The fact that the photon's rest mass is zero means that there isn't any "rest frame of a photon". Such a rest frame would have to move by the speed of light relatively to any proper inertial system and with such a fast motion, all the factors such as γ
would be singular and ill-defined.

Or consult any advance physics book. In, '"light," of that, the rest of what you say is nonsense.

- Life is also a form of energy that has no mass.

Life is not a thing and it certaily isn't energy. Life is nothing more than an attribute of some physical entities called organisms. It doesn't, "do," anything. All behavior of physical organisms uses physical energy (because there isn't any other kind) and that energy can be measured.

- What we see when we see life, is life animating a particular ordering of matter.

You cannot see life. life is not a physical attribute, though it is an attribute of a physical entity--a physical organism. But life, consciousness, and human minds, though perfectly natural attributes, are not physical attributes because they cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted). You can observe the behavior of living organisms and observe that behavior is different from mere physical entities, but you cannot see the life attribute itself that makes them different.

The question is, how is it that matter gets configured into a particular form that science labels, a higher order of life?
- In other words, how does order rise from entropy, and even get legs to start walking?

Life doesn't, "arise," from anything. There is no difference in the physical nature of a living organism and a non-living physical entity. The difference is the presence of absence of the attribute life. Unless you believe in abiogenesis, life only comes from life.

[Gary Childress]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

FYI, you're quoting DPMartin, not me.

[RCSaunders]

from a view that would be of the Creator and Judge. its not about what you may or may not remember or have memory of, its whether or not the Almighty remembers you.

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

FYI, you're quoting DPMartin, not me.

Sorry! I fixed it.

[Gary Childress]

What the hell good is that? It's like telling an alzheimer's patient, "you don't need to remember me, beause I remember you." I have a Japanese friend who is Shinto and believes in the transmigration of souls (reincarnation), but does not believe one can remember anything from any previous life. I once asked her, "then what's the difference whether you're reincarnated or not if it has nothing to do with your present life, or your next life has nothing to do with this one?" What difference would make if there were life after death, if there could be no sense that it was the continuation of a present one. It would just be the life of a different person--not you.

FYI, you're quoting DPMartin, not me.

Sorry! I fixed it.

No worries.

[Belinda]

... well, if you're off with the fairies in the Alice's wonderland, death may be a, "non-event." In the real world, dead people stink, because death is the end of life, period. If you really believe that nonsense, off yourself and come back to prove you're not dead.

Most people who, "believe in," [read: "fervently wish for"] life after death do so because they have made a complete botch of the one life they'll ever have and, "hope," they get a second chance. It's very sad, because most of them waste the one life they actually have pursuing what they never will have and would screw up just as badly as the one life they have if they did.

Dead bodies are not people they are things. When you die what remains will be a thing not a person.

Right, exactly! What was a person, no longer is!

Note your accustomed use of tenses.("was" and "is") There is an eternal now that is timeless with no 'was' and no 'will be'. Just as you use spatial measurements so you use temporal measurements. Time is a fabrication.

[RCSaunders]

Dead bodies are not people they are things. When you die what remains will be a thing not a person.

Right, exactly! What was a person, no longer is!

Note your accustomed use of tenses.("was" and "is") There is an eternal now that is timeless with no 'was' and no 'will be'. Just as you use spatial measurements so you use temporal measurements. Time is a fabrication.

"Eternal now," is as cogent as, "dry water," or "empty fullness." Just because you can stick words together doesn't give them meaning, especially when the result is self-contradictory. The white Queen would love you!

Unless you mean every concept is a, "fabrication," [which in one sense they are since all concepts are created by a human minds] time is, like length and weight, a metric or means of measurement. In the case of, "time," and its converse, "velocity," it is the relationship between motions or events that is measured. Time is not a substance or thing and does not exist except as an identifiable relationships between events, but those relationship are real and time is a true concept for them. Every event, relative to all other events is either before, after, or simultaneous with those events, which are rightly called, "past," when before other events, or, "future," when after other events, and, "now or current," when simultaneous with other events. Every event has a beginning and an end. Nothing is eternal and nothing lasts forever.