Death

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:35 pm

what im saying here is the event id and ability to think can still be in existance after death because they are impressed on consciousness.consciousness is true id but memories of the individual event experience and personality are strong or weakly impressed.so thats why a life well lived along christian or budist lines or unselfish lines is of great value after death.death for an unselfish person is easier because theres less event id to defuse.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:46 pm

"I think we can agree that death is a separation of two things: the body and the being."

As I see it: when I'm alive, I 'am' (am 'being') and when I'm dead I 'am not' (am 'not being').

'Being' is what I 'do'...it isn't a quality/quantity to be teased out and viewed.

In the same way: I don't have 'thoughts'; I 'think'.

My thinking, my living, my 'being' is 'process' intrinsic to the particular and peculiar organic complexity that is 'me'.

##

"impressed"

What gets or is "impressed" on what?

Example: I press my hand down into sand and leave an impression.

What, then, is 'hand' and 'sand' in your assertion of "the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time".

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:29 pm

time exists in dreams.when you die its like being in a consciouse dream .time still exists.time is less real for an unselfish person its more real for a selfish person.

Bernard · Post by **Bernard** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:37 pm

You are a very resilient and determined chap Mr Quirk, but your argument disintegrates as soon as it gets started:

As I see it: when I'm alive, I 'am' (am 'being') and when I'm dead I 'am not' (am 'not being')

You can not be not when you are dead because, being death, death cannot be a state within which you can be. Have you ever met anyone who is not there/ have you ever met anyone who is dead?

You see... being does not equal not-being as your argument says it can. If being was reducible to other components, as the body is reducible to other components, then you could argue that being has altered state upon death, but there is no way to say that being all of a sudden equals not-being without some sort of good argument to back it up, or just repeating the flawed argument in some other manner.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:13 am

on death the sizelike impression of the event personality remains inside its sizeless hoste consciousness.until the sizelike impression realises its true timeless and limitless identity.its own awareness.you reincarnate until you

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:28 pm

"time exists in dreams.when you die its like being in a consciouse dream .time still exists.time is less real for an unselfish person its more real for a selfish person."

Death and dreaming are not synonymous.

When I dream I'm doing sumthin'.

When I'm dead, I can't dream 'cause the organ (brain) that is the locus of 'me' is dead.

So: what is it (about or in me) that survives the death of 'me' (the flesh that comprises me)?

##

Bernard,

The fact is this: when the flesh that comprises 'me' ceases to work, I'm dead...my 'being' has ceased.

Again: what is it (about or in me) that survives the death of 'me' (the flesh that comprises me)?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:19 pm

what remains is nonlocality that is the experiencer of the locality event.its nonlocality that survives and nonlocality is love with out emotion its at the centre of consciousness.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:49 pm

"what remains is nonlocality"

What is 'nonlocality' made of?

#

"nonlocality is love"

What is 'love' made of?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:18 pm

thats exactly it nonlocality wasnt made.it nolocality exists of its self its makes all esle moving and unmoving. but has no size and dosnt move.it is energy and the time and space that energy is in.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:26 pm

So: what is 'nonlocality' *composed of?

"energy and the time and space that energy is in"

Time and space merely designate location and energy is merely the artificial measure of the capacity for work.

So: what you're saying is 'nonlocality' is local (in time and space) and is a substance which has energy (it's dynamic, can be measured).

What is the substance?

*made

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:27 pm

henry you are dead on with what you have said about time space and energy.i am not disagreeing there on any piont.nonlocality is the spooky action between entangled particals none of the normal imformation speed is needed in action relating to the entangled particals one to another as they act in singular fashion.so nonlocality exists apart from caused action.it is sizeless nonaction the cause of all action in all reference frames.it is the unmoving mover of universes.regs jackles

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:52 pm

Jack,

I'm, just tryin' to get to the root of things here.

Up-thread you say "the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time".

All I wanna know is 'what' gets impressed 'in' to/'on' to 'what'.

What material is involved?

You can't say 'energy' 'cause 'energy' is just a measure, not a thing.

So: if "the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time" it must be a thing, a something, a substance, a material (or, the impression must be made into/onto a thing, a something, a substance, a material).

What is that thing, that something, that substance, that material?

Nonlocality/spooky action over a distance may be the method of 'impression' (of 'information' [nuthin' but ordered transmission of 'sumthin']) but nonlocality/spooky action over a distance tells me nuthin' about that thing (what it was; what it [presumably] becomes).

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:01 pm

feeling is energy electric chemical its a reaction to awareness.nonlocality is the hoste awareness as in consciousness.personality is energy in awareness so energy impression on nonlocality is personality.the idea of self does not disappear with death.local still has an impression of its self on the nonlocal.but nonlocal is true you.energy is an effect in nonlocality.the field of events is an effect in eternity.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:26 pm

Jack,

Feeling, thinking, etc. are all things a brain (irrevocably embedded in a body) 'does'.

A brain is a hellishly complex organic generator of coherent electrical impulses (the brain [and body] has substance and it generates substance).

Without a brain (or sumthin' analogous) there can be no feeling, no thinking.

When the brain dies: everything associated with it (thinking, feeling, imagining, remembering, etc.) dies too because everything associated with the brain is the direct result of the brain doing what it does (as I say, the brain is the locus of 'me').

There is no soul, no indwelling spirit...nuthin' of 'me' will linger on after I'm dead (except, perhaps, what I physically leave behind: things I build/make/construct/write, memories in the brains of others, and a vast mountain of poop [dumped somewhere out at sea]).

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:37 pm

you are guessing henery.things are not as you think .but its difficult if not impossible to put across what faith is.what i have said is true to my knowledge.nonlocality is the cause of energy time and space and the brain has a direct connection to eternity which of its own self has no location and therefor no limit.

Philosophy Now Forum

Death

Re: Death

Re: Death

Re: Death

Re: Death

Re: Death

Re: Death

sigh

Re: Death

Re: Death

Re: Death