MiseriaCantare wrote:I don't have a specefic idea of what happens after death, but so far I think I have a higher belief in reincarnation or just dying and leaving it at that. I'd love to hear the ideas of others, so please reply!

Maybe reincarnation is a possibility, but I don't know about "just dying and leaving it at that." All we know and all anything living has ever known is life, so to say that a nothingness exist takes a great deal of faith (not that heaven doesn't).

The Greeks treat the realm of death as our dream world (kind of), where images have no true form but exist non the less. Better put, dreams come from the realm of death unto the living by passing through one of two gates; the Gate of Horn or the Gate of Ivory. If they pass through the gate of Horn, then the vision has some truth bound to it. If through Ivory, then no truth is in the dream.

To make the matter more confusing, William Blake (I probably refer to him a little too often) says with complete conviction that man passes from life and exist as imagination/vision/inspiration or somewhere on those grounds.

As for me, I like the Greeks but just an opinion.

Keith Russell wrote:I don't believe in life after death, so "No", I don't believe in heaven.

So what's your belief? Eternal nothingness?? That doesn't make sense because if there is one thing that does not exist in the world, it's nothing. (not claiming heavens true but oblivion has no, nor could it possess any truth).
When matter breaks down or decomposses, it's still in existence, just in another form (I don't believe in anti-matter; that's sci-fi mumbo jumbo) Why would the state of consciousness follow different laws than matter, even if consciousness is composed of matter?? (unless we ourselves are nothingness, then in that case we are oblivion currently, so nothing would change after death except the decomposition of our contemporary bodies).

the function of breathing may stop, but the prescence of the lungs are still there. The consciousness of a person is different then that of the lungs though. The lungs produce a specific function ,yes, but consciousness is a totality of functions (senses). The body does not function for the process of the lungs. The body works to produce the function of the consciousness. Lungs are just one aspect needed to induce consciousness. (this is refutable but I'm tired, I'll work on it) Please refute

My main thought on life after death is of what the idea of death conjures in people (eternal nothingnes) being the one thing that our world proves cannot be true. There is no such thing as nothing. We only know of nothing because of subjective expectation (i.e. I expect to find 20 dollars in my wallet but discover 'nothing' there. Or, if I expect someone to be at a certain place because I make plans to meet her at a cafe, and then discover on my arrival that she is no where to be found, it isn't that she has vanished from existence. She just happens to be somewhere else at the moment, is all. Or, (last one promise...Stole this one from Jean-Paul Sartre) we look up at the moon and see it is not fully there, being but a crescent. It isn't that the moon is missing part of itself, (the moon is always whole) but only that a portion is visible from the rays of the sun reflecting but that small piece of it).

I understand the theory that is being presented (i.e. the lungs exist after death, but the function of the lungs [breathing] has ceased. Ergo, the brain [for that matter, the entire body itself] is still present, but its function [consciousness] no longer is. So, from what I believe I understand from your view point is that consciousness is nothing but the function of the brain and/or body (nothing more; nothing less).

Understanding this, my best recourse (and I am improvising) would have to submit the concept of free will. Is or can 'free will' be but the function of the mind/body? Can the concept of free will be denied? And, does free will perish along with the function of the mind/body? (On a personal note, I have no religious affiliation. I believe that all religion(s) are one, coming from the 'Poetic Genius' as described by William Blake).

I'm going to stop here and think about what to write in response. I think this is a legitimate arguement, but if anyone disagrees, please refute the above as best you can. (I know you will; that's why I love you guys).

P.S. It's not the alcohol talking, I swear. Besides, I'm not drinking. I'm on pain meds.

Juice wrote:Scott-Thanks for the shout at the end of your last post. It's nice to be noticed by the Boss!

Juice, you really are a military man. That comment proves it.