Not related to the death question but I thought it worthwhile to have a look at this site and check out some of the clips.

http://www.oddee.com/item_91848.aspx

This shows some extra ordinary capability's humans can have and that science cannot really explain.

Perhaps it is related! In my humble opinion we know so little about ourselves and our world. The site above brings into question that of what our true capabilities are.

Interesting that people often wonder what lies beyond this life but rarely question where we were before it! Hmm . . . Or, since we sleep on average of 1/3 of our lives where do we go during that time? Hmm . . .

Tennyson:

Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the crannies

I hold you here in my hand

Little flower—if I could understand

What you are, root and all, and all in all,

I would know what God and man is.

Nonetheless, I have experienced supernatural stuff. Very very convincingly. Precognition and deja vu.

Likewise.

I've come to the personal conclusion that these experiences/abilities are not supernatural, though. Introduce a newly discovered native, divorced and secluded from the world we know, to our technology and they would think us magical, indeed. I believe precognition, telepathy and the like, once understood through a greater understanding of ourselves, would then become normal occurrences.

Nonetheless, I have experienced supernatural stuff. Very very convincingly. Precognition and deja vu.

Likewise.

I've come to the personal conclusion that these experiences/abilities are not supernatural, though. Introduce a newly discovered native, divorced and secluded from the world we know, to our technology and they would think us magical, indeed. I believe precognition, telepathy and the like, once understood through a greater understanding of ourselves, would then become normal occurrences.

Yeah, I agree with you........but......

Maybe. Just maybe.

(anyway, until we know for sure, it's better to acknowledge that He MIGHT exist than to deny HIM!!!!)

Joking aside, I think that what can not be explained by modern science MAY have the core or root of an answer in anient lore.

I've always found it a little bit irritating being sent back until my task is done... all that passing from one incarnation to the next...

Then just get it right this time.

I've always found it a little bit irritating being sent back until my task is done... all that passing from one incarnation to the next...

If I remember my studies from long ago correctly.... the disciples of Buddha in their quest for Arhatship

Would resist the rest in between incarnations. Which was suppose to be akin to resisting an orgasm that had already started.

They did so as to not waste any time in between incarnations. Instead they would wait in the Bardo for the first suitable body to reincarnate with & continue their lessons thus shortening the time to Arhatship & no longer need to be reborn.

I've always found it a little bit irritating being sent back until my task is done... all that passing from one incarnation to the next...

If I remember my studies from long ago correctly.... the disciples of Buddha in their quest for Arhatship

Would resist the rest in between incarnations. Which was suppose to be akin to resisting an orgasm that had already started.

They did so as to not waste any time in between incarnations. Instead they would wait in the Bardo for the first suitable body to reincarnate with & continue their lessons thus shortening the time to Arhatship & no longer need to be reborn.

I could never buy the premise presumed by some religions/philosophies that earthly existence is somehow undesirable and to be dispensed with as quickly as possible in order to attain some final state of being, again presumably an eternally blissful one (Arhatship/heaven, et al). Is there purpose to earthly life? And if so, can it be further concluded that it then has value? And furthermore, that perhaps many of life's values escape us due to our ignorance as to the true nature of ourselves and our reality?

If this life, or any other existence, has purpose then how would it be possible that anything we experience could be considered a waste? Or is the concept of waste merely a perception we dreamed up to explain unpleasant (and therefore concluded undesirable) experience which purpose is beyond our current understanding?

Also, it has been postulated that time does not exist. Time being only a necessary construct when perception follows in a linear fashion. And if that is truth, and all experience is actually simultaneous in a way we cannot possibly fathom, perhaps due to our immersion into time, then all reincarnations are simultaneous. There would be no first and last or in between. The truth of simultaneous "time" would throw a huge monkey wrench into our currently mass accepted world view.

If anyone out there has ever had a precognitive experience (I have) then how could that event be possible at all if experience is truly locked into a linear sequence of befores and afters?

They did so as to not waste any time in between incarnations.

If this life, or any other existence, has purpose then how would it be possible that anything we experience could be considered a waste?

I am not sure if you meant that in reference to what I wrote but...If so...I said waste any time in between incarnations.

I personally dont think the experience of life is a waste at all. In fact although it was just a movie..In Troy when Achilles said

The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed

I thought it had merit in an odd way.

IMHO Life is a school & with that comes so many good & bad experiences.

But they are experiences none the less. Like endless rides for free at a carnival.

Some better than others.

.........

If anyone out there has ever had a precognitive experience (I have) then how could that event be possible at all if experience is truly locked into a linear sequence of befores and afters?

Good point.

An infinite number of alternate universes that we sometimes, somehow, get a brief peep into? These alternate universes all have their own unique point in non-linear time.

Hawkings theorised that information is lost in black holes.

He later recanted and said that information is not lost but enters an alternate space, ie an alternate universe and continues to exist.

The notion that time is a construct is difficult to come to grips with. I can see how linear thinking needs "time" to be able to comprehend a theoretical simmultaneous existance but I don't see how space fits into that idea. Is "space" a construct also?

If time does not exist, then space and the ever expanding universe that we occupy does not either.

.........

If anyone out there has ever had a precognitive experience (I have) then how could that event be possible at all if experience is truly locked into a linear sequence of befores and afters?

Good point.

An infinite number of alternate universes that we sometimes, somehow, get a brief peep into? These alternate universes all have their own unique point in non-linear time.

Hawkings theorised that information is lost in black holes.

He later recanted and said that information is not lost but enters an alternate space, ie an alternate universe and continues to exist.

The notion that time is a construct is difficult to come to grips with. I can see how linear thinking needs "time" to be able to comprehend a theoretical simmultaneous existance but I don't see how space fits into that idea. Is "space" a construct also?

If time does not exist, then space and the ever expanding universe that we occupy does not either.

= we don't exist and don't have to worry what we eat for dinner tomorrow

Too late, I've already taken a leg of lamb out of the freezer to defrost.

And I had a leg of lamb last night...

If this life, or any other existence, has purpose then how would it be possible that anything we experience could be considered a waste?

I am not sure if you meant that in reference to what I wrote but...If so...I said waste any time in between incarnations.

Yes, I did. My rationale is based on the following premises which I've concluded for myself to be immutable truth:

1) Time is simultaneous, and I would venture to say that even the experience of time is not experienced the same after "death" as it is now (it certainly isn't in the dream state). Therefore, there is no such thing, in a true sense, as "in between."

2) Experience is never ending and there is purpose in all experience. Therefore, one can waste neither experience nor "time."

I personally dont think the experience of life is a waste at all. In fact although it was just a movie..In Troy when Achilles said The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed.

I thought it had merit in an odd way.

I most humbly agree. I believe there's a good reason(s) for not being aware of the time of one's death. One would be that our understanding of our immortality and that any moment could be the last does indeed insure the preciousness of each and every moment. Or, at least it should.

IMHO Life is a school & with that comes so many good & bad experiences. But they are experiences none the less. Like endless rides for free at a carnival.

Some better than others.

Also agreed. Life is an endless journey. To which, I might add, there is never a destination point. A destination point implies, to me, the end of the journey.

.........

If anyone out there has ever had a precognitive experience (I have) then how could that event be possible at all if experience is truly locked into a linear sequence of befores and afters?

Good point.

An infinite number of alternate universes that we sometimes, somehow, get a brief peep into? These alternate universes all have their own unique point in non-linear time.

And all co-existing at once, where the slightest action in one effects the other. In other words, there is no such thing as a closed system. They are all connected. At least these are my conclusions.

Hawkings theorised that information is lost in black holes. He later recanted and said that information is not lost but enters an alternate space, ie an alternate universe and continues to exist.

The notion that time is a construct is difficult to come to grips with. I can see how linear thinking needs "time" to be able to comprehend a theoretical simultaneous existence but I don't see how space fits into that idea. Is "space" a construct also?

If time does not exist, then space and the ever expanding universe that we occupy does not either.

I would say "Bingo" to all of the above. And yes, "space" is itself another construct. The absence of space and time I believe are extremely difficult for us to intellectualize around when they are all we know. Or rather, all we are currently aware of. Of course who is to say that we are limited to our current knowledge and experience even while we are immersed within it?

.........

If anyone out there has ever had a precognitive experience (I have) then how could that event be possible at all if experience is truly locked into a linear sequence of befores and afters?

Good point.

An infinite number of alternate universes that we sometimes, somehow, get a brief peep into? These alternate universes all have their own unique point in non-linear time.

And all co-existing at once, where the slightest action in one effects the other. In other words, there is no such thing as a closed system. They are all connected. At least these are my conclusions.

Hawkings theorised that information is lost in black holes. He later recanted and said that information is not lost but enters an alternate space, ie an alternate universe and continues to exist.

The notion that time is a construct is difficult to come to grips with. I can see how linear thinking needs "time" to be able to comprehend a theoretical simultaneous existence but I don't see how space fits into that idea. Is "space" a construct also?

If time does not exist, then space and the ever expanding universe that we occupy does not either.

I would say "Bingo" to all of the above. And yes, "space" is itself another construct. The absence of space and time I believe are extremely difficult for us to intellectualize around when they are all we know. Or rather, all we are currently aware of. Of course who is to say that we are limited to our current knowledge and experience even while we are immersed within it?

You would therefore be a subscriber to the notion put forward recently that the mishaps that are occurring to the hadron collider are sabotage from the future.

Further reading: http://io9.com/5380647/is-the-large-hadron...from-the-future

So why doesn't the future peeple want us to see this Higgs womman's buzzums?

Because...as I quoted tennyson before, we would know what God and Man is, and we simple mortals can't handle the truth.

I once read a SciFi novel by Fred Hoyle called "The Black Cloud".

Can't remember much of it but at the end the cloud attempts to pass on the knowledge of the universe to a chosen subject (s?).

The cleverest scientist is selected.... or was it two?... and becomes permanently catatonic, or dies, I disremember, because his brain can't handle the conflict with everything he already believes.

One of his colleagues then remarks they probably would have been successful if they had used the simpleminded illiterate gardener or caretaker at the university as the recipient of the knowledge.

I understand the premise, and how it relates to this discussion, however, to be nitpicky, I think there are many clever people, perhaps the cleverest, that are always ready to discard previous beliefs whenever new knowledge comes along.

I think that we can't handle the truth because it is too vast.

A side topic to this is the WWW. So much knowledge at our fingertips. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

But you're quite right. Hoyle had been considering this very same subject. (I guess)

Again, I quote this, as it is so pertinant. It is all about quantum physics, hadron colliders, Higgs boson......and written nearly 200 years ago.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson:

Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the crannies

I hold you here in my hand

Little flower—if I could understand

What you are, root and all, and all in all,

I would know what God and man is.

But you're quite right. Hoyle had been considering this very same subject. (I guess)

Hoyle was a pretty smart guy and tried to used this story to promote his "the universe has always existed" theory...too lazy to google the real name, which he had propounded. Pretty well shot down now by the "Big Bang" mob.

I've always found it a little bit irritating being sent back until my task is done... all that passing from one incarnation to the next...

If I remember my studies from long ago correctly.... the disciples of Buddha in their quest for Arhatship

Would resist the rest in between incarnations. Which was suppose to be akin to resisting an orgasm that had already started.

They did so as to not waste any time in between incarnations. Instead they would wait in the Bardo for the first suitable body to reincarnate with & continue their lessons thus shortening the time to Arhatship & no longer need to be reborn.

Ah the impetuousness of youth. These new religions like Buddhism that came in as the latest fashion a mere couple of millenia ago.

Have they forgotton Iluvatar, the Valar and the Maiar already?

You would therefore be a subscriber to the notion put forward recently that the mishaps that are occurring to the hadron collider are sabotage from the future.

Further reading: http://io9.com/5380647/is-the-large-hadron...from-the-future

Not at all.

Why not?

You would therefore be a subscriber to the notion put forward recently that the mishaps that are occurring to the hadron collider are sabotage from the future.

Further reading: http://io9.com/5380647/is-the-large-hadron...from-the-future

Not at all.

Why not?

If you subscribe to the non-linear time theory, why is it not feasible for an alternate "future" to have the ways and means of interfereing with an alternate "past"?

BTW, how does the speed of light fit into non-linear time?

My rationale is based on the following premises which I've concluded for myself to be immutable truth:

1) Time is simultaneous, and I would venture to say that even the experience of time is not experienced the same after "death" as it is now (it certainly isn't in the dream state). Therefore, there is no such thing, in a true sense, as "in between."

2) Experience is never ending and there is purpose in all experience. Therefore, one can waste neither experience nor "time."

Could be true & actually I whole heartily agree that at the center of it all Time does not exist. It is man made & in reality there is only the here & now. As for whether or not it is experienced the same after death we will only know for sure when we experience it.

Then again we could say that man made time is just a tool to make it easier to express what we are trying to say.

Like the example you called this on....The Arhats waiting as little as possible in between incarnations. Otherwise how could they describe the shorter route?

Sure no time but even now we are not able to describe anything we experience without some degree of measure. Albeit just to be clearly understood.

PS: You spoke of the dream state.....That in itself is a very interesting subject isn't it? In the past when I kept records of dreams it occurred to me that many times what I wrote or thought I remembered was really just a simple interpretation.

I think it was the only way to describe as close as possible what had actually occurred.

Yes, I did. My rationale is based on the following premises which I've concluded for myself to be immutable truth:

................

2) Experience is never ending and there is purpose in all experience. Therefore, one can waste neither experience nor "time."....

.................

[

What was the purpose of the experience I just had of deleting a typo? Or the snot I just picked and flicked out the window?

A purpose: This implies an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

Or what does it imply?

I reject the notion of "purpose in all experience" because the question of free will comes into play here. Also, the "butterfly effect". But most importantly, chaos.

You would therefore be a subscriber to the notion put forward recently that the mishaps that are occurring to the hadron collider are sabotage from the future.

Further reading: http://io9.com/5380647/is-the-large-hadron...from-the-future

Not at all.

Why not?

If you subscribe to the non-linear time theory, why is it not feasible for an alternate "future" to have the ways and means of interfereing with an alternate "past"?

BTW, how does the speed of light fit into non-linear time?

I read the linked article. The comments and "prediction" made by the physicists in the article kind of raised my eyebrows.

As for the "future" interfering with the "past" as suggested there's a little concept called free will that wholly negates the notion of interference in this sense. From everything I have been able to discover free will is one of the basic tenants of existence, regardless of the form which existence may take. In short, while one may be influenced there can never be outright subjugation by another. While I realize that is an extremely contentious statement to make, and I'm sure many will quickly offer examples of life experience where the unwanted certainly seems "forced" upon them against their will, it must be understood that any form of subjugation ultimately involves an acquiescence on the part of the "subjugated." This, also, is immutable truth for me. The intricate explanations as to how the notion of absolute free will works are out there for anyone willing to pursue the question. That's up to each of us to discover for ourselves.

At any rate, some of these physicists are now pro-offering a "prediction" based on the premise that subjugation is valid and therefore "future" others more "powerful" than ourselves have the ability to deny us a chosen path. I rather think not. It's interesting to note, also, the terminology used in the article: ". . . that the future may be pushing back." What, pray tell, is "the future?" As if it were some sort of separate entity unto itself.

The article also bandies about the concept of luck. From what I have learned we are rationale creatures who must have an explanation for everything. When true explanations for events are not handy our rationale selves are more than satisfied to then create and accept concepts such as luck, chance, happenstance, accident, etc. Existence either has purpose or it does not. I do not believe there can be any grey area here. It is one or the other. While it may be difficult to believe that there is purpose in even the slightest, most seemingly insignificant event imaginable, such as flicking your snot out the window, it is much easier for me to believe that our current knowledge of ourselves and our reality is insufficient to recognize and understand the purpose which exists within everything.

I'll paste this quote portion of the article:

While it is a paradox to go back in time and kill your grandfather, physicists agree there is no paradox if you go back in time and save him from being hit by a bus. In the case of the Higgs and the collider, it is as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus. Although just why the Higgs would be a catastrophe is not clear. If we knew, presumably, we wouldn't be trying to make one.

The seeming paradox of going back in time and killing your grandfather stems from the idea that there is only one world and only one possible line of development (in time). I'll leave my (intriguing?) comment at that.

My apologies, Harcourt, if you were hoping for a short answer.

Apology not needed at all.

I apologise for only a brief reply , thus:

Not all forms of subjugation ultimately involve an aquiesence; As you predicted, I will give an example of subjugation that lacks any aquiesence.

I agree that me being "forced" to pay taxes involves an aquiesence on my part in that I choose to pay rather than go to jail. Flight or death are the only other options, and I choose neither of those. I choose to pay.

If you agree that most people can not kill themself immediately by sheer force of will, a person captured and chained in a dungeon and raped is completely subjugated. To suggest aquiesence, even the most subconscious choice, is preposterous.

The again, what if the only options are subjugation or death and I don't want either?

What of contracting terminal cancer? Bad luck? Purpose? But I don't want to die. Where's my free will?

But never mind about examples..... I'm more concerned with the notion of free will.

I am also concerned about the notion of every experience having a purpose.

I suggest that the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

My actions can not be of free will if they are predestined.

If you contend that my choices, made of true free will, have a purpose yet are not predestined, then you will have to concede that the choices I make are pure chance. The result of my choices, albeit haveing a purpose, are ultimately chance. Luck. Randomness. Chaos. Otherewise it was not free will.

On the other hand, if there is predestination, destiny without chance, then the implication is that it is by design. This in turn implies An Intelligence.

What of The intelligence's choices, destiny, chances?

Or are they in turn predestined?

I do agree that, "...our current knowledge of ourselves and our reality is insufficient (to recognize and understand the purpose which exists within everything)...", without agreeing that there is a purpose at all.