What Will The Afterlife Be Like?

[Shadowprophet]

Actually, my definition of consciousness isn't "wonky" - It is in line with the foremost philosophers on the subject. On the forum I copied my post from, we had an extensive thread on it that I participated in for years. As for the research you want, most of what I've explained is self-evident and so obvious that no citations are required. Or do you dispute that biochemistry has an effect on personality? Do I really need to get you references for that? How many do you want?

Maybe we can start here: Brain Biochemistry and Personality: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study
ist
Perhaps we should go bac to the basics here and start with a lecture by philosopher David Chalmers.

View: https://youtu.be/uhRhtFFhNzQ?feature=shared
​

Dont get me wrong, but, no it's not.. you have hand-picked a biased philosophy that suits your agenda, How unstudied do you assume us to be ? let us speak about philosophy for a moment. a field I know a little about. Philosophy is subjective. a Hindu a Buddhist a Christian a physicist and a circus clown will all have a philosophy on death.. that's nothing more than a glorified bias... which you are allowed to possess, however. look up what you call consciousness. and then maybe look at consciousness as a subject or a topic. you have opinions, that's fine, but opinions are not facts. just like philosophies are not definitions.

 

[Shadowprophet]

That said, I didn't originally ask anyone for facts and figures.
i just love debating science, that's my bad,, but for the record, there is nothing wrong with a bias or an opinion. I'm just absolutely desperate for scientific discussion on this is all..

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Dont get me wrong, but, no it's not.. you have hand-picked a biased philosophy that suits your agenda,

Thers's no "agenda"

How unstudied do you assume us to be ? let us speak about philosophy for a moment. a field I know a little about. Philosophy is subjective. a Hindu a Buddhist a Christian a physicist and a circus clown will all have a philosophy on death.. that's nothing more than a glorified bias... which you are allowed to possess, however. look up what you call consciousness. and then maybe look at consciousness as a subject or a topic. you have opinions, that's fine, but opinions are not facts. just like philosophies are not definitions.

You need to be more patient with this and you'll start to get it — I thought it should be simple at first too, even made similar comments.

Perhaps the easiest way to diffentiate between consciousness and awareness is that consciousness can tell when it's not aware of something - as in my example with a person who has suddenly gone blind. They are no longer aware of colors and shades of light and dark - AND they are conscious of that absence of awareness AND that absence of awareness doesn't reduce their level of consciousness. The two concepts are in fact very different when carefully considered. It is only in casual convesrsation on the subject with those not familiar with it, that they get conflated.

Consciousness is at a fundamental level. Awareness might be seen as the next layer up.

 

[nivek]

The notion that consciousness and awareness are identical is a typical novice mistake.

Indeed, consciousness has the possibility of being aware if it's surroundings and has the possibility of becoming self-aware, but awareness and consciousness are not the same thing, consciousness can exist without any awareness of itself or its surroundings...Awareness is more of an attribute of any sort of consciousness which is capable of that ability...

...

 

[Shadowprophet]

Thers's no "agenda"

You need to be more patient with this and you'll start to get it.

Perhaps the easiest way to diffentiate between consciousness and awareness is that consciousness can tell when it's not aware of something - as in my example with a person who has suddenly gone blind. They are no longer aware of colors and shades of light and dark - AND they are conscious of that absence of awareness AND that absence of awareness doesn't reduce their level of consciousness. The two concepts are in fact very different when carefully considered. It is only in casual convesrsation on the subject with those not familiar with it, that they get conflated.

Thats fair,,, You want honesty.
I will give you clarity. You remind me very much of someone we lost.. He was brilliant. his name was Thomas. He and I used to argue about science so often.. Every time I come here. I think of Think of him.. You wont know the guy, but look him up sometime he was brilliant...

you remind me of him a lot..

its high praise actually..

I'm certain I'm not the only person here who has noticed how similar you are to him..

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Thats fair,,, You want honesty.
I will give you clarity. You remind me very much of someone we lost.. He was brilliant. his name was Thomas. He and I used to argue about science so often.. Every time I come here. I think of Think of him.. You wont know the guy, but look him up sometime he was brilliant...

you remind me of him a lot..

its high praise actually..

I'm certain I'm not the only person here who has noticed how similar you are to him..

Okay — Thanks for that. I appreciate constructive discourse. It is in resolving differences that new things are learned - often by both engaged in the process.

Returning to the subject at hand, the real question isn't the difference between consciousness and awareness. For the logic here to work, they could even be considered the same thing, thereby eliminating that objection. The real heart of the issue is what constitutes personhood, and if you look at all that data, plus whatever personality profiles might be included with that, there is a proven biological underpinning to it all that must be taken into account, and there is no way to account for it in any afterlife model I can think of. That aspect is always gets conveniently glossed over as if it's irrellevant ( when it's not ).

 

[Shadowprophet]

Indeed, consciousness has the possibility of being aware if it's surroundings and has the possibility of becoming self-aware, but awareness and consciousness are not the same thing, consciousness can exist without any awareness of itself or its surroundings...Awareness is more of an attribute of any sort of consciousness which is capable of that ability...

...

Some researchers believe that consciousness can exist without self-awareness, such as in the case of infants and some animals. However, the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness is still a topic of philosophical debate and ongoing research.

ahem ....According to Scientific American, consciousness (is) awareness of one's body and environment, while self-awareness is the recognition of that consciousness.

believe me, I've studied this quite a bit. opinions are not facts...

umh. unless that opinion is based on fact. I feel we are nitpicking, self awareness may be different than consciousness, but it is an aspect of consciousness, so.


hmm, it's weird, now I want to study amnesia. and its effects on self-awareness. maybe there is something to be said about the connection between the two in amnesia studies.

 

[nivek]

Some researchers believe that consciousness can exist without self-awareness, such as in the case of infants and some animals. However, the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness is still a topic of philosophical debate and ongoing research.

Consciousness is within everything, rocks have consciousness but no self-awareness that we can observe...Some trees have the possibility of self-awareness whilst some human adults have not...A higher intelligence is not a requirement for self-awareness but it can certainly help achieve that possibility...However its also likely that a higher intelligence could diminish the possibilities for a consciousness to become self-aware instead of helping...

...

 

[Shadowprophet]

Consciousness is within everything, rocks have consciousness but no self-awareness that we can observe...Some trees have the possibility of self-awareness whilst some human adults have not...A higher intelligence is not a requirement for self-awareness but it can certainly help achieve that possibility...However its also likely that a higher intelligence could diminish the possibilities for a consciousness to become self-aware instead of helping...

...

I've heard some scientists say that consciousness could be within all things, the only mental reference I have to equate that too are in religion where Jesus spoke to the waters to calm them or Moses asked the rock or hit the rock for water. Those are weak examples ,I know.. but the concept of people having relationships with objects is present in history. it's a fascinating concept, id like to study it more.. and yes, I do need more study on consciousness vs self-awareness. because I'm open to the concepts, but I don't know where to begin to study consciousness in all energy..

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Some researchers believe that consciousness can exist without self-awareness, such as in the case of infants and some animals. However, the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness is still a topic of philosophical debate and ongoing research.

ahem ....According to Scientific American, consciousness (is) awareness of one's body and environment, while self-awareness is the recognition of that consciousness.

believe me, I've studied this quite a bit. opinions are not facts...

umh. unless that opinion is based on fact. I feel we are nitpicking, self awareness may be different than consciousness, but it is an aspect of consciousness, so.


hmm, it's weird, now I want to study amnesia. and its effects on self-awareness. maybe there is something to be said about the connection between the two in amnesia studies.

There ( above ) we get into the notion of self-awareness, which is yet another related but different concept, and in this discussion, the nuances are everything. Fortunately, with consciousness being fundamental, we can apply the same filter and say that given that consciousness is our experience of being in world, then self-awareness is the experience of one's self — something different than other selves ( like Mom & Dad ). We could probably place this safely between fundamental consciousness and the general sort of awareness we touched on earlier.

Again, however, although interesting, it's still not relevant to the point of the essay, which is the idea of continuity of personhood and all that entails. From that perspective we can ascertain facts ( not opinions ). For example, we can determine that it is a fact that Jane's biological sex is female, that she is about 5' 9" tall, weighs about 115 LBS, has green eyes, perfect teeth, unique fingerprints, unique voice, unique DNA, and we can go on and on establishing dozens of facts about her that all together — if on record — would establish as a fact ( not an opinion ) that she is who she claims to be if she loses her driver's licence.

This is where the afterlife believers try to claim that all that material stuff that proves you are you doesn't really matter. They offhandedly dismiss it without considering the consequences. But there are consequences. All that stuff has to somehow follow Jane into this afterworld in order for anyone to recognize her. Without it, there is no way prove she is who she claims to be. What's more, the required evidence is now a few handfuls of ash in an urn by the window ( not an opinion ). So what then has taken over for all that in this supposed afterworld?

But wait the afterworld believers cry! Jane could just be a disembodied glowing ball of light and still be Jane!

Really? That's a bit of a stretch. The Jane I know isn't a glowing ball of light.

But it acts like Jane! they counter.

Really - I liked the way Jane walked. Let's see it do that.

But it has Jane's memories! they counter

So what? Memory transferrence isn't a continuity of personhood. I can transfer memory from my computer A to your computer B. Is your computer now my computer? No

But it has Janes personality! they add.

And so did Marjorie Prime have Majorie's personality ( see trailer below and watch it if you haven't seen it ).

What this really reminds me of is when Kirk's ship gets hijacked to go visit God, and Kirk steps up and starts asking God questions nobody wants to hear. Just keep reflecting on these questions. Ask some of your own, and eventually you'll arrive at the same place. Jane is dead and whatever this afterworld version of her is can only be some sort of copy. In most reports of the phenomena, they're not very good copies either.

Marjorie Prime


View: https://youtu.be/a7PtcOLJDco?feature=shared
​

 

[Shadowprophet]

There ( above ) we get into the notion of self-awareness, which is yet another related but different concept, and in this discussion, the nuances are everything. Fortunately, with consciousness being fundamental, we can apply the same filter and say that given that consciousness is our experience of being in world, then self-awareness is the experience of one's self — something different than other selves ( like Mom & Dad ). We could probably place this safely between fundamental consciousness and the general sort of awareness we touched on earlier.

Again, however, although interesting, it's still not relevant to the point of the essay, which is the idea of continuity of personhood and all that entails. From that perspective we can ascertain facts ( not opinions ). For example, we can determine that it is a fact that Jane's biological sex is female, that she is about 5' 9" tall, weighs about 115 LBS, has green eyes, perfect teeth, unique fingerprints, unique voice, unique DNA, and we can go on and on establishing dozens of facts about her that all together — if on record — would establish as a fact ( not an opinion ) that she is who she claims to be if she loses her driver's licence.

This is where the afterlife believers try to claim that all that material stuff that proves you are you doesn't really matter. They offhandedly dismiss it without considering the consequences. But there are consequences. All that stuff has to somehow follow Jane into this afterworld in order for anyone to recognize her. Without it, there is no way prove she is who she claims to be. What's more, that evidence is now a few handfuls of ash in an urn by the window. So what then has taken over for all that in this supposed afterworld?

But wait the afterworld believers cry! Jane could just be a disembodied glowing ball of light and still be Jane!

Really? That's a bit of a stretch. The Jane I know isn't a glowing ball of light.

But it acts like Jane! they counter.

Really - I liked the way Jane walked. Let's see it do that.

But it has Jane's memories! they counter

So what? Memory transferrence isn't a continuity of personhood. I can transfer memory from my computer A to your computer B. Is your computer now my computer? No

But it has Janes personality! they add.

And so did Marjorie Prime have Majories personality ( see trailer below and watch it if you haven't seen it ).

What this really reminds me of is when Kirk's ship gets hijacked to go vist God, and Kirk steps up and starts asking questions nobody wants to hear. Just keep reflecting on these questions. Ask some of your own, and eventually you'll arrive at the same place. Jane is dead and whatever this afterworld version is can only be some sort of copy. In most reports of the phenomena, they're not very good copies either.

Marjorie Prime


View: https://youtu.be/a7PtcOLJDco?feature=shared
​

Just off the cuff here, most people will claim that brainwaves don't really penetrate the cranium so they therefore do not travel across the cosmos. so what becomes of those brainwaves I mean ultimately,, I'm not illuding. I'm just asking because I believe there has to be some natural or scientific reason the brain broadcasts these waves. The idea fascinates me because what if consciousness really is just information and it can be contained within the dips and peaks of the brainwave? weak as they would be, traveling, would they not travel like radiowaves would at the speed of light? in my theory, which is of course laden with bias and opinion, rendering it worthless. but still, in my theory, our bodies are like a seed or a vessel. a container, such as a flower contains Pollen. the flower dies but its pollen is still out there performing its function. maybe there is some sort of natural order or reason to it all. perhaps just because the flower dies the journey isn't entirely over for us... I mean. in the end. I'm just one opinion among so many. but it wouldn't surprise me if somehow there was some sort of purpose or destination that all our collective energy and information served in the greater cosmos.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Just off the cuff here, most people will claim that brainwaves don't really penetrate the cranium so they therefore do not travel across the cosmos. so what becomes of those brainwaves I mean ultimately,, I'm not illuding. I'm just asking because I believe there has to be some natural or scientific reason the brain broadcasts these waves. The idea fascinates me because what if consciousness really is just information and it can be contained within the dips and peaks of the brainwave? weak as they would be, traveling, would they not travel like radiowaves would at the speed of light? in my theory, which is of course laden with bias and opinion, rendering it worthless. but still, in my theory, our bodies are like a seed or a vessel. a container, such as a flower contains Pollen. the flower dies but its pollen is still out there performing its function. maybe there is some sort of natural order or reason to it all. perhaps just because the flower dies the journey isn't entirely over for us... I mean. in the end. I'm just one opinion among so many. but it wouldn't surprise me if somehow there was some sort of purpose or destination that all our collective energy and information served in the greater cosmos.

The brain and the EM waves it emits are a really interesting topic — also completely beside the point of the topic at hand. If there is such a thing as aferlives, it will be filled with copies of the formerly living, and maybe some other stuff that's already there. There is one little loophole that nullifies both perspectives ( the believers and the non-believers ). Perhaps you'll stumble onto that one without my help.

Brainwaves and ESP — all that sort of phenomena. I don't know how to explain it other than that we're living in some Matrix like reality. I can't prove it's real, just like I can't land on the Whitehouse lawn in a flying saucer, but so far as I'm concerned, they're both real.

 

[pigfarmer]

To add: Please excuse some of the typos. It's amazing to see what you miss when you re-read something 3 years later

Thanks. I'll have a look later or tomorrow when I can give it the appropriate time. My current incarnation has stuff to do today

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Thanks. I'll have a look later or tomorrow when I can give it the appropriate time. My current incarnation has stuff to do today

Good to see you still haven't lost your sense of humor

 

[pigfarmer]

I needed to be able to sit quietly and ponder this, and Life's greatest clarity seems to come with coffee.

What I caught from that was that you made a statement that 'this is impossible' as a definitive statement. OK, But then you used two terms - consciousness and personhood - that really are not definitive at all to attempt to prove the point. In order to do so I'd have to accept the definitions you are using, which I don't. I suppose there would have been some delicious irony in asking ChatGPT about this but I figure Oxford has been an adequate reference up to this point so I'm just going with that.

consciousness

consciousness n.
The state of being *conscious (1, 2); the normal mental condition of the waking state of humans, characterized by the experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, awareness of the external world, and often in humans (but not necessarily in other animals) self-awareness. ...



Exactly what consciousness is and how it is formed has been a subject of debate for millennia without resolution. More acute now I'd imagine with the development of machine learning. I'm not sure I'd take that still ill defined concept and further split hairs regarding 'personhood.'

personhood

personhood n.​

a philosophical concept designed to determine which individuals have human rights and responsibilities. Personhood may be distinguished by possession of defining characteristics, such as consciousness and rationality, or in terms of relationships with others. Philosophers disagree on whether all humans are, or all nonhuman animals are not, persons, especially when debating the ethics of abortion, euthanasia, and human uses of animals. In law, corporations can be regarded as having personhood, when identifying their rights and responsibilities...

This definition of 'personhood' agrees with my thoughts on that topic prior to looking it up in the first place - it's about an individual's role in society not a literal description of some aspect of our existence.

One line in your essay caught my eye
"All the things that constitute personhood have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be attributable to some aspect of our biology"

True our physiology plays a role in our growth, who we ultimately become, but perhaps not as large as you might think. Have a look at this article from Scientific American about all that:
What Is Consciousness?

Environmental conditions play an enormous role in who we are. If you clone your dog would you expect an identical copy? Physically maybe but without the experiences throughout their lives I don't see how biology alone will be cause their personalities to be so. You can clone me but raise my copy elsewhere in a different culture speaking a different language and I'd bet you would have a very different Pigfarmer. Biology may predispose me to certain behaviors but conditioning determines an enormous part of 'who we are'.

John B Alexander describes an 'afterlife' as 'the continuation of consciousness after bodily death'. Well, he's a precise speaker and I appreciate that but I'd say the same thing to him as to you - if we can't even quantify what consciousness is exactly how can we make any any other definite determination about it? He's just saying 'we continue somehow after bodily death' and I agree that evidence suggests that may be possible. I wouldn't decide in advance it's flat out impossible in the face of quite a bit of testimony that suggests otherwise, which is why I am happy to see people like Dr. Jim Tucker and UVA. Observation of some phenomenon and the practices that result often precede the scientific discovery that quantifies them, not uncommonly meeting the resistance of 'mainstream' science who discounted it in the first place. Every generation seems to think they've figured it all out and the following one proves they usually don't.

I'm not attempting to quantify what make us who we are, only that there does seem to be evidence that some aspect of that may continue after bodily death. Since we can't even really define what it is I'm not prepared to make up rules about what it is or isn't or how it works.

I'll leave all the rules, procedures, terminology to the world's religions and philosophers to chew on like a cud.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I needed to be able to sit quietly and ponder this, and Life's greatest clarity seems to come with coffee.

What I caught from that was that you made a statement that 'this is impossible' as a definitive statement. OK, But then you used two terms - consciousness and personhood - that really are not definitive at all to attempt to prove the point. In order to do so I'd have to accept the definitions you are using, which I don't. I suppose there would have been some delicious irony in asking ChatGPT about this but I figure Oxford has been an adequate reference up to this point so I'm just going with that.

consciousness

consciousness n.
The state of being *conscious (1, 2); the normal mental condition of the waking state of humans, characterized by the experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, awareness of the external world, and often in humans (but not necessarily in other animals) self-awareness. ...



Exactly what consciousness is and how it is formed has been a subject of debate for millennia without resolution. More acute now I'd imagine with the development of machine learning. I'm not sure I'd take that still ill defined concept and further split hairs regarding 'personhood.'

personhood

personhood n.​

a philosophical concept designed to determine which individuals have human rights and responsibilities. Personhood may be distinguished by possession of defining characteristics, such as consciousness and rationality, or in terms of relationships with others. Philosophers disagree on whether all humans are, or all nonhuman animals are not, persons, especially when debating the ethics of abortion, euthanasia, and human uses of animals. In law, corporations can be regarded as having personhood, when identifying their rights and responsibilities...

This definition of 'personhood' agrees with my thoughts on that topic prior to looking it up in the first place - it's about an individual's role in society not a literal description of some aspect of our existence.

One line in your essay caught my eye
"All the things that constitute personhood have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be attributable to some aspect of our biology"

True our physiology plays a role in our growth, who we ultimately become, but perhaps not as large as you might think. Have a look at this article from Scientific American about all that:
What Is Consciousness?

Environmental conditions play an enormous role in who we are. If you clone your dog would you expect an identical copy? Physically maybe but without the experiences throughout their lives I don't see how biology alone will be cause their personalities to be so. You can clone me but raise my copy elsewhere in a different culture speaking a different language and I'd bet you would have a very different Pigfarmer. Biology may predispose me to certain behaviors but conditioning determines an enormous part of 'who we are'.

John B Alexander describes an 'afterlife' as 'the continuation of consciousness after bodily death'. Well, he's a precise speaker and I appreciate that but I'd say the same thing to him as to you - if we can't even quantify what consciousness is exactly how can we make any any other definite determination about it? He's just saying 'we continue somehow after bodily death' and I agree that evidence suggests that may be possible. I wouldn't decide in advance it's flat out impossible in the face of quite a bit of testimony that suggests otherwise, which is why I am happy to see people like Dr. Jim Tucker and UVA. Observation of some phenomenon and the practices that result often precede the scientific discovery that quantifies them, not uncommonly meeting the resistance of 'mainstream' science who discounted it in the first place. Every generation seems to think they've figured it all out and the following one proves they usually don't.

I'm not attempting to quantify what make us who we are, only that there does seem to be evidence that some aspect of that may continue after bodily death. Since we can't even really define what it is I'm not prepared to make up rules about what it is or isn't or how it works.

I'll leave all the rules, procedures, terminology to the world's religions and philosophers to chew on like a cud.

That's fair enough. Afer all, I did say "What I mean by 'impossible', is that based on the interpretations above . . . etc." In other words, it's a starting point that eliminates those particular variables from whatever the case happens to be. The thing about that is, those variables have certain factual elements to them that are not subject to personal opinion, such as the biological elements that contribute to appearance, and the biochemical elements that affect personality.

Those cannot be arbitrarily dismissed as irrellevant based on one's own subjective interpretations of them. No matter how you define them or what exactly they're made of, they still have to be accounted for somehow by some afterworld mechanism — unless of course your version of an afterlife makes you into something that doesn't look like you or have your personality — and there are such versions, e.g. being reincarnated as a different species. Some people actually believe that. But that's not the version I was alluding to.

In theory one can also say that a person is defined by their works of art, and therefore after the artist dies, they live on in their art. But let's face it. Once again, that's NOT the kind of afterlives we're talking about here. So, quibbling over definitions that move the goalposts around doesn't really provide a way around the problems that I described.

The version(s) I'm alluding to are those where you are still the same you as you are now, but you are in a different place called an afterworld. How are all the things you left behind here that make you — you, accounted for there? No matter how you want to define them, they cannot be accounted for other than as some sort of fill-in or copy.

BTW: Loved The Lava Man clip

Here's one that reminds us just how unique we all are.


View: https://youtu.be/m3vqXk1Tv-s?feature=shared

 

[Shadowprophet]

That's fair enough. Afer all, I did say "What I mean by 'impossible', is that based on the interpretations above . . . etc." In other words, it's a starting point that eliminates those particular variables from whatever the case happens to be. The thing about that is, those variables have certain factual elements to them that are not subject to personal opinion, such as the biological elements that contribute to appearance, and the biochemical elements that affect personality.

Those cannot be arbitrarily dismissed as irrellevant based on one's own subjective interpretations of them. No matter how you define them or what exactly they're made of, they still have to be accounted for somehow by some afterworld mechanism — unless of course your version of an afterlife makes you into something that doesn't look like you or have your personality — and there are such versions, e.g. being reincarnated as a different species. Some people actually believe that. But that's not the version I was alluding to.

In theory one can also say that a person is defined by their works of art, and therefore after the artist dies, they live on in their art. But let's face it. Once again, that's NOT the kind of afterlives we're talking about here. So, quibbling over definitions that move the goalposts around doesn't really provide a way around the problems that I described.

The version(s) I'm alluding to are those where you are still the same you as you are now, but you are in a different place called an afterworld. How are all the things you left behind here that make you — you, accounted for there? No matter how you want to define them, they cannot be accounted for other than as some sort of fill-in or copy.

BTW: Loved The Lava Man clip

Here's one that reminds us just how unique we all are.


View: https://youtu.be/m3vqXk1Tv-s?feature=shared

Star Trek Tos, you can't go wrong with Tos.

 

[pigfarmer]

I debated posting this but we all seem to be on the same page

 

[pigfarmer]

I found it interesting that people can be born with large chunks of their brains missing and it doesn't seem to impact them much. I'd imagine anyone who ever worked in retail probably understands this intuitively, God knows is technical support it's a given. I've also read accounts like the man with the railroad spike through his skull or people who have had nails fired into their noggin also without major personality disruption. That tells me there is more to the nature of our awareness than can be immediately mapped to our sweetbreads. I know that brain surgeons do make 'probe and response' type maps prior to excising tumors and so forth, but that's not exactly what I am talking about.

Remember the old wood/plaster models from school where you could open the top of a skull and take apart pieces of the brain that were colored and labeled? My grade school had that in the early 70s. It would be convenient if we could just point to a certain area and know exactly what it does - to be able to say 'take that out and this man will never watch NASCAR again' or something to that effect. I suppose that's the theory behind lobotomies - another product of then-contemporary empirical science being convinced that was beneficial.

I know physicists have sought a 'God particle' or basic building block and that was the gist of that SA article I linked; our brains, minds and personalities are fantastically complex systems that we have only begun to map. IDK what or if the search for some basic personality component will reveal but it's a safe bet that over time we'll refine that map and maybe then we can make more definitive statements about what is or isn't possible.

I sat for a medium reading a couple of years ago. Didn't pick her at random, did some research and eventually lit upon Windbridge Research Center. Picked her from a list and had a 90 minute reading. IMO it was most likely she was Remote Viewing or reading me. The things this total stranger said to me over a phone call were startling, she even described the room I was in. That brought up some interesting questions. I can't speak to her communicating with the dead, but how in the hell did she pull off such accurate descriptions? This was no parlor trick or cold reading and it actually happened to me, I'm not relaying a third party story. I fiddled with RV a couple of times and believe that absolutely there is something very concrete about all that, I just don't know what it is. That in an of itself is mind blowing having absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife - it definitely speaks to the transmission of non-local information through some means we don't fully appreciate right now. My guess is that once you weed out the pure horseshit and opportunists in that arena, when you get to one of the few who are sincere and really do seem to have some ability there may be genuine confusion between after-life communication and whatever that RV phenomenon is. It certainly suggests there are aspects of our katra we haven't figured out yet.

People only see what they want to or need to and tend to ignore the obvious until they have reason to. I bought my truck new in 2015 and only recently noticed a bunch of buttons ... and compartments and stuff .... that were there all along that I paid no attention to.

 

[Milarepa]

there are aspects of our katra we haven't figured out yet.

Katra haha, a ToS fan?

As our post birth bodies are no longer a part of the inner reality of our mother's womb, so too our post death souls will no longer be a part of the inner reality of this universe.

The soul can be likened to a commonwealth, something retaining its identity not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but being composed of many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements. The Buddhists believe the soul is forever enduring as long as the self, or consciousness also endures.