What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/what-happens-when-you-die_b_596600.html

What happens when we die? Do we rot into the ground, or do we go to heaven (or hell, if we've been bad)? Experiments suggest the answer is simpler than anyone thought. Without the glue of consciousness, time essentially reboots.

The mystery of life and death can't be examined by visiting the Galapagos or looking through a microscope. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves. We awake in the present. There are stairs below us that we appear to have climbed; there are stairs above us that go upward into the unknown future. But the mind stands at the door by which we entered and gives us the memories by which we go about our day. Everything is ordered and predictable. We're like cuckoo birds who appear through a door each morning. We fancy there's a clockwork set in motion at the beginning of time.

There were a lot of words in that article, but I can't say my brain successfully parsed them into something that was semantically meaningful.

There were a lot of words in that article, but I can't say my brain successfully parsed them into something that was semantically meaningful.

GabuEx

Am I missing something? Because I couldn't find a piece of that article that made any damn sense. :?LZ71

If Gabu can't understand it, I won't even try.

What is this i don't even.

I think the article writer might have been dropping peyote when contemplating this issue. All the evidence we have is that the body ceases to function, and the consciousness along with it. What evidence suggests that consciousness as it exists in the living body continues on after death? The physical matter and energy continues to exist... but it changes form and that form of the human body is what defines our existence.

I didn't get anything out of that article. :?

While the concept is extremely interesting, the article, despite mentioning "experiments" several times, never names these experiments. The story about the dragonfly seems irrelevant; either that or he is drawing a conclusion from it that I can't link to the story itself. Theokhoth

Can you fill us in as to what this concept exactly is? I've read the article repeatedly and I have no idea what it's even putting forth as a hypothesis for what happens after death.

He seems to be just talking rather than reporting anything meaningful, without much point or fact or anything really.

"Blah Blah Blah, Einstien, blah blah, Quantum Theory" I guess he just read a book that actually said something useful.

i think this article should be titled differently interesting though

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]While the concept is extremely interesting, the article, despite mentioning "experiments" several times, never names these experiments. The story about the dragonfly seems irrelevant; either that or he is drawing a conclusion from it that I can't link to the story itself. GabuEx

Can you fill us in as to what this concept exactly is? I've read the article repeatedly and I have no idea what it's even putting forth as a hypothesis for what happens after death.

Think of it like this. When we see a sunset, we are not actually seeing the sunset; we are seeing our brain's interpretation of the sunset. One idea is that we are seeing a reality separate from ourselves and our brain is interpreting that reality. But this theory suggests that the reality is shaped by our consciousness.

I hope that makes some sense.

It's difficult for me to describe. Essentially it's the belief that life precedes (and creates) nature rather than the other way around; that the universe and everything is shaped by our brains (rather than OUR PERCEPTION OF reality, reality itself is affected by our very existence). So when we die (though "death" isn't real under this viewpoint), all that happens is time and nature reset according to our new existence (reincarnation? Something else? I don't know). I hope that makes some sense.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]While the concept is extremely interesting, the article, despite mentioning "experiments" several times, never names these experiments. The story about the dragonfly seems irrelevant; either that or he is drawing a conclusion from it that I can't link to the story itself. Theokhoth

Can you fill us in as to what this concept exactly is? I've read the article repeatedly and I have no idea what it's even putting forth as a hypothesis for what happens after death.

Think of it like this. When we see a sunset, we are not actually seeing the sunset; we are seeing our brain's interpretation of the sunset. One idea is that we are seeing a reality separate from ourselves and our brain is interpreting that reality. But this theory suggests that the reality is shaped by our consciousness.

I hope that makes some sense.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] It's difficult for me to describe. Essentially it's the belief that life precedes (and creates) nature rather than the other way around; that the universe and everything is shaped by our brains (rather than OUR PERCEPTION OF reality, reality itself is affected by our very existence). So when we die (though "death" isn't real under this viewpoint), all that happens is time and nature reset according to our new existence (reincarnation? Something else? I don't know). I hope that makes some sense.

foxhound_fox

It's actually very interesting (my description does not do it justice) and is a valid consideration dating back many years. It's in The Matrix, even (What is real? If "real" is what you see, hear, taste, smell and touch then reality is nothing but electrical signals interpreted by our brain, and our brain could be getting it all wrong and we'd never know the difference).

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] It's actually very interesting (my description does not do it justice) and is a valid consideration dating back many years. It's in The Matrix, even (What is real? If "real" is what you see, hear, taste, smell and touch then reality is nothing but electrical signals interpreted by our brain, and our brain could be getting it all wrong and we'd never know the difference).

foxhound_fox

From what i got in the article is that he's saying time and space aren't linear, and i think he's saying they aren't even cyclical but some crazy criss-cross of events stitched together by your memories and consciousness. When someone dies, the time and space created by your conscious resets to a specific point in your timeline and you start over again but it seems it doesn't have to be directly back to your birth.

So, life IS a videogame?

You have to admit, though, it is a pretty interesting theory. I like it.

All this is really doing is putting a religious-type philosophy behind a theory in physics (I think. I know I saw something on the Discovery Channel once where a guy talked about this) where time is only a perception and that, if you could pull back far enough, you'd see that everything is actually happening at once. Time is just our way of dealing with all that information.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

There were a lot of words in that article, but I can't say my brain successfully parsed them into something that was semantically meaningful.

SolidSnake35

I was thinking the same thing, but I really don't find that to be very in lines with what Kant said. Kant, for one, said that objects exist outside of consciousness, we just can't perceive them as they exist outside of our consciousness. Something about the article that didn't really sit right with me was that okay, when one person dies space and time go with them, but this idea of a reboot seems absurd. Unless you accept that everyone else in the world doesn't also have a similar stake in time and space, then they continue to go on after on individual passes on; the way the author made it sound was that as soon as one person died time and space rebooted. That brings me to two, Kant also wholly denied the notion that because we can only know that which appears to our mind, nothing exists except that which is within our mind. It seems to me that if you want to accept the author's assertion then you have to take a viewpoint that posits your own self as the only concsiousness of consequence in the universe. If that seems a reasonable assumption, then sure, time and space reboot when you die. However, I know many people who have died and time and space seemed to have gone on unaltered after their passing. This, to me, fortifies the notion that one person is not the center of the universe and therefore renders the author's assertion false, and also very non-Kantian.

The concept behind it is quite complicated. Basically everything is interconected and everything is happening at the same time, we just experience it like this. Concensus reality is what they call it. Also Quantum Theory suggests the same thing, sub-atomic particles behave very strangely appearing and disappearing from nowhere which is impossible in the world as we understand it.

The book The Holographic Universe goes into it. Theres been alot of study on the subject.

That useless article gives you absolutely no actual information about it though.

Can someone explain to me how things don't exist when they aren't being observed? I saw something about it on TV but I didn't get it. I think it's BS because how does unconcious matter know it's being observed? Light goes into your eyes from the matter, nothing comes out of you. So it can't know if it's being observed or not.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

There were a lot of words in that article, but I can't say my brain successfully parsed them into something that was semantically meaningful.

theone86

I was thinking the same thing, but I really don't find that to be very in lines with what Kant said. Kant, for one, said that objects exist outside of consciousness, we just can't perceive them as they exist outside of our consciousness. Something about the article that didn't really sit right with me was that okay, when one person dies space and time go with them, but this idea of a reboot seems absurd. Unless you accept that everyone else in the world doesn't also have a similar stake in time and space, then they continue to go on after on individual passes on; the way the author made it sound was that as soon as one person died time and space rebooted. That brings me to two, Kant also wholly denied the notion that because we can only know that which appears to our mind, nothing exists except that which is within our mind. It seems to me that if you want to accept the author's assertion then you have to take a viewpoint that posits your own self as the only concsiousness of consequence in the universe. If that seems a reasonable assumption, then sure, time and space reboot when you die. However, I know many people who have died and time and space seemed to have gone on unaltered after their passing. This, to me, fortifies the notion that one person is not the center of the universe and therefore renders the author's assertion false, and also very non-Kantian.

Am I missing something? Because I couldn't find a piece of that article that made any damn sense. :?LZ71

Have any of you ever heard of "Baba Vanga"? Search her up, and I promise you it will open your eyes to how life works. Her story is amazing, and she's probably the most accurate prophet to ever live.

this is a cool way to look at it but there was absolutely no evidence and no, the dragonfly thing is just a story used to explain the concept.

Can I get whatever the author was smoking when he wrote this article?

Because daaaaammmnnn.

We're all going to be trapped in Limbo until Leo Dicaprio can free us all! :cry:

A chimmey that goes squeek squeek but won't rattle for long, how can you not get that? Seriously, that explained everything.

What evidence? NO ONE knows what happens after death.

I hear it's amazing when the Purple-stuffed worm in Flap-jaw space, with the tuning fork, does a raw-blink on Hari-kiri Rock! I need scissors! 61!

i'm trying to read the whole thing backwards,..i'll let you know if it makes sense this way.

Ok......frolicking through the meadows is clear evidence of a spiritual reboot. I can't believe the answer was so simple :o

Called it. Literally.