Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Consciousness may persist after death, study suggests


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, the13bats said:

perhaps tgey shouldnt post their tales on open discussion forums.

Seeing this site has paranormal areas most people think it's a good place to. How many stay very long? I have because I find it funny when people accuse people of lying and can't prove they are and that's my point. There has to be two sides or it would make for a very a-- kissing, boring forum.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

You moved the goal posts it was 3k years,

I just do not see things moving faster or the same they have slowed i believe physics plays a part, we have to work within that once a new tech is discovered its behind us so the next discovery takes longer to find.

 

101 was talking 10 000. So you think we will not have advanced much in the next 3000 years, come on, you are sounding like a jealous academic.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, openozy said:

They said anatomically at least which I feel is all.

Remember that knowledge can be taught. As long as the brain is anatomically the same, there's no reason it can't perform the same function.

I get the feeling you're more referring to knowledge rather than brain ability maybe?

1 hour ago, openozy said:

That pic looks like a modern police prosecutor, lol.

LOL, it's and interpretation of what a Neanderthal might look like today if they had made it through alongside us. 

But yeah, no argument lol. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, openozy said:

101 was talking 10 000. So you think we will not have advanced much in the next 3000 years, come on, you are sounding like a jealous academic.

Academia isn't the brain though. That's what I'm getting at. 

It's like anything. Nobody has a career until they put in the hard yards to understand a subject. Hard yards could bring a person from a hundred years ago up to speed no problem. They are certainly capable of it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I get the feeling you're more referring to knowledge rather than brain ability maybe?

Sort of, I'm thinking genetic memory if you believe in this. Just with animals, say a kelpie has some type of bred in knowledge and can work sheep as soon as it can run without training. I have an idea kids are being born with technology knowledge where our gen had to learn step by step.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Academia isn't the brain though. That's what I'm getting at. 

It's like anything. Nobody has a career until they put in the hard yards to understand a subject. Hard yards could bring a person from a hundred years ago up to speed no problem. They are certainly capable of it. 

A bit hard to prove but I'll say maybe, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, openozy said:

Seeing this site has paranormal areas most people think it's a good place to. How many stay very long? I have because I find it funny when people accuse people of lying and can't prove they are and that's my point. There has to be two sides or it would make for a very a-- kissing, boring forum.

I find it just if not more funny wait, its not funny its a downer actually that a true believer will run off like spoiled toddler when they share a story if they dont like any of the replies.  you fall into a huge true believer fail its not the skeptics burden to prove a negative that is to prove a person is lying or full of bull or fell for a hoax or mentally ill, etc rather its up to the person making the claim to support said claim with evidence, not the skeptics fault the believers never have any just their beliefs so them they have to deal with the fact i will view their claim as a story nothing more.

For example are you 100% sure that your alleged experence isnt the result of mental illness? If you say yes then hopefully you will you admit you are closed minded.

2 hours ago, openozy said:

101 was talking 10 000. So you think we will not have advanced much in the next 3000 years, come on, you are sounding like a jealous academic.

Calling me a jealous academic is empty and riduculous, i love tech and discoveries which is why i do ask story tellers for supportive evidence.

i never said that things wont advance in the next 3k years i said and stand by they wont advance as fast as they did in the last 3k. Its not the big deal you are making of it or your mistakes about people 100 years ago being idiots.

Edited by the13bats
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, the13bats said:

its not the skeptics burden to prove a negative that is to prove a person is lying

If they accuse people of lying they need to prove it.

 

15 minutes ago, the13bats said:

For example are you 100% sure that your alleged experence isnt the result of mental illness? If you say yes then hopefully you will you admit you are closed minded.

I am 100% sure I don't have mental illness in any form. Just because I think outside the box isn't a sign of illness.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Calling me a jealous academic is empty and riduculous,

I didn't say you were but people thinking they will learn as much today as compared to people in 3000 years time is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, openozy said:

If they accuse people of lying they need to prove it.

 

I am 100% sure I don't have mental illness in any form. Just because I think outside the box isn't a sign of illness.

The fact you say you are 100% sure speaks volumes.

Not sure who "they" are in this case,  ive never called anyone a liar here i have said a few are full of bull, delusinal, fell for a hoax or mentally ill but since true believer do not have to prove their stories i dont have to prove my opinions either.

37 minutes ago, the13bats said:

you fall into a huge true believer fail its not the skeptics burden to prove a negative that is to prove a person is lying or full of bull or fell for a hoax or mentally ill, etc rather its up to the person making the claim to support said claim with evidence, not the skeptics fault the believers never have any just their beliefs so them they have to deal with the fact i will view their claim as a story nothing more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, openozy said:

I didn't say you were but people thinking they will learn as much today as compared to people in 3000 years time is.

Well sure 3k years is a long time to study.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, openozy said:

But that doesn't cut it when more than one person has the experience at the same time without any prior knowledge or suggestion.

I have no idea of the experience you are talking about involving more than one person.  If you care to elaborate I will comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, joc said:

I have no idea of the experience you are talking about involving more than one person.  If you care to elaborate I will comment.

I've had this happen twice and have spoken before on here about it. 

Edited by openozy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, openozy said:

I've had this happen twice and have spoken before on here about it. 

I may have read it, I don't really remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, openozy said:

You could probably instruct an ape to use these. People are evolving, when you see one year olds knowing instinctively how to operate computers to a degree without instruction it just shows how fast. I don't agree the average person 100 years ago had the same brain capabilities with technology even if it was around then.

One year old babies do not know how to operate a smart phone instinctively.  If they can hold on to one...they can make it do stuff...but they have no idea what they are doing...just moving the screen.

Instinct is born of dna memory.  There isn't enough dna science, to my knowledge, to say one way or the other how long it takes to change the memory of dna.  But it is obvious that repetition over a period of time  changes dna and memory of certain things is then generated into the next recipient of that strain of dna.

But toddlers with phones doesn't mean anything except that their parents are stupid.  Yeah...I actually watched an adult woman hand her Iphone to her toddler at the grocery store.  Toddlers are known for putting things in their mouths and for throwing things.  How stupid is this:  For a woman wearing a mask in a grocery store to hand her Iphone to her toddler?  smh

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 9:30 AM, Abramelin said:

That 'new entity' is bacteria, maggots, beetles, and wurms. So Buddha was right.

That is distorted reply on original Buddhist meaning, since those creatures eat flesh through decomposition. Not much difference than human cannibals doing the same, but faster. But what do you think of this information about scientific link on energy and consciousness in my other post, since other three browbeaters post no reply when I post this? Do I get crickets from you also?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oldnatcole said:

That is distorted reply on original Buddhist meaning, since those creatures eat flesh through decomposition. Not much difference than human cannibals doing the same, but faster. But what do you think of this information about scientific link on energy and consciousness in my other post, since other three browbeaters post no reply when I post this? Do I get crickets from you also?

 

Ok, so consciousness is an energy field.

I say: generated by the brain.

Then what?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Ok, so consciousness is an energy field.

I say: generated by the brain.

Then what?

 

And what powers the brain to generate energy field? Chemical energy. Body and brain do nothing by itself without energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, openozy said:

Sort of, I'm thinking genetic memory if you believe in this. Just with animals, say a kelpie has some type of bred in knowledge and can work sheep as soon as it can run without training. I have an idea kids are being born with technology knowledge where our gen had to learn step by step.

Behavioural aspects certainly indicate that the brain does come pre programmed to an extent. We can recognise shapes, people from objects, such things might seem mundane but are quite an achievement for a blank page IMHO. 

But we really only have had this tech for coming up to thirty years. Windows 95 was not quite thirty years ago, and smartphones around the noughties, thirty years is considered "a generation". As such I don't think tech has been around long enough to apply that particular theory. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, openozy said:

A bit hard to prove but I'll say maybe, lol.

There's just no difference in the brain is the thing. And the brain is very adaptive. There's no good reason to think it's not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldnatcole said:

And what powers the brain to generate energy field? Chemical energy. Body and brain do nothing by itself without energy.

Chemical energy from tiny little ion pumps sitting on your nervous system converting chemicals into energy 

When you die those pumps stop. The energy stops being produced and what is left in your body dissipates as heat. Basic thermodynamics.

There is no mysterious loss of energy in the death process. It's all accounted for. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Chemical energy from tiny little ion pumps sitting on your nervous system converting chemicals into energy 

When you die those pumps stop. The energy stops being produced and what is left in your body dissipates as heat. Basic thermodynamics.

There is no mysterious loss of energy in the death process. It's all accounted for. 

you say this to me before, but now you elaborate yourself. Are you cherry picking science and now denying scientific principle energy can not be destroyed? but can be destroyed?

after death, energy once flowing through our bodies does not disappear but is simply rearranged. heat is another form of energy.

after death, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was us remains in this world. It not destroyed. energy can not die, no matter the form.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 4:16 AM, openozy said:

Seeing this site has paranormal areas most people think it's a good place to. How many stay very long? I have because I find it funny when people accuse people of lying and can't prove they are and that's my point. There has to be two sides or it would make for a very a-- kissing, boring forum.

I belong to one, that I visit infrequently that is exactly that, everyone agreeing and there are only 2 emojis allowed, the Thumbs up and the smiley with heart eyes.   So, no one is allowed to actually discuss anything.   It is boring, to the extent that they have threads titled "Toilet Talk", etc.    So toilet talk is ok, disagreeing with someone is not.  No discussion.

This forum, on the other hand has some interesting discussion and yes, some get nasty or rude, but there is a report button and an ignore option.   And anyone who has been around the parnormal for a year or more should understand there will always be nay sayers and you just need to toughen up and accept that.   

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldnatcole said:

you say this to me before, but now you elaborate yourself. Are you cherry picking science and now denying scientific principle energy can not be destroyed? but can be destroyed?

after death, energy once flowing through our bodies does not disappear but is simply rearranged. heat is another form of energy.

after death, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was us remains in this world. It not destroyed. energy can not die, no matter the form.

I have no idea what you are referring to

I didn't say anywhere that energy is destroyed. In fact I said the very opposite.

Energy is produced by ion pumps on your nervous system.

Not created, produced. Taken from food ingested broken down and utilised. 

When you die those pumps stop working. Basically because you are dead. 

The energy left in your body from those pumps, at the point of death, is released as heat. The energy is not destroyed, it leaves the body as heat. That is a process called thermodynamics. Conversion of energy from one form to another.

When the body is at room temperature, there is no more heat transfer because the body temperature is equal to the room temperature. Nothing allows heat to flow anymore. Because there is no difference in potential.

That's what happens to the energy in your body when you die. There is no unaccounted energy. We know where the energy in your body goes when you die. It converts to heat and escapes into the immediate atmosphere and dissipates. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I have no idea what you are referring to

I didn't say anywhere that energy is destroyed. In fact I said the very opposite.

 

then I have no idea why you keep replying to me. what is the argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.