*Empirical evidence of the continuation of consciousness*

i do have empirical proof. Time moves extremely fast, infinitely fast when you are unconsciousness. Speed of time=1/amount of consciousness-1. Now this is a fact you cannot disprove this equation because its a fact. You agree with me so far, yes?

Now there are some division by zero errors when you are dead. You are counting on the divison by zero errors to give you the nonexistence you crave, yes? But this is blind faith.

The component you are missing, is that no division by zero errors will occur, and I, the Great Trixie, am about to astound you all, because I will empirically prove this. I Trixie, will empirically, logically, scientifically, and mathematically prove, that there is an afterlife, and that consciousness goes on.

There are two camps, the atheist camp and the spiritual camp. The atheist camp says consciousness is a function of physical components, that it is nothing more than an illusion gnerated by physical elements and energies. The religious camp says that we have a spirit soul. they already believe in an afterlife, so I won’t get into that praxis. I will discuss the atheist argument and prove why they are wrong.

If consciousness is simply the sum of physical components, that means it has some physical property or element that generates it’s phenomenon. And what are physical things? They are either photons or atoms. Some say that photons are atoms, but that concept is irrelevant to this discussion. In any case, when someone dies, they don’t lose any photons or atoms, the particles just lose their configuration. Since the consituent atoms are still there, by no means does the equation ever drop to exactly zero, more so 0.0000000001 or 10-20. We can know consciousness is not a binary condition, because it fades away. We have different levels of it depending on our states, it is smooth, not jarry like a block…people can lose consciousness slowly. People needent always lose consciousness slowly, just the possibility that they can proves the next needed component to this theory - that consciousness is not produced by a singular structural element, but produced by a multitude of small resolution elements. Now you might be saying that these elements are neurons, and when all neurons die, consciousness will too. But I can disprove that too, because before you were born, you didn’t have any neurons, yet it didn’t kill off the possibility of your consciousness arising, did it? I can also disprove it, because noone is conscious of a single nueron. So if noone is consciousness of a single neuron, consciousness has already left the building, there’s nothing more to see. Therefore consciousness is not generated by neurons, but is a function of complexity that happens to be generated by the nuerons.

So, if consciousness is a function of complexity, that means that upon death, the level of consciousness will approach zero, but never drop to zero, because another phenomenon will occur. Consciousness and the universe has an inherent property of slowing down time. For example, if we are in a coma, we don’t remember it, but if we are awake and conscious we remember it, we tend to perceive reality more clearly the slower time is. What this means for you, is that if time is too fast, you wont even percieve it except as sleep, and you are only conscious if time is going slow. This is a fact, yes? So you are with me so far. What this means for you, is that when the consciousness value is at 0.00000001, time will travel very fast, almost imperceptible. But what does this mean if time is travelling very fast? It means that more surface area is covered, more data is accumulated. Ie, the physical span at which consciousness traverses, is increased. And when the physical span is increased, there is higher probablity and variance of data encounters. More data encounters, equals more things that exist. As the amount of existents piles up, form will form, because at greater scales, there is more ordered complexity. Existence will pile up, the span of existents will increase, and consciousness will be had, we can never die. I Trixie, have proved this. Unbecoming, and nonexistence, are pesky problems that the laws of physics must be altered to achieve.

no. time is the same weather you are conscious or not. When unconscious if dreaming then your experience and memory seems different but thats perceptual. When completely unconscious you wont be connected to memory much at all. It may be that you are aware the whole time, but you dont remember that when you wake up.

They loose all their photons* ~ if there is a spiritual afterlife. Or they loose all their photons if there is no spirit – the machine simply stops generating consciousness. they also loose all their photons if you are imagining them all ending back together like recurrence or what have you. all particles are mashed into oblivion in every quantum refresh of the universe.

*i agree that nature sees all fundamental particles the same, so an electron is a photon spinning around an atomic neucleus instead of its cycle being across the universe as with light.

What no. people in comas are not aware, and it seems that memory is an intrinsic component to the spirituality of awareness.

There is no conscious thought in a coma. Without conscious thought there is a lack of existents. Lack of existents=faster perception of time.

Time is the relation of movement and change between objects. Primary time is determined by consciousness, however for daily purposes we use calendary time. If the amount of consciousness is very low, the amount of existents is very low. When the amount of existents is very low, the rate of time goes very fast.

If there are no existents, there is no consciousness. When someone is unconscious or coma, they don’t have existents, therefore they are unconscious, and its not just a case of their lack of memory. Memory is a seperate issue, that is discussed in my Jane and Bob parable. Coma is listed in my definitions of ultimate things. When I say coma, i refer to absolute coma, which is lack of existents. Medical coma and dreams sometimes has existents, so it is not absolute coma. your statement refers to the common case of a dream, not absolute coma to which I referred.

We must investigate if the photons in the brain are continually generated, or are the same as a week ago. If they are not the same photons as a week ago, this implies consciousness is not contained within the electricity or photons in our minds.

You are wrong to refer to it as the atheist position since atheism does not automatically deny the possibility that consciousness could be eternal
In fact atheism has nothing at all to say about consciousness. It would be more accurate to refer to it as the scientific position although they are
provisional rather than absolute. I will post your theory elsewhere to see what more learned minds than I think of it and then report back to you

Not having a learned mind, I don’t suppose my opinion caries much weight but, for what it’s worth, I consider the case proved. The evidence has impressed me to such an extent that I now intend to spend the rest of the day reconsidering my plans for the rest of eternity.

Those who have seen it have nothing good to say about it at all
Somebody actually thought that it was a joke post but I hope it
does not affect you Trix so you just carry on posting like you do

So very vague. Care to share what they said about it?

What theories did they have? One should not mock what one cannot achieve…I assume this secret board of yours has theories of their own?

No so you carry on posting and stop worrying about it now please

Let me see you bad talk and criticise my theory, say my theory is a laughing stock and then don’t tell me any reason why nor do you share any other theories or discernable truths. Why are you doing philosophy again?

I have not said anything bad about your theory at all so stop with the false accusations. Now others who read it had
nothing constructive to say about it and this is all I will tell you. And so do not shoot the messenger for the message

This is Sparta.

Talking is talking, you still bad talked it even if you did not make the content yourself.

What is this secret community you speak of? It’s Diebert, isn’t it.

Where have I mentioned a secret community

You haven’t yet told me of it’s name, therefore it is a secret.


forums.philosophyforums.com/comm … p?id=74357

Hmm that place does seem like a rather bright bunch but I can’t tolerate the font and sloppy aesthetics.