Excerpt from Emanual Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

This is for anyone who would like to know what the reality of a spirit experiences.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

"It has been proved to me by manifold experience..."

Is Swedenborg supposed to be an expert on this? His biographers admit science was not his strong point, and always played second fiddle to his ideology. And if he is saying it has been proved to him by experience, he is saying it is something which science can address (no telling whether he realizes this).

If some other authority figure (other than Swedenborg, that is) claims that after death, there is no longer any sense, let alone senses, how are we to determine which of them is the more reasonable claim? (and what about people who are missing one or more sense while alive?)

Unless and until somebody comes back from death to tell us one way or another, congratulations, "after death man is possessed of every sense" is yet another wholly unfalsifiable claim!

Are holograms three dimensional? How do you know that this energy state that we pass into when we die is not holographic? If a holographic image (identity) can experience three dimensions, why shouldn't it be able to experience all the other aspects of a three-dimensional reality as well? Why should it think that anything other than what it experiences is real? Indeed, this is the very type of reality that we are capable of experiencing in our dreams.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

LOL! Hologarams, Iacchy? Holograms are light and are well understood. If we passed into holograms, then we could see the dead, but that is not the case. There are also no examples (that I am aware of) of spontaneously occurring holograms. I know they look very cool and all, but they have no life, no matter how much you wish and imagine they do.
What in the world makes you think that a picture can experience anything? What characteristics does it share with living things? You might as well imagine that the picture of Barney the Dinosaur that you have on your wall is experiencing life.

Oh, by the way. We've had three-dimensional images for a very long time. They're called "sculpture" and they are even more realistic, in some cases, than holograms. Take a trip to a wax museum sometime.
Well, for starters, holograms have no sensory apparatus for experiencing anything. They have not brains for storing any information. The list is long, but you might as well face it, Iacchy, holograms are not alive. They cannot become alive by any definition of life that makes sense.

Let me guess. Pinnochio is one of your favorite books.
Actually, it is not. You can put a hologram on exhibit for the public to see and almost everyone will see the same thing. You cannot put a dream on display.

I can see, though, why you pursue this avenue of thought. Both holograms and dreams seem lifelike. Sorry to intrude on your fantasy, but they are not alive.

However, if you can show me a hologram that can show sentience, I will be willing to change my belief. I suggest you begin your search at Disney World.

Are you at all familiar with the holodeck on Star Trek, the Next Generation? All I'm suggesting is that spirits dwell in a similar dimension which is akin to this. In fact, what exactly is it that you experience in your dreams, if not something similar to it? If you claim to have had lucid dreams, then you ought to know what I'm talking about.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Excerpt from Emanual Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

Quote:
After Death Man is Possessed of Every Sense ...


This is beautiful writing, Iacchus. I should really pick up a copy of this book although I tend to get more out of reading small portions of someone's writing. It gives me a chance to reflect on it. I seem to do better taking everything in small doses, if you know what I mean. Have you ever been to a Swedenborgian church just to see what the service is like? I talked with George Dole from the Swedenborgian church in Bath on the phone a few months ago to inquire about the service. He sends me his monthly newsletter each month even though I've not yet attended a service.

You do know that was a fictional television series, don't you?


You can suggest all you want to about such things. By your own admission, you are suggesting things which cannot be known.

I ask you one more time, since you express such an interest in dreams...have you looked at the extensive peer-reviewed literature on dreams and dreaming? The work of many researchers who have dedicated their careers and lives to studying this phenomenon you are so fascinated with? Don't you think it would be worth your while to see what they say?

Well, maybe this Swedenborg guy was predisposed towards hallucinary holographic experiences then?

And, while I'm no doubt sure they have something to offer, I prefer some of the classical references myself ...

Ever consider this as a source of reference?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Diggy has already noted that the holodeck is a fictional concept, not associated in any way with reality.

But even if it were reality, consider this. When they turn off the holodeck, those characters cease to exist. The holodeck characters are no more real than the characters in a video game.

Now think of this. When your body is "turned off", you cease to exist. If there were a way to capture all aspects of your self, it could be (theoretically) possible to "bring you back to life", a la Frankenstein's monster, but that is not possible either.

Also consider that the holodeck images still require a physical world. They are generated by a computer. Destroy the computer and the images are destroyed. In order for "souls" to be like holograms, then there must be some physical storage medium in which to house them.

Your analogy fails again.
In the holodeck, all the real people see and experience the same images. I am the only one who can experience my dreams (too bad for you ).

Hey, I love sci fi too, Iacchy. Try to remember what the "fi" stands for.

Yes, but who or what are you in relation to those you dream about? Are you sure you aren't a part of their dreams? How can you tell? If they're interacting with you, and you're interacting with them, then who's dreaming of who?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I think it is more parsimonious to think that he dreamed. Period.I will take that as a "no", then. I consider this an insult to the intelligence of your guests here and an insult to your source. Would you like us to treat it as a true scientific source? Would you like this "source of reference" to be subjected to the same critical scrutiny that every peer-reviewed journal article is? Are you certain the authors of your millenia-old collection of myths wished you to treat their writings as the equivalent of scientific papers?

What is more, there is no law preventing you from reading both your book and what science has to say on the subject. That you refuse to do so speaks to your willingness to challenge your preconceptions. You expose yourself as one who pretends but does not want to learn. How sad.

I just found a copy of Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell online today, and this chapter can now be read in full if you like?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus? Did you delete my post?

Actually I should have noted that I split the thread and started new one called, What are Dreams Made of? I suspect it was part of the split. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

thank you for the clarification.