Death

[CFTraveler]

If this will make anyone feel better, some people believe they have accessed information from the collective unconscious, akashic records, or whatever you want to call the 'collective information' phenomenon, and some have actually received information that is hard to explain otherwise (except maybe by reincarnational theories but not in my case) so if the personality (EGO as brain produced consciousness) doesn't survive biological death, something of the life experience seems to, even though it may not be as we experience it now (no personality- that would be a product of biology+experience).  But it appears to some that the experience itself remains somewhere, perhaps in some sort of nonlocal field (if there is such a thing).

[Stookie]

Another theory to throw around: Anything that dies isn't real.

The Ego is an illusion created by an accumulation of experiences remembered from birth on. We identify ourselves with our experiences and place in earthly life. It's so well constucted it's who we think we really are.

In this way, it's not physical death itself that is feared, but the Ego's fear of it's own destruction.

Once you go through that awful process and experience yourself outside of Ego, you aren't "you" anymore, but something much greater that was wearing an "ego-illusion-cloak". So who cares if the Ego dies? It just means it didn't really exist in the first place. It's the thoughts, feeling, & willing that the ego is the medium of which is real and continues to exist.

[jalef]

The next question would be if ego dies: what are you then? are you maybe part of a greater consciousness? does this greater consciousness also has an ego that is not yours? here we enter an infinite loop: when the greater ego is lost theres still another greater greater consciousness. it is also possible that this has already happened and we are (compared to some beings) a greater consciousness or the greater greater.

Cant we just ask someone who died?

[MisterJingo]

Another theory to throw around: Anything that dies isn't real.

The Ego is an illusion created by an accumulation of experiences remembered from birth on. We identify ourselves with our experiences and place in earthly life. It's so well constucted it's who we think we really are.

In this way, it's not physical death itself that is feared, but the Ego's fear of it's own destruction.

Once you go through that awful process and experience yourself outside of Ego, you aren't "you" anymore, but something much greater that was wearing an "ego-illusion-cloak". So who cares if the Ego dies? It just means it didn't really exist in the first place. It's the thoughts, feeling, & willing that the ego is the medium of which is real and continues to exist.

To quote someone else who describes a view I like:

I read an interesting book by Ken Wilber called 'Up From Eden' where he uses the Jewish creation myth to describe a particular stage of the evolution of human consciousness. As the title of his book suggests, Wilber does not see a "fall" from this perfected Edenic state after eating from the Tree of Knowledge  of Good and Evil but rather the reverse. To him, Adam and Eve in Eden represent mankind in the unconcious pre-personal/pre-egoic state...basically the state of mind of most animals. However, he makes an important distinction and says this state is not the ideal state. Seeing it as an ideal state is a view which he calls "the pre-trans fallacy", that being: confusing an unconscious pre-personal state with the superconscious trans-personal state (ie.enlightenment), a fallacy he attributes to what he calls 'Romanticism' (in  other words, romanticizing some distant time when humans existed in complete harmony with Nature, God, et al. - a time which he thinks didn't exist in our  past, but could exist in the future of our species when the consciousness of our species as a whole evolves further.) He describes it much better than I could. It's a pretty interesting book and one worth checking out if any of this makes sense to you.

If we disregard the religious symbolism, I feel this might hold some truth. That is, we will find enlightenment not through reducing the ego, but from refining it. Without ego, we simply cease to be as individual beings. Beings experienced in the astral, even seemingly very advanced beings, each have a definite personality (Ego).
By refining I mean removing the extremes and 'walking the middle path'.
If we look at sentiency on this planet, as seeming sentiency increases through the animal kingdom, so does a definite sense of self and individual personality. Perhaps ego is the reason for evolution/growth.

[MisterJingo]

The next question would be if ego dies: what are you then? are you maybe part of a greater consciousness? does this greater consciousness also has an ego that is not yours? here we enter an infinite loop: when the greater ego is lost theres still another greater greater consciousness. it is also possible that this has already happened and we are (compared to some beings) a greater consciousness or the greater greater.

Cant we just ask someone who died?

Thats what I've always wondered. True ego death would be oblivion for the individual, akin to their words and deeds being recorded in a book, but the sentiency behind them gone forever.

And thats a good second point regarding dead people. THey each still seem to have an ego, and so do advanced spiritual beings.

[zareste]

Then the other annoying question:  If you - in spirit - were duplicated precisely, which clone's eyes would you see from?  By the rules of the universe, you probably can't make a precise clone, but I'm sure you can come close enough.

Thanks to spirits' thought relaying, you'd probably see with both clones.  That's just how our consciousness tends to work.  I think our minds already consist of several smaller spirits acting as one, so this shouldn't be unusual.

Still, anyone else have a take on the clone thing?

[MisterJingo]

Then the other annoying question:  If you - in spirit - were duplicated precisely, which clone's eyes would you see from?  By the rules of the universe, you probably can't make a precise clone, but I'm sure you can come close enough.

Thanks to spirits' thought relaying, you'd probably see with both clones.  That's just how our consciousness tends to work.  I think our minds already consist of several smaller spirits acting as one, so this shouldn't be unusual.

Still, anyone else have a take on the clone thing?

I think cloning perfectly would be possible, and many people (such as Robert Bruce) think we create coppies of ourself when we project etc.

To save myself retyping something I wrote elsewhere:

Another theory I've reasoned is that consciousness is the same in each of us. That is every human who exists (and potentially every aware life form) shares the same basis of consciousness, individuality arises from different life experiences. So in effect every person on this planet is you but with differing life experiences. What this means is that if death is oblivion, you will exist in the next new born child. Not as 'you' but as a new point of consciousness which is exactly the same as your core. So either way, if there is life after death or not, we will be back

My reasoning behind this (ignoring the life-after death considerations) is either we each share the same basis of consiousness, if we don't, then the other possibility is that there are a billion types of types (I mean unique types, not instances) consiousness out there (And mroe as the population grows). With the similarities between us all, I think we can assume that consiousness is created/maintained the same way.
The only reason we have an awareness of individuality is an experienced produced ego/belief system.
So regarding cloes, it wouldn't matter which clones view you saw from, because you would be a point of consciouness with an intergrated ego.
To extend this slightly, with this reasoning, everyone you see, however different they seem to you is 'you' (or that spark which is the observer/watcher) with different experiences (life/genetic).

[Sepultura123]

I think if people would be cloned , its sure that they will see through they own eyes normally. The other will be just like a copy of yourself but with another brain and not two brain that communicate .

[CFTraveler]

In the physical, identical twins are natural clones.  They have their own point-of-view but have been shown to have more extrasensory communication with each other than 'normal' people.  So there is something to the 'shared wavelenghth' idea but they are not extensions of each other.  Or are they? :confused:

[Sepultura123]

No they are not extension but its more easy for them to communicate and understand each other.

[Super Sonic]

No they are not extension but its more easy for them to communicate and understand each other.

Why?

[iNNERvOYAGER]

That's a rather selfish outlook. What about the grief you'd cause your family and friends?

Yes, good point.

Did you see the "Man Show" skit where they have a contract service that comes in after you die, and cleans up your room before any relatives can see what a mess it is or be embarresed by personal things scattered around? Then a gay interior decorator fixes up and makes everything tidy, then they place religious books on the shelves and tables to make it seem that you were a devout person.

Fear of Death. YES. If you spend your life doing evil deeds then yes, you should fear death.