Okay, so I just read the first few pages of this, I think book would be the word, and I just.. I don't know but it all makes sense, it changes my entire perspective on everything. I don't know if this is the proper board for this, but I think it needs recognition(prepare to have your mind blown, which you learn would actually be a good thing if you read it )
http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/...iversal-truth/

What do you want us to talk about? It's a bit broad?

Just talk about your opinion on it. The main point is that it is saying all facts, and those facts are explaining life as we know it. Did you read?

No. I'm not going to read 50 pages of that. I get that it's some proclamation about truths and stuff, but where do you want this discussion to go?

Didn't read all of it, read the first couple pages. The author makes some great points about understanding and perspective.
I'll go into more depth once I finish reading it but so far, I find that he makes an amazing point about conciousness that I've never thought of.
How do we know we have died, if we can't percieve that we are dead. True unconciousness is not being aware of anything; which is impossible for us because we are constantly aware of something; thus it is impossible to be concious of unconciousness because we are then concious. Something that most people don't think about because it doesn't seem evident what precisely death and uncounciousness is and what it entails.
Brilliant stuff so far, love it :^)

What dscigs said sums a portion of it up. So much opportunity for discussion here. Let's start with this.. You cannot be aware of not being aware, so basically it's impossible for there to be complete and utter unconsciousness, so basically it isn't possible for there to be any "black" as people think might happen, but at the same time it's impossible for there to be nothing after you die because obviously something has to happen. The book says that life is a continuous never-ending existence from your own point of view, the moment you die you are reborn into a new physical body.

"You are immortal; it is impossible to not be, because it is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious. Just that one sentence proves it. It is like these sentences: It is impossible for it to be light and dark at the same time, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. They are simple, but certain facts. The sentence "It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious" is a simple and certain fact"

It's a stupid premise, and it's because the proof he uses to support that premise is flawed.

His argument for immortality being based on the inability to perceive your unconsciousness could be philosophically sound if the thought experiment he is supposing for his argument was actually feasible. The basis for how the inability to perceive unconsciousness would prove immortality relies on the assumption he makes that you never lose your consciousness. His argument for why you never lose your consciousness was literally: if energy cannot be lost, only converted into a different form, then your consciousness cannot be lost, only converted into a different form. Which is utter horseshit. He skips a major supporting point to make that last claim viable, and that's proving that consciousness follows the same properties of energy.

What he is saying is that it's not possible to be aware of not being aware. Thus saying it's not possible to be completely unconscious(dead), because currently we are aware of what is going on(conscious). So how is it possible to transition from being aware, to being unaware? Consciousness is a physical feeling, so if you're losing it(death) then you would have to somehow know that you don't have it. This is impossible because knowing something is happening is a physical sensation, and physical sensations are impossible if you're dead. So this is basically saying that there is no period of not living, you are immediately reborn at death in a new physical body. Your spirit is the same, but you are born with a new mind and body. Since your mind and body are what connect you to the physical world, if I was, say George Washington, I would not have any recollection of what George Washington's mind and body did because your mind and body end in death. I could tell you everything but it would take way too long to write here.

I believe I've already stated that I have no problem with the premise that it's impossible to be aware that you are unaware. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with his reasoning there. It's the fact that, by itself, that observation proves nothing.

Again, the only way that observation will mean anything is a situation where that observation could be violated. Assume conventional beliefs about consciousness: when you are dead you lose your consciousness. By doing so, it is not possible to be conscious of your dead state, as your conscious is no longer in existence. The observation is not violated. Reality makes sense.

However, he makes the argument that consciousness is not lost upon death, and that it's impossible to die (a.k.a. be unconscious) and maintain consciousness, therefore you must be reborn in a new body and mind but consciousness must be maintained. OK, fair enough, but first you must prove that consciousness is not lost upon death. And that's where all logic is thrown out the window and leaps of faith occur. Read my previous post on how his logic used to compare energy and consciousness is flawed at this point.

Death as most people perceive it really can't be a possible scenario. It doesn't take any leaps of faith to realize that it's impossible to be conscious if you're "dead" but it's also impossible to be unconscious because you cannot be aware of not being aware(as you have stated you agreed with). Therefore the only plausible explanation is that you never really "die" your physical body is gone, and you are reborn with no pauses in between. Now the method in which this occurs is either not known or I haven't read that far yet. Either way you can't deny its true.