Perhaps you are waxing poetic in the rememberance of your beloved mother.

Perhaps you are considering your own "mortality".

Yes on both counts. I guess I'm no exception to the rule of sons' irresistible impulse to wax poetic about their mothers, particularly if, by luck, they happen to have had a good one. (Our race urgently needs a huge increase of good mothers right now.)

Regarding the second count, I've been considering my mortality for fifty-five years now, so nothing new there -- although I admit the question has become a gradually increasingly prominent one as the irrefutable answer to my surmises on the subject draws inevitably nearer. (When that answer comes, if there's still a VNN and if there's still a me and if it's still important in the grander scheme of things, I'll make a point of trying to let VNN know what that answer was.)

Imagine not being able to die. The only way that would be tolerable is if there was an illusion of impending death. There is a Luis Borges short story, or maybe it is Gabriel Garcia Marquez, about what life would be like were we immortal. Basically people just sprawl around half naked on rocks eating lizards because they lack all incentive to do anything, "Ah, forget about it, I'll do it tomorrow."

Devere, you are another Dickens!

"My mother, ever since I had known her (which was, of course, from my birth) and before I knew her, was a spiritual person.."

Devere, great post as usual. :cheers:

If I could add my .02 cents to the thread.

What makes a person alive, or who he is are the electrical impulses in their brain, i.e. their "soul". As some of us know, electricity or energy doesn't really dissipate, rather it changes form as in heat etc. If a person's brain is dead the body can still funtion as an empty shell, like a car can run stationary without a driver. I believe that who and what we are is that electrical current and although we might die, we also change form and our "soul" does live on. On what level I have no idea only the dead can tell you. I've done some researching into Astroprojection, I have no idea whether or not it's true, but I've got a close friend that swears he did it once which confirms that there are several levels of existance.

What I see happening because of the growth of world populations is that new "souls" are being created. These "souls" which happened to be created under third world conditions that are very rudementary or very young in their evolution, they tend to be ignorant, self serving, and ultimately evil.

This explains why muds tend to act in the typical manner that they do. Bottom line is this, if there is a heaven or reincarnation, or nothing, we'll never know. But one thing is for sure, jews, black, muds will steriotypically act the way they do...

1. Death is life.
2. Death is the anihilation of life.
3. Along with life, an illusion fuelled by the false belief in time and discrimination of reality into forms and appearances.

Even though only the third definition is fundamentally true, given our perception of reality is performed on (at most) three levels of understanding (functional, conceptual and metaphysical), every definition depicts a sincere representation of our perception within the given realm of understanding.

From a functional standpoint, a dog is unaware of his life, therefore he is also unaware of his death. Humans with little or no self-awareness are thus structurally unable to admit the reality of death and therefore imagine it as a continuation of existence (which must be understood strictly an act of inertia, rather than any "realization" of the self's eternity).

From a conceptual standpoint, a human projects the self into a subject of analysis, and translates reality into forms, concepts and properties. By analogy with his fellow beings and the whole natural world, by distancing himself from the inertia of life's motion, he becomes aware of death as a standalone concept, signifying the anihilation of life.

From a metaphysical stanpoint, one that tries by a process of intuition to overcome the limitations of being upon our thought, a human becomes aware of the ultimate reality, that reality itself, TRUE reality, is formless and motionless, while all its appearances and movements are as false as the impression of someone riding a horse that the environment itself runs along with him. Overcoming this last obstacle towards our complete enlightenment, we become aware that life, death, horse, planet, universe are all meaningless, fuelled by our superimposition of time upon the unliving.

Devere, you are another Dickens!

"My mother, ever since I had known her (which was, of course, from my birth) and before I knew her, was a spiritual person.."

Well, that beats "dry" -- hands down. Dickens is probably my favorite novelist. And one of the reasons he is (besides his wonderful characters) -- is his command over the sentence and rightness of words and the density and hierarchy of thoughts his sentences contain. Thank you.

If you haven't read Great Expectations recently. Re-read it. You won't be disappointed. Re-live a time when women were clearly women and men clearly men -- and jews not an apparent powerful factor (we now know they were there all along, behind the scenes creating the hell Aryans had to live within). Aryan authors get to, and are able to, focus on what's really important: (White) human beings in their struggle through life: truth. Jew authors, by contrast, perhaps by dint of genetics and their imperative of tyranny, are required and confined to bending the truth of the human struggle to that which will best fit the jew end goal: anti-white propaganda. Every novel or sentence they write, every movie they make and inflict on us, always comes down to that: anti-white propaganda. The BORING superficial lying homocidal jew. There are no jew authors or artists or film-makers. There are only jew propagandists, only jew sugar-coating poison-pill makers.

Imagine not being able to die. The only way that would be tolerable is if there was an illusion of impending death.

At some point humans will have the option to dramatically extend their life expectancies through reversing the different processes of aging. Whether 40 years from now or 400 years now as long as progress isn't stopped. But even if aging wasn't a worry, you could die accidental deaths.

In video games it is quite scary sometimes when your character is close to death. But some of that is the illusion causing tension you are talking about.. you might have to fight your way back to the same spot taking an hour if you die.

I think consciousness is probably an emergent ability in a massively complex, massively parralel computing device. For example our brains estimate by neural scientists and computer scientists is that it calculates about 1 million times more operations per second then a 2005 intel desktop processor. And of course the two are quite different computing architectures.. for example you can't just run software on the brain.

So when your own massively complex brain dies, in that case so too does your consciousness 'shut down'.

This is logical and a good analogy. But I look at the mind a little differently. The physical brain we were born with is the tool or mechanism we use (are stuck with) in this lifetime. Who is "we"? I've asked this question in another thread. Is "we" the sum total of the stored memory and thoughts and feelings contained by this physical brain? Or is there an aspect of consciousness -- the I that is I and not you -- independent of the physically created mind? I think the latter is the case. And I have reasons to so think -- as I am still in the process of explaining in another thread.

The difference in opinion between these two POV's is the problem that I struggle with. For a long time (most of my life) I would side with BuffScotsman's view that we are "meat machines", with the possiblilty that consciousness would be able to be artificially reproduced in some type of computer (silicon, bio or hybrid).
But as I age (very close to 50), I wonder more about Devere's POV. One looks at the physical structure of the brain, unimpressive at the macro level, unimaginably complex at the micro level and wonders "is that it?". Put enough interconnections between neurons and bingo-self awareness, intelligence and consciousness? Is there something more? In many ways, understanding the how the brain really works would be an accomplishment on par, perhaps greater, than a Theory of Everything (the holy grail of physics). I have always been an empiricist , but now wonder if there are non-physical aspects to consciousness.

I realize that I've gone a bit OT here. But in order to understand the meaning of death, I think we have to define what it is to be a living, conscious being. The discussion is a most worthy topic among Aryans, I'm sure our ancestors had many such discussions around their fires.

The difference in opinion between these two POV's is the problem that I struggle with. For a long time (most of my life) I would side with BuffScotsman's view that we are "meat machines", with the possiblilty that consciousness would be able to be artificially reproduced in some type of computer (silicon, bio or hybrid).
But as I age (very close to 50), I wonder more about Devere's POV. One looks at the physical structure of the brain, unimpressive at the macro level, unimaginably complex at the micro level and wonders "is that it?". Put enough interconnections between neurons and bingo-self awareness, intelligence and consciousness? Is there something more? In many ways, understanding the how the brain really works would be an accomplishment on par, perhaps greater, than a Theory of Everything (the holy grail of physics). I have always been an empiricist , but now wonder if there are non-physical aspects to consciousness.

I realize that I've gone a bit OT here. But in order to understand the meaning of death, I think we have to define what it is to be a living, conscious being. The discussion is a most worthy topic among Aryans, I'm sure our ancestors had many such discussions around their fires.

Yes consciousness is what we consider life and subjective experience... and where we base our morality off of. Causing harm to another conscious entity.. and each individual having rights. I brought it up also because I just saw a great 45 minute debate online that was held at MIT on machine consciousness. Whether we will be able to make a machine conscious or whether it will be a very intelligent zombie.

http://web.mit.edu/webcast/csail/2006/mit-csail-kurzweil-32123-30nov2006-220k.ram

David Gelernter argued that even if we could simulate every detail of the human brain in software it isn't a sure thing that it would have subjective experience. Ray Kurzweil agreed with that in a round about way, but also said a super advanced computer could make us think it was conscious if it wanted but we wouldn't know if it was truly conscious.

Both seemed to argue as empiricists in fairness.