I hate to restate something, but, yes..everything is relative. Even definitions. I hate when we can't be on the same page because of something as trivial as the definition of conciousness, or morality, or positive vs negative existence (which, by the way, I don't know how you define).
In donut's example, for instance, you never loose consciousness while sleeping, right? So how exactly do you define consciousness. To me, by definition, if you cannot remember something, you weren't concious of that moment...
But this is just a superficial comment alien to the deeper subject of this thread.
I had started to loose faith in an afterlife altogether. It seemed that I could find no logical support to its existence other than wishful thinking that we would keep living on, even after our bodies lives finished. Honestly, I still am not too sure I'm convinced otherwise.
Who knows if the future will prove that all these theories we have..as they are still only theories...about spiritual levels in are dead wrong and purely chemical. Think of the pattern we are following. The more we learn, the more we disprove these myths of "lights at the end of a tunnel when we die"...as it was proven that chemical releases in the brain cause such visions when you've been temporarily dead. Maybe it IS all biology..that's certainly the trend we're seeing.
But, of course, the counter argument is that these new theories are a bit more scientific and a bit less assumptions and wive's tales. Unfortunately, these theories have experiments that both prove and disprove all at the same time.
I guess I'm taking the practical approach, but wishing and hoping for the optimisitic approach.
Sombra..I liked your analogy of the center and spokes..made me think, rather, of a spiral, though: Phi.
Freds
