Question about the afterlife

[SiriusTraveler]

When you say our identity is erased and then we don't know who we were, you still speak as though there is a continuation of consciousness that can reflect on things. Why is it that you more readily believe in the continuation of individual consciousness beyond death and reject the notion that there won't be a consciousness and thus the "I" is annihilated completely?

Note that you also use the words "believe" and "perhaps" in the same sentence. How can you believe in something you are not sure of?

You also say that, once we have passed, a time will come when we will be able to process past experience and will also be able to make choices on what will happen next...on what grounds do you base your postulation? Is this something that you would like it to be? Something which is more acceptable and therefore comfortable perhaps?

To answer your first question, I believe that because I base my beliefs on what I have seen, experienced, heard and read. And perhaps faith just is enough to believe something? Now I don't belong to any religion but i still have faith, or a feeling that I go with combined with the above (experiences etc.). I honestly believe that the "I" will not be annihilated completely.

Second question, same answer as above regarding the faith thing, and also I have a hard time explaining myself sometimes because english is not my native language and so the sentances might not reflect my thoughts perfectly. To further explain what I meant is that instead of "believe" and "perhaps", I believe its possible. Perhaps that's a better explanation?

Well both yes and no on the third questions. I would certainly like it to be so but i base this on the same as above, what Iv read, seen, heard and experienced etc. etc. For example Robert Bruce's literature to name one.
Thats my conclusion right now and discussions like this will perhaps change my mind but thats where I stand right now. You have an interesting theory though.

[Summerlander]

Fair enough. Don't let me stop you. I just want to add that other books are merely someone else's interpretation. One type of experience can be interpreted in so many ways. But I don't blame you for basing your beliefs on what you see, hear and experience in general. After all, John Nash believed that his hallucinations were real for a while.

[Sinera]

Fair enough. Don't let me stop you. I just want to add that other books are merely someone else's interpretation. One type of experience can be interpreted in so many ways. But I don't blame you for basing your beliefs on what you see, hear and experience in general. After all, John Nash believed that his hallucinations were real for a while.

And so now he doesn't and he is right, you think? Who tells you he is now? Whoever he is, he might also be basing assumptions on assumptions, beliefs on beliefs, like all skeptics and R@ndi-followers do.
So you think that you (or any of us) knows what the basis of a "hallucination" or thoughtform in general is. You just take it as a pre-defined notion. That's the mistake. The truth is: we don't. And who tells us that this Mr Nash isn't wrong about his conclusions about "hallucination" (I assume it means = "not real") and everything he experienced has indeed an underlying reality. I think it has. Every thought is "real". Maybe we should even ask us, if hallucination", as some circles (e.g. scientific / psychology mainstream) (pre-)define it, exists at all?
Those "Debunking" rhethoric strategies (and that is what it's all about: it's just a rhethorical exercise) you use here base their "arguments" on definitions that are not clear at all, but everyone forgets about it. So what is a "thought", what is "real", what is consciousness and self-awareness? And what is "delusion / illusion / hallucination"? Or what is the basis and underlying physics / reality structure of the experience? You don't know. We don't know. Not from our perspective here.
So we draw conclusion by our experiences, because that is what remains to do for us as science CANNOT give us an answer, neither can religious dogma. These are personal experiences of ourselves and others (including book authors), then we compare then, then we can indeed "find out" about a possible afterlife if we find consistency - and we do. You should maybe read some more literature about NDEs, reincarnational data (be it by regression or memories of children), APers' findings (e.g. Monroe, Leland, Buhlman, etc.), scientific (!) parapsychological laboratory research, medium (lab!) research etc., and 'believe' less blindly in the unlogical belief-defending explain-way-strategies of the professional scoffers.
Also, as most is indeed on a personal/individual level, it is true that so far we cannot prove a lot scientifically / objectively as objectivity does not work for consciousness - that much is certain. IT is always subjective. We cannot research it this way unless we change epistemological scientific methods, but it looks as if that will not take place in the scientific community so fast.