The afterlife

Lavinia · 26-06-2017 7:15pm

Don't think I will post in this topic anymore.
No point really.

Generally sure we are all human beings, but down to each person we are all kinds of different.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2017 1:00pm

Yea we are all different to a point. But We are also very much more the same than we think too.

There are many examples of this in scientific literature, but to take a more mundane cultural reference I very much enjoyed the Derren Brown setup where he pretended to be able to do a reading of people from nothing more than their name and date of birth.

Some of the reactions (cherry picked from a larger set of potentials I am sure, so should be taken with copious salt) were priceless and of the "Oh he knows me so well!" variety. One girl even saying she did not want anyone else to read her reading because it was so personal and close to the bone.

Of course the big reveal was that all these people, in all the groups, in all the countries, speaking all the different languages were in fact given an identical reading to each other. The reading simply contained a long sequence of generalities that match how most of us are, most of us view ourselves and most of us consider true. We are individuals, but we are all more alike than we think we are..... and many of us feel comfortable with.

Biologically we are even more alike again. In fact I heard it said once as a pretty little analogy. We are so alike biologically that if we were dogs...... we would all be the same breed. I am not sure how pedantically that holds true, but the core message is useful. We simply are not biologically diverse as we think and certainly things like skin color and race does very little to separate us.

The point of all that? Well I hear it said on this subject that the universality of the experiences people have in things like NDE is suggestive of something special. And I think the opposite is true. If those experiences were diverse rather than ubiquitous.... I think that would be more shocking and awesome. Their similarity says nothing to me other than something I already knew..... that the underlying hardware their experience is running on is pretty universal, so the experiences are too.

Man For Justice · 30-04-2018 3:20am

For me I do live.

True beliefs:

- I believe in Law, Sports, Music and Election 2018's.

yourdeadwright · 01-05-2018 11:17am

I have always been alive,before I was alive there was no I and when I die I am no more as I am not alive ,
So I will always be alive,

Pat D. Almighty · 28-07-2018 4:56pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can help you answer that. And the answer is "yes". And how big a "yes" depends on what kind of "dead" you were.

First take this analogy. If I gave you a device that detects the color red and sent you blindfolded into a room. The device reads nothing at all. So you come back out of the room. What would you say to me on your return. Would it be:

1) There is no RED in that room.
2) There is no COLOR in that room.

Option 2 is ridiculous right? MAYBE there is no color. But you can not tell that from the reading of the device.

Now why the analogy?

In a clinical surgery situation we attach devices to you that detect particular types of brain patterns and activity. When THOSE activities stop, the device gives back a "no activity" reading. But like the color detection device above it is NOT saying there is no activity in the brain. It is JUST saying there is no activity of the type it is scanning for. That is all.

So yes it is absolutely possible for there to be brain activity during your "dead" time (even though you are not dead but "clinically dead" which is a different thing entirely). And there are many articles around to this effect too.

But there is a MASSIVE and VERY problematic assumption at play in the people who have had experiences matching, or similar to, your own. Which is that they assume the experience they had did actually occur DURING the time they were "dead". The problem there being that, subjectively speaking, they are the WORST person in the world to judge when the experience actually occurred.

What is just as, if not much more, likely is that the experience they had actually occurred in the moment leading up to the "dead time" or leading out of it. Especially out of it as when someone is going into that phase we start pumping them with all kinds of physical, chemical and electrical stimuli to revive them. All of which sends cascading flooding signals into the brain and throughout the nervous system.

It is similar to dreaming. Quite a lot of the dreams we remember are not during our sleep phases but during the passage in and out of them. And sometimes a dream that lasted mere seconds can feel like it actually lasted minutes or hours.

That is something that sounds very very unlikely to me. You might not think you were CONSCIOUSLY aware of such things....... but our society, culture, media, discourse and even our very language is punctuated heavily with such memes and imagery and culture. It is highly unlikely you could spend any quantity of years living in a modern society without assimilating SOME of that.

Take UFO sightings for example. Since Spielberg gave us little grey aliens with big black eyes..... the majority of alien sightings or abduction stories include such aliens in their anecdotal descriptions. EVEN by people who never saw such a movie in their life. Because even though they did not consciously watch any such movie........ the imagery from such movies permeates memes and media and culture all over the place.

Actually that does not shock me at all. The OPPOSITE would shock me. If people were all having the same real world experience (heart failure and brain problems and other stuff) but were coming out of it with DIFFERENT Experiences...... then that would be fantastical and weird and would need explanation.

But the fact is that for all our individuality, we are all pretty much identical at the level of biology and the brain. So a person having an NDE in america and one having an NDE in Pakistan or India should really be having pretty similar experiences over all. Just like if you put diesel into a petrol car built in the US, and into a petrol car built in Japan, they are both going to die in the same way because........ for all their superficial differences..... they are essentially identical inside.

How they render and parse those experiences however tends to be through their local language, culture and religions. And it is from there that some differences occur.

Kindly let me help you or you'll drown, said the monkey to the fish, helping it up a tree.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-07-2018 7:28pm

That probably meant something to you. It certainly did not to me.

evolving_doors · 28-07-2018 7:33pm

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I have always been alive,before I was alive there was no I and when I die I am no more as I am not alive ,
So I will always be alive,

Always in your mind.
But to others, when you die you'll always be dead

tac foley · 28-07-2018 8:25pm

My old mate B died on a Five Peaks Run down Mt Snowden in Wales. He was successfully resuscitated after about ten minutes, and promptly died again. This time he was gone for about twelve minutes before the paramedics got him restarted. This happened a total of seven times - seven flat-lines, and seven recoveries, the last one being sustained to the present day.

Obviously there were some affects of these combination of 'deaths', and it must be admitted that he is not the man he was before he died - leaving the army on a permanent medical downgrade was the result, and that was just the beginning. Everything, he told me one day, seems very 'flat' and lacking in significance, as though it was all passing in front of his eyes and he was watching it over his shoulder, so to speak, without being fully engaged. He continues to enjoy simple things- he is a skilled vegetable grower and his roses, many of them in our own backyard, are a credit to his early experiments in cross-breeding them.

But he doesn't dream any more, that he remembers, and can now go to sleep instantly, whenever he wants to do so. He can't recall tunes, and has lost his musical appreciation entirely, a terrible thing for a Welshman.

The last thing he recalls about the whole dying event is the ground rushing up to hit him, but he never felt it when it dd so. The next thing he remembers is waking up in the local hospital ER, with great pain in his chest from a few busted ribs from the resus team.

No lights, no tunnel, no music, no loved ones who had gone before, no celestial choir, just, nothing at all, and no time either, between his beginning to hit the ground and opening his eyes. The ground came up - blank - he opened his eyes - two hours had passed.

tac

Fathom · 30-07-2018 3:09am

Coming back from the dead observations are problematic. Could "after life" claims be a variation of the "Bear in the woods?" (William James)

Black Swan · 30-07-2018 7:55am

Both interpreted after physical crises and escape?

Liv2Luv · 18-11-2018 9:09pm

We are all Energy,Frequency and Vibration(thanks tesla),these do not get created or destroyed.

Your body is just like a vehicle.

A big mistake one can make is be afraid of death as there is no such thing.

Think of this 'reality' like a radio(station),there is a wide frequency range with many 'stations'
for some reason,most likely energy and vibration,this 'reality' is the default station,but not the only one.

yourdeadwright · 19-11-2018 12:20pm

Yuo know the previous 4.3 billion year or so before you where born, where you just didn't exist . Well when you die its the same as that you don't exist best to get over it and just deal with it,

Liv2Luv · 20-11-2018 11:40am

Wow

Really nice counter argument you got there.

How do you know 'i didn't exist'?

Your so locked in to this tiny portion of reality,you think its all there is.

Again,there is no such thing as birth or death.

The fact you don't understand,well,proves you don't understand.

Stay locked in,not my loss.

yourdeadwright · 20-11-2018 11:51am

Liv2Luv wrote: »

Wow

Really nice counter argument you got there.

How do you know 'i didn't exist'?

Your so locked in to this tiny portion of reality,you think its all there is.

Again,there is no such thing as birth or death.

The fact you don't understand,well,proves you don't understand.

Stay locked in,not my loss.

Humans are so self centred they make up the thoughts of an after life because they can't cope with the fact that when they are dead it is over,

Deal with it when its done its done.,

Of course there is such thing as birth and death it happens every day around you , lack of modesty to think other wise,

We are like plants or animals when we are gone we are gone end off, Like the sun .like everything we have an expiry date ,

Dr. Bre · 20-11-2018 12:07pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Even better is you were born in a star, and you'll be a star again.

We’re all made of stars

Dr. Bre · 20-11-2018 12:09pm

We only remember living not being dead. Maybe this means we don’t die

Fathom · 20-11-2018 8:49pm

Dr. Bre wrote: »

We only remember living not being dead. Maybe this means we don’t die

False dichotomy?

Black Swan · 23-11-2018 10:06pm

Fathom wrote: »

False dichotomy?

Divine fallacy?

Fathom · 28-11-2018 10:26pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Divine fallacy?

Both?

Lavinia · 02-12-2018 2:11pm

You two

) hello to you (like born agan :d))

Frunchy · 02-12-2018 2:21pm

Strokes and neurodegenerative diseases are proof that there's no afterlife. These patients can have drastically altered personalities when even a relatively small area of the brain is affected. We are biological machines.

No way any sentience can survive the liquefactive necrosis the brain undergoes after death. It literally turns into goo within a few days.

Death is like before you were born. If your brain no longer exists, then you can't experience consciousness.

Fathom · 02-12-2018 6:17pm

Lavinia wrote: »

You two ) hello to you (like born agan :d))

Yo Lavinia. Miss your posts.

Frunchy wrote: »

Strokes and neurodegenerative diseases are proof that there's no afterlife.

Science doesn't prove. Only suggests. Theology is different approach.

Frunchy wrote: »

Death is like before you were born. If your brain no longer exists, then you can't experience consciousness.

Birth, life, death: stages transformed. Different. Before conception? After death? Who knows? Genetics may march on. Information before and after life.

Frunchy · 02-12-2018 6:28pm

Fathom wrote: »

Yo Lavinia. Miss your posts.

Science doesn't prove. Only suggests. Theology is different approach.

Birth, life, death: stages transformed. Different. Before conception? After death? Who knows? Genetics may march on. Information before and after life.

Theology is for people who can't accept their own mortality. We're simply animals with relatively large brains and opposable thumbs. Nothing inherently special about humans that would allow us to transcend death. We live and die like every other organism.

So you expect someone with massive brain injuries will suddenly regain all their cognitive functions after death?

Fathom · 16-12-2018 6:12pm

Frunchy wrote: »

So you expect someone with massive brain injuries will suddenly regain all their cognitive functions after death?

Not my point. Redefines "afterlife:" Population genetics. You live by what you pass on to future generations (if you do). Passed on from population to population. Evolving over millions of years. Of course, the one thing you can predict about any species is that it will someday be extinct. So finite, too. Philosophy of science.

Black Swan · 10-01-2019 2:09am

Are there multiple definitions of "afterlife," and if so, are there some that are considerably different from each other?

Fathom · 13-01-2019 6:34am

Black Swan wrote: »

Are there multiple definitions of "afterlife," and if so, are there some that are considerably different from each other?

A clear definition of "afterlife" in this thread? Or is it being treated as a given?

Black Swan · 15-01-2019 4:51am

Fathom wrote: »

A clear definition of "afterlife" in this thread? Or is it being treated as a given?

It could use one for discussion purposes.

Peregrinus · 15-01-2019 8:52am

Black Swan wrote: »

It could use one for discussion purposes.

The problem is that the dominant philosophical/theological traditions (at least, that are reasonably familiar to us) which affirm an afterlife all tend to assert that it is unknowable and indescribable (in this life, anyway).

Dr. Bre · 15-01-2019 9:51am

We’ve no idea why we are here in the first place let alone what happens after

Fathom · 16-01-2019 10:33pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is that the dominant philosophical/theological traditions (at least, that are reasonably familiar to us) which affirm an afterlife all tend to assert that it is unknowable and indescribable (in this life, anyway).

If "unknowable and indescribable," then how to discuss it?

Peregrinus · 17-01-2019 1:57am

Fathom wrote: »

If "unknowable and indescribable," then how to discuss it?

The fundamntal problem of metaphysics, innit?

And yet we cope, somehow. None of us knows what it is to die, and none of us can describe dying. (We can describe what it is to watch other people die, but that's not the same thing.) But this doesn't stop us reflecting on, or talking about, death.

And the same could be said for all kinds of abstractions and concepts, from the square root of minus one to the platonic solids to notions like "dignity" to the subjective experience of colours. They can't be observed, measured, quantified, described in the way that external natural objects can. But this doesn't meant that there can be no valid discourse about them.

Fathom · 17-01-2019 10:05pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fundamntal problem of metaphysics, innit?

Epistemology: How do we know what we know? Lacking etic (objective) data of afterlife. Leaving emic (subjective, through eyes of participant); anticipatory, before it happens? Problematic.

Peregrinus · 18-01-2019 1:53am

Fathom wrote: »

Epistemology: How do we know what we know? Lacking etic (objective) data of afterlife. Leaving emic (subjective, through eyes of participant); anticipatory, before it happens? Problematic.

Well, yeah. Everything we say about an afterlife is necessarily speculative. Including, it seems to me, any assertion that there is no afterlife.

Of course, we can reasonably and correctly say that these is no empirical evidence of an afterlife. But, then, there wouldn't be, would there? So we can't draw any conclusions from that. It's fallacious to apply the epistemology of natural science to supernatural postulates (or indeed any postulate that are not postulates of natural science).

So, if all we can do about an afterlife is speculate about it, is there any point or value in speculating about it? But we must all be agreed that there is some point or value because, hey, here we are, speculating about it.

Dr. Bre · 18-01-2019 9:44am

Nobody talks about the before life

Black Swan · 18-01-2019 1:44pm

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Nobody talks about the before life

Intuitively Plato (in Socratic Meno) suggests that knowledge exists before conception, if conception is our definition for life. This pre-life knowledge aids humans to advance after birth. This knowledge suggested by Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, is unclear as to its conceptual definition or how it might be measured (e.g., variable operationalisation, etc.). He does offer that this knowledge can be facilitated by the Socratic method of questioning and teaching.

Fathom · 20-01-2019 6:42pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Intuitively Plato (in Socratic Meno) suggests that knowledge exists before conception, if conception is our definition for life. This pre-life knowledge aids humans to advance after birth. This knowledge suggested by Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, is unclear as to its conceptual definition or how it might be measured (e.g., variable operationalisation, etc.). He does offer that this knowledge can be facilitated by the Socratic method of questioning and teaching.

Reiterates genetic knowledge. Heredity. Occurs pre-birth.

Black Swan · 22-01-2019 7:53pm

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Nobody talks about the before life

What about the philosophy of reincarnation, or karma in Hinduism and Buddhism?

Fathom · 28-02-2019 9:22pm

Can the Thomas theorem (1928) be applied to the afterlife? “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Real for them, even if there is no empirical evidence to support their conception of reality. Typically falls under faith, not science.

Peregrinus · 01-03-2019 2:25am

Fathom wrote: »

Can the Thomas theorem (1928) be applied to the afterlife? “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Real for them, even if there is no empirical evidence to support their conception of reality. Typically falls under faith, not science.

Mmm. Gotta point out that there's no empirical evidence to support the scientific conception of reality either. In the scientific method, the reality of the universe is an axiomatic assumption. It can't itself be proven, but it's assumed to be true and then relied upon to prove other things.

Black Swan · 01-03-2019 7:10pm

Fathom wrote: »

Can the Thomas theorem (1928) be applied to the afterlife? “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Real for them, even if there is no empirical evidence to support their conception of reality.

Follows the Social Construction of Reality (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966).

Fathom · 01-03-2019 11:12pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Follows the Social Construction of Reality (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966).

The afterlife is a social construction?

NIMAN · 01-03-2019 11:22pm

When you're done, you're done.

It's my opinion of course, but as far as my brain and knowledge will allow, I can't see anything existing beyond this life.

My borrowed atoms will return to wherever, and I'll only be a memory for my offspring. And someday they will be gone and no-one will remember me actually existing.

Black Swan · 05-03-2019 4:58am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is that the dominant philosophical/theological traditions (at least, that are reasonably familiar to us) which affirm an afterlife all tend to assert that it is unknowable and indescribable (in this life, anyway).

Was walking through our university marketplace and was approached by two university students asking if I might take a minute to answer a couple questions. I said sure, and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system. The afterlife came up as one of a few points made by them (e.g., the end objective), and I suggested that there was no scientific evidence to support their claim that such a thing existed. They contended that there was plenty of evidence, although not scientific. They agreed that theirs was an article of faith, and mine was not. They too asserted "that it is unknowable and indescribable" and being one of the mysteries.

Fathom · 08-03-2019 4:30am

Black Swan wrote: »

and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system.

Dressed in white button down shirts? Black ties? Black pants? I got stopped. They used Pascal's Wager in Pensées to encourage me to wager in favor of the afterlife.

Black Swan · 08-03-2019 11:38am

Fathom wrote: »

Dressed in white button down shirts? Black ties? Black pants?

No, those that approached me were dressed casually and looked like typical university students.

Fathom wrote: »

They used Pascal's Wager in Pensées to encourage me to wager in favor of the afterlife.

Yes, I've heard that one before, which was the more common usage (e.g., Pascal actually had three different wagers in Pensées).

We got bogged down during most of our discussion with Correspondence Theory as a definition of truth; i.e., things are either true or false; whereupon, truth was the conformity with its object per Descartes. One student then slapped the chair he was sitting on asking "Does this chair exist, true or false?"

I countered with the Derridean notion that many things cannot be reduced to the nominal either/or categorisation; and if they were, they may be exhibiting the limitations of a dichotomy, thereby lacking a multiplicity of variables that may be necessary to establish sufficiency (suggesting truth in our natural world). Also added a Derridean caution regarding dichotomies in that they may not be equal either/or choices, rather that they may be subject to a hierarchy, where one (true) is preferred over the other (false), which may subtly influence true-false decision making in unknown ways, and may or may not result in misinformation or spuriousness.

I also noted that attempting to generalise from a single case, which may suffer from being an elaboration of the obvious (chair: true or false?), to something larger and more complex (e.g., is there an afterlife, true or false?), may suffer from an ecological fallacy by leaping from one unit of analysis (individual chair) to a much higher unit of analysis (afterlife, etc.).

Fathom · 09-03-2019 12:33am

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, I've heard that one before, which was the more common usage (e.g., Pascal actually had three different wagers in Pensées).

Superdominance, Expectation, and Generalized Expectations.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 5:07pm

Fathom wrote: »

Superdominance, Expectation, and Generalized Expectations.

Indeed.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 5:10pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Was walking through our university marketplace and was approached by two university students asking if I might take a minute to answer a couple questions. I said sure, and they then launched into an attempt to convert me to their religious belief system. The afterlife came up as one of a few points made by them (e.g., the end objective), and I suggested that there was no scientific evidence to support their claim that such a thing existed. They contended that there was plenty of evidence, although not scientific. They agreed that theirs was an article of faith, and mine was not. They too asserted "that it is unknowable and indescribable" and being one of the mysteries.

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it.

Would the person know there's an afterlife?

It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing.

Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly.

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Fathom · 09-03-2019 7:12pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it. Would the person know there's an afterlife? And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based. *where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion. Do others? Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

Tacklebox · 09-03-2019 7:22pm

Fathom wrote: »

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion. Do others?

Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

There's a lot of interpretation of God's, which one do you refer to?

The Abrahamic one is probably the most popular.

But then there's people who are pagans who don't really belive in a conscious afterlife, but rather going back into the whole recycling process again.

But they worship and appreciate the elements which bind them together.

It's not really a god thing, but more like a purification of acceptance.

The afterlife

Comments