The Afterlife

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I was on the bus to college a while ago, when some Mormons over here in Wales on their uh, 2 year trip deal, start talking to me. I actually quite enjoyed getting into the conversation and towards the end, we get into the discussion of the afterlife.

One of them posits that with all of those religions out there, it must be that one is right and one of those religions points you to the right afterlife. I answer back that it may be entirely possible that your afterlife depends on what you believe and that perhaps taking into account paralel dimensions and such, infinite variations of an afterlife may actually exist.

Apparently he found this quite "deep" as an idea, but to me it didn't seem as such.

What do you think, Escapists? Do you believe in the idea of one "solid" afterlife, many or none?

Booze Zombie:
I answer back that it may be entirely possible that your afterlife depends on what you believe and that perhaps taking into account paralel dimensions and such, infinite variations of an afterlife may actually exist.

Apparently he found this quite "deep" as an idea, but to me it didn't seem as such.


Especially 2:36+

Booze Zombie:
What do you think, Escapists? Do you believe in the idea of one "solid" afterlife, many or none?

I have no idea what happens when I die. Maybe I'll respawn, maybe I'll go in spectatormode, maybe I will 'wake up' from a simulation.

Danyal:
Quotey stuff

Thanks for that link, it was very entertaining.

And indeed, it would be hard to tell. Respawning would be quite interesting.

Certainty forever moves forward, undaunted.
Uncertainty hounds it, resists it, mocks it, attempts to trap it, exploit it, abuse it.
But we hold on to what we love. Let the rest rot.

Not every religion can be right about the afterlife, but every religion can be wrong. I don't believe in an afterlife as that seems more horrifying than not existing. Think about it, you exist FORVER. You'll go mad.

Now I'm sure you're thinking "But Yassen, maybe when you die your mind doesn't feel boredom or any negative emotions anymore?" In that case it's even worse. Know why? Because that means you're no longer yourself. You are not the same being you were while you were alive, meaning you as you are NOW is dead anyway.

You either stay as you are now and go mad by existing forever, or you become something different meaning you're no longer yourself and essentially dead anyway.

There's no real indication of an afterlife existing, so speculating on which form that takes has always struck me as a bit pointless. It's like arguing about the colour of the hats on fictional gnomes.

My attitude towards the afterlife is "pics or it didn't happen".

It's a very appealing idea but just because something is desirable doesn't make it true.

Wait and see. There's no evidence that it exists, but as it's beyond science there wouldn't be if it did exist.

I would say that it seems to me that most religions are likely to be totally wrong, but exactly which ones, and how, I can't say.

The most logical explanation for Heaven and Hell is that we made them up at some point. So death is likely just the ending of life and nothing more.

I'm not looking forward to it either.

If there was life after death, what would be the point of having life before death?

We all know afterlife exists.
We've all been to it before... atleast the ones who've gotten to the last mission on skyrim...
Sovngarde awaits meh!

thaluikhain:
Wait and see. There's no evidence that it exists, but as it's beyond science there wouldn't be if it did exist.

There are probably things that exist and have no evidence for them yet, but why is 'the afterlife' 'beyond science' and what does that even mean?

Danyal:
There are probably things that exist and have no evidence for them yet, but why is 'the afterlife' 'beyond science' and what does that even mean?

Ok, technically not beyond science, but the only scientists to be able to do any real research on the afterlife sorta have to be there, which isn't very useful to us.

thaluikhain:
Ok, technically not beyond science, but the only scientists to be able to do any real research on the afterlife sorta have to be there, which isn't very useful to us.

I'm studying history. It's kind of my job to make statements about a world that doesn't exist anymore and that I have never visited. Yet we're quite sure we're right.

We can research the afterlife...

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/

And imagine the Bible or the Quran was real. We could test things, claims, and it could show that the Bible was written by a higher and more powerful authority, that all testable things are correct and that thus the untestable things are probably correct too.

Sadly, there is no evidence that any of the Bible's extraordinary claims are true.

I always found this sort of discussion to be very interesting, but also irrelevant. If there is an afterlife then great, I could spend the rest of my life discussing what form it might take, but I have more important things to do. Again, if there is simply nothing when you die then it wont bother me, since I wont exist anymore.
Personally I don't think there is anything when we die, you are simply gone, your consciousness ceases to be and the elements that made up your body become something new. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right on the money, its pretty pointless to argue about it.

Danyal:
I'm studying history. It's kind of my job to make statements about a world that doesn't exist anymore and that I have never visited. Yet we're quite sure we're right.

Firstly, no we aren't. People argue over interpretations of history all the time. But that's a quibble.

Secondly, bits of it still exist everywhere we look.

There is a massive difference between something that has changed into something else, leaving only bits behind, and something we can't interact with in any way at all without being dead.

Danyal:
And imagine the Bible or the Quran was real. We could test things, claims, and it could show that the Bible was written by a higher and more powerful authority, that all testable things are correct and that thus the untestable things are probably correct too.

Sadly, there is no evidence that any of the Bible's extraordinary claims are true.

Um, so what? That proves nothing.

thaluikhain:
Firstly, no we aren't. People argue over interpretations of history all the time. But that's a quibble.

Secondly, bits of it still exist everywhere we look.

I've never been to Japan but I believe Japan and Japanese history exist.

There is a massive difference between something that has changed into something else, leaving only bits behind, and something we can't interact with in any way at all without being dead.

thaluikhain:

Danyal:
And imagine the Bible or the Quran was real. We could test things, claims, and it could show that the Bible was written by a higher and more powerful authority, that all testable things are correct and that thus the untestable things are probably correct too.

Sadly, there is no evidence that any of the Bible's extraordinary claims are true.

Um, so what? That proves nothing.

If we found evidence that Jesus existed and actually multiplied food and fish and turned water into wine and walked across water and restored sight to the blind and resurrected dead people, and scientific experiments proved that prayer works, well, that would be pretty amazing evidence that the Bible was right and that it is also right about subjects that we can't test.

That's how we treat all sources.

Danyal:
I've never been to Japan but I believe Japan and Japanese history exist.

Yeah, and? Japan and Japanese history affects the world on which you happen to live, whether you have been there or not.

As far as we know, travel between here and any afterlife is a one way trip.

Danyal:
If we found evidence that Jesus existed and actually multiplied food and fish and turned water into wine and walked across water and restored sight to the blind and resurrected dead people, and scientific experiments proved that prayer works, well, that would be pretty amazing evidence that the Bible was right and that it is also right about subjects that we can't test.

That's how we treat all sources.

Firstly, it doesn't work like that It'd strongly imply that the Bible was correct about other things, but wouldn't prove it.

Secondly, did you have a point somewhere?

thaluikhain:
As far as we know, travel between here and any afterlife is a one way trip.

According to Christianity, the most important source of 'afterlife-ideas' in the West, it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

thaluikhain:
Secondly, did you have a point somewhere?

"We should discard the idea that religion is a better way to research metaphysical concepts than rational thought"

Danyal:

thaluikhain:
As far as we know, travel between here and any afterlife is a one way trip.

According to Christianity, the most important source of 'afterlife-ideas' in the West, it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

So? There is no actual proof for those people coming back from the realm of the dead, nor anyone else.

Yassen:
Not every religion can be right about the afterlife, but every religion can be wrong. I don't believe in an afterlife as that seems more horrifying than not existing. Think about it, you exist FORVER. You'll go mad.

Now I'm sure you're thinking "But Yassen, maybe when you die your mind doesn't feel boredom or any negative emotions anymore?" In that case it's even worse. Know why? Because that means you're no longer yourself. You are not the same being you were while you were alive, meaning you as you are NOW is dead anyway.

You either stay as you are now and go mad by existing forever, or you become something different meaning you're no longer yourself and essentially dead anyway.

Then I've already dies many times. Cos I'm definitely not the same person I was at 5,10 or 15. The real issue would be continuity of experience, and distinctness. So long as there is a distinct, unique being with all my memories (and only my memories)and thoughts I have no problem with it thinking its me.

thaluikhain:

Danyal:

thaluikhain:
As far as we know, travel between here and any afterlife is a one way trip.

According to Christianity, the most important source of 'afterlife-ideas' in the West, it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

So? There is no actual proof for those people coming back from the realm of the dead, nor anyone else.

He is being smug, read his posts for gods sake.
You do these knee-jerk posts all over the forum.

Booze Zombie:
I was on the bus to college a while ago, when some Mormons over here in Wales on their uh, 2 year trip deal, start talking to me. I actually quite enjoyed getting into the conversation and towards the end, we get into the discussion of the afterlife.

One of them posits that with all of those religions out there, it must be that one is right and one of those religions points you to the right afterlife. I answer back that it may be entirely possible that your afterlife depends on what you believe and that perhaps taking into account paralel dimensions and such, infinite variations of an afterlife may actually exist.

Apparently he found this quite "deep" as an idea, but to me it didn't seem as such.

What do you think, Escapists? Do you believe in the idea of one "solid" afterlife, many or none?

If there's an afterlife, there's only one of them, though of course each person's perception of it could certainly be different; (my belief is that such an afterlife would be something we can't really currently comprehend). Each religion is man-made, and therefore fiction, so none of them are "right". It's like arguing about whether you drove, walked, or biked to school. Who gives a shit? You got there, didn't you?

I had an idea for a comedy where heaven is real, and everyone's personal interpretations of it is the one they get, so Vikings get Valhalla, Christians get New Jerusalem etc, but there are no Hindus because they all get reincarnated.

The tension in the movie is created by heaven being too full, and needing people on earth to stop believing in a heaven so they can make more space. This overcrowding causes many disputes and things go haywire because the Vikings and Islamists are always fighting.

Silly, I know, but hey.

And people that experienced hallucinations in G-force tests sometimes had visions of a bright place that reminded them of their childhood.

Oh and Mormon heaven is weird, there are something like 4 levels and you can only get to the 4th if you are married or something.

Booze Zombie:
I was on the bus to college a while ago, when some Mormons over here in Wales on their uh, 2 year trip deal, start talking to me. I actually quite enjoyed getting into the conversation and towards the end, we get into the discussion of the afterlife.

One of them posits that with all of those religions out there, it must be that one is right and one of those religions points you to the right afterlife. I answer back that it may be entirely possible that your afterlife depends on what you believe and that perhaps taking into account paralel dimensions and such, infinite variations of an afterlife may actually exist.

Apparently he found this quite "deep" as an idea, but to me it didn't seem as such.

What do you think, Escapists? Do you believe in the idea of one "solid" afterlife, many or none?

I wish that there was but there isn't, or at least there isn't any reason to think so, so eh.

A total cessation of being, not even a void but an absolute nullifcation of all you are is a pretty scary thing to imagine and I can understand why people wouldn't want to consider it. It gets me a little in my more morbid moments.

i guess you won't know to dead but then you can't come back and tells us so what the piont of this discussion remind me

I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Simple as that.

Belief in the continuance of experience after the physical breakup of the body is not a crazy idea, nor one that can be dismissed out of hand. Hundreds of reputable scientists (Schrodinger, Werner, Heisenberg, Stapp) and philosophers (Godel, Russell, William James, Singer) support the idea. The naturalist white-wash that has occurred recently, where materialists have attempted to portray and belief in rebirth or continuation as unacceptable and bizarre is an absolutely dishonest, intellectually bankrupt campaign.

With that said, I am a Buddhist and a firm believer in rebirth. I believe that a presupposition of continuation of consciousness is the best explanation for the nature of the mind.

Blablahb:
There's no real indication of an afterlife existing, so speculating on which form that takes has always struck me as a bit pointless. It's like arguing about the colour of the hats on fictional gnomes.

Is that true? Is there really no indication? What research have you done to support such claims?

There's also no indication in my life that atoms exist or that Australia exists. Doesn't mean that, with real inquiry and examination, such indication couldn't be found.

Elcarsh:
Unfortunately, it's not that simple for some people. It always boggles my mind how angry some people can get at such a supremely reasonable and logical stance.

It's a great position. Too bad most of those who claim it as theirs actually mean, "I don't believe anything that a minority of narrow-minded, religiously devoted modern sciencists doesn't give the clear."

itsthesheppy:
I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple for some people. It always boggles my mind how angry some people can get at such a supremely reasonable and logical stance.

peruvianskys:
Belief in the continuance of experience after the physical breakup of the body is not a crazy idea, nor one that can be dismissed out of hand. Hundreds of reputable scientists (Schrodinger, Werner, Heisenberg, Stapp) and philosophers (Godel, Russell, William James, Singer) support the idea.

Ah, the good old "Appeal to authority" fallacy. Haven't seen that one since...oh, last night. See, here's how the world works; who believes something doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit how many supposedly smart people believe something, whether or not it is true does not in any way hinge on that. Heck, lots of smart people throughout history have believed absolute bullshit. Alchemy, seances, the list is endless, but it's bullshit anyway.

You know what matters? Proof. Do you have some?

peruvianskys:
The naturalist white-wash that has occurred recently, where materialists have attempted to portray and belief in rebirth or continuation as unacceptable and bizarre is an absolutely dishonest, intellectually bankrupt campaign.

Demanding evidence is intellectually bankrupt and dishonest? How the flying fish do you figure that?! What kind of universe did I just step into, where demanding evidence is some kind of weird affront to science?

peruvianskys:
With that said, I am a Buddhist and a firm believer in rebirth. I believe that a presupposition of continuation of consciousness is the best explanation for the nature of the mind.

Translation: You don't like people contradicting you because you just blankly assume that reincarnation happens without any evidence whatsoever. That is not cool.

Elcarsh:
Ah, the good old "Appeal to authority" fallacy. Haven't seen that one since...oh, last night. See, here's how the world works; who believes something doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit how many supposedly smart people believe something, whether or not it is true does not in any way hinge on that. Heck, lots of smart people throughout history have believed absolute bullshit. Alchemy, seances, the list is endless, but it's bullshit anyway.

You know what matters? Proof. Do you have some?

I'm not saying that it is true because they believe it. I'm saying that recently, many scientists and atheists (of which I am both) have decided that no one who is really a scientist can believe in the afterlife. I'm simply stating that such a belief isn't true! That's not an appeal to authority; that's a desire to accurately represent the situation.

Demanding evidence is intellectually bankrupt and dishonest? How the flying fish do you figure that?! What kind of universe did I just step into, where demanding evidence is some kind of weird affront to science?

I don't mind people who demand evidence; those that do, I happily provide it. Or, more accurately, I provide the methods that allow one to gather evidence for themselves. But those who ask for "evidence" are usually about as open-minded in regards to the things they've already decided can't be real as the most radical religious fundamentalists.

Translation: You don't like people contradicting you because you just blankly assume that reincarnation happens without any evidence whatsoever. That is not cool.

First off, I don't believe in reincarnation. If your understanding of Buddhist theory is not strong enough to even understand the difference, then you're not going to get anything from this discussion.

Secondly, I haven't "blindly" assumed anything. What I am saying is that, just as the presupposition of the axioms of conservation of momentum, etc. is the best way to understand the nature of physics, the presupposition of the Buddhist model of the nature of consciousness is the best way to understand and accurately measure the way our minds work. It's completely scientific. There's nothing "blind" about it.

peruvianskys:
I'm not saying that it is true because they believe it. I'm saying that recently, many scientists and atheists (of which I am both) have decided that no one who is really a scientist can believe in the afterlife. I'm simply stating that such a belief isn't true! That's not an appeal to authority; that's a desire to accurately represent the situation.

You don't think that general view could be explained by the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever?

I'm still waiting for that evidence that I asked for, by the way.

peruvianskys:
I don't mind people who demand evidence; those that do, I happily provide it. Or, more accurately, I provide the methods that allow one to gather evidence for themselves. But those who ask for "evidence" are usually about as open-minded in regards to the things they've already decided can't be real as the most radical religious fundamentalists.

Ah, and then you compound it all with a brilliant Catch-22, beautiful. By asking for evidence, it's impossible for me to get evidence. So, the only way to get evidence is not to demand evidence, which will consequently lead to not finding any evidence because the issue is being ignored entirely.

What you're doing is immensely intellectually dishonest, make no mistake.

Something that is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'm therefore dismissing your claims.

peruvianskys:
Secondly, I haven't "blindly" assumed anything.

Don't misquote me. I said "blankly", not "blindly".

peruvianskys:
What I am saying is that, just as the presupposition of the axioms of conservation of momentum, etc. is the best way to understand the nature of physics, the presupposition of the Buddhist model of the nature of consciousness is the best way to understand and accurately measure the way our minds work. It's completely scientific. There's nothing "blind" about it.

You don't know what you're talking about, apparently. Presupposition? The law of conservation of momentum is not a presupposition, it is a concept established to be factual by extensive testing and verification. It's not something that people went "Oh well, we'll just assume that it works like this and build all our other knowledge on that assumption". You are falsely claiming that real science is somehow equal to your presuppositions. Don't lie about science, please.

Oh, and again, stop misquoting me.

Elcarsh:
You don't think that general view could be explained by the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever?

I'm still waiting for that evidence that I asked for, by the way.

Except what I'm saying is that there is evidence - personal, scientific, detailed evidence. And that those who have decided to not accept it are being needlessly dogmatic.

Ah, and then you compound it all with a brilliant Catch-22, beautiful. By asking for evidence, it's impossible for me to get evidence. So, the only way to get evidence is not to demand evidence, which will consequently lead to not finding any evidence because the issue is being ignored entirely.

What you're doing is immensely intellectually dishonest, make no mistake.

Something that is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'm therefore dismissing your claims.

I'm not saying you don't get evidence. I'm just saying that you're not in a place where you're even remotely willing to actually examine it.

If I barged into Hawking's office and yelled, "SHOW ME PROOF OF BLACK HOLES," what would he show me? Numbers and equations that I had no understanding of. And if I was an idiot, I would say, "That's not proof, you have no evidence, you liar!" But if I took time to understand his methods, study his results, and examine his credentials, then I would be closer every day to seeing that the evidence really was reasonable. But if, after seeing the raw data with which you have no training or understanding, you immediately write him off, then you're not being a scientist - you're being a dogmatist.

Anyway, read William James' Principles of Psychology, Patricia Churchland's Neurophilosophy, Andrew Koob's The Root of Thought and R. Douglas Fields' The Other Brain. Those are the best introductions to (or interesting arguments against) a non-materialistic/consciousness-based examination of mental processes. I think you'll find they're up to rigor. Otherwise, read up on the Hard Problem of Consciousness (specifically M. D. Robertson) and perhaps some Buddhist theory?

Don't misquote me. I said "blankly", not "blindly".

My mistake, I didn't mean to misquote you! I apologize. I tend to read a bit too fast =]

You don't know what you're talking about, apparently. Presupposition? The law of conservation of momentum is not a presupposition, it is a concept established to be factual by extensive testing and verification. It's not something that people went "Oh well, we'll just assume that it works like this and build all our other knowledge on that assumption". You are falsely claiming that real science is somehow equal to your presuppositions. Don't lie about science, please.

I'm not claiming that and I think it's pretty clear I don't believe that. Obviously we discovered the laws of physics through experimentation. We (as in humanity) also discovered the nature of the mind through experimentation in the past.

What I was saying is that YOU make a presupposition, saying that the best way to understand your world is that law. I am saying that I make a similar valid presupposition when I argue that a reasonable explanation, based on evidence, of the mind (the Buddhist model of consciousness) is the best way to explain my experiences.

peruvianskys:
Belief in the continuance of experience after the physical breakup of the body is not a crazy idea, nor one that can be dismissed out of hand. Hundreds of reputable scientists (Schrodinger, Werner, Heisenberg, Stapp) and philosophers (Godel, Russell, William James, Singer) support the idea.

This fact is completely uninteresting to me. The fact that certain otherwise very rational people waver in their rationality is not exactly a cause for celebration.

The naturalist white-wash that has occurred recently, where materialists have attempted to portray and belief in rebirth or continuation as unacceptable and bizarre is an absolutely dishonest, intellectually bankrupt campaign.

I think the word you were looking for is "rational".

With that said, I am a Buddhist and a firm believer in rebirth. I believe that a presupposition of continuation of consciousness is the best explanation for the nature of the mind.

Really? Got any... evidence? Or logic that you could present?

Is that true? Is there really no indication? What research have you done to support such claims?

All right, we lack any indication. There. Better?

There's also no indication in my life that atoms exist or that Australia exists. Doesn't mean that, with real inquiry and examination, such indication couldn't be found.

The difference, of course, is that if you wanted to, you could go out and test it. You could formulate a hypothesis, and test it. We did this in high school with about a thousand dollar's worth of equipment to demonstrate the mass of atomic nuclei; we could do it with about a thousand dollars for plane tickets as well. I know this gambit all too well; it's this idea of "we don't know everything, therefore my outlandish idea is just as valid as your science". It's bullshit, I'm sorry. Provide a falsifiable and verified hypothesis or logical proof for reincarnation/the afterlife, or stop trying to make such ridiculous comparisons.

It's a great position. Too bad most of those who claim it as theirs actually mean, "I don't believe anything that a minority of narrow-minded, religiously devoted modern sciencists doesn't give the clear."

Get that crap out of here.

Look, you want to support your worldview? Fine, let's hear it. I mean, sure, the neurological consensus is that our minds are essentially made up of electrical impulses within our brain, and that there's nothing "supernatural" about it at all, but by all means, state your case. But don't go equating your superstitions with established science. You can do that after it passes peer-review, and after its presented hypotheses are validated. Not before.

Here's another thing you don't get to do: claim "there is evidence", then fail to provide it, or obfuscate it behind books. I mean, I'll watch the occasional youtube video if I sense its merit within the first few minutes, I'm not above spending a little time looking into a topic. What I'm not going to do is spend days reading literature on a subject that I'm honestly not really that interested in. You don't get to hide your "evidence" behind a curtain of "oh, you wouldn't understand it anyways" - how do you know that? You're not explaining quantum physics to 5-year-olds, you're explaining philosophical concepts to a forum of adults, most of whom spend a lot of time discussing exactly that. In fact, I find it entirely realistic that we've heard of the arguments before, and rejected them as unconvincing. So stop babying us; present your case, or GTFO.

Stagnant:

This fact is completely uninteresting to me. The fact that certain otherwise very rational people waver in their rationality is not exactly a cause for celebration.

As I said before, the purpose of that fact is simply to correct the absurd notion that you cannot be a scientist or a logical person and still believe a non-materialist view of the mind.

I think the word you were looking for is "rational".

It's hardly rational to reject continuing, unanswered questions about the nature of consciousness without inquiring in all possible direction.

Really? Got any... evidence?

What there is ample evidence for is a non-materialistic view of the mind, which, combined with personal inquiry and non-religious, non-supernatural, non-mystical, strictly scientific meditation, indicates that an "end point" for the arising and ceasing of mental phenomena is not supported.

The difference, of course, is that if you wanted to, you could go out and test it. You could formulate a hypothesis, and test it. We did this in high school with about a thousand dollar's worth of equipment to demonstrate the mass of atomic nuclei; we could do it with about a thousand dollars for plane tickets as well. I know this gambit all too well; it's this idea of "we don't know everything, therefore my outlandish idea is just as valid as your science". It's bullshit, I'm sorry. Provide a falsifiable and verified hypothesis or logical proof for reincarnation/the afterlife, or stop trying to make such ridiculous comparisons.

The "hypothesis" in question is the nature of mind - physical, reducible, or inherently separate from physical phenomena? And if one or the other, whether or not the nature of that mind lends itself to a logical assumption of continuance. I'm not a fucking hippy or new age bullshitter - I'm an economist and I'm proud to say that I love science and rational inquiry.

I'm not arguing for the blind assumption of my stance based on a lack of evidence; what I'm saying is that the debate over the inherent nature of the mind is completely and totally open, that there is good psychological and scientific evidence to suggest that our current materialist view of the mind is inaccurate, and that if that is so, the best explanation for the observable nature of our minds is by far the concept of continuance of experience.

Look, you want to support your worldview? Fine, let's hear it. I mean, sure, the neurological consensus is that our minds are essentially made up of electrical impulses within our brain, and that there's nothing "supernatural" about it at all, but by all means, state your case.

Read the writing of established scientists like Schrodinger, Stapp, and Godol, as well as the entire field of philosophy of mind, and you won't feel that way. This is the whole point I'm trying to make - you're going into this with the unfounded assumption that somehow this argument is closed when for most people, but more importantly, for many intelligent, trustworthy individuals who are experts in the field, it isn't.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not recommending anything supernatural. There's no God figure here, no magic, no nothing. Just the implication of observable reality.

But don't go equating your superstitions with established science. You can do that after it passes peer-review, and after its presented hypotheses are validated. Not before.

The only thing I'm associating with established science is the work of establish scientists and philosophers.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked