What facts would disprove the afterlife hypothesis?

[Arouet]

Can't give you clearcut answers on such difficult and ultimately speculative issues. Our lives are equally valuable, even the most hardened mass murderer of all time will not lose his connection with the Source, although some sources, like Tom Campbell, say that irredeemable souls get recycled and created anew, the closest thing I know to soul death. All our lives have meaning and the same goal, reuniting with the Source, and it doesn't matter in what way we reach it or our pace. Now in order to connect with the source we each must learn lessons on Earth or elsewhere, especially suffering and hardship, the most effective learning opportunities, which can explain the all pervading suffering on Earth. And so we have two sets of purpose or meaning. The prime purpose, reconnecting with Source or Cosmic Consciousness, and our own personal pre-life planning. In addition we have the meaning or purpose ascribed by ourselves in our physical life, so we can talk of multiple meanings.​

Sure, I'm not expecting details, but I think it is interesting to explore these hypotheses and the implications of them.

I recognize that you're just providing a brief summary, that will no doubt not reflect many of the nuances, but it seems to me that there are a few questions that come to mind, and a few things that may follow from what you've set out here:

(I don't want to put words in your mouth for any of these premises, so please correct me if I've mistated any of these premises or if you think any premises needed to be added, removed, amended, etc.)

P1: All lives are equally valuable
P2: All goals are the same.
P3: All paths lead to the same place.
P4: All paths are equally valuable (including long ones and short ones)
C1: All people are equally valuable.
C2: All actions by those people are equally valuable.
C3: All concepts by those people are equally valuable.
C4: Right actions and wrong actions are equally valuable.

P5: Returning to the Source is our goal.
P6: Before returning to the Source, one must learn lessons, whether on Earth or elsewhere.
P7: The most effective learning opportunity is through suffering and hardship.
P8: Human suffering on Earth comes from both human and non-human sources.
P9: Humans who cause suffering in an "irredeemable manner" will get recycled and created anew.
P10: Getting recycled and created anew deletes previous learning (I'm inferring this from how you describe it, please correct me if I'm wrong on this).
C5: Suffering is valuable to help us return to the Source.
C6: Increased suffering returns people to the Source faster.
C7: Causing suffering helps people return to the Source.
C8: Causing extreme suffering helps people who want a quick path back to the Source to achieve that goal.
C9: Causing suffering irredeemably maximizes how much one person can help another person return to the source, at a cost of their own advancements.
C10: Causing suffering irredeemably is the most selfless/altruistic set of acts one can do.
C11: Causing suffering irredeemably should be encouraged.

P11: Humans are, among others, expressions of the Source (not sure if expressions is the right word, I'm getting at that we're each aspects of the Source, is appendages a better word? I'm sure there's a better word out there but its not coming to me).
P12: The Source can only experience and learn through its expressions (you didn't say this, I'm adding it in based on similar viewpoints I've seen)
P13: What each of us humans value, is valued by the Source
C13: All values are values of the Source, whether it is for material goods, sex drugs and rock and roll, meditation, prayer, going on a DMT trip.
C14: We should appreciate the value of every human interest as part of Our collective interest.

P14: Part of our goals are to learn.
P15: Learning is done through repetition.
P16: Early repetitions are the most valuable and provide the most learning.
P17: As learning progresses, each repetition provides less advancement until the lesson is complete.
P18: Once the lesson is complete repetition is needed more for maintenance than progression.
P19: In order to continue learning, novelty is required, which can then be repeated until that lesson is complete, at which time more novelty is required.
C15: Both repetition and novelty should be valued by us.
C16: Dogmatism encourages repetition which is valuable for the learning process.
C17: Upon the development of a novel idea, a portion of the population dogmatically following it can help Us learn the lesson.
C18: After many repetitions, less people will be needed to dogmatically follow the idea in order to maintain learning.
C19: The people not needed for mastering the lesson can focus on novelty, which should then be dogmatically followed in order to master the lesson/experience for the Source
C20: We should value both dogmatism and non-conformity.


Whew. That was more than I originally intended to write, but each one led me to the next. Again, please correct me if you think I've misframed any premises, and I'm curious as to your thoughts (or any other poster's thoughts) if you think the conclusions I've set out follow.

​

You will see me do that in most of my posts. That is because I've read uplifting, inspiring spiritual books, as well as popular scientific books, which I equally admire, that are in some sense depressing, through the facts I just mentioned, at least from a human value system. My question is why these two sets of evidence and experience coexist, being so antithetical to each other? At least one of these, science or spirituality, is wrong or incomplete. The other questions you posed about Source will force me to resort to philosophical speculation, which I won't do. Let's say that this type of information is known by so called Ascended Masters or highly evolved souls that either are not present at this time on Earth, or are withholding the information voluntarily.

As I asked above, I'm not entirely sure why you think they are antithetical. I think its a pretty safe bet that we're at least partially wrong with regard to all of our views about the nature of the universe, so that doesn't bother me that much.

As for the philosophical speculation, I guess I've done a bunch of it in this post. If its not up your alley, no worries. It was interesting for me to think through these premises and conclusions to see where they led me, so I don't consider it wasted. And others should feel welcome to chip in if they want to discuss further! I'd been meaning to go down this road with regard to Bernardo Kastrup's views, so I might bring them over in that context as well.

(Edit for typos)

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

Sure, I'm not expecting details, but I think it is interesting to explore these hypotheses and the implications of them.

I recognize that you're just providing a brief summary, that will no doubt not reflect many of the nuances, but it seems to me that there are a few questions that come to mind, and a few things that may follow from what you've set out here:

(I don't want to put words in your mouth for any of these premises, so please correct me if I've mistated any of these premises or if you think any premises needed to be added, removed, amended, etc.)

P1: All lives are equally valuable
P2: All goals are the same.
P3: All paths lead to the same place.
P4: All paths are equally valuable (including long ones and short ones)
C1: All people are equally valuable.
C2: All actions by those people are equally valuable.
C3: All concepts by those people are equally valuable.
C4: Right actions and wrong actions are equally valuable.

P5: Returning to the Source is our goal.
P6: Before returning to the Source, one must learn lessons, whether on Earth or elsewhere.
P7: The most effective learning opportunity is through suffering and hardship.
P8: Human suffering on Earth comes from both human and non-human sources.
P9: Humans who cause suffering in an "irredeemable manner" will get recycled and created anew.
P10: Getting recycled and created anew deletes previous learning (I'm inferring this from how you describe it, please correct me if I'm wrong on this).
C5: Suffering is valuable to help us return to the Source.
C6: Increased suffering returns people to the Source faster.
C7: Causing suffering helps people return to the Source.
C8: Causing extreme suffering helps people who want a quick path back to the Source to achieve that goal.
C9: Causing suffering irredeemably maximizes how much one person can help another person return to the source, at a cost of their own advancements.
C10: Causing suffering irredeemably is the most selfless/altruistic set of acts one can do.
C11: Causing suffering irredeemably should be encouraged.

P11: Humans are, among others, expressions of the Source (not sure if expressions is the right word, I'm getting at that we're each aspects of the Source, is appendages a better word? I'm sure there's a better word out there but its not coming to me).
P12: The Source can only experience and learn through its expressions (you didn't say this, I'm adding it in based on similar viewpoints I've seen)
P13: What each of us humans value, is valued by the Source
C13: All values are values of the Source, whether it is for material goods, sex drugs and rock and roll, meditation, prayer, going on a DMT trip.
C14: We should appreciate the value of every human interest as part of Our collective interest.

P14: Part of our goals are to learn.
P15: Learning is done through repetition.
P16: Early repetitions are the most valuable and provide the most learning.
P17: As learning progresses, each repetition provides less advancement until the lesson is complete.
P18: Once the lesson is complete repetition is needed more for maintenance than progression.
P19: In order to continue learning, novelty is required, which can then be repeated until that lesson is complete, at which time more novelty is required.
C15: Both repetition and novelty should be valued by us.
C16: Dogmatism encourages repetition which is valuable for the learning process.
C17: Upon the development of a novel idea, a portion of the population dogmatically following it can help Us learn the lesson.
C18: After many repetitions, less people will be needed to dogmatically follow the idea in order to maintain learning.
C19: The people not needed for mastering the lesson can focus on novelty, which should then be dogmatically followed in order to master the lesson/experience for the Source
C20: We should value both dogmatism and non-conformity.


Whew. That was more than I originally intended to write, but each one led me to the next. Again, please correct me if you think I've misframed any premises, and I'm curious as to your thoughts (or any other poster's thoughts) if you think the conclusions I've set out follow.

​

As I asked above, I'm not entirely sure why you think they are antithetical. I think its a pretty safe bet that we're at least partially wrong with regard to all of our views about the nature of the universe, so that doesn't bother me that much.

As for the philosophical speculation, I guess I've done a bunch of it in this post. If its not up your alley, no worries. It was interesting for me to think through these premises and conclusions to see where they led me, so I don't consider it wasted. And others should feel welcome to chip in if they want to discuss further! I'd been meaning to go down this road with regard to Bernardo Kastrup's views, so I might bring them over in that context as well.

(Edit for typos)

Packaging this all up in syllogisms. I don't know how reliable the conclusions are. Well. if it is your preferred approach, than so be it.


Pertaining to causing suffering, I've read reports were people incarnated as abusive spouses, difficult bosses or vengeful siblings to help a member of their soul group learn lessons. I don't know if the perpetrator's karma is suspended or not during that lifetime. Very confusing matter. I don't know what you mean by dogmatism in your conclusions. Such a loaded and uncomfortable term. It reeks of inflexibility, narrow mindedness and gullibility. Maybe conservatism is a better one?


Anyway, my goal in these posts is to present the many hypotheses or postulates that are to be found in the afterlife theory. Next subject I want to tackle are nonphysical entities and the way they interact with the physical world.

 

[billw]

Packaging this all up in syllogisms. I don't know how reliable the conclusions are. Well. if it is your preferred approach, than so be it.

Yeah, I tend to think that as useful and valid as our logic and intellects may be, there is likely a deeper Reality beyond 3D spacetime hinted at by Einstein's quote-- "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty." Likewise, as valuable as our scientific method is, there are likely other ways to "penetrate" that Reality. Since ancient times sages and mystics have used other means in attempts to do so and have tried to give us glimpses into that Reality. We tend to think our current scientific method supersede them, but maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss them.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

Packaging this all up in syllogisms. I don't know how reliable the conclusions are. Well. if it is your preferred approach, than so be it.

I find it helps keep my thoughts and arguments clear. The reliability of the conclusions would depend on the accuracy of the premises and whether the conclusions follow from them. That's what I was hoping to discuss.

If you find the format offputting, I can rephrase.

Pertaining to causing suffering, I've read reports were people incarnated as abusive spouses, difficult bosses or vengeful siblings to help a member of their soul group learn lessons. I don't know if the perpetrator's karma is suspended or not during that lifetime. Very confusing matter.

Do you think all suffering leads to learning the lessons we need to know? Or just some suffering?

I don't know what you mean by dogmatism in your conclusions. Such a loaded and uncomfortable term. It reeks of inflexibility, narrow mindedness and gullibility. Maybe conservatism is a better one?

I was really trying to get at the spectrum there. We talk a lot about dogmatic thinking on this forum - generally negatively. It occurred to me that if the object of our lives is to collectively learn then dogmatism could serve a function there for the Source.

I was also getting at your suggestion that all paths are equal. When you say dogmatism "reeks of inflexibility, narrow mindedness and gullibility" this suggests a negative. Now, I don't disagree for me personally. But in the framework you present, should they be considered wrong, or their thinking undesirable? This suggests that taking a slower path is less desirable. But why should that be so under the framework you present? Many do value dogmatic thinking. Are they any less extensions of the Source?

Anyway, my goal in these posts is to present the many hypotheses or postulates that are to be found in the afterlife theory. Next subject I want to tackle are nonphysical entities and the way they interact with the physical world.

That's fine. If you (or anyone) wishes to push the discussion further, I'm around.

 

[Arouet]

Yeah, I tend to think that as useful and valid as our logic and intellects may be, there is likely a deeper Reality beyond 3D spacetime hinted at by Einstein's quote-- "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty." Likewise, as valuable as our scientific method is, there are likely other ways to "penetrate" that Reality. Since ancient times sages and mystics have used other means in attempts to do so and have tried to give us glimpses into that Reality. We tend to think our current scientific method supersede them, but maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss them.

Cheers,
Bill

Ok, but in the context here where I'm trying to explore what follows from the framework SciFi set out, what do you think is wrong with my approach. Given that it is presented as a starting point in thinking through what SciFi set out.

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

I find it helps keep my thoughts and arguments clear. The reliability of the conclusions would depend on the accuracy of the premises and whether the conclusions follow from them. That's what I was hoping to discuss.

If you find the format offputting, I can rephrase.



Do you think all suffering leads to learning the lessons we need to know? Or just some suffering?



I was really trying to get at the spectrum there. We talk a lot about dogmatic thinking on this forum - generally negatively. It occurred to me that if the object of our lives is to collectively learn then dogmatism could serve a function there for the Source.

I was also getting at your suggestion that all paths are equal. When you say dogmatism "reeks of inflexibility, narrow mindedness and gullibility" this suggests a negative. Now, I don't disagree for me personally. But in the framework you present, should they be considered wrong, or their thinking undesirable? This suggests that taking a slower path is less desirable. But why should that be so under the framework you present? Many do value dogmatic thinking. Are they any less extensions of the Source?



That's fine. If you (or anyone) wishes to push the discussion further, I'm around.

I have nothing against your approach, although I have little experience with it. As we discussed, afterlife rationale frequently conflicts with our earthly common sense notions, deductive, inductive reasoning or inferences. It is like the attempt of logical positivism to narrow science into a rigid methodology. These are human inventions, they may not be the best way to investigate reality, although they do work in particular cases. Suppose an extraterrestrial civilization or super-AI discovers a more efficient way to understand reality.


I don't think that all suffering can be a learning experience, but I may be wrong. You can say that all things under the sun are learning experiences, since they are experiences. Prelife planned suffering as a learning experience is the most valid.


I would like to understand what you mean by dogmatism as a learning experience in the afterlife context. The mechanism of it. I don't think we are on the same page here.

 

[billw]

Ok, but in the context here where I'm trying to explore what follows from the framework SciFi set out, what do you think is wrong with my approach. Given that it is presented as a starting point in thinking through what SciFi set out.

I never said there was anything was wrong with it. I was just suggesting that there may be other ways to attempt to penetrate It and other perspectives worth considering. That's all.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

The afterlife theory also postulates the existence of nonphysical souls or consciousness. These terms may have different meanings depending on whether you're an idealist or a dualist.


Nonphysical entities have the ability to affect other people' consciousness, and even the material environment. Past life regression material asserts that after death, many times the departed souls remains for a while on the Earth plane and uses some kind of psychic energy to comfort loved ones. They also appear in dreams.


There have been some attempts to photograph souls in the moment of departure, most famously the Madame Baraduc photographs and Kirlian photography, but the results have not been entirely satisfying. Currently there is no known apparatus for detecting souls or nonphysical matter. Poltergeist phenomena may be an instance when a nonphysical consciousness interacts with the physical world, by influencing physical matter. The alternative hypothesis implies teenage psychic energy.


Most notable are after death visitations, when the deceased visits loved ones to comfort or give them a message. A psychological test could be given to ascertain the mental stability of people who receive visitations from deceased loved ones. If a significant percentage of these poeple are mentally healthy, this could suggest that psychopathology was not involved in their experience. The only alternatives would be wishful thinking or an actual visitation.


An experiment could be done to measure variables in the environment at the moment of a person's death, especially electromagnetic field readings, as some spiritual material likens the soul to electromagnetic radiation or light.

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

Also channeling is another way that nonphysical consciousness can communicate with us, albeit indirectly through the psychic interpreter. Linda or fls may chime in on channeling studies. Also there is Zammit's book.


An experiment could be done here in the context of a channeling seance where the spirit actually materialises. As complete darkness is necessary to conduct these types of sessions, investigators with night vision goggles or night vision cameras can record the seance and attest if the channeler is actually veritable. Also normal channeled information can be corroborated, although in this case super-ESP can be invoked to explain positive results.

 

[Illusion]

You mean that our behavior and self can be altered radically in response to changes in our neurochemistry. Neuroscience research suggests that there is no I or self,just an illusion created by certain brain structures. Likewise,buddhism has the doctrine of anatta or no-self,yet accepts the reality of reincarnation. Also consider that in spiritual literature there is a Higher Self that is the aggregate of your entire reincarnational selves,the best and wisest you'll ever become. Its ultimate destiny is reuniting with the Source from which it sprang, when it will lose its individuality I think. So there is no self in both materialism and buddhism.That doesn't mean though that self or personality=soul or nonphysical consciousness. Considering that more than 90% of brain processing is done outside of conscious awareness, the soul might be lurking in the deep unconscious.Just speculating here.

Problem for me is, that I see no reason to believe in anything any of the big religions or spiritual movements have stated up until now. There is surely wisdom to be found in some of the writings regarding life per se, but I see nothing fundamental regarding the "meta", beyond pure speculation. And even if "science" has brought forth no satisfactory answers, yet, as well, it still has brought us much more knowledge in a few centuries than religion has in thousands of years. Religion surely has its purpose, but not in the sense of gaining knowledge about us, life and the universe.

As regards to spiritual meaning and significance, this is a difficult subject to unravel. Some NDErs think it is love for the whole of creation and service to humanity. Buddhists seek to end the wheel of dharma and attain nirvana. Spiritual atheists, and yes such a thing does exist,like Susan Blackmore and Sam Harris, think that transcending the illusion of the self through meditation or NDE makes one realise that he is not separate from the world,but interconnected with all, which explains the positive changes in character and worldview in a strict materialist fashion.

Love has always been seen as the strongest force in the universe, but I am sure that at the base it is an emotion like every other: produced by body chemicals and therefore, theoretically, manipulable. I guess as there are people who cannot feel fear, there are also people who cannot feel love due to a brain misfunction in some part. This for me is also a very strong argument against the validity of NDEs (due to what experiencers have reported).

My current persona thinks that my life is pointless and meaningless,while my purported Higher Self has a specific goal to reach in this lifetime, of which I am consciously unaware. From my reading of spiritual literature, suffering,disease,limitation,turmoil are necessary for soul evolution. I find this view quite unpalatable and cruel, but it makes sense in many ways.

But for what reason should there be a soul evolution? And if we take a look at the universe and its vastness....and the possibility of abundand and different life, animals and more intelligent beings, does this even make the slightest sense anymore?
Isn't the notion of a universe without any moral and purpose a much more streamlined one? If we look at all the brutality and horror that happens only on this planet, which shows us that a single life does not really have a lot of worth to it, I just cannot believe there is any sense but "evolution". And with evolution I just mean....development, without a higher meaning.

P.S. You needn't be afraid of offending anyone with your views. We are all searching for the truth in our own ways and coming with different answers, but our deep yearning for answers to life's mysteries is universal. I am a Romanian, by the way, so like you I'm not a native english speaker.

A fellow European then :)
And yes, that is definitely universal!

 

[Illusion]

The best results have no explanatory power behind them. There are a couple of experiments that have passed the bar to indicate something potentially odd is happening (Ganzfelds, EEG telepathy), yet offer no real details other than "something happened statistically which should not have." That kind of work has already gotten as much attention as its going to get, sadly.

Guess we have to wait for the next scientific revolution then :)
And somehow I am sure, that there will be much more discoveries in the future.

 

[Illusion]

[...]It seems that after we die, memory of this life is retained and re-experienced in a life review, so our awareness and our identity remain closely associated initially. But they can become dissociated by entering the light where all boundary of self identity falls away or by re-incarnating and forgetting past associations.

The same question that I have stated in my last post above, comes to my mind again: Why would a reincarnation make sense? What is the purpose? With my current knowledge, it makes much more sense for me, that we die along with our body/brain, as the sole vehicle of "Me". We are born and develope with our brain and body and when we die, everything dies with us, nothing to be left over.

As to the question about how awareness is possible without the brain... I think that awareness and projection happen simultaneously such that the brain is a projection of awareness and awareness is simultaneously the product of the brain. So it seems to me that all awareness is likewise accompanied by a kind of body. I believe that there is very likely to be a different kind of body that we enter which filters awareness differently when we leave the fleshy body. To leave all bodies is to enter the light where all boundaries dissolve and you are aware of everything and nothing at the same time.

But what exactly switches over from this body to the other? "Only" awareness?

 

[Illusion]

You said:
I was just pointing out there was plenty of hard evidence that is not yet accepted within the mainstream, and that it's almost certain that these suggest our approximate understandings about our shared reality are quite incorrect.

I would be very disappointed if it weren't so, but I am still very skeptical that there will be a paradigm shift, that will suddenly see us in a universe with a greater sense and spiritual meaning behind life. Regarding other developments, always possible, we surely haven't understood everything, yet.

As regards the existance an afterlife, I'm just not sure the question is very relevant (to me), perhaps I mean it's the wrong question.

For example... I don't think we have a very good grasp of time... To explain some of observations I referred to earlier, it seems we're going to have to entertain the 'currently bizarre' idea that very weak fields do have an effect... it's just that the mechanism has to occur over greater and greater periods of time, the weaker the field.

I have read some of your posts regarding fields, but I am unable to comment meaningful due to the lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Though we are still talking about effects that take place inside our current understanding of the universe, albeit a bit enhanced. So you are talking about further physical functionalities that could explain things like NDEs and OBEs (and other things), but, if I understand correctly, they won't bring a major change in our views about the meaning of life?

 

[Illusion]

Don't worry - I sometimes think a background in science can blind one to the essential details, and it is also humbling to see just how well people write here in what is for them a foreign language!

Thank you, David! I still wish my English was much better. It sometimes is really hard to follow in-depth discussions here and grasp their meaning. Could be a question of intellect rather than language skills, though :)

And indeed, this is one such essential detail - which science is still struggling with. It is obvious that mere physical interactions can't explain sensations and experiences, except in the sense that people may correlate certain signals in the brain with certain experiences.

I tried hard to wrap my mind around it, but alas, it won't work. No explanation to be found.
Maybe we just have to accept that red is seen as red, because it is red like the 0 is the 0 and 1 is the 1. How brilliant....:)

Please note that there is no 'Skeptianity' - no religion here - nothing to believe with certainty - and no guarantees about what happens after death!

Never thought so :)
And that's life I would say....not a lot of things you can really be sure of...

The trouble is, that science never actually proves anything in the mathematical sense. There is always wriggle room if you look hard enough. So there was a study in which people who claimed they had had an OBE looking down on their body as part of their NDE, were compared with those that didn't report an NDE. Both groups were asked to report (or guess) what had gone on while they were being resuscitated. The result was that those who reported an NDE, were far better at that task.

Of course, that leaves some wriggle room for those who want to continue to disbelieve these accounts.

My feeling is that the scientific method works best when people don't have very strong opinions either way. When the researchers or commentators have very strong opinions, the fact that there is always some wriggle room left, is a real problem.

You are surely right with your feeling. Problem might be, that it is natural that scientists have a strong opinion either way regarding their research subject.

But if more of those studies you mentioned above pop up, done under strict scientific conditions, and the results point towards a "new" direction, it will gain momentum eventually.

My feeling is that the real problem is that a lot of people feel rather as I used to do. They feel that all the issues of life after death, ghosts, weird experiences of all sorts, can be 'explained' as some sort of illusion and dismissed. Over and over again, when Alex has interviewed well know sceptics - many of them scientists, it becomes very clear that they haven't even read the counter-evidence. I think Alex has encountered this so much, that inevitably he has reached a pretty firm conclusion!

Certain paranormal phenomena seem to be pretty reproducible - notably Dean Radin's presentiment experiments. So here is my theory as to what happens. People in the science community are always on the look out for new things to explore, but when they look at an experiment like this, they can see two possible outcomes for them personally:

1) The attempt to reproduce the experiment fails, in which case they can write the result up, but their colleagues just say, "Well so what did you expect!".

2) The attempt succeeds, and if they publish it, they are immediately marked as suspect, and their grants dry up!

Can you wonder they just go and find another topic?

As we know, money rules the world and a wrong field of expertise or a wrong opinion can surely ruin your career....not a lot of people would risk that for the" truth". What I wonder, though, is...if a certain paranormal phenomena could be reproduced, meeting all acknowledged scientifical requirements, this surely would be big news....which should generate a lot of attention and thus money....or do I miss something?

There is something else here. It is awfully easy to get no result from a scientific experiment of any kind - many of them are quite tricky to do. This means that it is easy to try an experiment and get a null result because you simply don't try hard enough. For example, if you don't expect an ESP participant to succeed above the chance level, maybe you don't take care to motivate them before the experiment, or take enough care to avoid distractions, or ensure the sender is really doing his/her job diligently.

One way round this is to have a sceptic work with the researcher whose work they want to study. This happened with Richard Wiseman (sceptic) and Rupert Sheldrake. Wiseman got essentially the same results as Sheldrake had - indicating that dogs can detect when their owners are on their way home (but still too far for this to be explicable conventionally). Unfortunately, he then chose to change the scoring method so as to 'win'. He then did no more research on this phenomenon, but claims to have debunked it!

Yes, one of the biggest problems in all kind of areas, our ego...sadly enough. But as appreciation from other humans is one of our greatest motivations, this one will be definitely hard to overcome....

Good - because there seems to be a hell of a lot of dodgy science about nowadays, and perhaps people like you with no background in science really believe the myth that most/all scientists are dispassionate seekers after truth!

David

Sadly, I am too old to believe in myths anymore :)
Ignorance is bliss.....but it is hard to get it back, once you lost it....

 

[SciFiFanatic101]

Problem for me is, that I see no reason to believe in anything any of the big religions or spiritual movements have stated up until now. There is surely wisdom to be found in some of the writings regarding life per se, but I see nothing fundamental regarding the "meta", beyond pure speculation. And even if "science" has brought forth no satisfactory answers, yet, as well, it still has brought us much more knowledge in a few centuries than religion has in thousands of years. Religion surely has its purpose, but not in the sense of gaining knowledge about us, life and the universe.



Love has always been seen as the strongest force in the universe, but I am sure that at the base it is an emotion like every other: produced by body chemicals and therefore, theoretically, manipulable. I guess as there are people who cannot feel fear, there are also people who cannot feel love due to a brain misfunction in some part. This for me is also a very strong argument against the validity of NDEs (due to what experiencers have reported).



But for what reason should there be a soul evolution? And if we take a look at the universe and its vastness....and the possibility of abundand and different life, animals and more intelligent beings, does this even make the slightest sense anymore?
Isn't the notion of a universe without any moral and purpose a much more streamlined one? If we look at all the brutality and horror that happens only on this planet, which shows us that a single life does not really have a lot of worth to it, I just cannot believe there is any sense but "evolution". And with evolution I just mean....development, without a higher meaning.



A fellow European then :)
And yes, that is definitely universal!

I see no reason not to engage in a secular spiritual practice like meditation, stripped of buddhist doctrine. Brain imaging studies show that advanced meditators have increased gray matter in the frontal cortex, so meditation promotes such attributes as self-control, mindfulness, concentration and attention by rewiring your brain. As for the other three monotheistic religions, I have nothing good to say.


In the end you live your life with the beliefs you are most comfortable with. I am a pessimist and have very low expectations, so my stance is that I expect the worst, that is oblivion, but wouldn't be surprised to wake up in the afterlife territories. There are some respectable scientists that are not strictly materialistic or religious. Candace Pert is the discoverer of opioid receptors and believes in a Cosmic Intelligence. David Eagleman is an advocate of possibilianism, which states that, given the fact that we know very little about, for example the origins of life or the workings of the brain, metaphysical assumptions are not completely unwarranted.He even wrote a book speculating on how an afterlife might work. There is a concept in physics called the Anthropic Cosmological Principle which in its strongest form states that the reason the universe is so suitable for life is because it was designed, and the concept is backed by serious mathematics.


Of course you can reduce any sensation or feeling down to its biochemical correlation, but that will not lessen its subjective importance to the individual and you can even manipulate such intense emotions as love or trust with compounds such as oxytocin. I am stumped as you are when it comes to psychopaths, who have no capacity for empathy and don't feel emotions as normal people do because of faulty brain wiring. Why would someone choose to be born this way? You must understand that, as far as I understand, the afterlife, if it exists, has a very different moral or ethical principle behind it and doesn't comply with human moral standards. In this view, atrocities like the Holocaust or Hiroshima might be meant as learning opportunities for the human race, since if there are souls, death would simply be a transition to another state of consciousness. And herein lies the rub. All my instincts and reasoning tell me that death is the end, considering what I know about how the world works evolution, cosmology, neuroscience and all that, yet there are some tantalizing hints that this reality is not the only one, and I'm not talking about parallel universes here. Some phenomena(NDE'S,OBE's,Psi etc.) stubbornly resist materialistic explanations, and a few are of such quality that I think they may suggest a continuation of consciousness after death. I'm not hedging my bets on it, but it may turn out to be true.

 

[Max_B]

I would be very disappointed if it weren't so, but I am still very skeptical that there will be a paradigm shift, that will suddenly see us in a universe with a greater sense and spiritual meaning behind life. Regarding other developments, always possible, we surely haven't understood everything, yet.



I have read some of your posts regarding fields, but I am unable to comment meaningful due to the lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Though we are still talking about effects that take place inside our current understanding of the universe, albeit a bit enhanced. So you are talking about further physical functionalities that could explain things like NDEs and OBEs (and other things), but, if I understand correctly, they won't bring a major change in our views about the meaning of life?

It's just a very slightly different way of understanding.

Our past observations within our shared external world ain't going to change. An apple is still going to fall from a tree, siblings will still inherit their parents/ancestors traits, people will still create things.

It's just that in the future, there may be a tiny change in our understanding (how we string observations together) and that change (I strongly believe) has the potential to bring profound changes to our societies. I certainly believe such a change would give a new meaning to life.

 

[Typoz]

What are your opinions?Do you have other suggestions?

No need for me to comment in depth here. Just two thoughts.
1. both the terms "afterlife" and "hypothesis" frame the subject from a particular perspective, in doing so making some assumptions, i.e. that the current state is the primary, and the rest is in some way an add-on, and even that add-on may be an optional extra.
2. My suggestion is to re-frame the question (probably belongs in a separate thread) such that those assumptions become the hypothesis to be tested.

The reason for my expressing it in this way is that even to enter into the spirit of the discussion as posed in this thread, one is obliged to act out the role as though those assumptions are valid, which places constraints not just upon the way one answers this question, but holding such assumptions also places constraints upon one's every thought, every action, it is a straitjacket which the wearer may not even realise one is wearing. Dressed in different clothes we may live and act differently, surely this is the experience of us all. Then I feel there is a need to take care which mental clothing one wears.

 

[Dr Malcolm LEWIS]

This is a most interesting discussion and there are some good ideas put forward. For the record I am a retired Medical Soiciologist, and the argument in dismissing 'anecdotal' evidence is just flawed. Both Anthropologists and many sociologist rely upon first person 'accounts' and participant observation as a legitimate and well established research tool when investiogating social worlds and belief systems. I have spent many years looking at Spiritualism, and latterly at the NDE phenomena which appears ( even though accounts are anecdotal ), to hint at some sort of afterlife. I think the key is veridical accounts.

On the other hand I am also bemused by the fact that much of what 'mediums' tell us is both banal and shallow. The exactitude of communication is not there; and I often wonder why at the start of the 21st Cent, and considering all the prominent scientists and philosophers who HAVE passed on why they have not communicated in any meaningfull way, or for once and for all established the existance of this other dimension. If there are as many people on the other side who are as interested in this question as we are I would have thought they would have made a greater effort to establish their reality.

Malcolm

 

[Arouet]

This is a most interesting discussion and there are some good ideas put forward. For the record I am a retired Medical Soiciologist, and the argument in dismissing 'anecdotal' evidence is just flawed. Both Anthropologists and many sociologist rely upon first person 'accounts' and participant observation as a legitimate and well established research tool when investiogating social worlds and belief systems.

Yes anecdotes can often play very useful roles in science. It all depends on what question you are asking. They must be assessed in their proper context and their limitations should be recognized.

 

[billw]

I have spent many years looking at Spiritualism, and latterly at the NDE phenomena which appears ( even though accounts are anecdotal ), to hint at some sort of afterlife. I think the key is veridical accounts.

The evidence from reincarnation research is also very good, and gives not only evidence for an "afterlife" but continuation of consciousness spanning multiple lives. Although the memories are not normally accessible, it is said that certain forms of meditation practices over many years can illuminate them. Pythagorus was one of those who made this claim.

Cheers,
Bill