Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|

[Silence]

Not exactly — The physicalist model allows for all phenomena of nature to be included as part of the physical realm, including EM. Perhaps what you are thinking of is the precursor to the physicalist model generally known as materialism. The two are often conflated, but they can be substantially different.

I'm far from a technician on these models, but this rings a tad incoherent to me. Perhaps I'm just not following.

If anything that could be deemed an experiential phenomena is included, what does this leave? Only the unexperienced; the imagined (if you will)? That doesn't sound "physicalist" to me at all: sounds more like a fluid goalpost. ;)

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I'm far from a technician on these models, but this rings a tad incoherent to me. Perhaps I'm just not following.

If anything that could be deemed an experiential phenomena is included, what does this leave? Only the unexperienced; the imagined (if you will)? That doesn't sound "physicalist" to me at all: sounds more like a fluid goalpost. ;)

I find the physicalist approach I've described to be the least incoherent. Classical Materialism obviously has serious flaws. It dealt only with what we think of as materials ( stuff you could weigh and measure ). It tried to evolve as phenomena such as radio waves and other previously undetectable and invisible phenomena came into our picture of the universe, and that led to early Physicalism, which made an effort to incorporate the laws of physics, including the other fundamental forces of nature.

There is currently no one view of exactly what modern physicalism is. That leaves it open to the sort of goalpost moving you describe. It really does depend on who you talk to. Some people still equate it with classical Materialism, but I think they're stuck in a rut. I'm with those who see it as virtually the same as scientific naturalism — maybe with a few quibbles here and there, but nothing sufficient to make it less coherent than any other competing view that I can think of.

However, I'd be interested in knowing what exactly you think is incoherent about it. That way we can probably arrive at a common understanding where the framing of the issues are concerned.

 

[David Bailey]

Nope — If it exists and is detectable by some means, either by our senses or some sort of detection equipment, then it resides in the realm of the physical. Consequently, assuming ESP is a real phenomenon in the way we think it is, then it represents some sort of information transference that is detectable by our "extra sense", and therefore it resides within our physical realm.

Personally, I think there's too much evidence, even if it might be deemed inconclusive by others, to dismiss the phenomenon of ESP. What the exact causal agents are however, remains uncertain. There is still the possibility of an unseen third party influence.

OK, I agree about ESP.

You need to realise that a lot of scientists have worked very hard to explain ESP, but failed - otherwise the phenomenon would be an established part of science.

There are various other phenomena that are in the same bracket as far as I am concerned - presentiment for example.

Now, the question is whether it is at all likely that either phenomena could be incorporated into science as we know it. I certainly do not think they could. To name but one problem, it is assumed that brains work rather like artificial neural nets. These things are trained on data (e.g. images) and mature by a stochastic process which is fine until A's NN tries to communicate with B's NN. At that point the communication just breaks down. I mean the part of your NN relating to beer might have a structure that might match my NN for porridge (or even Pythagorus' equation!). The NN's only have meaning in a large web of relationships. That means you simply could not pass on your thoughts to me, even if we assume the communication was electromagnetic and my head was an inch from yours - basically because you learned your knowledge independently from me!

I'm obviously far more willing than you to use information derived from NDE's etc. These tell us that outside of our bodies, people/spirits/whatever communicate telepathically - they don't been to code ideas in patterns of sound, or patterns recorded on paper. You need to be willing to use at least some tentative knowledge if you want to move forward.

David

 

[Robbedigital]

That means you simply could not pass on your thoughts to me, even if we assume the communication was electromagnetic and my head was an inch from yours - basically because you learned your knowledge independently from me!

Exactly.
I might be picturing a beer in my head, but the electrical(or ethereal) signal might say “thirst/dry:relax/ foamy white.”

I doubt these Transhumanist fools realize how involved our breathing in/out and blinking eyes is to how we process information.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

OK, I agree about ESP.

You need to realise that a lot of scientists have worked very hard to explain ESP, but failed - otherwise the phenomenon would be an established part of science.

There are various other phenomena that are in the same bracket as far as I am concerned - presentiment for example.

Now, the question is whether it is at all likely that either phenomena could be incorporated into science as we know it. I certainly do not think they could. To name but one problem, it is assumed that brains work rather like artificial neural nets. These things are trained on data (e.g. images) and mature by a stochastic process which is fine until A's NN tries to communicate with B's NN. At that point the communication just breaks down. I mean the part of your NN relating to beer might have a structure that might match my NN for porridge (or even Pythagorus' equation!). The NN's only have meaning in a large web of relationships. That means you simply could not pass on your thoughts to me, even if we assume the communication was electromagnetic and my head was an inch from yours - basically because you learned your knowledge independently from me!

I'm obviously far more willing than you to use information derived from NDE's etc. These tell us that outside of our bodies, people/spirits/whatever communicate telepathically - they don't been to code ideas in patterns of sound, or patterns recorded on paper. You need to be willing to use at least some tentative knowledge if you want to move forward.

David

I wouldn't say that I'm not necessarily as willing as you to "use information from NDEs". I've waded through the papers and research. It's probably more the case that I came to a different conclusion than you on how much weight NDEs should be given with respect to evidence for such things as afterlives. So it's not that I don't use it, it's that I use it differently.

A logical analysis of the information gained from neuroscience and psychology as it pertains to personality and intelligence reveals that afterlives as people generally think of them aren't possible, therefore it doesn't matter how good an NDE is, it cannot represent a continuity of personhood following the death of the brain-body system. Researchers need to accept that and get past it if they want to know what's really going on.

The problem is that instead of recognizing that they're pursuing a dead-end, their cognitive dissonance kicks in to defend their cherished beliefs to the contrary. And so the tape-loop of believerism continues — getting us nowhere with respect to the mystery of the phenomenon. It's like those who think UFOs are transports from Hell. Superstition and religion trump logic and reason all too often.

 

[David Bailey]

I wouldn't say that I'm not necessarily as willing as you to "use information from NDEs". I've waded through the papers and research. It's probably more the case that I came to a different conclusion than you on how much weight NDEs should be given with respect to evidence for such things as afterlives. So it's not that I don't use it, it's that I use it differently.

A logical analysis of the information gained from neuroscience and psychology as it pertains to personality and intelligence reveals that afterlives as people generally think of them aren't possible, therefore it doesn't matter how good an NDE is, it cannot represent a continuity of personhood following the death of the brain-body system. Researchers need to accept that and get past it if they want to know what's really going on.

So is your position more based on wading through NDE papers, or is it more based on your "logical analysis of the information gained from neuroscience and psychology"?

My suspicion is that it is the latter - you can't see how an afterlife is possible given neuroscience. You really need to think about the TV analogy of consciousness. The point is that if you didn't believe in the existence of TV channels, you could instrument a TV set and come up with all sorts of correlates that would persuade you that the TV is producing the picture and the sound - but it obviously is not.

Once you start to take that analogy at all seriously, the concept of an afterlife looks a lot more promising.

The history of science tells me that explaining away shed loads of evidence is not a clever way to procede.

The problem is that instead of recognizing that they're pursuing a dead-end, their cognitive dissonance kicks in to defend their cherished beliefs to the contrary. And so the tape-loop of believerism continues — getting us nowhere with respect to the mystery of the phenomenon. It's like those who think UFOs are transports from Hell. Superstition and religion trump logic and reason all too often.

But couldn't that charge be applied to you too? You seem incapable of taking NDE's seriously. To be fair, I probably would have reacted the same way in the past, but my views have evolved.

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

So is your position more based on wading through NDE papers, or is it more based on your "logical analysis of the information gained from neuroscience and psychology"?

Both

My suspicion is that it is the latter - you can't see how an afterlife is possible given neuroscience. You really need to think about the TV analogy of consciousness. The point is that if you didn't believe in the existence of TV channels, you could instrument a TV set and come up with all sorts of correlates that would persuade you that the TV is producing the picture and the sound - but it obviously is not.

The evidence doesn't fit that analogy.

Once you start to take that analogy at all seriously, the concept of an afterlife looks a lot more promising.

No, that analogy doesn't make afterlives look more promising, because as I said, the analogy doesn't fit all the evidence, and I won't discard that evidence just because it doesn't fit what people prefer to believe. Personally, I think it would be great if afterlives are possible I'd really like that to be the case. But I have a problem ignoring what I believe to be the true state of affairs with it.

The history of science tells me that explaining away shed loads of evidence is not a clever way to procede.

Actually, it looks like that's exactly the best way to proceed — by explaining. Not by offhanded dismissal — but by explaining.

But couldn't that charge be applied to you too? You seem incapable of taking NDE's seriously. To be fair, I probably would have reacted the same way in the past, but my views have evolved.
David

I looked at NDEs with an open mind and critical thinking — same as other phenomenon. The problem with those who want to believe in afterlives or religion, or whatever their preferred superstition or mythology is, is that they assume that anyone who doesn't agree with their position must be less informed or incapable of taking it seriously. I don't fall into that category.

I recognize that the NDE phenomenon exists. I also know it can't be what believers in afterlives think it is. You cannot explain away the mountains of clinical data on neuroscience and personality by invoking the idea that it's all due to some unexplained remotely transmitted experience of consciousness about our local world.

The closest to that being true, is if we're all just brains in a vat being fed sensory signals, in which case, even if our sensory processing centers aren't what we think are our brains ( despite all evidence that they are ), then it just means something else is, which still qualifies it as a brain of some kind someplace, even if we don't know where that someplace is and that all of what we think is the real world is just a transmitted illusion.

In other words, cogito ergo sum still applies, regardless of the situation, whether we're living in a remotely broadcast Matrix like dreamworld or not.

But believe that if you want. Hypothetically, there's nothing in this realm that could disprove it. Just remember that unless it's falsifiable, it cannot be a matter for science to study. It becomes a matter of faith instead, and I'm less inclined to lean in that direction. So if you want to go the faith route, I'm out of that discussion because it cannot go any further.

 

[Robbedigital]

Throwing around terms like “Self-Evident Truth” in a science forum is asking for trouble. You’re guaranteed to only get the ears of those who already agree with you. The same also applies for jumping to conclusions. The fact that multiple/various “miraculous” feats occur around NDE’s doesn’t prove that those feats won’t all eventually be explained by science. It absolutely appears supernatural, but as soon as we jump to that conclusion we fully lose the attention of anyone who wasn’t already on board.
Unfortunately, I believe the burden of using speculative language remains with the supernatural side of the argument until we get the equivalent of a non-blurry Bigfoot on camera. And we need to be honest about what that equivalent would be.

 

[David Bailey]

Both

So does that mean if you thought the NDE evidence was of better quality, you would accept the afterlife explanation, or that you would need to be persuaded of both before you you would change your position?

The evidence doesn't fit that analogy.

Well what evidence exactly? Taken collectively the NDE accounts report memories of procedures used in the operating theatre while they were supposed to be anaesthetised, meeting people who were dead - including people the patient thought were still alive, some NDEs where the patient's conscious awareness drifts away from the operating theatre and observes things going on in other parts of the hospital o further afield, a woman who was slipping into a coma close to death due to cancer and was given the choice to stay alive while in her NDE, and returned with no cancer in her body (in a US hospital, not a third world location), etc etc.

No, that analogy doesn't make afterlives look more promising, because as I said, the analogy doesn't fit all the evidence, and I won't discard that evidence just because it doesn't fit what people prefer to believe. Personally, I think it would be great if afterlives are possible I'd really like that to be the case. But I have a problem ignoring what I believe to be the true state of affairs with it.

Actually, it looks like that's exactly the best way to proceed — by explaining. Not by offhanded dismissal — but by explaining.

That sounds great until one realises that you mean explain using existing science.

Sometimes science has to take on board something new - QM, SR, GR, etc. I am sure that an axiom that light always travels at the same speed - even when measured from somewhere already in motion, looked lunatic to many people. Well, the lunacy prevailed!

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

So does that mean if you thought the NDE evidence was of better quality, you would accept the afterlife explanation, or that you would need to be persuaded of both before you you would change your position?

If everyone regularly had NDEs so reliable that they could be taken for granted, it still wouldn't mean afterlives are possible. It would just mean that by some unexplained means, living people can gain information that corresponds to a period when they were presumed dead.

Well what evidence exactly?

That's the best question yet.

The claim that our conscious experience is analogous to a remote TV transmission doesn't fit the massive amount of evidence that the content of the "transmission" arrives from our bodily sensors via bodily nerve impulses to the brain. – not from a remote location. Even when we do experience some sort of ESP or NDE, it is ultimately received locally and relayed by living people.

There are literally billions of examples of that happening right now, and it also seems to happen with every newborn child. So we know how to physically reproduce the system. We just don't know what makes it work the way it does — but it does. And each and every one is unique in all possible universes. This to me adds to our value as individuals. It does not diminish our worth or experiences in any way.

The neurological studies that confirm this are now so extensive that the correlation ≠ causation argument becomes nothing more than sheer rhetoric. But that massive amount of information is often dismissed in its entirety by believers who often use less than flattering descriptions of our bodily existence to bolster their belief.

I can't do that. It's not intellectually honest — oh and that's another thing, they also often say that you need to leave your intellect behind and forget everything you've been taught, or you won't get it. How convenient is that for them? Just drink the Kool Aid and believe. Sorry, but that's not me — not joining that cult any time soon.

Taken collectively the NDE accounts report memories of procedures used in the operating theatre while they were supposed to be anaesthetised, meeting people who were dead - including people the patient thought were still alive, some NDEs where the patient's conscious awareness drifts away from the operating theatre and observes things going on in other parts of the hospital o further afield, a woman who was slipping into a coma close to death due to cancer and was given the choice to stay alive while in her NDE, and returned with no cancer in her body (in a US hospital, not a third world location), etc etc.

I know about the cases. There are probably more happening every month someplace. However more rigorous attempts to verify them, like the AWARE study did not succeed in getting the data they were hoping for. On top of that, there are also cases where the recall was way off. But the believers only cherry pick the ones that fit their narrative.

That sounds great until one realises that you mean explain using existing science.

I don't think explanation as a concept need be restricted to current science. It just needs to be possible and falsifiable. Afterlives appear to be neither.

Sometimes science has to take on board something new - QM, SR, GR, etc. I am sure that an axiom that light always travels at the same speed - even when measured from somewhere already in motion, looked lunatic to many people. Well, the lunacy prevailed!
David

Relativity predicted that light behaves the way you describe. So I think that "counterintuitive" might be a better word than lunacy. NDE's actually make intuitive sense given the descriptions of the experiences. However as you point out, reality can be counterintuitive.

Something other than what we want to believe, is what is actually happening. I don't know for sure what that is. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's connected to alien intervention — now I'm the one who sounds like a lunatic ;-)

BTW: I give out likes for every civil ( or at least reasonably civil ) post in a discussion that I read, whether I agree with it or not, because I think anyone who takes the time to participate deserves it — just for participating in some positive way.

 

[David Bailey]

If everyone regularly had NDEs so reliable that they could be taken for granted, it still wouldn't mean afterlives are possible. It would just mean that by some unexplained means, living people can gain information that corresponds to a period when they were presumed dead.

That's the best question yet.

The claim that our conscious experience is analogous to a remote TV transmission doesn't fit the massive amount of evidence that the content of the "transmission" arrives from our bodily sensors via bodily nerve impulses to the brain. – not from a remote location. Even when we do experience some sort of ESP or NDE, it is ultimately received locally and relayed by living people.

I hesitated as to which analogy to choose. The best one is to think of a Mars rover, controlled from a person on the earth, but using some local 'intelligence' to keep itself stable etc. The Mars rover receives commands, acts on them, and sends data back to base. If there is any genuine emotion in the system, it is generated by the human operator - not the computers!

There are literally billions of examples of that happening right now, and it also seems to happen with every newborn child. So we know how to physically reproduce the system.

I am not sure what you mean unless you are referring to sex, or are just joking.

We just don't know what makes it work the way it does — but it does.

Well that is the point, and a lot of people are speculating that the control does not come from within the box (I mean head).

And each and every one is unique in all possible universes. This to me adds to our value as individuals. It does not diminish our worth or experiences in any way.

The neurological studies that confirm this are now so extensive that the correlation ≠ causation argument becomes nothing more than sheer rhetoric.

Let's be honest, almost everything a neurologist measures is a gross average of signals from many neurons at once. If you imagine doing that with a computer - you wouldn't make much progress in understanding the computer, nor would you discover if it had some other hidden form of input that drives it.

But that massive amount of information is often dismissed in its entirety by believers who often use less than flattering descriptions of our bodily existence to bolster their belief.

People can become drunk on voluminous information and it can cloud their reason.

I can't do that. It's not intellectually honest — oh and that's another thing, they also often say that you need to leave your intellect behind and forget everything you've been taught, or you won't get it. How convenient is that for them? Just drink the Kool Aid and believe. Sorry, but that's not me — not joining that cult any time soon.

Well you have to sort of leave your reason behind when you learn QM.

I know about the cases. There are probably more happening every month someplace. However more rigorous attempts to verify them, like the AWARE study did not succeed in getting the data they were hoping for.

I think AWARE was hindered by the fact that it had to rely on people undergoing a VERY emotional experience, noticing something seemingly irrelevant to them like something written on top of a cupboard. It is entirely possible to take phenomena like this and demand more and more from them until they fail, but neglect to think enough about what that failure means. It is a way to discredit just about any research.

Actually, I think we are going round in circles, so perhaps we should call it a day.

David

 

[Robbedigital]

Well you have to sort of leave your reason behind when you learn QM.

People on both sides of the flat earth argument use this appeal against human ability to fathom the size of God, or the size of the Universe.
It's ridiculous.
Flat Earthers will ironically argue that science is lying to make humanity seem insignificant against a potentially infinite universe, while simultaneously arguing that God is all powerful and infinite.

It would be retarded to assume that there WASN'T some unseen tether connecting all particles at all places/non-places in the universe at all times connected, whether they're in a state of being or not being.... Actually, I take that back. I think a retard (yours truly included) could handle it no problem. I think scientists will struggle.

"No, Man, you don't understand. I'm mean, for reals that a particle on Earth could be entangled with a particle billions of light y....."
"No, You don't understand, so you don't want anyone else to."

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Actually, I think we are going round in circles, so perhaps we should call it a day.

Perhaps you are right. I've been mainly responding to questions and claims, leaving it up to you to put the pieces together. So maybe that's why I haven't been able to relay the sheer weight of evidence and logic involved. Perhaps if I were to start you on your own journey of discovery with one small example and a clear-cut definition.

Afterlife: A continuity of personhood following the death of the brain-body system.

If you have some other way of defining afterlives, then we'd have to look at that separately. That might include some versions of reincarnation where people are reborn as animals ( or whatever ). That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the assumption that we lose nothing that counts as part of who we are following the death of the brain-body system.

Right away we can see that if we are to go with the above assumption, we lose a lot right away — our entire brain-body system is gone. That is the primary means by which we typically establish our identity. Without it, what's left? We might claim that so long as we have our personality, then that's sufficient. I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument let's assume that our personalities survive the death of the brain-body system.

Looking at the issue of personality, there are mountains of evidence that the brain-body system plays a crucial role in personality. For example various types of injuries and drugs radically affect our personality. But even assuming we don't interfere with anything, our perfectly healthy natural state still requires a plethora of biochemical agents in order to maintain our normal personality.

Just the hormonal differences between men and women make huge differences in personality and identity. So ask yourself. That being the case, what takes over for all that once the brain-body system is gone? There are reports of apparitions that look identical to the deceased, therefore something else has taken on the task of replicating a body image.

Then what takes over for the hormones and other biochemistry that regulates our normal personality? Obvious something must. What takes over for our visual receptors ( our eyes ). Optics shows that our visual perceptions come directly through them — not from some remote source. What takes over for them? Start adding it all up, and what you end-up with in order to retain any semblance of identity and personality is a copy.

The original you, along with everything that allowed anyone to identify you as being you, is now either six feet under, or a pile of ash. So whatever this copy is, it's not the original you, even if it thinks it is — unless of course as has been said already, this realm is some sort of Matrix like construct ( the brain in a vat problem — elementary philosophy ). Those are the only two options.

Now given those two options, either way, we still are thinking individual entities, which means that we have some version of a brain someplace. But consider how much more we have to assume with that model than just assuming that we are in a universe governed by nature, and that we are self-contained autonomous, intelligent, beings that evolved here and are trying to figure it all out. The latter seems to be the simplest model.

Then again, just because it's the simplest answer doesn't mean it's the right answer. From here things start to get more complex, involving mutiverses of various kinds and whether or not time is quantized. But if we can get this far along in the journey, then we are at least recognizing the only two options available, and that either way, they're not really the same sort of "afterlife" that people typically imagine.

 

[Robbedigital]

Afterlife: A continuity of personhood following the death of the brain-body system.

Try instead:
Afterlife: A return to the previous state of personhood following the death of the brain-body system.
Accurate or not, I think this is a must in order to assist the imagination.

I apologize for dipping in to you and David’s volley. This is my favorite subject of speculation. I personally have my fingers crossed that where we go after here includes some sort of ethereal or spiritual Holodeck where we can work our all the unresolved hang ups from this earthly life. For instance wherein a wheelchair bound individual will want to have all the experience of running, jumping, chasing playing etc. Kind of similar to the way the Metaverse is pitched to us (which will always be a fraud to what would be available in “heaven” in my opinion).
During one of the podcasts between Clif High and Al Borealis, Clif speculated/believes that each of us have a personal heaven where we can experience literally everything, but that our actual loved ones are avatars only for the reason that Al Borealis explained “Cat Heaven and Mouse Hell are the same place.”

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Try instead:
Afterlife: A return to the previous state of personhood following the death of the brain-body system.
Accurate or not, I think this is a must in order to assist the imagination.

I apologize for dipping in to you and David’s volley. This is my favorite subject of speculation. I personally have my fingers crossed that where we go after here includes some sort of ethereal or spiritual Holodeck where we can work our all the unresolved hang ups from this earthly life. For instance wherein a wheelchair bound individual will want to have all the experience of running, jumping, chasing playing etc. Kind of similar to the way the Metaverse is pitched to us (which will always be a fraud to what would be available in “heaven” in my opinion).
During one of the podcasts between Clif High and Al Borealis, Clif speculated/believes that each of us have a personal heaven where we can experience literally everything, but that our actual loved ones are avatars only for the reason that Al Borealis explained “Cat Heaven and Mouse Hell are the same place.”

Certainly no need to apologise. I assume all conversation here is open for the inclusion of all those interested. The problem I have with your definition of the word "afterlife" is that it front loads it with assumptions. The essential character of the word "afterlife" is the concept of "after" meaning "following" and "life" meaning our existence as functioning biological creatures.

What the frontloading does is add to the bias that there is such a thing as a discarnate existence in the first place. Even if we suppose instead that the "state of personhood" prior to the formation of a functioning the brain-body system, amounts to nothing more than the materials we are made from, we cannot return to that state either, because the body creates new compounds while it grows. It doesn't simply organize existing nutrients.

In short — unless there is such a thing as time travel, there is no going back, and there is no way to proceed forward other than to become a copy.

From here things start to get interesting. You mention the concept of avatars. If anything is an avatar, it's the afterlife copy. Most accounts of apparitions are very avatar like in appearance and behavior. You also mention this universe being an illusion. That can be taken a couple of different ways. Our conscious perceptions are certainly interpretations of sensory stimuli, not a direct experience ( back to Plato's cave ). It's also possible to take that line of thinking a step further to suggest that everything we think of as objectively real, is just an illusion ( back to brains in a vat ).

Whatever the case, it all still means that we have something that qualifies as a brain someplace. Otherwise there would be no memory or intelligence included in our being, or any of the other functions we presently assign to the brain. Which means that once again, everything still supervenes on the physical ( the natural world ) — even if the context of it is beyond our present means of detection and verification.

At the farthest extreme of this line of thinking is the idea that we are ourselves like the sentient programs in The Matrix, in which case time itself must be quantized, and we are always copies, like the images in each frame of a filmstrip, in which case, becoming yet another copy in yet another realm makes no appreciable difference to the argument. Maybe that is also the case ( we don't know ) — I doubt that we can ever know. But if that's the case, then afterlives still don't represent a continuity of personhood.

The bottom line — No possible scenario meets the conditions that would facilitate afterlives the way that most people tend to think of them. We either lose everything essential to our personhood, or we become copies. Show me a logical way around that without changing the initial premise and I'll change my current view. Otherwise I'm sticking with what I've got so far, and perhaps that will lead to some advancement in our search for answers about the phenomena.

The question them becomes: If the phenomena can't be what we think it is — what other possible explanations are there? Apart from misperceptions, hallucinations, and other mundane explanations; unexplained but natural PSI ability and/or alien PSI/technical intervention are the first things that come to mind. How reasonable are those? More reasonable than people think ( IMO ).

 

[Robbedigital]

Certainly no need to apologise. I assume all conversation here is open for the inclusion of all those interested. The problem I have with your definition of the word "afterlife" is that it front loads it with assumptions. The essential character of the word "afterlife" is the concept of "after" meaning "following" and "life" meaning our existence as functioning biological creatures.

What the frontloading does is add to the bias that there is such a thing as a discarnate existence in the first place. Even if we suppose instead that the "state of personhood" prior to the formation of a functioning the brain-body system, amounts to nothing more than the materials we are made from, we cannot return to that state either, because the body creates new compounds while it grows. It doesn't simply organize existing nutrients.

In short — unless there is such a thing as time travel, there is no going back, and there is no way to proceed forward other than to become a copy.

From here things start to get interesting. You mention the concept of avatars. If anything is an avatar, it's the afterlife copy. Most accounts of apparitions are very avatar like in appearance and behavior. You also mention this universe being an illusion. That can be taken a couple of different ways. Our conscious perceptions are certainly interpretations of sensory stimuli, not a direct experience ( back to Plato's cave ). It's also possible to take that line of thinking a step further to suggest that everything we think of as objectively real, is just an illusion ( back to brains in a vat ).

Whatever the case, it all still means that we have something that qualifies as a brain someplace. Otherwise there would be no memory or intelligence included in our being, or any of the other functions we presently assign to the brain. Which means that once again, everything still supervenes on the physical ( the natural world ) — even if the context of it is beyond our present means of detection and verification.

At the farthest extreme of this line of thinking is that we are ourselves like the sentient programs in The Matrix, in which case time itself must be quantized, and we are always copies, like the images in each frame of a filmstrip, in which case, becoming yet another copy in yet another realm makes no appreciable difference to the argument. Maybe that is also the case ( we don't know ) — I doubt that we can ever know. But if that's the case, then afterlives still don't represent a continuity of personhood.

The bottom line — No possible scenario meets the conditions that would facilitate afterlives the way that most people tend to think of them. We either lose everything essential to our personhood, or we become copies. Show me a logical way around that without changing the initial premise and I'll change my current view. Otherwise I'm sticking with what I've got so far, and perhaps that will lead to some advancement in our search for answers about the phenomena.

The question them becomes: If the phenomena can't be what we think it is — what other possible explanations are there? Apart from misperceptions, hallucinations, and other mundane explanations; unexplained but natural PSI ability and/or alien PSI/technical intervention are the first things that come to mind. How reasonable are those? More reasonable than people think ( IMO ).

Perfect, I can build on that. While i was reading this, my cat came and sat next to me and gave me a further suitable analogy..
Instead of picturing a state of before or after life, lets use a transfer (for this analogy please briefly disregard the subject of before or afterlife)..

If my cat's spirit (or higher consciousness) were to jump into a human body, all of the things you've mentioned will apply - all of the daily activities (breathing, waking eating etc) which makeup up our personality, would not magically appear, since my cat never had a human personality. So, my cat, having never had a human personality would probably only know how to speak in grunts, just like it did when it was a cat. It would have to learn how to speak human language just like a baby. Probably close to none of the years long relationship I perceive myself having with my cat would carry over, because all of the cats energy and consciousness would be spend/dedicated to adapting to this new way of being alive. My cat might not even recognize me through human eyes the very instant after transfer.

So.. Fast forward 30 or 40 years..
My cat has adopted a human name (Jeff), I have not seen him in years. He doesn't remember anything about me, other than what he discusses with this therapist as some kind of abduction from childhood which caused developmental issues. And Jeff works as a greeter at Walmart, and lives barely makes rent at low income housing.

Next is the crazy part. ( you might want to sit down, this might give you a shake)..
One day, BAM, Jeff consciousness is transferred into a cat!!! He went back to a cat!! Holy Moly what would that look like?? He was previously a cat so there would be some familiarity.. And Most or All of the human characteristics experienced would fade away, perhaps almost as rapidly as the with the previous transfer... But the questions is: What would be retained? (I have no idea in this example).

Now, to circle back to the idea of a previous life or an afterlife, this analogy must convince you that whatever spirit(or higher consciousness) my cat carried from embodiment to embodiment, may fully shed all of the conditional attributes of each embodiment. Therefore you would probably be correct insomuch as you assume your "personality" is a component of Earth living and probably incompatible outside.. BUT, if you have inside of you a higher self on a ethereal couch with a tub of popcorn and a headset who existed before the show began, we would have no basis for making assumptions on the degree of transferability/retainment of experience upon completion.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Perfect, I can build on that. While i was reading this, my cat came and sat next to me and gave me a further suitable analogy..
Instead of picturing a state of before or after life, lets use a transfer (for this analogy please briefly disregard the subject of before or afterlife)..

If my cat's spirit (or higher consciousness) were to jump into a human body, all of the things you've mentioned will apply - all of the daily activities (breathing, waking eating etc) which makeup up our personality, would not magically appear, since my cat never had a human personality. So, my cat, having never had a human personality would probably only know how to speak in grunts, just like it did when it was a cat. It would have to learn how to speak human language just like a baby. Probably close to none of the years long relationship I perceive myself having with my cat would carry over, because all of the cats energy and consciousness would be spend/dedicated to adapting to this new way of being alive. My cat might not even recognize me through human eyes the very instant after transfer.

So.. Fast forward 30 or 40 years..
My cat has adopted a human name (Jeff), I have not seen him in years. He doesn't remember anything about me, other than what he discusses with this therapist as some kind of abduction from childhood which caused developmental issues. And Jeff works as a greeter at Walmart, and lives barely makes rent at low income housing.

Next is the crazy part. ( you might want to sit down, this might give you a shake)..
One day, BAM, Jeff consciousness is transferred into a cat!!! He went back to a cat!! Holy Moly what would that look like?? He was previously a cat so there would be some familiarity.. And Most or All of the human characteristics experienced would fade away, perhaps almost as rapidly as the with the previous transfer... But the questions is: What would be retained? (I have no idea in this example).

Now, to circle back to the idea of a previous life or an afterlife, this analogy must convince you that whatever spirit(or higher consciousness) my cat carried from embodiment to embodiment, may fully shed all of the conditional attributes of each embodiment. Therefore you would probably be correct insomuch as you assume your "personality" is a component of Earth living and probably incompatible outside.. BUT, if you have inside of you a higher self on a ethereal couch with a tub of popcorn and a headset who existed before the show began, we would have no basis for making assumptions on the degree of transferability/retainment of experience upon completion.

That's all a nice premise for a Disney movie, but it's got serious holes. For starters, memory doesn't reside in our "higher consciousness". Neuroscience has identified specific neural regions and pathways where it is stored. It can be erased, and even restored through entirely physical means. Where believers in afterlives go off the rails, is to assume that memory = personhood. It doesn't. It just means there's been some unexplained acquisition of information by the subject under study — it doesn't make them someone else.

Consciousness has also been tied intimately to the thalamocortical loop. Without that, nobody exhibits consciousness, and any assumption that it exists independently of that system is based purely on faith. But it goes even deeper than that.

As in previous posts, key aspects of personhood are the physical characteristics of the body and the effects of its biochemical processes. Just the hormonal difference between males and females makes a huge difference. So imagine how big the difference is between cats and humans. Ultimately, for the cat to remain being the cat, it has to retain all of its "catness" — claws and all. Being transmuted into Jeff isn't a continuity of the cat.

The belief in afterlives needs to be abandoned if we are to understand the phenomena that has led people to that conclusion. It is by questioning it rather than accepting it as a given, than we can make progress. When we do that, it becomes likely that we're dealing with unexplained causes and effects of the brain-body system, and that the high strangeness stuff involves some unseen third party intervention — perhaps even alien in origin. I know that sounds more nuts than afterlives, but at least alien visitation and mind manipulation are possible.

I'm presently working under the hypothesis, that some of the high strangeness experiences are in-fact some sort of alien experiment to see if we fall for the illusions they create, or if we're smart enough to get that they cannot be what we think they are. It's like an extension of the reflection experiment we do on animals, taken to the next level.

Does the bird ( or dolphin ) recognize that that its reflection is itself? Or does it think it's another bird or dolphin? Not all birds catch on. But dolphins figure it out. Now replace the mirror with a high resolution screen image of another dolphin it knows. Does it figure that one out? Now replace the image with that of a deceased dolphin it used to know. Does it figure that one out — or does it tell the other dolphins it saw the deceased dolphin swimming around, and conclude that therefore, there are afterlives?

I once believed in reincarnation and all the rest. I have evolved beyond that. Now if I were to see an apparition of my dead grandmother, I wouldn't ask her how she's doing. I'd be looking for the Wizard behind the curtain.

 

[Robbedigital]

That's all a nice premise for a Disney movie, but it's got serious holes. For starters, memory doesn't reside in our "higher consciousness". Neuroscience has identified specific neural regions and pathways where it is stored. It can be erased, and even restored through entirely physical means. Where believers in afterlives go off the rails, is to assume that memory = personhood. It doesn't. It just means there's been some unexplained acquisition of information by the subject under study — it doesn't make them someone else.

Consciousness has also been tied intimately to the thalamocortical loop. Without that, nobody exhibits consciousness, and any assumption that it exists independently of that system is based purely on faith. But it goes even deeper than that.

As in previous posts, key aspects of personhood are the physical characteristics of the body and the effects of its biochemical processes. Just the hormonal difference between males and females makes a huge difference. So imagine how big the difference is between cats and humans. Ultimately, for the cat to remain being the cat, it has to retain all of its "catness" — claws and all. Being transmuted into Jeff isn't a continuity of the cat.

The belief in afterlives needs to be abandoned if we are to understand the phenomena that has led people to that conclusion. It is by questioning it rather than accepting it as a given, than we can make progress. When we do that, it becomes likely that we're dealing with unexplained causes and effects of the brain-body system, and that the high strangeness stuff involves some unseen third party intervention — perhaps even alien in origin. I know that sounds more nuts than afterlives, but at least alien visitation and mind manipulation are possible.

I'm presently working under the hypothesis, that some of the high strangeness experiences are in-fact some sort of alien experiment to see if we fall for the illusions they create, or if we're smart enough to get that they cannot be what we think they are. It's like an extension of the reflection experiment we do on animals, taken to the next level.

Does the bird ( or dolphin ) recognize that that its reflection is itself? Or does it think it's another bird or dolphin? Not all birds catch on. But dolphins figure it out. Now replace the mirror with a high resolution screen image of another dolphin it knows. Does it figure that one out? Now replace the image with that of a deceased dolphin it used to know. Does it figure that one out — or does it tell the other dolphins it saw the deceased dolphin swimming around, and conclude that therefore, there are afterlives?

I once believed in reincarnation and all the rest. I have evolved beyond that. Now if I were to see an apparition of my dead grandmother, I wouldn't ask her how she's doing. I'd be looking for the Wizard behind the curtain.

I’m totally ok with the idea that after I die there is a chance(and science would assume) that I stop happening and just kinda dissipate into the greater consciousness. The idea just doesn’t reflect the majesty of existence. I’m like: If that’s it, fine. But I doubt it.
In my personal opinion: existence/novelty implies meaning.
I would challenge you to realize your perception may have shifted or perhaps evolved into your current view, but it doesn’t graduate from the other. Scientists have always and will always continue use language like “current sciences has confirmed that spirituality…..” but no, it hasn’t. In an allegedly 14 billion y/o universe, humans redefine reality every 20 years and act like they found the end-all each time. I’ll take each with a grain of salt.
I understand the whole thing about how in order to fully question reality some may have to employ the lens of having “confirmed” the spiritual to be “impossible”. But to me this is just an exercise. A valiant exercise, but it’s not any indication of graduation or mastery of understanding existence. More akin to intense regiments of fasting, ice bathing, or meditation, and applied to a specific line of inquiry. I find both the spiritual and anti-spiritual approaches to be equally valid.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I’m totally ok with the idea that after I die there is a chance(and science would assume) that I stop happening and just kinda dissipate into the greater consciousness. The idea just doesn’t reflect the majesty of existence. I’m like: If that’s it, fine. But I doubt it.
In my personal opinion: existence/novelty implies meaning.
I would challenge you to realize your perception may have shifted or perhaps evolved into your current view, but it doesn’t graduate from the other. Scientists have always and will always continue use language like “current sciences has confirmed that spirituality…..” but no, it hasn’t. In an allegedly 14 billion y/o universe, humans redefine reality every 20 years and act like they found the end-all each time. I’ll take each with a grain of salt.
I understand the whole thing about how in order to fully question reality some may have to employ the lens of having “confirmed” the spiritual to be “impossible”. But to me this is just an exercise. A valiant exercise, but it’s not any indication of graduation or mastery of understanding existence. More akin to intense regiments of fasting, ice bathing, or meditation, and applied to a specific line of inquiry. I find both the spiritual and anti-spiritual approaches to be equally valid.

A few loose ends in there, but what I like is that the subject matters to you enough to contemplate it for yourself while considering other perspectives. That's all part of your own personal journey. Like I said, I was one a believer in afterlives and so on, and I would contend that I haven't devolved by learning how to apply critical thinking, science, and philosophy, to the subjects.

For the record, I don't claim that the spiritual doesn't exist, I just think that it's a convenience term for our psychological well being and personality. We can say that Alice is a loving spirit. Or we can say that Alice has a loving personality. There's no difference. We can say that Alice is spiritually enlightened. Or we can say that Alice is self-actualized. We don't need to infuse our existence with supernatural beliefs for us to appreciate the majesty of nature or the meaning of our own lives.

 

[Silence]

Like I said, I was one a believer in afterlives and so on, and I would contend that I haven't devolved by learning how to apply critical thinking, science, and philosophy, to the subjects.

See, here it is again. Subtle, but it remains.

Critical thinking and science (leaving out philosophy for my point) prove nothing more or less about afterlives than any "believer's" position. We just have to continue to be honest about this. Yes, critical thinking and science certainly prove many things people "believe" to be false. However, the afterlife question remains unaddressed by science, and I think the hard problem of consciousness remains pretty intractable as well.

Its a nit picky thing I realize, but the slippery slope is very real. Its a way of providing the high ground to one metaphysical worldview without merit. (In my view)