Description of Afterlife?

[m4rk84]

Lets put another spin on this, what gives us the right to claim an after life?

As we know we are composed of materials that mainly come from dead stars, why is it we get this mystical afterlife and not our starry forefathers?

Are we more alive then a star in it's prime? Is there a star heaven where they transcend to after a super nova?

 

[Castiel]

No but your presumptive enough to disregard all known evidence that exists within it.

That is an assumption that you cannot justify...I am a pragmatist, where evidence exists and is relevant I accept it and adjust my views accordingly, where there is little or no evidence I remain open-minded to possibility (which doesn't imply I give any particular credence to any particular speculation/hypothesis I may consider or discuss).

If anything your position requires the faith of belief whereas mine simply deals in objectivity as you are operating a definitive worldview based on assumption, I don't base my worldview on assumptions, it is an evolving and changing thing for me as I have yet to fully form a definitive view of existence and there is no guarantee I ever will.

A quote from Bacon illustrates my current view:

“I do not think ourselves yet learned or wise enough to wish reasonably for man, I wait for harvest time, nor attempt to reap green corn.”

You have a reductionist worldview, which is perfectly fine, I simply do not share it. Now I am definitely going to sleep.

Goodnight big fella. Happy dream walking.

EDIT: Just posted that thinking what an early night you're taking, then had an 'Oh, it actually is 2am. Again.' moment... I'm also off, but I'll be back when I can. Goodnight all.

It's good to hear from you again.....I keep meaning to email you, but life keeps getting in the way. I'll drop you a line over the weekend.

 

[bhavv]

Thank you. You must understand that my capacity for participation is rather limited, along with my bandwidth. I'm just trying to eke out the best 'value' from my contributions that I can.

As it stands I think you're continuing to confuse the physical brain with consciousness and are once again attempting to address a philosophical/theological problem with a limited scientific framework. You can't have your cake and eat it my friend; either an idea needs to be scientifically testable to be a valid hypothesis (as you assert when people talk about afterlife hypotheses), or else you don't (as you assert when you say you believe there is no afterlife, even though it's completely untestable). You can't have it both ways by saying that those open minded to survival of consciousness are deluded cranks high on pseudoscience, and then continue to use an opposing belief system in retaliation which is admittedly nothing more regardless - an untestable belief system.

Afterlives, spirits and souls have absolutely no valid scientific backing, yet its people who have absolutely no understanding of the science and more belief in faith that try to twist their theologic beliefs with pseudo science, and to try and create hypothesis and theories about the afterlife having any kind of logical and scientific validity, only as a desperate attempt to reinforce their theologic beliefs.

Whilst it's wonderful and admirable that Prof. Hawking has such a determined attitude to his life and has formulated his own opinions on the afterlife (or lack thereof), he's no more theologically qualified than you or I. As such his eminence in theoretical physics is about as relevant to the weightiness of his proclamation regarding the existence of a soul as is my qualification in touch typing...

In your opinion the afterlife is a theological position. That is fine as a belief based on faith. However other people in this thread are trying to defend the afterlife from a possition of (pseudo) science, and trying to discuss it outside of its theological limits as though it is a valid scientific idea, which it really isn't. This was happening before I started posting in this thread and that was the debate I joined. All the links that castiel posted were pseudo science links, that is information claiming to be scientifically based yet completely unverifyable by the scientific method. Several people in this thread are trying to defend the afterlife using science as though it supports this idea, but this is entirely false and as antagonizing as people who claim that there is scientific evidence and proof of creationism. If you want to defend and talk positively about the afterlife, keep it as a theological / philosophical idea, but that's definitely not what was happening in this thread.

- I didn't intend to split the quote like that, but I wrote the second half of my post in the middle of the chain after writing the first part at the bottom. Go go smatphone browser :x

 

[Castiel]

I am sure that David Bohm, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hameroff, Hans Peter-Durr and even the accused (albeit respected biochemist) Rupert Shekdrake would have been gratified that Bhavv thinks their particular scientific disciplines are regarded as pseudoscience....

Besides the fact that he still misses the point of the illustrations given, insofar that they were illustrative and not an expression of my belief....as was explained countless times.

 

[bhavv]

Do you even know what pseudo science means? Hint - lacks scientific knowledge and doesn't adhere to the scientific method, yet is presented as science.

So yes, any name and information that you can provide me as an example on this case is blatantly pseudo science. I don't even honestly think you've ever read, nor ever tried to write a scientific paper, which is even more evident by the laughable links you use to try and defend your BS.

There is nothing scientific at all about the afterlife, just as there isn't about God because neither can be tested through the scientific method. Hence there is no such thing as a scientist that works on any kind of afterlife science.

Also David Bohn is not any kind of 'afterlife scientist' as you think he is, you are simply misusing his name and work as though it supports anything to do with an afterlife, which it doesn't. Any kind of research into separate mind and brain has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING!!!! to do with the afterlife, how many times does this need to be stated?

 

[m4rk84]

That is an assumption that you cannot justify...I am a pragmatist, where evidence exists and is relevant I accept it and adjust my views accordingly, where there is little or no evidence I remain open-minded to possibility (which doesn't imply I give any particular credence to any particular speculation/hypothesis I may consider or discuss).

If anything your position requires the faith of belief whereas mine simply deals in objectivity as you are operating a definitive worldview based on assumption, I don't base my worldview on assumptions, it is an evolving and changing thing for me as I have yet to fully form a definitive view of existence and there is no guarantee I ever will.

A quote from Bacon illustrates my current view:

“I do not think ourselves yet learned or wise enough to wish reasonably for man, I wait for harvest time, nor attempt to reap green corn.”

You have a reductionist worldview, which is perfectly fine, I simply do not share it. Now I am definitely going to sleep.




It's good to hear from you again.....I keep meaning to email you, but life keeps getting in the way. I'll drop you a line over the weekend.

You flat out told me you disregard evidence when you said you give more credibility to the existence of Yahweh and an afterlife then Fairies, in fact I'm not entirely sure you know yourself enough to illustrate your view.

I think I much more accurately portray your "view" then you, I don't completely disregard the notion of an afterlife, Yahweh or Fairies either I give them all the amount of credibility they deserve, almost zero.

 

[bhavv]

And almost zero rounded to the nearest whole is zero. Which is how much credibility I give to Yahweh, afterlife, fairies, unicorns, invisible pink elephants, powerpuff girls, flying spaghetti monster etc ....

 

[Castiel]

You flat out told me you disregard evidence when you said you give more credibility to the existence of Yahweh and an afterlife then Fairies, in fact I'm not entirely sure you know yourself enough to illustrate your view.

No I did not. I said we ascribe different values to them based on various parameters. In fact I said the polar opposite to what you accuse me of....it is evidence that determines the values we place on specific concepts, I gave the example regarding the modern preconception of fairies being traceable to Middle English Literature and the defined nature of the Unicorn both linguistically and etymologically means we can give a lower value to those than the concept of God generally as we have verifiable evidence as to their veracity, so therefore we can make less assumptions in the parameters we use to attribute a value. This doesn't mean I personally support either viewpoint in any meaningful way, only that each are not treated the same as you imply they must.

Another example is comparing Harry Potter to Jesus Christ as is often done on these forums.....the former we know with reasonable certainty is a fictional character devised by JK Rowling, she doesn't ascribe anything more to her character than that and we have no reason to dispute her position, Jesus Christ however, while also not verifiable to any degree of certainty, also is not deniable to any degree of certainty...depending on the context and parameters we assume in any investigation of the histriocity of Christ any resulting value we place on the deniability of Christ will be different and have a lesser degree of certainty from that of Harry Potter. The same analogy would apply to the association of God and the FSM. We are effectively looking at the evidence of each, the history and scope of the respective concepts or propositions and assigning a value to each based on what we know, rather than assumptions of what we do not know. I do not take a lack of evidence of something as evidence of anything.

Your conclusions are drawn to an almost zero or zero value being placed on each example you gave regardless of the differing definitions and propositions respectively.....mine are a little more defined in how I assume such values according to the respective evidence of each proposition. We have a difference of opinion, nothing more....I no more believe in the objective truth of such matters than you do.

I think I much more accurately portray your "view" then you, I don't completely disregard the notion of an afterlife, Yahweh or Fairies either I give them all the amount of credibility they deserve, almost zero.

A little presumptive to know my mind better than I do myself....

Anyway before this totally degenerates into useless misrepresentation and circular arguments, not to mention that we have gone quite some distance from the the topic laid out in the OP and the fact that I should have gone to sleep hours ago I am now going to sleep. besides my iPad battery is almost discharged....goodnight M4rk, it's, for the most part anyway, been interesting talking to you.

 

[Castiel]

<snip rant>

Bhavv, I suggest you read what was written in the context in which it was presented.....and Bohm himself made the comparison between his theories and Sheldrakes..not me. Anyway I'm off to bed, goodnight Bhavv, it's been....fun!.

 

[RDM]

Certainly if there is no afterlife, it renders life pretty pointless.

This is silly. If there is no afterlife then it makes life pretty much as important as it gets as it is the only one you have.

 

[bhavv]

Bhavv, I suggest you read what was written in the context in which it was presented.....and Bohm himself made the comparison between his theories and Sheldrakes..not me. Anyway I'm off to bed, goodnight Bhavv, it's been....fun!.

Show me a proper scientific report which follows the structure of an aim, hypothesis, method, results, and conclusion, which shows supportive evidence for there being an afterlife. Simply throwing around random names with no evidence is merely appealing to authority of people who have most likely never said nor concluded anything to support your argument. Any written theory or investigation which doesn't adhere to, and draw ideas from the scientific method is absolutely not classed as science. Anyone claiming that anything is scientifically supported without having first been put through and supported by the scientific method is a pseudo scientist. Whether they like that or not has nothing to support your argument of who is and isn't a pseudo scientist.

Also rather than posting the names of completely random nobody scientists, post evidence of each one of their research papers which follows the scientific method and supports your ideas in their conclusions, otherwise there is nothing at all in science which agrees with any of your mythological beliefs.

 

[m4rk84]

snip

You accurately describe our biggest difference of opinion. Your willing to assign a fictional fairytale depicting a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansing, misogynistic, infanticidal, genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, homophobic racist bully the grand title of 'evidence' and I am not.

Your example of Harry Potter is dumb as we know the author of course we know it's fiction the author labels it as such. However stories of Fairies are every bit as valid as any writing about any of the subjects which you preach.

 

[bhavv]

His examples / opinions of everything from the TV signal analogy, to harry potter, fairies, unicorns, and my pink elephant analogy is completely dumb, as is his understanding of science.

 

[Castiel]

<snip another rant>

Bhavv, as I have said before, they are NOT MY BELIEFS, there are simply illustrative examples of alternative viewpoints...and as it was YOU that said it should be easily scientifically testable, it is YOU that needs to support that not me...it is not up to me or anyone else to support your claims for you. As far as Quantum Physics and the hypothesis that are proposed you can read them for yourself, the aforementioned Bohm, also Shrodinger and Freeman Dyson have expressed ideas regarding the nature of consciousness and the Physicist Fred Alan Wolf expressed an hypothesis of an Universal Mind, and Bohms book Wholeness and the Implicate Order they are regarded as ontological holism. David Chalmers expressed a theory in The Conscious Mind and obviously Carl Jung with his Collective Consciousness...this doesn't mean there is agreement or concensus, others such as Penrose and Hameroff express a slightly different proposal in their ORCH-OR and Daniel Dannat refutes the collective consciousness theory, proposing that the Mind is an emergent phenomenon of our corporeal body.

All these ideas and hypotheses are widely available if you are really interested in reading them....but to be clear, they are the hypotheses and ideas of the people who propose them, they are not mine, nor do I necessarily accept them or dismiss them.....I offered them as illustrative of alternative views to the reductionist viewpoint.

 

[Castiel]

You accurately describe our biggest difference of opinion. Your willing to assign a fictional fairytale depicting a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansing, misogynistic, infanticidal, genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent, homophobic racist bully the grand title of 'evidence' and I am not.

Your example of Harry Potter is dumb as we know the author of course we know it's fiction the author labels it as such. However stories of Fairies are every bit as valid as any writing about any of the subjects which you preach.

Obviously you are more interested in expressing your prejudices and misrepresenting anything I say in order to do so, rather than actually discussing anything objectively....so I see no further point in continuing. If you cannot see or understand the objective difference in how we treat different expressions of various concepts and how we can assess each depending on the definitions and parameters of each, particularly in the examples used then we are wasting our time.

It is more accurate to say the the only preaching going on here is from those who are assigning definitive positions without specific evidence of such such as you and Bhavv.....I make no such definitive position nor do I propose any particular position on the existence or non existence of a God(s).. Only that academically and professionally, (as a historical and comparative linguist) we assign different values depending on what we know about any given position, be it Fairies or Gods and this depends on the evidence and history of each with regards their etymology, historicity, and expression of each....we compare and contrast each and look toward the way in which cultures and society express various concepts and ideas, both in language and tradition. This is why 'The Fairies at the bottom of the Garden' are treated differently to academics than 'Yahweh' or expressions of a Godhead. Again I reiterate that I do not objectively believe in either Fairies or Yahweh, not do I preach their relative extant positions to anyone.

Anyway my position is perfectly clear, I have no desire to participate in a Castiel bashing exercise and as this thread appears to be shifting in that direction, I am out.

 

[bhavv]

So you still can't link to the original research articles by the names of scientists you keep referring to? Original science reports are never widely available, they are printed in journals only. What becomes widely available is other people reports and opinions on those papers like your own, which as you are doing throughout this thread only misrepresent the original research and intentions of the scientists because the third party reports twist the original research articles to suit the agenda of people like yourself.

Stop attempting to appeal to things you don't even understand and can't correctly represent or reference, it does you no favors.

 

[m4rk84]

Obviously you are more interested in expressing your prejudices and misrepresenting anything I say in order to do so, rather than actually discussing anything objectively....so I see no further point in continuing. If you cannot see or understand the objective difference in how we treat different expressions of various concepts and how we can assess each depending on the definitions and parameters of each, particularly in the examples used then we are wasting our time.

If you think I was expressing any form of prejudice rather then simply stating the factual interpretation of the writings which you preach as evidence then I agree I'm not sure this conversation will objectively reach any reasonable conclusion.

It has been interesting discussing this subject with you Castiel.

 

[Castiel]

So you still can't link to the original research articles by the names of scientists you keep referring to? Original science reports are never widely available, they are printed in journals only. What becomes widely available is other people reports and opinions on those papers like your own, which as you are doing throughout this thread only misrepresent the original research and intentions of the scientists because the third party reports twist the original research articles to suit the agenda of people like yourself.

In some cases the articles are in fact the books I referenced Bhavv...I gave references to the others, so it is a simple exercise for you to research the ideas they expressed yourself...things like Jung's Collective Consciousness have a huge body of work attached to them, others are merely references by the author or are part of a larger work such as Shadows of the Mind by Penrose, The Holographic Universe by Talbot, or The Spiritual Universe by Fred Alan Wolf.

Alternatively you can simply dismiss everything out of hand without even considering the implications of their various hypotheses (not all of which support an afterlife in the classical sense, but you would know that as you can't be bothered to do anything other than express your own prejudices).

Stop attempting to appeal to things you don't even understand and can't correctly represent or reference, it does you no favors.

Haha....

 

[bhavv]

Books? In science books are obsolete as soon as they are written as there is always newer research available (according to almost every undergrad science lecturer). You cannot even pass a decenct undergrad science degree by only using books as referrences, you need to use valid science reports printed in the science journals.

Books in science serve as a method of reinforcing revision and learning only, the actual research papers which follow the scientific method would be printed in journals, not books.

Authors writing books = authors not scientists.

Hypothesis alone have no validity to them, nor does any opinion in science until it is tested through the scientific method and universally accepted as a theory with strong scientific support. Which the afterlife, NDEs, and separate mind / brain theories are still not.

 

[Castiel]

If you think I was expressing any form of prejudice rather then simply stating the factual interpretation of the writings which you preach as evidence then I agree I'm not sure this conversation will objectively reach any reasonable conclusion.

It has been interesting discussing this subject with you Castiel.

The problem we have is that you are operating under the assumption that I am preaching a particular Philosophical or Religious viewpoint..I am not. Also I have not proposed evidence for the objective truth of any particular position, only expressed the way in which evidence (which can come various sources and within various disciplines, from psychology, linguistics, which my field, cognitive science, neuroscience, quantum theory, history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, and even literature and theology) is used to determine the relative values we ascribe to various positions....which is why I used the analogies I did to illustrate this....

I am not preaching or evangelising a particular belief over the others, or even expressing a personal belief in any of them...only offering them as something to be considered with in the parameters of the discussion and as alternatives to a purely materialist or logically positivist viewpoint.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your use of language as being prejudicial, but increasingly it appears that the focus of this discussion is becoming about my personality and not about the topic itself.

In any case, I think I have expressed my opinion as far as I want to, and I have a raft of things other than discussing philosophy to do today so I bid you adieu, enjoy your weekend.