GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff

[Light_of_Marduk]

@AHunter3

It is difficult to imagine what “being conscious” would mean to us if we did not have any kind of exterior context (a surrounding “not-us” world) to relate to. We’d still have our body which would provide something to experience, but even the body is sufficiently outward-directed in its senses …

I got this far, and found myself thinking something peculiar.

You ever notice a pain, a feeling, a tickle? Each a little part of your consciousness.

So, what if something feels what we are feeling, but not as individuals, but as an integrated whole. It could have some other form of nervous system (material, but some non-standard model material), rather than the matter (standard model) one that we have, which connects the sensations into a conscious whole. Anyways… popped into my head, definitely won’t float with any “standard model is all the material in the universe” 20th century physics “bible thumpers”.

Maybe something like:

@AHunter3

An all-encompassing sense of self that includes everything that is.

@AHunter3

If it is difficult imagining conscousness without any contrasting other, it is probably yet more difficult to get a handle on exactly what consciousness would be if the passage of time were not something that one experienced as a consciousness.

I’ve created 4+ dimensional fractals, and can only display 3d slices (with the higher dimensions being relegated to time). The fractal is a whole 4 dimensional object, yet from our 3 dimensional perspective, appears to be a changing object:
4 dimensional fractal small segment

So really, for me, if the universe did not experience the passage of time from our perspective, it could simply feel the united whole. This doesn’t mean that it cannot/ does not change itself, however from our perspective (as lower dimensional parts) this change wouldn’t be noticeable to us. Any change in the whole would create a new lower dimensional sub-verse from beginning to end instantaneously, as the sub-verse, by its nature, is the whole 4+ dimensional object.

This means even if the universe only stays in a form for one instant, all things will have been felt within it, from the beginning of time til the end.

Many theists I’ve run across claim “God exists outside of time”, which makes perfect sense when looked at in this manner.

Shit, some aspects of the Christian mythos might even make sense from this perspective: that there is one perfect (or best possible) eternal form that the universe can take. Of course, we could be those that exist in one of the crappier forms that the universe permuted through in its search for perfection, or it might just be the best possible form for the universe, and not for us.

You are an activity in which the universe is locally engaged. You are a verb.

Well, from the other perspective that I posted above, we may simply be part of one form that the universe tried as it sought out its perfect form.

The universe’s activity might be on itself, but from beginning til end, as a whole- or it could be working inwards from perfect beginnings and ends, trying to perfect the whole thing, yet keep it logically tied together (if I had a perfect beginning and ending, I’d do that). Or it could be any number of things… but we wouldn’t notice its actions, as its actions would be and inseparable part of our actions- if it changes our past, our past will not appear to change to us because it is part of what we are today. Sheesh… I don’t know if I’d want my past to change, I’d rather have a nice future that I could appreciate with the past that I already have suffered through… not that I’d know any better.

[Jackmannii]

From the thread in which we are to be educated by Stoid about ad hominems:

@Stoid

(The existence of an afterlife) is a matter of enormous interest to just about everyone on some level, whether it is because they are devoted to a religious or spiritual belief, a scientist working on brains, a philospher considering the nature of being human, or just because they are really bummed out that they are going to die some day and they would like to know one way or another if that’s really going to mean eternal nothing or if there’s a possibility of something else.

In an age where religious affiliation has been declining and we have increasing access to excellent information debunking superstition, I find it hard to believe that “just about everyone” has an “enormous interest” in knowing about the Afterlife. Is there evidence Stoid can cite for this alleged fascination by “just about everyone”?

@Stoid

I would feel like a perfect fool to imagine that I have somehow arrived at perfect truth while people who are so much more brilliant and educated than I am continue to research and inquire, and *continue to admit that they do not have all the answers. *

Holding “enormous interest” in something for which there is no solid evidence whatsoever and which the religious/spirit world-obsessed have been pointlessly wrangling over for ages would make me feel foolish.

It is how we deal with the questions and arrive at the answers, not what the answers turn out to be, that is my interest, remember?

We know, you’re Just Asking Questions and have no beliefs regarding the matter. :dubious:

@Stoid

And I’m still waiting to be educated with evidence and proof

As am I, except I’m not “waiting” to be enlightened on the subject. I realize these superstitions will persist long after I and everyone else here has crumbled into dust.

The variable and multi-colored fonts are impressive though. If anything can bring back the dead, they can, if only because the Departed’s eyes hurt and they want it to stop.

[Kozmik]

@AHunter3

It is difficult to imagine what “being conscious” would mean to us if we did not have any kind of exterior context (a surrounding “not-us” world) to relate to.

What if I (consciousness) did not have you ( “not-us”, “the cosmos”, something else) to relate to? Solipism?

What is consciousness? “One thing that’s interesting about consciousness is that on a functional level it appears to exist outside of the mind. As if its looking in.”

[Light_of_Marduk]

@Jackmannii

I realize these superstitions will persist long after I and everyone else here has crumbled into dust.

That should tell you something about the universe.

[Stoid]

@Jackmannii

In an age where religious affiliation has been declining and we have increasing access to excellent information debunking superstition,

“Declining” religious affiliation hardly means that interest in the subject of whether there is any kind of existence that persists beyond death has dwindled to a few outliers:

About three quarters of Americans seem to believe.

Since the dawn of history, many people have believed that human beings do not simply cease to exist upon their death. Numerous religions and cultures teach that the physical body may die and decompose, but that some element of the person goes on to what many call the “after-life.” Between 1972 and 1982, when the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research asked the American public, “Do you believe there is life after death?,” 70 percent said they believed in an afterlife, and 20 percent said they did not. In 1996, when the Roper Center asked the same question, 73 percent of respondents said yes, and 16 percent said no. A 2002 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, as part of its General Social Survey, revealed similar results. Seventy-two percent of those polled said they believed that there is a life after death, 17 percent did not, and 11 percent were undecided. (See Figure 11.1.) Clearly, the proportion of the U.S. population believing in an afterlife appears to have remained relatively consistent over three decades.

Read more: Public Opinion About Life and Death - Life After Death - Percent, Afterlife, Believe, Believed, Roper, and Center http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/607/Public-Opinion-About-Life-Death-LIFE-AFTER-DEATH.html#ixzz17pdI2bkf

According to the largest survey ever conducted, 92% believe in a higher power or “universal spirit” as they refer to it.

And of course, new humans are born every day, and every one of them comes to this question at some point. I was raised in a house with zero religious belief. My parents explained religion to me when I was exposed to it via the culture at a young age, and it was always presented to me as “some people believe”. I never believed in any of it as a child. As I grew up and more and more information about what various people believe became known to me, and the fact of my own death became clear to me, I wondered: yes? No? And then I began to learn about near death experiences, which made me wonder some more: yes? No?

And, as repeated many times: don’t know. Not sure about anything except what I know I absolutely do NOT believe: any version of anything coming out of Christianity or Islam or any religion that believes there is a creator and a heaven reward. No. Absolutely not. I’m 95% sure that no aspect of who we are on earth persists, that if there is anything that goes on, it’s not anything we’d really recognize, so for all intents and purposes we do die, even if there is some bit of us that merges with the larger spriit or something, the personality dies. But I don’t believe that anything does persist, nor do I believe that anything doesn’t.

But I’m very interested in knowing what is known, and how we define that. There’s knowing for oneself, which is where most people are at. Then there’s knowing because someone tested, tried, discovered, or otherwise acquired information, facts or evidence that they can share with others that can influence the general knowing.

People used to be completely ignorant about how infectious disease was spread, and they believed in evil spirits and demons. But no one knew. No one could say with certainty backed by solid information that demons caused disease, they could just say they believed it. Then we found out that all kinds of things cause disease and what most of them are, so we can say we know.

Well, this all started because CC talked about there being no afterlife with the certainty of someone who knows that smallpox is a virus.

I objected to that primarily because I’d never heard that anything had been conclusively proved as a fact in that same way, and if it had I wanted to know what it was.

What was presented as “facts” to back the legitimacy of asserting that there is no existence beyond this one was actually a hypothesis about the origin of consciousness. A very good one, one that certainly makes sense. But still a hypothesis, and one that has not been universally embraced as the conclusive answer.

The major thing that stops me from concluding that we are pure meat and cease with the meat is NDEs, because they have not been completely explained, especially Pam Reynolds’, and as far as I am personally concerned, they are really the only thing that exists on either side of the question that is anything other than speculation, however reasonable and well-considered any such speculation may be. They are real experiences. Science writes them off to various electrochemical activities, but not because science knows - it’s just more well-reasoned speculation.

All of which leads me back to where I began: it is not correct to say that there is no afterlife as though it is a matter which has been proved with the same degree of certainty that smallpox being a virus has been proved. It’s just not the truth.

What is the truth is that some very good and reasonable explanations for consciousness have been put forth, and with our extensive understanding of the world it seems very unlikely that we have a soul or spirit which persists after death.

The two statements are not the same.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yes they are.

Your ad populum appeal is still worthless, by the way.

[Steophan]

If we can say that it’s certain that smallpox is caused by a virus, because every case observed is caused by a virus, we can say it’s certain there is no afterlife, because there has never been an observed case of afterlife.
That you would suggest that science can prove anything with certainty shows you do not understand science, though.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Steophan

If we can say that it’s certain that smallpox is caused by a virus, because every case observed is caused by a virus, we can say it’s certain there is no afterlife, because there has never been an observed case of afterlife.

That’s not why we can say that it’s certain there is no afterlife. We know here’s no afterlife because it’s physically impossible, not because it hasn’t been observed.

[Steophan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That’s not why we can say that it’s certain there is no afterlife. We know here’s no afterlife because it’s physically impossible, not because it hasn’t been observed.

Oh I know, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said that in this thread already. I’m pointing out to Stoid that her argument shows the opposite of what she thinks. Surprisingly…

[Stoid]

@Steophan

If we can say that it’s certain that smallpox is caused by a virus, because every case observed is caused by a virus, we can say it’s certain there is no afterlife, because there has never been an observed case of afterlife.

How could we observe an afterlife from life? It seems that the only way would be to “dip into” it briefly by starting to die, which is what the NDEs are.

And we do not know for sure what causes NDEs, that is a fact.

So what’s so baffling about NDEs? We know that when a person’s heart stops, the decline in brain function caused by a cut in blood supply is steep. Simultaneous recording of heart rate and brain output shows that within 11 to 20 secs. of the heart failing, the brain waves go flat. A flat electroencephalogram (EEG) recording doesn’t suggest mere impairment. It points to the brain having shut down. Longtime NDE researcher Pim van Lommel, a retired Dutch cardiologist, has likened the brain in this state to a “computer with its power source unplugged and its circuits detached. It couldn’t hallucinate. It couldn’t do anything at all.”
…

Yet it’s in this period, between switch-off and resuscitation, that many researchers believe NDEs occur. “Many near-death experiencers describe heightened perceptions and clear thought processes, and form memories, at a time when the brain is incapable of coordinated activity,” says Greyson, director of the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies. “Our current neurophysiological models can explain NDEs only if one ignores much of the empirical data.”

…
Science is trying to solidify the brain-based theory of NDEs, which goes something like this: Survival is our most powerful instinct. When the heart stops and oxygen is cut, the brain goes into all-out defense. Torrents of neurotransmitters are randomly generated, releasing countless fragmentary images and feelings from the memory-storing temporal lobes. Perhaps the life review is the brain frantically scanning its memory banks for a way out of this crisis. The images of a bright light and tunnel could be due to impairment at the rear and sides of the brain respectively, while the euphoria may be a neurochemical anti-panic mechanism triggered by extreme danger.

As for perhaps the strangest element of NDEs, the out-of-body experience, studies led by Swiss neuroscientist Olaf Blanke have shed light on what may be going on there. In 2002, Blanke and others reported how they were able to induce OBEs in an epilepsy patient by stimulating the brain’s temporoparietal junction (TPJ), thought to play a role in self-perception. In emergencies where blood supply is cut, says Blanke, “the effects are occurring first at the TPJ, which is a classical watershed area of the brain.” It’s probable, he concludes, that stress in the TPJ causes the dissociation of NDEs — a dissociation that’s entirely illusory.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919-2,00.html#ixzz17qcztiI2

On balance, it’s almost certain that NDEs happen in the theater of one’s mind, and that in the absence of resuscitation, it’s the brain’s final sound and light show, followed by oblivion. Nonetheless, there’s still no definitive explanation. There mightn’t be a ghost in the machine. But it’s a machine whose complexities remain well beyond our grasp.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919-3,00.html#ixzz17qdcUr3F

So. If any Doper has a definitive explanation, excellent. Please share - especially with the people who are actually studying it, because they are still coming up with new possibilities and admit that they don’t have all the answers. Your certainty would probably be welcome and save them a lot of wasted effort.
So, saying “we can say it’s certain there is no afterlife, because there has never been an observed case of afterlife.”** may not be true**. NDE’s, at least some of them, may in fact be observed cases of an afterlife.

You may be of the opinion that they are not, that science has adequately explained most of it and you may believe that science will ultimately explain all of it. And your beliefs have a reasonable basis. But they are beliefs, opinions, resting on a reasonable foundation, not facts, not proven to anyone but those who believe. And since the researchers include doctors and scientists who also once believed as you do, that NDEs are completely explained by the material world but who have since revised what they believe, based on their research, it’s entirely reasonable to state that the possible existence of some post-death reality has not been conclusively disproved AND there is some evidence lending itself to the possibility that** there is.** Whatever you think of the evidence is not the point. The point is that there is some, and lots of people are looking into it.

And since absolutely no one asserting absolute truth has can come up with a single citation to any kind of source to back up their assertion, not a single one, well… pardon me for being less than impressed with your assertions. Your citeless convictions about absolute truth strike me as no more valuable than citeless convictions of absolute truth made by people who believe the opposite of what you believe.

Having been driven to research this topic to respond to the assertions being made, I have learned that yes, mysteries remain unsolved. I think it would be cool to solve them and I don’t care how. I’ll continue to remain interested in the subject.

And unless any of the absolutists have something genuinely new to add to their assertions of absolute truth, I’m not going to continue to say the same thing over and over in response to more assertions of absolute truth and I’m particularly not interested in doing so with people who seem to think that their own assertions without citation anything else should be received as unassailable, because that’s just silly.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

NDE’s have nothing to do with an afterlife. One thing we know absolutely for sure about them is that the people who have them aren’t dead.

Obviously no one is going to talk you out of your woo, but, in point of fact, it actually OS scientifically proven that consciousness is a physical part of the brain. You might as well keep demanding proof that people don’t see and hear with their “souls” instead of their eyes and ears. It’s just as inane.

[Stoid]

And unless any of the absolutists have something genuinely new to add to their assertions of absolute truth, I’m not going to continue to say the same thing over and over in response to more assertions of absolute truth and I’m particularly not interested in doing so with people who seem to think that their own assertions without citation anything else should be received as unassailable, because that’s just silly.

[Lobohan]

@Stoid

And unless any of the absolutists have something genuinely new to add to their assertions of absolute truth, I’m not going to continue to say the same thing over and over in response to more assertions of absolute truth and I’m particularly not interested in doing so with people who seem to think that their own assertions without citation anything else should be received as unassailable, because that’s just silly.

You are misrepresenting the critiques of your position. You are advocating a special lighter burden of evidence for the afterlife based on its popular acceptance.

There is no way to reconcile such belief with a logical world-view.

[Light_of_Marduk]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

We know here’s no afterlife because it’s physically impossible, not because it hasn’t been observed.

There is no proof that it’s physically impossible: there is always the possibility that what we consider to be the universe is actually the creation of something that is subject to entirely different physical laws.

But of course, I accept that it may be mentally impossible for you to comprehend the truth of the above statement. Or perhaps you are just trying to emulate theistic argument tactics?

[Light_of_Marduk]

@Steophan

If we can say that it’s certain that smallpox is caused by a virus, because every case observed is caused by a virus, we can say it’s certain there is no afterlife, because there has never been an observed case of afterlife.

That’s just logically sloppy in all sorts of ways, but I’m guessing you did it as a joke…

@Steophan

That you would suggest that science can prove anything with certainty shows you do not understand science, though.

You better teach this one to Diogenes.

[Stoid]

@Lobohan

You are misrepresenting

The critiques misrepresent my position and have done so throughout this thread…in fact, wonder of wonders, you are doing so in this very post!

You are advocating a special lighter burden of evidence for the afterlife based on its popular acceptance.

Really? Did I take the position that there is an afterlife? Why…NO! I did not! Gosh! Really? YES! REALLY! Am I sure? Yes! I’m sure!

Well, if I didn’t take the position that there is an afterlife, what position have I taken?

I’ll tell you (for about the 17th time): I take the position that there is insufficient evidence for any position that includes absolute certainty on the subject, no matter what it is.

I take the position that no position has sufficient evidence behind it to say that the issue is closed to further inquiry.

I take the position that absolutely no one on either side has even claimed absolute certainty, only the people in this thread.

And my position, that no one is certain, is supported by the evidence of continued inquiry on all fronts, both from those who want to believe and those who want to demonstrate that it’s not possible.

So, since “accepting a lighter burden of evidence” means I have accepted that there is sufficient evidence proving that something is true, and I don’t accept that… how could I have simultaneously accepted a lighter burden of evidence for anything? That doesn’t really make any kind of sense, does it?

Nope, it sure doesn’t.

[Stoid]

@Light_of_Marduk

You better teach this one to Diogenes.

Amen.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Light_of_Marduk

There is no proof that it’s physically impossible: there is always the possibility that what we consider to be the universe is actually the creation of something that is subject to entirely different physical laws.

That would not change what is physically possible in this universe. It’s also a completely baseless hypothesis.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Light_of_Marduk

You better teach this one to Diogenes.

We can know things to a virtual certainty, a practical certainty, a functional certainty. The level of certainty that consciousness is a physical part of the brain is the same as the certainty that the earth goes around the sun Clinging to the “science can’t prove anything absolutely” gag is nowhere near as meaningful as woo believers think it is. It’s basically just grasping at straws. The woo woos know they can’t win on a level playing field so they try to deny that the field exists.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Stoid

The critiques misrepresent my position and have done so throughout this thread…in fact, wonder of wonders, you are doing so in this very post!

Really? Did I take the position that there is an afterlife? Why…NO! I did not! Gosh! Really? YES! REALLY! Am I sure? Yes! I’m sure!

Well, if I didn’t take the position that there is an afterlife, what position have I taken?

I’ll tell you (for about the 17th time): I take the position that there is insufficient evidence for any position that includes absolute certainty on the subject, no matter what it is.

I take the position that no position has sufficient evidence behind it to say that the issue is closed to further inquiry.

I take the position that absolutely no one on either side has even claimed absolute certainty, only the people in this thread.

And my position, that no one is certain, is supported by the evidence of continued inquiry on all fronts, both from those who want to believe and those who want to demonstrate that it’s not possible.

So, since “accepting a lighter burden of evidence” means I have accepted that there is sufficient evidence proving that something is true, and I don’t accept that… how could I have simultaneously accepted a lighter burden of evidence for anything? That doesn’t really make any kind of sense, does it?

Nope, it sure doesn’t.

It is a scientific certainty that consciousness in physical. Sorry. The fact that some people “aren’t certain” has no scientific value. People are superstitious and credulous. So what?

I’d still like to know what a “soul” is, by the way.