Posted by neanderthal on 01 Feb 2009 at about 19:22.
The evidence for an afterlife HAS to be personal. How can we possibly take for real what other people say? Religions say it is true or not true depending on which religion you study. Books and articles say it is true or not true depending on what you read. In the end it comes back to either belief or personal experience. Well we all know that belief without experience is a very shaky thing, and can change almost as often as the weather, or be so fixed and dogmatic as to be worthless.
Now - I cannot convince anybody else of the veracity of my own personal experience. But I don't have to. Everybody has their own experience and they will have their own conviction based upon that. The rest is just opinion or chatter.
I happen to know that there is life after death of the physical body - but that it might be just another physical body without memories or something which is not physical any more. However I am not going to try to convince anybody else that this is true, because it is based on my own personal experience.
I think that mediumship experiments offer a possibility for evidence-based decision-making, rather than just "taking for real what other people say". Although, when it gets down to it, any positive evidence can still probably fit into a 'cosmic consciousness'/super-psi explanation, so there still does have to be some leap of faith to the afterlife conclusion.
Have to say I'm very surprised that mediumship is at only 4% on the poll. There are a number of cases that I'm familiar with that are very suggestive of consciousness surviving physical death. Probably better 'evidence' than NDEs in my opinion (although I find NDE cases fascinating as well).
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
I find that with questions like this (is there a god, afterlife, meaning of life, etc etc...), we first need to define what we mean by afterlife. When I talk with people who believe such a thing or have an opinion on it, I realize that there is a difference in what I think 'afterlife' consists of comparatively, and so I feel that there are different types of things that would corroborate or disprove such a thing. Perhaps I require a new word to refer to what I believe it to be, or such a thing should be brought out and included in the connotations of the term.
Along similar lines, it seems that such things then have the power to negate or deny an aspect of a particular cultural phenomenon, then simultaneously create more phenomena from within that same cultural entity (like, say Christianity and its related mythologies and such). Nietzsche might have a thing or two to say about that, in his 'afterlife,' watching such a thing occur.
To be more inclusive and talk about such a thing as afterlife, there would first need to be a preface as to what type of afterlife we are conceptualizing for the purpose of the discussion/poll/whatever.
In any case, it is interesting to see the results of such polls and discussions.
Posted by earthling on 01 Feb 2009 at about 21:12.
Ok, just for the heck of it, here are some candidate definitions. I am sure there are more.
- (a) Individual human. Some aspect of the individual human being remains after the death of the physical body. Under this definition, the individual is recognizable in some way. NDEs, ghosts, memories of past lives would be evidence of this kind of thing.
- (b) Traveling souls. This is a sort of individual persistent soul, but it is not necessarily human at any stage. If a human han be reincarnated as a dog, or a dog as a human, and then a human can progress to an eternal realm - why can't the dog go there directly?
- (c) Non-individual souls. This includes universal conciousness ideas, where the human being is only an expression of part of the universal conciousness for a short time.
- (d) Physical low level immortality. In some sense the human body persists after it is dead, just not as a human body. Parts of it stay on as molecules or atoms in the environment.
- (e) Technological afterlife. This is the science fiction stuff, where brain patterns are copied into some sort of artificial intelligence machine. I say this is cheating, since you get multiple copies, but they all can die individually. In particular the original is not persistent unless we believe (a), (b), or (c).
- (f) Cloning. This is cheating too, for the same reasons that (e) is.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
I think, for the purposes of such a general poll, the word itself gives the definition. Basically - is there something after life? A little more specifically, you could probably say "consciousness surviving physical death". The really specific definition which you're discussing probably changes based on where you see the best evidence.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Posted by FirstBorn on 02 Feb 2009 at about 02:21.
Hello Greg et all,
The point here is what you define as consiouness, is it the ego/personality..those are the ones that supposedly are picked up by mediums. Then there is reincarnation.. supposedly we all carry imprints of previously lives with us..i say previous but i should say other lives, as all is now. And as such it would make sense that all our versions are connected through part of our light body. This implies a binding factor. It could be what we call the spirit, however this again is supposedly an immovable/unimpressionable core and would in this concept here be the catalist creating a container for all emotions/experiences gathered by a "spark" over it's lifetimes however/wherever/whenever.
So there's this supra-immortal=timeless consciousness unit collecting from many experiences that is true you. And then there is this local spacetime egodriven sub unit gathering experiences that is you. It has been told many lies about it's death. Driven by fear it has been exploited in many ways and thusfar failed to understand (by enlarge) that this fear only served the powerhungry, the controllers. Ironically these tend to fear death the most and presume they need to corrupt the other side with splendour extracted at this side, quiet ludicrous but thats the mindset those people live by. BTW churches have done quiet well collecting possesions at deathbeds.
So the egobody dies but remains as it experiences set has been collected. It should dislodge from our 3D realm and find it's way somewhere into the many realms where thought=reality. However not everyone makes it that far, some can't disconnect because of overwhelming fear or sometimes love for those left behind. Eventually they will get there..but there's no hurry in the eternal.
Now obviously one can only speculate but i presume mediums connect to the container realm via their own container..That btw would limit the range of possible connections to the ones of like vibrations, hence connecting to Julius Ceasar or an alien warlord like Jahweh isn't possible. That said it stands to reason that the more developped a container is, the higher its connectivity range will become. It follows that the Creator, possesses the complete range and us sparks are on a road to follow in it's footsteps.
In the end this chatter about afterlife is just semantics, there is no death but your egobody ends recording.
The Love That You Withhold, Is The Pain That You Carry
Posted by RealityTest on 02 Feb 2009 at about 01:00.
I might have voted for "reincarnation memories" as I'm quite familiar with moments of _memory-like_ experience suggestive of times and places outside of my present physical life experience.
The reason I voted for "other" is because I'm not sure "memories" is an entirely accurate term.
It calls to mind organic brain matter, but how could that be if the brain of some other self turned to dust long ago?
These experiences seem more to be a kind of attunement or connection that transcends time, space, and ordinary memory.
"Reincarnation" also carries some baggage; it usually denotes a kind of one-life-after-another situation, as though life experiences occur serially, like days of the week.
The hidden assumption is that the egoic experience of time is the only way to experience time, yet other experiences suggest to me that this is definitely not the case.
Furthermore, there can be great varieties in all such experiences, whether those suggestive of some other life experience, those suggestive of different realms of being in which existence is perceived quite differently from the way we normally do, and so on.
When the word "evidence" is used in a question such as the poll question it usually implies something solid, something "provable."
The most convincing experiences I've had, however, involve nothing of the kind -- so far as I know.
They involve, instead, a very solid _knowing_, although this is not nearly so solid afterwards, fading as all experiences do.
Subjective knowing isn't good enough for those who have never had such an experience, and why should it be?
Still, is there some way, some method, by which nearly anyone can have such moments?
I believe so, but I'm still working on this.
See, for example, #9. What Are Those Methods? found at
Posted by red pill junkie on 02 Feb 2009 at about 01:31.
Quote:
"Reincarnation" also carries some baggage; it usually denotes a kind of one-life-after-another situation, as though life experiences occur serially, like days of the week.
I had never though of it that way, and I think you're right. Those people who believe in re-incarnation rely on a one-directional flow of time to account for those 'past memories'—namely, that some other me experienced a different life-time in the past, and those memories are part of a different me in the present.
But what i we acknowledge the more realist scenario that past, present AND future are compeltely arbitrary?
Thank you for this wonderful food for thought :)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Remembering a future life? It's Philip K Dick meets Allison Dubois! Considering quantum physics, and cultural cosmologies and philosophies (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc), we have to consider that reincarnation could go both ways -- and that's only in our 3rd dimension. My head, it is spinning...
I usually don't define afterlife in a spiritual matter. In my opinion, the best evidence for an afterlife is that when we die, other life forms live on. The planets still rotate. When we die our bodies fuel the lives of other creatures, and dimensions of consciousness. All life is in a constant dance moving toward complexity and equilibrium right down to the fundamental nature of matter and light. We are fingertips of evolution that stem from a tree of life which may exist everywhere and always will. But the idea that we have a nervous system makes me feel that we are connected to everything all of the time, and our brains tile over and create infinite labyrinths of possibilities and filters of time and scale... making the experience of being alive sort of an end to itself, ending "as black as holes within a memory" or "like the God who hung stars like lamps in the night." That's just one microcosmic idea in a multidimensional gradient of which craft...
I find this quote by Joseph Campbell ponders this deep question as well... he talks about God, but it could be equated to the after life as well.
"God is a thought, God is a name, God is an idea, but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. The best things can’t be told because they transcend thought. The second best are misunderstood because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to what can’t be thought about. The third best are what we talk about and a myth is that field of reference, metaphors referring to what is absolutely transcendent. What can’t be known, or can’t be named, except in our own feeble attempt to cloth it in language. And the ultimate word in our language for that which is transcendent is God."
Maybe I'm jaded, but every "Reincarnation memory" I heard
was always self-indulgent: always some one famous. No one was a drunk, or a baggage boy, gutter snipe, or slut. No one was an animal or insect. Dead is dead, everything else is conjecture.
Posted by kamarling on 25 Feb 2009 at about 07:59.
I've been interested in - and reading about - cases of reincarnation for more than 30 years and the claims of being a reincarnated famous historical figure are very rare indeed. This argument is trotted out every time reincarnation is discussed. I think it is one of those self-referencing myths.
By the way -- shame the poll was hi-jacked by the forces of the bright and rational but maybe I'm too stupid to see how that must be the way for reason to triumph over superstition.
Posted by RealityTest on 03 Mar 2009 at about 18:48.
1. On the "I was Pharoah So and So" syndrome:
If there is something that some call "reincarnation" (and I believe there most definitely is) then this applies to famous people, too.
In other words, if someone is famous in our present probable mass reality, whether owing to steles from thousands of years ago, myth, folklore, or even just by existing somewhere in our present historical records, and a region of self survives physical death and may be born again as a new personality in a different time period, then there will always be some presently living folks who were famous.
Some of these may have moments in which they "remember" a "famous" existence. In fact, there is an impressive body of anecdotal evidence for just such experiences extending backwards centuries.
This applies to me. At various moments I've "remembered" being so and so. The number of specific personalities is now at several score, the first such experiences dating to my early childhood. (It's true I was noted then for having a wild imagination. Who is to say exactly where imagination ends and genuine "remembrances" begin? I use the quote marks because I believe this isn't as straightforward as organic memory recall; after all, the brains of other past personalities will have long turned to dust from a present perspective.)
The vast majority of these personalities are completely obscure, and not part of the historical record -- they were "nobodies" from that perspective.
Nobody, so far as I know, remembers a drunken and vile smelling wild west character named Henry Williams who wandered from town to town and bar to bar, telling wild tales in exchange for drinks and last seen alive heading towards the Sierra Nevada mountains with his trusty mule. I do, however. Henry would often pull up his shirt, show off a star-shaped scar, and claim he got this after being shot by Wild Bill Hickok himself. The truth was much more prosaic.
The same applies to any number of personalities alive in many times and places.
This isn't so, however, in a small handful of situations.
I could list these few famous folks and recount those experiences that lead me to believe they are versions of me and that I am a version of them, but I already know how most would likely respond (often influenced by very f___ up official psychological theories).
What do they know? I can't easily prove any this, that is align quite powerful subjective experiences with, say, previously unknown factual or historical details. During my more ego-bound moments, I may even question my own experiences. (Consciousness fluctuates; what may be apparent during a moment of "wider" consciousness may completely vanish during a "narrower," more physically focused moment.)
It is true, however, that's it's always far more important and necessary to focus on who we are now, not who we may have been. We live now, not then, even if all of these selves are connected inwardly, in what has been called "the spacious present."
2. "Objective Hard Evidence"
Anyone who trots these words out and focuses on them excessively when considering this topic is almost by definition extremely "ego-bound," a hard case not worth discussing this with. Someone would almost have to slip some hallucinogenic substance into their coffee or tea before they would change their beliefs.
Of course if they were just a little more open minded they might avail themselves of the various techniques that exist -- and have existed, for millennia -- that, once successfully mastered, will destroy forever any rigid materialistic views.
These techniques begin with teaching self to still the chatter of the conscious mind.
If a skeptic can't be bothered to engage in even such preliminary activities, I have no use for the person's views regarding the nature of reality. They've restricted their experience in a major way, denied themselves the possibility of becoming consciously aware of what they very likely knew as a child or in their dreams, before getting f____ up by thoroughly imbibing those official beliefs foisted on us as we become socialized.
We may encounter those who claim to have been so and so. We may dismiss their utterances as a kind of wish fulfillment or way to compensate for being, at present, a "nobody" but we don't really necessarily know the reality of the situation. These may be colorful characters.
We may also encounter those who refuse to even consider the possibility that they have their own "past life" existences.
They are likely to hold beliefs that greatly downplay the significance of subjective experience, holding that "matter" is all there is. These may be very boring personalities who lack the slightest appreciation for the inspired creations of artists, poets, writers, musicians, and even the most inspired scientists. Their mantra is "where's the objective hard evidence?" Imagination isn't one of their strong points and they are best suited for working in mammoth insurance bureaucracies as, perhaps, actuaries.
There are others who may recall experiences "suggestive of reincarnation," and, while not holding any firm beliefs one way or the other, are open to the possibility.
Others, still, remain open minded, period, whether they've ever had such experiences or not.
Of these four groups, you can have the actuaries. I'd just as soon not bother with them.
Now that P.Z. Myers and his band of flying monkeys have had their fun, I've now removed the 4000 odd votes that they added to "There is no evidence".
I'd like to thank Mr Myers for increasing the Daily Grail's Alexa and Google rankings, and adding another $US30 in advertising revenue to help keep the site going. We value his thoughtful contribution to our site.
:)
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Now that P.Z. Myers and his band of flying monkeys have had their fun, I've now removed the 4000 odd votes that they added to "There is no evidence".
So, in other words, if your poll gets posted about somewhere popular, causing too many people give an answer you don't like, regardless of whether that's their genuine view or not, you'll delete them? Doesn't seem honest to me.
So, in other words, if your poll gets posted about somewhere popular, causing too many people give an answer you don't like, regardless of whether that's their genuine view or not, you'll delete them? Doesn't seem honest to me.
Hi Zmidponk,
Thanks for your comment. Let's just cut to the chase here - it seems my honesty is being impugned (rather vociferously in the Pharyngula comments) because I modified a poll, on which so many Pharyngulites claim to have given their genuine views.
I would counter that any poll-crashing which is introduced (by Myers) with the words "pointless poll" wouldn't be worth all the angst. But further, I would say that Myers' introuction...
"I voted for no evidence. If you vote otherwise, maybe you can come back here and explain your evidence to us. We need a good laugh on a Saturday morning"
...would hardly be conducive to providing honest results either. Let's not get self-righteous here, when the Pharyngula voters knew exactly what the intent was. It was herd-voting...if you're concerned because your individual 'genuine' vote was lost, then I suggest not participating in such childish group-think next time.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Thanks for your comment. Let's just cut to the chase here - it seems my honesty is being impugned (rather vociferously in the Pharyngula comments) because I modified a poll, on which so many Pharyngulites claim to have given their genuine views.
I would counter that any poll-crashing which is introduced (by Myers) with the words "pointless poll" wouldn't be worth all the angst. But further, I would say that Myers' introuction...
Obviously you're not really a regular reader of Myers' blog. He views ALL internet polls as pointless, simply because of how unscientific they are. He occasionally points one out if he thinks it may be of interest, in one way or another, to his regular readers, despite its pointlessness, usually under a heading of 'pointless poll' or 'another pointless poll' or something of that nature.
Quote:
"I voted for no evidence. If you vote otherwise, maybe you can come back here and explain your evidence to us. We need a good laugh on a Saturday morning"
...would hardly be conducive to providing honest results either.
Sorry, but all Myers did was made plain his own view. He utterly failed to block people from NOT voting 'there is no evidence', he merely pointed out that he thought it was laughable to vote any other way, and, most probably, many other people who read his blog on a regular basis thinks likewise. Conversely, you actually deleted the votes simply because you didn't like the way they voted, dismissing them, it seems, as 'group-think'.
Quote:
Let's not get self-righteous here, when the Pharyngula voters knew exactly what the intent was. It was herd-voting...if you're concerned because your individual 'genuine' vote was lost, then I suggest not participating in such childish group-think next time.
No, I voted 'there is no evidence' because, in all the accounts I have read, in all the supposed books and stories detailing this supposed 'life after death', the one thing that has been utterly lacking is any objective, hard evidence. That is not 'group-think'. That is 'being honest'. The fact quite a few other people who agree with that view became aware of this poll, and thus voted the same way, is irrelevant to that fact.
EDIT:
After reading through the comments on Pharyngula, it seems you can't decide what this poll is supposed to be. You start by saying:
Quote:
Our polls are meant as an indication of the Daily Grail community's thoughts on a particular matter.
Suggesting it's an 'in-house' poll. But you go on to say, in the same comment:
Quote:
As I said, once P.Z. is finished with the baiting, I'm sure the more interested and thoughtful amongst you will remember the poll and take the time to go back and cast your vote (whatever it is).
Which suggests it's not - and anyone who simply becomes aware if this poll, or any other poll here, can vote. Which is it? As it seems, looking at the poll now, it does seem a chunk of the original voters HAVE come back and voted again - with the poll on it's way to giving the same result as you got the first time. Does this mean you're going to delete them again as being 'group-think'?
As it seems, looking at the poll now, it does seem a chunk of the original voters HAVE come back and voted again - with the poll on it's way to giving the same result as you got the first time. Does this mean you're going to delete them again as being 'group-think'?
Ayup. Which shouldn't concern you in any way, given that y'all think it's a pointless poll. Come to think of it, everyone from Pharyngula came back to vote again? What's the point of that? It's almost like...the poll means something to you guys.
A little honesty would go a long way. We both know what P.Z and Pharyngula aimed to do. Instead of finding a bunch of irrational Fundies, you found a rational community who decided to call you on your childishness. I would suggest learning from it.
I would add that the next time I hear Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers or Phil Plait complaining that they can't get no respect from the public, I'd point them at the Pharyngula post that I tried to discuss things on, and say "what do you think Sherlock?". For a bunch of 'brights', there seems to be a fair lack of comprehension as to the root of the problem...
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Ayup. Which shouldn't concern you in any way, given that y'all think it's a pointless poll.
Yep. Isn't it heavily ironic you, yourself are giving an object lesson as to why such polls are utterly pointless, and yet you bothered with the poll in the first place?
Quote:
Come to think of it, everyone from Pharyngula came back to vote again?
Nope, I said a chunk came back. Even if you assume every single 'there is no evidence' vote is a Pharygulite, less than a quarter did, going by your original figure of 4000 votes from Pharyngula the first time around. And this time, they were invited. By you. So, assuming your answer of 'ayup' means the same thing I am familiar with (yes), you are even going to delete votes from people who were specifically invited by you to vote, because they voted in a way you don't like.
Quote:
What's the point of that? It's almost like...the poll means something to you guys.
Or maybe they came back and voted because you invited them to?
Quote:
A little honesty would go a long way.
The irony is thick here.
Quote:
We both know what P.Z and Pharyngula aimed to do. Instead of finding a bunch of irrational Fundies, you found a rational community who decided to call you on your childishness. I would suggest learning from it.
Sorry, what's so 'childish' in voting in a poll that's seemingly open for anyone to vote in? What's so 'childish' in returning to vote again in the same poll at your express invitation? I would think it is much more childish to delete votes from that poll simply because the person doing it didn't like the way those people voted.
Quote:
I would add that the next time I hear Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers or Phil Plait complaining that they can't get no respect from the public, I'd point them at the Pharyngula post that I tried to discuss things on, and say "what do you think Sherlock?". For a bunch of 'brights', there seems to be a fair lack of comprehension as to the root of the problem...
No, you didn't really discuss the issue. You said a few things that contradicted each other in an attempt to explain why you arbitrarily deleted votes you didn't like and addressed a few other criticisms, as well as touching, in passing, what your answer to the poll was, then abruptly left the thread because a few people weren't exactly polite to you. All I can say to that is 'welcome to the internet'.
As for the idea of Dawkins, et al, wanting 'respect from the public', that seems a little strange to me. From what I've seen and heard of him, I could easily see Dawkins wanting the public to respect what he says because of the evidence and logic it is based on, and, when he is being serious, ditto Myers, but I can't really see them wanting respect simply because they are Myers and Dawkins. As for Phil Plait, he is a relative unknown to me, so I couldn't say whether it's true of him that he wants respect merely for being him. What little I do know seems to suggest it's not true, though.
Yep. Isn't it heavily ironic you, yourself are giving an object lesson as to why such polls are utterly pointless, and yet you bothered with the poll in the first place?
Not particularly. I think I've pointed out already the various meanings of "pointless" - in short, that the Pharynguloid definition would be "scientifically pointless", ignoring any possible meaning it may have to a particular community (which, as I've also said, is quite the analogy for the scientific rationalist movement in general). Not to mention base entertainment value.
Quote:
And this time, they were invited. By you.
I think you need to reread the comments at Pharyngula. I actually told them not to vote again immediately, as I would likely delete the votes again. I said come back next week if they are really interested in the topic.
("I can revert the poll to previous numbers at any time, it only takes a few seconds. Please don't waste your time. Unless it provides something of value to yourself. If the poll really means something to you, come back next week. It will still be there.")
So yes, I stand by my assertion that, to the repeat voting offenders at this stage, and the blowhards who called me numerous names on the Pharyngula comments, this poll would seem to be meaningful. Ironically, probably more so than it was to us...
Quote:
Sorry, what's so 'childish' in voting in a poll that's seemingly open for anyone to vote in? What's so 'childish' in returning to vote again in the same poll at your express invitation? I would think it is much more childish to delete votes from that poll simply because the person doing it didn't like the way those people voted.
Again, you're deluding yourself. P.Z. has been quite open - even to the point of discussing it in interviews - about the reasons behind his "poll crashing". It's childish - heck, even some of his co-Science Bloggers have called it such. You remain free to keep kidding yourself, but I don't see any particular need to keep defending that assertion.
You seem particularly keen to point to my childish behaviour. Have you castised your fellow Pharynguloids yet about their own childishness in the discussion thread over there (not to mention P.Z.'s posts..."We Made Them Cry!")?
Quote:
You said a few things that contradicted each other in an attempt to explain why you arbitrarily deleted votes you didn't like and addressed a few other criticisms, as well as touching, in passing, what your answer to the poll was, then abruptly left the thread because a few people weren't exactly polite to you. All I can say to that is 'welcome to the internet'.
No, I left the thread because I know not to hang around debating people that aren't looking for a discussion. I turned up in good faith to debate/respond to genuine criticisms, and simply got vulgar abuse, or "we're laughing at you Greg, run home little baby". I've moved on, I suggest you do the same (in terms of giving me a 'Welcome to the Internet', in turn I'll suggest you pin this XKCD cartoon above your computer, as I have).
Here's a little sampling of the intelligent commentary from Pharyngula:
Kassul at #8 ("Fuck him"), John Morales at #28 ("He's proud of cheating"), Chgo_liz at #43 ("What a coward you are"), Menyambal at #56 ("laughing at you and your stupidity"), Bobxxxx at #59 ("You can't deny the fact you're a stupid asshole (not to mention insane"), 'Tis Himself at #61 ("asshole"), Patricia at #76 ("You namby-pamby sissy fellow!"), Jim-Bob Cooter at #79 ("that d-bag")), Clinteas@123 ""You smug assuming dick..."
I would suggest you do a little house-keeping of your own, before coming to other sites criticising them for their standards.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Not particularly. I think I've pointed out already the various meanings of "pointless" - in short, that the Pharynguloid definition would be "scientifically pointless", ignoring any possible meaning it may have to a particular community (which, as I've also said, is quite the analogy for the scientific rationalist movement in general). Not to mention base entertainment value.
No, it's utterly pointless, as the results are extremely easily manipulated. Like you have proven. The poll would only have any point to anyone if the results can't be manipulated in any way (or, at the very least, it would be very difficult to do it). I mean, discounting the 'there is no evidence' result, the next largest result is 'near-death experience'. How do you know someone didn't send a mass e-mail around telling people to vote that? How does anyone apart from you know that you didn't remove votes from other options to get that result because you wanted that to be the result? The answer is 'we don't'.
Quote:
I think you need to reread the comments at Pharyngula. I actually told them not to vote again immediately, as I would likely delete the votes again. I said come back next week if they are really interested in the topic.
Ah, I see - their votes weren't be valid when they voted the first time, and they won't be valid for the rest of this week, but they will be valid next week. Because you say so. Meanwhile, anyone who votes for any of the other options will have valid votes, no matter when they vote. Again, simply because you say so. Yep, you hit the nail on the head when you said the poll was 'fixed'.
Quote:
So yes, I stand by my assertion that, to the repeat voting offenders at this stage, and the blowhards who called me numerous names on the Pharyngula comments, this poll would seem to be meaningful. Ironically, probably more so than it was to us...
LOL. By my reading of it, the only thing this is to them, mate, is that it's an amusing diversion, watching you wriggle around trying desperately to justify your obvious dishonesty. Which actually brings me to another point - if it means so little to you, why are you so rabidly trying to get rid of a result you don't want, even if it means being transparently and obviously dishonest about it?
Quote:
Again, you're deluding yourself. P.Z. has been quite open - even to the point of discussing it in interviews - about the reasons behind his "poll crashing". It's childish - heck, even some of his co-Science Bloggers have called it such. You remain free to keep kidding yourself, but I don't see any particular need to keep defending that assertion.
Yes, he has been completely open and honest about it - he is demonstrating how such polls are utterly pointless by introducing a voting population that is biased in a different direction than the poll organisers expected (such as atheistic, rational voters, instead of those biased towards religion or spirituality). Here, not only did he successfully do that, but you then demonstrated another way that polls like this are utterly pointless - by arbitrarily dismissing the votes of all those who came from Pharyngula and voted 'there is no evidence' as 'group-think' (ironically, in the complete absence of evidence of this).
Quote:
You seem particularly keen to point to my childish behaviour. Have you castised your fellow Pharynguloids yet about their own childishness in the discussion thread over there (not to mention P.Z.'s posts..."We Made Them Cry!")?
Here's another assumption by you - I'm not actually a 'Pharynguloid', per se. I read it occasionally, and have posted there, maybe, in total, a half-dozen times, in about the past 18 months. I just happened to catch this there, and decided to post here about what seemed to be dishonesty on your part. So far, nothing you have said or done has explained this, or persuaded me you're not being as dishonest about this as you originally appeared to be.
Quote:
No, I left the thread because I know not to hang around debating people that aren't looking for a discussion. I turned up in good faith to debate/respond to genuine criticisms, and simply got vulgar abuse, or "we're laughing at you Greg, run home little baby". I've moved on, I suggest you do the same (in terms of giving me a 'Welcome to the Internet', in turn I'll suggest you pin this XKCD cartoon above your computer, as I have).
Well, from what you've said and done so far, you're missing the fact that cartoon is intended to be humourous.
Quote:
Here's a little sampling of the intelligent commentary from Pharyngula:
Kassul at #8 ("Fuck him"), John Morales at #28 ("He's proud of cheating"), Chgo_liz at #43 ("What a coward you are"), Menyambal at #56 ("laughing at you and your stupidity"), Bobxxxx at #59 ("You can't deny the fact you're a stupid asshole (not to mention insane"), 'Tis Himself at #61 ("asshole"), Patricia at #76 ("You namby-pamby sissy fellow!"), Jim-Bob Cooter at #79 ("that d-bag")), Clinteas@123 ""You smug assuming dick..."
Well, most of that is a 'sampling' of the commentary at Pharyngula in the same way that the contents of your septic tank is a 'sampling' of the contents of your house.
Quote:
I would suggest you do a little house-keeping of your own, before coming to other sites criticising them for their standards.
So I have to censor comments on a blog that isn't mine, and I don't even post comments on regularly, in order to point out your dishonesty? I guess that tells me all I need to know about where you stand on this minor little issue.
Posted by bladerunner on 03 Mar 2009 at about 00:35.
They've been given their orders, and will do as their told. They didn't come here to debate/discuss with our community. Just to Tee-Pee the yard. I just hope some of them come back and look around. Might learn something new. Like how to think for themselves, or something close to that.
Posted by Colette M. Dowell on 16 Mar 2009 at about 02:03.
Zmidponk or what ever it is your name
You seem to just want to argue and act immature. You seem to be blind about people crashing sites and polls. You are one of them in my eyes. And please, don't even come back and try to write something about me and my agendas and thoughts, you do not know me and do not pretend to. You say and expose a lot about yourself in your arguements that are redundant/dent and without standing. You are defending something and others that does and do not need defending - as if you are a prince on a horse that has come to save us - but, you missed your mark and slipped in the horse muck. We are mature enough here at the Grail to read and choose what we wish to believe in and smart enough to read through the crap. Get a life.
Well Greg, I have to say that you have made a rather blanket statement. At 13 years old (about 1966) I became quite devoted to studying all manner of the paranormal. Life after death was a big part of that, and I suspect I've read as much, if not more than you over the years. At one point, my rather large library was made up of books that dealt with the subject. So I have read, discussed, debated and though long and hard on the notion of life after death, the evidence for it, and the arguments against it. And regardless of what you think, I voted what I have come to see as the correct answer to such a question.
There is no evidence for a soul, or any other mechanism that would allow for an after life. And belief and faith do not count as evidence. No more than wishes do.
Regarding the validity of your vote (in this particular case of poll-crashing), please see my comments above to Zmidponk.
Regarding your own knowledge base, if you've been at it since 1966, and had your own personal library, then I would agree that you probably have read more about the topic than me. Rather than lose all that knowledge to a single vote in a "pointless poll", I would encourage you to stick around and become a regular commenter/critic on these topics. The more knowledge the better!
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
Posted by RealityTest on 04 Mar 2009 at about 01:51.
Phil:
"...At one point, my rather large library was made up of books that dealt with the subject. So I have read, discussed, debated and though long and hard on the notion of life after death, the evidence for it, and the arguments against it. And regardless of what you think, I voted what I have come to see as the correct answer to such a question...There is no evidence for a soul, or any other mechanism that would allow for an after life. And belief and faith do not count as evidence. No more than wishes do."
Dear Phil:
Since when does reading about the soul, building large libraries of books on the topic, and any related activities -- typically involving the part of mind that deals with abstractions and analysis -- have any genuine bearing on the topic?
I might read endless books about swimming, endow libraries containing nothing but books on swimming, and spend years doing nothing but reading these books.
My knowledge of swimming would be exceedingly limited, however, until or unless I got into the water and learned to swim.
Further, no swimmers would be very impressed with my very limited knowledge of the topic.
On the other hand, were I to master various swimming strokes, set records, and swim quite frequently, my abstract knowledge would augment my more direct and immediate personal understanding.
Restricting self to abstract thought alone is one sure way to prevent accessing "soul" and ever attaining any direct knowledge of it. It's possible to have a powerful encounter with soul without engaging in the practice of any mind quieting techniques, but not very likely.
What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death and it isn't worth studying?
We. Don't. Know. C'mon, it's not that hard to admit.
Are Dr Sam Parnia and Dr Peter Fenwick wasting their time? I'm sure Dr Gary Schwartz would love to hear about all of the evidence PZ Myers has acquired through scientific inquiry as well. Because scientific inquiry is what Dr Schwartz and others are doing here. There are many more studies that have been, and continue to be, conducted on death and consciousness. It's ridiculous to discount them all, and to proselytize that it's a waste of time -- that's just opinion, not science. Yes, there's a lot of "woo-woo" out there -- but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Consciousness and death is the greatest mystery we confront, and yet the lack of interest and ridicule this mystery receives from science is mind-boggling.
I followed the link to LACH from your post, and was pleased to see a "publications" link. After all, publication in a peer-reviewed journal would certainly go a long way toward the claim that you're talking about "science" and not "woo-woo".
Alas: "This page is under construction"
You ask two questions in one sentence:
"What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death and it isn't worth studying?"
a) "What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death?"
What evidence do you have that we are not all an odd chemical side-effect of a squid's erotic dream?
Just as much. Does this make the corresponding positive statements true? Nope.
If your goal is to differentiate this field of study from "woo-woo" (to show that there even IS a baby in the bathwater), then a good starting point would be to recognize one of the basic rules of science:
"Positive statements require positive evidence."
In other words, no claim holds any weight unless it is supported by evidence and observations that are repeatable, and that makes predictions that - if shown not to be true - will invalidate the claim.
In other words, a "positive statement" - a claim that something is true, or reflects the reality of the world we live in - is assumed to be meaningless unless it has evidence in support of it.
This is how science works.
The opposite approach, which it seems you are advocating, might be summarized as: "All claims are true unless evidence is provided of their falsehood."
This would mean that every conceivable claim should be considered legitimate unless evidence can be provided that it is false. And this gets to the second half of your question:
b) "What evidence do you have that it isn't worth studying?"
I don't think anyone claims this, really. But a close claim, which many make, is that it's not worth studying MUCH . Why?
If one goes the scientific route, it's worth studying if someone can (or would) make a comprehensible claim about the topic that has some evidence that supports it, and can be witnessed by pretty much any observer. The claim should contain some element that is testable: that makes a prediction about the observable universe that can be put to the test - one time or a thousand. As long as no such test ever fails, then claim should remain standing.
Mankind has been contemplating the nature of death and eternity since before recorded history. There are - and have been - thousands of claims about the nature of consciousness and its duration as related to death. Not a single claim has been phrased as a testable scientific hypothesis, or lends itself to being tested in the observable world. (Please feel free to correct me here by pointing to such a scientific hypothesis, examples of its predictions, and how those predictions have been tested repeatedly and independently without a single result in contradiction.)
So, that leaves a few possible routes as to why I would say this is not worth studying MUCH:
1) If you take the scientific route, thousands of years of observation have produced no testable claims on this topic that have actually survived testing. Sure - we can keep observing - but how much MORE effort is worth expending in this direction?
2) If you take the anti-scientific route (that all claims are valid until disproven), then I would argue that there are MANY other unproven claims that are MUCH more important than questions about the afterlife. Just start making up useful, but totally unsupported, claims and I think you'll agree.
3) If you take the "theological" route (that these claims aren't in the realm of science because they aren't observable, or have no observable results, or are completely subjective), then we're clearly just talking and talking and talking in a dark room for our own amusement. Nothing we conclude will ever be "evidence", and nothing will ever be proven or disproven, though we might end up liking or disliking people's style of argument, or having our feelings hurt, or deciding that it's really time to go to work now. I'm not saying this is a completely worthless effort (I'm doing it now, right?), but there are a lot of things that are MORE important, so again it's not worth spending MUCH effort on.
Finally, if we're not talking about case (1) - where one uses the scientific method - then let's be intellectually honest enough not to try calling it "science", or dressing up fake and pointless "experiments" as though they were actually going to achieve some scientific end, when it's clear they aren't.
...let's be intellectually honest enough not to try calling it "science", or dressing up fake and pointless "experiments" as though they were actually going to achieve some scientific end, when it's clear they aren't.
By this standard, we would still be thinking the Earth is flat. ;-)
Posted by earthling on 03 Mar 2009 at about 13:33.
Take the phenomenon of near death experiences.
These experiences undeniably happen. Where they come from is completely unknown, the proposed explanations are speculation. Nothing has been verified experimentally, it has not seriously been tried.
So I say this warrants serious investigation. The fact that some people consider this proof of an afterlife (I don't) should not stop us from finding out what is going on.
Were the people reporting these things really dead? Are these experiences effects of the brain shutting down? Of the brain starting up? Are the memories from a time when the brain is really dead?
NDEs are intriguing observations. They warrant serious investigation.
That is how science works. We see something that does not fit our current understanding of how things work - we investigate it.
Science does not start with a hypothesis proposed and then tested.
Science starts with observations, and with recognizing that something strange is happening.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
What value do you get out of The Daily Grail over the course of a year? Is it worth the price of a coffee? Perhaps the price of a magazine subscription? Whatever it is, you can help ensure the future and independence of TDG by sending a 'voluntary subscription' of any amount. Your support is appreciated!
Comments
1 May 2004
33 weeks 6 days
The evidence for an afterlife HAS to be personal. How can we possibly take for real what other people say? Religions say it is true or not true depending on which religion you study. Books and articles say it is true or not true depending on what you read. In the end it comes back to either belief or personal experience. Well we all know that belief without experience is a very shaky thing, and can change almost as often as the weather, or be so fixed and dogmatic as to be worthless.
Now - I cannot convince anybody else of the veracity of my own personal experience. But I don't have to. Everybody has their own experience and they will have their own conviction based upon that. The rest is just opinion or chatter.
I happen to know that there is life after death of the physical body - but that it might be just another physical body without memories or something which is not physical any more. However I am not going to try to convince anybody else that this is true, because it is based on my own personal experience.
Neanderthal
'Whatever you do, comes back to you'
12 April 2007
2 hours 26 min
I for one would be delighted to read your account.
Please? :)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
I think that mediumship experiments offer a possibility for evidence-based decision-making, rather than just "taking for real what other people say". Although, when it gets down to it, any positive evidence can still probably fit into a 'cosmic consciousness'/super-psi explanation, so there still does have to be some leap of faith to the afterlife conclusion.
Have to say I'm very surprised that mediumship is at only 4% on the poll. There are a number of cases that I'm familiar with that are very suggestive of consciousness surviving physical death. Probably better 'evidence' than NDEs in my opinion (although I find NDE cases fascinating as well).
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
12 April 2007
2 hours 26 min
I'm sure that, if you had conducted this poll 100 years ago, you would have seen higher numbers supporting mediumship.
But how many of us have actually witnessed a seance?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
19 November 2005
1 year 50 weeks
I find that with questions like this (is there a god, afterlife, meaning of life, etc etc...), we first need to define what we mean by afterlife. When I talk with people who believe such a thing or have an opinion on it, I realize that there is a difference in what I think 'afterlife' consists of comparatively, and so I feel that there are different types of things that would corroborate or disprove such a thing. Perhaps I require a new word to refer to what I believe it to be, or such a thing should be brought out and included in the connotations of the term.
Along similar lines, it seems that such things then have the power to negate or deny an aspect of a particular cultural phenomenon, then simultaneously create more phenomena from within that same cultural entity (like, say Christianity and its related mythologies and such). Nietzsche might have a thing or two to say about that, in his 'afterlife,' watching such a thing occur.
To be more inclusive and talk about such a thing as afterlife, there would first need to be a preface as to what type of afterlife we are conceptualizing for the purpose of the discussion/poll/whatever.
In any case, it is interesting to see the results of such polls and discussions.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
Ok, just for the heck of it, here are some candidate definitions. I am sure there are more.
- (a) Individual human. Some aspect of the individual human being remains after the death of the physical body. Under this definition, the individual is recognizable in some way. NDEs, ghosts, memories of past lives would be evidence of this kind of thing.
- (b) Traveling souls. This is a sort of individual persistent soul, but it is not necessarily human at any stage. If a human han be reincarnated as a dog, or a dog as a human, and then a human can progress to an eternal realm - why can't the dog go there directly?
- (c) Non-individual souls. This includes universal conciousness ideas, where the human being is only an expression of part of the universal conciousness for a short time.
- (d) Physical low level immortality. In some sense the human body persists after it is dead, just not as a human body. Parts of it stay on as molecules or atoms in the environment.
- (e) Technological afterlife. This is the science fiction stuff, where brain patterns are copied into some sort of artificial intelligence machine. I say this is cheating, since you get multiple copies, but they all can die individually. In particular the original is not persistent unless we believe (a), (b), or (c).
- (f) Cloning. This is cheating too, for the same reasons that (e) is.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
I think, for the purposes of such a general poll, the word itself gives the definition. Basically - is there something after life? A little more specifically, you could probably say "consciousness surviving physical death". The really specific definition which you're discussing probably changes based on where you see the best evidence.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
11 March 2008
2 years 27 weeks
Hello Greg et all,
The point here is what you define as consiouness, is it the ego/personality..those are the ones that supposedly are picked up by mediums. Then there is reincarnation.. supposedly we all carry imprints of previously lives with us..i say previous but i should say other lives, as all is now. And as such it would make sense that all our versions are connected through part of our light body. This implies a binding factor. It could be what we call the spirit, however this again is supposedly an immovable/unimpressionable core and would in this concept here be the catalist creating a container for all emotions/experiences gathered by a "spark" over it's lifetimes however/wherever/whenever.
So there's this supra-immortal=timeless consciousness unit collecting from many experiences that is true you. And then there is this local spacetime egodriven sub unit gathering experiences that is you. It has been told many lies about it's death. Driven by fear it has been exploited in many ways and thusfar failed to understand (by enlarge) that this fear only served the powerhungry, the controllers. Ironically these tend to fear death the most and presume they need to corrupt the other side with splendour extracted at this side, quiet ludicrous but thats the mindset those people live by. BTW churches have done quiet well collecting possesions at deathbeds.
So the egobody dies but remains as it experiences set has been collected. It should dislodge from our 3D realm and find it's way somewhere into the many realms where thought=reality. However not everyone makes it that far, some can't disconnect because of overwhelming fear or sometimes love for those left behind. Eventually they will get there..but there's no hurry in the eternal.
Now obviously one can only speculate but i presume mediums connect to the container realm via their own container..That btw would limit the range of possible connections to the ones of like vibrations, hence connecting to Julius Ceasar or an alien warlord like Jahweh isn't possible. That said it stands to reason that the more developped a container is, the higher its connectivity range will become. It follows that the Creator, possesses the complete range and us sparks are on a road to follow in it's footsteps.
In the end this chatter about afterlife is just semantics, there is no death but your egobody ends recording.
The Love That You Withhold, Is The Pain That You Carry
16 August 2006
2 days 5 hours
I might have voted for "reincarnation memories" as I'm quite familiar with moments of _memory-like_ experience suggestive of times and places outside of my present physical life experience.
The reason I voted for "other" is because I'm not sure "memories" is an entirely accurate term.
It calls to mind organic brain matter, but how could that be if the brain of some other self turned to dust long ago?
These experiences seem more to be a kind of attunement or connection that transcends time, space, and ordinary memory.
"Reincarnation" also carries some baggage; it usually denotes a kind of one-life-after-another situation, as though life experiences occur serially, like days of the week.
The hidden assumption is that the egoic experience of time is the only way to experience time, yet other experiences suggest to me that this is definitely not the case.
Furthermore, there can be great varieties in all such experiences, whether those suggestive of some other life experience, those suggestive of different realms of being in which existence is perceived quite differently from the way we normally do, and so on.
When the word "evidence" is used in a question such as the poll question it usually implies something solid, something "provable."
The most convincing experiences I've had, however, involve nothing of the kind -- so far as I know.
They involve, instead, a very solid _knowing_, although this is not nearly so solid afterwards, fading as all experiences do.
Subjective knowing isn't good enough for those who have never had such an experience, and why should it be?
Still, is there some way, some method, by which nearly anyone can have such moments?
I believe so, but I'm still working on this.
See, for example, #9. What Are Those Methods? found at
http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm
Bill I.
12 April 2007
2 hours 26 min
"Reincarnation" also carries some baggage; it usually denotes a kind of one-life-after-another situation, as though life experiences occur serially, like days of the week.
I had never though of it that way, and I think you're right. Those people who believe in re-incarnation rely on a one-directional flow of time to account for those 'past memories'—namely, that some other me experienced a different life-time in the past, and those memories are part of a different me in the present.
But what i we acknowledge the more realist scenario that past, present AND future are compeltely arbitrary?
Thank you for this wonderful food for thought :)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
2 May 2004
2 hours 19 min
Remembering a future life? It's Philip K Dick meets Allison Dubois! Considering quantum physics, and cultural cosmologies and philosophies (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc), we have to consider that reincarnation could go both ways -- and that's only in our 3rd dimension. My head, it is spinning...
20 November 2007
2 years 30 weeks
I usually don't define afterlife in a spiritual matter. In my opinion, the best evidence for an afterlife is that when we die, other life forms live on. The planets still rotate. When we die our bodies fuel the lives of other creatures, and dimensions of consciousness. All life is in a constant dance moving toward complexity and equilibrium right down to the fundamental nature of matter and light. We are fingertips of evolution that stem from a tree of life which may exist everywhere and always will. But the idea that we have a nervous system makes me feel that we are connected to everything all of the time, and our brains tile over and create infinite labyrinths of possibilities and filters of time and scale... making the experience of being alive sort of an end to itself, ending "as black as holes within a memory" or "like the God who hung stars like lamps in the night." That's just one microcosmic idea in a multidimensional gradient of which craft...
I find this quote by Joseph Campbell ponders this deep question as well... he talks about God, but it could be equated to the after life as well.
"God is a thought, God is a name, God is an idea, but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. The best things can’t be told because they transcend thought. The second best are misunderstood because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to what can’t be thought about. The third best are what we talk about and a myth is that field of reference, metaphors referring to what is absolutely transcendent. What can’t be known, or can’t be named, except in our own feeble attempt to cloth it in language. And the ultimate word in our language for that which is transcendent is God."
Joseph Campbell 1 (MP3)
Joseph Campbell 2 (MP3)
"Its not the black side, its not the white side... its the interface... the edge" TM
5 June 2008
2 years 20 weeks
Maybe I'm jaded, but every "Reincarnation memory" I heard
was always self-indulgent: always some one famous. No one was a drunk, or a baggage boy, gutter snipe, or slut. No one was an animal or insect. Dead is dead, everything else is conjecture.
do not distrub this ruble. Sapho
5 December 2008
15 hours 29 min
I don't know what accounts you've been reading but nearly every account I've read involves every day, ordinary people like you and I.
26 June 2005
2 days 15 hours
I've been interested in - and reading about - cases of reincarnation for more than 30 years and the claims of being a reincarnated famous historical figure are very rare indeed. This argument is trotted out every time reincarnation is discussed. I think it is one of those self-referencing myths.
By the way -- shame the poll was hi-jacked by the forces of the bright and rational but maybe I'm too stupid to see how that must be the way for reason to triumph over superstition.
David.
http://www.davidsmuse.co.uk
16 August 2006
2 days 5 hours
1. On the "I was Pharoah So and So" syndrome:
If there is something that some call "reincarnation" (and I believe there most definitely is) then this applies to famous people, too.
In other words, if someone is famous in our present probable mass reality, whether owing to steles from thousands of years ago, myth, folklore, or even just by existing somewhere in our present historical records, and a region of self survives physical death and may be born again as a new personality in a different time period, then there will always be some presently living folks who were famous.
Some of these may have moments in which they "remember" a "famous" existence. In fact, there is an impressive body of anecdotal evidence for just such experiences extending backwards centuries.
This applies to me. At various moments I've "remembered" being so and so. The number of specific personalities is now at several score, the first such experiences dating to my early childhood. (It's true I was noted then for having a wild imagination. Who is to say exactly where imagination ends and genuine "remembrances" begin? I use the quote marks because I believe this isn't as straightforward as organic memory recall; after all, the brains of other past personalities will have long turned to dust from a present perspective.)
The vast majority of these personalities are completely obscure, and not part of the historical record -- they were "nobodies" from that perspective.
Nobody, so far as I know, remembers a drunken and vile smelling wild west character named Henry Williams who wandered from town to town and bar to bar, telling wild tales in exchange for drinks and last seen alive heading towards the Sierra Nevada mountains with his trusty mule. I do, however. Henry would often pull up his shirt, show off a star-shaped scar, and claim he got this after being shot by Wild Bill Hickok himself. The truth was much more prosaic.
The same applies to any number of personalities alive in many times and places.
This isn't so, however, in a small handful of situations.
I could list these few famous folks and recount those experiences that lead me to believe they are versions of me and that I am a version of them, but I already know how most would likely respond (often influenced by very f___ up official psychological theories).
What do they know? I can't easily prove any this, that is align quite powerful subjective experiences with, say, previously unknown factual or historical details. During my more ego-bound moments, I may even question my own experiences. (Consciousness fluctuates; what may be apparent during a moment of "wider" consciousness may completely vanish during a "narrower," more physically focused moment.)
It is true, however, that's it's always far more important and necessary to focus on who we are now, not who we may have been. We live now, not then, even if all of these selves are connected inwardly, in what has been called "the spacious present."
2. "Objective Hard Evidence"
Anyone who trots these words out and focuses on them excessively when considering this topic is almost by definition extremely "ego-bound," a hard case not worth discussing this with. Someone would almost have to slip some hallucinogenic substance into their coffee or tea before they would change their beliefs.
Of course if they were just a little more open minded they might avail themselves of the various techniques that exist -- and have existed, for millennia -- that, once successfully mastered, will destroy forever any rigid materialistic views.
These techniques begin with teaching self to still the chatter of the conscious mind.
If a skeptic can't be bothered to engage in even such preliminary activities, I have no use for the person's views regarding the nature of reality. They've restricted their experience in a major way, denied themselves the possibility of becoming consciously aware of what they very likely knew as a child or in their dreams, before getting f____ up by thoroughly imbibing those official beliefs foisted on us as we become socialized.
We may encounter those who claim to have been so and so. We may dismiss their utterances as a kind of wish fulfillment or way to compensate for being, at present, a "nobody" but we don't really necessarily know the reality of the situation. These may be colorful characters.
We may also encounter those who refuse to even consider the possibility that they have their own "past life" existences.
They are likely to hold beliefs that greatly downplay the significance of subjective experience, holding that "matter" is all there is. These may be very boring personalities who lack the slightest appreciation for the inspired creations of artists, poets, writers, musicians, and even the most inspired scientists. Their mantra is "where's the objective hard evidence?" Imagination isn't one of their strong points and they are best suited for working in mammoth insurance bureaucracies as, perhaps, actuaries.
There are others who may recall experiences "suggestive of reincarnation," and, while not holding any firm beliefs one way or the other, are open to the possibility.
Others, still, remain open minded, period, whether they've ever had such experiences or not.
Of these four groups, you can have the actuaries. I'd just as soon not bother with them.
Regards
Bill I.
http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm
20 February 2009
2 years 50 weeks
Any thoughts?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-...
IMHO he pretty much proves that there is some form of "life after death"
The first two parts fill in the background more.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
Now that P.Z. Myers and his band of flying monkeys have had their fun, I've now removed the 4000 odd votes that they added to "There is no evidence".
I'd like to thank Mr Myers for increasing the Daily Grail's Alexa and Google rankings, and adding another $US30 in advertising revenue to help keep the site going. We value his thoughtful contribution to our site.
:)
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
25 February 2009
2 years 49 weeks
Hmm.
Now that P.Z. Myers and his band of flying monkeys have had their fun, I've now removed the 4000 odd votes that they added to "There is no evidence".
So, in other words, if your poll gets posted about somewhere popular, causing too many people give an answer you don't like, regardless of whether that's their genuine view or not, you'll delete them? Doesn't seem honest to me.
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
So, in other words, if your poll gets posted about somewhere popular, causing too many people give an answer you don't like, regardless of whether that's their genuine view or not, you'll delete them? Doesn't seem honest to me.
Hi Zmidponk,
Thanks for your comment. Let's just cut to the chase here - it seems my honesty is being impugned (rather vociferously in the Pharyngula comments) because I modified a poll, on which so many Pharyngulites claim to have given their genuine views.
I would counter that any poll-crashing which is introduced (by Myers) with the words "pointless poll" wouldn't be worth all the angst. But further, I would say that Myers' introuction...
"I voted for no evidence. If you vote otherwise, maybe you can come back here and explain your evidence to us. We need a good laugh on a Saturday morning"
...would hardly be conducive to providing honest results either. Let's not get self-righteous here, when the Pharyngula voters knew exactly what the intent was. It was herd-voting...if you're concerned because your individual 'genuine' vote was lost, then I suggest not participating in such childish group-think next time.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
25 February 2009
2 years 49 weeks
Hi Zmidponk,
Thanks for your comment. Let's just cut to the chase here - it seems my honesty is being impugned (rather vociferously in the Pharyngula comments) because I modified a poll, on which so many Pharyngulites claim to have given their genuine views.
I would counter that any poll-crashing which is introduced (by Myers) with the words "pointless poll" wouldn't be worth all the angst. But further, I would say that Myers' introuction...
Obviously you're not really a regular reader of Myers' blog. He views ALL internet polls as pointless, simply because of how unscientific they are. He occasionally points one out if he thinks it may be of interest, in one way or another, to his regular readers, despite its pointlessness, usually under a heading of 'pointless poll' or 'another pointless poll' or something of that nature.
"I voted for no evidence. If you vote otherwise, maybe you can come back here and explain your evidence to us. We need a good laugh on a Saturday morning"
...would hardly be conducive to providing honest results either.
Sorry, but all Myers did was made plain his own view. He utterly failed to block people from NOT voting 'there is no evidence', he merely pointed out that he thought it was laughable to vote any other way, and, most probably, many other people who read his blog on a regular basis thinks likewise. Conversely, you actually deleted the votes simply because you didn't like the way they voted, dismissing them, it seems, as 'group-think'.
Let's not get self-righteous here, when the Pharyngula voters knew exactly what the intent was. It was herd-voting...if you're concerned because your individual 'genuine' vote was lost, then I suggest not participating in such childish group-think next time.
No, I voted 'there is no evidence' because, in all the accounts I have read, in all the supposed books and stories detailing this supposed 'life after death', the one thing that has been utterly lacking is any objective, hard evidence. That is not 'group-think'. That is 'being honest'. The fact quite a few other people who agree with that view became aware of this poll, and thus voted the same way, is irrelevant to that fact.
EDIT:
After reading through the comments on Pharyngula, it seems you can't decide what this poll is supposed to be. You start by saying:
Our polls are meant as an indication of the Daily Grail community's thoughts on a particular matter.
Suggesting it's an 'in-house' poll. But you go on to say, in the same comment:
As I said, once P.Z. is finished with the baiting, I'm sure the more interested and thoughtful amongst you will remember the poll and take the time to go back and cast your vote (whatever it is).
Which suggests it's not - and anyone who simply becomes aware if this poll, or any other poll here, can vote. Which is it? As it seems, looking at the poll now, it does seem a chunk of the original voters HAVE come back and voted again - with the poll on it's way to giving the same result as you got the first time. Does this mean you're going to delete them again as being 'group-think'?
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
As it seems, looking at the poll now, it does seem a chunk of the original voters HAVE come back and voted again - with the poll on it's way to giving the same result as you got the first time. Does this mean you're going to delete them again as being 'group-think'?
Ayup. Which shouldn't concern you in any way, given that y'all think it's a pointless poll. Come to think of it, everyone from Pharyngula came back to vote again? What's the point of that? It's almost like...the poll means something to you guys.
A little honesty would go a long way. We both know what P.Z and Pharyngula aimed to do. Instead of finding a bunch of irrational Fundies, you found a rational community who decided to call you on your childishness. I would suggest learning from it.
I would add that the next time I hear Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers or Phil Plait complaining that they can't get no respect from the public, I'd point them at the Pharyngula post that I tried to discuss things on, and say "what do you think Sherlock?". For a bunch of 'brights', there seems to be a fair lack of comprehension as to the root of the problem...
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
25 February 2009
2 years 49 weeks
Ayup. Which shouldn't concern you in any way, given that y'all think it's a pointless poll.
Yep. Isn't it heavily ironic you, yourself are giving an object lesson as to why such polls are utterly pointless, and yet you bothered with the poll in the first place?
Come to think of it, everyone from Pharyngula came back to vote again?
Nope, I said a chunk came back. Even if you assume every single 'there is no evidence' vote is a Pharygulite, less than a quarter did, going by your original figure of 4000 votes from Pharyngula the first time around. And this time, they were invited. By you. So, assuming your answer of 'ayup' means the same thing I am familiar with (yes), you are even going to delete votes from people who were specifically invited by you to vote, because they voted in a way you don't like.
What's the point of that? It's almost like...the poll means something to you guys.
Or maybe they came back and voted because you invited them to?
A little honesty would go a long way.
The irony is thick here.
We both know what P.Z and Pharyngula aimed to do. Instead of finding a bunch of irrational Fundies, you found a rational community who decided to call you on your childishness. I would suggest learning from it.
Sorry, what's so 'childish' in voting in a poll that's seemingly open for anyone to vote in? What's so 'childish' in returning to vote again in the same poll at your express invitation? I would think it is much more childish to delete votes from that poll simply because the person doing it didn't like the way those people voted.
I would add that the next time I hear Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers or Phil Plait complaining that they can't get no respect from the public, I'd point them at the Pharyngula post that I tried to discuss things on, and say "what do you think Sherlock?". For a bunch of 'brights', there seems to be a fair lack of comprehension as to the root of the problem...
No, you didn't really discuss the issue. You said a few things that contradicted each other in an attempt to explain why you arbitrarily deleted votes you didn't like and addressed a few other criticisms, as well as touching, in passing, what your answer to the poll was, then abruptly left the thread because a few people weren't exactly polite to you. All I can say to that is 'welcome to the internet'.
As for the idea of Dawkins, et al, wanting 'respect from the public', that seems a little strange to me. From what I've seen and heard of him, I could easily see Dawkins wanting the public to respect what he says because of the evidence and logic it is based on, and, when he is being serious, ditto Myers, but I can't really see them wanting respect simply because they are Myers and Dawkins. As for Phil Plait, he is a relative unknown to me, so I couldn't say whether it's true of him that he wants respect merely for being him. What little I do know seems to suggest it's not true, though.
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
Yep. Isn't it heavily ironic you, yourself are giving an object lesson as to why such polls are utterly pointless, and yet you bothered with the poll in the first place?
Not particularly. I think I've pointed out already the various meanings of "pointless" - in short, that the Pharynguloid definition would be "scientifically pointless", ignoring any possible meaning it may have to a particular community (which, as I've also said, is quite the analogy for the scientific rationalist movement in general). Not to mention base entertainment value.
And this time, they were invited. By you.
I think you need to reread the comments at Pharyngula. I actually told them not to vote again immediately, as I would likely delete the votes again. I said come back next week if they are really interested in the topic.
("I can revert the poll to previous numbers at any time, it only takes a few seconds. Please don't waste your time. Unless it provides something of value to yourself. If the poll really means something to you, come back next week. It will still be there.")
So yes, I stand by my assertion that, to the repeat voting offenders at this stage, and the blowhards who called me numerous names on the Pharyngula comments, this poll would seem to be meaningful. Ironically, probably more so than it was to us...
Sorry, what's so 'childish' in voting in a poll that's seemingly open for anyone to vote in? What's so 'childish' in returning to vote again in the same poll at your express invitation? I would think it is much more childish to delete votes from that poll simply because the person doing it didn't like the way those people voted.
Again, you're deluding yourself. P.Z. has been quite open - even to the point of discussing it in interviews - about the reasons behind his "poll crashing". It's childish - heck, even some of his co-Science Bloggers have called it such. You remain free to keep kidding yourself, but I don't see any particular need to keep defending that assertion.
You seem particularly keen to point to my childish behaviour. Have you castised your fellow Pharynguloids yet about their own childishness in the discussion thread over there (not to mention P.Z.'s posts..."We Made Them Cry!")?
You said a few things that contradicted each other in an attempt to explain why you arbitrarily deleted votes you didn't like and addressed a few other criticisms, as well as touching, in passing, what your answer to the poll was, then abruptly left the thread because a few people weren't exactly polite to you. All I can say to that is 'welcome to the internet'.
No, I left the thread because I know not to hang around debating people that aren't looking for a discussion. I turned up in good faith to debate/respond to genuine criticisms, and simply got vulgar abuse, or "we're laughing at you Greg, run home little baby". I've moved on, I suggest you do the same (in terms of giving me a 'Welcome to the Internet', in turn I'll suggest you pin this XKCD cartoon above your computer, as I have).
Here's a little sampling of the intelligent commentary from Pharyngula:
Kassul at #8 ("Fuck him"), John Morales at #28 ("He's proud of cheating"), Chgo_liz at #43 ("What a coward you are"), Menyambal at #56 ("laughing at you and your stupidity"), Bobxxxx at #59 ("You can't deny the fact you're a stupid asshole (not to mention insane"), 'Tis Himself at #61 ("asshole"), Patricia at #76 ("You namby-pamby sissy fellow!"), Jim-Bob Cooter at #79 ("that d-bag")), Clinteas@123 ""You smug assuming dick..."
I would suggest you do a little house-keeping of your own, before coming to other sites criticising them for their standards.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
25 February 2009
2 years 49 weeks
Not particularly. I think I've pointed out already the various meanings of "pointless" - in short, that the Pharynguloid definition would be "scientifically pointless", ignoring any possible meaning it may have to a particular community (which, as I've also said, is quite the analogy for the scientific rationalist movement in general). Not to mention base entertainment value.
No, it's utterly pointless, as the results are extremely easily manipulated. Like you have proven. The poll would only have any point to anyone if the results can't be manipulated in any way (or, at the very least, it would be very difficult to do it). I mean, discounting the 'there is no evidence' result, the next largest result is 'near-death experience'. How do you know someone didn't send a mass e-mail around telling people to vote that? How does anyone apart from you know that you didn't remove votes from other options to get that result because you wanted that to be the result? The answer is 'we don't'.
I think you need to reread the comments at Pharyngula. I actually told them not to vote again immediately, as I would likely delete the votes again. I said come back next week if they are really interested in the topic.
Ah, I see - their votes weren't be valid when they voted the first time, and they won't be valid for the rest of this week, but they will be valid next week. Because you say so. Meanwhile, anyone who votes for any of the other options will have valid votes, no matter when they vote. Again, simply because you say so. Yep, you hit the nail on the head when you said the poll was 'fixed'.
So yes, I stand by my assertion that, to the repeat voting offenders at this stage, and the blowhards who called me numerous names on the Pharyngula comments, this poll would seem to be meaningful. Ironically, probably more so than it was to us...
LOL. By my reading of it, the only thing this is to them, mate, is that it's an amusing diversion, watching you wriggle around trying desperately to justify your obvious dishonesty. Which actually brings me to another point - if it means so little to you, why are you so rabidly trying to get rid of a result you don't want, even if it means being transparently and obviously dishonest about it?
Again, you're deluding yourself. P.Z. has been quite open - even to the point of discussing it in interviews - about the reasons behind his "poll crashing". It's childish - heck, even some of his co-Science Bloggers have called it such. You remain free to keep kidding yourself, but I don't see any particular need to keep defending that assertion.
Yes, he has been completely open and honest about it - he is demonstrating how such polls are utterly pointless by introducing a voting population that is biased in a different direction than the poll organisers expected (such as atheistic, rational voters, instead of those biased towards religion or spirituality). Here, not only did he successfully do that, but you then demonstrated another way that polls like this are utterly pointless - by arbitrarily dismissing the votes of all those who came from Pharyngula and voted 'there is no evidence' as 'group-think' (ironically, in the complete absence of evidence of this).
You seem particularly keen to point to my childish behaviour. Have you castised your fellow Pharynguloids yet about their own childishness in the discussion thread over there (not to mention P.Z.'s posts..."We Made Them Cry!")?
Here's another assumption by you - I'm not actually a 'Pharynguloid', per se. I read it occasionally, and have posted there, maybe, in total, a half-dozen times, in about the past 18 months. I just happened to catch this there, and decided to post here about what seemed to be dishonesty on your part. So far, nothing you have said or done has explained this, or persuaded me you're not being as dishonest about this as you originally appeared to be.
No, I left the thread because I know not to hang around debating people that aren't looking for a discussion. I turned up in good faith to debate/respond to genuine criticisms, and simply got vulgar abuse, or "we're laughing at you Greg, run home little baby". I've moved on, I suggest you do the same (in terms of giving me a 'Welcome to the Internet', in turn I'll suggest you pin this XKCD cartoon above your computer, as I have).
Well, from what you've said and done so far, you're missing the fact that cartoon is intended to be humourous.
Here's a little sampling of the intelligent commentary from Pharyngula:
Kassul at #8 ("Fuck him"), John Morales at #28 ("He's proud of cheating"), Chgo_liz at #43 ("What a coward you are"), Menyambal at #56 ("laughing at you and your stupidity"), Bobxxxx at #59 ("You can't deny the fact you're a stupid asshole (not to mention insane"), 'Tis Himself at #61 ("asshole"), Patricia at #76 ("You namby-pamby sissy fellow!"), Jim-Bob Cooter at #79 ("that d-bag")), Clinteas@123 ""You smug assuming dick..."
Well, most of that is a 'sampling' of the commentary at Pharyngula in the same way that the contents of your septic tank is a 'sampling' of the contents of your house.
I would suggest you do a little house-keeping of your own, before coming to other sites criticising them for their standards.
So I have to censor comments on a blog that isn't mine, and I don't even post comments on regularly, in order to point out your dishonesty? I guess that tells me all I need to know about where you stand on this minor little issue.
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
Your comments are kindly noted. Appreciate your input.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
1 May 2004
42 weeks 3 days
They've been given their orders, and will do as their told. They didn't come here to debate/discuss with our community. Just to Tee-Pee the yard. I just hope some of them come back and look around. Might learn something new. Like how to think for themselves, or something close to that.
26 February 2005
2 years 29 weeks
Zmidponk or what ever it is your name
You seem to just want to argue and act immature. You seem to be blind about people crashing sites and polls. You are one of them in my eyes. And please, don't even come back and try to write something about me and my agendas and thoughts, you do not know me and do not pretend to. You say and expose a lot about yourself in your arguements that are redundant/dent and without standing. You are defending something and others that does and do not need defending - as if you are a prince on a horse that has come to save us - but, you missed your mark and slipped in the horse muck. We are mature enough here at the Grail to read and choose what we wish to believe in and smart enough to read through the crap. Get a life.
Dr. Colette M. Dowell ND
Circular Times
www.circulartimes.net
www.circulartimes.org
26 February 2009
2 years 10 weeks
Well Greg, I have to say that you have made a rather blanket statement. At 13 years old (about 1966) I became quite devoted to studying all manner of the paranormal. Life after death was a big part of that, and I suspect I've read as much, if not more than you over the years. At one point, my rather large library was made up of books that dealt with the subject. So I have read, discussed, debated and though long and hard on the notion of life after death, the evidence for it, and the arguments against it. And regardless of what you think, I voted what I have come to see as the correct answer to such a question.
There is no evidence for a soul, or any other mechanism that would allow for an after life. And belief and faith do not count as evidence. No more than wishes do.
Regards,
Phil...
30 April 2004
5 hours 22 min
Hi Phil,
Regarding the validity of your vote (in this particular case of poll-crashing), please see my comments above to Zmidponk.
Regarding your own knowledge base, if you've been at it since 1966, and had your own personal library, then I would agree that you probably have read more about the topic than me. Rather than lose all that knowledge to a single vote in a "pointless poll", I would encourage you to stick around and become a regular commenter/critic on these topics. The more knowledge the better!
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
16 August 2006
2 days 5 hours
Phil:
Dear Phil:
Since when does reading about the soul, building large libraries of books on the topic, and any related activities -- typically involving the part of mind that deals with abstractions and analysis -- have any genuine bearing on the topic?
I might read endless books about swimming, endow libraries containing nothing but books on swimming, and spend years doing nothing but reading these books.
My knowledge of swimming would be exceedingly limited, however, until or unless I got into the water and learned to swim.
Further, no swimmers would be very impressed with my very limited knowledge of the topic.
On the other hand, were I to master various swimming strokes, set records, and swim quite frequently, my abstract knowledge would augment my more direct and immediate personal understanding.
Restricting self to abstract thought alone is one sure way to prevent accessing "soul" and ever attaining any direct knowledge of it. It's possible to have a powerful encounter with soul without engaging in the practice of any mind quieting techniques, but not very likely.
Regards
Bill I.
26 February 2009
2 years 49 weeks
Well, exactly what evidence is there, then?
2 May 2004
2 hours 19 min
What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death and it isn't worth studying?
We. Don't. Know. C'mon, it's not that hard to admit.
Are Dr Sam Parnia and Dr Peter Fenwick wasting their time? I'm sure Dr Gary Schwartz would love to hear about all of the evidence PZ Myers has acquired through scientific inquiry as well. Because scientific inquiry is what Dr Schwartz and others are doing here. There are many more studies that have been, and continue to be, conducted on death and consciousness. It's ridiculous to discount them all, and to proselytize that it's a waste of time -- that's just opinion, not science. Yes, there's a lot of "woo-woo" out there -- but the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Consciousness and death is the greatest mystery we confront, and yet the lack of interest and ridicule this mystery receives from science is mind-boggling.
1 March 2009
2 years 49 weeks
(Re: The Other Side of the Coin, by Rick MG)
I followed the link to LACH from your post, and was pleased to see a "publications" link. After all, publication in a peer-reviewed journal would certainly go a long way toward the claim that you're talking about "science" and not "woo-woo".
Alas: "This page is under construction"
You ask two questions in one sentence:
"What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death and it isn't worth studying?"
a) "What evidence do you have that there's nothing after death?"
What evidence do you have that we are not all an odd chemical side-effect of a squid's erotic dream?
Just as much. Does this make the corresponding positive statements true? Nope.
If your goal is to differentiate this field of study from "woo-woo" (to show that there even IS a baby in the bathwater), then a good starting point would be to recognize one of the basic rules of science:
"Positive statements require positive evidence."
In other words, no claim holds any weight unless it is supported by evidence and observations that are repeatable, and that makes predictions that - if shown not to be true - will invalidate the claim.
In other words, a "positive statement" - a claim that something is true, or reflects the reality of the world we live in - is assumed to be meaningless unless it has evidence in support of it.
This is how science works.
The opposite approach, which it seems you are advocating, might be summarized as: "All claims are true unless evidence is provided of their falsehood."
This would mean that every conceivable claim should be considered legitimate unless evidence can be provided that it is false. And this gets to the second half of your question:
b) "What evidence do you have that it isn't worth studying?"
I don't think anyone claims this, really. But a close claim, which many make, is that it's not worth studying MUCH . Why?
If one goes the scientific route, it's worth studying if someone can (or would) make a comprehensible claim about the topic that has some evidence that supports it, and can be witnessed by pretty much any observer. The claim should contain some element that is testable: that makes a prediction about the observable universe that can be put to the test - one time or a thousand. As long as no such test ever fails, then claim should remain standing.
Mankind has been contemplating the nature of death and eternity since before recorded history. There are - and have been - thousands of claims about the nature of consciousness and its duration as related to death. Not a single claim has been phrased as a testable scientific hypothesis, or lends itself to being tested in the observable world. (Please feel free to correct me here by pointing to such a scientific hypothesis, examples of its predictions, and how those predictions have been tested repeatedly and independently without a single result in contradiction.)
So, that leaves a few possible routes as to why I would say this is not worth studying MUCH:
1) If you take the scientific route, thousands of years of observation have produced no testable claims on this topic that have actually survived testing. Sure - we can keep observing - but how much MORE effort is worth expending in this direction?
2) If you take the anti-scientific route (that all claims are valid until disproven), then I would argue that there are MANY other unproven claims that are MUCH more important than questions about the afterlife. Just start making up useful, but totally unsupported, claims and I think you'll agree.
3) If you take the "theological" route (that these claims aren't in the realm of science because they aren't observable, or have no observable results, or are completely subjective), then we're clearly just talking and talking and talking in a dark room for our own amusement. Nothing we conclude will ever be "evidence", and nothing will ever be proven or disproven, though we might end up liking or disliking people's style of argument, or having our feelings hurt, or deciding that it's really time to go to work now. I'm not saying this is a completely worthless effort (I'm doing it now, right?), but there are a lot of things that are MORE important, so again it's not worth spending MUCH effort on.
Finally, if we're not talking about case (1) - where one uses the scientific method - then let's be intellectually honest enough not to try calling it "science", or dressing up fake and pointless "experiments" as though they were actually going to achieve some scientific end, when it's clear they aren't.
Thanks for the long read!
-Wesley
2 May 2004
2 hours 19 min
...let's be intellectually honest enough not to try calling it "science", or dressing up fake and pointless "experiments" as though they were actually going to achieve some scientific end, when it's clear they aren't.
By this standard, we would still be thinking the Earth is flat. ;-)
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
Take the phenomenon of near death experiences.
These experiences undeniably happen. Where they come from is completely unknown, the proposed explanations are speculation. Nothing has been verified experimentally, it has not seriously been tried.
So I say this warrants serious investigation. The fact that some people consider this proof of an afterlife (I don't) should not stop us from finding out what is going on.
Were the people reporting these things really dead? Are these experiences effects of the brain shutting down? Of the brain starting up? Are the memories from a time when the brain is really dead?
NDEs are intriguing observations. They warrant serious investigation.
That is how science works. We see something that does not fit our current understanding of how things work - we investigate it.
Science does not start with a hypothesis proposed and then tested.
Science starts with observations, and with recognizing that something strange is happening.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.