The afterlife and existence after death

Well if pushed, I just have to answer both 'yes' and 'no' to your question.

As a terribly brief attempt to give at least one logical reason why...

I have a brain, you can measure em fields from my brain outside of my skull using very crude EEG equipment. Such fields are now known not to be an epiphenomena. My brain is not passively shielded. Hence - at the very least - my brain is affected by all such fields within which it is embedded.

Without my brain, I could not have these experiences, but my brain is embedded in this reality, part of and also affected by things it seems both within and without itself.

Well yeah, thats wobbly as hell, but it works. You took the third option out of two. Im not complaining about that; im asking for opinions and im glad that i can get them even though im not trying to get on a detailed level as others here.

Btw, seems to me like you wouldnt say no to a philosophy were consciousness is primary, since our brains would also be part of that. Theres also the possiblity that a materialistic world interacts with the world of consciousness on some sort of level. Idk, a lot of stuff seems possible if you are saying "yes and no" at the same time.
Even so, the whole thing might lead to something between all those ideas. Therefore, the answer "yes and no" instead of "yes or no" might be correct. I can even imagine that all ideas out there might be true at the same time. But thats just me thinking stuff.
 
Well yeah, thats wobbly as hell, but it works. You took the third option out of two. Im not complaining about that; im asking for opinions and im glad that i can get them even though im not trying to get on a detailed level as others here.

Btw, seems to me like you wouldnt say no to a philosophy were consciousness is primary, since our brains would also be part of that. Theres also the possiblity that a materialistic world interacts with the world of consciousness on some sort of level. Idk, a lot of stuff seems possible if you are saying "yes and no" at the same time.
Even so, the whole thing might lead to something between all those ideas. Therefore, the answer "yes and no" instead of "yes or no" might be correct. I can even imagine that all ideas out there might be true at the same time. But thats just me thinking stuff.

Things in the external world have the appearance of getting calculated even when I'm not conscious of them (I'd describe consciousness as my experience of the world). Experiments seem to show things break into consciousness more quickly when there is something new to process. I guess I would say consciousness has something strongly to do with learning... sucking up information, processing and reorganizing it, and spitting it back out again... in a constant cycle.
 
Hi everyone,
I'm new to this site (and quite frankly to online forums) so I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct place. I'm just wondering if anyone has read The Afterlife of Billy Fingers and has opinions on it.
Thanks,
Karen
 
so...
ive found a link to a cnn-article to the life after death. any opinions on that? its focusing on the rather rare shared death experiences. quite interesting. even so the sceptic-explanations seem to be ...irritating to put it nicely. People make that stuff up to deal with the death of others is one of those explanaitions.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/shared-death/

Yes, I'd read that article a few days ago. Who knew we could turn Forrest Gump into Ernest Hemingway by having his loved ones drop dead all around him like flies! Hey, and those 10,000 monkeys at the typewriter? Why wait forever until they poo out Shakespeare? Just grab a few and shove them in a French duck press while the others watch, and presto! Nietzsche!
 
Last edited:
so...
ive found a link to a cnn-article to the life after death. any opinions on that? its focusing on the rather rare shared death experiences. quite interesting. even so the sceptic-explanations seem to be ...irritating to put it nicely. People make that stuff up to deal with the death of others is one of those explanaitions.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/shared-death/

I like reading about NDEs, but I LOVE reading about SDEs. (short for shared-death experience )

And yes, when there are NDEs and things like that, there will be "skeptic-explanations" and it is irritating.
 
so...
ive found a link to a cnn-article to the life after death. any opinions on that? its focusing on the rather rare shared death experiences. quite interesting. even so the sceptic-explanations seem to be ...irritating to put it nicely. People make that stuff up to deal with the death of others is one of those explanaitions.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/shared-death/

I think these experiences give us really important clues about some of the mechanisms underpinning our apparently shared reality. I read these excerpts now, and the route towards an explanation looks so totally obvious to me. Yet 7 years ago they felt totally impenetrable to me.
 
Yes, I'd read that article a few days ago. Who knew we could turn Forrest Gump into Ernest Hemingway by having his loved ones drop dead all around him like flies! Hey, and those 10,000 monkeys at the typewriter? Why wait forever until they poo out Shakespeare? Just grab a few and shove them in a French duck press while the others watch, and presto! Nietzsche!

Na ;) Lets not try that. Those poor monkeys.

I like reading about NDEs, but I LOVE reading about SDEs. (short for shared-death experience )

And yes, when there are NDEs and things like that, there will be "skeptic-explanations" and it is irritating.

SDE's are really fascinating, yep. I rarely read something about them though. I was surprised that CNN covers something like that. I was even more surprised that they talk quite nicely about it for the most part.
People usually avoid that topic though. A Moody-quote inside of this article mentions this too.

Obviously there will always be sceptical explanations, just like there will always be explanations from proponents (or whatever you wanna call that group. Proponents is a weird word.). Even so, that sceptic right here is clinging on some sort of old-fashioned soul-theory...

What particles make up the soul, what holds them together, and how does it interact with ordinary matter?
In an essay entitled “Physics and the Immortality of the Soul,” Carroll says the only evidence of afterlife experiences is “a few legends and sketchy claims from unreliable witnesses … plus a bucket load of wishful thinking.”

Especially the last line is a perfect example for when we ignore subjective experiences for something where this plays a major role. Hes waving away all those statements from people who witnessed something like that by saying its wishful thinking and that those statements are unreliable. Just like that. Thats a thing that i deem to be important though. We cant research things that are happening inside our subjective experiences without taking those very experiences into account.

I think these experiences give us really important clues about some of the mechanisms underpinning our apparently shared reality. I read these excerpts now, and the route towards an explanation looks so totally obvious to me. Yet 7 years ago they felt totally impenetrable to me.

Some aspects of our reality seem to be shared indeed. If you consider those SDE's that seems to be not restricted on the physical world. The psychological world seems to be shared too. And thats quite amazing in my opinion - if that would be a thing in mainstream science it would open so many doors for so many fascinating things.
 
I found something good again. No worries, nothing sceptical at this time.
I just found that post in the scepcop-forums and theres so much truth in that.

Btw, the whole thread is pretty interesting. Im actually frightened of how persuasive those guys there are. They really thought long and hard about all that stuff.

And how will you change the way you lead your life now that have discovered your "informed leap of faith?"
That, Prof, is an EXCELLENT question, because it cuts to the heart of what people are searching for on this and other Forums - including those of the "skeptic" community.

Most people, at some time in their lives, come face to face with the two Big Questions: (1) What's it all about? and (2) What happens after we die? The existential fear and anxiety engendered by these two questions forms the springboard for the whole of humanity's scientific and spiritual endeavours.

A small minority of people are fortunate enough to obtain "insider knowledge" on the Big Questions. These are the mystics (including ordinary folk who undergo "awakening" experiences), and near-death experiencers. After their experience, these individuals are certain that they know the answers, and for them, faith is no longer an issue.

These people usually change their lives drastically as a result of something which they now say they know - not believe. Here is an absolutely classic example:

The rest of us do not have these experiences, and yet are haunted by the same questions. Some people look for certainty in answering these two issues. But a control-freakish need for certainty will draw people to any individual, or institution, which claims to offer it. The usual claimants are (unfortunately) Organised Religion and the pronouncements of the Pope or the Mullah, or Materialist Scientism and the pronouncements of Richard Dawkins and James Randi.

But people looking here will be disappointed - when it comes to the Great Questions, neither the Pope nor Dawkins have the faintest idea what's going on - they're just much better than most of us at kidding themselves. (And, more regrettably, kidding millions of wide-eyed disciples who need a "guru" to do their thinking for them.)

So the only rational approach, therefore, is to rely on other people's research and experience, together with our own life experience, to make sense of things, and to come eventually to a conclusion - a "leap of faith", given the available evidence - in full knowledge that we cannot have all the answers.

"How do you change your life, having made your "informed leap of faith"?


The answer is that - usually - you don't. Life goes on much as before. But what you have achieved is peace of mind - at least, as much as one can obtain in our imperfect world. You have a working model - which makes sense to you if to no-one else - of your place within the scheme of things. You use this model to imagine what life is all about, and what happens after your death.

You may decide that your life is all about having as much fun as possible, while passing your genes on to the next generation, and that after your death you turn into wormfood and fade into eternal oblivion. You may decide that you are embodied consciousness, having this "virtual reality experience" as a learning tool, and that after your "death" you go on to further adventures. You may come up with another scenario entirely.

But whatever you decide, it makes sense to you and helps you through the tough times. That is the best that any of us can ever do. And having made this "leap of informed faith", we get on with living our lives to the fullest extent possible.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2347&start=45
 
Last edited:
I found something good again. No worries, nothing sceptical at this time.
I just found that post in the scepcop-forums and theres so much truth in that.

Btw, the whole thread is pretty interesting. Im actually frightened of how persuasive those guys there are. They really thought long and hard about all that stuff.



http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2347&start=45

The key here is knowledge. What ardent 'sceptics' often do is ignore the true body of evidence. The statement by Carroll referred to above is just plain wrong but countering it cannot be done simply by discussing the subject or rebutting the points made piecemeal. All that leads to is a rather unconvincing tit-for-tat, he-said-she-said exchange. In fact no amount of discussion will induce some people to accept that there is any evidence of weight to survival.

Better to go to the sources of the body of evidence and read it first-hand where possible.

People can do as much 'thinking' as they like on the matter but if they exclude chunks of data it's not worth much IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
The key here is knowledge. What ardent 'sceptics' often do is ignore the true body of evidence. The statement by Carroll referred to above is just plain wrong but countering it cannot be done simply by discussing the subject or rebutting the points made piecemeal. All that leads to is a rather unconvincing tit-for-tat, he-said-she-said exchange. In fact no amount of discussion will induce some people to accept that there is any evidence of weight to survival.

Better to go to the sources of the body of evidence and read it first-hand where possible.

People can do as much 'thinking' as they like on the matter but if they exclude chunks of data it's not worth much IMHO.

I totally agree. Even so, that goes both ways. We should consider evidence for survival, absolutely. We shouldnt neglect information that could be interpreted against it either. At some point (idk, Quantum physics maybe?) there is propably some sort of connection between that what we experience and that what science, e.g. physics and biology, tells us (thats not exactly related to Carroll though. His stuff seems not exactly to be scientific; its more something philosophical). Thats not much of a problem for believer in survival i guess. You cant believe (and with that i mean a founded belief) in something like that these days without considering other opinions atleast once and taking those things into account. Who am i telling that in this forum anyways, right? You guys propably already know that.

Sorry for all the brackets. I always need to add some stuff after i posted something and i dont want to rewrite my sentences :P
 
Last edited:
I totally agree. Even so, that goes both ways. We should consider evidence for survival, absolutely. We shouldnt neglect information that could be interpreted against it either. At some point (idk, Quantum physics maybe?) there is propably some sort of connection between that what we experience and that what science, e.g. physics and biology, tells us (thats not exactly related to Carroll though. His stuff seems not exactly to be scientific; its more something philosophical). Thats not much of a problem for believer in survival i guess. You cant believe (and with that i mean a founded belief) in something like that these days without considering other opinions atleast once and taking those things into account. Who am i telling that in this forum anyways, right? You guys propably already know that.

Sorry for all the brackets. I always need to add some stuff after i posted something and i dont want to rewrite my sentences :P

Do you mean to say 'as well as considering evidence for survival, we should also consider other interpretations of it'?

If so then I agree. We need to consider the evidence as objectively as possible.
 
Do you mean to say 'as well as considering evidence for survival, we should also consider other interpretations of it'?

If so then I agree. We need to consider the evidence as objectively as possible.

Well yeah. Thats pretty much what i was talking about.
 
so...
ive found a link to a cnn-article to the life after death. any opinions on that? its focusing on the rather rare shared death experiences. quite interesting. even so the sceptic-explanations seem to be ...irritating to put it nicely. People make that stuff up to deal with the death of others is one of those explanaitions.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/shared-death/

Carroll´s argument:

1. If the afterlife exists, then there must be the soul made by material particles.

2. We know all types of material particles that might exist and none of them could be the soul.

3.Then can be no afterlife.

This argument is invalid because we can reject the first premise, as is done in this article:

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Hameroff/QSoulchap.PDF

That is, the consciousness of a human being can endure as patterns in the spatiotemporal fabric of reality after biological death, without need new particles that constitutes the soul.

“That’s the problem with all of them – they’re all anecdotal evidence and science doesn’t deal with anecdotal evidence,” Nickell says.

.However, the anecdotes are not always invalid, as shown in this article:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/anecdotal.php

My opinion on the SDE is that sometimes some people may perceive -for spatial proximity- what is perceiving the dying during their transit to another way of life.
 
Back
Top