The Afterlife

[Sun Wukong]

Hinduism is "not anything close to Buddhism"?

Sun, I like you and all, but please check out your reading comprehension skills. I was referring solely to the system of rebirth. Hinduism has an entirely different version of reincarnation than Buddhism.

Getting nitpicky about careless use of the word "soul" in Buddhist reincarnation is kinda pedantic though. For incentive purposes, a lot of Buddhist do effectively believe in a soul, just not an eternal and unchanging soul.

[Conscentia]

Damn, Atheists are sad. You think more of them would be depressed.

I have depression, it just doesn't have anything to do with my lack of belief in an eternal paradise or an afterlife. I came to terms with my mortality a long time ago, I've accepted it.
I am going to become a robot though, you fuckers just wait. Judgment Day is coming.

I already am a robot.

[Arkolon]

Well, I don't--

Consciousness is Information which is energy and thus eternal

if conciousness is eternal then upon death of the body that information necessarily persists, it may become unstable and suffer entropy but it does not suddenly cease to exist

Hmmmmm. Interesting. Part of me wants to believe this.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Consciousness is Information which is energy and thus eternal

if conciousness is eternal then upon death of the body that information necessarily persists, it may become unstable and suffer entropy but it does not suddenly cease to exist

Conservation of energy doesn't work like that.

[Conscentia]

Well, I don't--

Consciousness is Information which is energy and thus eternal

if conciousness is eternal then upon death of the body that information necessarily persists, it may become unstable and suffer entropy but it does not suddenly cease to exist

Hmmmmm. Interesting. Part of me wants to believe this.

Two major faults with it though:
1. Consciousness isn't just information.
2. Information isn't energy.

[The Grey Wolf]

Well, I'm kind of torn between reincarnation and Rene Guenon's view of the afterlife, but yes, I would say that I believe in a form of existence after death.

Why would you believe that?

Alright, had me a good nights sleep, so ready to answer.

I don't believe one can reduce human life to biology, and some of my family members have had dreams and experiences that cannot be explained by ordinary means. Since I don't believe in a permanent, unchanging personality that survives death, I feel some form of transmigration best describes this. Especially with accounts such as Ian Stevenson's and the selection of the next Dalai Lama where he supposedly exclaimed "That's mine! That's mine!" reincarnation or Guenon's belief that "psychic residue," seems the best explanation to me, at least at the moment.

[Mavorpen]

Why would you believe that?

Alright, had me a good nights sleep, so ready to answer.

I don't believe one can reduce human life to biology, and some of my family members have had dreams and experiences that cannot be explained by ordinary means. Since I don't believe in a permanent, unchanging personality that survives death, I feel some form of transmigration best describes this. Especially with accounts such as Ian Stevenson's and the selection of the next Dalai Lama where he supposedly exclaimed "That's mine! That's mine!" reincarnation or Guenon's belief that "psychic residue," seems the best explanation to me, at least at the moment.

So no real evidence then.

[The Grey Wolf]

Alright, had me a good nights sleep, so ready to answer.

I don't believe one can reduce human life to biology, and some of my family members have had dreams and experiences that cannot be explained by ordinary means. Since I don't believe in a permanent, unchanging personality that survives death, I feel some form of transmigration best describes this. Especially with accounts such as Ian Stevenson's and the selection of the next Dalai Lama where he supposedly exclaimed "That's mine! That's mine!" reincarnation or Guenon's belief that "psychic residue," seems the best explanation to me, at least at the moment.

So no real evidence then.

Conscentia asked me why I held the beliefs I did, and I provided my reasoning.

[Mavorpen]

So no real evidence then.

Conscentia asked me why I held the beliefs I did, and I provided my reasoning.

That's nice. I didn't say anything otherwise.

[The Grey Wolf]

Conscentia asked me why I held the beliefs I did, and I provided my reasoning.

That's nice. I didn't say anything otherwise.

Maybe you've never heard of insinuation, Mav. It appears to be a problem you face often, so you might consider looking it up.

[Mavorpen]

That's nice. I didn't say anything otherwise.

Maybe you've never heard of insinuation, Mav. It appears to be a problem you face often, so you might consider looking it up.

No, I've heard of it. The problem is you don't seem to actually know what it means. You also don't apparently understand that this is a discussion forum.

So do you have an actual point or are you going to start another childish series of whining?

[Sanctissima]

Alright, had me a good nights sleep, so ready to answer.

I don't believe one can reduce human life to biology, and some of my family members have had dreams and experiences that cannot be explained by ordinary means. Since I don't believe in a permanent, unchanging personality that survives death, I feel some form of transmigration best describes this. Especially with accounts such as Ian Stevenson's and the selection of the next Dalai Lama where he supposedly exclaimed "That's mine! That's mine!" reincarnation or Guenon's belief that "psychic residue," seems the best explanation to me, at least at the moment.

So no real evidence then.

You seem to be of a mind that anyone who makes a spiritual claim without any scientific evidence is either a liar or being delusional. I will admit, you know a great deal about human biology, as do most who consider the afterlife to be non-existent. That said, condemning several thousand claims that can't be backed up by scientific proof as little more than idiocy is akin to stating that, so long as something can't be proved by your standards, it must be false. That is both brash and hypocritical.

[Mavorpen]

So no real evidence then.

You seem to be of a mind that anyone who makes a spiritual claim without any scientific evidence is either a liar or being delusional.

If the shoe fits...

I will admit, you know a great deal about human biology, as do most who consider the afterlife to be non-existent. That said, condemning several thousand claims that can't be backed up by scientific proof as little more than idiocy is akin to stating that, so long as something can't be proved by your standards, it must be false. That is both brash and hypocritical.

That's nice. Do you have any evidence or not?

[Sanctissima]

You seem to be of a mind that anyone who makes a spiritual claim without any scientific evidence is either a liar or being delusional.

If the shoe fits...

I will admit, you know a great deal about human biology, as do most who consider the afterlife to be non-existent. That said, condemning several thousand claims that can't be backed up by scientific proof as little more than idiocy is akin to stating that, so long as something can't be proved by your standards, it must be false. That is both brash and hypocritical.

That's nice. Do you have any evidence or not?

Do you?

[Auroya]

If the shoe fits...

That's nice. Do you have any evidence or not?

Do you?

The burden of proof is on the claim-maker.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

So no real evidence then.

You seem to be of a mind that anyone who makes a spiritual claim without any scientific evidence is either a liar or being delusional. I will admit, you know a great deal about human biology, as do most who consider the afterlife to be non-existent. That said, condemning several thousand claims that can't be backed up by scientific proof as little more than idiocy is akin to stating that, so long as something can't be proved by your standards, it must be false. That is both brash and hypocritical.

burden of proof generally lies on the one who tries to state something, not the other way round

[Mavorpen]

If the shoe fits...

That's nice. Do you have any evidence or not?

Do you?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

So again, any evidence or are you going to confirm your "delusion" as you put it?

[Mavorpen]

Also, I'm not sure why you're asking me if I have evidence, when I explicitly provided an argument demonstrating why there's no basis for your beliefs and why naturalistic explanations are better explanations.

Anyway, in regards to NDEs, yes, I'll grant you that the "white light at the end of the tunnel" and "feeling of outer-body serenity" can be explained by a final bio-electrical stimuli of the brain.

It's not that they CAN be explained by natural causes. It's that the natural causes are the BEST explanation because they don't make completely unnecessary and unsubstantiated assumptions.

Yes, NDEs and most other scientific explanations for an afterlife can be labelled as "pseudoscientific", but I think they happen enough times to warrant actual study.

I don't think you actually understand what I meant when I said "pseudoscientific." These ARE studied. The problem is that often the methodology and legitimacy of these studies aren't very good, and they've constantly been dismantled by the scientific community. Which is a good thing, because that's what science does. It filters out all the junk so that we can focus on the things that actually DO tell us stuff. My issue is the copious amount of organizations who pretend to be scientific while citing only the research with questionable methodology and who reach unsubstantiated conclusions. People flock to these sites and are therefore not actually exposed to the papers that HAVE contributed to the discussion in significant ways.

Seeing as how you've already referenced the Horizon Research Foundation's study, I'll point out that the study is as of yet incomplete and hasn't found much in terms of conclusive evidence.

I have no idea where you get your (mis)information from, but no, the study was completed and it is, in fact, published. And you're right, it didn't provide any "conclusive" evidence, it only further supported that there is no supernatural experiences going on.

All that it's found so far has been evidence conforming to the usual studies analyzing the chemical-electrical processes of the brain. What it doesn't take into account is energy.

No. You clearly haven't actually read the study itself, nor do you know anything about the lead author of the study. The author, nor the paper, explicitly conform to usual studies that research this topic. The author might not be going totally left field and suggesting supernatural explanations, but he DOES disagree with the general consensus. Basically, he argues that the mind still remains after what we refer to as clinical "death." He doesn't discount a physical/material explanation, but this IS something that sets him apart from the mainstream. And you could somewhat make an argument based on the paper that he MAY be true, but it certainly doesn't provide any evidence to support a supernatural explanation. In fact it only contradicts it.

Energy, I believe, is the trump card. All neurological studies seem to ignore this.

Do you have any actual substantiation for this claim? It's mighty haughty of you to make universal claims about the methodology of an entire field of study being inherently flawed.

They concentrate on the organic, biological functions of the brain, but they rarely go much deeper than that.

That's because there's utterly no need to given that we have no evidence of anything else producing consciousness. You're asking them to put money and time into something that doesn't have a shred of evidence that it's a reasonable assumption. You might as well be asking them to consider that demons are causing disease because hey, it might be true.

I think that's what neurologists are missing. I believe that, when we die, there's some part of our brain that reverts back to pure energy and retains some form of our consciousness, thus, allowing for an afterlife. I believe this energy is, although unstable, just orderly enough to retain our consciousness (or, more specifically, us).

And you have every right to believe this. It doesn't mean they have to take your ideas that amount to the scientific equivalent to conspiracy theories seriously.

There is evidence to suggest that the pineal gland of the brain is what holds this energy (or soul/consciousness; call it what you like), rather than our consciousness simply being a vast web of chemo-electricity that grants us the illusion of being an individual until our bodily functions cease and we die.

And this evidence lies...?

I'm willing to admit that I'm biased, since I ultimately want to find proof that there is an afterlife, but I do think I give proper consideration for information denying this claim.

I don't think you do. You've literally just admitted that you think all science involved in this field is inherently flawed. That's not giving proper consideration. That's convincing yourself that you're right and then shoving your head into the ground.

Likewise, I think many scientists (and prospective ones) are also biased in that modern science has essentially made a religion out of denying religion.

Following evidence and reality is not bias. Following facts is not biased. Nor is it a religion. Science isn't obligated to listen to and research your daily philosophical ramblings. It cares about exploring reality and obtaining actual knowledge. If you don't have an actual basis for your beliefs that can be repeatedly tested and falsified, then science isn't interested because such an idea is meaningless.

I'm a historian, and not a scientist, so I try to make do with understanding what I have no prior formation in. Ultimately, I think there's enough unexplained factors to at least leave room of doubt for speculation that an afterlife does indeed exist. I choose hope over skepticism because I'm much happier with the former than I am with the latter.

No there aren't. There aren't ANY unexplained factors that can point to an afterlife. Like I said, the only thing that would come close to that would if you had an 100% accuracy rate for people who had NDEs when describing their surroundings or an image that could only have been seen from an out of body experience.

You are, of course, also ignoring the fact that there are people who have returned "back from death" and didn't have an NDE at all. Essentially the major problem here is that your position requires ignoring inconvenient facts and adding unsubstantiated assumptions one after another. When science is a discipline that requires taking on facts and observations head on, and accepts those that makes the fewest unsubstantiated assumptions as being the most likely true, you're damn right it isn't going to take your explanation seriously. Because science works. And it has the best track record out of any other system. And if you want to play in the big leagues, you need to be willing to abide by its rules.

You avoiding arguments because you don't have a response doesn't make them disappear.

[Sanctissima]

Do you?

The burden of proof is on the claim-maker.

Fair enough.

-Near-death experiences
-Outer-body experiences
-Higher brain plasticity in young children who have remembered aspects of past lives
-The pineal gland and why it seems to gain a considerable amount of neural information in contrast to it's known functions (some argue this is the location of the soul)
-The eternity of energy
-People remembering details of their operation, which would be otherwise impossible since they were unconscious at the time
-Ghosts

Some of these are more "out there" than others, but I think it leaves enough room for doubt.

[Mavorpen]

The burden of proof is on the claim-maker.

Fair enough.

-Near-death experiences
-Outer-body experiences
-Higher brain plasticity in young children who have remembered aspects of past lives
-The pineal gland and why it seems to gain a considerable amount of neural information in contrast to it's known functions (some argue this is the location of the soul)
-The eternity of energy
-People remembering details of their operation, which would be otherwise impossible since they were unconscious at the time
-Ghosts

Some of these are more "out there" than others, but I think it leaves enough room for doubt.

We asked for evidence, not claims.

[Catholic Federalized States]

doesnt exist

[Sanctissima]

Fair enough.

-Near-death experiences
-Outer-body experiences
-Higher brain plasticity in young children who have remembered aspects of past lives
-The pineal gland and why it seems to gain a considerable amount of neural information in contrast to it's known functions (some argue this is the location of the soul)
-The eternity of energy
-People remembering details of their operation, which would be otherwise impossible since they were unconscious at the time
-Ghosts

Some of these are more "out there" than others, but I think it leaves enough room for doubt.

We asked for evidence, not claims.

I think it's fairly self-evident.

Aha, and there's your problem. Unless it was a controlled setting in a lab, you think anyone who makes an unsubstantiated claim about their experience of an afterlife is either a liar of someone who experienced a hallucination.

[Mavorpen]

We asked for evidence, not claims.

I think it's fairly self-evident.

And to children it's self evident Santa exists. That's not enough.

Aha, and there's your problem. Unless it was a controlled setting in a lab, you think anyone who makes an unsubstantiated claim about their experience of an afterlife is either a liar of someone who experienced a hallucination.

That isn't a problem. It's just that I actually have have a good grasp of basic human psychology and understand how easy it is to fool the brain.

Oh, and experiments in a controlled lab aren't inherently necessary in science. Field studies are actually pretty useful for providing high external validity.

[Jonburnia]

The way I think of the human brain is a(n extremely) powerful computer. What would be the difference between a perfectly simulated brain and one that's "real"? It's doing to exact same processes as before, it would think in the same way etc, just as a physics simulation would act the same way in real life. This brings up the simulation arguement:

1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.

2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.

3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.

I believe the only possible "after-life" possible (and im not saying that this is, for sure real) is that we could be in a simulation or virtual reality, two possibilities (if we are in a simulation) being that we're in a virtual reality and we wake up "in the real world" and 2, it's like any other simulation, like physics, if our brain dies, your conciousness ends.

Keep in mind, like I said, this is only a POSSIBILITY. I'm not saying I have "proof" for this that isn't simply philosophical reasoning.

[Sarigen]

Consciousness is Information which is energy and thus eternal

if conciousness is eternal then upon death of the body that information necessarily persists, it may become unstable and suffer entropy but it does not suddenly cease to exist

Consciousness is matter and energy just like anything else, and that can change. For instance, if someone losses homeostasis they're going to die. The amount of energy doesn't decrease, it just changes in such a way as to not support life. Consciousness is a process that is highly dependent on the cerebral lobe, which is highly dependent on homeostasis. Once that stops, do does life and these processes.

Now in the poll I selected that I wasn't sure, and that's because I'm not. However, until new evidence demonstrates an answer, there's no evidence for an after life. And your statement on energy, while half true, is not that evidence.