The Afterlife

[Conscentia]

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.

1. Human life isn't reduced to biology - it is biology. You're elevating it above what it is.
2. (To the red...) For example?

[-Ebola-]

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.

It's entirely possible for several thousand people to be mistaken or confused or to misinterpret their experiences. Several thousand people think genocide is a good idea.

[Conscentia]

I suspect that Sanctissima may have missed my post:

[...]
Energy, I believe, is the trump card. All neurological studies seem to ignore this. They concentrate on the organic, biological functions of the brain, but they rarely go much deeper than that. 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). 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.
[...]

I am convinced that you don't even know what "energy" is, sir.

Additionally, you don't seem to understand how much energy is stored within matter. The process by which matter is converted to energy is nuclear fission. Where part of our brains to convert to energy at the point of death, it would take out a large area in the resulting nuclear explosion - this would of course cause a chain reaction as it would kill other people, thus cities like London wouldn't be possible.

A 1kg mass would release 8.98755179 × 10^16 joules of energy were it entirely converted to energy. In perspective, one kilogram of TNT releases 4.184×10^6 joules in it's explosion. A megaton of TNT releases 4.184×10^15 joules in it's explosion - more than enough to blow up Staten Island.

The pineal gland is tiny, however. It doesn't have a mass of a kilogram. It has a mass of around 170 milligrams.
A mass of 170 milligrams would yield 1.5278838 × 10^13 joules.

Honestly, I don't know why you'd think the pineal gland is responsible. It's a gland - all it does it secrete a few hormones.

[Auroya]

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.

It's how the scientific method works, and science doesn't care what people think of it; it only gives us the right answers instead of some rubbish that feels right to us.

[Uawc]

The idea of an afterlife, while nothing new, is extremely outlandish if you think about it.

There is no reason to believe in such a concept without solid proof.

[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. 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.

It's entirely possible for several thousand people to be mistaken or confused or to misinterpret their experiences. Several thousand people think genocide is a good idea.

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely. When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

[Mavorpen]

It's entirely possible for several thousand people to be mistaken or confused or to misinterpret their experiences. Several thousand people think genocide is a good idea.

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely.

No, it's extremely likely if there's no scientific basis for it. This is seriously basic psychology here.

When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

Why does something that has no evidence warrant any attention?

[Sanctissima]

I suspect that Sanctissima may have missed my post:

I am convinced that you don't even know what "energy" is, sir.

Additionally, you don't seem to understand how much energy is stored within matter. The process by which matter is converted to energy is nuclear fission. Where part of our brains to convert to energy at the point of death, it would take out a large area in the resulting nuclear explosion - this would of course cause a chain reaction as it would kill other people, thus cities like London wouldn't be possible.

A 1kg mass would release 8.98755179 × 10^16 joules of energy were it entirely converted to energy. In perspective, one kilogram of TNT releases 4.184×10^6 joules in it's explosion. A megaton of TNT releases 4.184×10^15 joules in it's explosion - more than enough to blow up Staten Island.

The pineal gland is tiny, however. It doesn't have a mass of a kilogram. It has a mass of around 170 milligrams.
A mass of 170 milligrams would yield 1.5278838 × 10^13 joules.

Honestly, I don't know why you'd think the pineal gland is responsible. It's a gland - all it does it secrete a few hormones.

Although logical, I don't understand why the release of a spiritual entity (taking the educated assumption that it would be comprised of energy) would necessarily require an explosion. Now, this might be getting into science fiction, but this explosion would only happen (or be quite as significant) in two scenarios:

1) the soul is comprised of the entire pineal gland, and not just a small part of it
2) the matter devolving into energy is occurring in our space-time continuum. There is the possibility that it is entering another dimension.

I guess I'm starting to sound like an occultist.

[-Ebola-]

It's entirely possible for several thousand people to be mistaken or confused or to misinterpret their experiences. Several thousand people think genocide is a good idea.

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely. When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

Can you prove they are actually recalling past lives? They didn't make a "lucky guess" because there is no correct answer for them to guess at.

Children also have imaginary friends and are fascinated with mythological creatures that don't actually exist, so I don't see why they couldn't have imaginary past lives.

[Sanctissima]

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely.

No, it's extremely likely if there's no scientific basis for it. This is seriously basic psychology here.

When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

Why does something that has no evidence warrant any attention?

Because it could be true. Isn't that what science is all about? Finding out the truth.

[Mavorpen]

No, it's extremely likely if there's no scientific basis for it. This is seriously basic psychology here.

Why does something that has no evidence warrant any attention?

Because it could be true. Isn't that what science is all about? Finding out the truth.

No, that's not how it works. Science is under no obligation to investigate claims with no basis. If someone makes observations that leads them to form a hypothesis that involves the "supernatural", then sure, science will give it attention. That has yet to happen.

[Sun Wukong]

It's entirely possible for several thousand people to be mistaken or confused or to misinterpret their experiences. Several thousand people think genocide is a good idea.

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely. When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

Interestingly these experiences always fall within cultural expectations of that area. Curiously missing are the Vedic texts outlining encounters with a one-eyed spear wielding man with two ravens, and afterlives filled with battle, party, and mead.

Really, this isn't inexplicable. It's more or less exactly what you would expect.

[Sanctissima]

Although possible, thousands (although more likely millions) of people over the course of millenia claiming similar experiences turning out to be wrong is highly unlikely. When several children recall aspects of their past lives (town names, descriptions of their old homes, etc.), things that they otherwise could not possibly have known, I think it warrants more attention than a mere "well, they made a lucky guess" or "their parents put them up to it".

Can you prove they are actually recalling past lives? They didn't make a "lucky guess" because there is no correct answer for them to guess at.

Children also have imaginary friends and are fascinated with mythological creatures that don't actually exist, so I don't see why they couldn't have imaginary past lives.

Because the point that warrants attention is that they're describing fine details (people they otherwise never met, neighborhoods they wouldn't know of, what color their house was painted, etc.) and upon investigation, they turn out to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reincarnation_research

This is a link to Ian Stevenson. Although inconclusive, his research pointed to the possibility of an afterlife (in that case, via reincarnation).

[Sanctissima]

Because it could be true. Isn't that what science is all about? Finding out the truth.

No, that's not how it works. Science is under no obligation to investigate claims with no basis. If someone makes observations that leads them to form a hypothesis that involves the "supernatural", then sure, science will give it attention. That has yet to happen.

Actually, there's quite a deal of scientists who have given the supernatural attention.

Or are these just pseudoscientists who don't actually represent the scientific community?

[Mavorpen]

No, that's not how it works. Science is under no obligation to investigate claims with no basis. If someone makes observations that leads them to form a hypothesis that involves the "supernatural", then sure, science will give it attention. That has yet to happen.

Actually, there's quite a deal of scientists who have given the supernatural attention.

That's nice. It has utterly nothing to do with my post but good for them.

Or are these just pseudoscientists who don't actually represent the scientific community?

Yes, until they publish in peer reviewed papers ANYTHING that can actually point to this.

And we'll they haven't.

[Conscentia]

I suspect that Sanctissima may have missed my post:

Although logical, I don't understand why the release of a spiritual entity (taking the educated assumption that it would be comprised of energy) would necessarily require an explosion. Now, this might be getting into science fiction, but this explosion would only happen (or be quite as significant) in two scenarios:

1) the soul is comprised of the entire pineal gland, and not just a small part of it
2) the matter devolving into energy is occurring in our space-time continuum. There is the possibility that it is entering another dimension.

I guess I'm starting to sound like an occultist.

1. How small a part of it? Give me a mass.
The entire pineal gland is already a tiny mass, and it still yields a big enough explosion to take out a massive chunk of Staten Island.
2. Sounds like a cop out.

You have yet to explain how the pineal gland changes into energy in the first place, and what form that energy is in. There is no such thing as "pure energy".
You've also yet to demonstrate that you actually know what "energy" means.

[Sun Wukong]

No, that's not how it works. Science is under no obligation to investigate claims with no basis. If someone makes observations that leads them to form a hypothesis that involves the "supernatural", then sure, science will give it attention. That has yet to happen.

Actually, there's quite a deal of scientists who have given the supernatural attention.

Or are these just pseudoscientists who don't actually represent the scientific community?

I'm not sure if you intended to be snide with that last question but frankly, yes.

It was more forgivable back in the day, but the more we know the more obviously delusional such claims become.

I mean... you just regurgitated bullshit about pineal glands being the seat of consciousness and energy release upon death as serious possibilities, as though there were any evidence for either. It's sad really.

[Dragvania]

I believe hands down, although I can't prove to you other than say and show the evidence i (and several family members) will testify that there is no doubt an afterlife.

Why do i think this you ask? Well I wondered the same question here for years and was undecided until my father died. On the day he died 2 hours AFTER he died his phone that was still in his pocket received a text from itself. Odd in itself that the phone texted itself and no one touched it but when I opened it to see what it said i found myself shocked.

All it said was "It's ok son"

To me this was impossible to disprove, I was there with his body the whole time grieving and no one touched his phone, it texts itself then all it says was "it's ok". I call that proof. Idk bout anyone else but that can't just be a 1 in a undefined number chance glitch.

[Sun Wukong]

Although logical, I don't understand why the release of a spiritual entity (taking the educated assumption that it would be comprised of energy) would necessarily require an explosion. Now, this might be getting into science fiction, but this explosion would only happen (or be quite as significant) in two scenarios:

1) the soul is comprised of the entire pineal gland, and not just a small part of it
2) the matter devolving into energy is occurring in our space-time continuum. There is the possibility that it is entering another dimension.

I guess I'm starting to sound like an occultist.

1. How small a part of it? Give me a mass.
The entire pineal gland is already a tiny mass, and it still yields a big enough explosion to take out a massive chunk of Staten Island.
2. Sounds like a cop out.

You have yet to explain how the pineal gland changes into energy in the first place, and what form that energy is in. There is no such thing as "pure energy".
You've also yet to demonstrate that you actually know what "energy" means.

Probably more importantly: dead people have pineal glands. They're there, in their brains, you can look at them. You can poke them if you want. They haven't dissolved into energy.

[Sanctissima]

Actually, there's quite a deal of scientists who have given the supernatural attention.

Or are these just pseudoscientists who don't actually represent the scientific community?

I'm not sure if you intended to be snide with that last question but frankly, yes.

It was more forgivable back in the day, but the more we know the more obviously delusional such claims become.

I mean... you just regurgitated bullshit about pineal glands being the seat of consciousness and energy release upon death as serious possibilities, as though there were any evidence for either. It's sad really.

So, basically, you're saying that a major societal issue that has confounded humanity for millenia deserves little to no modern scientific analysis because it's probably not true?

Evidently I can't give you concrete information if there's been little to no scientific analysis done on the subject.

[Sun Wukong]

I'm not sure if you intended to be snide with that last question but frankly, yes.

It was more forgivable back in the day, but the more we know the more obviously delusional such claims become.

I mean... you just regurgitated bullshit about pineal glands being the seat of consciousness and energy release upon death as serious possibilities, as though there were any evidence for either. It's sad really.

So, basically, you're saying that a major societal issue that has confounded humanity for millenia deserves little to no modern scientific analysis because it's probably not true?

No. I'm basically not. C'mon, you can do a better strawman than that.

Evidently I can't give you concrete information if there's been little to no scientific analysis done on the subject.

That's bullshit. There's been plenty. None of it agrees with you, however.

[-Ebola-]

Can you prove they are actually recalling past lives? They didn't make a "lucky guess" because there is no correct answer for them to guess at.

Children also have imaginary friends and are fascinated with mythological creatures that don't actually exist, so I don't see why they couldn't have imaginary past lives.

Because the point that warrants attention is that they're describing fine details (people they otherwise never met, neighborhoods they wouldn't know of, what color their house was painted, etc.) and upon investigation, they turn out to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reincarnation_research

This is a link to Ian Stevenson. Although inconclusive, his research pointed to the possibility of an afterlife (in that case, via reincarnation).

Someone they never met or somewhere they never visited doesn't mean someone or somewhere they never heard of. The Tlingit example in that link is almost certainly a product of people talking around the kid and not realizing how much they've said or how much it is influencing the kid.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure if you intended to be snide with that last question but frankly, yes.

It was more forgivable back in the day, but the more we know the more obviously delusional such claims become.

I mean... you just regurgitated bullshit about pineal glands being the seat of consciousness and energy release upon death as serious possibilities, as though there were any evidence for either. It's sad really.

So, basically, you're saying that a major societal issue that has confounded humanity for millenia deserves little to no modern scientific analysis because it's probably not true?

Evidently I can't give you concrete information if there's been little to no scientific analysis done on the subject.

This isn't a major societal issue any more than people shouting at their phones when it doesn't work is. We know the brain is painfully easy to trick. We know that entire memories can essentially be inserted into the mind. The brain is inherently flawed, which is expected of something that's the product of evolution.

Which makes it all the more sad that you believe it. Of course though, you're wrong. This subject has been dealt with and none of it supports a supernatural explanation.

[Sanctissima]

So, basically, you're saying that a major societal issue that has confounded humanity for millenia deserves little to no modern scientific analysis because it's probably not true?

Evidently I can't give you concrete information if there's been little to no scientific analysis done on the subject.

This isn't a major societal issue any more than people shouting at their phones when it doesn't work is. We know the brain is painfully easy to trick. We know that entire memories can essentially be inserted into the mind. The brain is inherently flawed, which is expected of something that's the product of evolution.

Which makes it all the more sad that you believe it. Of course though, you're wrong. This subject has been dealt with and none of it supports a supernatural explanation.

So you essentially believe that a concept which has founded numerous religions, affected the lives of billions and greatly influenced the course of human history is, what, unimportant?

[Sun Wukong]

This isn't a major societal issue any more than people shouting at their phones when it doesn't work is. We know the brain is painfully easy to trick. We know that entire memories can essentially be inserted into the mind. The brain is inherently flawed, which is expected of something that's the product of evolution.

Which makes it all the more sad that you believe it. Of course though, you're wrong. This subject has been dealt with and none of it supports a supernatural explanation.

So you essentially believe that a concept which has founded numerous religions, affected the lives of billions and greatly influenced the course of human history is, what, unimportant?

You're going to have to give that strawman up as soon as someone points out that sociology is a science, and that an idea being false doesn't mean it can't be studied.

Which I just did. So... basically you lose. Good day sir.