If this is the only place to do that would you want to come back here?
Is It Possible There Is An Afterlife?
If this is the only place to do that would you want to come back here?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Please to explain? These claims have been shown to be false time and again. Randi doesn't drop people. He tests people all of the time. The only requirement is that you do what you say you can do.
That said, I have to confess that recently Randi has changed his criteria to folks who have a media pressense.
So I appologize for speaking for Randi.
People are always claiming that they can do such things but it never pans out.
Dr. Susan Blackmore had an out of body experience. It was so real to her that she embarked on a very long journey to prove it. Alas, after many years and much spent money she discovered that it wasn't real. It just doesn't stand to scruitiny. Giving it up wasn't easy for her but reason and facts could not be ignored.
When you show me a pig flapping it's wings and flying I'll believe it's true. Untill then I'll be skeptical of such claims.
Where's the evidence? Why is it so elusive? If it is so elusive why do you believe it? If there is a logical and rational counter explanation why not accept that?
RandFan,
I do believe that in a sense, it is possible to tell is someone is looking at you from behind. Not exactly, but kind of.
What I mean is being able to sense someone is behind you without looking behind you. Nothing supernatural, just having good perception.
I believe that some people are so good at this it almost seems supernatural, but it is not.
I also think some people have instances where their subconscious picks up the sensory clues and passes the information on to the conscious mind as what seems like an intuitive sense, so that the person detecting someone behind them feels like it was supernatural. But again, it is just good sensory perception.
This can be proven, but it won’t win Randi’s million dollar award because it is natural, not supernatural.
I do believe that in a sense, it is possible to tell is someone is looking at you from behind. Not exactly, but kind of.
What I mean is being able to sense someone is behind you without looking behind you. Nothing supernatural, just having good perception.
I believe that some people are so good at this it almost seems supernatural, but it is not.
I also think some people have instances where their subconscious picks up the sensory clues and passes the information on to the conscious mind as what seems like an intuitive sense, so that the person detecting someone behind them feels like it was supernatural. But again, it is just good sensory perception.
This can be proven, but it won’t win Randi’s million dollar award because it is natural, not supernatural.
Herzblut,
The particular point that I am trying to get at is that is an immortal soul did exist in mortal Humans; it would not simply live one mortal life in all of its eternal life.
I believe that this is a logical conclusion, given the assumption we have an immortal soul.
Edge and Herzblut,
I’m not saying anything about what the society of such immortal beings would be like at this time. I’m just trying to get at the logical conclusion that they would live through many mortal lives.
As to what they would take with them after a mortal life, it would be the experience of that mortal life.
Maybe the reason for multiple lives is a process of developing and growing the immortal soul. So your immortal soul is progressing along a path of enlightenment through multiple mortal lives. If you learn during your mortal life, you advance. If you screw up, you might go backwards. There is a religious belief that thinks this.
On the other hand, maybe we should consider the society of immortals a little.
Many, not all, concepts of the afterlife involve the immortal soul going to a paradise, a heaven. Think about living in paradise for 100 years, then a 1,000 years, then 10,000 years, then 100,000 years and so on. There is no crime, no hunger, nothing ever goes wrong, because it is paradise.
Well, couple logical things to consider here.
One is that what we consider good and bad is very relative to our experience. After living in heaven for so long, it will stop seeming all that good. You will get used to it. Living so long, especially in heaven, will also get boring.
So one reason for an immortal soul living through a mortal life could be to experience how bad mortal life is so that when the immortal soul returns to paradise it will appreciate it better. Another reason could be simply to entertain the immortal soul, as the ultimate entertainment would be total submersion in the life of mortal.
There are things an immortal soul might learn in mortal life that would be hard for it to learn as an immortal in paradise. In paradise, the immortal soul might not have to work or make any sacrifice to achieve thing. This could make the immortal soul very spoiled. To teach the immortal soul many ethics we consider important, it could require them to live a mortal life.
The particular point that I am trying to get at is that is an immortal soul did exist in mortal Humans; it would not simply live one mortal life in all of its eternal life.
I believe that this is a logical conclusion, given the assumption we have an immortal soul.
Edge and Herzblut,
I’m not saying anything about what the society of such immortal beings would be like at this time. I’m just trying to get at the logical conclusion that they would live through many mortal lives.
As to what they would take with them after a mortal life, it would be the experience of that mortal life.
Maybe the reason for multiple lives is a process of developing and growing the immortal soul. So your immortal soul is progressing along a path of enlightenment through multiple mortal lives. If you learn during your mortal life, you advance. If you screw up, you might go backwards. There is a religious belief that thinks this.
On the other hand, maybe we should consider the society of immortals a little.
Many, not all, concepts of the afterlife involve the immortal soul going to a paradise, a heaven. Think about living in paradise for 100 years, then a 1,000 years, then 10,000 years, then 100,000 years and so on. There is no crime, no hunger, nothing ever goes wrong, because it is paradise.
Well, couple logical things to consider here.
One is that what we consider good and bad is very relative to our experience. After living in heaven for so long, it will stop seeming all that good. You will get used to it. Living so long, especially in heaven, will also get boring.
So one reason for an immortal soul living through a mortal life could be to experience how bad mortal life is so that when the immortal soul returns to paradise it will appreciate it better. Another reason could be simply to entertain the immortal soul, as the ultimate entertainment would be total submersion in the life of mortal.
There are things an immortal soul might learn in mortal life that would be hard for it to learn as an immortal in paradise. In paradise, the immortal soul might not have to work or make any sacrifice to achieve thing. This could make the immortal soul very spoiled. To teach the immortal soul many ethics we consider important, it could require them to live a mortal life.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
If you mean that the subject hears, smells or feels vibrations that are picked up by the subconcious mind then you are correct. However, Randi has tested claims of people "sensing" that others are looking at them and it fails everytime (Randi simply creates an experiment where sound, smell and vibrations are blocked).
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Perhaps we will become slaves for an eternal task master. Perhaps our consciousness will live in a state of perpetual disorentation.
Why do we feel the need to consider specifics about something we know absolutely nothing about? Further, why do we assume at all that it is something plesent?
We know that the thing we think of as self is just our brain. By altering the brain it is possible to destroy memories and change peronsality. Why assume that there is a homunculus that is seperate from our brain?
BTW, I came to this forum a dualist. I argued for years in favor of this little man but he doesn't exist.
RandFan,
Yes, I am talking about natural senses, which is why Randi’s million dollar award is safe from being collected. But, I do think people mistake detection through these normal senses as being something supernatural, having turned to see someone coming up behind them when they consciously do not remember sensing them.
I believe another thing that causes such misconceptions is that the Human brain continuously runs vast numbers full sensory simulations of what might happen in the subconscious. Because of this, an event can occur which was predicted by a simulation and the individual can then think it was some type of supernatural precognitive event. What they don’t realize is that along with the prediction that was true was a large number of predictions which were wrong, but since those predictions were wrong, there is a tendency to ignore and forget them.
------------
On the subject of immortal souls from our perspective, once again, I am not stating this is true. I do not believe in a Biblical God and I very highly doubt we have something which would appear to us as an immortal soul.
But that is not the point of what I am talking about.
Assuming we did have an immortal soul, ignoring how improbable that is, what would be some logical conclusions you could come to?
Do any of these logical conclusions agree with the Biblical World view?
Do any of these logical conclusion make more sense than the Biblical World view is we assume the we did have immortal souls (immortal from our perspective)?
Yes, I am talking about natural senses, which is why Randi’s million dollar award is safe from being collected. But, I do think people mistake detection through these normal senses as being something supernatural, having turned to see someone coming up behind them when they consciously do not remember sensing them.
I believe another thing that causes such misconceptions is that the Human brain continuously runs vast numbers full sensory simulations of what might happen in the subconscious. Because of this, an event can occur which was predicted by a simulation and the individual can then think it was some type of supernatural precognitive event. What they don’t realize is that along with the prediction that was true was a large number of predictions which were wrong, but since those predictions were wrong, there is a tendency to ignore and forget them.
------------
On the subject of immortal souls from our perspective, once again, I am not stating this is true. I do not believe in a Biblical God and I very highly doubt we have something which would appear to us as an immortal soul.
But that is not the point of what I am talking about.
Assuming we did have an immortal soul, ignoring how improbable that is, what would be some logical conclusions you could come to?
Do any of these logical conclusions agree with the Biblical World view?
Do any of these logical conclusion make more sense than the Biblical World view is we assume the we did have immortal souls (immortal from our perspective)?
J. Arthur Hastur
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 495
ANYTHING is possible, some things are probable, and a few things can be proven.
So yes, an afterlife is possible as it falls under the 'anything' category.
So yes, an afterlife is possible as it falls under the 'anything' category.
Davo
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 244
If there is such thing as an immortal soul there is obviously no connection with the physical world. If there was, there would already have been some communication with these souls and the physical world.
When i turn off my computer I don`t believe it has soul, neither has the human brain when it ceases to function.
When i turn off my computer I don`t believe it has soul, neither has the human brain when it ceases to function.
Okay, doesn’t look good for considering logical implications of “what if the improbable possibility of our having an immortal soul (from our perspective) was true”.
So lets move on to what is predictable that science will allow us to achieve, assuming we do not become extinct first.
I believe it is logically predictable that we will develop the science to extend an individual Humans life indefinitely.
Does everyone disagree? I seem to tend to get everyone disagreeing with me, so I figure I’ll start there.
Does anyone agree? I figure, you never know, might be another crazy person out there.
Is anyone interested in why I think this is logically predictable and what the implications of this are? Interest in the subject is really needed to have a conversation over it, otherwise I can just turn my computer off and talk to myself.
If it gets any hotter, maybe I’ll do that anyway. Anyone know what the boiling point of a Human brain is? I wonder if any ice is left in the freezer?
So lets move on to what is predictable that science will allow us to achieve, assuming we do not become extinct first.
I believe it is logically predictable that we will develop the science to extend an individual Humans life indefinitely.
Does everyone disagree? I seem to tend to get everyone disagreeing with me, so I figure I’ll start there.
Does anyone agree? I figure, you never know, might be another crazy person out there.
Is anyone interested in why I think this is logically predictable and what the implications of this are? Interest in the subject is really needed to have a conversation over it, otherwise I can just turn my computer off and talk to myself.
If it gets any hotter, maybe I’ll do that anyway. Anyone know what the boiling point of a Human brain is? I wonder if any ice is left in the freezer?
Last edited:
Edge,
Yes, I would pretty much agree with that, though not necessarily by requirement as much as because of the advantages it would give. At least that is what I believe.
It would require a combination of engineering masteries, such as genetic engineering, molecular engineering, viral engineering and well, all those disciplines related to how our living body works, including how the brain works. I believe it is predictable we will master this knowledge.
In the end, we won’t be physically human anymore, but we would not necessarily be like the Borg either, unless it was a desired look of choice.
To achieve what I am talking about would require the technology to engineer a living body, on the fly, down to the molecular level according to desired specifications. This would involve mastering the design of what we might call nano-machines, but more than that, it would mean being able to incorporate such technology in ourselves.
Once this technology is fully achieved, physical form would greatly depend upon personal choice, with some limitations of course.
This would have all kinds of implications, every one of which might drastically change our society. Because of this, I can predict what the technology will be like, but the society could take all kinds of turns, so I can not predict what the society would be like.
Still, one can make some logical guesses.
Yes, I would pretty much agree with that, though not necessarily by requirement as much as because of the advantages it would give. At least that is what I believe.
It would require a combination of engineering masteries, such as genetic engineering, molecular engineering, viral engineering and well, all those disciplines related to how our living body works, including how the brain works. I believe it is predictable we will master this knowledge.
In the end, we won’t be physically human anymore, but we would not necessarily be like the Borg either, unless it was a desired look of choice.
To achieve what I am talking about would require the technology to engineer a living body, on the fly, down to the molecular level according to desired specifications. This would involve mastering the design of what we might call nano-machines, but more than that, it would mean being able to incorporate such technology in ourselves.
Once this technology is fully achieved, physical form would greatly depend upon personal choice, with some limitations of course.
This would have all kinds of implications, every one of which might drastically change our society. Because of this, I can predict what the technology will be like, but the society could take all kinds of turns, so I can not predict what the society would be like.
Still, one can make some logical guesses.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I can't disagree with this statement, much though I'd like to. The fact that you've left it open by saying "predictable" does not assume that it will one day happen, which was my problem with your previous statements. It may not. Who knows? But this statement as it stands is not one that I can find a reason to disagree with.
Arthwollipot,
I appreciate that.
I believe that the probability of this happening is on the order of the probability of evolution being true while creationism is false, which is why I stated it as inevitable, so long as we do not become extinct.
However, I acknowledge this to be my belief and I acknowledge that others can believe it less likely to occur.
But consider, if it can occur and the Human race does not become extinct, let’s wildly guess it is 0.001% likely to happen within a 1,000 years. Not very likely. But, let’s say with every magnitude of time increase, so percent chance also goes up a magnitude.
I realize this is pulling numbers out of a hat, but, if that were true then in 100,000 years we’d have a 0.1% chance of developing the knowledge. In 10,000,000 years we would have a 10% chance and in 100 million years we would have a 100% chance.
The point I am getting at is that the probability that we will develop this knowledge goes up the longer our race stays alive. I can’t say what the chances are for a given time period, but eventually it should become 100%, if we don’t become extinct first, even if it takes 100 million years for us to achieve that technology level.
This is what I believe, but if you do not also believe it, I don’t blame you. I certainly can give you no proof it will 100% happen.
I appreciate that.
I believe that the probability of this happening is on the order of the probability of evolution being true while creationism is false, which is why I stated it as inevitable, so long as we do not become extinct.
However, I acknowledge this to be my belief and I acknowledge that others can believe it less likely to occur.
But consider, if it can occur and the Human race does not become extinct, let’s wildly guess it is 0.001% likely to happen within a 1,000 years. Not very likely. But, let’s say with every magnitude of time increase, so percent chance also goes up a magnitude.
I realize this is pulling numbers out of a hat, but, if that were true then in 100,000 years we’d have a 0.1% chance of developing the knowledge. In 10,000,000 years we would have a 10% chance and in 100 million years we would have a 100% chance.
The point I am getting at is that the probability that we will develop this knowledge goes up the longer our race stays alive. I can’t say what the chances are for a given time period, but eventually it should become 100%, if we don’t become extinct first, even if it takes 100 million years for us to achieve that technology level.
This is what I believe, but if you do not also believe it, I don’t blame you. I certainly can give you no proof it will 100% happen.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Fair enough. I tend to avoid working with probabilities though, since it is so easy to get them wrong. 
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 3,766
That is very interesting - I did not know that.
Come to think of it, I have not heard her in any programmes for quite a while ... she is such a good speaker too.
Anacoluthon64
Defollyant Iconoclast
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,018
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 3,766
When I was younger, I had similar thoughts, but now I disagree absolutely with your 'logical conclusion' that we can assume we have 'an immortal soul'.
Agree totally about it being boring - the older I have become, the less attractive the idea of existing forever in goodness and peace becomes. In fact, it becomes a very unattractive idea.
In which case I for one am quite content to have just the one mortal life.
How much more important then to make the very best of this life that we have.
However, reading and thinking about this interesting thread are excellent ways of keeping our brains entertained! I confess I have not read every post though because I only saw it thismorning.
ETA How would an immortal soul deal with its existence after the extinction of the human race?
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I would be happy to discuss the philosophical implications of an extended life but I can't for the life of me see the point of comparing it to the Biblical World view.
If you are still interested then I will respond.
Thanks,
RandFan