Belief in the Afterlife

[dafydd]

The VR model is just a fantasy. Off topic.

 

[RobRoy]

The VR model is just a fantasy. Off topic.

Meh, maybe not fantasy, but certainly not afterlife.

 

[dafydd]

Meh, maybe not fantasy, but certainly not afterlife.

Somebody would have to write our VR program and that would introduce the concept of a god. That just takes us further down the rabbit hole.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Form our unknowing perspective, it would seem exactly the same as an afterlife.

What do you mean by "it"? You've just said that the data that is "us" doesn't move anywhere. So it's just this existence. That doesn't seem exactly the same as an afterlife, that seems exactly the same as no afterlife.

 

[ufology]

Your lies, like your insults, don't impress me.

Very good composure, but simply calling me a liar is yet another unsubstantiated proclamation. And so far I've made no insults, only observations. An insult would be a value judgment. Right now I see it simply as miscommunication.

 

[Paul2]

We would like to think so anyway. But I daresay that most peer reviews do no such thing. They are simply papers written by people in the same field who may or may not agree and may or may not do any experiments at all. There have been many criticisms of the peer review process, if not for the simple reason that it is essentially a form of self-regulation and therefore open to pressure from internal bias.

1. Given that some peer review publications are not about experiments, the highlighted sentence says little. If you're saying that a peer-reviewed paper should have done an experiment but didn't, some specifics to support this claim would be in order.

2. You're not telling me that the peer review process is a flawed, human activity?

3. Are the ideals of the peer review process the best we could imagine?

 

[RobRoy]

Somebody would have to write our VR program and that would introduce the concept of a god. That just takes us further down the rabbit hole.

You don't need a deity in order for there to be an afterlife. Although Valhalla has some appeal.

 

[dafydd]

3. Are the ideals of the peer review process the best we could imagine?

We could just believe the mystics and ask no questions.

 

[dafydd]

You don't need a deity in order for there to be an afterlife. Although Valhalla has some appeal.

Interesting point, although I'm trying to think of a religion with a belief in an afterlife that has no deity. Buddhism?

 

[ufology]

What do you mean by "it"? You've just said that the data that is "us" doesn't move anywhere. So it's just this existence. That doesn't seem exactly the same as an afterlife, that seems exactly the same as no afterlife.

Assuming we are still talking about the computational model, you are correct. However in this thread there is a perception that there is an afterlife, and what the computational model does is show how it's possible for that belief to come about in a way that would seem to be exactly the same thing to someone who didn't know any better.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's not completely irellevant. It's relevant to how we perceive the issue of an afterlife from within our present reality. Form our unknowing perspective, it would seem exactly the same as an afterlife.

So this thing we have no evidence of will do something we won't realise it's doing, that will have no effect on anything and will be exactly the same as it would be if it was something else we don't have any evidence of.

Cool...

I love it when a discussion actually moves the topic forward.

 

[RobRoy]

Interesting point, although I'm trying to think of a religion with a belief in an afterlife that has no deity. Buddhism?

Pretty much. Scientology doesn't really have a deity either.

Or you could go with one where we're all deities: Mormonism.

But you don't need a religion in order to have an afterlife. Religions try to tell how you get to the "good" afterlife and avoid the "bad" afterlife, and some of them try to tell you what the afterlife will be, but that's about it.

 

[dafydd]

Assuming we are still talking about the computational model, you are correct. However in this thread there is a perception that there is an afterlife, and what the computational model does is show how it's possible for that belief to come about in a way that would seem to be exactly the same thing to someone who didn't know any better.

Where did you get that idea from?

 

[dafydd]

Pretty much. Scientology doesn't really have a deity either.

Or you could go with one where we're all deities: Mormonism.
But you don't need a religion in order to have an afterlife. Religions try to tell how you get to the "good" afterlife and avoid the "bad" afterlife, and some of them try to tell you what the afterlife will be, but that's about it.

The heavenly throne will be getting crowded.

 

[ufology]

1. Given that some peer review publications are not about experiments, the highlighted sentence says little. If you're saying that a peer-reviewed paper should have done an experiment but didn't, some specifics to support this claim would be in order.

2. You're not telling me that the peer review process is a flawed, human activity?

3. Are the ideals of the peer review process the best we could imagine?

Paul man ... you're just great. If you were in town I'd buy you a beer or a coffee or whatever. I also know that doesn't answer the question exactly either ...

 

[dafydd]

What prompts people to believe in an afterlife when there is no shred of proof? Wishful thinking? Comfort?

 

[Stray Cat]

Paul man ... you're just great. If you were in town I'd buy you a beer or a coffee or whatever. I also know that doesn't answer the question exactly either ... but it also does.

You talk enough bollocks before you've had any beer.

There's three questions in Paul's post that require more than "let me buy you a drink" to answer them.

 

[RobRoy]

The heavenly throne will be getting crowded.

That's why they all get their own world to rule over.

No, I'm not making that up.

What prompts people to believe in an afterlife when there is no shred of proof? Wishful thinking? Comfort?

Yes, all of the above. Also traditional belief, we've been told it's true so we accept it. Also, a kind of logical reasoning, which I alluded to previously. Fear cannot be ruled out, as it's certainly one of the reasons that I want to believe. I think the list goes on and on. There's not one reason why people believe in an afterlife, but there are plenty of reasonable reasons for such belief.

 

[dafydd]

That's why they all get their own world to rule over.

No, I'm not making that up.



Yes, all of the above. Also traditional belief, we've been told it's true so we accept it. Also, a kind of logical reasoning, which I alluded to previously. Fear cannot be ruled out, as it's certainly one of the reasons that I want to believe. I think the list goes on and on. There's not one reason why people believe in an afterlife, but there are plenty of reasonable reasons for such belief.

Donny Osmond World. What a thought. One life is enough for me. Eternity would be a crashing bore.

 

[Krikkiter]

ufology's stance is a classic example of why people believe in an afterlife.

I've had conversations in the past with people whom I thought were fairly logical thinking individuals that have been essentially no different than the conversations that have been taking place in this thread.

The topic of an afterlife comes up and the statement is made: "I think some part of us lives on after we die, like, you know, our soul or something." So I ask the question: "What evidence is there?" After that out come the logical fallacies.

ufology started out with some science fictional musings but when asked to provide evidence he resorted to logical fallacies because he felt like he had to defend his musings otherwise he'd lose face. I'm not even sure he believes what he's saying but out of pride he feels like he has to defend his position.