Belief in the Afterlife

[Nonpareil]

I think he makes excellent points and I've been through this issue in my own reflections on the matter. Essentially my present viewpoint is that the brain is the center of our personality, and intellect ... for all intents and purposes ... our consciousness.

Then you agree with Harris.

However the reasons I am inclined to think that some form of continuity of consciousness is possible differs slightly from the viewpoint expressed in the video and can reconcile the apparent conflict. To begin with, we dump the concept of ectoplasm being responsible for manifesting or transporting consciousness

Harris doesn't hold with that idea. Where are you "dumping" it from?

and we modify the idea he expresses as "software being run on the brain". In his version the brain is still some physical thing while consciousness is something else.

Yes. Consciousness is the software being run in the brain.

However if we look at existence itself as some form of generated construct analogous to a VR universe, then that is another story. Almost anything is possible including resurrection. I will pause at this point to give you some time to reflect and respond.

Reflected and responded.

Verdict: utter gibberish.

 

[dafydd]

However if we look at existence itself as some form of generated construct analogous to a VR universe, then that is another story. Almost anything is possible including resurrection. I will pause at this point to give you some time to reflect and respond.

So it is possible that I might turn into a two foot high elf dressed in spandex?

 

[Paul2]

However if we look at existence itself as some form of generated construct analogous to a VR universe, then that is another story. Almost anything is possible including resurrection.

(my highlight)

I can't argue. However, (as I am fond of saying) what if I'm the Queen of England?

 

[Paul2]

So it is possible that I might turn into a two foot high elf dressed in spandex?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[dafydd]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm not sure but if ufology is correct then I have to be prepared.

 

[Brombadil]

I'm not 100% sure. Possibly because it is a nice prospect, like winning the lottery... Or another possibility is that it actually does exist and that people have experienced it, like during Near-Death Experiences, or they've had contact with the departed through psychics.

Only problem with this would be those who don't experience anything. The only person I have directly spoken to about their experience, or lack thereof after death was unfortunate enough to step on an IED while operating in panjwayi, Afghanistan. His heart stopped once on the ground and again while being flown out. He was "dead" for about 3 minutes. What did he experience?

"Everyone talks about lights at the end of the tunnel, I didn't see a damn thing."

This experience coming from a guy who got very upset with me when I pulled out a Ouija board I found and wanted to take it out and see what all the fuss was about. Superstitious, yet even his mind couldn't make up magical things when not capable.

Personally, I wish some of the things suggested by people peddling woo were true. I wish I could see into the future and win lottery's. I wish there truly was divine retribution and some people who managed to escape justice in this life could be sorely punished in the next (however even this desire for revenge has its limits when talking about an allegedly infinite time span). I hope there is a heaven where my dead dog Winston can run around and sniff butts, eat rocks and play in the sun. It does suck to think that my best buddy is now a maggot hotel. But what I want is unfortunately not a factor when it comes to what is.

 

[ufology]

Then you agree with Harris.

I agree that he makes excellent points and have more reason to hold a similar view than I do any other view at this time.

Harris doesn't hold with that idea. Where are you "dumping" it from?

I never said he did hold the idea that ectoplasm is responsible. I'm pointing out that based on his explanation of how other people think that such things might be responsible, I would discard the concept of ectoplasm altogether. Here is his quote:

"If it's true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain ... and can ... by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don't understand can be dissociated from the brain at death that would be part of our growing scientific understanding of the world if we could discover it."

Yes. Consciousness is the software being run in the brain.

I don't think so. Can you elaborate on why you think so?

Reflected and responded.

I don't see any evidence of that.

Verdict: utter gibberish.

"Utter gibberish" does not add anything useful to the discussion. If you are to engage in offhanded dismissal, then don't bother responding at all. If you are going to respond, then please provide some reasoning for your comments rather than simply making them into proclamations.

 

[Akhenaten]

To begin with, we dump the concept of ectoplasm being responsible for manifesting or transporting consciousness, and we modify the idea he expresses as "software being run on the brain".

And this Rredefinition achieves what, exactly?

In his version the brain is still some physical thing while consciousness is something else. However if we look at existence itself as some form of generated construct analogous to a VR universe, then that is another story.

A fairy story, in fact.

Almost anything is possible including resurrection.

No.

I will pause at this point to give you some time to reflect and respond.

No time needed. You're wrong again still.

 

[George 152]

"Utter gibberish" does not add anything useful to the discussion. If you are to engage in offhanded dismissal, then don't bother responding at all. If you are going to respond, then please provide some reasoning for your comments rather than simply making them into proclamations.

That is your opinion...
You are wrong.
Not a new situation for you is it......

 

[Akhenaten]

Verdict: utter gibberish.

"Utter gibberish" does not add anything useful to the discussion.

No, it doesn't. Why then do you keep posting it?

If you are to engage in offhanded dismissal, then don't bother responding at all.

This is a new rule, is it?

Cite please.

If you are going to respond, then please provide some reasoning for your comments rather than simply making them into proclamations.

Or what?

You see, ufology, people like Pure Argent who have established their credibility here get some leeway in not having to provide detailed support for every single thing they say. That you don't find yourself in a similar position is the fault of one person alone.

 

[ufology]

(my highlight)

I can't argue. However, (as I am fond of saying) what if I'm the Queen of England?

Fair enough. So what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct? Nobody has any definitive answer to what existence actually is ... what exactly constitutes our reality, but the idea of a generated construct is something that is seriously considered by those seeking an answer to the question. It takes two main forms, one called the holographic model, and the other what I refer to in general terms as the computational model. Here's an intro to the computational model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ucqYJzK1rk&feature=related

Here's another: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf


NOTE: Akhenaten has been successfully added to my ignore list.

 

[Akhenaten]

Fair enough. So what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?

There is none, obviously.

You do realise the The Matrix isn't a documentary, don't you?

 

[Paul2]

So what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?



[1.] Nobody has any definitive answer to what existence actually is ...

Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.

[2/] . . . the idea of a generated construct is something that is seriously considered by those seeking an answer to the question.

Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.

[3/] It takes two main forms, one called the holographic model, and the other what I refer to in general terms as the computational model. Here's an intro to the computational model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ucqYJzK1rk&feature=related

Here's another: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf
.

Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.

 

[Krikkiter]

Fair enough. So what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct? Nobody has any definitive answer to what existence actually is ... what exactly constitutes our reality, but the idea of a generated construct is something that is seriously considered by those seeking an answer to the question. It takes two main forms, one called the holographic model, and the other what I refer to in general terms as the computational model. Here's an intro to the computational model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ucqYJzK1rk&feature=related

Here's another: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf


NOTE: Akhenaten has been successfully added to my ignore list.

Jesus ufology, you'll have the whole forum on ignore pretty soon. Oh wait, you can't read this can you?

 

[ufology]

Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.

Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.
Perhaps, but that is not any evidence whatsoever that we might be living in some form of a generated construct.

I wouldn't say it's "no evidence whatsoever" when what we're observing through experimentation fits the computational model. I would however say that it is only circumstantial. Also I'm not saying I believe the computational model is responsible ... only that it seems possible ... which was the original point that kicked this segment of our discussion off. Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality, but that isn't the same as saying I am certain that it is the way things actually are. But neither do I have to prove it to be the case in order to show how the rationale made in the video you posted isn't relevant. In other words, destroying parts of the brain doesn't provide any rationale for denying that an afterlife is possible ... unless you go with his initial assumptions, which are not the same as mine. And since you asked my opinion ... well there you go.

 

[Paul2]

So, if something is possible, that is evidence for it? That what your approach reduces to.

That's not so good.

 

[PixyMisa]

So one could argue, and I do, that not to believe in Life-After-Death is a form of wishful thinking, for the prestige and exclusivity you get from it. This means that if the Afterlife was ever proved to exist that privileged position would all be gone. I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

I think you should spend more time paying attention to what people say and less to what you think their motives might be.

 

[ufology]

So, if something is possible, that is evidence for it? That what your approach reduces to.

That's not so good.

Um no ... not exactly ... please review my answer again. I added a bit of clarification. It only relates to the initial question you asked me about the video you posted. I'm not trying to explain reality, only show how the person's view in the video against an afterlife is dependent on a specific point of view that he himself sets up, and that I don't personally subscribe to, exactly because of the flaws he pointed out. So I introduced another way of looking at it that his view has no rebuttal for.

 

[AdMan]

I wouldn't say it's "no evidence whatsoever" when what we're observing through experimentation fits the computational model.

Nope. You are making "the computational model" fit what is observed through experimentation. Experimentation hasn't by itself presented any proof for the "computational model."

 

[ufology]

Nope. You are making "the computational model" fit what is observed through experimentation. Experimentation hasn't by itself presented any proof for the "computational model."

You can switch it around however you want, but some experiementation fits ... however circumstantial that might be. Further experimentation may or may not provide more evidence, but at this time I agree that there is certainly no proof. So let's see what else the scientists come up with.