Belief in the Afterlife

[Paul2]

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.

You lost me.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

I have credibility?

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN

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."

Fair enough.

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

For the same reason that's been repeated over and over throughout the past few pages of this thread: damage the brain, damage the consciousness. Cripple the computer, cripple the software. All evidence points towards the brain being inextricably linked with consciousness.

I don't see any evidence of that.

Well, no. But you don't see evidence of many obvious things, so that's not all that surprising.

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

Except in that it states that the quoted section is utter gibberish and therefore meaningless and irrelevant.

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

If you are going to post gibberish and then complain when people say that it is gibberish, don't bother posting.

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

And yet you aren't arguing for the computational model. You're arguing for the worldview which you say is the computational model combined with the holographic model. Both models have to be supported, and then you have to support your extrapolations from those two models. Otherwise you're just speculating, and there isn't any evidence.

In other words, destroying parts of the brain doesn't provide any rationale for denying that an afterlife is possible ...

Except that it does.

unless you go with his initial assumptions, which are not the same as mine. And since you asked my opinion ... well there you go.

And yours have no supporting evidence, so they can be dismissed.

 

[AdMan]

You can switch it around however you want, but some experiementation fits ... however circumstantial that might be.

Which experimentation fits, exactly? Please cite it. I'd be interested in learning about it.

 

[ufology]

I have credibility?

And yet you aren't arguing for the computational model. You're arguing for the worldview which you say is the computational model combined with the holographic model. Both models have to be supported, and then you have to support your extrapolations from those two models. Otherwise you're just speculating, and there isn't any evidence.

Um no ... I'm saying that the computational model, if true, would facilitate the possibility of life after death and that an argument based on brain function alone cannot successfully rebut it because rules could exist within the construct's programming to compensate for it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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

None, but even we were it does not mean that there must be an Afterlife. If the entire universe is just a simulation created from mathematical algorithms, it almost certainly will not permit individual consciousnesses to exist separately from the rest of the simulation. IOW, we must be simulations which consist of mind and body together. If the body dies in the simulation, so does the mind - exactly as we see happening in 'reality'.

This is explained in that famous docu... Oh wait.

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

Bummer! The Matrix is just a fictional story? So if you get killed it doesn't mean that you also die in the 'other' world? There goes that argument.

 

[ufology]

Which experimentation fits, exactly? Please cite it. I'd be interested in learning about it.

I'm not going to get you citations, however I'll give you a thread to start on. If you are actually interested in this sort of thing, it's all quite fascinating.

1. Quantum entanglement: The situation when two things that are quantum entangled can affect each other intently regardless of their distance. From the point of view of the construct, there is no distance and everything is connected simultaneously thereby allowing quantum entanglement to take place instantly.

2. Speed of Light Limit and time dilation: From the point of view of the construct generator, there is an upper limit of processing power, analogous to cycles per second whereby things that change coordinates very fast require more processing power to render thereby slowing down the rendering time the faster they go.

3. Dark Matter: There is no actual dark matter other than dust, the missing matter isn't missing at all because from the point of view of the construct there is no matter at all. The effect we're seeing is the result of the way the rules are applied by the construct directly to our realm.

4. Wave-Particle Duality: From the point of view of the construct there are no waves or particles, just coordinates where things should or should not be at any given time. The the double slit experiment is essentially a logic filter within the construct that the construct's programming compensates for by placing the location of the particles where they should be regardless of the double slit filter.

5. Fundamental Forces of Nature: Science has no explanation for the fundamental forces of nature. We only know how they seem to relate to our universe, but not where they actually come from. From the point of view of the construct generator, the fundamental forces of nature are rules imparted on our reality according to specific rules. We have learned how to describe those rules mathematically and apply them to many things.

6. Big Bang: From the point of the construct generator, the universe could begin as a series of interrelated algorithms that when started generate the universe that from our perspective within the universe would be nothing. The construct generator then runs the algorithms according to all the rules we have come to know as the rules of physics and as many iterations pass we see the rules cause the emergence of what we see today.

NOTE: Have a look at some of the super computing models we are now creating ourselves. They are run using the very same rules we have found are used in our own universe. They are certainly less detailed, but you'll get the idea. Google Computational Cosmology:Here's some links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgDoExbu_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIk6dKcdoU&feature=related ( check this one out in HD mode )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4Owc5gdRc&feature=related ( perhaps my favorite )

There is also another experiment in that video I posted for Paul showing a buckeyball/light beam experiment similar in nature to the double slit experiment.

 

[ufology]

None, but even we were it does not mean that there must be an Afterlife. If the entire universe is just a simulation created from mathematical algorithms, it almost certainly will not permit individual consciousnesses to exist separately from the rest of the simulation. IOW, we must be simulations which consist of mind and body together. If the body dies in the simulation, so does the mind - exactly as we see happening in 'reality'.

Nobody is saying that the computational model necessitates an afterlife, only that it would make it possible. Regarding the part about existing separately from this simulation. That too is entirely possible. Just add another universe ( call it universe_2.exe ) and take our data sets that have been stored in memory and insert them into it. Presto ... we've died in one universe and are alive in another!

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Believing or not believing in an afterlife based on smugness or one-upmanship is rather shallow and naïve. The question is very complicated.

Human beings are capable of complex and abstract thought. We can imagine things that don’t exist. Human beings intuitively view the world from an animistic point of view. It is very natural to assume that other things we encounter operate the same way we do, with the same values and motivations. As we look for causes and effects and understanding of our surroundings, it is intuitive to anthropomorphize objects, events, plants, animals, ancestors, and even other people. As such, we fill the world with spirits and gods.

Human beings experience both a very material and a very abstract world. Our bodies encounter other physical objects that create certain limitations and possibilities. But we also define those things physical things by their limitations and possibilities in a very abstract way. If we have a wooden chair and start cutting of small pieces, at what point does it cease to be a chair? If we take a chair and throw it into a wood chipper, the components of the chair are there but not the chair. Where did the “chair” go?

Human beings are self-aware. We are not just aware of things, but we are aware that we are aware of things. Common sense suggests a dualist philosophy. Our brains are wired to have consciousness of a separate “self” or “mind” or “soul”. It is very hard to NOT think in these terms. When we look at something red, we experience “seeing” the color red. This experience is very different from simply “knowing” that the object is red. We may know that it is Tuesday or that there is a piano in the living room, but in addition to knowing that something is red, we have an experience of “seeing red”, or hearing music, or feeling the heat of a fire, that seems quite distinct from a simple brain process. We are aware of a self that contains our personal feelings and thoughts that seems different from just brain functions and seems as real as any tangible object. Conceiving the world without this sense of self is extremely difficult without brain damage or surgery.

So we have a sense of a reality that consists of tangible physical objects, and thoughts and feelings that are intangible but are experienced as equally real. We are aware of a “self” or “mind” or “soul” that is independent of the body, and even independent of the physical universe. When a person dies, they are not physically transformed like the chair in the wood chipper. The body is the same, but the “person” is gone. Common sense suggests that there is more to the “person” than just the body. The body is the same, but the “person”, the “soul” has left. So the soul must go somewhere, must have some life of its own. And in the animistic anthropomorphic world of spirits and gods, it must have gone to exist solely within that realm.

This is where our concept of an afterlife comes from. Nearly all (or maybe even all) cultures have some sense of spirits or magic, a soul, and an afterlife. It is just the way people think, and the way things appear to be. Much like the way it looks like the sun appears to revolve around the earth or just travel through the sky.

As we investigate the philosophy of the mind, we find that, like in so many cases, the intuitive, common sense preconceptions are wrong. There is no mind, no soul, no self. There is a duality of the empirically physical and the spiritually abstract. The mind, the soul, the self, exists only in the abstract--and we invent the abstract with physical brain functions. We find that the “I” that we so firmly believe in, that is the soul that can continue after death, is an abstract concept like the “chair” that disappears in the wood chipper.

Outside of our abstract imaginations, there is no self. There is no soul. Therefore, there is no afterlife.

Of course the question of “why” people currently believe what they believe about an afterlife is a psychological or sociological question. Some people probably have good reasons; others have reasons that are shallow or naïve. Some people believe in an afterlife because they cannot accept that their experience is simply an abstract thought of physical brain functions or believe that the experience of their sensation, whether abstract symbols of interpretation of information or not, are significant enough to be considered “real”. Many others accept an afterlife because it is what their religion says to believe, or what they were taught to believe, or it is what their friends and family believe, or even simply because they find it comforting.

Some skeptics do not believe in an afterlife because they have studied the philosophy op f the mind, the history of religion, the psychology of man, and other arts and sciences and come to the inescapable conclusion that a soul, and an afterlife, is an illusion. Other skeptics may reject the idea of an afterlife simply because they have no proof, or because they reject a religion that believers in an afterlife, or because they believe that the concept of an afterlife is used by others to control people, or even simply because they want to be like other skeptics.

People can believe things for reasons that are shallow and naïve, or for reasons that are well thought out and investigated. I would hazard a guess that there are more of the former than the latter. Those who do investigate and believe in a soul or an afterlife are not fools. That conclusion seems right, feels right, and matches our experience. It is very difficult to not come to that conclusion. It can be difficult to accept in the same way it can be difficult to accept that the earth revolves around the sun, or that illness is not caused by demons, or the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. It is probably even harder because it is based on pure logic, there cannot be any physical experiments for confirmation. Or even equations. It requires rather lengthy, and honest, study of philosophy and religion, as well as other disciplines.

Some skeptics may come across as smug or superior sounding because it is a bit like defending the theory of relativity over and over again. Yes, it is counter-intuitive. Yes, it doesn’t “feel” right. And, yes, it may seem to contradict your experience. And, yes, it is difficult to explain. But it is correct.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ufology add physics and cosmology to the list of things you don't understand.

 

[Marduk]

Ufology add physics and cosmology to the list of things you don't understand.

( call it universe_2.exe )

also programming

Ufol an exe file is just an executable file, when you click on it the program starts, but the exe isn't the program in the same way that a car ignition isn't the engine, just call it universe 2.0

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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

I should put together some references some day. This seems to come up in every religion/philosophy thread these days.

The opinion of Philosophy is that is unknowable and doesn’t matter. We may live in a natural universe, or be brains in jars, or be a computer simulation, or exist in infinite simultaneous universe frames, or be the dream of a kangaroo. This is unknowable.

Even if we could know that we were a brain in a jar or the dream of a kangaroo, how would this change our philosophy? Our process of discovering knowledge? Our approach to life?

If there is no difference, the question, although intriguing, is moot.

 

[ufology]

You lost me.

OK ... I posted my opinion on the possibility of an afterlife. You asked me to review a video. I did and I gave a response as to why the rationale in that video isn't the same as mine, and therefore doesn't apply to my opinion. You seemed to agree but made an allusion to the absence of evidence for my opinion. I made the point that the issue in relation to the video has only to do with his logic based on his example ( ectoplasm and software run on the brain ) not proof or evidence either way. So the take of the video ( brain damage = consciousness damage = no life after death ) is completely different than ( computational cosmology = we are data = we can be stored in memory and run again = possibility of afterlife ).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not going to get you citations, however I'll give you a thread to start on. If you are actually interested in this sort of thing, it's all quite fascinating.

1. Quantum entanglement: The situation when two things that are quantum entangled can affect each other intently regardless of their distance. From the point of view of the construct, there is no distance and everything is connected simultaneously thereby allowing quantum entanglement to take place instantly.

2. Speed of Light Limit and time dilation: From the point of view of the construct generator, there is an upper limit of processing power, analogous to cycles per second whereby things that change coordinates very fast require more processing power to render thereby slowing down the rendering time the faster they go.

3. Dark Matter: There is no actual dark matter other than dust, the missing matter isn't missing at all because from the point of view of the construct there is no matter at all. The effect we're seeing is the result of the way the rules are applied by the construct directly to our realm.

4. Wave-Particle Duality: From the point of view of the construct there are no waves or particles, just coordinates where things should or should not be at any given time. The the double slit experiment is essentially a logic filter within the construct that the construct's programming compensates for by placing the location of the particles where they should be regardless of the double slit filter.

5. Fundamental Forces of Nature: Science has no explanation for the fundamental forces of nature. We only know how they seem to relate to our universe, but not where they actually come from. From the point of view of the construct generator, the fundamental forces of nature are rules imparted on our reality according to specific rules. We have learned how to describe those rules mathematically and apply them to many things.

6. Big Bang: From the point of the construct generator, the universe could begin as a series of interrelated algorithms that when started generate the universe that from our perspective within the universe would be nothing. The construct generator then runs the algorithms according to all the rules we have come to know as the rules of physics and as many iterations pass we see the rules cause the emergence of what we see today.

NOTE: Have a look at some of the super computing models we are now creating ourselves. They are run using the very same rules we have found are used in our own universe. They are certainly less detailed, but you'll get the idea. Google Computational Cosmology:Here's some links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgDoExbu_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIk6dKcdoU&feature=related ( check this one out in HD mode )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4Owc5gdRc&feature=related ( perhaps my favorite )

There is also another experiment in that video I posted for Paul showing a buckeyball/light beam experiment similar in nature to the double slit experiment.

I like the way that the computational model you're touting seems to rely on the computer that this simulation is being run on relying on the same laws of physics you're attempting to explain by positing a giant computer.

 

[Marduk]

Even if we could know that we were a brain in a jar or the dream of a kangaroo, how would this change our philosophy? Our process of discovering knowledge? Our approach to life?
.

well I for one would spend less time being polite, then I'd conspire with the lab assistant to smash the jars of people I don't like
that'd be quite different to what I do now,

 

[ufology]

I should put together some references some day. This seems to come up in every religion/philosophy thread these days.

The opinion of Philosophy is that is unknowable and doesn’t matter. We may live in a natural universe, or be brains in jars, or be a computer simulation, or exist in infinite simultaneous universe frames, or be the dream of a kangaroo. This is unknowable.

Even if we could know that we were a brain in a jar or the dream of a kangaroo, how would this change our philosophy? Our process of discovering knowledge? Our approach to life?

If there is no difference, the question, although intriguing, is moot.

I beg to differ. Knowing we are in a generated construct could lead to advances as incredible as learning the world was round. Instead of flat maps we suddenly had a sphere and the possibility of circumnavigation led to great advances in navigation. Similarly, if our universe is a generated construct, distances are no longer relevant because everything is connected simultaneously by the operating system. By finding a way to interact with the operating system all we would need to do is input the set of coordinates and move our data sets anyplace we want in the entire universe ... instantly ... with very little energy. That alone would have extremely beneficial practical applications.

 

[ufology]

I like the way that the computational model you're touting seems to rely on the computer that this simulation is being run on relying on the same laws of physics you're attempting to explain by positing a giant computer.

Yes ... and basically because of that, there is almost nothing that isn't possible. The real question is sifting out what is and isn't actually the case. So we need to test it against what we do know more than mysterious things like dark matter or energy. The double slit, quantum entanglement, and cosmic speed limits all seem to fall in there because they have been verified by scientific experiments.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

well I for one would spend less time being polite, then I'd conspire with the lab assistant to smash the jars of people I don't like
that'd be quite different to what I do now,

Perhaps this was just a joke, but it misses the point. A brain in a jar can't contact a lab assistant. There are no other jars. Just your brain. In a jar. Thinking all of this up.

 

[ufology]

Believing or not believing in an afterlife based on smugness or one-upmanship is rather shallow and naïve. The question is very complicated.

True. I don't fall into any class of "believers" personally. Most of the rest of the post is really good too except this part:

Some skeptics may come across as smug or superior sounding because it is a bit like defending the theory of relativity over and over again. Yes, it is counter-intuitive. Yes, it doesn’t “feel” right. And, yes, it may seem to contradict your experience. And, yes, it is difficult to explain. But it is correct.

Skeptics sometimes come across as far more abrasive than merely smug or superior sounding ... I've experienced it here many times. Also, skeptics are not always correct despite what you seem to imply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking being skeptical. I consider myself to be skeptical in a genuine and positive way. It's essential to consider logical counterpoints if one is going to advance toward the truth. But skepticism isn't our only tool in the toolbox and being skeptical doesn't automatically make someone's conclusions true.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I beg to differ. Knowing we are in a generated construct could lead to advances as incredible as learning the world was round. Instead of flat maps we suddenly had a sphere and the possibility of circumnavigation led to great advances in navigation. Similarly, if our universe is a generated construct, distances are no longer relevant because everything is connected simultaneously by the operating system. By finding a way to interact with the operating system all we would need to do is input the set of coordinates and move our data sets anyplace we want in the entire universe ... instantly ... with very little energy. That alone would have extremely beneficial practical applications.

A computer simulation can't change the code of the computer simulation. That "person" in Sim City can't decide to change line 1087 of the Sim City code.

Perhaps it is a bad analogy. It certainly gets far from the point. IF everything I believe I experience is not real and is a computer simulation, there is no way I can alter the code for that simulation. I am just a manifestation of that code. And I can't even know if I am in a computer simulation. And even if I suspect that I am, the idea of a soul and an afterlife becomes...well...very strange.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes

So if the laws of physics that govern this universe are explained by this universe all being a simulation in a gigantic computer, then what are the laws of physics that govern that giant computer explained by?