Belief in the Afterlife

[ufology]

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it = pseudoscience.

And yet I get accused for "redefining" things? The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is that first it ( whatever you believe ) has to be presented as science, and then shown to be unscientific. In the context of an informal discussion ( as we are doing here ), neither science nor pseudoscience is taking place. We're just having a discussion.

 

[Akhenaten]

And yet I get accused for "redefining" things?

'Of'. You stand accused of redefining things. Just about everything, in fact.

The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is

<snip rredefinition of pseudoscience>

QED

We're just having a discussion.

Into which you keep trying to interject your pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[dafydd]

Belief in an afterlife is just that. A belief. There is no proof.

 

[Pixel42]

And yet I get accused for "redefining" things? The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is that first it ( whatever you believe ) has to be presented as science, and then shown to be unscientific.

I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?

 

[Brainache]

I think someone could make a pretty penny selling the idea of pet heaven to certain sections of the community...

I bet someone is aready doing it...

Just did a quick google and found this:
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/w/w_lasalle/


Oh My Dog

this one has that beat hands down
http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

They might be making a pretty penny, but they aren't selling the idea of an afterlife for animals.

Do animals feature in Ufology's Computational Matrix Reality thingy?

Should each species get their own Heaven, or is it Humans only?

No opposable thumb = oblivion? Seems a bit unfair to our four-legged friends, no?

 

[EHocking]

I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?

ACK!! Please NO!!!

There is already a 2315 post long thread whereing Ufology (275posts) attempts to Rredefine pseudoscience to suit is a priori arguments.

Please, please, I beg you, take this line of discussion back to there.

 

[EHocking]

Do animals feature in Ufology's Computational Matrix Reality thingy?

Must do. There's video evidence of such.

 

[Marduk]

Should each species get their own Heaven, or is it Humans only?
?

Yes, one heaven for each species, except for the cats, they'll be too busy running them all,


and us



The Egyptians were right

 

[RobRoy]

Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.

Nopers, this was quite a good, and I'd even say succinct review of the discussion to this point. It illuminated something for me specifically:

¹ So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?

Damn! All this time, I was somehow under the impression that ufology was using the "computational model" in the sense that we could develop a means by which biological data (memories and whatnot) could be transferred from our current storage unit into a more resilient one. I'm afraid that I have no idea how I came about this conclusion, but this makes most of what I was arguing invalid, as my premise was faulty.

<sigh>

However, it does highlight the misuse, again, of a term by ufology to fit his own predetermined conclusion.

 

[Akhenaten]

However, it does highlight the misuse, again, of a term by ufology to fit his own predetermined conclusion.

Exactly the sort of thing that Pixel42 was talking about here:

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Ufology will be along any minute to claim this is "more misrepresentation".

 

[Cainkane1]

Fear of death is a survival mechanism. Nobody wants to do it. I fear dying and I hope I don't see it comming when it happens. My greatest fear is laying on a bed sick and dying slowly with no chance of recovery. Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.

 

[Krikkiter]

You should review my initial response...

<snipped for readability>

Where do we go from here? Assuming we wanted to continue discussion on the topic, someone might suggest ways the computational model either would or would not be possible.

Y'know, I had a feeling you'd bring out the context card again. It's generally your fall back position.

I must admit that I wasn't really understanding your position before the above post and I'm still not sure I really get it but I think I'm starting to.

There's no point replying to much of your post because other people have already done that and done it better than I could. What I will say though is that you seem to hold a position that is so unnecessarily convoluted that it's almost useless in any logical sense. Why you don't take the simplest position - there is no evidence for an afterlife - can only be because of your insistence on beginning with a conclusion.

On your Harris quote, the problem that you think exists just doesn't. You'll notice that he says "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 ..." Software on the brain/ectoplasm are examples. He's saying it doesn't matter what idea you might dream up regarding an afterlife, right now there's no evidence for it. In fact there's evidence to the contrary.

Where do we go from here? Well I'm not going any further with it (and I doubt anyone else will either) until you show some evidence for your Convoluted Computational Conclusion.

 

[dafydd]

Fear of death is a survival mechanism. Nobody wants to do it. I fear dying and I hope I don't see it comming when it happens. My greatest fear is laying on a bed sick and dying slowly with no chance of recovery. Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.

'I'm not afraid of death. I just don't want to be there when it happens.'-Woody Allen

 

[ufology]

I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?

Better, but it still leaves too much wiggle room. For example scientifically valid evidence can become part of anyone's "scientific findings" and included in an informal manner in any form of media we want without it being pseudoscience, e.g. a collection of data from several meteor showers shows x number of meteors were seen during x time. Similar things are often done here, but since we're just having an informal discussion it's just fine. So called "popular science" also does the same thing, but IMHO often crosses the line. However if we were to say, "oh no what we are doing here is science", then it would open the door to being judged as valid science ( or not ) under the accepted criteria ... scientific method and so on ... and this forum ( as a whole ) would no doubt fail the test.

 

[Stray Cat]

Better, but it still leaves too much wiggle room. For example scientifically valid evidence can become part of anyone's "scientific findings" and included in an informal manner in any form of media we want without it being pseudoscience, e.g. a collection of data from several meteor showers shows x number of meteors were seen during x time. Similar things are often done here, but since we're just having an informal discussion it's just fine. So called "popular science" also does the same thing, but IMHO often crosses the line. However if we were to say, "oh no what we are doing here is science", then it would open the door to being judged as valid science ( or not ) under the accepted criteria ... scientific method and so on ... and this forum ( as a whole ) would no doubt fail the test.

This has nothing to do with what Pixel42 said.

 

[Akhenaten]

This has nothing to do with what Pixel42 said.

I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with anything that anyone said, ever.

I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.

 

[dafydd]

I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with anything that anyone said, ever.

I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.

The words were English, but made no sense in the order he put them in.

 

[catsmate]

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

Well I suspect I'm not alone in having killfiled ufology.

 

[Paul2]

Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.

As Christopher Hitchens said before he died (paraphrasing), "the party's not over, it's still going on, you're just not invited."

 

[RobRoy]

I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.

Could you share them? They might help clear things up . . . or at least satisfy my hunger.