Do You Believe in 'Life after Death'? - General

[QUOTE=Ziks;45182384]Source please.[/QUOTE] The vicious cycle begins once more. I post a source from anywhere, many members who were previously silent burst in the thread, tell me the source "wasn't good enough" and never reply again regardless of where it was. This has happened way too many times to warrant a "this might be different this time" kind of scenario.

[QUOTE=xZippy;45183438]The vicious cycle begins once more. I post a source from anywhere, many members who were previously silent burst in the thread, tell me the source "wasn't good enough" and never reply again regardless of where it was. This has happened way too many times to warrant a "this might be different this time" kind of scenario.[/QUOTE] There's something to be learnt here if this is what happens every time you present a source. Have you considered the possibility that your sources actually aren't of sufficient quality?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45183550]Have you considered the possibility that your sources actually aren't of sufficient quality?[/QUOTE] And what - at least in your opinion - would make the source sufficient quality?

[QUOTE=xZippy;45183593]And what - at least in your opinion - would make the source sufficient quality?[/QUOTE] Rigorous elimination of external influences, lack of emotional investment by the researcher(s), extensive peer review and demonstrated repeatability by other researchers. The same criteria I use to assess all sources, regardless of whether they support or contradict my intuitive assumptions.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45183612]Rigorous elimination of external influences, lack of emotional investment by the researcher(s), extensive peer review and demonstrated repeatability by other researchers. The same criteria I use to assess all sources, regardless of whether they support or contradict my intuitive assumptions.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that every NDE claim has the all the characteristics you mentioned?

[QUOTE=xZippy;45183834]Do you believe that every NDE claim has the all the characteristics you mentioned?[/QUOTE] I can't make any blanket statements, which is why I must request the source for each one you reference to analyse them independently. Of the sources I've seen so far they have all failed at least three of the four criteria.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45183858]Of the sources I've seen so far they have all failed at least three of the four criteria.[/QUOTE] All sources from me, or just all NDE ones period? If it's just the ones from me, then I'd love to know where the better ones you've seen.

[QUOTE=xZippy;45183935]All sources from me, or just all NDE ones period? If it's just the ones from me, then I'd love to know where the better ones you've seen.[/QUOTE] All the NDE ones I've ever seen. What do you mean by "better ones"? Better sources confirming NDEs or ones that provide natural explanations to NDEs?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45184056]All the NDE ones I've ever seen. What do you mean by "better ones"? Better sources confirming NDEs or ones that provide natural explanations to NDEs?[/QUOTE] If you were going to say that every NDE that only [i]I've[/i] linked to people didn't fall in your criteria, then that would mean you've read more convincing ones that I haven't link anyone to. I already know what sequence of posts are gonna follow me after I do this, but I'm gonna link to an old one [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case]I already linked before[/url]. Before anyone blows an argument load, I'm not posting this as proof, I just want you to point out all the failed criteria in detail, regardless of how painfully obvious it is.

[QUOTE=xZippy;45184158]If you were going to say that every NDE that only [i]I've[/i] linked to people didn't fall in your criteria, then that would mean you've read more convincing ones that I haven't link anyone to. I already know what sequence of posts are gonna follow me after I do this, but I'm gonna link to an old one [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case]I already linked before[/url]. Before anyone blows an argument load, I'm not posting this as proof, I just want you to point out all the failed criteria in detail, regardless of how painfully obvious it is.[/QUOTE] Three of the four references aren't loading for me, and the only one that does load is a local news article. Anyway, to analyse it using the criteria I stated before: Have all external influences been rigorously eliminated? No. It's unclear whether the conversations she recalled hearing occurred while she was flat-lining or just under general anaesthesia. It's unclear whether the things she recalled hearing were actually conclusively confirmed by medical staff as I can't find an interview with any member of the operating team, so she may have just made ambiguous claims as to what was said / what instruments they were using. Is there a lack of emotional investment? No. Believing she experienced a supernatural NDE is obviously hugely emotionally preferable, as it confirms her religion and avoids the disturbing possibility that she can experience something that isn't true. Extensive peer review? I can only see the names of three papers discussing the event, but as I mentioned they do not load for me. Apparently they claim that: [QUOTE=Wiki]...the amount of time which Reynolds was 'flatlined' is generally misrepresented and her claimed NDE occurred when she was merely under general anesthesia and the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds is supposed to have "died."[/QUOTE] So very little peer review exists, and it appears to be generally negative to the claims made. Demonstrated repeatability? No, and the event in general is hugely anecdotal. So this source fails all four criteria. [editline]22nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Wiki]Her experience is one of the most notable and widely documented in near-death studies[/QUOTE] This says a lot about near-death studies. [editline]22nd June 2014[/editline] Spotted the External Links section. Here's one of the criticising articles: [url]http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#pam[/url] [editline]22nd June 2014[/editline] Literally all the links to articles supporting the case are peddling books about it. Wow.

Alright, that's fair. You went into detail and didn't make some stupid condescending excuse just so you could type a bit less. Before I link to anything else, I'm a bit confused as to why you include many external sources to this criteria of yours. If a couple doctors are operating on a guy, and the guy flatlines for some time, then claims he saw heaven as well as what the doctors were doing and saying at the time. Then those would be the only sources. Just that guy who died for a bit and those doctors. It's not like they went "This guy could have an NDE, make sure to get some news cameras in here just so we have more sources so it's believable."

[QUOTE=xZippy;45184464]Alright, that's fair. You went into detail and didn't make some stupid condescending excuse just so you could type a bit less. Before I link to anything else, I'm a bit confused as to why you include many external sources to this criteria of yours.[/QUOTE] I think the article I linked is worth reading, it demonstrates quite a lot of blatant misinformation propagated by the original author documenting the event and uses external sources effectively to validate their position. [QUOTE]If a couple doctors are operating on a guy, and the guy flatlines for some time, then claims he saw heaven as well as what the doctors were doing and saying at the time. Then those would be the only sources. Just that guy who died for a bit and those doctors. It's not like they went "This guy could have an NDE, make sure to get some news cameras in here just so we have more sources so it's believable."[/QUOTE] It's true that there are ethical issues that make it difficult to rigorously test NDEs, but I don't think there's much reason to assume a supernatural explanation is correct when natural explanations exist. Supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable whereas natural ones are falsifiable, so our default position should be the natural one until a refutation is found.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45184529]It's true that there are ethical issues that make it difficult to rigorously test NDEs, but I don't think there's much reason to assume a supernatural explanation is correct when natural explanations exist. Supernatural explanations are unfalsifiable whereas natural ones are falsifiable, so our default position should be the natural one until a refutation is found.[/QUOTE] Even off of the topic of NDE's, how does one prove the supernatural with only natural means? Do you think there could ever be any form of "miracle" that didn't have a natural explanation behind it?

[QUOTE=xZippy;45185035]Even off of the topic of NDE's, how does one prove the supernatural with only natural means? Do you think there could ever be any form of "miracle" that didn't have a natural explanation behind it?[/QUOTE] Personally I believe it is very unlikely for such an observation to be found because I subjectively attach a very low probability to the existence of the supernatural, but in principle it is possible for an observation to violate our current understanding of reality in a human-centric way which I would say is equivalent to sufficient evidence for the supernatural. From another discussion: [QUOTE=Ziks;45038337]If I use the definition of naturalism I gave before: [QUOTE=Ziks]I consider it to mean that reality is wholly defined in terms of a non human-centric set of entities and physical laws, with phenomena such as consciousness being an emergent product of those physical laws.[/QUOTE] I can construct an experiment with a possible outcome that violates that definition with arbitrarily high probability: Find a clairvoyant / fortune teller / whatever, and seat them in a room. Have them use remote viewing / contact the dead / whatever to predict the values of n independent binary random variables, with the variables being selected simultaneously to the predictions in a separate facility with no communication between them (ensure both are alone in sealed lead-lined chambers, etc). Use samples from the decay of a radioactive isotope or something to determine the value of each random variable. After all n variables have been predicted / sampled, compare the predictions with the true values of the variables. As the probability of a 100% success rate is 1 / 2^n, a sufficiently large n will demonstrate the existence of supernatural interference with extremely high probability. For example, if n is 100 the probability of 100% success in a natural universe is 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376. Repeat the experiment with different experimenters in different facilities (but the same predictor) to reduce the probability of tampering. If that were to occur, I would absolutely abandon naturalism because I can't just redefine it to fit the evidence like an unfalsifiable hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ziks;45185272]Personally I believe it is very unlikely for such an observation to be found because I subjectively attach a very low probability to the existence of the supernatural, but in principle it is possible for an observation to violate our current understanding of reality in a human-centric way which I would say is equivalent to sufficient evidence for the supernatural.[/quote] This is kind of a mixed bag. If something can be explained, then it's natural. If it can't be explained and it's something no one has seen or comprehended before, then it can still be natural, but we just don't have a way of explaining it at the time. In other words, couldn't one say that there's no supernatural at all? That there's only the natural and the unexplained natural?

[QUOTE=xZippy;45188924]This is kind of a mixed bag. If something can be explained, then it's natural. If it can't be explained and it's something no one has seen or comprehended before, then it can still be natural, but we just don't have a way of explaining it at the time. In other words, couldn't one say that there's no supernatural at all? That there's only the natural and the unexplained natural?[/QUOTE] It also raises the question of whether there is knowledge which is genuinely inaccessible to humans.

We know we can't know everything right now. We don't know if there are things that we may never know, we obviously are limited in ways. Does this mean that there actually is a lot of things we're not understanding? I don't think so. I think we have a fairly consistent view of the universe, obviously there is always more to know, but todays understanding of the universe is radically different from the one even just 50 years ago. If we accept that there is knowledge we'll never have, we might start making judgement calls about what that knowledge is without reason. Until we know there are things we can't know, we can't make that call. People have said there is no way to understand what "before" the big bang was, but even that as an understanding is starting to change it seems. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=xZippy;45188924]This is kind of a mixed bag. If something can be explained, then it's natural. If it can't be explained and it's something no one has seen or comprehended before, then it can still be natural, but we just don't have a way of explaining it at the time. In other words, couldn't one say that there's no supernatural at all? That there's only the natural and the unexplained natural?[/QUOTE] I think the important part of his statement is "human centric"

[QUOTE=xZippy;45188924]This is kind of a mixed bag. If something can be explained, then it's natural. If it can't be explained and it's something no one has seen or comprehended before, then it can still be natural, but we just don't have a way of explaining it at the time. In other words, couldn't one say that there's no supernatural at all? That there's only the natural and the unexplained natural?[/QUOTE] That's why I'm in favour of a slightly more restricted definition of naturalism that states that any purely human-centric observation that demonstrates the incompleteness of our current understanding of nature is a supernatural observation. The example I provided would be one such human-centric observation that violates our understanding of possible methods of information transfer. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;45189572]It also raises the question of whether there is knowledge which is genuinely inaccessible to humans.[/QUOTE] There almost certainly is, for example the knowledge of whether there exist realities other than our own is inaccessible. We can only observe structures within our own reality, and could never observe the existence / non-existence of anything outside of our reality. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] I could go further and point out that we have absolutely no certain knowledge, except maybe the knowledge that at least [i]something[/i] exists.

Yes, because a post existance where I don't get to just chill and hang out with friends and family and stuff is depressing. I'll believe what I want to believe, and whatever inevitability awaits when I stop breathing will be what I'm stuck with.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45190055]There almost certainly is, for example the knowledge of whether there exist realities other than our own is inaccessible. We can only observe structures within our own reality, and could never observe the existence / non-existence of anything outside of our reality. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] I could go further and point out that we have absolutely no certain knowledge, except maybe the knowledge that at least [i]something[/i] exists.[/QUOTE] What is certain knowledge to you as opposed to uncertain knowledge?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;45221720]What is certain knowledge to you as opposed to uncertain knowledge?[/QUOTE] When I say certainty I mean certainty, meaning that there is absolutely zero chance of being incorrect. I can be certain of nothing because I have an incomplete awareness of reality and I appreciate that I have no way of internally verifying the correctness of my ability to reason. This is almost certainly true for absolutely everyone on the planet, and arguably for every sentient substructure in existence. [editline]26th June 2014[/editline] Are you certain of anything, given the usual definition of certainty?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45223050]When I say certainty I mean certainty, meaning that there is absolutely zero chance of being incorrect. I can be certain of nothing because I have an incomplete awareness of reality and I appreciate that I have no way of internally verifying the correctness of my ability to reason. This is almost certainly true for absolutely everyone on the planet, and arguably for every sentient substructure in existence. [editline]26th June 2014[/editline] Are you certain of anything, given the usual definition of certainty?[/QUOTE] At a minimum you can be certain that something exists.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45223209]At a minimum you can be certain that something exists.[/QUOTE] We can take that for granted, but is there anything beyond that?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45223250]We can take that for granted, but is there anything beyond that?[/QUOTE] Maybe not, but that on it's own is important to note. The fact that something exists instead of nothing prompts a plethora of legitimate questions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45223282]Maybe not, but that on it's own is important to note. The fact that something exists instead of nothing prompts a plethora of legitimate questions.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, I didn't mean to brush off that point as if it was insignificant, it was just a point I had already raised a couple of posts ago. One such question I feel is important: if the superstructure that contains our reality can exist without external dependencies, is it more rational to assume that our superstructure is absolutely the only extant one or should we assume that other independent structures exploit this ability to exist without dependencies?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45223386]Absolutely, I didn't mean to brush off that point as if it was insignificant, it was just a point I had already raised a couple of posts ago. One such question I feel is important: if the superstructure that contains our reality can exist without external dependencies, is it more rational to assume that our superstructure is absolutely the only extant one or should we assume that other independent structures exploit this ability to exist without dependencies?[/QUOTE] Why the assumption that it exists without dependencies? I don't know how we would rationally ever be able to come to that conclusion. At most we can say that we don't know of any dependency.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45223571]Why the assumption that it exists without dependencies? I don't know how we would rationally ever be able to come to that conclusion. At most we can say that we don't know of any dependency.[/QUOTE] Because that's how the highest level superstructure is defined. If there exists a dependency to an external structure it must not be the highest level superstructure, so you redefine it to include the structure(s) it depends on.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45223624]Because that's how the highest level superstructure is defined. If there exists a dependency to an external structure it must not be the highest level superstructure, so you redefine it to include the structure(s) it depends on.[/QUOTE] Then I guess the answer to your previous question comes down to if the highest level structure came to be or if it exists eternally. If eternally, then I see no reason to think that other existences would exist along side of it, but if it came to be, then I see no reason to assume that other's wouldn't exist. For example: If we take some eternally existent god as the independent structure who created this universe, then this universe probably had some purpose to it's existence and it would, in my opinion, seem more logical to assume that this is the only one. On the other hand, if the independent structure is some quantum field (or some other non-thinking structure), then I would think that the more logical conclusion would be that, given enough time, an infinite number of "universes" would exist.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45224496]Then I guess the answer to your previous question comes down to if the highest level structure came to be or if it exists eternally.[/QUOTE] It must necessarily exist eternally because it exists outside of time, time must be defined within it otherwise the existence of time itself would be a dependency that the structure is redefined to include. [QUOTE]If eternally, then I see no reason to think that other existences would exist along side of it,[/QUOTE] No spacial comparisons would apply because space must also be defined within it. Other highest-level superstructures would be purely independent, they would all just exist in their own distinct realities with no communication or relations between them. Why is there no reason to think that other existences would also exploit whatever mechanism our reality uses to exist without external dependencies? They would have no "cost" because they do not rely on external resources to exist and there can be no externally defined conservation laws to be upheld. It would seem rather arrogant to just assume that absolutely no existences other than our own are permitted to exist when, due to how highest-level superstructures are defined, no restrictions that forbid their existence could possibly exist outside of them. [QUOTE]but if it came to be, then I see no reason to assume that other's wouldn't exist. For example: If we take some eternally existent god as the independent structure who created this universe, then this universe probably had some purpose to it's existence and it would, in my opinion, seem more logical to assume that this is the only one.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why that is a logical assumption, as it hugely depends on the nature of the god. If I were a god I can't see any reason for me to limit the number of universes I create to just one, if anything I would generate a huge set of universes with different structures and watch them all evolve independently. Additionally, even if I were a god that was able to fully observe and manipulate the reality I created, there would be no way for me to verify or disprove the existence of other independent gods and realities. [QUOTE]On the other hand, if the independent structure is some quantum field (or some other non-thinking structure), then I would think that the more logical conclusion would be that, given enough time, an infinite number of "universes" would exist.[/QUOTE] That seems to correlate well with pretty much every natural system within our reality; with several planets being produced during the formation of our solar system rather than one, billions of stars forming within our galaxy rather than just the Sun, and billions of galaxies arising after the Big Bang rather than just the Milky Way. It seems like a safe assumption that the same pattern will apply to higher level structures, perhaps up to the very highest level.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45227819] That seems to correlate well with pretty much every natural system within our reality; with several planets being produced during the formation of our solar system rather than one, billions of stars forming within our galaxy rather than just the Sun, and billions of galaxies arising after the Big Bang rather than just the Milky Way. It seems like a safe assumption that the same pattern will apply to higher level structures, perhaps up to the very highest level.[/QUOTE] This is all well and good, but I see no reason to assume these highest level super-structures are not aware of eachother, and their differences. Perhaps not all, but certainly it is feasible that some may be aware of others, perhaps, depending on the nature and complexity of the superstructure, they could also influence eachother. Like a black hole passing by a brown dwarf.