Have you read Asimov? If not, go pick up Foundation immediately. You missed "economics" as a step, for the record.
I've heard of Asimov, but I don't think I've really read much of his stuff... Foundation series wise, I've never ever heard of it or anything resembling it until now.
I worry I will regret buying this... Perhaps I should do it in the summer when I can actually sit down and start blasting through this... It's in my cart, I just hesitate to pull the trigger.
Books can take ahold of me like no other thing. It's like an addiction because it allows me to let my mind go wild within a certain set of confines. I might actually not eat nor sleep unless absolutely necessary until I finish all 7 books in a single sitting. I try and stay away from them TBH, but I honestly really love a great book.
Although for economics, I'd argue it was to sustain data/information over long periods, but it doesn't convey it itself. But then again, you use economics to determine what is worth trying to sustain over many generations if resources are finite to sustain/protect all information. Like the other half of a coin, or the impossibility of a one sided tree branch.
Thanks for the suggestion though. I'm very tempted to grab the series.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
The first one is a series of short stories quick to read and easily accessible. Also read in publishing order not chronological so Foundation is the first book. It’s 3-7 that you get sucked into like that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I stumbled upon a book called “Journey of Souls” by a hypnotherapist called Michael Newton. He took some of his clients back to before birth and provides a summary of the conversations. No idea if he made the whole thing up or if it was real, but there were interesting nuggets that I have come across in NDE literature and my reading on Sufi teachings (Sufi traditions = mystical traditions within Islam).
It was interesting to see similar accounts. I guess, at some point in the future, I will find out for real
Some really great commentary in this thread and appreciate all the various takes as I read through. A little surprising as I expected there to be a little more connection to spirituality from some. Some of my favorite comments and thoughts on them in hopes of spurring on more discussion in those areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geraldsh
We are a biological accident , no smarter than the average dinosaur or we would be working together to improve this planet. Enjoy your life as long as you can when you’re done you’re done.
This is kind of where I am as well. As Desmond Morris framed it in 1967, we are just The Naked Ape and promote ourselves to the top of the food chain. If other animals have no soul why would we? The sheer arrogance of our species to make claims of superiority over all in the universe, known and unknown, is hard to fathom at times. While I think we're done when we're done, I can't be certain of that fact, hence the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
Worm food, but at least my molecules will live on when they are recycled into the food chain and enter other beings. My conscious self is gone forever, but the things that made me live in eternity.
It's a simple principle of science: Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed*, they only change forms.
(*exceptions made for anti-matter annihilation of matter)
Cali brings forth an interesting point. Our corporal body made die, but the molecules and energy released at death and as we rot remain in the universe and become shared. The air we breathe contains molecules shared by other sources of life back to when life began. So in a way, very small pieces of ourselves do experience immortality.
When we die what happens to the energy that exists in our cells and within the soup of our brains? As Cali suggests, that energy is not destroyed, so what becomes of it? There must be transference to some next level? This concept was explore by Duncan MacDougall at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th. He studied dying people and discovered that immediately after death their bodies lost (on average) 21 grams of mass. The explanation behind this was this was the weight of the soul leaving the body. Is the soul just the energy from cells dissipating or releasing into the atmosphere around the dying body? Or is the soul something real and is the energy from the body?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
In one of the religious studies courses I took in university I did a paper on NDEs. I didn't delve into the religious side of them because, well, I've yet to see, hear or read a single thing that indicates religion is anything other than preposterous.
The only thing that suggests there would be an afterlife stems from all of us being steeped - against our will - in ancient religious thought. Nothing else points to an afterlife and, frankly, the whole notion is ridiculous. Of course there isn't. Snap the fata out of it. It's 2023.
Sliver never disappoints in making a topic weird. I like the discussion of NDEs, and yes, there are theories that it is just brain chemistry, but there is nothing conclusive to this research, one way or another.
It is well known that as we experience trauma the brains releases chemicals like adrenaline to help the body survive. When the brain senses it is dying it floods itself with neurotransmitters to help keep it alive. This causes neurons to fire like crazy and cause all sorts of false sensory phenomena and memory encoding errors. It actually has been replicated in the lab and activity visible in fMRI scans. This brings the validity of NDEs into question and the claims of proof of an afterlife into serious question.
Much of afterlife belief does come for our upbringing and religiosity so there is that link. We must also acknowledge it is hard to discredit something where faith and belief are entrenched, especially when more people believe in angels than global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
I think it's pretty clear we have physical consciousness, if for no other reason than witnessing the effect of physical changes to the brain.
For that reason I feel the framing of the question is wrong, rather than trying to prove the lack of afterlife the burden should be on affirmatively proving the existence. Why on earth would you think there is one? The only reason seems to be cultural memory of superstition from when we as a society had far less ability to explain the world.
I didn't realize the question (Life after death: Does it exist?) was framed any particular way? It's a very simple question free of actual framing. No bias or loaded language in the question, just a simple question. Kind of like, "The sky: Is it blue?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Life after death beliefs are born out of religion.
Religion = biggest con job in human history
There's your answer
Not going to disagree on religion being a con job, but every religion or spiritual pursuit presupposes the soul/spirit exists or continues on after the corporal body dies. Personally, I think this is our fear of the unknown and wanting to be able to justify our struggle as human animals, believing that there must be more for us after all we go through in our lives. The idea that our lives and actions are inconsequential and pretty much meaningless in the big picture is hard for most people to wrap their heads around. We build ourselves, including our species and our planet, to be the penultimate example of existence there is, so for it all to mean nothing just doesn't resonate with the masses. Religion and spirituality explain our struggle and give it meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
The idea that we will go somewhere and meet all of our ancestors and deceased pets is bizarre. What age will they be to us and what age will their ancestors be to them? Would we have the same relationships, good and bad, and the same shared memories? Will we forever be someone’s child again? Will heaven be a giant social event where I can feel awkward for eternity? Eternity sounds awful.
I do, however, believe there is more than our physical life. My wife’s family lived with ghosts, at least what they all independently experienced as ghosts, and they are far from alone.
Wonderful take on this question. I love the questions you ask, because I've asked the exact same ones. I think that if there is an afterlife that it will be of our own making and we choose the perceptions we have of those we interact with. We will choose whether our father is aged as we last saw him, or if he is more like the young man when we were children and we can have do the many things we never got to do. Our dogs/cats/ friends will all be as we best remember them and we will only have the positive interactions/engagements we had when they were at their peak. Again, that's what my perceptions of "heaven" would be, if it exists, which I'm five-nines sure it doesn't.
The concept of ghosts is always an interesting discussion because it is both supporting and contradictory to most religious beliefs about the afterlife. I'm with you and have seen some pretty bizarre things, but we must also acknowledge that the imagination is a powerful thing. That is not to say that everything experienced in this regard is imagined, just that when in certain situations (dark spooky places) our imaginations can get the best of us. There are plenty of instances where stuff happens in the cold light of day or when we are not in a state where our imagination is working overtime that cannot be ruled out. A completely different thread that would be fun too, but I can see how it is relatable here as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah123
I stumbled upon a book called “Journey of Souls” by a hypnotherapist called Michael Newton. He took some of his clients back to before birth and provides a summary of the conversations. No idea if he made the whole thing up or if it was real, but there were interesting nuggets that I have come across in NDE literature and my reading on Sufi teachings (Sufi traditions = mystical traditions within Islam).
It was interesting to see similar accounts. I guess, at some point in the future, I will find out for real
Memories of past lives is a real thing and a field of study. This is very weird as people have incredible recollections from previous lives and recall details that they would have no other way of knowing without experiencing them. Is this evidence of reincarnation? Such a strange subject but really confounds discussions and belief systems of the afterlife.
Thank you all for sharing. Again, really good discussion.
Do you have links to peer reviewed published research and experimentation that shows people have memories of past lives? I’d be very surprised if any of the evidence available can be considered as high quality.
Essentially the statement that people would have no other way of knowing the details is false. Any detail of the past requires a person or artifact that has been found by a person. This means that a source of the information from the past life exists in the present day. This means that the best we can say is that it is unlikely that a person would have known about the event.
So then we have a few scenarios to compare likelihood of does the person have this information in advance or did they experience a past life or did they guess or were given the detail.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
But are we sure that the hardware required to run these meat sacks, is the same hardware required for whatever may or may not come next?
Personally, I've had that near death out of body experience, and can say, that while I had audio and visual senses, they were very different than what I'd experienced before, or what I've experienced since. It's hard to explain, but everything seemed to have an electric field, visually and audibly, radiant light and a hum, but everything was crystal clear, no matter how distant. The strangest feeling however, was the complete emotional disconnection. One second it was shear terror, then nothing. Complete calm, while I witnessed pandemonium, then terror again as I came to.
Has led me to believe that there is more beyond this, and when we're able to disconnect, we move on to another level of existence. Though as a completely different self.
This is where I'm not necessarily against the idea that it could be a thing, just that if it is, we're way off base with it. The idea that we'll "see" family members or pets sounds delightful, but the whole idea is conveniently human. If there is anything, I would assume it would be more like what you describe.
I do find it interesting that most experiences tend to fall in line with whatever that person happens to believe. Hindus mysteriously tap into previous lives, Christians see deceased family members, and atheists don't often report anything.
Do you have links to peer reviewed published research and experimentation that shows people have memories of past lives? I’d be very surprised if any of the evidence available can be considered as high quality.
Start with the work of Dr. Jim B. Tucker, Division of Perceptual Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia (Charlottesville) who followed in the footsteps of Canadian Dr. Ian Stevenson. Tucker has been studying this phenomena for 20+ years and Stevenson for 50 years, until his death in 2007. Tucker has a number of publications as does Stevenson.
It speaks more to the closed mind nature of people rather that the open mind we're supposed to have when we approach research. Very similar to something I said in another thread about there being skeptics and cynics, and where most people fall.
If that isn't enough reading on the cynic behavior then maybe this book is better primer.
Follow the citations and references for more information. He's not alone in this research and this is a phenomena studied around the globe.
Quote:
Essentially the statement that people would have no other way of knowing the details is false. Any detail of the past requires a person or artifact that has been found by a person. This means that a source of the information from the past life exists in the present day. This means that the best we can say is that it is unlikely that a person would have known about the event.
This is wrong, and if you read Stevenson's, Tucker's, and others work, you will begin to understand how and why your perceptions are wrong. If you go into all topics with the idea you know all there is to know about the brain/mind, the world we live in, and the universe we exist in, you're never likely to learn anything or be open to possibilities.
Quote:
So then we have a few scenarios to compare likelihood of does the person have this information in advance or did they experience a past life or did they guess or were given the detail.
I'll let the author of the Scientific American article answer this.
"Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground. The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way."
"This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means. Much of this is due to Stevenson’s own exhaustive efforts to disconfirm the paranormal account. “We can strive toward objectivity by exposing as fully as possible all observations that tend to weaken our preferred interpretation of the data,” he wrote. “If adversaries fire at us, let them use ammunition that we have given them.” And if truth be told, he excelled at debunking the debunkers."
I think you miss my point though. The fact that Stevenson is able to confirm the event described means the information was available for the event described. This means in all cases the subject could have found the details in the same manner that Stevenson did.
The other question I would have and I haven’t read the research yet is if you took the 30 details from the scientific American article and Randomly assigned values to them and then looked for people matching those details could you find them? What % of random sets of 27/30 statements have a person that satirizes them. Does he address the statistical likelihood of this occurring over the billions of people that existed especially if you allow leeway for being a little wrong with detail.
Yet 24 of them, or whatever the number is end up with a religious zealot suicide bomber for all eternity?
I see some flaws here.
If you are looking for logic in the promises of the afterlife, you are going to baffle yourself to death. It's probably the best indicator of what they say will happen is all bull####. Yet billions believe in the BS in some form, despite the logical impossibilities.
I think you miss my point though. The fact that Stevenson is able to confirm the event described means the information was available for the event described. This means in all cases the subject could have found the details in the same manner that Stevenson did.
I got your point. I understood it with your first post. I think you are missing the point. The way you are framing this you have to believe that the children he's researched had access to the technology and tools to research and build these detailed narratives. Stevenson did the vast majority of his research before the advent of the Internet and mostly with young children who disclosed these detailed memories without understanding what they meant. There were no familiar connections where the child could cull these details, the events referenced are remote and usually extreme, and the children did not have access to the technical means to research and build these narratives. Stevenson's research literally had him getting in a car and driving to the remote location to verify every detail of the story. How would a young child do this? That's the point and why even the skeptics are left scratching their heads on this stuff and why some admitting their skepticism has turned into full-blown cynicism.
What's to stop Stevenson from making a lot of this stuff up? Are there, say, video recordings of him interviewing the mother to glean the information from her? And even then, how would we know that the mother told Stevenson the truth about what her daughter told her? And how do we know that she correctly remembered what she heard her daughter say?
It does seem like there are some leaps of faith being taken here.
