Live After Death

[Rade]

... When is acquiescing to there being no life after death the reasonable stance? As opposed to the answer of 'nobody knows'? Or maybe it has come and gone and i am ignorant of it? Do you think it's 'possible' to know one way or the other?

It has always been a reasonable stance, problem is that one must apply reason to find the answer. And yes, it is possible to know that there is no life after death...this requires that one adopt a philosophy with reasonable definitions of the concepts "death" and "life" and of course what it means to "know". I found my soul to be freed at the moment I came to know that there will not be life for me after my death. However, you must understand that there are two ways to know anything, from inside the thing and from outside. Thus it is not possible for you to know what I know about life after my death, for you will always be on the outside looking in. So, good news. If it is possible for me to know one way or the other, it is possible for you also.

[CraigD]

Those are all very interesting perspectives, but when you think about it.... Is the idea of life following death really any stranger than the idea of death following life?

To me, yes, in the sense of “strange” meaning “outside of previous experience”.

 

I’ve seen countless biological organisms exhibit life followed by death, so “death following life” is not at all strange to me. Rather, “life not followed, within 100 years or so, by death”, fills me with a sense of strangeness (and wonder) when I see (that is, read about) it in very long-lived organisms such as some protozoa, plants, and unusual animals like some tortoises and whales.

 

The idea of a complex animal, like a human, living, dying, then living again, seems incredibly strange to me. I’ve never seen it happen, nor read of it in any credible work. As a child, I read of it in religious scriptures, but by my late teens, became convinced that these works writings were entirely mythical and allegorical, not accurate physical accounts.

 

Finding this idea strange and unsupported doesn’t cause me to find it unattractive, as I like living, and would like to keep doing it for at least several times the usual human expectancy. Wanting a thing to be true, however, does not make it so.

 

JMJones0424 "Make use of the time that you have now, and enjoy the time you have with the ones you love, because there is absolutely no evidence that you will get a second shot at life."

 

Well, as it turns out, that's not quite entirely true....

 

OMNI MAGAZINE INTERVIEW

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson

 

By Meryle Secrest

...

This article made a big impression on me, and the folk I knew interested in such things, when it appeared in the Jan 1988 Omni (available, like all Omni issues, via archive.org – here). Though Stevenson was known to well-read paranormal and therapeutic psychology pros and enthusiasts then, he wasn’t to me, and after reading so many fringe writers, I found, and continue to find, his scientific rigor delightfully refreshing. (For folk who don’t know Stevenson, the Omni article is a good introduction, as is his wikipedia page)

 

However, I think JMJones’s statement that “there is absolutely no evidence that you will get a second shot at life” agrees with what Stevenson says in Omni, and in his work as a whole. He was careful to stress his research constituted a lack of evidence showing all accounts of remembered past lives or other evidence of reincarnation (for example, birthmarks corresponding to scars) to have explanations other than reincarnation, and that it was not positive evidence of reincarnation.

 

Stevenson’s reincarnation work concluded that there in inadequate scientific data and analysis to reject the possibility of reincarnation, but also inadequate data and analysis to support it. As with many scientists, the lack of a plausible physical mechanism to explain it troubled him.

 

There’s nothing especially difficult about designing an experiment to positively prove that reincarnation occurs. Here’s an example:

1. Alice memorizes a random number N long enough that the chance of guessing it is sufficiently low, short enough that she won’t forget it
   
2. Alice give a copy to N a trusted person Bob, or better, storing a one-way digest of it on a computer including an application, also named Bob, to compare the digest of N to any input.
   
3. Alice dies
   
4. A description of the experiment is published as widely and prominently as possible, including extensive biographical data about Alice
   
5. Carol is born
   
6. Carol reads the description of the experiment, and believe he is the reincarnation of Alice
   
7. Carol supplied her recalled N to Bob, who compares it to its stored value or its digest to the stored digest.
   
8. If Bob finds a match, Carol being a reincarnation of Alice is proven with a confidence determined by the size of the number and the number of attempts by previous claimants A. ([imath]p=(1-\frac1{N})^A[/imath])
   

Stevenson actually started a (statistically weaker) variation of this experiment ca. 1967, using a combination lock on a filing cabinet at UVA. As Stevenson (Alice) died in 2007, candidate Carols could now be as old as 5 years, nearing old enough for the actual experiment’s variation of steps 6+ outlined above. (see the “the locked cabinet” wikipedia section for more)

 

Personally, I’m troubled by the lack of a clear consensus on a philosophical theory of identity needed to sensibly consider the question of reincarnation. The theories that I find most satisfying, such as those of Hofstadter suggest to me that a person who knows enough about another, through ordinary means, can be, for all practical purposes, be considered their reincarnation – even if the original person is still alive.

Edited August 19, 2012 by CraigD
Changed "adequate" to "inadequate" (rather a bad typo!)

[LaurieAG]

Personally, I’m troubled by the lack of a clear consensus on a philosophical theory of identity needed to sensibly consider the question of reincarnation. The theories that I find most satisfying, such as those of Hofstadter suggest to me that a person who knows enough about another, through ordinary means, can be, for all practical purposes, be considered their reincarnation – even if the original person is still alive.

But, for all practical purposes, despite their identical DNA and (in most cases) common upbringing, identical twins are not considered reincarnations of each other.

 

In the case of identical twins the law seems to recognise some deficiencies in the scientific process of proving one off points in relative isolation. A woman who has had unprotected sex with two identical twins cannot sue for paternity because she can not prove who the actual father is.

[Guest Aemilius]

Aemilius "Those are all very interesting perspectives, but when you think about it.... Is the idea of life following death really any stranger than the idea of death following life?"

 

CraigD "To me, yes, in the sense of “strange” meaning “outside of previous experience."

 

I’ve seen countless biological organisms exhibit life followed by death, so “death following life” is not at all strange to me. Rather, “life not followed, within 100 years or so, by death”, fills me with a sense of strangeness (and wonder) when I see (that is, read about) it in very long-lived organisms such as some protozoa, plants, and unusual animals like some tortoises and whales."

 

We're about the same age CraigD, and while I can't claim to have witnessed the life cycles of countless biological organisms (what do you do for a living?), your perspective, like mine and everyone elses, can ultimately be nothing more than just another interesting philosophical perspective. I remain unconvinced that the accumulated personal experience of any individual over the course of just a single lifetime, seen by me as an immeasurably tiny fraction of a cosmic second, could ever really constitute any kind of suitable standard by which one might determine with any degree of certainty what is or isn't "strange" about any aspect of the Universe. I suppose, perhaps, that repeated exposure during this short time to this or that aspect of the Universe may seem to diminish the strangeness of it in the eyes of the beholder, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything is any less strange now than it was the first time one was exposed to it. My guess would be that it probably only means that one has likely become accustomed to the strangeness of that aspect through the process of desensitization.

 

CraigD "The idea of a complex animal, like a human, living, dying, then living again, seems incredibly strange to me. I’ve never seen it happen, nor read of it in any credible work."

 

Well, we're not actually talking about the physical resurrection of an expired organism here, but rather the posthumous persistence of some essential aspect of personality. When one thinks about the concept of reincarnation in comparison to, say, all the endless theoretical musings that go on in the so called "scientific community" about multiple Universes slowing down or speeding up along with the accompanying infinite number of dimensions within it all occupying the same space, dark matter (very funny), time travel, worm holes or one particle magically affecting another particle on the other side of the cosmos.... the idea of reincarnation seems rather ordinary, even boring, about as strange as having a cup of coffee in the morning.

 

JMJones0424 "Make use of the time that you have now, and enjoy the time you have with the ones you love, because there is absolutely no evidence that you will get a second shot at life."

 

CraigD "....I think JMJones’s statement that “there is absolutely no evidence that you will get a second shot at life” agrees with what Stevenson says in Omni, and in his work as a whole."

 

I can't for the life of me fathom how anyone who's actually read his books could possibly manage to distill that conclusion from his work.

 

CraigD "He was careful to stress his research constituted a lack of evidence...."

 

No, actually what he said was "Essentially I say that the idea of reincarnation permits but doesn't compel belief." and that "Even taken together, they (the cases) do not offer anything like proof. But as the body of evidence accumulates, it's more likely that more and more people will see its relevance." Nowhere does he say his lifes work constituted a lack of evidence.

 

CraigD "....showing all accounts of remembered past lives or other evidence of reincarnation (for example, birthmarks corresponding to scars) to have explanations other than reincarnation, and that it was not positive evidence of reincarnation."

 

The birthmarks (and congenital malformations) you mention don't refer to scars at all, they are the alleged remnants of fatal wounds claimed to have been inflicted in the previous incarnation that appear as birthmarks (and congenital malformations) in the following incarnation. Again, not described as unquestionable proof, but certainly evidence worthy of consideration. Nowhere does he indicate that all accounts of remembered past lives have explanations other than reincarnation. As a matter of fact, in many cases, the evidence leaves no other plausible explanation. Have you really read his books?

 

CraigD "Stevenson’s reincarnation work concluded that there in adequate scientific data and analysis to reject the possibility of reincarnation, but also inadequate data and analysis to support it. As with many scientists, the lack of a plausible physical mechanism to explain it troubled him."

 

You seem to be saying here that there is adequate data to reject the possibiltiy of reincarnation, and then rephrase the same remark by saying there is inadequate data to support it all in the same sentence. As for the uncomfortable lack of an available plausible physical mechanism of operation to explain the data, all I can say is that many of the endless theoretical musings of the "scientific community" refered to earlier also lack any plausible physical mechanism, but, mysteriously, that doesn't seem to have hindered in any way the seemingly endless parade of postulation routinely touted as being an "explanation" and granted credibility no matter how outlandish. Perhaps off topic.... just a thought.

 

CraigD "There’s nothing especially difficult about designing an experiment to positively prove that reincarnation occurs. Here’s an example:

 

- Alice memorizes a random number N long enough that the chance of guessing it is sufficiently low, short enough that she won’t forget it

 

- Alice give a copy to N a trusted person Bob, or better, storing a one-way digest of it on a computer including an application, also named Bob, to compare the digest of N to any input. (Debunkers would attack Bobs crediility no matter what measures were taken to keep the information secret.)

 

- Alice dies

 

- Carol is born

 

- Carol reads the description of the experiment, and believe he is the reincarnation of Alice (How does Carol read a discription of the experiment at the age of five?)

- Carol supplied her recalled N to Bob, who compares it to its stored value or its digest to the stored digest. (A five year old is not likely to contact a researcher.)

If Bob finds a match, Carol being a reincarnation of Alice is proven with a confidence determined by the size of the number and the number of attempts by previous claimants...." (Again, debunkers would attack Bobs credibility and find ways to show how he could have falsified the evidence.)

 

Stevenson actually started a (statistically weaker) variation of this experiment ca. 1967, using a combination lock on a filing cabinet at UVA. As Stevenson (Alice) died in 2007, candidate Carols could now be as old as 5 years, nearing old enough for the actual experiment’s variation of steps 6+ outlined above. (see the “the locked cabinet” wikipedia section for more)."

 

Yeah, I'm up on that.... Reminds me a bit of Harry Houdini vowing to make posthumous contact with the world of the living. At first it seems to be a simple proposition, but it's deceptive, as is easily seen by considering just a few of the many possible variables. For instance, one must assume that the description of the experiment, published as widely and prominently as possible (in how many languages?) actually reached all those who would have needed to see it years before. Then one would have to assume that the child remembers the previous incarnation, which not all do. According to the data, the majority of those who do remember a previous incarnation died a violent death, which Mr. Stevenson did not, further decreasing the likelihood that the previous incarnation will be remembered by "Carol". Finally, one must assume that even if the child made an utterance at the appropriate age indicative of knowing the answer, that the parents would have recognized the significance of the utterance and reported it to those concerned.... well, it just gets thinner and thinner. If it did happen though, I suppose it would constitute very convincing evidence, but still.... debunkers would never call it positive proof.

 

CraigD "Personally, I’m troubled by the lack of a clear consensus on a philosophical theory of identity needed to sensibly consider the question of reincarnation."

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of philosophy, the land of no consensus.

 

CraigD "The theories that I find most satisfying, such as those of Hofstadter suggest to me that a person who knows enough about another, through ordinary means, can be, for all practical purposes, be considered their reincarnation – even if the original person is still alive."

 

Honestly, I don't see how a fragmentary, incomplete and probably erroneous knowledge of my personality and life experience, retained by another in the form of a memory, whether I'm living or not, could possibly be interpreted even loosely as reincarnation.... but then again, in the final analysis, as with all things philosophical, it's all subjective isn't it?

 

Emile

Edited August 20, 2012 by Aemilius

[ErlyRisa]

Yeah I wreckon Shite topic

 

seen movie

SLEEPERS

where they "kill" themselves to see "the afterlife"

 

all bshite

 

The only person that gets a kick out of seeing the death moment of a human is the bretheren...

the die-"ee", doesn't get to enjoy the perspective of the one watching the demise of ones self.

 

If say in perhaps the afterlife your nothing but a gif in eden - would you want to see the demise moment of yourself?

 

ie - in your "happy" state - does the state of "happiness" get disturbed?

-yes it does...

 

therefore: Proof of afterlife is not possible, even by the afterlife-ee - they in themselves are nothing more than living out "another" goal set orientation....

 

aka LIFE