What do you think happens once we die? (light, psychic, activity)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

What I would like to recommend for those of you who are on the fence, or just down right don't believe in the possibility of life after death, is an experiment that should enlighten your doubts.

What I would also recommend is that one never construe "I do not see any reason to believe X is true at this time" as "I do not believe X is at all possible and am entirely against the idea".

I see no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.... much less from anyone on THIS thread.... to think there is an after life. So I simply do not operate under subscription to the concept. That is NOT the same as saying I discount any and all possibility of there being one. I am perfectly willing to subscribe to the idea if and when some substantiation for it is offered.

Originally Posted by CALGUY

I know there will be a few on this forum, and perhaps in this very thread that will discount the possibilities of EVP without ever trying it, so to those I can only state, don't knock it till you try it.

The problem with this kind of "Do it yourself" approach is that it stacks the discourse deck solely in the corner of the person (you) recommending it. Why?

Well if someone does NOT do it, you get to call them close minded and declare "See? You are not willing to do the work to prove it because to do so would go against your own biases!".

But if people DO do it and find nothing, you simply get to say "You are not doing it right" or "Keep trying you will get there" or some other rhetoric that explains away the lack of a positive result on behalf of the person who did take your advice and try it. More often than not this rhetoric is some explanation or musings on why the spirits simply have no interest in communicating with that person. The common one is "You doubt it too much so the spirits simply have no interest in you" which I hear more than any other.

And that is BEFORE you get into the problem with EVP and human Bias. We are evolved to find pattern even where none exists. All you have to do is give a subject enough random noise (ocular as well as aural) and eventually they will find pattern in it. The pictures of the "face" on mars for example shows this, especially considering how our species is evolved to find facial patters even where none exist. But one can also watch Micheal Shermer in some of his talks play music backwards. At first people hear nothing. But when he puts up suggested words for those people to find, suddenly they find them all!

And that is even WITHOUT them being biased towards a positive result. Someone like yourself who has already decided there is an after life and that EVP will certainly give a positive result, will be even more prone to the kind of confirmation bias that will feed into the finding of patterns in that noise. Note, for example, how your personal choice of media are ones that are more prone to static and interference and noise, thus giving you more random data to work with to feed the bias, that media that are digital and noiseless.

So no, while I am not closed to the idea of an after life, I am simply not buying "Go try EVP yourself" as an argument for it, and that is Irregardless of whether you believe I myself actually did or did not try it myself in the past. Because as I said if I claim I did not, you will use one rhetoric. But if I actually inform you that I have, you will simply use another.

Originally Posted by CALGUY

When we speak, we give off energy that the spirits hone in on.

Can you evidence this claim in ANY way?

Originally Posted by CALGUY

You may want to contact someone you know that passed on.

Of course you may as this will emotionally increase your investment in a positive result, thus accentuating confirmation bias. It will also give you a mental data set which you can then map onto the random noise to find a pattern.

Originally Posted by CALGUY

I have found that long sentences in a response are never possible.

Of course not, because you are yourself forcing a pattern onto random noise. Therefore the probability of a successful result is mathematically smaller as the length of the result goes up. The possibility of a pattern seeking human suffering from confirmation bias hearing "Yes" or "Hello" is vastly vastly higher than hearing "I am a lumberjack, and its ok".

Originally Posted by CALGUY

If you don't at least give it a try, then you have no cause to say it isn't so.

Exactly the rhetoric I predicted you would fall into when I started replying to this post. I wonder if my prediction of your rhetoric to people who HAVE engaged in it and got NO positive results will be as I predicted.

Originally Posted by CALGUY

I posted links to that broadcast, and still it was not enough proof for some here on the forum.

Maybe because people want controlled lab studies with controls and methodologies in place, not some biased commentator on a TV show designed for entertainment and to maximize viewing numbers.

Take, for example, your claims to James Randi and he will put some very simple controls in place and work with you in evidencing your claims. Not only will he use all his resources to help you.... if you get any kind of positive result in your experiments with him, he will pay you 1 million dollars.

[TVC15]

No one here is talking about magic but you...if you haven't noticed.

And until science can accurately assess what is occurring during a NDE or upon death, then in the meantime this does not equate to anyone running into fantasy land with a la la la la notion of what happens to our energy when we experience a NDE's or death.

To this date science has no explanation for how the brain leads to the development of mind and consciousness. Wouldn't you agree that this is a really important piece of the design to understand?

Get it now? I personally don't believe that in our lifetime we will develop a measuring device sensitive enough to account for what happens to our energy or consciousness when we die.

Until we do you are just merely speculating.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No one here is talking about magic but you...if you haven't noticed.

Those suggesting that there is an after life off the back of the data set we currently have available ARE entering into "magical" land, yes. There is simply no data supporting such a conclusion, much less from you.

Originally Posted by TVC15

And until science can accurately assess what is occurring during a NDE in the meantime this does not equate to anyone running into fantasy land with the notion of what happens to our energy when we experience these NDE's or death.

Fantasy land is EXACTLY what it is. We simply have an open question. Research and Study needs to be done into that open question. Anyone jumping to conclusions BEFORE such data is available, is in fantasy land.

Originally Posted by TVC15

To this date science has no explanation for how the brain leads to the development of mind and consciousness. Do you agree that this is a really important piece of the puzzle to understand?

Not only do I agree with this, I have said it myself.

But "We do not fully understand how consciousness works" does not allow us to leap to "Therefore there is reason to expect consciousness survives the death of the brain".

THAT is a leap that is not just slightly, but entirely unwarranted given the data set at this time. Get it now?

Originally Posted by TVC15

I personally don't believe that in our lifetime we will develop a measuring device sensitive enough to account for what happens to our energy or consciousness when we die.

What energy _exactly_ are you referring to? Because as I said multiple times, while we might not understand the processes USING the energy in our body and brain, we understand just fine the energy that is there, how it got there, and where it "Goes".

What I am unclear on at this time therefore is if:

1) You are suggesting that we have measured some energy at some point, and we have not identified where it goes at death.... if so I am merely asking you which energy you are referring to or

2) You are suggesting the existence of another energy that we have NOT yet measured and postulating where THAT "goes"...... is fo I am merely asking you how you have substantiated the existence of this energy.

3) Something else that you have not explained to the point where I am seeing what it is you are saying.

It would greatly help the quality of this conversation if you let me know if it is 1, 2, or 3, then clarify and quantify your ACTUAL claims better for me.

So far the quality of your argument APPEARS to be summarize to "We do not know some stuff.... therefore after life". Until we do you are just merely speculating randomly.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Those suggesting that there is an after life off the back of the data set we currently have available ARE entering into "magical" land, yes. There is simply no data supporting such a conclusion, much less from you.

I don't need to waste my time reading the rest I can make my point from this example of your thinking.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the Universe really doesn't work that way. It does not revolve around earthling man created and calculated data sets and perceptions.

We've hardly scraped the surface with respect to understanding and explaining the Universe and the same can be said about the brain.

Sounds like you've drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by TVC15

I don't need to waste my time reading the rest I can make my point from this example of your thinking.

So you can not even be bothered reading the entire posts of people who do not share your position. That says much about you, and nothing about me. I asked you some VERY clear and VERY concise questions which were designed to further discourse between us, and get you to clarify your position, and you simply engage in "dodge" tactics.

Originally Posted by TVC15

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the Universe really doesn't work that way. It does not revolve around earthling man created and calculated data sets and perceptions.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the Universe really does work the way it works without it having anything to do with us, and this throws up questions to us.

And when answering those questions we have two choices.

1) We can simply make up whatever explanations that please us personally and run with them or

2) We can compile as much data as we can, and then postulate explanations based on that data set.

You appear to want to go with option 1. I live by option 2. Sounds like you've drank too much of the Kool-Aid while I want to live in the real world, using real substantiations.

Originally Posted by TVC15

We've hardly scraped the surface with respect to understanding and explaining the Universe and the same can be said about the brain.

And I have wholly and entirely agreed with that. So I am not sure why you feel compelled to re-state it in every post. The fact we know SO LITTLE about some things means we should be EXTRA cautious about jumping to fantastical conclusions just because those conclusions please you.

We do not know many things. But we also do not know nothing. We know many things about the brain and human consciousness. Our data set is FAR from complete, we have both acknowledged that. But we can see trends within that data set.

And one MASSIVE trend is that 100% of our knowledge thus far links human consciousness inextricably to the brain. 0% of our knowledge so far suggests any kind of divide, disconnect, or ability of the former to exist without the latter.

Therefore any conclusions, such as "after life" that suggest such a disconnect, are being doing entirely based on fantasy. Again, sorry to "break that to you" but it is simply a fact. The claim there is an after life is a claim that is currently not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacking in any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it in even the smallest way or lend it a modicum of credence.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

So you can not even be bothered reading the entire posts of people who do not share your position.

No it's just that I am wise enough to know it's going to be nothing more but the same old song and dance.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

And when answering those questions we have two choices.

1) We can simply make up whatever explanations that please us personally and run with them or

2) We can compile as much data as we can, and then postulate explanations based on that data set.

I disagree with #1 on your list and #2 is utterly nonsensical. We both agree that to this date science has no explanation for how the brain leads to the development of mind and consciousness. And that this is really a very important piece of the puzzle to understand? Now back to option #1. What proof do you have that anyone on this planet is making up whatever explanations and running with them? You clearly display someone who drank the Kool-Aid a little bit too long.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

You appear to want to go with option 1. I live by option 2. Sounds like you've drank too much of the Kool-Aid while I want to live in the real world, using real substantiations.

Sorry once again to have to break it to you, but we both live in this real world. You just drank more Kool-Aid than I was willing to.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Therefore any conclusions, such as "after life" that suggest such a disconnect, are being doing entirely based on fantasy.

And what evidence do you have for both of these silly claims?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No it's just that I am wise enough to know it's going to be nothing more but the same old song and dance.

So as I said: you can not even be bothered reading the entire posts of people who do not share your position.

Originally Posted by TVC15

I disagree with #1 on your list and #2 is utterly nonsensical.

Sorry once again to have to break it to you, but you disagree with #1 yet it appears to be what you are actually doing. Sorry once again to have to break it to you, but you clearly display someone who drank the Kool-Aid a little bit too long.

Simply calling #2 nonsensical says nothing. You can either explain what is nonsensical about it, or you are merely indicating YOU do not understand it. There is nothing nonsensical about suggesting that if we have an open question, that we seek data to help us answer that question. What part of that do you have issue with?

Originally Posted by TVC15

We both agree that to this date science has no explanation for how the brain leads to the development of mind and consciousness.

Yes, we have agreed with this multiple times, yet you feel the need to keep returning to it. You clearly display someone who drank the Kool-Aid a little bit too long.

Originally Posted by TVC15

Now back to option #1. What proof do you have that anyone on this planet is making up whatever explanations and running with them?

Sorry once again to have to break it to you, but as I said: If someone is postulating an after life, they are doing so with no data, arguments, evidence or reasoning that they have presented. If you feel there is some substantiation for the existence of an after life then by all means present it. I am all ears.

Sorry once again to have to break it to you however, but so far your entire position appears to be "We do not fully understand consciousness". And that fact, and I agree it is a fact, is NOT evidence for an after life. You just drank more Kool-Aid than I was willing to.

What is your obsession with throw away comments about Kool Aid anyway? I do not even know what it is. Can we just stick to the topic without such pointless throw away comments that, clearly, we can both simply paste into our posts for no reason other than to have them there?

Originally Posted by TVC15

And what evidence do you have for both of these silly claims?

Huh? I explained the basis of that position very clearly in post #295 in the final two paragraphs. What exactly is it you are asking here? Or is it another case of, like you admitted already, you simply could not be bothered to read the entire post before you replied to it?

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

We can compile as much data as we can, and then postulate explanations based on that data set.

This is your fallacy. You can easily substitute in the word speculate for postulate. Sure you can speculate all you want based on the missing data that you don't even know what it is or have a measuring device to measure it.

There is not enough data to postulate that we know how consciousness developed or what drives it nor have we collected enough data to say that we know exactly where our energy and consciousness goes during a NDE or death.

And don't forget that we don't have a tool to measure any of these unknown processes. So sure go right on ahead and speculate on this missing data all you want.

Also don't confuse afterlife with the concepts here. Could you please explain what you mean when you say afterlife?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by TVC15

This is your fallacy.

Simply calling it a fallacy is no more effective than pointless comments about Kool Aid. There is nothing fallacious about suggesting that if you have an open question, that the best thing you can do is find and compile data to help you answer that question.

If that is a fallacy then explain how and why. Merely calling it one, will not magically make it acquire that attribute.

Originally Posted by TVC15

There is not enough data to postulate that we know how consciousness developed

So you keep saying. But as I said, that means we can be LESS confident about the after life fantasy, not more so. Until such time as we understand consciousness we are in no position to claim there is an after life. Especially when not just some, but ALL of the data we currently have on the subject shows no disconnect possible or existing between the brain and human consciousness.

Originally Posted by TVC15

we know exactly where our energy and consciousness goes during a NDE or death.

What energy are you referring to and what do you mean by where it "goes". There is no reason to think the energy state of the body has changed between going into an NDE, having one, and ending it. I asked this already and you dodged, so I will ask again:

What energy _exactly_ are you referring to? Because as I said multiple times, while we might not understand the processes USING the energy in our body and brain, we understand just fine the energy that is there, how it got there, and where it "Goes".

What I am unclear on at this time therefore is if:

1) You are suggesting that we have measured some energy at some point, and we have not identified where it goes at death.... if so I am merely asking you which energy you are referring to or

2) You are suggesting the existence of another energy that we have NOT yet measured and postulating where THAT "goes"...... is fo I am merely asking you how you have substantiated the existence of this energy.

3) Something else that you have not explained to the point where I am seeing what it is you are saying.

It would greatly help the quality of this conversation if you let me know if it is 1, 2, or 3, then clarify and quantify your ACTUAL claims better for me.

Originally Posted by TVC15

And don't forget that we don't have a tool to measure any of these unknown processes. So sure go right on ahead and speculate on this missing data all you want.

Yet I have been doing no such thing. Only you have. All I have been doing is commenting on the not just slight, but COMPLETE, lack of any data that substantiates the claims about an after life. That is all I have said, and you have not even attempted to rebut that claim, let alone managed to do so.

Originally Posted by TVC15

Also don't confuse afterlife with the concepts here. Could you please explain what you mean when you say afterlife?

I already did multiple times. But I am more than happy to do so again. By "after life" I am talking about ANY and ALL states where human subjectivity, consciousness or awareness survives the complete death of the human brain.

As a subset to that, for the purposes of this discussion, I am also speaking of human subjectivity, consciousness or awareness operating in any way independent of the brain.

I can not make my definition any clearer than that, but if you have any SPECIFIC questions about it, I am happy to answer them.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

What energy are you referring to and what do you mean by where it "goes". There is no reason to think the energy state of the body has changed between going into an NDE, having one, and ending it. I asked this already and you dodged, so I will ask again:

What energy _exactly_ are you referring to? Because as I said multiple times, while we might not understand the processes USING the energy in our body and brain, we understand just fine the energy that is there, how it got there, and where it "Goes".

I am only going to address this since the rest of your post is once again nonsensical ramblings.

You tell me what energy? We know that we have conscious energy right? But do we know the composition or structure of this energy? Do you get it now?

And now you are trying to make us drink the same Kool-Aid that has you thinking that we know exactly what happens to our conscious energy when we die?

So how do you expect me to tell you exactly what energy I am talking about? I know conscious energy exits; however no one can describe it's composition or structure. We don't even understand how it was created or formed. So how are we going to claim that we know what happens to this energy when we die?

Can you enlighten us all with your Dunning–Kruger effect style what exactly conscious energy is? There is no doubt that it exists but what is it?