Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an interesting read and an interesting hypothesis. I for one will be interested to see the assessment on the science forum. When you post it, I hope you'll give a link.
It is likely to be taken seriously because it sets out a theory and mechanism of human consciousness and how it relates on a Quantum - level to matter/energy in general. It does not relate to religious or theistic claims, so can be assessed purely on its' scientific merits.
I suspect that the analogy to fire won't be in its' favour, but that may not hurt much if the science is valid hypothesis.
I am not sure it will be taken seriously as it has no evidence for Mystic's extrapolation. Mystic even admits the 'task of presenting a rigorous scientific paper on the plausibility of the afterlife is beyond what is achievable with current science'.
But I respect that he has finally posted his hypothesis on the science forum.
That's an interesting read and an interesting hypothesis. I for one will be interested to see the assessment on the science forum. When you post it, I hope you'll give a link.
It is likely to be taken seriously because it sets out a theory and mechanism of human consciousness and how it relates on a Quantum - level to matter/energy in general. It does not relate to religious or theistic claims, so can be assessed purely on its' scientific merits.
I suspect that the analogy to fire won't be in its' favour, but that may not hurt much if the science is valid hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I am not sure it will be taken seriously as it has no evidence for Mystic's extrapolation. Mystic even admits the 'task of presenting a rigorous scientific paper on the plausibility of the afterlife is beyond what is achievable with current science'.
But I respect that he has finally posted his hypothesis on the science forum.
DITTO. I respect Mystic for (a) taking the time; (b) laying out the hypothesis in a methodical, coherent manner; and (c) submitting it for "peer review" in the science forum. From my vantage point, if this (afterlife, survival of consciousness) is "real" or even plausibly real, then I see no reason it should involve religion... even if we can't fully explain or understand with current science.
I find the fire analogy helpful to illustrate the CONCEPT, but suspect it will stop there. This is quite far afield from my scientific areas (though one of them was neuroscience), so I'll just keep it in layman's terms: the energy of fire and the energy of consciousness would seem to be apples and oranges. I do note that Mystic is careful to differentiate the two, but the comparison doesn't help us much beyond the conceptual (i.e. at a mechanistic level). Interesting discussion, however!
Agreed. I thought it was pretty good. Do we have a link to see the responses?
I am not sanguine about any responses in that forum, Arq. I have straddled both sides of the spectrum for most of my adult life as a professional. I have kept my mystic side secret and avoided any and all public exposure of it while actively pursuing my career. There is enormous prejudice in the science community. Any serious connection with such topics is far worse than a Scarlet "A" among professional scientists. But $500,000 might be a significant incentive for some ambitious and brave young Turks to tackle.
I expect they are still considering it, but I can already see some objections. I have raised some myself. If I may use an analogy of my own, breathing. Air is of course all around us (as is quantum and energy) but where it becomes essential to our life (just as quantum and energy is essential for the working of our consciousness and thus our feelings of identity) does not mean that the air is live. I now that an analogy serves to clarify a more complex idea, but it does not validate the idea.
But I'll wait and see what the since -minds there have to say about it. But go after the Foundation award. I suspect they'll consider your effort a strong contender.
I expect they are still considering it, but I can already see some objections. I have raised some myself. If I may use an analogy of my own, breathing. Air is of course all around us (as is quantum and energy) but where it becomes essential to our life (just as quantum and energy is essential for the working of our consciousness and thus our feelings of identity) does not mean that the air is live. I now that an analogy serves to clarify a more complex idea, but it does not validate the idea.
But I'll wait and see what the since -minds there have to say about it. But go after the Foundation award. I suspect they'll consider your effort a strong contender.
The communities and institutions that are involved are very positively disposed to such topics, so I have no doubt of its reception but I have neither the energy nor the interest in the money to pursue it, Arq. Besides, I would consider it a debasement of my spiritual enlightenment to involve it with money. I also consider anathema any publicity or notoriety of any kind as an intrusion of my personal privacy. That's why I prefer anonymity.
There is a fairly straightforward and scientifically possible way to investigate an afterlife now, if the right institutions got behind it. Near death experiences in hospitals, nursing homes, and other controlled medical sites. NDErs almost 100% claim to have out of body experiences and float around the room and even leave the immediate area to go into other rooms. They have reported anecdotally to have seen things impossible for them to see from the bed they were dying in. Relatives in other rooms , complete with descriptions of what they were wearing, objects in rooms and even outside the medical center that were not visible from the bed, etc. One even reported seeing a red tennis shoe on a ledge of a skyscraper not visible in any place but a helicopter hovering above it and out from the building some. I do not claim the legitimacy of these stories, but they would provide an viable avenue of exploration. While some Drs speculate that NDEs are the result of physical effects on the brain and not real, putting objects in places where death is highly possible, such as trauma rooms, nursing care rooms, etc, that are not viewable from the bed, but require leaving the body to get a different vantage point, would give some credibility or doubt to the concept. Seeing controlled experiments while you are "dead" on a hospital bed only viewable from floating at ceiling level ,for example , gives solid evidence. Repeated failures of those having NDEs to identify any of the experiment objects would lend credence to the concept that they are just hallucinations in the brain.
Having "something" that leaves the body but remains the cognizant person outside the body is circumstantial evidence of an afterlife technically, I guess. But if a soul separate from the body were proven, the rest of the story gains much more credence.
Crookall's experiences were so vivid he was absolutely convinced they were real. He set up an experiment where he laid tape around the shadows of objects in a room at a particular point in time - say 11 p.m. During a vivid OOBE at that hour, he found that the shadows did not match at all. Whatever his OOBE may have been, he was not actually out of his body and viewing the room.
The concept of an afterlife has been part of religious thought for ages. The scientific community has largely ignored it for lack of a reasonable paradigm for tackling it. To understand how it is not only possible but probable requires a rather sophisticated understanding of existing science and some plausible but tenuous extrapolations from the latest scientific theories in physics, neuroscience, cosmology, and cold atom physics. Bigelow has placed almost a million dollars on efforts to legitimize the concept. I have neither the energy nor any interest in the money, but perhaps one of you young Turks demanding I discuss this in the science forum where you will tear me a new anus might want to change sides to submit an essay.
I'll have to admit this lost me early-on. However, if consciousness is the fundamental stuff of reality, then there is really no question of "survival" per se. The question is simply whether personal consciousness continues after bodily death or is merged with the universal consciousness.
If anyone is like to win Bigelow's prize, it will be Bernardo Kastrup. I've previously mentioned Kastrup's recent book The Idea of the World, comprising a number of his peer-reviewed articles across a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines in support of the notion that idealism - i.e., consciousness as the fundamental stuff of reality - is more consistent with the scientific evidence than either materialism or dualism.
Crookall's experiences were so vivid he was absolutely convinced they were real. He set up an experiment where he laid tape around the shadows of objects in a room at a particular point in time - say 11 p.m. During a vivid OOBE at that hour, he found that the shadows did not match at all. Whatever his OOBE may have been, he was not actually out of his body and viewing the room.
Um, the smiley face....oh, never mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
