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.
The OP links to all the winning essays (https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php), you can look for Kastrup's last name from there. Also, the title is "A rational, empirical case for postmortem survival based solely on mainstream science." That actually sounded interesting but I went for many pages and did not see any mainstream science on the topic at hand, peer-reviewed or otherwise. I saw some studies cited that he's using to build his case that physical materialism is completely wrong, which is not what those studies show and I'm not at all sure he's even accurately characterizing physical materialism.
When you write a clickbait title that promises scientific evidence you ought to just produce it rather than whine about having to stick to the science and then disparaging the science. It's almost as if he's about to present a weak argument and is trying to make it seem better than it actually is.
You may not be considering that the paper is part of a contest involving significant monetary awards by an organization and panel of evaluators who are very biased toward an afterlife perspective. That context surely drove his approach to the presentation of his arguments.
You may not be considering that the paper is part of a contest involving significant monetary awards by an organization and panel of evaluators who are very biased toward an afterlife perspective. That context surely drove his approach to the presentation of his arguments.
Oh I'm considering the source so am unsurprised but it is a pretty ballsy title so I thought it might be above average. Still haven't gotten around to finishing it, I have had to do some paying work today ...
The OP links to all the winning essays (https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php), you can look for Kastrup's last name from there. Also, the title is "A rational, empirical case for postmortem survival based solely on mainstream science." That actually sounded interesting but I went for many pages and did not see any mainstream science on the topic at hand, peer-reviewed or otherwise. I saw some studies cited that he's using to build his case that physical materialism is completely wrong, which is not what those studies show and I'm not at all sure he's even accurately characterizing physical materialism.
To be frank this subject bores me. I really don't think much about what happens after the body dies. I believe everything goes back to its elements, the body to earth, the bones to mineral, the air to air, there is no more mind. Fire takes it all. Reincarnation for me is wishful thinking, sometimes a hunger to see my mother again in my granddaughter but it is fleeting. I dont think much about coming back myself, I have a good enough life of love, money and happiness. I am done.
But Consciousness as awareness has nothing to do with all of that. Evidence for Postmortem Survival is not something I get excited about. It is not what Nondualism or Advaita is about. It is about finding peace and happiness within oneself in this life. Its methods work for me and I believe it will for others. Evidence for that is that those practices, without always being credited to Advaita Vedanta, have become part of our lives in several ways - diet, fitness, health, mental health, relationships, work-life balance, and the Happiness Project.
But I like Kastrup's basic premises and his arguments.
What do you mean by "mainstream science"? Is Neuroscience mainstream? Computer Science?
What do you mean by "mainstream science"? Is Neuroscience mainstream? Computer Science?
Well I would assume if he's going to prove after death consciousness with purely scientific arguments, those would be fairly well studied and peer reviewed hypotheses, or why bother? That is what I mean. It could be a hypothesis that hasn't gained a ton of traction if it's a well-designed study by reputable people. I guess I'm really just meaning "not fringe science or crackpot theories masquerading as science".
What do you mean by "mainstream science"? Is Neuroscience mainstream?
Yes, and has provided actual medical benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Computer Science?
A PhD, definitely. My BSc used the discoveries of computer science, but it was not until the last year that we used what we had learned to investigate problems and discover or refute ideas.
Well I would assume if he's going to prove after death consciousness with purely scientific arguments, those would be fairly well studied and peer reviewed hypotheses, or why bother? That is what I mean. It could be a hypothesis that hasn't gained a ton of traction if it's a well-designed study by reputable people. I guess I'm really just meaning "not fringe science or crackpot theories masquerading as science".
He has two Phd one in CS and another in Philosophy. That is as peer reviewed as you can get. I think he would know crackpot science when he sees it and would not peddle in one as he seems quite careful of his reputation. It is paying the bills after all.
I have not had a chance to go through the essay however. That subject does not interest me. I am more interested in accesing the Consciousness pre-mortem. I have no doubt myself that Consciousness does not ever not exist. It IS existence.
If you do no have an account, or do not want to create one, you can look at the source code and read the whole argument that way.
I say apparent flaws because I do not know if his conclusions are based on science that he has not explained in the article, but from this one article, I am not impressed (although he is qualified).
I have opened another article I want to read, but at a quick glance, he has mentioned how the network of galaxies resembles the network of neurons in the brain. Again, I am dubious about his arguments.
Most paywalled articles of almost all media can be read by saving them in Pocket, and reading them there. It doesn't work for the Washington Post though, but almost all others I can read.
Most paywalled articles of almost all media can be read by saving them in Pocket, and reading them there. It doesn't work for the Washington Post though, but almost all others I can read.
This is good information, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes Here is a short article by Kastrup, you can see the apparent flaws in his arguments are.
If you do no have an account, or do not want to create one, you can look at the source code and read the whole argument that way.
I say apparent flaws because I do not know if his conclusions are based on science that he has not explained in the article, but from this one article, I am not impressed (although he is qualified).
I have opened another article I want to read, but at a quick glance, he has mentioned how the network of galaxies resembles the network of neurons in the brain. Again, I am dubious about his arguments.
It is not unusual to be skeptical of what we read or find out. It is unusual to be skeptical only if the finding don't confirm with our own pet bias against religion and spirituality. Then even science can be suspect and that is ok.
He has two Phd one in CS and another in Philosophy. That is as peer reviewed as you can get.
1) that is not how peer review works.
2) Argument from authority. What is important is the evidence for their arguments. We have often seen people argue stupid positions outside of their area of experience, especially philosophers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
I think he would know crackpot science when he sees it and would not peddle in one as he seems quite careful of his reputation. It is paying the bills after all.
Crackpot science pays the bills. That is why people sell snake oil.
It is not unusual to be skeptical of what we read or find out. It is unusual to be skeptical only if the finding don't confirm with our own pet bias against religion and spirituality.
Irrelevant well poisoning fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Then even science can be suspect and that is ok.
Yes, his science appears to be suspect. A part of my degree is based on decades of actual neuroscience which Kastrup appears to ignore.
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.
Again, I am dubious about his arguments.
