Discussion Afterlife (and related) general discussion

[WanderingEremite]

"Your favourite deity". You don't appear to be reading what I'm writing, since I've already pointed out that I have no reason to think that the phenomena I've noted support any specific religious view.

The (obvious) difference between thiocyanate mercury combustion and the phenomena I've described is that the former is in no way scientifically anomalous; conversely, no one can convincingly explain the latter in existing naturalist paradigms -- they are highly anomalous, and indeed directly contradict naturalism in its current form. Since you're just asserting that you're right (on both points), giving no reasons to persuade anyone who isn't already convinced, there's nothing substantive to discuss.

 

[KCN]

"Your favourite deity". You don't appear to be reading what I'm writing, since I've already pointed out that I have no reason to think that the phenomena I've noted support any specific religious view.

English is not my native language, "your favourite deity" was supposed to be impersonal, as a generic statement

they are highly anomalous, and indeed directly contradict naturalism in its current form

That's your personal opinion. As stated before, research needs to figure out little by little what's happening around before being sure that "supernaturalisms" actually exists, if this word makes sense. Quantum physics looks anomalous to most people, but it isn't, for the reason specified in my previous post.

 

[WanderingEremite]

English is not my native language, "your favourite deity" was supposed to be impersonal, as a generic statement



That's your personal opinion. As stated before, research needs to figure out little by little what's happening around before being sure that "supernaturalisms" actually exists, if this word makes sense. Quantum physics looks anomalous to most people, but it isn't, for the reason specified in my previous post.

The fact that something might eventually be explained in a way consistent with current theories doesn't tell us anything about whether it is anomalous. The phenomena I've described are anomalies, given that they lack adequate explanation with reference to existing scientific theories. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact -- my opinion comes in given that I doubt that these anomalies will be explained without the received ontology of most scientists being either substantially reworked or rejected.

 

[KCN]

The phenomena I've described are anomalies, given that they lack adequate explanation with reference to existing scientific theories.

Once again, this is your opinion because you strongly want to believe that the regrowth of a few inches of an internal organ (as if brain and organ plasticity isn't a scientific fact, which it actually is) belongs to a separate superworld and is prompted randomly for a few selected people when the majority dies at any age of whichever disease we could pick up from a list of eponymous and not diseases.

We'll talk again about "supernatural" things when a human head regrows out of nowhere. But still if it happened, I'd spend quite some time into studying the phenomenon before opening the door of what people on merely subjective opinions think it's out of the universe and its rules.

 

[WanderingEremite]

Once again, this is your opinion because you strongly want to believe that the regrowth of a few inches of an internal organ (as if brain and organ plasticity isn't a scientific fact, which it actually is) belongs to a separate superworld and is prompted randomly for a few selected people when the majority dies at any age of whichever disease we could pick up from a list of eponymous and not diseases.

We'll talk again about "supernatural" things when a human head regrows out of nowhere. But still if it happened, I'd spend quite some time into studying the phenomenon before opening the door of what people on merely subjective opinions think it's out of the universe and its rules.

There is, by point of fact, no known mechanism by which the documented intestinal regrowth can occur, making it an anomaly. It is no less anomalous than limb regrowth, as the relevant material I have offered and the medical documentation to which it refers confirm. Your reference to "plasticity" in this context reflects plain ignorance. It is also rather astonishing that you ascribe dogmatic bias to others, yet not to yourself when you offer nothing but evidence-free assertions, mostly false ones, that affirm with all the signs of unthinking religious devotion the truth of naturalism (as currently understood).

Perhaps you don't understand what an anomaly is. That's the most charitable way to make sense of your misuse of the term "opinion." Again, an anomaly is something that deviates from what is expected given current knowledge, and thus isn't explained, not something that we know will never be explained in a way consistent with existing theories. I've described phenomena that qualify as anomalies and have cited works documenting these and explaining why they are anomalous (see, for one example, the Parnia NDE paper that I linked in an earlier post). You've done little other than vaguely refer to scientific knowledge you don't have and that doesn't exist that effectively accounts for these phenomena, rendering them non-anomalous. Then at other points you refer to the incompleteness of physics to indicate that existing anomalies will be explained. You can't seem to decide if there are anomalies that you think will be explained in naturalistic ways or if there simply aren't anomalies. The latter is just false, and again I've already cited a number of works documenting this fact. Your bald assertions to the contrary would be unconvincing to any fair-minded person.

 

[KCN]

There is, by point of fact, no known mechanism by which the documented intestinal regrowth can occur, making it an anomaly

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416194

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ow-the-intestine-replaces-and-repairs-itself/

Perhaps you don't understand what an anomaly is

I do. The chance of each of us being born, for example. Nevertheless it happens

 

[WanderingEremite]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416194

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ow-the-intestine-replaces-and-repairs-itself/



I do. The chance of each of us being born, for example. Nevertheless it happens

"regeneration of the inner intestinal lining" (emphasis added).

This is not the relevant phenomenon. The relevant phenomenon is the complete (and rapid) reappearance of whole sections of intestine, not just the inner lining, that have been destroyed and the remnants of which have then been surgically removed.

 

[KCN]

rapid

to me, rapid means "in the blink of an eye", or less. How many seconds did this person have to wait in order to heal?

nevermind, i have checked out the story

https://www.freethunk.net/freethunk-news-bites/bruce-van-natta-grows-intestines-say-what-2949

9 months with multiple surgeries to recover? This "supernatural" thing looks like a bit of a hoax

 

[WanderingEremite]

to me, rapid means "in the blink of an eye", or less. How many seconds did this person have to wait in order to heal?

If you think it's non-anomalous for an adult to have a huge chunk of their intestine chopped out and then have the small amount of remaining intestine spontaneously double in length, even over a long period of time, I don't think there's any way to get through to you.

 

[KCN]

If you think it's non-anomalous for an adult to have a huge chunk of their intestine chopped out and then have the small amount of remaining intestine spontaneously double in length, even over a long period of time, I don't think there's any way to get through to you.

obviously not.

i have checked out the story

https://www.freethunk.net/freethunk-news-bites/bruce-van-natta-grows-intestines-say-what-2949

9 months with multiple surgeries to recover? This "supernatural" thing looks like a bit of a hoax

 

[WanderingEremite]

obviously not.

I've read this "debunking" already. It simply misrepresents the facts of the case by omitting the testimony of the doctors.

 

[KCN]

the testimony of the doctors.

that does not take part in whatever happens in the actual healing process

 

[WanderingEremite]

that does not take part in whatever happens in the actual healing process

Who said it did? I don't see how you can really think that that's the argument.

 

[KCN]

Who said it did? I don't see how you can really think that that's the argument.

I certainly didn't bring their testimony up like it mattered. What we need is explanations, not wishful thinking and misunderstandings.
A lot of events need time and specific evaluations in order to be figured out.

well, nevermind. Bye

 

[WanderingEremite]

"I certainly didn't bring their testimony up like it mattered."

Given the position you've taken, that isn't surprising, and wasn't the point.

Take care.

I see you've added to your post. Your vague allusion to "misunderstanding," as if you or the other non-doctor you linked to is in a better position to determine what's anomalous here than the doctors who worked on the case, is yet more question-begging. Note that even the pseudoskeptic you linked concedes that the intestinal regrowth would be miraculous if real (he just omits all evidence that it occurred, notably the relevant documentation from doctors Andrew Taylor and Michael Schurr, names that fail to appear in his inept "debunking"). Originally, you laughably tried to argue such regrowth wouldn't even be anomalous if it happened by bringing up irrelevant sources. That you don't notice these inconsistencies doesn't inspire confidence about the value of your judgment on these matters.

 

[MrNobody]

@WanderingEremite

It seems that most of your replies are supported by the following claim - if an event cannot be explained by the current scientific knowledge, it is a miracle.

The arguments that you have provided for this claim are the real-life examples in your replies (specifically the intestine regrowth case). The following points seem to apply to the provided examples:

1) None of these recoveries concern external organs or directly observable objects, therefore cannot be documented with a camera or another continuously working device. In fact, this appears to apply to absolutely all miracles.
2) None of these recoveries appear to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
3) None of these miracles involve you personally, and all are supported only by remote testimonies.

From these, we can conclude that either the God is working very hard to prevent us from producing any non-anecdotal evidence, or that these examples are altered to represent a certain group of people.

Either way, nothing that you have written in your replies appears to have any solid foundation. Perhaps the Lord works in mysterious ways?

 

[WanderingEremite]

@WanderingEremite

It seems that most of your replies are supported by the following claim - if an event cannot be explained by the current scientific knowledge, it is a miracle.

The arguments that you have provided for this claim are the real-life examples in your replies (specifically the intestine regrowth case). The following points seem to apply to the provided examples:

1) None of these recoveries concern external organs or directly observable objects, therefore cannot be documented with a camera or another continuously working device. In fact, this appears to apply to absolutely all miracles.
2) None of these recoveries appear to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
3) None of these miracles involve you personally, and all are supported only by remote testimonies.

From these, we can conclude that either the God is working very hard to prevent us from producing any non-anecdotal evidence, or that these examples are altered to represent a certain group of people.

Either way, nothing that you have written in your replies appears to have any solid foundation. Perhaps the Lord works in mysterious ways?

There is in fact a great deal of evidence that has appeared in peer-reviewed journals of phenomena that are highly anomalous relative to standard naturalist accounts of reality; here's one particularly robust and relevant meta-analysis, which came at the tail end of intense critical scrutiny to which the authors were subjected for earlier related work: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-1188/v2. Lots of this evidence is referred to and can be accessed via links on this page: http://goertzel.org/psi/. Some of these anomalous findings are potentially consistent with the borderline supernaturalist ontology developed by physicist Henry Stapp, which is explained in a number of books from Springer, a major mainstream academic publisher: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642180750 https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319583006#aboutBook.

You must not read my posts very carefully, since I already have linked to peer-reviewed work in mainstream academic journals supportive of my claims. Here are two of the relevant links that I've already posted: https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/110/2/67/2681812 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/.

"None of these recoveries concern external organs." What of the cases of withered limbs and ruined eyes suddenly returning to normal function? Certainly the latter has been extremely well-documented at least for one Louis Bouriette: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html.

"if an event cannot be explained by the current scientific knowledge, it is a miracle"

Perhaps you are wont to think in such clumsy ways, but I hope that, to fair-minded people at least, it is clear at this point that I don't. I have repeatedly emphasized that it is possible that all the anomalies that I've mentioned will eventually be explained in ways consistent with the prevailing naturalist ontology (or ontologies, depending on how one wants to divide up the conceptual space). I predict that such explanations aren't forthcoming, and thus that the anomalies give reason to reject naturalism (at least as currently understood) and atheism (note that my treatment of miracles and of other anomalies has been distinct). The pseudoskeptics, of which you appear to be one, predict that these anomalies won't or shouldn't occasion any serious change to this ontology (or these ontologies), but choose to overreach and say or imply that we know this in light of the history of science. This not only reflects ignorance of the history of science, but is obviously fallacious.

 

[KCN]

That you don't notice these inconsistencies doesn't inspire confidence about the value of your judgment on these matters.

And here we go again with personal attacks, it's getting a bit redundant.
What I'm trying to explain is a concept that doesn't require special medical or scientific knowledge to be grasped. People in general cannot dismiss Naturalism to plug directly into 'supernaturalism', simply because all of the naturalistic explanations haven't still been ruled out as false.

This is a recent news, among the many regarding the cosmological subject:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180718104757.htm

how many years did this *naturalistic* discovery took to be formalized properly? Exactly the whole human history, and the search still needs to continue.

Should we regard all deaths occurring in what people call "bizarre" circumstances (usually labeled that way because of their lack of information) "miraculous"?
Should we label all life "miraculous" just because the chance of each of us existing is in the order of 10 ^ 2,685,000, yet no matter how, new people are born each second?

The answer is: we should not.

Why? Because we need to understand phenomena properly before discarding nature as it is.
I previously talked about quantum physics for this very same reason. Physic itself means natural.
Also, when we chatted about "head regrowth", it's simply something that hasn't happened, neither in a 'natural' nor in a 'supernatural' way. Is supernaturalism that limited?

The very reason we cannot have reliable accounts for this phenomenon is that our neck muscles don't get that proliferation of stem cells like our intestine has.
The ability of the intestine to regenerate cell populations of the so-called intestinal crypts has been naturally documented, especially after surgeries and cyto-toxic treatments during hospitalization, and all that is needed is the survival of a single cell after irradiation or removal of portions from the small intestines, as it is stated in the paper "Stem cells in the gastrointestinal tract".

To sum it up, we should be careful about mislabeling phenomena. Let's make sure that nature has spoken in all of its known and presently unknown languages before we start elaborating pseudoexplanations. There's no need to be in a hurry-- people who are eager to do so are often the ones who need reassurance and comfort in an otherwise careless universe.

 

[Threads]

This is just one step of many grander and magnificent staircases. I don't think the next step is the same for everyone, and I think they all intertwine again and again. I think some of us are going up and some are going down. We're just passing each other by, and we're going to cross paths again and again. What's at the top? I dunno. What's at the bottom? I dunno? Who created it? I dunno? Who maintains it? I dunno? Each question just leads to more questions, so I stopped asking them.

The universe is infinite and constantly expanding at a rate of infinite. Time is eternal. If time is eternal and the universe is infinite. Well. Heh. Here's a thought provoker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

I believe over the course of the eternity of time and infinite of space. We have lived our lives over and over again. All theoretical aside. If I kill myself tonight. I'll eventually do it again. Why? Because over the time of eternity in a universe that is infinitely expanding and never ending, anything and everything will happen over and over again. Eventually.

 

[WanderingEremite]

And here we go again with personal attacks, it's getting a bit redundant.
What I'm trying to explain is a concept that doesn't require special medical or scientific knowledge to be grasped. People in general cannot dismiss Naturalism to plug directly into 'supernaturalism', simply because all of the naturalistic explanations haven't still been ruled out as false.

This is a recent news, among the many regarding the cosmological subject:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180718104757.htm

how many years did this *naturalistic* discovery took to be formalized properly? Exactly the whole human history, and the search still needs to continue.

Should we regard all deaths occurring in what people call "bizarre" circumstances (usually labeled that way because of their lack of information) "miraculous"?
Should we label all life "miraculous" just because the chance of each of us existing is in the order of 10 ^ 2,685,000, yet no matter how, new people are born each second?

The answer is: we should not.

Why? Because we need to understand phenomena properly before discarding nature as it is.
I previously talked about quantum physics for this very same reason. Physic itself means natural.
Also, when we chatted about "head regrowth", it's simply something that hasn't happened, neither in a 'natural' nor in a 'supernatural' way. Is supernaturalism that limited?

The very reason we cannot have reliable accounts for this phenomenon is that our neck muscles don't get that proliferation of stem cells like our intestine has.
The ability of the intestine to regenerate cell populations of the so-called intestinal crypts has been naturally documented, especially after surgeries and cyto-toxic treatments during hospitalization, and all that is needed is the survival of a single cell after irradiation or removal of portions from the small intestines, as it is stated in the paper "Stem cells in the gastrointestinal tract".

To sum it up, we should be careful about mislabeling phenomena. Let's make sure that nature has spoken in all of its known and presently unknown languages before we start elaborating pseudoexplanations. There's no need to be in a hurry-- people who are eager to do so are often the ones who need reassurance and comfort in an otherwise careless universe.

This is just pseudoskeptical fluff.

"people who are eager to do so are often the ones who need reassurance and comfort in an otherwise careless universe"

You complain about personal attacks, yet this is the second time you've written something like this. Again, you're blind to your own inconsistencies, and your beliefs and even statements are seemingly impervious to incoming information, as you repeat over and over points already addressed. For example: "ability of the intestine to regenerate cell populations of the so-called intestinal crypts". Once again, regeneration of the inside of intestines is known to occur. Having whole lengths of intestine surgically removed, only to later regrow, is anomalous. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge even that the hypothetical occurrence of such regrowth would be anomalous is about the surest evidence one could ask for of dogmatism.

"Physic itself means natural."

If quantum physics ends up accommodating, say, postmortem survival of consciousness, it is trivial to quibble over whether this constitutes a true "supernatural" fact. It would completely embarrass the pseudoskeptics and the view of reality to which they desperately cling. I'm less interested in a precise definition of supernaturalism than I am in anomalies that indicate that many of the characteristic claims of supernaturalist belief systems may be true, whether these will be explained by physical theories or will require that some non-physical reality be posited. This is why I have written of my support for supernaturalism or substantially reworked naturalism.

"Because we need to understand phenomena properly before discarding nature as it is"

Once again, advances in science have already involved radical changes to the ontology that is supported by the best physical theories at any given time -- for example, the supplanting of the Newtonian worldview. We have already "discarded nature" as it was, in other words. But skeptics like to forget this and think the prevailing ontology of any given moment will definitely survive forever. You think you're being reasonable when you're just a dogmatist confusing your intuitions about what's reasonable with a scientific basis for anything you're saying.

 

[KCN]

This is just pseudoskeptical fluff.

No, it's the point of all of this yada yada we have been entertaining until now.

and your beliefs

It's because I don't have beliefs that I need to first know what is natural and what isn't before being 100% sure that something violates some natural norms. The believer is actually you, you are eager to find the needle in a terrestrial haystack around Saturn or possibly out of this galaxy. Let's first check out the Earth before moving away

If quantum physics ends up accommodating, say, postmortem survival of consciousness, it is trivial to quibble over whether this constitutes a true "supernatural" fact. It would completely embarrass the pseudoskeptics and the view of reality to which they desperately cling.

Lol, no. It makes a lot of difference. Skeptics will just acknowledge the fact as natural

hypothetical occurrence

we need facts. Suspension of judgement and not beliefs until a proper explanation has been worked out is the right way

However, I'm repeating the same things over and over again, though it's not that difficult to understand them.

-----------------
Whatever, I'll leave everybody who wants to float in delusion forever to abide to the rules of cherry picking, slippery slopes ("Hey, the Sun can turn into a supernova, so why shouldn't I" and related stuff). Best wishes, because they need them

 

[WanderingEremite]

No, it's the point of all of this yada yada we have been entertaining until now.



It's because I don't have beliefs that I need to first know what is natural and what isn't before being 100% sure that something violates some natural norms. The believer is actually you, you are eager to find the needle in a terrestrial haystack around Saturn or possibly out of this galaxy. Let's first check out the Earth before moving away




Lol, no. It makes a lot of difference. Skeptics will just acknowledge the fact as natural



we need facts. Suspension of judgement and not beliefs until a proper explanation has been worked out is the right way

However, I'm repeating the same things over and over again, though it's not that difficult to understand them.

-----------------
Whatever, I'll leave everybody who wants to float in delusion forever to abide to the rules of cherry picking, slippery slopes ("Hey, the Sun can turn into a supernova, so why shouldn't I" and related stuff). Best wishes, because they need them

"Skeptics will just acknowledge the fact as natural"

Evidently you have no knowledge of how skeptics attack various beliefs as "woo," regardless of whether they're couched in naturalist or supernaturalist terms. More of your boundless ignorance on display.

"100% sure"

There is no "100%" certainty in science. Every actual practitioner of science knows this, including me (I work in the molecular genetics of human behavior). Perhaps the ridiculous standards of evidence you maintain explain the nonsense you keep spouting and your caricature model of science.

 

[KCN]

Evidently you have no knowledge of the various beliefs skeptics attack as "woo," regardless of whether they're couched in naturalist or supernaturalist terms. More of your boundless ignorance on display.

That depends on the specific person and the degree of honesty is willing to display. Science has no problem at all in recognizing what they might seem weird facts to the human mind as solid or partial truths, when enough objective evidence, conclusive evidence has been shown.

Also, thanks for addressing the fact that I'm an "ignorant" for the tenth time or so.

Consider this discussion closed.

 

[skitliv]

This is just one step of many grander and magnificent staircases. I don't think the next step is the same for everyone, and I think they all intertwine again and again. I think some of us are going up and some are going down. We're just passing each other by, and we're going to cross paths again and again. What's at the top? I dunno. What's at the bottom? I dunno? Who created it? I dunno? Who maintains it? I dunno? Each question just leads to more questions, so I stopped asking them.

The universe is infinite and constantly expanding at a rate of infinite. Time is eternal. If time is eternal and the universe is infinite. Well. Heh. Here's a thought provoker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

I believe over the course of the eternity of time and infinite of space. We have lived our lives over and over again. All theoretical aside. If I kill myself tonight. I'll eventually do it again. Why? Because over the time of eternity in a universe that is infinitely expanding and never ending, anything and everything will happen over and over again. Eventually.

Interesting yet super scary shit

 

[Vvcv]

Personally, an afterlife sounds much worse than nothingness, because you will probably be trapped in a dystopia and forced to play a role whether you like it or not. It will be horrible to live eternally, I envision myself telling them I am just their slave and I hope I will have the option to opt out for good (kill myself).

 

[itsallover]

I worried about an afterlife. I really don't care at this point. According to my religion I'll go to hell for committing suicide, but I honestly feel like I'm living in hell already here on earth. I just want the pain and suffering to stop and don't care if it takes killing myself.

 

[El Topo]

This thread is a fucking shitshow. lol

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, this article sums up my personal beliefs on the mechanics of it:

https://www.ecosophia.net/a-few-notes-on-reincarnation/

 

[millefeui]

This thread is a fucking shitshow. lol

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, this article sums up my personal beliefs on the mechanics of it:

https://www.ecosophia.net/a-few-notes-on-reincarnation/

I already expected the thread to go south when I created it. Any discussions regarding beliefs and religious content is bound to go south. That said, the thread still is useful because it prevents the 50 threads on afterlife people were making in a daily basis.

 

[ultraviolet sin]

This thread is a fucking shitshow. lol

For those of you who believe in reincarnation, this article sums up my personal beliefs on the mechanics of it:

https://www.ecosophia.net/a-few-notes-on-reincarnation/

I'm considering it now. Thanks for posting.

 

[Comatose11]

I think it's nothingness, and that's how I want it to be. There is even some evidence that near death experiences may be nothing more than hallucinations. (But I respect your view if you think otherwise). The worst nightmare would be reincarnation.