Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[George-ananda]

All of those claims were anecdotal stories, before they were tested. By definition. Then they were tested and the results of the tests indicate they do not to hold up to investigation. It's hard to imagine how one could address your objection to "anecdotal stories never hold up to investigation" except by gathering anecdotal claims and doing controlled experiments on them.

Big difference here. The tests that you are talking about are on people who claim REPRODUCIBLE abilities to produce paranormal phenomena.

In an anectdotal story (lets say a patient without any measureable brain activity claims he had a visit with his deceased sister and learned something he didn't know before); the claimant is not claiming anything reproducible for a skeptic to test.

These anectdotal stories are what skeptics try to dump into the never pan out category. This is an unjustified claim as 95% of the time we will never know with certainty.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, sadly, it seems like the majority of people are willing to believe stuff just because they like how it sounds.

I don't believe in believing in stuff just because I like how it sounds. Because a belief may seem subjectively better does not mean it can not also be objectively better too.

Some of the most stunning intellects I've read come from the east and don't share the western view of consciousness. Though you wouldn't think so on RF, in recent decades there is more acceptance of things that before would seem too 'far out' to a skeptic.

I think it's the skeptics that like their beliefs too. They want to keep the universe as simple as possible so it's something they can still wrap their minds around. They like to feel superior to people with unsophisticated supernatural beliefs but they don't fare well against sophisticated supernatural believers.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't believe in believing in stuff just because I like how it sounds. Because a belief may seem subjectively better does not mean it can not also be objectively better too.

Some of the most stunning intellects I've read come from the east and don't share the western view of consciousness. Though you wouldn't think so on RF, in recent decades there is more acceptance of things that before would seem too 'far out' to a skeptic.

It's one thing to follow a certain philosophy. It's another to claim things are happening when there's no evidence for them, and then when asked for evidence, provide anecdotal stories that either don't hold up to questioning or can't be confirmed in the first place.

I think it's the skeptics that like their beliefs too. They want to keep the universe as simple as possible so it's something they can still wrap their minds around. They like to feel superior to people with unsophisticated supernatural beliefs but they don't fare well against sophisticated supernatural believers.

This might be the case sometimes, but it's not usually the case. Most skeptics just like to apply the same standard of evidence to everything. We have no emotional attachment to a particular philosophy, so we use the same level of skepticism towards it as you do towards philosophies other than your own.

And generally skeptics do fare well against supernatural believers of all kinds. I can understand why you think that wouldn't be the case, but objectively speaking it is. This thread is a perfect example. You've been asked for examples that support your claim about the supernatural, and all you've provided are some anecdotes from a book, where we have no more details. I've even asked you for more details, and you ignore it. In fact, you ignore most of what I say, and just keep repeating the same "But you can't prove it wrong".

 

[HonestJoe]

Big difference here. The tests that you are talking about are on people who claim REPRODUCIBLE abilities to produce paranormal phenomena.

In an anectdotal story (lets say a patient without any measureable brain activity claims he had a visit with his deceased sister and learned something he didn't know before); the claimant is not claiming anything reproducible for a skeptic to test.
These anectdotal stories are what skeptics try to dump into the never pan out category. This is an unjustified claim as 95% of the time we will never know with certainty.

I'm not sure what you're expecting "the sceptics" to say. The statements being made here aren't that paranormal phenomena is impossible and can never happen, they are that these anecdotes here (and all those like them) completely fail as evidence for the existence of such things, especially specifically defined phenomena. Not just because they're not repeatable but also because the experiences being reported could be explained by mechanisms which have, in other forms, been supported repeatable evidence.

In balancing the likelihood of the true cause for these events, the options involving known and demonstrated means deserve much more consideration than the ones requiring mechanisms that haven't even been coherently hypothesised, let alone demonstrated possible. That doesn't mean any possibility can be completely dismissed but it does mean that statements such as "This proves an afterlife exists!" most certainly can be.

 

[trot-trot]

Science is about reproducible evidence. And as there is zero evidence to back up his claims, his claims are basically worthless. All he has is at best anecdotal evidence of people telling him about their hallucinations while they were passed out.

That's like me saying that invisible purple unicorns exist because I saw one in a dream once.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Big difference here. The tests that you are talking about are on people who claim REPRODUCIBLE abilities to produce paranormal phenomena.

In an anectdotal story (lets say a patient without any measureable brain activity claims he had a visit with his deceased sister and learned something he didn't know before); the claimant is not claiming anything reproducible for a skeptic to test.

These anectdotal stories are what skeptics try to dump into the never pan out category. This is an unjustified claim as 95% of the time we will never know with certainty.

But by that reasoning, science can hardly tell us anything at all about what goes on in the world. If I tell an anecdotal, non-reproducible story about an avalanche I witnessed, how do we know energy and momentum were conserved? I guess we will never know with certainty. What scientists do is establish conclusions based on the best available evidence. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that every avalanche that has ever occurred probably conserved total energy, based on the reproducible, testable avalanches that have been investigated, even if someone makes non-reproducible, untestable claims to the contrary.

 

[Magic Man]

Think of it this way, George:

A store experiences a robbery, and there is an eye witness. The witness was outside the store and saw the robber run out with all the money. This witness testifies, and it turns out their vision is not that great, and they were actually standing on the other side of the street. They are asked to identify someone after viewing them from a similar distance as they viewed the defendant during the crime, and they are unable to.

The testimony of this witness is then thrown out. Why? Not because it is proven wrong. It's entirely possible the witness saw the defendant. That doesn't mean the defendant didn't do it. It simply means the witness's account is not real evidence, since it's so unreliable.

Same goes for these stories. I'm not saying NDEs have been disproven or that they can't happen. I'm just saying none of the stories we have so far can count as evidence the same way that witness's testimony can't count in that case.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now that we are getting evidence that there is an afterlife, through NDEs and through interaction with the spirit world, the only questions now is which religion is correct. I know, but do you?

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this.

A couple of days ago, the North Korean government announced that they had uncovered scientific evidence for the existence of unicorns.

I went out and spent my life savings on a unicorn breeding farm. It's gonna be great.

 

[George-ananda]

To my friendly foes; Magic Man, Corrhiza, Mr. Sprinkles, Honest Joe, Alceste, etc.
　
For the multiple contributers out there who've been asking me for better details on NDE experiences: A quick search of the internet found that there is an entire book on the subject of NDEs of the Blind by two NDE scientists called:

Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind
by Dr. Kenneth Ring and Dr. Sharon Cooper
　
Here's the Amazon description I found of the book:

"This book investigates the astonishing claim that blind persons, including those blind from birth, can actually "see" during near-death or out-of-body episodes. The authors present their findings in scrupulous detail, investigating case histories of blind persons who have actually reported visual experiences under these conditions."

The reason I'm including the description is the phrase 'in scrupulous detail'. That is just what people on this thread have been asking for. I read that 24 of the 31 patients studied had information not explainable without sight.

The book is available through Amazon. I'd give you the link but RF might give me another hand-slap for providing a link to something for sale. It might be at your local library.

If you want to continue saying there is zero evidence for anything paranormal without looking at the alleged evidence, then I can't respect your opinion.

 

[McBell]

If you want to continue saying there is zero evidence for anything paranormal without looking at the alleged evidence, then I can't respect your opinion.

I am still waiting for some objective empirical evidence of the paranormal that does not rely upon your favourite line of "well, you can't prove it wrong".

 

[George-ananda]

But by that reasoning, science can hardly tell us anything at all about what goes on in the world. If I tell an anecdotal, non-reproducible story about an avalanche I witnessed, how do we know energy and momentum were conserved? I guess we will never know with certainty. What scientists do is establish conclusions based on the best available evidence. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that every avalanche that has ever occurred probably conserved total energy, based on the reproducible, testable avalanches that have been investigated, even if someone makes non-reproducible, untestable claims to the contrary.

Comparing 'conservation of energy in an avalanche' to something as fundamentally mysterious as consciousness/brain activity is to create a strawman. Nobel prizes won't be given for showing 'conservation of energy in an avalanche'. You can get one if you explain consciousness.

 

[George-ananda]

I am still waiting for some objective empirical evidence of the paranormal that does not rely upon your favourite line of "well, you can't prove it wrong".

You must have missed my post immediately preceding yours.

If you think my argument for the paranormal is 'well, you can't prove it wrong' then you haven't read this thread and prefer to believe the mis-interpreted version of George-Ananda.

 

[McBell]

You must have missed my post immediately preceding yours.

Nope.
I am including that post as well.
I mean, I did in fact quote it...

If you think my argument for the paranormal is 'well, you can't prove it wrong' then you haven't read this thread and prefer to believe the mis-interpreted version of George-Ananda.

The only thing you have presented have been nothing more than the claims of those who claim to have had OBE and NDE.

The fact that you are blatantly counting the hits and ignoring the misses, does not help either.

Interesting how you completely ignore the point of my post (objective empirical evidence for the paranormal).
This comes as no surprise seeing as you completely ignored my post commenting on what else the fellow flat out lied about to ratify his beliefs.

your ability to ignore that which you think hurts your "argument" is impressive, but it does not help your "argument"

 

[George-ananda]

The only thing you have presented have been nothing more than the claims of those who claim to have had OBE and NDE.

errr, that is the thread topic we're supposed to be discussing. It's not supposed to be hating any Dr. Alexander or RF poster that thinks the universe is actually a positive place.

This comes as no surprise seeing as you completely ignored my post commenting on what else the fellow flat out lied about to ratify his beliefs.

Please re-read my second sentence above.

Your tone is beneath me and I won't be responding to your replies on this. See my posts and those of my other opponents on this thread to see reasonable ways to debate.

 

[McBell]

errr, that is the thread topic we're supposed to be discussing. It's not supposed to be hating any Dr. Alexander or RF poster that thinks the universe is actually a positive place.

Please re-read my second sentence above.

Your tone is beneath me and I won't be responding to your replies on this. See my posts and those of my other opponents on this thread to see reasonable ways to debate.

So you have absolutely nothing but the claims of people who claim to have had NDE and OBE and are content with hiding behind "well you can't prove it wrong"?

Interestingly enough, I am still waiting for some objective empirical evidence of the paranormal.

Now since you have decided to start hiding behind your over sensitive ego, I will not be holding my breath.

 

[George-ananda]

Think of it this way, George:
A store experiences a robbery, and there is an eye witness. The witness was outside the store and saw the robber run out with all the money. This witness testifies, and it turns out their vision is not that great, and they were actually standing on the other side of the street. They are asked to identify someone after viewing them from a similar distance as they viewed the defendant during the crime, and they are unable to.
The testimony of this witness is then thrown out. Why? Not because it is proven wrong. It's entirely possible the witness saw the defendant. That doesn't mean the defendant didn't do it. It simply means the witness's account is not real evidence, since it's so unreliable.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. So now, I'm throwing blind witnesses at you, not just ones that don't see so well, LOL.

My comeback would be that NDEs are different from store robberies. The concept of store robberies is understood. So in your example, we're just interested in finding out who did the robbery with a presumption of innocence. With the NDE, the entire concept is not understood so what we're interested in is learning about the concept. So all information pro/con should be included with the intelligence to consider the quality of the information.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Comparing 'conservation of energy in an avalanche' to something as fundamentally mysterious as consciousness/brain activity is to create a strawman. Nobel prizes won't be given for showing 'conservation of energy in an avalanche'. You can get one if you explain consciousness.

It's not a straw man. Your argument was about non-testable, non-reproducible anecdotal stories. Instead of an avalanche I could have just as easily used an example from quantum mechanics or many other fields which did indeed garner Nobel prizes. And as a physicist I can assure you that many things we take for granted today, including the mechanics of things like avalanches, were indeed considered "fundamentally mysterious" before they were understood.

 

[Alceste]

This leads me to wonder what else he flat out lied about in order to ratify his beliefs.

I doubt it. Speaking as one with a history of extremely bizarre and vivid dreams, many of which seem to have inexplicable characteristics, I don't doubt that his story is sincere. The trouble is, when you decide you have an explanation for your perception of the experience, you're always wrong. I don't doubt we will one day understand why people have these experiences, but most of the explanations we currently have cannot be true, IMO.

In my case, the alternatives to my preferred explanations for my dreams are not as much fun. For example, I dreamed a guy I'd met traveling in Europe had committed suicide. His old room-mate, when I told him the dream, told me it was true, and seemed very surprised by my dream. For me, it is more fun to go "woooooow" than it is to suspect my friend was just messing with me. The fact is, it doesn't really matter. I've got a big file marked "unexplained" where all such experiences reside. They're certainly not evidence of anything.

 

[George-ananda]

I doubt it. Speaking as one with a history of extremely bizarre and vivid dreams, many of which seem to have inexplicable characteristics, I don't doubt that his story is sincere. The trouble is, when you decide you have an explanation for your perception of the experience, you're always wrong. I don't doubt we will one day understand why people have these experiences, but most of the explanations we currently have cannot be true, IMO.

In my case, the alternatives to my preferred explanations for my dreams are not as much fun. For example, I dreamed a guy I'd met traveling in Europe had committed suicide. His old room-mate, when I told him the dream, told me it was true, and seemed very surprised by my dream. For me, it is more fun to go "woooooow" than it is to suspect my friend was just messing with me. The fact is, it doesn't really matter. I've got a big file marked "unexplained" where all such experiences reside. They're certainly not evidence of anything.

'wooooooow'. One thing isn't clear, did the guy

a) commit suicide
b) not commit suicide
c) You don't know for sure

 

[Alceste]

'wooooooow'. One thing isn't clear, did the guy

a) commit suicide
b) not commit suicide
c) You don't know for sure

The guy's old room-mate told me that a number of details from my dream were true, including that his friend committed suicide. So, it's fun to believe that I zipped from Vancouver over to Nurtingen in my dream and poked around the flat where I met my friend, only to discover that his room-mate had died, the place had been damaged by fire and renovated as student apartments (all of which my friend claims is true). However, there are a number of other possibilities. First and foremost is that my friend who confirmed all the details has a sense of humour that makes no sense to me. Another possible explanation is that I'm remembering it incorrectly, or reporting it incorrectly. Memory is a *****.

I prefer an explanation where I don't have to believe my friend has a twisted sense of humour or that I'm delusional - I like to think that our consciousness is not completely imprisoned in the meat of our bodies - that information can somehow be transmitted and / or received without conscious effort. That makes sense to me because we are mostly composed of empty space and our thoughts are basically electricity, which really jumps around. However, I'm happy to wait for science to explain it to me, even if that means I wait forever and get no answers. If I were to try to conjure up an explanation to believe in based on religious faith, I am certain it would be wrong. Whatever it is is a natural phenomenon, and the natural can be empirically investigated and understood.

Edit: Oh yeah, to answer your question, I don't know. I barely knew the guy, and Nurtingen is a long way from Vancouver.