The Transcended Omniverse
Well-Known Member
The subject of life after death is a very important subject to me and it is, therefore, vital to me that I come to the right conclusion as to whether there is life after death, the paranormal, etc. or not. This would come about through researching into everything I possibly can on this topic with a truly open mind. But I have many things on my mind that I would like to point out and discuss in regards to open minded skepticism.
Imagine if there was the ultimate brain created by science right now. This brain does not have the logical fallacies, errors, irrationality, and biases that we as human beings have. This brain has an absolute open mind and comes to the right conclusions based on information being presented to it. Now, from there, imagine if this brain absorbed all information around the world and from all billions of websites/videos including the topic regarding life after death, There would be 3 possible conclusions that this brain could come to.
One conclusion would be that no decision can be made as to whether there is life after death or not. It would be the case that this universe is open to a vast sea of information (different views) and is not limited to the views that skeptics or believers have. I would call it the realm of all possibilities because it would be where you are in this wide open vast sea of possibilities. It is where you can see virtually all possibilities open to you, but no conviction can be made one way or the other.
Another possibility would be that this ultimate brain would conclude that death is very likely to be final which would mean that the skeptics would be right. Lastly, another possibility would be that the afterlife is very likely to exist which would make the believers such as Dean Radin right. In order for me to come to the right conclusion, then I cannot research and come to a conclusion like any normal human being. I have to instead research and come to a conclusion like that ultimate brain created by science from the future.
But I think that can be very difficult to pull off because perhaps our brains just aren't wired for such a task. We are wired for survival and are, therefore, wired in irrational and biased ways. Even though feelings of conviction would arise through my research, I would choose to ignore and set aside these feelings because I would realize they are unreliable. However, these feelings might blind me from seeing the truth and this is one of the things I mean here when I say that we just might not be wired for such a task.
Our brains just aren't perfect. They might be nowhere near perfect regardless of how open minded and intelligent you are. I will give an example here that might illustrate my point. It would be two prominent figures that I am going to point out here as an example. They would be Sean Carroll and Dean Radin. Sean Carroll, based upon his own teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Dean Radin is wrong based upon the amount of information he has read and looked into regarding Dean's research.
But Dean, based upon his teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Sean is wrong. Sean has had a lot of training and education in physics and he would be basing his conclusion regarding Dean's research on a limited amount of information he has read regarding his research. But there would be so much more information to look into regarding his research that Sean would be unaware of. It could be information that would change his worldview eventually down the road if Sean dedicated his life into Dean's research.
The same thing can be said of Dean. But what if both Dean and Sean knew everything that the other knew? Sean would be aware of all of Dean's expertise and research in addition to his own knowledge and Dean would be aware of all of Sean's knowledge in addition to his own. I think this might be a basis for agreement. That is, providing both Dean and Sean are closed minded towards their own worldview, but are willing to have an open mind once one becomes fully aware of the teachings and research of the other.
The same thing can be said in regards to all those other religious believers out there who base their own beliefs upon their own teachings and upbringing. We can just toss out and forget the types of believers who are close minded here and attached to their worldview. I am instead talking about those types of believers who are willing to have a truly open mind. If these believers were to somehow have full awareness of all the teachings of others rather than sticking to their own conclusions based upon their own teachings and upbringings, then I think this might be, again, a basis for agreement providing that these individuals truly develop an open mind and are as flawless as can be in their judgments/thinking.
I will apply this same concept to the skeptics here on this forum. You might think that Dean is unqualified and not a real scientist, but do you really think this simple little statement is enough to rebut all of the research he has done? What if there is much more than what you are realizing here? I am open to that possibility. I am also open to the possibility that the skeptics might be wrong in their judgment of Dean's status as a researcher because I think even this simple little statement can spark an entire debate that opens up many possibilities.
Lastly, I will also apply my argument to a youtube video I've watched in the past which was a debate between Eben Alexander, Raymond Moody, Sean Carroll, and Steven Novella regarding if death was final or not. The audience was instructed to make their decision based upon this debate. But wouldn't coming to a conclusion based upon one single debate be close minded? That debate is like a tiny speck of dust compared to the vast sea of other information and research that is out there for one to look into and be open minded to. To instead come to a conclusion based upon that single debate might be close minded, in my opinion.
There are so many hardcore and professional researchers on this topic of life after death that it makes me take it seriously and to not just dismiss any particular view based upon a few things I've read and looked into here and there. I think in order to truly come to the right conclusion, then you would have to dedicate your life as an open minded researcher on this subject. You cannot stop at any given point and jump to any given conclusion because there might be things you are unaware of out there that could change your worldview. You instead have to go the full 9 yards into researching this topic with a truly open mind. Only then would I think you can arrive at the right conclusion.
These hardcore and professional researchers who believe in life after death could be 8 year olds who believe in Santa Claus in disguise, but I cannot come to that conclusion just yet since I am only a beginner when researching into this subject. Even if there is no evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife, there are still other areas of research into this topic to consider. One of these areas would be the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. What we have here is research that I cannot even begin to comprehend since it is all scientific mumbo jumbo to me and it would take a well-trained science professional to comprehend and, therefore, judge the merit of this information.
I am curious as to why the skeptics think his model is wrong. You would have to be pretty smart to comprehend the research Stuart has done. Even if there is no other form of evidence for the afterlife/paranormal, that still does not dismiss his model as being evidence. This is because maybe perhaps the soul does not interact in this physical world and it only lives on after the brain dies according to Stuart's model. Stuart's model might be likely to be right or it might be likely to be wrong. But, again, how do you know for sure that it is wrong considering all the arguments I have presented here in this post to keep an open mind the whole 9 yards and that you must be a professional to comprehend and judge the merit of certain types of information?
But I don't think there is any way for me to decide. This is because in order to even judge the merit of certain areas of research such as the model presented by Stuart Hameroff, then I myself would have to be an expert in the field of physics, neuroscience, etc. That is why I have to give up on this research because I do not wish to become a neuroscientist or a physicist. Furthermore, everything regarding this subject of life after death is all like a vast sea of information being presented to me right now. It is as if this universe is a vast sea of possibilities and that there is no way for me to be convinced one way or the other.
It even makes Christianity and the doctrine of hell open as a possibility for me since there are also many highly intelligent researchers and apologetics on this subject as well. That is quite worrisome to me. Again, it does not matter what any of the skeptics say here in trying to rebut Christianity and the doctrine of hell. Based upon the arguments I have presented here, I am fully open to all possibilities and all possible arguments that are still out there in this area of research and cannot jump to a conclusion right now. I can only come to the right conclusion after extensive open minded research that goes the whole 9 yards and is a life dedication into this subject.
Like I said before though, my undecided mindset could be right or it could be wrong. But I still have to remain undecided since there is no way for me to know. I have no expertise whatsoever, I am your average person, I don't know how anything works, I hardly know anything about life, I cannot comprehend debates or deeply intellectually involved research, my English format is basic, limited, and simplistic which makes it nearly impossible for me to comprehend the professional formats presented by intelligent authors, scientists, philosophers, and researchers, and it would take me perhaps decades of open minded research and training in order for me to finally arrive at the right conclusion regarding life after death. In other words, I have the right attitude and mindset when approaching this subject, but I do not have what it takes.
Imagine if there was the ultimate brain created by science right now. This brain does not have the logical fallacies, errors, irrationality, and biases that we as human beings have. This brain has an absolute open mind and comes to the right conclusions based on information being presented to it. Now, from there, imagine if this brain absorbed all information around the world and from all billions of websites/videos including the topic regarding life after death, There would be 3 possible conclusions that this brain could come to.
One conclusion would be that no decision can be made as to whether there is life after death or not. It would be the case that this universe is open to a vast sea of information (different views) and is not limited to the views that skeptics or believers have. I would call it the realm of all possibilities because it would be where you are in this wide open vast sea of possibilities. It is where you can see virtually all possibilities open to you, but no conviction can be made one way or the other.
Another possibility would be that this ultimate brain would conclude that death is very likely to be final which would mean that the skeptics would be right. Lastly, another possibility would be that the afterlife is very likely to exist which would make the believers such as Dean Radin right. In order for me to come to the right conclusion, then I cannot research and come to a conclusion like any normal human being. I have to instead research and come to a conclusion like that ultimate brain created by science from the future.
But I think that can be very difficult to pull off because perhaps our brains just aren't wired for such a task. We are wired for survival and are, therefore, wired in irrational and biased ways. Even though feelings of conviction would arise through my research, I would choose to ignore and set aside these feelings because I would realize they are unreliable. However, these feelings might blind me from seeing the truth and this is one of the things I mean here when I say that we just might not be wired for such a task.
Our brains just aren't perfect. They might be nowhere near perfect regardless of how open minded and intelligent you are. I will give an example here that might illustrate my point. It would be two prominent figures that I am going to point out here as an example. They would be Sean Carroll and Dean Radin. Sean Carroll, based upon his own teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Dean Radin is wrong based upon the amount of information he has read and looked into regarding Dean's research.
But Dean, based upon his teachings and upbringing, would conclude that Sean is wrong. Sean has had a lot of training and education in physics and he would be basing his conclusion regarding Dean's research on a limited amount of information he has read regarding his research. But there would be so much more information to look into regarding his research that Sean would be unaware of. It could be information that would change his worldview eventually down the road if Sean dedicated his life into Dean's research.
The same thing can be said of Dean. But what if both Dean and Sean knew everything that the other knew? Sean would be aware of all of Dean's expertise and research in addition to his own knowledge and Dean would be aware of all of Sean's knowledge in addition to his own. I think this might be a basis for agreement. That is, providing both Dean and Sean are closed minded towards their own worldview, but are willing to have an open mind once one becomes fully aware of the teachings and research of the other.
The same thing can be said in regards to all those other religious believers out there who base their own beliefs upon their own teachings and upbringing. We can just toss out and forget the types of believers who are close minded here and attached to their worldview. I am instead talking about those types of believers who are willing to have a truly open mind. If these believers were to somehow have full awareness of all the teachings of others rather than sticking to their own conclusions based upon their own teachings and upbringings, then I think this might be, again, a basis for agreement providing that these individuals truly develop an open mind and are as flawless as can be in their judgments/thinking.
I will apply this same concept to the skeptics here on this forum. You might think that Dean is unqualified and not a real scientist, but do you really think this simple little statement is enough to rebut all of the research he has done? What if there is much more than what you are realizing here? I am open to that possibility. I am also open to the possibility that the skeptics might be wrong in their judgment of Dean's status as a researcher because I think even this simple little statement can spark an entire debate that opens up many possibilities.
Lastly, I will also apply my argument to a youtube video I've watched in the past which was a debate between Eben Alexander, Raymond Moody, Sean Carroll, and Steven Novella regarding if death was final or not. The audience was instructed to make their decision based upon this debate. But wouldn't coming to a conclusion based upon one single debate be close minded? That debate is like a tiny speck of dust compared to the vast sea of other information and research that is out there for one to look into and be open minded to. To instead come to a conclusion based upon that single debate might be close minded, in my opinion.
There are so many hardcore and professional researchers on this topic of life after death that it makes me take it seriously and to not just dismiss any particular view based upon a few things I've read and looked into here and there. I think in order to truly come to the right conclusion, then you would have to dedicate your life as an open minded researcher on this subject. You cannot stop at any given point and jump to any given conclusion because there might be things you are unaware of out there that could change your worldview. You instead have to go the full 9 yards into researching this topic with a truly open mind. Only then would I think you can arrive at the right conclusion.
These hardcore and professional researchers who believe in life after death could be 8 year olds who believe in Santa Claus in disguise, but I cannot come to that conclusion just yet since I am only a beginner when researching into this subject. Even if there is no evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife, there are still other areas of research into this topic to consider. One of these areas would be the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. What we have here is research that I cannot even begin to comprehend since it is all scientific mumbo jumbo to me and it would take a well-trained science professional to comprehend and, therefore, judge the merit of this information.
I am curious as to why the skeptics think his model is wrong. You would have to be pretty smart to comprehend the research Stuart has done. Even if there is no other form of evidence for the afterlife/paranormal, that still does not dismiss his model as being evidence. This is because maybe perhaps the soul does not interact in this physical world and it only lives on after the brain dies according to Stuart's model. Stuart's model might be likely to be right or it might be likely to be wrong. But, again, how do you know for sure that it is wrong considering all the arguments I have presented here in this post to keep an open mind the whole 9 yards and that you must be a professional to comprehend and judge the merit of certain types of information?
But I don't think there is any way for me to decide. This is because in order to even judge the merit of certain areas of research such as the model presented by Stuart Hameroff, then I myself would have to be an expert in the field of physics, neuroscience, etc. That is why I have to give up on this research because I do not wish to become a neuroscientist or a physicist. Furthermore, everything regarding this subject of life after death is all like a vast sea of information being presented to me right now. It is as if this universe is a vast sea of possibilities and that there is no way for me to be convinced one way or the other.
It even makes Christianity and the doctrine of hell open as a possibility for me since there are also many highly intelligent researchers and apologetics on this subject as well. That is quite worrisome to me. Again, it does not matter what any of the skeptics say here in trying to rebut Christianity and the doctrine of hell. Based upon the arguments I have presented here, I am fully open to all possibilities and all possible arguments that are still out there in this area of research and cannot jump to a conclusion right now. I can only come to the right conclusion after extensive open minded research that goes the whole 9 yards and is a life dedication into this subject.
Like I said before though, my undecided mindset could be right or it could be wrong. But I still have to remain undecided since there is no way for me to know. I have no expertise whatsoever, I am your average person, I don't know how anything works, I hardly know anything about life, I cannot comprehend debates or deeply intellectually involved research, my English format is basic, limited, and simplistic which makes it nearly impossible for me to comprehend the professional formats presented by intelligent authors, scientists, philosophers, and researchers, and it would take me perhaps decades of open minded research and training in order for me to finally arrive at the right conclusion regarding life after death. In other words, I have the right attitude and mindset when approaching this subject, but I do not have what it takes.
