Jump to content

Open minded skepticism


MattMVS7
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientifically, there's no evidence for life after death. Like other supernatural claims, observation essential to scientific enquiry is impossible. No repeatable, testable communications is possible. Trying to test for some "other side" is like trying to observe god(s), it can't be done, almost by definition.

 

The good news is you don't have to misrepresent yourself as a skeptic. A skeptic doubts a conclusion until he's tested it himself, and then decides one way or the other. You have nothing to test, so you can fall back on the best answer, "There's no way to know". It's supernatural, therefore not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientifically, there's no evidence for life after death. Like other supernatural claims, observation essential to scientific enquiry is impossible. No repeatable, testable communications is possible. Trying to test for some "other side" is like trying to observe god(s), it can't be done, almost by definition.

 

The good news is you don't have to misrepresent yourself as a skeptic. A skeptic doubts a conclusion until he's tested it himself, and then decides one way or the other. You have nothing to test, so you can fall back on the best answer, "There's no way to know". It's supernatural, therefore not science.

 

Well, I am open to the possibility that you are wrong here in saying this and that you are only limiting your own personal view to your teachings and upbringing. This is because we do have researchers into the paranormal and ndes (near death experiences) such as Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Dean Radin, etc. who would disagree with your statement here. These are top researchers here.

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I am open to the possibility that you are wrong here in saying this and that you are only limiting your own personal view to your teachings and upbringing. This is because we do have researchers into the paranormal and ndes (near death experiences) such as Pim van Lommel, Sam Parnia, Dean Radin, etc. who would disagree with your statement here. These are top researchers here.

 

Please show me the evidence they have for the supernatural. No claims of eternal consciousness have ever been able to stand up to a decent level of scientific rigor. I don't care if your experts disagree, they're free to present papers at any scientific review, and have their peers check the authenticity of their work. Why haven't they done so?

 

I'm not going by anyone's teachings, nor am I voicing an opinion. There is no evidence of any kind of life after death. It's a fact. The chemical electrical processes in the brain cease, and no test has ever shown that anything "lives on".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is your final question exactly? If you put the knowledge of all people into one, could we decide if there is an afterlife? Seeing how no one has the knowledge of everyone else, the question is unanswerable, isn't it?

 

 

All I can say with certainty is that there is absolutely no conclusive

 

 

The good news is you don't have to misrepresent yourself as a skeptic.

 

I've never understood the label of skeptic. What does it actually mean? It means a person who doesn't believe what he doesn't have evidence for. Isn't that an alternative term for a rational person? The label makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please show me the evidence they have for the supernatural. No claims of eternal consciousness have ever been able to stand up to a decent level of scientific rigor. I don't care if your experts disagree, they're free to present papers at any scientific review, and have their peers check the authenticity of their work. Why haven't they done so?

 

I'm not going by anyone's teachings, nor am I voicing an opinion. There is no evidence of any kind of life after death. It's a fact. The chemical electrical processes in the brain cease, and no test has ever shown that anything "lives on".

 

I am also open to the possibility that you are right and death really is final. However, I would like to point out that upon doing some research into the nde research conducted by Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia, I do at least see a definite potential for the possibility of the soul living on after our physical death. Like I said though, I am undecided and cannot come to any conclusion right now since I am a very open minded person. But there are at least things that add up here such as the fact that the very subtle brain function during the flatline is not sufficient to explain ndes. Experiments have been performed to indicate that the ndes happened during this flatline period since people were able to accurately report the equipment used for their resuscitation.

 

There was a control group who watched resuscitation television programs. These were people who did not have an nde. There was another group who did have ndes. These were people who did not watch resuscitation programs. As it turned out, the nde group reported things much more accurately than the control group. As for peer reviewed research, I know there is some done by Dean Radin. However, I have heard naturalistic scientists such as Sean Carroll state that he doesn't rely on peer review since things are being published in peer review all the time.

 

 

So what is your final question exactly? If you put the knowledge of all people into one, could we decide if there is an afterlife? Seeing how no one has the knowledge of everyone else, the question is unanswerable, isn't it?

 

 

All I can say with certainty is that there is absolutely no conclusive

 

 

I've never understood the label of skeptic. What does it actually mean? It means a person who doesn't believe what he doesn't have evidence for. Isn't that an alternative term for a rational person? The label makes no sense to me.

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is a widely agreed upon consensus that we don't know what agreed upon decision could be made if all knowledge came into one. Based upon that, how can anyone conclude anything right now with their limited knowledge? If the skeptics who claim death is final wish to claim this as fact, then I think it would have to follow that they would also have to say that all collective knowledge should all agree upon death being final and that it would be irrational and biased to think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the label of skeptic. What does it actually mean? It means a person who doesn't believe what he doesn't have evidence for. Isn't that an alternative term for a rational person? The label makes no sense to me.

 

Like theory and logic, skeptic is a misunderstood term. Modern usage has people sitting on an eternal fence, not believing anything.

 

In science, being a skeptic just means you don't accept anyone's assertions unless you can check the evidence for yourself to determine if an explanation is valid or not. You make a decision and move on, but you don't remain skeptical for long.

 

 

 

 

Being open-minded doesn't mean you accept an explanation until it's refuted. Open-mindedness to new ideas doesn't mean you ignore a lack of evidence. Life after death is wishful thinking, and didn't start because we saw evidence of it. Life after death is a concept we want to be true, and have concocted a whole lot of justification for, but have found no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Long post, amigo.

 

Sorry, but I had to stop after the part about that Super Brain having three possible conclusions as to the possibility of life after death. If this Brainiac was indeed was programmed with all possible available knowledge and input on the topic.

 

I disagree vehemently. In such a case, only one possible answer could be arrived at by the Brain.

 

And of course the answer is No. Not possible given all received data. It would also tell you that the very term life after death is contradictory. As the robot from Lost in Space would say....Does not compute! LOL

I am also open to the possibility that you are right and death really is final. However, I would like to point out that upon doing some research into the nde research conducted by Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia, I do at least see a definite potential for the possibility of the soul living on after our physical death. Like I said though, I am undecided and cannot come to any conclusion right now since I am a very open minded person. But there are at least things that add up here such as the fact that the very subtle brain function during the flatline is not sufficient to explain ndes. Experiments have been performed to indicate that the ndes happened during this flatline period since people were able to accurately report the equipment used for their resuscitation.

 

There was a control group who watched resuscitation television programs. These were people who did not have an nde. There was another group who did have ndes. These were people who did not watch resuscitation programs. As it turned out, the nde group reported things much more accurately than the control group. As for peer reviewed research, I know there is some done by Dean Radin. However, I have heard naturalistic scientists such as Sean Carroll state that he doesn't rely on peer review since things are being published in peer review all the time.

 

 

 

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is a widely agreed upon consensus that we don't know what agreed upon decision could be made if all knowledge came into one. Based upon that, how can anyone conclude anything right now with their limited knowledge? If the skeptics who claim death is final wish to claim this as fact, then I think it would have to follow that they would also have to say that all collective knowledge should all agree upon death being final and that it would be irrational and biased to think otherwise.

 

There is absolutely no aspect of alleged experience reported by those who have undergone NDE that cannot be easily and completely explained by Neuroscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is a widely agreed upon consensus that we don't know what agreed upon decision could be made if all knowledge came into one. Based upon that, how can anyone conclude anything right now with their limited knowledge?

 

But we aren't concluding anything. That's what we are saying. There is no evidence, henco no reason to suspect that there is life after death. There very well may be, it is just that we cannot know.

 

However, I would like to point out that upon doing some research into the nde research conducted by Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia, I do at least see a definite potential for the possibility of the soul living on after our physical death.

 

Research has never concluded that there is or isn't life after death. Therefore, researching that research cannot lead you to any conclusion either.

 

 

 

Like theory and logic, skeptic is a misunderstood term. Modern usage has people sitting on an eternal fence, not believing anything.

 

In science, being a skeptic just means you don't accept anyone's assertions unless you can check the evidence for yourself to determine if an explanation is valid or not. You make a decision and move on, but you don't remain skeptical for long.

 

 

 

 

Being open-minded doesn't mean you accept an explanation until it's refuted. Open-mindedness to new ideas doesn't mean you ignore a lack of evidence. Life after death is wishful thinking, and didn't start because we saw evidence of it. Life after death is a concept we want to be true, and have concocted a whole lot of justification for, but have found no evidence.

 

Agreed with everything said here.

 

 

Sorry, but I had to stop after the part about that Super Brain having three possible conclusions as to the possibility of life after death. If this Brainiac was indeed was programmed with all possible available knowledge and input on the topic.

 

I disagree vehemently. In such a case, only one possible answer could be arrived at by the Brain.

 

Obviously. He meant to say that one of the three conclusions would be reached, not all at once...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But we aren't concluding anything. That's what we are saying. There is no evidence, henco no reason to suspect that there is life after death. There very well may be, it is just that we cannot know.

 

 

Research has never concluded that there is or isn't life after death. Therefore, researching that research cannot lead you to any conclusion either.

 

 

 

Agreed with everything said here.

 

 

 

Obviously. He meant to say that one of the three conclusions would be reached, not all at once...

 

I think you have to understand where I am coming from. I am a beginner here and I am open to the possibility that the nde research conducted by Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel as well as the research conducted by Dean Radin is, in fact, evidence and that one just has to dedicate their life to researching into these areas and would eventually arrive at the conclusion that these things are evidence of the paranormal and life after death after many years or even decades of research/debates on this topic. This would even include the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. His model could actually be evidence and that the only thing holding the skeptics back from realizing all of these things are evidence would be their limited knowledge based upon their own teachings and upbringing. However, I am open to the possibility that these things are not evidence at all as skeptics claim. Lastly, I am open to the possibility that we just don't know if any of these things are evidence or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for at least thinking clearly and being honest.

 

By all means, research the subject further but don't claim evidence if you're not sure it really is evidence. The second sentence is a valid point but it's a longshot. It's unlikely you have understood from this research something that experienced researchers haven't. Still, try to be objective. What did the people doing the research conclude from it? I assume they concluded that there is no evidence for an afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for at least thinking clearly and being honest.

 

By all means, research the subject further but don't claim evidence if you're not sure it really is evidence. The second sentence is a valid point but it's a longshot. It's unlikely you have understood from this research something that experienced researchers haven't. Still, try to be objective. What did the people doing the research conclude from it? I assume they concluded that there is no evidence for an afterlife.

 

They have concluded that life after death is highly likely. Pim van Lommel made that conclusion as well as Dean Radin. There are many other top researchers out there who have concluded that life after death is highly likely. I just don't know if there is actual evidence for life after death, no evidence, or if this is all instead just a philosophical topic and nothing more where people debate back and forth all day long, but no conclusion can be reached as to whether there is evidence or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you have to understand where I am coming from. I am a beginner here and I am open to the possibility that the nde research conducted by Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel as well as the research conducted by Dean Radin is, in fact, evidence and that one just has to dedicate their life to researching into these areas and would eventually arrive at the conclusion that these things are evidence of the paranormal and life after death after many years or even decades of research/debates on this topic. This would even include the model of the brain presented by Stuart Hameroff. His model could actually be evidence and that the only thing holding the skeptics back from realizing all of these things are evidence would be their limited knowledge based upon their own teachings and upbringing. However, I am open to the possibility that these things are not evidence at all as skeptics claim. Lastly, I am open to the possibility that we just don't know if any of these things are evidence or not.

 

I've only heard of Dean Radin. IMO, he and other parapsychology researchers fail in their rigor as scientists by assuming that statistical anomalies that can't be explained are automatically evidence that psi energy is at work somehow. Any significant departure from the norm is labeled paranormal, which sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

 

Methodology is important in science. And it's shown that there are no testable, repeatable forms of psychic abilities. No contact from the great beyond. No evidence of an afterlife. So there could be, but there could just as well be nothing. If there is an afterlife, we have no evidence of an interface with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that they could conclude that based on limited research. I want to keep an open mind as well since I have no knowledge of this research, as you have pointed out, but if their conclusions were legitimate and justifiable, then surely the research would be held in very high regard and would be more famous and more commonly referred to. They are susceptible to logical flaws, never mind that they have done more research than other people. Especially if they are biased about it.

 

All in all, you cannot claim evidence, but you can feel free to research the subject further and expand your knowledge on it. As this is a science forum, people are bound to dismiss this for the lack of evidence, which would be reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that they could conclude that based on limited research. I want to keep an open mind as well since I have no knowledge of this research, as you have pointed out, but if their conclusions were legitimate and justifiable, then surely the research would be held in very high regard and would be more famous and more commonly referred to. They are susceptible to logical flaws, never mind that they have done more research than other people. Especially if they are biased about it.

 

All in all, you cannot claim evidence, but you can feel free to research the subject further and expand your knowledge on it. As this is a science forum, people are bound to dismiss this for the lack of evidence, which would be reasonable.

 

Keep in mind that I am still completely open to alternatives to any of the posts being presented by the members here including these recent two posts made in response to me. Instead of jumping and sticking to conclusions, I think one might have to be in the mindset of a god (so to speak) where you are in the realm of all possibilities. I am in that mindset now since I realize that having a truly open mind and being open to all possibilities is the right mindset when coming to a conclusion. I could easily say to you and others that there could be information out there that you are not realizing and this lack of realization is what is resulting in you sticking to the conclusions that your posts here have indicated.

 

Therefore, it doesn't matter what anyone says to me. The only way I can come to the right conclusion would be through extensively researching this topic until I come to a point where I am officially convinced one way or the other. Let's pretend that all the posts that the members have made here in my topic were presented to Dean Radin or Pim van Lommel, then I am quite sure they would not look at these posts and think to themselves that they were so wrong and stupid and that all their research was a waste of time. I am quite sure they would come up with debating arguments against your posts which is the very reason why I have to still remain open minded here and cannot come to any conclusion.

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of jumping and sticking to conclusions, I think one might have to be in the mindset of a god (so to speak) where you are in the realm of all possibilities.

 

I, for one, don't have the time to consider "the realm of all possibilities". I'll stick with what reality reveals. I wish you luck with your considerations, and with the god thing.

 

I'm a Humanist. If gods and afterlives wish to make themselves known to me, I'm happy to consider them. I've made no conclusions, merely set the parameters of reality a bit more strictly than you have. The realm of possibilities is far too large, full of guesswork and wishful thinking. I'll focus my efforts on people and situations I can observe.

 

In choosing reality, I've jumped and stuck to no conclusions. You, on the other hand, are convinced that explanations you can't support are true. Who is jumping, who is sticking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I, for one, don't have the time to consider "the realm of all possibilities". I'll stick with what reality reveals. I wish you luck with your considerations, and with the god thing.

 

I'm a Humanist. If gods and afterlives wish to make themselves known to me, I'm happy to consider them. I've made no conclusions, merely set the parameters of reality a bit more strictly than you have. The realm of possibilities is far too large, full of guesswork and wishful thinking. I'll focus my efforts on people and situations I can observe.

 

In choosing reality, I've jumped and stuck to no conclusions. You, on the other hand, are convinced that explanations you can't support are true. Who is jumping, who is sticking?

 

But what if reality is not of a limited perception such as the one you promote which would be this whole idea that death is final? What if reality is instead completely open to a vast sea of possibilities since we do have highly intelligent scientists and researchers on this subject of life after death after all along with all of its variety of different views such as Buddhism, Christianity (which is claimed to be supported by historical evidence), etc. As of right now, I see a whole entire universe of possibilities and there is just no way for me to decide. I'm not even sure any amount of open minded research can lead me to any conclusion either since perhaps this reality is not limited and is instead open to so many possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what if reality is not of a limited perception such as the one you promote which would be this whole idea that death is final? What if reality is instead completely open to a vast sea of possibilities since we do have highly intelligent scientists and researchers on this subject of life after death after all along with all of its variety of different views such as Buddhism, Christianity (which is claimed to be supported by historical evidence), etc. As of right now, I see a whole entire universe of possibilities and there is just no way for me to decide. I'm not even sure any amount of open minded research can lead me to any conclusion either since perhaps this reality is not limited and is instead open to so many possibilities.

 

You are then no different then you were as a child attempting to guess at what was inside a gift box you were not yet allowed to open. But now you may spend the rest of your life contemplating what's inside this other mystery box trying to guess if its empty or not.

 

I would rather spend my time examining those mysteries that the boundaries of science allow us to shake, poke, sniff, scuff, weigh and measure, X-ray, ultrasound, don't forget about carbon date, CAT-scan and chemically analyze to our hearts content. The first one you will need to wait until your dead to open and learn what's inside it or not.

 

That seems to me a waste of time to devote a life to something that by any reasonable estimate you can put off . . . . . . pretty much . . . . . . . indefinitely. ^_^

Edited by arc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worms crawl in and the worms crawl out.

The ones that go in are lean and thin.

The ones that come out are fat and stout.

Your eyes fall in and your teeth fall out.

Your brain comes tumbling down your snout.

Be merry my friends. Be merry.

 

The Pogues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are then no different then you were as a child attempting to guess at what was inside a gift box you were not yet allowed to open. But now you may spend the rest of your life contemplating what's inside this other mystery box trying to guess if its empty or not.

 

I would rather spend my time examining those mysteries that the boundaries of science allow us to shake, poke, sniff, scuff, weigh and measure, X-ray, ultrasound, don't forget about carbon date, CAT-scan and chemically analyze to our hearts content. The first one you will need to wait until your dead to open and learn what's inside it or not.

 

That seems to me a waste of time to devote a life to something that by any reasonable estimate you can put off . . . . . . pretty much . . . . . . . indefinitely. ^_^

 

I am open to the possibility that you do not need direct evidence of consciousness being independent of the brain such as literally discovering the non local field of consciousness through some sort of advanced technology that can detect it. Rather, perhaps all that is needed to constitute evidence for a mind being independent of brain would be through the types of research conducted by Dean Radin, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, etc. In other words, perhaps you can have other phenomena that pinpoint towards consciousness surviving physical death and perhaps this can constitute as evidence. I hear many skeptics say that you need direct evidence of the paranormal and consciousness independent of brain in order for there to be actual evidence of these things and perhaps they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perhaps they are wrong" - Perhaps - but why would we even think they might be wrong? We have seen no evidence yet that it might be that way at all.

 

If you say Radin et al have got some evidence then you might as well present it here as we have not seen a single piece of evidence so far that suggests consciousness is outside of the brain. Ever, not a single piece so far that hasn't been explained. I would suspect that their evidence is flimsy - let's have a look.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These kind of "scientists" make their conclusions first and sort through the data (if any) until they find something that they could use to convince "open minded" people.

They do ten experiments and publish the one that confirms their conclusion with a significance of 10%, and throw away the other 9 data sets.

 

I hope your openmindedness doesn't turn into the naivity to fall for such bad statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I thought as much... I can't remember who first said "It is important to keep an open mind.... just not so open that your whole brain falls out and goes splat on the floor". (Derren Brown maybe?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Open-minded Scepticism is tautology, as well as a spelling debate.

 

You can have close minded skeptics who are emotionally attached to their worldview and you can have skeptics who have a truly open mind. That is the distinction I am making here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.