A Realistic Afterlife

a reply to: Aural

Noticed a flaw i didnt cover. Although i do like to view to memories of someone as a sort of copy or part of them, which ive hear elsewhere before, but you failed to, in your rejection of someone seeing someone as in an afterlife, take into account a persons personal view and flawed memories do not perfectly represent them to begin with thus your own memories are a dishonor by your view as they can be somewhat fantacy in their own way. Yes it is better to think of someones life rather than death but if you dont beleive in an afterlife who are you insulting? Who would take offense? Its only particularly insulting if it highly violates their own beleifs thus offending their family or friends possibly although this complicated so there is no single one way to look at or deal with a person being gone.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

And the name is a mix between "Les Miserables" by Hugo and "Le Misanthrope" by Molière.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I am an animal. I will die like they do. And if they have an afterlife then I probably do too. If they don't then I probably don't either.

Someone told me the fear of death stems from the fear of life. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but I wanted to share.

Jonny—a voice of reason. I cannot disagree.

Life and death are essentially the same process. It's like if one fears the head of a snake more than the tail, it still nonetheless fears the snake.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sorry, I figured it would be hard to understand my wording. You say that it does a dishonour to someone to have people think of them being in like heaven or whatever stuff they may. I suppose another variant of this would be "what would they have said to me?" or something like that. Your argument was that this is placing a false image of them? What I was saying is that any memories of someone is in some way still a false representation of someone. Human memory is not perfect but on top of this our own views of a person makes us see them differently thann they really are. So no matter if someone reminisces about someones life or imagines them as if still around its still not going to be exactly as they really were. Its only a representation of it. Different people will see the same person as different from each other persons view. I dont think its that bad to imagine someone around as if they still were.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But whether or not we have what we term a "soul" that exists past death is far from being a resovled question.
And I doubt we ever will be able to know with any certainty.

It's really quite simple, if "spirit" exists, it's obviously something quiet different than what we see in our material existence.
So using materialistic principles to confirm or deny such a thing is silly, at best.

a reply to: Aural

I remember reading a book that posited there was an afterlife.
So long as you were remembered on Earth.
Then you sort of just disapeared.

As far as those in that afterlife are concerned.

It was quite good.
I highly recommend it.

From Kevin Brockmeier, one of this generation's most inventive young writers, comes a striking new novel about death, life, and the mysterious place in between. The City is inhabited by those who have departed Earth but are still remembered by the living. They will reside in this afterlife until they are completely forgotten. But the City is shrinking, and the residents clearing out. Some of the holdouts, like Luka Sims, who produces the City’s only newspaper, are wondering what exactly is going on. Others, like Coleman Kinzler, believe it is the beginning of the end. Meanwhile, Laura Byrd is trapped in an Antarctic research station, her supplies are running low, her radio finds only static, and the power is failing. With little choice, Laura sets out across the ice to look for help, but time is running out. Kevin Brockmeier alternates these two storylines to create a lyrical and haunting story about love, loss and the power of memory.

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

But whether or not we have what we term a "soul" that exists past death is far from being a resovled question.
And I doubt we ever will be able to know with any certainty.

It's really quite simple, if "spirit" exists, it's obviously something quiet different than what we see in our material existence.
So using materialistic principles to confirm or deny such a thing is silly, at best.

So one must use spiritual or non-material principles? Speaking of silly.

It’s really not that simple. If it is indeed something, it must in some way be detectable. If it isn’t then it isn’t obvious, nor a thing, nor simple. It has no way to operate within a material existence if it cannot affect nor be affected by anything material. If it doesn’t possess enough materiality to affect nor be affected by material things, then it is nothing. Isn’t that more simple?

If one considers what the brain does on behalf of the body (turning survival dictates into action items, after comparing/contrasting input information with "memory cloud" residual perception fact information) then the whole question of "afterlife" becomes a question of exactly what is this "generated output" of the brain; what are its physical properties.

Obviously, the brain translates DNA predilections into dynamic response/initiation survival activities, and in the case of Homo Sapiens, that includes communication, rumination, creativity, innovation, planning, coordinating, judgment, and all the higher functionality that we call conscious awareness. DNA predilections are information based, regardless of how you trigger the material system to retrieve that information. Seriously. No responsible scientist actually believes that proteins have determinative capabilities, so don't even bother going there as a strict reductionist. That foolishness was put to rest decades ago, even if no one can honestly say where the "dynamicism" sparks within life. What has been settled is that no tubulals or proteins or genes have selfish determination, as is the case with all material composites of any stripe.

The most plausible answer is information, and - of course - I'm not referring to recorded data or 1's and 0's within some lame-ass cosmic computer simulation (as is claimed by those whose minds simply can't extend beyond whatever's breaking as brand new at Micro Center). Information, in the form of system precedent, system identity, and success-determined precedence within a given system (as in natural law and the laws of physics). That kind of information. The naturally occurring kind of information.

If you include that information within a very specific confluence, you can end up with an Emergent System that one very respected neuroscientist believes to be the human mind; a very unique form of information. And the thing about information is that it's not dependent upon a material system for its ongoing existence.

I won't debate this issue, since I've already debated it to death on this site, but I did want to offer what amounts to extremely cutting edge thinking on the notion of a material system's capacity to create an emergent system that is physically based as information, even as it retains the dynamic process characteristics of the activity that brought it into physical existence. It's not settled science (yet) but it's not metaphysics either. It's something new that - from my own years of research - stands up to scientific scrutiny, even if experimental empiricism has yet to catch up to it with anything resembling adequate technology.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Scientists cant even detect dimensions above ours, paralelle universes, or even dark matter. The last one is widely accepted as real with no actual proof, only the gaps. And those are things they at least have some idea what they are detecting and looking for.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So one must use spiritual or non-material principles? Speaking of silly.

I didn't say that now did I?
Nice strawman though.

You seem to have forgotten that I said, quite plainly, that I wasn't even sure if such a thing as a soul exists.
So claiming something like that would be rather contradictive to my over all stance.

It’s really not that simple. If it is indeed something, it must in some way be detectable.

Yes, actually it is.
Why should it be in some way detectable?
Some god or higher power commands it to be so?
You do?
Scientists do?
Bob from down the street does?

And even then, there is some rather strange unexplained phenomena.

If it isn’t then it isn’t obvious, nor a thing, nor simple. If it doesn’t possess enough materiality to affect nor be affected by material things, then it is nothing.

Again.
"Lack of proof is not proof of lack."
To think otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignoratum".
Or do you think science has completely left the rules of logic behind?
If that is the case I would love to hear your reasoning.

Isn’t that more simple?

Not really, for the reasons I said above.

Oh, and what Aural said.

In my life I have questioned my existence quite a bit and dealt with bouts of depression. I ask: "am I really helping anyone?" or "am I just making problems and wasting resources?" With Christianity there is the foolproof 'all sinners go to hell' and 'suicide is a horrible sin' catch all for this scenario. For obvious reasons, I hardly trust religions.

The afterlife can be a tricky idea. What's to say I am not 'done' with this life? Have I learned my lessons? Am I ready to move on? If you do believe that life after death exists and it can be eternally blissful, what's to stop you from intentionally causing your own death to 'go' to this place?

I really like this piece because you put to words an idea that has kept me AWAY from these dark lines of thinking. All of these resources that have been invested in me would be wasted if I were to end my life now. Every word, every action, everything I do gets reflected in everyone around me to some degree.

Lets say I tell my friend Joe a joke, then he tells 3 people, who all tell 3 people, for the rest of humanity. There is me, the original thinker, who created that joke and brought a smile to an unpredictable amount of faces just from that one moment. All of the moments in our lives add up in futures of everyone in the world around us.

I generally agree that information can be 'learned' through dreaming and there is more to the idea of information and energy that we are let on too. However, when you are led to this type of perfect-logic-concrete-evidence only thinking (where there's is no room for speculation, similar to math as another user pointed out) I am left to the same conclusions as you: we must help others and teach them what we know, we should debate ideas and present evidence. Where there is no evidence: research, hypothesis, test, study, discuss, and innovate.

The information we pass on in our lifetime is our legacy that is our 'after' life. We must avoid obfuscating this idea with spirituality to be more useful as a person. Excellent post.

On a side note, you should check out the movie "The Living"

a reply to: OrphanApology

Being verbose is not a skill. That said, "lots of practice" produces tighter writing, OrphanApology, and I'm with LesMisanthrope--avoid cliches, even the ones he/she used in the original post. Plenty of reading, plenty of writing.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I didn't say that now did I?
Nice strawman though.

You seem to have forgotten that I said, quite plainly, that I wasn't even sure if such a thing as a soul exists.

This is what you said: “So using materialistic principles to confirm or deny such a thing is silly, at best.”

Then I said this: “So one must use spiritual or non-material principles? Speaking of silly.”

Then you said this: “You seem to have forgotten that I said, quite plainly, that I wasn't even sure if such a thing as a soul exists. So claiming something like that would be rather contradictive to my over all stance.”….when you just claimed something like that. Your ipse dixit is showing.

Yes, actually it is.
Why should it be in some way detectable?
Some god or higher power commands it to be so?
You do?
Scientists do?
Bob from down the street does?

Why should it be? The answer is the same as “why shouldn’t it be”. It’s a ridiculous question with no right or wrong answer. It isn’t an argument. You’re just making bare assertions at this point.

Put an argument together, name examples of things that are not detectable, and try to make something convincing rather than wasting people’s time. You’re just moving the goal posts and cherry picking.

Again.
"Lack of proof is not proof of lack."
To think otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignoratum".
Or do you think science has completely left the rules of logic behind?
If that is the case I would love to hear your reasoning.

Asserting it again and again isn’t going to make it right. When you open up your wallet and there is no money in there, that is proof there is no money in there. We’ve searched all over the body, inside and out, and have found nothing we can call a soul. That is positive evidence, not lack of evidence.

Is this insufficient evidence for you? Is there some places we forgot to look? Is there some sort of substance you are aware of that is not detectable? Then how is not finding something in the spot it has always been postulated to be not evidence of absence? Make an argument.

Oh, and what Aural said.

There are multiple lines of collaborating evidence for something of that sort existing, and “dark matter” is the hypothesis. Usually, there is reason to make a hypothesis.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I’ve had a life-changing waking life. What I think about in hibernation has little to no effect on my waking life. In fact, it is the other way around— I’ve had a dream changing life.

Then you've shown my point. Dreams, lucid or not, generally have zero lasting effect on our normal lives. Most people forget their dream entirely after just 10mins of being awake. So if you want to explain away the NDE as nothing more than a dream, shouldn't it then beg the question of why so many people are remembering them so vividly? Why do these "dreams" have such a profound effect on their lives (e.g erasing all fears of death)? How does a dying brain (perhaps approaching the threshold of brain damage) recall these "dreams" so clearly?

What I said was that neurobiology has an affect on these experiences, i.e. that . Is this out of the question for you? Is this invalid?

Of course it's plausible, Les Mis. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. But you're not standing behind what you actually said in your OP, in particular the first 3 paragraphs. You came no where near offering a plausible explanation in the vein of "neurobiology could explain the meeting of loved ones, memories flashing before the eyes, white lights, out of body experiences etc as the dying of neuronal connections." That would have been the honest thing to say. But unfortunately yours came off as more of an agenda driven diatribe.

It is the interpretation of these experiences that is influenced by the culture and religion. Interpretations of near death experiences does not equal proof of the afterlife.

Perhaps this is true, but how does this invalidate the type of experiences these people had? What would equal proof of an afterlife experience?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Then you've shown my point. Dreams, lucid or not, generally have zero lasting effect on our normal lives. Most people forget their dream entirely after just 10mins of being awake. So if you want to explain away the NDE as nothing more than a dream, shouldn't it then beg the question of why so many people are remembering them so vividly? Why do these "dreams" have such a profound effect on their lives (e.g erasing all fears of death)? How does a dying brain (perhaps approaching the threshold of brain damage) recall these "dreams" so clearly?

If you are asking for my opinion on the matter, I would argue it is a matter of trauma. Traumatic experiences, for instance nearly dying, can have profound and lasting effects on people’s lives. The delusions could be brought on by the dying or reviving of the brain, just as they could be brought on by narcotics, sleep deprivation, injury, illness etc.

Of course it's plausible, Les Mis. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. But you're not standing behind what you actually said in your OP, in particular the first 3 paragraphs. You came no where near offering a plausible explanation in the vein of "neurobiology could explain the meeting of loved ones, memories flashing before the eyes, white lights, out of body experiences etc as the dying of neuronal connections." That would have been the honest thing to say. But unfortunately yours came off as more of an agenda driven diatribe.

I easily stand by the OP. The point about near-death experiences were made in only one paragraph and in passing. If you haven’t yet realized, the thread is not about explaining NDEs. Tell me what is dishonest about this. I quote:

“What’s more, the tales of what occurs in these dreams resemble the religions of their culture, complete with specific deities unique to different religions, i.e. a Christian does not see Vishnu and a Hindu does not see Christ, showing that there is either many types of afterlives, or perhaps, that it is merely their neurobiology, ever formed by their upbringing, affecting the outcome as it might a dream. Even stranger, while their soul is away from their body, they can still feel pleasure, peace, and see bright white light (so don’t forget your shades), almost as if something physical—maybe a brain—was producing this effect.”

You might notice that “perhaps” and “maybe” are not absolute statements, to which you mistakenly accused me of:

“You seem to have taken the liberty of speaking in absolute truths on a subject matter that, frankly, you can't know much about.” -PhotonEffect

I explicitly stated that I am able to supply vast amounts of data in regards to what happens when we die. We do know without fail what happens to us after death—we decompose. Tell me, what is “agenda-driven” about presenting facts? Show me how I am being unreasonable. Show me where evidence proves the contrary. I'm sure if we shared the same opinion, there would be no mention of "agenda" would there?

It seems your only argument is you don’t appreciate the the vitriol of the OP. How my OP “comes off” to you is your problem. But I have a sad feeling you are defending nothing but your own feelings on the matter, at the expense of truth.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LesMisanthrope I find your arguments precise and well formulated.
If everyone here could present an argument like you, I would love to read every thread on ATS.


Can I ask... Have you studied logic or philosophy? How old are you?

The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself. Just like how the only thing to hope for, is hope itself.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ipise dixit you say?
Surely you jest......
Or are projecting mayhap?
Since you appear unfamiliar with the term:

Ipse dixit, Latin for "He, himself, said it," is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[1]

The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.

My over all stance on the topic can be summed up as "maybe, we don't have anyway of knowing for sure" and "maybe we're using a metal detector to try to find clay".
Which has had you paradoxically confusing it with an absolute statement.

Case in point, if I am not even close to claiming something exists.
Why would I claim to know how we'd find it?
That is a strawman you are introducing.

The only one dealing in "it's just the way it is" is you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is not fair.... that you have such supreme writing skills.

If i was able to express my thoughts through writing the way you do, you might very well end up changing your view point, but i cannot so i will not.

Still, i must say, your writing skills are really impressive... amazing really. Probably the best ive seen on ATS.... ever!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PhotonEffect
If you are asking for my opinion on the matter, I would argue it is a matter of trauma. Traumatic experiences, for instance nearly dying, can have profound and lasting effects on people’s lives.

Your opinion is reasonable, except for the fact that a traumatic event, be it physical or psychological, can typically result in memory loss on some level. An NDE is typically brought on by such traumatic events. So it should be reasonable to expect that the victims brain, while in a state of severe distress, will experience at least some memory loss ( e.g the direct event that lead to the trauma).

I ask again- if a perfectly healthy brain will not typically recall a dream after just minutes having one under normal conditions, how does a brain under severe distress recall one so vividly? Especially when other memory loss has occurred due to the trauma...

The delusions could be brought on by the dying or reviving of the brain, just as they could be brought on by narcotics, sleep deprivation, injury, illness etc.

Your repeated use of "delusion" in the context of these experiences is misguided. A delusion is associated with mental illness, or a brain disorder.

An NDE is a very real phenomenon, even if they are just vivid "dreams". You seems to be caught up with some of the interpretations of these "dreams" as religious type events, which I would say is your own problem. Regardless of your (anti) religious beliefs, it does not negate the fact that these folks experienced something. They are not delusional about having had the experience, so your classification as such is incorrect. But I think I understand your angle here, and why you would use the term in that way.

If you haven’t yet realized, the thread is not about explaining NDEs. Tell me what is dishonest about this. I quote:

To borrow from your same quote, but this time with my emphasis:

“What’s more, the tales of what occurs in these dreams resemble the religions of their culture, complete with specific deities unique to different religions, i.e. a Christian does not see Vishnu and a Hindu does not see Christ, showing that there is either many types of afterlives, or perhaps, that it is merely their neurobiology, ever formed by their upbringing, affecting the outcome as it might a dream. Even stranger, while their soul is away from their body, they can still feel pleasure, peace, and see bright white light (so don’t forget your shades), almost as if something physical—maybe a brain—was producing this effect.”

Where was the use of "perhaps", or " can sometimes", or any other such term in the underlined part of your statement, to give the objective approach that it should have? For example- you could have easily just have phrased that sentence “What’s more, the reports of what occurs in these experiences can sometimes resemble the religions of their culture, complete with specific deities unique to different religions, i.e. a Christian does not see Vishnu and a Hindu does not see Christ,

Instead you open that paragraph with a biased generalization of the entire phenomenon- classifying them as nothing more than religiously based tales. That's why I said:
“You seem to have taken the liberty of speaking in absolute truths on a subject matter that, frankly, you can't know much about.” -PhotonEffect

We do know without fail what happens to us after death—we decompose. Tell me, what is “agenda-driven” about presenting facts? Show me how I am being unreasonable. Show me where evidence proves the contrary. I'm sure if we shared the same opinion, there would be no mention of "agenda" would there?

You've taken a completely real, however incompletely understood, phenomenon and twisted it into a religious experience. NDEs are not religious experiences, they are only interpreted that way in some cases. This has very much do to with a lack of adequate vocabulary to explain what happened, so the natural tendency will be to relate it to their cultural bias. What's so wrong about that? How does this invalidate the experience in anyway?

Curiously, you've only singled out the religiously flavored experiences and have completely ignored all the other ones. You demean the phenomenon - referring to them as religiously biased tales, delusions and dreams, perhaps in an attempt to render them meaningless or fake. You have not given this the objective approach that it deserves. Simply, your post is an attack against a belief system. And THAT is your agenda.

It's a shame, really. You are a very talented writer and I was hoping to see something from you that was a little less biased on a subject that I find very interesting. This is the thread that could've been...

Good day-

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I ask again- if a perfectly healthy brain will not typically recall a dream after just minutes having one under normal conditions, how does a brain under severe distress recall one so vividly? Especially when other memory loss has occurred due to the trauma...

I’m not sure a brain is “perfectly healthy” when it is under severe distress.

Your repeated use of "delusion" in the context of these experiences is misguided. A delusion is associated with mental illness, or a brain disorder.

An NDE is a very real phenomenon, even if they are just vivid "dreams". You seems to be caught up with some of the interpretations of these "dreams" as religious type events, which I would say is your own problem. Regardless of your (anti) religious beliefs, it does not negate the fact that these folks experienced something. They are not delusional about having had the experience, so your classification as such is incorrect. But I think I understand your angle here, and why you would use the term in that way.

You are correct. I may be a little off the mark with my use of delusion to describe the experience. Perhaps I should have used “hallucination”. What is delusional is presenting the experience as evidence of an afterlife, when the evidence shows the exact opposite. I was wrong to apply delusion to experience.

Instead you open that paragraph with a biased generalization of the entire phenomenon- classifying them as nothing more than religiously based tales. That's why I said:

“You seem to have taken the liberty of speaking in absolute truths on a subject matter that, frankly, you can't know much about.” -PhotonEffect

Not the “entire” phenomenon, but specifically those who assert their experience is proof of the afterlife. See the first sentence of the third paragraph of the OP—which should be easy to find because that is the only paragraph you have limited yourself, and my arguments, to.

You've taken a completely real, however incompletely understood, phenomenon and twisted it into a religious experience. NDEs are not religious experiences, they are only interpreted that way in some cases. This has very much do to with a lack of adequate vocabulary to explain what happened, so the natural tendency will be to relate it to their cultural bias. What's so wrong about that? How does this invalidate the experience in anyway?

Again, I am speaking of the religious interpretation of said phenomenon, which is invalid, contradictory, and purely subjective. No one can twist an experience. Nothing can invalidate an experience. Only physical processes can accomplish that. Valid and invalid do not apply to experiences, but to propositions and arguments. That is what I have challenged here. Take it or leave it.

Curiously, you've only singled out the religiously flavored experiences and have completely ignored all the other ones. You demean the phenomenon - referring to them as religiously biased tales, delusions and dreams, perhaps in an attempt to render them meaningless or fake. You have not given this the objective approach that it deserves. Simply, your post is an attack against a belief system. And THAT is your agenda.

How can one demean a phenomenon? I am referring to the tales themselves, not the phenomenon. And yes, I am speaking specifically about the tales that involve religious notions—this is what the thread is about—which though they have the same themes as other NDEs, happen to differ greatly from those that do not involve religious notions.

I have tried to remain as objective as possible. I am still awaiting your objective evidence that shows any sort of doubt that they are not tales, hallucinations or dreams. I said quite clearly that the person has not left the hospital bed during said experience. If this and the objective fact about the body dying is not included in what a near-death experience is, then there is nothing objective about it. I said quite clearly that we decompose after death. If this objective fact is a bias, show me where. If they are out of body, how are they still able to utilize their senses? I have argued that it is because their physical brain is providing the experience. Show me where this is wrong. If you do not offer any sort of support for your argument, it is in fact you demeaning the phenomenon in favor of your own biases.

But your agenda seems to simply assert the opposite, void of any evidence and argument, save for perhaps the hope that anecdotal evidence holds weight. Don’t hold your breath. So please, take your own advice, give this an objective look, and provide a dialectic with evidence and argument to the contrary. Perhaps in this case I may use the word “delusional” to describe your line of reasoning, as you have only asserted your bias subjective view-point, which favors anecdote over fact, without any appeal to reason or evidence.

It's a shame, really. You are a very talented writer and I was hoping to see something from you that was a little less biased on a subject that I find very interesting. This is the thread that could've been...

Your opinion, to me, is losing value by the minute, as mine has already lost value to you before you even started reading. It is obvious you find only certain interpretations of the phenomenon "interesting". I'm sorry I did not appeal to your interests.

Good day to you.