A recent debate on life after death.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Death preceeds life as life preceeds death. Neither exist without the other and thus being paradoxical in nature it may be established, based on their codependent existence, that they truly do not exist at all. We may thus conclude that whatever it is that takes on the appearance of life and death must be fundamentally immortal in its nature. Is it not so?

a reply to: chachonee

Hi, I'm sorry for your loss...my father passed away 4 years ago.

The heaven we were always told about, was not what I saw.

Are you able to describe this? Much appreciated

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Just because anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have, doesn't mean you can elevate it to credible status. Anecdotal evidence will never be objective evidence, and objective evidence is the only type of evidence that science deals in. So until someone can produce some objective evidence of the afterlife, it will remain an unknown.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BS_Slayer

Just because anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have, doesn't mean you can elevate it to credible status. Anecdotal evidence will never be objective evidence, and objective evidence is the only type of evidence that science deals in. So until someone can produce some objective evidence of the afterlife, it will remain an unknown.

Science can't prove that you actually formulate thoughts. The Scientific Method is nearly 400 years old, and while it did revolutionize the means by which reality and its constituents can be teased out from within the milky miasma that is mysticism and theological mythology, it has always been a tool of its times. Ideas exist, and so do system precedents and precedences (otherwise, there'd be no sophisticated forms of material structure in existence, and yet, here it is all around us), and yet, the Scientific Method is useless as a means of qualifying or quantifying the existence or nature of ideas or system precedents and precedences. It can verify the impact of ideas, precedents and precedences, but that's nothing more that anecdotal evidence that something is affecting the material constituents of a physical system - much in the same way that you're objecting to here. No one has been able to devise a means of objectively establishing the physical existence of ideas, or system precedents and precedences, and yet, no responsible scientist would ever suggest that either of these are the manufactured folklores of ignorant people.

Not saying that the afterlife is proven, but I am saying that you're trying to measure it with a tool that's just not fit for the job. Like trying to measure radiation levels with a tape measure.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: NorEaster
I would be quite interested in hearing about it, if he gets back to you. He will have done better than Houdini was able to do if he succeeds.

I really wish I had more evidence than my own intuition for what I suspect to be true. That this life is nothing more than one phase of our existence, and what we term "death", is simply transformation and migration to the next phase of our eternal existence.

I won't be demanding the same sort of blunt force breakthrough that Houdini demanded of himself and others, since I have a much better knowledge of the nature of "afterlife" than the folks of that time period did. If Chet does make it through, I have a general idea of how it'll manifest as indication. I'll share if it's anything that can be shared. If not, then I won't waste anyone's time with it.

a reply to: NorEaster

And you are making a false equivalence by saying that since we haven't been able to quantify something, that it is impossible to quantify. Scientists are making great headway into the workings of the brain everyday, and to say that just because we haven't been able to quantify ideas within the 400 years of the scientific method's existence that we can't do it is just silly.

Me, I'd rather stay within the proven tools that builds credible knowledge instead of relying on shaky ideas that are prone to being wrong since our brain likes to lie to us (which is a proven thing thanks to the aforementioned study of the brain). It's also a lot harder to remove confirmation bias when dealing with anecdotal/subjective evidence.

Also, if these things truly are outside the realm of quantifiability, then so be it. I guess there are some things that humans weren't meant to know. That doesn't make it ok to make assumptions about those things though. Sometimes, "I/We don't know" is the best answer we will ever get and we (humans) should be ok with that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NorEaster

And you are making a false equivalence by saying that since we haven't been able to quantify something, that it is impossible to quantify. Scientists are making great headway into the workings of the brain everyday, and to say that just because we haven't been able to quantify ideas within the 400 years of the scientific method's existence that we can't do it is just silly.

I'm suggesting that new measurement/detection methodologies are going to need to be developed if we do want to qualify and quantify things that are not materially structured, yet are physically existent. That's not a controversial statement by any means.

Me, I'd rather stay within the proven tools that builds credible knowledge instead of relying on shaky ideas that are prone to being wrong since our brain likes to lie to us (which is a proven thing thanks to the aforementioned study of the brain). It's also a lot harder to remove confirmation bias when dealing with anecdotal/subjective evidence.

All human measurements and observations are inherently subjective, since a full 1/2 of every observation is the intellectual translation of what that observation has indicated. Human intellect is 100% subjective, and since all measurements are translated into indication by human intellect, then you've never been on the solid ground that you seek regardless of the methodology that you've relied on. You can never remove bias - confirmation or otherwise - so what's wrong with pursuing a methodology (that is as useful as the "scientific method" has been for the examination of material physical structures) to serve our curiosity concerning non-material physical systems?

Also, if these things truly are outside the realm of quantifiability, then so be it. I guess there are some things that humans weren't meant to know. That doesn't make it ok to make assumptions about those things though. Sometimes, "I/We don't know" is the best answer we will ever get and we (humans) should be ok with that.

Humans "are meant" to know as much as they can know. Nothing "is meant" to do or be anything. You speak like a religionist with such suggestions. We humans should never be okay with not being allowed anything. "We don't know" is not the same as "we can't ever know". If that sort of intellectual surrender is the necessary result of clinging solely to The Scientific Method, then that methodology should be properly placed within its slot as just another tool of intellectual inquiry. Deduction is not limited to the Scientific Method, and yet much is learned as a direct result of deduction. You need to lift your eyes from that specific trough and take a look around at what is otherwise available.

originally posted by: NorEaster
I'm suggesting that new measurement/detection methodologies are going to need to be developed if we do want to qualify and quantify things that are not materially structured, yet are physically existent. That's not a controversial statement by any means.

Ok. I agree with you there. I'm also willing to wait for those methodologies to be developed before I start talking about those topics like humans know anything about them.

All human measurements and observations are inherently subjective, since a full 1/2 of every observation is the intellectual translation of what that observation has indicated. Human intellect is 100% subjective, and since all measurements are translated into indication by human intellect, then you'll never been on the solid ground that you seek regardless of the methodology that you rely on. You can never remove bias - confirmation or otherwise - so what's wrong with pursuing a methodology (that is as useful as the "scientific method" has been for the examination of material physical structures) to serve our curiosity concerning non-material physical systems?

The scientific method comes with this thing called peer review. So yes, confirmation bias may exist within the scientific method and scientists, but peer review works to filter that out. How many other truth seeking processes can claim such a thing? None. All others shut contradicting ideas out until they can't be shut out anymore (God of the gaps).

Also keep in mind that science uses margins of error to account for the failings of human observation. Science recognizes that humans can never measure anything precisely, so we add the margin of error to account for those inaccuracies.

so what's wrong with pursuing a methodology (that is as useful as the "scientific method" has been for the examination of material physical structures) to serve our curiosity concerning non-material physical systems?

Because there is nothing to compare the results of those methodologies to determine if the claims being made are legit or not. They don't do enough to remove doubt. At least the scientific method tries its damnedest to remove as much doubt as possible.

Your argument here can be summed up as such: The scientific method isn't perfect so that means we can use other methodologies that aren't perfect as well. But that makes the assumption that the imperfections are all on equal level.

Humans "are meant" to know as much as they can know. Nothing "is meant" to do or be anything. You speak like a religionist with such suggestions. We humans should never be okay with not being allowed anything. "We don't know" is not the same as "we can't ever know". If that sort of intellectual surrender is the necessary result of clinging solely to The Scientific Method, then that methodology should be properly placed within its slot as just another tool of intellectual inquiry. Deduction is not limited to the Scientific Method, and yet much is learned as a direct result of deduction. You need to lift your eyes from that specific through and take a look around at what is otherwise available.

I'm not suggesting that "we don't know" and "we can't ever know" are the same thing. I'm not even saying that there are things we can't know, but I'm ALSO not saying that we can know everything either. There remains a possibility that there are things that humans through our science and natural observational abilities will never be able to understand, experience, or know. And if we discover a topic that falls in this possible subset of total knowledge then it certainly won't help to make things up when we've exhausted all possible means of learning that knowledge. This is why when something can't be adequately explained, humans should be ok with the answer "I/We don't know." And it should remain as such until that answer can be satisfactorily changed through the discovery of proper evidence to explain it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazyshot - you are starting to sound quite intolerant lol. Must you keep posting the 'no objective evidence so not worth a discussion' mantra in every esoteric thread?

We get it mate. You base your entire understanding of reality around empirical data as it is handed to you. No more, no less. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am academically educated in the sciences and completely appreciate the necessity of the scientific method. However, there is also nothing wrong with humans discussing aspects that fall outside the empirically confirmed realm of concepts.

As someone mentioned, the concept may truly be supernatural in essence meaning that it may physically be impossible to deduce an answer through the sensical world. This is why we can philosophise and postulate - like humans have been doing naturally for millennia.

You're basically saying that humans should not discuss anything with seriousness beyond that which the field of science is actively proving as empirical fact. Don't get so high and mighty. This is ATS for crying out loud!

At the same time, I don't necessarily like science telling me how my 'brain' is and how it 'controls' me in generic, sweeping statements.

There are undeniable facts regarding our neurology, yes, but a lot of subjective conditioning is related to us as a fact of the human system. We are told 'THIS is why you do action x or y'. It takes a lot of control away from the individual.

If you never had the experience of reality yet somehow managed to comprehend neurological science and psychology, you would believe humans to be complete robots running on factors out of their control.

There's an aspect to our existence, which I can't word with definite scientific semantics for your pleasure, which seems to inherently be esoteric, and forcibly beyond the realm of the directly comprehensible and sensible.

I personally think science may never provide a satisfactory answer to these questions because you could arguably code consciousness that would MIMIC a human, and this could be used 'scientifically' to prove that consciousness and hence the human experience is completely internalized to the observable body.

The view of the planet could easily be shifted into the wrong perception due to an ever deeper and earlier set misconception.

# that. Rather than wait about to be told about the nature of my existence, I use my every breathing second to act as a master over my body, to control and be at one with my thoughts, and to have a complete awareness of each moment.

As much as a I love science - please hand some respect back to our inner awareness. These discussions forever belong in the human domain.

We should not let an external method of ours completely define our internal characteristics. It's one thing discussing evidently falsified concepts, but to see someone constantly be irritated at the discussion of scientifically non-verified topics is simply demoralising.

Peace.

originally posted by: DazDaKing
I am academically educated in the sciences and completely appreciate the necessity of the scientific method. However, there is also nothing wrong with humans discussing aspects that fall outside the empirically confirmed realm of concepts.

I never said there was anything wrong with discussing it. I just said there is something wrong with trying to say it is true without the objective evidence.

As someone mentioned, the concept may truly be supernatural in essence meaning that it may physically be impossible to deduce an answer through the sensical world. This is why we can philosophise and postulate - like humans have been doing naturally for millennia.

And I said that if this is the case, there is no way to deduce that the claims of the people believing in the supernatural are true because there is nothing to compare them to. I'm all for a way to analyze the supernatural, but it's got to be practical and open to being falsified. Philosophy doesn't provide a way to falsify things, so you shouldn't be using philosophy to prove something.

You're basically saying that humans should not discuss anything with seriousness beyond that which the field of science is actively proving as empirical fact. Don't get so high and mighty. This is ATS for crying out loud.

Yes, it is a bastion of confirmation bias and paranoia.

At the same time, I don't necessarily like science telling me how my 'brain' is and how it 'controls' me in generic, sweeping statements.

Tough s#. If science shows that that is the case, then that is most likely reality. You can deny it all you want, but that is just denying reality.

There are undeniable facts regarding our neurology, yes, but a lot of subjective conditioning is related to us as a fact of the human system. We are told 'THIS is why you do action x or y'. It takes a lot of control away from the individual.

Your Brain Lies to You
5 Ways Your Brain is Messing With Your Head

I'm not making this crap up.

If you never had the experience of reality yet somehow managed to comprehend neurological science and psychology, you would believe humans to be complete robots running on factors out of their control.

And how do you know that isn't the case? Because consciousness exists? Because a soul exists? Those are nice concepts, but they aren't proven. Though I imagine that there is something there in our heads or our bodies that prevents our brains from completely running on boolean logic. Though it remains to be seen, what exactly that is (if it even exists).

There's an aspect to our existence, which I can't word with definite scientific semantics for your pleasure, which seems to inherently be esoteric, and forcibly beyond the realm of the directly comprehensible and sensible.

That's because you want it to be so. To me, you appear to have given up on the scientific method here because you don't like the direction it is going in or think that because it hasn't found the answers yet, they can't be found through the SM.

Now, I personally don't think science can ever provide a satisfactory answer to these questions, because you can arguably code consciousness that would MIMIC a human, and this could be used 'scientifically' to prove that consciousness and hence the human system is completely inherent to the body.

Theoretically maybe. But as it stands, humans aren't 100% rationally behaving organisms, so there is no yes/no paradigm that we can fit into to code a mimiced human. In other words, AI is impossible with a binary computer. It remains to be seen if it can be done with a quantum computer.

But if this were proven, why are you against it? Because you wish for there to be more to being human? That sounds like confirmation bias speaking. If you are academically educated in science then you know that we don't let our confirmation biases speak for us, instead we let the evidence do it.

The view of the planet could easily be shifted into the wrong perception due to an ever deeper and earlier set misconception.

Nah - # that. Rather than wait about to be told about the nature of my existence, I use my every breathing second to act as a master over my body, to control and be at one with my thoughts, and to have a complete awareness of each moment.

That's cool and all, but that doesn't cut it for truth.

As much as a I love science - please hand some respect back to our inner awareness. Philosophy and the realm of thought experiments forever belong in the human domain. Do not let an external method of ours completely define our internal characters. One things discussing evidently falsified concepts, but to be irritated at the discussion of scientifically non-verified topics is simply demoralising.

Peace.

Philosophy is just wishful thinking. Philosophy has theorized many things about the universe and us, and most of the time it is wrong. Sure it is a great tool to springboard solid scientific study off of, but at NO time should it be used as an alternative to the scientific method for explaining reality with any sense of veracity.

P.S. I'm not saying the supernatural doesn't exist. I just don't think you are proving anything by using philosophy to talk about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never said there was anything wrong with discussing it. I just said there is something wrong with trying to say it is true without the objective evidence.

This is a logical fallacy and what's called an argument from ignorance.

The wiki link explains it much better than I ever could.
Argument From Ignorance
(external URL referencing Wikipedia)

Please note, I am not calling you ignorant or trying to be insulting or demeaning in any way. All I am saying is that I disagree with your above statement and many of your other supporting points and that is support for my statement.

Philosophy is just wishful thinking. Philosophy has theorized many things about the universe and us, and most of the time it is wrong. Sure it is a great tool to springboard solid scientific study off of, but at NO time should it be used as an alternative to the scientific method for explaining reality with any sense of veracity.

There are many examples of science saying one thing and then later (and more advanced) science proves it was originally wrong. Just because the scientific method proves something, doesn't mean it's the final say on something. The same can be said when since hasn't been able to prove something at one time, but many years later, it is able to. Philosophy studies those things that are connected to existence in a way science can't necessarily do so at a particular time. The whole of existence doesn't fit in a neat, scientific box - at least not yet and as people often feel a need to categorize things, philosophy encompasses all of those currently untidy things that don't fit. Calling it wishful thinking is disingenuous.

Top 10 Science Mistakes
(external URL referencing sciencechannel.com)

Superseded Scientific Theories
(external URL referencing the Houston Chronicle Staff blog, sciguy)

This is a quote that I find a lot of truth in, even if it s a generalization.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

-Men in Black

Thanks for some interesting posts to read.

originally posted by: Thanatos0042
This is a logical fallacy and what's called an argument from ignorance.

The wiki link explains it much better than I ever could.
Argument From Ignorance
(external URL referencing Wikipedia)

Please note, I am not calling you ignorant or trying to be insulting or demeaning in any way. All I am saying is that I disagree with your above statement and many of your other supporting points and that is support for my statement.

That isn't an argument from ignorance. You are making assumptions on my belief as well as putting words in my mouth. Just because I am saying that it can't be called true because we don't have the objective evidence to prove it, doesn't mean that I am saying it is false. YOU made that false comparison for me. In fact, the wiki article says exactly what I believe on reality and potential human knowledge:

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).

There are many examples of science saying one thing and then later (and more advanced) science proves it was originally wrong. Just because the scientific method proves something, doesn't mean it's the final say on something. The same can be said when since hasn't been able to prove something at one time, but many years later, it is able to. Philosophy studies those things that are connected to existence in a way science can't necessarily do so at a particular time. The whole of existence doesn't fit in a neat, scientific box - at least not yet and as people often feel a need to categorize things, philosophy encompasses all of those currently untidy things that don't fit. Calling it wishful thinking is disingenuous.

Here's the thing about philosophy. It's all guesswork with little to no evidence backing it. How do you prove a philosophical argument false? You can't, because philosophy isn't falsifiable. If you can't prove an argument false, then it remains an opinion, nothing more. Opinions AREN'T truth.

Top 10 Science Mistakes
(external URL referencing sciencechannel.com)

Superseded Scientific Theories
(external URL referencing the Houston Chronicle Staff blog, sciguy)

Most of those scientific concepts predate the standard scientific method model and all of them were formed from confirmation biases and little if any objective evidence to back them. Notice that peer review got rid of them? When studying science, you do it correctly when you look at the evidence and interpret it WITHOUT listening to any preconceived ideas that you already have instead of listening to what someone says the evidence says.

But hey, scientists are people too. No one is expecting them not to have confirmation biases. At least there is a process within the scientific method to remove these inaccuracies. Can't say the same for philosophy.

Name one theory with ACTUAL objective evidence backing it that was proven 100% wrong (partially wrong doesn't count, because then science just updates the theory. see: evolution).

This is a quote that I find a lot of truth in, even if it s a generalization.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

-Men in Black

Thanks for some interesting posts to read.

I'm agnostic. I leave myself open to any possibility as long as there is adequate evidence to say it is the case. I recall that Jay had just been given irrefutable evidence that aliens were on the planet in the scene before that quote was said. I'm the same way, if you have a crazy idea for how the universe works. Great. Show me the credible evidence for it and I'll believe it. But until you do, I'm going to say "Maybe, but I'm going to side with Occam's Razor. And until you can iron out more assumptions than the mainstream theory, I'm not going to believe you."

I have to be honest in that I find a great deal of joy in Philosophy, and in Science. I am not seeing quite the same thing others are in Krazyshot's responses. If I might quite loosely surmise his position, he is merely saying what most scientifically driven people say: In the physical, technical, material world we all function in, Science is the single most effective driving factor behind it all. It is a discipline, it isn't and shouldn't be flexible. Science deals with all things either directly or mathematically observable, hence if something is true, science will not need to be flexible. If you are to look at the fruits of human labor regarding Philosophy and Science, I can't imagine anyone not seeing the Scientific method as the indisputable victor. It is the very basis beyond how we are communicating now. Otherwise we might be doing it in a mystical way, which I've yet to see convincing evidence of.

Now to avoid being labeled as side A or B in this war, I would not propose and I would not imagine Krazyshot would propose that the supernatural does not exist. He is simply choosing a school of thought that unequivocally delivers material results. In this instance, the scientific method seems unable either by chance or natural design; to find evidence of a form, function or substance that would be considered "supernatural". I have to respect that he has even gone far enough as to admit (if I interpreted correctly) that the scientific method may currently lack the appropriate tools to observe such types of phenomena.

To get anyone that far on the scientific side to walk this far with us is something I'm personally impressed with. Let me tell you that there are countless things that science seems to show us that I abhor. In particular, I find the latest discoveries/theories in Neuroscience to be morbidly depressing. As such I find the reality of war and poverty equally as depressing, but that does not prevent me from accepting them.

I myself am going to keep my heart and mind open because I want more than anything to know that all of us may continue to exist in some improved, next state of being once my body shuts down. Krazyshot also made it clear that he is not saying we CAN'T know something, but he is open to the idea that there MAY be some things we simply can not know. Unless you have firm beliefs in something in which his ideas are directly opposed, I fail to see exactly what it is you want from him in this dialogue, aside form his complete departure from seeing things empirically.

I admit, that science certainly comes off from time to time as mercilessly harsh in it's discoveries. Take comfort in knowing that perhaps as it continues to mature, some of those findings may be reversed as one poster commented. If you were going to be pushed out of a plane and offered a parachute or a bible, which of the two is likely more dependable to help you reach the ground safely? What would determine your choice? Would it have anything to do with a track record of dependable results?

I am completely comfortable with the idea that science in its current state is perhaps not compatible with the mystical on any level really, but that is what separates it from everything else. It's repeatable, demonstrable, and peer reviewed. I am always taken aback by people when they act as though they can't understand why some people hold onto it so tightly. Scientists make mistakes; can certainly display poor judgment; but one thing it can definitely brag is that it has never deliberately lied to us, unlike an entire spectrum of various charlatans we are likely all familiar with.

I think it takes a strong mind to continue gazing, even when the abyss gazes back.

Ps... I do not think it's foolish to contemplate, seek, yearn, philosophize, speculate, hope and explore the supernatural. I do think it is foolish to teach any facet of supernatural law, when you can't even produce one single piece of evidence that shows there is a supernatural anything. It's wonderful that you KNOW something is there, or that you are more than brain tissue, but you can't expect science to treat the topic with the same reverence that you do when you are unable to produce something that can be examined. That should not upset anyone, I can't imagine why it would. I believe you will have the right to be upset when and if science refuses to look. At least in this case, I don't see attitude in Krazyshot.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Well said man. You pretty much got what I was trying to get across.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Np. I'm a verbose mess of a babbler so I try not to get wedged in between an already compelling discussion, I just don't like it when it starts to landslide because of misinterpretation etc.. Sometimes I think people graze across a response almost interjecting inaccurate perspectives instead of actually trying to find the overall message and things go.. askew. lol

I new instantly when my mother died because an overwhelming presence of love and concern engulfed me when driving so I don't have any doubts about life after death but that doesn't help anyone who hasn't had the same experience. But if I did not believe in life after death it wouldn't really worry me. Think life after death is more worrisome!

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Hello,
[email protected] email me and I will email back with a response.

a reply to: glend

Glend, if you feel like it, I wouldn't mind hearing a little more. This is one those areas I have had similar experiences, but I am often torn between the perspectives of neuroscience, and an inner sense of philosophy that simply knows without or beyond reason that I have a "soul" for lack of a better term; which incidentally, science says is an evolved program within us... the loop is enough to drive one mad.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Not much really to add except that there was nothing subtle about the visit as all, it was like a hurricane of love and concern that totally engulfed me. I verbally said to her in the car, that I'd be alright, go to God, I will meet you soon enough. My sister rang latter to break the news but before she could tell me, I told her I already new our mother had died.

I use to be a die hard atheist until a little bird told me I was wrong. It seems a little childish to tell but when I was 18 watching television I had a strange feeling someone was at the front door. I got up and opened the front door three times before I looked down and saw a baby bird shivering from the cold wind. I brought it inside and laid it on my lap to try keep it warm. Afterwards I put it in a little box in another room then went back to watch tv. Soon after sitting down, I had a weird sensation that the bird was back sitting in my lap again. I got up, looked in the box to find the bird dead. So after that experience I had to re-think my thoughts about reality.

As far as science is concerned I like to think that string theory is perhaps on the right track, that everything is just vibrations, joined in one large brane.

But it matters not what we believe because we will learn or not when we exit this reality (death).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I never said there was anything wrong with discussing it. I just said there is something wrong with trying to say it is true without the objective evidence.

If there is one thing that bugs me, is people that come on like an expert on something when they know just as much as anyone else does.
There are too many people that state what they would like to believe, or wishful thinking, as fact.

'I don't know' is the best answer, because it IS true.

And when I ask someone how they know something, I am always disappointed. Turns out they don't know anymore than they have been told, what a book said, or some weird experience.
Turns out it's what they like to believe.