Where Will the Conscious(ness) Go?

[Alcoholic Teletubby]

I have taken some time to reflect, and I find it somewhat daunting that once you die, your consciousness ceases to exist retroactively. Essentially, we are all confined to our own psyches; our perspectives constitute the entirety of who we are. But once we die, it's officially over; lights out. All of our accumulated experiences—gone. Forever. While I find this outcome intriguing, it is certainly a profound concept to contemplate.

Do any of you share this perspective on death, or do you believe in the possibility of reincarnation or something similar?

 

[lasttogo]

I would like to believe we come back in some way.

I think it's most likely that it just ends. Everything is gone, and it's like we never existed in the first place.

I personally choose to believe that whatever we believe, will be. If you believe in reincarnation, you will come back in some way. If you believe in heaven and hell, it will be there for you. Whatever the case may be.


My friend a very long time ago, shared his view with me. We were sitting outside, and he told me he believed that people that kill themselves are reincarnated as the same person, as many times as it takes, until they make peace with their suicidality, and die another way. He wasn't trying to say suicide was wrong, he worded it very beautifully and nuanced. I lack the ability to repeat it as such, 15 years later. I miss him and if he is still out there, I hope he is doing well.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Yes its lights out forever

Consciousness is generated only by a brain

1 micro second after my brain dies i will cease to exist forever

The brain constructs an illusion of a self. These is no self only a brain and brain cells. Is someone with alzheimer's still their old self? . Am I stil the self I was at 4 days old , 3 years old?

I exist only in the story my brain creates and only when i think about me. Am i conscious now ? Yes but What was i conscious of a moment ago? . A human like an Ai is only software. The horror is that under unbearable pain i becone that unbearable pain. There is no objective reason to suffer like that. Im a brain that can suffer unending constant unbearable pain : I don't know what can be more horrible

How Your Brain Constructs Your Self

Out-of-body experiences may be a sign of incomplete construction.

www.psychologytoday.com

Is Your 'Self' Just an Illusion?

You may not really be a "self," some philosophers say. Rather, you could be just a mix of experiences and "stuff" that happens in the universe.

www.livescience.com

They mapped the brain of a worm with only 302 brain cells . A human has 86 billion brain cells. I explain below how with only 302 brain cells this brain can form at least this many patterns a number with about 2,107 digits. Why did evolution create such complexity? Is that enough to model a self? Yes the worm doesn't use all its neurons for a self but a human has 86 billion so it has more than enough

A microscopic worm nematode has 302 neurons and 7000 conections betweenn neurons in its brain ( these connections have been mapped

If u assume each connection can be either on or off

Then the number of patterns this brain or neural network can form is

That means two to the power of 7,000 is roughly a number with about 2,107 digits

The Connectome Debate: Is Mapping the Mind of a Worm Worth It?

Scientists have mapped a tiny roundworm's entire nervous system. Did it teach them anything about its behavior?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[bankai]

It's just lights out. Our consciousness is nothing but our thoughts and the brain just transmitting signals.

Once it stops, it's over and we end for good. There's no need for any reincarnation. There's no need for any afterlife. There is 0 proof of any of that. People believe that because they need to believe. most are afraid of death and the end.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

Do any of you share this perspective on death, or do you believe in the possibility of reincarnation or something similar?

I've answered this in the following thread:

Kinda unpopular take but there is no real proof you go to hell for ctb

I remember hearing that if you end your life then you go to hell since I was younger. It wasn't until what should have been my last days that I started reading and listening up to the word of God. No where in the bible does it say that is wrong or is it condemd. People assume so since life is a...

sanctioned-suicide.net

Read it, if you want to find out what actually awaits you once you're dead. Most people are simply incredibly ignorant about this stuff, which is why they'll tell you a lot of bullshit/heresy regarding it.

I would like to believe we come back in some way.

We can reincarnate if we want to.

My friend a very long time ago, shared his view with me. We were sitting outside, and he told me he believed that people that kill themselves are reincarnated as the same person, as many times as it takes, until they make peace with their suicidality, and die another way. He wasn't trying to say suicide was wrong, he worded it very beautifully and nuanced.

What your friend said there, is actually partially correct.

In reality, if a person commits suicide, then he/she might have to redo the task/challenges that he had in this life, in another life as another person - IF he/she wants to reincarnate on earth. It's like having a school-project that has to be completed, before he/she can move on to the next school-project.

However, this probably depends on how advanced the soul is (as different souls are at different stages of advancement; and they incarnate as biological creatures on planets such as earth, primarily in order to learn and grow as souls), as that will probably determine how necessary/unnecessary it is for the soul to complete the school-project in question.

And in some rare cases, it's possible that a person is actually intended to commit suicide, as a part of his/her task/challenge in his/her current life on earth (which for example might have been about experiencing so much suffering that it would lead to suicide, or to give his/her friends/family the challenge of losing a loved one to suicide).

Yes its lights out forever

This is simply incorrect.

Read my answers in this thread (where I've also previously replied to you), if you want to find out the truth:

Kinda unpopular take but there is no real proof you go to hell for ctb

I remember hearing that if you end your life then you go to hell since I was younger. It wasn't until what should have been my last days that I started reading and listening up to the word of God. No where in the bible does it say that is wrong or is it condemd. People assume so since life is a...

sanctioned-suicide.net

It's just lights out. Our consciousness is nothing but our thoughts and the brain just transmitting signals.

Once it stops, it's over and we end for good. There's no need for any reincarnation. There's no need for any afterlife. There is 0 proof of any of that.

All of this is incorrect.

Read my answers in this thread, if you want to find out the truth:

Kinda unpopular take but there is no real proof you go to hell for ctb

I remember hearing that if you end your life then you go to hell since I was younger. It wasn't until what should have been my last days that I started reading and listening up to the word of God. No where in the bible does it say that is wrong or is it condemd. People assume so since life is a...

sanctioned-suicide.net

People believe that because they need to believe. most are afraid of death and the end.

That's true in a lot of cases. But some people, like me, believe it because we actually KNOW it's true - based both on modern, valid afterlife-research (which most people, including you, don't know about), and on our personal experiences with actually having travelled to the spiritual dimension.

By the way:
1 of the secret, underlying, common reasons that atheists don't believe in an afterlife (aside from the fact that an afterlife originally seems unlikely, on the surface of things), is that they have a need to believe that there's no "Hell" after death. (However, "Hell" doesn't exist in the afterlife anyway.)

 

[SuicideKurt]

I'm perfectly fine with consciousness just ending and there's a "black screen". I'm not happy that I won't be able to feel the satisfaction of liberation from this existence.
Like Kafka said:

"The terrible thing about death is that it brings the pain of the end, but not the end."

 

[EvisceratedJester]

based both on modern, valid afterlife-research (which most people, including you, don't know about)

Is is no such thing as "valid afterlife-research". An aspect of science is the use of methodological naturalism. Basically, all hypotheses and theories in science must be based in natural laws and processes. Valid scientific research wouldn't even dare touch the subject of whether or not there is an afterlife because that question is not testable or falsifiable.

 

[claracatchingthebus]

Yes its lights out forever

Consciousness is generated only by a brain

1 micro second after my brain dies i will cease to exist forever

The brain constructs an illusion of a self. These is no self only a brain and brain cells. Is someone with alzheimer's still their old self? . Am I stil the self I was at 4 days old , 3 years old?

I exist only in the story my brain creates and only when i think about me. What was i conscious of a moment ago? . A human like an Ai is only software.

How Your Brain Constructs Your Self

Out-of-body experiences may be a sign of incomplete construction.

www.psychologytoday.com

Is Your 'Self' Just an Illusion?

You may not really be a "self," some philosophers say. Rather, you could be just a mix of experiences and "stuff" that happens in the universe.

www.livescience.com

They mapped the brain of a worm with only 302 brain cells . A human has 86 billion brain cells. I explain below how with only 302 brain cells this brain can form at least this many patterns a number with about 2,107 digits. Why did evolution create such complexity? Is that enough to model a self? Yes the worm doesn't use all its neurons for a self but a human has 86 billion so it has more than enough

A microscopic worm nematode has 302 neurons and 7000 conections betweenn neurons in its brain ( these connections have been mapped

If u assume each connection can be either on or off

Then the number of patterns this brain or neural network can form is

That means two to the power of 7,000 is roughly a number with about 2,107 digits

The Connectome Debate: Is Mapping the Mind of a Worm Worth It?

Scientists have mapped a tiny roundworm's entire nervous system. Did it teach them anything about its behavior?

www.scientificamerican.com

Is your math on this right? i agree with almost everything but I think brain states would be a permutation calculation, and often for those you have to remove duplicates and use weird factorial formulas. I am sure it is some huge number but this doesn't seem technically right to me at first glance, although my perspective on statistics is not from expertise.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Is your math on this right? i agree with almost everything but I think brain states would be a permutation calculation, and often for those you have to remove duplicates and use weird factorial formulas. I am sure it is some huge number but this doesn't seem technically right to me at first glance, although my perspective on statistics is not from expertise.

Yes my math is right. and i only used the limiting factor that a brain cell ( neuron) can only be in one or 2 states on or off which reduces the number of patterns . Ask chatgpt a neural network with 302 neurons and 7000 total connections between neurons. Each neuron can only be on or off how many patterns can that form.

I think that a brain cell can have more than 1 or 2 states. And that could also be simulated in an ai software

It's 2 to the 7000 power and is a number with 2108 digits which is an unfathomably large number

So this is how many patterns the brain of a 1mm worm can form . How many patterns can a human brain with 86 billion neurons form? Why would u need a soul for

But that's assuming a neuron can be in only 2 states. I think its more.

They mapped that worms brain and it had 7000 connections between 302 neurons

The First Complete Brain Wiring Diagram of Any Species Is Here

Aided by modern computer algorithms, the team mapped roughly 7,000 neural connections of both sexes of C. elegans, while landmarking all synaptic locations.

singularityhub.com

 

[claracatchingthebus]

You clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the topic of the afterlife/souls. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS.

You're simply an insanely clueless person, who incorrectly thinks you know what you're talking about here - precisely because you're so insanely clueless.

Start actually researching and learn about things for real, before you talk. Your ignorance is absolutely insane.

I think that person did not have an insane position, many scientists feel that way.

It seems like a lot of people who do afterlife/soul research are people who are religious or spiritual at the outset and I believe most of them are looking to confirm their conclusions. I know some studies that seem quasi-scientific in nature (like after someone dies their mass is ever so slightly less, and some pseudoscientists posit that's the soul) but I'm not sure if any of these afterlife studies are reproducible. In other words, have any of these afterlife studies been done in 10 different labs and found to be true everywhere? Many scientists won't try to reproduce them because they are considered such time wasters.

It's fine to disagree with that person but sort of hyperbolic ragebait responses, like what you would see from a "based" Conservative commentator, doesn't actually make that person "insane" or "clueless" as that sort of ragebait "based" stuff tends to pander to the undereducated or lower intelligent people.

Yes my math is right. and i only used the limiting factor that a brain cell can only be in one or 2 states on or off which reduces the number of patterns . Ask chatgpt a neural network with 302 neurons and 7000 total connections between neurons. Each neuron can only be on or off how many patterns can that form.


I think that a brain cell can have more than 1 or 2 states. And that could also be simulated in an ai software

It's 2 to the 7000 power and is a number with 2198 digits

You're right. Again, I'm not a math expert. I redid things and did an example with a smaller number of neurons and permutations was an incorrect conceptualization. What would be the state beyond two? Firing neuron, not firing neuron... or ____?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS.

You're simply an insanely clueless person, who incorrectly thinks that you know what you're talking about here - precisely because you're so insanely clueless.

Start actually researching and learn about things for real, before you talk. Your ignorance is absolutely insane.

You clearly have no background in science, because scientists generally aren't studying crap like this. Scientists tend to stick to things that can be studied and explained by natural processes and laws because there is no way to reliably study supernatural shit. Most research akin to the kind you are talking about isn't taken seriously by scientists, with a lot of that research usually being published in sketchy science journals that publish pseudoscience.

For something to be testable, you need to be able to create an experiment for it and/or be able to actually observe it, which you can't do when it comes to whether or not there is an afterlife. It's not falsifiable either, as it cannot be proven wrong through observation or experimentation. If there was supposedly evidence of there being an afterlife, then there would be a lot more buzz surrounding it within the scientific community, but there is not.

I find it interesting how you keep on just calling me clueless instead of actually addressing how I'm wrong, along with maybe even showing some of this supposed scientific research you keep on blabbing on about.

 

[claracatchingthebus]

You clearly have no background in science, because scientists generally aren't studying crap like this. Scientists tend to stick to things that can be studied and explained by natural processes and laws because there is no way to reliably study supernatural shit. Most research akin to the kind you are talking about isn't taken seriously by scientists, with a lot of that research usually being published in sketchy science journals that publish pseudoscience.

For something to be testable, you need to be able to create an experiment for it and/or be able to actually observe it, which you can't do when it comes to whether or not there is an afterlife. It's not falsifiable either, as it cannot be proven wrong through observation or experimentation. If there was supposedly evidence of there being an afterlife, then there would be a lot more buzz surrounding it within the scientific community, but there is not.

I find it interesting how you keep on just calling me clueless instead of actually addressing how I'm wrong, along with maybe even showing some of this supposed scientific research you keep on blabbing on about.

I feel like technically you could be wrong in some unexpected way.

For instance, it could be in the future that scientists are able to measure expected results with more precision and the results have a "rounding" in them that wouldn't be explained by typical math formulas and somehow there is some testable way to show reality is simulated and somehow someway to measure data beyond the simulated realm. This is unlikely and would be incredibly hard to do, but could be scientific and falsifiable. It seems hard because if reality were simulated somehow then it's likely the simulation could adjust to prevent measurements outside the simulation, but if it didn't, then you don't know what's possible. For example, in computers you can visualize subsystems and in theory if you have a virus in that virtualized environment it is contained and can't get out. But sometimes there will be an exploit in the virtualization that could allow a virus to get out. It's extremely rare for that to happen but theoretically in computer science it's possible. We haven't been able to prove that this world we are in isn't just code, but if it were, and it were running in some space that ultimately was the actual reality with non-code physical characteristics (running purely on entropy as opposed to code simulating running on increased entropy), it's possible but unlikely it could be scientifically proven. This is mostly speculation and it would be so hard to do or prove it would be grasping at straws to prove, even if actually a correct theory, and therefore is effectively a non-scientific question for now (but technically not non-scientific).

But the basics of what you say are generally accurate. Real scientific experiments are reproducible and falsifiable. I wonder if you have done work in a lab or do work in a lab in real life. But it's sort of pointless to argue with "based" flat-earther types. They can't really be convinced by data when they are wrong.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

I think that person did not have an insane position, many scientists feel that way.

Yes - which is because most scientists are ignorant, and are heavily biased materialists, who actively DON'T WANT TO explore/acknowledge any findings that actually prove the existence of the afterlife/souls. Most scientists simply aren't being proper scientists.

It seems like a lot of people who do afterlife/soul research are people who are religious or spiritual at the outset and I believe most of them are looking to confirm their conclusions.

Some of them probably are, yes. But the most valid researchers, who actually do the most thorough and valid research, and who thereby provide the most valid evidences; are actually not religious nor spiritual (although they may have become religious or spiritual, after doing the research - like any intelligent and rational person would, after looking at the actual evidences for things).

I know some studies that seem quasi-scientific in nature (like after someone dies their mass is ever so slightly less, and some pseudoscientists posit that's the soul) but I'm not sure if any of these afterlife studies are reproducible.

The scientific studies that I'm referring to, are much more robust than those you are referring to here. (And the well-known "soul-weight-research" you're referring to here, are invalid, by the way - and does thereby not serve as proper evidence for the existence of the afterlife/souls.)

In other words, have any of these afterlife studies been done in 10 different labs and found to be true everywhere?

They are reproducible, as they follow the scientific procedure. (It's scientific evidences, after all.)

But to get different teams of scientists to reproduce them, requires a lot of money, as well as requires different scientists to be interested in researching it, as well as requires proper test-subjects to be interested in participating in it. And due to these things, it's not always easy to reproduce these scientific findings - even though it's entirely possible, in terms of the method/how to do it.

(By the way, there are few things in science that gets reproduced in "10 different labs", due to the amount of money that would entail. So, you're lucky if you get a few different labs at all, to bother with reproducing a finding.)

Many scientists won't try to reproduce them because they are considered such time wasters.

Yes - which is precisely because of what I explained above:
Most scientists are ignorant, and are heavily biased materialists, who actively DON'T WANT TO explore/acknowledge any findings that actually prove the existence of the afterlife/souls. Most scientists simply aren't being proper scientists.

It's fine to disagree with that person but sort of hyperbolic ragebait responses, like what you would see from a "based" Conservative commentator, doesn't actually make that person "insane" or "clueless" as that sort of ragebait "based" stuff tends to pander to the undereducated or lower intelligent people.

I was simply telling him the facts about his cluelessness. However, I agree that I could have been a bit milder towards him.

But you have to understand how insanely frustrating it is to be "shot down" by such cocky, incompetent people like him - when I know for a fact that they're wrong. (Which happens to me a lot in life.) That's why I reacted a bit too harshly towards him here.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I feel like technically you could be wrong in some unexpected way.

For instance, it could be in the future that scientists are able to measure expected results with more precision and the results have a "rounding" in them that wouldn't be explained by typical math formulas and somehow there is some testable way to show reality is simulated and somehow someway to measure data beyond the simulated realm. This is unlikely and would be incredibly hard to do, but could be scientific and falsifiable. It seems hard because if reality were simulated somehow then it's likely the simulation could adjust to prevent measurements outside the simulation, but if it didn't, then you don't know what's possible. For example, in computers you can visualize subsystems and in theory if you have a virus in that virtualized environment it is contained and can't get out. But sometimes there will be an exploit in the virtualization that could allow a virus to get out. It's extremely rare for that to happen but theoretically in computer science it's possible. We haven't been able to prove that this world we are in isn't just code, but if it were, and it were running in some space that ultimately was the actual reality with non-code physical characteristics (running purely on entropy as opposed to code simulating running on increased entropy), it's possible but unlikely it could be scientifically proven. This is mostly speculation and it would be so hard to do or prove it would be grasping at straws to prove, even if actually a correct theory, and therefore is effectively a non-scientific question for now (but technically not non-scientific).

Yeah, what does this have to do with anything? The point is that there is no current reputable scientific research on this shit. The person is trying to claim that there is research on it right now, even though that is in no way possible. You are going on about an imaginary scenario that isn't relevant to what is being discussed.

Yes - which is precisely because of what I explained above:
Most scientists are ignorant, and are heavily biased materialists, who actively DON'T WANT TO explore/acknowledge any findings that actually prove the existence of the afterlife/souls. Most scientists simply aren't being proper scientists.

Scientists don't work to "prove" things because science is not about proofs. Science mainly deals with probabilistic inferences. Ideas are accepted, rejected, or revised based on evidence that's been collected. It's weird to spend your time critiquing scientists despite not having much knowledge on the subject. Science is heavily based on materialism because we cannot study supernatural and non-material phenomena. These things are not testable.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

You clearly have no background in science, because scientists generally aren't studying crap like this.

You clearly underestimate who you're talking to here.

A person doesn't need to have a background in science, in order to understand how true science operates. It's enough for a person to have paid good attention to science, as well as to think rationally, in order to understand how a proper scientist would actually operate/what a proper scientist would actually be willing to study.

And you calling the scientific research of the afterlife/souls, "crap", shows how poorly YOU actually understand science.

Scientists tend to stick to things that can be studied and explained by natural processes and laws because there is no way to reliably study supernatural shit. Most research akin to the kind you are talking about isn't taken seriously by scientists, with a lot of that research usually being published in sketchy science journals that publish pseudoscience.

For something to be testable, you need to be able to create an experiment for it and/or be able to actually observe it, which you can't do when it comes to whether or not there is an afterlife. It's not falsifiable either, as it cannot be proven wrong through observation or experimentation. If there was supposedly evidence of there being an afterlife, then there would be a lot more buzz surrounding it within the scientific community, but there is not.

Like I previously told you:
You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS.

Most research akin to the kind you are talking about isn't taken seriously by scientists, with a lot of that research usually being published in sketchy science journals that publish pseudoscience.

Like I said, you clearly don't know how valid the research I'm referring to, actually is - which is because you've clearly never heard of it/explored it before.

And the reason why most scientists don't take afterlife-research seriously, is because they haven't actually explored any proper afterlife-research - and/or (most commonly) that they don't actually want the existence of the afterlife/souls to be proven, as most scientists are highly biased materialists. (In other words, most scientists aren't being proper scientists.)

Scientists tend to stick to things that can be studied and explained by natural processes and laws because there is no way to reliably study supernatural shit.

For something to be testable, you need to be able to create an experiment for it and/or be able to actually observe it, which you can't do when it comes to whether or not there is an afterlife.

YES - that's precisely what you actually CAN do, regarding the existence of an afterlife/souls. And that's precisely what I've been trying to tell you.

You simply don't know how proper afterlife-research is actually designed/conducted - which is why you make all of these incorrect assumptions about it.

If there was supposedly evidence of there being an afterlife, then there would be a lot more buzz surrounding it within the scientific community, but there is not.

Yes, it would have been - if most scientists had been proper scientists, who don't automatically dismiss the perfectly valid, scientific evidences that actually exist regarding the afterlife/souls, purely due to their own, materialistic bias/worldview.

You have no idea how biased and unwilling the mainstream, scientific community actually is, about acknowledging the scientific evidence regarding the afterlife/souls. You're simply living in a bubble regarding this - and I'm simply trying to open your eyes here.

I find it interesting how you keep on just calling me clueless instead of actually addressing how I'm wrong, along with maybe even showing some of this supposed scientific research you keep on blabbing on about.

I did address how you were wrong - as I said:
"You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS."

However, I only intended to inform you about these things; I didn't intend to go into detail and explain everything.

You see, going into detail and explaining everything, takes way more effort than just quickly informing you of the various ways that you are wrong; and is therefore something that I'm only willing to do if a person seems open to the possibility of being wrong - which it definitely didn't seem like you were.

But I had planned to go into more detail and explain things (or just give you the link to another thread on this forum, where I've already provided some of the evidences regarding the afterlife/souls), if you were to ask for it in later replies.

Scientists don't work to "prove" things because science is not about proofs. Science mainly deals with probabilistic inferences. Ideas are accepted, rejected, or revised based on evidence that's been collected. It's weird to spend your time critiquing scientists despite not having much knowledge on the subject. Science is heavily based on materialism because we cannot study supernatural and non-material phenomena. These things are not testable.

Dude, you're hopeless. I clearly understand science way, way better than you do - which any proper scientist will confirm.

And you're trying to use a coward's argument/a misleading argument here, as you're now arguing about how "scientists don't work to 'prove' things" - which I already know very well, of course. My point was simply that if a scientist is a proper scientist, then he'll/she'll happily explore any form of scientific evidences that supports/proves "X" (for example, scientific evidences that supports/proves the existence of an afterlife/souls).

(And by the way:
Scientists can of course be trying to prove/disprove (or more precisely, support/unsupport) their hypothesis - as that's the whole point of creating experiments at all, as it's to test the validity of their hypothesis. But you're just trying to be difficult here, by attacking me on things that are completely irrelevant for the subject at hand - such as by focusing on how "scientists don't work to prove things".)

Like I said, you seriously underestimate who you're actually talking to here. You clearly have no idea...

And for the last time:
The existence of an afterlife/souls actually IS scientifically testable. And you would have understood that, if you actually understood what science actually IS - and thereby understood what types of materialistic/tangible experiments science actually ALLOWS for.



If none of what I've told you here, help you realize (or at the very least, help you become open to the possibility) that you're wrong, then you're simply too far gone - and it's thereby pointless of me to continue this conversation with you.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

You clearly underestimate who you're talking to here.

A person doesn't need to have a background in science, in order to understand how true science operates. It's enough for a person to have paid good attention to science, as well as to think rationally, in order to understand how a proper scientist would actually operate/what a proper scientist would actually be willing to study.

And you calling the scientific research of the afterlife/souls, "crap", shows how poorly YOU actually understand science.




Like I previously told you:
You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS.

Like I said, you clearly don't know how valid the research I'm referring to, actually is - which is because you've clearly never heard of it/explored it before.

And the reason why most scientists don't take afterlife-research seriously, is because they haven't actually explored any proper afterlife-research - and/or (most commonly) that they don't actually want the existence of the afterlife/souls to be proven, as most scientists are highly biased materialists. (In other words, most scientists aren't being proper scientists.)





YES - that's precisely what you actually CAN do, regarding the existence of an afterlife/souls. And that's precisely what I've been trying to tell you.

You simply don't know how proper afterlife-research is actually designed/done - which is why you make all of these incorrect assumptions about it.




Yes, it would have been - if most scientists had been proper scientists, who don't automatically dismiss the perfectly valid, scientific evidences that actually exist regarding the afterlife/souls, purely due to their own, materialistic bias/worldview.

You have no idea how biased and unwilling the mainstream, scientific community actually is, about acknowledging the scientific evidence regarding the afterlife/souls. You're simply living in a bubble regarding this - and I'm simply trying to open your eyes here.




I did address how you were wrong - as I said:
"You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS."

However, I only intended to inform you about these things; I didn't intend to go into detail and explain everything.

You see, going into detail and explaining everything, takes way more effort than just quickly informing you of the various ways that you are wrong; and is therefore something that I'm only willing to do if a person seems open to the possibility of being wrong - which it definitely didn't seem like you were.

But I had planned to go into more detail and explain things (or just give you the link to another thread on this forum, where I've already provided some of the evidences regarding the afterlife/souls), if you were to ask for it in later replies.

Yeah, but you do have to actually look into how science operates and why it operates the way it does to understand it. And you clearly haven't. There is a difference between reading some science articles and actually understanding science. Rational thinking also doesn't mean that you now have a good understanding of it. Plenty of people are able to engage in rational thinking, while still having a poor understanding of the scientific method. This isn't some sort of thing that comes intuitively to you, rather it requires that you actually learn about it.

I find it funny how you have yet to show me this supposed research you keep going on about. Instead, your replies have mostly been "no, you" type responses. A good chunk of this post is "no, you clearly don't understand science", but at no point do you explain why this is. How is it that I am wrong here?

Your inability to provide evidence for your claims, explain why it is that I'm the one who doesn't know anything about science, along with you not seeming to want to explain anything, instead using the flimsy excuse of "it takes way more effort than quickly informing you on the various ways you are wrong" (which, you never actually informed me on why I am wrong, btw) is headache-inducing.

 

[nool]

I toe the line between atheist and agnostic (mostly towards atheism). I hope for some kind of beyond just out of personal comfort, but I couldn't even tell you what that'd look like. I know that realistically, we probably just cease to "be" once we die, but I still can't help but imagine what comes after.

If some kind of "after" exists, then cool. If it doesn't, that's also cool. Everyone will have different opinions on what comes after death. To me, there's no wrong answer or any wrongness in finding comfort even if what you believe isn't the reality.

That's just me, though. I'll always respect you if you think it's just lights out, or believe in a specific religion's afterlife. I just personally want some kind of afterlife to exist, but won't be mad if it doesn't.

(Hope my word vomit makes sense in some kinda way, my thoughts on consciousness and all that is all over the place LOL)

 

[lastsummer_yay]

I like the teaching that Consciousness is primary. Everything around is a dream of Consciousness, even the brain. But it's actually hard for me to believe in it. Most likely, it will just be a black screen.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

But it's sort of pointless to argue with "based" flat-earther types. They can't really be convinced by data when they are wrong.

I'm actually the exact opposite of "flat-earth-types" - as I'm an incredibly rational person, and am actually basing these things on valid, scientific data (in addition to having personally been to the spiritual dimension myself, which is why I truly know that the afterlife/souls are actually real). And you're simply too lost to see the fact that it's actually you guys who are wrong here.

Once you die, however, you WILL discover that what I was saying, was 100% accurate. I guarantee it. And I can't wait to see you there, and tell you, "I told you so".



It's insane how difficult it often is to convince people of the actual truth of things. (Especially when the truth is so obvious and clear, for anyone who actually researches things, and who actually thinks rationally.) It's no wonder there's been so many wars throughout human history.

 

[lasttogo]

What your friend said there, is actually partially correct.

In reality, if a person commits suicide, then he/she might have to redo the task/challenges that he had in this life, in another life as another person - IF he/she wants to reincarnate on earth. It's like having a school-project that has to be completed, before he/she can move on to the next school-project.

However, this probably depends on how advanced the soul is (as different souls are at different stages of advancement; and they incarnate as biological creatures on planets such as earth, primarily in order to learn and grow as souls), as that will probably determine how necessary/unnecessary it is for the soul to complete the school-project in question.

And in some rare cases, it's possible that a person is actually intended to commit suicide, as a part of his/her task/challenge in his/her current life on earth (which for example might have been about experiencing so much suffering that it would lead to suicide, or to give his/her friends/family the challenge of losing a loved one to suicide).


>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this. (My first quote reply not sure if I have done it right) This is beautifully worded <3

 

[SoulWantsHome]

Yeah, but you do have to actually look into how science operates and why it operates the way it does to understand it.

Yes - that's what I was referring to, when I mentioned "paying good attention to science".

Yeah, but you do have to actually look into how science operates and why it operates the way it does to understand it. And you clearly haven't.

Yes - I have. And I do understand how science operates, and why it operates the way that it does. And there's nothing you've told me about science in this thread, that I didn't already know.

You, on the other hand, simply don't actually understand science - as you have such a narrow/limited understanding of what it can entail/can't entail.

Of course, you are right about science being materialistically based; but you're wrong about science "not being able to prove the existence of an afterlife/souls" - as the existence of an afterlife/souls can actually be scientifically proven by the help of very thorough, material/tangible, scientific experiments (which is exactly what science has actually accomplished; and which would have been acknowledged by most scientists, if these type of scientific discoveries had occurred within any other type of scientific field).

There is a difference between reading some science articles and actually understanding science. Rational thinking also doesn't mean that you now have a good understanding of it. Plenty of people are able to engage in rational thinking, while still having a poor understanding of the scientific method. This isn't some sort of thing that comes intuitively to you, rather it requires that you actually learn about it.

You don't understand these things.

The scientific method, as well as the scientific way of thinking, actually IS quite intuitive for certain people - but it clearly isn't for you.

And if such a person, who quite intuitively understands the scientific method, as well as the scientific way of thinking, in addition also has read scientific studies and scientific books, and have watched scientific documentaries; then that person can understand exactly what science is all about, and how science is properly conducted.

And the people you claim to be rational, but who don't understand the scientific method; either aren't very rational in reality (which means that you're just mistaking them for being "rational people"), and/or aren't very intelligent in reality, and/or haven't explored much science.

I find it funny how you have yet to show me this supposed research you keep going on about. Instead, your replies have mostly been "no, you" type responses. A good chunk of this post is "no, you clearly don't understand science", but at no point do you explain why this is. How is it that I am wrong here?

I already explained in my previous reply to you, why I didn't bother going into detail and explaining things further to you. It's simply not worth the effort - as you'll obviously just try to dismiss things, no matter how valid my scientific and empirical basis actually is.

To a dedicated sceptic such as you, no positive proof regarding afterlife/souls, will ever be good enough. So, you'll just have to wait until you die, where you'll realize that I was simply telling you the truth all along. Sigh...

Your inability to provide evidence for your claims, explain why it is that I'm the one who doesn't know anything about science, along with you not seeming to want to explain anything, instead using the flimsy excuse of "it takes way more effort than quickly informing you on the various ways you are wrong" (which, you never actually informed me on why I am wrong, btw) is headache-inducing.

What's really headache-inducing here, is your inability to understand all of the OBVIOUS things that I have to spoon-feed to you (for example, how science actually works, and the broad spectre of materialistic/tangible methods that science actually allows for).

(...) instead using the flimsy excuse of "it takes way more effort than quickly informing you on the various ways you are wrong" (which, you never actually informed me on why I am wrong, btw) (...)

Yes - I actually did inform you of the various ways you are wrong/the various reasons why you are wrong, by saying to you:
"You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS."

I pointed out the things that you clearly haven't researched, and the things that you clearly didn't know anything about; thus informing you about the various ways you are wrong/the various reasons why you are wrong. However, I didn't go into any further detail, and thereby didn't explain things any further to you.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this. (My first quote reply not sure if I have done it right) This is beautifully worded <3

Thank you for the feedback. I'm glad it made sense to you :)



By the way:
I want to point out that I don't know if anyone is actually intended to commit suicide. But there's certainly a possibility that someone might be intended to commit suicide (due to what I previously mentioned to you, about the challenges that a suicidal person would have to live through in life, until they suffer enough to commit suicide; and the challenges that a person's suicide results in for his/her friends/family).

However, if a person truly is intended to commit suicide, then that would be a rarity - as most souls incarnate on earth with the intent to actually live through all the tasks/challenges they have/face during a life.

Just wanted to clarify this, so that you (or anyone else) don't mistakenly think that "most suicidal people are intended to commit suicide".

 

[claracatchingthebus]

Yeah, what does this have to do with anything? The point is that there is no current reputable scientific research on this shit. The person is trying to claim that there is research on it right now, even though that is in no way possible. You are going on about an imaginary scenario that isn't relevant to what is being discussed.

Scientists don't work to "prove" things because science is not about proofs. Science mainly deals with probabilistic inferences. Ideas are accepted, rejected, or revised based on evidence that's been collected. It's weird to spend your time critiquing scientists despite not having much knowledge on the subject. Science is heavily based on materialism because we cannot study supernatural and non-material phenomena. These things are not testable.

I clearly agree that there's no current scientific reputable research showing anything other than consciousness is the result of physical processes and ends when brain death occurs.

As for SoulWantsHome and others, some people lack the capacity to distinguish between "evidence" (ie, claims made without rigorous proof) and scientific evidence. You see this with flat-earthers and religious types desperate to prove the myths in their religious books. It's useless to debate someone who is indoctrinated into religion, even if they were raised in some sort of religion and gave that up for some quasi-new-age spiritual sort of believe system; it's still based on religion. I am full expecting that, but not for this very sentence, there would be some length diatribe about how i'm wrong, but now to be contrarian there won't be a response like that from SoulWantsHome. Some people can't distinguish between data quality. There are "scientific" papers on the afterlife in actual consumer-pop-"science" books. None of them involve experiments that are rigorous and reproducible, but you can't convince the religious of that. A scientist looks for how to prove something is false, a religious person desperately finds a way to patch together math and sentences to prove their myths are true.

It's interesting how in the many responses to your post saying how you're a moron and don't understand science, no one has posted a link or cite to a reproducible scientific study which has rigorous methodology and is reproducible. Many many sentences about how you're a moron and don't get science, however. I think there are actual philosophical questions about what science should or shouldn't encompass, but really at the end of the day it comes back to reproducibility and falsifiability and everything else is mostly just theoretical meaningless debate that doesn't really yield accurate results. My statement earlier about how it's hard to know certain things and what science will be like in the future isn't to suggest that made up science for religious consumers is somehow rigorous.

You clearly underestimate who you're talking to here.

A person doesn't need to have a background in science, in order to understand how true science operates. It's enough for a person to have paid good attention to science, as well as to think rationally, in order to understand how a proper scientist would actually operate/what a proper scientist would actually be willing to study.

And you calling the scientific research of the afterlife/souls, "crap", shows how poorly YOU actually understand science.




Like I previously told you:
You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS.




Like I said, you clearly don't know how valid the research I'm referring to, actually is - which is because you've clearly never heard of it/explored it before.

And the reason why most scientists don't take afterlife-research seriously, is because they haven't actually explored any proper afterlife-research - and/or (most commonly) that they don't actually want the existence of the afterlife/souls to be proven, as most scientists are highly biased materialists. (In other words, most scientists aren't being proper scientists.)





YES - that's precisely what you actually CAN do, regarding the existence of an afterlife/souls. And that's precisely what I've been trying to tell you.

You simply don't know how proper afterlife-research is actually designed/conducted - which is why you make all of these incorrect assumptions about it.




Yes, it would have been - if most scientists had been proper scientists, who don't automatically dismiss the perfectly valid, scientific evidences that actually exist regarding the afterlife/souls, purely due to their own, materialistic bias/worldview.

You have no idea how biased and unwilling the mainstream, scientific community actually is, about acknowledging the scientific evidence regarding the afterlife/souls. You're simply living in a bubble regarding this - and I'm simply trying to open your eyes here.




I did address how you were wrong - as I said:
"You clearly haven't researched the actual science that exists regarding the afterlife/souls. And you clearly have no idea about what science actually IS. And you clearly do not know how testable/falsifiable (and thereby how scientific) the existence of the afterlife/souls actually IS."

However, I only intended to inform you about these things; I didn't intend to go into detail and explain everything.

You see, going into detail and explaining everything, takes way more effort than just quickly informing you of the various ways that you are wrong; and is therefore something that I'm only willing to do if a person seems open to the possibility of being wrong - which it definitely didn't seem like you were.

But I had planned to go into more detail and explain things (or just give you the link to another thread on this forum, where I've already provided some of the evidences regarding the afterlife/souls), if you were to ask for it in later replies.




Dude, you're hopeless. I clearly understand science way, way better than you do - which any proper scientist will confirm.

And you're trying to use a coward's argument/a misleading argument here, as you're now arguing about how "scientists don't work to 'prove' things" - which I already know very well, of course. My point was simply that if a scientist is a proper scientist, then he'll/she'll happily explore any form of scientific evidences that supports/proves "X" (for example, scientific evidences that supports/proves the existence of an afterlife/souls).

(And by the way:
Scientists can of course be trying to prove/disprove (or more precisely, support/unsupport) their hypothesis - as that's the whole point of creating experiments at all, as it's to test the validity of their hypothesis. But you're just trying to be difficult here, by attacking me on things that are completely irrelevant for the subject at hand - such as by focusing on how "scientists don't work to prove things".)

Like I said, you seriously underestimate who you're actually talking to here. You clearly have no idea...

And for the last time:
The existence of an afterlife/souls actually IS scientifically testable. And you would have understood that, if you actually understood what science actually IS - and thereby understood what types of materialistic/tangible experiments science actually ALLOWS for.



If none of what I've told you here, help you realize (or at the very least, help you become open to the possibility) that you're wrong, then you're simply too far gone - and it's thereby pointless of me to continue this conversation with you.

so many words. not one link to a rigorous reproducible study with peer-review that has been replicated in other labs. it's a lot of sassiness and ad-hominem attacks for such little data. i feel like it's missing a snap and a sashay at the end to go along with the complete and total lack of actual data.

it's very easy for a college education bachelor of arts "rationalist" with some religious beliefs to go to a store, pick up a book about consciousness or the afterlife, and see many scientific footnotes in the book, read about many studies, and also get inundated with rhetoric about all the reasons real scientists doubt the studies because of being arrogant or driven by money. My belief is that most of these books are driven by a consumer demand for this type of product. Many people miss people and want to feel the world is less bleak and so these books are created. The problem is that slightly gullible or well-meaning consumers, some of them with degrees, don't examine whether these studies are peer-reviewed and what the methodology of the study is. It's so easy to create a flawed study. Anyone can publish anything. And it's very easy for someone who is extremely smart at history or art history or english or even have an advanced degree in nursing or social work to fall for this tripe because they don't fully investigate closely the research methodology of the study. It's really a trap for the gullible, but on some level, people choose what they want: some people would prefer the fantasy of these books.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

I clearly agree that there's no current scientific reputable research showing anything other than consciousness is the result of physical processes and ends when brain death occurs.

As for SoulWantsHome and others, some people lack the capacity to distinguish between "evidence" (ie, claims made without rigorous proof) and scientific evidence. You see this with flat-earthers and religious types desperate to prove the myths in their religious books. It's useless to debate someone who is indoctrinated into religion, even if they were raised in some sort of religion and gave that up for some quasi-new-age spiritual sort of believe system; it's still based on religion. I am full expecting that, but not for this very sentence, there would be some length diatribe about how i'm wrong, but now to be contrarian there won't be a response like that from SoulWantsHome. Some people can't distinguish between data quality. There are "scientific" papers on the afterlife in actual consumer-pop-"science" books. None of them involve experiments that are rigorous and reproducible, but you can't convince the religious of that. A scientist looks for how to prove something is false, a religious person desperately finds a way to patch together math and sentences to prove their myths are true.

It's interesting how in the many responses to your post saying how you're a moron and don't understand science, no one has posted a reproducible scientific study or link to that which has rigorous methodology and improves things. Many many sentences about how you're a moron and don't get science, however. I think there are actual philosophical questions about what science should or shouldn't encompass, but really at the end of the day it comes back to reproducibility and falsifiability and everything else is mostly just theoretical meaningless debate that doesn't really yield accurate results. My statement earlier about how it's hard to know certain things and what science will be like in the future isn't to suggest that made up science for religious consumers is somehow rigorous.

Sigh.... You're so incredibly ignorant. And you mistake me for an irrational, non-critical person - which I'm actually the complete opposite of. You simply have no idea how wrong you are - both about me, and about the valid, scientific afterlife-research.

You're simply too lost. And there's simply no way of getting through to you people.

And I've already explained why I won't bother going into detail and explaining things further (about the valid, scientific afterlife-research that actually exist) - as it would obviously be quite pointless of me to do so, when faced with such dedicated sceptics as you guys.



In reality, it's actually YOU GUYS who are ignorant, irrational, incapable of critical thinking, and incapable of understanding what actually constitutes valid evidences for things. And you don't realize this yourselves, precisely because of those things.

I'll see you in the afterlife one day - where you'll realize how insanely mistaken you were, both about me, and about the afterlife itself. I'm really going to enjoy seeing your faces, when you realize the type of person I actually was, and how true everything I said, actually is.

If you guys only knew... Sigh...

 

[claracatchingthebus]

Sigh.... You're so incredibly ignorant. And you mistake me for an irrational, non-critical person - which I'm actually the complete opposite of. You simply have no idea how wrong you are - both about me, and about the valid, scientific afterlife-research.

You're simply too lost. And there's simply no way of getting through to you people.

And I've already explained why I won't bother going into detail and explain these things further - as it's obviously pointless.



In reality, it's actually YOU guys who are ignorant, irrational, incapable of critical thinking, and incapable of understanding what actually constitutes valid evidences for things. And you don't realize this yourselves, precisely because of those things.

I'll see you in the afterlife one day - where you'll realize how insanely mistaken you were, both about me, and about the afterlife itself. I'm really going to enjoy seeing your faces, when you realize the type of person I actually was, and how true everything I said, actually is.

If you guys only knew... Sigh...

lots of words, no data

i may be ignorant... as for EvisceratedJester, I am not sure what that person does, but they honestly strike me as someone who probably has extensive laboratory experience

I don't think either of us actually care that much if you are super smart and highly rational or are irrational. The point is you have no high quality data. You have probably said thousands of words in this thread without 1 link to a study so that anyone like EvisceratedJester in this thread can examine the methodology. My guess is that person has hundreds if not thousands of hours spent in a lab. If you read through the thread again, I actually think we could possibly use science at some point to determine if reality is just "code" rather than based on real physical processes, which EvisceratedJester thinks is a psuedoscientific question, essentially. Not all skeptics are a monolith.

My guess is you have a college degree and possibly an advanced degree in an area like theology, nursing, art history, or even could have something like a doctorate of philosophy or doctorate or literature. It's possible to be very smart in some things and very ignorant in science and I'm not actually holding myself out as someone highly scientifically literate. I don't know a lot of things, but I see a lot of claims from you and no data, just rhetoric. I'm guessing Masters in Literature or something... tons of words, no data at all.

You can get through to me with the right data. I am wrong ALL THE TIME. Please, post a study you think is well-designed and prove your point. I made an error about applying statistics earlier in this thread and was corrected and acknowledged my mistake. Post some data! Your posts keep having excuses for not posting data and I find it bizarre.

Your posts: "You are too ignorant to be changed by a study, so I won't post 1 hyperlink for you to review. Instead here are 7 paragraphs about how everyone is ignorant and I'm highly rational using clever sassy rhetoric."

 

[unluckysadness]

That's a good question. One thing is sure : we'll all know one day. I believe in these NDE stories and I hope it's true

 

[princexhhn]

Am I the only one who's a little terrified thinking about this? I choose to believe that we'll still be something, a soul, a reincarnation, after death. I am deathly afraid of the idea that I'd just… cease to be. That all I'll be instead is the memory of still living peers. It's as if saying I've lived and built this life up for nothing— just for me to end up as a pile of disposable ashes and nothing else.

 

[SoulWantsHome]

lots of words, no data

The point is you have no high quality data. You have probably said thousands of words in this thread without 1 link to a study so that anyone like EvisceratedJester in this thread can examine the methodology.

(...) I see a lot of claims from you and no data, just rhetoric. (...) tons of words, no data at all.

Your posts: "You are too ignorant to be changed by a study, so I won't post 1 hyperlink for you to review. Instead here are 7 paragraphs about how everyone is ignorant and I'm highly rational using clever sassy rhetoric."

I've already explained the reasons for this.

as for EvisceratedJester, I am not sure what that person does, but they honestly strike me as someone who probably has extensive laboratory experience

Either that, or he has read/watched a lot science-related material. But if he's a scientist, then he's clearly a very bad scientist - as everything I told him regarding science, should have been obvious to any good scientist. (It's like science 101.)

He actually seems like a typical layman (as opposed to truly competent laymen), who has only gotten a superficial understanding of science - and who uses it to argue with those of us who actually know what we're talking about, and who actually understands science. But people like you, become easily fooled by this - and you fail to see the obvious flaws in his arguments.

My guess is that person has hundreds if not thousands of hours spent in a lab.

His potentially enormous lab-experience doesn't help much, if he's a bad scientist at heart/in his way of thinking (which he clearly is, if he's actually a scientist).

Not all skeptics are a monolith.

Sure, not all sceptics are monoliths - but most of them are.

And you and EvisceratedJester certainly have been monoliths (at least so far), when it comes to not being willing to acknowledge that there can actually exist some valid, scientific afterlife-research out there (which actually does exist), that you guys simply don't know about - and which can actually prove that there exists an immaterial side of reality (which actually does exist), which is where the afterlife/souls exist.

It's possible to be very smart in some things and very ignorant in science (...)

Yes, to a degree - IF the person hasn't been exposed to a lot science before. But if the person is highly intelligent and rational for real, then the scientific method, as well as the scientific way of thinking, would still be quite intuitive for him/her (as I've previously mentioned).

You can get through to me with the right data. I am wrong ALL THE TIME. Please, post a study you think is well-designed and prove your point. I made an error about applying statistics earlier in this thread and was corrected and acknowledged my mistake. Post some data! Your posts keep having excuses for not posting data and I find it bizarre.

I don't have any links to the scientific evidences. (It's probably possible to find, but I haven't bothered with that, as I originally didn't intend to be a "spokesperson on behalf of the scientific afterlife-research".)

Instead, I have actual books and documentaries that cover them. (And the full set of scientific data regarding 1 of these afterlife-experiments, are actually covered in the last pages of 1 of these books. And the first part of this afterlife-experiment was even recorded for a television-show on "HBO" - which intentionally twisted/sabotaged things in the edit, in order to make it falsely appear like the scientific experiment had "failed" to prove anything. A lot of people are really lousy/shitty people. Sigh...)

That's why I would have to explain these scientific evidences to you - or simply refer you to the titles of these books and documentaries, and just "hope that you purchase them" (which obviously requires you to truly be interested in finding out the truth, if you're actually going to pay money for the material). And that's why I'd like to avoid going into detail and explain things properly, unless I know that it would actually be worth my time and energy.

So, naturally, it's way easier and quicker for me to just inform you guys of the fact that there actually exists some proper, scientific afterlife-research out there; than to dive into the details of what it actually consists of - when I'm dealing with dedicated sceptics such as you guys, who probably would just dismiss the scientific evidences anyway (and who I don't feel like deserve to know the truth anyway, due to the level of irrationality and criticism that you guys have demonstrated/expressed in response to me).



PS:

I actually used to be an atheist, before I had my personal, spiritual experiences - and before I discovered all the scientific and empirical evidences of the afterlife/souls. (That's how rational I am, that I actually follow valid evidences, wherever they may lead me. I truly want to know the real truth about things - regardless of whether I personally like the real truth, or not.)

And therefore, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of the afterlife/souls not being real, as well (although I actually know that the afterlife/souls are real, as I've already stated) - as that's how I used to live for many years anyway, back when I was an atheist. So, I'm not "invested" in the afterlife/souls being real; it's just the undeniable conclusion that the valid, scientific and empirical evidences happen to point to.

One thing is sure : we'll all know one day.

Exactly :)

 

[Alcoholic Teletubby]

If I were to give in to an idealistic lens, I'd want to become stardust to fuel the universe's continuation. That, or let my lifeforce disperse into any of the other organisms that consume me (I'm hoping for an organic burial).

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I think that person did not have an insane position, many scientists feel that way.

It seems like a lot of people who do afterlife/soul research are people who are religious or spiritual at the outset and I believe most of them are looking to confirm their conclusions. I know some studies that seem quasi-scientific in nature (like after someone dies their mass is ever so slightly less, and some pseudoscientists posit that's the soul) but I'm not sure if any of these afterlife studies are reproducible. In other words, have any of these afterlife studies been done in 10 different labs and found to be true everywhere? Many scientists won't try to reproduce them because they are considered such time wasters.

It's fine to disagree with that person but sort of hyperbolic ragebait responses, like what you would see from a "based" Conservative commentator, doesn't actually make that person "insane" or "clueless" as that sort of ragebait "based" stuff tends to pander to the undereducated or lower intelligent people.

You're right. Again, I'm not a math expert. I redid things and did an example with a smaller number of neurons and permutations was an incorrect conceptualization. What would be the state beyond two? Firing neuron, not firing neuron... or ____?

Just with 2 states on or off is enough. as i showed 302 neurons 7000 connections that's 2 to the 7000 th power a number with 2108 digits of different patterns that nueral network or brain with 7000 connections can form. a human has 100 trillion connections . so thats 2 to the 100 trillion power an unfathomable number . so to me that shows a human can learn almost anything. it's just using the correct trainining and practice to learn, figure out , do almost anything .but it must be done every day for hours the correct practice . it's about focus working at it and practice. additionally a human can think 4000 words per minute. it's a lot of brain power. the thing is they never taught us this that we can do a lot if we work at it every day and how to reprogram the brain form the habits quickly to do the work and to get goals accomplished.

but if you spend all those 4000 words per minute watching youtube videos, reddit , social media , movies, videos like i did and do then you are imo wasting all that brain power and potential accomplishment and real learning of information and real knowledge

The Rate of Inner Speech - Rodney J. Korba, 1990

Self-reports of elliptical inner speech were measured to assess the speed of verbal problem solving. Rates of inner speech were correlated with physiological me...

journals.sagepub.com

Our Inner Voice & Why it Matters

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have an internal running monologue going on in our heads many times throughout our day – everyone does! This inner voice consists of the silent conversations, random thoughts, worries and ideas that we engage in with ourselves - we also call it our inner sp

www.linkedin.com

 

[claracatchingthebus]

Either that, or he has read/watched a lot science-related material. But if he's a scientist, then he's clearly a very bad scientist - as everything I told him regarding science, should have been obvious to any good scientist. (It's like science 101.)

yikes, more like dunning-kruger 101