Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks for the friendly response (unlike "AfterInfinity). I will definitely give those items a thorough reading. I'd often wondered if mankind's search for life after death was merely the result of our inherent fear of death, seeking a way to achieve peace with it, or if there is something more to it - a sort of inherent human knowledge outside of consciousness which acts as proof.

There have been reports from various sources since the 1970s that the various mind experiments carried out under CIA sponsorship in the MKUltra project found evidence of life after death, but the records remain highly classified. Whatever science is now being introduced is the result of new experiments by the mainstream scientific community. The CIA was eager to see what could be achieved by means of "fringe science", and indeed found many interesting and still-puzzling phenomena related to human consciousness.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I'm not convinced that "absolute" - the idea represented by the word "absolute" - isn't as real a concept as any god you care to point out. For all I know, they're in the same boat. And for those who are a little slow on the upkeep, no god is real to me. Do the math.

reply to post by dovdov


Keep your childish jibes to yourself. If you have something to say, address me directly.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Something tells me NDE's are a result of higher awareness, of recognizing intangible concepts and exploring them, of opening ourselves up to new sensations, new trains of thought, new philosophical doors that grant us the psychological flexibility to experience such encounters. Call it "spiritual puberty". Something is changing inside of us, and as a result, our relationship with the world beyond/above/within/etc this world is also changing.

Just wanted to bump this paragraph. I re-read it in the recent post by another member; it is very profound.

Serdgiam:

Except, of course, if this universe is only a part of the totality of "existence."

I am sorry, but no, your statement is utter gobbledegook. You've rushed to a safe haven of unprovable fantasy. I was hoping you would stay within the realm of reality. It is obvious you see the importance of the statement I made, but to try to rebut it with the nonsense you came back with, is simply self-deception.

The statement I made is all encompassing of all existence. It's meaning is there in the words I wrote. Whatever sub-parts make up the so-called 'totality of existence' is covered by the statement I made...it cannot be circumnavigated. No matter what realms of reality exist, their foundation and longevity rests entirely on energy interaction and correspondence, you simply cannot get around it. Without energy interaction and correspondence, nothing can exist.

I simply ask that you analyse the logic of the statement and be utterly honest with yourself, allowing no self-deception at all.

reply to post by elysiumfire

I am sorry, but no, your statement is utter gobbledegook. You've rushed to a safe haven of unprovable fantasy. I was hoping you would stay within the realm of reality.

Wait. So...are you saying that 'string theory' is an absurd "unprovable fantasy"? IIRC, it's pretty well established as a legitimate theory....
and has yet to be decisively 'debunked.'

But, then, I'm not in the inner circle of physicists, so......I'm not claiming anything except what I've 'received' via info to date.

reply to post by wildtimes


How does string theory contradict his statement that "Without energy interaction and correspondence, nothing can exist"?

reply to post by elysiumfire

I was hoping you would stay within the realm of reality.

The thing is, that at the quantum level, we don't really understand "reality." And we're beginning to admit it. There is too much being 'theorized' that doesn't fit into established, old models.

You oppose 'string theory'? Why?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

"Without energy interaction and correspondence, nothing can exist"?

string theory doesn't 'negate' that statement....

But energy interaction and correspondence has nothing to do with whether or not 'string theory', which he said was an unprovable fantasy, holds up.

wildtimes:

Also check out Anita Moorjani.

I know Anita personally via the internet and Skype. I used to be the admin of Dr. Jeffery Long's NDERF website, I helped to administer the forum he had there. Anita joined and I got to know her quite well. She knows I am not an experient of NDE, but I found in her person a remarkable empathy by which I was able to engage with her, and question her on her experience, this was before she wrote her book, around the time she was beginning to plan for it. The last time we emailed each other was last year when I let her know I had bought her book in Avebury here in England whilst visiting and photographing Stonehenge and the Avebury circle. It was the only hard copy of the book I could find at the time.

I wrote the following in tribute of her...

Hi Anita,

I’m pleased to see you realizing your goal of reaching out to others with the message that you are an embodiment of. You have brought insight and cognition to this ‘non-experiencer’, often humbling his stern stance and thinking, not in confrontation, but in the profound love and joy that resonates from you…know that you are a healer, not of the body but of the mind, for healing emanates from cognizing the power of ‘understanding’ the knowledge we gain throughout our life and (if the Fates should weave it) spiritual experiences.

This is your ascent, onwards and upwards to your perihelion, and in the way you brought your sunrise to my horizons, I know you will bring it to many more…therein is your interconnection and your magnificence…the radiating flame of your heart and mind that is your spirit. May it forever shine…

anitamoorjani.com...

I've actually corresponded with a number of well known NDE experients, Pam Reynolds (now deceased) is another.

elysiumfire
Serdgiam:

Except, of course, if this universe is only a part of the totality of "existence."

I am sorry, but no, your statement is utter gobbledegook. You've rushed to a safe haven of unprovable fantasy. I was hoping you would stay within the realm of reality. It is obvious you see the importance of the statement I made, but to try to rebut it with the nonsense you came back with, is simply self-deception.

Wow, quite the statement there. I talk of "ifs" and "possibilities," that actually do the opposite for me than create some sort of "safe haven."

You do not seem to be speaking to me, but some archetype you have constructed in your brain.

The statement I made is all encompassing of all existence. It's meaning is there in the words I wrote. Whatever sub-parts make up the so-called 'totality of existence' is covered by the statement I made...it cannot be circumnavigated. No matter what realms of reality exist, their foundation and longevity rests entirely on energy interaction and correspondence, you simply cannot get around it. Without energy interaction and correspondence, nothing can exist.

That is how it works, as far as we know. You act as if that supercedes any possibility of our understanding being off. If we were "done," and therefore no longer pursuing possibilities, then what need of science do we have?

I am not defiantly claiming anything, in this regard, as my stance.

You make a similar "unprovable safe haven" by saying, with fervor, "Without energy interaction and correspondence, nothing can exist." While I would agree, I could never claim with absolute certainty that this understanding will remain unchanged. Especially because without energy interaction and correspondence, we likely wouldnt be able to observe it in the first place. Thats quite the bunker!

I simply ask that you analyse the logic of the statement and be utterly honest with yourself, allowing no self-deception at all.

I am not sure I am able to analyze whatever logic you have used to built your archetype of me. See: Sad/Funny exchange between AfterInfinity and myself.

As far as I can tell, you are talking about basic relativistic physics. Perhaps an actual discussion with me, rather than the person you have built me to be in your mind, would yield more fruit for all participants.

Wildtimes:

But energy interaction and correspondence has nothing to do with whether or not 'string theory', which he said was an unprovable fantasy, holds up.

With all due respect to you old fella, I think you need to put your glasses on. Please point out where I state that 'string theory' is an unprovable fantasy? I'm sure I have not mentioned it at all in my posts to this thread. However, let us not derail the discussion with unnecessary tangents.

By now, I am sure you will see that what I have sought to do with my long study of post-mortem consciousness, is to anchor it in the realm of reality by my postulating a plausible hypothesis for the production of consciousness, i.e., the energy that is its foundation, and then to see if a follow up mechanism can be plausibly gleaned for its continuation after the destruction of the physical body. Unfortunately, I cannot uncover such an hypothesis that accounts for the transition, which is why I currently hold the stance that there is no post-mortem consciousness, and no afterlife.

Serdgiam:

Thats quite the bunker!

Not at all. It's written on a placard I carry for all to see, I'm in no bunker. I don't hide from uncomfortable propositions.

...build your archetype of me.

I'm sorry, Serdgiam, I'm not quite following you. I would ask, what the hell are you on about? What 'archetype'? I'm responding to your posts, to what you say. That is the only interaction we have. Your Jungian thinking has no relevance here, neither Dawkins 'meme'.

Can I politely request that you stick to non-personal correspondence. You do not figure high enough in my consciousness for me to want to construct some imaginary 'archetype' of you. You are simply words on a forum page, as I am to you.

elysiumfire
Can I politely request that you stick to non-personal correspondence.

Should I speak to you in the third person?

You are simply words on a forum page, as I am to you.

I try to learn from the person typing the words. It is done through words on a forum page. You speak for others quite readily.

We seem to have a massive disconnect. Oh well.

reply to post by elysiumfire

With all due respect to you old fella, I think you need to put your glasses on.

lol!!!
Okay, then. Thanks for the opinion/thought. With all due respect, son, I think you need to take your blinders *coughs* glasses OFF.

*wanders off muttering 'old fella?' while shaking head*
*and chuckling*

reply to post by elysiumfire

Well, I'm excited and happy for you that you actually know her!! Wow!
So, you wrote her this:

You have brought insight and cognition to this ‘non-experiencer’, often humbling his stern stance and thinking, not in confrontation, but in the profound love and joy that resonates from you…know that you are a healer, not of the body but of the mind, for healing emanates from cognizing the power of ‘understanding’ the knowledge we gain throughout our life and (if the Fates should weave it) spiritual experiences.

Are you "this non-experiencer", elysiumfire?

I'm quite confused at this point. I thought you maintained (from your entry into the thread), that you thought the afterlife and NDEs were bunk.

(I'll go back and check.)

Anyway...that's AWESOME that you actually know her!!!! Staff tried to get Mellen-Thomas Benedict for an AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread, but he never got back to us. When I learned of Anita I thought - well, SHE would be just as impressive and credible as he would!!!!

Do you think she'd do it?

wildtimes
The thing is, that at the quantum level, we don't really understand "reality." And we're beginning to admit it. There is too much being 'theorized' that doesn't fit into established, old models.

I actually think this facet alone is a really exciting thing.

Old models seem to work incredibly reliably, but only at certain scales.

Because of this, it seems to have broken into two "rival" camps. One that is trying to force everything into old models, and the other that has chosen to say everything about the old models is wrong. I.E. Mainstream vs Alternative science. That is, obviously, a generalization. It is one that we can see play out in many different arenas though, including on ATS.

For me, it just points to the fact that we dont know everything and that there is more to discover. Some possibilities are that there are boundaries to the different sets of "rules," though it would be uncertain how many of these boundaries might exist. Some propose it is infinite (some multi-verse hypotheses), but that isnt a word to sling around lightly. Another is that relativistic theories, while accurate in conceptual explanation/replication of patterns, are not an accurate or encompassing interpretation of the data. I do not think this is the case, but I could be wrong. It is even a possibility that the waveforms we see are only half of the picture, and the other half simply moves in a different observable fashion than what we are used to seeing. I also think it is a possibility (as I mentioned), that relativistic space-time flat-out does not apply in every area of what we know to exist.

All of this just means we have more to learn, explore, and quantize. If we can figure out the patterns, and how it all relates to each other, thats exactly how we come up with amazing things like flight, transistors, and the wheel. Who knows what neat stuff will come along in the future? As our understanding grows, we may even be able to directly explore, predict, and utilize phenomena that has yet been unexplained (NDE, ghosts, etc) to benefit all of us. Of course, there is also the chance of weaponization..

Then again, we may simply be looking at things that are not reliably observable/explorable even with the use of tools. Even if they are the driving force of the universe as we know it, they might as well not even exist at that point (as far as we are concerned).

Wildtimes:

Are you "this non-experiencer", elysiumfire?

Indeed, I am.

I thought you maintained (from your entry into the thread), that you thought the afterlife and NDEs were bunk.

If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will see I clarified my position, and why I currently hold the stance I have now.

I have always been 'open-minded' and 'objective'. The study I took up when I was a teen was at its conception a frivolous idea. At the time I was wholly unaware that it would last as long as it has, and affect me in the way that it has. On a number of occasions I have tried to justify the study I undertook to myself, yet have never managed to put my finger on the real reason. It just will not go away, something is nagging me like an itch I cannot scratch. Believe me, I have tried to walk away from this stuff a number of times, but always return.

When I learned of Anita I thought - well, SHE would be just as impressive and credible as he would!!!! Do you think she'd do it?

You will understand that I cannot speak on her behalf as a spokesperson. Anita is travelling the world giving her talks. You can join her Facebook page and ask her (I'm not on it, I don't do Facebook). I don't mean to be derogatory towards ATS, but I would think that ATS is a site a little too convoluted in conspiracy for her to allow herself to be associated with. I know I wouldn't participate, for obvious reasons.

en-gb.facebook.com...

Wow! This is deep stuff. Fantastic discussion so far. *observes avidly while chewing a burger*

Serdgiam:

...it seems to have broken into two "rival" camps.

Not rival, but disparate. The old 'classical' physics (or Newtonian physics) deals with reality on the macro scale; whereas the 'new' physics deals with reality at the sub-atomic, quantum level. Unfortunately, the two do not associate well with each other, there is no seamless and smooth transition from macro to micro realities. Newtonian physics breaks down at the micro scale, gravity cannot be incorporated at this level, it is too weak.