Post by f13ticket on Apr 17, 2009 20:05:53 GMT -5
The Case For a Scientific Afterlife
It has come to my attention that science has decided to rule out the afterlife on some rather flimsy bases. I always thought science was supposed to because proving things, not disproving them. To that extent, it appears to me that claiming the Non-Existence of an afterlife is a backwards use of the scientific method. If one were to try to use a machine backwards, a bow caster for instance, how would that turn out? I believe the same concept applies for science being used to disprove anything. Science was designed to create theories that either are supported well or supported poorly. A correct understanding of science actually proves that almost nothing is considered completely concrete to a true scientist. Rather, only highly proven and thus highly likely; or not proven as well and not as likely in comparison. Why then is science so fast to claim definitive proof of the non-existence of the afterlife?
What you will find when you research the question of the existence of an afterlife further is that, much like the farce that is global warming, not all scientists do agree. There are emerging people who are employing experimental methods in the attempt to, “make measurable what is not.” Ghost Hunters is but one of these groups. While they have gained popularity for their show and findings, they are but one of many groups of people who are revisiting the concept of a provable afterlife.
One of the major problems with some people concerning science is that they have devolved into a state where science itself has become a prison for the mind, a tool of control, a staunch and unmovable bolder of unbreakable truth. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me. You know, the thing science has worked so hard to fight and get away from. Talk about becoming the dragon. There are many people, in and out of science, that want to persist in treating science as a faith. As such, anything that challenges the basis for what is currently generally understood about science is considered tantamount to a heretic and chastised and ostracized for the flock, (“mainstream” science.) As such, those vested interests that control scientific paradigm are no different in motive than those who control the spiritual, cooperate, and political paradigms. Fallacious arguments are grafted together to suppress thought rather than encourage it. Notice how many mainstream science gets very defensive, passionate really, when spoken to calmly and poignantly about the topic of an afterlife. Much like how Christians defend the Jesus myth, so too scientists defend the everyone just rots in the ground myth. They do it with a great exertion of control of the paradigm, passionate rants, ego stroking, and harsh... harsh condemnation for those who do not conform strictly, (the non-believers.) It is almost as if they have defined science as that which religion is not. The “yin” to religion's “yang.” And in so doing have become the reflected paradigm. Which is, of course, just as closed minded but on the other side of the table. Where then do the dining couple meet? When do we look past the scientists who take special pleasure in keeping mankind ignorant of the truth by claiming themselves the better?
A typical argument against the afterlife, from a scientists point of view, is that the lack of evidence inherently proves their point. And, in this fact, that they can proclaim themselves the logical superior to other people by simply branding them (every ancient culture and many modern who believe in spirits) as simply ignorant infants that believe fairy tales. All of “them” are just too insecure about facing “the real world” and must hide their insecurities under self delusion. That somehow countless accounts of first hand experiential observation from almost every culture sense the dawning of documented history of communication with spirit world that is still attested to this very day can all be so neatly and orderly condensed into the two twin canons of, “delusional and insecure.” Is that the best case against the afterlife that the most of you can generate? Now who's delusional and insecure.
Mainstream science is afraid of the slippery slope. They worked hard to break free from the oppression of religion. If they were to simply admit the existence of an afterlife, and eternal soul, think of the repercussions that would instantaneously generate. All of a sudden, the lines between science, religion, and spirituality; that all sides have worked so hard and for so long, would spill into each other. And people would be forced to come to terms that there is an afterlife and what you don't just rot in the ground. The point of individualization that the child of science has fight tooth and nail for to create between its parents of astrology and alchemy would be destroyed. And in the destruction of this individualization, everyone would be welcomed back to the table to talk about the newfound equal ground. It only makes sense that this is what mainstream science wants, once one looks at its past history with religion.
But creating a case against the scientists against an afterlife does not create a case for an afterlife. If anything I have then fallen guilty myself to what I had just accused them of. I suppose it is also clear that we should be firm here on another topic. Science cherry picks what “counts” and what doesn't. If they can throw out thousands first hand experiences of communication with the dead through visions, dreams, rituals, and so on because it is not concrete physical proof... so be it. (Although first hand accounts have a lot of credence in the court of law. I guess science likes to think itself above...) We can just as easily, then, throw out philosophy. After all, all of science's “proof” against an afterlife is in philosophy. Tell me, mighty lords of our church of science, where does philosophy create physical proof on any more or less grounds than first hand experience? Do you think your ideas and a physical orb gestate into existence that contains them? If not, then your ideas... (things that much like spirits exist without a physical form) can be held as no more or less proof than memories (first hand accounts.) And, to that length, what physical evidence do you have that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is not an afterlife?
Scientists use the “rules” of logic, as they cherry pick them, to minimize he egg on their face when they say they have proven the non-existence of an afterlife. What they are really saying, by their own admission if you press hard enough for a complete answer. Is that they consider, by their rules of denying first hand accounts, and allowing these rules of philosophy, that it is, highly unlikely that life exists after death. Well, of curse it is when you throw out the proof! How is their non-physical memories (accounts) somehow invalid but your non-physical ideas of (the philosophical rules of debate that) somehow a gold standard automatically as apparently inherent to all life as the tend commandments? Of curse you win the debate when you stack the deck by cherry picking which non-physical things are okay and which are excepted as “proof” and which are not. All the scientists are really saying, and all they can realistically currently say, is there is no physical proof so they consider it, by their esteemed vested interests, to be highly and almost impossibly unlikely that like exists after death. Funny, I could just as easily say thousands of testimonies make it highly and almost entirely likely that there is life after death. But, oh wait, that is blaspheme, I mean... “illogical.”
Some may say I have just shift the burden of proof. However, I have not. You ask us for physical proof that there is life after death. I did not ask you to prove the negative that there is no afterlife. Instead, I am shifting this discussion to a new and level playing field. Instead, I ask you for physical proof that all consciences is confined only in the brain (that gray thing you still admittedly don't fully understand) and that it is destroyed irrevocably at the point of death. Generate that, and the debate is over. Once you realize that you are making large brush stroke claims in the field of consciousness, a field that is still infantile in its nature, then maybe you'll understand that you are no more ready to prove with physical evidence that consciousness dies irrevocably at the point of the brain's death than I am to prove a definitive afterlife.
Now that we see that our field is level, let me offer this scenario. I offer it not as proof. You deny my proof (testimony) with your philosophy. So, I shall deny your proof “philosophy of the rules of debate” with the same burden of proof that you deny my testimonies with. (Lack of physical evidence.) Crap out a mind egg next time you think of something and we'll consider the, “ philosophy of the rules of debate,” legitimate by the same standards you claim testimony as illegitimate. (Lack of anything physical.) So, I offer this scenario to build a case, not a proof. It is a case to illustrate how the afterlife might be possible. Truly, by your standards, it is all I can offer.
Let us understand that before science, religion, philosophy, alchemy, astrology, rituals, there were no confined rules of thought. Observation and the generating of ideas, explanation, created these fields. They grew as their knowledge increased. Science is unique because it placed the burden of proof on physical evidence over others ideas and beliefs. Ideas and beliefs were subject to change. Theories scientists works years on could be dashed to the ground in the finding of new physical evidence. Such was the field of science. Scientists adapted their theories to the new evidence and moved on. A wise scientist knew to claim nothing that he could not prove physically. That is right. The wise scientist didn't rely on philosophy to “prove” his case. That was, by his position, for a philosopher to do. Nor did he rely on testimony. For that was, by his position, for a judge. Nor did he rely of beliefs. For that, by his position, was for the pulpit. No, the scientist claimed nothing he could not prove by the physical. Nothing that he could not measure.
People once observed an interesting phenomena, (Currently unexplained occurrence,) of flies coming from meat. Some people developed the belief that flies spontaneously generated from the meat. After all, all observation would prove as much. Meat was put down, time passed, flies came. But the scientist knew better. He knew that there must be something, beyond the realm of what can currently be measured, that explained this natural phenomena. As tools came that could aid the scientist in measuring such things, the scientist came to realize that very small eggs from flies were laid on the meat and that was how the natural phenomena of the flies appearing to spontaneously generate truly works.
We also have the story of the persistent Edison who had confidence in his work that someday he could create a logically working light bulb. He failed many times, at first. Many would have given up. This thing, this tool, had never been invented before. Nothing like it had ever existed. How could he be so sure he could ever create this new tool? But, he had confidence in his research and pushed onward until he created the light bulb.
My case for the afterlife is that it is not supernatural. Supernatural says that it exists outside of the natural world. This couldn't be further from the truth. Just as there are cycles to stars, the seasons, the day, and the universe; I have confidence there is a cycle from birth, to life, to death, to afterlife, and back again to rebirth. Considering how nature works, constantly regenerating itself, why would there not be? All these things were once attributed to divinity until science proved that they are true, in a natural and not supernatural mechanic. I do not believe that afterlife is supernatural. (Outside of the natural order of things.) I have confidence that it is a natural part of the cycle of consciousness. (An as of yet poorly understood part of the natural order of things.) As a sister existence to our own, I do not see why this is impossible or even improbable. This “world” is based on matter. Perhaps the other is based on conscience? Herein consciousness, much like physical life, evolves by a cycle of renewal of birth, death, and rebirth that, in itself, is the natural order of things. Much like the fly example, I believe the afterlife only appears unnatural and supernatural because we don't yet know how to properly examine the phenomena that so many are clearly beholding and experiencing directly. Sense when was a testimony of direct experiential evidence contrary to understanding? Perhaps that is why science goes to the length of attempting to discredit the people rather than the phenomena... another logical fallacy on their part. “They just had a random and convenient hallucination; that's all. There's not reason for or reason why that could ever have seen a spirit. That's just silly and illogical. People have random and convenient hallucinations all the time.” Rather, we are clearly observing a phenomena that is beyond our current understanding. Science has long waged a war against religion and the supernatural. To classify, and this is of paramount importance here, to classify the afterlife as supernatural puts it into a context that science is familiar fighting against. However, to classify the afterlife as a as of yet not understood natural phenomena says the science, oh my goodness here's the kicker, doesn't yet know everything about the natural world! That's right ladies and gentlemen. With all their grants, computers, education, and tools that they have been working with for all these years; the god-like figure of modern science and medicine does not yet know everything. I know, I had to sit down and take a breather after that one too... I mean, how could our infallible and all knowing overlords of this increasing technocracy not know everything there is to know about this world? That's just blaspheme, I mean... “illogical.” How dare I commit such heresy as to say our scientific leaders still don't know everything. But that's just it. To place the afterlife, an age old question that religion (their arch enemy) was create to answer into a category of natural rather than supernatural appears to be smudge the pristine image we have of the all knowing scientist that, by that fact alone, should be leading society now. If the scientist is not all knowing, especially about something so subtle as the afterlife, then how could they possibly lead us into the future better than politicians and religious leaders? At least, that is what scientists fear will be asked.
The true scientist, and there are an emerging number of them, see this (the afterlife) as a fascinating new challenge and are creating new fields of researching around trying to develop the tools to study this phenomena. I have confidence that determined people, who have done their research, will create new tools like the Edison story has demonstrated. I am also confident that these new tools will validate the existence of the afterlife as natural part of the regenerating cycle of conciseness. I, also, have confidence that it will be the brave scientists that take their work seriously that will do this. Those that see that so many first hand personal testimonies from so many generations from so many cultures around the world do indeed demonstrate a phenomena that can't just be brushed away lightly. Those scientists that are eager to create new tools, confident that they will find measurable evidence to put this phenomena into a logical and natural context. And, yes, someday even prove it scientifically. The only scientists that will have egg on their face and their legacy are those that brush off the personal experiences masses in self diluted and self richest arrogance. Those who refuse to help in the exploration of an entire new field of scientific inquiry. Those who would rather play god than research what might be the next greatest mystery solved of human existence. Those will be the scientist that posterity will view as shortsighted. That, and that alone will sum up their legacy and achievements.
So it is that I lay this claim, this case for the natural and scientific afterlife. That which I am confidante exists as a natural regeneration and evolutionary mechanic of consciousness. One that can be measured and proven. I have confidence you those of you working in this field now. Someday, you will be remembered as those who could see far. It is not faith, it is observation and reason that lead me to this. And that leads them to this field.
It has come to my attention that science has decided to rule out the afterlife on some rather flimsy bases. I always thought science was supposed to because proving things, not disproving them. To that extent, it appears to me that claiming the Non-Existence of an afterlife is a backwards use of the scientific method. If one were to try to use a machine backwards, a bow caster for instance, how would that turn out? I believe the same concept applies for science being used to disprove anything. Science was designed to create theories that either are supported well or supported poorly. A correct understanding of science actually proves that almost nothing is considered completely concrete to a true scientist. Rather, only highly proven and thus highly likely; or not proven as well and not as likely in comparison. Why then is science so fast to claim definitive proof of the non-existence of the afterlife?
What you will find when you research the question of the existence of an afterlife further is that, much like the farce that is global warming, not all scientists do agree. There are emerging people who are employing experimental methods in the attempt to, “make measurable what is not.” Ghost Hunters is but one of these groups. While they have gained popularity for their show and findings, they are but one of many groups of people who are revisiting the concept of a provable afterlife.
One of the major problems with some people concerning science is that they have devolved into a state where science itself has become a prison for the mind, a tool of control, a staunch and unmovable bolder of unbreakable truth. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me. You know, the thing science has worked so hard to fight and get away from. Talk about becoming the dragon. There are many people, in and out of science, that want to persist in treating science as a faith. As such, anything that challenges the basis for what is currently generally understood about science is considered tantamount to a heretic and chastised and ostracized for the flock, (“mainstream” science.) As such, those vested interests that control scientific paradigm are no different in motive than those who control the spiritual, cooperate, and political paradigms. Fallacious arguments are grafted together to suppress thought rather than encourage it. Notice how many mainstream science gets very defensive, passionate really, when spoken to calmly and poignantly about the topic of an afterlife. Much like how Christians defend the Jesus myth, so too scientists defend the everyone just rots in the ground myth. They do it with a great exertion of control of the paradigm, passionate rants, ego stroking, and harsh... harsh condemnation for those who do not conform strictly, (the non-believers.) It is almost as if they have defined science as that which religion is not. The “yin” to religion's “yang.” And in so doing have become the reflected paradigm. Which is, of course, just as closed minded but on the other side of the table. Where then do the dining couple meet? When do we look past the scientists who take special pleasure in keeping mankind ignorant of the truth by claiming themselves the better?
A typical argument against the afterlife, from a scientists point of view, is that the lack of evidence inherently proves their point. And, in this fact, that they can proclaim themselves the logical superior to other people by simply branding them (every ancient culture and many modern who believe in spirits) as simply ignorant infants that believe fairy tales. All of “them” are just too insecure about facing “the real world” and must hide their insecurities under self delusion. That somehow countless accounts of first hand experiential observation from almost every culture sense the dawning of documented history of communication with spirit world that is still attested to this very day can all be so neatly and orderly condensed into the two twin canons of, “delusional and insecure.” Is that the best case against the afterlife that the most of you can generate? Now who's delusional and insecure.
Mainstream science is afraid of the slippery slope. They worked hard to break free from the oppression of religion. If they were to simply admit the existence of an afterlife, and eternal soul, think of the repercussions that would instantaneously generate. All of a sudden, the lines between science, religion, and spirituality; that all sides have worked so hard and for so long, would spill into each other. And people would be forced to come to terms that there is an afterlife and what you don't just rot in the ground. The point of individualization that the child of science has fight tooth and nail for to create between its parents of astrology and alchemy would be destroyed. And in the destruction of this individualization, everyone would be welcomed back to the table to talk about the newfound equal ground. It only makes sense that this is what mainstream science wants, once one looks at its past history with religion.
But creating a case against the scientists against an afterlife does not create a case for an afterlife. If anything I have then fallen guilty myself to what I had just accused them of. I suppose it is also clear that we should be firm here on another topic. Science cherry picks what “counts” and what doesn't. If they can throw out thousands first hand experiences of communication with the dead through visions, dreams, rituals, and so on because it is not concrete physical proof... so be it. (Although first hand accounts have a lot of credence in the court of law. I guess science likes to think itself above...) We can just as easily, then, throw out philosophy. After all, all of science's “proof” against an afterlife is in philosophy. Tell me, mighty lords of our church of science, where does philosophy create physical proof on any more or less grounds than first hand experience? Do you think your ideas and a physical orb gestate into existence that contains them? If not, then your ideas... (things that much like spirits exist without a physical form) can be held as no more or less proof than memories (first hand accounts.) And, to that length, what physical evidence do you have that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is not an afterlife?
Scientists use the “rules” of logic, as they cherry pick them, to minimize he egg on their face when they say they have proven the non-existence of an afterlife. What they are really saying, by their own admission if you press hard enough for a complete answer. Is that they consider, by their rules of denying first hand accounts, and allowing these rules of philosophy, that it is, highly unlikely that life exists after death. Well, of curse it is when you throw out the proof! How is their non-physical memories (accounts) somehow invalid but your non-physical ideas of (the philosophical rules of debate that) somehow a gold standard automatically as apparently inherent to all life as the tend commandments? Of curse you win the debate when you stack the deck by cherry picking which non-physical things are okay and which are excepted as “proof” and which are not. All the scientists are really saying, and all they can realistically currently say, is there is no physical proof so they consider it, by their esteemed vested interests, to be highly and almost impossibly unlikely that like exists after death. Funny, I could just as easily say thousands of testimonies make it highly and almost entirely likely that there is life after death. But, oh wait, that is blaspheme, I mean... “illogical.”
Some may say I have just shift the burden of proof. However, I have not. You ask us for physical proof that there is life after death. I did not ask you to prove the negative that there is no afterlife. Instead, I am shifting this discussion to a new and level playing field. Instead, I ask you for physical proof that all consciences is confined only in the brain (that gray thing you still admittedly don't fully understand) and that it is destroyed irrevocably at the point of death. Generate that, and the debate is over. Once you realize that you are making large brush stroke claims in the field of consciousness, a field that is still infantile in its nature, then maybe you'll understand that you are no more ready to prove with physical evidence that consciousness dies irrevocably at the point of the brain's death than I am to prove a definitive afterlife.
Now that we see that our field is level, let me offer this scenario. I offer it not as proof. You deny my proof (testimony) with your philosophy. So, I shall deny your proof “philosophy of the rules of debate” with the same burden of proof that you deny my testimonies with. (Lack of physical evidence.) Crap out a mind egg next time you think of something and we'll consider the, “ philosophy of the rules of debate,” legitimate by the same standards you claim testimony as illegitimate. (Lack of anything physical.) So, I offer this scenario to build a case, not a proof. It is a case to illustrate how the afterlife might be possible. Truly, by your standards, it is all I can offer.
Let us understand that before science, religion, philosophy, alchemy, astrology, rituals, there were no confined rules of thought. Observation and the generating of ideas, explanation, created these fields. They grew as their knowledge increased. Science is unique because it placed the burden of proof on physical evidence over others ideas and beliefs. Ideas and beliefs were subject to change. Theories scientists works years on could be dashed to the ground in the finding of new physical evidence. Such was the field of science. Scientists adapted their theories to the new evidence and moved on. A wise scientist knew to claim nothing that he could not prove physically. That is right. The wise scientist didn't rely on philosophy to “prove” his case. That was, by his position, for a philosopher to do. Nor did he rely on testimony. For that was, by his position, for a judge. Nor did he rely of beliefs. For that, by his position, was for the pulpit. No, the scientist claimed nothing he could not prove by the physical. Nothing that he could not measure.
People once observed an interesting phenomena, (Currently unexplained occurrence,) of flies coming from meat. Some people developed the belief that flies spontaneously generated from the meat. After all, all observation would prove as much. Meat was put down, time passed, flies came. But the scientist knew better. He knew that there must be something, beyond the realm of what can currently be measured, that explained this natural phenomena. As tools came that could aid the scientist in measuring such things, the scientist came to realize that very small eggs from flies were laid on the meat and that was how the natural phenomena of the flies appearing to spontaneously generate truly works.
We also have the story of the persistent Edison who had confidence in his work that someday he could create a logically working light bulb. He failed many times, at first. Many would have given up. This thing, this tool, had never been invented before. Nothing like it had ever existed. How could he be so sure he could ever create this new tool? But, he had confidence in his research and pushed onward until he created the light bulb.
My case for the afterlife is that it is not supernatural. Supernatural says that it exists outside of the natural world. This couldn't be further from the truth. Just as there are cycles to stars, the seasons, the day, and the universe; I have confidence there is a cycle from birth, to life, to death, to afterlife, and back again to rebirth. Considering how nature works, constantly regenerating itself, why would there not be? All these things were once attributed to divinity until science proved that they are true, in a natural and not supernatural mechanic. I do not believe that afterlife is supernatural. (Outside of the natural order of things.) I have confidence that it is a natural part of the cycle of consciousness. (An as of yet poorly understood part of the natural order of things.) As a sister existence to our own, I do not see why this is impossible or even improbable. This “world” is based on matter. Perhaps the other is based on conscience? Herein consciousness, much like physical life, evolves by a cycle of renewal of birth, death, and rebirth that, in itself, is the natural order of things. Much like the fly example, I believe the afterlife only appears unnatural and supernatural because we don't yet know how to properly examine the phenomena that so many are clearly beholding and experiencing directly. Sense when was a testimony of direct experiential evidence contrary to understanding? Perhaps that is why science goes to the length of attempting to discredit the people rather than the phenomena... another logical fallacy on their part. “They just had a random and convenient hallucination; that's all. There's not reason for or reason why that could ever have seen a spirit. That's just silly and illogical. People have random and convenient hallucinations all the time.” Rather, we are clearly observing a phenomena that is beyond our current understanding. Science has long waged a war against religion and the supernatural. To classify, and this is of paramount importance here, to classify the afterlife as supernatural puts it into a context that science is familiar fighting against. However, to classify the afterlife as a as of yet not understood natural phenomena says the science, oh my goodness here's the kicker, doesn't yet know everything about the natural world! That's right ladies and gentlemen. With all their grants, computers, education, and tools that they have been working with for all these years; the god-like figure of modern science and medicine does not yet know everything. I know, I had to sit down and take a breather after that one too... I mean, how could our infallible and all knowing overlords of this increasing technocracy not know everything there is to know about this world? That's just blaspheme, I mean... “illogical.” How dare I commit such heresy as to say our scientific leaders still don't know everything. But that's just it. To place the afterlife, an age old question that religion (their arch enemy) was create to answer into a category of natural rather than supernatural appears to be smudge the pristine image we have of the all knowing scientist that, by that fact alone, should be leading society now. If the scientist is not all knowing, especially about something so subtle as the afterlife, then how could they possibly lead us into the future better than politicians and religious leaders? At least, that is what scientists fear will be asked.
The true scientist, and there are an emerging number of them, see this (the afterlife) as a fascinating new challenge and are creating new fields of researching around trying to develop the tools to study this phenomena. I have confidence that determined people, who have done their research, will create new tools like the Edison story has demonstrated. I am also confident that these new tools will validate the existence of the afterlife as natural part of the regenerating cycle of conciseness. I, also, have confidence that it will be the brave scientists that take their work seriously that will do this. Those that see that so many first hand personal testimonies from so many generations from so many cultures around the world do indeed demonstrate a phenomena that can't just be brushed away lightly. Those scientists that are eager to create new tools, confident that they will find measurable evidence to put this phenomena into a logical and natural context. And, yes, someday even prove it scientifically. The only scientists that will have egg on their face and their legacy are those that brush off the personal experiences masses in self diluted and self richest arrogance. Those who refuse to help in the exploration of an entire new field of scientific inquiry. Those who would rather play god than research what might be the next greatest mystery solved of human existence. Those will be the scientist that posterity will view as shortsighted. That, and that alone will sum up their legacy and achievements.
So it is that I lay this claim, this case for the natural and scientific afterlife. That which I am confidante exists as a natural regeneration and evolutionary mechanic of consciousness. One that can be measured and proven. I have confidence you those of you working in this field now. Someday, you will be remembered as those who could see far. It is not faith, it is observation and reason that lead me to this. And that leads them to this field.
