The Afterlife: Forever is a VERY long time

[Silent3]

Humanly unimaginable chasms of time. Does anyone really want this?

(The idea to post this subject arose from another afterlife thread, but I felt I was going off in sufficiently different enough a direction that starting a new thread seemed like a good idea.)

First off, I should state that I don't actually believe in an afterlife. Many people do believe, however, and the desire to live forever ever (especially in pleasant circumstances, not being sadistically tortured) plays a huge role in the motivation to follow a wide variety of faiths.

It seems to me, however, that many people haven't thought about what it is that they're hoping for beyond escape from the scary thought of simply ceasing to exist (or, worse, transitioning from one kind of existence into another of eternal torment), beyond heavenly reunion with departed loved ones, or beyond some kind of wish fulfillment extension of ordinary human life (streets of gold and walls of jasper, idealized "resurrection bodies", seventy virgins to play with, etc.).

What I think about when I think about an eternal afterlife is this: what would or could anything still recognizably human do all of that time? One could assume that the afterlife is timeless, or that the nature of time in the afterlife is different from what we know, but as soon as one considers such things, one has to immediately realize that one doesn't really understand what it is that we're hoping for. Everything we know and understand, including the very selves we're hoping to have preserved, is defined in and through the flow of time.

If the experience of afterlife time were anything like our living, mortal experience of time, but simply goes on forever, then think about this:

Imagine your first thousand years in heaven. A thousand years worth of conversations, events, activities, sumptuous meals, concert events singing the Praises of the Lord, thousands of sex acts a piece with each of your 70 no-longer-very-virginal virgins. Would it all begin to just blur together? Would God grant you some special resistance to becoming tired of the same old things, or simply provide such a bountiful variety of experiences we can't imagine it? Is basking in The Presence of The Lord just so wonderful that nothing else matters? Pleasant though it might be, would that really be a life, or just some kind of frozen mental state?

Would your heavenly self have a greater memory capacity than your human self, so that a thousand years worth of memories could be held in your mind at once?

A thousand-year lifespan is already hard for the human mind to grasp. Now imagine that your first million years has passed by, and your first thousand years becomes no more than a tiny sliver of your life. Then a billion years passes, and the first million years takes its place in the flow of your life along with 999 other million-year spans that you pass through. Then someday you reach a trillion years old, and, had you decided to keep something like an ordinary scrapbook of ordinary size, spans of billions of years might be forgotten as unimportant or reduced to one or two photographs.

Then a quadrillion years go by. Then a quintillion, a sextillion, a septillion. No matter how staggering an expanse of time you care to imagine, still greater spans of time always stretch before you, waiting to reduce the incomprehensible magnitude of all you have ever known to a fleeting twinkle.

Could anything that is meaningfully you survive this endless stretch of time? Would your memory keep expanding ad infinitum into God-like proportions so that you could know the fullness of your own life, and if so, would the being that could remember so much be you anymore?

Would your memory be limited, so that, despite the lack of any sharp boundaries, you were simply sliding from one life into another into another, never exactly facing a discrete moment of death, yet still in a way dying over and over again, dying in the sense that self is defined by memory?

When it comes down to it, if I could have anything I wished for when it comes to my own mortality and the possibility of escape from complete death, I can't think of anything particularly satisfying to wish for. I do know that at any given moment, provided that my life had not become unbearably awful and without hope for improvement, that if you were to ask me, "Would you like to die right now?" my answer would be "no". I might choose to live forever, not by accepting the weight of eternity all at once, but simply by always wishing for one more moment, endlessly.

I don't find the Buddhist concept of Nirvana very appealing. Maybe in the Buddhist view of things this is very spiritually immature of me, but I don't particularly want to have my self identity, illusory though it might be, dissolve seamlessly into Everything, like a raindrop falling into the sea.

Endless reincarnation into ordinary human lives, or the lives of animals for that matter, holds no appeal for me at all, especially if life doesn't get particularly any better than life as I know it now. I like living okay, but re-experiencing the highs of my life doesn't seem worth re-experiencing the lows. Being reborn into better and better lives, and actually clearly remembering the continuity between one life and the next -- I'm talking about being a three-year old who can clearly tell his parents about who was at his retirement party in his previous life, not having a new-age hypnotist coax out "memories" of my previous lives as Revolutionary War heroes and Egyptian princesses -- that might be appealing for a time, but I suspect after a few hundred such lives in even that form of immortality would grow old.

What do religious people who've bothered to think deeply about their hoped-for afterlives think? Do some abandon traditional views of the afterlife and accept that any sort of afterlife is probably a humanly incomprehensible form of existence? Some obviously will stick to literalistic dogma no matter what, so is the only thought that can be aroused something like, "Don't worry. God will make it all work out somehow."?

[unblock]

1. my personal view of the afterlife is that it's not for the dead

my personal view is that when you die, you're dead, all your thoughts cease, you experience nothing.

however, your soul survives in the collective memories of others -- your community, your family.

heaven is being remembered well, and hell is being remembered unfavorably.

for this reason, we try to make a positive impact on the people around us and the people we leave behind.

we have families to remember us.

we work to have a positive impact on our community.


but none of it directly impacts ME once i'm dead, only the memory of me, my soul, my essence, my reputation.

[raccoon]

140. I agree with most if not all of this. I'm going to keep this. nt

[pinto]

2. Nice post. Thanks. My short answer is...I simply don't know. I'm willing

to find out, though.

[libhill]

72. But

hopefully, not any time soon, correct?

[amitten]

3. I don't pretend to comprehend the infinite...no one can.

I don't know where I was before I was born, and I don't know where I'll be after. But logically, I can only assume it may be no better or worse than what I'm currently experiencing as my life in human form. Any way you cut it though, I'm neither concerned nor afraid. Anymore than I'm concerned or afraid about my condition right this very second (which is fine, by the way).

[manic expression]

8. We can comprehend a circle n/t

[amitten]

13. That's because we can see a circle.

Although it technically has no starting or stopping point, it does not appear infinite. You can't draw infinity.

[Desertrose]

21. There is the lemniscape....

True...to draw anything entails a starting & stopping point but I always liked the lemniscape anyway.

[manic expression]

76. And,

a circle is infinite. You can very well draw infinity, not only by using a circle, but by representing it (as the poster before me did) as a symbol.

"Although it technically has no starting or stopping point..."

That makes it infinite, no?

[greyl]

129. Circles are definite, not infinite,

just like triangles and squares.

As soon as you embelish the rational shape "circle" with the quality "infinite", you've crossed into symbology and imagination.
Do rational triangles and squares have starting and stopping points? Heck no. But like circles, they have a definite shape with an inside and outside, and inner and outer edges.

Comparing a rational circle with a racetrack or footpath - the idea of direction following the shape - is a false analogy.

O

[Silent3]

30. Comprehend a circle all you like...

...do you want to live in one? Is an afterlife of eternal cyclical repetition appealing?

[amitten]

34. I find it more appealing than NOTHING AT ALL.

Yeah! If the theory is true, then you and I are both in the middle of one of those non-stop circles right now. I feel okay--how 'bout you?

[Silent3]

36. If I have to live in some sort of endlessly repeating cycle...

...I'd sure hope that for now I'm just on the lead-in to that loop, not on the loop already, that life got a little better for me than it is now and a lot better than some times in my life, and that I don't have to endure the repetition of a fairly long list of things. Repeating the life I've already lived over and over again? No thanks. I'd choose non-existence over that. I'm not saying my life has been terrible -- and it's certainly much better than what many people endure -- but I'm not so sure the highs have ever been high enough or frequent enough to ever endure all of the lows over and over again.

But even if we agree that going round-and-round on good enough a loop might be better than not existing at all (not that you could care if you didn't exist), is getting onto a loop like that what people around the world fervently hope for, pray for, die for, and too often kill for? Does that kind of existence seem very meaningful or relevant?

If we view the afterlife as some sort of award for faith (Accepting Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior™) or good behavior, does it seem satisfactory or compelling to believe in a Grand Divine Plan where human beings are put through an trial period of earthly tribulations simply to determine who gets to go the Big Happy Place (eternal loop or otherwise)?

[amitten]

44. I don't view it that way, so I don't know.

I think we're all in the loop and we're never getting off. And I'm glad.

[Silent3]

48. If that's not your view of a loop, what is?

And what makes you glad to imagine being on it?

[amitten]

54. I don't view the loop as an "endlessly repeating cycle."

I view it as an endless journey, with nothing repeated exactly.

And it makes me glad because I find it better than the alternative of non-exsistence.

[Silent3]

55. If the loop doesn't repeat exactly...

...then all of the problems of how to deal with an eternity (boredom, memory, meaning of self) still exist. Your loop is just endless time with a lot of repetition.

[amitten]

64. You're assuming that all the experiences are REMEMBERED.

I don't remember anything except what I'm living right NOW. I don't see myself becoming "bored" anytime soon!

[Silent3]

66. I'm not assuming anything about experiences being remembered...

...read over what I've already written. I've covered that possibility too.

[manic expression]

80. A few things...

You DO exist. Everything around you exists, so, IMO, your wish of non-existence is only a wish.

Also, remember that everything is in cycles. Life will not always suck, things will get better and improve, for this is how cycles work. It's like how people hate winter sometimes, but winter is still an integral and inherent part of our world. You can't have blooming flowers without the frost.

It's like this: years are cycles. The Earth completes another orbit. The seasons come and go, only to come and go again. Do you see this as so sad? This is the medium in which all things live and interact, so there is no cause for depression. Just like the seasons, our lives come and go, and we find enjoyment and truth and importance and meaning throughout and within it all. This is existence, which does not fade with death or birth or life. This is reality.

A lot of people around the world pray for different stuff. So what? Existence is existence, as long as one assumes a role in their sorroundings, it is more than meaningful. It's like people who play sports for fun and comraderie, they don't care about fame or success, they just want to play and have fun with others. That is more than meaningful, no?

Yeah, the thought that "these" people are going here and "those" people are going there is ridiculous. I can't stand that mindset.

[Silent3]

82. Think bigger

Also, remember that everything is in cycles.

I "remember" no such thing, because there is no evidence that EVERYTHING goes in cycles.

Life will not always suck, things will get better and improve, for this is how cycles work.

Consistently sticking to this "reasoning", things will also get worse all over again too. Does it end up coming out a zero-sum game? For everything good thing, an equal and opposite bad thing? Where's the desirability in that? If I hang around long enough, have some really great times, must I also experience some really low lows, like being a subject of medical experiments in a concentration camp?

It's like this: years are cycles. The Earth completes another orbit. The seasons come and go, only to come and go again.

No, it's like this: the Earth completes a few billion orbits until the Sun, bloated to many times its current size as it enters its red giant phase, expands to the point that the Earth is swallowed up and incinerated. No more seasons -- not on this planet, at least.

Now, I'm sure you can imagine still bigger cycles, and dream yourself a comfortable system of cycles within cycles within cycles, ad infinitum... but you do not KNOW that things ultimately HAVE TO work that way. The idea simply sounds nice to you, and tickles your poetic fancy.

All you're doing is making comfortable metaphors with the familiar. You aren't challenging yourself to truly consider deep time and what the relationship of a mind to truly vast expanses of time might be. You aren't considering entropy. Nothing cyclical about entropy, it's just a long steady decline from Big Bang down to the Big Chill. Might a fortuitous quantum fluctuation re-ignite a hopelessly cold, thin Universe? Maybe, maybe not -- but there sure aren't any guarantees of cyclic renewal.

[manic expression]

109. Think

I was saying "remember" in reference to my own beliefs that I'm presenting. I wasn't really saying they were undeniable by that statement. However, I do think that if you look at any facet of the world, cycles are very obvious. Everything ends eventually, and everything eventually begins again.

Yeah, things will get better, and then get worse again, before getting better. Death is as much a part of life as birth is.

At the risk of sounding cliche:
Have you ever been in love? It can cause a lot of pain, but love itself is one of the most wonderful things that a person can experience. The sadness that is tied with it does nothing to lessen its true value.

And after the Earth is swollowed up, then what? With destruction comes creation. Some of the most beautiful bodies in the universe are "dead" stars. Furthermore, anyone who thinks something actually ends with a superficial ending is fooling themselves. Life will begin again somewhere, if it hasn't already. The seasons may cease on Earth, but you are forgetting that such an event is simply another season for this as a whole.

Nothing seemingly cyclical about a "steady decline from Big Bang down to the Big Chill", but that hides some important things. What is to say that there will not be another "Big Bang"? Nothing. What is to say that there will be? Just the way the universe works. I guess spring to winter is a similar "steady decline", right?

"but there sure aren't any guarantees of cyclic renewal."

If the seasons aren't enough...ever hear of Newton's Third Law?

[Silent3]

113. What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Newton's Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So where does this provide any guarantee of a cyclical nature to everything? I push against a wall, I feel a push back. A rocket expels thrust in one direction, it move in the opposite direction. This is cyclical how? Balanced ≠ Cyclical.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

This is not only non-cyclical, it guarantees that as time goes on, the universe runs down becoming more and more disordered. Coupled with the rate of expansion of the universe, and barring some unknown principle coming to the rescue, the universe as a whole is running down, down, down all of time time, with nothing apparent that would restart a fresh cycle. Could there be another Big Bang? Yes, but there are no guarantees. You're just assuming an "ah, that's just the way of things" attitude without any good reason beyond the fact that you seem to find the ideal emotionally appealing.

The chicken's theory that entire purpose of the farmer is to feed the chicken is a good theory until the last day the farmer visits the chicken coop carrying an axe. Deep time and universe-encompassing phenomena are of the scope and scale at which you need to expect that cycles you happily expect at smaller scales don't carry over. When you consider what happens the universe at as a whole, you can't expect that you don't need a paradigm shift from what happens within the universe.

[manic expression]

116. What about it?

Action: destruction. What would be "equal and opposite" to this?

Right on 2LoT, but more importantly, all systems and all things end. I now refer you to my first point.

"as time goes on, the universe runs down becoming more and more disordered."

Yes, it will become completely disordered after some time. However, I challenge you to find a single thing that can end without generating something else in some form.

As a tangent, the parts of the universe are not free from external influence, but are always in interaction with other things. One of the first things I learned in Biology was that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, in this case it doesn't matter, but it's still important (translation: the chicken probably layed eggs, and the chicken will probably be replaced. Also, the fact that pretty much all chickens of this farm go through a similar experience demonstrates a cycle more than anything else).

If you look at any subject, the small scale applies to the large scale. You can find accurate and valid parallels and connections between a 6th grade schoolyard fight and World War I. If you look at the life of a microorganism, it is undeniably the same thing as the life of an elephant, or the life of a star or the life of a sponge. The same truths are pervasive throughout all forms of reality.

I hope I covered all your points.

[eyepaddle]

124. Oooh, here's a pleasant, though largely irrelevant, thought--

Celestial bodies NEVER return to the same location. A body's orbit (when traced from a sufficiently distant frame of reference) is not an ellipse! It's really more of a curve or "S" shaped line. As the moon revolves around the Earth, the Earth Around the SUn, the Sun around the Galactic core ad infinitum. While some places may look familiar, they are truly never the same.

Not terribly important I realize, but I get a kick out of pondering stuff like that!

[manic expression]

79. We exist

all things exist in a constant cycle of creation, life and destruction. The true individual entity is eternal throughout this cycle. This is the way the universe works. However, one can transcend the cycle and achieve realization. The individual then simply IS, without temporary form.

Personally, I like new beginnings, I like living and loving, but that's just me. Also, it isn't an "afterlife", because one's existence is constant, and furthermore, the lives are perpetual, making none of them "afterlives".

It's not really about appeal, but I'm curious, how is the concept of eternal existence within different manifestations (possibly before realization) unappealing? Again, I'm just wondering.

[Silent3]

81. Ah, nothing like the power of vigorous assertion.

all things exist in a constant cycle of creation, life and destruction.

That is descriptive (and not even universally so), not proscriptive.

The true individual entity is eternal throughout this cycle. This is the way the universe works.

You found this where? Inside a forture cookie? In the third chapter of your official copy of "Our Universe: An Inhabitant's Guide"?

However, one can transcend the cycle and achieve realization.

Oh, do tell us how!

Just how much unsubstantiated assertion can you pack into one post? Untested gross generalization based on very loose nature/life-cycle metaphors does not automatically equal Great Wisdom -- although it's probably a great formula for a New-Agey best seller that'll convince a whole lot of people you're an Enlightened One.

[manic expression]

112. Nothing like a knee jerking

I was explaining what I think, that's all. Sorry if that was too much for you to understand...:eyes:

"all things exist in a constant cycle of creation, life and destruction."

That's pretty provable.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l4a.html

Again, for the other two quotes, I was explaining what I think.

"Just how much unsubstantiated assertion can you pack into one post?"

Likewise. Perhaps if you made an intelligent point in that post, we could have a real discussion, like one with two thinking people. Only one half of that equation has been met so far, and I hope you will provide the other. You can start by addressing my points with a shred of intelligence and maturity.

Even though you could not do that much, I will. With all cycles, there is a constant. How people grow, how planets orbit and other things show us this; with that, it is obvious that to the cycles of life and death, there is a constant as well. Just as matter and energy transfer into another form (and that is proven), individual entities do as well.

Throughout society, nature and the universe, everything has a role, a place. To transcend the cycle of life and death is to assume a role apart from this pattern. To become solitary, away from physical form, this can occur (and I'm simply presenting my thinking here, so spare me the asinine comments).

By the way, insulting observation of the world is ridiculous, as it can show us the truth about things. Would you care to characterize observation and rational thought as "new-agey"? Oh, that's right, you already have.

[libhill]

73. I think it was Mark Twain

who once remarked: "I really have no fear of death. After all, I didn't exist for a billion years before I was born, and it never caused me the slightest inconvenience".

[StClone]

4. Life is for the living

And when death comes NOTHING escapes it and you turn to dust. That is why we have genes by which we pass on, as best we can, to our offspring the ability to experience life anew.

[dweller]

5. your Buddhist view is incomplete

(note i did not say immature)

you are already seamlessly involved in Everything. Thou art that.

an artificial divide between you and your world is just that, artificial. It is an illusion. And the realization of the illusion is tantamount to Nirvana, which literally translated is, 'snuffing out' as a candle flame is extinquished. Nirvana is not an attainment, but simply an eternal Now.

dp

[Silent3]

6. Isn't it more than just realization?

In a way, through physics not spiritual teachings, I can seen the artificiality of the divide between a person and the external world. But that in no way reduces the importance of that distinction to me, and I'd rather not extinguish that flame, thank you very much. Extinguishing sounds like more than mere realization, it sounds like a realization which is supposed to cause the distinction to quite literally disappear.

[dweller]

7. in what way does your understanding

through physics guide you to understanding the artificialilty?

dp

[Silent3]

25. In a physical view of things...

...it's easy to see how are bodies are very much part of the universe that we inhabit. Our bodies, and our minds as processes within our bodies, are made of the same stuff as everything else, they obey the same physical laws as everything else, they demonstrate a deep connection to all living things through common biochemistry, common genetic heritage, and the shared complex web of interactions which constitute the ecosystem. All of that living world is interconnected with the non-living world through a constant exchange of matter and energy, and the boundary between living and non-living things is far from being a stark, clear line.

You don't need to abuse what's known about physics in "What the Bleep" fashion to see this high degree of interconnection either.

Does this make our involvement in the world "seamless"? That's all a matter of perspective, with the idea of "perspective" itself being an artificial concept. Various processes, mental and physical, exist in varying degrees of isolation from one another, and that isolation is necessary for their function. Without the isolation provided by its outer membrane, for instance, complex cell biology would not be possible. Break down the barriers too much, try to remove all of the seams, and we might become more part of Everything, but we would also cease to be as interesting and complex as we are with organized division among parts of the whole universe.

[banana republican]

9. I always liked the quote from a DUer whose name I can't remember

we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

We are by nature eternal.

[cvoogt]

133. or as sting said

we are spirits in a material world

[InaneAnanity]

10. I imagine my afterlife

As the endless eating of ice cream and hot sex.

[Goblinmonger]

11. At the same time

cause count me in on that. Will Jessica Alba be there?

[InaneAnanity]

26. Depends

She has to renounce pilates first. It's the work of Satan.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Nice Post

My initial reaction is that people think of eternity like they think about winning the lottery. A local guy was quoted in the paper as saying he would "pay off his house" if he won the $360 million lottery. Pay of your house?!? Holy shit, you'd still live in the same POS you live in now with $360 million? Do you have a clue. Another person said they would "start a college fund for their kids." START a college fund? How much do you reckon your youngsters are going to need.

You're going to spend an eternity playing harp and flying around? Even Shakespeare is going to get boring in an eternity. "Yeah, yeah, Bill, I've heard that one before. Shut the fuck up."

[Evoman]

14. My girlfriend (a christian) told me a story once

When she first learned in church that she was going to spend eternity in heaven, she freaked out. She went home and cried all night....she felt like eternity was too long to live and infinity scared her (she was about 8 or 9).

I would rather be worm food than have to live for eternity. I do wish I could have a longer life span on Earth...there is so much I want to learn. But forever? I can imagine living for a long time, even as a spirit would be cool...you could go see the black hole at the center of the universe, you could visit other planets, you could learn everything about quantum physics. That would be cool....for AWHILE. But once you learn everything, whats the point? Once you've said everything that could ever be possibly said, whats the point in talking? Once you've read every single book in the universe a hundred times over, what more can you do? And if you learned that there is a indeed a god who created everything, whats the point of studying the universe? You expect me to putter around a fucking cloud playing a harp and singing songs....fuck you, I'm not into that. And if my Christian buddy is right, and there is no sex in heaven, then why would you ever want to bloody go there? Yeah, I want to study black holes, but for god's sake, I also want some booty while I'm doing it.

Evoman

[beam me up scottie]

15. Best of luck to you both.

I married a fundie's son who punished himself (and me, eventually) daily because he knew he was going to hell.

It didn't work out, (there's a shocker) but then, I didn't know about the fundie thing until it was too late.

He thought my atheism was just a rebellious phase.

Muahahahahahahahaha !

[Evoman]

16. Ha

Shes basically an agnostic with Christian leanings. She can't stand church, she hates fundies, and she is studying genetics and evolution (she fully believes in it). I don't think we are gonna have any problems hehe. Thanks for the heads up though ;)

Evoman

On edit...she bought me Sam Harris's End of Faith and now that I'm done, she wants to read it.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Well since she obviously thinks for herself,

so she's never going to allow them to convince her of anything.

Good for you guys.

Kids like that are almost a fundie parents' worst nightmare.

Second only to an atheist daughter or son-in-law, of course!

[Goblinmonger]

29. But even sex will get boring after

a brazillion years. I never thought I would type that, but seriously. Even if you get to have sex with every person ever. Eventually it's going to be like "Been there, done that, a billion times."

[Evoman]

59. True enough..but think about it

Say there are about 3 billion women on earth. If you do it once a day, thats like a billion days. Now, times that by three, one day for each orifice, thats 9 billion days. I'm sure there are some you'll want more than once...I.E. Jessica Alba would be good for at least a millenium. Sure, its just for awhile, but still....

Now, what would really suck is if heaven was like high school, and I everybody refused to sleep with me. I hope its more like college.

Evoman

P.S. and yes I know I'm a sick bastard, so this talk about heaven is probably moot...I should probably start aclimatizing myself to lakes of fire.

[Desertrose]

18. Interesting.....

All dogma does is limit us...hold us down...keep us nicely controlled.....

What if there is no time when you are not here on this earth....there is no measuring as days, years, centuries...its all simply "now"....what if time was no longer linear...or a matter of memories as in "past".....that once you "die" you become MORE, greater than... not less or diminished.....is forever still as long if it can't be measured?

What makes you think that after we leave here it would be even remotely like this world...this world is a place of limits that we place on ourselves...why would we want to do that when we leave it?

What if the afterlife is not a place...or anything that could be described in human terms.....why would it have to be boring if there was much more we could learn or do or create? what if you could create anything you wanted? What if you could live a thousand lives at once and experience anything you desired?

What if forever is not long enough?

[Evoman]

19. forever is not long enough?

Creating anything and experiencing everything might be fun the first 132 quadrillion millenium, but then what? What are you going to do in the next 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years? And what about the next 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years after that? And then two years after that, what then?

Evoman

[Desertrose]

22. Just posing some questions here....

Again...you are going by linear time...what if its all just an illusion and there isn't any when we die?

...and actually I haven't really planned that far ahead :evilgrin:


Didn't you ever hear the song by Live... ?"Forever May Not Be Long Enough"...

[Evoman]

23. I know what you were getting at

I was just being an ass ;)

[Desertrose]

24. no problem....

sometimes being an ass is ok too...especially at this late hour.

:boring:

peace
DR

[Goblinmonger]

28. Welcome to DU

and I think I am going to like you.

[Silent3]

31. I already brought up the idea of a timeless afterlife...

The thing is, how would anyone know that something so incomprehensible is something to hope for? If your desire for an afterlife arises from a desire for self-preservation, can anything that you recognize as the self exist (even the word "exist" in troubling inappropriate here) and be preserved in an environment which is timeless, or in which time is very different than we understand it?

[Desertrose]

35. Thinking in a box only leads to frustration.

If you try to figure out what happens after you are no longer of this world by attempting to fit it into the thinking and constructs of this world...your brain will 'splode.:)

Not to be smart assed here...but your thoughts and ideas of a "timeless afterlife" are still from the perspective of where you are living now in a 3D linear time world.........and maybe its not about "preserving the self" at all.....

Do you think that your "hoping for something" whether or not it may be incomprehensible, makes one whit of difference in what actually is? Just curious.



There actually are ideas about the afterlife that are not based on the untruths that religion has told over so many milennia...again, no tangible proof available, so it all comes down to what your gut tells you.

[trotsky]

37. "what your gut tells you"

Of coure, that gut is a product of and constrained by the same "3D linear time world" that you mock others for being stuck in.

[Desertrose]

38. I'm not mocking anyone....sheesh...

lighten up.

Just throwing out some different ideas for folks to chew on or not. Why does it bother you that I come from a different perspective?

Actually...FWIW, when I refer to "gut" I am not referring to a "physical location". Sorry you missed that point. Perhaps I should have said "heart" or "intuition"....which is not really constrained by linear 3D time. :)

[trotsky]

39. You might not intend to,

but your dismissive attitude comes through.

Regarding "heart" and "intuition" - you don't love people you haven't met yet, at least not in the sense that you love the ones you know now, do you?

Just as your "intuition" is based on your past experiences, not your future ones.

Those two things seem completely bound by "linear 3D time". Prove to me otherwise.

[Desertrose]

42. Quite simply, it's not really under my control how you perceive me

and what I say. That comes from your end of things. Perhaps you see it as dismissive because you feel that way about my thoughts. Don't really know and am not overly concerned about it.

As far as explaining to you what intuition is & how it works?
Honestly I don't really have the time or the inclination to spend on that right now...and neither do I have to prove anything to you.

...besides...my "gut" tells me it'd probably be a waste of time....:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

43. Ta da, the condescending attitude once again.

Thanks for confirming.

[Desertrose]

45. So, please tell me, how is truth condescending?

Wow...are you saying that I can control how how you perceive things?
Nah, didn't think so.

You clearly have preconceived ideas about what I will say so I find no point in attempting any explanation that would be rejected before it's given.

Loks like you've ended this attempt at discussion by accusing me of being mocking, dismissive and condescending.

Nice job.

[trotsky]

46. Naw, I'm ending it because you refused to answer my questions

and instead chose to be mocking, dismissive, and condescending.

[Desertrose]

47. Riiiiight......

whatever makes you feel better.

...and you never answered my questions either. :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

49. Oh, I didn't?

I guess that's because they sounded rhetorical to me.

But what the heck, just to put you on the spot:

Why does it bother you that I come from a different perspective?
That's not what bothers me.

So, please tell me, how is truth condescending?
Truth by itself is not condescending, but the presentation of it can be. Of course one can present falsehoods and fiction quite condescendingly too.

are you saying that I can control how how you perceive things?
Nope.

So there you go. Answered all yours. Now will you answer mine? (Actually a request, in post #38.)

[Desertrose]

51. post #38 was mine....

which post and what questions....?

[trotsky]

52. #39

Please explain how "heart" and intuition are not bound by "linear 3D time."

[Silent3]

53. And perhaps while Desertrose is at it...

...he/she can explain exactly what this "linear 3D" time is, in reference to relativistic four-dimensional spacetime and the thermodynamic arrow of time.

[Desertrose]

56. Simple.

Since intuition does not have a specific physical location in the human body, is not subject to 3D linear time.

[trotsky]

57. How do you know that?

Please explain. Intuition appears to be a function of a living brain. I am not aware of any instances of intuition existing apart from brains - do you have any? Instances, that is.

[Desertrose]

60. Seriously, please reread your question.

I am not aware of any instances of intuition existing apart from brains - do you have any? Instances, that is.


OK, if someone does not have a living brain, then they are not alive, correct? So how in the world could you test for "intuition residing in a living brain", if the person is not alive? Intuition clearly appears to only exist in people who are alive. Therefore, if you cannot test for intuition without having a living brain, then your theory (that it is a function of a living brain) cannot be proved nor disproved.

Has there been any scientific evidence or proof that pinpoints a physical location or apparatus for intuition in the brain? No? Then my guess is as good as yours.


I say intuition stands outside of our human experience of 3D linear time.

You asked how I know.... I know from many years of experience and study.

[trotsky]

62. Seriously, just answer it.

Just tell me how you know intuition exists separate from the brain.

You claim it's from your "many years of experience and study." Okey dokey, clue me in. What in particular during those years has stuck out as demonstrating intuition is "outside of our human experience of 3D linear time"? Seriously, I want to know what you consider as evidence for that statement.

[simonm]

65. Intuition

As a student of modern mysticism I’m not going to speculate differences between the mind/soul and body (brain) but there are a few experiences I’d like to share. These personal observations seem to support our existence as more than just a biological entity.

For those not familiar with psychic phenomena please research “Edgar Cayce”. His works are the most relevant to this area. The CIA project “Stargate” (Remote Viewing) is also useful as a reference.

In the past I’ve had the privilege to practice development of intuition among other psychic abilities. There were many successes resulting in spontaneous telepathy, clairvoyance, among others.

If humans are just biological entities how are we capable of going beyond the physical senses?

Which organ of our body can allow us to perceive impressions from different time periods (past, present, & future) ?

or view untravelled locations (ie: Remote Viewing)?

One can debate the validity of these experiences but the scientific evidence is out there.

[trotsky]

67. Cayce?

You're kidding, right?

The guy who:
* predicted that in 1958 the U.S. would discover the death ray used to destroy Atlantis?
* foresaw that China would be converted to Christianity by 1968?
* stated that 1933 would be a good year for the United States (Great Depression, anyone?)
* went dowsing for treasure and found nothing?

That's the best "evidence" you can provide for the existence of intuition, or being able to view outside "3D linear time"?

Oh my.

[simonm]

69. About Accuracy

I have never known a psychic that was 100% accurate. Unfortunately, most insight comes in various forms and is open to interpretation. For obvious reasons there is always a certain margin of error.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to pick & choose elements that support your argument while ignoring the bigger picture.

I’ve personally seen successful ESP abilities under controlled conditions and rigorously tested. It is something we can measure which means it exists. My conclusion is based on actual applied research and not theory.

Amusingly, it requires an open mind. An ability dedicated debunkers block themselves from. Most people at some point in their lives experience it. Sometimes it can be the strange feeling you have before an accident or the mother that “knows” when her child is in danger.

[Silent3]

71. First of all, even if ESP did exist...

...why on earth would some crazy idea about time be needed to explain it?

Second, you say you've seen "successful ESP abilities under controlled conditions and rigorously tested". Okay, why don't you or the people who are conducting such wonderfully successful studies go claim James Randi's million dollar prize? He'll gladly pay of if you can prove this stuff.

Or will the "shyness effect" suddenly take over, with those terrible mean-spirited skeptical vibes destroying any possible success?

Sometimes it can be the strange feeling you have before an accident or the mother that “knows” when her child is in danger.

Yes, and how many times to people have these strange feelings... and then not a damned thing happens? You ignore or excuse away the negative results ("Maybe I was sensing someone else's danger!"), stress the positive results, and presto... amazing "proof" of psychic abilities.

[trotsky]

75. Negative results

I wouldn't say I'm afraid of flying, but I do get pretty nervous. In fact, every time I've flown I've had VERY strange feelings like the flight was dangerous and maybe I should avoid it. But I've never canceled or postponed a flight because of those.

Needless to say, I'm still here, and I've never experienced anything worse than mild turbulence or a 1-hour delay on the tarmac.

[simonm]

84. Time is not absolute

Einstein's special relativity provides more information on how time is not as absolute or constant as you expect.

It is already established scientific fact that speed affects time. The affect is usually refered to as time dilation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Yeah, it does sound crazy. Especially if you consider the mysteries we have yet to discover.

Please see my previous post (#83) regarding ESP.

[Silent3]

87. *You* are telling *me* that time isn't absolute?

I've written award-winning educational software for teaching Einstein's special relativity. I not only know the math, Einstein's idea of time doesn't even sound at all crazy to me anymore and I can think in relativistic time at an intuitive level at this point. The PhD physicists I worked with were impressed with the understanding I gained of the subject while writing the software.

The fact that time isn't absolute, however, doesn't mean it's a plaything that can mean anything you want it to mean. While time isn't absolute, the speed of light is absolute (as measured in a vacuum, as best we can tell so far), and so is something called "interval" -- the square root of the difference the squares of the distance and time between two events -- sqrt(dD^2 - dT^2). While relativity presents some seeming paradoxes like the famous "twin paradox", the results of relativistic effects aren't really paradoxical at all and work out in a consistent, predictable manner.

At any rate, you're missing the point: Relativistic time is a part of NORMAL, non-magical, non-mystical physical reality. Getting back to the original point of this thread, relativistic time has nothing at all to offer as a way out of the problems of facing eternity that I outlined at the start of the thread. And what is it that's so special about intuition that you might think relativity had anything to do with it, and even if it did... so what? Where does that get you when it comes to trying to grapple with a human mind trying to stretch itself over eternity, or to explaining what it might mean to "exist" without time at all?

[simonm]

102. Precognition

If speed can affect time then would it be safe to assume alternative methods are available?

Precognition (an example of ESP) specifically is the ability to perceive future events. This ability is the closest to proving time travel through nonphysical means. We can debate its validity but fact is many people around the world experience it through dreams.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/precognition.html

Let’s assume precognition is a real phenomenon.

Would it be a crazy idea to suggest the brain’s inherent properties and/or fields of energy as possible factors? As you know, electricity, gravity and time all share interesting relationships.

If our mind has the potential to perceive events out of our current linear time then what else is possible?

[Silent3]

104. No, it wouldn't be safe

If speed can affect time then would it be safe to assume alternative methods are available?

That's not a safe assumption in the slightest. And it's certainly not a safe assumption to imagine that some "alternative method" exists which would just happen to coincide with a pet idea, nor to imagine that some alternative method would fortuitously effect time in such a way as to go well beyond what velocity and gravity do with time, such that information could be extracted from the future.

You're just going on wishful thinking instead of delving into why velocity and gravity effect time. There's a deep interconnection you're not seeing. Time and space and gravity are all part of the same fabric of spacetime. It's not like time is a separate thing unto itself just hanging out waiting for things to come along and manipulate it independently. If you're going to imagine that your mind can play with time, you might as well imagine that black holes are forming inside your skull, or that your whole neighborhood was late paying their bills because you decided to have a psychic event and only two hours went by on your street while two months went by everywhere else.

[simonm]

105. Thanks for the laugh

My post was about the mind's ability to perceive events regardless of "current" linear time. It did not describe powers to physically dilate time. I'm not aware of any such abilities.

If precognition was wishful thinking I wouldn't have seen the results that prove it as a reality.

Oh I forgot, as you stated, me and the other participants were just sharing hallucinations. :crazy:

[Silent3]

107. What makes you think perception is some special, separate thing?

First you want to use relativity as some sort of reason your own idea should be entertained, but then you don't want to be bound by any of the implications of relativity. Have you really got nothing more going than, "Hey, this other thing makes time kinda funny. Why can't I have my own kind of funny time if I need it too?"

Perception requires information to pass from one event ("event" in this case means a point in spacetime, a "when" combined with a "where") to another. No known phenomenon permits information to travel any faster than the speed of light from one event to another, and thus, despite some of the oddities of time involved in relativity, no way to get information from the future appears possible via known phenomena (I'll skip a dead-end tangential visit to Bell's Theorem here). That some unknown phenomena would allow this seems terribly unlikely, because anything which would allow information to be received from the future would wreak havoc upon cause-and-effect relationships, leading to "shoot your own grandfather" types of paradoxes.

If precognition was wishful thinking I wouldn't have seen the results that prove it as a reality.

Oh I forgot, as you stated, me and the other participants were just sharing hallucinations.

Ah, yes. The old "so, you're saying me and all my friend's are crazy" defense.

It doesn't take anything so elaborate as an hallucination to be fooled. Check out the history of "N-rays". People who believed in N-rays weren't hallucinating, they just let their desire to find N-rays influence their experimental set-ups and their interpretation of results. They got sloppy, that's all, and yes, I'm much more inclined to believe that you got sloppy too rather than believe you discovered amazing proof of psychic powers. If I'm wrong and you're right, it shouldn't really take all that much effort to reproduce your results in a convincing way that should be able to survive peer review -- that wouldn't be victory for the paranormal, only a necessary start.

Would you face prejudice against your ideas along the way, making it an uphill fight? You bet... and that's how it has to be. Even apart from the matter of human egotism and emotional attachment to old ideas which ideally wouldn't be part of the struggle for a new idea, but which is, you need to appreciate that there are damned good reasons to not believe ESP is possible, especially precognitive ESP. Not just prejudices, but damned good reasons.

It should take a lot of work and a lot of solid evidence before some guy throwing dice and another guy guessing very well over distance or time what numbers come up is enough to throw a whole lot of very reasonable thinking, and negative results to the contrary, out the window and cause the replacement of an incredibly large part of known science with the whole new system that would be required to consistently accommodate such new evidence.

[Desertrose]

110. Maybe if you could get out of your head

and not try to run every single thing through the old intellectual ringer...you could actually have some unique and perhaps unexplainable experiences yourself. Sometimes thingsaren't meant to be thought out...I'd say the *afterlife* just might fit in that category.
:evilgrin: Just sayin'.

Also...when one actually experiences precognition, etc, they tend to have a different perspective.

[Silent3]

117. If the "old intellectual ringer" doesn't matter...

...why bother with all of the (pseudo-) intellectual appeals in the first place? Should I just take every "What the Bleep" kind of paranormal reference to modern physics, made by the paranormal supporters themselves, as nothing but crude metaphors not meant to be examined too closely?

Or does the "old intellectual ringer" only count so far as it might lead you into belief, but not out? Does fairness to your Deep Wisdom demand I both never object to your appropriation of the language of science nor ever hold you to its standards?

Also...when one actually experiences precognition, etc, they tend to have a different perspective.

Alternately: Once one thinks they've experienced precognition, etc., and feels very special or connected to the universe or whatever high they get out of it, they'll do their best to shield themselves from anything might upset their paranormal applecart.

I had a girlfriend once who was really pissed at me when I explained how "fire walking" wasn't anything special or mystical at all, not even having realized that's she'd done it once before and thought it was something mystical and unexplainable. It's not that she didn't believe me -- she did -- but she was still pissed at me for taking her illusion away, and apparently would rather have never known fire walking was a simple trick.

[simonm]

120. It is their loss

Like they say, "No Risk No Reward". This world has many mysteries waiting for discovery. Those that “think in the box” are most likely to “stay in the box” leaving opportunities for others.

Sadly, some here reject new ideas because ___________ and _________ said it was impossible. They are least likely to actually go through the research data that is freely available. Their minds are already made up.

I’m glad not everyone follows the same principle. If Nikola Tesla had listened to the skeptics of his time we probably wouldn’t have alternating current which allows electronic applications possible.

If you want to get real usable results in any scientific endeavor the most basic steps are reliable protocols and data gathering. From my experience it was very boring and tedious to predict the fall of a dice (over a thousand times) , log everything, calculate statistics, and change environmental scenarios.

Why doesn’t Randi spend that money on direct psychic research to find his proof? Is it because real research is not as glamorous as offering one million dollars on TV?

Has James Randi ever placed a direct effort into establishing independent tests? You know, the kind that involves cards, test subjects and a little time. No special equipment is required. All that is needed are reliable protocols to deal with factors like trickery whether intentional or subconscious. If Randi has any real statistical research data related to ESP I’d love to see it.

Randi seems like a very nice guy but I do not consider publicity stunts as genuine research.

[Silent3]

121. Thinking outside the box requires *thinking*

What I'm seeing here is very sloppy reasoning, not the bold exploration of new ideas that you'd apparently like to believe you're heroically undertaking.

This world has many mysteries waiting for discovery.

Yes, and your casual appropriation and misuse of scientific concepts isn't a useful means of exploring those mysteries. There's a big difference between really trying to solve a mystery on one hand, and on the other using an untested and half-baked understanding of current science as window dressing on your favorite paranormal ideas, being content with such a shallow gloss of the appearance of scientific respectability, and never doing the work to learn more or dig deeper.

Sadly, some here reject new ideas because ___________ and _________ said it was impossible.

I've asked you to explain and justify inane blather about ESP and time and relativity which revealed you hadn't a clue what you were talking about. Oh, what a terrible close-minded rejection of "new ideas" that is.

The whole oft-romanticized story of the brilliant scientist who was mocked by his peers, yet who valiantly labored on until he was vindicated, is a favorite theme among believers in the paranormal. Aside from the basic story being a great exaggeration of all but the rarest cases, the completely wrong lesson some people seem to want to take from such tales is that being opposed is practically a guarantee that you're on to something. Some crackpots, in fact most, are just that -- crackpots -- and their "bold ideas" don't ever amount to anything, and the bad ideas themselves are the reason for failure, not the people who challenged those ideas.

First of all, part of the scientific process is supposed to be adversarial, like winning a case in a court room. Would you prefer instead that every single idea that anyone who wishes to call himself or herself a scientist ever presents is greeted into a "warm and nurturing environment", with nothing ever challenged, or challenged in other the most gentle and polite way one could possibly imagine, as if trying not to upset a sensitive four year old?

Second, most scientists use the word "impossible" far less than believers of the Mocked Scientist Myth imagine that they do. I challenge you to go back over the last century and a half of science and see if you can really find all that many cases where literal sneers of "Impossible!" were a dominant reaction to an ultimately-successful idea's first introduction, where the scientist challenged didn't have significant support as well as opposition, and where demands for evidence weren't considered reasonable and justified even by those from whom the evidence was demanded.

(The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head was the long-opposed but ultimately vindicated theory that the Oregon Scablands were formed by sudden catastrophic flooding -- there really aren't that many stories like that, however, and that story doesn't exactly fit the myth. Sudden catastrophic flooding, which many scientists rejected because it seemed way too Biblical, and because the idea had been proposed before and not panned out as an explanation for other geological formations, turned out to be important in explaining the formation of the Scablands -- but even then, there was still an important role as well for the longer time scales opponents of the theory believed in, because it turned out to take many, repeated catastrophic floods over a long period of time -- not just one flood one time -- to tell the full story.)

If you want to get real usable results in any scientific endeavor the most basic steps are reliable protocols and data gathering. From my experience it was very boring and tedious to predict the fall of a dice (over a thousand times) , log everything, calculate statistics, and change environmental scenarios.

You mean it takes a lot of work to provide evidence for ideas that would challenge established science!? And if I'm the one doing the challenging, I should expect to have to do all of the work? Oh, that's SO unfair! :eyes:

Why doesn’t Randi spend that money on direct psychic research to find his proof?

Because it's not his burden of proof! Isn't that earth-shatteringly obvious to you at this point? Randi doesn't believe these psychic phenomena are real. Why should he be the one spending the money in an absurd quest to prove a negative?

If I have a "theory" that there's a copy of Alice in Wonderland buried at the center of the Moon, is it your job to "put up or shut up" and dig to the center of the Moon, and until you do, I'm off the hook for making any effort, and my "theory" is golden until proven otherwise?

[simonm]

125. Trust but always verify

We share a lot more in common than you are aware of. My current opinion was not formed easily. Before the research, I was a skeptic of the same claims listed in my recent posts. It takes much more than just a few tests to convince me into considering possibilities not supported by established science. The biggest problem was and always will be the "tinfoil" factor. Understandably, I don’t blame you for your reaction.

If you have the time, I’d like to get your thoughts on a TV program about paranormal evidence. The SciFi channel is going to air two episodes on 3/22/06 1:00 PM EST called “Proof Positive” which covers remote viewing and psychic crime solving. Any opinions you can share would greatly be appreciated.

(If you are not in the US I can get it Tivoed)

http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3

http://www.scifi.com/proofpositive/

Episode 106 covers Psychic crime solving 03/22/2006 01:00 PM
Episode 103 covers Remote Viewers. 03/22/2006 02:00 PM

There are more episodes covering other topics on the schedule.

[trotsky]

126. tinfoil

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

[Silent3]

127. My point isn't just skepticism about ESP

Whether there is such a thing as ESP or not is not entirely my point. I was more bothered by the stuff about "3D linear time" and misuse of relativity and the like.

Let's entertain for the moment that some ESP phenomena are real. If so, only precognition would require us to start invoking explanations for temporal oddities. Remote viewing and crime solving wouldn't require transmission of information any faster than the speed of light in order to be impressive feats.

(If you are not in the US I can get it Tivoed)

Unusually enough for me, I won't be in the US at the time. I'll be somewhere along the Nile on the 22nd, and exactly a week later I'll be standing in the middle of the Libyan desert waiting for a big Moon shadow to pass by overhead -- just like in my avatar. :)

Anyway, I've got TiVo and the Sci-Fi channel too, so getting the shows isn't a problem.

Episode 106 covers Psychic crime solving 03/22/2006 01:00 PM
Episode 103 covers Remote Viewers. 03/22/2006 02:00 PM

I'll try to watch, but I'd be willing to bet that these programs are going to suffer from the "In Search Of" effect. While making a token effort at mentioning skepticism, they'll otherwise offer a very one-sided case in favor of the paranormal. When it comes to things like psychic crime solving, for example, what one typically gets is impressive-sounding anecdotes without any greater context provided about the vast number of psychic failures out of which those anecdotes arise. Even among the impressive-sounding psychic detective anecdotes, I remember a couple of cases where I got to hear the skeptical side on these stories, and what had seemed so impressive actually turned out to be pretty lame.

[trotsky]

74. Dude, do you want a million bucks?

You don't even have to keep it for yourself - give it to your favorite charity, or to the Democratic Party. What a noble cause!

Just present proof of "successful ESP abilities under controlled conditions" to the James Randi Educational Foundation, http://www.randi.org. There is a standing one million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate the existence of supernatural entities or powers.

Don't give me this "open mind" nonsense - if you have to suspend critical thinking to accept evidence, then it was never evidence to begin with.

Step forward and claim the prize. In other words, put up or shut up.

[simonm]

77. No thanks

LOL! An attempt towards convincing a hard core skeptic like Randi would be comparable to visiting Faux News. Thanks, but no thanks.

Besides, anonymity has its advantages.

[trotsky]

78. The comparison to Fox is uncalled for.

An insult, almost. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, riiiiight?

A "hard core skeptic" is simply someone who demands evidence before accepting a claim.

It's too bad, that money could do a lot of good, AND you'd shut up nearly every skeptic on the planet. What a fantastic opportunity to really put us in our place! But alas, another one chickens out...

[simonm]

83. Believe what you want

Not an insult, just suspicion towards his motivation and failure in finding his "proof". Governments such as ours have spent millions in related research with positive results why can’t Randi achieve the same thing? hmmm

True skepticism is the sign of a healthy mind and there is nothing wrong with it.

ESP by nature requires a receptive mind in order to pick up “impressions”. Based on information gathered, its properties are similar to radio waves where signals can be blocked, noise or even intercepted.

Hard-core skeptics with strong prejudices can skew results quite easily. Maybe this is why Randi can't find his "proof"?

Here is one experience that may be of interest:

Years ago there was a test conducted with another friend as a witness where I attempt to predict the throw of a dice many times. Everything was going smoothly with a steady statistical rate, until towards finishing, I started having second doubts for each throw and the success rate dropped significantly.

The reason for a higher failure rate wasn’t understood until my fiend admitted to interfering by intentionally sending telepathic “noise”. Those results were easily duplicated afterwards and documented.

If ESP is impossible then the observant (my friend) should have no effect on my success rate nor would reproduction be possible.

I'm open to suggestions. Can you provide a possible explanation?

Your taunts are childish. Believe whatever you want. The intention was strictly to share experiences. I’m sure others here have interesting stories to tell.

[Desertrose]

86. Interesting example, simonm...

and welcome to DU. :hi:


This is exactly why I don't choose to share personal experiences here...I know exactly how they would be received....and since I've already been labeled my skeptic buddies here as "trying to sound :eyes: scientific", mocking, condescending and dismissive its just not worth my time and effort.

:shrug:

DR

[trotsky]

90. Yes, blame your critics

when you can't back up what you say. :eyes:

[trotsky]

88. You really don't understand the concept of evidence, eh?

You wouldn't have to use ESP "on" James Randi or any other hardcore skeptic.

Just grab a friend, and demonstrate ESP. Does the mere presence of a skeptic make the magic not work?

Not having been present at your experiment, I can't really have an opinion. What was your "steady statistical rate" that you were guessing the rolls? Were you just guessing totals, or the values of each die? Of course, you might just be making the whole thing up, for all I know.

A childish taunt, eh? I'm not the one who had to compare my opponent to Faux News.

[Silent3]

93. Possible explanations?

I'm open to suggestions. Can you provide a possible explanation?

First understand this reasonable ground rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Your account is anecdotal. As far as I know, your experimental method was flawed and not double-blinded. As far as I know, you might have thrown away many bad results, and only kept the good ones. Do I know that these kinds of flaws existed? No. But I don't have to know. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim -- you are.

Now, maybe you have problems with Randi's terms. Fine. Despite Desertrose's depiction to the contrary, I'm hardly a "Randi worshiper". I wrote critical e-mail to Randi once when I saw him on a talk show and thought he did a pretty poor job of representing the skeptical viewpoint. So, put Randi aside, and show me well-documented, repeatable results that can withstand a rigorous peer review process, and then maybe you can sway me.

But ask yourself this: If this kind of telepathy exists, why hasn't it been more successfully exploited? Where are the commercial and military applications which would naturally arise from even moderately accurate telepathic techniques? If you imagine telepathy somehow protects itself from "crass" usages, where are the amazing search-and-rescue applications which would help out enormously in disaster relief and prevention? Why do we get nothing more than a few anecdotes here and there (many of which don't withstand much scrutiny) of a few individual people saved, or a few dead bodies found after the worst has been done, rather than routine saving of thousands of lives in well-documented events?

Is the lack of important useful applications for ESP just another thing to be explained away by the nefarious influence of skeptics blocking progress at every turn? Will you claim that their are such applications, but "they" keep them hidden from us?

The reason for a higher failure rate wasn’t understood until my fiend admitted...

Now there's an amusing Freudian typo. ;) (Underlining mine)

Hard-core skeptics with strong prejudices can skew results quite easily.

So just how far do you expect skeptics to be removed from the process? Isn't a non-skeptical sender and non-skeptical receiver good enough? Just one skeptic looking on, thinking "what bunk!" puts out too much "noise"? Why should I accept that as a real explanation and not a desperate excuse for bad results?

Can you imagine any experimental result which would convince you that ESP didn't work? Or will you always figure that every failure was due to some extraneous factor that "messed it up"?

[Desertrose]

96. Sorry but the "extraordinary evidence" claim is such a pile of....

crap.

First understand this reasonable ground rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

This one always gets trotted out....Definitions of what are “extraordinary claims” vary based on prior beliefs and experiences.  Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone.  What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. 

How convenient that with that statement, you get to change the definition of "extraordinary" to suit your needs..... and that relates to the scientific process how?

Sure you don't mean UNPOPULAR claims require extraordinary evidence?

Or perhaps it should read this way- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality. 

Skeptics "blocking" progress? Only progress they block is their own.

and FYI- it really doesn't add much to your argument when you have to nitpick another's typo errors.

[Silent3]

101. "Extraordinary" might be a bit fuzzy to define, but it's not gratuitous

Einstein's claims about time were pretty extraordinary, and it was only right that extraordinary proof was demanded, and that people kept on, and keep on, testing his ideas. Einstein and those who were interested in his ideas met the challenge well. Today's string theorists, beautiful and compelling though some of their mathematics might be, likewise need to be held to tough standards, even by those who are predisposed to believe that their work is going in a very fruitful direction.

This has nothing to do with "popularity" at all. In fact, belief in mystical powers like ESP is very popular in our culture.

My comments along the lines of "skeptics blocking progress" are not my own invention, I'm merely echoing back a common protest made by proponents of the paranormal when demonstrations of the paranormal don't pan out. It was simonm, right here in this thread, who tried to foist the failure of ESP experiments off on "noise" generated by unbelieving minds.

What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness.

You'll happily decry skeptics as being arrogant, but then you'll say thing like this, which clearly imply that you think you're operating at a higher "level of consciousness" than the rest of us poor fools who haven't attained such a profound state such as your esteemed self. (Please, you can skip the song and dance about this isn't a judgment, just a statement of how things are, that you're just observing where others are "on their journey", etc., etc.)

Here are a few reasons to say claims of ESP count as "extraordinary":

(1) There's no clear mechanism by which ESP should work. Examine a human brain, or the entire human body for that matter. Although there is electrochemical activity to be found, you'll find no clear or obvious means by which information could be received or transmitted at a distance other than through the ordinary well-known senses like seeing and hearing and by well-known means like talking. The electrical noise of brainwaves is far too feeble and far too much of a mixed-up jumble of simultaneously generated signals to serve as anything more than a crude measure of gross brain activity and state, more so at even short distances than with probes attached directly to the skull. Brainwaves aren't modulated at specific frequency bands which allow them to be sorted out from other brainwave sources or other electromagnetic noise, and other brains don't have anything like the very sensitive and discriminating apparatus that would be needed to have any hope of extracting much of anything out of the brainwaves of other brains, even coming from just a few feet away.

If you'd further like to imagine that psychic abilities work backward and forward through time, you'd first have to figure out what kinds of amazing temporal mechanisms to look for before you could tell if such things were there.

Does that mean that such a mechanism or capability doesn't exist? No, it does not mean that. It does make any claim requiring such a mechanism an extraordinary claim, however. If you'd like to say that the physical body is the wrong place to look for ESP capabilities, then by virtue of positing a very difficult to examine source for the capability, you would again be making an extraordinary claim.

(2) Because ESP would be so incredibly useful for so many things, for it to exist yet not be far better and more routinely exploited is a very extraordinary circumstance.

(3) ESP would provide an enormous evolutionary advantage, so we should expect to at least some level of ESP in other species, and clear evidence of behavior which cannot be explained by other, more mundane means. (Sensitivity to low frequency vibrations, electromagnetic effects, atmospheric changes, for instance, are all better candidates to explain some types of animal behavior just prior to earthquakes, for example, before reaching for ESP as an explanation.)

[Silent3]

103. Oh, and about the typo...

...I merely found it a particularly amusing typo, and I didn't in the slightest attempt to use it to make my point or discredit what the other person was saying. Are you that devoid of humor up there in your Higher Level of Consciousness?

[Desertrose]

85. Have we somehow morphed into the Skeptic & Debunking forum?

and here I thought this was the religion/theology forum....

So whats with all this Randi stuff here? ... the "put up or shut up" talk?

I know you guys always hate to hear it but Randi's offer is about as bogus as they come.

It appears that psychic abilities have been proven but Mr. Randi still has yet to back up HIS end of the deal. Check out this link.

I'm wondering if THIS may have something to do with why the only ones who take Randi's challenge seriously are his groupies.

The rules are conceived by a showman not a scientist, and make little sense from a genuinely scientific point of view. Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments.

The introduction to the rules states, "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." Most scientific research, including research in particle physics, clinical medicine, conventional psychology and parapsychology, depends on statistical results that need to be analysed by experts to judge the significance of what has happened. Practically all serious scientific research would fail to qualify for the Randi prize.

Contenders have to pay for their own travelling expenses if they want to go to Randi to be tested: Rule 6: "All expenses such as transportation, accommodation and/or other costs incurred by the applicant/claimant in pursuing the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant/claimant."

Also, applicants waive their legal rights: Rule 7: "When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any person peripherally involved and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature and/or financial, or professional loss, or damage of any kind."

I love this rule:
Applicants also give Randi complete control over publicity. Rule 3: "Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) of any sort gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by the JREF."

The adoration of Randi as the be all & end of of matters psychic/paranormal is as pathetic as any other true believer and these skeptic arguments are tired, erroneous and in the wrong forum.

[trotsky]

89. I didn't bring up the mysticism.

But I'll confront it with reality whenever it emerges.

As to the whining about having met the challenge, there are a few more facts regarding the supposed "win":

http://www.randi.org/jr/100303.html

http://www.randi.org/jr/101703.html

And of course he gets "complete control over publicity." When they fail, as everyone to this point has, why shouldn't he be able to show evidence of their failure? That's how he debunked and humiliated Uri Geller. Just as we should to every charlatan who takes people's money and gives them false hope.

More whining from the people who simply can't prove their claims.

[Desertrose]

91. Mysticism? ...this IS the religion/theology forum.

NOT the skeptic/debunking forum.

As for Randi controlling the publicity...well we have seen how well things work when one "side" controls the dissemination of information, haven't we?

Oh are those debunking articles from JREF.....well my bad...then of course they must be the absolute truth,right? :sarcasm:

Well, maybe you don't believe the neocons spin news the way they want it?


BTW- there is no such thing as "false" hope. People either have hope or they don't...nothing false or phony about hope.

..for the record... I'm not the one whining here...but somebody is cause it appears they are not getting the answers they so petulantly demand from people they insult. Brilliant move.

[trotsky]

92. So, only certain viewpoints are allowed?

Sorry DR, this is a forum, not a group. I have just as much right to post here as anyone else. Bummer, eh?

And of course JREF is the best source for the other side of the story, just as YOUR link came from the party who thinks they won!

Too bad you can't provide answers and shut us skeptics up. That's really all it would take! Is that whining? Don't think so!

[Desertrose]

94. There you go again...putting words in my mouth

that I never said.

You seem to be the one with a problem with mysticism since you to feel the need to "confront it". I enjoy discussions with open minded people but lets face it, we've been around the ol' skeptic block a time or two and it always ends up the same in the same place. Post to your hearts content...and so will I.
Anytime we have two sides saying the opposite thing... people will have to make up their own minds...but again, it helps to have all the facts first.

Shut you skeptics up? Oh thats funny!

Tell me this- if someone actually ever "won" the Randi challenge...would you then believe PSI etc is real or would you immediately think poor Randi was duped?

Thats all it would take?? LOL

Honestly, do you really think there is anything anyone could do to give you guys enough proof to change your minds? I seriously doubt it. Sorry, but you're as stuck in your beliefs and agendas as any other true believer.

[trotsky]

95. Too bad.

Because yes, that's all it would take. Because it's not about Randi being duped, it's about presenting claims in a manner in which they can be accurately tested. It's not the man, it's the method.

And all the wacky claims about ESP, telekinesis, and the like have always failed. Always. That's why the method scares the charlatans, quacks, and fakers. They know they can fool people, but they can't fool science.

[Desertrose]

98. Oh please....

this is really getting funny......

There have been experiments done "scientifically" and yet those who chose not to accept them, simply ignore or change the ol' goal post of what is *extraordinary* and what that magical *extraordiary evidence* needs to be.

Hate to tell you but all the "wacky claims" have not failed.

Check out the January 2001 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, "Accuracy and Replicability of Anomalous After-Death Communication Across Highly Skilled Mediums", by Dr. Schwartz @ U of A.

Their readings turned out to average between a 70 to 90 percent accuracy rate, far above the chance level of 33 percent.


Here's another point to remember, just because something cannot be replicated, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Please tell me you are not saying that *SCIENCE* cannot be fooled. I would really like some proof of that *extraordinary claim*.

[trotsky]

99. Wow! From the Society for Psychical Research?

You mean the folks who have a long history of fraud & deceit, and of dismissing those who don't agree with psychic claims?

Oh sure, sounds pretty scientific to me! Perhaps you have a link to the full "study" so I can read up on this amazing discovery?

"just because something cannot be replicated, doesn't mean it didn't happen"

And just because you say something happened, doesn't mean it did.

Tell me something, DR, do you automatically accept every claim out there? Do you think some practitioners of New Agey/psychic/whatever materials are fraudulent? By what mechanism do you filter out the truthtellers from the liars & frauds?

[Desertrose]

100. So email him yourself & ask your questions.

here it is...Dr. Schwartz at [e-mail]

During the year 2000, famous mediums were tested under controlled conditions by Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory at the University of Arizona......or Google it...I gave you the information.

So without even checking it out you've already dismissed it.

The point you are missing is that just because there are a few frauds out there, doesn't mean that everyone who claims psychic abilities is a fraud...unless of course you absolutely do not believe there is any such thing as PSI, etc. Even though there have been tests done, you refuse to accept them, because....????

You call me a liar out of hand and you don't even know what I am referring to. :eyes:
Maybe I should put it this way... "Just because you don't believe what I say, doesn't mean it didn't happen."

Of course I don't automatically accept every claim. Why do you think I would? and yes, I know very well some claims are pure bullshit....people are people regardless.

What method do I use to determine the difference? I use my life experiences, intelligence and common sense and my final determiner...my"gut" ( aka intuition, bullshit detector,etc). What do you use?

[trotsky]

106. Just give me a link.

Don't make others do your work. If it's that easy to Google, then Google it for me. You're claiming a study supported a conclusion. Find me the study. That's all I ask.

And I'm just trying to find out what it takes to trigger your bullshit detector. Do you have an example of an altie claim that you don't believe?

[Desertrose]

108. Don't make others do your work?

You really are funny.

May I point out that YOU are the one who wants to read the study...the way I see it thats your work. Is Googling it yourself beyond your capabilities? I don't care if you read it or not - if you are truly interested, do a little research & don't expect everything to be handed to you.

...and really, why are you so damn interested in my BS detector? I can tell you that its going off bigtime about your real motives in pursuing this point, does that help?
:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

111. Um, rosey?

You are presenting a study as "proof." But you won't give me a link. In fact, you seem quite perturbed by the fact that someone won't do your research for you. Why is that? If you're outraged that I won't do it because it's so darn simple, what should I feel about you, because you won't do it either?

You're making the claim, back it up. Is that really too much to ask?

And I'm quite interested in your BS detector, because I'd like to know what characteristics make you reject a claim. You say there are some things you reject, and that's good, I'd just like to find out what so maybe we could have a little more communication success.

On edit: I did do a search for the study, and surprise surprise, it's only available to paid members of the society! LOL. Oh I could order a back issue for $10, but I really don't think it's reasonable to expect me to spend MY money to do YOUR research. Honestly, rosey.

[Desertrose]

114. um, trotskie?

I pointed you to a study...you are the one claiming nothing has ever been scientifically proven.

I'm not outraged at all..honestly I am quite amused. Same old stuff...I "make a claim" so I have to back it up.:eyes: Yeah, right. How come you can claim anything you want and yet someone else has to provide you proof. I always do my own groundwork if I am curious about finding answers, but OK, if you are unable to research anything from the info I gave you,here is a link I was able to find that might help. I haven't really had time to dig into this one because my computer time is limited today so I have no idea what you may find but surely you can go from there.

As far as what things I reject or not....are you waiting for me to give you some sort of list? Seriously? Why in the world should I do that? You don't honestly think my giving you a list of what I believe or don't believe would improve communications do you? You expect a lot from someone you insult.

Again... it is not MY research...you are the one who wants answers...that makes it your quest to find them, not mine to hand them on a silver platter.

[trotsky]

115. Sure, it's a study.

But since I can't read it, that means nothing!

It's as if I told you that I have a dragon in my garage, and as proof I have a certificate signed by an eyewitness. When asked to present the certificate, I say it's your responsibility to go find it. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

By the way, your new link has absolutely nothing about the study in question. Unless I'm just missing something on the page?

I can be patient and wait for you to do the research that you claim is easy to do.

You're not going to push this back on me. You're claiming that there is a study that proves a phenomenon exists. Back it up. No matter how much you spin, the burden's on you.

[Desertrose]

118. You looked over the whole website in 4 minutes?

Your posting time says it all.

The link is to the scientist who conducted the study at the U of A. I would think it would take you a bit longer than 4 minutes to determine you can't read it and it has nothing to do with the study in question.

This is clearly a waste of time if you are unable or unwilling to even look at the link I gave you. The burden is on me? Uhhh, no its not. Good try though.

Better look again..I think your dragon just might have turned into a strawman.

[trotsky]

119. Nope, I just looked at the main page.

The way you presented the link, it seemed like you expected the study to be prominent on it.

What, now I'm supposed to browse through an entire website looking for proof to back up YOUR claim?

I wish I could at least say that this has been fun, Desertrose. But when you make a claim (namely, that there is a study that backs up your point), you should at least be expected to provide a link or a copy of the study in question. It's not my job to present YOUR research.

But you certainly do look funny claiming otherwise! :)

[Silent3]

58. I really wish you'd stop repeating...

...this phrase "3D linear time" as if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

[Desertrose]

61. I know exactly what I am talking about...

the problem is you don't. ...and no offense intended.

I'm using metaphysical terms that I forget most people aren't familiar with.

3D = third dimension- which is the world where we exist now

linear time = past> present> future - and accordingly time supposedly can only flow one way


Pretty straightforward. All I am saying is that once out of this existence, this "3D" life, time is experienced differently and not in a linear way. We can tap into the "out of time" (dimension) through various ways while we live in this world of time....intuition being one of them.



I'm just stating these things...its of no consequence to me if anyone accepts them or doesn't accept them.
Not trying to start a war or piss folks off...just puttin' ideas out there for people to chew on or spit out. Whatever.

[Silent3]

63. The problem is that the phrasing "3D linear time" reeks...

...of an attempt to sound oh-so-technical and scientific while being nothing more than a borrowing of the trappings of science in a way which exhibits no understanding of a scientific perspective of time.

The world we exist in is not "3D", it's four dimensional at the very least, with three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Furthermore, in the same way that what you mean by "left" and "right" in spacial dimensions can change as you turn your body, the meaning and direction of time changes with velocity and gravity in fascinating ways which exchange space for time and time for space, in different ways from different frames of reference.

Real, experimentally-verifiable aspects of the nature of time which go well beyond your "3D linear time" concept exist in the here and now and can be discovered without any mystical take on the not-so-mystical thing we call "intuition". One person can claim event A happened before event B, another can claim B happened before A, and both can be completely correct, with causality still preserved and genuine paradoxes avoided -- you just need to learn more about how time and space and the speed of light interrelate to see how it all works out.

Then there's the relationship between thermodynamics and time, and how that relates to the question of why we remember the past, but don't "remember" the future.

As for all of this talk about "intuition", what proof have you that there's anything of an extraordinary temporal nature involved in intuition? Before you answer, I must state this: I reject any 20/20 hindsight definition of intuition which pretends that intuition is never wrong. If every time time intuition fails one says, "Well, that wasn't really intuition", that's a definition by which I cannot abide. Given that we can agree that intuition is indeed fallible, however, I see no compelling reason to classify intuition as anything more than a mental process occurring right within the physical confines of the human brain.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What amazing wonders have been achieved through intuition which simply cannot be explained by more mundane means?

Back to the idea of time and afterlife: To imagine anything at all similar to our current mode of existence, simply augmented by greater access to some timeless thing, or imagining a less restrictive flow of the order of events, or imagining a more flexible perception of spans of time -- none of that even begins to suffice at trying to grapple with the idea of a truly timeless mode of existence. Even the word "existence", and any wordless ideas you might attempt to associate with the idea of existence, are hopelessly mired within our time-defined thought processes -- "intuition" has no special place here.

Try to imagine a moment frozen in time, and you're still thinking in terms of time. Try to imagine something which never changes, and a flow of time, boringly eventless as that flow of time might be, is still implicit in that concept. Do you imagine seeing things, hearing things, or otherwise experiencing or sensing things by other means, in a "timeless" afterlife, do you imagine a flow of personal or universal thoughts? If so, you still haven't sufficiently broken free from the concept of time.

My point is this: If you imagine an afterlife which has an aspect of time anything at all similar to time as we know it, no matter what sorts of bells and whistles you try to attach the idea of time, you're still stuck with either reaching a definitive point of total death, personally dealing with the crushing burden of eternity, or losing your identity, through a non-discrete death of constant fading, as a finite bubble of self trawls through an infinite sequence of experience.

If you try to imagine an afterlife without time at all, then you are trying to imagine the radically unimaginable. How can the radically unimaginable hold any appeal as a hoped-for thing? How can a self deeply defined by and through the flow of time be preserved ("preserved" being a time-laden word itself) in a mode of "existence" without time?

[Silent3]

40. My make-believe Deity, are you reading what I'm writing!?

What "thoughts and ideas of a 'timeless afterlife'", pray tell, do you think I'm expressing? I've written that such things would be incomprehensible, and you're turning around to tell me... tell me what? That "incomprehensible" is too narrow a box for the concept??? This EXPLORATORY, WHAT-IF concept of a timeless afterlife, one among many concepts I proffered, one in which I am expressing no belief, is being too tightly constrained by all of the stuff I didn't try to say about it?

And then you ask, "Do you think that your 'hoping for something' whether or not it may be incomprehensible, makes one whit of difference in what actually is?"? Christ on an adjustable height crutch, from which part of anything that I've written in this thread so far would the need to even ask that question arise? I expressed nothing at all to imply or support the idea that what you want has anything to do with what you get after you die.

I think you're confusing my attempts to explore what believers believe, and how well they've thought out what they believe, with something I'm saying about myself.

There actually are ideas about the afterlife that are not based on the untruths that religion has told over so many milennia...again, no tangible proof available, so it all comes down to what your gut tells you.

People's "guts" tell them all sorts of mutually incompatible things that certainly can't be all true at the same time (unless, perhaps, you're going for the ultimate fantasy world where we all get to have our own special reality based on whatever we want to believe). Do you believe your "guts" do a better job than the average viscera next door?

Proof or not, believable or not, when you consider all of the implication of whatever vision of an afterlife you might be imagining, does it still hold up when you probe the idea with difficult questions? Is this afterlife desirable? Do you simultaneously consider this afterlife both beyond your own ability to comprehend and still desirable at the same time?

[Evoman]

20. How I picture it

I think a lot of people have a hard time envisioning forever. The best explanaition I've heard was this.

Imagine that once a year, a dove's wing softly brushes a huge 12 tonne iron bell. When that Iron bell has been completely eroded by the doves wing, thats just the very small sliver of the beginning of eternity.

Yeah, good luck enjoying all that free time.

[trotsky]

27. Eternal boredom

By the time I had come to the realization that there were no gods, I started pondering the concept of an afterlife. I had the same thoughts you did - what could you POSSIBLY do that could keep every day in eternity fresh and new? We're talking eternity here - neverending. At some point, you will have experienced enough that nothing will be totally new. That's a guarantee. Even worse, what makes things on earth exciting? The element of risk. The chance things might not turn out the way you expected. The chance you might get hurt! In an eternity of bliss, those things are removed. You're not going to get hurt, you can't die again, you can do anything you want and there's no "rush" of emotion or thrills.

Faced with the prospect of eternal boredom or permanent death, I'll take death. PLEASE.

[Silent3]

32. Of course, it would be nice...

...if you got to decide when you'd had enough, and not have that decided for you. :)

As long as we're playing in the Land of Make Believe -- which as far as I can tell is what any talk about an afterlife is, after all -- we can construct a completely blissful afterlife by fiat. Worried about boredom? Okay, we'll banish boredom. Boredom simply does not exist in our ideal afterlife. Worried about endless stretches of time? Okay, we'll make everything you experience repeat in a long loop. With boredom already expunged as a possible reaction to this endless repetition you won't mind it one bit. In fact, you might be rendered incapable of being aware of the repetition -- you aren't Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, you're all the other people Bill meets each repeated day, and Bill isn't there to shake things up either.

Of course, if we can make all of these rules to try to ensure that our afterlife is enjoyable and pleasant, why not go straight to it then? By definition, in the afterlife you're happy, always happy. The sensation of intense joy is indelibly imprinted upon your being. Doing and experiencing anything is irrelevant, joy is not a result of accomplishments or experiences or discoveries, joy simply is. You could sit in an unchanging cosmic waiting room, where all the magazines were already badly out-of-date when you first arrived and are never replaced, and it would not matter -- your experience would be one of sheer bliss.

The only problem with "solutions" like this is that they make an afterlife seem pretty damned pointless. Of course, you'd become completely incapable of being bothered by pointlessness, so perhaps it all could work out. :)

[trotsky]

33. Yes, and in other words,

we become the sort of "mindless robots" that many Christians tell us we'd have to be if we weren't given the precious gift of free will.

[Strong Atheist]

41. EXTREMELY well thought out and stated. Forever is probably something

most have not thought of. As you say, there is no good solution, but I also do not believe in an afterlife, so that takes care of that...

[TreasonousBastard]

50. You're right that the thought of "eternity" is really...

pretty scary when you think about it. Lots of fantasy stories about the poor slob doomed to live for eternity and watching the universe dissolve. Even those poor immortals who get bored with all the new stuff and wish for death after seeing friends and family die off too many times.

However, although the fundie types probably either haven't thought much about it or have somehow rationalized it, many of us just don't concern ourselves with the problem.

Quaker theology talks of everything being in some sort of continuum, and time really doesn't matter after all is said and done. This theology is as confused and confusing as most other theology trying to deal with matters of the infinite universe, but it's worth noting that there are quite a few Quaker astrophysicists who have addressed it.

Anyway, unlike the literalists who dream of an eternity at the right hand of God, we end up not caring very much about that, and all talk of heavenly rewards we take with the same grains of salt we take other Biblical mythology with. We are primarily interested in this life and how we live it while assuming that the mysteries of whatever lies beyond end of our earthly life will take care of themselves and our job is just to take of the earthly life we know.

We do not lead our lives from either the threat of hell or the promise of heaven-- we simply lead our lives as best we can.

[catbert836]

68. I won't even try to explain eternity

and I know none of us really can. But I have a rather different idea of paradise than the Judeo-Christo-Islamic version. The heaven I think of is more like the Buddhist nirvana, which I define as a state of unconcious, eternal peace and happiness. Kind of like if you went to sleep after a really long and satifying day (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about) and just kept right on sleeping. A conscious afterlife doesn't make much sense to me, for all the numerous reasons you stated so eloquently above.

[libhill]

70. For my money

I'd like to hang around as a ghost, shooting the bull with other grave yard residents, or dropping by some body's house to scare the crap outta them, by turning their tv on and off, or dropping dishes on the floor. Eternity is a long time, as you say. Might as well have some fun. Beats hanging around on a cloud strumming a damned harp for 20 zillion years, or having a demon shove a pitchfork up your ass every 15 minutes. And reincarnation has no appeal for me either. Just the thought of going through childhood and puberty again, makes me want to puke. Just my inane two cents worth. Have a great day.

[EstimatedProphet]

97. I know this: I don't want my consciousness, whatever it is, to disappear

I want SOMETHING after life. I don't want my consciousness to die. It scares the hell out of me.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

123. Scares the hell out of me, too, EP.

:hi:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

122. I think that we already ARE part of "Everything."

Differently evolved, but at the most basic level, the same as the trees, etc. There's an artificial--key word there, ARTIFICIAL--divide between us and the rest of the world that human culture perpetuates and perpetuates.

[Babette]

128. The question is, Who would you be without the defining characteristics of

the body?

Once your body is gone, what will remain that makes you YOU? Think for a minute about who you are now. You may describe yourself as male or female. Would that have any meaning without a body? What about all the things that go along with that definition- behaviors such as male aggression or female submissiveness - things that society tells us we have to be because of the body we are born into. Is that who you really are? Or is that a condition you carry by being a member of a particular sex? Would those characteristics continue to exist when the body is gone?

Think of other things that make you who you are. You may find that a lot of those characteristics were imposed upon you either by your physical form or by society. What happens when the physical form is gone? Does our soul continue to make boundaries for itself out of fear of change? Are we afraid of "letting go" and becoming something that we may not be able to comprehend? I see from a lot of the posts here that most people think that they will be the same being after their physical body is gone. Why?

I think that most people just assume that everything will be the same as it was here, just a whole lot nicer. I think that's just another manifestation of fear of death.

[MellowOne]

130. We can't comprehend the hereafter

Probably why the Bible doesn't go into details. Just as we can't comprehend that God has always existed and will always exist.

[Silent3]

131. Try to encourage some people to think...

...and all you get back is "We can't understand this stuff. Here. Swallow this unexamined dogma. It'll make you feel better."

[ozone_man]

132. Forever is a long time.

But this life is all there is, so enjoy it while we can. Afterlife is a concept invented by those that didn't want to face the reality of the permanence of death. No one really wants to die, at least not while you can still enjoy life, but it's inevitable. It's reality. Consciousness can't survive without a body and mind, it's part of the living brain. Accepting reality brings a certain peace with that awareness. When the time comes, there'll be nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all, literally. :)

[Brilligator]

134. I've made this point before and it seems to catch people

off guard. Look at you like your nuts.

I studied Math in college and there was a lot of talk about the infinite and even a lot of talk about being able to picture infinity or the sense of gaining an intuitive feel for infinity.

I think I achieved that sort of feel at certain times and when you look at living forever in that light it's truly frightening, much harder to come to grips with than mortality.

[manic expression]

138. Picture the infinite?

Living forever may be frightening, but thinking that we will continue as our present selves is simply illogical. Look at energy; it does not ever cease to exist, but it exists in different forms (it's the same with matter). It is much the same with individuals, our present bodies die, but we will be manifest in another form. It's not really living forever, it is simply existing.

[The Straight Story]

135. So what is the real question and why do you care?

Forever is not really an unmeasurable time, as unlogical as that may sound.

If you see things as an atheist then we are dead forever - what does that mean?

As a christian, et al, forever is a renewal of time after time in which we are in a place of joy without pain and have the ability to view things in a different light. Time, like that of physicists before us, is slowed and goes on forever - ie, we do not age yet continue to exist. Think Lorentz and Einstein.

We look at things in terms of humanity and our concepts, yet it is so much more than we can perceieve. We see time as one thing, God as another.

[Roaming]

136. It's impossible for our human minds to wrap themselves around

the idea of being OUTSIDE time. Time is a linear thing; eternity isn't. Having faith that it'll all make sense when I'm on the other side :-)

[manic expression]

137. It's not impossible

it's just that people aren't used to doing it. The concept of existence being linear is mostly a western idea, which IMO came from the nature of Christian faith. However, non-western thought dwells quite comfortably on the eternal, and in fact embraces it.

Most people in western culture think in terms of lines. We live and then we die and then we go to heaven; we came from caves and we are now improving.... Other ways of looking at the world see existence as a circle and not as a line segment. Things are created, they live, they die and are created again to continue the process; things that die provide for other things, continuing a cycle; time is irrelevant....

Because we (westerners, loosely) do not see existence as eternal due to cultural philosophy, we cannot easily wrap ourselves around ideas that are not linear, but that does not mean we cannot or should not.

[0rganism]

139. Inductive immortality

What caught my eye from your post is this:
> I do know that at any given moment, provided that my life had not become
> unbearably awful and without hope for improvement, that if you were to ask me,
> "Would you like to die right now?" my answer would be "no". I might choose to
> live forever, not by accepting the weight of eternity all at once, but simply
> by always wishing for one more moment, endlessly.

Given a choice between a not-unpleasant existence and nonexistence, you would pick existence (at least, in your current frame of mind.) For every n, n+1 exists.

Isn't this in itself the most direct approach to comprehending an infinite afterlife of bliss? Let's suppose heaven is simply a state of pure pulsing orgasmic joy, without the physical interference of bodily things like concerts, meals and angelic sex partners. At any given moment, given the choice of continuing or dissolving into nothingness, would you not (by this reasoning) pick continuity? Should you feel unpleasantly bored, perhaps you might simply discard the capacity for boredom entirely?

I suppose the natural follow-up question would be, what would you miss most (assuming your memory peristed intact, and you were capable of such an unpleasant act as "missing" something) from your mortal life?

It seems to me that I would miss the processes of discovery and moral agency.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

141. I don't want to live forever, that's for sure

I think the afterlife is one of just spirit. I'm not going to volunteer to come do this all over again unless I have a contract or something. Like I want a different body for sure.

I'm also okay with the concept of the big sleep. Nothing.

Somehow I think that our brains have the capacity to exist alone as energy, and perhaps we form our own environment. Maybe that is what hell is.

I don't really believe in hell, but I'm trying to stay out of trouble just in case. It would sure be a really nasty surprise!