What Will The Afterlife Be Like?

[pigfarmer]

are impossible

Why? My copy of Handbook for the Recently Deceased doesn't mention that I believe there is a continuation of consciousness after death and anything after that is a crap shoot, we don't know what happens we can only guess. Putting it in the context of say, a virtual instance is a contemporary viewpoint. What about an 8th century Norseman? His views would be very different and yet you'd think about the same thing happened to him as will happen to us. Maybe there is some observer effect, or as George Carlin put it - you go where you think you're gonna go.

Having said that, what would you say to someone like Elisabeth Kübler-Ross who had an in depth chat with a client well after her bodily death? Reports of things like that are not unheard of.

Welcome to AE BTW, in case I missed it.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Why? My copy of Handbook for the Recently Deceased doesn't mention that I believe there is a continuation of consciousness after death and anything after that is a crap shoot, we don't know what happens we can only guess. Putting it in the context of say, a virtual instance is a contemporary viewpoint. What about an 8th century Norseman? His views would be very different and yet you'd think about the same thing happened to him as will happen to us. Maybe there is some observer effect, or as George Carlin put it - you go where you think you're gonna go.

Having said that, what would you say to someone like Elisabeth Kübler-Ross who had an in depth chat with a client well after her bodily death? Reports of things like that are not unheard of.

Welcome to AE BTW, in case I missed it.

Why are afterlives as they are typically envisioned ( as a continuity of yourself following death ) impossible? I wrote an essay on this and published it on The Paracast website. I suppose I could copy it to here, but do you really want to read an essay? If I were to break it down into as simple a concept as possible, the reason that the sort of afterlife people typically imagine is impossible, boils down to how we look at personal identity.

How do we decide that you are — you, and not someone or something else that just looks and behaves like you? As you go through the various criteria, it gradually becomes apparent that the you in the here and now cannot be the same person as the one in any hypothetical afterworld, and that the best that any afterworld version of you can be is some sort of copy.

This is not bad news. It makes you unique - the only "you" there will ever be, no matter how big or how many other universes there are.

 

[pigfarmer]

do you really want to read an essay

No thanks. I don't doubt you put effort into it but we all have our beliefs and we're not apt to change each other's minds - I'm not a fan of the huge 'debate' and prefer a casual chat. Actually, more to the point - rather than me what would you say to James Leininger or Ryan Hammond? Their statements were more than sufficient to convince surviving friends and family of their sincerity. People believe far less credible statements about UFOs and all sorts of other things, I tend to accept these two cases as genuine unless someone can prove otherwise, and there are those who have tried. It certainly does suggest survival of personality beyond physical death and frankly, that intrigues and scares the snot out of me at the same time. I am not generally prone to the 'esoteric' shall we say yet the personal experiences I've had are hard for me to ignore, which form the basis of my opinion.

Statistically speaking saying something is impossible usually just means it is at that particular time and place until our understanding of the situation changes. Up until very recently the level of actual scientific analysis of 'what happens next if anything' has been so spotty as to be virtually nonexistent. There have been books and media 'awareness' but to my knowledge UVA is one of the very few that's doing any real research, I think the University of Edinburgh is the only other. A lot like Jacques Vallee has said, a database is incredibly useful and can be revealing which is exactly what Dr. Jim Tucker & Co are doing. It seems to show that there are common experiences with NDEs and reincarnation claims that are common to all cultures regardless of how the idea is accepted within it, but at this point the database consists of less than 5000 cases. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it when that number is substantially higher.

 

[Shadowprophet]

The strangest thing keeps pressing at me. I'd wonder if anyone here believes it is possible to have a dream in vivid detail and have the events of that dream come to pass exactly as they were envisioned. I ask this because l, I've had this occur to myself on a few occasions and it wasn't like something similar was transpiring, this was extremely detailed and vivid. The thing is. Empirical Science will tell you, that's not possible. However , I don't need anyone's validation or second opinion to know that I dreamed a greatly detailed event that came to pass exactly as I dreamed it. On more than one occasion. Yet for all of my conviction. Some people won't believe that.. everyone will have their opinions. But very few have the answers...

 

[Shadowprophet]

I'd like to throw this article down, it's from popular mechanics, so, yeah, chances are it's not peer reviewed. None the less, the gist of the article is, Some scientists believe all consciousness can and does communicate with the entirety of the cosmos. It's , a decent read of anything else.

Article

 

[pigfarmer]

it is possible to have a dream in vivid detail

I had one lucid dream that was so extraordinary it literally moved me to tears. It answered a question I had in a very, very shocking way but was not of the sort to predict future events. It's proof of absolutely nothing to anyone other than me, but it did serve as a personal 'holy ****' experience because for one, Mr.Skeptic got his nose rubbed in something unexpected.

 

[pigfarmer]

The Paracast

A fond memory. It was the first podcast I ever listened to back when they were far less common. The intro is nostalgic, many many times I've had an episode on when I went out on a service call in the wee hours. Once in a while I'll download an episode just to listen to the intro. For some reason I have a memory of driving through Chicago listening to you and Don Ecker irritate each other - about what I don't remember.

I am a creature of habit. Every Sunday I pull out the old Paracast mug for coffee.

 

[Shadowprophet]

I had one lucid dream that was so extraordinary it literally moved me to tears. It answered a question I had in a very, very shocking way but was not of the sort to predict future events. It's proof of absolutely nothing to anyone other than me, but it did serve as a personal 'holy ****' experience because for one, Mr.Skeptic got his nose rubbed in something unexpected.

I have in the past had lucid dreams, but those were random and I didn't use the methods to try to invoke? Is invoke a good word to use here? I've never had luck while I was actively trying. But, I fear Lucid dreaming, quite a bit actually. To make a longer experience shorter, I came into lucid dreaming in a very strange way, I'd have these dreams where I was being held down by some kind of force and it was terrifying, so much so that I'd eventually realize I was sleeping and it was a dream. The terrifying thing is , Just knowing that I'm dreaming , makes me feel trapped. And I begin to panic, "what if I can't wake up" .. eventually , I had more peaceful lucid dreams and I learned that waking up is quite easy when you know how to do it.. still, I fear the mental control one has over their physical being in lucid dreams , one could give themselves a seizure or a heart attack if they tinkered with the possibilities enough.. I don't know, maybe that's not possible. I still greatly fear that possibility though..

 

[pigfarmer]

Is invoke a good word to use here?

I don't know but I certainly didn't intentionally invoke anything - I just went to bed. I tell myself it was just a dream and objectively that's all that happened. But it was intense, slightly frightening and I hope to God a unique experience. It answered my question though in dramatic fashion. Long story there

 

[J Randall Murphy]

A fond memory. It was the first podcast I ever listened to back when they were far less common. The intro is nostalgic, many many times I've had an episode on when I went out on a service call in the wee hours. Once in a while I'll download an episode just to listen to the intro. For some reason I have a memory of driving through Chicago listening to you and Don Ecker irritate each other - about what I don't remember.

I am a creature of habit. Every Sunday I pull out the old Paracast mug for coffee.
View attachment 19448

Ya those were the good ole' days. I remember you there. The way it's gone since then with it's support of vax mandates and all the COVID propaganda, and the censorship in the forum is truly a shame.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

No thanks. I don't doubt you put effort into it but we all have our beliefs and we're not apt to change each other's minds - I'm not a fan of the huge 'debate' and prefer a casual chat. Actually, more to the point - rather than me what would you say to James Leininger or Ryan Hammond? Their statements were more than sufficient to convince surviving friends and family of their sincerity. People believe far less credible statements about UFOs and all sorts of other things, I tend to accept these two cases as genuine unless someone can prove otherwise, and there are those who have tried. It certainly does suggest survival of personality beyond physical death and frankly, that intrigues and scares the snot out of me at the same time. I am not generally prone to the 'esoteric' shall we say yet the personal experiences I've had are hard for me to ignore, which form the basis of my opinion.

Statistically speaking saying something is impossible usually just means it is at that particular time and place until our understanding of the situation changes. Up until very recently the level of actual scientific analysis of 'what happens next if anything' has been so spotty as to be virtually nonexistent. There have been books and media 'awareness' but to my knowledge UVA is one of the very few that's doing any real research, I think the University of Edinburgh is the only other. A lot like Jacques Vallee has said, a database is incredibly useful and can be revealing which is exactly what Dr. Jim Tucker & Co are doing. It seems to show that there are common experiences with NDEs and reincarnation claims that are common to all cultures regardless of how the idea is accepted within it, but at this point the database consists of less than 5000 cases. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it when that number is substantially higher.

In the case of the impossibility of afterlives ( as they are typically imagined - as a continuity of personhood following the death of the body ), the impossibility isn't due to insufficient knowledge. There is enough knowledge available to deduce that outcome through sheer logic and the availabale evidence. The problem is that people who want to believe otherwise won't take the time to do what's required to get it — prefering instead to make the sorts of assumptions you mention.

But that's fine. I like digging and getting to the bottom of these issues. Others are fine with what makes them feel good. Dive only as deep as you're capable and motivated.

 

[pigfarmer]

...

 

[J Randall Murphy]

...

BTW: I don't doubt you're capable - and not being motivated isn't a crime. We can always pick it up another time if you are.

 

[pigfarmer]

BTW: I don't doubt you're capable - and not being motivated isn't a crime. We can always pick it up another time if you are.

Yeah, it wouldn't kill me to at least take a look at what you wrote if you want to provide a link.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Yeah, it wouldn't kill me to at least take a look at what you wrote if you want to provide a link.

I'll just copy it to here. It's fairly short. Discussion to follow as applicable.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Explaining Afterlives
Why Afterlives Are Impossible
By J Randall Murphy​

"I didn't believe in reincarnation in my past life, and I still don't." - Woody Allen

Understanding why afterlives are impossible requires that we define what we mean by an afterlife. The typical assumption is that persons continue to live after the death of their bodies, usually in some other realm or aspect of this realm that we cannot normally detect with our available senses or equipment, and that they either remain there, or return to this realm by occupying their original bodies, or as is the case with reincarnation, by occupying a new one, or as is the case with hauntings, manifesting themselves as some ghostly apparition.

What I mean by "impossible", is that based on the interpretations above, afterlives are not possible. Therefore no amount of additional information can make afterlives true. It is analogous to saying that if we only had more information, we could prove that there are four sided triangles, or three sided squares. We don't need more information to determine possibility.

With the above premises in place, the key to understanding why afterlives are impossible, is the word "person". What exactly constitutes personhood? Afterlife proponents would have us believe it is the soul. But what exactly do they mean by that? There is certainly no consensus. Some equate it with consciousness, but consciousness is an entirely separate concept than that of personhood. To clear that up, let's have a quick look at what we mean by consciousness and personhood.

Consciousness is the experience of being in the world. In other words, it is what it's like to experience senses, emotions, knowledge, and ideas. However senses, emotions, knowledge, and ideas are only content. Consciousness is more like being aware that there is any content in the first place. This must be true because an awareness of a lack of content is an equally good indicator of consciousness. For example a person who has gone totally blind has an awareness that they can no longer see.

As we contemplate this further, it becomes apparent that the role consciousness plays with respect to personhood is entirely neutral. In other words, consciousness only makes a person aware of their personhood. It doesn't in and of itself constitute personhood. Consider a patient suffering from a condition where they cannot regain consciousness. When their condition is repaired it makes them aware of their own memories, senses, ideas, and so on, not those of some other person. Note here that I'm not talking about reincarnation. I'm talking about a person who regains consciousness in their own body, perhaps after an accident that has rendered them unconscious.

Another analogy is that consciousness is like a screen that displays your senses, tastes, emotions, etc. But the screen itself is just a blank white surface. If it were moved to a person without one, it would then reflect all the things about that person, not the person it came from.

There are those who would deflect the above, claiming instead that you are your spirit. However the word spirit is often equated with the word "soul", so we're back to square one. The only alternative is to propose that souls or spirits, or whatever they may be called, are different than consciousness alone, and are able to carry with them in some ethereal form, the personality as well as consciousness. Let's say that happens to be the case. That would be a pretty good reason to suppose that there's an afterlife. Right? Not so fast.

All the things that constitute personhood have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be attributable to some aspect of our biology. Believers in afterlives would no doubt resist this truth, but I wonder how many of them wouldn't mind missing their morning cup of coffee. Let's face it, biochemistry has a huge effect on personality. Consider the differences between the sexes alone. Different hormones directly and significantly affect personality. Add to that blood pressure and all the other psychoactive compounds.

The evidence is overwhelming. We are primarily identified as who we are, by our height, weight, eye color, fingerprints, and DNA — all materal and biological in nature.And as we've seen above, even our personalities are heavily dependent on these biological functions.

Similar proof from neuroscience is available for all sensory and memory functions. Therefore retaining our gender, memories, intellect, and sensory systems after death are all very important requirements if personhood is to be retained. So the question is: What takes over for all these entirely material biological systems and compounds that define who we are as persons — after the death of the body?

Proponents of afterlives might say that they don't know what takes over, but something does. I might be tempted to agree that such a thing is possible, but unfortunately, either way, the result is the same. The heavy lifting for personhood must be done either by our physical systems, or by some sort of replacement for our physical systems, otherwise there can be no continuity of personhood. So now we apply the logic.

With consciousness playing a neutral role, and biological systems doing all the heavy lifting, then regardless of whatever mechanisms takes over for our biological systems after their death, the best that such replacements can ever be are copies. They can never be your original biological systems, especially after they have been reduced to a pile of ash. Therefore everything responsible for personhood has not undergone any continuity.

In other words, your afterlife copy can be an exact duplicate with all the memories, feelings, and senses that you do. It might even think it is you ( sans body ). But as we have just seen, it cannot be you. Hence, because there can be no continuity of personhood, there can be no afterlife in the sense we defined it at the start. The only way to truly retain continuity of personhood is to literally never die, body and soul or spirit, or whatever else you want to call it.

This realization should inform anyone who bases their assumptions about afterlives on the initial premises above, that they need to rethink their position and formulate possible hypotheses to explain the phenomena reported. For example, if we are to accept that the phenomena that leads people to believe afterlives are something real, then we should be asking how these copies are possible.

We may never be able to prove any particular theory, but at least exploring possible theories is better than wasting time trying to prove impossibile ones. As a final thought, if it is actually the case that an afterlife copy takes over for us upon our death, perhaps it would be best to have treated ourselves well during this life, so as to give them a good start in the next one.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

To add: Please excuse some of the typos. It's amazing to see what you miss when you re-read something 3 years later

 

[Shadowprophet]

To add: Please excuse some of the typos. It's amazing to see what you miss when you re-read something 3 years later

Thank you for clarifying your opinion on this, after having read this thoroughly, I respect your opinion, however, there is very little science definitively contained within, sure you refer to science, but your definition of consciousness is a little wonky.

Consciousness
is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. It can also be defined as the quality or state of being aware of something within oneself. It isn't just being aware of one's surroundings, it's being aware of one's self. yes. we have all ran into someone who thinks they have it all figured out, unfortunately, You don't seem to be conscious of this situation, or you would realize you stand among peers who have spent decades reading peer-reviewed documentation

when you stand among giants, an ego will only hinder your progress..


Take that with any amount of salt you want.. the know-it-all all attitude is alarmingly unstudied.

Where is your study, and where is your research? if you had studied this subject with any depth, it would be evident.

 

[Shadowprophet]

If there are those with an interest, we can turn the science up a bit in here, though, no one asked for it.

As of August 2023, no scientific study has found reliable evidence of an afterlife. According to Big Think, there is no evidence either way, and neuroscientists say that claims that consciousness survives death are not supported by research.

Some say that believing in life after death requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Others say that life after death transcends science's ability to measure anything.


Is There Life After Death? Scientists on Both Sides of Eternal Question
Nov 17, 2023 — As he says in an article for Scientific American: “If it's really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. “Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model.

Oct 10, 2018 — There will not be any evidence for life after death found by scientists. Life after death transcends science's ability to measure.


A 2023 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science provides “the strongest evidence yet” that some kind of covert consciousness remains for a short time after a person's heart stops beating and they are considered dead.


There is a lot of study into Death, however, death transcends any ability we have to measure. Yet, writing ideologies away as fiction just because we don't have a conclusive way to study a subject is old Newtonian thinking, by Newtonian physics we just discovered empirically that gravity causes things to fall down.. we must always leave room for theories. we must always leave room because space doesn't have cardinal directions there is no up or down, only attraction... yet. Newton couldn't have conceived this empirically, it took Einstein to figure that out.


When it comes right down to it when it comes to science. I am.....

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Thank you for clarifying your opinion on this, after having read this thoroughly, I respect your opinion, however, there is very little science definitively contained within, sure you refer to science, but your definition of consciousness is a little wonky.

Consciousness
is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. It can also be defined as the quality or state of being aware of something within oneself. It isn't just being aware of one's surroundings, it's being aware of one's self. yes. we have all ran into someone who thinks they have it all figured out, unfortunately, You don't seem to be conscious of this situation, or you would realize you stand among peers who have spent decades reading peer-reviewed documentation

when you stand among giants, an ego will only hinder your progress..


Take that with any amount of salt you want.. the know-it-all all attitude is alarmingly unstudied.

Where is your study, and where is your research? if you had studied this subject with any depth, it would be evident.

Actually, my definition of consciousness isn't "wonky" - It is in line with the foremost philosophers on the subject. The "What it's like ... " part is an allusion to Thomas Nage's famous "What It's Like To Be A Bat" essay.

On the forum I copied my post from, we had an extensive thread on it that I participated in for years. As for the research you want, most of what I've explained is self-evident and so obvious that no citations are required. Or do you dispute that biochemistry has an effect on personality? Do I really need to get you references for that? How many do you want? Maybe we can start here:

Brain Biochemistry and Personality: A Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Study

Perhaps we should go back to the basics here and start with a lecture by philosopher David Chalmers.

View: https://youtu.be/uhRhtFFhNzQ?feature=shared
​

The notion that consciousness and awareness are identical is a typical novice mistake. Maybe start here:

Consciousness, Awareness, and Presence: A Neurobiological Perspective

It is proposed that consciousness is different from awareness. Consciousness can be thought of as a dualistic, embodied, and embedded cognitive process, whereas awareness is a nondual and nonlocal process. Nonlocal awareness is the ever-present, ever-fresh, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov