August 21, 2016 — Paul Davids

[Walter Bosley]

Not to harp on this again, but since this was touched on in the show again, I find it interesting that both Clintons have "slipped" while referencing Area 51 as Area 54. Sure a simple enough mistake, but both of them, and the same number? Maybe they're trying their best to throw us all a bone. Has anyone looked into a possible Area 54?

Yes. It was the classified location of a secret military-industrial disco in the late 70s.

 

[Wade]

Yes. It was the classified location of a secret military-industrial disco in the late 70s.

And it is rumored that Margaret Trudeau is coming out on a book on disclosure regarding Area54

 

[Linton]

Walter Bosley and Wade, ladies and gentleman! Let's give them a big round of applause. Now our next set of performers are a skydiving ventriloquist act straight from Zeta Reticuli....

 

[Randall]

Even though I don't have the same beliefs about afterlives as Davids seems to have, the enthusiasm in this show is almost contagious and made it very enjoyable. I liked the proposed connection between afterlives and UFOs. Although afterlives as most people tend to think of them isn't possible, there's nothing unscientific or illogical about the possibility of alien visitation. That's not to say I don't believe that people have experienced phenomena that they have assumed to be evidence of afterlives. Only that based on the best evidence and deductive reasoning, the afterlife interpretation must be false.

Therefore, given the reality of phenomena that has led people to believe in afterlives, it's actually more reasonable to draw a connection between UFOs and afterlives than to jump to New Age/Religious/Psychic ( take your pick ) explanations that assume there is some sort of continuity of "you" after you die. Odd computer behavior, ink smudges, strange "feelings", synchronistic events, electronic gadgets that act in unexpected ways, and so on are being taken in the context of the experiencer's confirmation bias and converted into evidence of their beliefs.

I'm not saying here that UFOs are responsible for assumed afterlife phenomena, but I am saying that it could be a cause, whereas afterlives, in the sense of a continuity of a "you" beyond your death cannot be, or at least nobody has been able to provide a reason substantial enough for me to update my view. But if anyone does come across something that might, by all means feel free to share it. If I'm missing something then I definitely want to know and I'm fully prepared to change my views given good enough reasons. The truth is what I live for .

 

[Walter Bosley]

Personally, I've adopted the view that convincing anyone of anything is a waste of time, where subjects here are concerned. It's best to just state opinions and shitcan the debate. I'm convinced there is an existence beyond physical death but it doesn't matter whether I can convince another person. That's a futile waste of effort.

 

[Ron Away]

Personally, I've adopted the view that convincing anyone of anything is a waste of time, where subjects here are concerned. It's best to just state opinions and shitcan the debate. I'm convinced there is an existence beyond physical death but it doesn't matter whether I can convince another person. That's a futile waste of effort.

I don't share your views on life after death but would never denigrate you for having them because neither of us know.It's the people who can't accept that other people's opinions are as valid as theirs that do my head in.

 

[Randall]

Personally, I've adopted the view that convincing anyone of anything is a waste of time, where subjects here are concerned. It's best to just state opinions and shitcan the debate. I'm convinced there is an existence beyond physical death but it doesn't matter whether I can convince another person. That's a futile waste of effort.

I'm not sure why you're posting your view, but my posts are meant to be a starting point for a search for truth regarding the subjects raised on the Paracast. If a debate for the purpose of determining those truths ensues, then great. But if it turns into personal attacks or some participant or another isn't willing to accept critical analysis of their position, then we can only conclude that their position is unsubstantiated and therefore less deserving of serious consideration. So debate can be useful in separating the signal from the noise. Sometimes that upsets people who want to believe in the noise, but that's just one of the hazards of the job ( so to speak ).

 

[Randall]

I don't share your views on life after death but would never denigrate you for having them because neither of us know.It's the people who can't accept that other people's opinions are as valid as theirs that do my head in.

I like the spirit of your post because it's not meant to upset anyone, but at the same time there's a difference between facts and opinions and informed opinions - what is more or less likely to be true based on critical thinking and/or scientific study than blind faith, tradition, or religion, and in some cases it's actually fine to denigrate, even necessary actively fight against beliefs, because the actions taken by some people in the name of their beliefs are truly deplorable. I'm not going to be too specific here, but start with the burning of women accused of witchcraft and add however many other atrocities that have taken place throughout history you want. Needless to say, the list is long.

When it comes to life after death: Sure, people are entitled to not be burned at the stake for their beliefs be they either pro or con, but at the same time, why give equal weight to both positions when obviously only one position can be true? Clearly, in the search for truth, the truth deserves greater respect than fantasies and fables. So which one is true? My look at the evidence after distilling it all down leads me to conclude that life after death the way it's commonly portrayed on film, as a continuity of personhood that can be said to actually be the same person who had been alive is logically impossible, and therefore it cannot be the case.

Perhaps someone else has some additional information that I've not considered, or perhaps there is some flaw in my analysis, but so far, nobody has presented me with alternatives that would force me to rethink my position, and contrary to what some people might think, I'm not cemented into any particular paradigm, and I would indeed welcome such alternatives. The thing is, they have to be good, really good, strong enough to show without ambiguity where my present view fails, because neither you nor I or anybody else should feel compelled to change their views simply to fit-in or make someone else happy, and if that offends some people, I'd say that maybe they're just a bit too sensitive.

 

[Spectre73]

Here is the link I refereed to in my question posed to David regarding Southampton University's study into the subject of conciousness after death.

Interesting that is from the Telegraph, a respected broadsheet rather than a tabloid

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

 

[Ron Away]

I like the spirit of your post because it's not meant to upset anyone, but at the same time there's a difference between facts and opinions and informed opinions - what is more or less likely to be true based on critical thinking and/or scientific study than blind faith, tradition, or religion, and in some cases it's actually fine to denigrate, even necessary actively fight against it, because the actions taken by some people in the name of their beliefs are truly deplorable, and I'm not going to be too specific here but start with the burning of women accused of witchcraft and add how many other atrocities that have taken place throughout history. Needless to say, the list is long.

When it comes to life after death: Sure, people are entitled to not be burned at the stake for their beliefs be they either pro or con, but at the same time, why give equal weight to both positions when obviously only one position can be true? Clearly, in the search for truth, the truth deserves greater respect than fantasies and fables. So which one is true? My look at the evidence after distilling it all down leads me to conclude that life after death the way it's commonly portrayed on film, as a continuity of personhood that can be said to actually be the same person who had been alive is logically impossible, and therefore it cannot be the case.

Perhaps someone else has some additional information that I've not considered, or perhaps there is some flaw in my analysis, but so far, nobody has presented me with alternatives that would force me to rethink my position, and contrary to what some people might think, I'm not cemented into any particular paradigm, and I would indeed welcome such alternatives. The thing is, they have to be good, really good, strong enough to show without ambiguity where my present view of the topic fails. You nor I nor anybody else should feel compelled to change their views simply to fit-in or make someone else happy, and if that offends some people, I'd say that maybe they're just a bit too sensitive.

I should have qualified it with reasonable opinions,if I was to say I believe an alcoholic Aardvaak with anger issuers shot Kennedy then obviously I'm insane!

 

[Randall]

I should have qualified it with reasonable opinions,if I was to say I believe an alcoholic Aardvaak with anger issuers shot Kennedy then obviously I'm insane!

LOL ... Need a good mechanic? Just call A A A Angry Alcoholic Aardvark Assassins - Forget the Competition. We're First Fast and Fun ! ... .

 

[Randall]

Here is the link I refereed to in my question posed to David regarding Southampton University's study into the subject of conciousness after death.

Interesting that is from the Telegraph, a respected broadsheet rather than a tabloid

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

NDE's don't add any weight to afterlife claims because ( and here's the short version ): First of all, each and every claim comes from someone who is alive. Secondly, clinical death is not the same as brain death, and the definitions for clinical death vary from locale to locale. Thirdly, because all claims come from living people with working brains, the obvious conclusion is that the living brain is responsible in some way rather than a dead one, and again, clinical death is not the same as brain death. There are also other reasons beyond the physical workings of the brain.

Even if somehow some mechanism is able to take over the functions previously managed by a working brain, all that has happened is that some sort of virtual non-material copy has been created, and that means the original is still gone, hence still no true life after death. This logic is inescapable and can be applied to any circumstance where some sort of afterlife claim is made that equates the original living person with some version of that person following death, therefore it would seem, logically, that in this particular context, life after death has to be impossible.

 

[Spectre73]

That's a good response Ufology - thanks

 

[Ron Away]

LOL ... Need a good mechanic? Just call A A A Angry Alcoholic Aardvark Assassins - Forget the Competition. We're First Fast and Fun ! ... .

They get more work than the BBBB bad badgers with big bazookas!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

NDE's don't add any weight to afterlife claims because ( and here's the short version ): First of all, each and every claim comes from someone who is alive. Secondly, clinical death is not the same as brain death, and the definitions for clinical death vary from locale to locale. Thirdly, because all claims come from living people with working brains, the obvious conclusion is that the living brain is responsible in some way rather than a dead one, and again, clinical death is not the same as brain death. There are also other reasons beyond the physical workings of the brain.

Even if somehow some mechanism is able to take over the functions previously managed by a working brain, all that has happened is that some sort of virtual non-material copy has been created, and that means the original is still gone, hence still no true life after death. This logic is inescapable and can be applied to any circumstance where some sort of afterlife claim is made that equates the original living person with some version of that person following death, therefore it would seem, logically, that in this particular context, life after death has to be impossible.

You state everything w/ such pompous certainty. We don't know for sure that the brain is actually the seat of consciousness. For all we know, the brain might actually be a receiver not a generator of thought and consciousness and NDEs may be an altogether different phenomenal process. Typical reductionist claptrap IMO.

 

[Spectre73]

Again - excellent counter response Chris - it's way I listen to the Paracast - good debate

 

[Linton]

Chris's point about consciousness is a good one. Until we can definitively identify what consciousness is, and if a soul is even a thing, or a necessity for consciousness, I think it's scientifically irresponsible to dismiss the possibility when hints of such exist. You don't want to stumble into the realm of belief in either direction. Perhaps the soul is the source code of our simulation feeding the parameters for what is you. Who knows? Does an ant colony have a soul, a consciousness as a whole or do we look at each individual's thoughts and ponder the possibility of a soul being tied to such a limited series of actions. A book that some of you might find interesting regarding the ponderance of consciousness (in this case, with the future of A.I. as the motivation) .....
The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul
by Douglas R. Hofstadter (editor), Daniel C. Dennett (editor)

 

[Walter Bosley]

For the record, I was just throwing my two cents into the conversation. Not intended to be foreplay, lol. Just being conversational, not intending to arouse the popular debate fetish.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

... Just being conversational, not intending to arouse the popular debate fetish.

Careful Walter, you have that uncanny ability to start firestorms during droughts w/ a simple word or two—fiery or not!

 

[Randall]

You state everything w/ such pompous certainty.

Let's get this "pompousness" misconception out of the way first: I seek objective truth, not fantasy fulfillment, and pompousness is the exact opposite. Pompousness is all about the self-importance of the individual and their beliefs and biases, while the objective truth ( if you understand the concept correctly ) is separate from the individual, and that includes me. I've said quite plainly more than once that I'm happy to be shown reasoning or evidence that would nullify my present views. So ( yet again ) if you would kindly focus on the issues rather than taking slams against my character, it would be much appreciated.

We don't know for sure that the brain is actually the seat of consciousness.

Correlation rather than generation is counterpoint I've encountered over and over again from people who tend to hand-wave the massive amount of evidence that consciousness is produced by normally functioning human brains. We've been over this time and again in hundreds upon hundreds of pages in the Consciousness thread, where I've posted videos of neuroscientists who have identified the brain areas responsible for consciousness, and still of all the billions of people now, and who have ever lived, nobody here or anywhere else has any even remotely believable evidence that anyone without a brain has demonstrated consciousness. Show me just one.

For all we know, the brain might actually be a receiver not a generator of thought and consciousness and NDEs may be an altogether different phenomenal process.

Just because we don't know yet how the brain generates consciousness doesn't mean it's at all reasonable to assume that it doesn't, and there's far more evidence that it does than that it doesn't. But that's beside your other viewpoint. So to address your specific theory that the brain could be a "receiver not a generator of thought and consciousness":

There are a couple of lines of analysis that take a bit of time to follow that nullify any reasonable belief in it, and each needs to be considered as part of a whole rather than independently because they are intimately connected, and where believers in afterlives go off the rails is in arbitrarily cutting those connections, seemingly because it threatens what they believe, or their bias, or whatever else, rather than accepting the inevitable conclusion. So as you say, try not to cover your ears and go "na na na na na" and instead consider the following and come up with some better counterpoint than another personal slam:

Let's deal with the idea of the brain being a transmitter and receiver ( transceiver ) first: It is true beyond any shadow of a doubt that the brain receives and transmits both energy and matter, and this brings into play the old brain in a vat problem. It may be possible that we are nothing more than brains in a vat and that some transceiver is sending signals to our brains where the illusion of a world around us is produced in a Matrix like fashion. However if that is the case, all you've done is replace the word "brain" with "receiver" and it's still our brains turning the signals into thought and consciousness rather than the signal itself being consciousness. But that's not the end of it.

If consciousness is the signal itself then the presence of a signal means some other transceiver must be generating it, which still makes consciousness dependent on that system, regardless of where it's located or how it's constructed. So there is no escaping consciousness as a brain generated phenomena, regardless of whatever the system is that produces it, and if that system dies, then logically you must die with it. The best that can be hoped for is that some sort of copy of you is made and transferred to another system. But a copy of you is not the original you, therefore you're still dead and some less than complete copy of you has taken your place.

The alternative to the above is to think consciousness just magically appears out of a Genie bottle or something else equally nonsensical, but even at that level of nonsense, we still cannot escape the fact that if the Genie bottle is destroyed, you die, unless some other genie makes another copy, in which case you're still dead. So there's no escaping the logic. All anyone can do to escape it is ignore the logic and hand-wave based on their own biases and beliefs that they prefer.

To continue: Sure, maybe some remote brain has generated all we're aware of, and everything including our bodies and brain is just an illusion, but that just makes the remote brain us instead of the one we think we have, and if the remote brain dies we're still dead. But even deeper, what such a theory requires is for everything we think of as reality to in actuality be some sort of generated construct. This is possible. Our universe as we know it might in-fact be one of many that are generated by some vastly powerful processing system.

Personally I tend to favor the computational theory of existence for our known universe, but even if it is true, it still doesn't allow us to escape death. Once our data is deleted it's either gone or copied, and in either case our original selves no longer exist. There appears to be no way around it, and if we realize that model is no longer an escape from death, and just assume that reality as we perceive it is the topmost version in whatever hierarchy there may be, that still means that when we die, we're gone, and again the best we can hope for is to be copied, like Johnny Depp in Trancendence:

The point that gets missed in this scene is that even if Johnny is self aware,
he's still just a copy and the original Will is still dead.

​

Typical reductionist claptrap IMO.

That's just more hand-waving. Reductionism is the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation. Combined with some critical thinking and evidence, it can provide significant illumination and point the way toward a greater understanding of the way things really are. So even if all I was doing was applying reductionist logic, it's far from "claptrap". You're not making yourself seem any more credible when you insert those kind of labels and add personal slams. Instead, try addressing the specific points made. We might both be surprised where it leads .