Life after death OR Consciousness after death?

by Space Madness 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  GromitSK

  Thanks Cofty. There are quite a few criticism of her work (as there are for others such as Gary Schwarz etc on the pro side) - I have read her work in the past. I have no reason to think she is dishonest at all. In short I am sure whatever research she has conducted has been fruitless or she wouldn't have mentioned it. It is possible that it is fruitless because there is nothing to bear fruit, but that goes against significant volumes of evidence gathered over many years by certainly no-less eminent researchers. There are other reasons why it might have been fruitless of course.

  The research I refer to has been carried out by other, seemingly equally genuine and assiduous people who found evidence of paranormal activity. What to make of it? As I mentioned at the outset, my suggestion for others would be to read widely and form a view of the evidence based on the usual criteria for assessing what someone tells us. I doubt you and I have looked at the same evidence which would make a discussion difficult but you're entitled to your view of what you have researched and I wouldn't seek to dissuade you. The evidence I refer to, particularly for survival isn't reproducible on demand, is largely testimony by people I do not know but many of them would be counted as reliable witnesses, of good character and with no motive to deceive. Many of the mediums tested fall into the same category too. It is of course possible that such researchers were deceived but not, in my opinion, likely in many of the cases.

  Unlike you I do not profess certainty on this matter. The experiences of others including those I know personally and whose judgement I trust, along with my own personal experiences tell me there is the potential for survival of physical death.

  In some respects I agree with Willmarite. I don't think discussion with you will change your mind on this or prove productive. Not because you are unreasonable, but because it appears that what you need in order to be satisfied that survival is at least a possibility, is not available to you. At least not at the moment.

  I do not think my own views of the evidence I have read, and experienced directly in one instance, is illogical or unreasonable (not that you ever said it was). I don't say 'be convinced by my opinion of it' merely that one should read it for oneself and form an opinion.
• 

  Kensei01

  No one and I mean no one has any definitive information on life/conciousness after death. There is no way to prove first of all that such a state exists. One idea is just as good as another since none can be proven; no so called "experiences" can be repeated; so therefore cannot truly be tested with science. It is simply subjective mumbo jumbo just like that fraud "Long Island Medium". If there is special knowledge out there then it is consistent, provable, credible. End of story.
• 

  cofty

  other, seemingly equally genuine and assiduous people who found evidence of paranormal activity - GromitSK

  And yet James Randi's million dollars remains unclaimed. Every time anybody is challenged to reproduce anything paranormal under controlled conditions they fail 100% of the time.

  Of course there are amazing things that defy easy explanation but resorting to explanations like a spirit world and reincarnation is to a leap into fantasy.

  Our beliefs need to be tempered by available evidence, that is what it means to be rational. What is more likely, that a birthmark is just a birthmark or its evidence of an injury from a previous life? That an illness was caused by genes or infection or that it was caused by things a spirit experienced in a previous body?

  My mind is not closed it is wide open to evidence. Hundreds of anecdotes are evidence of nothing. Each one had a sample size of one. There are hundreds of anecdotes of alien abductions and of people being cured by homeopathy and faith healing and so on.

  "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic" - Tim Minchen
• 

  GromitSK

  The JREF prize is an interesting one. Firstly much of the body of research predates it. Secondly, even if Randi is genuine in his offer, there have been suggestions that he controls the criteria by which it is awarded. Randi does not strike me as open-minded on the issue or unbiased nor is the JREF. To enter into a contest with him would take some courage and the phenomena would have to be reproducible on demand and in a hostile environment. If psi phenomena are possible, there does seem to be evidence that it is adversely affected in such environments. One could say 'well they would say that wouldn't they' - but that would hardly be open-minded. :) I find the 'no ones claimed it' argument a red herring.

  What you call anecdotes are also called testimony or evidence. A great deal of this evidence has been investigated independently. Were the investigators fools or 'in on it'? We cannot see what they experienced for ourselves so we can either dismiss their evidence out of hand, as you appear to, or accept it may be genuine. This depends on what assumptions we make about the world we live in. If we assume that psi phenomena and survival are impossible then we must accept there is some error in the investigators deductions if they come up with a paranormal explanation.

  If we accept there is a possibility of such phenomena. Then we're into talking about probabilities. If the mundane explanations have been excluded, as far as possible, then the probability of a psi explanation increases. I think probabilities is all we can talk about in such a situation.

  As for reincarnation and the transmission of injuries - I don't have an opinion. However in the general sense, just because we do not understand a mechanism does not mean such a mechanism does not exist.
• 

  Cold Steel

  Willmarite: I've been particularly impressed by Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation. He's researched many cases where young children remember living another life and have provided many details that later prove to be true. These are extremely well documented cases. I believe he has investigated over 2000 cases.

  Be very wary of such research, especially since much of it is based on hypnosis, which makes the mind completely susceptible to suggestions.

  Case in point. The television series Ghost Inside My Child featured a young man who, when he was young, had vivid memories of a former life in the shipyards of the White Star line. As a child, he drew pictures of a large ship that sank in the cold waters of the Atlantic. He drew four smoke stacks and explained that the last one was fake to add to the ship’s overall design. He eventually linked these memories to those of Thomas Andrews, the designer of the RMS Titanic.

  He knew all about ship design, the quality of rivets and the names of family members. It was all very impressive except for one thing. There is another guy out there who also claims to be Thomas Andrews. His pseudonym is William Barnes, and I interviewed him for over an hour years ago. I got the taped recording of his hypnotic sessions with the late Dr. Frank Baranowski, in which he spoke with an impressive Scottish brogue. He, too, had vivid dreams and knowledge he wasn’t supposed to know. In fact, after his first hypnotic session, he said he remembered nothing. He put the cassette into his car’s player and was astounded at what he heard. One part of what he said:

  "...I took a forty-pound sledgehammer... and beat on the plates twice, as hard as I could. I got down from the scaffolding and walked astern to where my uncle waited. You should have seen the look on my uncle's face! He says to me: 'My God, Tommie! You were almost eight hundred feet away, and it sounded like you were hittin' the plates from where I stood!' I then told my uncle to put his head to the hull. 'You'll probably still hear the plates ringin', Uncle. that's why we need double hulls on these ships!'" (Bill Barnes speaking as Andrews under hypnosis.)

  So what to do? We have two people making virtually identical claims, knowing things they shouldn’t know, and both are alive today. I wonder how that is possible? There also are many other examples of this. I know of no documented cases in which a person speaks another language he/she didn’t know.

  .
• 

  Seraphim23

  A good researcher I’m rather taken with is Peter Fenwick. Reading his book at the moment called the art if dying. His TED talk is very good also.
• 

  willmarite

  Actually coldsteel I. Stevenson's research is not based whatsoever on hypnosis.

  Stevenson's cases are well-documented. Dr. Tucker a former associate of his has continued his work since Dr. Stevenson is deceased. It is best to read Stevenson's books which are mainly directed toward other scientists rather than the layperson but you can find information on some of his cases online.

  The important thing is to keep an open mind. If somebody has already decided something can not be true because of their world view then there is nothing that will open their mind.

  I'm not saying to just believe anything but when there are 1000's of eyewitness cases you may begin to believe that there is something behind it. I am also not talking about proof beyond any doubt. I am talking about the preponderance of evidence. If a non-biased jury were presented with an unbiased account of all testimonials for both sides and whatever proof there might be would they rule that there is indeed something behind it or would they believe it's all deceit, incompetence, and wishful thinking?

  At this time there can be no 100% assurances that the afterlife is real or unreal.
• 

  cofty

  If a non-biased jury were presented with an unbiased account of all testimonials

  Do you think they would be impressed by the testimony of 5 year old children who had been raised from infancy to think about past lives?

  You still haven't answered my question. I made 6 specific points about Stevenson. Were any of them innacurate?
• 

  willmarite

  Is is interesting what you say Cold Steel. I read a hypothesis that deals with memories not residing as physical traces in the brain but being connected in an unknow way. The brain would act like a radio or television that could tune into these memories. This would be a possible explanation of children remembering having lived as another person. This could also explain 2 people having the memories of a deceased person.
• 

  willmarite

  Cofty, I have no desire to engage with you in any conversation on this topic. I am not a person with a lot of free time at this point in time. You obviously are convinced of the infallibility of your beliefs and using the small amount of time I have in a useless debate with you is not my cup of tea.

  If I said that yes you're points show a small degree of understanding of Dr. Stevenson's research you would ask, In what way? I don't have the time or inclination to debate closed minds.

  You're a big boy, if you're interested you can read his books and make up your own mind without resorting to pseudoskeptic websites to get your opinion.