Skepticism is boring...

[Frank Merton]

There is nothing in my pocket except, of course, my hand, feeling around to see if anything else is there.

[Emma_Acid]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 PM, pallidin said:

I just think a skeptic life is a boring existence.

No hope, no imagination, no possibilities beyond  a putrid, pointless existence.

I'd rather not have to invent stuff that doesn't exist to give my life meaning. Your life might be "putrid" without your vaguely defined "woo woo" beliefs but that doesn't mean other people's are.

[Emma_Acid]

On 2/3/2017 at 0:46 AM, pallidin said:

In any event, my position is that skeptics are, essentially, "closed-minded", requiring an actual asteroid strike to believe in asteroid strikes at all.

That's your position, and as we've established, your position has nothing to do with reality, being as you're so scared of it and everything.

[pallidin]

On Thursday, February 09, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Emma_Acid said:

That's your position, and as we've established, your position has nothing to do with reality, being as you're so scared of it and everything.

I just feel that Reality is MUCH more than our experience of it.

 

[pallidin]

On Thursday, February 09, 2017 at 2:41 AM, ShadowSot said:

Taking the idea we don't know so anything is possible is a bit ridiculous. 

 You don't know what's in my pocket, but an African bull elephant is a bit much.

Ok.

Now we are on the field of "constrained probability"

Seems reasonable.

[Zayne Kalis]

Eh I think skepticism is good. I'm skeptical about a lot of things, heck I'm skeptical about most things. All it means to be skeptical is that you aren't easily convinced, and rely more on evidence than faith. I know what you mean though some people are too skeptical. But believing something just because you want it to be true, or don't like the alternative, isn't a good thing either. Blind faith is just as bad, and it's how you end up with crazy people.

[Emma_Acid]

On 2/12/2017 at 4:00 AM, pallidin said:

I just feel that Reality is MUCH more than our experience of it.

 

Well of course it is. We can't see in infrared. So right there, there is a side of "reality" we don't experience. But, as I've said before, countless times, this doesn't mean that the door is open for all sorts of pseudo-scientific waffle and woo to just flood through.

[Guest MamaMia1981]

 

On 2/2/2017 at 6:08 PM, pallidin said:

Skeptic: "I'm born, I die, and I get eaten by worms... There is nothing more!"

---------------

How boring is THAT !!!!!!!!

I have pondered this extensively.  Through my job, I have seen hundreds of people die.  There have been a few instances where things have happened that have led me to believe that some part of us survives the death process. (Along with other personal experiences I won't go into here.) I realize I could be wrong, and I'm okay with that.

But aside from that, believers and skeptics have something in common: Neither have the monopoly on what happens after we die.  Both stances are conjecture, and until you die, and stay that way, you won't know for sure.  Neither believer or skeptic can speak in absolutes about what happens after we die, and I loathe those that do.

I still have not decided what is scarier: to think there is nothing, or that there is more after this.  Nothing is known, but the 'more' is not, so....

I guess it goes back to my personal belief not to speak in absolutes about things I haven't experienced first hand.  Ask me when I'm dead. 

 

 

[psyche101]

On 2/12/2017 at 2:00 PM, pallidin said:

I just feel that Reality is MUCH more than our experience of it.

 

Isn't that what you want reality to be rather than looking at it to see what it really is?

 

 

[psyche101]

On 2/13/2017 at 3:08 AM, pallidin said:

Ok.

Now we are on the field of "constrained probability"

Seems reasonable.

That is skepticism in a nutshell - critical thinking. What is most reasonable according to what we know, or what is most likely. 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

But aside from that, believers and skeptics have something in common: Neither have the monopoly on what happens after we die.  

That is just not accurate, it makes it sound like an even bet. It is not. We do understand how life works pretty well, and we can see there is no good reason to think there is life after death. Like the question of God, one either believe it is a valid concept, or one learns what we have observed and gathered so far with knowledge and can see what is happening right down to accurate predictions. Ine can believe there is life after death, there is no good reason to think it is anything more than a man made tale to help us deal with grief. That is actually the most likely option. 

It is more "if it helps you get through your day" rather than something you can consider a valid option.

Edited February 13, 2017 by psyche101

[Guest MamaMia1981]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That is just not accurate, it makes it sound like an even bet. It is not. We do understand how life works pretty well, and we can see there is no good reason to think there is life after death. Like the question of God, one either believe it is a valid concept, or one learns what we have observed and gathered so far with knowledge and cen see what is happening right down to accurate predictions. Ine can believe there is life after death, there is no good reason to think it is anything more than a man made tale to help us deal with grief. That is actually the most likely option. 

I understand where you are coming from, if you are not me.

I have had some very strange and unexplainable things happen that lean me more toward the believer camp.  There have just been too many things I can not explain, including within my professional life (I'm a medical Imaging Technologist) that have shown me there is something there.

Of course, I am not here to convince you otherwise, but I'm entitled to view it as I do, and so are you.  Neither of us are right or wrong.  

I kinda look at it like this:  Did it hurt before you were born, and became a conscious being?  No?  Then if you return to that state after death, nothing to fear.

If there is something there, that to me is more frightening, because who the hell knows what type of trip that will be, or where we end up.

But to say that it's not accurate, and shut me down, isn't fair either.  It's all subjective, therefore no one is right or wrong.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I understand where you are coming from, if you are not me.

With all due respect, the entire world is not you  

But that is what the life after death concept is, an individualist perspective to help people cope with the mechanism of death. 

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I have had some very strange and unexplainable things happen that lean me more toward the believer camp. There have just been too many things I can not explain, including within my professional life (I'm a medical Imaging Technologist) that have shown me there is something there.

I am sure you have, we often see strange anomalies that are somewhat confusing. We have certain cultural expectations that lead us to explore more than that which exists in reality, and as those concepts are far easier to grasp than scientific ones, it is the general direction people tend to follow. And we have been using them for centuries, it is little wonder they seem very real. 

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

Of course, I am not here to convince you otherwise, but I'm entitled to view it as I do, and so are you.  Neither of us are right or wrong.  

Indeed, this is a discussion, and that is all. One is perfectly entitled to their own opinions and can choose that which works best for them, which is how superstitions gained unwarranted validity to begin with IMHO. 

For sure, I never said it was right or wrong, it is up to the individual to fid that path that suits them best, but facts illustrate that there is no afterlife and no good reason to think it is more than a cultural aspect. 

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I kinda look at it like this:  Did it hurt before you were born, and became a conscious being?  No?  Then if you return to that state after death, nothing to fear.

You did not exist before you were born, there was no state to be in. 

Death is a part of life. It is nothing to fear sure, yet most of us do so anyway it just seems a terrible waste and it does illicit grief when a loved one passes. I think in the back of our heads, we really do know deep down tho9s is finite, or we would not need such comforting aspects to deal with death. 

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

If there is something there, that to me is more frightening, because who the hell knows what type of trip that will be, or where we end up.

I enjoy a challenge, I would be ecstatic to see my father and best friend again. Personally, I really like the idea, I just can't be true to myself and pretend it exists when I now better. To me that is just part of coming to terms with one's own existence and the limits of it. 

3 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

But to say that it's not accurate, and shut me down, isn't fair either.  It's all subjective, therefore no one is right or wrong.

Sorry, I honestly do not mean to be rude, but we do know better, and what I am proposing is "the most likely option. In short, the ind is the brain, the brain is made of atoms, we know how atoms work. There is no way for what is "you" to continue on after death. What is "you" is a great many synaptic connections formed during your life. Not an "energy" not a ghost version of yourself inside of you. That is just not viable according to what we do know 

[Guest MamaMia1981]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

With all due respect, the entire world is not you  

But that is what the life after death concept is, an individualist perspective to help people cope with the mechanism of death. 

I am sure you have, we often see strange anomalies that are somewhat confusing. We have certain cultural expectations that lead us to explore more than that which exists in reality, and as those concepts are far easier to grasp than scientific ones, it is the general direction people tend to follow. And we have been using them for centuries, it is little wonder they seem very real. 

Indeed, this is a discussion, and that is all. One is perfectly entitled to their own opinions and can choose that which works best for them, which is how superstitions gained unwarranted validity to begin with IMHO. 

For sure, I never said it was right or wrong, it is up to the individual to fid that path that suits them best, but facts illustrate that there is no afterlife and no good reason to think it is more than a cultural aspect. 

You did not exist before you were born, there was no state to be in. 

Death is a part of life. It is nothing to fear sure, yet most of us do so anyway it just seems a terrible waste and it does illicit grief when a loved one passes. I think in the back of our heads, we really do know deep down tho9s is finite, or we would not need such comforting aspects to deal with death. 

I enjoy a challenge, I would be ecstatic to see my father and best friend again. Personally, I really like the idea, I just can't be true to myself and pretend it exists when I now better. To me that is just part of coming to terms with one's own existence and the limits of it. 

Sorry, I honestly do not mean to be rude, but we do know better, and what I am proposing is "the most likely option. In short, the ind is the brain, the brain is made of atoms, we know how atoms work. There is no way for what is "you" to continue on after death. What is "you" is a great many synaptic connections formed during your life. Not an "energy" not a ghost version of yourself inside of you. That is just not viable according to what we do know 

LOL, of course I know the world is not me, my point was, you are not me, and I am not you, so our experiences and beliefs are going to lead each of us to a different conclusion.

As far as your comment about what state we exist in before we are born, I say....exactly.  That was the point I was making.  We don't exist, so, since non existence isn't painful, if that is our fate after death, well, then...no biggie.

I will say this: Science changes all the time.  Our understanding of the body has well surpassed our understanding of consciousness, and how it functions in it's entirety.  Take this study for example, just recently published:

https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2015/07/consciousness-after-clinical-death-the-biggest-ever-scientific-study-published/

Technically, when we die, our brains should no longer be functioning, and most memories of resussitated patients were attributed to hallucinations, and nothing more.  But what they found, is that after people had been declared dead when they 'came back' they actually could recall what had went on in the room around them while the medical team was working on them.

So while we have a long way to go, and there very well may be nothing at all, I'm not completely sold that it is the most accurate assumption to make.  I leave it open to future discovery. 

[Zayne Kalis]

7 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I understand where you are coming from, if you are not me.

I have had some very strange and unexplainable things happen that lean me more toward the believer camp.  There have just been too many things I can not explain, including within my professional life (I'm a medical Imaging Technologist) that have shown me there is something there.

Of course, I am not here to convince you otherwise, but I'm entitled to view it as I do, and so are you.  Neither of us are right or wrong.  

I kinda look at it like this:  Did it hurt before you were born, and became a conscious being?  No?  Then if you return to that state after death, nothing to fear.

If there is something there, that to me is more frightening, because who the hell knows what type of trip that will be, or where we end up.

But to say that it's not accurate, and shut me down, isn't fair either.  It's all subjective, therefore no one is right or wrong.

I'm in a similar position. I of course believe in psychics, but, it's not because of faith, or wishful thinking, it's because I am one. It has gotten to the point where I simply can not deny it. When I can produce physical, obvious, consistent results 100% of the time, well, it'd be like saying sleep doesn't exist. I can't prove myself wrong, it's just not possible.

However, I understand that the majority of people aren't in my position. As you said, they aren't me. They don't have overwhelming evidence and first-hand experience. So, naturally, they're going to be doubtful. And really you shouldn't just take anyone's word for it, even mine. I haven't shown any proof. There's no reason for you to believe anything I say, I could be spouting complete bull****. So I really don't hold it against anyone or think they're idiots for not sharing my views, because honestly it's the logical thing to assume in that position.

[Guest MamaMia1981]

4 minutes ago, Zayne Kalis said:

I'm in a similar position. I of course believe in psychics, but, it's not because of faith, or wishful thinking, it's because I am one. It has gotten to the point where I simply can not deny it. When I can produce physical, obvious, consistent results 100% of the time, well, it'd be like saying sleep doesn't exist. I can't prove myself wrong, it's just not possible.

However, I understand that the majority of people aren't in my position. As you said, they aren't me. They don't have overwhelming evidence and first-hand experience. So, naturally, they're going to be doubtful. And really you shouldn't just take anyone's word for it, even mine. I haven't shown any proof. There's no reason for you to believe anything I say, I could be spouting complete bull****. So I really don't hold it against anyone or think they're idiots for not sharing my views, because honestly it's the logical thing to assume in that position.

I agree completely.  I guess for me, if you really want to approach something from a scientific standpoint, unless the subject has been exhausted by research, and there are no more conclusions to be drawn, it is dangerous to make absolute statements.

I have seen hundreds of people die, it's part of my job.

One night, they called a code in the ICU.  They called me and asked me to come up with the portable machine to hang out in case they needed a chest xray ray.  I'm outside the room, there are a couple nurses, along with the house supervisor there with me.

All of a sudden this quickening feeling swept through the unit and I knew that the patient had died.  Myself and one of the other nurses felt it.  I got up and went to leave and made it half way to the door before the house supervisor asked me where the hell I was going.

2 mintues later they called it.

The RN approched me and asked me if I felt it, I told her yes.  She said she was glad because she thought she was crazy.

But it was the distinct feeling that something came in and took this man.

I don't hold it against anyone either, I just detest the lack of openness to future possibilities.  I do enjoy the banter back and forth.

[Zayne Kalis]

12 minutes ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I agree completely.  I guess for me, if you really want to approach something from a scientific standpoint, unless the subject has been exhausted by research, and there are no more conclusions to be drawn, it is dangerous to make absolute statements.

I have seen hundreds of people die, it's part of my job.

One night, they called a code in the ICU.  They called me and asked me to come up with the portable machine to hang out in case they needed a chest xray ray.  I'm outside the room, there are a couple nurses, along with the house supervisor there with me.

All of a sudden this quickening feeling swept through the unit and I knew that the patient had died.  Myself and one of the other nurses felt it.  I got up and went to leave and made it half way to the door before the house supervisor asked me where the hell I was going.

2 mintues later they called it.

The RN approched me and asked me if I felt it, I told her yes.  She said she was glad because she thought she was crazy.

But it was the distinct feeling that something came in and took this man.

I don't hold it against anyone either, I just detest the lack of openness to future possibilities.  I do enjoy the banter back and forth.

Yeah in most cases we can only draw conclusions and make assumptions based on what we know, to determine what we think is the most likely explanation. Most of the details I post about things is speculation on my part, based on my own observations, because I don't actually know anything for certain.

That's really interesting about it feeling like something took him... I've never been around someone when they died so I have no idea. I might look into that a bit...

I agree on the last part, I'm always open to change my mind on something if someone presents better evidence to support their side. I even say on my profile that I welcome anyone to challenge anything I say. I think it's healthy to have your views challenged.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

LOL, of course I know the world is not me, my point was, you are not me, and I am not you, so our experiences and beliefs are going to lead each of us to a different conclusion.

Yes, I know, I apologise for my sense of humour in advance ....... just keeping the discussion light.

3 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

As far as your comment about what state we exist in before we are born, I say....exactly.  That was the point I was making.  We don't exist, so, since non existence isn't painful, if that is our fate after death, well, then...no biggie.

Between birth and death we make a lot of things happen though. Unless the death is violent, pain is not the issue, it is what we leave behind that hurts us, and those we leave behind. 

It is an incredible privilege having this magnificent huge brain, that allows us to understand the Universe and all that around us, it seems a real pity all this must one day end. I feel it is a biggie, but an inevitable biggie. 

3 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

I will say this: Science changes all the time.  Our understanding of the body has well surpassed our understanding of consciousness, and how it functions in it's entirety.  

Yes it does that is the nature of science, it is fluid, that does not mean it is entirely wrong though. We do understand atoms and while we may learn more, it wont change the fundamentals of what we do know. There is simply no way for what is "you" to continue after death. 

3 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

Take this study for example, just recently published:

https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2015/07/consciousness-after-clinical-death-the-biggest-ever-scientific-study-published/

Technically, when we die, our brains should no longer be functioning, and most memories of resussitated patients were attributed to hallucinations, and nothing more.  But what they found, is that after people had been declared dead when they 'came back' they actually could recall what had went on in the room around them while the medical team was working on them.

Thank you for the link, that is a good read. Sam Parnia is actually quite good and well respected. 

What it is saying is does the brain loose all those synaptic connections I mentioned earlier later than expected. Decay begins within minutes of clinical death in the brain. We do not really know what the "point of no return" actually is, or of it can be extended. We know hearing is the last sense to go, and an obvious reason as to why people have these experiences of them.

This work is crucially important to those who save lives. It really is a matter of life and death. 

3 hours ago, MamaMia1981 said:

So while we have a long way to go, and there very well may be nothing at all, I'm not completely sold that it is the most accurate assumption to make.  I leave it open to future discovery. 

Not sure what you mean, according to what we do know, it is without doubt the most accurate assumption to make. We perform lobotomies, we have body farms documenting the process, doctors recording each and every step (as per your link) we can even see a memory being chemically stored. 

So what do we make of the claims of the afterlife?

Either some ill defined metaphysical substance, not subject to the know laws of physics interacts with the atoms of our brains in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science

or

People hallucinate when they are nearly dead.

What honestly seems more reasonable?

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Zayne Kalis said:

Yeah in most cases we can only draw conclusions and make assumptions based on what we know, to determine what we think is the most likely explanation. Most of the details I post about things is speculation on my part, based on my own observations, because I don't actually know anything for certain.

I do appreciate your objectivity and stance on the subject. 

4 hours ago, Zayne Kalis said:

That's really interesting about it feeling like something took him... I've never been around someone when they died so I have no idea. I might look into that a bit...

My father told me on a Saturday he would pass on the Tuesday and did. 

I just do not feel that we recognise our bodies are telling us things at times that we do not outwardly recognise, but do subconsciously. 

4 hours ago, Zayne Kalis said:

I agree on the last part, I'm always open to change my mind on something if someone presents better evidence to support their side. I even say on my profile that I welcome anyone to challenge anything I say. I think it's healthy to have your views challenged.

Indeed, challenge everything. I look forward to hearing more from you. 

[Guest MamaMia1981]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, I know, I apologise for my sense of humour in advance ....... just keeping the discussion light.

I'm digging it, I've been giggling over your avatar for 2 days now.