Science Can Prove If There`s Life After Death[Pic+

Submitted by: drawman61 3 years ago in Science

...er, so what does he say?
There are 27 comments:
Male 5,874
`otherwise what is the drating point?`
Bad and good news baby, this is the afterlife. You are experiencing it right now; you are in it. What happens to you in this `afterlife` is dependent upon what you did in your previous life. This also applies to your next life.
(I`m sure someone somewhere has based a religion on this hypothesis)
0
Reply
Male 5,617
"Is that really better, even if it`s true?"
It`s a cosmic ant farm.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I really hope there is an afterlife...otherwise what is the drating point?[/quote]

All that does is delay the question - it then becomes "what`s the point of the afterlife?" So even if there is an afterlife, it`s not the answer to your question.

In order to make an afterlife the answer, you have to add in a scoring system and rewards and punishments, i.e. someone more powerful who creates a point and imposes it on you by force. Is that really better, even if it`s true? It still isn`t really a point as such.
0
Reply
Male 5,617
"otherwise what is the drating point?"
It only has whatever point you give to it.
0
Reply
Male 579
I guess I don`t understand the experiment. How do they know what happened in the "unperceived" part of the test unless the actually perceived it? While as a Catholic I absolutely believe in a next life, I do find this a bit suspect; better keep working on that theory, sir.
0
Reply
Female 1,540
I really hope there is an afterlife...otherwise what is the drating point?
0
Reply
Male 2,592
Was a fun book to read, I enjoyed it. Can`t remember a damn thing in it though.
0
Reply
Male 409
People who believe such crap make the mistake of thinking any statement from the `scientist` means the findings are based on `science`. It is the same crap we hear from Creationists and other kooks all the time. When you actually look at the claims, the so-called scientists either got their degree from an non-accredited university (usually little more than a diploma mill) or their degree is in a different domain (i.e. a computer scientist isn`t qualified to speak about biology just because he is a scientist).

Scanning the article, I don`t see any actual scientific research. I see a lot of speculation and philosophy, nothing more. This isn`t science. Stop calling things science when they aren`t science.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

On a side note...I can prove that YOUR god is a pussy.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

science can NOT PROVE there is not an afterlife. Science cannot prove there is no god.

It CAN DEFINITELY prove that the bible and ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS ARE S#IT.

0
Reply
Female 7,866
Sadly 5cats- I do philosophy ( if only to a low level) and this is just hot air- it assumes that because all experience is subjective that there is no objective reality to be had. Which is bollocks.
0
Reply
Male 14,832
This is a like a psuedo-science stew. If I had another palm, I`d run out of forehead.
0
Reply
Male 13,624
Thats ok then, I will hopefully become a star
or if not a moon...
0
Reply
Male 5,617
Logic: "Phil, you mean: `The universe exists because I am here to observe it.` That`s bullsh*t. If we exist, we`re a byproduct of the universe."
Sci: "Wait, Dad! You said `if we exist?`"
Logic: "`I think therefore, I am` only proves your mind exists. `I am therefore, I think` proves your mind is operational. It may exist without the material perceived as `yourself.`"
Phil: "...This is MY son, Niles. What do you think, Niles?"
Nihilist: "Since there is no way to prove it, no one exists."
Sci: "Go back to the basement and smoke some more, Junior."
Phil: "What did you say?"
Sci: "I said: `I`m going to run some tests.` Come on, Dad."
Logic: "Say, Sci: If matter has an antithesis, doesn`t that mean there`s also anti-time?"
Sci: "Where the f*ck did that come from?"
Logic: "I had a toke of that spliff Niles rolled. Sorry..."
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Oh. So if you redefine the universe, so that it`s just a figment of conscious minds, then death is just a figment as well?.. Well, howdy-doo.. And how are we supposed to find out if he`s right ?
0
Reply
Male 37,774
Allow me to make the introductions:
Science? Meet Philosophy. Philosophy? Meet Science...

Phil: How DO you do?
Sci: How do you DO?
Phil: I think, therefor I am.
Sci: I am, therefor I think.

Hummm...
0
Reply
Male 1,454
well it`s about time! people`ve been saying there is one forever!
0
Reply
Male 528
I have never read..

anything more full of bullpoo
0
Reply
Male 3,842
[quote]It looks to me to be more like the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?", just expanded to be the entire universe.[/quote]

Yes, Angilion is right (as usual!) but there is an answer if you think scientifically. What do you mean when you say "noise?" If a tree falls in the forest, it produces a sound wave with frequency and amplitude. That exists whether you are there to perceive it or not. But it is not loud or quiet, it has no pitch, because those are your perceptions.

The universe exists independently of us, but it does not exist in the form that we perceive. We perceive pitch and color, not the frequency and wavelength that objectively exist.

My point is, that is pretty simple stuff that any contemporary scientist or philosopher would know.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Ageed, that struck me as a bad analogy. But he was going for the popular press.[/quote]

I agree that it`s a bad analogy chosen to be easily understood by a wide audience, but I think that LandoGriffin`s counter-argument to that analogy shows is a general counter-argument against the entire idea, specifically that there is a difference between reality and our perception of reality. Our perception of reality depends on our perceptions, but that does not mean that reality depends on our perceptions.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Bugger- I was hoping someone could tell ME what he says... a lot of hot air from the sound of it.[/quote]

It`s not really science. Science may have an answer to this question at some point, but not now.

What he has are some speculative hypotheses that are untestable and non-falsifiable - it`s really philosophy rather than science. Interesting. Possibly true to an unknown extent in some ways. But not science.

It looks to me to be more like the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?", just expanded to be the entire universe.

0
Reply
Male 3,842
@ LordJim - that`s exactly what he is saying. And, yes, how egotistical. Nothing exists if I am not consciously aware of it...So when my dog responds to a 20 kHz tone that I can`t hear, does the 20 kHz tone actually exist if I don`t have a dog nearby to detect it? If you answered "no" then you, too, can be a biocentrist!
0
Reply
Male 7,123
LandoGriffin,

Ageed, that struck me as a bad analogy. But he was going for the popular press. I`m not sold on his argument but a quick google shows that he has some smarts.

However, a biocentric universe seems to be suspiciously self-flattering. The universe is immense only because I peceive it to be so. In fact, it exists only because I, as a biological entity, exist and can be aware of existence.

Or is that not what he is saying? I don`t think I agree with what I think he is saying, but I think it is interesting.
0
Reply
Female 7,866
Bugger- I was hoping someone could tell ME what he says... a lot of hot air from the sound of it.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
TL;DR version: The universe exists independently of our perceptions of it. You perceive "blue" but the 480 nanometer wavelength exists regardless of your ability to detect it or not. However, the 480 nanometer wavelength is not "blue" that is your perception of it. IT STILL EXISTS even if you are not there to perceive it!
0
Reply
Male 3,842
This guy isn`t as smart as he thinks he is. [quote]Essentially, the sky may be perceived as blue, but if the cells in our brain were changed to make the sky look green, was the sky every truly blue or was that just our perception?[/quote]

Anyone with any knowledge of neurology, psychology, physics, light, or optics knows that the sky is neither "truly" blue nor green. The sky reflects light, of especially high amplitude at about 480 nanometers wavelength. So the sky is PERCEIVED by us as light blue. It would be perceived differently by a color blind person (although most are red/green color blind, there is a rare yellow/blue colorblindness). The "color" of the sky, objectively, is 480 nanometers. I perceive it differently than a cat, dog, or colorblind person. No one with any intelligence would ever claim the sky is "truly" blue, only that we perceive it as blue. But the 480 nanometers exists, whether you are there to perceive it or not!
0
Reply
Male 7,775
Link: Science Can Prove If There`s Life After Death[Pic+ [Rate Link] - ...er, so what does he say?
0
Reply