4 ms·

It’s tricky, because the kinds of natural laws that are necessary for the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the princ

It’s tricky, because the kinds of natural laws that are necessary for the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the principle of physicalism or materialism, which is the consensus view of the scientific establishment today. So if you decide to investigate something easier to test for than “the afterlife” which could also plausibly exist with these expanded natural laws—like remote viewing, or the effects that consciousness has on physical systems—your research will be generally dismissed as quackery. Not many folks will try to replicate your results, or even spend the effort to examine them deeply for flaws, because the assumption is “we already know that cannot happen, so you’ve done something wrong in your setup or you’re lying.” There is plenty of evidence out there that points to something odd going on; the challenge lies in getting more skeptics to seriously evaluate it. Some HNer years ago turned me onto the book Irreducible Mind, whose last hundred pages or so is a bibliography of evidence for this kind of thing provided by people who say “I don’t believe it, but I can’t explain it.” But a lot of that evidence comes from skeptics testing exceptional individuals, and James Randi did a good job of showing how fakers can fool scientists, so I can’t really say how reliable it is other than as a jumping-off point for further study. I came across an interesting and more rigorous set of studies done recently on how consciousness can influence quantum effects. They had observers try to influence the amount of interference generated by the double-slit experiment, and have repeatedly under various conditions gotten a significant effect. Perhaps most interesting is that while all humans had an effect, the meditators reliably outperformed the non-meditators. The setup is simple enough that it’s just begging for replication. Here’s the video link for any curious folks. Skip the first 5 minutes which is just a refresher on what the double slit experiment is: https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY

erikpukinskis 8y ago
> the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the principle of physicalism or materialism I don't see why that follows. There are lots of phenomena in the world, like money, which are manifest in a non-physical substrate. Many many other things are immaterial. The characters I am typing right now are immaterial. There are bits in memory that represent the characters, but it's only in interplay with an entire system of physical structures that you can say the characters themselves are manifest. You can't point somewhere and say "that's where the character is". It's diffuse across a bunch systems in such a way that it's not manifest in any one location. Almost all of our social and political realities are like this. Where is Conservatism? Where is calculus? These are not things with locations, which is what makes them extremely difficult to study, which is why so many people reject things like Social Psychology or Science Studies as bunk science. Money, algebra, and the capital M that starts this sentence are all things that exist, in a way that's totally compatible with materialism. It's not necessary to claim that these things exist outside of a material substrate. They merely exist above it. Distinct from it, yet contained within it. Fully determined by its laws, but not described by them.
- meowface 8y ago
  Consciousness is an abstract, non-physical structure and concept, but everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain. In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate, but with current technology, there's no reason to believe any sort of life, consciousness, sentience, awareness, etc. after death is possible at all. Just because it's possible in theory doesn't mean that applies to any currently living humans.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    > everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. And that’s been a useful adaptation for us. And it confuses the hell out of consciousness philosophers. But we were conscious before we evolved it. It’s possible we were human before we evolved it. > In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law.
    - meowface 8y ago
      >I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I don't think consciousness of trees is accepted by nearly anyone. But even if any trees were conscious, I don't see how it helps your argument at all. >I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. Yes, but consciousness of animals doesn't really mean anything here. If anything, it's a point in favor of the opposite side: that consciousness really isn't very special. >It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. Many things are possible. We have ancient stories about many of them. If they were true they would be very difficult to detect. That's why the basic scientific principle is falsifiability. >If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law. I don't agree. If the universe is a simulation then they could be read, but they don't have to be, and I don't think it's extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be. If it's a very "raw" or "real" simulation with no interference, they could very well just dissipate into nothing. Assuming it is a simulation, what happens when you get shot in the head and lose brain function? Where is your consciousness at that moment? Is there a pre-damage backup somewhere? When was the backup taken? If backups are taken every instant or otherwise very infrequently, which one is the "real" state after you die? The one from right before the damage occurred? Something picked at random? If there is no backup needed because there is instead just some outside extra-dimensional consciousness "force" or "energy" existing since long ago, what is that thing doing exactly when you suffer from a brain injury? Does it just "stop working" in or "lose connection" to those parts of the brain? What is it doing when we're children? I think even if we're in a simulation where nearly all living things are conscious, the chances of some kind of post-death experience is still basically zero.
meowface 8y ago
>There is plenty of evidence out there that points to something odd going on Such as what? I don't believe there is. >I came across an interesting and more rigorous set of studies done recently on how consciousness can influence quantum effects. They had observers try to influence the amount of interference generated by the double-slit experiment, and have repeatedly under various conditions gotten a significant effect. Perhaps most interesting is that while all humans had an effect, the meditators reliably outperformed the non-meditators. The setup is simple enough that it’s just begging for replication. >Here’s the video link for any curious folks. Skip the first 5 minutes which is just a refresher on what the double slit experiment is: >https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY As you alluded to earlier in your post, this is complete quackery. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that quantum uncertainty has no relation to human (or any other) consciousness. There's nothing to suggest that human (or dog or dolphin or octopus) consciousness is magical, supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, or unable to be explained or understood.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Can you link the replication study or analysis that reveals the flaw in the original? > There's nothing to suggest that human consciousness is magical, supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, or unable to be explained I don’t think anyone is trying to argue against you. We’re just saying there is more to understand than science has so far done. We’re not saying science can’t reach what we imagine, just that it’s tough, and may require new physics. Luckily modern physics also requires new physics. So we’re not alone.
  - meowface 8y ago
    https://medium.com/@roblea_63049/the-double-slit-experiment-demystified-disproving-the-quantum-consciousness-connection-ee8384a50e2f https://medium.com/@roblea_63049/the-double-slit-experiment-... is one of many examples of double slit "woo" debunking. In short, the issue is that any attempt at measuring the particle's position necessarily causes the wave function to collapse. This measuring has no relation to consciousness.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

> the existence of an afterlife are the same kinds of natural laws that invalidate the principle of physicalism or materialism I don't see why that follows. There are lots of phenomena in the world, like money, which are manifest in a non-physical substrate. Many many other things are immaterial. The characters I am typing right now are immaterial. There are bits in memory that represent the characters, but it's only in interplay with an entire system of physical structures that you can say the characters themselves are manifest. You can't point somewhere and say "that's where the character is". It's diffuse across a bunch systems in such a way that it's not manifest in any one location. Almost all of our social and political realities are like this. Where is Conservatism? Where is calculus? These are not things with locations, which is what makes them extremely difficult to study, which is why so many people reject things like Social Psychology or Science Studies as bunk science. Money, algebra, and the capital M that starts this sentence are all things that exist, in a way that's totally compatible with materialism. It's not necessary to claim that these things exist outside of a material substrate. They merely exist above it. Distinct from it, yet contained within it. Fully determined by its laws, but not described by them.

meowface 8y ago
Consciousness is an abstract, non-physical structure and concept, but everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain. In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate, but with current technology, there's no reason to believe any sort of life, consciousness, sentience, awareness, etc. after death is possible at all. Just because it's possible in theory doesn't mean that applies to any currently living humans.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > everything we know suggests it is inextricably tied to and an emergent phenomenon of the brain I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. And that’s been a useful adaptation for us. And it confuses the hell out of consciousness philosophers. But we were conscious before we evolved it. It’s possible we were human before we evolved it. > In the distant future there may be a way to extract and transfer consciousness into a new substrate It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law.
  - meowface 8y ago
    >I don’t think that’s universally accepted. I think trees are conscious and they have no brain. I don't think consciousness of trees is accepted by nearly anyone. But even if any trees were conscious, I don't see how it helps your argument at all. >I think the brain does create an illusion that other things are not conscious. It tricks us into thinking our own consciousnesses are distinct from the rest of consciousness. Yes, but consciousness of animals doesn't really mean anything here. If anything, it's a point in favor of the opposite side: that consciousness really isn't very special. >It’s possible such a thing already exists. We have ancient stories about it. If it were true it would be very difficult to detect. Many things are possible. We have ancient stories about many of them. If they were true they would be very difficult to detect. That's why the basic scientific principle is falsifiability. >If the universe is a simulation then it seems extremely unlikely that consciousnesses would never be read, just operating until they get eaten by the 2nd law. I don't agree. If the universe is a simulation then they could be read, but they don't have to be, and I don't think it's extremely unlikely that they wouldn't be. If it's a very "raw" or "real" simulation with no interference, they could very well just dissipate into nothing. Assuming it is a simulation, what happens when you get shot in the head and lose brain function? Where is your consciousness at that moment? Is there a pre-damage backup somewhere? When was the backup taken? If backups are taken every instant or otherwise very infrequently, which one is the "real" state after you die? The one from right before the damage occurred? Something picked at random? If there is no backup needed because there is instead just some outside extra-dimensional consciousness "force" or "energy" existing since long ago, what is that thing doing exactly when you suffer from a brain injury? Does it just "stop working" in or "lose connection" to those parts of the brain? What is it doing when we're children? I think even if we're in a simulation where nearly all living things are conscious, the chances of some kind of post-death experience is still basically zero.

meowface 8y ago

>There is plenty of evidence out there that points to something odd going on Such as what? I don't believe there is. >I came across an interesting and more rigorous set of studies done recently on how consciousness can influence quantum effects. They had observers try to influence the amount of interference generated by the double-slit experiment, and have repeatedly under various conditions gotten a significant effect. Perhaps most interesting is that while all humans had an effect, the meditators reliably outperformed the non-meditators. The setup is simple enough that it’s just begging for replication. >Here’s the video link for any curious folks. Skip the first 5 minutes which is just a refresher on what the double slit experiment is: >https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY As you alluded to earlier in your post, this is complete quackery. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that quantum uncertainty has no relation to human (or any other) consciousness. There's nothing to suggest that human (or dog or dolphin or octopus) consciousness is magical, supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, or unable to be explained or understood.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Can you link the replication study or analysis that reveals the flaw in the original? > There's nothing to suggest that human consciousness is magical, supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, or unable to be explained I don’t think anyone is trying to argue against you. We’re just saying there is more to understand than science has so far done. We’re not saying science can’t reach what we imagine, just that it’s tough, and may require new physics. Luckily modern physics also requires new physics. So we’re not alone.
- meowface 8y ago
  https://medium.com/@roblea_63049/the-double-slit-experiment-demystified-disproving-the-quantum-consciousness-connection-ee8384a50e2f https://medium.com/@roblea_63049/the-double-slit-experiment-... is one of many examples of double slit "woo" debunking. In short, the issue is that any attempt at measuring the particle's position necessarily causes the wave function to collapse. This measuring has no relation to consciousness.