Why do you believe?

[nebulaJP]

But if you think there is another side, then aren't you making up that there is another side?

No because I believe it's something the thinking mind can't comprehend due to its limitations of being accustomed to 4 dimensions and so on. I believe people have experienced "something" and the label I use to represent that is "other side" but any conception of it is just a metaphor.

 

[directorrico]

I know. Marijuana is used in Rastafarianism by the way. I said perhaps hallucinogens open your perception to the other side as in Shamanism, so that the traditional users who use this as part of their religion and know what they're doing, do actually connect with the spirit world, through the use of the drugs.

We have a veil that blocks our perceptions but sometimes it's lifted, such as when hallucinogens are used in ritual or when one is having an NDE or when one is in deep meditation.

I'll think about my plate of spaghetti I'm eating while I snort a nail-full of cocaine and I'll see my spaghetti fly and talk to me in all kinds of amazing colours.

I feel really bad that the use of drugs convince you of a "spirit world".

 

[directorrico]

I think there is a truth to it. But not a factual truth. Rather like the truths of art, literature or existentialism.




I don't love my SO for something she does. And I won't love my future kids because they are "good kids". It's not conditional in any such sense.




I don't really believe God exists in the way most christians do. I don't think he is an entity. I think he is largely a social construct, and an ideal that holds truth about existence and how we should live our lives.

I'm not sure exactly how and in which senses God is truth. That's an ongoing philosophical/teological investigation of mine. But I'd claim that the suffering of Jesus is a good image of the human condition and I believe that life according to the divine principles of unconditional love and free spirited delight would be very good life indeed. Far better than our current miserable world of material and spiritual poverty, oppression, alienation, fetisches and false idols.

I'm happy you don't think Jesus' story is literal in the way that many Christians do.
But I also don't agree Jesus' story is moral either.
God is Jesus. So the story of Jesus is:
God sacrificed himself, to himself, in order to forgive the sins that he created in the first place. (if anyone disregards the fact that God "put" sin in place, God is omnipotent. He created the plan from "then" to "now" and nothing can "disrupt" his plan.)

I know this is not the purpose of the thread but I think God's obsession with the smell of blood is not a story to follow whatsoever.

Now, if you'd like to rule out all the bad parts and just stick to the good bits of the bible and that's how you'd like to live your life then sure; I'm all for a "good" role model.

 

[nebulaJP]

I feel really bad that the use of drugs convince you of a "spirit world".

Not that alone. Quantum mechanics and relativity point to it as well because they are both explained by physicality being the output of processing in a non-physical quantum reality, which I'm calling the "spirit world."

 

[directorrico]

Not that alone. Quantum mechanics and relativity point to it as well because they are both explained by physicality being the output of processing in a non-physical quantum reality, which I'm calling the "spirit world."

Or they are just really really high

 

[nebulaJP]

Delete that. They will close your thread. That kind of language isn't allowed, even if you omit letters.

 

[nebulaJP]

I'll think about my plate of spaghetti I'm eating while I snort a nail-full of cocaine and I'll see my spaghetti fly and talk to me in all kinds of amazing colours.

Cocaine isn't an entheogen.

 

[nebulaJP]

Wiccan Child,

VRT Questions

24. Where are your equations?

Answer. The equations are already in quantum theory, e.g. Schrödinger’s equation is a three-dimensional wave whose point amplitude is “something” undefined, except squaring it is the probability the entity physically exists there. Chapter 3 links a wave's power, its amplitude squared, to program access. If entity programs distributing on a grid network overload a node, it must reboot. This restarts and merges all the entity programs at that point, which is quantum collapse. We see particles because every physical observation is a grid overload.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan Child,

VRT Questions

24. Where are your equations?

Answer. The equations are already in quantum theory, e.g. Schrödinger’s equation is a three-dimensional wave whose point amplitude is “something” undefined, except squaring it is the probability the entity physically exists there. Chapter 3 links a wave's power, its amplitude squared, to program access. If entity programs distributing on a grid network overload a node, it must reboot. This restarts and merges all the entity programs at that point, which is quantum collapse. We see particles because every physical observation is a grid overload.

The FAQ is interesting, but I'd be more interested in seeing actual evidence for the claims made, rather than simple speculation. The idea that our universe is a computer program is not new, and as the FAQ says, the idea goes back to Plato's cave. Nevertheless, declaring that the LHC is a waste of money and the Higgs is probably just a meson (!) based on what looks to be a fanciful idea is a tad premature.

He can claim that wavefunction collapse is actually a grid network node overloading if he likes, but I'm sure you can understand my scepticism.

 

[nebulaJP]

The FAQ is interesting, but I'd be more interested in seeing actual evidence for the claims made, rather than simple speculation. The idea that our universe is a computer program is not new, and as the FAQ says, the idea goes back to Plato's cave. Nevertheless, declaring that the LHC is a waste of money and the Higgs is probably just a meson (!) based on what looks to be a fanciful idea is a tad premature.

As I'm sure you're aware, your first and last sentences in this paragraph are related. The reason he complains about the LHC is because colliding high frequency light instead would prove his claim. Here is more about that:

Light colliding

"In current physics, light and matter are different existence types, so:

Two photons cannot ever collide. In fact light is quantized only when interacting with matter. In contrast, this model predicts that extreme light colliding in empty space can give stable matter. That matter is light bottled up contradicts the standard particle model of physics. We know that photons can give temporary electron-positron pairs by the Breit-Wheeler reaction, that accelerator collisions can create new matter, and that high-frequency light near a nucleus can create matter, but to predict that pure light can, in the extreme case, collide in a vacuum to give permanent matter is a shock. If matter arises from light, it is not fundamental. Physics framed around the nineteenth century particle concept still dominates, even though space creates matter, matter plus matter creates matter and light plus matter creates matter, but if light alone in a vacuum can create matter, it must fall."

 

[Paradoxum]

No because I believe it's something the thinking mind can't comprehend due to its limitations of being accustomed to 4 dimensions and so on. I believe people have experienced "something" and the label I use to represent that is "other side" but any conception of it is just a metaphor.

Even though we know people can dream, can hallucinate, or could be inbetween dream and awake? Considering we know that the brain can mess up and cause people to believe in mere illusions, there is no reason to think these experiences are another more than the brain being weird. Maybe there is another world, but I don't see any reason to believe in one, unless one just simple wants to believe in it without justifiable reason or evidence.

I am trying to be respectful while voicing my opinion. :S

 

[nebulaJP]

Considering we know that the brain can mess up....

If NDEs were completely random I'd say you have a point. But there is a commonality. Why would the brain mess up in this particular way, with these themes? What is the evolutionary advantage of that according to physicalism, gap?

 

[directorrico]

If NDEs were completely random I'd say you have a point. But there is a commonality. Why would the brain mess up in this particular way, with ? What is the evolutionary advantage of that according to atheists, gap?

Tons of people dream about their family.
Tons of people dream about their future.
Tons of people dream about their past.
Why is that?

/sarcasm

 

[nebulaJP]

Tons of people dream about their family.
Tons of people dream about their future.
Tons of people dream about their past.
Why is that?

/sarcasm

The people who have had NDEs have had dreams in their lives. They know what a dream is like and they describe the NDE as being very different than a dream. The way they describe encounters with deceased family members and pets who tell them they have to return to their bodies is very different from a random "dream about their family." An all encompassing "life review" is very different from a random "dream about their past." So I don't see what your point is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As I'm sure you're aware, your first and last sentences in this paragraph are related. The reason he complains about the LHC is because colliding high frequency light instead would prove his claim. Here is more about that:

Light colliding

"In current physics, light and matter are different existence types, so:

Two photons cannot ever collide. In fact light is quantized only when interacting with matter. In contrast, this model predicts that extreme light colliding in empty space can give stable matter. That matter is light bottled up contradicts the standard particle model of physics. We know that photons can give temporary electron-positron pairs by the Breit-Wheeler reaction, that accelerator collisions can create new matter, and that high-frequency light near a nucleus can create matter, but to predict that pure light can, in the extreme case, collide in a vacuum to give permanent matter is a shock. If matter arises from light, it is not fundamental. Physics framed around the nineteenth century particle concept still dominates, even though space creates matter, matter plus matter creates matter and light plus matter creates matter, but if light alone in a vacuum can create matter, it must fall."

Not at all. Two-photon physics is a well-studied field, and we're already well aware that two photons can interfere to create matter.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The people who have had NDEs have had dreams in their lives. They know what a dream is like and they describe the NDE as being very different than a dream. The way they describe encounters with deceased family members and pets who tell them they have to return to their bodies is very different from a random "dream about their family." An all encompassing "life review" is very different from a random "dream about their past." So I don't see what your point is.

The point is that dreams are pointless, random, yet contain common themes. This doesn't point to any supernatural goings on with dreams, so why would those same features apply to NDEs?

I daresay that the hallucinations of a dying, oxygen-starved brain are going to seem different from the hallucinations of a healthy brain. But hallucinations they almost certainly are.

 

[nebulaJP]

Not at all. Two-photon physics is a well-studied field, and we're already well aware that two photons can interfere to create matter.

He said light alone and two-photon physics is not photons alone:

"Two-photon physics can be studied with high-energy particle accelerators, where the accelerated particles are not the photons themselves but charged particles that will radiate photons."

 

[nebulaJP]

The point is that dreams are pointless, random, yet contain common themes. This doesn't point to any supernatural goings on with dreams, so why would those same features apply to NDEs?

Dreams don't contain specific common themes in relation to specific common bodily states. When we have a backache, we don't commonly dream of getting a massage. When we have a cold we don't commonly dream of staying in a hospital. There is no direct correlation: this common bodily state produces that common dream content. So, apples to oranges, NDEs are not dreams and have very little in common with them.

 

[directorrico]

Dreams don't contain specific common themes in relation to specific common bodily states. When we have a backache, we don't commonly dream of getting a massage. When we have a cold we don't commonly dream of staying in a hospital. There is no direct correlation: this common bodily state produces that common dream content. So, apples to oranges, NDEs are not dreams and have very little in common with them.

I'm sorry but I have lost faith in you.

 

[nebulaJP]

Even though we know people can dream, can hallucinate, or could be inbetween dream and awake? Considering we know that the brain can mess up and cause people to believe in mere illusions, there is no reason to think these experiences are another more than the brain being weird. Maybe there is another world, but I don't see any reason to believe in one, unless one just simple wants to believe in it without justifiable reason or evidence.

I am trying to be respectful while voicing my opinion. :S

The point is that dreams are pointless, random, yet contain common themes. This doesn't point to any supernatural goings on with dreams, so why would those same features apply to NDEs?

I daresay that the hallucinations of a dying, oxygen-starved brain are going to seem different from the hallucinations of a healthy brain. But hallucinations they almost certainly are.

Here I have rephrased it.

NDEs commonly involve specific experiences related to crossing over, the traits of a classic NDE.

Hallucinations or dreams do not commonly involve the traits of a classic NDE.

All I have heard is that NDEs are no more indicative of life beyond death than are dreams or hallucinations, despite the fact that unlike most NDEs, neither dreams nor hallucinations commonly involve the traits of a classic NDE. Meanwhile the traits of a classic NDE make perfect sense relative to the "near-deathness" of the person having the experience. The content is appropriate to the situation.

Why is there this specific content about dying and crossing over to an afterlife realm when a person is near death; what is our physiology's purpose for generating this specific content when a person is dying?

I don't consider "NDEs are just as unreal as dreams or hallucinations" a direct answer to this question.