heaven and hell

[JJ]

Nothing can be proved either way, but I tender the fact that my view is simpler than yours ...

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will confirm from your own professional background, Martin, 'simpler' doesn't necessarily equate to 'truer'.

Probably does really, especially for a scientist!

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

[AndyHB]

Probably does really, especially for a scientist!

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

  But Occam's Razor doesn't assume that the hypothesis with fewest new assumptions is necessarily less complex.  It will depend on the level of complexity of that or those assumptions.

My point is that the sheer number of other complicated explanations, which are completely unsupported by anything other than hearsay, are utterly limitless. 

So how do you explain something that is supported by some scientific observation but not by other such observation?  A friend of mine has had a series of pneumathorax's over the past 6 or 7 months, and was due to have the two layers stuck together using 'powder glue' (I think that was the name it's given) later this month.

2 weeks ago, he was hit by a further breathing problem and admitted to hospital, where they found that this was something totally unrelated to the pneumathorax issue (different side of the chest for a start!).  There was damage visible on the scans, so last week they opened him up to repair it, only to find nothing there.  I know that some will say that there was probably some problem with the scan, but as there were more than one taken from different angles, this seems less likely.  How do you fit the two 'scientific observations' into your system that is based so heavily on the truth of  scientific observation?

I also notice that you have failed to answer my question about the role of our relationship with God in all this?  Is this because it doesn't fit with your scientific POV?

[AndyHB]

Did the even better thing, and made a comment on the webpage.  Mind you, haven't had a chance to go back and see if its been accepted by the moderator.

Just had a look and notice that, 3 days on, it is still awaiting moderation!!

[Jan]

I agree with you Jan that just because I can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.  But if one person can see something, then, scientifically speaking, you'd expect others to be able to see it too.   

Not necessarily - for example, that is like saying just because one person has an ability to add numbers up quickly in their heads, that others should also be able to do so. Why don't we all have minds like Einstein? - scientifically speaking, is there any reason why we shouldn't have?  'Wired' differently perhaps?

Nothing can be proved either way, but I tender the fact that my view is simpler than yours - that something seen by one where others look and can see nothing, is more simply explained by a mistake, a deception or an illusion than it is by postulating existence after one's brain has been destroyed.

I can tell you that my 'view' is based on what I have experienced personally and the experiences of others - in addition to what I have read.

For you to be able to do the same - initially you would need to put yourself into a similar position. If you are genuinely interested in investigating this, let me know and I will try and help - otherwise we will just be going around in circles once again, as we have done so many times before.

Indeed there are other possibilities, but again, the postulation that our 'souls' have been contained in other bodies prior to our birth seems unnecessarily overcomplicated when compared to the observation that, as our brains form and develop so does our intellect and our personality.  I see no necessity to propose the existence of a soul as something separate from that.

We may have reincarnated - but that doesn't mean everyone does so. It all depends on what needs to be learnt. Again there is much research you could do personally on this Martin - if you really wanted to learn more, rather than being rather closed minded as to the possibilities

To me it seems like saying that, when I fry an egg and the white goes white, this is not down to the proteins denaturing because of the heat, but down to an unseen and unmeasurable cosmic force instigated by the action of frying, that just happens to coincide with the application of heat.

??? strange analogy  - then I guess my analogy is to take this further. What are proteins made up of? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur (or another element maybe). Each of these elements has different properties on their own or combined together in a different way. When they are combined as in the form of egg white, they behave in a certain way. When two of them combine together they become water. When one of them(H) is on its own, and you put a match to it, it pops or explodes. I could go on with that - right up to taking it down to particles and waves. What is heat? A form of energy but only a small part of the EM spectrum (energy). We know what it is because we can feel it and it affects our food when we cook with it. Why does it do this? Other types of energy behave in different ways.

Keeping it simple is easy - but you can often miss stuff if you don't look further (or choose not to look further because you have just accepted to 'keep it simple' in your view)

Why should I not believe you Jan?  I was a research scientist for a number of years after all!  The energy that makes me me and you you is easily identifiable. It's held in chemicals and heat in my brain and yours.

If you were a research scientist then you should be aware of what I have already added perhaps? There is physical energy but there is also much more. As a person with a scientific background - you should perhaps be more open to this?

energy vibrations link

Talk of 'beings of light/spirit/souls/, that which is really 'us', going somehwere after physical death' is nothing to do with energy not being created or destroyed - the energy which makes me and you only does so while it is in the circuitry of our brains, after that is dissipates because of the second law of thermodynamics.  If you want an analogy, we are like a computer program running in a computer with no permanent storage (only battery backed).  When the power is switched off and the battery runs down to nothing, the program ceases to exist.

That is not the case though Martin. Do you believe that all you are is a bundle of chemical energy - firing neurons? That which is you will live on after physical death. I know this to be true. If you want proof then you know what to do (visit a Spiritualist church). Other than that the proof will eventually be there when you cross over. 

True - all of them are measurable and detectable by anybody, not visible to some and not to others.

Already answered this

No, the brain is an interface into the bloob, the bloob holds only memories of ice cream and peanut and discards all others.  - I've just invented the bloob btw, but there is as much proof and reason behind its existence as your postulation, the 'soul'.  Yes BOTH the soul and the bloob are possibilities but there is no need to postulate either. There is a much simpler, much more obvious explanation.

I quite like ice cream with peanuts - but its nicer with a bit of toffee too.

Why do you insist on making it difficult for yourself Martin?

[Jan]

Nothing can be proved either way, but I tender the fact that my view is simpler than yours ...

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will confirm from your own professional background, Martin, 'simpler' doesn't necessarily equate to 'truer'.

Probably does really, especially for a scientist!

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

What is 'simple' about Quantum Mechanics 

link

Andy - regarding the comment awaiting moderation on that forum, I would send an email also just to make sure. Could be that the person is busy with stuff,  but you should still get a response (IMO)

[Martin]

So how do you explain something that is supported by some scientific observation but not by other such observation?  A friend of mine has had a series of pneumathorax's over the past 6 or 7 months, and was due to have the two layers stuck together using 'powder glue' (I think that was the name it's given) later this month.

2 weeks ago, he was hit by a further breathing problem and admitted to hospital, where they found that this was something totally unrelated to the pneumathorax issue (different side of the chest for a start!).  There was damage visible on the scans, so last week they opened him up to repair it, only to find nothing there.  I know that some will say that there was probably some problem with the scan, but as there were more than one taken from different angles, this seems less likely.  How do you fit the two 'scientific observations' into your system that is based so heavily on the truth of  scientific observation?

There's nothing in anything I've written that suggests that science can't get it wrong. I am simply saying that where repeatable observations of the world we live in give us all we need to understand the mechanism by which something functions, then it's more reasonable to propose that the mechanism by which things work is down to those scientifically observable facts than it is to propose a separate mechanism not based upon any repeatable and observable fact.

So for instance if I see someone pedalling a bike, then it is more reasonable to propose that the back wheel is going rond because they are pushing the pedals than it is to propose that a group of invisible fairies are pushing it round.  In  the one case I can see what's ogically happening and can propose a mechanism from what everybody can see, in the other case I have no logical reason to propose the existence of invisible faries. It doesn't mean that I can prove that the faries don't exist, they might!  But there is no more reason to believe they do than there is to believe that the plants in my garden climb out of the flowerbeds and dance around the garden when everyone's asleep.

I also notice that you have failed to answer my question about the role of our relationship with God in all this?  Is this because it doesn't fit with your scientific POV?

Our relationship with God? What do you mean by that?  For me, God is Love, so you'd be asking about the role of loving relationships, which are a function of the brain, albeit a beautiful one.

[Martin]

Not necessarily - for example, that is like saying just because one person has an ability to add numbers up quickly in their heads, that others should also be able to do so. Why don't we all have minds like Einstein? - scientifically speaking, is there any reason why we shouldn't have?  'Wired' differently perhaps?

Yes I agree there is the possibility that some people have evolved a different ability from others in this respect, but this is far outweighed by the possibility that those people who claim to see these things are lying, deluded or deceived.  We know that people tell untruths, we know that people see things that aren't there when brain chemicals are interfered with and we know that people can be suggestible such that they fully believe something is happening when it is not. Those observable mechanisms hold more probability of explaining a phenomnon  than proposing some new sort of 'energy' for which there is no device that can either measure it or detect it.

Look at it this way.  Going back into ancient history, men looked at the Sun and, becuase they had few other observations than that is was a visible disc which rose and set, they picked an explanation out of the air and proposed that it was a God.   When it was discovered, through observation, that the earth was a sphere, men bgan to think that the sun might be spherical to so, using a spot of logic they proposed that the sun rotated around the earth.  The old idea that the Sun might be a God started to diminish.  Then, using mathematical observations it became apparent that actually the Earth might orbit the Sun.   Various space missions have al provided consistent data with that idea and so we now would say that it's proven that the earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun is not a god.   But of course there is stil the possibility, however small, that all those observations are wrong and the original proposal that the Sun is a godlike being might be true, but if you ask which is more likely - the explanation which relies on a million different observations and that which relies on unprovable assumptions picked out of the air without reason,  then everybody will say that the one that relies on measurements oan observations is the right one.

So if someone says, "I can see humming birds coming in and out of everyone's ears", it's far more likely that such a person is deluded, decieved or lying than that they are in possession of a strange supernatural sense which allows them to see something that really is there but is invisibe to the rest of us.

I can tell you that my 'view' is based on what I have experienced personally and the experiences of others - in addition to what I have read.

For you to be able to do the same - initially you would need to put yourself into a similar position. If you are genuinely interested in investigating this, let me know and I will try and help - otherwise we will just be going around in circles once again, as we have done so many times before.

No thanks, I'm not interested in wasting my time for the reasons stated above.   To be fair to the arena of things people say they can see, where others cannot see them, I would have to investigate all the myriad of other claims for which there is not a shred of repeatable supporting evidence.   If someone said they could see a pink hipopotamus hovering over Buckingham Palace then I'd have to investigate that too.  And I've seen enough of what you've presented as 'evidence' and found it to be anything but evidence - for example your claims about 'energy' above which are an obvious attempt to use scientific phrases  without any real desire to view your observations scientifically.  Its a use of words which tries to fool people into thinking that there is a scientific basis to things for which there is no scientific basis. 

No Jan, it is for you to present proper scientific evidence - say a gadjet which detects this energy you say exists and powers a small light bulb with it - something like that.

We may have reincarnated - but that doesn't mean everyone does so. It all depends on what needs to be learnt. Again there is much research you could do personally on this Martin - if you really wanted to learn more, rather than being rather closed minded as to the possibilities

A|nd again there is no evidence whatsoever other than heresay and potential deception. It's not closed minded to properly assess the real evidence before believing something. As I say, there is no way to prove that reincarnation doesn't happen, but there is no real reason to beleive it does - there are far more likely non-supernatural, non- spirit-world explanations for all the phenomena supposedly observed.

??? strange analogy  - then I guess my analogy is to take this further. What are proteins made up of? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur (or another element maybe). Each of these elements has different properties on their own or combined together in a different way. When they are combined as in the form of egg white, they behave in a certain way. When two of them combine together they become water. When one of them(H) is on its own, and you put a match to it, it pops or explodes. I could go on with that - right up to taking it down to particles and waves. What is heat? A form of energy but only a small part of the EM spectrum (energy). We know what it is because we can feel it and it affects our food when we cook with it. Why does it do this? Other types of energy behave in different ways.

But there is no part of the electromagnetic spectrum which behaves in the way you suggest 'energy' might behave.  That's the point! You have to rely on proposing some form of energy that we haven't found yet, which has equal status to proposing that pink hippos hover above Buckingham Palace.  You have no repeatable, measurable observation and you have nothing that can detect or measure the supposed 'energy' you say drives the procesess - it's not science, it's fantasy.

If you were a research scientist then you should be aware of what I have already added perhaps? There is physical energy but there is also much more. As a person with a scientific background - you should perhaps be more open to this?

No there isn't 'much more'. That's your hypothesis but it is not borne out by measurement. You can't present it as science because it isn't.

[Jan]

Yes I agree there is the possibility that some people have evolved a different ability from others in this respect,

Where do you think Einstein evolved his ability from? Why haven't we all evolved this way? Why is Ensteins mind different?

but this is far outweighed by the possibility that those people who claim to see these things are lying, deluded or deceived. 

Whilst the possibility exists (because people can lie, be deluded or deceived) that does not mean that this is the case and - no it is not 'far outweighed' at all.  If I were to give you an example Martin I don't think it would do any good. This is something you would need to experience yourself - but first you would have to open your mind - at the moment it is very very closed.

No thanks, I'm not interested in wasting my time for the reasons stated above. 

Well there it is in a nutshell - you won't will you. Because of this then there is no point in me even trying to show you as you have already made up your mind.

A|nd again there is no evidence whatsoever other than heresay and potential deception. It's not closed minded to properly assess the real evidence before believing something. As I say, there is no way to prove that reincarnation doesn't happen, but there is no real reason to beleive it does - there are far more likely non-supernatural, non- spirit-world explanations for all the phenomena supposedly observed.

There is a difference in being a skeptic and being a closed minded skeptic

But there is no part of the electromagnetic spectrum which behaves in the way you suggest 'energy' might behave.  That's the point! You have to rely on proposing some form of energy that we haven't found yet, which has equal status to proposing that pink hippos hover above Buckingham Palace.  You have no repeatable, measurable observation and you have nothing that can detect or measure the supposed 'energy' you say drives the procesess - it's not science, it's fantasy.

No its not Martin - but you will not know in your lifetime because you are not prepared to go further with it - not prepared to learn.

No there isn't 'much more'. That's your hypothesis but it is not borne out by measurement. You can't present it as science because it isn't.

Banging head against a brick wall really aren't we ... I try to give you a way forward in learning more - but you don't want to learn.

edit - probably little point in me adding this for Martin - but ...

The afterlife. Throughout human history, the idea that humans have souls that survive their physical death has been a never-ending source of debate. From neolithic shamans who spoke of traveling in other worlds, to the famous 19th century Spiritualist fascination with psychics and mediums, we have always been tantalized by glimpses of our possible immortality.

In modern society, however, investigation of these topics has largely been frowned upon. Organized religions say that such things should not be tested - to do so is to doubt the deity in question, and we should instead show faith. Mainstream science and self-appointed skeptics, on the other hand, say that such things should not be tested because they are quite obviously nonsense and a waste of time - to do so is to admit that you are perhaps a little unhinged.

However, both organized religion and mainstream science ignore two key facts. Firstly, that neither of them are no longer answering the profound questions of personal existence (and non-existence) that all of us ask ourselves in those quiet moments alone. And secondly, that for centuries there has been a steady accumulation of evidence - that we can all assess - which is suggestive of the idea that our consciousness in some way survives the moment of death.

quoted from here

Interesting that there would seem to be a fear amongst some of appearing 'unhinged' or even thinking its a waste of time to explore this.

[Martin]

Well there it is in a nutshell - you won't will you. Because of this then there is no point in me even trying to show you as you have already made up your mind.

My mind looks at evidence Jan, not at stuff like this, which poses as scientific evidence, but has no scientific basis to the assumptions it makes.  There is nothing whatsoever that links electromagnetic radiation to the psychic world.  If there was then you could build cameras to photograph the spirits that are supposedly being seen, but you can't.

It's not that my mind is closed Jan, it's the fact that the evidence you present is such junk.

Your mind is the closed one, because you won't believe anything else no matter how rubbish the so-called evidence is.

[Jan]

[Martin]

Some claim to have captured spirits on camera Martin - though I doubt you would be interested

But if spirits are all around us, with some people seeing them all the time, then you'd expect it to be easy to capture them on camera.  You'd expect people to be able to do it anywhere where people see these spirits. But it doesn't happen does it?  It's all so much more consistent with people being deluded, liars or deceived than it ever could be with unfounded hypotheses about electro-magnetic radiation!  In fact there is no good evidence to link electro-magnetic radiation with psychic phenomena.  The evidence actually speaks VERY LOUDLY the other way.

All I can really do is give you links Martin.

You tried that and all it proved is how closed minded you are.  You accept this rubbish as truth, but it is plainly rubbish.  You didn't hit any raw nerve Jan, you just accused me of being closed minded when it is obviously you who is closed minded.  Now, if you'd re-read the link you provided and come back with "Yes I can see that it's preposterous to propose that people who have passed over emit electro-magnetic radiation in the ultra-violet spectrum" then I would believe you to be open minded on the subject.

You'll notice that I'm not saying that your personal experience is invalid.  Your personal experience is not called into question by the fact that electro-magnetic radiation cannot be the cause of psychic phenomena.  But you have demonstrated your closed-mindedness because you believe not only your experience to be true, but your choice of mechanism to be true when it patently is not.

So, no raw nerves from me, just a solid argument based on good science.  No wild claims that psychic phenomena cannot be true, but a solid assertion that is as unlikely as a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

[AndyHB]

So, no raw nerves from me, just a solid argument based on good science.  No wild claims that psychic phenomena cannot be true, but a solid assertion that is as unlikely as a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

Like you, Martin, I don't agree with what Jan offers here, not because it isn't scientific, but because of what I have seen of it and the damage it does to people; when I couple that experience with what I believe Christians are taught about it in the Bible, I regard it as not so much something that is out of my comfort zone, but something to be actively avoided.  However, there are large areas of life where science plays little or no part.  For instance, why we believe what we do, and why we trust who we do is rarely adequately explained by scientific models.

[AndyHB]

By the way, here is the final word on the matter.

[Jan]

But if spirits are all around us, with some people seeing them all the time, then you'd expect it to be easy to capture them on camera.  You'd expect people to be able to do it anywhere where people see these spirits. But it doesn't happen does it? 

OK - the use of the words 'spirits are seen all the time' doesn't necessarily mean they are seen 'all the time'. The phrase can be likened to saying (for example) 'I see my neighbour 'all the time' (meaning they see them often). Spirits generally phase in and out of vision for those who can see them on the Earth plane. They usually lower their vibration in order to appear to us.

You tried that and all it proved is how closed minded you are.  You accept this rubbish as truth, but it is plainly rubbish. 

What motive do you think I have in sharing this info with you?

You didn't hit any raw nerve Jan, you just accused me of being closed minded when it is obviously you who is closed minded.

Well that is how you are appearing to me Martin. Really closed minded.

Now, if you'd re-read the link you provided and come back with "Yes I can see that it's preposterous to propose that people who have passed over emit electro-magnetic radiation in the ultra-violet spectrum" then I would believe you to be open minded on the subject.

The UV spectrum? That is just a small part of it. What I gave you was a link to part of the EM spectrum as proposed by Arthur Findley.

You'll notice that I'm not saying that your personal experience is invalid.  Your personal experience is not called into question by the fact that electro-magnetic radiation cannot be the cause of psychic phenomena.  But you have demonstrated your closed-mindedness because you believe not only your experience to be true, but your choice of mechanism to be true when it patently is not.

Spirits can and do affect EM radiation Martin. Paranormal investigators will use EMF meters in their investigations Also there is EVP phenomenon

So, no raw nerves from me, just a solid argument based on good science.  No wild claims that psychic phenomena cannot be true, but a solid assertion that is as unlikely as a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

If you believe it to be unlikely but you are not prepared to look further then you have just hit a brick wall which you have built for yourself. A true skeptic would want to investigate further - given the accounts, info and experiences that are out there.

have[/b] seen of it and the damage it does to people;

I asked you previously if you could elaborate more on this 'damage to people' thing that you have mentioned before in similar topics. I do not consider myself to be 'damaged' or any of my spiritualist friends to be 'damaged' - so I am curious as to what you mean Andy. The last time I asked you - I don't think you gave me an answer.

when I couple that experience with what I believe Christians are taught about it in the Bible, I regard it as not so much something that is out of my comfort zone, but something to be actively avoided.

Do you mean what is said in Leviticus or Deuteronomy? (like the other stuff in those books - the weird laws, contradictions and cruelty etc).

The bible is full of Spirit communication -  where does Jesus teach that we should not have anything to do with our loved ones who have crossed over into Spirit? - again we have done this before - I don't remember there being an answer on this last time, so has there been a development since?

[Jan]

By the way, here is the final word on the matter.

lol - is it really