...that makes all woo scientifically plausible.

If you don't like the post, trash the thread.

Pretty much the same response.

Welcome to my Ignore list.

I've seen you post literally nothing of value over and over again. Bye now.

young woman called "Bridey Murphy" (I think) remembered having had a previous life
in Ireland or England a century or two previously. The information she gave (place and
time of birth) checked with church records. I am no longer sure if this turned out to be
phoney or not.

I'm sure there are fakers who do this for getting attention or money. But I'm leaving my
mind open. Only the person making such a claim would know for sure if the story is true
or not. [Some records can be researched beforehand].

About ten years ago, I did a bit of Internet research on it. As it turns out, of course, there is no strong evidence to suggest the existence of any supernatural phenomena in the case.

And I do not know if her claim has ever been disproved. I guess I could do a Google search.

... and I was born in the late 70's. ... hmmm

which clearly indicates cryptomnesia does not account for this case.

The debunkers had their own agenda, as I recall.

Don't read the creepy comments you are going to get, G_j. I don't know what scares these people so badly, but if anything can't be explained by hard science, they will not be fascinated- they will be mad.

Fear of the unknown.

however, the article and interview are interesting.

me is going to be looking at the responses to this thread. Interesting how the "skeptics" are completely positive they "know" what happens after death- even though all the theologians, scientists and doctors do not.

nobody besides you has given any indication that they read the article, or listened to the interview.
Hows that for science?

actually, looks like someone else did.

I think it's fascinating-

The VERY FIRST POST actually gave exactly that indication, but you ignored it because it didn't agree with your position (tho admittedly, the first post didn't offer much in the way of specific criticism either, tho one could argue the claims are so disconnected with reality as to not warrant such criticism in the first place).

other than that, "crap" was as deep as the comment went. So yes, I may have been factually incorrect.

And anyone who disagrees is "woo." These people are the anti-wooers, and we need to listen to them.

one way or the other. There are no authorities on the matter. Skepticism is a normal human state.

It is arrogance, at its height.

Cessation of consciousness followed by your corpse decomposing. What's so hard to figure out about that?

The brain breaks down, and the personality that was formed by that organ's biochemical processes dies as the organic hard drive it was stored on degrades.

I also know that supernatural claims about life after death are by their very nature outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and are therefore irrelevant.

It will be found. Too many cases exist.I don't care about snotty remarks on the internet myself.

I mean seriously, what exactly is "creepy" about debunking junk science? Is it just a backhanded way of insulting people who not only disagree with you, but can provide evidence debunking your beliefs?

It has nothing to do with "fear of the unknown." Hell, the unknown can be awesome and exciting. It has to do with not wanting our society cluttered up with a bunch of junk science.

I will know nothing about it.

Now account to me why only special privileged people can remember these supposed past lives? When does the awareness move into the fetal brain? How does the aware and educated reincarnate soul remains sane in the effective sensory deprivation cell that is the womb?

I know what your claim about this last will be, that the child does not go mad but the child does not have a memories of a sensorium and can absorb the minuscule stimulae not knowing or expecting more.

by an actual psychiatrist.

We also have no idea what happens after death, do we?

Tucker calls himself a scientist, yet what he's doing is NOT science at all. Tucker couldn't even get the quantum mechanics right.

Ok. I did not know psychiatry was not based on modern medical science. My mistake.

Also you will have to go argue with the few physicists who are starting to talk of the brain as a quantum computer. Perhaps you will want to argue as well that information is indeed lost, violating a fundamental principle of modern physics.

You might want to believe it is not science. In fact, I suspect anything that violates what you think is science is not in your mind. I prefer to keep an open mind, because you know what? Science is stranger than fiction.

Here, on that idea about a quantum consciousness

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html

What I think NPR is doing is reporting on a real frontier, even controversial, area of research. But what would I know.

Where is that information going?

Do we have people coming back from the death to tell us this? I think it makes you uncomfortable. This is the real frontier. and it is no longer just philosophy and theology asking this question.

Do I think he is right? I have no real idea, but he is not alone in thinking that consciousness might be another state of being. This is now in the frontiers of science. Remember, String Theory is also in that same frontier. So could this information mostly go across branes? And how do you test for that?

What we do know is that information is not lost. So what happens after you and I check out? I guess Max Plank was nuts too.

It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

Albert Einstein

good quote.

lots of great quotes

Science is discovery.

As if right this very moment we know all there is to know about everything in the universe and then some.

I'd rather do more experiments waiting for new discoveries and new understandings and new truths (until they're proven false) rather than cling to what we know contemporarily as the all knowing truth that can't be re-understood.



-p

I really wish people would stop trying to claim Albert Einstein as a champion of woo.

and tie the accounts to real events and people. He has accumulated over 2,500 case files. He states some his theories in attempting to explain the phenomenon.
I think Einstein's quote is applicable.

Or there's 72 virgins waiting for me. Or I'll go to Valhalla, where all the noble warriors go after death. Maybe Zeus will place me among the stars like he did with Orion.

The point is, you don't *know*. You assume based on your beliefs.

You believe when you die, that's it.

That is a belief.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Give me proof of a god and I'll accept he exists.

Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't matter to me what you believe. My inclination is that reincarnation makes sense. We shall all know one day.

Doesn't make it right.

Apples and oranges.

"We shall all know one day" is an absolutist view of your belief in an unknown. You may want to rephrase that.

I lack your faith but I have a good deal of trust in the data, and that is neither belief nor faith even if you insist on repeating that word over and over.....

Because there is a huge chance that someday... we won't know crap!

Websters Dictionary:

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

that is the universe, and there is no heaven, or hell, or anything like that. What we know in hard science is that information is not lost. Hell, Hawkins even admits that not even at the edge of black holes that happens, and lord knows that has been a discussion for decades now.

What happens after death, is actually right now being asked by actual folks with actual PhDs in advanced Physics, and a psychiatrist. A few of those are cosmologists, which if you know anything about Cosmology it makes perfect sense.

But neither you, or I, or anybody else currently alive can answer this for sure. So the idea that this man is exploring is one first posited by that idiot, (only a nobel prize winner) called Max Plank, that consciousness is another state of being. You do know he came up with that silly principle that went by his name, right?

I remember when String Theory started. Some folks, including some in the field, called it fake science, and a few other cute names. These days, those same folks are no longer that sure of those cocksure words. Oh and NPR covered it back then too, and some folks in USENET said the same thing you are saying right now.

Things on the real edge usually scare us, because by their very nature they are very strange. This is the very edge.

I admit, the concept is rife for even some strange fiction. But I prefer to keep my eyes open to at least the possibilities, and the research. Why? Life and science, (when not another religion) are just fascinating.

By the way, if any of this research is real, hell and heaven are human constructs that will have little to do with that, am afraid.

Die.

Everything else is pure speculation and not science.

not anymore.

Hell, what is death is getting redefined right now by medical science. I can literally die and come back, as long as my body is held to low temps. and machines take over. They can even stop the heart. What would be death, clinical and all a few years back.

So you have researchers doing real bleeding edge. This is where science is joining philosophy and perhaps even theology. But they have done that before, with the bing bang.

What we know for sure, is that information is not lost. That is a core principle of modern physics. So what happens to the information inside your brain?

I'm talking ultimate death. One that people don't come back from. In your example, those people only died for a short time. I'm talking permanent death.

The info in your brain is energy. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So, when a person dies, the energy from the brain (and body) goes out into the environment. That makes more sense than saying one goes to a higher plain or to a heaven or hell.

a fundamental principle of physics.

And what people who are doing that bleeding edge research say is not exactly energy.

We are talking consciousness

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/why-your-brain-is-a-quant_b_489998.html

We are living in an incredible period of life, and discovery, a new age of discovery actually. But I suspect we need to stop treating science as another religion, that is unchanging. And yes, open to the idea not necessarily of a soul, but of consciousness.

Philosophy is not science.

see what I mean. You are stuck with the idea that they cannot mix. They are starting to. At two very similar fields, cosmology and origin of the universe and this.

There is a reason for that.

My god, we are at the edge of another scientific revolution and understanding of how the world works.

Oh and more now on entanglement

http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Effect-Entanglement-Phenomenon/dp/031255530X

Einstein making the fantastic leaps he did, unaided by his own philosophy.

or modern day scientists. Hell, Cosmos is both philosophy and science, and I would not call Sagan a non philosophical man. Adam Greene is the same way these days, and so are others.

BUT it does have a lot of math supporting it—a lot of math that had to be presented in science journals and matched up against what we know about the universe and physics and such before string theory was accepted as a "hmm, maybe, could be..." But only just a "could be."

It is NOT considered a fact, not yet and won't until the existence of the eleven dimension it requires to exist can be proven. That's how hard you have to work to scientifically prove such things. Now if you show me this psychiatrist's years of equations or blind studies, etc., maybe we can give his theory the same "maybe" as string theory.

not anymore, and that was my point

What this guy is doing is going back 50 years. He is just continuing research.

Personally I am more in the line of what some actual physicists are starting to say about the brain, quantum entanglement and all that. But your mileage might vary.

My experience, bleeding edge research is made fun off, it is part of the process. Quite a bit of it does not pan out, and the ones that do, lead to scientific revolutions.

Information is a result of organization. When we die the information returns to entropy.

--imm

Seriously questioning a basic principle of modern physics? Ok. I guess we have different definitions. But if you wish to think that I guess a fire is a black hole horizon.

Since when?

--imm

It only deals with quantum entanglements. And then only with atoms and their components. Your claim is more like "the ocean can remember everyone who pisses in it." Accepting that is like believing in homeopathy.

--imm

Don't agree, and it is not faith, next thing to come.

But hey, whatever. Have a good day.

‘Not convinced’

Preskill, who accepted Hawking’s 2004 concession even though he was doubtful of his theory, is also “not convinced” of the Penn State research — though he notes that he has not yet studied it carefully. “I thought we made a pretty strong case back in 1994 that models of this type exhibit information loss…I don’t see how the observations by Ashtekar et al. change that conclusion, but I may be missing something.” Thorne, who was also dubious of Hawking’s concession at the time, did not want to comment because he is not familiar with this particular field of research.

Other theorists think Ashtekar’s group have made an important development, though they add that the debate is still not over. “After some extended discussions with Abhay, I am not yet convinced that they have shown the information comes out,” says Giddings.

“It is indeed very interesting,” says Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It strongly suggests, although it does not prove, that black hole evaporation in one-plus-one dimensions does not destroy information: all information escapes as the black hole evaporates…[but] it is not clear that the derivation would work in three-plus-one dimensions.”

lot of them were copies. The Library sent out scribes around the known world, where they were allowed, to copy everything a town/city/temple had. Kinda like what google books did.

Look at Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were from the same time period as the Library of Alexandria. Do you know why we really don't hear to much about them? Because they do not prove or actually disprove the judeo-christian modern thought and are totally different from what they expected to find. So they show little bitty shards of parchment and say we cannot know, totally hiding the full scrolls that are there.

What would really blow everyone minds if writings are ever found is the Church of Celtic which is existed before the catholic church ever set foot in on England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It was an amalgamation of Druid and Egyptian philosophy. It was dearly beloved and stamped out because it was heretical. Some people are excavating old sites to try to find some of these writings but the climate is damp and if not stored properly most likely disintegrated. But there is hope...

It's always the same; "I have a doctorate in this thing, so that gives me total authority with regard to this completely unrelated thing!"

just kidding...

PC, DMD