Neil de Grasse Tyson on the afterlife

[KelleyKramer]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Girard442]

11. You can't go everywhere in time, just like you can't go everywhere in space.

I'm not likely to ever get to the top of Everest or walk on Mars. Or...see the 30th century. Not that much different.

[Girard442]

14. What is "I"?

Amazing that we can be aware of ourselves, and be aware of being aware, and somehow not get caught in some sort of infinite loop.

[Le Gaucher]

21. I once meditated on 'I' after smoking some pot .. It was life changing

I had some brilliant insights that are very difficult to explain.. .. But they help me on a daily basis. It helps me go about my daily life in an orderly disciplined manner.. Even when things get crazy at work or home ..I try to close my eyes and achieve that mindset .. It invariably restores my sense of balance.

[sagesnow]

24. Does Consciousness Create reality

Are we living in a Hologram?
:

[Duppers]

2. Exactly

We do not exist outside of our bodies. When we die, we're gone forever. We do not continue on in any other form or on any other plane. That's terrifying to me but I must accept facts. Any belief system that does not incorporate that is delusional.

[ouija]

3. Nope

Cutting edge thought is that this world is not organic. We are 3d projections from a 2d surface that surrounds our universe called the field. All information that has ever been is stored on the field as information is never lost. We just must advance enough to know have to retrieve the information. In a nutshell, we are in a hologram.

[Duppers]

6. Has this cutting edge theory been settled?

I'd love to think so but the last time I had this conversation with my son, a theoretical physicist, well over a year ago he said it was not confirmed. NdGT must not think it's been confirmed either but he's an astrophysicist.

I truly would like substantial evidence to be enough. I've had deep conversations with my son and with my hubs, also a physicist, about the expanding universe and the implications of that. And I listened to Lawrence Krauss quite on bit on the subject.

If we are stored as information forever, does that mean our consciousness continues as it does now? And how would our dead bodies differ from those living in terms of time?

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

[Girard442]

17. If you take the Reductionist view that we're all software running on a squishy computer...

...then there's no fundamental reason why our software can't be captured in a different medium and last forever.

I'm not sure I want to be stuck for eternity running Girard 1.0. Maybe there will be updates.

[Duppers]

18. 😁

[rurallib]

19. maybe I am dense, but how is that much different than a god?

some other existence that controls our lives?

[Duppers]

26. That's a point I've made before.

A creator without religion, but then we inevitably must unbale the "Russian nesting dolls" and ask who made that person, etc.

[Duppers]

10. I like the new theories that the Black Hole

Infomation paradox can be dissolved and that duplicate information exists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Btw, did you know that the Roger Penrose is a deist? Truly weird.

[NeoGreen]

22. An therefore do you then conclude that...

...you conscientious will continue to exist and that you will be aware of this existence?

And if your conscientious exists, and you are aware of this existence, will this allow you to be an active agent, to be able to manipulate reality as we understand it?

In essence, does this hypothesis lead you to believe you will "live forever"?

[Duppers]

7. Jon, I was replying to the OP.

[CrispyQ]

29. It's just how this part of your story is written - 1st person, present tense.

When you die, it goes to 3rd person, past tense. Before you were born, it was 2nd person, future tense. But in your linearly limited present tense body, you don't recall that chapter of the story. I'm looking forward to the 4th person, every tense experience.

Years ago there was a short lived HBO series where God was a Puerto Rican sauna attendant at a spa. There were a few characters that were always there, but the guest characters would come in one door, have their 1-episode experience, then God would send them on their way, out another door. When the door opened, all you could see were stars.

"My God! It's full of stars!"

===
Googled it: Steambath http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290986/

Based on a play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steambath_(play)

Steambath is the second play by American author Bruce Jay Friedman. It was first performed Off-Broadway at the Truck and Warehouse Theater where it opened on June 30, 1970, closing on October 18, 1970 after 128 performances.

This play presents the afterlife as a steam bath, in which recently deceased souls (who may not in every case realize that they are dead) continue to obsess about the same petty concerns that obsessed them in their lives. Ultimately, they are cast into another room offstage which is represented by a dark void by God, the steambath's Puerto Rican attendant and with the help of his assistant Gottlieb. In the play, the new arrival Tandy at first refuses to accept what's happened, and when he finally does, he pleads to be allowed to return to his life. Steambath was controversial when first produced for its obscene language (which was softened for its television version), its satirical take on religion, and some brief nudity.

[stevepal]

5. How do you know it's a fact?

There are thousands upon thousands of personal stories that attest to reincarnation. Ian Stevenson at the U of VA investigated the subject during his tenure there and came to the conclusion it's the best explanation of the "facts."

Every year even in the US where reincarnation is not generally accepted, certainly by the so-called fundamentalists, there are many reports of memories of past lives, nearly always from kids 2-4 yrs old. In time the memory fades but the memory is there and the facts can be checked. The most recent I've seen that was published is the story of James Leininger about 15 years ago described in the book his family published, SOUL SURVIVOR: THE REINCARNATION OF A WWII FIGHTER PILOT. It's a fascinating story. Of course, it's always easy to claim that these are made up, but I treat them more or less as "facts" when the people are trustworthy in all other ways. Of course, this will not faze those who want to deny it.

Christ clearly taught it. He said that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah (of Elijah's spirit of course, not his body) and he emphasized the importance of the karmic law. Several times his close disciples asked him about situations that he had probably talked to them about and the sense of it included the possibility of reincarnation, for example, the case where a boy "was born blind" and the disciples asked Christ who sinned that he was born blind, the boy or his parents. Now the only way it could have been the boy was in a past incarnation.

Anyway, it's high time I think that theologians began to accept what is an obvious and reasonable explanation for many facets of religion and real life in physical form. Our bodies aren't reincarnated but our "spirits" our "souls" are eternal. They are part of God or the consciousness that permeates the universe as we experience it.

[paleotn]

12. I find it interesting...

that those who believe in reincarnation seem to always have been some important person in a past life. Not an average Joe or Jane serf or peasant. When in reality, the vast majority of everyone who's ever lived were serfs and peasants of one type or another. I wonder why that is?

The fact remains, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence, peer reviewed and replicated, supporting reincarnation. None, zip, nada.

[Dale Neiburg]

16. Ian Stevenson...

one of the few scientists who have done serious research into reincarnation, has found the exact opposite. He's said he hesitated before tackling the subject because he feared everyone would claim to have been the Virgin Mary or some other famous person, but in fact most memories he's called up under hypnosis describe lives of drudgery and boredom, often as a "serf or peasant." Last I heard, the most famous person he had heard of as a previous life was James Buchanan -- and that subject had to have it drawn out of him painfully.

[stevepal]

25. Here's Wikipedia on Stevenson's conclusions:

"He came to believe that neither environment nor heredity could account for certain fears, illnesses and special abilities, and that some form of personality or memory transfer might provide a third type of explanation. He acknowledged, however, the absence of evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body, and he was careful not to commit himself fully to the position that reincarnation occurs.[16] He argued only that his case studies could not, in his view, be explained by environment or heredity, and that "reincarnation is the best – even though not the only – explanation for the stronger cases we have investigated."[17] His position was not a religious one, but represented what Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, calls the minimalistic reincarnation hypothesis."

Parse it as you will. But I don't think he's saying the "exact opposite" of what I said.

What I said was he "came to the conclusion it's the best explanation of the facts." I think I should perhaps have hedged a little on that. What he said was that "reincarnation is the best -- even tho not the only -- explanation for the stronger cases" he investigated.

[Dale Neiburg]

37. I'm not arguing for or against reincarnation.

My only point was that Stevenson found that the commonly held belief that "that those who believe in reincarnation seem to always have been some important person in a past life. Not an average Joe or Jane serf or peasant" turns out not to be true in practice.

[paleotn]

36. Regardless.....emperical evidence please

[Dale Neiburg]

38. I'm not arguing for reincarnation.

Only correcting a commonly-held belief that turns out not to be correct in practice -- see my reoly to number 25.

[stevepal]

20. "that seem to always have been some important person..."

In the readings of Edgar Cayce, the lives that are recounted are sometimes well-known individuals, but most times not. But often the past lives that had the most influence on a person's life in the present were well enough known that they could at least be checked and verified. But even the most well-known cases of supposed reincarnation often involve quite ordinary people, Bridey Murphy wasn't well-known in her lifetime, except maybe in her family or immediate neighborhood. Cayce himself said he'd had an incarnation as a kind of ne-er do well Brit in early America, John Bainbridge, who had psychic abilities and misused these abilities by using them to win at cards. This was why he thought that he was born into his own lifetime as Cayce without the ability to use his psychic gifts consciously as in that lifetime (though he was quite psychic as he grew older and had a lot of unusual experiences as a child) but needed to get into a self-induced hypnotic state to give his readings. I have had some vague recollections (usually in dreams) of many past lives but I only recall one that was of a person that was historically interesting and could be found in history books. Anybody who's willing to record his/her dreams will eventually have dreams that suggest past lives.

Interesting stuff. I'm surprised you don't read some in and about it just for the fun of it.

[Binkie The Clown]

31. Separate the wheat from the chaff.

Dr. Stevenson's work deserves respect and consideration.

Edgar Cayce was a charlatan, and should be lumped in with Uri Geller and other nonsense mongers.

Nothing does more damage to serious investigation of controversial subjects than to put crackpots in the same category as serious researchers and claim legitimacy for them. Mass market paperbacks touting "reincarnation" do more harm to serious research into the subject than anything else. Dr. Stevenson fought hard against the inclusion of nonsense in his field. That every skeptic in the world mentally puts him in the same category with the charlatans is proof that the mass market paperback bullshit has irreparably stained what should be a legitimate area of research.

Personally, I believe that reincarnation is a possibility, but I believe that in spite of of bullshit like Cayce and Geller, not because of it.

[stevepal]

33. Wow. You're a little hard on Cayce methinks.

Some pretty good debunkers tried to crack Cayce and couldn't, among them Hugo Munsterberg, who William James personally picked to head the psychology department at Harvard after he left. Houdini took a crack at him as did many others. Trouble is Cayce didn't use a cabinet or tipping tables or whatnot, just himself lying down and giving a reading. Tom Sugrue, a pretty fine writer and reporter thought he was a fake too until Cayce gave him a reading and revealed some things about him he (Sugrue) had never told anybody, including Hugh Lynn, Cayce's son and Sugrue's roommate at college.

You might do well to read Sidney Kirkpatrick's bio of Cayce or Sugrue's (which is a little less well researched than Kirkpatrick's). I think you might moderate your views a tad if you gave yourself the luxury of a little personal investigation.

[Binkie The Clown]

34. I believe in replicable science.

The kind that Dr. Stevenson did. I'm not going to believe wild anecdotes no matter how many times they are repeated. I still believe in reincarnation, but like I said, in spite of Cayce, not because of him. Frankly, I don't need whatever evidence his supporters claim, I have enough evidence from reliable sources. So in the final analysis, I don't know whether Cayce's claims are true or not, and I don't care one way or the other because they are just anecdotes, and I don't need the help of dubious sources to bolster my beliefs.

And in addition, I dug into the subject long enough and deep enough to come to the conclusion that reincarnation is a distinct possibility. That's as far as I'm interested in pursuing the subject. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, but I have too many other interests I want to spend time on, so I see no point in going back to reopen this cold case. For me, personally, the case is closed: I believe reincarnation is possible, and a definitely lean toward believing that it is real. Time will tell, and I can wait.

[vlyons]

8. The Buddhist view

Buddhism is not a religion. It is a practice for each individual to discover the true nature of mind and how to be liberated from suffering. Without getting into the weeds, there are teachings about how mind arises, exists, and dissipates back into simple unborn awareness. You can google "Five Skandas" and "Twelve Steps of Dependent Arising" if you want to know more. But basically, Buddhism teaches that one's individual consciousness does survive the death of the body and be reincarnated into another form.

Personally, I don't accept reincarnation on blind faith. I need evidence. However, my view is to be open minded and not worry about it. I'm ok with either being completely annihilated at death, or with having some mind stream of consciousness that is reborn as something else. That is, I prefer to keep an open mind about it. I know that I'm a good person, who practices loving kindness. We have enough difficulties to deal with in this life to overcome. Enough negative emotions to tame to worry about a next life. Enough mistakes to learn from. We should be busy trying to live a good life today.

[bitterross]

9. Wow. Love the clear, objective thinking

He is great. I will absolutely steal his arguments and use them.

If only our politicians could think so critically and objectively.

[robersl]

28. Not So Clear

Although I generally enjoy Neil de Grasse Tyson, I would not exactly call this clip an example of clear, objective thinking. It is 7 minutes of "science" cliches about life strung together, for the most part.

Modern science sets as its starting point the definition that it is only interested in the objective and measurable. Fine, if you want to measure and parse the creation, go for it. Much good has come from the efforts.

But to turn around and then say, "You know, we haven't found any evidence of an afterlife while we were parsing and measuring, therefore, we conclude there is nothing but the objective and measurable" is a clear case of circular reasoning. Really? You are going to eliminate all philosophical questions from you endeavors and then come to philosophical conclusions when you're done?

If I were you, I wouldn't be so anxious to steal that argument.

[BobTheSubgenius]

15. This entire area of thought and belief is beyond confusing to me.

The 'typical' or conventional Christian view (for want of a better term) has never resonated with me, even as a small child. It just seemed so incredibly unlikely that I never, ever believed in it.

Then, what else is there? Nothingness is a state of nonbeing that I am totally comfortable with, but a couple of events in my own life, but even more so, events in the lives of my extended family, leave me perplexed.

My mil, a very grounded and no-nonsense woman is a complete realistskeptic who, while living in the addition originally built for a nurse in a family home, had some absolutely freakish experiences there. The house was built in 1853, so it has lots of history, and part of that was the fact that the builder, a NY state senator, offered the use of the living room, or parlour, as a place for area residents to use for viewings of their deceased before burial.

When the suite was inhabited by my youngest step-daughter and her family, her 2-year old came out of her bedroom looking quite cross. When asked why, she said "There's a lady in there playing with my toys, and I don't like it!" A somewhat unlikely person to be perpetrating a hoax, I'd say.

My wife now owns the place, and keeps the suite vacant to use as her summer home. When she was there during the summer before last, she suddenly came wide awake for no reason she could discern. Several seconds later, a very audible thump came from another room, which she got up to investigate. She found an antique doll that had been occupying a place on a shelf for several years about 8 feet from where it had been.

So....I just don't know, and doubt that it is knowable, at least for most of us.

[Duppers]

27. Oh, this atheist has ghosts stories too.

"My friend" had a reoccurring presence and I named him Charlie. I'll post about him later but must go for now.

[HAB911]

23. As my tag line says

"Do not fear death. You were dead for billions of years before birth and not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it"

attributed to Mark Twain for the most part


It is good enough for me to feel incredibly lucky to have this 1st person view for the time I have. To be able to understand and reflect on my surroundings. To look into the night sky and be able to understand what I'm seeing is such an honor. No other animal we know of has such abilities.

Recent deaths of friends and family, and five years into retirement with the requisite review of my life, times, and career, have caused me to think about this more and more.

I see no evidence of any other scenarios of death than that described by Neil.

[CrispyQ]

30. The Deep Field changed my perspective forever.

I'm a little younger than you, I think, but going through the same kinds of reflection.

This is pretty cool. Scroll big or small! It has background 'music' that I sometimes put on when I work.

http://www.flabber.nl/sites/default/files/archive/files/scale-of-the-universe-2.swf

[HAB911]

32. Thanks for the link!

Never seen that before, very nice.

[Mr.Bill]

35. I do not know what will happen when I die.

And no one else does, either. The difference between me and the believers is I am content in my non knowledge. They will grasp for answers. I see that as a waste of time and effort, because there is no answer to be had.