Can we bring people back from the dead?

You will, of course, provide compelling evidence that EVERY non-paranormal explanation for Bigfoot, UFOs and Ghosts are all conspiracies and "mass deception" - after all, that is the claim you just made.

I eagerly await your response

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've been reported to James R and Bells for harrassing me and targeting me again for banning. Seems like you woulda learned your lesson by now. Guess not...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good luck with that. It seems like fair comment to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If anyone needs to learn something, it's you.

Specifically, what science is and how it works.

 

I've never heard of him.

I'd say that belief in the existence of ghosts and the idea that they are spirits of the dead are excellent examples of the survival of premodern folk belief, beliefs that in these cases probably originated in prehistoric times.

The survival of these kind of beliefs is fascinating from an historical and anthropological perspective. It's obviously relevant to religious studies as well.

That's an interesting speculative theory. It might form the basis of a science fiction novel. But is there any reason to take it seriously?

And why would believing in a 'multiverse' theory justify not believing in death at all? If I die in this universe, I die in this universe. We can speculate that there might be another alternative me in another universe, but that wouldn't change the fact that this particular me died in this universe.

Thinking this way also seems to be importing a particular kind of view of what the different universes in a 'multiverse' are. This writer seems to assume that the universes are like science-fiction's time-travel stories' alternative time-lines, consisting of different ways that the same events might unfold. I have a fatal accident in this universe, but live to a ripe old age in that one. (That raises all kinds of philosophical problems about trans-world identity. How different can the 'me' in another universe be and still be identifiable as me in that universe?)

Another problem is that there's more than one kind of multiverse theory out there. There are multiverse theories associated with cosmic inflation and multiverse theories associated with particular interpretations of quantum mechanics. I suppose that time travel would introduce a third variety. Different theories make different suggestions about how multiple universes would differ from one another and about how one might hypothetically travel between them. There's really no reason to assume that they have to contain alternative versions of the same events. Perhaps different universes contain different laws of physics or something, and have radically different contents. Different universes may not be parallel universes at all.

The stories, as this guy tells them, do seem to suggest the science-fictionish 'parallel universes' theory that he apparently favors. Of course, they are being related to us through his interpretive lens. And I'm still not convinced that these events actually happened.

What could justify somebody saying that?

Assuming that a 'multiverse' even exists, which is still speculative, next to nothing is known about the physics of what separates and differentiates universes, about what different universes might contain, or how one might go about burrowing into another one.

Citing "paranormal experience" as the method is basically the same thing as invoking magic.

That's one spin on what 'multiverse' might mean, I guess.

That's a prescription for the worst sort of credulity.

It's a rather interesting speculation. It might be a good conceptual basis for a science-fiction novel.

 

MR wants to believe that science isn't a closed air-tight system synonymous and co-extensive with reality itself, in which everything is already known if only in principle, and in which all events will necessarily find their explanation.

He wants to believe that there are still wonders, surprises and anomalies out there.

While I'm unmoved by most of his examples, I do have a great deal of sympathy for the underlying sentiment.

Human beings are restricted to one planet out of what are likely billions in this galaxy alone. The Scientific Revolution was only 300 years ago in a universe at least 10 billion years old. Our frame-of-reference and our perspective are awfully narrow. There may be cognitive limitations as well, inherent in what human nervous systems can be aware of and conceive.

I expect that what human beings don't know about reality is still much greater than what we do know.

It's also instructive to note that throughout history, human beings have always believed that they had the big picture figured out, and that whatever their worldview was, it was both accurate and all-encompassing. That was as true for medieval cosmology and for prehistoric religious pantheons as it is in today's university physics departments.

It's actually quite difficult for most people to focus on what they don't know. Nevertheless, all we have to do is play that pre-schooler's game of repeatedly asking 'why?' for three or four iterations, to arrive at the boundaries of human knowledge on almost any question. We are surrounded by mysteries at every moment.That's why philosphy fascinates me so.

Given that most of these things are anecdotal reports, it's hard to apply scientific principles to them with any degree of certainty.

So what we have instead is contending expressions of faith.

On one hand, the faith that all events ultimately fall within the explanatory scope of contemporary science, even if all it can do in particular cases is propose speculative hypotheses, and on the other hand, the faith that signs of transcendence still appear in our world.

 

Answer depends on definition of "dead"
No, if that means not living and brain etc. in advanced state of decay.
Yes, if that means what some of the legal definitions state.

Re-animation of properly frozen body, probably, as dogs have been deep frozen for many hours, and re-animated.
One little Utah girl was under the ice of a lake for slightly more than an hour, yet recovered with so little brain damage etc. it took sophisticated testing to detect any (and as there was no "before data" even the "defects" that were discovered are not certainly caused by the time under the water.)

 

So are you refusing to back or retract your claim then...?

Seems like such a simple rule to follow,to be honest... Guess rules are hard when one is pathologically dishonest...

 

The original post isn't talking about reanimating corpses.

It's talking about alternate realities, where an individual dies in one reality and continues living in another. The suggestion is that ghosts might be images leaking through from the other universe.

The plausibility of that depends on what one thinks of 'multiverse' theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

As I suggested up above in post #25, it's all extremely speculative and science-fictionish. And even if parallel universes exist, almost the same as this one except for some event that unfolds differently, the idea that shamans know how to travel between realities and can even bring people back over is doubtful in the extreme.

 

I have a hard time mistaking the map for the territory, having been brought up to believe in a system of religious beliefs that ended up not matching reality at all. In the case of science though, we have a roughly accurate albeit simplistic schematic of an infinitely detailed territory called reality, which serves to guide us fairly well thru our everyday lives. But I don't mistake that rough charting of lines and equations and distances for the reality it is meant to guide me thru. A map afterall is a very human representation of a nonhuman situation, emphasizing only the facts and landmarks that facilitate my efficient navigation thru it. The situation itself, in all of its depth and complexity, need not conform to these human abstractions and measurements in the least. I choose not to live inside the map of science that is inside my head. I choose to live in the present Reality that only unveils itself before me as I go thru life.

 

Are you saying that because you were raised to believe one myth, that once you broke free of that myth you decided that 'hey, any other myth or whimsical belief is a good substitute'?

 

Nope..I'm saying the distinction between belief and reality was made real by my religious experience, and a distinction that I continue to make with science and reality. You DO know that science is a set of beliefs inside your head don't you? That's why it replaces religion so perfectly--every gap left by the rejected religion with a belief that serves the same purpose.

 

I'm skeptic of everything more or less, MR. Especially claims on the fantastic side.

My belief set is that I certainly don't know everything, but I prefer reason over the paranormal/goddidit/sensationalist bs.

And I never really was religious, so there was no gap to fill.

 

But the infilling of the gaps only defined the underlying template. Of the psychological needs for an infallible way of knowing the truth. Of an unquestionable faith in the authority of the messengers of the cosmic truths. Of a worldview that promises a utopian state of global prosperity and bliss. Salvation thru knowlege, the unspoken premise founding all gnostic spiritualities. Science meets all these underlying existential needs of the human soul, and as such exposes itself as yet another means of fulfilling them.

 

BS.

For me science is not a set of beliefs. It's a way of explaining and exploring the world around me.

Just because your realization that the myth you assumed to be true as a child/young adult/adult turned out to be false does not mean all others must adhere to your learning curve.

 

I concur entirely with the great biologist J. B. S. Haldane on this matter:

"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. That is the reason why I have no philosophy myself, and must be my excuse for dreaming."====John Burden Sanderson Haldane (1892-1964) English geneticist. Possible Worlds and other Essays (1927) "Possible Worlds"

 

And that's your excuse for ignoring the scientific method when it comes to critical thinking?

 

Noone bases what they believe to be real on some dubious "scientific method." We base it on our logic and sensory experience. How many times have you used the scientific method to prove something was real?

 

So you are claiming "logic" and "sensory experience" to somehow be different form the scientific method?

Got anything to back that up with, or is this more of your usual bullshit blustering and nonsense?

 

Logic is part of the scientific method, but to anyone who's read the BS you spout on here, it's obvious that you don't understand that.