The Afterlife

[DeeLicious]

This is interesting: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-5529827/Readers-share-stories-proving-afterlife.html Anybody on here had such experiences?

[ummmm]

Does anyone believe in sixth sense?

[Old_Geezer]

"One of the other possibilities is that andy-hughes is right, at least to some extent. For some reason, though, people seem rather less keen to promote that discussion."

Maybe because if he is, it closes down further discussion. Arguments against these experiences are rarely satisfying, so the discussion on them as a glimpse into a wider reality, continues: and some discuss whilst others dismiss.

[naomi24]

Jim, I really wish your posts weren’t so contradictory. It does make discussion difficult. On the one hand you say experiences are far too personal for anyone else to be able to form a meaningful view … to which my response would be ‘Don’t discuss it then’ – and then you say if there is discussion to be had skeptics should have their place in it too – so which is it?

[jim360]

What contradiction? The second sentence is conditional.

[pixie374]

Andy is right- as far as we know so far. There is nothing "pseudo" about it. Everything said so far on this thread has already been explained and proven by psychology. If people prefer their own interpretation, they have every right to do that, and obviously, nobody knows everything, but if something has already been explained by how the brain works- that is good enough for me until and unless something else is found to be more likely.

[naomi24]

Jim, right....

Pixie, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[pixie374]

No, naomi- and I would never rule anything completely out. But proof of evidence- which is there in psychology- makes it a far far more likely explanation.

[naomi24]

Pixie, that’s assuming psychologists have it right as you and andy-hughes claim. Personally I think there’s much that’s ‘pseudo’ about psychology and because of that I hesitate to tar the millions of people who report these experiences - including myself - with the same brush of delusion.

[jim360]

To be clear, I cannot see that there is any discussion to be had about something that is held to be immune from criticism. The converse of this is, then, that anything that *is* offered up for discussion can be criticised. So, anyone who shares their personal experiences ought to expect sceptics to comment on them -- certainly in general terms.

The corollary of this is that if *you* are wanting to promote a discussion, then you can't tell people who disagree with you that they don't know what they are talking about. If you are (and you have) then you aren't promoting a discussion at all.

The criticism I have is not about tarring anyone with the brush of "delusion", either. It's merely a general observation that humans are not always reliable witnesses, and, as a result, objective evidence is needed before taking these claims seriously. With such evidence lacking, and with other (more plausible) explanations out there, then the most reasonable stance is that personal experiences related to the afterlife are interesting, but not compelling.

[jim360]

Or, if you like, more simply: I don't think anyone in this thread is lying -- I just think it would be a mistake to assume that they're telling the truth.

[naomi24]

Jim, // I cannot see that there is any discussion to be had about something that is held to be immune from criticism. //

You've lost me. Who said the subject is immune from criticism?

[pixie374]

I believe they are far closer than anyone else is. The human brain is so complex- we know nowhere near enough about it, but what is known, can and does explain a lot of "mysterious" things. Ruling out the huge potential and capabilities of them by using "spirits" as an explanation, is a massive mistake imo.

[pixie374]

I'm sure everyone on the thread is telling the truth. I am only sceptical of some of their interpretations of it.

[naomi24]

Pixie, //The human brain is so complex- we know nowhere near enough about it//

Indeed, but that also applies to life .... in my opinion.

[jim360]

By implication, dismissing someone who's sceptical as "not knowing what they are talking about", or dismissing psychology as a "pseudoscience" (at least mostly), is to dismiss any attempts at criticism. From my point of view, that's holding the subject for discussion to be effectively immune.

Or, put another way, what *would* you regard as criticism worth the name?

[jim360]

Also, thanks pixie for saying what I'm trying to :)

[pixie374]

Yes.... but it makes sense to explore the most obvious and closest explanations first.

[pixie374]

Not sure I'm doing any better, jim :-)

[naomi24]

Jim, I’m not dismissing attempts at criticism – criticise away - but I will contest the claim that psychology has all the answers firstly because psychology isn’t necessarily dependable and secondly because I don’t believe that everyone who reports these experiences is suffering some sort of delusion – as psychology – and you - would have it.

[jim360]

What exactly are you considering to be "delusion", though? I don't think this is what I'm saying at all. All I am saying is that human sensory perception is known to be unreliable, and cognitive biases are difficult to overcome. That is not at all the same as branding anyone who tells these stories "delusional", which, to my mind, implies something beyond simply responding like any normal person would.