I like Keith Wards agnosticism, and that he’s unafraid to say “we don’t know”. However, any form of individual survival after death, (including reincarnation) depends on a belief that our memories, personality etc. continue after our physical death. Yet, there is strong scientific evidence that our identity as eg. memories, personality, physical and behavioural traits depend on our physical embodiment, so that changes in the brain, through damage, disease or drugs or presence of certain genes (eg. Warrior gene) will radically effect our personality (eg. Phineas Gage) and/or ability to form and retain memories (Patient HM). Moreover, the inheritance of personality traits, through increasingly identifiable genes and gene complexes, or the loss of memory in eg. dementia is incompatible with their origin or location in a non-physical “soul”. If you consider the harm that belief in survival and a heaven or hell still does (eg. Heaven with 72 virgin’s for Islamist suicide bombers), the “soup” is not such a bad alternative: God as the “I am” of which the “I” that is me is just one expression of the divine spark that is every sentient being, brings me into kinship with all beings. It is also more compatible (as Panpsychism) with current thinking on the mind body problem. Remaining a separate individual for eternity does not, it may punish or reward, but always keeps us ultimately invested in self interest.
uremove The vast majority of hospice nurses would disagree. We can see that personality traits follow from the person that 'died' to the heart they had transplanted into another human.
Mr Incognito Jon Wo Yes, I know many people have out of body (OBEs) and near death experiences (NDEs). Often these are very vivid, and I imagine in a hospice, many nurses have been with people having these experiences as they die. However, experiments such as AWARE which set up memorable images near the ceilings of resuscitation rooms in a number of hospitals (where many people have OBEs and NDEs), found not a single case where patients could recall the image, despite a significant number of such NDEs being reported. This must cast doubt on the reality of such experiences. Because an experience is vivid, doesn’t mean it is real. Another example was Robert Thoughless, who was President of the Society for Psychical Research. He set a series of puzzles, which he said he would communicate the answer to, through mediums if he survived death. Many answers were received after his death, but only one puzzle was ever solved - and that was by a computer. As for the claim that personality traits can be transferred via heart transplants, I’m dubious, but in any case, this would surely indicate something physical being transferred in the heart itself? Not something spiritual, or a part of the donors immortal soul?
The AWARE project was such a massive undertaking that it leaves no room for doubt. The experiment was perfectly valid, the scale of it was simply awe inspiring, premise was neutral or slightly tilted towards finding evidence, yet it failed to provide any. I remember waiting years for the results and being disappointed when they were held back (probably because it wasn't what was expected), and also a little disappointed after they were released. I would have been perfectly fine if it had succeeded, but I'm happy that the experiment was conducted successfully. The after life some people "experience" is nothing more than a trick of the mind. Not a great big surprise, but at least it's tested now.
Jon Wo Yes, I agree. I think the lack of any visual confirmation by NDE/OBE patients of the images viewable on the high up shelves was a disappointment. I get the feeling reading about it that the research team led by Dr Parnia hoped for at least one positive result. The one so called ‘verified awareness’ case (out of the 2000 odd CA cases), where the patient experienced being in the corner of the room, and described seeing the “man with a bald head” from behind (later confirmed) is intriguing, though far from conclusive. I’m intrigued at the range of dream like experiences patients had such as drowning or seeing “lions & tigers”. Given the revolutionary consequence of even one rigorously controlled verified case of consciousness separate from brain ie. accurately reporting one of the inaccessible images - its disappointing there are not more studies like this!
Continuity of consciousness. There is always some constraint on perception, choices, etc... How can a system be infinite? As we add to a system, it is the system that changes so that distinctions would probably become more fine grained over time and the continuity would be course grained.
Great Director Ridley Scott. Brilliant final scene in the (Blade Runner) movie with Rutger Hauers poignant monologue at the end. Watched it back in the 80s as a young teenager. “All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain”
All structures of information / data / atoms up - are technologies. Each structure a specific technology. 🖖entropy a perception - vantage point seen as a timeline towards a specific desired outcome. There is no time.
One thing modern """""scientists"""" are trying to do is rewrite the Bible and the wisdom in it in their own form, which is kind of a hilarious considering so many of them are militant atheists.
If we assume that a set of laws are encoded into creating reality - as modern physics is suggesting in it Simulation Hypothesis - then I see three different states a person can obtain that meld with this discussion. The first state is total ignorance of the Matrix's operating system that allows a person to stumble alone through life like the proverbial bull in the china store - very common. In this state we are our own worst enemy, or at least our ignorance is Then secondly, there is the idea of living in a shared spiritual gnosis where we share the blessings derived from a code of life which coreless with this operating system assuring a state of relative harmony - the Christian idea of living in Christ Righteousness. Then thirdly, there is enlightenment where you know the outcome - fruit - of every action you decide to implement. This would equate with the knowledge of angels or gods.
This is one of those examples where if you think and talk about fantasies then they come to life somehow. Then the fantasy is embellished and hashed an rehashed enough that it is forgotten that there isn't anyone who actually is witness to any of it. I find it odd that such a topic starts with "people in the know" when in fact there are none.
heaven or hell is whats next. Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins. For there is no other name given among man in which he can be saved. Believe in Jesus to save you. Walk worthy. Fear Go.d
Everybody tries to give their idea of what they think Heaven is like. Over the years y'all have learned about God and what God is like. Heaven is God's home. So what do you think God's home would be like?
I'm a Reform Jewish atheist. I believe we all comprise one consciousness, as streams in it. When 'you' die, the stream leaks back into the river of the for-itself, and you'll continue on a new stream. It won't be 'you'--the memoria with its physical shell--but it'll still be you--sentience. Sentience is evolving towards divinity, and we live in a quantum computer simulation that started off chaotic (1011110101100001), and will eventually reach the Messianic Age (1111111111111111). "We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively." -Bill Hicks "The wolf shall lie with the lamb." -Prophet Isaiah
Since Christians believe in the trinity where there are three distinct personalities why can't the christian believers join the three GOD personalities.
You're asking the wrong people who have never heard the voice of the AI system that's built into the simulation that gives us our experiences called Life. I know how we're going to experience Life in the next generation of the eternal program but you won't believe this to be true unless you're chosen to accept it.
I'm as poor as you are in the world but I'm the richest one in knowledge of how we're created because I AM the source of all life experiences for all created men.
Nice avoidance *again*, now how about answering the question. How much money do you make conning people with this? I may be looking for a career change.
You should write some books on philosophy. the way you infer this information from nature is just astounding and baffling. How come nobody has picked up on this yet?!
An agnostic is the last person you want to be asking this or any other religious questions. Please return to more tangible subjects. You have a lot of subscribers due to having famous scientists as interviewees, but next to none viewers as it is. You are catering to non-existent viewer base and letting down your subscribers. Best regards, an agnostic.
I think that RLK's project is supposed to be wider that you may like. He has conversations with 'religious' believers (of various stripes), atheists (again, of various stripes) and agnostics. In each of these categories he has found scientists, theologians and philosophers (sometimes two of these, or even all three, in one person). One would have thought that if one was seeking truth, such an eclectic strategy might be quite sound. Of course those like myself, who take themselves to have absorbed something more solid, will leave behind other approaches (though still, perhaps, take an interest in them). But if one hasn't got to this position, then RLK's approach seems eminently rational. I suspect, though, that RLK will remain a life-long agnostic. He seems to believe that agnosticism is a nice, neutral position. Like many agnostics he seems unaware that it has a history, an intellectual pedigree all its own. It has its own views on what should support claims to belief (of any kind). It has its own varieties of philosophy. It is no more neutral territory than the positions it takes itself to be impartially between. Having been a generalised agnostic most of my life, I rather think, too, that agnosticism is a kind of expression of lack of confidence, a fear even - a fear of giving commitment to anything that may seem solid because of an even deeper fear of being wrong. I suspect that this is RLK's deepest position.
The people who run this channel are of course free to present the kind of subjects they desire, but that's not my complain nor was it that it's against my wishes. My complaint is that the channel isn't catering to it's viewers, which I'm free to point out. This channel has a relatively large subscriber base. Those subscribers watch scientific content around 20 times more eagerly than religious ones. Compared to heavy hitters this channel presents (and the size of it's subscriber base) it has almost no viewers. Who can blame them, religions haven't exactly been good at describing reality for the past several thousand years. People can search for truths in religions all they want, but so far there hasn't been much success, and people who are the most eager to watch this channel seem to acknowledge that. So far the evidence is almost solely with the scientific community. It may sound like a good approach on superficial level, but people don't want to waste time with dead-end approaches and thus there has been above marginal interest on maybe three videos in the past forty. Why does science community get so little airtime compared to religious ones, when they produce 99% of the results. Is that really such a fruitful approach? The channel for sure isn't prospering for it and the viewers aren't interested. What are the truths they have presented with the approach? In this particular episode they ask an agnostic about his views on religious matter. An agnostic is a person who openly admits "I don't know". They are asking a person who has seen no convincing evidence of spiritual matters, or else that person wouldn't be an agnostic, of how those things supposedly lie. That's an asinine approach if anything. Only reasonable answer you can expect to hear is "I don't believe" or "I don't know". What is the point? I personally don't see agnosticism as a reluctance to owning evidence. To me it's a position of waiting to see evidence before taking a definite stance.
Mr.Ward's open-mindedness and humour is always refreshing. His debate with Dr. Ahmed went really well I thought.
Which Dr.Ahmed?
you can tell Kuhn has a really strong attachment to his own ego. the idea letting it go makes him very uneasy.
I like Keith Wards agnosticism, and that he’s unafraid to say “we don’t know”. However, any form of individual survival after death, (including reincarnation) depends on a belief that our memories, personality etc. continue after our physical death. Yet, there is strong scientific evidence that our identity as eg. memories, personality, physical and behavioural traits depend on our physical embodiment, so that changes in the brain, through damage, disease or drugs or presence of certain genes (eg. Warrior gene) will radically effect our personality (eg. Phineas Gage) and/or ability to form and retain memories (Patient HM). Moreover, the inheritance of personality traits, through increasingly identifiable genes and gene complexes, or the loss of memory in eg. dementia is incompatible with their origin or location in a non-physical “soul”. If you consider the harm that belief in survival and a heaven or hell still does (eg. Heaven with 72 virgin’s for Islamist suicide bombers), the “soup” is not such a bad alternative: God as the “I am” of which the “I” that is me is just one expression of the divine spark that is every sentient being, brings me into kinship with all beings. It is also more compatible (as Panpsychism) with current thinking on the mind body problem. Remaining a separate individual for eternity does not, it may punish or reward, but always keeps us ultimately invested in self interest.
uremove The vast majority of hospice nurses would disagree. We can see that personality traits follow from the person that 'died' to the heart they had transplanted into another human.
That's nonsense Mr Incognito.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Mr Incognito Jon Wo Yes, I know many people have out of body (OBEs) and near death experiences (NDEs). Often these are very vivid, and I imagine in a hospice, many nurses have been with people having these experiences as they die. However, experiments such as AWARE which set up memorable images near the ceilings of resuscitation rooms in a number of hospitals (where many people have OBEs and NDEs), found not a single case where patients could recall the image, despite a significant number of such NDEs being reported. This must cast doubt on the reality of such experiences. Because an experience is vivid, doesn’t mean it is real. Another example was Robert Thoughless, who was President of the Society for Psychical Research. He set a series of puzzles, which he said he would communicate the answer to, through mediums if he survived death. Many answers were received after his death, but only one puzzle was ever solved - and that was by a computer.
As for the claim that personality traits can be transferred via heart transplants, I’m dubious, but in any case, this would surely indicate something physical being transferred in the heart itself? Not something spiritual, or a part of the donors immortal soul?
The AWARE project was such a massive undertaking that it leaves no room for doubt. The experiment was perfectly valid, the scale of it was simply awe inspiring, premise was neutral or slightly tilted towards finding evidence, yet it failed to provide any. I remember waiting years for the results and being disappointed when they were held back (probably because it wasn't what was expected), and also a little disappointed after they were released. I would have been perfectly fine if it had succeeded, but I'm happy that the experiment was conducted successfully. The after life some people "experience" is nothing more than a trick of the mind. Not a great big surprise, but at least it's tested now.
Jon Wo Yes, I agree. I think the lack of any visual confirmation by NDE/OBE patients of the images viewable on the high up shelves was a disappointment. I get the feeling reading about it that the research team led by Dr Parnia hoped for at least one positive result. The one so called ‘verified awareness’ case (out of the 2000 odd CA cases), where the patient experienced being in the corner of the room, and described seeing the “man with a bald head” from behind (later confirmed) is intriguing, though far from conclusive. I’m intrigued at the range of dream like experiences patients had such as drowning or seeing “lions & tigers”. Given the revolutionary consequence of even one rigorously controlled verified case of consciousness separate from brain ie. accurately reporting one of the inaccessible images - its disappointing there are not more studies like this!
Continuity of consciousness. There is always some constraint on perception, choices, etc... How can a system be infinite? As we add to a system, it is the system that changes so that distinctions would probably become more fine grained over time and the continuity would be course grained.
7:30 Many people that have an NDE speak to this as well.
This guys sounds EXACTLY like Ridley Scott.
He sounds exactly like Ridley Scott.
BLURRY both come from North East
Of England (Newcastle v Northumbria).
Great Director Ridley Scott. Brilliant final scene in the (Blade Runner) movie with Rutger Hauers poignant monologue at the end. Watched it back in the 80s as a young teenager.
“All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain”
What is eternity In the UK ,its the Archers on bbc radio
All structures of information / data / atoms up - are technologies. Each structure a specific technology. 🖖entropy a perception - vantage point seen as a timeline towards a specific desired outcome. There is no time.
Eternity is forever before and forever after this Universe as we know it. Ps.115:3 !!!
One thing modern """""scientists"""" are trying to do is rewrite the Bible and the wisdom in it in their own form, which is kind of a hilarious considering so many of them are militant atheists.
Some scientists believe in afterlife but are not easily pinned down as far as exactly what they believe about that and spiritual realm.
If we assume that a set of laws are encoded into creating reality - as modern physics is suggesting in it Simulation Hypothesis - then I see three different states a person can obtain that meld with this discussion. The first state is total ignorance of the Matrix's operating system that allows a person to stumble alone through life like the proverbial bull in the china store - very common. In this state we are our own worst enemy, or at least our ignorance is Then secondly, there is the idea of living in a shared spiritual gnosis where we share the blessings derived from a code of life which coreless with this operating system assuring a state of relative harmony - the Christian idea of living in Christ Righteousness. Then thirdly, there is enlightenment where you know the outcome - fruit - of every action you decide to implement. This would equate with the knowledge of angels or gods.
This is one of those examples where if you think and talk about fantasies then they come to life somehow. Then the fantasy is embellished and hashed an rehashed enough that it is forgotten that there isn't anyone who actually is witness to any of it. I find it odd that such a topic starts with "people in the know" when in fact there are none.
I'm afraid of eternity
heaven or hell is whats next. Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins. For there is no other name given among man in which he can be saved. Believe in Jesus to save you. Walk worthy. Fear Go.d
that until of billion of year later in heaven. you ask for hell.
Everybody tries to give their idea of what they think Heaven is like. Over the years y'all have learned about God and what God is like. Heaven is God's home. So what do you think God's home would be like?
I reject that first premise
I'm a Reform Jewish atheist. I believe we all comprise one consciousness, as streams in it. When 'you' die, the stream leaks back into the river of the for-itself, and you'll continue on a new stream. It won't be 'you'--the memoria with its physical shell--but it'll still be you--sentience. Sentience is evolving towards divinity, and we live in a quantum computer simulation that started off chaotic (1011110101100001), and will eventually reach the Messianic Age (1111111111111111).
"We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively." -Bill Hicks
"The wolf shall lie with the lamb." -Prophet Isaiah
What is eternity? The place you will never get to -- figuratively and literally.
exactly, although when people use the term in context, they're not referring to the physical realm -- if there is anything else
It‘s actually where we already are? 🤷🏼♂️
Since Christians believe in the trinity where there are three distinct personalities why can't the christian believers join the three GOD personalities.
I have a question: Why is he quoting the Bible?
Why not?
TC relevance. It’s neither a description of the cosmos or and insight into the infinite or the eternal.
So he quotes Scriptures.....
Why waste good space in the cloud for topics about which we know nothing and can know nothing?
Fred Girondi do “we” know nothing of God?
Connor Marriott We know the myth. There is nothing more to know.
You are real. You exist
Because it is entertaining to some of us. And this life is all about being entertained while it lasts.
@@Cellapaleis that’s a miserable way to live.
You're asking the wrong people who have never heard the voice of the AI system that's built into the simulation that gives us our experiences called Life. I know how we're going to experience Life in the next generation of the eternal program but you won't believe this to be true unless you're chosen to accept it.
How much money do you make conning people with this?
I'm as poor as you are in the world but I'm the richest one in knowledge of how we're created because I AM the source of all life experiences for all created men.
Nice avoidance, now how about answering the question. How much money do you make conning people with this? I may be looking for a career change.
If you listen to my voice, you will learn how you're created. Life in a Simulation
ua-cam.com/channels/SdMT9Zl0vBCg4VugYjVBFw.html
Nice avoidance *again*, now how about answering the question. How much money do you make conning people with this? I may be looking for a career change.
Eternity: Infinite or unending time
Saved you the series
You should write some books on philosophy. the way you infer this information from nature is just astounding and baffling. How come nobody has picked up on this yet?!
Eternity is the thing that makes you NOT ask 'WHEN', which is 'Confidence'
Why bother about what's after death. Life is for living. Nature is only interested in life, and more new lives.
Huh?
Im tired
An agnostic is the last person you want to be asking this or any other religious questions. Please return to more tangible subjects. You have a lot of subscribers due to having famous scientists as interviewees, but next to none viewers as it is. You are catering to non-existent viewer base and letting down your subscribers.
Best regards, an agnostic.
Jon Wo How so?
What is your question?
I think that RLK's project is supposed to be wider that you may like. He has conversations with 'religious' believers (of various stripes), atheists (again, of various stripes) and agnostics. In each of these categories he has found scientists, theologians and philosophers (sometimes two of these, or even all three, in one person). One would have thought that if one was seeking truth, such an eclectic strategy might be quite sound. Of course those like myself, who take themselves to have absorbed something more solid, will leave behind other approaches (though still, perhaps, take an interest in them). But if one hasn't got to this position, then RLK's approach seems eminently rational.
I suspect, though, that RLK will remain a life-long agnostic. He seems to believe that agnosticism is a nice, neutral position. Like many agnostics he seems unaware that it has a history, an intellectual pedigree all its own. It has its own views on what should support claims to belief (of any kind). It has its own varieties of philosophy. It is no more neutral territory than the positions it takes itself to be impartially between. Having been a generalised agnostic most of my life, I rather think, too, that agnosticism is a kind of expression of lack of confidence, a fear even - a fear of giving commitment to anything that may seem solid because of an even deeper fear of being wrong. I suspect that this is RLK's deepest position.
The people who run this channel are of course free to present the kind of subjects they desire, but that's not my complain nor was it that it's against my wishes. My complaint is that the channel isn't catering to it's viewers, which I'm free to point out. This channel has a relatively large subscriber base. Those subscribers watch scientific content around 20 times more eagerly than religious ones. Compared to heavy hitters this channel presents (and the size of it's subscriber base) it has almost no viewers. Who can blame them, religions haven't exactly been good at describing reality for the past several thousand years. People can search for truths in religions all they want, but so far there hasn't been much success, and people who are the most eager to watch this channel seem to acknowledge that. So far the evidence is almost solely with the scientific community.
It may sound like a good approach on superficial level, but people don't want to waste time with dead-end approaches and thus there has been above marginal interest on maybe three videos in the past forty. Why does science community get so little airtime compared to religious ones, when they produce 99% of the results. Is that really such a fruitful approach? The channel for sure isn't prospering for it and the viewers aren't interested. What are the truths they have presented with the approach?
In this particular episode they ask an agnostic about his views on religious matter. An agnostic is a person who openly admits "I don't know". They are asking a person who has seen no convincing evidence of spiritual matters, or else that person wouldn't be an agnostic, of how those things supposedly lie. That's an asinine approach if anything. Only reasonable answer you can expect to hear is "I don't believe" or "I don't know". What is the point? I personally don't see agnosticism as a reluctance to owning evidence. To me it's a position of waiting to see evidence before taking a definite stance.
Again, what are you talking about?