Life with purpose

It's interesting to see some of the medium relayed accounts and compare them to the NDE ones. A fair amount of the former suggest afterlives that are a lot like this one. Some people even have to get jobs and go to work.

Though Myers - if you accept it was him doing the cross-correspondences - communicated through a medium that you can go to higher levels that more resemble NDE accounts and accounts of Heaven.

I'm kind of suspicious of mediumship that makes it seem like normal life. It opens up a cascade of weird unaswerable questions. Is there money? What jobs do they do? What are houses like? Do we drive cars? It's a bit much. Maybe it's like a mental haze to ease you into the next life, but I doubt it. I think a good line of avenue would be something like pre life memories from reincarnation cases, since they seem to pick up where NDEs let off. But we just don't know. I just think it's gonna be a lot stranger than regular business.

I'm kind of suspicious of mediumship that makes it seem like normal life. It opens up a cascade of weird unaswerable questions. Is there money? What jobs do they do? What are houses like? Do we drive cars? It's a bit much. Maybe it's like a mental haze to ease you into the next life, but I doubt it. I think a good line of avenue would be something like pre life memories from reincarnation cases, since they seem to pick up where NDEs let off. But we just don't know. I just think it's gonna be a lot stranger than regular business.

Why would it be more suspicious?

It seems to me there could just be different places corresponding to different afterlives. I believe it was Chris Carter who noted you could visit different parts of a continent and come away with very different expectations - thus the afterlife could be the same.

Why would it be more suspicious?

It seems to me there could just be different places corresponding to different afterlives. I believe it was Chris Carter who noted you could visit different parts of a continent and come away with very different expectations - thus the afterlife could be the same.

I feel like it's a bigger problem if it all there is. I think because it seems TOO normal. Like all the things are tied to being human, even biologically, or socially, or environmentally. Take that all away and put you in an entire new MODE of existence and we still have jobs? Really hard to take on the head, makes me think of just the nice sanitized Christian heaven. 

To me it just sounds too easy, sounds like too much of a human rationalization. I think it potentially might be largely unknowable outside of being there yourself, just too far removed from human comprehension. Plus, you don't want to give skeptics an inch, have people like Keith Augustine and his "how does a soul move around" arguments.

I feel like it's a bigger problem if it all there is. I think because it seems TOO normal. Like all the things are tied to being human, even biologically, or socially, or environmentally. Take that all away and put you in an entire new MODE of existence and we still have jobs? Really hard to take on the head, makes me think of just the nice sanitized Christian heaven. 

To me it just sounds too easy, sounds like too much of a human rationalization. I think it potentially might be largely unknowable outside of being there yourself, just too far removed from human comprehension. Plus, you don't want to give skeptics an inch, have people like Keith Augustine and his "how does a soul move around" arguments.

Well I'm kinda past caring what "skeptics" - largely materialist evangelical fundamentalists - think.

From what I've read there are enough reports of the mundane sort of afterlife that it we can't really reject it as a possibility.

I mean even if we went just with NDEs, you'd have a wide variety of possible afterlives.

I agree with all this, but at the least panspermia is up for scientific investigation. Is there some code in DNA that indicate an artificial hand? Is there some commonality between our own DNA and the DNA we might find of life (or former life) upon Venus or Mars?

At the very least, if panspermia is true then we'd rationally be more inclined to pick the religion of the aliens who did the seeding than any of our own religions. [Which isn't to say that their faiths are necessarily more grounded in reality.] Probably why IDers keep up throwing up their hands and pretending the identity of the designer is beyond scientific investigation.

In the same way that physicists who dismiss even the possibility of their science confirming or at least indicating an Idealist interpretation are being irrational or deliberately deceptive, so to with IDers.

Concerning the origin of life, a new documentary has been released on the improbability of an undirected semi-random search process (i.e. a Darwinian mechanism) of being the answer to this mystery. From an article at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...00k-views/ . This new film is titled Origin: Design, Chance and the First Life on Earth (Illustra Media).

Some will discount this without considering its scientific merit merely because it is based on the work of DI scientists who generally (though with some notable exceptions) have a Christian and politically conservative background, but it would be interesting to get some sort of actual plausible rejoinder from the Darwinists to the points made in the quotes below. So far I'm not aware of any.

Excerpts from the film on one of the key issues in the OOL problem: the probability of finding in total protein configuration space and creating just a single properly folded chain of left-handed amino acids to form a single specialized protein molecule, by an undirected Darwinian process (quotes from the new documentary):

"Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10**74+45+45, or one in 10**164 (Stephen Meyer). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10**164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
.........................................
Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against (the usual Darwinian model of) a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence “lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability” (Douglas Axe). For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10**140 and 1 in 10**164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids.
.........................................
“Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”"

Some will discount this without considering its scientific merit merely because it is based on the work of DI scientists who generally (though with some notable exceptions) have a Christian and politically conservative background, but it would be interesting to get some sort of actual plausible rejoinder from the Darwinists to the points made in the quotes below. So far I'm not aware of any.

While it's definitely a biased source, here's the article on protein folding at Rational Wiki.

IMO the barrier of entry to evaluate the argument is higher than someone learning statistics and reading Psi studies, because in the latter you can at least grasp the reasoning for why/what/how of particular experiments like Ganzfield. Though I do think recounted cases such as mediumship and NDEs also lend weight to the lab stuff. I find a lot of people also have some anecdote of Psi, probably why many lay people across the world believe in it.

What also helps with Psi is you have people who might initially be skeptical yet open minded reading the research and "coming over" to "our side", and people like Wiseman admitting that Remote Viewing is proven. Also helps that people like Randi flat-out lied about falsifying Sheldrake's work, and that scientific luminaries like many of the "quantum fathers" accepted Psi or something "further out" like Idealism. [Also helps when PBS and Michio Kaku also say the Idealist interpretation is still viable, and even people who are dismissive of Psi like Penrose accepting things like Platonism.]

I also think at this point most lay people aren't arguing about laboratory Psi [though Bem kicked up a stir a few years back for sure], it's the major cases outside of the lab that are of interest. I mean I'm glad Radin is looking at meditators disturbing molecules, just as I'm glad IDers are challenging materialism, but I don't spend my time really digging into that kind of Psi experiment anymore.

With ID I look at the arguments and can sort of grasp them, but I couldn't offer anything of an adequate defense of the claims. I can give a summary and maybe a "feel" for the probability of arguments like Gordan White's for viral panspermia, but something like protein fold probabilities is just beyond my [ability to argue for strongly if at all].

While it's definitely a biased source, here's the article on protein folding at Rational Wiki.

IMO the barrier of entry to evaluate the argument is higher than someone learning statistics and reading Psi studies, because in the latter you can at least grasp the reasoning for why/what/how of particular experiments like Ganzfield. Though I do think recounted cases such as mediumship and NDEs also lend weight to the lab stuff. I find a lot of people also have some anecdote of Psi, probably why many lay people across the world believe in it.

What also helps with Psi is you have people who might initially be skeptical yet open minded reading the research and "coming over" to "our side", and people like Wiseman admitting that Remote Viewing is proven. Also helps that people like Randi flat-out lied about falsifying Sheldrake's work, and that scientific luminaries like many of the "quantum fathers" accepted Psi or something "further out" like Idealism. [Also helps when PBS and Michio Kaku also say the Idealist interpretation is still viable, and even people who are dismissive of Psi like Penrose accepting things like Platonism.]

I also think at this point most lay people aren't arguing about laboratory Psi [though Bem kicked up a stir a few years back for sure], it's the major cases outside of the lab that are of interest. I mean I'm glad Radin is looking at meditators disturbing molecules, just as I'm glad IDers are challenging materialism, but I don't spend my time really digging into that kind of Psi experiment anymore.

With ID I look at the arguments and can sort of grasp them, but I couldn't offer anything of an adequate defense of the claims. I can give a summary and maybe a "feel" for the probability of arguments like Gordan White's for viral panspermia, but something like protein fold probabilities is just beyond my [ability to argue for strongly if at all].

From my earlier post:

The implications of Darwinism, and the scientistic thoroughly materialist worldview that naturally results, rob people of any true meaning, value, and purpose for their lives and thus rob them of any real hope that they may have for their futures. Of course, a belief system with such a universal all encompassing scope naturally has resulted in a sort of secular religion, with its own clergy, organization, and means of persecuting heresy.

An eloquent statement of the inevitable implications of Darwinism is furnished by this quote by one well-known spokesman for Darwinism and scientism, evolutionary biologist and philosopher William Provine:

Quote:
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”

If Darwinism is true, then the world-view of absolute materialism does actually prevail, and among them its inevitable implications, including that all spiritual beliefs, all beliefs in the reality of the paranormal, psi, esp, an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. etc. are pure fantasy and human imagination.

I don't think your belief system is at ground such a pervasive nihilistic despair and absolute rejection of spiritual/paranormal beliefs, but on the seemingly abstruse and technical argument over the origin of specialized protein folds hinges the entire debate over ID versus Darwinism. If protein evolution really happens by the undirected meaningless purposeless semi-random process of neo-Darwinism, then overall, neo-Darwinism does explain creative macro-evolution, and that fairly well decides the entire debate over ID versus Darwinism in favor of Darwinism. That means the neo-Darwinistic mechanical process underlies the entire origin of life, evolution, and human beings, and all the toxic implications of Darwinism actually underlie our reality.

I think that even if fully understanding the arguments for ID requires an extensive background in biology, the toxic and in part known to be false implications of Darwinism would rule out its really being the truth. And therefore the protein fold argument is resolved simply by its inevitable implications.

Of course the miraculous abilities of Darwinistic evolutionary processes are religiously assumed as a matter of faith by the many believers, but I since I am an electronics engineer I thought I would briefly enumerate from an engineering design standpoint just some of the incredible intertwined (apparently?) designed systems and subsystems of the body, that supposedly came about entirely from this undirected mindless goalless foresightless meaningless semi-random mechanistic process. Of course an argument from incredulity is no argument, but I thought this might be at least interesting and edifying.

An example - a hummingbird:

Layer #1: the design of the hummer itself – the shape of the body, the shape / geometry of the wings, its weight, the frequency of its wing-flaps … in other words, lots of sophisticated design features need to be met so the hummingbird flies as it flies including the hovering-ability.

Layer #2: the design of the hummingbird’s fully automated self-assembly process (biologists call it – a development). All assembly-steps need to have the right order, there are no workers who put a hummingbird together, also, there are no parts / materials suppliers, everything is made/developed IN A FULLY AUTOMATED process. 

Layer #3: The design of the materials a hummingbird’s body is made of. All high-tech materials, perfectly designed and adjusted to fulfill its function. What is remarkable, all these sophisticated materials, some very lightweight and strong, are developed at species' body temperature, no fire of thousands of degrees is needed. 21st century material-engineers can only wonder…

Layer #4: the design of automated maintenance / repair processes. When you look at any species, almost everything gets repaired. Broken bones, eye’s cornea, the skin,, even DNA molecule gets repaired… I am sure that a biologist could provide a very long list of what else gets repaired.

Layer #5: the design of the various organ systems of its body, including its brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, immune system, blood clotting system, etc. etc.

Layer #6:  the micromolecular design of the many specialized body cells, including very many inner cellular biochemical processes, organelles and molecular machines like ribosomes and the Golgi apparatus, cytoskeleton, etc. etc. This in itself is exceedingly complex and of the same order of complexity as the body system of subsystems. 

Layer #7: the overall complete design integration of all these and many more layers so that they all work perfectly together, and so that whenever a new randomly originated evolutionary change is made it somehow is perfectly coordinated with the entire system of sub-systems.

This is in part courtesy of mechanical engineer poster Martin R at Uncommon Descent.

If Darwinism is true, then the world-view of absolute materialism does actually prevail, and among them its inevitable implications, including that all spiritual beliefs, all beliefs in the reality of the paranormal, psi, esp, an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. etc. are pure fantasy and human imagination.

I'm not as convinced as you are that this is true, or that there's no options besides a top-down designer and materialism.

I don't think your belief system is at ground such a pervasive nihilistic despair and absolute rejection of spiritual/paranormal beliefs, but on the seemingly abstruse and technical argument over the origin of specialized protein folds hinges the entire debate over ID versus Darwinism. If protein evolution really happens by the undirected meaningless purposeless semi-random process of neo-Darwinism, then overall, neo-Darwinism does explain creative macro-evolution, and that fairly well decides the entire debate over ID versus Darwinism in favor of Darwinism. That means the neo-Darwinistic mechanical process underlies the entire origin of life, evolution, and human beings, and all the toxic implications of Darwinism actually underlie our reality.

I think that even if fully understanding the arguments for ID requires an extensive background in biology, the toxic and in part known to be false implications of Darwinism would rule out its really being the truth. And therefore the protein fold argument is resolved simply by its inevitable implications.

Even if one were to accept this argument that Darwinism => Nihilism, it's the consequentialist fallacy - that something has to be false because the implications of it being true are too awful to accept. It's like when skeptics say Psi would invalidate our scientific understanding of reality...which is odd when you look at what some of the "quantum fathers" were thinking about the nature of said reality.

Or are you saying that if you accept the Survival cases it seems impossible to reject the design argument? That I can see, though I'm not sure the Survival hypothesis requires there be a top-down designer.

But yes, as someone who believes all causation is mental causation, it's more the technicalities of the argument than a rejection of God or any other option for a designer. I actually would suspect that at the very least Vallee's "neighbors" might have impacted our evolution at certain stages, but this is more due to believing Vallee made a convincing case than wondering about how to parse evidence of design. Though I'm also not 100% sure about them mucking with DNA, as what the "neighbors" do is possibly ape technology rather than actually make scientific developments. In the same way a man in medieval times would be unlikely to dream of a TV or car or Playstation 5, we only get cases of alien "technology" commensurate with our experience even if these come in fantastical versions.