Life with purpose

Just wanted to jump in on the discussion on mundane afterlives. I am someone who's memories indicate things really aren't all that different. Granted there's also some caveats and limitations to that. but at the same time things were vastly, VASTLY different for the reasons Smaw suggested. Everything from building materials used, forms of government if you were in an area that even had one, culture, and so forth.

What's really interesting to me is that the NDE style areas sound a lot like the in between" areas from my memories. areas that lacked any solid physics of their own and thus weren't considered realities but were acknowledged to exist. No one really cared much about them though, since they weren't "real".

In the area I think of as home, magic was considered ubiquitous at least in terms of everyone knowing it exists, But not everyone knew magic, certainly not to a level where they could totally live off of it. We did, or at least we got there eventually, and opted to live as far away from civilization as possible because we didn't want to deal with anyone elses rules. we also didn't want to be found.

Magic as I learned it demanded adherence to local physics. It was a very mathematical, technical, scientific thing when you got down to it. Teal once said that "it's really the skeptics that believe in magic" for this reason. At high enough levels magic can certainly appear to be an extension of someone's imagination and at that point it's arguable that the distinction blurs. But I highly doubt that all these NDE'er all possess master levels of knowledge of that skill based on how some of it gets described. I think they're just average people who ended up in one of those in between areas, and their mind and energy provided some of the structure for the stuff around them. If they really understood how it worked at that level I'd expect culture down here to be drastically different, even if that knowledge was only seeping through subconsciously and psi abilities were being actively suppressed or sealed from the outside. In particular, I don't think people would be capable of being as collectivist as they are at the moment. And I don't think religion or similar would be anywhere near as popular.

One of both Teal and my's most vivid memories is a time that Scarlet wanted to host a party, and since Scarlet and I were married, I was invariably involved in this too. The biggest thing was an area rug we ended up commissioning from someone, because having a hand made carpet would be a lot more impressive than one that Scarlet just generated out of condensed energy, even if it looked, felt and was otherwise the same as any other carpet. In short I remember all the prep and build up and stress of helping Scarlet set this whole thing up, all the cultural  stuff that Scarlet had to explain to me because I didn't understand it at the time, as well as the party itself and what happened after. Whereas Teal mainly remembers just being at the party and some of her own prep. It was a thing we were talking about in this life once that made her remark about how incredibly mundane so much of what we did was. Interspersed with the high stress, high energy combat stuff when we'd go looking for problems to solve, or had problems come looking for us. Hence why we lived in the woods or stayed on the move.

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.


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.

Yes. The reality of veridical paranormal phenomena such as NDEs, reincarnation memories and mediumistic communications (all strongly indicating an afterlife) directly falsify Darwinism or, that is, falsify the direct implications of Darwinism. Certainly these paranormal phenomena don't point directly in any particular direction to the identity of the designer(s). They just strongly imply that the materialistic belief system of Darwinism must be false, because Darwinism denies the reality of anything like paranormal phenomena, NDEs, etc. 

If the materialistic belief system of Darwinism is false, then since life did not come about non-teleologically from the mere Darwinistic outworkings of the physical laws of nature, then it must have had some sort of intelligent creative origin. Survival certainly doesn't require a Life Designer God, any more than it requires the life designers to be other possible candidates such as advanced powerful spiritual entities, extremely advanced extraterrestrials, or whatever else we can think of, even (though I think it is very unlikely), a bottom-up creation of the collective intelligence of the physical universe or whatever. Certainly there are options other than a top-down Designer or materialism. I thought my writings have made that clear but I guess not. That of course is one of the areas where I differ completely from the views of many in the DI.

.............................
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. 
.............................

Are you saying that one of Darwinism's leading spokesmen, William Provine, was wrong in his much quoted pronouncement? I agree completely that the consequentialist argument is fallacious, but I never made that argument, I merely pointed out the inevitable implications.

Are you saying that one of Darwinism's leading spokesmen, William Provine, was wrong in his much quoted pronouncement? I agree completely that the consequentialist argument is fallacious, but I never made that argument, I merely pointed out the inevitable implications.

It seemed like you were saying because Darwinism's implications are terrible we should reject it, but I get you were saying Darwinism seems incompatible with Survival cases.

But yeah, I'm not convinced Darwinism being true means life is meaningless or even that Materialism is true. Also not sure that there being some designer mucking about with protein folds would mean that life is meaningful or Materialism is false.

It seemed like you were saying because Darwinism's implications are terrible we should reject it, but I get you were saying Darwinism seems incompatible with Survival cases.

But yeah, I'm not convinced Darwinism being true means life is meaningless or even that Materialism is true. Also not sure that there being some designer mucking about with protein folds would mean that life is meaningful or Materialism is false.

My favourite illustration of the danger and absurdity of trying to derive meaning or purpose from an external source is this:



Personally I think people should stop looking for meaning and start making one.

Personally I think people should stop looking for meaning and start making one.

It's complicated because Meaningfulness is like Love, describing a feeling of sorts.

So different people have different paths that produce the feeling.

But I do think Terrance Mckenna was right when he said if there was some MEANING written into the universe we'd probably all go mad at having to be slaves to such a thing. Even for those whose meaning comes from following their God I think it's their choice which gives meaning.

It seemed like you were saying because Darwinism's implications are terrible we should reject it, but I get you were saying Darwinism seems incompatible with Survival cases.

But yeah, I'm not convinced Darwinism being true means life is meaningless or even that Materialism is true. Also not sure that there being some designer mucking about with protein folds would mean that life is meaningful or Materialism is false.

Could you explain how Darwinism being true, that is, a meaningless goalless undirected mechanical semi-random process having created Man and all other life forms purely from the outworking of the laws of nature, does not imply that materialism is true, all notions of a spiritual realm are fantasy, and life is meaningless? Remember, thoroughgoing Darwinism being true means that not only is this true for the physical body, but evolutionary psychology is also true. All human emotions, moralities, built-in psychological characteristics, spiritual and religious feelings and aspirations, altruism, love, compassion, etc. etc. originated by the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic variation combined with natural selection. This is everything that is Man. 

How is it that all the spokesmen and propagandists and zealots for Darwinism interpret Darwinism being true in the way Provine did? Surely they should know the implications of their own religiously held dogma.

Of course, "some designer mucking around with protein folds" would not necessarily mean that life is meaningful or materialism is false. I don't think I ever said this, just that the falsity of Darwinism and the sure existence of some unknown sort of intelligent design process a long time ago at least leaves open the high probability that materialism is false and there is a spiritual realm of existence.

Could you explain how Darwinism being true, that is, a meaningless goalless undirected mechanical semi-random process having created Man and all other life forms purely from the outworking of the laws of nature, does not imply that materialism is true, all notions of a spiritual realm are fantasy, and life is meaningless? Remember, thoroughgoing Darwinism being true means that not only is this true for the physical body, but evolutionary psychology is also true. All human emotions, moralities, built-in psychological characteristics, spiritual and religious feelings and aspirations, altruism, love, compassion, etc. etc. originated by the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic variation combined with natural selection. This is everything that is Man. 

How is it that all the spokesmen and propagandists and zealots for Darwinism interpret Darwinism being true in the way Provine did? Surely they should know the implications of their own religiously held dogma.

I think "Darwinism" is just evolution without any direction, not even the "impersonal telic process" that Dembski says is one of the options for a "designer".

Does a child born as an accidental pregnancy mean the child's entire life must be held as meaningless? If one says such a child's life can be meaningful, why not the entire human race?

I think one can believe our origins are due to chance mutations while also rejecting materialism.

"We are a blind contingency,
an unimportant restlessness of dirt
and yet Rossetti paints his dead Elizabeth,
head tilted back on her impossibly slim throat,
eyes closed against the golden light surrounding her.

Clay looks on clay, and understands that it is beautiful.
Through us, the cosmos gazes upon itself, adores itself, breaks its own heart.
Through us, matter stares slack-jawed at its own star-dusted countenance
and knows, incredulously, that it knows.
And knows that it is universe.""
 -Alan Moore, Snakes and Ladders

Also Fine Tuning could be true in the cosmological sense while ID at the biological level can be false, suggesting a Deist or Pantheist God.

I think "Darwinism" is just evolution without any direction, not even the "impersonal telic process" that Dembski says is one of the options for a "designer".

Does a child born as an accidental pregnancy mean the child's entire life must be held as meaningless? If one says such a child's life can be meaningful, why not the entire human race?

I think one can believe our origins are due to chance mutations while also rejecting materialism.

"We are a blind contingency,
an unimportant restlessness of dirt
and yet Rossetti paints his dead Elizabeth,
head tilted back on her impossibly slim throat,
eyes closed against the golden light surrounding her.

Clay looks on clay, and understands that it is beautiful.
Through us, the cosmos gazes upon itself, adores itself, breaks its own heart.
Through us, matter stares slack-jawed at its own star-dusted countenance
and knows, incredulously, that it knows.
And knows that it is universe.""
 -Alan Moore, Snakes and Ladders

Also Fine Tuning could be true in the cosmological sense while ID at the biological level can be false, suggesting a Deist or Pantheist God.

OK. A rejoinder by reassertion and not argumentation on points. And a very poetic one. I agree with the point about Fine Tuning, that there is no logical problem with the former being true while the latter being false.

OK. A rejoinder by reassertion and not argumentation on points. And a very poetic one. I agree with the point about Fine Tuning, that there is no logical problem with the former being true while the latter being false.

Well the point that Darwinism is synonymous with Reductionist Physicalism is what I was contending. I guess I'm not sure what points you're making besides that one?

Maybe I'm missing what "Darwinism" means, as IIRC even Darwin's own writings were not definitively atheistic nor materialist?