Afterlife Theories

[taykair]

I would like to have some more discussion on this as it interesting.

I'd like to see a lot more discussion about a lot of things here, but - with the exception of time travel - there doesn't seem to be much interest. Perhaps the folks here are busy pursuing other interests.

 

[Harte]

Yes. I think I already said that.



Just the usual meaning. In other words: Unified; of a single piece; as opposed to diffused.



I thought I did but, as you say, it was not a good argument. (Or, better, not an argument with which you agreed.)

My point being that we know what happens to that energy as it is used (when you're alive.) There's nothing about death that changes the rules governing that same energy upon death.

Harte

 

[Harte]

If this is directed at me, then I believe that consciousness continues. However, I have no evidence to support this belief.

If directed at Harte, then he said:



I'm not exactly sure why an afterlife would need to conform to ancient theories concerning it, though. Perhaps he will return to explain.

Because there is no empirical evidence for even the tiniest amount of energy behaving differently upon death, and no empirical evidence for anything at all surviving death.

You'd need a metaphysical afterlife existence, which is what conforms with traditional viewpoints.
Something beyond the scope of science, in other words. Otherwise, it would be detectable and therefore detected.

Harte

 

[taykair]

My point being that we know what happens to that energy as it is used (when you're alive.) There's nothing about death that changes the rules governing that same energy upon death.

Harte

I'm not quite sure that we do, in fact, know what happens to that energy - other than the fact that it escapes. Where it goes, or what it does, I do not know.

 

[taykair]

Otherwise, it would be detectable and therefore detected.Harte

I can't agree that just because something has not yet been detected, it is therefore not detectable (or, worse, that it is non-existent). Surely you were not making that claim. Perhaps you meant something else.

Thanks for your explanation, though. That I still don't quite understand it is my fault, not yours.

Take care.

 

[Rudi]

It's interesting to read your theory (directly from the fifth dimension)

 

[Harte]

I'm not quite sure that we do, in fact, know what happens to that energy - other than the fact that it escapes. Where it goes, or what it does, I do not know.

You could say exactly the same thing about the energy escaping a chimney.

So... split log afterlife?

Harte

 

[Harte]

I can't agree that just because something has not yet been detected, it is therefore not detectable (or, worse, that it is non-existent). Surely you were not making that claim. Perhaps you meant something else.

Thanks for your explanation, though. That I still don't quite understand it is my fault, not yours.

Take care.

Non-empirical. That's what I mean.
Not subject to any kind of measurement.

Regarding the existence of an afterlife - I doubt it, though I certainly don't claim to know.

Harte

 

[Harte]

I'd like to see a lot more discussion about a lot of things here, but - with the exception of time travel - there doesn't seem to be much interest. Perhaps the folks here are busy pursuing other interests.

I've been here for well over a decade. I've talked all the time travel I'm gonna talk. Used to be, people were interested in how it could be done. These days this site seems to be about how it's already been done but kept secret, and for 200 (or whatever) dollars you can do it too.
The ideas put forth on the topic at this site are downright embarrassing. I'm uncomfortable talking to people that will believe everything they hear but the truth, and will argue until they're blue in the face about what they presume I don't know.

I'm glad to have a chance to chime in in a thread that not completely asinine.
Yeah, it's paranormal, but yeah, it's also philosophical.

Harte

 

[Mayhem]

Good to see you rudi outside of your thread