Will science ever be able to prove the afterlife?

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} We have faith/trust and believe the car coming from opposite direction will not cross the center line and hit us, even tho we know they occasionally do cross the line and hit someone.

I've long been fascinated by this. With so many people involved in this thing we call life, and in so many differing ways, with so many distractions, so may dramas, and with so may individualized states of flux and arrangements.. how does this collection of vastly differing mind-sets manage to share the same highway and keep it orderly and cooperative? One would think that our roads would be thick with intrigue, while they generally roll along with most everyone in agreement. Kinda cool when you thinking about it. We can scatter our thoughts among so many venues and yet cooperate when we need to in very pertinent ways. :)

[Brucely]

Maybe not proven mathematical science, but i think technology already has

[Nowayout]

If you look at it while you're alive you wonder what is life.

[Scommstech]

Originally Posted by organic born

So here's the rub. "Everything" that crosses our mind is a "belief". So when we're comparing notes about the validity of one system of beliefs over another we are still tangled among images of projected uncertainty. We believe what we do in the hopes of attaining some effectiveness over the events that surround our day to day movements and interactions. But regardless of the content they are still wrapped in a cloud of speculation.

So a "skeptic" is being entertained by the stream of their own thinking, while the "believer" is doing similar but with a differing set of assumptions.

A skeptic and a believer are both in the same boat. They are guessing, using different words and different images to define what they "hope" to be valid at some level. If a bird were to land and watch the two slugging it out verbally this bird would only see two humans making noises with their mouths, but nothing around them, physically, would be any different than anything else. The argument is only in their heads.

All arguments are in the head. You could say that irrespective of any proof the skeptic refuses to believe, whilst for some believers even the flimsiest of evidence is acceptable.
Rationally most believes do not need a comfort zone as such. They tend not be hindered by previous thought. They are able to accept, usually if personally observed, a repeatable demonstration supported wherever possible with a plausible explanation.
The skeptic on the other hand tends to have a closed mind. He is comfortable with the existing knowledge that he has and may even fear the possibility of losing that safe heaven which he needs. he is less likely to explore the unknown.

[CrystalSong]

I've been talking with a scientist this week and he's been going on and on about placebo effect, control groups, reproducible effects and rigid scientific testing and blah blah blah.
Like something isn't really until it successfully jumps through all of scientists little flaming hoops.
Bah!
Science annoys me in this moment - it seeks to strip the Mystery from all things. "Name it to tame it."
Science is my country's current Go-to-God. Little prop-up gods full of chest thumping.

There, got that off my chest. :)

[Scommstech]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

I've been talking with a scientist this week and he's been going on and on about placebo effect, control groups, reproducible effects and rigid scientific testing and blah blah blah.
Like something isn't really until it successfully jumps through all of scientists little flaming hoops.
Bah!
Science annoys me in this moment - it seeks to strip the Mystery from all things. "Name it to tame it."
Science is my country's current Go-to-God. Little prop-up gods full of chest thumping.

There, got that off my chest. :)

I wonder if Einstein or Tesla ever felt like that

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Scommstech

All arguments are in the head. You could say that irrespective of any proof the skeptic refuses to believe, whilst for some believers even the flimsiest of evidence is acceptable.
Rationally most believes do not need a comfort zone as such. They tend not be hindered by previous thought. They are able to accept, usually if personally observed, a repeatable demonstration supported wherever possible with a plausible explanation.
The skeptic on the other hand tends to have a closed mind. He is comfortable with the existing knowledge that he has and may even fear the possibility of losing that safe heaven which he needs. he is less likely to explore the unknown.

So do you see that if "All arguments are in the head" then they are 'fabrications of thought' and are not a direct component of what's being discussed. They're interpretations. And since interpretations are all generally semantically generated and composted of verbal approximations then there is no beliefs that are generated in this way that can replicate that which is being observed. All are approximations, whether they are flexible or not.

And when we approximate in this way we tend to think that we actually know more than we do. I'm currently reading a book that addresses this issue in some detail. It's entitled "The Knowledge Illusion" by Steve Sloman. It seems that we as individuals think we know far more than we actually so, even over the most simplest of things. We tend to form a platform of assumptions about most all things, that leave us with the impression that 'understanding' comes with it. When in truth all items and concepts are like fractals. The deeper you delve into them the deeper they go. If we chose to pause at any level over any observation then we are necessarily dealing in approximations.

Because we humans are conditioned in a block format we will generally share similar imagery on things, with some claiming greater access than others. When in truth the distance in "not knowing" is not all that different between those who inquire and those who remain stubbornly conditioned.

[r6r6]

organic born---So do you see that if "All arguments are in the head" then they are 'fabrications of thought' and are not a direct component of what's being discussed.

Ha, when I first read that, Christian Science 'Mind Over Matter' came to mind, then, I reread and saw the word 'argument' is not quite what Christian Science health was considerate of.

My mother was follower--- not necessarily practitioner --of C. Science.

When in truth all items and concepts are like fractals. The deeper you delve into them the deeper they go. If we chose to pause at any level over any observation then we are necessarily dealing in approximations.

I agree with this conclusion, however, we also have known --- or at least believed to be --cosmic absolute truths.

Ex mass-attracts{ gravity } if we dont know the exact mechanisms.

Ex there can only exist five, regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe.

I'm not trying diverge from topic, just trying clarify that some concepts of experiences are known with certainty ergo absolute truths.

I would say that, afterlife is a condition that can be considered truthfully, once you die and dont reawaken on the operating table or wherever.

All of these I died, so this or that, and then I was not really dead, just heart stop beating for however long.

With true death, the individual does not come back to tell a story. imho

r6

[organic born]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

I've been talking with a scientist this week and he's been going on and on about placebo effect, control groups, reproducible effects and rigid scientific testing and blah blah blah.
Like something isn't really until it successfully jumps through all of scientists little flaming hoops.
Bah!
Science annoys me in this moment - it seeks to strip the Mystery from all things. "Name it to tame it."
Science is my country's current Go-to-God. Little prop-up gods full of chest thumping.

There, got that off my chest. :)

So here's what science does. Because we humans are subject to fantastical thinking (see: religion, the "new-age speculations" and culturally ingrained assumptions) science attempts to address this through standards that are more tactically driven in the hopes of gaining a less filtered stream of observations over individualized issues. I'll give them points for this. This doesn't mean you have to then buy the process as the only way to be thinking. They're guessing as well, only doing so in the hopes of mitigating some of the pollution that often comes with human speculation. We can still draw from their insights, in an open-ended appreciation of information as it emerges from whatever source. Any information that's weighty will not only fail to tame that which is being observed but will instead create more questions that answers. So a "conclusion" that is derived in this, and in any other way, will only serve as a brief stop along the pathway to more complexly that, if absorbed openly, should effectively suggest more complexity still. Not only is this the pathway to further appreciations but should also leave us ever more humble for the exposure. We really haven't a clue as to what's going on within nature and why we do what we do. We only have approximations.. absolute-honesty requires that we keep this in mind. :)

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I agree with this conclusion, however, we also have known --- or at least believed to be --cosmic absolute truths.

Ex mass-attracts{ gravity } if we dont know the exact mechanisms.

Ex there can only exist five, regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe.

I'm not trying diverge from topic, just trying clarify that some concepts of experiences are known with certainty ergo absolute truths.

"Absolute truths" are still approximations. Neil approached it this way:

Neil deGrasse Tyson answered the question, “What is gravity?”
“I have no idea,” he joked.

Then, he went on to explain, “Here’s the difference. We can describe gravity, we can say what it does to other things.”

“We can measure it, we can predict with it,” he continued, “but when you start asking, like, what it is? I don’t know.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2014/11/nei...-what-it-does/

This is the case with pretty-much everything that we think we know. We can address such things in terms of functionality, we can manipulate such things in a repetitive manor, but we really don't know what it "is". We only know what such things happen to look-like to our senses. And our senses are only calibrated to absorb information at a most narrowly defined spectrum. We would need greater access in order to view with greater clarity... and probably need to channel such information through something far more complex than our current human brain. :)