Will science ever be able to prove the afterlife?

[Firetastic]

Is science getting closer to proving the afterlife or not? Will there be a tool that they can use to prove there is an afterlife? I'm not a sciency person but would love to find hard evidence for all the sceptics out there that there is more to this life than meets the eye literally.

Your thoughts please.

[Scommstech]

No matter what you show some people they will not deviate from their own way of thinking.
I have used a simple pendulum to pick out the marked card from an over turned set of three cards.
This is a simple "parlour" game that in my eyes demonstrates that an "unseen" force is activating the pendulum that I am holding.
The response is that I am some how cheating or that some one in the room is tipping me off as to which card has been marked.
The last thing that people want to admit is that there must be some energy other than the people present there that is aiding me. It somehow makes them seem venerable.
What does not help is the number of fraudsters out there are who do try to pull the wool over your eyes and trick you, usually for financial gain..

[Firetastic]

Originally Posted by Scommstech

No matter what you show some people they will not deviate from their own way of thinking.
I have used a simple pendulum to pick out the marked card from an over turned set of three cards.
This is a simple "parlour" game that in my eyes demonstrates that an "unseen" force is activating the pendulum that I am holding.
The response is that I am some how cheating or that some one in the room is tipping me off as to which card has been marked.
The last thing that people want to admit is that there must be some energy other than the people present there that is aiding me. It somehow makes them seem venerable.
What does not help is the number of fraudsters out there are who do try to pull the wool over your eyes and trick you, usually for financial gain..

The saying: To the believer no proof is needed to the sceptic no proof is enough springs to mind.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Firetastic

The saying: To the believer no proof is needed to the sceptic no proof is enough springs to mind.

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.

[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.

[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.

[CrystalSong]

Look into the Monroe Institute in the East and research at Berkley and Pasadena (It maybe another University city), also look up Chronovision.
There's been a lot of repeatable, credible science around stuff like this for a long time, something which have been learned are being used by sectors in the Military even. For something interesting historically look up Ghost Dancers and why it's illegal to do them.
There's lots out there actually - it's just not discussed in main stream media so no one thinks it exists.
Start looking - you'll find it.

[CrystalSong]

Here's the Wiki on it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance which totally takes the bias as looking at it as a religion only. I grew up in the West with Elders who remembered their fathers and Grandfathers during the American Indian wars finding themselves fighting spirits and some getting so spooked they refused to return to the battle field.

Whatever happened out there - it was scary enough to spook Military men and for it to become illegal to dance the Ghost Dance. Still. Just some interesting back history. It's always interesting when science either denies something or refuses to look at it but Federal Laws around the subject are enacted anyway.

[srirama123]

Hii

Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.

[Dargor]

Nope. But I don't need science to prove it for me.