afterlife from a scientific point of view

[alexdblade21]

I was wondering if there are any theories, and what is your opinion from a scientific prospective. please don't talk about religious beliefs here.

[Gaidin]

There aren't.

[Baron von Sky Hat]

I think I kind of understand what you're asking, whether there is any scientific background at all to the concept of an afterlife. However separating afterlife and religion is likely impossible, since it seems to be basically a religious concept, and certainly very intertwined.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been any scientific evidence to suggest such a thing as an afterlife. Certainly no mainstream science. It, like many religious concepts seem to, appears to fit into an `untestable' category, religion tends to claim that science can't disprove the existence of god(s), and likewise afterlife seems to be something that is beyond the capability of science to experiment on and is subject only to faith. (I'd like to point out that I'm not saying anything about the likeliness of any given religion being right or wrong, as thats not the topic, and is a major can of worms. Big worms. Like in Dune, kind of worms.)

So in conclusion, nothing that I'm aware of in any of science supports the idea of an afterlife.
Likewise, I've never seen anything at all to support `ghosts' of any variety, nor anything else that might imply some existence of a soul or anything which might support an afterlife.

Probably not the type of answer that you were hoping for, but the two facts of it being a non-scientific concept to begin with and that it's difficult to separate from religion, means that I'm not sure what else I can say really.

[Visna]

It is somewhat curious, though, that a lot of people from all over the world of all kinds of religious ideas (or lack thereof) all tell almost the same story about near-death experiences. Of course it's impossible to prove or disprove, so whether or not it's some sort of ancient archtypical notion of what is supposed to happen when we die that kicks in, or there actually is some meat on that bone, can't be verified.

[Phier]

It is somewhat curious, though, that a lot of people from all over the world of all kinds of religious ideas (or lack thereof) all tell almost the same story about near-death experiences. Of course it's impossible to prove or disprove, so whether or not it's some sort of ancient archtypical notion of what is supposed to happen when we die that kicks in, or there actually is some meat on that bone, can't be verified.

The last dreams of a dying brain.

[chamaeleo]

It is somewhat curious, though, that a lot of people from all over the world of all kinds of religious ideas (or lack thereof) all tell almost the same story about near-death experiences. Of course it's impossible to prove or disprove, so whether or not it's some sort of ancient archtypical notion of what is supposed to happen when we die that kicks in, or there actually is some meat on that bone, can't be verified.

Near death still isn't death. Most people, if struck in the head with sufficient force, will complain about seeing a technicolor starburst...I've seen it myself. I would never suggest that we've all been privy to a special visit from the psychedelic pixies, who only call upon folks who've been stunned by head injury. Nevertheless, many head trauma cases tell the same story.

I find myself agreeing with Phier again. How odd, maybe the pixies are back...

[Demetrios of Messene]

I think that the OP is asking for scientific theories, not proof of afterlife of course!

The work of some major philosophers (Plato's work can be a good start) could be considered scientific theories on the subject of afterlife.

Other than that, there are more theories for those who are patient enough to search (e.g. the movie 21 grams is supposed to be based on such a theory - note: i haven't seen the movie myself).

[Baron von Sky Hat]

Hmm, I hadn't considered the philosophical based theories. Personally I wouldn't class them as science as such, since they mostly lack the ability to be tested element that I feel is central to science.

But yeah, I'd be interested to hear the philosophical arguments on the subject from someone who's in the know about that sort of thing. Philosophical ideas unconnected to the existing religious ideas that seem to dominate the idea of the afterlife.

Also agree with Visna[1] that, certainly from anecdotal evidence anyway, there seems to be a fair level of corroboration between `near death experiences' of entirely unconnected people.

Personally, the first thing that I'd go to with that though, in terms of scientific ideas, would be that since we're all human and have fairly similar bodies, the sort of feedback that the body may give the brain in those situations could be expected to be similar. Hence the way that the brain interprets that could also be expected to follow similar patterns regardless of the individual. Certain types of hallucinations, certain feelings.

I don't consider that that constitutes scientific refuting of the idea that it does link to something more like the afterlife, but that's certainly the path that I'd expect more likely, and would require less unknowns. The human brain is an incredibly complex bit of kit, and does all sorts of cool and crazy things.

Wouldn't it be cool if all of the near-death experiences are bits of a recording built into the brain that's only played when you die, that says: 'WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE'


edit:
[1] - whoops, didn't mean to leave out the others who mentioned the same sort of thing, posted while I was writing so didn't see them, sorry!

edit 2:
Hmm, thought it was while I was writing, but seems to be over an awfully long timespan, possibly had a problem with my browser not updating or somesuch, not hugely important but thought I'd share!

[Godfrey I of Leuven]

There are some testimonies reffering to a horrible sound beyond imagination. Other describe the most beautiful feeling they ever had. But again.. These are just testimonies

[Ragabash]

There are some testimonies reffering to a horrible sound beyond imagination. Other describe the most beautiful feeling they ever had. But again.. These are just testimonies

That might be the function of a brain shutting down.

In a broader definition of science which encompasses educated theories, then I believe that, for instance, Plato's and Aristotle's works on the subject should not be disregarded as unscientific. After all, Aristotle is considered the "founder" of logic and science. Not to mention that several of our own time widely acknowledged scientific theories are exactly that: scientific + theories (e.g. big bang).

The Big Bang Theory has been formed around scientific data and observations. Afterlife as a consept is however outside scientific methods and purely philosphical, and only pseudo-scientific methods and theories can be used to support such phenomena.

[General_Thral]

well i dnt kno about an afterlife , but there is something know as quantum immortality , where each decision u make created a seperate universe where the opposite decision would reside , e.g presson the button on the traffic lights or not pressing them . there would be 2 universes where one u had pressed the button and one where u hadnt. now if u applied that to the for instance russian roulette with have the barrel filled with bullets then there would be a 50% chance u'd blow ur own head of , or a universe where u fired an empty slot . but in u own case u wouldnt relise that u'd blown ur head off as u would have passed to another universe where u survived .

atleats i think thats what its about but im not that advanced in physics yet.

[Demetrios of Messene]

Using a strict definition of empirical science, which encompasses terms like systematic method, observation, experimentation and repeatability, then we can obviously provide no comments at all on the subject of afterlife.

In a broader definition of science which encompasses educated theories, then I believe that, for instance, Plato's and Aristotle's works on the subject should not be disregarded as unscientific. After all, Aristotle is considered the "founder" of logic and science. Not to mention that several of our own time widely acknowledged scientific theories are exactly that: scientific + theories (e.g. big bang).

[Demetrios of Messene]

Ragabash, i think that you are missing my point, you are repeating myself using other words about the big bang theory and now we are both almost straying from topic. The thread is not about what is considered science.

Once again I will say that I don't believe that the OP is asking for scientific evidence about afterlife, because we all know there is none. My interpretation is that the OP is asking for theories. And, yes, philosophical theories are as close as we can get to the subject of afterlife via a scientific path (in a broad meaning).

On top of that, Aristotle may well be considered a scientist (for his time at least), so his philosophical view on afterlife are indeed coming from a scientific point of view as the title of the thread requires (being a bit of a sophist here )

[Ragabash]

Once again I will say that I don't believe that the OP is asking for scientific evidence about afterlife, because we all know there is none. My interpretation is that the OP is asking for theories. And, yes, philosophical theories are as close as we can get to the subject of afterlife via a scientific path (in a broad meaning).

So the OP is asking how science can explain philosphical consept of afterlife; using pseudo-scientific theories and methods?

I will await what OP will have to say about the matter, and then decide should this belong to EMM rather than here.

[Demetrios of Messene]

Baron, I will try to revert with some of Plato's and Aristotle's views later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, try googling Plato's Phaidon or Phaedo.

So the OP is asking how science can explain philosphical consept of afterlife; using pseudo-scientific theories and methods?

I will await what OP will have to say about the matter, and then decide should this belong to EMM rather than here.

Yes, the OP should elaborate on his expectations and you obviously are the one to decide where this thread belongs to. Still, I do not get how you concluded the quoted statement in bold from my post? Do you consider philosophy (the type developed by Plato, Aristotle and so on) as pseudo-science? In that my friend, I disagree and if you want we can discuss it in a new thread.

[Ragabash]

Do you consider philosophy (the type developed by Plato, Aristotle and so on) as pseudo-science? In that my friend, I disagree and if you want we can discuss it in a new thread.

Aristotle's "natural philosophy" was not wholly scienitific as we understand science today. He did indeed made quite a few psedo-scientific conclusions and accusations, but we always have to remember that modern science or scientific methdos didn't exist back then.

[Demetrios of Messene]

Aristotle's "natural philosophy" was not wholly scienitific as we understand science today. He did indeed made quite a few psedo-scientific conclusions and accusations, but we always have to remember that modern science or scientific methdos didn't exist back then.

So you do believe that part of Aristotle's work is pseudo-scientific. First of all, in my understanding a conclusion can be correct or false and it is the method that can be scientific or pseudo-scientific, but I understand your point. Also, we were not discussing about his views on the natural world, but on his views on the afterlife. Anyway:

Well, I disagree with you that Aristotle made pseudo-scientific conclusions. He used the scientific methods available at his time and, yes in some of his conclusions he was wrong, but that is different than pseudo-scientific.

Let's think for a moment about Isaac Newton. He is considered a scientist, right? And I damn good one I may add! As we know today from quantum-physics, his famous laws are not really correct. They are a very good approximation for the world we can perceive with our senses, but not really acurate in a submicroscopic scale. Newton did not clarify this, because he couldn't. Would you say that his conclusions were pseudo-scientifc? I think not.

Also, let's consider Democritus the phiolosopher who reached the first conclusions about the atomic theory. By today's standards his conclusions are actually wrong, but would you call them pseudo-scientifc?

I believe that you can see my point about Aristotle. Yes, by today's standards some of his conclusions were incomplete or even wrong, but definetely not pseudo-scientific. The same goes for his philosophical views. The man followed a logical way of building up his thoughts. /EDIT You can agree with him or disagree /EDIT , but I don't think you can call his methods pseudo-scientific.

[Bovril]

There have been atempts in hospitals to test the idea of out of body experiences, which is not quite the same. AFAIK the results have been inconclusive.

[Baron von Sky Hat]

Regardless of their worth, which definitely can't be simply disregarded, and of their contributions to what now constitutes scientific method, I'm still not sure that Philosphical works of any sort can be counted as actually scientific.

I very much feel that the central concept of science is testability. Pure theory doesn't constitute the full scientific process.

That's not to say that Philosophy is somehow less innately important, it's important in its own way, it's just not science (as modern science is, anyway, obviously there are historical definitions that differ from this).

But as Demetrios2008 says, and I definitely agree, in a wider sense and in the only sense that can be applied to this topic, philosophy is where its at.

Could you describe some of Aristotle's views on the subject? If you have any specifics on that aspect of his work, of course.

I've never been much of one for reading philosophy myself, I like the concept, but in practice trying to penetrate the meaning tends to make my brain hurt...

Presumably any philosophical analysis of afterlife are based very much on the interpretation of what constitutes a consciousness or a soul?

I'd have thought that without some form of ethereal soul attached to the body, there isn't anything to actually get past the whole dying thing itself.... Or some way that whatever constitutes a consciousness continues by, I don't know, transferring to something else or continuing some way that isn't reliant on the now dead brain...

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I was wondering if there are any theories, and what is your opinion from a scientific prospective. please don't talk about religious beliefs here.

If the afterlife is a physical place, then we haven't found any evidence of such a place anywhere.

If the afterlife is a spiritual place, then you can't use scientific, physical methods to try to form a theory on it. You have to step into the realm of philosophy and religion.