This is Ian Wardell's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ian Wardell's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ian Wardell
Recent Activity
The effects of alcohol are almost always negative? Perhaps in terms of one's body, but drinking makes me feel great. Makes me more philosophical and I occasional post awesome stuff on facebook after drinking. It doesn't make me bad-tempered, or affect my cognitive abilities at all.
Michael Prescott said: ||"Skeptics and materialists routinely assign a vanishingly low probability to the hypothesis of life after death because they "feel strongly" that the idea is absurd. They then perform calculations based on this prior probability".|| I think this is the key point. So long as a life after death is regarded as being an extraordinary claim, then NDE's, past life memories etc will be disregarded. Skeptics regard the survival hypothesis as an extraordinary one because of the mind-brain correlations. But I have argued that these correlations simply do not have the consequences they assume. I argue about this in the following blog post: http://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2018/11/can-we-really-be-so-certain-theres-no.html
Toggle Commented Nov 23, 2019 on Postscript at Michael Prescott's Blog
Michael Sudduth says in interview: || I show that the classical arguments will still fail to show that survival is more probable than not, even if we begin with the generous assumption that survival is as probable as not.|| Why is it a "generous" assumption that survival is as probable as annihilation? That suggests he thinks it's wholly unproblematic that the brain produces consciousness. Where are his arguments establishing this? Anyway, if I'm understanding Sudduth correctly, he appears to be saying that we need to have a prior idea about what actually survives and what abilities we will have in the afterlife realm(s). So, for example, we wouldn't expect to be exactly the same in the afterlife as we were just before dying. I mean, imagine we had dementia just before dying. Would we have dementia in the afterlife too? It would seem not because dementia is a result of an impaired brain. In short, we won't be exactly the same just after death as we were just before death. Another example is would we expect deceased people to be able to communicate with some living people? I wouldn't have thought so. Now, if all the evidence from mediumship and NDE's match up to what we concluded from such philosophical considerations about what survives and what abilities we should have etc, that would be very powerful evidence indeed! Unfortunately, in reality, this doesn't happen. Although his arguments have a degree of merit against mediumship, they appear to me to have little to no merit against the evidence for reincarnation. Elsewhere Michael Sudduth has said this about the reincarnation hypothesis: ||we have no good independent reason to suppose that some or all living persons would reincarnate on earth, much less as humans or with past life memories, congenital birth marks corresponding to the manner of their death in a former life, etc.|| I'll concede he's correct about the congenital birth marks. However, it still remains the case that they constitute compelling evidence indeed if they match up with the past-life memories of that child and those memories have been corroborated. I do not agree with his other examples. Briefly, if there's an afterlife then I think it is highly likely there is also a "beforelife". I would also imagine the beforelife and afterlife realm or realms refer to the same place or places. Now, whatever process it is that occurs that makes us born on Earth, why would it occur once only? How would souls that have lived on earth be distinguished from souls that haven't yet lived on earth so that only the latter could be born? We would have to either suppose the before life and afterlife realms are different places, or souls somehow become different after being born once so they're unable to be born again. Essentially he's got it backasswards. We need good independent reason to suppose we are always born once. Never twice, or 10 times, or even zero times. Re: Past life memories. We would have no independent reason to suppose anyone would have past life memories? I don't know why. The vast majority of us have no memories before around 4 years old, but a few people report having memories from birth. Also there's a condition called hyperthymesia where the people who have this condition can remember absolutely everything (or almost everything) from a certain age. The point being there are always exceptions to what we humans can generally remember, so we might surmise that should reincarnation occur a few people ought to remember a previous life. And this is what we indeed find. I've also written a facebook note on Sudduth's allegation that reincarnation is not falsifiable. https://www.facebook.com/notes/ian-wardell/michael-sudduth-reincarnation-and-falsifiability/10154208969813555/
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2019 on Sudduth on survival at Michael Prescott's Blog
Ian Wardell is now following The Typepad Team
Oct 30, 2019