The after life

I want to know if my cat is coming back a night to see me.

Schrödinger’s cat might…

ernie_lynch – Member

Well yeah of course……I want to know if my cat is coming back a night to see me.

That depends on whether it has strong attachment to you, not just feeding time, or whether it has moved on completely.

In my experience dogs tend to “come back” more often but not sure about the cats as I haven’t noticed that yet.

stuartie_c – Member

Probably, though I’m not sure what the question means.

I don’t know … you are the scientist so work it out yourself. 😆

ernie_lynch – Member

What “other prints” might I see ?

Put it this way if you are looking for the paw prints but other “prints” turn up wouldn’t that make things more interesting?

I’m uncertain if I’m trolling or being trolled here.

I’m just a hillbilly, after all.

stuartie_c – Member

I’m uncertain if I’m trolling or being trolled here.

Definitely not trolling but no big deal for me as well.

Jeesssuussberg … do you want me to set up the experiment for you as well? I am not even a scientist … talking about spoon feeding …

OK do this:

1. The question is whether there is afterlife or “soul” from departed pets.

2. How to find out? Set up an experimental setting in the form of spraying perfume scent on near dying pets.

3. To eliminate bias. Make sure you are the control subject by not inhaling the perfume or not trying to use the perfume on yourself.

4. Time. See how soon does the scent appear in your house.

5. If the scent appears – your pet loves you. If not – you are a tight mean bar-Stewart.

🙄

OK.

Should I use lady perfume for girl pets and man perfume for boy pets? If I used the wrong scent, my pet might be offended and appear not to love me which would have altered the conditions and, therefore, the scientific rigour of the experiment.

I buy lucky heather, and three men following a star just like russell grant, said unto me go forth, be a twunt accept any old bullshine and you will live life eternal.it’s true because some geyser 2000 years ago parted the sea and a virgin was wallopped from the heavens…….. etc etc etc , blah blah blah.

I love religion and wierdo beliefs

stuartie_c – Member

OK.

Should I use lady perfume for girl pets and man perfume for boy pets? If I used the wrong scent, my pet might be offended and appear not to love me which would have altered the conditions and, therefore, the scientific rigour of the experiment.

Yes, do that according to gender if you must.

Helloooo! Yes, try to apply the scientific rigour as much as you can.

duntstick – Member

I buy lucky heather, and three men following a star just like russell grant, said unto me go forth, be a twunt accept any old bullshine and you will live life eternal.it’s true because some geyser 2000 years ago parted the sea and a virgin was wallopped from the heavens…….. etc etc etc , blah blah blah.

I love religion and wierdo beliefs

Yes, that’s stupid as nothing is eternal.

But mine is to ask you to apply scientific inquiry and to make your mind up yourself … so no sea parting nor virgin waiting for you.

No, it’s all just stupid!

Helloooo! Yes, try to apply the scientific rigour as much as you can.

Yep, I can’t see the point of carrying out the experiment unless you are prepared to apply the maximum scientific rigour. Otherwise you might as well not bother.

.

so no sea parting nor virgin waiting for you.

Indeed …… what sort of talk is that ? There’ll be no “sea parting or waiting virgins” ……. this is science ffs.

duntstick – Member

No, it’s all just stupid!

Could you make up your mind as to whether you are a person of science or what?

If you are of scientific rational then try the experiment yourself. What is there to loose?

But by saying that everything is stupid you are not being rational.

Could you make up your mind as to whether you are a person of science or what?

I don’t think he is chewkw.

Just an irrational fool who fails to see the value of science. Shame.

ernie_lynch – Member

Yep, I can’t see the point of carrying out the experiment unless you are prepared to apply the maximum scientific rigour. Otherwise you might as well not bother.

Yes, apply the scientific rigour then otherwise it is not science … 😆

Indeed …… what sort of talk is that ? There’ll be no “sea parting or waiting virgins” ……. this is science ffs.

Just dismissing that particular story …

Hmmmm. It’s generally based on the idea that I don’t maybe trust this geezer from 2000 years ago to be telling the absolute truth
I was brought up in Todmorden and I wouldn’t believe that my friend, who was a fairly recent incomer, who had a beard was 13

If you don’t smell the perfume you’re spraying over your dying pet, how would you recognise it later?

Brian Cox can explain why ghosts cannot exist, its all to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy and energy dispersal.

It all goes over my head but as far as he’s concerned energy is stored or dispersed and a ghost would defy the basic laws of physics that the universe is built on.

As most of us here do not know what we’re talking about and he does, I’m with Cox.

Let’s hope there isn’t an afterlife, it will stink with all these smells being carried over. Imagine an eternity spent with a canine phantom whiffing of Brut. Give me the void anytime.

But has Cox done the great dog smell experiment? If only further research were done we may all become enlightened 🙂

I’ve been there…..it’s just like here but there’s no TJ..

I should add that I do believe Elaines experience was very real to her though as others have mentioned I think these things have their origins in psychology and neuroscience; grief is a powerful thing

Well here we go.

I joined a Spiritualist Church group and have undergone training in being a medium. I was told many times I was clairvoyant but never believed anyone. I joined their “circle” in order to explore things for my own curiosity, and to experience that which the medium was experiencing.

I think it is not a black and white type phenomena. I think some low quality mediums are only picking up psychic energy, and therefore just because they can describe a loved one who has died is not actually proof os survival of death.

Obviously I have also undergone shamanic initiation, and I find many explanations of the afterlife very cheesy and not authentic. I think the deeper realms of reality are very much stranger than we realise.

As for physics and the second law of thermodynamics, well many people used that (and some still do) to prove that evolution can not possibly be true, so just citing that is no proof at all really, especially when much of the matter in our cosmos can not be explained.

And then finally you have many valid philosophical reasons for questioning the validity of modern scientific methodologies. I am not saying science is wrong, just that I find it somewhat limited and arrogant in the extreme that it is the only path to the “truth” and that science can and will eventually be able to explain everything. But this argument is one of questioning the notion of “being” which is maybe too much for a Wednesday morning on STW : )

However, for me I would say go and experiment yourselves with lots of things and don’t just try and discuss this rationally through a very small percentage of your intellects!

None of what I have said will make a blind bit of difference to what anyone here thinks. My approach has always been to explore things for myself and see how this matches other people’s concepts, assertions and their own experiences. And yes, there are many dodgy “mediums” out there, and there are many terrible shaman, I am not defending them, just saying what I have explored.

The border between the Real and the Unreal is not fixed, but just marks the last place where rival gangs of shamans fought each other to a standstill..
Robert Anton Wilson

Some asparagus that died last night re-visited me this morning

The thing is we think we know everything, but if you go back a few hundred years, what people believed then looks totally ridiculous now

I’m sure science and learning has evolved greatly since then, and in a few hundred years from now, when people look back, the difference will be nowhere near as great, but I’m sure there will still be differences

Some asparagus that died last night re-visited me this morning

Last night’s Scallops have returned to me, I’m not sure what perfume the chef used before their dying breath but I do hope none of you have bought your wife any for Xmas. 😯

I’m still confused…

Should I wait until my pet is “near death” before I start the perfume-spraying?

If so, how will I know? Given that cats could be run down any time, maybe I should start today.

If I start today and he was to live to a ripe old age, that’s a lot of perfume. Should I buy cheap stuff in which case my pet will think I don’t love him, or should I just start right away on the pricey stuff? Perfume or eau-du-toilette? Are there grants available from the mumbo-jumbo foundation for this kind of research?

One other possibility is I acquire a nearly-dead dog for the purposes of experimentation, but that raises a whole heap of ethical issues.

simonralli2 – Member
And then finally you have many valid philosophical reasons for questioning the validity of modern scientific methodologies. I am not saying science is wrong, just that I find it somewhat limited and arrogant in the extreme that it is the only path to the “truth”

Yes, “science” is just a set of protocols and methods thought up by man to explain certain aspects of the world we experience, If you ask the same questions in the language of “poetry” or “art” or “religion” or “mysticism” you similarly get answers than conform to those protocols.

In my opinion, “science” is not about Truth but just another interpretation of our human world view and the over reliance of people on “science” to explain everything is merely born of ignorance and fear……

, well many people used that (and some still do) to prove that evolution can not possibly be true, so just citing that is no proof at all really, especially when much of the matter in our cosmos can not be explained.

Only by people who know nothing about thermodynamics and therefore don’t understand why you cannot consider the earth to be a thermodynamically closed system.

Also, pointing out flaws in the arguments of others does not necessarily provide support to yours.

Any minute now: “There is a god”. “No there isn’t.” “Yes there is..” and so on ad neauseum.

There’s some weird stuff on this tread but nothing is as weird as Ernie having named his cat after himself.

I killed my dog last night to try chewkw’s experiment.
I’m still awaiting the waft of Old Spice…

Last night, I shot my two cats wth a Miroku O/U. My wife has left me and I’m in custody with a bottle of Jazz up my ass.

Merry Xmas.

I am right up for testing this theory. I’ll let the dog live a natural life but I’m quite happy to kill the cats now. They leach of us anyway and only pretend they like us at feeding times so it’ll be easy to keep the testing period to set times.

All in the name of science. Here pussy pussy.

Last night, I shot my two cats wth a Miroku O/U. My wife has left me and I’m in custody with a bottle of Jazz up my ass.

Hope so it’s the least you deserve for owning a Miroku, have some decency man.

Has it worked if I just smell one of her farts? (although they do kind of cling to the curtains and furniture, so I guess that might just be a lingerer)

“science” is not about Truth but just another interpretation of our human world view

But science is systematic, observable, reliable, repeatable and more importantly testable within our current understanding of the universe.

A ghost cat on the end of your bed, however real to the person who saw it, is certainly none of the above, especially testable; it is a matter of faith, of which I have none unless the subject matter is systematic, observable, reliable, repeatable and testable.

BenHouldsworth, you could not be more right. But you might as well bash your head against a wall, you’ll not convince those who misunderstand or mistrust science, or have an unshakeable (if irrational) faith in something that no one can ever put to the test.

But science is systematic, observable, reliable, repeatable and more importantly testable within our current understanding of the universe.

Although I well understand this, science does not progress in this manner. Many scientific “discoveries” were in fact new perceptions of meaning, i.e. new ways of understanding the same data coming in through the senses. When Galileo looked through his telescope, he did not “see” mountains on the moon. He had to come to this conclusion after many observations. Our “seeing” is not purely sensory, it is loaded with our conceptual understanding of the world. Therefore the statement above, as interpreted by many scientists, can be regarded as “naive empiricism”.

This problem of interpreting the world through our senses, while also considering them as unreliable, leads us to many disputes in science as people have many different ways of interpreting facts.

Therefore I agree with BenHoldsworth, although the problem of course is people interpret science through many many world views, paradigms, assumptions and metaphysics, you name it. This is a huge problem for science.