This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
This redirect falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
This proposal generated no discussion, not even a comment by the editor requesting the merger. I don't find the proposal at all reasonable, since the article on Survivalism (the quasi-scientific study of evidences of the afterlife) is not an article about Survival (the afterlife). So I have removed the merge tag. --Anthon.Eff 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Afterlife" is a popular term for existence after physical death, but I am not sure how useful it would be for an article. The Afterlife article is more about belief systems, so I agree with not merging the two subjects.
Any "ism" has the danger of remaining a philosophy, or even worse, a religion. I use "Survival Hypothesis," because it is a theory which is being tested. I operate with the assumption that it is testable, and may eventually have the stature of good science. Whether or not the prevailing version of the survival hypothesis remains a description of the survival of personality after physical death is something that those tests must decide. In the meantime, the question can and should be addressed as the academic one it is, and not just a philosophy. With that said, the current article title can probably be made to work.
A beginning might be in the distinction between survival of a consciousness that is independent of the big bang/biological evolution of the brain and survival of an evolved consciousness. In the first case, consciousness has probably evolved, but it has evolved from a first cause "outside" of the physical. It has been or is injected into the physical as an incarnation for a lifetime of experience. At the death of the physical body, it is able to seek other aspects of reality for experience. It may reincarnate, but that is not a given. Meanwhile, the physical body is a product of biological evolution.
In the second case, consciousness gradually evolved as a byproduct of biological evolution. The thought process of the organism produced a subtle energy which somehow gravitated to a quantum field where it remains forever. When the biological organism died, the energy of consciousness remained as a permanent record in this field. The field evolved as humankind evolved so that today, all of the information there has ever been remains as a nonlocal record that can be accessed by still living people. In this model, there is no "external" introduction of intelligence, unless it is from parallel realities as described by quantum theory.
The super psi model is an attempt to explain observed phenomena using principles of psychology. The Quantum-holographic hypothesis is an attempt to explain the same observed phenomena from the perspective of physics. Both are intended to avoid resorting to divine intervention. There are many versions of these models, but all I have seen follow this logic when it comes to survival of consciousness.
The test for these models is the nature of trans-etheric communication. If it can be shown to be sentient and aware of current events, then it cannot be residual energy. The nonlocality and other use of quantum theory may be helpful in explaining the mechanics of both models, so this is not an ether or situation. A good article should provide the basic models without characterization as to good science or bad. they are just theories. Tom Butler (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
