The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: After Death..  (Read 34014 times)

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #75 on: 24/06/2008 14:42:41 »
No one is disputing that.

Your conclusion from the statement "matter was created in the beginning", was "matter will be destroyed in the end". This is what I am questioning. What is the "end"? What do you mean by "destroyed"?
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #76 on: 27/06/2008 05:29:53 »
Re: Stefan, the theory, that "the universe is not infinite in age", because according to another theory, or aspect of that theory; "time was zero at the Big Bang", is demonstratively false, unprovable and falls outside of human cognizance. The weakest theory is a theory predicated upon, or extrapolated from another theory. Besides, the theory of the Big Bang, is a theory that endeavors to explain the origin of the 'known' universe. There is nothing in the theory of the Big Bang that questions, or logically refutes; another unthinkable thought, "something before anything, creating everything out of nothing". Is this not what this theory forces upon the intellect to entertain, in spite of the impossibility of cognitively framing this thought. The Big Bang theory has both external and internal coherency. Computer models and astronomical observation have established the current positions, and movements of the known galaxies, strongly indicating a common starting point and place in time. When coupled with studies of background radiation, and other observations to numerous to mention, the plausibility of this theory is well established. The Big Bang is currently the best theory for explaining the origin and evolution of the known universe. Not fact, and certainly not the bases for the assertion; "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", and similar theories. On a separate note, to refer to someones opinion as being ignorant, is arrogant, unenlightened, and self-serving, and assumes an insight into the knowledge and motives of the "speaker", in question. There is a place for such comments, I do not perceive that evidence herein.       
« Last Edit: 28/06/2008 07:38:10 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #77 on: 27/06/2008 07:55:14 »
Re: Stefan, You might ask me what I mean by "demonstratively false , unprovable, and falls outside of human cognizance". The proposition that "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big bang", is inferred from concepts that were logically derived from the Big Bang theory. Knowledge and understanding derived or deduced from optical and electronic instrumentation; "leading to" the Big Bang theory, is fundamentally distinct from theories or suppositions derived exclusively from cogitation or inference. The fallacy in your statement is illustrated by these facts; the theory of the origin of time, and your statement, "the universe is not infinite in age", is derived from postulates, (the postulate, the Big Bang actually occurred, the postulate time started at the occurrence of the Big Bang, and the postulate, the age of the universe is a measure determined by the alleged "time" the big bang occurred). These assumptions are conceptual, and are therefore not derived from observational knowledge or understanding. One theory supporting, or generated from another; is therefore demonstratively false. I do not question the usefulness, or elegance of this theory, even so, it is unprovable, and as such, statements like, "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", can not be scientifically evaluated. I also stated, "that the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", falls outside of human cognizance. Why is this significant? Clearly, through scientific investigation, we have discovered many facts that previously fell outside of our understanding and ability to cognize. The list is endless; genetics, animal behavior, brain activity , quantum physics, viral replication, migrating bird flight, photoluminescence, and so on. The unthinkable was made manifest through investigation, experimentation, and discovery. In the present case, the Big Bang theory, and theories based on it, we are attempting the logical opposite; generating, not only theories based on theories, but trying to create theories upon that which we cannot cognize; the origin of the universe, and the beginning of time. These are unthinkable thoughts, with no scientific footing, and fall outside of any field of proof.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2008 10:12:50 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #78 on: 28/06/2008 15:24:37 »
John:

Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe


The way you have defined "Theory" is such that no theory would have any accurate explanatory power. The accuracy of a theory depends on the strength of the assumptions it makes. A theory is not disqualified just because it makes assumptions.

There is sound scientific evidence for the finite age of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#fluctuations

You keep repeating that the finite age theory is demonstrably false. Where is the evidence that the universe's age is NOT finite?
By your logic however, evidence which indicates infinite age should also be discarded, because I doubt very much that any human being can truly comprehend infinity.

Since when are there "unthinkable thoughts? Are you aware of *imagination*? Science only puts limits on what we can accept as reality. Imagination is much freer.

"Something from nothing" addressed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

You are not using the words: "theory" and "fact" correctly. Thankfully, Wikipedia can help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science


I have not called you ignorant, although that is certainly how you have presented yourself. If you had read properly you would have seen that the poster who's conclusion I did call ignorant, had actually called his own conclusion ignorant, prior to my comment. You don't seem to be very good at "[perceiving] the evidence herein".

Further, I do not mean "ignorant" as an insult, though I couldn't care less if you understood it as such. I merely made an observation. Would you like a definition for this too?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant
"2.   lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics." 

If it is arrogant to make observations, think critically and follow the evidence, then your standards are extremely low.

I suggest that you at least try to use and understand key terms and definitions, and to base your arguments on evidence. Perhaps then a proper discussion can ensue.
 

Offline OldDragon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
  • Heaven doesn't want me & the devil's afraid to.
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #79 on: 28/06/2008 15:38:58 »
Apart from any nutrients out bodies return to the earth, I believe that we live on through our genes and the way we might influence our children and, in turn, their children, and so on through the generations.

Having studied various characteristics within my own family and those ancestors that I have been able to research a  little about, and then looked at myself and my own son and grandson, certain characteristics and attitudes certainly stand out. (Not always favourably, alas.)

Many things shape and influence our lives, but our genetic makeup, and the attitudes within a family environment, certainly leave tangible traces behind after we are gone, I am certain. As for the 'afterlife' in a spiritual sense, who knows?
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #80 on: 29/06/2008 03:16:30 »
RE: Stefan, in the first place, I did not define the word theory anywhere in my comments. Given this grievous error, why should I expect what follows in your comments, to be any less accurate, or fair-minded. Though, I do concede, applying the word theory to the statement, "the universe is not infinite in age...", might be confusing. I can only assume this usage is what you are speaking to, since you failed to refer to a specific example. There are formal and non-formal theories. The theory of the Big Bang is a formal theory. The theory that "the universe in not infinite in age..." is a non-formal theory, in the way I used it. There may well be formal theories for such. Of course, I was responding to the statement and information as presented. If, in fact, you cite, through your links, a proposition that qualifies as theory, relative to "the universe is not infinite in age...", my usage is correct; in the formal sense of a theory. I did not anticipate the need to make, what for me, is an obvious distinction. In addition, I also referred to the quote in question, as a proposition, and a postulate; potentially differentiating between the formal and non-formal usage.
 

You stated, "The accuracy of a theory depends on the strength of the assumptions it makes".
The "accuracy" of a theory depends on the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced. Case in point; The Big Bang theory is based upon knowledge and understand, derived and deduced from optical and electronic instrumentation. It is the accuracy and consistency of this information that must be assessed, to determine the viability of the theory. In short, the theory must consist with the facts, not with the so-called "strength of the assumptions". If anything, the assumptions you refer to, are the theory itself. Scientific theories start with facts, the assumptions, if you like, represent the theory, or the elements for forming a theory. Therefore, your opinion that the way I "define" theories do not have accurate explanatory power, is without foundation, in view of the understand you present.

I choose not to specifically respond to your additional statements. They are equally misinformed. I will explore the idea of entertaining a proper discussion, or dialog. In order to effectively engage in a thoughtful and productive dialog, as a minimum, we must use terms and language that are mutually understood. Rather that offer potential and actual correctives to my terms, ideas, or word usage, you suggest, in blatant terms, they are improper, and merely cite Wikipedia, and other links. If you hope to offer a counter argument, why do you not specifically focus on every instance you question, and demonstrate in clear and coherent language, the reasons for your position.(I used the word position, since you have failed to formulate a coherent and comprehensive argument). References, such as Wikipedia, should be used to support a comprehensive argument, and not employed as a substitute for explaining your opinion. My gaol is to expand my understand, and widen my perspective through thoughtful and constructive dialog. This goal is unachievable if participants do not utilize sound principles of argumentation; in part, explored above.     
« Last Edit: 26/10/2008 07:01:46 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #81 on: 29/06/2008 04:57:53 »
John

Given that this discussion is on a science forum, the proper formal use of terms is in order.

In places where you have used the term theory, "hypothesis" might fit better.
I am unclear as to whether the question of the universe's age is a theory or hypothesis on its own or just a part of a main theory. To me it seems to be the latter.

You did not define any terms explicitly. I considered your "definition" to be implicit in the first 10 or so lines of your post.

'The "accuracy" of a theory depends on the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced.'
Of course, otherwise what is the need or basis for the theory? I considered "assumptions" as only 1 aspect of the basis for a theory, because that was the aspect relevant to your comments, "The weakest theory is a theory predicated upon, or extrapolated from another theory" and "One theory supporting, or generated from another; is therefore demonstratively false". Here the assumption is that the founding theory from which the secondary theory is derived, is accurate. This accuracy is, as you say, determined by "the quality of the information the theory is generate from, and the logic and coherence of the theory produced".

And yet, you have not demonstrated how the big bang theory and "finite age hypothesis" are false, nor how your hypothesis is correct.

How convenient for you to ignore my other comments. Perhaps you should demonstrate how and why they are "equally misguided", rather than just stating that they are.

John, the facts speak for themselves, and I directed you to them. There are entire articles there to answer your questions, but you seem to ignore them. I see no need to waste my time reiterating the contents of those pages. My "position" is that there is strong evidence supporting the big bang theory and the hypothesis of the finite age of the known universe. I am not arguing with you about the evidence, I am merely informing you. I have supplied that information. You have ignored it.   

I suspect this conversation is going nowhere. If you read and understand the pages I linked to, all well and good. If not, then that's your loss. Sometimes I get the feeling that certain people are willfully ignorant. Oops, am I being arrogant again? ::) 
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #82 on: 29/06/2008 05:34:51 »
Re: Friend Stefan, You are correct, this discussion is going nowhere. Please, let us agree to disagree. You have stretch my understanding, and forced me to think. I do not wish to loose your respect. It is clear to me that you are worthy of respect. Respect, through a shared vision; truth and understanding, in our particular ways of thinking, is infinitely more important that opinions about the Big Bang, and related issues.  Thank you for the opportunity to exchange serious and thoughtful ideas. Besides, thanks to you, I am now in need of some serious rest.   
« Last Edit: 29/06/2008 05:40:29 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #83 on: 29/06/2008 06:40:05 »
John, likewise. Thank you for the intellectual exercise.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #84 on: 16/07/2008 13:49:14 »
Sociologically, and looking at this with a view to other's skepticism to the possibility of the continuation of the mind after death, it could be a paradise, another Earth or a Hell, depending on who is there, and if there is interaction. So to be eternally alone and cold, or hot with humiliation, never to see the sun or light again, is a horror. To have to make a new world with re-establishment of police... would be challenging, also some form of sickness.

And to be in light, apart from humiliations, diseases, crime, and to be loved... would be paradise. Brotherly love...

The mind is not merely the function of the nervous system, that's not a Christian point of view, but oldish science.

If there is re-incarnation, someone must administrate it. I don't believe in it. But in judgment, and division, clean from unclean. Light and love to Heaven, dark and cold to Hell. With mercies, and powers to save, ultimately, we are all cold, without power from on high.

I believe in the existence of the human heart of the spirit, mind, will and emotions, and conscience. That they continue after death eternally.

An Aussie atheist of fame died and came back to life on the operating table, he said he saw nothing... which I heard before, but scientifically writing, he noticed time go by. Perhaps a floor.

Other's experienced the same, but after time heard angry shouts...

Others see light. And people they knew, they even eat things. They see angels and Jesus with wounds.

Matter is stable, we accept it is there somehow... the mind... where did it come from? I think this leads back to the belief in intelligent design in me. Then, you know, the soul is awesome, the body, the planets, and the size of the universe... makes me confident that there is a Heaven, and creator. And I believe He went from Heaven to Earth, and to Hell, even the Pit, and returned and made a Way from any place to His Throne.

I suspect that science will ultimately say, that they know for sure that the  minds will decay after death, and cease to exist.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2008 13:52:55 by Titanscape »
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
After Death..
« Reply #85 on: 16/07/2008 16:54:36 »
I have a good friend who died when he was 14.

He was riding his bicycle when he was hit by a lorry and crushed. On arrival at hospital he had no brain activity and was pronounce dead. While laying on a hospital table covered with a sheet a nurse noticed some movement and resuscitation began.

He then spent over 6 months in a body cast and had to learn how to walk and talk again.

He is now 33 and suffers from a few mental problems, self harm and depression mainly but he is one of the nicest people I know and care about. Although we don't talk much about what happened he has told me several things that upset him and annoy him, mainly that he has no memory of anything before being hospitalised. The worst thing for him is he feels robbed of his childhood. When he regained consciousness he didn't recognise anyone, family or friends and had no idea what had happened to him.

He said his mind was blank and any events before the accident he still cant remember. He had no bright light or tunnel experience and just woke up with a blank mind.

To put a bit more perspective on the matter: he came from a very Catholic family, was deeply religious, went to bible classes and according to his parents and friends wanted to be a priest!

He like me is now agnostic and is happy if people want to believe in a religion but also gets annoyed when people start preaching to him that their religion out of the many is the only one or way as if its fact.

What happens after death seems to depend on which God or religion you tend to believe in but if that belief gives comfort to some then that's good.



 
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #86 on: 17/07/2008 13:12:38 »
The dying brain is just that - dying. Why would you trust as evidence of an afterlife, the subjective experiences of a mind in such a drastically altered state of consciousness? Do you think that the faeries that a drugged-up person hallucinates really exist outside the hallucinator's mind?


The mind is what the brain does.

When the brain is damaged or altered, the mind is also altered. When a person loses their brain to Alzheimer's, is their mind gradually leaving the brain to exist on, in an afterlife? What tripe.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #87 on: 18/07/2008 05:07:14 »
Mainstream science back in the sixties  did not profess the idea that the mind is only the working of the brain, from what I read. Some US uni psychology.

"For every action of the mind there is a corresponding action somewhere in the nervous system."

For young guys in my faith I write bits that help them not to doubt and to stir interest, also for my conscience. But here, mainly hypotheticals for science guys.
« Last Edit: 18/07/2008 05:11:27 by Titanscape »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #88 on: 18/07/2008 07:36:58 »
You don't make much sense.


Besides that, get with the times. The neuroscience of today does not agree with dualism. Mind and brain are no longer considered to be separate by serious brain scientists. Dualism is an evidence-lacking, outdated concept.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #89 on: 25/08/2008 21:06:34 »
Do you recall an experiment in which a Doctor attempting to prove that humans were simply biological organisms and nothing more, took a terminally ill patient and set up a specially fitted room with monitoring equipment, to gain data at the moment of that patients death?

After he died, at that moment, he lost a measured number of grams. And it was not urine or gas, the room was fully fitted.

Personally I am more that a dualist, I would see, a division between the human spirit, and soul, or mind will and emotions. And the body, and the sinful nature in the body. I am a Christian.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
After Death..
« Reply #90 on: 30/08/2008 12:21:22 »
Do you recall an experiment in which a Doctor attempting to prove that humans were simply biological organisms and nothing more.....

This is not true, and has been discussed here a few times. Such as:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=904.25
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

After Death..
« Reply #90 on: 30/08/2008 12:21:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums