Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Simulated on 29/07/2007 18:31:38
-
Do you come back as another person?
Does someone take your place as a new born?
Do we just lay in our caskets on our computers and talk? LoL.
I've wondered this for a long time. And since my sister went "Are those real live dead people" I just thought I'd ask it. LoL.
Thanks Sim!
-
I personally do not believe in reincarnation cos then how does that explain where all the extra people come from ?.but..I just don;t believe in it anyway !
Simmy...all we can ever do is give you our personal opinions !...cos we just do not know......but there are peeps who claim that they do know what happens as a point of fact !!
Religious peeps have their points of view as do non religious peeps.....as do spiritual peeps as do ...well..all the others who believe what they choose to believe.
Maybe we all come back as cabbages !!
-
or Sheepies! LOL
-
So we might come back as not humans, but any other living thing? Can't be rocks and rain because that's always the same about. Sheepies..LoL
-
Are ewe convinced that we do indeed come back Ryan ?
-
IDK I'll have to die and find out, but when I come back (if i do) i won't remember anything. So. I don't know. LoL. There has to be some way to figure out. Even if it is not right in the future maybe..
-
IDK I'll have to die and find out, but when I come back (if i do) i won't remember anything. So. I don't know. LoL. There has to be some way to figure out. Even if it is not right in the future maybe..
OK - so in what way would you think we might come back?
If we have lost our memory of our past selves, and we have lost the body of our past selves, then in what way are we the same as our past selves? If we are not the same, then how can we be said to have come back?
-
I don't believe in reincarnation but I have a friend who is a witch and she swears she's been reincarnated several times and is over 1,000 years old.
-
There is another problem with reincarnation - there are as many people alive today as were ever alive before, so they could not all have had several past lives, because there were not enough past human lives to go around (ofcourse, I suppose they may have been a dodo in a past life - there used to be far more of them than there are now, so maybe they could have made up some of the the shortfall in past lives).
This could lead to another moral dilemma - if we all have past lives, then we could only be born if someone else dies - so by preventing death, you also prevent birth, and by causing death, you also allow rebirth. Ofcourse, this does beg the question as to whether the process is driven by death or driven by birth. If it is driven by death, then you have to cause a death to allow a birth; but if it is driven by birth, then by causing conception to occur you are condemning someone else to death.
-
That's what I'm trying to figure out Another_Someone. LoL.
Well I konw its just a movie, but the Final Destination Movies. That exactly what you just said. LoL.
-
That's what I'm trying to figure out Another_Someone. LoL.
Well I konw its just a movie, but the Final Destination Movies. That exactly what you just said. LoL.
Looking at the synopsis of 'Final Destination' (I don't go to movies, so I have never seen it), it does not seem to refer to reincarnation, but only to the unavoidability of death. On the contrary, there seems to be an alternative ending (one that was changed for the released film), where a birth is used to defer death - but my proposal was that birth should advance rather than defer death (otherwise there would not be enough previous deaths that would allow the new born to be reincarnated from an earlier life).
-
That's what I'm trying to figure out Another_Someone. LoL.
Well I konw its just a movie, but the Final Destination Movies. That exactly what you just said. LoL.
Ok well just as a `what if`, what if life from other planets comes here spiritually or life from other dimensions or universes and stuff like that not saying it does. but it does offer a `what if` explanation for why you could have more people here now than ever before.
Would that help you simulated? Just as a what if. but please remember `what ifs` can take you anywhere. I followed a what if once, ended up at a 7-11, so be careful!
-
That's what I'm trying to figure out Another_Someone. LoL.
Well I konw its just a movie, but the Final Destination Movies. That exactly what you just said. LoL.
Looking at the synopsis of 'Final Destination' (I don't go to movies, so I have never seen it), it does not seem to refer to reincarnation, but only to the unavoidability of death. On the contrary, there seems to be an alternative ending (one that was changed for the released film), where a birth is used to defer death - but my proposal was that birth should advance rather than defer death (otherwise there would not be enough previous deaths that would allow the new born to be reincarnated from an earlier life).
I saw that part of the movie they do stay alive, but what if you don't come from other humans. Just other Living Things?
-
what if you don't come from other humans. Just other Living Things?
Which is why I was careful only to speak of birth and death, not necessarily of human birth and death.
But if we are reincarnated earth worms, or other living creatures, then what makes us human? After all, if what we are is what we have inherited as our reincarnated being, and the body is no more than a superficial shell, then can we say there is any difference between an earth worm, rattle snake, or maybe even a dandelion (are we only talking about animals here, or do we include plants and bacteria amongst those things we can reincarnate from?)?
-
Yeah so what do you think happens? Since it looks like I'm out numbered. LoL. I'm sorry if you have said it and I missed it.
It just happens IDK how it just does. LoL, but I stink at Science anyways so HAHAHAH.
-
Yeah so what do you think happens? Since it looks like I'm out numbered. LoL. I'm sorry if you have said it and I missed it.
It just happens IDK how it just does. LoL, but I stink at Science anyways so HAHAHAH.
You're a 13 y.o. Kid – I think it is too soon to say you stink at science. Science is a process of asking questions, and trying to find the answers in a dispassionate and rational way – and I think you are as good at that as anybody. Maybe you do not yet have an encyclopaedic knowledge of scientific facts, but science is as much about attitude as about facts.
As to what my own view on life, and reincarnation, is; to me, life is a process, and not something tangible that can be moved from one body to another. Each of us is a separate and independent process (although interconnected in many ways), and when the process ceases to function, then it cannot simply be started up in a different body.
The only part of our life that lives beyond us is the impact we have on the society around us (i.e. we live in the people whose lives we have influenced, so as long as they live, so a part of us continues to live through the influence we have had on them).
-
oh I see and I see some more and more and more. LoL. Thanks another someone..
-
This question is stupidly simple,
We go to heaven.
Problem solved. Thank me later.
-
Where is heaven at then Ben? LoL.
-
Dunno, i always like to think it's in another dimension, somewhere beyond our universe and understanding of how things should work.
-
George have anything to say to Ben? LoL.
-
After Death..worm food.
-
After Death..worm food.
Thanks..I wouldn't have ever guessed.LoL.
-
"Soylent Green" [?]
[;D]
-
OK I'll have to go look that word up. Its funny though I can see that.
-
Dunno, i always like to think it's in another dimension, somewhere beyond our universe and understanding of how things should work.
If it is 'another dimension' (i.e. a parallel universe), then from the point of view of our universe, it cannot exist (i.e. only that can be deemed to exist, in scientific terms, if it somehow interacts with what is here).
There is also a problem that if 'we' are leaking out to another universe, then what creates 'us'? If there is a perpetual leakage of this kind, then somehow it must be draining what is here; or else, we must find some reverse flow from that other universe to us, both to prevent that other universe from becoming out of balance, and to prevent us from becoming drained of whatever it is that you think passes out from us to the other universe.
Once you start to look at a two way flow between the two universes, then they are no longer separate universes, because the two universes have an intimate bidirectional flow, and thus they form a single system, and thus a single universe.
With all this flow going on, we should have other physical effects that can be detected (and scientifically modelled) as a consequence of this flow.
Another problem with this notion of life after death (in whatever dimension it may be in), one has how one defines what 'we' are - what is the boundary between 'us' and not 'us'. Insofar as we are talking about human beings (it is difficult to know how this theory is supposed to be applied to non-humans), we usually regard the boundary of a human being as being the animal body of that human being, but it is clear that the animal body of the human body perishes after death, so we must find a different definition of what is a human being. If the parameters of what constitutes a human being is not limited by the human body, then why should there be any relationship between the human animal and your notion of a human being? How can you show any correlation between the human animal and your construct of a human being which in other contexts you believe can exist outside of the body of the human animal?
-
Thanks for clearing that up George!
-
Another problem with this notion of life after death (in whatever dimension it may be in), one has how one defines what 'we' are - what is the boundary between 'us' and not 'us'. Insofar as we are talking about human beings (it is difficult to know how this theory is supposed to be applied to non-humans), we usually regard the boundary of a human being as being the animal body of that human being, but it is clear that the animal body of the human body perishes after death, so we must find a different definition of what is a human being. If the parameters of what constitutes a human being is not limited by the human body, then why should there be any relationship between the human animal and your notion of a human being? How can you show any correlation between the human animal and your construct of a human being which in other contexts you believe can exist outside of the body of the human animal?
I think science can help us answer some questions which could slowly lead to unravel the truth about ourselves. In this context and as an indirect reply to the OP and to the post above I will ask the following questions:
1- Is self-consciousness the most salient feature that differentiate humans from other living beings?
2- Is this self-consciousness simply an activity of the brain? If so I predict that two twins who have the same genotype and phenotype, if they're put in exactly the same environment then they will have one and the same self-consciousness (logical or not?). Though this experiment has never been done, I intuitively doubt that they will have the same self-consciousness and hence this self-consciousness is not merely an activity of the brain.
3- Could this self-consciousness be a form of energy? If so were does it come from?
4- Why did we as humans develop self-consciousness? Does it have a survival advantage (does it help socialization), or is it merely a by-product of our intelligence?
5- Why do human beings develop mortality salience, which is fear of death. Wouldn't the animal instinct to avoid harm without consciously fearing death be enough for survival?
6- Most importantly and the most difficult to answer is WHY all this? Why life and all its processes from birth, reproduction and death... Is it all a haphazard process without any final aim and purpose?
-
1- Is self-consciousness the most salient feature that differentiate humans from other living beings?
I would argue it is not even something that differentiates humans from other living beings.
There is good evidence that at least other apes are self concious. Given out difficulty in assessing what other animals (or maybe collective group of animals) may be self concious, I doubt we can say for sure what other species are or are not self concious.
2- Is this self-consciousness simply an activity of the brain? If so I predict that two twins who have the same genotype and phenotype, if they're put in exactly the same environment then they will have one and the same self-consciousness (logical or not?). Though this experiment has never been done, I intuitively doubt that they will have the same self-consciousness and hence this self-consciousness is not merely an activity of the brain.
But they can never have the same environment, at very least, because each forms part of the environment of the other, and because each occupies a different space within their shared environment.
3- Could this self-consciousness be a form of energy? If so were does it come from?
What do you mean by 'energy'?
In a broad sense, energy is merely the power to create change in the environment. In that sense, you might say that all information contains some energy, but information comes from other information, and so our conciousness comes from the information that already exists in the universe (including our genes, and the environmental influences surrounding us).
Ofcourse, a physicist will have a much narrower definition of energy, one that equates to mass. In that sense, I know of no evidence that human conciousness (or the conciouysness of any other animal) can be translated to mass (i.e. it is not subject to E = mc2).
4- Why did we as humans develop self-consciousness? Does it have a survival advantage (does it help socialization), or is it merely a by-product of our intelligence?
I would have thought that knowing the difference between us and not us would inevitably have a survival advantage. I would argue that all entities that compete for survival must seek to create benefit for themselves, and thus must in some way be able to identify themselves and have a notion of self separate from their environment.
Ofcourse, the term 'self-concious' has two parts, the notion of 'self' (which I think I have answered) and the notion of 'conciousness', and that another matter. To my mind, conciousness is an artefact of complex language; but it may be that someone will be able to show an entity is capable of being concious without having language (although this may also depend upon what one defines as language).
5- Why do human beings develop mortality salience, which is fear of death. Wouldn't the animal instinct to avoid harm without consciously fearing death be enough for survival?
What makes you think the two are distinctly different. Is not the concious fear of death no more than the instinctive avoidance of harm translated into the conciousness of the individual (in the same way as the concious pleasure of food, or of sex, are also instinctive behaviour mapped into the conciousness)?
6- Most importantly and the most difficult to answer is WHY all this? Why life and all its processes from birth, reproduction and death... Is it all a haphazard process without any final aim and purpose?
It may be reasonably argued that life is merely one part of the functioning of the whole universe, and the functioning of the universe is driven my the need to dissipate energy, and so the reason for life is to consume excess energy (the same reason as everything else happens).
-
5- Why do human beings develop mortality salience, which is fear of death. Wouldn't the animal instinct to avoid harm without consciously fearing death be enough for survival?
What makes you think the two are distinctly different. Is not the concious fear of death no more than the instinctive avoidance of harm translated into the conciousness of the individual (in the same way as the concious pleasure of food, or of sex, are also instinctive behaviour mapped into the conciousness)?
I doubt that a other animals reflect consciously about death like we do. For the avoidance instinct you would need only reflexes and not higher brain functions. Also it's only higher order primates (not to say only humans) can overcome this instinctive fear (think of suicidal people, "martyrs" etc) again showing that there are higher brain functions at work more than just instincts.
6- Most importantly and the most difficult to answer is WHY all this? Why life and all its processes from birth, reproduction and death... Is it all a haphazard process without any final aim and purpose?
It may be reasonably argued that life is merely one part of the functioning of the whole universe, and the functioning of the universe is driven my the need to dissipate energy, and so the reason for life is to consume excess energy (the same reason as everything else happens).
I appreciate the point but it is very vague and doesn't answer me really, sorry: do you think life as it is now is the most efficient way to dissipate energy? I would argue differently: there would have been easier and more efficient ways to dissipate energy without having to go through the process of originating life. And if life is actually the most efficient way to do so then it would be advantageous to have life everywhere on other planets and galaxies... And if life is actually only a haphazard process then we will have to think again all our theories of random processes and causality.
-
5- Why do human beings develop mortality salience, which is fear of death. Wouldn't the animal instinct to avoid harm without consciously fearing death be enough for survival?
What makes you think the two are distinctly different. Is not the concious fear of death no more than the instinctive avoidance of harm translated into the conciousness of the individual (in the same way as the concious pleasure of food, or of sex, are also instinctive behaviour mapped into the conciousness)?
I doubt that a other animals reflect consciously about death like we do. For the avoidance instinct you would need only reflexes and not higher brain functions. Also it's only higher order primates (not to say only humans) can overcome this instinctive fear (think of suicidal people, "martyrs" etc) again showing that there are higher brain functions at work more than just instincts.
Suicide and martyrdom are merely our way of looking at perfectly natural phenomena.
A mother will risk her own life for her child in many species.
An ant, or a bee, on guard in a colony will give its own life to protect a colony.
We can debate how much of the is 'concious', but the actual actions are no different to similar actions a human will undertake; it is merely that they human will seek to explain it with complex language, whereas an any or bee has no real language with which to explain it (I say 'no real language', but ofcourse most communication amongst ants, and substantially so amongst bees, is by use of pheromones, which we actually have no real way of listening in to).
6- Most importantly and the most difficult to answer is WHY all this? Why life and all its processes from birth, reproduction and death... Is it all a haphazard process without any final aim and purpose?
It may be reasonably argued that life is merely one part of the functioning of the whole universe, and the functioning of the universe is driven my the need to dissipate energy, and so the reason for life is to consume excess energy (the same reason as everything else happens).
I appreciate the point but it is very vague and doesn't answer me really, sorry: do you think life as it is now is the most efficient way to dissipate energy? I would argue differently: there would have been easier and more efficient ways to dissipate energy without having to go through the process of originating life. And if life is actually the most efficient way to do so then it would be advantageous to have life everywhere on other planets and galaxies... And if life is actually only a haphazard process then we will have to think again all our theories of random processes and causality.
So what other means would you say that this energy could be dissipated by?
There is no doubt that life uses energy. If the Earth had other ways of dissipating that energy, then would not life itself already have been starved of energy. Does it not then follow that life must be able to dissipate energy that cannot be dissipated otherwise. Clearly, this is not to say that life uses all energy that exist, because some of it does have other pathways through which it is dissipated, and so in unavailable to living organisms.
Humans, and this makes us exceptionally unique, have found access to ever more novel sources of energy to sate our ever increasing thirst for energy. One example in nuclear fission. Clearly, in the early history of the Earth, there were large sources of high concentrations of fissionable materials, but these would have quickly undergone fission, and are no longer available to us. We have now found ways to mine the very low concentrations of residual fissionable material, too sparse to fission on their own, and the build up there concentrations to levels where they can undergo fission - something they clearly could no longer do in nature. This may be an extreme example, but it is an indication how much of life is about seeking out residual energy sources that is unable to be dissipated in its natural forms, use complex physical and chemical processes (life, even in a single bacteria, is a very complex collection of chemical processes) to isolate and concentrate these residual resources to a form that may be used to extract the energy bound up in them.
-
Suicide and martyrdom are merely our way of looking at perfectly natural phenomena.
A mother will risk her own life for her child in many species
An ant, or a bee, on guard in a colony will give its own life to protect a colony.
That's not the same. A saint who dies to save his soul and earn a place in heaven is not the same as a bee who dies to protect the queen. Those two processes are very distinct, one is instinctive and the other involves a lot of meta-cognition. There is no proof that meta-cognition (self-conscious thought mediated by higher level of intelligent processes) exist in any other beings except humans (even in the apes and the dolphins it is quite dubious).
So what other means would you say that this energy could be dissipated by?
There is no doubt that life uses energy.
I'm sorry but to explain the existance and origin of life merely as a way for the universe to dissipate energy is very simplistic.
A star formation is one very efficient way (triggered star formation by energy disspiated from a supernova for example). Life on earth would never be consuming more energy than that and here we are talking about one single phenomenon. There are much more efficient ways for the universe to dissipate its energy, if that's the purpose, and I'm not sure that's where the universe is heading: to dissipate its energy. The balance of mass-energy seems to be maintained (ex: supernovas<->stars formations). The "why" of life on earth is not explained away as simply as this.
-
Suicide and martyrdom are merely our way of looking at perfectly natural phenomena.
A mother will risk her own life for her child in many species
An ant, or a bee, on guard in a colony will give its own life to protect a colony.
That's not the same. A saint who dies to save his soul and earn a place in heaven is not the same as a bee who dies to protect the queen. Those two processes are very distinct, one is instinctive and the other involves a lot of meta-cognition. There is no proof that meta-cognition (self-conscious thought mediated by higher level of intelligent processes) exist in any other beings except humans (even in the apes and the dolphins it is quite dubious).
There have been experiments that show that a chimpanzee can recognise its own image in a mirror. We have been able to teach chimpanzees to use keyboards to express abstract ideas. We know that dolphins have different sounds to recognise different individuals (i.e. the individuals have been given names).
As for there being no proof of the thought processes behind why dolphins give each other names - that is true of all things - I cannot read your mind any more than you can read the mind of a dolphin - all I can do is read your words and make guesses about the psychological processes behind those words.
As for seeking proof that a saint dies to earn a place in heaven - we have yet to prove anything concerning heaven - all we have that can be proven is a use of language that the supposed saint uses to express himself, but it is only language; and beneath that language, I would argue that the actions are no different to the actions of a bee or ant protecting its colony.
In fact, the difficulty in the weight one should give to the use of language to explain one's actions may well be shown by asking how much weight would you give to the notion that some people have the Muslim suicide bombers undertake their missions in order to take their place in heaven? What kind of 'meta-cognition' are they using, and is that the real reason, or merely a linguistically convenient explanation for a far more complex social and psychological motivation?
So what other means would you say that this energy could be dissipated by?
There is no doubt that life uses energy.
I'm sorry but to explain the existance and origin of life merely as a way for the universe to dissipate energy is very simplistic.
A star formation is one very efficient way (triggered star formation by energy disspiated from a supernova for example). Life on earth would never be consuming more energy than that and here we are talking about one single phenomenon. There are much more efficient ways for the universe to dissipate its energy, if that's the purpose, and I'm not sure that's where the universe is heading: to dissipate its energy. The balance of mass-energy seems to be maintained (ex: supernovas<->stars formations). The "why" of life on earth is not explained away as simply as this.
No, life on Earth would not (at least in the foreseeable future) be consuming more energy than that being consumed by a supernova, but I never claimed it did. Quite the contrary, what I suggested was that life was efficient at utilising marginal sources of energy, not that it utilised large amounts of easily available energy.
The supernova is indeed a good example. There is strong evidence that our solar system was born out of the remnants of a supernova. Clearly, for that to be the case, although the supernova used a very large amount of energy, but clearly there was still enough energy left over after it had consumed all it could, enough energy to create a solar system, and within the solar system there formed planets, and at least on one of those planets there was enough energy left over to form life.
Life does not use massive amount of energy, but it feeds off the minute amounts of residual energy that other processes cannot access. If other processes (e.g. a supernova explosion) could have used all that residual energy, it is clear the energy would not have remained available for life to use.
It is rather like the comparison between the amount of water an elephant might use, and the amount of water a mosquito might use. If elephants could use every last drop of water in their habitat, then there would be none left for the mosquitoes, but it is clear that overall elephants are greater consumers of water than mosquitoes, but they are actually less efficient at using small amounts of water. So too the comparison between the energy use of a supernova, and the energy use of a living organism.
-
Why is it that people who claim to have been reincarnated where always something a little special in their previous lives? Why is john Smith farm labourer and alcholic father of six who died of a heart attack one morning while walking to work never reincarnated. Why is it always a slave girl to King X or something along those lines. I don´t get it. Why don´t normal people ever get reincarnated. Ahh of course being normal in a previous life wouldn´t impress anyone gullible enough to belive you would it. Dohh!
-
Why is it that people who claim to have been reincarnated where always something a little special in their previous lives? Why is john Smith farm labourer and alcholic father of six who died of a heart attack one morning while walking to work never reincarnated. Why is it always a slave girl to King X or something along those lines. I don´t get it. Why don´t normal people ever get reincarnated. Ahh of course being normal in a previous life wouldn´t impress anyone gullible enough to belive you would it. Dohh!
True I think. Anyway whether I accept or dismiss the concept of re-incarnation it's all the same for me. If you die and come back but have no recollection whatsoever of any previous life then you're dead, period. I would go even a step further, a person is dead if he has a complete memory loss... because now he is someone else and the "person" before who had the same body is gone. For me life is your awareness and cognition of yourself not just the body.
-
Why is it that people who claim to have been reincarnated where always something a little special in their previous lives? Why is john Smith farm labourer and alcholic father of six who died of a heart attack one morning while walking to work never reincarnated. Why is it always a slave girl to King X or something along those lines. I don´t get it. Why don´t normal people ever get reincarnated. Ahh of course being normal in a previous life wouldn´t impress anyone gullible enough to belive you would it. Dohh!
True I think. Anyway whether I accept or dismiss the concept of re-incarnation it's all the same for me. If you die and come back but have no recollection whatsoever of any previous life then you're dead, period. I would go even a step further, a person is dead if he has a complete memory loss... because now he is someone else and the "person" before who had the same body is gone. For me life is your awareness and cognition of yourself not just the body.
I agree !!...Please forgive me as I have not read the entire thread but I also can't see the point of reincarnation if I can't can't back as 'me '....In fact..what exactly is being reincarnated then if one can't come back as oneself ?
...and I don't know if this has been mentioned already but I then always wonder as to where the extra people come from if we are all reincarnated !..How does one account for the rise in population ?
-
How does one account for the rise in population ?
Its like Rocks. Rocks change from form to form to form and none of it ever gets lost. (Rocks being all Living things, we kill off the animals for cities and roads and all and there is more of us. Look at all the extinxt species out there. They all came to be humans. HOW IDK, but it just makes sence to me.)
-
That's all ewe can think about is ROCK and roll isn't it ?.. [;)]
I see...when an animal dies it may well come back as a human !
I suppose I would then say to a sheep I've just eaten that has been reincarnated..."nice to meat ewe !!" [;)]
-
That's all ewe can think about is ROCK and roll isn't it ?.. [;)]
I see...when an animal dies it may well come back as a human !
I suppose I would then say to a sheep I've just eaten that has been reincarnated..."nice to meat ewe !!" [;)]
Yep ROCK & ROLL is all I can think! Execpt about my gf she beats that anyday.
And
HAHAHAHAHA
-
Its like Rocks. Rocks change from form to form to form and none of it ever gets lost.
What is a rock?
If you cleave a rock into 2 (or into a million grains of sand), then is it still the same rock?
If you take a million grains of sand and press and heat them into a single rock, then how many rocks remain? Are they still the same as the grains of sand that formed the rock?
Ofcourse, you could say that in all of this, all of the atoms (and therein, the electrons and protons and neutrons) are preserved, but an electron is not a rock - that same electron can form the smallest fractional part of a rock, and then become the smallest part of a plant, and then becoming the smallest part of a cow, and then become the smallest part of a human - but it is still only an electron.
-
Yes that is still a "Rock".
And I think I get the rest of that.
-
when u die, u disseapear....its like a drop dissolving in ocean
-
This is really a philosophical question, so I will answer it with my own philosophy...
Reincarnation, much like creation stories or Aesop's fables, should not be taken literally. The idea that "if you lead a good life you will return as a higher organism" does not mean that a well behaved worm will come back as a mole. I think we should take it to mean that if, during your life, you make things better for others, spread a little happiness or endeavour to make the world a slightly better place, then the next generation will benefit from the life you led. In this way, and by setting a good example, you 'return' to the world slightly improved.
I also think of life after death in much the same way; if you left an impact on people, then your ideas and 'soul' will continue on after you. (I mean 'soul' as in the set of attitudes and opinions which drives you to behave in the way you do, not as any external entity.) You, of course, being a product of organic matter, will simply be gone.
I think that people who honestly believe that they are reincarnated have accessed an area of their imagination, but taken it as truth.
-
It seems that on any site I go on, Reincarnation is accepted.
I'm alone on this, but an afterlife could exist, or we're just born again and knew nothing of our past lives, but it's not reincarnation. Your brain is just another brain, you're there in another life, but your past life is not your soul, it just happened.
Either that, or we're just a sloppy mess under the ground with no tomorrow.
-
We go to the afterlife forever. Whether it be Hell or Heaven we stay forever. And the former is very untasteful.
-
I'd like to thank you all for your participation in this thread.
-
Im a young tean as well, does that make me any smarter? LOL.
wel any way, my opinion is a very complecated solution, i belive that when you die, you go inside your dreams, and resulting in creation of your own world, were you remember everything in your past life, so every life just gets better and better, and dreaming is creating new lives constintaly. LIke it?
-
Well, decomposition means just that, we are taken apart, or disassembled. We also know that energy does not vanish it is projected somewhere else. Therefore Energy can be directly traced back to atoms. For example if you move an object, it is ultimately your atoms that have ultimately moved the object. We also know the capacity for storing massive amounts of information in relatively microscopic components. Maybe even storing information at the atomic level, who knows?
So maybe when our atomic particles are reassembled in the building blocks of life it could be possible to be re-born again.
Some moulds can do this, not on the atomic level but as spores living separate lives like little slugs. They all join together and form a single union in the shape of a mushroom. This is from memory mind so a bit patchy, maybe someone else can relate to the spores.
So a quick recap. Way out Hypothesis but hey who knows? We die and decompose, some memory is stored at the atomic level and is reassembled as another unit, maybe even two units Hmmmm split personality springs to mind.
Who knows, maybe our atoms can be reassembled on another planet in another galaxy.
-
Ah..I see Andrew.
-
Ah..I see Andrew.
Glad you can because I'm finding it difficult to see myself. Damn just bumped my head walking to the computer in the dark, Ooo it's not dark ive got my eyes closed :P
-
Haha. Thanks for the laff I've been a little depressed lateayd
-
Reincarnation is a theory, and must be examined from that standpoint. Therefore, what tradition is being referenced, and what are its elements and assumptions. Until those concept are clarified, and subject to examination, this discussion has little meaning. Reincarnation does not operate in a vacuum. It has a context; a tradition that must be explained, if we intend to try to understand it, and subject it to intelligent discourse. Is this not reasonable?
-
Sounds good to me.
-
What happens after we die? This is one of the greatest mysteries. One might ask what happens to biological life after it expires; plant or animal. Can we learn from these examples. From the microscopic to the macroscopic, life strives to adapt and continue its' existence. Decayed plants, as well as animals in nature, provide nutriments for further life. If there is a key to understanding death, it must lie within our own consciousness. Yet, we cannot adequately define or characterize consciousness. Why is this? Many suggest that brain science is not advanced enough to answer this question. Others suggest this question will never be answered. Why? Because consciousness might primarily lies outside of biological existence. Yet we are consciousness. How is this possible? There are many properties that interact with biological existence, and make it possible. Sun light, heat, air, and so forth. Do these "elements" cease to exist at the point of death? Is consciousness a property of the universe that interacts with biological existence, and continues after death? I certainly cannot prove this proposition, but I do intuit as much. For me the question is, after death, do we retain our identity, and if not, is identity real. Further, the existence of consciousness "mediating" biological existence could lend some understanding to concepts such as the Collective Unconscious and related phenomenon.
-
Well, it's hard to find out what just is after death seeing as all the people who know what happens...are dead.
But I promise to come back and tell you guys all about it when i die, mmm k?
-
Is consciousness a property of the universe that interacts with biological existence, and continues after death? I certainly cannot prove this proposition, but I do intuit as much.
If you accept the theory of the mind as a hologram, then you will have a deeper understanding of how the mind can project itself in the universe at a higher dimension.
-
i don't know i don't think its totally black after you die but maybe you become the earth you're particles fuse with the earth tho there is no scientific proof of reincarnation just children saying they remember living in a street from their previous life which could just be in a dream or something and certainly no proof of heaven or hell neither is there proof in my theory so blackness does seem most likely tho its a rather harrowing thought...
-
Dunno, i always like to think it's in another dimension, somewhere beyond our universe and understanding of how things should work.
If it is 'another dimension' (i.e. a parallel universe), then from the point of view of our universe, it cannot exist (i.e. only that can be deemed to exist, in scientific terms, if it somehow interacts with what is here).
There is also a problem that if 'we' are leaking out to another universe, then what creates 'us'? If there is a perpetual leakage of this kind, then somehow it must be draining what is here; or else, we must find some reverse flow from that other universe to us, both to prevent that other universe from becoming out of balance, and to prevent us from becoming drained of whatever it is that you think passes out from us to the other universe.
Once you start to look at a two way flow between the two universes, then they are no longer separate universes, because the two universes have an intimate bidirectional flow, and thus they form a single system, and thus a single universe.
With all this flow going on, we should have other physical effects that can be detected (and scientifically modelled) as a consequence of this flow.
Another problem with this notion of life after death (in whatever dimension it may be in), one has how one defines what 'we' are - what is the boundary between 'us' and not 'us'. Insofar as we are talking about human beings (it is difficult to know how this theory is supposed to be applied to non-humans), we usually regard the boundary of a human being as being the animal body of that human being, but it is clear that the animal body of the human body perishes after death, so we must find a different definition of what is a human being. If the parameters of what constitutes a human being is not limited by the human body, then why should there be any relationship between the human animal and your notion of a human being? How can you show any correlation between the human animal and your construct of a human being which in other contexts you believe can exist outside of the body of the human animal?
not to be rude but you're speaking as if we are the only life form and the main life form that actually exists maybe there is another universe with different outcomes or action then us e.g if i killed someone in my universe maybe in the other one i didnt so maybe your "soul" finds a way to that universe without the draining of our universe tho i do believe there may be different universes maybe not paralell but a diferent universe with different life forms
-
I believe that also.. about maybe different life forms and such also!
-
yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us
-
Yeah, still think reincarnation is real. I don't know why, but I do
-
yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us
yep
I agree!
Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!
-
yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us
yep
I agree!
Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!
lol hi karen nice to see you too what is your life form called?
-
Yeah, still think reincarnation is real. I don't know why, but I do
yeah i had a pretty strong belif in that too but i just started thinking of others and stuck to the one i believe in now
-
Re:Quantumorigin7. Consciousness as hologram is a genuinely deep concept. I did a quick, cursory web search. A reasonable understanding of this subject, as it relates to modeling consciousness requires serious study. I wish you would explore your understanding of this subject further; how the holographic model of the brain can explain consciousness, and how that understanding relates with and can project itself into the universe. I am far from sure if the concept of higher dimensions figures in such understanding. If the holographic model of the mind provides a better understanding of consciousness, and this model parallels our understanding of the universe, I would suggest that, of necessity, the holographic mind must lie in the same dimensional field as the universe, otherwise the respective, and alleged congruency would appear to be incorrect. Seemingly, we have a ways to go before science can establish the validity of the holographic model of the mind, and how it might accord with the "conscious" universe. I am not suggesting that my post can hope to compare in any way with this elegant, and internally coherent perspective. In my view, topics of this kind are offered to generate thoughtful, interesting, and stimulating ideas. What is great about this practice is that it can stretch the thinking process and assist in training the mind. Ideas engendered herein can find fruitful applications in other domains of thinking. Since reincarnation cannot be proved, I would suggest that one of our task is to "track" the origin of this idea. Historically, this might be impossible, yet it is possible to intelligently speculate as to why cultures or individuals "created" the need to transcend death, in the form of reincarnation. I am suggesting that the need to create reincarnation is exactly the same need that led to a belief in the afterlife, if not God and religion. If there is a God, a perfect deity, why are there so many distinct religions. Why did a perfect God allow this to happen? Don't blame mankind. The common view is that God started the whole process. A perfect God would have planned better; perfectly. Virtually every culture intuited a divinity, and created religions, customs, and practices to acknowledge as much. Therefore I am not questioning the existence of a divine "principle" operating in the world. If anything, I am questing the interpretation of this principle. The similarities of religions, derived completely independently, persuade me, among other facts, that there is indeed a cosmic essence, mediating a influence within distinct cultures. Unfortunately, conditioned thinking, and societal pressures, customs, and beliefs, restrict understanding. As to why this happened, is the real mystery. I cannot believe it happened by design. At the same time I believe, as impossible as it appears, enlightened thinking is possible.
-
Considering this is a science forum, perhaps discussions should be based upon evidence and scientific research into the topic, rather than pure belief and conjecture.
-
That's a bit hard to do because it's one of those things scientists would rather not really spend all their time on. The cure for cancer is the most important.
-
yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us
yep
I agree!
Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!
lol hi karen nice to see you too what is your life form called?
Well I don't rightly know young man. but I am one of a kind thats for sure! They broke the mold when they made me!
-
Re: Stefan, the topic, reincarnation, and this discussion, of which you are a party to, fall far from the tree of scientific evidence. There is no solid scientific evidence for reincarnation. There may be analogies, grounded in established scientific understanding, that constitute theories or reasonable speculation, as to the viability of reincarnation. How can anyone explore the potential validity of reincarnation from a scientific perspective, without viewing it in the context from which it originated; namely religion, most notably, the Hindu religion? Though, I did not previously mention this particular religion, I assumed this progenitor of reincarnation is widely accepted. Since scientific explanations of this topic are difficult, if not impossible to "demonstrate", I felt the need to entertain some relevant non-scientific ideas and possible explanations. A science forum must and does allow for an expanded view, especially with respect to subjects of this type. Science does not operate in a vacuum. Topics, such as reincarnation, are not limited to the exclusive purview of pure science, obviously. If that were the case, reincarnation would be an established scientific principle, idea, or concept, offered for discussion. If other disciplines, or ways of thinking, proffers a more reasonable explanations than science provides, relative to the ideas raised herein, why ignore or debunk them, in an offhanded fashion? If other disciplines, or ways of thinking can offer a better, or at least a reasonable explanation, why ignore, or discount them, unless one has a valid reason for doing so. In point of fact, it is unscientific to disregard logical and intelligent; explanations or reasonable speculation, simple because such opinions do not accord with established scientific understanding. I submit the above for your consideration.
-
John, I understand your perspective. My point was that belief and conjecture without evidence does not belong on a science forum. You may speculate and formulate hypotheses, but until irrefutable supporting evidence is found, you cannot consider any such speculation or "explanations" logical or rational; you do not even have evidence of the phenomenon in the first place! What is there to "explain"?
Which discipline can be considered logical/rational/reasonable if it does not base itself on evidence? How is the idea of an afterlife logical or rational? Its superstitious origins do not help your argument.
I don't think all ideas should be rejected offhand, but all ideas should be subjected to critique, and it really is easy to "debunk" the irrational idea of an afterlife. Try and find tangible evidence for it, sure, but don't fall into the trap of accepting and believing just because it feels good.
Also, remember Occam's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
There is a quote attributed to Mark Twain in relation to death and an afterlife:
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
-
I heard that one a million times and he's wrong, he wasn't dead for billions of years. So far, from what I heard, the universe is possibly infinite, so he could have stated "I was dead for sometime in infinity" Hard to grasp, how can you measure infinity when all we know is finite? If the universe is infinite, we will never find out what's on the other side.
-
The Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years ago. The age of the known universe is NOT infinite. Twain's quote still stands.
If the word "dead" is also your problem, define death or non-living as the absence of biological processes of an object. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
-
I knew the 13.7 billion years thing, trust me, but I also considered infinity, which seems like a fairy tale, but is something to really get your mind turning. If the universe were infinite, then the universe was always there, it can't just begin and then last forever. Anything with a beginning will have an end. Matter was created in the beginning and will be destroyed in the end. It may change form over time, but not for infinity. That's my ignorant belief from what I've read and heard, my conclusion, so to speak.
We never reached other universes, other dimensions, we never really had actual LAW tell us that there are other universes, it's just theory. And if it is just theory, this universe IS the universe, so then the question once again arises, what started this universe for certain?
-
The universe is _not_ infinite in age, since time was zero at the big bang.
It is fallacious to assume that all things which have been created will be destroyed. What is your basis for this assumption? What is the point of coming to that ignorant conclusion?
You are using the scientific terms incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%28disambiguation%29#Science_and_mathematics
See also: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html Interesting read.
-
If the earliest universe was void of matter, then matter was created.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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? [::)]
-
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.
-
John, likewise. Thank you for the intellectual exercise.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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