After Death..

  • 90 Replies
  • 34328 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Simulated

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7188
  • Simulated..What more do you needa know :P
    • View Profile
    • Facebook
After Death..
« Reply #50 on: 22/10/2007 21:44:02 »
Haha. Thanks for the laff I've been a little depressed lateayd

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #51 on: 12/11/2007 04:54:18 »
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?

*

Offline Simulated

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7188
  • Simulated..What more do you needa know :P
    • View Profile
    • Facebook
After Death..
« Reply #52 on: 12/11/2007 12:14:48 »
Sounds good to me.

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #53 on: 16/11/2007 07:58:13 »
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.   
« Last Edit: 17/11/2007 00:57:31 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline Nobody's Confidant

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1802
  • So loud silence can be.
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #54 on: 20/11/2007 17:51:42 »
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?
Nothing is absolute. It takes a thousand people to make a stereotype, only one to grind it into the dust.

*

Offline Quantumorigin7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 80
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #55 on: 17/06/2008 21:18:03 »
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.

*

Offline benep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #56 on: 17/06/2008 21:44:36 »
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...
to be a legend yourself , the legend needs to be you

*

Offline benep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #57 on: 17/06/2008 21:51:23 »
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
to be a legend yourself , the legend needs to be you

*

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • 31662
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #58 on: 17/06/2008 21:58:25 »
I believe that also.. about maybe different life forms and such also!

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

Offline benep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #59 on: 17/06/2008 22:06:56 »
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
to be a legend yourself , the legend needs to be you

*

Offline Simulated

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7188
  • Simulated..What more do you needa know :P
    • View Profile
    • Facebook
After Death..
« Reply #60 on: 17/06/2008 22:08:19 »
Yeah, still think reincarnation is real. I don't know why, but I do

*

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • 31662
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #61 on: 17/06/2008 22:10:26 »
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!

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

Offline benep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #62 on: 17/06/2008 22:11:30 »
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?
to be a legend yourself , the legend needs to be you

*

Offline benep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 146
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #63 on: 17/06/2008 22:12:49 »
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
to be a legend yourself , the legend needs to be you

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #64 on: 19/06/2008 04:10:40 »
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.     
« Last Edit: 19/06/2008 04:12:45 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #65 on: 19/06/2008 08:57:51 »
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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Quantumorigin7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 80
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #66 on: 19/06/2008 12:47:28 »
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.

*

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • 31662
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #67 on: 19/06/2008 15:09:29 »
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!

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #68 on: 20/06/2008 02:59:34 »
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.   
« Last Edit: 20/06/2008 06:37:49 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #69 on: 20/06/2008 08:06:13 »
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."
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Quantumorigin7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 80
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #70 on: 22/06/2008 20:42:49 »
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.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #71 on: 23/06/2008 04:42:57 »
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
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Quantumorigin7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 80
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #72 on: 23/06/2008 16:24:01 »
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?

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
After Death..
« Reply #73 on: 24/06/2008 08:33:16 »
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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Quantumorigin7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 80
    • View Profile
After Death..
« Reply #74 on: 24/06/2008 14:10:40 »
If the earliest universe was void of matter, then matter was created.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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"?
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline OldDragon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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?
Pain Promotes Growth - Suffering is Optional.

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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? [::)
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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 »
Titanscape

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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 »
Titanscape

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
Titanscape

*

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