Life After Death

Freebase Dali · 05-23-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

You can still gather evidence in favour of something and make one explanation more plausible than others, even if you can't be sure it's 100% correct.

F.ex you can look at a brain scan and record brain activity when people think of different things, so we know that brain activity somehow relates to thinking. We know that when parts of the brain is damaged, that can alter function such as the ability to speak languages or the ability to associate visual sensory input with your knowledge of stuff so that you're able to recognize things you see. Damage to the brain in old people with alzheimers often alters personality.

You can take all that and more and say that's evidence in favour of the following assumption : that if the brain dies and completely decomposes, it's function is lost which is so disruptive to thought processes and personality that this stuff ceases.

That's based on f.ex knowledge of the effects of necrosis in your brain when you're alive. Why should the rules suddenly change? From our general experience, they don't.

Spot on.

The only way someone can believe in an experiencable afterlife without contradicting themselves is if they believe their cognitive ability exists independently of their physical brain.
And If that's the case, then they're contradicting known science.

Anteater · 05-23-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veridical Fiction

Spot on.

The only way someone can believe in an experiencable afterlife without contradicting themselves is if they believe their cognitive ability exists independently of their physical brain.
And If that's the case, then they're contradicting known science.

But our bodies generate energy do they not? Where does all that energy go once the brain and body ceases functioning? Does it disperse into the environment, change form, or go somewhere else completely?

The concious/unconcious experience of living as a human being and the cognitive functions of the brain that allow us to do everything are not the same thing, and even if the latter is directly effected by changes in the brain, the former is something that does not change at all bar the complete shutdown of the entire biological system of a lifeform.

Freebase Dali · 05-24-2009, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

But our bodies generate energy do they not? Where does all that energy go once the brain and body ceases functioning? Does it disperse into the environment, change form, or go somewhere else completely?

The concious/unconcious experience of living as a human being and the cognitive functions of the brain that allow us to do everything are not the same thing, and even if the latter is directly effected by changes in the brain, the former is something that does not change at all bar the complete shutdown of the entire biological system of a lifeform.

1. Our bodies are made up of energy, as well as everything else in existence. Go ahead and die, then say hello to one of the bugs I killed back in the 2nd grade.
How are you different?

2. If you really want to know where your life-force goes (energy) after you die... Well, ask the process of decomposition. It knows.
Otherwise, any type of semantic argument you can throw at me is completely null and void.

3. If you don't believe that your entire perspective, spiritual or physical, is a result of a cognitive influence, then you are dumber than I thought.

TheBig3 · 05-24-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

If one were to consider psychology to be (loosely) the study of the mind and one to were to even more loosely define decomposition as something being simplified because it isn't in complete use (or rather living) then I would say it's possible that the decomposition of psychology is occurring within your own underused/simple mind.

Your move 3!

Hey, I've read your Orwell paper. I'd be careful who calls who incompetent. You write papers like you post on the forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

You can still gather evidence in favour of something and make one explanation more plausible than others, even if you can't be sure it's 100% correct.

F.ex you can look at a brain scan and record brain activity when people think of different things, so we know that brain activity somehow relates to thinking. We know that when parts of the brain is damaged, that can alter function such as the ability to speak languages or the ability to associate visual sensory input with your knowledge of stuff so that you're able to recognize things you see. Damage to the brain in old people with alzheimers often alters personality.

You can take all that and more and say that's evidence in favour of the following assumption : that if the brain dies and completely decomposes, it's function is lost which is so disruptive to thought processes and personality that this stuff ceases.

That's based on f.ex knowledge of the effects of necrosis in your brain when you're alive. Why should the rules suddenly change? From our general experience, they don't.

you also can't be sure its 3% correct.

Anteater · 05-24-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veridical Fiction

1. Our bodies are made up of energy, as well as everything else in existence. Go ahead and die, then say hello to one of the bugs I killed back in the 2nd grade.
How are you different?

2. If you really want to know where your life-force goes (energy) after you die... Well, ask the process of decomposition. It knows.
Otherwise, any type of semantic argument you can throw at me is completely null and void.

3. If you don't believe that your entire perspective, spiritual or physical, is a result of a cognitive influence, then you are dumber than I thought.

1. Everything is different on some level, so there's nothing with the assumption that there's no consistency in the state of an "after" life, if such a term is appropriate in this context. We only know what we can measure, so such is beyond our experience to answer. Secondly, humans are different from elephants and the bug you squished back in 2nd grade even if we are made of the same energy; we came from the same place, but ultimately are lifeforms that have just as many dissimilarities as we do things in common. Also, just because cherry and lime flavored popsicles are both popsicles, but does that make them the exact same thing?

Sorry, but your annoying tendency to create one-sentence answers to complex subjects doesn't really do much for me. :P

2. Decomposition is a physical process which can be observed by humans and other corporal things that have yet to die. It is also a fact that our human senses and various methods/instruments cannot measure or perceive all the stimuli around us. The natural conclusion to make, then, is that there is a probability that something happens after body functions cease that we simply are unaware of even as we observe it. Although we can also make the opposite assumption, such an assumption naturally would point to your emotions and biases getting in the way of investigating something that may be worth learning about. I mean come on now, are you really so base-minded that you completely discount the possibility that things happen around you that you are not aware of, simply because to do so would mean putting yourself out of your pathetic little comfort zone?

3. I said they were seperate things, not that a person's cognitive process could not influence their concious experiences and viewpoints. However, a person can just as easily think and consider and act upon things that contradict what their cognitive processes tell them. Also, it is possible to simply look and observe something without thinking anything in particular, but simply focusing on what one's bodily senses are telling them. Furthermore, it is precisely because we are guided by our senses and limited cognitive abilities that limit us from knowing everything, not even taking into account the possibility of spiritual existence.

Yukon Cornelius · 05-24-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

1. Everything is different on some level, so there's nothing with the assumption that there's no consistency in the state of an "after" life, if such a term is appropriate in this context. We only know what we can measure, so such is beyond our experience to answer. Secondly, humans are different from elephants and the bug you squished back in 2nd grade even if we are made of the same energy; we came from the same place, but ultimately are lifeforms that have just as many dissimilarities as we do things in common. Also, just because cherry and lime flavored popsicles are both popsicles, but does that make them the exact same thing?

Sorry, but your annoying tendency to create one-sentence answers to complex subjects doesn't really do much for me. :P

2. Decomposition is a physical process which can be observed by humans and other corporal things that have yet to die. It is also a fact that our human senses and various methods/instruments cannot measure or perceive all the stimuli around us. The natural conclusion to make, then, is that there is a probability that something happens after body functions cease that we simply are unaware of even as we observe it. Although we can also make the opposite assumption, such an assumption naturally would point to your emotions and biases getting in the way of investigating something that may be worth learning about. I mean come on now, are you really so base-minded that you completely discount the possibility that things happen around you that you are not aware of, simply because to do so would mean putting yourself out of your pathetic little comfort zone?

3. I said they were seperate things, not that a person's cognitive process could not influence their concious experiences and viewpoints. However, a person can just as easily think and consider and act upon things that contradict what their cognitive processes tell them. Also, it is possible to simply look and observe something without thinking anything in particular, but simply focusing on what one's bodily senses are telling them. Furthermore, it is precisely because we are guided by our senses and limited cognitive abilities that limit us from knowing everything, not even taking into account the possibility of spiritual existence.

Anteater, that's all good and well... here is the problem with the energy that everyone keeps talking about...

We decompose and our energy/matter is transferred to insects, bacteria and the earth.

When your dead... Your friggn dead.

Anteater · 05-24-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius

Anteater, that's all good and well... here is the problem with the energy that everyone keeps talking about...

We decompose and our energy/matter is transferred to insects, bacteria and the earth.

When your dead... Your friggn dead.

In the biological sense, yes. But consider these questions, because they're going to be important ones as we continue to peel back the universe; what if there are forms of energy that cannot be detected or behave as we expect them to according to our current knowledge of the bodymind and physics? All the evidence that's begun to pile up over the last decade or so, including observations of supposed dark matter and recent studies into quantum physics, seems to point to this conclusion.

Guybrush · 05-25-2009, 03:28 AM

Dark matter is a hypothesis used to explain why the universe doesn't seem to want to contract, leading to the assumption that there's some kind of matter where it doesn't seem like there is any. However, we're not a lack of matter and this being a hypothesis, I don't think it should have more weight than what we can scientifically prove.

When you die, you lose some of your energy to the environment causing you to get cold unless you're someplace very hot. All the energy tied up in chemicals in your body are consumed and utilized by bacterias and other organisms unless you get burned whereupon it's released as heat. This is something we know from a scientific viewpoint today I don't see any evidence of soul or a metaphysical afterlife in it. When you eat cow brain, some of that energy from the cow is now used to fuel your biological life processes. When a worm or a crow eats you, some of your energy will be used to fuel it's biological processes. Where's the soul in that? Matter and energy may be forever, but we're not.

Freebase Dali · 05-26-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

Dark matter is a hypothesis used to explain why the universe doesn't seem to want to contract, leading to the assumption that there's some kind of matter where it doesn't seem like there is any. However, we're not a lack of matter and this being a hypothesis, I don't think it should have more weight than what we can scientifically prove.

When you die, you lose some of your energy to the environment causing you to get cold unless you're someplace very hot. All the energy tied up in chemicals in your body are consumed and utilized by bacterias and other organisms unless you get burned whereupon it's released as heat. This is something we know from a scientific viewpoint today I don't see any evidence of soul or a metaphysical afterlife in it. When you eat cow brain, some of that energy from the cow is now used to fuel your biological life processes. When a worm or a crow eats you, some of your energy will be used to fuel it's biological processes. Where's the soul in that? Matter and energy may be forever, but we're not.

You guys normally eat cow brain where you're from?

Whatsitoosit · 05-27-2009, 08:12 AM

The more I think about this stuff the more I realize I really don't give a **** if there is an afterlife. I'm thinking if we are the best version of ourselves we can be while we are alive we won't need to believe in an afterlife. If it exists, ok, guess I'll go down that road when I get there. If it doesn't, that's cool too. What I'm more concerned with is the final hours of my life where I think back (assuming I don't have Alzheimer's) and feel comfort that I lived a good life or discomfort that I could have lived a better one. That to me is a more definite conclusion to be worried about rather then one that we will never have any proof of.

05-25-2009, 03:28 AM	#148 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Dark matter is a hypothesis used to explain why the universe doesn't seem to want to contract, leading to the assumption that there's some kind of matter where it doesn't seem like there is any. However, we're not a lack of matter and this being a hypothesis, I don't think it should have more weight than what we can scientifically prove. When you die, you lose some of your energy to the environment causing you to get cold unless you're someplace very hot. All the energy tied up in chemicals in your body are consumed and utilized by bacterias and other organisms unless you get burned whereupon it's released as heat. This is something we know from a scientific viewpoint today I don't see any evidence of soul or a metaphysical afterlife in it. When you eat cow brain, some of that energy from the cow is now used to fuel your biological life processes. When a worm or a crow eats you, some of your energy will be used to fuel it's biological processes. Where's the soul in that? Matter and energy may be forever, but we're not. __________________ Something Completely Different

05-27-2009, 08:12 AM	#150 (permalink)
Whatsitoosit Bringer of Carrots Join Date: May 2008 Location: New York, NY Posts: 648	The more I think about this stuff the more I realize I really don't give a **** if there is an afterlife. I'm thinking if we are the best version of ourselves we can be while we are alive we won't need to believe in an afterlife. If it exists, ok, guess I'll go down that road when I get there. If it doesn't, that's cool too. What I'm more concerned with is the final hours of my life where I think back (assuming I don't have Alzheimer's) and feel comfort that I lived a good life or discomfort that I could have lived a better one. That to me is a more definite conclusion to be worried about rather then one that we will never have any proof of. __________________ "It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any to just sit there with a dumb look on your face." Last edited by Whatsitoosit; 05-27-2009 at 08:17 AM.