Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

Does consciousness survive death?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#101  Postby Goldenmane » Nov 16, 2010 1:15 am

Holy fuck.

Dude... what exactly is it that you think 'science' is?

Because that post up there makes no fucking sense.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#102  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 1:19 am

chairman bill wrote:It is possible that fig leaves are purple and the size of Wales (standard unit of international state measurement) on the planet Zog.


I hope it is possible that fig leaves are purple and the size of Wales. My wife and I love fig jelly and my wife loves to make it. If this turns out to be true, my wife and I will be in fig jelly heaven. I can only hope the people on Zog have mastered the science of instant teleportation over vast distances of space and I can only hope they will accept the dollar as payment.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#103  Postby Weaver » Nov 16, 2010 2:32 am

darwin2 wrote:
Weaver wrote:By your "logic", which tells you that consciousness can somehow survive after death, you are totally wrong with the statement "One thing that is undeniable is that all humans will die."

It is POSSIBLE that some human could be immortal. Unlikely as all hell, and would violate everything we know about the universe and how it works - but POSSIBLE.

And no less likely than your fantasy scenario of consciousness surviving after brain death. Bullshit:Bullshit=1.


I apologize Sir. I wasn't aware of the fact that some humans don't die. Obviously you are more informed than me. I have been brainwashed into believing all humans die. I want to go back to my grammar school, high school and college and present my teachers with the evidence that you have that supports the fact that some humans don't die. I am going to kick some butt. The nerve of those schools teaching me that all humans die. It is no wonder our education system is in deep trouble.

Can you PROVE that all humans must die?

Of course not - proving a negative is impossible. But you must therefore grant that, while unlikely, it is POSSIBLE for a human to live forever, right? Don't go on about what you learned in school, or what science says - these are the same people telling everyone that consciousness is a function of a living brain, and stops when the brain stops. They have no proof, and can not get it until they die - at which point it may be too late. But if we simply find a human who lives forever, he will (or she will) be able to learn the answer in time.

Yeah - it sounds stupid. It's meant to. It's just like your argument that consciousness could survive the brain's death - it's POSSIBLE. Technically, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possiblity within the realm of reality.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#104  Postby byofrcs » Nov 16, 2010 5:52 am

darwin2 wrote:
byofrcs wrote:Did anyone explain how the one year old baby who has just died of some disease knows and understands the "scientific method" ?

The baby is clearly an atheist with no clear belief in any god, heck it can't really talk enough to pray, and I know of no kindergarten/nursery school that focuses on science at such an early age.


Those who believe in reincarnation can give a possible answer. There is a lot of anecdotal information on reincarnation but unfortunately there is no scientific evidence to support it.


The mechanism that you described was not reincarnation. Also with reincarnation very few suppose that you retain your memories of the day-to-day life from this current life. You retain some rolled up assessment (e.g. karma) of your life implicitly in how you come back thus a bad person comes back lower down the pecking order in the karma.

As a materialist I already subscribe to the concept of information theoretic death. Your consciousness is formed from a combination of your memories and a platform that gives you sufficient sense data (i.e. your body). You may be physically dead but you are not completely dead until the memories i.e. the information that makes the "you" is sufficiently destroyed. In most cases this is usually one in the same thing but in some cases the physically dead have been recovered (e.g. children who have had their body temperature reduced from extreme hypothermia so they are clinically dead have been brought back to life). To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever.

To suggest that your information survives the destruction of the media in which it is stored presumes the supernatural exists. Does that work for hard disks ?. Last summer I had a 500 Gig portable hard disk get knocked off the table by my dog. Will the data on it be floating about in some afterlife ? I had duplicates of the data but it was annoying. It was SATA disk - I don't know if this helps.

Without evidence for this supernatural realm anything said about what happens in that is complete conjecture. Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. It is far better to plan for that then conjecture your survival. Using the "scientific method" as some pixie dust to add verisimilitude to your conjecture is nonsensical given the "scientific method" is methodical naturalism and so the supernatural realm just doesn't exist for that. If it did work out as you describe then (well excluding the time I spend looking for my 72 virgins) we would look at the world around us the same as we look at the world now. For most people that would revolve around sex, food and drink.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#105  Postby Rubicon » Nov 16, 2010 7:41 am

darwin2 wrote:I stated "But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survive the death of the physical body" and you replied "No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality." Jeepers creepers, great balls of fire, Holy Mackerel! I didn't realize it was not a scientific reality that we die. Too bad you didn't read one of my previous responses to a poster who made the same assertion as you just made. It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment!

You are deliberately paraphrasing my comments incorrectly here. Please don't do this again. I clearly said:
First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death.

I was very clearly referring to the unproven assertion that consciousness persists after death, not to your asinine strawman that "it is not a scientific reality that we die". Where the hell did you get that idea?

Then you state science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality. I have a strong feeling that scientists would disagree with you on this.

Are you using some kind of bullshit generator? Please provide evidence that ethics is un unmistakeable part of scientific inquiry. If you can't, I'll consider this another one of your vapid assertions.

However if you are correct and a scientist stole another scientist's work or secretly screwed his best friend's wife or extorted the funds from some science club, science would not give a damn about these actions because science doesn't deal with ethics.

My god, you really are getting desperate here. What the hell has this got to do with the scientific method? Please learn the difference between science and individual scientists.

I know our planet is in deep trouble but if you are correct it is a lot worse than I thought.

You're definitely spot on with this one. Judging from your posts, a basic understanding of what science is and what it does is apparently sorely lacking. Deeply troubling indeed.

Now please be so kind as to answer the following question, which multiple posters have asked you and which you have sofar failed to answer:

What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?

EDIT: typo.
Last edited by Rubicon on Nov 16, 2010 10:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Rubicon
 
Posts: 366
Age: 44

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#106  Postby gleniedee » Nov 16, 2010 8:00 am



I am not an atheist so you will have to ask an atheist that question.


Why on earth would you do that? Atheism in not a world view,philosophy or ideology,merely a disbelief in god(s), offering no answers to any questions. Making no claims, the atheist attracts no burden of proof and needs to explain exactly nothing.That honour belongs 100% the person making the claim(s).

My disbelief in the soul and an afterlife has the same base as my atheism; lack of evidence.You believe? Wonderful! Want me to believe? No problem, simply show me your evidence. If you're unable to do that,stop wasting my time and go away..
gleniedee
 
Name: glen dee
Posts: 575
Age: 74
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#107  Postby trubble76 » Nov 16, 2010 9:54 am

darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.


I have highlighted the things you said that you seem to have forgotten about.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.


I was calling you on the inaccurate things you said, highlighting the contradictions in your posts. I'm sorry it's beyond you, even though it's all written down in front of you.
Some might take it as dishonesty, I reserve judgement.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 45
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#108  Postby my_wan » Nov 16, 2010 11:33 am

Weaver wrote: ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possibility within the realm of reality.

darwin2,
Weaver made a key statement here: "hypothesized mechanism". The fact that a claim can not be absolutely proved to be false does not make the hypothesis that it is true scientific. To make make it scientific you must either provide a hypothetical mechanism that can be tested, or provide a method of testing the claim itself. Merely claiming a lack of proof is scientific is in itself silly. So hypothesize away... just drop the lack of evidence as meaning anything one way or the other scientifically.

That, my man, IS the "correct scientific approach" per the OP. So let's hear said scientific hypothesis...
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#109  Postby orpheus » Nov 16, 2010 1:46 pm

darwin2 wrote:
orpheus wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

Those are excellent questions but they miss the purpose of this thread.  The purpose of this thread is to call attention to the reality that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and If it does to offer a suggestion of a possible method, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to enable a surviving conscious person to explore such a reality if it indeed exists.  All of your questions are great but are not relevant to the purpose of this thread.


(bold mine)

You keep saying that, and I wonder if you and many of us are talking at cross purposes. So- what exactly do you mean by "it is possible"? That nobody has proved it impossible? That you've thought of a way it could happen? What?


Possible means it could take place. Yes I thought of a way it could happen. I die and find myself conscious in an after death reality.


Others have recently dealt with the question of what is meant by "possible". So I'll address the second part. I asked if you thought of a way it could happen - if you'd thought of a way consciousness could survive after death. You said "Yes I thought of a way it could happen. I die and find myself conscious in an after death reality."

That's like this:

Q: Have you thought of a way to get through to the other side of this really complicated maze?
A: Yes, I thought of a way. I look around me and find myself on the other side of it.

Do you see the problem? You didn't really answer my question.
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 57
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#110  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 3:53 pm

Goldenmane wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:What the fuck is "consciousness"?

Define it, then we'll talk.


Are you aware that you asked me this question "What the fuck is "consciousness?" Are you aware that you made the statement [b2]"Define it, then we'll talk?"

If you answer yes to both questions, you have my definition of consciousness..


That wasn't a rigorous definition. It was specious hand-waving. That shit went out of fashion about mid-last-century.

Apply some fucking rigour to your formulation of ideas. Define, clearly, "consciousness".

I don't think you can. The reason I don't think you can is because it's only just beginning to really start to become clear (through the studies pursued by neuroscientists of various kinds) how to properly frame the appropriate questions, and I've seen no indication that you understand anything about the last couple of decades or so of such work.

Good luck. If you can clearly define consciousness and give compelling evidence to support the notion that it is in no way tied to the physical processes of the brain, and in fact continues after death, I'm fairly sure you're going to change the entire world.

I don't, however, think this is going to happen.


Once again let me repeat what I told you in a previous post when you asked me to define consciousness. I stated:

Are you aware that you asked me this question "What the fuck is "consciousness?" Are you aware that you made the statement "Define it, then we'll talk?"

If you answer yes to both questions, you have my definition of consciousness..


I've told you and others over and over that I never stated there is evidence at this moment in time to demonstrate that consciousness continues after death. I only contend that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and if It does I suggest the Scientific Method to explore this new reality.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#111  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 4:10 pm

Steve wrote:If consciousness does not end then what dies? And if consciousness does not end then what would you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting we drink the poison and die, for example?


Only one's physical body dies if consciousness continues after death. I suggest one lead a full life by being ethical, studying the sciences, enjoying family, friends and nature and occasionally thinking about one’s death and preparing oneself to use the Scientific Method to explore the after death reality if one finds oneself in this after death reality.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#112  Postby tytalus » Nov 16, 2010 4:12 pm

Ok, so if the best darwin2 can do is repeat himself, knowing that these vague awareness questions would never pass muster in a dictionary, much less in a scientific investigation...we have arrived at the end of this, more adventures in the land of what is logically possible.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 49
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#113  Postby trubble76 » Nov 16, 2010 4:13 pm

darwin2 wrote:
Steve wrote:If consciousness does not end then what dies? And if consciousness does not end then what would you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting we drink the poison and die, for example?


Only one's physical body dies if consciousness continues after death. I suggest one lead a full life by being ethical, studying the sciences, enjoying family, friends and nature and occasionally thinking about one’s death and preparing oneself to use the Scientific Method to explore the after death reality if one finds oneself in this after death reality.


The Scientific Method limits itself to this existance. We have superstition to deal with any others.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 45
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#114  Postby my_wan » Nov 16, 2010 4:31 pm

tytalus wrote:Ok, so if the best darwin2 can do is repeat himself, knowing that these vague awareness questions would never pass muster in a dictionary, much less in a scientific investigation...we have arrived at the end of this, more adventures in the land of what is logically possible.

Unfortunately darwin2 can't even explain why it's logically possible. He can only insist that we can't prove it's impossible.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#115  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 4:50 pm

Goldenmane wrote:Holy fuck.

Dude... what exactly is it that you think 'science' is?

Because that post up there makes no fucking sense.


It is with deep regret that I must inform you on the reality that I don't have any psychic powers. Therefore I am not clear what you are referring to. Please use the quote button.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#116  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 5:03 pm

Weaver wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Weaver wrote:By your "logic", which tells you that consciousness can somehow survive after death, you are totally wrong with the statement "One thing that is undeniable is that all humans will die."

It is POSSIBLE that some human could be immortal. Unlikely as all hell, and would violate everything we know about the universe and how it works - but POSSIBLE.

And no less likely than your fantasy scenario of consciousness surviving after brain death. Bullshit:Bullshit=1.


I apologize Sir. I wasn't aware of the fact that some humans don't die. Obviously you are more informed than me. I have been brainwashed into believing all humans die. I want to go back to my grammar school, high school and college and present my teachers with the evidence that you have that supports the fact that some humans don't die. I am going to kick some butt. The nerve of those schools teaching me that all humans die. It is no wonder our education system is in deep trouble.

Can you PROVE that all humans must die?

Of course not - proving a negative is impossible. But you must therefore grant that, while unlikely, it is POSSIBLE for a human to live forever, right? Don't go on about what you learned in school, or what science says - these are the same people telling everyone that consciousness is a function of a living brain, and stops when the brain stops. They have no proof, and can not get it until they die - at which point it may be too late. But if we simply find a human who lives forever, he will (or she will) be able to learn the answer in time.

Yeah - it sounds stupid. It's meant to. It's just like your argument that consciousness could survive the brain's death - it's POSSIBLE. Technically, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possiblity within the realm of reality.


Yes, it is possible that humans may attain immortality. Ray Kurzweil thinks it is possible and I agree with him. If this happens according to scientists like Kurzweil, human intelligence will be light years ahead of what it is now. If there is an afterlife I believe humans who have reached that high level of intelligence will have had the technology to study the after physical life and may have the ability to decide if they want to stay in their physical form or enter an afterlife form if it exists. If this turns out to true, they will choose whatever form gives them the most satisfaction.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#117  Postby Weaver » Nov 16, 2010 5:08 pm

OK, I'm going to take another stab at this - tell me if I'm on the right track, won't you?

It's possible that, when we die, we will suddenly learn the reality of the afterlife. It is further possible that this afterlife will involve running about in huge marijuana fields. This is not a time to be alarmed - it is quite unlikely that one would have to take drug tests in the afterlife. But the large quantities of marijuana should be viewed as being put there for your pleasure - and you should take advantage of it. Look around yourself ... be aware of your surroundings. Any lightning strikes in the area? Any flint nodules, which could be used to strike a spark? If quantities are sufficient, simply piling the buds on a small fire should provide the necessary smoke, although fashioning a pipe shouldn't be difficult.

Now, we are all rationalists here (geez, THAT was hard to type with a straight face ... but I digress). We should logically consider the appropriate course of action to assess and deal with our surroundings. Given the large quantities of marijuana, and the presumed presence of fire, only one method suggests itself. Lamaze.

Deep, cleansing breaths. Draw them in and hold, then pant when exhaling. You should feel separated from any pain, yet have a deep awareness of yourself and what is happening.

It's all possible, isn't it? After all, we have evidence that marijuana exists in this world. In fact, it cannot be proven that marijuana doesn't exist in an afterlife - so I assess the odds as 50%:50%. Pretty good chance to roll up a spliff after you're dead - after all, that's a great time to get mellow about things, isn't it?
Once again - sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it? Notice the similarities?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#118  Postby Weaver » Nov 16, 2010 5:11 pm

darwin2 wrote:
Weaver wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

I apologize Sir. I wasn't aware of the fact that some humans don't die. Obviously you are more informed than me. I have been brainwashed into believing all humans die. I want to go back to my grammar school, high school and college and present my teachers with the evidence that you have that supports the fact that some humans don't die. I am going to kick some butt. The nerve of those schools teaching me that all humans die. It is no wonder our education system is in deep trouble.

Can you PROVE that all humans must die?

Of course not - proving a negative is impossible. But you must therefore grant that, while unlikely, it is POSSIBLE for a human to live forever, right? Don't go on about what you learned in school, or what science says - these are the same people telling everyone that consciousness is a function of a living brain, and stops when the brain stops. They have no proof, and can not get it until they die - at which point it may be too late. But if we simply find a human who lives forever, he will (or she will) be able to learn the answer in time.

Yeah - it sounds stupid. It's meant to. It's just like your argument that consciousness could survive the brain's death - it's POSSIBLE. Technically, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possiblity within the realm of reality.


Yes, it is possible that humans may attain immortality. Ray Kurzweil thinks it is possible and I agree with him. If this happens according to scientists like Kurzweil, human intelligence will be light years ahead of what it is now. If there is an afterlife I believe humans who have reached that high level of intelligence will have had the technology to study the after physical life and may have the ability to decide if they want to stay in their physical form or enter an afterlife form if it exists. If this turns out to true, they will choose whatever form gives them the most satisfaction.

Ah, but according to your "logic", humans could be immortal right now! In fact, every single person you know could be immortal - and anyone you think died could have actually gone off to live in East Timor without your knowledge!

Anything is possible, after all ...


Don't you see yet that unbridled pursuit of the "possible", without rational limits imposed by observed reality, doesn't lead anywhere?
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#119  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 5:14 pm

byofrcs wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
byofrcs wrote:Did anyone explain how the one year old baby who has just died of some disease knows and understands the "scientific method" ?

The baby is clearly an atheist with no clear belief in any god, heck it can't really talk enough to pray, and I know of no kindergarten/nursery school that focuses on science at such an early age.


Those who believe in reincarnation can give a possible answer. There is a lot of anecdotal information on reincarnation but unfortunately there is no scientific evidence to support it.


The mechanism that you described was not reincarnation. Also with reincarnation very few suppose that you retain your memories of the day-to-day life from this current life. You retain some rolled up assessment (e.g. karma) of your life implicitly in how you come back thus a bad person comes back lower down the pecking order in the karma.

As a materialist I already subscribe to the concept of information theoretic death. Your consciousness is formed from a combination of your memories and a platform that gives you sufficient sense data (i.e. your body). You may be physically dead but you are not completely dead until the memories i.e. the information that makes the "you" is sufficiently destroyed. In most cases this is usually one in the same thing but in some cases the physically dead have been recovered (e.g. children who have had their body temperature reduced from extreme hypothermia so they are clinically dead have been brought back to life). To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever.

To suggest that your information survives the destruction of the media in which it is stored presumes the supernatural exists. Does that work for hard disks ?. Last summer I had a 500 Gig portable hard disk get knocked off the table by my dog. Will the data on it be floating about in some afterlife ? I had duplicates of the data but it was annoying. It was SATA disk - I don't know if this helps.

Without evidence for this supernatural realm anything said about what happens in that is complete conjecture. Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. It is far better to plan for that then conjecture your survival. Using the "scientific method" as some pixie dust to add verisimilitude to your conjecture is nonsensical given the "scientific method" is methodical naturalism and so the supernatural realm just doesn't exist for that. If it did work out as you describe then (well excluding the time I spend looking for my 72 virgins) we would look at the world around us the same as we look at the world now. For most people that would revolve around sex, food and drink.


Sir, you are stating your own personal subjective beliefs on this issue. Your belief on this issue is not a scientific fact. Any rational scientist will tell you that you are wrong. Subjectively they may believe you are correct. However objectively they will tell you your statement is incorrect.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#120  Postby byofrcs » Nov 16, 2010 8:09 pm

darwin2 wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

Those who believe in reincarnation can give a possible answer. There is a lot of anecdotal information on reincarnation but unfortunately there is no scientific evidence to support it.


The mechanism that you described was not reincarnation. Also with reincarnation very few suppose that you retain your memories of the day-to-day life from this current life. You retain some rolled up assessment (e.g. karma) of your life implicitly in how you come back thus a bad person comes back lower down the pecking order in the karma.

As a materialist I already subscribe to the concept of information theoretic death. Your consciousness is formed from a combination of your memories and a platform that gives you sufficient sense data (i.e. your body). You may be physically dead but you are not completely dead until the memories i.e. the information that makes the "you" is sufficiently destroyed. In most cases this is usually one in the same thing but in some cases the physically dead have been recovered (e.g. children who have had their body temperature reduced from extreme hypothermia so they are clinically dead have been brought back to life). To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever.

To suggest that your information survives the destruction of the media in which it is stored presumes the supernatural exists. Does that work for hard disks ?. Last summer I had a 500 Gig portable hard disk get knocked off the table by my dog. Will the data on it be floating about in some afterlife ? I had duplicates of the data but it was annoying. It was SATA disk - I don't know if this helps.

Without evidence for this supernatural realm anything said about what happens in that is complete conjecture. Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. It is far better to plan for that then conjecture your survival. Using the "scientific method" as some pixie dust to add verisimilitude to your conjecture is nonsensical given the "scientific method" is methodical naturalism and so the supernatural realm just doesn't exist for that. If it did work out as you describe then (well excluding the time I spend looking for my 72 virgins) we would look at the world around us the same as we look at the world now. For most people that would revolve around sex, food and drink.


Sir, you are stating your own personal subjective beliefs on this issue. Your belief on this issue is not a scientific fact. Any rational scientist will tell you that you are wrong. Subjectively they may believe you are correct. However objectively they will tell you your statement is incorrect.


Which statement ? Be precise. Your Emmental of an OP has so many holes in it we wouldn't want something important falling through the gaps.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests