serious issues Death & Dying

[Capn Jack]

James said:

Capn_Jack said:

miss_diddy said:

ah exactly you say body, what about spirit & all our enegies etc???

 

Thats just chemical and electrical processes that take place as with everything in your body, spirit isn't anything but a process, nothing magical or religious about it. When you die your chemical and electrical activites have ceased and your body (and spirit) decompose.

 

Whilst this is a fairly good argument I dis-agree.

 

I personally think that there is a [censored] load more going on than just your body/chemicals/matter. You FEEL alive - I cant describe it - its like another sense - nothing to do with what your brain conjures up.

 

I really do feel that my body is just an engine - its not ME

 

I would like to believe in there being something mystical and magical about our "being", but everything I have learnt and studied has pointed to a much more mundane, disapointing reality, that we are nothing more than the product of chemical reactions.

[James]

Jack,

 

Can you define what makes something 'living' / 'alive' ?

[Guest]

James said:

Diablo said:

miss_diddy said:

Im more concerned about what happens after if anything????

 

I dont belive in the afterlife or re-incarnation

 

do you have any facts to support your views ? lol (I know I dont! lol)

 

Why do you feel so strongly that there is definitely nothing after this life ?

 

Nope, but my view on life is simple

 

Birth - Life - Death

 

If there was some element (God) etc looking over each and everyone of us the bad things shouldn't happen, I was brought up a Christian, but the older i've got the more my views have changed

 

I have lost so many people in my life, close people & family that i dont believe in any afterlife or re-incarnation

[James]

I have lost a lot of my family when they were at very young ages and I personally believe 'the best people are taken first' - they are simply needed elsewhere as a priority ... I'm actually quite comfortable in the fact that I may meet up with them again (in some shape or form), but even if I dont I know they are a [censored] load better off than when they were in pain in their illness here.

 

I believe they are all out doing good/positive things/work as we speak

[Capn Jack]

James said:

Jack,

 

Can you define what makes something 'living' / 'alive' ?

 

I'll let the scientists answer this one, they do it a lot more clearly then I can.

"We may realize that the defi-nition of life is not entirely binary­systems may not simplybe "alive" or "not." Instead, we could imagine a life param-eter, L, whose value expresses how alive a given thing is at agiven time in a given environment"

 

Rest found here.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:ZybV5iaXFlwJ:sciencereview.berkeley.edu:7066/pdf/2.1/perspective.pdf+what+makes+something+%27living%27+/+%27alive%27+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

I'll bring more articles as I find them.

[Aleksandra]

Capt Jack,

 

Whatever science says about death, I think it's fair to conclude that we, nonetheless, don't really know? Even if you take the scientific explanation 99%, there is still 1% that needs to be experiential. Scientific disciplines typically work on the basis of theory and experiential checking (prove/disprove). In this case, I think, theory is you die and that's it, and experiential stage is, obviously, when you personally keel over and find out (or, don't).

 

But whichever way (and I don't have an opinion - I simply don't know) there's nothing to be afraid of, surely. If we do die, as in "stop existing", well there is no consciousness or awareness so being "dead" is nothing to us, we're not aware of it in any way. If there is some sort of afterlife, well then it's not proper death methinks.

I think it was Aristotle who said that we never meet death because when one starts the other stops, so there is actually no point at which you're both dead and know about it (to be able to be worried or sad) therefore why be afraid. (He obviously felt the same as you do, I guess?)

 

I imagine most people hope for some sort of afterlife? I know I'd love to see my dad.

[James]

Agreed with Alek...

 

Scientists are constantly changing their views and correcting themselves / their principles. A lot of them are so very very new (like in the last 100 years etc..) so I believe we are waaaay too naive to think we have even some of the answers to the universe.

[Lisa]

they make it up as they go along!! look at these fools with big beards who find a mound of mud, then saying ooh here the king would have slept!! WTF!! how the hell do they know!!!

[James]

I wouldnt go that far Lisa - they do come up with some very sound ideas/principles/formulas which appear to be correct. But things are so damn complex out there that its entirely possible that every principle out there at the moment is in fact wrong. I think they will definitely get there one day but its a long long way off from them being able to say 'this is fact'

[Blink]

Blinks philosophy on life/death (an essay)

 

Those of you who know me will already know that I have a degree in genetics, which makes me view things in a pretty biological/chemical way.

 

Once you have got beyond the whole "Big Bang" causation arguement, the universe then trundles happily along following chemical/physical laws. At some point along the way, a couple of molecules stuck together and found themselves replicating themselves. This is the fundamental tenant of ALL life REPLICATION All life exists solely to recreate itself, upto and including human life. (Well, upto the point where we developed ideas and people wishing a greater discussion on the future of evolution through ideas should read Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker, & The Selfish Gene specifically his references to memes)

 

So, we have some molecules that are replicating themselves, and rapidly using up all the resources. The replication technique isn't great, and some of the mutations don't survive, but some mutations are actually beneficial, and these molecules reproduce faster, and dominate the resource pool Well, now we have Evolution

 

Advance a few billion years, and we have a wide variety of life. But, I hear you cry, where do emotions fit into this genetic world?

 

My theories on this aren't great, and I confess I stopped studying 10 years ago, but....and go with me here...the whole purpose of life is to perpetuate itself, or more specifically its genes. Imagine you could get someone to feel a special pull towards you [the majority of life does it on physical attraction, but that ain't too good for ugly people]. Suppose you find some other way....you could get someone to fall in love with you. That would help, wouldn't it. But if you can get 2 people to fall in love with you, but only one can have you, then maybe they will learn to hate each other. Is this the start of basic emotional existence?

 

And as for thought, i think the first homanid who thought "If I twat all my rivals around the head with that big stick, I will have a huge advantage" will soon have found themselves dominating the herd, there by getting their choice of mates, and making their genes dominant in the gene pool.

 

Hey ho, a billion years later, and a couple of apes have evolved enough to think "Why am I here, who put me here, what happens when I die"

 

All thoughts which may, or may not have benefit to their genes (hey, a fear of death definitely keeps your genes alive longer), but these thoughts could merely be a consequence of their ability to think at all.

 

So, at the end of the day Life exists soley to recreate life from the lowest virus (whether viruses actually constitute life is a whole other arguement), up through single celled life froms, all the way up to the most higly evolved mammals. Show my a species that doesn't exist to recreate itself, and I will show you a species that is going to become extinct VERY quickly.

 

I know this is a very nihilistic view of the world, and it gives me little comfort [There is a great bit in Signs, where they discuss the 2 types of people, those who believe in luck, and those who believe in divine providence, and how those who believe in luck always live in fear...that's me] But it is what I believe, and I am not going to change my belief structure just to give myself a little bit of comfort (I would just be lying to myself). I am afraid that I beleive people who believe in a god or an after-life are just giving themselves a comfort-blanket cos they don't like the idea of death, and the end of existence. Do I wish I had a comfort-blanket? Yup, do I apply my beliefs to my dad, now he is dead? Nope, I haven't come to terms with, or even started thinking that when I look up to the skies and chat with him, my beliefs tell me that I am just wasting my breath and comforting myself

[James]

Blink - wicked post mate!

 

All seems to make some good sense apart from ...

 

Falling in Love - I dont understand where this and other senses come from - are you saying its all from molecules - do you believe there is something other than molecules that go to make up 'us' ?

 

I believe in aferlife but I swear 100% its not because i'm after a comfort blanket.

[Capn Jack]

Aleksandra said:

Capt Jack,

 

Whatever science says about death, I think it's fair to conclude that we, nonetheless, don't really know? Even if you take the scientific explanation 99%, there is still 1% that needs to be experiential. Scientific disciplines typically work on the basis of theory and experiential checking (prove/disprove). In this case, I think, theory is you die and that's it, and experiential stage is, obviously, when you personally keel over and find out (or, don't).

 

I more inclined to go with the view that when you die thats it, the end. I'm not a fan of the view (by the religious) of there being a "soul" and its incredibley magical skill where it leaves the body with memories intact and no longer needs the support of the body.

 

When you die your memories along with rest of you decomposes, everything that was you is no longer.

 

I do agree with you about science not being 100%, but its damned close on many things, with some theories not changing because they are so close to the reality.

 

I am open to people putting across the other side of the argument, if my side can be picked apart then maybe I will have to rethink my understandings.

[Blink]

James said:

Falling in Love - I dont understand where this and other senses come from - are you saying its all from molecules - do you believe there is something other than molecules that go to make up 'us' ?

 

It is a tenuous one, I admit that, but if you work on the premise that thought has already evolved, and the "people" can understand the benefit of, say "a trusty stick that has served well in many battles", then would they not become potective of that stick. Supposing someone always cooks the preythey have caught? Would they then not understand the benefit of this other person, and could they not become protective of them, could this then not evolve into love?

 

I don't know, my theory on the development of emotion is based around love as being the primary emotion, seeing as love is the emotion most closely linked with reproduction (I see lust as a more base response than love, but that is cos I am a hopeless romantic). Thus love has the most obvious benefit in replicating the gene pool. I suppose you could say that fear is a good place to start, as that preserves the genes, giving them more chance to replicate

[Capn Jack]

Blink said:

James said:

Falling in Love - I dont understand where this and other senses come from - are you saying its all from molecules - do you believe there is something other than molecules that go to make up 'us' ?

 

It is a tenuous one, I admit that, but if you work on the premise that thought has already evolved, and the "people" can understand the benefit of, say "a trusty stick that has served well in many battles", then would they not become potective of that stick. Supposing someone always cooks the preythey have caught? Would they then not understand the benefit of this other person, and could they not become protective of them, could this then not evolve into love?

 

I don't know, my theory on the development of emotion is based around love as being the primary emotion, seeing as love is the emotion most closely linked with reproduction (I see lust as a more base response than love, but that is cos I am a hopeless romantic). Thus love has the most obvious benefit in replicating the gene pool. I suppose you could say that fear is a good place to start, as that preserves the genes, giving them more chance to replicate

 

Anything that is a benefit or hasn't hindered the passing of DNA.

[Blink]

Capn_Jack

 

I am with you on this way, although you do have to admit, the only way we will be able to prove are theory is when we die. Bit of a bummer really, isn't it!