serious issues Death & Dying

[James]

sounds really interesting Alasdair, may well have to look into getting some books like this - I definitely dont read enough

[Blink]

DALAI LAMA said:

We can't rule it out.

 

Couldn't agree more, top bloke that Dalai Lama

[alasdairm]

miss_diddy said:

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!!!

 

that's not how science works and i think a lot of people misundertand this idea.

 

science does not prove things right. it proves things wrong.

 

anything that has not been proven wrong, is a "theory" (e.g one everybody has heard of - "the theory of relativity"). those theories which we say "have been proven" in fact merely draw any logical support from lack of being proven wrong a number of times.

 

thus beleiving in something "not proven", is not scientifically wrong, unless its been proven incorrect.

 

people who take the position that these "not proven" things are wrong, are not in fact drawing on science or logic, but from a particular school of philosophical thought, scepticism, whichs doubts everything, including sometimes science or reality.

 

alasdair

[Blink]

alasdairm said:

science does not prove things right. it proves things wrong.

 

I think you will find you have that wrong alasdair.

 

I think you will find many logical proofs which prove something. Science can also demonstrate that a theory is correct.

 

Yes, you can disprove theories, but you can also prove theories. Want me to demonstrate gravity. Hold something above your desk, and let go of it, I guarantee, 100% of the time, it will fall to the floor, unless some external force is applied to it. You will find that this is a 100% replicatable experiment, able to be carried out by anyone on the planet. If that isn't proof, then what is?

[alasdairm]

Capn_Jack said:

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.

 

i was reading this thread chronologically and i composed some of my responses before i read this.

 

cool.

 

alasdair

[alasdairm]

Blink said:

Yes, you can disprove theories, but you can also prove theories. Want me to demonstrate gravity. Hold something above your desk, and let go of it, I guarantee, 100% of the time, it will fall to the floor, unless some external force is applied to it. You will find that this is a 100% replicatable experiment, able to be carried out by anyone on the planet. If that isn't proof, then what is?

 

first, you're not proving gravity, gravity can not be observed - only its effects can. there is a difference.

 

scientists don't believe in gravity, but they can observe its effects and draw logical conclusions that it probably exists. gravitational theory has yet to be disproved, so for the time being...

 

just because you drop something 1,000,000,000 times and it falls, doesn't prove that it will do the same on the next iteration. so the theory of gravity posits a particular force - m1*m2/r^2 - between objects and we can measure that force at different heights above the earth, between two suspended objects, between the sun and earth, earth and moon, etc, etc.

 

the numbers all check out, so we think it's probably right. i agree that it makes sense, from a practical point of view, to assume it is right but that's all it is, an assumption.

 

i'm definitely drifting off-topic now but how would you prove, for example, that dragons don't exist? the answer is simple: you can't.

 

all the best

 

alasdair

[Blink]

 

Firstly, I will admit to having never studied or read any philosophy, so the structuring of my arguements, and my examples, may be poor, but that does not negate the essence of what I am saying.

 

You cannot prove something does not exist, so no, you cannot pove dragons do not exist...but then that is not science, science is about proving things. that is a fundamental tennant of science.

 

But by your arguement, just because you disprove a theory n^x times, does not mean that it will always be wrong, theref ore your arguement about science disproving things is just as valid/invalid as mine about science proving things.

 

And did you not do algebra and trigonometry in maths? I think you will find that they are all mathematical, logical proofs. unless, of course, you are postulating that logic and casuality are not fundamental defining basics of the universe, in which case you can neither prove nor disprove anything, as no law will be absolute.

 

 

As someone once said, it would be possible for the entire Statue of Liberty to move 1 inch to the left if all the molecules in it moved at the same time, but it isn't going to happen, is it?

 

[Do you not trust in gravity alasdairm? Do you worry that you may just float off into space? ]

[alasdairm]

Blink said:

but then that is not science, science is about proving things. that is a fundamental tennant of science.

 

we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Blink said:But by your arguement, just because you disprove a theory n^x times, does not mean that it will always be wrong

 

right. i totally agree with you.

 

 

Blink said:

And did you not do algebra and trigonometry in maths? I think you will find that they are all mathematical, logical proofs.

 

i loved maths. surprised?

 

maths is an entirely human construct. iif we think of mathematics (or any similar axiomatic system) as being "answerable to the universe" instead of being useful schematic diagrams for coping with the universe, then these systems will never be "real" or "provable."

 

the only element of proof maths (and other ways of speaking and acting) need is the element that shows how well they are at getting things that we wish to get done done. in a way.

 

Blink said:

[Do you not trust in gravity alasdairm? Do you worry that you may just float off into space? ]

 

i believe in gravity because it makes sense to. i can observe its effects and i assume that because i don't float off today, i won't tomorrow. that doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

alasdair

[James]

Diablo said:

Personally the thought of dying terrifies me, although I know its inevitable

 

 

Diablo, although you made the first post this topic is quite obviously about science and proving theories hehe lol

[Capn Jack]

alasdairm said:

Capn_Jack said:

I fail to see...

 

is something impossible just because you fail to see it?

 

are you open to the idea that, even though you can't understand something, that doesn't mean it's not possible?

 

alasdair

 

Taken out of the original context I agree with you.

 

"I fail to see how chemical and electrical processes of the brain would magically go and loiter in some other plain of existance at the whim of some "creator"

 

Back in its original context I don't agree. I'm going to find it almost impossible to believe in "afterlife" or "soul" sailing out of my head when I die, with out any evidence other than anecdotal stories of the afterlife.

[Blink]

James said:

 

Diablo, although you made the first post this topic is quite obviously about science and proving theories hehe lol

 

 

Sorry

 

ahh, I remember

 

Death is great, everyone should try it at least once

[alasdairm]

Capn_Jack said:

I'm going to find it almost impossible to believe in "afterlife" or "soul" sailing out of my head when I die, with out any evidence other than anecdotal stories of the afterlife.

 

you might enjoy this:

 

why do people believe in things for which there is no proof

 

alasdair

[LiquidEyes]

Blink said:

[Do you not trust in gravity alasdairm? Do you worry that you may just float off into space? ]

I trust in gravity. But I can't prove it. How do you know we're not inside a "Matrix" (as per the movie)? (I'm not joking.) Who's to say that the supposed "laws" of physics are static? Just because they always have been before (in our own experience)?

 

As Alasdair says, trigonometry (etc) is a totally different matter, as all the rules of trigonometry are defined in terms of other human-conceived concepts and rules. A noddy example: if you define the meanings of "1", "2" and "addition", then you can categorically prove that 1+1=2. However you can't prove that every time you pick up an orange in one hand and another orange in the other, then you will have two oranges, because we are no longer dealing with abstract concepts.

 

Back to the subject of what can be defined as "alive": who is to say that, say, a computer can't be alive? After all, it has senses (external inputs), a "brain" (a processor), and the power to manipulate its environment (e.g. robots), just like us. Self-awareness is arguably just an illusion (albeit a useful trait in evolutionary terms) - what is to stop a computer becoming self-aware?

 

This might sound silly - okay computers are not yet as complex as people, but how complex do they have to be before you would consider them to be people? One day they will no doubt be able to self-replicate (very "Terminator"!)

 

If you think this example is silly, where do you draw the line with animals? Most people agree an insect is "alive"; possibly so is an amoeba; but where do you draw the line? When does a gamete become alive - is there a singular moment where it magically goes from a state of not being alive to being alive?

 

The only difference between a super-intelligent futuristic computer, and a conventional life-form, is this dubious religious/spiritual notion of a "soul", which personally I do not believe in.

[Capn Jack]

alasdairm said:

Capn_Jack said:

I'm going to find it almost impossible to believe in "afterlife" or "soul" sailing out of my head when I die, with out any evidence other than anecdotal stories of the afterlife.

 

you might enjoy this:

 

why do people believe in things for which there is no proof

 

alasdair

 

Cool, just registered. Will check it out when my resitration is approved.

[alasdairm]

it's not entirely related - and it's also a reductionist thought which i don't agree with - but i read this quote recently:

 

"the brain is just a computer made of meat"

 

 

alasdair