serious issues Death & Dying

[Capn Jack]

alasdairm said:

"the brain is just a computer made of meat"

 

 

alasdair

 

Hehe nice quote.

 

 

[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

 

Great ideas and theories on there, its going to take a long time to digest it all.

[LiquidEyes]

alasdairm said:

"the brain is just a computer made of meat"

Nice one mate - you've just summarised my three paragraphs of rambling in one sentence!

 

Quality quote, and yes, I do basically agree with it.

[Blink]

liquideyes said:

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.

 

See, I am afraid I will have to disagree here, if you have an orange, you can define the orange as "1", and you can define the other orange as "1", seeing as they are both singular oranges, and then replace the "1"s back into that equation by simple substitution, with the equation a+b=c, you can define a, b and c as anything you want, and so long as your definitions stay true, then the equation will be fulfilled.

 

As you say in your example, you have "an orange" which by definition is a singular orange (can be represented by 1) and you have "another orange" which by definition is a singular orange (can be represented by 1) thus giving "an orange" + "another orange" =?

 

replacing the phrases you get 1 + 1 = ?, and we know that this equals 2, hence 2 oranges. Simple.

 

If mathematics is an abstract construct and does not apply to the physical world, then I suggest you tell all structural engineers to quit for a start. They apply mathematical principals to designing and building all sort of things.

 

I know at this point we are going to get back to the circular arguement of "Just because a theory is right 99.9% of the time it may not always be right", but I would rather be in an aeroplane that has been designed using proven scientific and mathematical models.

 

I am also prepared to accept that a working model may only by 99.9% accurate, but this is more to do with the fact that the world is complex; that we, at present, do not have the calculating equipment to factor in every variable that is possible in the real world.

 

I am also prepared to accept that we could be in "The Matrix", but if you want to get that reductionist, my brain is in a jar in some scientists lab, and my entire life experience (including this board and everyone on it) do not actually exist, but are just a serious of electrical stimuli being applied to my brain.

 

[Do you not notice the irony that 99% of the people on this board will never be anything more to me than waves of light being emitted from a monitor by the effect of electrons, whose emmision is being stimulated by a machine built totally on the principals of electrical stimulation, and following mathematical and logical principals - unless of course, someone can prove to me that computers are built by guess work ]

[James]

alasdairm said:

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

 

Hey Alasdair,

 

That's a fantastic quote

 

After reading through some of these posts again and looking at some of the off-site material referenced I'm actually coming round to a lot of everyones views here.

 

Nothing better than flicking a few switches in the old brain

 

Quality thread guys.

[TomD]

Capn_Jack said:

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.

 

that's it - nail on the head - if there is something after death, considering all our memories are stored in our brain, i would think it highly unlikely we'll have any of our memories from this life. so although our "spirit" may still exist, i don't think it will have any of its memories or opinions to hand.

 

i mind learning something from RS at school about a religious belief that, when you have had a "good" life, when you die you are reborn as a higher creature? i am showing severe lack of knowledge here, as i've totally forgotten what the belief's called and who believes it. but it's like if you do something bad then you'll be reborn as, say,... a slug. or something. you're still the same "spirit", but you'll obviously have none of your memories from this life. what's it called? dammit.

[alasdairm]

i should be in bed, but...

 

Blink said:

If mathematics is an abstract construct and does not apply to the physical world, then I suggest you tell all structural engineers to quit for a start. They apply mathematical principals to designing and building all sort of things.

 

you are confusing "reality" (for want of a better word*[see footnote]) with models (like maths) which we use to describe our reality.

 

 

Blink said:...built totally on the principals of electrical stimulation, and following mathematical and logical principals - unless of course, someone can prove to me that computers are built by guess work ]

 

that's an example of a false dilemma and i suspect you know it...

 

more tomorrow

 

alasdair

 

* i hesitate to use the word reality because i'm still undecided on whether there is such a thing as one truly "objective reality". but that's another discussion...

[Blink]

Ah the joys of reality.

 

If a model describes our "perceived" reality totally accurate, is it not fair to state/assume that it is actually a true representation of our reality.

 

I suppose the crux is that any model of our reality will only ever be that, as the only thing that is "reality" is...reality.

 

So if my reality consists of a perfectly drawn 3cm radius circle on a piece of white paper, if I draw another perfect 3cm radius circle on another piece of white paper, it is still merely a model of the first circle, as the first circle is by definition reality.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

I am coming around to a view of reality having

a) an absolute reality (that is just me, I believe there is an absolute reality/truth, that exists, independent of however we view it)

A perceived reality...a reality that is affected by the way we observe it

c) A practical reality...a reality that we can model and predict casuality and effect from (the reality that means you "know" gravity won't stop working, cos it has never stopped working n the past "x" years you have been alive, and there are no reputable reports of gravity taking a day off in recorded history.)

[alasdairm]

^ excellent.

 

i don't have the time i'd like right now but the idea of a practical reality requires more investigation on my part. i'm inclined to think there's no such thing in practice (doh!) and it' sjust another way of trying to balance the various ideas of reality.

 

if we chose to believe Heisenberg and his theory on uncertainty, then there can be no such thing as a truly objective reality.

 

but, like i say, that's a choice.

 

anyway, good discussion. thanks.

 

yet another shameless plug but i can't help but feel you'd enjoy spending some time in the Thought and Awareness forum over at bluelight.

 

namaste

 

alasdair

Edited July 11, 2003 by alasdairm

[alasdairm]

Blink said:

If a model describes our "perceived" reality totally accurate, is it not fair to state/assume that it is actually a true representation of our reality.

 

perhaps. but it's still just that - a representation.

 

"this is not a pipe" you've see the magritte painting?

 

alasdair

[Andrew]

like james said, a great thread...

 

 

Blink said:

In reply to your post Andrew, firstly I stated that if you wanted a full-on discussion about evolution once you have reached human conciousness levels, to go and read Dawkins.

 

You did... the book sounds interesting... I have a v. basic understanding of the concept of memes... ideas/ concepts/ thoughts that go through a darwinist, evolutionary fight for survival... in a similar way that genes fight for survival in beings that have not yet achieved consciousness... i think this is about right...

 

 

Blink said:

You cannot deny, however, that even at this point in our evolution, lifes fundamental purpose is to reproduce. Sure some people don't want to have kids (me for example) but that means my genes will die out, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool. You always have to think on a species level, not an a singular level, any single person can chose not but that mutation will not replicate itself into future generations....and for every person who doesn't want kids, there are 10s that do, even those who will go through various treatments to get themselves beyond their physical inability to reproduce.

 

I deny it

 

Sorry if we are talking at cross-purposes here... but in terms of the 'meaning/ purpose of life'... i think you can look at the singular level as well as the species level (when the singualrs are radically different in their pychological make-up):

 

the meaning of life for animals and humans who have a low level of reflectiveness/ consciousness... i.e. ppl who just go along with their natural instincts to [censored], [censored], eat, etc whenever they want... without thinking the consequences of their actions... the meaining of life for them (via evolution) is simlply to reproduce...

 

the meaning of life for humans with higher levels of reflectiveness/ consciousness is something very different... using the terminology of Freud, when the ID (selfish, me-orientated) side is dominated by the EGO and SUPER-EGO (rational and moralistic) sides of our personality, the meaning of life changes from simply JUST REPRODUCE to something more COMPLEX PURSUIT OF PLEASURES (when the Ego/ rational side takes over) and BEAUTIFUL (when the SUPEREGO/ moralistic side takes over)...

 

I believe that human society (or the human species if you will) in the long-term, is becoming more rational and moralistic and less selfish/ animalistic... therefore I believe the meaning of life is becoming more and more about dreaming of and creating a beautiful world... and less about reacting to our 'natural instincts'... this maybe be percieved as an optimistic view of the world... but I believe long-term data backs up the seemingly idealistic view point...

 

Blink said:

As soon as any species evolves beyond the need to reproduce, it will die out. Simple fundamental biological law. If you don't reproduce, your species dies. If humans ever develop the ability to achieve immortality, then our genes will have achieved the ultimate, and will not need to reproduce (and dilute themselves, cos in reproduction only half of your genes go forward) but will themselves be immortal.

 

This, i.e. parts of the human species dying out, is actually happening in the developed parts of the world... see UN report...

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

 

... despite all the reactionary stuff that is written about immigration, the UN in the article above argue the only way for Europe, the US and Japan to maintain population levels in the long-term is to increase immigration levels...

 

Human beings, by taking control of our own destinies and defining for ourselves what the meaning of life should be (i.e. like your individual choice not to have kids) might well lead to a reduction in size of the species... but I certainly don't see this as a necessarily bad thing...

 

need to hit the pub now... hope this all made at least a little bit of sense

 

 

andrew

 

[Andrew]

liquideyes said:

alasdairm said:

"the brain is just a computer made of meat"

Nice one mate - you've just summarised my three paragraphs of rambling in one sentence!

 

Quality quote, and yes, I do basically agree with it.

 

yes, good quote... and like liquideyes i agree...

 

have to say i don't like the JUST much though (although it is probably there for a bit of comedy value?)... seems to put down both... rather than illustrate the amazing potential for creation/ change both can have...

 

 

Edited July 11, 2003 by Andrew

[Blink]

Andrew, I agree totally that in many ways humankind has evolved beyond being goverened by basic biological principals.

 

My point was more that no matter how much we have evolved beyond it, as a species, if we ignore it we will die out.

 

Personally, I want to leave my mark through my music (meme) instead of children (gene), so "I" will carry on, even if my body/genes don't, which is the point you are getting at. If everyone decides they want to evolve through memes, then there will be no "gene carriers" to carry forward the memes

[LiquidEyes]

Blink said:

Personally, I want to leave my mark through my music (meme) instead of children (gene), so "I" will carry on, even if my body/genes don't

My feelings exactly!

But I suppose the likes of you and I are (by definition) a dying breed!!

[LiquidEyes]

Blink said:

See, I am afraid I will have to disagree here, if you have an orange, you can define the orange as "1", and you can define the other orange as "1", seeing as they are both singular oranges, and then replace the "1"s back into that equation by simple substitution

The flaw in your argument is the use of analogy as proof. You are using substitution to replace an observed reality with a selectively simplified model. The number "1" does not convey the full essence of a "real life" object, only its observed singularity.

 

How can you prove that the theoretical concepts encapsulated by the terms "1", "2" and "addition" apply to objects in the "real world"? Your theory holds for a hypothetical pair of oranges "in your head", but not outside of your head.

 

To be slightly silly, but to convey my point: how do you know that some greater being, analogous to god, will not wave his proverbial magic wand and cause one of your oranges to spontaneously combust? Just because he never has done before? We do not know for a fact that matter can never be created or destroyed (this is just a convenient albeit believable theory); yet our concept of singularity does not allow for this ("1" is truly constant, i.e. it never becomes "0" by magic or divine intervention!)

 

If mathematics is an abstract construct and does not apply to the physical world, then I suggest you tell all structural engineers to quit for a start. They apply mathematical principals to designing and building all sort of things.

I am not arguing that there is no value in "trusting" the laws of mathematics etc. I am just saying that there is no such thing as proof, other than in terms of abstract concepts.

 

but I would rather be in an aeroplane that has been designed using proven scientific and mathematical models.

Me too!

 

I am also prepared to accept that a working model may only by 99.9% accurate, but this is more to do with the fact that the world is complex; that we, at present, do not have the calculating equipment to factor in every variable that is possible in the real world.

I totally agree. I believe in a truly mechanistic universe. I.e. if you knew the state of every atom (or subatomic unit of the fabric of reality) at any given time, and had a full grasp of all the laws of physics and causality, then you could predict with 100% accuracy the entire future of the universe.

 

However, by definition I cannot prove that there is no such thing as true randomness, even though I have a strong gut feeling (and observed "evidence") that there is only pseudo-randomness (due to the inherent complexity of the universe).

 

I am also prepared to accept that we could be in "The Matrix", but if you want to get that reductionist, my brain is in a jar in some scientists lab, and my entire life experience (including this board and everyone on it) do not actually exist, but are just a serious of electrical stimuli being applied to my brain.

Precisely, this is my whole point. In a way I am saying: "How do you know that the scientist won't just pick up your brain and plug it into a different jar?"