message to Mike Wong (re: Ghosts)

[RayCav of ASVS]

afafdasfasf

[Wicked Pilot]

It doesn't really matter what he or anybody else believes. An afterlife, if one such exist, would be outside the observable universe. It would be in the realm of the supernatural. No rational discussion can be made of its properties, or its existance.


As an aside, if Islam is correct, and suicide bombers get 72 virgins to fuck, I hope all 72 of them are old, fat, and harry.

[RayCav of ASVS]

fasdf

[Zoink]

What do I believe? I honestly think that our "soul" or whatever goes into a parallel universe where we live an alternate version of us, doing this for each infinite alternate universe forever...but then again

But here's the thing: If you're a rational person, who bases his beliefs on observation and logical reasoning, then you shouldn't 'believe' in an afterlife.

Your parallel universe idea might sound nice and conforting, but what are your reasons for believing this... besides sounding nice and making you feel conforted? Have you observed this universe or conject its existance from other data?

---------

Here is my take on this whole existance thing, which I base only on observation:

I know that I'm in a 4 dimensional universe (at least), with 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimensions. Or, the universe is a static 4 dimensional object.

I know that I'm a large self-propagating collection of chemical reactions existing within this universe.

I have a brain that stores memories. Considering only the time my brain functions, I could be considered to be a static 4 dimensional object existing within a static 4 dimensional universe.

My brain is a chemical reaction, so its change is essentially the time dimension. My memories are structured so that I must "experience" each once, and remember those in one direction only (the past), which could give the illusion of time 'flowing'.

Now, within the universe, there are periods of time in which my brain does not function (prior to my birth, and eventual death), but this doesn't change the fact that I'm still a 4 dimensional object existing within this 4 dimensional universe.

I see no reason or need that my memories MUST span the entire time dimension (ie. afterlife) for "existance" to make sense.

[RayCav of ASVS]

I'd just like to say I apologize to Zoink for flaming him

[Zoink]

quote="RayCav of ASVS"]Like I said it was just an idea, and like I even said I conceded I was nuts

No, you said "I honestly believe" it.

Oh, and another thing...is your name Mike Wong?

Um, no I'm not Mike Wong but: If you don't want comments on your posts,... you should have sent a personal email to Mike Wong, not post it on a public message board.

I *WAS* criticizing your belief, not to unexpected in a "Science and Logic" board. Criticism is not a "flame".

The fact that people feel comforted by the existence of an afterlife, that they have a fear of dying, is an EXTREMELY important aspect of any discussion on the afterlife. It gives people a very strong motivation to believe in such things regardless of proof.

Please agree, comment, criticize, or tear-apart anything I have to say, just don’t tell me not to say it.

[SPOOFE]

A rational person wouldn't discount the possibility of an afterlife. The best one can do is ignore it - since we can't possibly predict its properties - and focus on the current life they have.

Anyone who claims to know what the afterlife will be like - such as the aforementioned Islam example (and Christian examples, and Jewish examples, and Scientology examples (well, okay, they're bigger morons than the previous three) etc. etc.) are painfully boneheaded, and in my opinion, some of the biggest con men on the planet.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, a rational person can discount the possibility of an afterlife, for the same reason that a rational person can discount the possibility of the invisible pink unicorn: there is no reason to believe it exists. A rational person cannot disprove the existence of an afterlife, but then again, a rational person cannot disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn either.

Having said that, even if an afterlife exists, memory will not persist, because we know that memory is a function of the physical brain, and it can be lost even before death, so it obviously won't persist afterwards. Therefore, if there is some kind of mystical "life force" in us that persists after death, it won't have any of your memories or behaviour patterns (if "behaviour" even applies in the absence of corporeal existence), and it certainly won't bear any resemblance to the person you think of as yourself.

So is there an afterlife? Sure, in a manner of speaking. The human race will go on. Your body will decay and rejoin the organic matter of the Earth, eventually to be recycled into other forms of life. But your memories and behaviour patterns, which make up the sum total of your personality, will disappear forever, irrespective of whether there's a such thing as a "soul". Sounds bleak, I know. But that which is true is not always the same as that which is pleasing to hear.

[Mr Bean]

*Strong Support of the Head in Jars Iniative

Of course most of us are lucky we are not exactly eighty yet and we get to benfit from large amounts of people who are starting to get old and don't want to

Medical Science will probably advance to a much more helpful stage by the time we hit our sixtys and seventies thats to the hords of Rich fifty year olds now who don't want to die

[Zoink]

The best one can do is ignore it - since we can't possibly predict its properties - and focus on the current life they have.

That resembles an agnostic way of looking at things. We can't say for certain that there's no afterlife, so we shouldn't comment or discuss it. Give two possibilities, like God either exists or does not exist, and somehow imply that its about a 50-50 chance of either being true simply because you're offering two choices. Perhaps in the distant future, someone (other than humans, because we should ignore it) will magically give us the answer.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm not saying this is your view. It just that personally, I have problems with those types of arguments in general.

What has been suggested:

<<An afterlife, if one such exist, would be outside the observable universe>>

Fair enough. Something might exist outside our universe. We cannot interact with something existing outside our universe (ie. its not observable). Thus discussion as to its existance is meaningless.

Yet, the problems I see are:
1) it has not been established as to why an afterlife must exist outside our universe.
2) discussion is irrelevant because we cannot interact or prove the existance of this afterlife (ie. non observable). Yet it does interacts with our universe, information is routinely passed between these places (ie. your memories).
3) the nature of this other place is such that information stored in an organic computer (ie brain) is passed to this realm and continues to exist and function, even though the storage structure (ie brain) no longer exists.
4) you continue to interact with other people and events, even though your five senses no longer exist.
5) this realm exists outside our universe, yet it is still governed by OUR time dimension... perpetuating the misconception that time is some universal constant that exist seperate from our universe (the same thing leads to the misconception that there is a "before" the big bang).

Too many problems for me to rationally say that an afterlife has a real chance of existing.

A similar view can be taken of God. Even if God exists outside our universe, he does (by definition) interact with our universe. Thus information is exchanged between ourselves and God, therefore his existance can be investigated. The only reason I know anyone exists is by the information I recieve from them. In this forum, that information is in the form of electrons.

[SirNitram]

I just know I've been in close contact with enough bizarre stuff not to discount an existance past this one. Call me insane if you want, but seeing is not beleiving, it's where the beleiving stops, because it isn't needed anymore...

As for what happens when we die? Conservation of Energy states energy can't be destroyed, so the animating force must go somewhere, most likely to another living being that needs an animating force.

[IDMR]

::points to sig::

The belief in afterlife is one which gives one comfort (usually), and as such should treat these with even greater care.

The flesh is weak, and it is easy to succumb to the temptation.

[Darth Wong]

I just know I've been in close contact with enough bizarre stuff not to discount an existance past this one.

Bizarre stuff does not necessarily indicate the existence of the supernatural.

As for what happens when we die? Conservation of Energy states energy can't be destroyed, so the animating force must go somewhere, most likely to another living being that needs an animating force.

You are presuming the existence of a mythical "animating force" beyond simple biochemical reactions.

[RayCav of ASVS]

lkjfglasjdf

[RayCav of ASVS]

sdfsdfsdfs

[LordShaithis]

[quote]As for what happens when we die? Conservation of Energy states energy can't be destroyed, so the animating force must go somewhere, most likely to another living being that needs an animating force.[/quote]

Way to assrape a legitimate scientific principle in defense of pseudoscientific bullshit. Tell me, what form of energy makes up this "animating force" of yours? How much of it does a human contain? How is it transmitted? The total number of people on earth is increasing all the time, so where is the extra "animating force" that is needed coming from?

The only energy a human body contains is chemical, and Conservation of Energy is maintained when that energy is used to either fuel your funeral pyre, or feed the worms in your grave.

[RayCav of ASVS]

I should've seen that such a topic would just be flame bait; in fact, this has degenerated into a flame war. The only people who are acting rational are Wong and Zoink, and even I have contributed to the flames directly. Flames have been tossed on both sides, and I should've seen that such would be the result of such a topic. The belief of the afterlife is perhaps the most personal belief, whether we believe in an afterlife or believe that there will just be nothing. The fact of the matter is, many theories (mine included) involve evidence that is quantitative and rational to the person who believes it, but not necessarily to others. Furthermore, people on both sides appear to be trying to ram their own beliefs down others' throats, much like Christian Fundamentalists, in essense trying to destroy opposing beliefs. Therefore, I would like to request that this thread be deleted, or at the very least closed.

[Doomriser]

I just know I've been in close contact with enough bizarre stuff not to discount an existance past this one. Call me insane if you want, but seeing is not beleiving, it's where the beleiving stops, because it isn't needed anymore...

What bizarre stuff? Examples
?

[Sothis]

I myself believe in the afterlife and I believe in ghosts. I'm not going to force anyone else to believe in them, but that's what i believe and I failed to see why that would make me irrational.

[SirNitram]

Well, since my post got more replies than I expected, I suppose I better reply to those who jumped up at me, hadn't I? I don't expect to be taken seriously, because I have a hard time taking myself seriously on this. But oh well.

As for 'Freaky Stuff', I've on no less than three occasions observed something not being where it was, and winding up in a vastly distant area, through multiple solid objects. Do I know how this happened? No. I can't postulate a scientific mechanism for it in the slightest. I can only observe and attempt to figure it out from what remains controlled.

I've been in no less than five buildings which are haunted. While I don't often see things moving by themselves, they certainly affected other things. Cats rarely bat at empty air, for one thing. Again, can I postulate any scientific mechanism? Not beyond assuming that there is some sort of animating force that got left behind for whatever reason.

Do I expect the scientifically minded to beleive this stuff? Of course not. I have trouble beleiving it myself, and I see it.

As for the question: There are more people alive today than ever before, so where's this animating force coming from?

You draw a foolish notion, because when we think of animating force, we think Soul, which comes from religion, and most current religions claim only humans have souls. If some form of energy or force exists in a living, self-aware being, it must exist in all of them(Unless there is some sort of magic barrier where nonsetient becomes sentient and forms of energy can distinguish between the two), and I doubt there is solid proof the total number of living things has only gone up lately.

Again, I don't expect to be taken seriously, but feel free to reply/flame.

[LordShaithis]

Which has nothing to do with the fact that your claim of Conservation of Energy is pseudoscientific bullshit. All you're doing is pulling new forms of energy out of your ass, so to speak, and then making up properties for them on the fly.

[SirNitram]

Which has nothing to do with the fact that your claim of Conservation of Energy is pseudoscientific bullshit. All you're doing is pulling new forms of energy out of your ass, so to speak, and then making up properties for them on the fly.

I have no answer for that except to concede I'm making it up in an attempt to explain what I see. Of course, I was answering the question that asked what sort of bizarre stuff I've seen.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Sounds bleak, I know. But that which is true is not always the same as that which is pleasing to hear.

"Truth is what that pleases us."

Of course, this is from the same Paul Jacques H.Jr that wanted to be a martyr for the Star Trek cause.[/url]

[Darth Wong]

As for 'Freaky Stuff', I've on no less than three occasions observed something not being where it was, and winding up in a vastly distant area, through multiple solid objects. Do I know how this happened? No. I can't postulate a scientific mechanism for it in the slightest. I can only observe and attempt to figure it out from what remains controlled.

Your cat moved it, somebody else in the house moved it, or you moved it and forgot. Unless you think all of the above three are somehow less plausible than mystical supernatural forces coming into your house and moving trinkets around (but only when you're not looking, of course).

I've been in no less than five buildings which are haunted. While I don't often see things moving by themselves, they certainly affected other things. Cats rarely bat at empty air, for one thing. Again, can I postulate any scientific mechanism? Not beyond assuming that there is some sort of animating force that got left behind for whatever reason.

You honestly think that a mystical "animating force" is the only rational way to describe a cat batting at air? Is the cat breaking any laws of physics? Of course not. It's only acting weird; it's a living thing. Humans sometimes talk to air. Does that mean they're conversing with dead spirits, or does it simply mean they're nuts? My dog barks and growls at nothing all the time. He might hear something, he might smell something, or he might just be acting silly. You can't seriously expect any rational person to agree with your conclusion that a house must be haunted if animals behave oddly in it. It could be a certain wind draft, a particular smell, a particular acoustic resonance, or a host of other non-mystical things.

Do I expect the scientifically minded to beleive this stuff? Of course not. I have trouble beleiving it myself, and I see it.

I see my dog doing strange things all the time. I am scientifically minded, and I believe it when I see it. But not once has it ever even remotely occurred to me to interpret odd behaviour on the part of my dog as proof that my house is haunted.

If some form of energy or force exists in a living, self-aware being, it must exist in all of them(Unless there is some sort of magic barrier where nonsetient becomes sentient and forms of energy can distinguish between the two), and I doubt there is solid proof the total number of living things has only gone up lately.

Two points:

1. There is some form of energy in a living being. It's called biochemical energy, and it is sufficient to explain all aspects of our existence.
2. The total number of living things on this planet has definitely gone up. 4.5 billion years ago, it was 0.

[oberon]

As for what happens when we die? Conservation of Energy states energy can't be destroyed, so the animating force must go somewhere, most likely to another living being that needs an animating force.

There is no "animating force" as such. We operate by metabolism/catabolism, which are merely chemical reactions carried out in a non-equilibrium environment. The lack of equilibrium is what drives these reactions. That's why we have osmosis and motor proteins and enzymes and yadda yadda. When a cell reaches chemical equilibrium, that means nothing goes in, nothing goes out, it's static, it's died.