science proves an after life

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 03:43 am
@xris,
xris;93252 wrote:
Dont you get a simple question? I'm not claiming to prove anything. Why is it so difficult for you to envisage an imaginary scenario? like I said, if its beyond your imagination, don't answer.


But I did answer your question, didn't you read the second paragraph? Or is my answer not good enough because you are looking for a particular answer?

xris;93252 wrote:

The claim was that we are our memeory, without memory we dont exist. My reply was explaining we loose most of our memory, does that make us less than we are?


Well if we are the sum of our memories then it would make us less than we are if we lose our memory.

There was a brain research doctor who was studying stroke phenomena and the effects it had on the brain. The odd thing was she experienced a stroke first hand after she had been studying it for several years. The stroke took place in the left side of her brain. The areas which effected her logical and analytical skills were damaged by the stroke. So she went from being a highly educated researcher to an artist. She no longer does research because the parts of her brain that were damaged changed her. If you don't believe this actually happened see this;

Jill Bolte Taylor | Profile on TED.com
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 04:21 am
@Krumple,
Sorry krump but i cant see a reply.

Brain damage is not the same as loosing your memory. I have to remind you of the analogy of the PC.. would the computer be less capable because it lost its memory?

When I am considering the POSSIBILITY of the soul, I dont see it in the same way as you. I can imagine that each life is a journey for that soul and it is not a matter of the soul relying on the body for its existence. The body is a means of existence, if it gets damaged the soul can not experience or express its ability. It is not something you can bargain with, just as life for us is not our choosing, so is our ethereal existence, its nature. BUT it is speculation not a proven fact , may i add.

This years flock of sparrows are they a image of last years, or are they a continuation of the nature of sparrows.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:05 am
@xris,
xris;93257 wrote:
Sorry krump but i cant see a reply.


Which reply?

xris;93257 wrote:

Brain damage is not the same as loosing your memory. I have to remind you of the analogy of the PC.. would the computer be less capable because it lost its memory?


There are three types of memory for a computer. Which one are you referring to? If you are talking hard drive memory where the system's operating program is stored, if that were purged then the system operating software wouldn't run. If you really want to use the analogy of a computer memory, the hard drive is the closest in my opinion to how the brain works. But if you are saying that our memory is like RAM then I think you are mistaken. When you shut off the computer all the information stored in RAM is wiped. I don't think this is type of memory fits with your analogy.
Perhaps you should explain your memory analogy.

As far as being less capable, I am not sure what you mean? Is the processor effected by memory loss? No, but the processor only processes the information that is stored in memory. If there is no information stored in memory then the processor doesn't do anything. You can't use information that isn't available. So if we were to use this example in the sense of a human with memory loss, then by all means their character, personality, behavior and other processes might be hindered or missing. A change in any one of those might drastically change the person that is perceived.

xris;93257 wrote:

When I am considering the POSSIBILITY of the soul, I dont see it in the same way as you. I can imagine that each life is a journey for that soul and it is not a matter of the soul relying on the body for its existence. The body is a means of existence, if it gets damaged the soul can not experience or express its ability. It is not something you can bargain with, just as life for us is not our choosing, so is our ethereal existence, its nature. BUT it is speculation not a proven fact , may i add.


You see it that way, but when I examine it and try to investigate it, I run into many problems. Problems in which I feel you are ignoring. Why you ignore them, I am not sure why, I can only assume you ignore them because it would ruin your theory. So can I say this next statement without offending you too much? I believe you refuse to investigate because you really don't want to discover the truth, you are happy with your theory and wouldn't want anything to ruin your theory.

If you want to know what problems I am referring to, please ask, I am more than willing to point them all out. I have left them out here because this response would get very long.

xris;93257 wrote:

This years flock of sparrows are they a image of last years, or are they a continuation of the nature of sparrows.


Neither.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 04:45 am
@Krumple,
The question you said you had answered.

The computer is your brain. The mind is the user.The temporary memory of the computer is the experiences of the brain and the user. Now if the computer looses its temporary memory it does not change the user or the computer, just as the brain looses its memory the mind or the brain dont change. Now if the computer is damaged it cant be used or express the wishes of the user,just as if the brain is damaged the mind can not experience or express the wishes of the mind. get it?Smile

Ide be glad of you pointing out the errors of my thought process.:sarcastic:
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 07:06 am
@xris,
xris;93471 wrote:
The question you said you had answered.

The computer is your brain. The mind is the user.The temporary memory of the computer is the experiences of the brain and the user. Now if the computer looses its temporary memory it does not change the user or the computer, just as the brain looses its memory the mind or the brain dont change. Now if the computer is damaged it cant be used or express the wishes of the user,just as if the brain is damaged the mind can not experience or express the wishes of the mind. get it?Smile

Ide be glad of you pointing out the errors of my thought process.:sarcastic:


Well I guess this is where we differ. I don't see the mind being anything separate from the brain. I don't think the mind can exist without the brain.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:18 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;93490 wrote:
Well I guess this is where we differ. I don't see the mind being anything separate from the brain. I don't think the mind can exist without the brain.
Im discussion the concept, not the exact truth.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:33 am
@xris,
xris;93532 wrote:
Im discussion the concept, not the exact truth.


Well alright, but you know me, I can't exactly play within certain perimeters very well without going into the off limit zone.

We can talk all day long about concepts separate from truth but what we tend to end up with is a hodgepodge of ideas.

So if you destroy the brain would the mind still function? If we take your analogy of the computer and the user, if the the computer gets destroyed, what happens to the user?

I'm saying the computer and user are one, you are saying they are separate. So you'll have to fill me in on how the user exists independent from the computer. Can you do that for me?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;93535 wrote:
Well alright, but you know me, I can't exactly play within certain perimeters very well without going into the off limit zone.

We can talk all day long about concepts separate from truth but what we tend to end up with is a hodgepodge of ideas.

So if you destroy the brain would the mind still function? If we take your analogy of the computer and the user, if the the computer gets destroyed, what happens to the user?

I'm saying the computer and user are one, you are saying they are separate. So you'll have to fill me in on how the user exists independent from the computer. Can you do that for me?
Now remember this is a concept, i cant prove..The mind or soul ,call it what you wish, is an ethereal entity not governed by earthly laws, it enters the body at birth and grows with the body in an experience of life. If the computer, brain, gets destroyed or is damaged it is in limbo till the body dies. It is a life force independent but dependant on the body it occupies.

I just think its natures way, nothing to do with a creator or some certain benevolent god. When i see new life, I see old life revitalised by rebirth and the cycle of life is a force stronger than we can imagine. I think our ancient ancestors realised we are our ancestors and the life we see now will reoccur again and again.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 11:07 am
@xris,
xris;93545 wrote:
Now remember this is a concept, i cant prove..The mind or soul ,call it what you wish, is an ethereal entity not governed by earthly laws, it enters the body at birth and grows with the body in an experience of life. If the computer, brain, gets destroyed or is damaged it is in limbo till the body dies. It is a life force independent but dependant on the body it occupies.


Can the mind or user do everything the brain or computer does? Meaning does the mind learn? Does the mind experience? Does the mind do anything apart from the brain?

The problem I am having is to determine why even include the brain, if the mind has all the functionality as the brain? It seems like an unnecessary step. Why not exist just as the mind? Why the need for a brain? Unless the brain is required for the mind to have a function or use.

So in other words the computer exists to give the user something to do. The user is completely useless without the computer? Therefore if you destroy the computer, the mind can't do anything.

Object or concur?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 11:39 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;93562 wrote:
Can the mind or user do everything the brain or computer does? Meaning does the mind learn? Does the mind experience? Does the mind do anything apart from the brain?

The problem I am having is to determine why even include the brain, if the mind has all the functionality as the brain? It seems like an unnecessary step. Why not exist just as the mind? Why the need for a brain? Unless the brain is required for the mind to have a function or use.

So in other words the computer exists to give the user something to do. The user is completely useless without the computer? Therefore if you destroy the computer, the mind can't do anything.

Object or concur?
The mind or soul, uses the brain as its representative for physical functions, the soul does experience life through its attachment to the brain. No the mind is dependant on the brain , just as the user is dependant on the computer. If the brain or computer fails, it or the user has to sit out the failure.
 
Taboo Fixation
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 01:15 pm
@xris,
I wouldn't believe it until I die and see for myself. Scientists lie and make mistakes more times than not.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 01:22 pm
@Taboo Fixation,
Taboo Fixation;93596 wrote:
Scientists lie and make mistakes more times than not.


Orly? Care to provide some example?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@xris,
xris;93571 wrote:
The mind or soul, uses the brain as its representative for physical functions, the soul does experience life through its attachment to the brain.


Yeah but more specifically, if the mind has no brain around, it can't experience anything correct?

xris;93571 wrote:

No the mind is dependant on the brain , just as the user is dependant on the computer. If the brain or computer fails, it or the user has to sit out the failure.


If the mind is dependent upon the brain what makes them separate? Why would the brain not be considered also the mind? Does the computer do anything without a mind or user? Does the user do anything without a computer?

If the user is at the mercy of the computer, and the computer requires the user than they are inseparably linked. So why differentiate them?

---------- Post added 09-25-2009 at 12:40 PM ----------

Taboo Fixation;93596 wrote:
I wouldn't believe it until I die and see for myself. Scientists lie and make mistakes more times than not.


Doesn't this statement cancel out the whole point of philosophy?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 02:08 pm
@Krumple,
Is the mind a soul ? or is it distinct from the brain. Yes the mind does not exist in this realm without the ability of the brain. The user is only apparent when his computer is working. What is the purpose of a computer, if it has no user?
 
Yogi DMT
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 09:01 pm
@xris,
I hate to be this guy, but we all know in reality there is no such literal idea of life after death. I could understand a metaphorical interpretation but, physically, this in an impossibility in the reality we live in due to obvious reasons.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 03:18 am
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;93678 wrote:
I hate to be this guy, but we all know in reality there is no such literal idea of life after death. I could understand a metaphorical interpretation but, physically, this in an impossibility in the reality we live in due to obvious reasons.
It depends what you classify as death or life. As we have no real idea of what life is, can we truly be satisfied with our notion of death. All we know is we are not alive.

I look at this years flock of sparrows and in all senses they are the same as last years. The flowers that bloom every year? is it the spirit that lives in them, the constant drive of nature. Can life be snubbed out or only transformed. When life is formed by nature, the spirit of that form inhabits that form till its cycle is complete and it moves on. Science can not muse on these subjects, its objectivity inhibits its ability.
 
Yogi DMT
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 01:56 pm
@xris,
Again whether you want to be literal or figurative can change the basis of my response. In the reality we live in, as defined by the various laws we have made up and agreed upon for our world, life and death are very discrete events that don't have much disputation in their definitions. I like and do believe in a more spiritual way of looking at life and nature. I do this though, knowing that i am not being literal. The physical and mental aspects of a being are what make us a living and thinking human. Reincarnation, life after death, heaven, spirits and souls living on after death are interesting ideas to think about but they have no evidence whatsoever to support their literal interpretation. Again, the idea is so far fetched that there may not be evidence against this because when you question the reality we live in, then we cannot use logic to prove something wrong or right. Questioning the very world we live in has no argument against it because reality is defined by perception. I'm going to go with the idea that has kept various thoughts and theories in-check for a long time, and that is you cannot say something is true or real until you prove it with evidence, as opposed to the opposite of that which is everything is true and real unless you prove that theory wrong.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 04:58 am
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;93775 wrote:
Again whether you want to be literal or figurative can change the basis of my response. In the reality we live in, as defined by the various laws we have made up and agreed upon for our world, life and death are very discrete events that don't have much disputation in their definitions. I like and do believe in a more spiritual way of looking at life and nature. I do this though, knowing that i am not being literal. The physical and mental aspects of a being are what make us a living and thinking human. Reincarnation, life after death, heaven, spirits and souls living on after death are interesting ideas to think about but they have no evidence whatsoever to support their literal interpretation. Again, the idea is so far fetched that there may not be evidence against this because when you question the reality we live in, then we cannot use logic to prove something wrong or right. Questioning the very world we live in has no argument against it because reality is defined by perception. I'm going to go with the idea that has kept various thoughts and theories in-check for a long time, and that is you cannot say something is true or real until you prove it with evidence, as opposed to the opposite of that which is everything is true and real unless you prove that theory wrong.
If you followed the debate it was the logic of what might be, not what is. I was questioned on my thoughts on possibilities and how i might see an after life and the logical consequences of those possibilities. Its blatantly obvious i cant prove an after life but i can make proposals on why i think its possible, surely.
 
Yogi DMT
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 06:21 am
@xris,
But your title is misleading then because "science proves an after life" doesn't seem like an appropriate title for a thread that will talk about possibilities of an after life.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 08:33 am
@Yogi DMT,
Did you read the opening post? i apologise, my thread was initially to question the reality, would we want to know?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 07:39:18