So I fucked up and had kids.
I love them dearly and realize that I can't send them back, mercykill them, sell or give them away without serious social, mental and physical freedom incursions so I must do my best to raise them as decent, free-thinking individuals.
The problems begin with having nothing to substitute for religion and the inclusiveness that religion offers. Honesty and the uncertainty that it brings does not replace the community and warmth offered by believers and their institutions.
My ex-wife joined the mormons about a year ago, mostly to get them to pay her rent and utility bills, and agreed that my 10 year-old daughter should have to wait to attend or be baptized into the church. This has not stopped the missionaries from propogating their ideals in her presence nor their continuing invitations for her to attend services. Alone, the missionaries would probably not get far, but their children offer friendship and community through the church and at 10, these are strong offerings.
I have tried to keep my childrens' minds open and have talked with them at length and answered their religious questions as well as I have been able. I have shown the 10 year-old the South Park episode featuring the mormons and explained that no matter which religion she chooses, if any, she will be in the minority belief and that there are probably as many ways to worship as there are people. Undetered, she asks week after week to attend the mormon church and week after week I have denied her, telling her that I want her to be able to understand what church is about before I let her go. This last week I relented to her crying and desire to join her friends and allowed her to go. She explained that she wanted to go for the fun and friends and I figured that too much resistance from myself might push her to want to join even more. She attended with her host family, fell asleep during the service (because it was boring) and was sent home early. Score one for freedom. I feel that this will not be the end, however, and have tried to get her to talk about the experience to little avail.
The other large problem with raising the kids in a spiritual vacuum is explaining death. I have given in to the social ideals that surround them and allowed them to believe that the spirits of their loved ones who have passed exist in heaven. There is too much social support for the idea to fight it, from their peers and everywhere else and trying to introduce the idea that there may be nothing after life seems to depressing for them to relate to at their ages. Generally, I try to pass on my lack of faith in organizations I find farcical, be they social, religious or political, but I have learned to live without believing and I'm finding that difficult to pass on.
Insight?
Allow your kid to go to the damn church. Let them know what you think and why, but don't force your kids to believe what you do. You're a parent, your job is to give unconditional support and be the one place where they can always go for help. That's the problem with teaching people to think for themselves, they won't agree with you on everything.
Personally I have taken my children to services at most of the "majors" for multiple services so they could see how it went. I've even taken them to a couple of "revival meetings" which can be scary for actual christians, not to mention heathens like me and mine.
My kids don't really care to join any church. They prefer to sleep in late and have a big breakfast.
As for the community church offers, well they get that from the sports they are all involved in and the various activities they do.
Mine can go to church anytime they want, I don't care. Thing is, neither do they!
Zenarchist non-answer to the 2nd issue.
Death! It's like the time before you were born, but you get to LOOK FORWARD TO IT!
in my opinion, let the kid go to church if she wants to go to church. How can you raise her as a free thinker with an open mind if you're forbidding her from being exposed to certain ideas? I understand that that the church mode of thinking can be very attractive, especially when coupled with friendly social networks, and you want to keep your daughter from becoming another jesus zombie... But she has to be allowed to form her own opinions and conclusions. Discuss the experiences with her, but don't come out against them. Even if she decides she wants to be a for-real member of that society, she'll probably just toss it out when she's a teenager anyway, right? :p
the danger of religion, if you ask me, is not that you believe in this everliving jewish miracle worker. It's that you accept the church's authority and let them define your morals and values for you. We have to bring up our children in an atmosphere of skeptical curiosity. It's okay to accept their values, but not without examination and contemplation. There's lots of good stuff that the church does, it just comes with a helping of judgement, a cosmic form of operant conditioning.
As for the death thing --
NOBODY knows the answer to the question about what happens after you die.
Religion doesn't have an answer, nor does scientific materialism. Both have some narratives which help "explain" death, but both sides are, at best, conjecturing about what it'll be like (or not like).
If you want to "explain" death to your daughter, I'd lean towards illustrating the lack of certainty. Death can be scary and unknowable, so we've made up these great stories to comfort us -- but they are just stories.
My grandmother's gone, but her spirit is still with me - I knew her well enough that I can imagine what she'd say or do in any given situation. So when you die, you're not gone forever, you live on through your influence of other people's lives. Isn't that a sort of heaven ---or hell?
anyway, welcome aboard, hope I could be of some use :)
Cram, your comment on the death issue (and all the Bucky Fuller in my head from the FAQ thread) reminds me of this quote:
"A pattern has an integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists. Each of the chemical elements is a pattern integrity. Each individual is a pattern integrity. The pattern integrity of the human individual is evolutionary and not static."
Let's pull a Men Back and do some cheesy word replacement:
"Cram's Gram has an integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that Cram's Gram exists. See, each individual is a pattern integrity. The pattern integrity of Cram's Gram is evolutionary and not static (even if she happens to be dead)." (sorry for the threadjack)
i skimmed over this so i might of missed some things said. but...i grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah. Still here, love it. My parents at 5 had the death and religion talk with me after some missionaries asked if they could talk to them about me. My father is agnostic and my mother is an atheist. They told me their view points on religion and their view points on death. It was hard to swallow but I'm glad they did it and they let me go to church. They told me it was a part of someone's life that a person had to learn on their own. I went to church and didn't like what was taught really and liked staying at home much more. As i got older i studied other religions and my parents answered any question i had open and honestly. I'm glad they did.
I suggest you do the same. I did have Mormon friends and they are the catch in the equation, as kids do ostracize over these things. But I got friends later that love me for me and not some stupid religion.
My mother told me how happy she was the day I started wearing all black and rebelling, "this i can handle, not all that religious stuff."
Your kid will find their own path. Just love them when they do.
:two cents:
So each iteration of the pattern would be a derivative of the original pattern yet a unique pattern in its own right. Go it, off to tell the kids.
Thanks for the insight.
I think my principle worry with the kids is tolerating the intolerant and them getting into some situation where I become the enemy. But we keep close so the chance of that is minimal and I was questioning the catholic church at around the same age.
I'll have to take them to churches, sounds like a plan.
oh and on the death thing my parents said, "we dont know, no one does, but religion is all about theories on what may be"
So I fucked up and had kids.
I love them dearly and realize that I can't send them back, mercykill them, sell or give them away without serious social, mental and physical freedom incursions so I must do my best to raise them as decent, free-thinking individuals.
You and I are off to a rocky start.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 09, 2010, 11:02:39 PM
So each iteration of the pattern would be a derivative of the original pattern yet a unique pattern in its own right. Go it, off to tell the kids.
Thanks for the insight.
I think my principle worry with the kids is tolerating the intolerant and them getting into some situation where I become the enemy. But we keep close so the chance of that is minimal and I was questioning the catholic church at around the same age.
I'll have to take them to churches, sounds like a plan.
Kinda. Integrity means Oneness, Unity, or "Such-ness". The idea being that the person still has those aspects, "independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists".
Let's clarify that last bit. You receive info that a "a Cramulus" exists, via the medium of the internet. Even if you've never met him flesh-to-flesh, the Pattern of Cramulus has become part of your (personal and partial) experience of the universe. Cramulus will continue to exists as a metaphysical entity long after his physical shell is no longer part of the Cramulus pattern. The pattern has changed(evolved), but it's still Cramulus.
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 11:12:57 PM
So I fucked up and had kids.
I love them dearly and realize that I can't send them back, mercykill them, sell or give them away without serious social, mental and physical freedom incursions so I must do my best to raise them as decent, free-thinking individuals.
You and I are off to a rocky start.
I was gonna say, better make sure they won't ever read you wrote that about them.
Meh. Sometimes realizing that you bit off a way bigger mouthful than you thought you were getting when you thought it would be a good idea to reproduce is not a bad thing. It's how he handles the rest that matters.
I mean, if I'd known that my third one was going to be a murderous, terrorizing demon-spawn, I might have disposed of the birth control altogether.
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 11:12:57 PM
So I fucked up and had kids.
I love them dearly and realize that I can't send them back, mercykill them, sell or give them away without serious social, mental and physical freedom incursions so I must do my best to raise them as decent, free-thinking individuals.
You and I are off to a rocky start.
When I was younger and smarter I swore I'd never inflict this world on children, sorry if you didn't like the joke.
Quote from: Telarus on June 09, 2010, 11:19:27 PM
Kinda. Integrity means Oneness, Unity, or "Such-ness". The idea being that the person still has those aspects, "independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists".
Let's clarify that last bit. You receive info that a "a Cramulus" exists, via the medium of the internet. Even if you've never met him flesh-to-flesh, the Pattern of Cramulus has become part of your (personal and partial) experience of the universe. Cramulus will continue to exists as a metaphysical entity long after his physical shell is no longer part of the Cramulus pattern. The pattern has changed(evolved), but it's still Cramulus.
OK, but then Cramulus is limited to being an impression and can only exist as long as there is an observer or prior observer of the medium. I'll spend some time in the FAQ tonight and see if I have anything to offer.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 03:02:19 AM
When I was younger and smarter I swore I'd never inflict this world on children, sorry if you didn't like the joke.
Quote from: Telarus on June 09, 2010, 11:19:27 PM
Kinda. Integrity means Oneness, Unity, or "Such-ness". The idea being that the person still has those aspects, "independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists".
Let's clarify that last bit. You receive info that a "a Cramulus" exists, via the medium of the internet. Even if you've never met him flesh-to-flesh, the Pattern of Cramulus has become part of your (personal and partial) experience of the universe. Cramulus will continue to exists as a metaphysical entity long after his physical shell is no longer part of the Cramulus pattern. The pattern has changed(evolved), but it's still Cramulus.
OK, but then Cramulus is limited to being an impression and can only exist as long as there is an observer or prior observer of the medium. I'll spend some time in the FAQ tonight and see if I have anything to offer.
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
Just stop being a retarded atheist.
And you should totally take your kids to Catholic day care
My ex insisted on taking my kids to church. I taught them my views, which are to think critically and stay open to new information. Both of the older ones are currently woo-woo pagans, the youngest one is an atheist (possibly the Antichrist... I have my suspicions).
They go their own ways.
Join a cult
and your problems will be solved
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 07:10:38 AM
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
Not my point at all. If you live on in others, then you continue to live on well after you are forgotten because of the the direct and indirect impacts that you have on everything. I'm talking about things that once actually existed. This is an extension of the Cram's Gram posts.
Find a good Southern Baptist church, and take your kids there. I guarantee that both the food and the music will be better than you'd get with the Mormons.
I don't know about the Mormon church, but I spent about 13 years or so in the Baptist Church and I turned out okay.
But I currently have two kids at home. One 6 one soon to be 3 months. I am not in your position in that their mother, my wife, pretty much went through the same thing I did with religion. She spent the better part of her youth years in the Catholic Church. At the end of both of our youths we pretty much gave the middle finger to those religions and walked away, much to the chagrin of both our families.
Now, the trick is, the 6 year old goes to school, and most of those kids do go to church, and so they'll talk about things, and she'll pick some of this stuff up, and then she'll come home and ask questions. We try to answer in ways that are as open ended as possible. Because, as a little kid, it is hard to wrap you head around ideas of mortality. And I also think there is some merit to let the child explore these questions on their own to some degree. Certainly, if they become scared or frightened with what they think the possible answers are, that's when you need to provide some kind of reassurance. And that can be tricky. You don't want to mislead them, but, you don't want to leave them without any hope either.
And when you get right down to it, we don't have all the answers anyway. And if we think we do, we're doing it wrong.
Religion is no different to Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. You start out believing it, cos it makes the world a better place for you then, at some point in your life you either don't need it anymore and grow out of it or else you're a complete fucking retard.
If the kid wants to go, let her go... she'll figure out its a gong show soon enough if she has any wits about her.
I used to like church when I was young, to the point where my mom seriously thought I was going to be a nun some day because of my love of studying the Bible.
Then I realized that it was, in fact, all bullshit sometime in high school, and that my love of Bible study was just part of my infatuation with history.
Quote from: cainadhd on June 10, 2010, 04:02:15 AM
Just stop being a retarded atheist.
Quote from: Cainad on July 25, 2009, 12:28:21 AM
GET THE FUCK OUT YOU GLORY-HOGGING BASTARDCUNTBITCHCOCKDICKSHITFUCKDAMN
God damn it don't you have enough already? Everyone knows that you're HD, that you have better sound and picture quality, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio. Why do you always ALWAYS have to fucking rub it in? You've got the money, the popularity, and all the good things in life. Why do you need to come in here and show off like you always do? It's my fucking BIRTHDAY man; you did that on purpose didn't you?! Just when I was finally starting to gain acceptance in a social group you have to barge in and take all the attention and show off that you're basically a better version of me!
I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU STOP FOLLOWING ME EVERYWHERE AND STEALING MY FRIENDS EVERYWHERE I GO!
BAAAAAAAAWWWW!
(http://www.nqcc.org/nqccweb/htdocs/Training%20pg%20crying1.jpg)
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 07:10:38 AM
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
NO REFUNDS!!
Quote from: Suu on June 10, 2010, 02:53:57 PM
I used to like church when I was young, to the point where my mom seriously thought I was going to be a nun some day because of my love of studying the Bible.
Then I realized that it was, in fact, all bullshit sometime in high school, and that my love of Bible study was just part of my infatuation with history.
I went through almost the same thing.
Quote from: Turdley Burgleson on June 10, 2010, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 07:10:38 AM
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
NO REFUNDS!!
Actually, we offer a 300% money back guarantee upon joining our cult.
Weirdly, though I grew up in Utah, none of my friends talked about going to church and I was never invited to go until I hit high school, by which point it was too late. :?
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 10, 2010, 06:26:28 PM
Weirdly, though I grew up in Utah, none of my friends talked about going to church and I was never invited to go until I hit high school, by which point it was too late. :?
No magic underwear for you then.
Definitely not. Sometimes I don't wear any underwear at all.
Fap, etc.
Appreciate all the things to consider! Thanks yous!
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 10:04:25 PM
As for the death thing --
NOBODY knows the answer to the question about what happens after you die.
Religion doesn't have an answer, nor does scientific materialism.
Sure we do. A person is the emergent property of neurology. When death occurs, the whole system breaks down, the cells decompose, the atoms are passed to other organic and inorganic states. The person is gone, because the network is gone.
Visit any person with dementia, Alzheimer or Creutzfelt-Jacob's Disease and you'll see the whole thing happening in slow motion. Anything else is a Cartesian duality. It's natural, and understandably horrific given our evolutionary predisposition of avoidance so we maximize our ofspring, and it's going to happen to you upon death.
Bucky Fuller would disagree... goddess, his egregore is riding me hard lately:
What is really important... about you or me is the thinkable you or the thinkable me, the abstract metaphysical you or me, ... what communications we have made with one another" (801.23). Every human being is a unique pattern integrity, temporarily given shape by flesh, as is the knot by rope.
... All you see is a little of my pink face and hands and my shoes and clothing, and you can't see me, which is entirely the thinking, abstract, metaphysical me. It becomes shocking to think that we recognize one another only as the touchable, nonthinking biological organism and its clothed ensemble. (801.23)
Our bodies are physical, but life is metaphysical. Housed in a temporary arrangement of energy as cells, life is a pattern integrity far more complex than the knot or the wave. Remember that all the material present in the cells of your body seven years ago has been completely replaced today, somehow showing up with the same arrangement, color, and function. It doesn't matter whether you ate bananas or tuna fish for lunch. A human being processes thousands of tons of food, air, and water in a lifetime. Just as a slip knot tied in a segment of cotton rope, which is spliced to a piece of nylon rope, in turn spliced to manila rope, then to Dacron rope (and so on) can be slid along the rope from material to material without changing its "pattern integrity," we too slide along the diverse strands supplied by Universe—as "self-rebuilding, beautifully designed pattern integrities." No weight is lost at the moment of death. Whatever "life" is, it's not physical.
The key is consciousness. "Mozart will always be there to any who hears his music." Likewise, "when we say 'atom' or think 'atom' we are... with livingly thinkable Democritus who first conceived and named the invisible phenomenon 'atom'" (801.23). Life is made of awareness and thought, not flesh and blood. Each human being embodies a unique pattern integrity, evolving with every experience and thought. The total pattern of an individual's life is inconceivably complex and ultimately eternal. No human being could ever completely describe such a pattern, as he can the overhand knot; that capability is relegated to the "Greater Intellectual Integrity of Eternally Regenerative Universe." (2)
Are there any Unitarians in your area?
Quote from: Telarus on June 12, 2010, 06:48:10 AM
Bucky Fuller would disagree... goddess, his egregore is riding me hard lately:
What is really important... about you or me is the thinkable you or the thinkable me, the abstract metaphysical you or me, ... what communications we have made with one another" (801.23). Every human being is a unique pattern integrity, temporarily given shape by flesh, as is the knot by rope.
... All you see is a little of my pink face and hands and my shoes and clothing, and you can't see me, which is entirely the thinking, abstract, metaphysical me. It becomes shocking to think that we recognize one another only as the touchable, nonthinking biological organism and its clothed ensemble. (801.23)
Our bodies are physical, but life is metaphysical. Housed in a temporary arrangement of energy as cells, life is a pattern integrity far more complex than the knot or the wave. Remember that all the material present in the cells of your body seven years ago has been completely replaced today, somehow showing up with the same arrangement, color, and function. It doesn't matter whether you ate bananas or tuna fish for lunch. A human being processes thousands of tons of food, air, and water in a lifetime. Just as a slip knot tied in a segment of cotton rope, which is spliced to a piece of nylon rope, in turn spliced to manila rope, then to Dacron rope (and so on) can be slid along the rope from material to material without changing its "pattern integrity," we too slide along the diverse strands supplied by Universe—as "self-rebuilding, beautifully designed pattern integrities." No weight is lost at the moment of death. Whatever "life" is, it's not physical.
The key is consciousness. "Mozart will always be there to any who hears his music." Likewise, "when we say 'atom' or think 'atom' we are... with livingly thinkable Democritus who first conceived and named the invisible phenomenon 'atom'" (801.23). Life is made of awareness and thought, not flesh and blood. Each human being embodies a unique pattern integrity, evolving with every experience and thought. The total pattern of an individual's life is inconceivably complex and ultimately eternal. No human being could ever completely describe such a pattern, as he can the overhand knot; that capability is relegated to the "Greater Intellectual Integrity of Eternally Regenerative Universe." (2)
Okay. So I write something now, here. But after death I'M still gone. Cathexis doesn't count, especially to me, the person who my consciousness matters most to.
This "energy pattern" shit is good mystic fiction, pretty similar to the stuff I write, but it has nothing to do with "what happens to consciousness after death?". Unless consciousness is a function of something else other than emergent properties of neural networks, it does not continue after death, it's gone, along with the system it was resting upon. Culture continues, but frankly, I don't think in culture so that shit doesn't matter in this case. And neither do you.
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
If you change the brain, you change the consciousness, therefore it follows that if you remove the brain, you remove the consciousness. To use the knot analogy, the knot is not the rope, but you can't have the knot without the rope. Consciousness may not necessarily be the brain, but you can't have it without the brain. Life is not the body, it's the processes the body does, but you can't have these processes without the body. You need the hardware to have the software.
I'm not a parent, but as a former youth™, you run a dangerous line suppressing the will of your children. Particularly in denying them church, or any other of those sorts of activities. You're going to end up with a rebellious teenager that's fighting the man™ (that's you) by attending Mormon services on the weekend without your knowledge. Ugh, the horror!
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 06:19:32 PM
If you change the brain, you change the consciousness, therefore it follows that if you remove the brain, you remove the consciousness. To use the knot analogy, the knot is not the rope, but you can't have the knot without the rope. Consciousness may not necessarily be the brain, but you can't have it without the brain. Life is not the body, it's the processes the body does, but you can't have these processes without the body. You need the hardware to have the software.
Never takes long to get on the subject of software. So riddle me this - if you send and email to someone, do they receive the same message you sent?
If so why doesn't the email die in transit?
If not - what's the difference?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 06:19:32 PM
If you change the brain, you change the consciousness, therefore it follows that if you remove the brain, you remove the consciousness. To use the knot analogy, the knot is not the rope, but you can't have the knot without the rope. Consciousness may not necessarily be the brain, but you can't have it without the brain. Life is not the body, it's the processes the body does, but you can't have these processes without the body. You need the hardware to have the software.
Never takes long to get on the subject of software. So riddle me this - if you send and email to someone, do they receive the same message you sent?
If so why doesn't the email die in transit?
If not - what's the difference?
Bad analogy.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
How about the 160 years of neurobiology going back to dear old Phineas Gage? Countless cases of people with brain damage showing that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of neural networks?
Hey, if thats not good enough, I'll just leave you to your solipsism.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 06:52:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
How about the 160 years of neurobiology going back to dear old Phineas Gage? Countless cases of people with brain damage showing that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of neural networks?
Hey, if thats not good enough, I'll just leave you to your solipsism.
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.
So sayeth the great syphilis philologist.
Your tone is smug and close-minded sounding. I don't know if that's intentional or what, but even though I generally agree with what you're saying, the way you're saying it is making me want to side with pent.
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 06:46:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 06:19:32 PM
If you change the brain, you change the consciousness, therefore it follows that if you remove the brain, you remove the consciousness. To use the knot analogy, the knot is not the rope, but you can't have the knot without the rope. Consciousness may not necessarily be the brain, but you can't have it without the brain. Life is not the body, it's the processes the body does, but you can't have these processes without the body. You need the hardware to have the software.
Never takes long to get on the subject of software. So riddle me this - if you send and email to someone, do they receive the same message you sent?
If so why doesn't the email die in transit?
If not - what's the difference?
Bad analogy.
Perfectly good analogy. Seems like you just don't understand it is all.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
This! Anything less than being 50/50 undecided is showing how much of an idiot you are.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
Fail, not how evidence works. I don't have to personally witness an event to figure out what happened. There are proxies for discovering that. Like, we know from fMRI scans of the brain that thoughts are due to electric and chemical impulses, so, you remove the ability for it to be transmitted, and you lose the thought. We know how memories are formed, for an example of how, there's long term potentiation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_term_potentiation) This is chemistry, if you remove the chemicals, no more memory. Like, I can figure out the mechanism of a chemical reaction, but I can't ever observe it directly. I can observe the start of it, I can observe the end result. I can change the chemical environment to disrupt the pathway I think is happening to see if it works or not, but I can't ever see the actual reaction. And yet, I can tell you the mechanism and how the electrons are moving and this information can be used to make new things. I can map evolutionary histories despite not being there, I can look at the fossils, I can look at the genes, I can map out ERVs and compare protein sequences. I don't have to be there to know what happened. This is the same kind of inference and the same kind of reasoning.
Oh, and for the email analogy, the cords are hardware, they send the message, not that far off from an axon. It has to be stored somewhere in some physical medium, remove that and you lost the email.
What Kai said. If you selectively destroy parts of the brain, you can cause all kinds of nifty forms of mental damage. You know those diagrams of the brain in anatomy/neurology/psychology textbooks, where sections are labeled with functions? This part plays a crucial role in planning and forethought, this part is necessary to understand speech, this part is necessary to produce coherent speech, you need this part to regulate emotions, this part is in some way critical to your personality, etc? We learned about almost all of those by finding a number of people with lesions in very specific areas of the brain who also had very similar impairment in specific areas of function, including personality, memory, emotions, and reasoning.
That isn't consistent with the hypothesis that human consciousness exists independently of a material substrate. Damaging the substrate damages the consciousness; how could completely destroying a damaged substrate restore the consciousness?
Keichu built a computer with a hundred processors. Take away the processors, the memory, the I/O, and what remains?
I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said :lulz:
Evidence.
I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.
Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.
Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?
Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.
THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.
Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.
Maybe I misunderstand science. Didn't it used to say if it can't be proven then it can't be proven? Has science moved into the ethereal now? Fact is there is no real evidence either proving or disproving what happens after death. To propose something based on what a brain does while it is alive and to extropulate that out to what happens after the brain dies is just silly.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said :lulz:
Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:39:36 PM
Evidence.
I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.
Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.
Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?
Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.
THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.
Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.
No, that's not useful, you were not neurologically dead, your brain was oxygen starved and unreliable.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:20:43 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
This! Anything less than being 50/50 undecided is showing how much of an idiot you are.
There is no "back" to come from. If you burn a piece of lumber, the tree cannot come back. It isn't somewhere else, it flat-out does not exist - a cloud of carbon dioxide and water vapor is not a tree. Memories of the tree, ideas of the tree, whatever, but unless you want to put forward the argument that a thing is identical with the perception of that thing, pulping someone's head erases the person's existence.
And being 50/50 undecided? Among what possibilities? Do you give equal credence to the idea that after death a consciousness remains to contemplate the perfect oneness of the unit circle and the idea that after death a consciousness is implanted into a new body which is then trampled by 1.7 elephants for every time the person said the word "eggplant" aloud in life?
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said :lulz:
Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:39:36 PM
Evidence.
I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.
Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.
Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?
Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.
THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.
Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.
No, that's not useful, you were not neurologically dead, your brain was oxygen starved and unreliable.
I added more after your post, sorry.
Prove it.
Science is great if you use it as a tool and stick to the formula. If you start believing the shit then it's just another fucking religion. Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkins ... all heretics who challenged the high priests of the god of science and dragged it kicking and screaming back into the realms of system and out of the domain of religion.
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Science is great if you use it as a tool and stick to the formula. If you start believing the shit then it's just another fucking religion. Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkins ... all heretics who challenged the high priests of the god of science and dragged it kicking and screaming back into the realms of system and out of the domain of religion.
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
This is my stance. Science has an obligation to be detached and unbiased. Otherwise it needs to move to the Vatican and start chanting like primitive witch doctors.
:awesome:
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed YOU FUCKING HEATHENS.
There I fixed it.
This thread:
Smug science major is smug.
We snark you, smug science major!
But really though, there is some research behind this.
You are religious, go away.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
No, because then someone will claim the dead person's experience is all subjective. :lulz:
Quote
Perfectly good analogy. Seems like you just don't understand it is all.
Bas analogy, because an email doesn't possess life to begin with.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 07:10:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 06:52:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
How about the 160 years of neurobiology going back to dear old Phineas Gage? Countless cases of people with brain damage showing that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of neural networks?
Hey, if thats not good enough, I'll just leave you to your solipsism.
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.
So sayeth the great syphilis philologist.
Your tone is smug and close-minded sounding. I don't know if that's intentional or what, but even though I generally agree with what you're saying, the way you're saying it is making me want to side with pent.
Smug? No. Closeminded? No. Annoyed? Absolutely.
"Scientific Materialism doesn't" is a good way to set off my bullshit-o-meter.
I mean, postmodern criticism is good to a point, but arguing consciousness doesn't have a biological basis and is not subject to biological death is about 200 years too late. Because that's really what someone is saying when they "scientific materialism doesn't know what happens to consciousness after death".
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 07:54:04 PM
One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed YOU FUCKING HEATHENS.
There I fixed it.
This thread:
Smug science major is smug.
We snark you, smug science major!
But really though, there is some research behind this.
You are religious, go away.
Research without a proven conclusion is just
research and will remain unproven until it is
proven.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.
Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.
No, because then someone will claim the dead person's experience is all subjective. :lulz:
Thank you. Therefore in true scientific research a controlled sampling would be needed and individual subjectiveness weighed. Until this happens all we have is speculation.
And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.
And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.
And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.
I think we are done. Thanks for your professionally scientific responses.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is. But it's all about you, so forget it. Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.
@Hawk, I never said anything was proven. If you're looking for 100% certainty, science won't be much help.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.
And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.
I think we are done. Thanks for your professionally scientific responses.
:lulz:
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid.
Actually, I stopped reading right there.
So much for "siding with", huh? :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is. But it's all about you, so forget it. Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.
@Hawk, I never said anything was proven. If you're looking for 100% certainty, science won't be much help.
This is exactly my point. It is all speculation.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
Out of you curiosity, how does this impact your assessment of risky behaviors? I ask because when I was a child I genuinely had no understanding of the fear of death because I believed in a Christian afterlife. I remember attending my grandmother's funeral (I must have been less than 4) and being puzzled because all the adults seemed so sad ... and yet they kept telling me that "God had called her to come be with him" and that "she was in Heaven now." I understood that Grandma was not
here anymore, and that the so very cold body in the casket with the rosary on the hands wasn't inhabited anymore, but not why this was such a bad thing. She was in the same place as God now, reckoned by all to be a pretty good person, in a place of eternal happiness. It wasn't even as if we couldn't talk to her anymore - everybody knows you can communicate with the blessed deceased through prayer and they can talk back through your dreams!
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid.
Actually, I stopped reading right there.
So much for "siding with", huh? :lulz:
With support like that Kai, you have all the enemies you need.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
Smug? No. Closeminded? No. Annoyed? Absolutely.
"Scientific Materialism doesn't" is a good way to set off my bullshit-o-meter.
I mean, postmodern criticism is good to a point, but arguing consciousness doesn't have a biological basis and is not subject to biological death is about 200 years too late. Because that's really what someone is saying when they "scientific materialism doesn't know what happens to consciousness after death".
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
As far as I'm aware it's not even research. We know that, prior to death, consciousness behaves a certain way and appears to be an emergent property of molecular biochemistry. What hasn't been adequately proven, one way or another, is the capability of this emergent property to exist beyond the biochemical stuff. Given that the emergent property itself seems to be largely unmeasurable, unquantifiable and even unprovable (without employing logical philosophy, which isn't really science) statements about this emergent property are merely flights of fancy and have no fucking place in scientific theory at this time.
Therefore I put it to you that jumping on an "I'm a scientist and therefore know everything" high horse and proclaiming that you know everything there is to know about life after death or the transference or transcendence of consciousness is way outside your remit. You want me to believe what you believe? Forget it. I don't believe in gravity, FFS, I merely agree that, until proven otherwise, the theory holds true.
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said :lulz:
Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.
La-tee-fucking-da.
Now get back in the lab and invent me a flying sandwich.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is. But it's all about you, so forget it. Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.
So's your mom!
Are we done yet?
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid.
Actually, I stopped reading right there.
So much for "siding with", huh? :lulz:
With support like that Kai, you have all the enemies you need.
Meh. Enemies. This is PD.com. We argue, for no reason other to argue, and are still friends afterwards.
If it was anything more than that, I would have posted a rant in OKM.
And to the OP, I am sorry for derailing your thread. Somewhat. :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 07:56:20 PM
But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.
It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is. But it's all about you, so forget it. Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.
So's your mom!
Are we done yet?
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
And your stance is stupid.
Actually, I stopped reading right there.
So much for "siding with", huh? :lulz:
With support like that Kai, you have all the enemies you need.
Meh. Enemies. This is PD.com. We argue, for no reason other to argue, and are still friends afterwards.
If it was anything more than that, I would have posted a rant in OKM.
And to the OP, I am sorry for derailing your thread. Somewhat. :lulz:
Don't, it's a much better thread now.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:06:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
Out of you curiosity, how does this impact your assessment of risky behaviors? I ask because when I was a child I genuinely had no understanding of the fear of death because I believed in a Christian afterlife. I remember attending my grandmother's funeral (I must have been less than 4) and being puzzled because all the adults seemed so sad ... and yet they kept telling me that "God had called her to come be with him" and that "she was in Heaven now." I understood that Grandma was not here anymore, and that the so very cold body in the casket with the rosary on the hands wasn't inhabited anymore, but not why this was such a bad thing. She was in the same place as God now, reckoned by all to be a pretty good person, in a place of eternal happiness. It wasn't even as if we couldn't talk to her anymore - everybody knows you can communicate with the blessed deceased through prayer and they can talk back through your dreams!
I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:13:45 PM
Meh. Enemies. This is PD.com. We argue, for no reason other to argue, and are still friends afterwards.
Don't get me wrong, I actually do dislike you personally. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:18:54 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:06:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
Out of you curiosity, how does this impact your assessment of risky behaviors? I ask because when I was a child I genuinely had no understanding of the fear of death because I believed in a Christian afterlife. I remember attending my grandmother's funeral (I must have been less than 4) and being puzzled because all the adults seemed so sad ... and yet they kept telling me that "God had called her to come be with him" and that "she was in Heaven now." I understood that Grandma was not here anymore, and that the so very cold body in the casket with the rosary on the hands wasn't inhabited anymore, but not why this was such a bad thing. She was in the same place as God now, reckoned by all to be a pretty good person, in a place of eternal happiness. It wasn't even as if we couldn't talk to her anymore - everybody knows you can communicate with the blessed deceased through prayer and they can talk back through your dreams!
I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.
This. If you're not going to use the life you have try to figure out a way to give it to somebody that will use it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 12, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 12, 2010, 08:13:45 PM
Meh. Enemies. This is PD.com. We argue, for no reason other to argue, and are still friends afterwards.
Don't get me wrong, I actually do dislike you personally. :lulz:
*shrug* We've got a history.
And I admit, I'm a downright asshole this week, probably a combination of too much coffee, too little sleep, and too many presentations on multiple stressors and carbon cycling.
Or it could be that Roger's mind control lasers have caused me to become his surrogate in his absence. :lulz:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 12, 2010, 08:12:55 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said :lulz:
Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.
La-tee-fucking-da.
Now get back in the lab and invent me a flying sandwich.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/330bm9t.jpg)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Discounting hypotheses is what science
does. You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they
will fail, sooner or later.) In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.
Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.
ETA: I'm more of a mathematician / computer science guy than a science major, in case that matters to any bandwagon-forming.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:18:54 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:06:34 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 07:47:49 PM
Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist? :lulz:
Out of you curiosity, how does this impact your assessment of risky behaviors? I ask because when I was a child I genuinely had no understanding of the fear of death because I believed in a Christian afterlife. I remember attending my grandmother's funeral (I must have been less than 4) and being puzzled because all the adults seemed so sad ... and yet they kept telling me that "God had called her to come be with him" and that "she was in Heaven now." I understood that Grandma was not here anymore, and that the so very cold body in the casket with the rosary on the hands wasn't inhabited anymore, but not why this was such a bad thing. She was in the same place as God now, reckoned by all to be a pretty good person, in a place of eternal happiness. It wasn't even as if we couldn't talk to her anymore - everybody knows you can communicate with the blessed deceased through prayer and they can talk back through your dreams!
I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Discounting hypotheses is what science does. You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.) In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.
Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.
Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Discounting hypotheses is what science does. You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.) In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.
Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.
ETA: I'm more of a mathematician / computer science guy than a science major, in case that matters to any bandwagon-forming.
The problem that Hawk and Pent seem to have is the same as my own.
What happens after death is not falsifiable or remotely testable.
By claiming certainty about it, you're going beyond science and entering the land of religious atheism.
And by cloaking your argument in scientific evidence you're trying to use scientific authority to support an unscientific statement.
That's where honest scientists are content to admit that for now, it's unknowable.
Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Discounting hypotheses is what science does. You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.) In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.
Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.
Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'
It isn't that science is "in a hurry" to find answers that they take shortcuts, as much as we need working solutions
now. Scientists understand that theories are subject to revision - it's not "we'll believe this theory because nobody has a better one yet, case closed" but rather "we'll believe this theory because as of right now there isn't a better one, but if a better one comes along we'll look into that."
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."
Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know. There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet. Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations. And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:47:17 PM
Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.
Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.
Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.
You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.
Do try again.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 12, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:47:17 PM
Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.
Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.
Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.
You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.
Do try again.
The left and right hemispheres are, more or less, copies of each other, that's not really a good comparison. You can remove half because there are structures in the other half that do the same job. And if this was an absolute, then why do we see differences in people before and after they are lobotomized?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 12, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:47:17 PM
Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.
Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.
Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.
You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.
Do try again.
True, but during the period of time after the relevant tissue is damaged but before the adjacent brain tissue begins to cover for the damaged tissue, you do have a loss of functionality. (and the brain doesn't always repair itself, especially not fully.)
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:58:52 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights :lulz:
Discounting hypotheses is what science does. You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.) In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.
Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.
Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'
It isn't that science is "in a hurry" to find answers that they take shortcuts, as much as we need working solutions now. Scientists understand that theories are subject to revision - it's not "we'll believe this theory because nobody has a better one yet, case closed" but rather "we'll believe this theory because as of right now there isn't a better one, but if a better one comes along we'll look into that."
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."
Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know. There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet. Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations. And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."
I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a
starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 09:03:46 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 12, 2010, 08:59:18 PM
Quote from: Vene on June 12, 2010, 08:47:17 PM
Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.
Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.
Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.
You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.
Do try again.
The left and right hemispheres are, more or less, copies of each other, that's not really a good comparison. You can remove half because there are structures in the other half that do the same job. And if this was an absolute, then why do we see differences in people before and after they are lobotomized?
It's not an absolute, however your argument was.
In general I agree with you, Kai and GA, that for each thought we have, it is a physical event, my point was merely that it's not a hard and fast rule of location and it's fraught with uncertainty.
How the adjacent tissue regains functionality is not well understood. The holy grail of science, that is, how our minds work, is still mostly unknown.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to have a great deal of doubt when it comes to consciousness and especially death.
Overgeneralizing specific bits of knowledge to apply to something that currently is unknowable, untestable isn't a big deal, you just look silly.
It's the dressing up pseudoscience to look like scientific knowledge that gets me. Though you should read more Dawkins as he does a better job of it.
Great, so Nephew Tid is apparently right, as Cram's Gram is a thought within Cramulus and we can weigh him.
QuoteQuote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 07:38:15 AM
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 07:10:38 AM
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
Not my point at all. If you live on in others, then you continue to live on well after you are forgotten because of the the direct and indirect impacts that you have on everything. I'm talking about things that once actually existed. This is an extension of the Cram's Gram posts.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 12, 2010, 11:04:27 PM
Great, so Nephew Tid is apparently right, as Cram's Gram is a thought within Cramulus and we can weigh him.
QuoteQuote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 07:38:15 AM
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 10, 2010, 07:10:38 AM
Atheism is too much of a commitment.
This isn't a cult? Do I get my money back?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 AM
There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.
You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.
By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist. OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.
Not my point at all. If you live on in others, then you continue to live on well after you are forgotten because of the the direct and indirect impacts that you have on everything. I'm talking about things that once actually existed. This is an extension of the Cram's Gram posts.
If you don't like my ideas don't use them. I was trying to offer an alternative afterlife "possibility"/interpretation to tell your kids if you're worried about depressing them by saying, "your Mormon god isn't real and when you die you stop existing. The end."
As far as the OP goes if you want to instill free-thinking in your children, then let them figure it out for themselves. Free-thinking does not need to mean atheist. Though it does mean to be Discordian. Let them think for themselves, schmuck.
When I asked my parents about death they said "sorry, we don't know" That was a bit unsettling.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 12, 2010, 11:43:11 PM
As far as the OP goes if you want to instill free-thinking in your children, then let them figure it out for themselves. Free-thinking does not need to mean atheist. Though it does mean to be Discordian. Let them think for themselves, schmuck.
What I think Unkl Dad is saying is, what is the best way to do that, given that children need guidance and input from their parents.
I don't know, and I think it really depends on the child and circumstances, and that Unkl Dad's intuitions are best to guide him on this.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 09:36:37 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:58:52 PM
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."
Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know. There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet. Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations. And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."
I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.
The thing is, tests
can't confirm that any particular theory about general rules is true. How could you prove, even in principle, that whatever laws of nature that held in the past will hold in the future? You can't point to a long history of laws of nature not changing as evidence that laws of nature don't change, because that's circular logic - "laws of nature held constant in the past" only implies "laws of nature will hold constant in the future" if it is true that laws of nature are persistent across time.
Sure, you can build a model of a bridge and stress test it -
but the belief that this is an accurate model of full scale bridges is itself a theory. You can't prove that you've taken every variable into account without making the model of the bridge the actual bridge itself and then subjecting it to every
possible event, no matter how unlikely. The WTC really was designed to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliner at the time - the engineers concluded that a Boeing 707 crashing into the building would cause terrible fires from the fuel killing lots of people, but the building itself wouldn't collapse. The airplane that actually did crash into the towers was a 767, which weighs about 70% more empty than the 707 and carried a lot more fuel.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 09, 2010, 08:54:57 PM
So I fucked up and had kids.
\
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1726/1015wifeswap.jpg) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/1015wifeswap.jpg/)
:kingmeh:
Didn't mean to bend anyone out of shape, received many things to think about and really appreciate the angles. Back to the shadows before my lack of ability to convey my sense of humor..., bah, see ya and thanks again.
You think Unkl Dad is bad?
You guys would shit bricks if you watched any of Louis CK's material about kids.
I thought his opening was funny.
Actually, come to think of it, it's even funnier that some people are offended by it.
Wasn't it obviously a joke? Jesus.
You forget that it is traditional to take umbrage at any perceived moral misstep, and to needlessly harsh each other constantly.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 13, 2010, 03:32:11 AM
You forget that it is traditional to take umbrage at any perceived moral misstep, and to needlessly harsh each other constantly.
This! There's few things I enjoy more than pretending I have morals just to make someone feel uncomfortable. I'd feel guilty about this but, y'know... :lulz:
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 13, 2010, 12:50:07 AM
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2010, 09:36:37 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on June 12, 2010, 08:58:52 PM
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."
Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know. There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet. Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations. And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."
I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.
The thing is, tests can't confirm that any particular theory about general rules is true. How could you prove, even in principle, that whatever laws of nature that held in the past will hold in the future? You can't point to a long history of laws of nature not changing as evidence that laws of nature don't change, because that's circular logic - "laws of nature held constant in the past" only implies "laws of nature will hold constant in the future" if it is true that laws of nature are persistent across time.
Sure, you can build a model of a bridge and stress test it - but the belief that this is an accurate model of full scale bridges is itself a theory. You can't prove that you've taken every variable into account without making the model of the bridge the actual bridge itself and then subjecting it to every possible event, no matter how unlikely. The WTC really was designed to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliner at the time - the engineers concluded that a Boeing 707 crashing into the building would cause terrible fires from the fuel killing lots of people, but the building itself wouldn't collapse. The airplane that actually did crash into the towers was a 767, which weighs about 70% more empty than the 707 and carried a lot more fuel.
I never meant to convey that once a law always a law. Of course as environs change so do rules. But what will remain are certain rules, to go back to your bridge example, a certain arch in the construct will withstand X weight. Then using known rules someone designs prestressed steel. Methods may have changed, but the same rules still apply. Since no one can foresee all events in the future all they can do is plan as best as they can. A flood, for instance. A bridge may be capable to withstand X cubic feet of water washing over it, but then debris will pile up with unknown force and collapse the bridge. Wear and tear, age, usage, all of these come into play.
In spite of all of this there are still certain proven
starting points that are adhered to. This is what I mean by taking 'what is left' as a starting point and proving what one can within these bounds.
It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.
Quote from: Nigel on June 13, 2010, 06:31:08 PM
It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.
Sorry, I will stop posting.
Quote from: Hawk on June 13, 2010, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 13, 2010, 06:31:08 PM
It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.
Sorry, I will stop posting.
Not so much talking about you, actually. Note the word "smug".
So, on one side we have Kai (and others), who has reams of experiments and case studies regarding the human brain, and the biology of consciousness.
One the other side, we have P3nt (and others) who has an untestable theory about... well, as far as I can make out, fields of conciousness that may or may not continue to exist after the biological brain has ceased to function.
Since the latter theory is untestable (so far), then it cannot be considered science.
In addition, without any available, testable, replicable evidence of the latter theory, then we have to fall back on Parsimony. Which means that the simplest explanation with the least amount of conjecture is Kai's position.
He may not be right, but he's got a lot more evidence on his side, and a lot less speculation and guessing.
if we reduce the question of "what happens to you after you die" to a question about brain activity, it's very simple
but
life =/= consciousness
It seems to be a conflict of science vs speculation.
Since one has specific rules and the other involves making shit up, there is very little common ground.
My position isn't based on any theory. My position is entirely based on not knowing and having the honesty to admit that I have no business ruling out anything. The reason I got a bug in my ass is because Kai (and others) were quite happy to wade in with absolute certainty on a point which science currently has neither the means nor the ambition to make comment on, one way or another.
If I want to measure voltage I'll use science. If I want to find out if there's life after death I'll have to wait til I'm dead. Somehow Kai is convinced he knows the answer already. That's just a common or garden belief any way you paint it. I'll attack that kind of thing til I'm blue in the face. In the interests of science!
Like I said, Kai was answering from the basis of what is currently known.
You were answering from the basis of what you pulled out of your ass.
Not too much common ground there.
it sounded to me like Kai was answering a question about what happens to consciousness after you die.
which -- to me -- doesn't really scratch the [entirely human] itch to understand death.
Again, my questions about death are not about what happens to my cells or tissue - those are easy questions to answer. There is a Me which transcends scientific materialism, and is its existence in this world so anchored to my body? I don't think so [today]. This still leaves a big question mark.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 03:19:51 PM
Like I said, Kai was answering from the basis of what is currently known.
You were answering from the basis of what you pulled out of your ass is currently not known.
Not too much common ground there.
I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I merely said - I don't know. IMO an unanswered question is just that - it's unanswered. Just exactly when did the scientific method become dressing up opinion in tangentially related theory and parading it as fact?
I think the current state of scientific research indicates strongly that a neurological system is necessary to interact/measure the consciousness of an entity. If the neurological system is busted, broken, destroyed or non-existent then scientists, doctors, me, you, the homeless guy on the corner... none of us can interact with or measure the consciousness of the entity. I think we can all agree with that.
However, that doesn't really tell us all that much about the consciousness itself... only about what is necessary for that consciousness to be manifest in our shared perception of reality.
For example, if we go on IRC and run a Turing test for Kai, Pent, Cramulus and Erisbot... the network of computers, routers, switches, applications etc. will be necessary for us to interact with or measure the consciousness of each of our subjects. If however, the network dies, the server crashes, a bulldozer cuts through a nice chunk of fiber etc etc etc we would no longer be able to interact with or measure the consciousness of our test subjects. That doesn't mean that Cramulus has lost his consciousness, only that he has lost his connection.
Science today seems able to be pretty precise about the necessary connectivity required for interacting with Realitynet. It is possible that without the necessary connection, there is no consciousness... but it is also possible that there is simply no connection to that consciousness. Deciding either way requires a leap of faith, I think.
I think that may be what P3nt is getting at as far as science being a belief when it comes to delving into that territory. Science can quite adeptly observe what happens to a body/individual before, during, and after death. But these are observations from the outside. Science can't observe what happens behind-the-eyes, if you will. Yes, it can observe the brain-waves and body happenings, but it can't document the experience of death and the experience of after-death. The theory is that dead is dead, and then there is no experience.
And I can understand P3nt's argument in that respect. Speaking as a social scientist, you can only get so far observing from this perspective, from the outside. When I study kids and drug abuse, I can look at the data, the arrests, grades, suspensions, admissions to treatment, etc., etc., but, until I sit down with a kid, talk to them, listen to them tell me their story, until I do that, I only have a certain portion of the story. Without that behind-the-eyes perspective, I can only come to certain conclusions which may, or may not, be accurate.
So, I think there is a question or questions about the after-death (note, I didn't say after-life) that science cannot 100% answer. And I think that is okay for science.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
Ok, if i've got this right, Kai said, "here's what I consider to be the best explanation of consciousness: an emergent process that stems from the neural connections in the brain."
Then you disagreed, because... well, basically you don't
like that explanation, but you offer no counter argument.
While there may be slim evidence to back up Kai, it
is evidence, and it seems to make sense when you consider that whatever consciousness is, it exists in this universe and must conform to the laws of this universe.
And you... you have no opinon, you have no theories, and you don't even have enough information to disprove Kai.
If we use a Fuzzy Logic Truth Chart™ on this, Kai may be below 100% True, but you haven't even managed to get on the chart yet.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:
You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU :lulz:
Ok, if i've got this right, Kai said, "here's what I consider to be the best explanation of consciousness: an emergent process that stems from the neural connections in the brain."
Then you disagreed, because... well, basically you don't like that explanation, but you offer no counter argument.
While there may be slim evidence to back up Kai, it is evidence, and it seems to make sense when you consider that whatever consciousness is, it exists in this universe and must conform to the laws of this universe.
And you... you have no opinon, you have no theories, and you don't even have enough information to disprove Kai.
If we use a Fuzzy Logic Truth Chart™ on this, Kai may be below 100% True, but you haven't even managed to get on the chart yet.
I didn't disagree with Kai on that point at all. Consciousness seems to be an emergent property that stems from the neural connections of the brain. That'd be my best guess too. However I have no proof as to whether or not it is capable of existing in some form or other once the the neural connections of the brain cease to function. I can think of a dozen or more scenarios which would allow for this to be the case but I made a point of trying not to argue for any of these, given that I have no evidence to support or disprove them.
Here's what we know for sure. When you tell someone to think something you can measure the effects of that process using instrumentation attached to the head in some way. Consciousness does indeed seem to be coming from there. However, as far as I'm aware, there is currently no instrumentation which is capable of quantifying that consciousness itself. You can't weigh it, measure it's velocity, tell me what colour it is or how it smells. Therefore there is no certainty about what happens to it, once the brain is destroyed. IMO, despite the fact that it might be a fairly logical assumption that it disappears, it's still just an assumption. An assumption based on absolutely no available data whatsoever.
Given that our impression of the form of consciousness draws some parallel with that of a computer program (the latter being an emergent property of the interactions of a bunch of miniature transistors) I used the example of an email. My point being that the emergent property of software is not dependent on the hardware on which it runs. The whole pattern is subject to a myriad state changes in which it can be imprinted on magnetic or optical media, printed out on paper or so on and then reloaded on a myriad different devices, themselves independent of the original. Is it possible that the 'software' pattern of our consciousness is capable of a similar state change at the point of death? I don't know. Apparently Kai does.
So, you're saying that a system that emerges from a multiplicity of simple interactions can then become independent of those interactions?
my grandma's dead but I inherited her car
I don't quite know how to respond to that, but I'm pretty sure a car is not an emergent system.
let me try this one:
I haven't talked to my science advisor in years, but I can still hear his analytic style in the back of my head.
Or:
Carl Sagan's body is a pile of ash, but his personality is still here, still effecting the universe.
Ok, I see where you're going, but:
If Sagan was alive and one of his ideas was proven wrong, then he would be able to change his conciousness to accomodate this new information.
Now that Sagan is dead, if one of his ideas is proven wrong, his conciousness cannot change to accomodate this new information.
You seem to be referring to what might be called a "residue of consciousness", an artifact that is left behind. It is in itself not an emergent system, but rather a product of an emergent system. If I write a song, my conciousness doesn't reside in the song, it is a document of my conciousness: Like a photograph of a butterfly is not an actual butterfly.
To harken back to the pattern discussion:
Is it possible, that our human limitations filter out the information that would allow us to observe the post-death existence of personality or consciousness (if it exists)?
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 04:40:34 PM
So, you're saying that a system that emerges from a multiplicity of simple interactions can then become independent of those interactions?
I'm claiming that computer software frequently does. I'm suggesting that consciousness might. Where does science stand on the issue of will? Does it exist? Is it an emergent meta-property of consciousness? Or a side effect? Or something completely separate? Does science know just what this faculty is capable of? Can it measure it using electrodes glued to a rat's head? At the point of organic death is the will (or a limited subset thereof) capable of somehow imprinting the main pattern in some other state, as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to save itself? Once again - I don't know. Kai does - apparently he has 300-odd years of scientific evidence.
Hahahaha fools, all of you! :lulz: :lulz:
*I* Know what happens when you die, and I ain't tellin none of you cus I'm taking it to the grave!
But since I'm in a generous mood and I *like* most of you guys, I'll give you a clue: Birth and Death, there is no difference, just a matter of time.
:fuckmittens:
:hippie:
there are parts of Me which exist independently of my nervous system, they are contained within every system that I've affected.
even though Sagan's material form has passed from this world, we can imagine to some degree what sagan would say if presented with some new data. So if you ask me, there is still some life in that pattern. We've absorbed a little bit of sagan's soul, immortalized him by incorporating him into ourselves.
While I agree that the consciousness which emerges from cells and tissues will go away, (just as sagan's unique point of view has gone away) there are clearly parts of our lives (shrapnel) that live on independent of that material existence.
I realize that this answer seems to be pointing in a different direction than the original question -- which seemed to be asking, "What is the experience of death like?", or perhaps "Is there an afterlife?"
So maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I just want to put my two cents on the table here.. I don't see my life as being neatly contained by my physical form. You might as well try to figure out what happens to a swamp after it dies.
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
THIS!
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I am unsure if I should laugh or cry over this argument....
No one knows what the fuck happens post-death... no theories are better or worse because there is no data. We could go party in the Void with Eris, cease to exist, go to heaven, hell, rejoin the Kia, get reincarnated, go become gods of our very own planets or find ourselves in some terrible Sci-Fi movie.
The data to support any of these theories = 0
Therefore any position held on which theory is Right, Most Right, Most Likely or Probable is Bullshit.
But, we need fertilizer, so that's OK. :lulz:
Fuck You, I'm gonna be a Dragon!
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 14, 2010, 05:37:06 PM
I am unsure if I should laugh or cry over this argument....
No one knows what the fuck happens post-death... no theories are better or worse because there is no data. We could go party in the Void with Eris, cease to exist, go to heaven, hell, rejoin the Kia, get reincarnated, go become gods of our very own planets or find ourselves in some terrible Sci-Fi movie.
The data to support any of these theories = 0
Therefore any position held on which theory is Right, Most Right, Most Likely or Probable is Bullshit.
But, we need fertilizer, so that's OK. :lulz:
Actually, it's *all* of the above. Congrats Rat, you managed to guess correctly, you clever Rat you.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
I could be wrong but I think that's what everyone is arguing, but from different perspectives.
But it is good to present kids with possibility of surviving physical death, since that's a big scary thing waiting for everyone that you can't escape. On the bright side we're all presented with the knowledge that we're going to kick off decades in advance and have the opportunity to prepare for it psychologically. But when you first come to that realization it's scary as hell though.
My mom told me about when I first became aware of death. Ironically, it was because of religion, the very thing that provides a psychological comfort. I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic kindergarten (and elementary school), and for some reason my teacher decided to teach us about the true meaning of Easter. Apparently, I was so horrified that not only did people including God-Incarnate
TM die, but that other people willfully caused it in brutal fashion upon occasion, that I had to be sent home for the day. I don't remember this, but I do remember what came out of it- I planned that after I died, I would wait until God was asleep and sneak back to earth and be alive again, taking all of my loved ones with me.
My 5-year old's logic that God must sleep too (let alone my assumption that an omniscient being wouldn't already know my plan) still amuses me 23 years later.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 14, 2010, 05:37:06 PM
I am unsure if I should laugh or cry over this argument....
No one knows what the fuck happens post-death... no theories are better or worse because there is no data. We could go party in the Void with Eris, cease to exist, go to heaven, hell, rejoin the Kia, get reincarnated, go become gods of our very own planets or find ourselves in some terrible Sci-Fi movie.
The data to support any of these theories = 0
Therefore any position held on which theory is Right, Most Right, Most Likely or Probable is Bullshit.
But, we need fertilizer, so that's OK. :lulz:
Only reason I'm arguing is because I want the ones with "3 million years of scientific evidence" to concede that exact point :argh!:
Unfortunately we're dealing with ordained ministers of evangelical science so maybe I'm banging my head against a brick wall.
Oh, put a sock in it. We know about emergent structures, we have a fairly good idea about how they work.
You yourself agreed that conciousness seems to be an emergent structure. So why then should we abandon everything we know about emergent structures in this case? What makes this one so unique and special?
AFAIK the data we have on emergent structures would be just as likely to support any afterlife theory as to disprove them. Emergent structures are replicable are they not? They can be recorded which, in itself constitutes a state change. Psychology is learning that many of the components of consciousness conform to cookie-cutter norms. What we don't know is what percentage of the whole constitutes an "individual" as opposed to how much is unique. Maybe it's a lot less than we might imagine. Maybe a good autobiography in addition to a base template would be enough to reconstruct a "soul". Probably not but the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. So who's to say that, at some point in the future, we may have the technology to revive a complete consciousness? The consciousness wouldn't necessarily be aware that any time had passed, just as it wouldn't necessarily be aware that it was a facsimile of the original. To all intents and purposes that's an afterlife.
There are so many potential ways to skin the proverbial cat that I can't help thinking it's a very narrow minded view to rule out every possibility on the grounds of absolutely no data. I'm a strong advocate of science (it gives us internet porn after all) but I do think it fosters a very narrow minded and limited view, in a lot of ways, by it's very nature. Science's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness, the reluctance to embrace possibility, simply because that possibility doesn't fit with it's current prejudice.
Many of the great scientists have been ones who have thought outside the box. The ones who have been prepared to suffer the scorn and ridicule of the scientific establishment and stick to their guns and lo the earth was proven to not be flat, nor the centre of the universe, light could be bent, god did play dice ...
What's interesting is that since you're arguing the "no one knows" point of view, Kai's idea should be just as equally valid to you as anything else you can think of. Yet you never mention that possibility.
Already have actually - mentioned I was about 50-50 in favour of it. Point is I'm not the one saying that it's one way or the other. That's the "scientist" that's reached that conclusion. And he's such a ninja scientist he's even managed to do it with absolutely no research or data.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 05:45:58 PM
Oh, put a sock in it. We know about emergent structures, we have a fairly good idea about how they work.
You yourself agreed that conciousness seems to be an emergent structure. So why then should we abandon everything we know about emergent structures in this case? What makes this one so unique and special?
Consciousness MAY be an emergent structure. That emergent structure MAY rely entirely on the neurological system of the person... OR... The emergent structure may be made of something else and the neurological system may simply be the way in which the emergent structure of consciousness interacts with external stimuli.... OR... consciousness may not be emergent at all...
No matter how we dice it, there's a lot of OR there.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 06:20:09 PM
What's interesting is that since you're arguing the "no one knows" point of view, Kai's idea should be just as equally valid to you as anything else you can think of. Yet you never mention that possibility.
I'd disagree, mostly because Kai didn't say "maybe", "possibly" or "or"... Kai stated:
QuoteA person is the emergent property of neurology. When death occurs, the whole system breaks down, the cells decompose, the atoms are passed to other organic and inorganic states. The person is gone, because the network is gone.
No more correct than "And the soul
is transformed in the blink of an eye and joins the LORD in heaven."
Just so I understand you, would you agree that conciousness is somehow related to the brain?
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
Just so I understand you, would you agree that conciousness is somehow related to the brain?
Current evidence suggests that consciousness, or at least the measurement of consciousness is related to the neurological system. Since we have functional humans that appear to have little/no brain matter I think that's probably the best we can say.
Yeah, I gotta let this one drop. I was mistaken earlier in saying there was little common ground.
There is no common ground here. As it turns out, we were barstooling all along.
However, given that most definitions of consciousness... and indeed the root concept tends to be related to 'subjective experience' (in Latin 'joint or common knowledge'). Perhaps we're arguing with a semantic assumption that is unwarranted.
That is, if we presume that shared knowledge/experience is a prerequisite of consciousness... then without the neurological system, we could not have consciousness as we currently know/understand it.
Perhaps the problem lies in labeling whatever might exist 'post-death' as 'consciousness'. Perhaps it should be given a different label?
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Well, I don't know. I certainly wasn't even aware of any of it until I was told after waking. I guess just nothingness is best as inadequate as it is.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Well, I don't know. I certainly wasn't even aware of any of it until I was told after waking. I guess just nothingness is best as inadequate as it is.
How does/did this effect how you feel about death, if at all?
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Well, I don't know. I certainly wasn't even aware of any of it until I was told after waking. I guess just nothingness is best as inadequate as it is.
Well, I like to think that the state after falling unconscious but before you start dreaming is a state of nothingness... I mean, you probably have trouble conceptualizing what I'm talking about cus it's kinda a state where nothing happens and well, you'd have a lot of trouble remembering/acknowledging it since... it's a state of nothing.
But yeah, point being, there's a brain state of unconsciousness you go into, right after your consciousness seperates from the outside reality, and before you enter REM state, which is the state in which you dream, there's a period of complete zen nothingness...
It's hard to talk about, and hard to conceptualize, but I swear I know what I'm talking about... but I suppose it doesn't matter anyway...
Nothingness, check. I can work with what your saying.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 14, 2010, 07:10:29 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Well, I don't know. I certainly wasn't even aware of any of it until I was told after waking. I guess just nothingness is best as inadequate as it is.
How does/did this effect how you feel about death, if at all?
It didn't affect me at all. Dying is the only thing I am guaranteed to not fuck up in this life. Here is how dead I looked before the OR incidents.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4571043&id=701145431
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:10:48 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on June 14, 2010, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
WTF.
No matter how pretty the dress you put on this the simple fact is NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU DIE.
There is NO WAY to know.
It is, on the other hand, probably possible to know what happens *just* before you die.
I understand you've flatlined twice on the op table... ever try DMT? Apparently, your body releases a lot of that shit into your brain as you are dying...
I've tried it. Freakiest thing is, I remember the experience being the most intense psychedelic trip I have to date experienced... but as you come down from it, it very quickly removes the experience from your conscious memory, leaving only a shadow of an intangable memory to hold onto, much like when you wake up from a dream and then forget it except for tiny bits and pieces that can sort of come back if you try. You know how you *know* a lot went on during the dream, but you can't remember most of it, and what you can remember, sort of feels like how when you have a word on the tip of your tongue but it just won't come?
I think maybe there's something to DMT, that it contains *some* secret about the mysteries of death... not that it's what death is, but more so, is one of the "stages" of death... and for some reason, our brain tries to protect us from those memories of what goes on when you're close to death.
Of course, maybe I'm just some drugged up hippy confusing chemical hallucinations for reality. (Whatever "that" is).
I don't use drugs for recreational purpose except caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol.
All I can say my experience was utter, absolute and complete nothingness.
So, like the "place/state" you go to after your fall asleep, but before you start dreaming? (If that makes any sense...)
Well, I don't know. I certainly wasn't even aware of any of it until I was told after waking. I guess just nothingness is best as inadequate as it is.
Well, I like to think that the state after falling unconscious but before you start dreaming is a state of nothingness... I mean, you probably have trouble conceptualizing what I'm talking about cus it's kinda a state where nothing happens and well, you'd have a lot of trouble remembering/acknowledging it since... it's a state of nothing.
But yeah, point being, there's a brain state of unconsciousness you go into, right after your consciousness seperates from the outside reality, and before you enter REM state, which is the state in which you dream, there's a period of complete zen nothingness...
It's hard to talk about, and hard to conceptualize, but I swear I know what I'm talking about... but I suppose it doesn't matter anyway...
Nothingness, check. I can work with what your saying.
I do see what you are saying.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
Just so I understand you, would you agree that conciousness is somehow related to the brain?
I would say that all available evidence seem to point toward consciousness being something that comes from the brain. Where I'm undecided is, once the brain is done, is the consciousness reliant on the brain for future survival. For about nine months the foetus is related to the host, to the point where the two are biologically indistinguishable (at which point along the umbilicus does one end and the other begin?) At point of birth, however, they are both able to exist independently of each other.
At present I do not have enough evidence to discount the possibility that consciousness behaves the same way, vis a vis the host neurology.
Forgot about privacy settings on FB. I am Charley Brown there if you want to friend me.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2010, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
Just so I understand you, would you agree that conciousness is somehow related to the brain?
I would say that all available evidence seem to point toward consciousness being something that comes from the brain. Where I'm undecided is, once the brain is done, is the consciousness reliant on the brain for future survival. For about nine months the foetus is related to the host, to the point where the two are biologically indistinguishable (at which point along the umbilicus does one end and the other begin?) At point of birth, however, they are both able to exist independently of each other.
At present I do not have enough evidence to discount the possibility that consciousness behaves the same way, vis a vis the host neurology.
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 06:48:18 PM
Yeah, I gotta let this one drop. I was mistaken earlier in saying there was little common ground.
There is no common ground here. As it turns out, we were barstooling all along.
LMNO, your failure to get people to agree with your conclusion about what happens when you die does not mean we are all staring at our navels and shouting NOTHING EXISTS.
anyway, the OPs question was about how to answer a child's questions about death while attempting to raise them in a "spiritual vacuum". (as an aside, I don't know why you would want to raise a kid in any kind of vacuum) He said, "trying to introduce the idea that there may be nothing after life seems to depressing for them to relate to at their ages."
So let's say you're a scientific materialist like Kai and LMNO and buy into the idea that brain tissue = consciousness = the person. And you believe death is actually a very simple matter, life just stops at the end and there is no remaining soul or locus of consciousness left to speculate about. And you're trying to explain this to a child. What do you say?
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
So let's say you're a scientific materialist like Kai and LMNO and buy into the idea that brain tissue = consciousness = the person. And you believe death is actually a very simple matter, life just stops at the end and there is no remaining soul or locus of consciousness left to speculate about. And you're trying to explain this to a child. What do you say?
QuoteAnd so it is that we, as men, do not exist until we do; and then it is that we play with our world of existent things, and order and disorder them, and so it shall be that non-existence shall take us back from existence and that nameless spirituality shall return to Void, like a tired child home from a very wild circus.
Yes yes, you are all reacting exactly as I planned. 8) :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
LMNO, your failure to get people to agree with your conclusion about what happens when you die does not mean we are all staring at our navels and shouting NOTHING EXISTS.
anyway, the OPs question was about how to answer a child's questions about death while attempting to raise them in a "spiritual vacuum". (as an aside, I don't know why you would want to raise a kid in any kind of vacuum) He said, "trying to introduce the idea that there may be nothing after life seems to depressing for them to relate to at their ages."
So let's say you're a scientific materialist like Kai and LMNO and buy into the idea that brain tissue = consciousness = the person. And you believe death is actually a very simple matter, life just stops at the end and there is no remaining soul or locus of consciousness left to speculate about. And you're trying to explain this to a child. What do you say?
I would say... to child... death is like the same place you were before you were born...maybe...
And if that confuses them, I'd try to get them to become familiar with zen/buddhist philosphy, perhaps when they are a bit older...
Or perhaps, even, as I mentioned earlier... it's like the the state between falling asleep into unconsciousness and dreaming...
Or, I'd just ask them what they think. They probably have a better answer without me having to explain anything.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
LMNO, your failure to get people to agree with your conclusion about what happens when you die does not mean we are all staring at our navels and shouting NOTHING EXISTS.
I know that; you're staring into the sky and building castles. Since we can't create experiements to test hypotheses, and since we cannot accept an occam's razor approach to what we can, then our questions are defined as "scientifically meaningless". Which means, by the above game rules, there is an equal chance of conciousness ceasing to exist after death as there is of being magically transported to a cosmic version of
Yo Gabba Gabba.
Which is, you have to admit, just asking for the barstool.
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 07:35:55 PM
Yes yes, you are all reacting exactly as I planned. 8) :horrormirth:
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
LMNO, your failure to get people to agree with your conclusion about what happens when you die does not mean we are all staring at our navels and shouting NOTHING EXISTS.
I know that; you're staring into the sky and building castles. Since we can't create experiements to test hypotheses, and since we cannot accept an occam's razor approach to what we can, then our questions are defined as "scientifically meaningless". Which means, by the above game rules, there is an equal chance of conciousness ceasing to exist after death as there is of being magically transported to a cosmic version of Yo Gabba Gabba.
Which is, you have to admit, just asking for the barstool.
There are no wrong answers... just wrong conclusions? :)
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:29:59 PM
LMNO, your failure to get people to agree with your conclusion about what happens when you die does not mean we are all staring at our navels and shouting NOTHING EXISTS.
I know that; you're staring into the sky and building castles. Since we can't create experiements to test hypotheses, and since we cannot accept an occam's razor approach to what we can, then our questions are defined as "scientifically meaningless".
I know I'm wandering into deep barstool territory here, but there miiiight be other reasons to discuss death than to find a scientifically testable explanation.
QuoteWhich means, by the above game rules, there is an equal chance of conciousness ceasing to exist after death as there is of being magically transported to a cosmic version of Yo Gabba Gabba.
You are comparing the position that we aren't capable of understanding death with belief in total cartoon bullshit.
thanks.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:39:00 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 07:35:55 PM
Yes yes, you are all reacting exactly as I planned. 8) :horrormirth:
:lulz:
If I knew unintentional trolling was this easy, I would have started years ago.
Humans have fun, emotionally driven fixed action patterns, no? :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
You are comparing the position that we aren't capable of understanding death with belief in total cartoon bullshit.
thanks.
I'm saying that if we state that we truly can't know, than literally anything is possible; therefore, all stances share equal value.
Say you can prove, using science that there is no life after death. Conclusively, with a fuckton of evidence and diagrams and formulae and models and all shit... even then it's just bullshit navel gazing unless you can come up with a practical application for this revelation. What possible practical application could there conceivably be? A faster processor? A tyre that lasts twice as long? A new and sustainable form of energy?
The bottom line is that the question of what happens after you pop your clogs is, and always will be, a philosophical one. It's one I've spent a fair amount of time and effort dealing with and the best conclusion I've come to is - I'll find out when I'm dead.
Science has no business getting involved. By the same token, in a conversation about what happens when you die, no one has any fucking business involving science, given that it's utterly incapable of shedding any light on the subject. Any attempt to do so isn't scientific - it's just retarded. So now we're reduced to the age old clusterfuck that invariably happens when science tries to overstep it's remit and settle a philosophical question using charts and graphs - the philosophers look at the scientists like they're retarded and the scientists look at the philosophers like they're retarded and no one ends up with a faster processor, improved tyre compound or ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.
Why can't scientific rationalists not just fucking admit that some questions can't be answered using ohms law? Why does their whole belief system seem to hinge on the fallacy that science has an answer for every question? :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 05:19:05 PM
there are parts of Me which exist independently of my nervous system, they are contained within every system that I've affected.
even though Sagan's material form has passed from this world, we can imagine to some degree what sagan would say if presented with some new data. So if you ask me, there is still some life in that pattern. We've absorbed a little bit of sagan's soul, immortalized him by incorporating him into ourselves.
While I agree that the consciousness which emerges from cells and tissues will go away, (just as sagan's unique point of view has gone away) there are clearly parts of our lives (shrapnel) that live on independent of that material existence.
I realize that this answer seems to be pointing in a different direction than the original question -- which seemed to be asking, "What is the experience of death like?", or perhaps "Is there an afterlife?"
So maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I just want to put my two cents on the table here.. I don't see my life as being neatly contained by my physical form. You might as well try to figure out what happens to a swamp after it dies.
This.
When scientists claim to know anything that is still relatively uncharted with absolute certainty, they have diverged from science and ventured into religion. Science rarely claims to know anything, even things that are well-tested, with absolute certainty.
One of the hallmarks of religion is people speaking in absolutes and becoming angry with any challenges, even if the challenges are in the form of "I don't believe you can claim certainty on that."
Hey, Gabbaland is my Pure Land, don't knock it!
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
You are comparing the position that we aren't capable of understanding death with belief in total cartoon bullshit.
thanks.
I'm saying that if we state that we truly can't know, than literally anything is possible; therefore, all stances share equal value.
I disagree
there are
lots of things that we can't know, that doesn't mean all possible explanations are equal.
for example - I don't know if there's really a God, I don't think I
can know, but I'm
relatively certain God isn't the MS-Word Paperclip :)
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 08:04:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
You are comparing the position that we aren't capable of understanding death with belief in total cartoon bullshit.
thanks.
I'm saying that if we state that we truly can't know, than literally anything is possible; therefore, all stances share equal value.
I disagree
there are lots of things that we can't know, that doesn't mean all possible explanations are equal.
for example - I don't know if there's really a God, I don't think I can know, but I'm relatively certain God isn't the MS-Word Paperclip :)
You better watch out or HE will smite you with helpful hints.
Quote from: Nigel on June 14, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
One of the hallmarks of religion is people speaking in absolutes and becoming angry with any challenges, even if the challenges are in the form of "I don't believe you can claim certainty on that."
Yep.
So, what process did you use to decide that God is most likely not the MS paperclip?
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
So, what process did you use to decide that God is most likely not the MS paperclip?
MS paperclip was invented long after god was made up.
Maybe he just did it that way as a test of faith, tho? :troll:
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/Gabbitaba.jpg)
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/Gabbitaba.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/Devilclip.jpg)
On the one hand, it is a fascinating topic for conversation. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Even if some form of consciousness or personality exists after death, there seems to be no mechanism for that existence to commune with mortal existence. So it would seem to be inconsequential for the mortal plane.
and to return to the OP . . . after death there is peace with no sadness and no pain . . .
MMIX firmly in the no body = no consciousness camp
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 08:41:51 PM
On the one hand, it is a fascinating topic for conversation. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Even if some form of consciousness or personality exists after death, there seems to be no mechanism for that existence to commune with mortal existence. So it would seem to be inconsequential for the mortal plane.
Yeah, I'm digging the passionate discussion.
Would you feel comfortable talking about what you told or will tell your little ones?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 14, 2010, 09:08:52 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 08:41:51 PM
On the one hand, it is a fascinating topic for conversation. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Even if some form of consciousness or personality exists after death, there seems to be no mechanism for that existence to commune with mortal existence. So it would seem to be inconsequential for the mortal plane.
Yeah, I'm digging the passionate discussion.
Would you feel comfortable talking about what you told or will tell your little ones?
Let's talk about sex!
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 14, 2010, 09:08:52 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 08:41:51 PM
On the one hand, it is a fascinating topic for conversation. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Even if some form of consciousness or personality exists after death, there seems to be no mechanism for that existence to commune with mortal existence. So it would seem to be inconsequential for the mortal plane.
Yeah, I'm digging the passionate discussion.
Would you feel comfortable talking about what you told or will tell your little ones?
Let's talk about sex!
:potd:
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
So, what process did you use to decide that God is most likely not the MS paperclip?
well, what hawk said, but also mostly intuition
I mean, the image of the MS Paint paperclip handing the stone tablets to moses with a "Did this solve your problem? yes/no" dialogue box doesn't seem congruent with the rest of my understanding of the universe.
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 08:41:51 PM
On the one hand, it is a fascinating topic for conversation. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter. Even if some form of consciousness or personality exists after death, there seems to be no mechanism for that existence to commune with mortal existence. So it would seem to be inconsequential for the mortal plane.
We are living in a world in which the politicial opinions of guys who died like 300 years ago are still extremely relevant. I posit that the soul/personality of the USA's founding fathers (for example) is still very much alive. Their bodies/brains are not around to experience it, but we keep their soul immortal through our actions and our memory of them.
As a kid, I think I would have preferred this explanation of death to the one where you die you totally dissapear and then watch from heaven like ben kenobi.
and to clarify, I'm again talking about my personal point of view which regards your life as something more than the body you occupy.
I don't believe in a
soul in the sense that its some ghost of you that gets stored in the astral cocktail party after your body dies. I prefer to think of your soul as the part of you that the world experiences.
Hm, I don't think I've ever said it out loud like that, so I'll have to think on it some more. thumbs up for this thread.
But seriously, the question has come up a few times. My daughter is 6 now, and she understands that people and animals die and aren't around anymore. She has developed the idea that they go somewhere. She has even mentioned heaven once or twice. I don't know exactly where this comes from. It's either other kids at school, or my mother in law. My wife and I don't talk about religion. She is a reformed Catholic, I'm a reformed Baptist. Religion just isn't something we talk about. We aren't actively shielding my daughter from religion, but, we're not exactly putting down the menu of choices for her either. We're letting her discover her world on her own terms, and answering questions as best as we can when they come up.
The one about death is tricky. And it isn't as simple as knowing scientifically whether or not life stops cold in its tracks when you croak. 6 year olds can't wrap their heads around that without becoming paralyzed with fear. So you can't just say. "You die. The end." So, what we try to do is redirect the conversation to put emphasis on the journey. That everybody is afforded this life to live and to not focus on the end of it, but, to maximize the time leading up to the end.
It seems to work for now. But then again, she is 6, and I'm pretty sure the exploits of iCarly and Spongebob weigh more heavily on her right now.
That we simply don't know and we will find out when our time comes.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 09:30:15 PM
That we simply don't know and we will find out when our time comes.
But given that the mind is a property of our physical bodies, the most parsimonious answer is "nothing". So I'm going to live like there's nothing for me after.
Quote from: RWHN on June 14, 2010, 09:19:37 PM
But seriously, the question has come up a few times. My daughter is 6 now, and she understands that people and animals die and aren't around anymore. She has developed the idea that they go somewhere. She has even mentioned heaven once or twice. I don't know exactly where this comes from. It's either other kids at school, or my mother in law. My wife and I don't talk about religion. She is a reformed Catholic, I'm a reformed Baptist. Religion just isn't something we talk about. We aren't actively shielding my daughter from religion, but, we're not exactly putting down the menu of choices for her either. We're letting her discover her world on her own terms, and answering questions as best as we can when they come up.
The one about death is tricky. And it isn't as simple as knowing scientifically whether or not life stops cold in its tracks when you croak. 6 year olds can't wrap their heads around that without becoming paralyzed with fear. So you can't just say. "You die. The end." So, what we try to do is redirect the conversation to put emphasis on the journey. That everybody is afforded this life to live and to not focus on the end of it, but, to maximize the time leading up to the end.
It seems to work for now. But then again, she is 6, and I'm pretty sure the exploits of iCarly and Spongebob weigh more heavily on her right now.
Thanks, that's a really good angle. I like that.
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 09:30:15 PM
That we simply don't know and we will find out when our time comes.
But given that the mind is a property of our physical bodies, the most parsimonious answer is "nothing". So I'm going to live like there's nothing for me after.
That has worked for over 5 decades for me.
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 09:30:15 PM
That we simply don't know and we will find out when our time comes.
But given that the mind is a property of our physical bodies, the most parsimonious answer is "nothing". So I'm going to live like there's nothing for me after.
That has worked for over 5 decades for me.
And none of this Pascal's Wager shit either.
I bet Blaise was tossed into hell for being a smartass.
Quote from: Kai on June 14, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 14, 2010, 09:30:15 PM
That we simply don't know and we will find out when our time comes.
But given that the mind is a property of our physical bodies, the most parsimonious answer is "nothing". So I'm going to live like there's nothing for me after.
I don't even rationalise it that deeply. Given that I know there is life before death I'm going to live the hell out of it. If there is life after then I'll get around to that later. If there's some wanker judging me based on what I'm doing now then fuck him - twat should explained what he wanted from me from the off. :evil:
My 4-year-old has discovered that people die when they get old. He apparently has some level of understanding about what 'death' is because he knows he doesn't want to. In some cases it is clear that this leads to behavioral problems (If I act like a big kid, that means I'm growing up. If I grow up, I will get old and die. Therefore I shall be a snotty little bastard and refuse to behave myself.) Neither I nor my wife know what to make of this or how to properly handle it. We change the subject and tell him not to worry about it, but that isn't a plan for the long-term, especially if his questions persist.
This ties into the religious question because my family is extremely religious although I'm not, and neither is my wife. But were these questions to make their way to my parents' ears, the first thing they would tell my son is "Blah blah Jesus, sins, hell, heaven, blah blah blah," and because I don't want my child's first apparently substantial answer to his questions about death to come from people bent on spoiling his freedom of belief, I feel like I must preemptively their inevitable assault on his mind with a bit of "don't ever believe anything the Jesus freaks tell you." Problem with that is I don't want to spoil his freedom of belief, either.
So I really don't know. Maybe I will teach him something absolutely nonsensical, just so he can continue to believe that until he's old enough to critically think it into the trash. That way he'll be somewhat immune to the nonsense my parents would have him believe forever, since he has something filling that space already. When he's old enough to recognize my story is nonsense, maybe he'll be old enough to also recognize their story as nonsense too. This plan makes me a liar and completely untrustworthy, but by the time he's 15, I'll be that anyway.
Wow, 10 pages from a tongue-in-cheek pseudo-voodo reference to an
egregore, eh?
It's been a good conversation so far. I have a final today, but, I'll get back to this and that damn Karma thread later tonight.
Kai, let's talk about 'metaphysics'. I think that you're confusing Buckminster's usage of the word with Pat Robertson's usage of the word.
Quote160.00 Generalized Design Science Exploration
161.00 Science has been cogently defined by others as the attempt to set in order the facts of experience. When science discovers order subjectively, it is pure science. When the order discovered by science is objectively employed, it is called applied science. The facts of experience are always special cases. The order sought for and sometimes found by science is always eternally generalized; that is, it holds true in every special case. The scientific generalizations are always mathematically statable as equations with one term on one side of the equation and a plurality of at least two terms on the other side of the equation.
162.00 There are eternal generalizations that embrace a plurality of generalizations. The most comprehensive generalization would be that which has U = MP, standing for an eternally regenerative Universe of M times P, where M stands for the metaphysical and P stands for the physical. We could then have a subgeneralization where the physical P = Er· Em, where Er stands for energy as radiation and Em stands for energy as matter. There are thus orders of generalization in which the lower orders are progressively embraced by the higher orders. There are several hundred first-order generalizations already discovered and equatingly formalized by scientist-artists. There are very few of the higher order generalizations. Because generalizations must hold true without exception, these generalizations must be inherently eternal. Though special-case experiences exemplify employment of eternal principles, those special cases are all inherently terminal; that is, in temporary employment of the principles.
163.00 No generalized principles have ever been discovered that contradict other generalized principles. All the generalized principles are interaccommodative. Some of them are synchronously interaccommodative; that is, some of them accommodate the other by synchronized nonsimultaneity. Many of them are interaccommodative simultaneously. Some interact at mathematically exponential rates of interaugmentation. Because the physical is time, the relative endurances of all special-case physical experiences are proportional to the synchronous periodicity of associability of the complex principles involved. Metaphysical generalizations are timeless, i.e., eternal. Because the metaphysical is abstract, weightless, sizeless, and eternal, metaphysical experiences have no endurance limits and are eternally compatible with all other metaphysical experiences. What is a metaphysical experience? It is comprehending the relationships of eternal principles. The means of communication is physical. That which is communicated, i.e., understood, is metaphysical. The symbols with which mathematics is communicatingly described are physical. A mathematical principle is metaphysical and independent of whether X,Y or A,B are symbolically employed.
Given that model. Are 'you' purely physical?
Or is the 'special-case-you' that we are experiencing right now physical, but generalized pattern of 'you' metaphysical and eternal?
Bucky claims Mind is metaphysical, and that each human consists of a 'Pattern Integrity' which follow all of the rules of pattern integrities (example: the pattern 'Wave' being able to manifest in water, milk, or kerosene when a rock is thrown into it).
Quote from: vexati0n on June 14, 2010, 11:48:06 PM
My 4-year-old has discovered that people die when they get old. He apparently has some level of understanding about what 'death' is because he knows he doesn't want to. In some cases it is clear that this leads to behavioral problems (If I act like a big kid, that means I'm growing up. If I grow up, I will get old and die. Therefore I shall be a snotty little bastard and refuse to behave myself.) Neither I nor my wife know what to make of this or how to properly handle it. We change the subject and tell him not to worry about it, but that isn't a plan for the long-term, especially if his questions persist.
Problem (http://www.amazon.com/Crackle-Best-Bauhaus/dp/B000007SP0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276558293&sr=1-1) solved (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Joy-Division/dp/B001690X2Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276558337&sr=1-1) :) (http://www.amazon.com/Disintegration-Cure/dp/B000002H70/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1276558376&sr=1-7)
If he hasn't discovered goth girls by the time he's 18 send him to me and LMNO.
You know sometimes when you're really tired and want to sleep for a long time, you just blink, and suddenly 10 hours have passed and you didn't notice?
That's exactly what it feels like when you are under general anesthesia.
I always figured being dead would feel like that too, except you never wake up.
I have religious beliefs. Maybe (probably) this puts me in the minority here, but I really don't care. I'm not here for my beliefs, but for Discordia. I don't have children at the moment, but when I do, and they start asking questions, I will tell them, "look, I believe that when you die, you kinda dream for awhile and then come back and forget everything from before. This is not what my father and mother and step father believe. My father believes you go to heaven and spend eternity with Jesus. My mother believes it doesn't matter as long as you're good, and then you go to heaven and have happy fun time until the universe dies too, and you still have happy fun time. My step father believes that this is it and that's all there is to it. I broke away and chose my own beliefs. I expect you to do the same and evaluate for yourself what you find the most comfortable. In the meantime, know that there is anecdotal evidence for and against (Hawk) afterlife. Ultimately what matters is that you live this life well and to the fullest. I think you get another chance but I could be wrong. Live like there is no tomorrow and hope for the best." Maybe I'll put it in more understandable terms, but I think that's the tack I'll take: I don't know but this is what I think. Look into it and tell me what you think.
On a side note, Hawk's experiences got me thinking. It seems like people have different NDE's. Sorry if this is threadjacking but it seems relevant. Does what you expect to happen color your experiences when dying? Like, some people see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm presuming that they are afterlifers. I'm going to assume Hawk expects nothing, and got nothing. Maybe I'm not explaining this well, butdoes one see what they want to see?
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 14, 2010, 08:04:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 08:04:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 14, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
You are comparing the position that we aren't capable of understanding death with belief in total cartoon bullshit.
thanks.
I'm saying that if we state that we truly can't know, than literally anything is possible; therefore, all stances share equal value.
I disagree
there are lots of things that we can't know, that doesn't mean all possible explanations are equal.
for example - I don't know if there's really a God, I don't think I can know, but I'm relatively certain God isn't the MS-Word Paperclip :)
You better watch out or HE will smite you with helpful hints.
:horrormirth:
The believing in religion thing came down to, for me at least, a straightforward - stick or twist - bet. Do you gamble everything you've won so far against what's behind the curtain or do you take what you have now and enjoy it given that it's just as likely you'll get what's behind the curtain when you've run out of what you already have anyway.
Religion always seemed to me to be selling a really dumb gamble, given the amount of good shit I stand to sacrifice just on the off chance that there's a better prize behind there that I might win anyway.
I think something along these lines is how I'd sell death to kid - give him a popsicle and then tell him if he gives up his popsicle now you may or may not give him something better next week :D
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2010, 05:28:56 AM
I have religious beliefs. Maybe (probably) this puts me in the minority here, but I really don't care. I'm not here for my beliefs, but for Discordia. I don't have children at the moment, but when I do, and they start asking questions, I will tell them, "look, I believe that when you die, you kinda dream for awhile and then come back and forget everything from before. This is not what my father and mother and step father believe. My father believes you go to heaven and spend eternity with Jesus. My mother believes it doesn't matter as long as you're good, and then you go to heaven and have happy fun time until the universe dies too, and you still have happy fun time. My step father believes that this is it and that's all there is to it. I broke away and chose my own beliefs. I expect you to do the same and evaluate for yourself what you find the most comfortable. In the meantime, know that there is anecdotal evidence for and against (Hawk) afterlife. Ultimately what matters is that you live this life well and to the fullest. I think you get another chance but I could be wrong. Live like there is no tomorrow and hope for the best." Maybe I'll put it in more understandable terms, but I think that's the tack I'll take: I don't know but this is what I think. Look into it and tell me what you think.
On a side note, Hawk's experiences got me thinking. It seems like people have different NDE's. Sorry if this is threadjacking but it seems relevant. Does what you expect to happen color your experiences when dying? Like, some people see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm presuming that they are afterlifers. I'm going to assume Hawk expects nothing, and got nothing. Maybe I'm not explaining this well, butdoes one see what they want to see?
You know, I always figured, ever since I was little and contemplated death as logically as possible, the very thing you mentioned... going to a "dream" for a while and being reborn in another "Tangible" life/universe...
And yeah, having done a bit of research on NDE's myself, there is a lot of variation in what people experience...
Some people experience very similar things while others have very different experiences from everyone else...
I find it very curious, but I still don't have a clue what any of it means.
Not to mention, I've taken DMT, and a lot of things that people mention in NDE's sounds strikingly similar to what happens on a DMT trip... not to mention, DMT trips seem to have the same sort of "effects" of NDE's, in the sense that there are a lot similarities between lots of users who have taken it, but then there are the people who experience it quite differently from what one might consider the "norm".
Striking similarities there that I can't fail to ignore...
If my kids chose Mormonism, I'd send them to their ancestors to help with the geneology thing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 15, 2010, 09:26:32 PM
If my kids chose Mormonism, I'd send them to their ancestors to help with the geneology thing.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 15, 2010, 09:26:32 PM
If my kids chose Mormonism, I'd send them to their ancestors to help with the geneology thing.
:lulz:
I'd probably take the route of mmmm, smell that coffee! It smells so good! Wow, that has a really smooth taste to it, this is the best coffee I've ever had! Still could use room for improvement. Yay! Whiskey! Man, this coffee is even better now that it's got a kick to it! What a mellow buzz! Does Mormon Jesus have Irish coffee on Kolob? I hope so, cuz, man you're missing out. By the way my underwear is really comfortable.
I found that my fears were unjustified.
My ex-wife showed up with the mormons that were taking my daughter to church. They were bumming about being out of smokes, laughed about being caffeine consumers and the female was knocked up out of wedlock. I shook their hands and told them they were the types of mormons I could appreciate.
My other daughter, much younger, still believes she sees the ghost of her grandmother and cat...who am I to tell her she's wrong.
Quote from: Unkl Dad on June 23, 2010, 10:34:27 PM
I found that my fears were unjustified.
My ex-wife showed up with the mormons that were taking my daughter to church. They were bumming about being out of smokes, laughed about being caffeine consumers and the female was knocked up out of wedlock. I shook their hands and told them they were the types of mormons I could appreciate.
My other daughter, much younger, still believes she sees the ghost of her grandmother and cat...who am I to tell her she's wrong.
So, they're party Mormons?
Man, the LDS is getting lax....
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
By eating da poo poo? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg)
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 24, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
By eating da poo poo? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg)
:lulz:
Well played
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
Seems to be happening with the JW's as well... they decided that they should be focused on Mercy not Judgment when disfellowshiping people :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 24, 2010, 05:02:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
Seems to be happening with the JW's as well... they decided that they should be focused on Mercy not Judgment when disfellowshiping people :lulz:
I guess you can only keep it strict for so long in the modern world
I got about zero religious upbringing as a child; I was in a Unitarian Universalist church so we'd sit around playing games about faith like: "At some point while you were distracted someone walked into this room, picked up a stapler and left. Write about it, make it about a page in length." I of course didn't notice a single bit of it, so I made up some bullshit. Some actually did.
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
BAH! They aren't
serious about this shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 05:10:12 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 24, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
LDS membership is down, to the extent that they are reluctant to excommunicate people who used to get booted in a hot second. It's not even enough just to be GAY anymore; they demand that you actually be having hot gay sex, AND that you prove it.
BAH! They aren't serious about this shit.
It's a numbers game. They should try giving out addictive shit, like the tobacco companies.
"If only we had their numbers!"
\
(http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/george.carlin.cardinal.glick.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 01:39:58 PMIn addition, without any available, testable, replicable evidence of the latter theory, then we have to fall back on Parsimony. Which means that the simplest explanation with the least amount of conjecture is Kai's position.
What?! Why?
Occam's razor is the biggest cop-out mechanism in science.
Who decides what is considered "simplest" and what is "least amount of conjecture"?
"When parsimony ceases to be a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra pronouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science."
There you go. Some dude quoted on Wikipedia said it already. Thing is, this parsimony is perfectly able to strongly support false conclusions and therefore we don't "have to" fall back onto it whenever, whereever, and especially not in circumstances where it makes no sense.
There is nothing wrong with just admitting "I don't know", yeah?
Of course, Science can't deal with that, but that doesn't mean we should.
Hey and what is conjecture? Isn't that the things an explanation can't account for and therefore has to be al hand-wavy? Because I bet the biological/neurological basis for consciousness has a LOT more of that than certain spiritual explanations.
I'm real glad I'm no longer doing this Science shit, btw. It's grown real smelly.
Well "in accordance with our current understanding of science" is certainly more simple than "a metaphysical existence after death, which would require the reworking of how we understand basic physics and biology".
If you have to rewrite a substansial amount of rules for your theory to make sense, and you don't have the evidence to support a change in those rules, then, uh yeah, the more simple idea within that understood parameter is probably the best one to go for, unless you find explanations like "because a wizard did it" more convincing.
I would've thought this was pretty simple and obvious myself.
But this thread has already passed the point of "zomg u haz offended my precious beliefz" with plenty of butthurt and entrenched positions on every side, so I don't expect this to be paid any attention to.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 01:39:58 PMIn addition, without any available, testable, replicable evidence of the latter theory, then we have to fall back on Parsimony. Which means that the simplest explanation with the least amount of conjecture is Kai's position.
What?! Why?
Occam's razor is the biggest cop-out mechanism in science.
Who decides what is considered "simplest" and what is "least amount of conjecture"?
"When parsimony ceases to be a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra pronouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science."
There you go. Some dude quoted on Wikipedia said it already. Thing is, this parsimony is perfectly able to strongly support false conclusions and therefore we don't "have to" fall back onto it whenever, whereever, and especially not in circumstances where it makes no sense.
There is nothing wrong with just admitting "I don't know", yeah?
Of course, Science can't deal with that, but that doesn't mean we should.
Hey and what is conjecture? Isn't that the things an explanation can't account for and therefore has to be al hand-wavy? Because I bet the biological/neurological basis for consciousness has a LOT more of that than certain spiritual explanations.
I'm real glad I'm no longer doing this Science shit, btw. It's grown real smelly.
Easy, now. Take a breath.
I'm not saying that Parsimony gives you the "right" answer, and that we should stop asking questions.
And, for the record, science is
entirely based around "I don't know."
That is to say, "I don't know,
and I want to find out."
The fewer untestable elements in a hypothesis means a smaller margin of error to account for, which means the more accurate any tests you
can perform will be.
Testable: if electrical activity in the brain ceases after death.
Testable: the long-term coherence of electrical patterns after the energy source has depleted.
Untestable: YHVH carries your soul to heaven.
Untestable: Your heart is weighed, and you are reborn in accordance to how you lived your previous life.
While the two untestable hypotheses may be true, we cannot speak to that, because there is no way of testing that. Because you can't test it, then it is scientifically meaningless (which I guess is another way of saying "I don't know"). You can't say it's true, and you can't say it's false.
The question at hand is, "What happens after you die?" That question can be answered objectively through observation and testing, without speculation. It
can be answered scientifically, up to a point. After that point, it can no longer be answered scientifically.
After that point, it becomes a matter of speculation, faith, and imagination. Which is great, but becomes subject to emotional argument, rather than rational.
Okay okay, taking a breath :)
Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 05:00:10 PM
Ok, I see where you're going, but:
If Sagan was alive and one of his ideas was proven wrong, then he would be able to change his conciousness to accomodate this new information.
Now that Sagan is dead, if one of his ideas is proven wrong, his conciousness cannot change to accomodate this new information.
It depends on how you look at it, really.
Let's take Jesus Christ as an example, assuming he he was a singular real person two millennia ago, being somewhat of a charismatic rebel/cult leader who also happened to have some pretty good ideas about how great it would be if everybody would just be nice to eachother.
Now the ideas, and consciousness of Jesus Christ live on in a shitload of people's minds.
And you bet that if one of his ideas is proven wrong, that consciousness changes to accomodate to the new information.
Now the consciousness may not accomodate in a very
sensible way, or perhaps even in the way the alive Jesus Christ would have had it, but nobody ever argued that consciousness after death will function in the same way as it did when alive.
One interesting thing about this, btw. If you look at my first paragraph, I made an assumption about his life. It might not be true, but it has no real consequences for his today consciousness, Christianity. He could have been a space alien, or maybe five guys whose stories sort of glommed together. So there's a disconnect. It's all really interesting, and for real.
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2010, 03:05:53 PMWell "in accordance with our current understanding of science" is certainly more simple than "a metaphysical existence after death, which would require the reworking of how we understand basic physics and biology".
If you have to rewrite a substansial amount of rules for your theory to make sense, and you don't have the evidence to support a change in those rules, then, uh yeah, the more simple idea within that understood parameter is probably the best one to go for, unless you find explanations like "because a wizard did it" more convincing.
I would've thought this was pretty simple and obvious myself.
Yes that's right.
Except that while "in accordance with our current understanding of science" is indeed really simple, it is also not really an explanation of where consciousness comes from. They just know the neurons and physics and biology there don't do anything unexpected, yet if they kill/switch them off, consciousness goes (partially) away.
What's left is a big glaring question of "what exactly is this consciousness, how does it work, and where does it come from?", and so far Science's answer to this question is that "it's really, really complex".
Now while I agree with these conclusions myself, I can't really call this the "simplest explanation".
Then, for my own beliefs, I augment these conclusions with a bunch of spiritual ideas I came up with myself. They don't really require a reworking of basic physics or biology, though. And when anyone asks me how they work, I can honestly answer "it's really, really complex" :) *
* seriously. part of it is the belief that consciousness can exist in other media than neural matter, or biological matter. I find if you reason this out for a while, you can account for a whole lot of the "energy" and "resonations" and "entities" and stuff you find in a lot of spiritual systems. not all of it. some is just bullshit. and then because some people didn't pick that up and wrote books about it anyway, you got bullshit mixed up with the bits that actually do make sense and can be valuable to learn. all in all, it's really really complex. one quick bullshit test, though: if it requires you to rewrite ideas about physics, it's probably bullshit.
It is indeed extremely complex, but I think where we might have missed each other's point is that in this case "simplest" means "least amount of pure guessing". All that complexity can be tested; or at least, they can envision a way to test it. Coming up with a hypothesis that uses the least amount of untestable ideas is usually the best way to go, because you can eventually test it, and then adjust your ideas to fit the results. But it sounds like you already agree with that, so I'll stop there.
The rest of your post, to me, falls in the realm of philosophy and subjective ideas. Which I love, and which I'm happy to talk about. So if you want to go there, I'm down.
We can answer "What happens to your physical body when/after you die?" via observation and thus discuss it within models based on science.
We cannot answer "What happens to YOU when/after you die?" and must either be content with "I dunno', or accept some belief about it, or use some other model to consider the possibilities.
Only if you philisophically consider "YOU" to be more than the sum of your physical parts.
You are making an untestable hypothesis before you even ask the question.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 03:08:22 PM
Easy, now. Take a breath.
I'm not saying that Parsimony gives you the "right" answer, and that we should stop asking questions.
I just don't like Occam's razor. It can actually be wrong, you know? And not in the way you explain below.
I should grab some examples for this. I learned about it in Machine Learning. Cause for an automated reasoning system, implementing Occam's razor is a pretty good start. And (given that you counterbalance "simple" with "useful"), it actually leads to pretty good, intelligent results.
But there are also some situations, and not even just the "degenerative cases", where it will confidently pick the wrong answer.
... sorry I can't find an example now. This is interesting though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Subjective_razor
(scroll one paragraph up to "The statistical view leads to ..." and you might wanna follow the link on "Kolmogorov complexity", it's interesting and not as complex as it sounds, and relevant to the Razor and the notion of "simplest")
QuoteAnd, for the record, science is entirely based around "I don't know."
That is to say, "I don't know, and I want to find out."
Yes, but as been shown in this thread, "I don't know", absence of evidence, sometimes gets mistaken for evidence of absence.
Like when people claim consciousness zaps out of existence with death, and science proves this.
Now proper science would indeed say nothing about this. I suppose it's more the culture of Science that is smelly to me, the smugness, the part in people that don't just stop with "we can't prove it yet", but really must follow up with saying "but a lot of evidence (and my common superior sense) points to ...".
QuoteTestable: if electrical activity in the brain ceases after death.
Testable: the long-term coherence of electrical patterns after the energy source has depleted.
Untestable: YHVH carries your soul to heaven.
Untestable: Your heart is weighed, and you are reborn in accordance to how you lived your previous life.
Just FYI as an aside, the neurobiologists agree with me that there's quite a lot more than electrical activity going on that may be causing consciousness. In fact, it's mostly chemical, and not really all that much electrical.
QuoteThe question at hand is, "What happens after you die?" That question can be answered objectively through observation and testing, without speculation. It can be answered scientifically, up to a point. After that point, it can no longer be answered scientifically.
Well, science can test what happens to your body after you die.
I thought the actual question at hand is "What happens to your consciousness after you die?"
I thought the comparison with a knot was quite interesting. you tie a knot in a rope, then burn the rope. What happens to the knot?
Well, the knot would be gone, I suppose.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
Only if you philisophically consider "YOU" to be more than the sum of your physical parts.
You are making an untestable hypothesis before you even ask the question.
I am asking a question that is not well suited for discussion in models based on scientific criteria.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
Only if you philisophically consider "YOU" to be more than the sum of your physical parts.
You are making an untestable hypothesis before you even ask the question.
Being more than the sum of its parts is what Emergence is all about.
And it's not really all that untestable.
It is, however, really really complex.
Take the knotted rope, is it more than the sum of its parts? I would consider a knotted rope to be "more" than a not knotted rope, but it still has the same parts.
Similarly, an anthill population 5000 I consider "more" than an arbitrary collection of 5000 ants.
Occams razor can indeed be wrong, if you only use it once. As more information becomes available, you need to keep seeing the best way it all fits together. And you still might get it wrong. It's like if you have the sentence, "I took _____ to the fucking wall, and never got my money back." You can speculate, and try to find outside context, and do all sorts of experiments to figure out what that word might be, and you might be able to narrow it down to "it's probably a noun", but you can still get it wrong without more information.
As far as the knot in the rope question, it's semantic. We use the word "knot" to describe a configuration of rope.
As an analogy to consciousness, it doesn't work very well, unless you postulate an infinite strand of consciousness that knots up in people-like objects. Which is nice to think about, in a poetic sense.
I find this sort of discussion a prime candidate for Model Agnosticism.
We can use scientific models and discuss the observable phenomena related to human death.
We can use philosophical models to discuss the conceptual concepts of "I" and consciousness.
We can use metaphysical models to discuss what some people think happens at/after death.
In the end, they all are models though and all have their own criteria, their own limits and their own value... as long as we remember that they're models, not Reality.
It might save a lot of arguing if we agree on which viewpoint we should use when talking about it first.
Say I could upload my entire consciousness into a robot - such that from the robots perspective, one moment it's a fleshy human with a lifetime of history, having its brain recorded by some device - and the next instant it's in a robot shell. Now you could make the argument that my consciousness will survive as long as the robot does, fine. But from my perspective, looking up at the robot who now thinks it is me... and has the lasers and rockets to prove it... well, I might beg to differ.
So to me, consciousness is a stream. It may be possible to duplicate it, but when it ends, it ends.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 03:31:32 PM
Let's take Jesus Christ as an example, assuming he he was a singular real person two millennia ago, being somewhat of a charismatic rebel/cult leader who also happened to have some pretty good ideas about how great it would be if everybody would just be nice to eachother.
Now the ideas, and consciousness of Jesus Christ live on in a shitload of people's minds.
Have you ever had a conversation with a friend, or significant other, where they think they know you so well they finish your sentence or make assumptions on your behalf? They may have a high success rate, but fuck it can be annoying when they get it completely wrong. Why? If they are talking to a friend of theirs who knows you less well, that friend is going to make even wilder assumptions. Maybe your friend can, while their own consciousness survives, correct their friends assumptions.. but once they're gone your consciousness can only be a characterture compared to how you knew it.
So I think Jesus is dead. Oral history, translated, subverted, translated, interpreted.. and you look to the people who claim the closest communion with Jesus now, and I hardly think that their idea of Jesus has much relation to the 2000 year dead consciousness.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:12:19 PM
It might save a lot of arguing if we agree on which viewpoint we should use when talking about it first.
Well, in that case we should probably be clear about what question we're asking... What happens to the body, or what happens to I/consciousness/self.
What happens to the body seems like an observable sort of thing, well answered with scientific models.
What happens to consciousness/I/self seems like a really difficult question to answer with scientific models.
Perhaps we should even go back so far as to ask what we consider consciousness to be in the first place.
After all, if I consider it to be a confluence of electrochemical processes in my body, then I may be of the viewpoint that when those processes stop, so does my consciousness.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:21:50 PM
Perhaps we should even go back so far as to ask what we consider consciousness to be in the first place.
After all, if I consider it to be a confluence of electrochemical processes in my body, then I may be of the viewpoint that when those processes stop, so does my consciousness.
I reject that line of reasoning.
I am entirely too sexy to just vanish when I die.
It was just a hypothesis. I have yet to come to any conclusion.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:24:04 PM
It was just a hypothesis. I have yet to come to any conclusion.
Available data:
1. There is only so much sexy in the universe.
2. Dok is one sexy bitch.
3. If Dok is allowed to cease existing, there will be less sexy in the universe.
4. If this is the way things work, the universe would have turned into Michael J Fox somewhere around 1600AD.
QED.
I gotta admit, that's about as scientific as it gets, folks.
IT IS PROVEN.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
Only if you philisophically consider "YOU" to be more than the sum of your physical parts.
You are making an untestable hypothesis before you even ask the question.
Being more than the sum of its parts is what Emergence is all about.
And it's not really all that untestable.
It is, however, really really complex.
Take the knotted rope, is it more than the sum of its parts? I would consider a knotted rope to be "more" than a not knotted rope, but it still has the same parts.
Similarly, an anthill population 5000 I consider "more" than an arbitrary collection of 5000 ants.
If I might throw in my own two cents here - what is the difference between an anthill population 5000 and an arbitrary collection of 5000 ants? The difference is only in entropy: in the anthill, you still have 5000 ants, but they are arranged in an orderly way. This order is what makes you think that it is somehow more than the sum of its parts, but it's really just an illusion.
Human consciousness is a completely different thing altogether from that. Reading through this thread, the word 'consciousness' seems to have varying definitions whenever it is used, so I'll clarify for myself - I'm talking about human awareness, that substance that Kilgore Trout once made travel faster-than-light between the stars. This faster-than-light characteristic seems to hint that it's not something merely confined to the physical world. And indeed, why would anyone even speculate about metaphysics if we ourselves have no metaphysical reality?
The question is whether the metaphysical requires the physical to exist. Those parameters are harder to define...
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 04:52:08 PM
If I might throw in my own two cents here - what is the difference between an anthill population 5000 and an arbitrary collection of 5000 ants? The difference is only in entropy: in the anthill, you still have 5000 ants, but they are arranged in an orderly way. This order is what makes you think that it is somehow more than the sum of its parts, but it's really just an illusion.
Bullshit. If there were nothing more to it than an illusion, the ants would all die.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 04:52:08 PM
Human consciousness is a completely different thing altogether from that. Reading through this thread, the word 'consciousness' seems to have varying definitions whenever it is used, so I'll clarify for myself - I'm talking about human awareness, that substance that Kilgore Trout once made travel faster-than-light between the stars. This faster-than-light characteristic seems to hint that it's not something merely confined to the physical world. And indeed, why would anyone even speculate about metaphysics if we ourselves have no metaphysical reality?
Sorry, I didn't realize you were an idiot. Carry on.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 04:52:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 25, 2010, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
Only if you philisophically consider "YOU" to be more than the sum of your physical parts.
You are making an untestable hypothesis before you even ask the question.
Being more than the sum of its parts is what Emergence is all about.
And it's not really all that untestable.
It is, however, really really complex.
Take the knotted rope, is it more than the sum of its parts? I would consider a knotted rope to be "more" than a not knotted rope, but it still has the same parts.
Similarly, an anthill population 5000 I consider "more" than an arbitrary collection of 5000 ants.
And indeed, why would anyone even speculate about metaphysics if we ourselves have no metaphysical reality?
Because their heads are as mushy as the meat they're made out of.
Quex, Kilgore Trout?
What are you on about?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 04:59:54 PM
Quex, Kilgore Trout?
What are you on about?
Kurt Vonnegut character from Breakfast of Champions et al.
He's proposing Vonnegut as a physicist of some sort, I think.
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light. This would solve the QUIP problem, but no one's sure exactly how to deal with it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:01:39 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 04:59:54 PM
Quex, Kilgore Trout?
What are you on about?
Kurt Vonnegut character from Breakfast of Champions et al.
He's proposing Vonnegut as a physicist of some sort, I think.
Oh.
Yes. Quex- please to note that as far as we can tell, this is not a book.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light. This would solve the QUIP problem, but no one's sure exactly how to deal with it.
What's the QUIP problem?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:01:39 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 04:59:54 PM
Quex, Kilgore Trout?
What are you on about?
Kurt Vonnegut character from Breakfast of Champions et al.
He's proposing Vonnegut as a physicist of some sort, I think.
Oh.
Yes. Quex- please to note that as far as we can tell, this is not a book.
Nothing with this shitty of a plot would ever get published on anything more than lulu, anyway.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light. This would solve the QUIP problem, but no one's sure exactly how to deal with it.
What's the QUIP problem?
Quantumly Unique Interzone Penis.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
Apologies, I wasn't speaking in R-Prime. Your answer is correct.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light. This would solve the QUIP problem, but no one's sure exactly how to deal with it.
What's the QUIP problem?
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:21:50 PM
Perhaps we should even go back so far as to ask what we consider consciousness to be in the first place.
After all, if I consider it to be a confluence of electrochemical processes in my body, then I may be of the viewpoint that when those processes stop, so does my consciousness.
An excellent point! And I think that hits on a key issue that 000 was pointing to. What you consider and what your viewpoint is are probably the most valid statements you can make on the topic. Yet, they're probably not statements that we can apply Occam's Razor to, simply because they aren't statements that are scientific observation, but rather opinion, viewpoint or belief (depending on the individual and how strongly they feel about their position).
So we have your position. I think you've pretty clearly stated it. (though you said IF so maybe it's just an example, I'm not sure).
Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, there does seem to be a lot of evidence that the neurological system with its electro-chemical processes are inextricably tied to consciousness... On the other hand, we have examples of people who have little or no brain mass and yet display behavior that appears to be normal consciousness. So at the very least, I am skeptical that we understand enough, and I consider that there MAY be something more, perhaps another series of processes in the body, perhaps tied to something else.
It's a tricky question...
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
Apologies, I wasn't speaking in R-Prime. Your answer is correct.
You know, sometimes I wonder if I get a little too excitable about certain subjects.
Then I shrug, slam another 24 OZ coffee, and spend the rest of the afternoon wondering why I always feel like I have tachycardia.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
Apologies, I wasn't speaking in R-Prime. Your answer is correct.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light. This would solve the QUIP problem, but no one's sure exactly how to deal with it.
What's the QUIP problem?
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
More than happy to hear about it, but I might ask a dumb question here or there.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
I'll start another thread in Techmology and Scientism.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:19:50 PM
I'll start another thread in Techmology and Scientism.
Sweet
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
It is currently being used in cryptographic applications.
This thread...I don't even know.
Quote from: Kai on June 25, 2010, 05:47:23 PM
This thread...I don't even know.
IT'S FUCKING MARVELOUS!
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
It is currently being used in cryptographic applications.
Um, but to be clear... QUANTUMZ is not a good reason to presume life after death etc.... Quantum Entanglement/QUIP etc does appear to exist, but it seems like a cop out to lay 'consciousness after death' at the feet of something we are still trying to figure out. It 'may' be related, but theres no more evidence of that than there is of no life after death, souls or whatever else people might come up with.
Quote from: Kai on June 25, 2010, 05:47:23 PM
This thread...I don't even know.
If you'd said that back at the start instead of words to the effect of "I do know for a fact" this thread would never have happened :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 25, 2010, 05:47:23 PM
This thread...I don't even know.
If you'd said that back at the start instead of words to the effect of "I do know for a fact" this thread would never have happened :lulz:
Or it may have, depending on whether or not anyone observed it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
I am undecided yet as to whether I should feel sorry for your desk chair or if it is secretly enjoying you shitting on it in all of your marvelousness. Probably the latter.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
I am undecided yet as to whether I should feel sorry for your desk chair or if it is secretly enjoying you shitting on it in all of your marvelousness. Probably the latter.
Used to be the latter, back when I was a Holy Man. Now I am universally hated by my coworkers and my office furniture, but I find that to be for the best. My boss, however, has grown a sense of humor just in time for him to get promoted (now I have to break in a fresh one), and has ordered that my office bathroom be labeled "Roger's Vomitorium. Enter at Own Risk."
He has also backed up the Janitor, when he refused to clean my bathroom out of my apparent "lack of human decency", though I rather suspect that he's just squeamish. This annoys me, and I have yet to decide whether to clean it myself or let it turn into something vile. This seems to be a self-solving dilemma.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:05:21 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
I am undecided yet as to whether I should feel sorry for your desk chair or if it is secretly enjoying you shitting on it in all of your marvelousness. Probably the latter.
Used to be the latter, back when I was a Holy Man. Now I am universally hated by my coworkers and my office furniture, but I find that to be for the best. My boss, however, has grown a sense of humor just in time for him to get promoted (now I have to break in a fresh one), and has ordered that my office bathroom be labeled "Roger's Vomitorium. Enter at Own Risk."
He has also backed up the Janitor, when he refused to clean my bathroom out of my apparent "lack of human decency", though I rather suspect that he's just squeamish. This annoys me, and I have yet to decide whether to clean it myself or let it turn into something vile. This seems to be a self-solving dilemma.
A Holy Man?
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
Then that really weird stuff really does happen. If the math says it is so, it is so. End of story.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
The math also says that the really weird stuff stop happening when stuff gets bigger.
So pd.com is a mathematical anomaly then?
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:05:21 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
I am undecided yet as to whether I should feel sorry for your desk chair or if it is secretly enjoying you shitting on it in all of your marvelousness. Probably the latter.
Used to be the latter, back when I was a Holy Man. Now I am universally hated by my coworkers and my office furniture, but I find that to be for the best. My boss, however, has grown a sense of humor just in time for him to get promoted (now I have to break in a fresh one), and has ordered that my office bathroom be labeled "Roger's Vomitorium. Enter at Own Risk."
He has also backed up the Janitor, when he refused to clean my bathroom out of my apparent "lack of human decency", though I rather suspect that he's just squeamish. This annoys me, and I have yet to decide whether to clean it myself or let it turn into something vile. This seems to be a self-solving dilemma.
A Holy Man?
Yes, there used to be this "Good Reverend Roger" guy, but he choked on his own bile and spontaneously combusted, late last winter.
He was a silly fucker, who believed in the essential goodness of mankind - that one day, people would wake up to that essential goodness, the way people will suddenly realize that an argument is silly. He was a dick, but he wanted to help people.
Then he died of stupidity, as described above, and then Doktor Howl had to step in and see that the bills got paid. Dok's a little different, only cares about The Truth, knows that humans are fucked up primates, wants - in an abstract way - for them all to die or at least get the fuck off of his planet, and oh yeah, let's have a little HORRIBLE BADFUN while we're at it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
Ooh, could you add links here?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25604.msg889994#new
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:10:56 PM
The math also says that the really weird stuff stop happening when stuff gets bigger.
The cat? Should be the same even at a macroscopic level.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
That is quite the frightening thought. Quantum mechanics wants to eat my soul. I can normally protect myself by simply not looking at the tiny constituent particles of things...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:10:56 PM
The math also says that the really weird stuff stop happening when stuff gets bigger.
The cat? Should be the same even at a macroscopic level.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen that thing? It was just here a minute ago.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:10:56 PM
The math also says that the really weird stuff stop happening when stuff gets bigger.
The cat? Should be the same even at a macroscopic level.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen that thing? It was just here a minute ago.
I haven't been looking.
Dok,
Knows that one "experiment" tells you everything you need to know about the universe. It cheats.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
That is quite the frightening thought. Quantum mechanics wants to eat my soul. I can normally protect myself by simply not looking at the tiny constituent particles of things...
What, you yanked your eyeballs out?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:14:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:10:56 PM
The math also says that the really weird stuff stop happening when stuff gets bigger.
The cat? Should be the same even at a macroscopic level.
Wait a fucking minute, are you telling me Schroedinger's cat was microscopic?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:13:41 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:05:21 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
He's mishandling a theory that information may travel faster than light.
BALLS.
He's trying to conflate "awareness" with "information". Taking "quantum tunneling" and shitting some Zen garbage all over it.
DANCING WU LI MASTERS, YOU'RE ON IN 5!
This is marvelous.
I'm a marvelous guy. Sometimes I get so fucking marvelous that I shit all over my desk chair, with the sound of a dying diesel engine and the smell of Cincinnati in August. Then I have to eat more chicken skin, or my marvelous reserves get too low and I start taking metaphysical bullshit all seriously, and Nurse Freeky has to whack me with the tenderizing hammer again.
I am undecided yet as to whether I should feel sorry for your desk chair or if it is secretly enjoying you shitting on it in all of your marvelousness. Probably the latter.
Used to be the latter, back when I was a Holy Man. Now I am universally hated by my coworkers and my office furniture, but I find that to be for the best. My boss, however, has grown a sense of humor just in time for him to get promoted (now I have to break in a fresh one), and has ordered that my office bathroom be labeled "Roger's Vomitorium. Enter at Own Risk."
He has also backed up the Janitor, when he refused to clean my bathroom out of my apparent "lack of human decency", though I rather suspect that he's just squeamish. This annoys me, and I have yet to decide whether to clean it myself or let it turn into something vile. This seems to be a self-solving dilemma.
A Holy Man?
Yes, there used to be this "Good Reverend Roger" guy, but he choked on his own bile and spontaneously combusted, late last winter.
He was a silly fucker, who believed in the essential goodness of mankind - that one day, people would wake up to that essential goodness, the way people will suddenly realize that an argument is silly. He was a dick, but he wanted to help people.
Then he died of stupidity, as described above, and then Doktor Howl had to step in and see that the bills got paid. Dok's a little different, only cares about The Truth, knows that humans are fucked up primates, wants - in an abstract way - for them all to die or at least get the fuck off of his planet, and oh yeah, let's have a little HORRIBLE BADFUN while we're at it.
Well, then we have a few things in common.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:17:11 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
That is quite the frightening thought. Quantum mechanics wants to eat my soul. I can normally protect myself by simply not looking at the tiny constituent particles of things...
What, you yanked your eyeballs out?
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 25, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 25, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 05:10:34 PM
Quantum inseperability. Crudely stated, two particles that have been in contact with each other appear to act as if they are exchanging information at a distance instantaneously. If you'd like, I can get technical.
Something you could clarify for me, if'n you don't mind. I've heard tell of this QUIP and was wondering - has science actually now recorded two tiny little pieces of stuff clearly exchanging over a distance like some kind of telepathy or teleportation or something or is my interpretation the usual case of - layman get wrong end of double-slit stick?
Cos if it's the former then surely this changes just about fucking everything?
Well, what does the math say, LMNO? Because that's all you really need to know.
The math says that really weird stuff happens when things get really small.
LMNO, PhD
-Doctorate in explaining stuff.
A couple more recent experiments have indicated that the stuff may not even have to be quite as small as we once thought... we're still learning a lot.
Ooh, could you add links here?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25604.msg889994#new
Added :)
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:18:09 PM
Well, then we have a few things in common.
There's always room for another Doktor. As long as you meet the qualifications.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Sorry, then you aren't qualified to be a Doktor at this time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:32:31 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Sorry, then you aren't qualified to be a Doktor at this time.
Of course not; I don't want to be a Doktor. If I am to have a title, I don't want somebody else's.
And I wouldn't be up to it. Must finish some education first... everyone here seems to be much older than me.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:32:31 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Sorry, then you aren't qualified to be a Doktor at this time.
Of course not; I don't want to be a Doktor. If I am to have a title, I don't want somebody else's.
And I wouldn't be up to it. Must finish some education first... everyone here seems to be much older than me.
Many of us are, but it's an incorrect assumption.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:32:31 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Sorry, then you aren't qualified to be a Doktor at this time.
Of course not; I don't want to be a Doktor. If I am to have a title, I don't want somebody else's.
And I wouldn't be up to it. Must finish some education first... everyone here seems to be much older than me.
It isn't a title, it's a profession.
Specifically, the profession of grabbing the bull by the tail and facing the facts in the face, no matter how awful they may be. It's about The Truth, instead of comforting lies. If the universe is really that weird, it does no good to pretend that it isn't.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 06:36:48 PM
Many of us are, but it's an incorrect assumption.
How old is everyone, if you don't mind telling me?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:32:31 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Closing them works just as well.
But no. Clarification - I can normally protect myself by not thinking about things at an atomic level.
Protect yourself from what?
The confusion afflicted upon my poor quasi-educated mind by the concepts manifest in quantum mechanics.
Quantum entanglement is cool, just... mind-boggling.
Probably because I learned Einstein's stuff first.
Sorry, then you aren't qualified to be a Doktor at this time.
Of course not; I don't want to be a Doktor. If I am to have a title, I don't want somebody else's.
And I wouldn't be up to it. Must finish some education first... everyone here seems to be much older than me.
It isn't a title, it's a profession.
Specifically, the profession of grabbing the bull by the tail and facing the facts in the face, no matter how awful they may be. It's about The Truth, instead of comforting lies. If the universe is really that weird, it does no good to pretend that it isn't.
In that case, nevermind about what I said before. I'll consider it.
(Like I'll ever qualify.)
Truth and I have gotten into some drunken brawls before, though. But I think Dishonesty was supplying the beer.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:42:17 PM
Truth and I have gotten into some drunken brawls before, though. But I think Dishonesty was supplying the beer.
Self-deception and Wishful Thinking were holding the funnel.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 06:36:48 PM
Many of us are, but it's an incorrect assumption.
How old is everyone, if you don't mind telling me?
I'm 15 years old.
I'm 28.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 06:46:41 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 25, 2010, 06:36:48 PM
Many of us are, but it's an incorrect assumption.
How old is everyone, if you don't mind telling me?
I'm 15 years old.
Truth. Just like every FBI agent online.
:lulz: LMNO.
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
Well, if you didn't eat ccactus all the time, you'd remember where you put them, Doktor.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
*throws DMT*
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
*throws DMT*
No, not your pansified modern drugs. REAL drugs. I want drugs that will make me feel 10' tall with the libido of a rutting bull and the strength of 5 men, and that will make me feel 6 times as smart as Stephen Hawking and make me shit like a goddamn dumptruck.
A DUMP TRUCK! DO YOU FUCKING
HEAR ME, YOU YOUNG PUNK? ARE YOU MISERABLE LITTLE FUCKERS EVEN BORN WITH EARS ANYMORE? PICS OF YOUR FUCKING HEAD, OR YOU HAVE NO GODDAMN EARS!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 09:33:26 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
*throws DMT*
No, not your pansified modern drugs. REAL drugs. I want drugs that will make me feel 10' tall with the libido of a rutting bull and the strength of 5 men, and that will make me feel 6 times as smart as Stephen Hawking and make me shit like a goddamn dumptruck.
A DUMP TRUCK! DO YOU FUCKING HEAR ME, YOU YOUNG PUNK? ARE YOU MISERABLE LITTLE FUCKERS EVEN BORN WITH EARS ANYMORE? PICS OF YOUR FUCKING HEAD, OR YOU HAVE NO GODDAMN EARS!
So, amphetamines?
Quote from: Kai on June 25, 2010, 09:36:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 09:33:26 PM
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
I am 123 years old. I am a collection of surgical tubes, heart monitors, and pumps, and all my organs are made of glass. AND I NEED PILLS, DAMMIT! YOUR FUCKING VOODOO HOMEOPATHIC SHIT CANNOT HELP ME! I NEED DRUGS!
*throws DMT*
No, not your pansified modern drugs. REAL drugs. I want drugs that will make me feel 10' tall with the libido of a rutting bull and the strength of 5 men, and that will make me feel 6 times as smart as Stephen Hawking and make me shit like a goddamn dumptruck.
A DUMP TRUCK! DO YOU FUCKING HEAR ME, YOU YOUNG PUNK? ARE YOU MISERABLE LITTLE FUCKERS EVEN BORN WITH EARS ANYMORE? PICS OF YOUR FUCKING HEAD, OR YOU HAVE NO GODDAMN EARS!
So, amphetamines?
JUST LIKE MAMA USED TO MAKE.
Quote from: Cosine 5 on June 25, 2010, 06:42:17 PM
How old is everyone, if you don't mind telling me?
I'll be 70 next Spring.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:07:35 PM
As far as the knot in the rope question, it's semantic. We use the word "knot" to describe a configuration of rope.
No, it wasn't. Well I didn't mean it that way.
You can call it "configuration", but that was not what I was talking about. Yes the configuration is part of it, and so is the physical rope. But put those two together and they attain an emergent property which we call a knot.
Easiest example is to take two circular pieces of string. One is a circle, the other is the trefoil knot. Physically they are equivalent, their configurations are different. But there is more to it than that. You can fiddle with both pieces of string and make them into diferent configurations, but you can never turn one into the other.
That is a new property, it emerges from the knot and its configuration as more than the exact sum of its parts.
Another example. In space, floating a flat triangle. It has the property of two-sidedness. You can move and stretch and bend the triangle, but it remains two-sided. Now add another triangle. Put them together, stretch and form a strip, bend, flip and attach and you just made yourself a Moebius strip which has a new property: one-sidedness (and if you don't flip, this space still has the property of two-sidedness as well).
This is the simplest example I've come across that shows that Emergence is in fact a real phenomenon and not just semantics. This new property of one-sidedness is explicitly
more than the sum of its parts, neither of which had that property before.
Sounds like topology.
God hates topology, and he'll punish us for it, one fine day.
Perhaps he already has. Or maybe that's just me with my irrationally persistent fear of math class.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 26, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:07:35 PM
As far as the knot in the rope question, it's semantic. We use the word "knot" to describe a configuration of rope.
No, it wasn't. Well I didn't mean it that way.
You can call it "configuration", but that was not what I was talking about. Yes the configuration is part of it, and so is the physical rope. But put those two together and they attain an emergent property which we call a knot.
Easiest example is to take two circular pieces of string. One is a circle, the other is the trefoil knot. Physically they are equivalent, their configurations are different. But there is more to it than that. You can fiddle with both pieces of string and make them into diferent configurations, but you can never turn one into the other.
That is a new property, it emerges from the knot and its configuration as more than the exact sum of its parts.
Another example. In space, floating a flat triangle. It has the property of two-sidedness. You can move and stretch and bend the triangle, but it remains two-sided. Now add another triangle. Put them together, stretch and form a strip, bend, flip and attach and you just made yourself a Moebius strip which has a new property: one-sidedness (and if you don't flip, this space still has the property of two-sidedness as well).
This is the simplest example I've come across that shows that Emergence is in fact a real phenomenon and not just semantics. This new property of one-sidedness is explicitly more than the sum of its parts, neither of which had that property before.
This is exactly the metaphysical side of Bucky's physicalUniverse/metaphysicalUniverse distinction.
The knot example is a great one, here's an expansion I just picked up from Synergetics:
-Assume 2 strings, (one knotted, one unknotted)
[
Bucky notes that all knots, and thus all sustainable emergent properties**, require 2 full circles (the rope kink 360degrees twice) and are all related to the number 720(degrees)] **haven't seen this play out yet or gotten quite what he meant by that
-Now join the 2 strings with a dab of glue, end to end
-If the knot is loose enough you can move it down the string and 'onto' the other string.
-At this point, 2 inferences can be made about reality. There are special-case events (events witnessed from a viewpoint), and there are generalized principles - metaphysical events. The example is a special-case (temporary, non-simultaneously apprehended), but "the knot" has a metaphysical component (metaphysical-"knot" is independent of size... i.e. an imaginary knot has no need of a 'scale' until applied, _and_at_the_same_time_ if we keep upgrading the string to rope or even wire, end to end, and keep sliding the knot along, we can end up with "the same knot" on huge steel bridge cable).
Similarly, the 'idea of /Triangle/' is size independent and material independent but always follows certain rules (based on the relationship of 3 angles). One of the interesting things about triangles is you can't bend them without breaking them (adding new verticies, and making new edges - snap). You can only tumble them in space and change the relationships between the angles and edges.
Quote from: Telarus on June 26, 2010, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 26, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:07:35 PM
As far as the knot in the rope question, it's semantic. We use the word "knot" to describe a configuration of rope.
No, it wasn't. Well I didn't mean it that way.
You can call it "configuration", but that was not what I was talking about. Yes the configuration is part of it, and so is the physical rope. But put those two together and they attain an emergent property which we call a knot.
Easiest example is to take two circular pieces of string. One is a circle, the other is the trefoil knot. Physically they are equivalent, their configurations are different. But there is more to it than that. You can fiddle with both pieces of string and make them into diferent configurations, but you can never turn one into the other.
That is a new property, it emerges from the knot and its configuration as more than the exact sum of its parts.
Another example. In space, floating a flat triangle. It has the property of two-sidedness. You can move and stretch and bend the triangle, but it remains two-sided. Now add another triangle. Put them together, stretch and form a strip, bend, flip and attach and you just made yourself a Moebius strip which has a new property: one-sidedness (and if you don't flip, this space still has the property of two-sidedness as well).
This is the simplest example I've come across that shows that Emergence is in fact a real phenomenon and not just semantics. This new property of one-sidedness is explicitly more than the sum of its parts, neither of which had that property before.
This is exactly the metaphysical side of Bucky's physicalUniverse/metaphysicalUniverse distinction.
The knot example is a great one, here's an expansion I just picked up from Synergetics:
-Assume 2 strings, (one knotted, one unknotted)
[Bucky notes that all knots, and thus all sustainable emergent properties**, require 2 full circles (the rope kink 360degrees twice) and are all related to the number 720(degrees)] **haven't seen this play out yet or gotten quite what he meant by that
-Now join the 2 strings with a dab of glue, end to end
-If the knot is loose enough you can move it down the string and 'onto' the other string.
-At this point, 2 inferences can be made about reality. There are special-case events (events witnessed from a viewpoint), and there are generalized principles - metaphysical events. The example is a special-case (temporary, non-simultaneously apprehended), but "the knot" has a metaphysical component (metaphysical-"knot" is independent of size... i.e. an imaginary knot has no need of a 'scale' until applied, _and_at_the_same_time_ if we keep upgrading the string to rope or even wire, end to end, and keep sliding the knot along, we can end up with "the same knot" on huge steel bridge cable).
Similarly, the 'idea of /Triangle/' is size independent and material independent but always follows certain rules (based on the relationship of 3 angles). One of the interesting things about triangles is you can't bend them without breaking them (adding new verticies, and making new edges - snap). You can only tumble them in space and change the relationships between the angles and edges.
Bucky was.is a fucking idiot.
I am 300 years old tomorrow.
uh, you care to expand on that?
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 27, 2010, 07:38:22 AM
Quote from: Telarus on June 26, 2010, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 26, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 04:07:35 PM
As far as the knot in the rope question, it's semantic. We use the word "knot" to describe a configuration of rope.
No, it wasn't. Well I didn't mean it that way.
You can call it "configuration", but that was not what I was talking about. Yes the configuration is part of it, and so is the physical rope. But put those two together and they attain an emergent property which we call a knot.
Easiest example is to take two circular pieces of string. One is a circle, the other is the trefoil knot. Physically they are equivalent, their configurations are different. But there is more to it than that. You can fiddle with both pieces of string and make them into diferent configurations, but you can never turn one into the other.
That is a new property, it emerges from the knot and its configuration as more than the exact sum of its parts.
Another example. In space, floating a flat triangle. It has the property of two-sidedness. You can move and stretch and bend the triangle, but it remains two-sided. Now add another triangle. Put them together, stretch and form a strip, bend, flip and attach and you just made yourself a Moebius strip which has a new property: one-sidedness (and if you don't flip, this space still has the property of two-sidedness as well).
This is the simplest example I've come across that shows that Emergence is in fact a real phenomenon and not just semantics. This new property of one-sidedness is explicitly more than the sum of its parts, neither of which had that property before.
This is exactly the metaphysical side of Bucky's physicalUniverse/metaphysicalUniverse distinction.
The knot example is a great one, here's an expansion I just picked up from Synergetics:
-Assume 2 strings, (one knotted, one unknotted)
[Bucky notes that all knots, and thus all sustainable emergent properties**, require 2 full circles (the rope kink 360degrees twice) and are all related to the number 720(degrees)] **haven't seen this play out yet or gotten quite what he meant by that
-Now join the 2 strings with a dab of glue, end to end
-If the knot is loose enough you can move it down the string and 'onto' the other string.
-At this point, 2 inferences can be made about reality. There are special-case events (events witnessed from a viewpoint), and there are generalized principles - metaphysical events. The example is a special-case (temporary, non-simultaneously apprehended), but "the knot" has a metaphysical component (metaphysical-"knot" is independent of size... i.e. an imaginary knot has no need of a 'scale' until applied, _and_at_the_same_time_ if we keep upgrading the string to rope or even wire, end to end, and keep sliding the knot along, we can end up with "the same knot" on huge steel bridge cable).
Similarly, the 'idea of /Triangle/' is size independent and material independent but always follows certain rules (based on the relationship of 3 angles). One of the interesting things about triangles is you can't bend them without breaking them (adding new verticies, and making new edges - snap). You can only tumble them in space and change the relationships between the angles and edges.
Bucky was.is a fucking idiot.
I am 300 years old tomorrow.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAWK!!!
Happy birthday! :D
Quote from: Cramulus on June 27, 2010, 02:19:56 PM
uh, you care to expand on that?
No, because I don't remember posting it. :lulz:
:lulz: it's all good
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 26, 2010, 10:34:38 AM
Easiest example is to take two circular pieces of string. One is a circle, the other is the trefoil knot. Physically they are equivalent, their configurations are different. But there is more to it than that. You can fiddle with both pieces of string and make them into diferent configurations, but you can never turn one into the other.
That is a new property, it emerges from the knot and its configuration as more than the exact sum of its parts.
This doesn't make sense to me, because you included a self-imposed frame of reference; that is, the thought experiment began
after you had already taken two identical pieces of string, and made a trefoil knot out of one of them.
I can turn a circular string into a trefoil knot by cutting the string, and then re-attaching it using the same techniques as I did to make the first knot.
from Crowley's translation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib157.htm) of the Tao Te Ching, chapter XX:
QuoteFearful indeed is death, since all men fear it; but the abyss of questionings, shoreless and bottomless, is worse!
seemed quite relevant :mrgreen: