Scientific reasoning.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2013, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2013 11:43 AM by mawil1013.)
Re: RE: Scientific reasoning.
[/quote]
Considering that all of the evidence points to consciousness being a property of the brain, how is that possible?
[/quote]

All I have is the experience of my wife's death, on the final day of my wife's life, as she was dying of lung cancer. At 8AM she had an episode, I won't go into details, but eventually she came out of it and in a soft voice she told me we needed to stop treatments and that she was passing that night, and at midnight she died. She knew ahead of time. There was a bit more to it but everything isn't called for here. She knew and repeated it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
Maybe.

I'm not trying to trivialize your wife's death and I'm sorry for your loss, but it might just be possible that her body was shutting down, her brain was part of that, her subconscious brain - way down, the part that controls breathing and heartbeats and internal organ functions - could simply have realized that her lungs were just that far gone, that she wouldn't live any longer (especially with stopping her treatments).

This really could have been entirely an internal function of the brain evaluating the condition of the body and reacting accordingly, a bit like a "Check Engine" light on a car. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or inconsiderate of her pain or your loss; I don't mean it to sound that way. I have lost loved ones to cancer too, so I understand what she went through, I really do. I'm merely trying to suggest that there are answers to this event that don't require an entirely unsubstantiated belief in supernatural spirits.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
17-01-2013, 04:11 PM
Re: RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 01:33 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Maybe.

I'm not trying to trivialize your wife's death and I'm sorry for your loss, but it might just be possible that her body was shutting down, her brain was part of that, her subconscious brain - way down, the part that controls breathing and heartbeats and internal organ functions - could simply have realized that her lungs were just that far gone, that she wouldn't live any longer (especially with stopping her treatments).

This really could have been entirely an internal function of the brain evaluating the condition of the body and reacting accordingly, a bit like a "Check Engine" light on a car. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or inconsiderate of her pain or your loss; I don't mean it to sound that way. I have lost loved ones to cancer too, so I understand what she went through, I really do. I'm merely trying to suggest that there are answers to this event that don't require an entirely unsubstantiated belief in supernatural spirits.

Honestly I appreciate your opinion and no negativity taken. I do think your stuck on ' supernatural'. My theory has nothing to do with a supreme being nor hocus pocus but a sense that there may be a natural state of existence after death. Also like I said there was more to my wife's experiences of which I didn't detail. It's OK with me what you believe, and respect your right to. I get the impression my views are so different from the norm that most cannot see the difference. But perhaps it is I that cannot comprehend. Anyway, most of the religious crap going around I see as ignorant and superstitious. My views are forged of personal experience and lay mans study of quantum physics, common science articles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 04:38 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
Excellent, I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye.

But that raises a question for me. I would define the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" as one of falsifiability. In other words, anything that we humans can test, measure, quantify, and validate can be called "natural" and anything that is known to be beyond such observations is "supernatural". For me, that puts life after death, ghosts, spirits, etc., all on the side of supernatural. Even if it's not a magical or divine kind of thing, even if it's a seemingly natural extension of our ongoing natural energy, the fact that we cannot observe it, not even with the most sensitive instruments, the fact that we cannot even devise one single test that can produce any measurable evidence of an afterlife, still puts it into the realm of supernatural.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Flying used to be considered supernatural, until a couple brothers in Kitty Hawk proved us all wrong. Diseases used to be considered supernatural, but germ theory proved that wrong. And so on. Maybe one day we'll figure out life after death and find out that there really is such a thing, but right now it seems to still be beyond our ken, making it "supernatural".

I guess that wasn't a question so much as a rambling explanation of why I'm not stuck on "supernatural" - It was just a convenient word. You and I might wish or believe much the same thing, that some kind of natural afterlife might exist. I sure don't want this to be it. I want to exist forever, even though I don't personally believe I will.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 05:13 PM
Re: Scientific reasoning.
Here is a snippet of quantum mechanics, where groups of some of our most intelligent scientists are studying the idea that there may be other universes! They also believe with certainty that particles of matter appear out of nowhere. Where does superstition and fact begin and end!

"While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, these "parallel universes" will never be accessible to us."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 05:13 PM)mawil1013 Wrote:  Here is a snippet of quantum mechanics, where groups of some of our most intelligent scientists are studying the idea that there may be other universes! They also believe with certainty that particles of matter appear out of nowhere. Where does superstition and fact begin and end!

"While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, these "parallel universes" will never be accessible to us."
So, if the parallel universes are never accessible to us, how does that relate to life after death?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 06:10 PM
Re: Scientific reasoning.
Not my point, what was once considered ad purely science fiction is now being regarded as plausible and proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 06:43 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 06:10 PM)mawil1013 Wrote:  Not my point, what was once considered ad purely science fiction is now being regarded as plausible and proven.


The difference is evidence. There has to be something that is an object of study.

Life after death? There is no there there. Nothing to study.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 05:13 PM)mawil1013 Wrote:  Here is a snippet of quantum mechanics, where groups of some of our most intelligent scientists are studying the idea that there may be other universes! They also believe with certainty that particles of matter appear out of nowhere. Where does superstition and fact begin and end!

"While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, these "parallel universes" will never be accessible to us."
Superstition?

They're not using superstition, they're using math to predict the existence of things we cannot yet observe.

In 1964 the math to predict the Higgs Boson was complete. That was before we even landed on the moon. At the time the whole idea looked like superstition, but unlike actual superstition, there was perfectly valid, peer reviewed math to support the standard model, including the Higgs boson. It took 48 more years before we were able to detect it and confirm its existence with observation rather than simply predicting it with math, and it's something we could detect right here on earth.

These guys you quote are talking about stuff that might be so far away that light it emits hasn't even reached us yet. But they're predicting it with math, just like the Higgs boson was. Maybe one day we can observe these alternate universes too.

Which takes it out of the realm of superstition and into the realm of science.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(16-01-2013 04:34 PM)mawil1013 Wrote:  A religious person cannot prove their beliefs. An atheist cannot disprove what a religious person believes?

If you have a scientific frame of mind, you understand that just because you cannot prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true?

An atheist saying god doesn't exist is as incorrect as a believer saying god exists. Neither can prove their opinion.
Just want to remind you that the same is true about any mythological/made up being. Would you call yourself agnostic about fairies, because you cant prove fairies dont exist? And the same about dwarfs, Santa Claus, centaurs and every silly being you can imagine.

Trolls are holy race. Eduard Khil is our god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PBptSDIh8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: