What I Think Happens After We Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2012, 10:22 PM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
Your paper.
A paper by the same group a few years later.

The papers show the direct opposite of one another, ergo "learning" in the first and nothing in the second. Same group, same setup, different results.

A few other issues to point out.
1) If this study is correct, it would have serious implications, so it is a wonder it was published in this journal and not a more reputable one.
2) The data. They don't provide it for either study. All they show in the graphs is some average time for each group. How is the group's average calculated? What is the error on these?
3) Back to the error. They don't plot it on the graphs. I cannot evaluate how accurate their moving average is without having some idea of what it is. The data they have decided to show could be drawn as an exponential decay, or a straight line, or as a decaying sinusoid, I have no idea what it really is without seeing all of the data and I can't find it.
4) The initial starting differences between the groups is not addressed very well. Is it a sampling bias? Did different technicians select the different groups and one picked the more active individuals while the other picked the more lethargic ones?

A lot of questions and I am no psych expert but I do know my way around some stats. These studies are conflicting and they have some other unknowns they don't address (selection bias, the composition of the fluid during the experiment and afterwards, error, etc).

I'll leave it at this, everything they report in the initial study as significant, may be nothing more than cherry-picking the statistics and without the data, I can't say one way or the other.



As for the dream answer, there are quite a few studies done on dreams, and everything I am aware of indicates it is a state of the mind generated by the brain during certain intervals of the sleep cycle.

I don't follow your logic for how it becomes logical to make a connection between lucid dreaming in living individuals and a lucid spiritual plane. That seems like quite a leap and not logical at all.


The answer for the soul question is rather absurd (sorry). Here is a quick link about dream facts (although I am unsure what backs up the precognitive one). The relevant fact here is #4. You do not invent new people in your dreams, they are always people or faces you have seen before, so you did not create them.

The fact that I have an inner-dialogue is only an indicator that I am aware of myself. Making the leap that this is anything other than the result of the brain is a stretch. Many cultures make the claim of past lives and memories of these lives, I have never seen any valid stories to back up these claims.

My question for how the soul stores memories is contingent upon proving it exists, so it was a bit rhetorical. Without evidence that it exists in some physical way, there is no way to answer that question, so any answer other than "I don't know" is pointless and baseless.

Your last answer seems much more intellectually honest. Given your answer, is it more likely (think Occam's razor here) that there is an immaterial universe that interacts with the material universe in completely undetectable ways? Or is it more likely that it does not exist?

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 10:48 PM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
(13-05-2012 09:15 PM)Egor Wrote:  When we sleep we dream. If we can stay in a dream we often become lucid in that dream. It is logical therefore to assume that when we die, we will be in a dream state. Since we will no longer wake up, it is probable we will become lucid in that dream state.

Well guess what, Ya can't stay in the dream.

Having a lucid dream proves nothing. It is NOT "logical"at all. The only "logical" assumption, is that dreaming is a feature of a sleeping brain. If the brain is dead, the dreaming stops. You won't wake up, because the brain is dead. If you're dead, ya ain't gonna dream any more, and ya ain't got any evidence for anything else.

And BTW the fact that Paramecia could be trained to avoid a shock, in no way proves they are conscious.

Said has yet to define consciousness.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 01:36 AM
 
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
(13-05-2012 10:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your paper.
A paper by the same group a few years later.

The papers show the direct opposite of one another, ergo "learning" in the first and nothing in the second. Same group, same setup, different results.

A few other issues to point out.
1) If this study is correct, it would have serious implications, so it is a wonder it was published in this journal and not a more reputable one.
2) The data. They don't provide it for either study. All they show in the graphs is some average time for each group. How is the group's average calculated? What is the error on these?
3) Back to the error. They don't plot it on the graphs. I cannot evaluate how accurate their moving average is without having some idea of what it is. The data they have decided to show could be drawn as an exponential decay, or a straight line, or as a decaying sinusoid, I have no idea what it really is without seeing all of the data and I can't find it.
4) The initial starting differences between the groups is not addressed very well. Is it a sampling bias? Did different technicians select the different groups and one picked the more active individuals while the other picked the more lethargic ones?

A lot of questions and I am no psych expert but I do know my way around some stats. These studies are conflicting and they have some other unknowns they don't address (selection bias, the composition of the fluid during the experiment and afterwards, error, etc).

I'll leave it at this, everything they report in the initial study as significant, may be nothing more than cherry-picking the statistics and without the data, I can't say one way or the other.

Now I think you see why I don't often jump through hoops when people ask for proof in the form of peer reviewed papers. I studied paramecia myself both in college and in my own setup at home. They sure look to me like they are displaying will and memory in their feeding behavior. That's all I can say about that. Obviously, a great deal of what you believe would have to change if what I'm reporting here is true, so obviously, you're not going to see it as true.

Quote:As for the dream answer, there are quite a few studies done on dreams, and everything I am aware of indicates it is a state of the mind generated by the brain during certain intervals of the sleep cycle.

I don't follow your logic for how it becomes logical to make a connection between lucid dreaming in living individuals and a lucid spiritual plane. That seems like quite a leap and not logical at all.

Well, if you dream when you sleep, why wouldn't you dream when you die, if that is that consciousness is not generated by the physical body? A lucid dream, after you're dead, would be the lucid spiritual plane.

Quote:The answer for the soul question is rather absurd (sorry). Here is a quick link about dream facts (although I am unsure what backs up the precognitive one). The relevant fact here is #4. You do not invent new people in your dreams, they are always people or faces you have seen before, so you did not create them.

I hope you're not suggesting something else created them and put them there. And it really doesn't matter what the people look like in one's dream. But just from a craftsman's point of view, to make an arbitrary statement that the people in my dreams are always people I have seen before--but don't know I've seen before--would require a god-like type of knowledge, and that in itself would be evidence of the independence of consciousness from the body.


Quote:The fact that I have an inner-dialogue is only an indicator that I am aware of myself. Making the leap that this is anything other than the result of the brain is a stretch. Many cultures make the claim of past lives and memories of these lives, I have never seen any valid stories to back up these claims.

Not an inner dialogue--an inner observer. The dialogue you have would be your mind. The one listening to the dialogue would be the observer.

Quote:My question for how the soul stores memories is contingent upon proving it exists, so it was a bit rhetorical. Without evidence that it exists in some physical way, there is no way to answer that question, so any answer other than "I don't know" is pointless and baseless.

Well, you asked for it.

Quote:Your last answer seems much more intellectually honest. Given your answer, is it more likely (think Occam's razor here) that there is an immaterial universe that interacts with the material universe in completely undetectable ways? Or is it more likely that it does not exist?


I'm not sure it's undetectable. What about people? In other words, the very fact that you move your body around and produce a mind may be the trace of the immaterial on the material world. Maybe.
Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 01:46 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
but if spirituality can be observed then is not spirituality, is just natural phenomena. Even if what you say is right, that doesn't serve as a proof of god but as a proof of more to find out and research, but not in a theological way, a scientific way, with cool lasers and protection goggles Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 04:58 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
One peer-reviewed paper doesn't equal a breakthrough scientific discovery, especially a poor one who's lead author writes a paper 3 years later showing the direct opposite result.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 05:33 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
(13-05-2012 10:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here is a quick link about dream facts (although I am unsure what backs up the precognitive one). The relevant fact here is #4. You do not invent new people in your dreams, they are always people or faces you have seen before, so you did not create them.

Where's the research for this crap? Reads like internet neck. Tongue

There's always peeps in my dreams I don't remember meeting; especially the hot chicks. Think I'd remember them. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
14-05-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
It's also worth noting that I am just as critical of any other research paper. My criticism is not a reflection of my desire to not believe it, but instead it is to carefully evaluate whether it is valid or if it makes claims it can't support. If this did showing learning in paramecia in a conclusive way, it still does not mean they are capable of thought as we know it, nor would it actually support your claims as is. More research would be needed to follow up on this, and that is why I attached the other paper, because it is a follow-up and shows nothing, and it was from the same group.

So, I could make the same generic statement about how it being proven wrong would destroy your worldview and that you aren't willing to accept it either, irregardless of what they say. The difference in this case is that I didn't walk into the lion's den of veridicianism and make the claim. You are here and if you want your claims taken seriously or seriously considered, you have to demonstrate they are valid and provide evidence and support for them, and I'll I'm saying is that what you provided is not.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
14-05-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
(14-05-2012 07:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's also worth noting that I am just as critical of any other research paper. My criticism is not a reflection of my desire to not believe it, but instead it is to carefully evaluate whether it is valid or if it makes claims it can't support.

Thumbsup

My money's on morality - that what goes on in unicellulars like these guys is chemical intelligence. Like it's a pattern they come across, and some kind of chemical context goes left or right. But it's not like thinking as we understand it; more like gravity. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2012, 10:38 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
I wish I could find a link to the video I saw a few weeks ago on some research out of UC Berkeley by Dr. Mimi Koehl and colleagues. It is a cartoon of a marine slug larva trying to settle onto a reef that contains its sole food source. The larva is very tiny (microscopic) and basically has two sets of cilia that it uses to swim. The cilia keep pumping away until the larva swims through a cloud of a chemical tracer produced by its food source. If the "scent" is strong enough (above some threshold) the cilia stop and the larva sinks. If it happens to land on the reef, it attaches and then begins the metamorphosis into its adult stage.

It doesn't think about it, the cilia shut down at some critical threshold of a chemical tracer. It isn't learned either, these larva are merely hours old. No brain, no nervous system, instead it is a simple organism responding to the chemical signals of the world around it.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2012, 10:41 AM
RE: What I Think Happens After We Die
  • Koehl, M. A. R. and M. G. Hadfield (2004) Soluble settlement cue in slowly-moving water within coral reefs induces larval adhesion to surfaces. J. Mar. Sys. 49: 75-88.
  • Hadfield, M. G. and Koehl, M. A. R. (2004) Rapid behavioral responses of an invertebrate larva to dissolved settlement cue. Biological Bulletin 207: 28-43.

I believe these are the references for a couple of the papers she has done on this research.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: