In the afterlife there is no physics, you have no body. If the consciousness can survive for a while like a ball lightning, that’s an intriguing thought. But you are on your own then, without sensory input, like in a tank for sensory deprivation. People tend to become disoriented and incoherent in such conditions, maybe also repetitive. Could that explain ghosts? But dead have no physics. Hippy subject, hippy hypotheses.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL
Okay.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]
The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]
Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]
I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]
The argument necessitates. Please state how more than one thing can be an uncaused-causer, because there are no arguments, theories or otherwise that make the assertion of multiple uncaused entities. You know contingency necessitates that there can only be one uncaused-cause. There is zero evidence for multiples. It’s not logically possible. It’s not a ‘belief’ it’s what the argument necessitates. Your damned stubborn to hold on these ideas that have no basis or evidence what-so-ever.
[/quote]
It’s not stubbornness, my friend. It’s an honest difference of opinion. I simply disagree with your logic.
[/quote]
With out a decent counter argument, it’s not about a difference of opinion, it’s simply a logic fail.
No, the difference between metaphysical and physical is that the metaphysical is not subject to space and time, that’s it. The rest of the rules still apply. There are different levels, textures and qualities of metaphysical existence. It’s a rich and deep existence, it simply lacks the ability to be detected via the senses. They are very much caused and have a reason for existence. There is no metaphysical construct that exists for no reason.
Whoa!! You need to do some research dood. Metaphysical truths are even more real and accurate than their physical counter parts…I can prove 2+2=4 is always true, you cannot prove anything physical exists with out any doubt. If anything metaphysical reality is MORE real.
[quote]
I know you believe the cosmological argument is the only theory that makes sense, but I and (more importantly) many far more qualified philosophers than me disagree it is the only possibility.[/quote]
Again you go with the fallacy of ‘Appeal to authority’. Just because a smart person thinks is wrong doesn’t mean it is. It’s what you can prove and cosmology from contingency has never been proven wrong, ever, PERIOD.
Nothing can’t make something. It’s illogical to think so. It’s illogical in FACT. There is no way around it. Nothing doesn’t exist therefore it cannot ‘do’ anything. That is a flat truth, not an opinion or feeling, a truth. [/quote]
No, not a fact. Virtual particles suggest that it is possible for something to come from nothing.
Regardless, I’m not proposing ex nihilo. I believe information is noncontingent, and you cannot disprove this.
I also believe an infinite regress is possible, despite your protestations to the contrary.
You can claim it’s impossible, but I find your arguments weak. I see no logical issue whatsoever with an infinite regress. Why is it so easy to imagine infinite progress, and so difficult to imagine infinite regress? I don’t get the resistance, and I simply disagree with you.
I’m not appealing to authority, I’m just pointing out that if it was as clear cut as you claim, the vast majority of scientists and philosophers would agree with you. However, they don’t.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…I also believe an infinite regress is possible…
[/quote]
I have always thought, from quite a young age, that infinte regression is simpy the point where our human understanding ends. Therefore infinite regression.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
ZEB, so Jesus had no tolerance? It’s funny how many Christians are the furthest from being Christ-like. You set a bad example.[/quote]
On the contrary, a Christian is not a dog that one can walk past and kick. Now, I know that’s what it seems like on T Nation on occasion. But, that’s not the case. And if you’d like I can give you volumes of examples directly from the Bible (you know that book that you’ve never read but feel compelled to talk about anyway) regarding many Christians that did not play the role of door mat. If you are under the impression that a Christian should play such a role, especially to the likes of the atheist fools that visit this site, you are far more stupid than I originally thought after reading your brief post.
One more point, unless you have the reading comprehension of a third grade student you would realize that I said “show me in the Christian Bible where the word ‘tolerance’ is used.” How did you derive from that simple sentence (simple to most of us) that I said “Jesus had no tolerance?”
Is it that you just wanted to post and didn’t care that you sounded like an idiot? Or, do you really think you made sense?
Either way, you’re not looking too bright junior.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
I find it very interesting to apply logic and thought to the afterlife. Lets examine some common afterlife “experiences” that some people go through.
The typical situation is that the persons heart will stop and they will be “dead”, They will then see a tunnel with light at the end of it, followed by seeing all their dead relatives (who eternally stay the same age they died at strangely. That would suck)and then intense feelings of euphoria and joy. However just because the heart stops it does not mean that all brain activity has ceased. The tunnel that the person typically sees has now been shown to be due to a lack of blood flow to the eye. The periphery of the retina is more susceptible to drops in blood pressure than its center, so that the visual field appears compressed, making scenes appear as if viewed through a tunnel. In fact experiments with pilots spun around in giant centrifuges have reproduced the tunnel vision phenomena by increasing G-forces and decreasing blood flow to their retinas.
That is just the tunnel vision explained. I could go on but I have no time. I will leave by saying that every component of an afterlife experience has been recreated in experiements on human subjects. There is no afterlife, so as one poster has stated, you must enjoy every last second of your time on earth. [/quote]
What cannot be explained about NDE’s is when people see and hear things or events they are not present for because of being clinically dead and yet have accurate knowledge of those events they could not have possibly been privy to.
Things people were doing or saying many miles away from the person, etc…
Aquiring knowledge you cannot possibly have gotten through personable means, throws a monkey wrench into explaining away NDE’s with simple biology. [/quote]
The outer body experience has been studied extensively and recreated in the lab hundreds if not thousands of times.
When a person has an outer body experience and then subsequently explains what happened while they were dead is merely their brain recreating what they would expect to see. Sometimes these hallucinations actually coincide with what is actually happening and this is just a coincidence. Apparantely 1 in 10 people will have a NDE in their lifetime, that amounts to approximately 600 million people. Some of their stories are bound to coincide with reality. The brain may imagine an ambulance arriving at the scene or upset relatives, things which are very likely to happen anyway.
The vast majority of NDEs do not coincide with what actually happened at the scene. Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects and then placed random items around the room failed to produce anyone who could locate the items in their NDEs.
There are literally hundreds of other things proving that NDEs are imagery derived from imagination and general background knowledge of the scene before the NDE.
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
Multiple stabbings in a clean and controlled environment.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]
Qualia - Wikipedia [/quote]
Yes I believe people experience qualia and is essentially tied into the hard problem of consciousness.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
Multiple stabbings in a clean and controlled environment.
[/quote]
Oh, okay, if it was clean and controlled.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL
Okay.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]
The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]
Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]
I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]
The argument necessitates. Please state how more than one thing can be an uncaused-causer, because there are no arguments, theories or otherwise that make the assertion of multiple uncaused entities. You know contingency necessitates that there can only be one uncaused-cause. There is zero evidence for multiples. It’s not logically possible. It’s not a ‘belief’ it’s what the argument necessitates. Your damned stubborn to hold on these ideas that have no basis or evidence what-so-ever.
[/quote]
It’s not stubbornness, my friend. It’s an honest difference of opinion. I simply disagree with your logic.
[/quote]
With out a decent counter argument, it’s not about a difference of opinion, it’s simply a logic fail.
No, the difference between metaphysical and physical is that the metaphysical is not subject to space and time, that’s it. The rest of the rules still apply. There are different levels, textures and qualities of metaphysical existence. It’s a rich and deep existence, it simply lacks the ability to be detected via the senses. They are very much caused and have a reason for existence. There is no metaphysical construct that exists for no reason.
Whoa!! You need to do some research dood. Metaphysical truths are even more real and accurate than their physical counter parts…I can prove 2+2=4 is always true, you cannot prove anything physical exists with out any doubt. If anything metaphysical reality is MORE real.
No, they just prove that you don’t know what causes them, not that they are causeless. The fact that particles and charges can travel tremendous distances instantly is nothing new. Even if, there are still several problems with the whole virtual particle experiment. They are subject to a void that occupies time and space, further the removal of all atomic particles is not the removal of all things. Hence, there is nothing random, nothing with out cause can be proven. You are referring to Null theory which shows that particles can pop up and disappear in a void that occupies time and space. What you are lacking in this is an absence of all existence.
Sure I can. Not knowing what something is dependent on doesn’t mean its dependent. The problem is that the very act of explaining what you are trying to explain requires a causal chain just to explain it.
Information is at least dependent on being unique and it also must be the basis of something else. Further, there is no proof what so ever, that basal information actually exists. It is possible that no such thing exist and energy is actually destroyed. The universe is not an isolated system.
Because it’s circular. A regress is subtraction, you cannot remove forever, you get to something of nothing in the end. An infinite regress is a fallacy, please don’t take my word for it, look it up. An infinite regress is absolutely impossible. You have to choices in regression to end up at something or nothing. The only way it can be infinite is if circular… It may work for Confucius, but he was describing a circle when he said it.
And how is that not an appeal to authority? You say the ‘…vast majority of scientists and philosophers would agree with you, but they don’t’ which first of all is not true…Lot’s of scientists don’t agree lots do too. Second of all, it doesn’t matter who agrees or does not agree, it matters what’s true or not true, period. That’s it, that’s all that matters. What’s true and what’s not true.
You are very far from dumb, but you haven’t done your homework…You’re bringing up potential counter arguments from the 13th century. I am looking for something new, something ground breaking.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]
There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]
There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]
One theory of NDE’s is that it’s your brains survival mechanism. Essentially providing your conciousness with powerful imagery to prompt you to keep fighting for life. whether through psychological or physiological mechanisms such as adrenaline release.
Pat,
I think you’re assuming ‘truths’ based on our limited ability to imagine things such as an infinite regression.
My point is just because the human brain cannot imagine something coming from nothing, or physics changing from the way we understand them, doesn’t mean its impossible.
Socrates said ‘I know I know nothing’.
If you can’t agree with socrates surely you can agree with ‘I know I know only what I’m capable of knowing’.
An ant on an ant hill may think it knows all about life & the universe. But we know it doesn’t know as much as us.
A silly example I know. But i’m just trying to make the point that we witness everything through filters. Those filters could be shutting out a lot of information.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]
There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]
Oh come on you are not that dense are you? I can see my dead Aunt in a dream, or I could actually die and see her. Same with that experiment. Just because they see their dead relatives when a certain part of their brain is stimulated does not mean that they didn’t see their dead relatives by having an NDE.
Proving one does NOT disprove the other.
Got it?
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,
I think you’re assuming ‘truths’ based on our limited ability to imagine things such as an infinite regression.
[/quote]
Ugh, why people misunderstand this concept so horribly I’ll never know. This is philosophy 101 stuff. It’s not about being able or unable to ‘assume’ anything. You can go on and take the word ‘assume’ out of the vernacular, because I am assuming nothing. It is a fallacy, the reason isn’t the ‘infinite part’, infinity certainly exists. It’s the regression part. The only way to regress infinitely is to go in a circle.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy#Infinite_regression
I agree with him, he didn’t. Although he was the father of metaphysics.
[quote]
If you can’t agree with socrates surely you can agree with ‘I know I know only what I’m capable of knowing’.
An ant on an ant hill may think it knows all about life & the universe. But we know it doesn’t know as much as us.
A silly example I know. But i’m just trying to make the point that we witness everything through filters. Those filters could be shutting out a lot of information.[/quote]
I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know and infinite regress is fallacious and if your argument requires an infinite regress to be true, then your argument is false.
Pat,
The problem I see with most of your logic is that it goes something like this:
“You can’t prove X is true, therefore Y must be true.”
The logical flaw is just because X hasn’t been definitively proven to
be true doesn’t mean X is not true.
My point in presenting scientific theories and evidence that offer a
different explanation than the comological argument is not that they
PROVE the comological argument is false. They don’t, and I’ve never
claimed that.
The point is that they prove it is POSSIBLE the cosmological argument
is false. There are other POSSIBLE explanations, which are not 100%
proven to be true, but which science suggests MAY be true based on
what we have observed to date.
Given that, claiming that the cosmological argument, or any other
argument, MUST be true is logically fallacious. It is the equivalent
of burying your head in the sand, because it refuses to acknowledge
other possibilities that are out there.
I don’t want to regurgitate everything we’ve already discussed on
this, but you are simply incorrect that an infinite regress is an
impossibility. Your argument that “you can’t remove forever” is based
on a false assumption: that regressing is the equivalent of “removing”
something. That isn’t the case. You are only moving to an earlier
point in the causal chain, and that causal chain continues forever.
If you want a better understanding of my thinking on this, you can
check out Paul Edwards:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]
There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]
Oh come on you are not that dense are you? I can see my dead Aunt in a dream, or I could actually die and see her. Same with that experiment. Just because they see their dead relatives when a certain part of their brain is stimulated does not mean that they didn’t see their dead relatives by having an NDE.
Proving one does NOT disprove the other.
Got it?[/quote]
You only concentrated on the first two lines of my post, which were in relation to recreating a NDE in the lab. The rest of my post was not in relation to lab NDEs but ACTUAL NDEs that have occured.
The only one who is dense here is you. It is painfully obvious that NDEs are hallucinary and hopefully you will eventually realise it one day.
Of course you can see your dead aunt in a dream but you don’t wake up thinking that you actually met her because your senses of touch etc were disorientated. Subjects who have had NDEs recreated in the lab are in a severe state of shock after the experience. It feels 100% real and had they not been told what to expect, then they may have been convinced they saw the afterlife. Comparing a dream to A lab NDE is quite simply retarded.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]
How did they do that?
[/quote]
By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]
Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]
There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]
NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.
Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.