Notices
Results 1 to 81 of 81
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By TheObserver
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: What happens at the moment of death?

  1. #1 What happens at the moment of death? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Theres no exact scientific answer for this, we can only guess! Any opinions!


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Generally speaking - you die.
    Not sure though if a science forum is the right place for this.


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Theres no exact scientific answer for this, we can only guess! Any opinions!
    Why are you posting it on a science forum, then?
    IWANTTOKNOWMORE likes this.
     

  5. #4  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    You see yourself in your position of death. I mean you hover momentarily over your physical mass. One last chance to decide on Life, or Death. Your Time, or not? If, for whatever reason, you strongly do not want to leave the room this time, then your Spirit returns to your Life mass, and your heart beats again. This, all in a nano-second. westwind.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10
    i personaly beleive that when u die your soul moves on through the other dimensions. death to me is when your soul leaves ur physical vessel.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6
    Your brain floods with DMT and then you die. As for what comes after death, there's not really any credible evidence to suggest an afterlife.
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post
    You see yourself in your position of death. I mean you hover momentarily over your physical mass. One last chance to decide on Life, or Death. Your Time, or not? If, for whatever reason, you strongly do not want to leave the room this time, then your Spirit returns to your Life mass, and your heart beats again. This, all in a nano-second. westwind.
    Any such experience would just be the result of the chemical processes in the brain.
    And then you die.
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by billy joe View Post
    i personaly beleive that when u die your soul moves on through the other dimensions. death to me is when your soul leaves ur physical vessel.
    You might be interested in the afterlife hypothesis of the physicist Edmund Fournier d'Albe, he claimed at death the soul (consciousness) will leave the body, float into the atmosphere and live off sun rays.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You might be interested in the afterlife hypothesis of the physicist Edmund Fournier d'Albe, he claimed at death the soul (consciousness) will leave the body, float into the atmosphere and live off sun rays.
    Well then I claim that when you die your soul leaves the body, floats into the atmosphere, and gets a job waitressing at Denny's. But the great part about science is that claims are absolutely useless. Did he happen to justify this said claim?
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I claim that when you die your soul goes to the bottom of the ocean and drives plate tectonics.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    You might be interested in the afterlife hypothesis of the physicist Edmund Fournier d'Albe, he claimed at death the soul (consciousness) will leave the body, float into the atmosphere and live off sun rays.
    Well then I claim that when you die your soul leaves the body, floats into the atmosphere, and gets a job waitressing at Denny's. But the great part about science is that claims are absolutely useless. Did he happen to justify this said claim?
    I have not read all of his book it is a long read I am currently in the process of reading one of the middle chapters, but he has written about 400 pages on this hypothesis the man was no crank he was an inventor, cosmologist and well known physicist, its much more than just a claim. If I can remember correctly some of his evidence came from empirical data such as weighing some folk just before death and observing a weight loss (not to be confused with another scientist who claimed the soul was 21 grams) he also did observations with cells, I can't remember his exact measurements but his actual hypothesis was that the soul is actually made of tiny particles found in the cell, which are then released at death into a gaseous body. If we are talking about science, this the probably the closest hypothesis which has come yet. Think about what religion says on this issue, religion is clueless whilst folk like d'Albe offer something atleast based on some kind of scientific hypothesis and reasoning.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I claim that when you die your soul goes to the bottom of the ocean and drives plate tectonics.
    That is a weird idea, but the some of the Native American tribes produced similar ideas to that, they claimed at death the soul would merge into nature and become part of it and its processes.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    So what you are saying is that my consciousness is actually a gaseous body of sun devouring particles, and he determined this by measuring something to do with cells? My apologies, I thought we were dealing with pseudoscience.
    Strange and tk421 like this.
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,751
    At my death, what happens to microbes and/or parasites that live on or within the body? IOW's, will my tapeworm slither out my ass?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    At my death, what happens to microbes and/or parasites that live on or within the body? IOW's, will my tapeworm slither out my ass?
    What a disturbing comment why would such a thing be on your mind, that wouldn't happen to be you in your avatar would it?
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,751
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    What a disturbing comment why would such a thing be on your mind, that wouldn't happen to be you in your avatar would it?
    Theres no exact scientific answer for this, we can only guess! Any opinions!
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,751
    Scientists using the GDV technique say that the aura of those who die unexpectedly or violently ......... remain in a state of confusion for several days and return frequently to their bodies, especially at night.
    I hope I don't get swallowed by a big snake or eaten by a big fish or crocodile. My aura would waste an eternity trying to find the body.

    The photograph title says souls (many) yet the article says soul (one). Which is it? Why only at night?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; March 25th, 2012 at 10:14 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Scientists using the GDV technique say that the aura of those who die unexpectedly or violently ......... remain in a state of confusion for several days and return frequently to their bodies, especially at night.
    I hope I don't get swallowed by a big snake or eaten by a big fish or crocodile. My aura would waste an eternity trying to find the body.

    The photograph title says souls (many) yet the article says soul (one). Which is it? Why only at night?
    Becuase the scientist has done experiments with more than one person, that is why he uses the word souls. Also its all about Kirlian photography, you would have to read up on this subject to know about what he is proposing. As I understand it Kirlian photography has never been debunked, the skeptics have a problem dismissing this one.
     

  21. #20  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Actually it's been repeatedly debunked as a complete pseudoscientific joke. And a bad one at that.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New York's mid Hudson Valley
    Posts
    43
    I think the question is scientific in form, but it's not specified in a way that permits coming up with a hypothesis. One answer is, after death most clocks will probably go on ticking.

    Or, one may assume this is a reference to a commonly-expressed concern with the soul.

    Life after death implies a contradiction. In life, consciousness changes from infancy to dotage. But what survives death is presumably no longer subject to change. I don't see how a time-subject entity can change into one that's time-independent, they're fundamentally different. And, what agent decides which stage of life will be represented in the ageless spirit that endures? Death usually follows a state close to death. I see no virtue in the idea of an afterlife populated by people one instant removed from being dead.

    Life after death seems to me neither plausible nor desirable. That doesn't make it impossible, of course. But given my preference, I'd hope after death one simply dies, one's consciousness never to be restored.

    So my answer is, what happens after death is usually putrefaction, and almost certainly more taxes.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    As I understand it Kirlian photography has never been debunked, the skeptics have a problem dismissing this one.
    Careful! -- your brains are in danger of falling out.
    KALSTER likes this.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun2000 View Post
    So my answer is, what happens after death is usually putrefaction, and almost certainly more taxes.
    True dat!
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun2000 View Post
    I think the question is scientific in form, but it's not specified in a way that permits coming up with a hypothesis. One answer is, after death most clocks will probably go on ticking.
    WH Auden would disagree...

    So my answer is, what happens after death is usually putrefaction, and almost certainly more taxes.
    You mean it is death and taxes? I thought it was a choice.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Actually it's been repeatedly debunked as a complete pseudoscientific joke. And a bad one at that.
    Where and by who?

    Looks genuine to me:

    Kirlian Photography Explanation - YouTube
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Looks genuine to me: *cites Youtube*
    Of course it does.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  28. #27  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Ah yes, the "scientific" resource of youtube.

    Deduct 50 credibility points...

    Show me anything in a peer reviewed journal and you can get some of them back. Otherwise you have blown your cover as a full fledged loon.
    Last edited by MeteorWayne; March 28th, 2012 at 05:32 PM.
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Show me anything in a peer reviewed journal
    So you will not believe in anything unless it is peer reviewed?

    Here are some publications of the GDV instrument which is used for Kirlian photography (some appear to be peer reviewed):
    1. Boyers D.G. Tiller W.A. 1973. Corona Discharge Photography. Journal of Applied Physics, v.44, pp.3102-3112,
    2. Bundzen P., Korotkov K. New computer technology for evaluating the psycho-physical fitness of athletes. Physical Education and Sport. Warszawa, 2002, 46 (1), 392-393.
    3. Bundzen P., Korotkov K., Nazarov I., Rogozkin V. Psychophysical and Genetic Determination of Quantum-Field Level of the Organism Functioning. Frontier Perspectives, 2002,11,2,8-14
    4. Bundzen P., Korotkov K., Unestahl L.-E. Altered States of Consciousness: Review of Experimental Data Obtained with a Multiple Techniques Approach. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2002, 8 (2), 153-167.
    5. Bundzen P., Zagrantsev V., Korotkov K., Leisner P., Unestahl L.-E. Comprehensive Bioelectrographic Analysis of Mechanisms of the Altered State of Consciousness. Human Physiology, v.26, N 5, 2000. 558-566
    6. Chalko T. J. "Is Chance or Choice the essence of Nature?", NU Journal of Discovery, 2001. An insight into Physics of Consciousness in light of recent advances in quantum computing and GDV research. PDF version, HTML version
    7. Dobson Paul and Tchernychko Elena. Investigations into Stress and it's Management using the Gas Discharge Visualisation Technique. International J of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. June 2000
    8. Gibson S. S. The effect of music and focused meditation on the human energy field as measured by the gas discharge visualisation (GDV) technique and profile of mood states. Thesis of a dissertation submitted to the faculty of HOLOS university graduate seminary. April 2002.
    9. Howell Caroline J. The therapeutic effect of tai chi in the healing process of HIV.International J of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Nov 1999, pp. 16-20
    10. Kolmakow S., Hanninen O., Korotkov K., Bundzen P. Gas Discharge Visualisation and Spectrometry in Detection of Field Effect // Mechanism of Adaptive Behaviour : - Abstracts of Int. Sympos. St.Petersburg, 1999. P. 39-40.
    11. Kolmakow S., Hanninen O., Korotkov K., Kuhmonen P. Gas discharge visualization system applied to the study of non-living biological objects // J. Pathophysiology. 1998. V. 5. P. 55.
    12. Kononenko I. Inductive and Bayesian learning in medical diagnosis. Applied Artificial Intelligence. 1993. ? 7. P. 317-337.
    13. Kononenko I., Bratko I., Kukar M. Application of machine learning to medical diagnosis // Machine Learning, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Methods and Applications, John Wiley & Sons. 1998. 420 p.
    14. Kononenko I., Zrimec E., Robnik M. Overcoming the myopia of inductive learning algorithms // Applied Intelligence. 1997. ? 7. P. 39-55.
    15. Kononenko I. Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2001: 23, 89
    16. Konikiewicz L.W., Griff L.C. Bioelectrography - A new method for detecting cancer and body physiology. Harrisburg: Leonard Associates Press, 1982. 240 p
    17. Korotkov K. Human Energy Field: study with GDV bioelectrography. Backbone publishing, NY. 2002.
    18. Korotkov K., Korotkin D. Concentration dependence of gas discharge around drops of inorganic electrolytes. J of Applied Physics, 2001, V. 89. N 9, pp. 4732-4737
    19. Opalinski J. Kirlian-type images and the transport of thin-film materials in high-voltage corona discharge. J. Appl. Phys. V. 50, p. 498-504, 1979.
    20. Pehek J.O., Kyler K.J., and Faust D.L. Image modulation in Corona Discharge Photography. Science v. 194, p 263-270, 1976.
    21. Roberts N. R. Parallel investigation of the meridian stress assessment (msa-21) and the gas discharge visualization devices: can they measure the effects of acupuncture treatment on the body's energy state? Thesis of a dissertation submitted to the faculty of HOLOS university graduate seminary. March 2002.
    22. Russo M. J Alt Compl Med v. 7, 617-627, 2001
    23. Sanchez Fernando Quintana. "Aura y Ciencia" Una tecnologia del Campo de Conciencia. Mandala Ediciones, Madrid 2000
    24. Shaduri M.I., Chichinadze G.K. Application of bioenergography in Medicine. Georgian Engineering News. N 2, 1999, pp.109-112
    25. Skarja M. Jerman I., Berden M., and Ruzic R. Biological influence of ultraweak supposedly electromagnetic radiation from organisms mediated through water. Electro and Magnitobiology, 15(3), 229-244, 1996A possible basis for healing touch evaluated by high voltage electrophotography. Acupuncture and electro-theraupeutics Res. Int J. 22, 127-146. 1997
    26. Skarja M., Berden M., and Jerman I. Indirect instrumental detection of ultraweak, presumably electromagnetic radiation from organism. Electro and Magnitobiology, 16(3), 249, 1997.
    27. Skarja M., Berden M., and Jerman I. Influence of ionic composition of water on the corona discharge around water drops. J. Appl. Phys. 84, 2436, 1998.
     

  30. #29  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    So where in that (only serious journals need apply) a connection between come kind of "life force" and coronal discharge photography, which certainly exists. Throw enough charge on anything and it will discharge. Please provide a SERIOUS connection to the topic.

    What the hell is it with you and lists...

    Oh I know, it's "If you cant dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bulls**t
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155
    Introduction to Kirlian Photography
    Kirlian photography is a way of representing the energy of the body in visual form. Since discovered by inventors Semyon and Valentina Kirlian in 1939, the technique has been researched and refined by independent labs and health practitioners throughout the globe.

    What is being recorded?
    All living creatures generate and emit radiations. Photons of light, electromagnetic frequencies, heat, sound, and scent are all emitted from our bodies in direct relationship to our internal states. This wonderful and subtle system of exchange contains a wealth of information.

    Kirlian photography introduces a high frequency, high voltage, ultra low current to the object being photographed. In traveling through and reacting with our complex systems, this influx of electrical energy amplifies and makes visible the bodies biological and energetic exchange. The camera and the subject interact to produce a corona of multifrequency energy waves- from low infrared to well past the visible spectrum.

    Kirlian Cameras
     

  32. #31  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Poppycock. A far more parsimonious explanation is that the HF energy is directed by the distibution of conductive fluids and protiens within the body, and it has nothing to do with your "internal states" except how those conductors are affected. I.e. not direct connection to the mind or the bodies energetic exchange, I didn;t ask for a book; I asked for peer veviewed scince. Also not a web link to a site selling the "equipment" to suckers.
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by forests View Post
    Introduction to Kirlian Photography

    Did you know, the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

    Sigh. Why don't we teach critical thinking skills in schools. With a compulsory annual test throughout life.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  34. #33  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Life IS a compulsory continuous test
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Maybe. It seems like quite a few people fail.
    westwind likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  36. #35  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    For Strange. I know this will be difficult for thinking people to believe or accept, but the truth is thinking is not on the Duty Statement of most of our fellow Citizens. And, because it is not compulsary, they have not developed the skills needed to throw their brain into gear. Why think, when you can drink? Or, is the ability to express oneself in a thoughtful way missing from the DNA, molecular omissions in the helix strand of their being? Say 76% of all human life form have limited thought biology. Just get up brush your teeth, go to the toilet, have breakfast, go to work, whos seeing who', Wheres my ipod, cu at macs. Whose got time to think about things when you can't think of any things to think about? So, those of us who find ourselves at a loose end, but burdened with the ability to think, feel compelled to stop partying and take up the oars. So we think about have we a soul that will leave our body when we die. If so, will it take our thinking ability with it? Will only the thinking souls move on? The frivolous or incapable thinking souls being left behind? Who decides? Other souls who have gone before? Where's my Ipod, cu at macs.. westwind.
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post
    For Strange. I know this will be difficult for thinking people to believe or accept, but the truth is thinking is not on the Duty Statement of most of our fellow Citizens. And, because it is not compulsary, they have not developed the skills needed to throw their brain into gear.
    Which is why I think we should teach basic "thinking skills" (basic philosophy) at primary school. If everyone is going to have the vote, then they should be taught the basic skills required to make informed decisions.

    You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. But you can equip it with the tools it needs to take a drink if it wants to.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Critical thinking cannot be taught in schools, its an evolutionary process that begins in the womb.
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Critical thinking cannot be taught in schools
    Of course it can be. And is in some places.

    its an evolutionary process that begins in the womb.
    I assume you mean "developmental" rather than evolutionary; evolution doesn't happen in the womb.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Critical thinking cannot be taught in schools
    Of course it can be. And is in some places.

    its an evolutionary process that begins in the womb.
    I assume you mean "developmental" rather than evolutionary; evolution doesn't happen in the womb.
    I do not think you can just say yes it can and get away with it, you have to explain how you teach it.
    I stand corrected, "developmental" is a better word.
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,364
    Can you explain why it is NOT teachable in a school setting?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    General, generic critical thinking is pretty close to unteachable.

    Critical Thinking Not Possible Without Content Knowledge The Core Knowledge Blog
    http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneduc...t_Thinking.pdf

    My approach would be that subjects and the associated thinking processes should be taught thoroughly and explicitly. Then ..... students should be taught that transferring these skills to other areas requires, absolutely requires, assembling the needed specific knowledge and then checking whether the critical thinking you've learned to apply in areas you are familiar with can be transferred without alteration into the newer sphere.

    A bit of digging and delving through the American Educator archives for Willingham's contributions will fully repay the time and effort expended.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    853
    In relation to OP:

    I am agnostic. So I consider many possibilities. This topic seems to imply whether or not there is such thing as an afterlife, imo. So, I will respond as to what I think an afterlife may actually be.

    1) You 'die' from a medical perspective
    2) Oxygen flow to your brain ceases
    3) Less important parts of your brain cease function before the more important ones do
    4) Concept of time is no longer understood
    5) Afterlife is whatever remains during the eternity of a couple of minutes?
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman IWANTTOKNOWMORE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    29
    it is quite true all this have a chance to be true or not.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman IWANTTOKNOWMORE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    29
    we might not even die , only or canal human shell is gone but our mind is around
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    General, generic critical thinking is pretty close to unteachable.

    Critical Thinking Not Possible Without Content Knowledge The Core Knowledge Blog
    http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneduc...t_Thinking.pdf

    My approach would be that subjects and the associated thinking processes should be taught thoroughly and explicitly. Then ..... students should be taught that transferring these skills to other areas requires, absolutely requires, assembling the needed specific knowledge and then checking whether the critical thinking you've learned to apply in areas you are familiar with can be transferred without alteration into the newer sphere.

    A bit of digging and delving through the American Educator archives for Willingham's contributions will fully repay the time and effort expended.
    Hmmm... Sounds like I may be wrong. (Again!) So apologies to Mother/father for being so dogmatic. And thanks (again) to adelady.

    Thinking about it, I learnt my critical and analytical thinking skills "on the job". Which meant I had already acquired significant domain knowledge first. I later learnt to apply the same techniques in other areas ... but maybe that couldn't happen until I had acquired the necessary knowledge in those areas.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by IWANTTOKNOWMORE View Post
    we might not even die , only or canal human shell is gone but our mind is around
    Invisible pink unicorns might fly around the mars.
    Its a possibility but its not even close to be supported by evidence.

    I think that there is even evidence against your claim, the claim that our mind is related to our brain, for example we can see people that have damaged their brain and this people also have problem with their mind.
    I dont think that its still solved question but its likely to be true. And even if we dont knew anything about it its still absurd to believe that our mind will be around after our death.
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    There is no afterlife you poor damned deluded fools.
    So treat this life as though it were the only one you are ever going to have.
    Find what it is that you want to do, and do it to the best of your potential.
    Be kind and helpfull to all you meet and you will live on in the hearts and minds of those who you have helped.
    Last edited by sculptor; July 29th, 2012 at 07:45 AM.
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    why do you or anybody think that we are body and not anything other than body? why?



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    why do you or anybody think that we are body and not anything other than body? why?
    Because we dont have evidence to claim that we are something other than body.
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I'd love to beleive we live on, but i do struggle with it.

    One theory is that we have a 'true soul' and the character we develop through our experiences in this life are marks that are not permanent. That we return to our true state. I'm not endorsing the idea.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    One theory is that we have a 'true soul' and the character we develop through our experiences in this life are marks that are not permanent. That we return to our true state. I'm not endorsing the idea.
    General relativity is a theory. Quantum electrodynamics is a theory. What you've described above
    is, alas, not a theory. It's just a wish.
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    One theory is that we have a 'true soul' and the character we develop through our experiences in this life are marks that are not permanent. That we return to our true state. I'm not endorsing the idea.
    General relativity is a theory. Quantum electrodynamics is a theory. What you've described above
    is, alas, not a theory. It's just a wish.
    It's painfully obviously a theory. It may not be a very scientific theory, there may be little or no evidence to suggest it is true... but it is what we call a theory none the less.
    Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,364
    You are looking at the wrong definition of theory though!

    see this article: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the definition you should be looking at and as such tk421 is very much correct that it does not meet the criteria
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You are looking at the wrong definition of theory though!

    see this article: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the definition you should be looking at and as such tk421 is very much correct that it does not meet the criteria
    You are mistaken. I used the word theory, I did not say 'scientific theory'.

    Some of you guys are very intelligent, yet you manage to be very simple at the same time. It's almost dogmatic the way my use of words and definitions are always questioned and deemed to be 'wrong' as they do not meet the 'scientific' definition.

    If I meant scientific theory, i would have said scientific theory.
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,364
    You are posting on a science discussion Forum. When the word theory is used it is assumed to mean "scientific theory" unless otherwise specified. you should at most be saying guess or idea at the very most. However as you specified:
    It's painfully obviously a theory. It may not be a very scientific theory, there may be little or no evidence to suggest it is true... but it is what we call a theory none the less.


    Then correction of the usage was needed.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You are posting on a science discussion Forum. When the word theory is used it is assumed to mean "scientific theory" unless otherwise specified. you should at most be saying guess or idea at the very most. However as you specified:
    It's painfully obviously a theory. It may not be a very scientific theory, there may be little or no evidence to suggest it is true... but it is what we call a theory none the less.


    Then correction of the usage was needed.
    I heard assumption was the mother of all 'mess' ups.

    In reality a theory is a theory and can be taken to mean theory unless a specific type of theory is specified. if which case a more rigid definition can be applied. English is english no matter what the type of the forum it is posted in.

    I may be posting in a science forum but im replying to a thread on a topic where the science may not yet be sufficient to answer the question. It was clear from the context of my comment that i was talking about a philosophical theory, for all i know there may be have been no efforts to gain scientific evidence on the subject. on the other hand, for all i know there might be a whole scientific theory out there to explain it.
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    As this is the Pseudoscience forum, we should use the appropriate definition of "theory" which appears to be something like:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo-Theory
    Here is something I just made up. It makes sense to me therefore it must be right. I don't care about evidence (unless it agrees with me). Mathematics is a trick to blind you. PROVE ME WRONG!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    As this is the Pseudoscience forum, we should use the appropriate definition of "theory" which appears to be something like:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo-Theory
    Here is something I just made up. It makes sense to me therefore it must be right. I don't care about evidence (unless it agrees with me). Mathematics is a trick to blind you. PROVE ME WRONG!
    Yes we'r all familiar with your definition of theory thank you strange, and maths really isnt a trick just to blind you... once you can understand the mathematic language it apparently helps you see mee clearly... or something
    :-)
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You are looking at the wrong definition of theory though!

    see this article: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the definition you should be looking at and as such tk421 is very much correct that it does not meet the criteria
    You are mistaken. I used the word theory, I did not say 'scientific theory'.

    Some of you guys are very intelligent, yet you manage to be very simple at the same time. It's almost dogmatic the way my use of words and definitions are always questioned and deemed to be 'wrong' as they do not meet the 'scientific' definition.

    If I meant scientific theory, i would have said scientific theory.
    You have to understand that this is a science forum (the name of the forum is a giveaway). So, when someone uses the word "theory" in a thread in a science forum, you shouldn't be surprised that we implicitly choose a specific working definition of "theory." So, yes, we are very simple.

    It may seem overly pedantic to you, but the distinction is important. The word "theory" is used colloquially for everything from QCD to a random brain burp. It may be quixotic to fight that sloppiness, but one would hope that a science forum would be an appropriate arena for that battle.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You are looking at the wrong definition of theory though!

    see this article: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the definition you should be looking at and as such tk421 is very much correct that it does not meet the criteria
    You are mistaken. I used the word theory, I did not say 'scientific theory'.

    Some of you guys are very intelligent, yet you manage to be very simple at the same time. It's almost dogmatic the way my use of words and definitions are always questioned and deemed to be 'wrong' as they do not meet the 'scientific' definition.

    If I meant scientific theory, i would have said scientific theory.
    You have to understand that this is a science forum (the name of the forum is a giveaway). So, when someone uses the word "theory" in a thread in a science forum, you shouldn't be surprised that we implicitly choose a specific working definition of "theory." So, yes, we are very simple.

    It may seem overly pedantic to you, but the distinction is important. The word "theory" is used colloquially for everything from QCD to a random brain burp. It may be quixotic to fight that sloppiness, but one would hope that a science forum would be an appropriate arena for that battle.
    You should understand that when i say theory, it may be it may be interpreted according to the context which i use it in. I will say scientific theory for e.g if it is a scientific theory.

    It does seems overly pedantic in this case... its also worrying how many people i have discussed the definition of theory with... i've spent more time discussing the science of the english language than anything else. One would hope to discuss science rather than english in a science forum.

    Whats QCD? whats quixotic? why is that sloppiness to have so many meanings for a word? it's the same with many words isnt it? In every feild of human indevour we seem to give each word a new specific definition for when it's used in context with that particular feild. Its always important to consider the context in order to understand what is meant by a word.
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You should understand that when i say theory, it may be it may be interpreted according to the context which i use it in. I will say scientific theory for e.g if it is a scientific theory.
    But then why should this science forum be a place where any random supposition be posted? Wouldn't that rather overwhelm this place with pollution? Should the pseudoscience subforum be a dumping ground for any idea, as long as someone calls it a theory?
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Should the pseudoscience subforum be a dumping ground for any idea, as long as someone calls it a theory?
    It feels that way sometimes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You should understand that when i say theory, it may be it may be interpreted according to the context which i use it in. I will say scientific theory for e.g if it is a scientific theory.
    But then why should this science forum be a place where any random supposition be posted? Wouldn't that rather overwhelm this place with pollution? Should the pseudoscience subforum be a dumping ground for any idea, as long as someone calls it a theory?
    I dont see any random superstistion but yes, im sure if that were going on then it would overwhelm the place.

    Science is mans knowledge of truth. The aim of science is to develop and grow into full knowledge of truth, therefor no superstion or idea should be dismissed as not worth scientific study. Including concepts like the soul and god. I don't see how somebody who wastes pages on threads cryticising people for things like using the word theory to define a set of abstracted ideas, can get on his high horse and talk about polluting the forum.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Science is mans knowledge of truth. The aim of science is to develop and grow into full knowledge of truth, therefor no superstion or idea should be dismissed as not worth scientific study. Including concepts like the soul and god. I don't see how somebody who wastes pages on threads cryticising people for things like using the word theory to define a set of abstracted ideas, can get on his high horse and talk about polluting the forum.
    I didn't dismiss your superstition. I simply pointed out that a scientific theory it was not. Had you presented something that would admit scientific study, we could proceed. But the whole point of identifying what is and is not a theory is central to the purpose of figuring out what can actually be studied. Not all brain burps can be. I assert that invisible undetectable pink unicorns are the aether are the soul are sub-quantum quarksicles ("so good and so good for you"). That's a "theory" in your sense, but there's no way that the idea could "develop and grow into full knowledge of truth." That's why I'm on a "high horse," to use your term. Sloppiness in language can mirror a sloppiness in logic. Your post is an illustrative case.
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Science is mans knowledge of truth. The aim of science is to develop and grow into full knowledge of truth, therefor no superstion or idea should be dismissed as not worth scientific study. Including concepts like the soul and god. I don't see how somebody who wastes pages on threads cryticising people for things like using the word theory to define a set of abstracted ideas, can get on his high horse and talk about polluting the forum.
    I didn't dismiss your superstition. I simply pointed out that a scientific theory it was not. Had you presented something that would admit scientific study, we could proceed. But the whole point of identifying what is and is not a theory is central to the purpose of figuring out what can actually be studied. Not all brain burps can be. I assert that invisible undetectable pink unicorns are the aether are the soul are sub-quantum quarksicles ("so good and so good for you"). That's a "theory" in your sense, but there's no way that the idea could "develop and grow into full knowledge of truth." That's why I'm on a "high horse," to use your term. Sloppiness in language can mirror a sloppiness in logic. Your post is an illustrative case.
    My post illustrates no such thing thank you. the cheek! yours however, does.
    I cannot take credit for the concept/superstion/theory... you wouldn't give me credit for the theory of relativity just becuase i mentioned it.

    I think when you come up with a theory or an idea, no matter how obscure or unlikely, then set out to proove or disproove this theory determinedly using scientific practices... the chances are that this will to reveal some of the truth. Eventually, once every single cincept, idea, theory, superstition that ever existed etc has been properly tested... it would mean we have full knowledge of truth in every area, then science would be 'full' with nothing left to know.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think when you come up with a theory or an idea, no matter how obscure or unlikely, then set out to proove or disproove this theory determinedly using scientific practices... the chances are that this will to reveal some of the truth. Eventually, once every single cincept, idea, theory, superstition that ever existed etc has been properly tested... it would mean we have full knowledge of truth in every area, then science would be 'full' with nothing left to know.
    You've entirely missed the point of our exchange. A scientific theory can advance knowledge. A brain burp almost never can. If it's not testable, then all you are able to do is hurl assertions. Knowledge doesn't emerge from that activity except by accident.

    That's why it's extremely important -- especially in a science forum -- to identify what is a theory (in the science sense), and what is a merely untestable brain burp. Otherwise, the "soul exists" idea resides alongside the "invisible pink unicorn" idea, with equal testability for all time.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think when you come up with a theory or an idea, no matter how obscure or unlikely, then set out to proove or disproove this theory determinedly using scientific practices... the chances are that this will to reveal some of the truth. Eventually, once every single cincept, idea, theory, superstition that ever existed etc has been properly tested... it would mean we have full knowledge of truth in every area, then science would be 'full' with nothing left to know.
    You've entirely missed the point of our exchange. A scientific theory can advance knowledge. A brain burp almost never can. If it's not testable, then all you are able to do is hurl assertions. Knowledge doesn't emerge from that activity except by accident.

    That's why it's extremely important -- especially in a science forum -- to identify what is a theory (in the science sense), and what is a merely untestable brain burp. Otherwise, the "soul exists" idea resides alongside the "invisible pink unicorn" idea, with equal testability for all time.
    because it isnt testable its a brain burb? (i never heard that ghastly expression until tonight and now i fear i will never forget it). Just becuase you can't think how to test it doesn't mean it won't oneday be testable.
    There is only one of us who is hurling assertions.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    because it isnt testable its a brain burb? (i never heard that ghastly expression until tonight and now i fear i will never forget it). Just becuase you can't think how to test it doesn't mean it won't oneday be testable.
    There is only one of us who is hurling assertions.
    Yes, for the purposes of this exchange, let's define an untestable idea as a brain burp.

    Different religions endow the soul with different properties, but one seemingly in common with all is a fundamental supernatural characteristic. Taking that language literally places souls outside of the realm of our reality, and thus outside of the realm of testability. However, perhaps you have a different concept of a soul. If so, I would be most interested to hear it, especially how your concept allows a soul to have physical, measurable properties or effects that would -- even in principle -- allow detection. The clergy with whom I've had discussions about this topic are all very much of the "it's there, but you can't show it; just believe" school of thought.
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    because it isnt testable its a brain burb? (i never heard that ghastly expression until tonight and now i fear i will never forget it). Just becuase you can't think how to test it doesn't mean it won't oneday be testable.
    There is only one of us who is hurling assertions.
    Yes, for the purposes of this exchange, let's define an untestable idea as a brain burp.

    Different religions endow the soul with different properties, but one seemingly in common with all is a fundamental supernatural characteristic. Taking that language literally places souls outside of the realm of our reality, and thus outside of the realm of testability. However, perhaps you have a different concept of a soul. If so, I would be most interested to hear it, especially how your concept allows a soul to have physical, measurable properties or effects that would -- even in principle -- allow detection. The clergy with whom I've had discussions about this topic are all very much of the "it's there, but you can't show it; just believe" school of thought.
    Well for a start where does supernatural come into it? everything that exists and occurs is natural. So all that stuff about taking that language literally places the soul outside realm of reality, is jibberish to me. Supernatural is not reality though, super natural is outside the realm of reality i agree.

    I don't have much of a concept on the soul. I'll go along the conversation though ... I have actually heard some ideas that i cant relate for you: that the soul is the individuals consciouness held in very fine energy and matter, protected in layers of the etheric/astral body that is capable of leaving the body. If this was the case maybe it could be captured with special photo equipment for example.
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Ideas I can* relate to you..(obviously)
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Well for a start where does supernatural come into it?
    Keep reading. You get to it soon enough.

    everything that exists and occurs is natural.
    You can't assume what you're trying to prove. It is not a given that the soul exists, and therefore the rest of your statement is irrelevant.

    So all that stuff about taking that language literally places the soul outside realm of reality, is jibberish to me.
    To me, too. I have no idea what you're referring to.

    Supernatural is not reality though, super natural is outside the realm of reality i agree.
    Very good.

    I don't have much of a concept on the soul. I'll go along the conversation though ... I have actually heard some ideas that i cant relate for you: that the soul is the individuals consciouness held in very fine energy and matter, protected in layers of the etheric/astral body that is capable of leaving the body. If this was the case maybe it could be captured with special photo equipment for example.
    And this is where we get to the supernatural stuff. You use the terms "etheric/astral" -- are you aware that these have no meaningful, natural definition? If you disagree, please provide a link to measurements and a list of physical properties of "etheric/astral" quantities.

    And phrases like "consciousness held in very fine energy and matter,..." are similarly meaningless. It reads like bad Chopra.
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Well for a start where does supernatural come into it?
    Keep reading. You get to it soon enough.

    everything that exists and occurs is natural.
    You can't assume what you're trying to prove. It is not a given that the soul exists, and therefore the rest of your statement is irrelevant. WTF? i DIDNT ASSUME OR TRY TO PROOVE ANYTHING...

    So all that stuff about taking that language literally places the soul outside realm of reality, is jibberish to me.
    To me, too. I have no idea what you're referring to. I REFERRED TO ALL THAT STUFF YOU SAID ABOUT THE SOULD BEING PLACED OUTSIDE OF REALITY BECUASE IT IS 'SUPERNATURAL'

    Supernatural is not reality though, super natural is outside the realm of reality i agree.
    Very good. I SAID THIS ALREADY ABOVE... NO SUCH THING AS SUPERNATURAL

    I don't have much of a concept on the soul. I'll go along the conversation though ... I have actually heard some ideas that i cant relate for you: that the soul is the individuals consciouness held in very fine energy and matter, protected in layers of the etheric/astral body that is capable of leaving the body. If this was the case maybe it could be captured with special photo equipment for example.
    And this is where we get to the supernatural stuff. You use the terms "etheric/astral" -- are you aware that these have no meaningful, natural definition? If you disagree, please provide a link to measurements and a list of physical properties of "etheric/astral" quantities.

    NO i WASN'T AWARE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO DISAGREE BUT THIS LINK SAYS ETHER EXISTS On the Proof of the Reality of the Luminiferous Aether - Wikisource, the free online library

    And phrases like "consciousness held in very fine energy and matter,..." are similarly meaningless. It reads like bad Chopra.
    iT'S NOT MEANINGLESS IN THE CONTEXT OF YOU WANTING ME TO PROVIDE IDEAS OF HOW THE SOUL COULD BE MEASURED OR QUANTIFIED IS IT?

    AND WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? IF IT READ LIKE GOOD CHOPRA THEN I'D BE A WORLD FAMOUSE AUTHOR WOULDN'T I? THE STUFF i READ WAS WAY BEFOR CHOPRA BUT IT DID COME FROM THOSE ANCIENT SANSKRIT PHILOSOPHIES THAT IM GEUSSING CHOPRA HAS STUDIED, NOT THAT I KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    iT'S NOT MEANINGLESS IN THE CONTEXT OF YOU WANTING ME TO PROVIDE IDEAS OF HOW THE SOUL COULD BE MEASURED OR QUANTIFIED IS IT?
    Actually, it is meaningless in any context. Your "answer" is wholly equivalent to my saying "souls are due to 80-tonne wakalixxies doing pirouettes around layers of meringue." Words like "astral" and "etheric" do not have a scientific meaning that I know of, which is why I asked you to provide a list of their quantitative, physical properties. As you did not provide such a list, and instead shouted a non-answer, I am led to conclude that you do not have anything of substance to offer, thus illustrating my entire point about the difference between a brain burp and a theory.

    AND WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? IF IT READ LIKE GOOD CHOPRA THEN I'D BE A WORLD FAMOUSE AUTHOR WOULDN'T I? THE STUFF i READ WAS WAY BEFOR CHOPRA BUT IT DID COME FROM THOSE ANCIENT SANSKRIT PHILOSOPHIES THAT IM GEUSSING CHOPRA HAS STUDIED, NOT THAT I KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM
    One can be famous -- perhaps even famouse -- writing all sorts of things. Scientific accuracy is not a prerequisite for popularity (indeed, one might make the case for an inverse relationship), so I don't understand what point you're trying make here. But that seems to be part of an established pattern.

    A word of advice: Shouting only makes you appear, well, a bit cranky. I'd advise assembling a coherent argument instead.
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    iT'S NOT MEANINGLESS IN THE CONTEXT OF YOU WANTING ME TO PROVIDE IDEAS OF HOW THE SOUL COULD BE MEASURED OR QUANTIFIED IS IT?
    Actually, it is meaningless in any context. Your "answer" is wholly equivalent to my saying "souls are due to 80-tonne wakalixxies doing pirouettes around layers of meringue." Words like "astral" and "etheric" do not have a scientific meaning that I know of, which is why I asked you to provide a list of their quantitative, physical properties. As you did not provide such a list, and instead shouted a non-answer, I am led to conclude that you do not have anything of substance to offer, thus illustrating my entire point about the difference between a brain burp and a theory.

    AND WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? IF IT READ LIKE GOOD CHOPRA THEN I'D BE A WORLD FAMOUSE AUTHOR WOULDN'T I? THE STUFF i READ WAS WAY BEFOR CHOPRA BUT IT DID COME FROM THOSE ANCIENT SANSKRIT PHILOSOPHIES THAT IM GEUSSING CHOPRA HAS STUDIED, NOT THAT I KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM
    One can be famous -- perhaps even famouse -- writing all sorts of things. Scientific accuracy is not a prerequisite for popularity (indeed, one might make the case for an inverse relationship), so I don't understand what point you're trying make here. But that seems to be part of an established pattern.

    A word of advice: Shouting only makes you appear, well, a bit cranky. I'd advise assembling a coherent argument instead.
    Shouting? I was merely using capps to help distinguish which text was mine. I didnt need to assemble a cohearent argument, dissecting your arguments snippit by snippit will do fine.
    my point with the chopra text was that you shouldn't try to bellitle me for sounding like a 'bad chopra'... you not understanding anything i say has indeed been an established pattern from the outset.

    Your first paragraph seems to be a pretentious, nonsensical, presumptious rambling. Please try to avoid projecting your insecurities onto complete strangers.
    Feel free to pay attention to the capitol letters within the quoted area, where I provided a link about eather, as well as the text below it.

    Your trying to make an argument out of everything an nothing, you've completely forgoten what we'r talking about and what i've been saying. By your own admission failing to understand what I say has been a feature of the discussion and your beging to get cranky and project your insecurities onto me... why not just go to bed huh? sleep it off
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Shouting? I was merely using capps to help distinguish which text was mine.
    On the interwebs, all caps = SHOUTING. That's how the tubes work. You had previously used quote tags just fine for the purpose of distinguishing your text from that of others, so it is puzzling that you suddenly employed a new method of setting your text apart. Perhaps you can now understand the source of confusion.

    I didnt need to assemble a cohearent argument, dissecting your arguments snippit by snippit will do fine.
    I eagerly await dissection, coherently or otherwise.

    my point with the chopra text was that you shouldn't try to bellitle me for sounding like a 'bad chopra'... you not understanding anything i say has indeed been an established pattern from the outset.
    I have asked you for clarifications and definitional support for your assertions. You have supplied none. Perhaps you can see why understanding is difficult.

    Your first paragraph seems to be a pretentious, nonsensical, presumptious rambling. Please try to avoid projecting your insecurities onto complete strangers.
    Feel free to pay attention to the capitol letters within the quoted area, where I provided a link about eather, as well as the text below it.
    You used the terms etheric and astral in an ill-defined way, and I merely asked you to state how you were using it. Recall that the context was your assertion that the question of the soul's existence was answerable without invoking the supernatural. The difficulty is that your idea of what is and is not supernatural does not conform to the norms of science or logic. Sorry that this realization makes you upset.

    Your trying to make an argument out of everything an nothing, you've completely forgoten what we'r talking about and what i've been saying. By your own admission failing to understand what I say has been a feature of the discussion and your beging to get cranky and project your insecurities onto me... why not just go to bed huh? sleep it off
    Actually, I'm just responding to your assertions with follow-up questions. You seem not to like questioning, but you must surely understand that if you post an assertion on a science-based forum, you may be asked to back it up. Etheric/astral woo is going to attract attention. If you don't like that sort of attention, perhaps one solution is merely to restrain yourself from such posts.
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Shouting? I was merely using capps to help distinguish which text was mine.
    On the interwebs, all caps = SHOUTING. That's how the tubes work. You had previously used quote tags just fine for the purpose of distinguishing your text from that of others, so it is puzzling that you suddenly employed a new method of setting your text apart. Perhaps you can now understand the source of confusion.

    DONT BE SO FUCKING ARROGANT TELLING ME HOW THE WEB WORKS. GET A LIFE. i USUALLY MANAGE TO QOUTE A COHEARENT COMMENT BUT WHEN ITS A SERIES OF MANY COMMENTS OR QUOTES TO RESPOND TO, I STRUGGLE WITH THE MULTI QUOTE FUNCTIONS. THEREFORE IM USING CAPPS... IMAGINE ME SHOUTING OR NOT, ITS UP TO YOU, I COULDN'T CARE LESS. IM FREE TO USE CAPPS FOR WHATEVER REASON I WANT, AND CAN USE THE WORD THEORY FOR WHICHEVER OF THE MANY DEFINITIONS I CHOOSE.

    I didnt need to assemble a cohearent argument, dissecting your arguments snippit by snippit will do fine.
    I eagerly await dissection, coherently or otherwise.

    CHECK AGAIN^^

    my point with the chopra text was that you shouldn't try to bellitle me for sounding like a 'bad chopra'... you not understanding anything i say has indeed been an established pattern from the outset.
    I have asked you for clarifications and definitional support for your assertions. You have supplied none. Perhaps you can see why understanding is difficult.

    I THINK YOUR TALKING RUBBISH!

    Your first paragraph seems to be a pretentious, nonsensical, presumptious rambling. Please try to avoid projecting your insecurities onto complete strangers.
    Feel free to pay attention to the capitol letters within the quoted area, where I provided a link about eather, as well as the text below it.
    You used the terms etheric and astral in an ill-defined way, and I merely asked you to state how you were using it. Recall that the context was your assertion that the question of the soul's existence was answerable without invoking the supernatural. The difficulty is that your idea of what is and is not supernatural does not conform to the norms of science or logic. Sorry that this realization makes you upset.

    YOUR A FANTASIST, I DIDNT ASSERT ANYTHING, I WAS HELPING YOU BY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. NOT ONCE DID I ASSERT THE THEROY AS MY OWN WORK.
    Your trying to make an argument out of everything an nothing, you've completely forgoten what we'r talking about and what i've been saying. By your own admission failing to understand what I say has been a feature of the discussion and your beging to get cranky and project your insecurities onto me... why not just go to bed huh? sleep it off
    Actually, I'm just responding to your assertions with follow-up questions. You seem not to like questioning, but you must surely understand that if you post an assertion on a science-based forum, you may be asked to back it up. Etheric/astral woo is going to attract attention. If you don't like that sort of attention, perhaps one solution is merely to restrain yourself from such posts.
    YOU CLAIM TO BE RESPONDING WITH FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS BUT LOOKING THROUGH THIS POST... i SEE NO QUESTION MARKS. IN FACT I THINK I WAS RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION. AGAIN I WASN'T MAKING ASSERTATIONS. i DONT CARE FOR THE ATTENTION, I CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. THIS IS A POST ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AT POINT OF DEATH AND I MENTIONED (NOT ASSERTED AT ALL... DEVELOPE YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND) THE CONCEPT OF A SOUL, (NOT MY CONCEPT). YOU ASKED HOW THIS SOUL COULD EVEN BEGIN TO BE MEASURABLE TO WHICH I SAID THE CONCEPT IS THAT IT MAY BE ETHERIC IN NATURE. YOU SAID ETHER IS ABSOLUTLY UNSCIENTIFIC SO I PASTED A LINK TALKING ABOUT EATHER.

    YOUR STILL HERE TRYING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF NOTHING, GET YOUR HEAD STRAIGHT HUH, AND DONT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANT TYPE OR HOW I CAN AND CANT TYPE IT, BECAUSE I AM LOSSING THE PATIENCE TO KEEP SPEAKING CIVILY WITH YOU AT THE MOMENT.

    I DONT THINK THERE IS ANY BENEFIT IN CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    YOU CLAIM TO BE RESPONDING WITH FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS BUT LOOKING THROUGH THIS POST... i SEE NO QUESTION MARKS.
    Not all of my requests for information were terminated in a question mark, it is true, but it is also wrong to say that no question marks can be found. For example, see this from post 71:

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    And this is where we get to the supernatural stuff. You use the terms "etheric/astral" -- are you aware that these have no meaningful, natural definition? If you disagree, please provide a link to measurements and a list of physical properties of "etheric/astral" quantities.
    So there's a question -- question mark and all -- and an invitation to provide additional information.

    I DONT THINK THERE IS ANY BENEFIT IN CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION.
    I agree that there is no benefit in continuing. You seem unable or unwilling to process logical questions and also (perhaps therefore) are uninterested in a civil exchange. Done.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    YOU CLAIM TO BE RESPONDING WITH FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS BUT LOOKING THROUGH THIS POST... i SEE NO QUESTION MARKS.
    Not all of my requests for information were terminated in a question mark, it is true, but it is also wrong to say that no question marks can be found. For example, see this from post 71:

    I clearly said there are no question marks in THIS link... ie the link i was responding to...


    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    And this is where we get to the supernatural stuff. You use the terms "etheric/astral" -- are you aware that these have no meaningful, natural definition? If you disagree, please provide a link to measurements and a list of physical properties of "etheric/astral" quantities.
    So there's a question -- question mark and all -- and an invitation to provide additional information.

    I already gave an answer to this question, as well as a link providing the best evidence that I could find for you... you really are quite stupid aren't you!

    I DONT THINK THERE IS ANY BENEFIT IN CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION.
    I agree that there is no benefit in continuing. You seem unable or unwilling to process logical questions and also (perhaps therefore) are uninterested in a civil exchange. Done.
    It seems quite obvious to me that it is you whose logic processes are lagging... and that you are yet again trying to project your insecurity onto me. A civil exchange for me, involves having the respect to look through somebodies comments, agree where necesary and respond maturely. DONE.
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    first paragraph seems to be a pretentious, nonsensical, presumptious rambling.
    You really are far too hard on yourself!
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    first paragraph seems to be a pretentious, nonsensical, presumptious rambling.
    You really are far too hard on yourself!
    Nah not really, it was a fair comment. But it's cool, I was just fighting fire with fire.

    Thanks
     

  82. #81  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Thisd thread is now pointless and has degenerated to a shouting match, so I am locking it.
     

Similar Threads

  1. moment of inertia.
    By Arcane_Mathematician in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 06:06 PM
  2. That Eureka Moment n Me
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 4th, 2008, 05:39 PM
  3. Good Death, Bad Death
    By zinjanthropos in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 4th, 2007, 06:48 AM
  4. happy moment
    By AlexP in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2007, 06:32 PM
  5. The moment (turning effect)
    By almirza in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2005, 12:45 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •