Life After Death [modified]
-
Energy. What animates this dust? How do you explain mind and the art of dreaming? How does the body contain mind? Its separate from brain. How can one perceive oneself in the third person? Where does that separation originate? Is it all contained in the physical? Which network is your hub or switch connected to? On the other front... in evolution, what drives mutation? Or adaptive change? Is it the animal's willpower? "I really need this defense, gee if only I could adapt a chemical reaction that would produce acid when I spit." Viola! Over 100,000 (arbitrary) years acid spitting bug defends itself. Is that directed? Is it accidental? How? My point is that there is so much that we cannot know. There are leaps taken on both sides. I side with evolution personally, but I find that I take quite a bit on faith in that regard. I'm more agnostic than anything. But have studied religions and the history of them from the Sumerian through Egyptian, through Judaism to Christianity, with some Buddhism and Hinduism for good measure. As well I've embraced the scientific. I think there is evidence on both sides to show that there is something there. Not saying the FSM is going to lift me into a elegant afterlife of Pesto Cream Sauce, but energy has to go somewhere. It doesn't die. Consciousness appears to be energy based and not limited to the physical. So I'll take a wait and see approach. Now about our actions here effecting our afterlife? Its a matter of state of mind in my opinion. Our state of mind effects our wellbeing, and I think our mind drives our energy and consciousness. So living a life that is social and positive can only contribute to a mind that has less torment thus freeing it to see the doors that might be open when not inhibited by this animated dust. I think that Heaven and Hell are states of mind regardless of the environment of containment. Physical or metaphysical. So I think its important to find it here and not wait for an afterlife, because you are living it now. The best way for a tadpole to prepare for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole. I'm not going to worry about life as a frog. What happens after I die I'll find out soon enough, or I won't and it won't matter. And no amount of conjecture on the part of fundamentalists can change that truth. Here's an interesting tangent: God the Father. If God is our Father, then why is my Brother talking for him? My physical brother cannot interject into my relationship with my father or my mother. Its who
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And I'm willing to gamble that God is a Buddhist.
:laugh: So, you're willing to bet that God denies that he ... and you ... even exist?
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
-
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole. Seems most people worry about life as a frog and get bitten by things that a tadpole would be better suited to deal with.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole.
That's a very Christian sentiment, actually. And nor is "to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole" at all at odds with preparing for "eternity;" our faithfulness as "tadpoles" is, in fact, the only preparation we can make for being a "frog."
-
I was right with him up to the point where he wrote "There was no externally right or wrong answer." which of course undermines everything else he says and invalidates his entire argument. He's a post modern relativist, i.e. functionally insane by choice and therefore by his own reasoning everything he says is meaniningless outside the context of himself. Very, very sad. :sigh:
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I was right with him up to the point where he wrote "There was no externally right or wrong answer." which of course undermines everything else he says and invalidates his entire argument. He's a post modern relativist, i.e. functionally insane by choice and therefore by his own reasoning everything he says is meaniningless outside the context of himself. Very, very sad. :sigh:
But you're on your own: if for no other reason that I just don't have as much time to spend with the antics of the kiddies of the SandBox as I did before.
-
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off. I'm not driven to act a certain way because I think it will effect my afterlife. In short, I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me that I shouldn't be a dick or not commit murder.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off.
Irrationality (as in, "self contradiction") or hypocrisy? For, after all, here you are trying to tell others what is right and wrong. ANd expecting them to humbly accept your decrees.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And I'm willing to gamble that God is a Buddhist.
:laugh: So, you're willing to bet that God denies that he ... and you ... even exist?
You are free to interpret and put words into my mouth all you want. You are free to twist my meaning into your joke. You are free to insist that your version of reality is the only one. (relativism?) You are free to limit your thoughts to your own plateau of reason. You are free to deny that you don't know it all. You are free to assume that you know it all. You are free to screw yourself. How could GOD be a Christian? Did Jesus die for GOD's sins? That's a joke. In my reasoning God could only be Buddhist as he would be in the eternal now. Heh, he is the GODHEAD. I AM. Stretch your thinking a bit. This is only an opinion and contains nothing regarding self-denial. You, are ill.
I've heard more said about less.
-
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
And you surely must know everything in your short life. I think that we don't know everything. That evolution is a theory. I say its in the lead as theories go. And one I'm prone to accept. But I wonder... that's what my rhetorical question regarding evolution was about. Wonder. I wonder how these mutations occur. They appear to be driven. By need. Isn't that motivation? Why adapt without need? For fun? Now that's interesting territory. I see wonders in nature where mutations occur to respond to environment. Is this accidental? Yet it fits the situation so well. A chameleon adapting to change itself for defense. Is that evolutionary trait developed out of need? If so, then that is definitely motivation. If, motivation doesn't drive it, then what does? Or do you suggest that evolution is truly random? Not driven? And if need doesn't drive it what does? If its random, there would be more mismatches. Lend me your wisdom gained from your many years of experience. Surely you have all the answers. While you are at it, why don't you explain why string theory is the better fit when combined with quantum mechanics for getting closer to a unified field theory? And please do... keep in mind... the term THEORY! :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole.
That's a very Christian sentiment, actually. And nor is "to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole" at all at odds with preparing for "eternity;" our faithfulness as "tadpoles" is, in fact, the only preparation we can make for being a "frog."
I don't have a problem with Christian sentiments. My point is we lose focus when we gear everything around an afterlife. Better to live here and now.
I've heard more said about less.
-
And you surely must know everything in your short life. I think that we don't know everything. That evolution is a theory. I say its in the lead as theories go. And one I'm prone to accept. But I wonder... that's what my rhetorical question regarding evolution was about. Wonder. I wonder how these mutations occur. They appear to be driven. By need. Isn't that motivation? Why adapt without need? For fun? Now that's interesting territory. I see wonders in nature where mutations occur to respond to environment. Is this accidental? Yet it fits the situation so well. A chameleon adapting to change itself for defense. Is that evolutionary trait developed out of need? If so, then that is definitely motivation. If, motivation doesn't drive it, then what does? Or do you suggest that evolution is truly random? Not driven? And if need doesn't drive it what does? If its random, there would be more mismatches. Lend me your wisdom gained from your many years of experience. Surely you have all the answers. While you are at it, why don't you explain why string theory is the better fit when combined with quantum mechanics for getting closer to a unified field theory? And please do... keep in mind... the term THEORY! :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong - Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. - United States National Academy of Sciences Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive. The strong population thus proceeds to take over that environment. But, 'strong' and 'weak' are misleading in this circumstance, because rather it's how well they can survive in their environment. And the reason that one organism may be better suited is because living creatures cannot reproduce perfectly, and there isn't much reason to do so; in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
-
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong - Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. - United States National Academy of Sciences Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive. The strong population thus proceeds to take over that environment. But, 'strong' and 'weak' are misleading in this circumstance, because rather it's how well they can survive in their environment. And the reason that one organism may be better suited is because living creatures cannot reproduce perfectly, and there isn't much reason to do so; in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Hmmm... didn't think my facetious rhetorical question would get answered, but thanks for the pedantic reply.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong -
Not a problem with me. I don't deny the theory of evolution. I also don't assume its complete and absolute. That would require me to "believe". It is still not known. It is still assumed. It cannot be guaranteed with your money back. I can accept a theory without requiring myself to consider it absolutely true. And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive.
Exactly. I never implied "want". I never implied the motivation was personal. Thanks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Accidentally. Not reasoned. How and when did sexual reproduction begin? How was this switch achieved? A mutation? How did it escalate? To be the dominating aspect. My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with. I think that over time they'll fill in. But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed. As our understanding of the world and the science of it around us changes so do the theories we assumed true. Drink some more kool-aid. And again, I subscribe to evolution as a viable explanation for our worlds development of life. But nothing is absolute.
I've heard more said about less.
-
And you surely must know everything in your short life. I think that we don't know everything. That evolution is a theory. I say its in the lead as theories go. And one I'm prone to accept. But I wonder... that's what my rhetorical question regarding evolution was about. Wonder. I wonder how these mutations occur. They appear to be driven. By need. Isn't that motivation? Why adapt without need? For fun? Now that's interesting territory. I see wonders in nature where mutations occur to respond to environment. Is this accidental? Yet it fits the situation so well. A chameleon adapting to change itself for defense. Is that evolutionary trait developed out of need? If so, then that is definitely motivation. If, motivation doesn't drive it, then what does? Or do you suggest that evolution is truly random? Not driven? And if need doesn't drive it what does? If its random, there would be more mismatches. Lend me your wisdom gained from your many years of experience. Surely you have all the answers. While you are at it, why don't you explain why string theory is the better fit when combined with quantum mechanics for getting closer to a unified field theory? And please do... keep in mind... the term THEORY! :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
THEORY!
Actually, evolution is a FACT. Darwin's THEORY is his attempt to explain the mechanism by which the OBSERVED FACT of evolution operates. Newton's and later Einstein's THEORIES of gravity dont' make gravity any less of a FACT. If you don't believe it, I suggest you leap out the window of a tall building and we can discuss your results.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
THEORY!
Actually, evolution is a FACT. Darwin's THEORY is his attempt to explain the mechanism by which the OBSERVED FACT of evolution operates. Newton's and later Einstein's THEORIES of gravity dont' make gravity any less of a FACT. If you don't believe it, I suggest you leap out the window of a tall building and we can discuss your results.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you don't believe it, I suggest you leap out the window of a tall building and we can discuss your results.
Aren't you hostile. As I've said already, in case your reading comprehension skills are suffering, I agree with the theory of evolution. I would however, question your evolution.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Hmmm... didn't think my facetious rhetorical question would get answered, but thanks for the pedantic reply.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong -
Not a problem with me. I don't deny the theory of evolution. I also don't assume its complete and absolute. That would require me to "believe". It is still not known. It is still assumed. It cannot be guaranteed with your money back. I can accept a theory without requiring myself to consider it absolutely true. And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive.
Exactly. I never implied "want". I never implied the motivation was personal. Thanks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Accidentally. Not reasoned. How and when did sexual reproduction begin? How was this switch achieved? A mutation? How did it escalate? To be the dominating aspect. My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with. I think that over time they'll fill in. But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed. As our understanding of the world and the science of it around us changes so do the theories we assumed true. Drink some more kool-aid. And again, I subscribe to evolution as a viable explanation for our worlds development of life. But nothing is absolute.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong.
Yes it is.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with.
How do you know it's incomplete? What gaps?
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed.
The only people who assume that are religious people.
-
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Considering how well (and how frequently) you (yes, you!) "misunderstand" direct statements I've made on relatively simple topics, no one should put much stock in your insinuation. Besides which, you (yes, you!) don't understand "evolution." Hell, you don't even know what you mean by the term most of the time when you use it.
-
You are free to interpret and put words into my mouth all you want. You are free to twist my meaning into your joke. You are free to insist that your version of reality is the only one. (relativism?) You are free to limit your thoughts to your own plateau of reason. You are free to deny that you don't know it all. You are free to assume that you know it all. You are free to screw yourself. How could GOD be a Christian? Did Jesus die for GOD's sins? That's a joke. In my reasoning God could only be Buddhist as he would be in the eternal now. Heh, he is the GODHEAD. I AM. Stretch your thinking a bit. This is only an opinion and contains nothing regarding self-denial. You, are ill.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
You are free to screw yourself. ... You, are ill.
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.) The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all. If God were indeed a Buddhist, he must perforce deny that you exist and that he exists.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Considering how well (and how frequently) you (yes, you!) "misunderstand" direct statements I've made on relatively simple topics, no one should put much stock in your insinuation. Besides which, you (yes, you!) don't understand "evolution." Hell, you don't even know what you mean by the term most of the time when you use it.
I'd really enjoy discussing evolution with someone, but unfortunately you're a moron.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong.
Yes it is.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with.
How do you know it's incomplete? What gaps?
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed.
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
shiftedbitmonkey wrote: And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Yes it is.
Profound. You like to argue I think.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
Exactly my point. You have to keep an open mind that you might not have figured it all out so you are available when new data arrives. That is my entire point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Bullpucky. When I say its unscientific to assume the case is closed, I don't mean evolution might be proven false. I'm not religious. Get off that train of thought. You are pigeon holed by your insistence that any resistance to established thought is from a religious perspective. Mine is that new data is constantly available as our understanding changes. Case in point: Today in the lounge.[^] I'm not disputing evolution. I'm stating that we are better served by always seeking new data that might reveal more than we understood. Newton was trumped by Einstein in some ways, Einstein is trumped by Hawkins in some ways. All three of them have been considered crazy in their day. Enjoy that thought.
I've heard more said about less.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
You are free to screw yourself. ... You, are ill.
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.) The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all. If God were indeed a Buddhist, he must perforce deny that you exist and that he exists.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.)
Oooh, you are so eloquent. Look at that craftily worded beatdown. Is that all you are capable of when confronted with opposition? Name calling? How .... kindergarten.
Ilíon wrote:
The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all.
Bullshite. You are confusing the ego with self. Also, take a look at Shinto Buddhism. They have the God concept integrated. The first principle of Buddhism is enlightenment. Good luck with your attitude.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
shiftedbitmonkey wrote: And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Yes it is.
Profound. You like to argue I think.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
Exactly my point. You have to keep an open mind that you might not have figured it all out so you are available when new data arrives. That is my entire point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Bullpucky. When I say its unscientific to assume the case is closed, I don't mean evolution might be proven false. I'm not religious. Get off that train of thought. You are pigeon holed by your insistence that any resistance to established thought is from a religious perspective. Mine is that new data is constantly available as our understanding changes. Case in point: Today in the lounge.[^] I'm not disputing evolution. I'm stating that we are better served by always seeking new data that might reveal more than we understood. Newton was trumped by Einstein in some ways, Einstein is trumped by Hawkins in some ways. All three of them have been considered crazy in their day. Enjoy that thought.
I've heard more said about less.
What are we even arguing about? :confused:
-
What are we even arguing about? :confused:
Good question... no worries. Still getting used to the general attitude of the soapbox. Cheers: :beer:
I've heard more said about less.