Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: floo on November 15, 2017, 11:51:05 AM
-
deleted
-
Absolutely true. Sriram has shown us a video of a dead woman's soul leaving her body.
-
Absolutely true. Sriram has shown us a video of a dead woman's soul leaving her body.
:D
-
You don't have to believe in God to believe in life after death - the two beliefs are logically independent. There might be a life after death which is simply part of the way the universe happens to be. One can also believe in God without believing in life after death: it appears that that was what the ancient Hebrews believed. They thought your reward or punishment came in this life.
-
You don't have to believe in God to believe in life after death - the two beliefs are logically independent. There might be a life after death which is simply part of the way the universe happens to be. One can also believe in God without believing in life after death: it appears that that was what the ancient Hebrews believed. They thought your reward or punishment came in this life.
That is why I put this thread for general, not religious discussion.
-
That is why I put this tread for general, not religious discussion.
Quite. I was simply posting a thought on the topic, which is what you asked for.
-
Is there life after death?
Going by the evidence we have for any form of life after death it's unlikely, but there if it keeps you happy to think we do?
ippy
-
Is there life after death?
When the plane runs out of fuel and comes crashing down, will it take off and start flying again ? Doubt it.
Maybe in the future we will be able to upload our minds to the Cloud, but that's a long way off, and that 'life' would be unrecognisable.
-
Maybe in the future we will be able to upload our minds to the Cloud
Spot the one who watched Transcendence the other night ;)
-
Nah, not guilty mate :D
-
'Twas but a thought, since basically that's the plot of the film.
Worth seeing ... albeit once.
-
Is there life after death?
Going by the evidence we have for any form of life after death it's unlikely, but there if it keeps you happy to think we do?
ippy
Can you prove you're alive now & then say what has 'gone' when we 'die'???
-
Is there life after death?
When the plane runs out of fuel and comes crashing down, will it take off and start flying again ? Doubt it.
Maybe in the future we will be able to upload our minds to the Cloud, but that's a long way off, and that 'life' would be unrecognisable.
The plane that comes crashing down cannot fly again by itself....but the pilot who ejects can fly again in another plane! The spirit is the pilot, not the plane.
-
Absolutely true. Sriram has shown us a video of a dead woman's soul leaving her body.
HH
Not to put too fine a point on it....but Floo can show you more pictures of ghosts that I possibly can!!
-
Some people hope life goes on after death so they can meet up with their loved ones. Whilst in theory that might be something worth hoping for, it is possible in any future existence we are nothing like the people we are in this life, we might not even be human. Just a thought.
What are the thoughts of others on this topic?
Of course, Life goes on after death....even for those who think otherwise!!
We get reincarnated into other bodies and develop further...and when we are sufficiently developed, we become Free and stop reincarnating. That is real Freedom.....freedom from the sense of individuality that makes us self obsessed.
The entire Hindu, Jain and Buddhist philosophies are centered around this concept.
What evidence do we have? There are thousands of NDE's that indicate a life after death. Ian Stevenson has done significant research on reincarnation and found some evidence.
It also makes more sense than the 'food for bacteria' theory.....and ties in with our general tendency to become more and more loving, selfless and universal.
-
The plane that comes crashing down cannot fly again by itself....but the pilot who ejects can fly again in another plane! The spirit is the pilot, not the plane.
Cars and planes are not nearly so complex as persons, but they are becoming more sophisticated. Self driving cars and self flying planes are on the route to becoming more like us; in concept, a person is like a virtual driver or pilot created by an autonomous vehicle as a sophisticated form of control. This is what the evidence is telling us. The idea that living things are driven by something separate has no basis in evidence or reason. Does a carrot grow because at some point it is invaded by a carrot spirit which causes it to grow and when the carrot dies are we to imagine that the carrot spirit runs off to find another baby carrot to invade ?
-
Cars and planes are not nearly so complex as persons, but they are becoming more sophisticated. Self driving cars and self flying planes are on the route to becoming more like us; in concept, a person is like a virtual driver or pilot created by an autonomous vehicle as a sophisticated form of control. This is what the evidence is telling us. The idea that living things are driven by something separate has no basis in evidence or reason. Does a carrot grow because at some point it is invaded by a carrot spirit which causes it to grow and when the carrot dies are we to imagine that the carrot spirit runs off to find another baby carrot to invade ?
As discussed earlier...self driving cars only tell us that we can drive cars remotely, not that they don't need any driver. Self driven cars are driven by the software and hardware that we humans have developed, just like other robots. So...nothing new there.
As I have said earlier, if a self driven car crashes up we will not arrest the car. We will only pull up the software and GPS guys. In other words, the Consciousness is working from somewhere else and needs to take responsibility for the car.
On the second point...Life energy is different from Consciousness. Consciousness (spirit) is said to be independent of the body/brain. But Life is an energy called Prana (or Chi for those who prefer Chinese) which enters something and gives it life. If the prana leaves the object is dead.
The difference between Consciousness and Life is the difference between the User of a computer and the electricity that powers the computer. There are however different levels of consciousness.
So a carrot plant has prana (or electricity) that gives it life. ..but its level of consciousness is very low. It does not have an individual spirit. Prana exists everywhere all around us and can enter any thing that it finds appropriate. It is a naturally existing 'life energy'. Consciousness is more complex.
-
As discussed earlier...self driving cars only tell us that we can drive cars remotely, not that they don't need any driver. Self driven cars are driven by the software and hardware that we humans have developed, just like other robots. So...nothing new there.
As I have said earlier, if a self driven car crashes up we will not arrest the car. We will only pull up the software and GPS guys. In other words, the Consciousness is working from somewhere else and needs to take responsibility for the car.
On the second point...Life energy is different from Consciousness. Consciousness (spirit) is said to be independent of the body/brain. But Life is an energy called Prana (or Chi for those who prefer Chinese) which enters something and gives it life. If the prana leaves the object is dead.
The difference between Consciousness and Life is the difference between the User of a computer and the electricity that powers the computer. There are however different levels of consciousness.
So a carrot plant has prana (or electricity) that gives it life. ..but its level of consciousness is very low. It does not have an individual spirit. Prana exists everywhere all around us and can enter any thing that it finds appropriate. It is a naturally existing 'life energy'. Consciousness is more complex.
If magic then anything.
-
Of course, Life goes on after death....even for those who think otherwise!!
The Woomeister General has spoken.
-
Can you prove you're alive now & then say what has 'gone' when we 'die'???
I think it's useful to consider the difference between being asleep and being under general anaesthetic (or in a coma). When we are asleep, there is a person still there, only just. We can say this because we have dreams, requiring a subject of experience; also when we wake we have a slight sense of time having passed. Not so under general, we wake with no feeling of time having elapsed. Those nasty anaesthetists kill 'people' for a living, and then bring them back to life. So in this limited sense, there is life after death.
-
HH
Not to put too fine a point on it....but Floo can show you more pictures of ghosts that I possibly can!!
For which I have claimed there is no doubt a natural explanation.
-
On the second point...Life energy is different from Consciousness. Consciousness (spirit) is said to be independent of the body/brain. But Life is an energy called Prana (or Chi for those who prefer Chinese) which enters something and gives it life. If the prana leaves the object is dead.
The difference between Consciousness and Life is the difference between the User of a computer and the electricity that powers the computer. There are however different levels of consciousness.
So a carrot plant has prana (or electricity) that gives it life. ..but its level of consciousness is very low. It does not have an individual spirit. Prana exists everywhere all around us and can enter any thing that it finds appropriate. It is a naturally existing 'life energy'. Consciousness is more complex.
And your evidence for all this is.... missing.
-
HH
Not to put too fine a point on it....but Floo can show you more pictures of ghosts that I possibly can!!
good one ;D ;D ;D
-
Of course, Life goes on after death....even for those who think otherwise!!
We get reincarnated into other bodies and develop further...and when we are sufficiently developed, we become Free and stop reincarnating. That is real Freedom.....freedom from the sense of individuality that makes us self obsessed.
The entire Hindu, Jain and Buddhist philosophies are centered around this concept.
What evidence do we have? There are thousands of NDE's that indicate a life after death. Ian Stevenson has done significant research on reincarnation and found some evidence.
It also makes more sense than the 'food for bacteria' theory.....and ties in with our general tendency to become more and more loving, selfless and universal.
no wonder the general population are backward toothless morons if this is what they believe , there's no reason for them to be self motivated .
Your understanding of NDEs is indicative of wishful thinking ,nothing else
-
Sriram Ji
Are you saying ALL spirits are born imperfect & have to be 'educated' & 'purified' before they can move on?
Nick
-
As discussed earlier...self driving cars only tell us that we can drive cars remotely, not that they don't need any driver. Self driven cars are driven by the software and hardware that we humans have developed, just like other robots. So...nothing new there.
The software that controls a self-driven car is broadly analogous to the brain that controls a complex biological organism. Brains have evolved naturally, whereas self-drive software is a product of human intelligent design. The fact that humans and gazelles and parrots can move and react so much more finesse and judgment than our clumsy self drive efforts exemplifies Orgel's Second Rule - evolution is smarter than you are.
-
On the second point...Life energy is different from Consciousness. Consciousness (spirit) is said to be independent of the body/brain. But Life is an energy called Prana (or Chi for those who prefer Chinese) which enters something and gives it life. If the prana leaves the object is dead.
The difference between Consciousness and Life is the difference between the User of a computer and the electricity that powers the computer. There are however different levels of consciousness.
So a carrot plant has prana (or electricity) that gives it life. ..but its level of consciousness is very low. It does not have an individual spirit. Prana exists everywhere all around us and can enter any thing that it finds appropriate. It is a naturally existing 'life energy'. Consciousness is more complex.
All very nice, but lacking evidence. If Prana is so ubiquitous, how come we haven't identified it and measured it already ? What stops Prana from entering an iceberg or a skyscraper or a pair of nail clippers ?
-
no wonder the general population are backward toothless morons if this is what they believe , there's no reason for them to be self motivated .
Your understanding of NDEs is indicative of wishful thinking ,nothing else
Walter,
The economic status of a nation or community cannot decide the validity of their spiritual philosophy. Most economically developed nations were and are Christian nations. That does not mean Christian beliefs are more valid than others.
Most rich nations became rich only by invading and colonizing other nations. This shifted the economic balance. Does not make the invaders philosophy more valid than that of those they invaded.
-
The software that controls a self-driven car is broadly analogous to the brain that controls a complex biological organism. Brains have evolved naturally, whereas self-drive software is a product of human intelligent design. The fact that humans and gazelles and parrots can move and react so much more finesse and judgment than our clumsy self drive efforts exemplifies Orgel's Second Rule - evolution is smarter than you are.
Yes...as you say, it is smart. I agree. Evolution is regulated by an inherent Intelligence....that is why.
PS: Sorry. Suitably corrected the above sentence...
-
That's not what he said ::)
-
I am not totally convinced that there is life before death . . .
-
All very nice, but lacking evidence. If Prana is so ubiquitous, how come we haven't identified it and measured it already ? What stops Prana from entering an iceberg or a skyscraper or a pair of nail clippers ?
Electrons are present everywhere but only under certain circumstances do they become electricity. When they do they power everything from small devices to large machines.
Prana is similar. It is present everywhere, even in inanimate objects but only under certain circumstances does it activate the object. Everything from the first DNA replication to our lives...everything is driven by Prana.
Why can't we find it? Well...why can't we find Dark Matter even though it is five times as abundant as normal matter?! Why can't we find Dark Energy even though it constitutes 70% of the universe?
-
. Ian Stevenson has done significant research on reincarnation and found some evidence.
He also found zero evidence for Karma.
Was his research flawed?
-
Evolution is regulated by an inherent Intelligence....
Evidence missing (again).
Prana is similar. It is present everywhere, even in inanimate objects but only under certain circumstances does it activate the object. Everything from the first DNA replication to our lives...everything is driven by Prana.
Why can't we find it? Well...why can't we find Dark Matter even though it is five times as abundant as normal matter?! Why can't we find Dark Energy even though it constitutes 70% of the universe?
We have 'found' dark energy and dark matter - they are names for observed effects.
So the question remains, if this Prana malarkey is 'driving' everything, why is there zero evidence for it?
-
Evidence missing (again).
We have 'found' dark energy and dark matter - they are names for observed effects.
So the question remains, if this Prana malarkey is 'driving' everything, why is there zero evidence for it?
Jim Alkalili recently talked about entropy being the universal driver.
The difficulty there is how does something start with maximum order and why the universe runs like a steam engine.
-
Yes...as you say, it is smart. I agree. Evolution is regulated by an inherent Intelligence....that is why.
Assertion without evidence.
Intelligence is a product of evolution, as is photosynthesis, as is mind, as is consciousness. if evolution were a product of intelligence, then you end up with a circular infinite regress.
-
Why can't we find it? Well...why can't we find Dark Matter even though it is five times as abundant as normal matter?! Why can't we find Dark Energy even though it constitutes 70% of the universe?
We have found Dark Matter according to two teams last month - inter-galactic filaments of baryons :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/)
Nobody has found Prana though; why ? because nobody is looking for it; why is nobody looking for it ? because it is a spurious, superfluous concept.
-
We have found Dark Matter according to two teams last month - inter-galactic filaments of baryons :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/)
Nobody has found Prana though; why ? because nobody is looking for it; why is nobody looking for it ? because it is a spurious, superfluous concept.
I'm sorry but in your last paragraph you are probably discounting thousands of people on the subcontinent who are trying to track it down theoretically at least.
I have to take issue with imho the blatant eurocentrism of your statement.
-
The difficulty there is how does something start with maximum order and why the universe runs like a steam engine.
First you need to be careful about the term 'order' to describe entropy - it works reasonably well in everyday circumstances (and for steam engines) but it's actually to do with volumes in phase space and, on the scale of the universe, gravity has a significant effect. The maximum entropy for any mass is when it's in a black hole. The entropy of the early universe was indeed very low, despite being uniform and close to thermal equilibrium (at least at the time of decoupling, when the microwave background was produced).
-
Electrons are present everywhere but only under certain circumstances do they become electricity. When they do they power everything from small devices to large machines.
Prana is similar. It is present everywhere, even in inanimate objects but only under certain circumstances does it activate the object. Everything from the first DNA replication to our lives...everything is driven by Prana.
Why can't we find it? Well...why can't we find Dark Matter even though it is five times as abundant as normal matter?! Why can't we find Dark Energy even though it constitutes 70% of the universe?
Scientists tell us they have found dark matter by the use of mathematics and as I understand we're now looking for ways to observe its behaviour, something we haven't managed to do yet, none the less there is evidence that dark matter exists, what evidence do you have for the existence of this, wooish sounding to me, 'Prana' you're going on about Sriram?
Regards ippy
-
Electrons are present everywhere but only under certain circumstances do they become electricity. When they do they power everything from small devices to large machines.
Prana is similar. It is present everywhere, even in inanimate objects but only under certain circumstances does it activate the object. Everything from the first DNA replication to our lives...everything is driven by Prana.
Why can't we find it? Well...why can't we find Dark Matter even though it is five times as abundant as normal matter?! Why can't we find Dark Energy even though it constitutes 70% of the universe?
Sriram,
you sound like a nice bloke but don't embarrass your self with this absolute bollocks.
Learn some proper science then you can reject this nonsense and free your mind
-
When we are asleep, there is a person still there, only just.
Is there?
Sleep proceeds in stages of light sleep and deep sleep. Dreaming doesn't happen during deep sleep apparently (assuming that REM always happens when we dream). Perhaps the person does die during deep sleep and is later "rebooted".
-
Sriram,
you sound like a nice bloke but don't embarrass your self with this absolute bollocks.
Learn some proper science then you can reject this nonsense and free your mind
Learn some proper science. That's the motto of Caltech isn't it?
And apparently Harvard's is "Get some knowledge up your brain".
-
Learn some proper science. That's the motto of Caltech isn't it?
And apparently Harvard's is "Get some knowledge up your brain".
er, yeah. Thanks for that ::)
-
Learn some proper science. That's the motto of Caltech isn't it?
And apparently Harvard's is "Get some knowledge up your brain".
Some don't even have the beginnings of understanding secularism, best thing for you would be to stick with your precious woo.
Regards ippy
-
Some don't even have the beginnings of understanding secularism, best thing for you would be to stick with your precious woo.
Regards ippy
I don't know what you are talking about.
-
Of course, Life goes on after death....even for those who think otherwise!!
We get reincarnated into other bodies and develop further...and when we are sufficiently developed, we become Free and stop reincarnating. That is real Freedom.....freedom from the sense of individuality that makes us self obsessed.
The entire Hindu, Jain and Buddhist philosophies are centered around this concept.
What evidence do we have? There are thousands of NDE's that indicate a life after death. Ian Stevenson has done significant research on reincarnation and found some evidence.
It also makes more sense than the 'food for bacteria' theory.....and ties in with our general tendency to become more and more loving, selfless and universal.
Near-death experiences prove nothing, because they are near-death experiences. If the person had actually died, they wouldn't be around to talk about it. I know we say things like "she died three times on the operating table", but that's loose language, meaning that her heart stopped three times, which used to be the definition of death, but is no longer adequate, now that hearts can be re-started.
-
Near-death experiences prove nothing, because they are near-death experiences. If the person had actually died, they wouldn't be around to talk about it. I know we say things like "she died three times on the operating table", but that's loose language, meaning that her heart stopped three times, which used to be the definition of death, but is no longer adequate, now that hearts can be re-started.
For once I agree with you.
-
For once I agree with you.
:o ;D
-
For once I agree with you.
Best for everyone if you stop at once though eh?
Otherwise people might talk! ;) ;)
-
Best for everyone if you stop at once though eh?
Otherwise people might talk! ;) ;)
Are you jealous? ;D
-
Are you jealous? ;D
You got it. I want you all for myself...... ;) ;) :D
-
You got it. I want you all for myself...... ;) ;) :D
HELP, I am on the next spaceship to Mars to settle on my acre plot of land I own there! ;D
-
For once I agree with you.
and me , wow!
-
I don't know what you are talking about.
That's exactly it!
Regards ippy
-
Can you prove you're alive now & then say what has 'gone' when we 'die'???
Is a sound a sound if there's no one there to hear it, can't speak for anything after death, mind no one I know of has given an opinion on what it's like to be dead.
Regards ippy
-
HELP, I am on the next spaceship to Mars to settle on my acre plot of land I own there! ;D
If it is next to my acre then we could have a good time!
-
Assertion without evidence.
Intelligence is a product of evolution, as is photosynthesis, as is mind, as is consciousness. if evolution were a product of intelligence, then you end up with a circular infinite regress.
How can something be 'smart' without being intelligent.
You are assuming that Intelligence and mind are products of evolution. At one level they may be, but at another level they may be responsible for evolution. If cars, planes, computers can evolve because of human Intelligence, why can't organisms evolve because of a Higher Intelligence?
-
We have found Dark Matter according to two teams last month - inter-galactic filaments of baryons :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/)
Nobody has found Prana though; why ? because nobody is looking for it; why is nobody looking for it ? because it is a spurious, superfluous concept.
'Nobody is looking for it'....is right. And that is perhaps the problem. Such things are automatically given the 'supernatural' label and relegated to the 'No No' box.
-
If it is next to my acre then we could have a good time!
Mine is the other side of the planet! ;D
-
Mine is the other side of the planet! ;D
The other side of planet away from my acre do you mean?
-
'Nobody is looking for it'....is right. And that is perhaps the problem. Such things are automatically given the 'supernatural' label and relegated to the 'No No' box.
my ex had that printed on the front of her knickers!
-
my ex had that printed on the front of her knickers!
"Nobody is looking for it"
Or
"No No Box"?
:-\
-
The other side of planet away from my acre do you mean?
Well away, but if you decide to come visiting it is surrounded by death rays to ward off unwanted visitors, so be warned. ;D
-
Well away, but if you decide to come visiting it is surrounded by death rays to ward off unwanted visitors, so be warned. ;D
I just want to know how you came by the location of my acre on Mars. Are you stalking me? :o
-
"Nobody is looking for it"
Or
"No No Box"?
:-\
well , I was looking for it only to find the latter
-
How can something be 'smart' without being intelligent.
"Evolution is smarter than you" is not meant literally. It's just a snappy way of expressing Orgel's profound insight that blind trial and error plus selection produces superior results over conscious, deliberate, intelligent design
-
You are assuming that Intelligence and mind are products of evolution. At one level they may be, but at another level they may be responsible for evolution. If cars, planes, computers can evolve because of human Intelligence, why can't organisms evolve because of a Higher Intelligence?
See previous post. Intelligence is inferior as a design mechanism to blind trial and error plus selection.
Intelligence as a first cause fails also because intelligence is derivative and implies or requires a broader context. Contextless intelligence is meaningless.
-
"Evolution is smarter than you" is not meant literally. It's just a snappy way of expressing Orgel's profound insight that blind trial and error plus selection produces superior results over conscious, deliberate, intelligent design
Are think that is only the case in fairly narrowly focused areas. Nobody would look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve and claim an intelligent designer couldn't do better.
-
Are think that is only the case in fairly narrowly focused areas. Nobody would look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve and claim an intelligent designer couldn't do better.
don't start with your bloody facts now !
-
Are think that is only the case in fairly narrowly focused areas. Nobody would look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve and claim an intelligent designer couldn't do better.
Or the prostate gland. Or ... well; it's a long list.
-
Or the prostate gland. Or ... well; it's a long list.
yeah and our names are on it !
-
An intelligent designer that imagined a birth process that can result in four degree perineal tearing would have to be a right bastard.
-
Ouch!
-
Ouch!
Not my personal experience. Had mine progressed as 'designed' my kids wouldn't have made it through childbirth and I may well not have done either. Luckily medicine has designed c-sections.
-
Not my personal experience. Had mine progressed as 'designed' my kids wouldn't have made it through childbirth and I may well not have done either. Luckily medicine has designed c-sections.
... and now the kids always get out of the car through the sun roof.
Look; with gags this old if I don't give them an airing now and again nobody will.
-
Not my personal experience. Had mine progressed as 'designed' my kids wouldn't have made it through childbirth and I may well not have done either. Luckily medicine has designed c-sections.
I'm glad.
-
... and now the kids always get out of the car through the sun roof.
Look; with gags this old if I don't give them an airing now and again nobody will.
You needn’t have bothered.
-
I'm glad.
Thank you. So am I.
-
An intelligent designer that imagined a birth process that can result in four degree perineal tearing would have to be a right bastard.
dont you mean c**t😂😂😂
-
No, look it up in the dictionary for goodness sake. You have a perineum too.
The thought of having such a bad tear is wince-inducing but, thankfully, Rhi didn't.
-
No, look it up in the dictionary for goodness sake. You have a perineum too.
The thought of having such a bad tear is wince-inducing but, thankfully, Rhi didn't.
yes I know ,I keep mine in the greenhouse though
-
You don't have to believe in God to believe in life after death - the two beliefs are logically independent. There might be a life after death which is simply part of the way the universe happens to be. One can also believe in God without believing in life after death: it appears that that was what the ancient Hebrews believed. They thought your reward or punishment came in this life.
Not sure that is true... since some did not believe in resurrection life after death and some did.
Sadducee and Pharisee held different beliefs but all Hebrews knew/believed the Messiah was to bring Gods final truth.
Interesting you believe the above.
-
"Evolution is smarter than you" is not meant literally. It's just a snappy way of expressing Orgel's profound insight that blind trial and error plus selection produces superior results over conscious, deliberate, intelligent design
torridon,
I don't think you understand my point. I was not talking about a God who actually sits down at a drawing board and designs the world.
Humans are intelligent...but even we cannot design any product perfectly all at one time. All our inventions evolve and develop over a period of time. And there is no perfect stage at all. It is a continuous process of development and change to suit different conditions.
There is a 'Selection' happening to these inventions also. They get modified and tailored to suit the terrain, environmental conditions and specific requirements.
Our breeding of animals and plants has a 'Selection' to suit specific requirements and environments. 'Artificial Selection' as Darwin called it.
However, all this 'Selection' will not happen without human intelligence and intervention! Products do not evolve and develop to suit specific conditions all by themselves. It is human Intelligence that makes this possible. Likewise with specialized hybrid animals and plants.
Similarly, what we call 'Natural Selection' has to have some kind of intervention to make all those 'Emergent Properties' possible. This is what I mean by Intelligence. It is inherent in Nature.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Check out my new thread on 'Intelligence in Evolution'.
-
Are think that is only the case in fairly narrowly focused areas. Nobody would look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve and claim an intelligent designer couldn't do better.
The intelligence of an intelligent designer is itself a product of blind trial and error, and so is ultimately bounded by that. This is the insight that we have adopted in machine learning, and why programmers will eventually become redundant - even the smartest programmers are outsmarted by simple blind evolutionary techniques in the long run.
-
torridon,
I don't think you understand my point. I was not talking about a God who actually sits down at a drawing board and designs the world.
Humans are intelligent...but even we cannot design any product perfectly all at one time. All our inventions evolve and develop over a period of time. And there is no perfect stage at all. It is a continuous process of development and change to suit different conditions.
There is a 'Selection' happening to these inventions also. They get modified and tailored to suit the terrain, environmental conditions and specific requirements.
Our breeding of animals and plants has a 'Selection' to suit specific requirements and environments. 'Artificial Selection' as Darwin called it.
However, all this 'Selection' will not happen without human intelligence and intervention! Products do not evolve and develop to suit specific conditions all by themselves. It is human Intelligence that makes this possible. Likewise with specialized hybrid animals and plants.
Similarly, what we call 'Natural Selection' has to have some kind of intervention to make all those 'Emergent Properties' possible. This is what I mean by Intelligence. It is inherent in Nature.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Check out my new thread on 'Intelligence in Evolution'.
I don't think it right to characterise natural selection as 'intelligent'. Artificial selection might be intelligent, but we cannot infer natural selection likewise. Calling it 'selection' in itself is problematic, it is an anthropologically loaded term, it suggests a selector. Natural selection is really an inevitability, not a manifestation of some sort of deliberate choice.
-
"Evolution is smarter than you" is not meant literally. It's just a snappy way of expressing Orgel's profound insight that blind trial and error plus selection produces superior results over conscious, deliberate, intelligent design
May I counsel less snap?
-
Similarly, what we call 'Natural Selection' has to have some kind of intervention to make all those 'Emergent Properties' possible. This is what I mean by Intelligence. It is inherent in Nature.
No it doesn't and no it isn't. Your problem (that has been shown time and time again on this board) is that you don't understand natural selection (despite it being one of the simplest theories in modern science).
-
If life after death exists then it has to be a natural process, not a supernatural one, surely?
Not that I think it does, I just don't get why if it did it has to be the preserve of God to decide how it works.
-
Would God actually BE God if It just sat back & things happened without any initial processes FROM It?
IT wouldn't be God if ALL things didn't come from It, no?
-
Would God actually BE God if It just sat back & things happened without any initial processes FROM It?
IT wouldn't be God if ALL things didn't come from It, no?
Depends on how you define 'god'. Does this thing called 'god' need to have a mind, a will, a personhood?
-
Depends on how you define 'god'. Does this thing called 'god' need to have a mind, a will, a personhood?
Yes. Any attempt to strip these away is linguistic piracy or imperialism.
-
Depends on how you define 'god'. Does this thing called 'god' need to have a mind, a will, a personhood?
See what you mean & kinda agree !!! One may ask where does the 'sense' of life come from then?
-
Yes. Any attempt to strip these away is linguistic piracy or imperialism.
You seem to treat words as if they have some form of inherent meaning - and then denounce anyone who questions this as somehow being imperialist. That's a black hole of irony you have created.
-
Yes. Any attempt to strip these away is linguistic piracy or imperialism.
I wonder if you really have much understanding of the words you post. Maybe you come across a word or expression and think, 'I like that one I will incorporate it in my posts'. ::)
-
Yes. Any attempt to strip these away is linguistic piracy or imperialism.
No, that is you imposing your view of god on me. There's a word for that...
-
torridon,
I don't think you understand my point. I was not talking about a God who actually sits down at a drawing board and designs the world.
Humans are intelligent...but even we cannot design any product perfectly all at one time. All our inventions evolve and develop over a period of time. And there is no perfect stage at all. It is a continuous process of development and change to suit different conditions.
There is a 'Selection' happening to these inventions also. They get modified and tailored to suit the terrain, environmental conditions and specific requirements.
Our breeding of animals and plants has a 'Selection' to suit specific requirements and environments. 'Artificial Selection' as Darwin called it.
However, all this 'Selection' will not happen without human intelligence and intervention! Products do not evolve and develop to suit specific conditions all by themselves. It is human Intelligence that makes this possible. Likewise with specialized hybrid animals and plants.
Similarly, what we call 'Natural Selection' has to have some kind of intervention to make all those 'Emergent Properties' possible. This is what I mean by Intelligence. It is inherent in Nature.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Check out my new thread on 'Intelligence in Evolution'.
You obviously don't or are unable to understand how evolution works Sriram.
Regards ippy
-
Similarly, what we call 'Natural Selection' has to have some kind of intervention to make all those 'Emergent Properties' possible.
There is no intervention.
-
You seem to treat words as if they have some form of inherent meaning - and then denounce anyone who questions this as somehow being imperialist. That's a black hole of irony you have created.
Are you arguing that words do not have meaning?
Are you not aware of the dangers of calling four, five?
Have you not read any Orwell?
-
No, that is you imposing your view of god on me. There's a word for that...
I can't stop your intellectual piracy. But there already is a word for an unconscious impersonal universal force and that is nature. To steal the word for the opposite of the consciousness and personality of God has been a prelude to declaring that God no longer refers to the conscious and personal. THAT is intellectual totalitarianism.
Word sharing of this type makes a mockery of having a vocabulary.
-
Are you arguing that words do not have meaning?
Are you not aware of the dangers of calling four, five?
Have you not read any Orwell?
Intrinsic objective meaning - yes I am arguing that they don't. Subjective meanings that need to be agreed on - no that's fine.
-
I can't stop your intellectual piracy. But there already is a word for an unconscious impersonal universal force and that is nature. To steal the word for the opposite of the consciousness and personality of God has been a prelude to declaring that God no longer refers to the conscious and personal. THAT is intellectual totalitarianism.
Word sharing of this type makes a mockery of having a vocabulary.
We're back at you denouncing someone for not agreeing with your use of a word, and that only your position is correct, and that in that challenge they are being totalitarian. Don't you even glimpse that not only is there an elephant of irony in the room but that the elephant, the room, the world and the universe are constructed entirely of irony?
-
"A word means exactly what I say it means". Humpty Dumpty.
I thought that pantheists do say that nature or the universe is god. The idea of an impersonal god is quite common around the world.
-
I don't think it right to characterise natural selection as 'intelligent'. Artificial selection might be intelligent, but we cannot infer natural selection likewise. Calling it 'selection' in itself is problematic, it is an anthropologically loaded term, it suggests a selector. Natural selection is really an inevitability, not a manifestation of some sort of deliberate choice.
torridon,
Natural Selection was conceived by Darwin only as a natural process similar to Artificial Selection. He was inspired by AS to think of NS. So...if one is intelligent there is no reason why the other cannot be. Being a believer earlier and later an agnostic.... I don't think Darwin thought of Evolution as some mindless process.
I know many of you cannot think of Evolution being Intelligent. That is because you are schooled in the old school of science. That Evolution can be Intelligent, is being considered seriously by scientists, as I have indicated in the other thread.
Let us discuss there.
-
"A word means exactly what I say it means". Humpty Dumpty.
I thought that pantheists do say that nature or the universe is god. The idea of an impersonal god is quite common around the world.
If the universe is God and the universe contains the personal.....How can god not be personal
-
If the universe is God and the universe contains the personal.....How can god not be personal
Because of the fallacy of composition, that's how.
"If the universe is God and the universe contains tins of Heinz baked beans, god is Heinz baked beans" is another example.
-
If the universe is God and the universe contains the personal.....How can god not be personal
I am guessing that some pantheists would argue that the impersonal god contains the personal, and Shaker's baked beans, and this forum, and oh well, everything.
-
I am guessing that some pantheists would argue that the impersonal god contains the personal, and Shaker's baked beans, and this forum, and oh well, everything.
Pretty much.
-
torridon,
Natural Selection was conceived by Darwin only as a natural process similar to Artificial Selection. He was inspired by AS to think of NS. So...if one is intelligent there is no reason why the other cannot be. Being a believer earlier and later an agnostic.... I don't think Darwin thought of Evolution as some mindless process.
I know many of you cannot think of Evolution being Intelligent. That is because you are schooled in the old school of science. That Evolution can be Intelligent, is being considered seriously by scientists, as I have indicated in the other thread.
Let us discuss there.
Sriram, you might have had something if there were any evidence for this persistent god/gods idea of yours, without the relevant evidence what's to discuss?
Do you still have trained birds picking cards that tell your fortune, or have you advanced out of that lot over there yet?
Regards ippy
-
torridon,
Natural Selection was conceived by Darwin only as a natural process similar to Artificial Selection. He was inspired by AS to think of NS. So...if one is intelligent there is no reason why the other cannot be.[//quote]
No reason why it should be either.
Being a believer earlier and later an agnostic.... I don't think Darwin thought of Evolution as some mindless process.
Any evidence to support that belief?
I know many of you cannot think of Evolution being Intelligent. That is because you are schooled in the old school of science.
No, it is what the scientific evidence indicates strongl;y.
That Evolution can be Intelligent, is being considered seriously by scientists, as I have indicated in the other thread.
I think you misunderstand what they are saying.
-
Any evidence to support that belief?
No, it is what the scientific evidence indicates strongl;y.
I think you misunderstand what they are saying.
No....I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread further.
-
On the second point...Life energy is different from Consciousness. Consciousness (spirit) is said to be independent of the body/brain. But Life is an energy called Prana (or Chi for those who prefer Chinese) which enters something and gives it life. If the prana leaves the object is dead.
This conceives of prana, or life energy, as if it were something ontologically distinct. The Western concept of energy is truer to observation I think; energy is in all things, energy is never destroyed; life is a manifestation of an energetic process. We cannot say that when something dies, it dies because the energy has left it, although it might superficially seem to be the case, but rather that particular process has ended. Life is a process, not a thing. To claim that there is life after death is like claiming that running continues to exist after the race has finished. Sure, other races will take place, but that is because energy is in all things, not because running has left the first runners and found some new athletes to invade.
-
Life is a process, not a thing.
I think he said life is an energy, rather than a thing.
-
I think he said life is an energy, rather than a thing.
here's a clue for you, 98% of sentences with the word 'energy' in it are complete bollocks. And that's a fact!
-
here's a clue for you, 98% of sentences with the word 'energy' in it are complete bollocks. And that's a fact!
In a non-scientific context I'm inclined to agree.
-
In a non-scientific context I'm inclined to agree.
the trouble is , its use is intended to give nonsense some credibility , as you already know.
-
here's a clue for you, 98% of sentences with the word 'energy' in it are complete bollocks. And that's a fact!
It occurs quite a lot on another forum I go to too!!!
-
here's a clue for you, 98% of sentences with the word 'energy' in it are complete bollocks. And that's a fact!
Interesting clue, especially as the above sentence has the word'energy' in it.
-
This conceives of prana, or life energy, as if it were something ontologically distinct. The Western concept of energy is truer to observation I think; energy is in all things, energy is never destroyed; life is a manifestation of an energetic process. We cannot say that when something dies, it dies because the energy has left it, although it might superficially seem to be the case, but rather that particular process has ended. Life is a process, not a thing. To claim that there is life after death is like claiming that running continues to exist after the race has finished. Sure, other races will take place, but that is because energy is in all things, not because running has left the first runners and found some new athletes to invade.
There is nothing like a 'Western concept of Energy' and an 'Eastern concept of Energy'. The usual definitions of energy are familiar to most people world over. That is not a problem.
Certain phenomena do not have ready descriptions or definitions. The word 'energy' is used only because that is the most suitable one among the available words.
'Life is a process' that is initiated and sustained by something. Electricity gives life to devices. A machine jumps to life only due to electricity after which the same electricity sustains the process that the object is designed for. So defining a machine as just a process without taking into account the power behind it doesn't make sense. Without the electricity there is no process.
Similarly, Prana is what initiates and sustains the process that an organism goes through. Once the Prana leaves, the organism dies.
There is nothing is this inference that negates or conflicts with any observation that we have made about life and death. It only adds to it.
-
There is nothing like a 'Western concept of Energy' and an 'Eastern concept of Energy'. The usual definitions of energy are familiar to most people world over. That is not a problem.
Certain phenomena do not have ready descriptions or definitions. The word 'energy' is used only because that is the most suitable one among the available words.
'Life is a process' that is initiated and sustained by something. Electricity gives life to devices. A machine jumps to life only due to electricity after which the same electricity sustains the process that the object is designed for. So defining a machine as just a process without taking into account the power behind it doesn't make sense. Without the electricity there is no process.
Similarly, Prana is what initiates and sustains the process that an organism goes through. Once the Prana leaves, the organism dies.
There is nothing is this inference that negates or conflicts with any observation that we have made about life and death. It only adds to it.
what makes life work IS electricity . It is well understood. The flow of electrons in the gradient differential between the outer and inner part of cell walls
Its not magic!
this process occurs naturally in all kinds of systems all over the universe IT'S not called prana or any other fantastical name you want to give it . It also has no agency or desires or any other human attribute you want to give it, FFS.
-
Similarly, Prana is what initiates and sustains the process that an organism goes through. Once the Prana leaves, the organism dies.
You do realize that vitalism is (somewhat ironically) long dead? Life is complicated chemistry.
There is nothing is this inference that negates or conflicts with any observation that we have made about life and death. It only adds to it.
Adds what exactly? Anybody can make up fantastical stories that don't conflict with observations...
-
Interesting clue, especially as the above sentence has the word'energy' in it.
Interestingly so does your reply!
-
Interestingly so does your reply!
The difference though is that my sentence is an observable fact rather than an un evidenced assertion.
-
There is nothing like a 'Western concept of Energy' and an 'Eastern concept of Energy'. The usual definitions of energy are familiar to most people world over. That is not a problem.
Certain phenomena do not have ready descriptions or definitions. The word 'energy' is used only because that is the most suitable one among the available words.
'Life is a process' that is initiated and sustained by something. Electricity gives life to devices. A machine jumps to life only due to electricity after which the same electricity sustains the process that the object is designed for. So defining a machine as just a process without taking into account the power behind it doesn't make sense. Without the electricity there is no process.
Similarly, Prana is what initiates and sustains the process that an organism goes through. Once the Prana leaves, the organism dies.
There is nothing is this inference that negates or conflicts with any observation that we have made about life and death. It only adds to it.
Death occurs because metabolic processes cease, not because energy, or prana, has left it, implying the prana still exists but is somewhere else now. This would be like claiming that when a fire goes out, it is not because it has run out of fuel, but rather because the flames have left it and gone somewhere else. It is flawed conception. Are there any observations of inanimate matter becoming alive because prana has entered it ?
-
Death occurs because metabolic processes cease, not because energy, or prana, has left it, implying the prana still exists but is somewhere else now. This would be like claiming that when a fire goes out, it is not because it has run out of fuel, but rather because the flames have left it and gone somewhere else. It is flawed conception. Are there any observations of inanimate matter becoming alive because prana has entered it ?
Wait a cotton picking minute Torridon. Are you denying the conservation of energy here?
-
Wait a cotton picking minute Torridon. Are you denying the conservation of energy here?
Why do you think that?
-
Death occurs because metabolic processes cease, not because energy, or prana, has left it, implying the prana still exists but is somewhere else now. This would be like claiming that when a fire goes out, it is not because it has run out of fuel, but rather because the flames have left it and gone somewhere else. It is flawed conception. Are there any observations of inanimate matter becoming alive because prana has entered it ?
That metabolic processes stop...we know. But why?
A machine stops not because the processes suddenly stop for no reason at all. It stops only because the power is switched off.
Its the same with life. Prana leaves and the body dies. Until it leaves even if the person is very ill, he will not die.
-
That metabolic processes stop...we know. But why?
There is no mystery here that you can use your woo to 'explain'. Things die because they lack something physical that they need (nutrients, light, a certain temperature range...).
-
WHAT RUBBISH !!!
People who seem perfectly well - 'OOH he was SO well too' - suddenly drop down dead as if something that WAS there is NOT there !!!!
-
WHAT RUBBISH !!!
People who seem perfectly well - 'OOH he was SO well too' - suddenly drop down dead as if something that WAS there is NOT there !!!!
You mean like when a person has a heart attack and the something that was there is no longer there(I.E. oxygen)?
-
This is beginning to sound like vitalism, the idea that there is a 'spark of life', or elan vital, which is crucial to living things. It was popular during the 19th century, and even figures such as Pasteur supported it, but it began to run out of steam, as scientists could find no evidence for it. It also began to be mocked, as notion such as 'aquosity' were suggested to explain fluids, and 'elan locomotif', to explain motion.
You can still find it in New Age treatments and philosophies, which recommend toning up the vital spark by paying loads of dosh, while somebody waves their hands over you, plus VAT.
-
You mean like when a person has a heart attack and the something that was there is no longer there(I.E. oxygen)?
Moderator: Content Removed Oxygen is STILL there but something has left that person !!! THEREFORE DEATH !?!?!?!
-
That metabolic processes stop...we know. But why?
A machine stops not because the processes suddenly stop for no reason at all. It stops only because the power is switched off.
Its the same with life. Prana leaves and the body dies. Until it leaves even if the person is very ill, he will not die.
There is no mystery here that you can use your woo to 'explain'. Things die because they lack something physical that they need (nutrients, light, a certain temperature range...).
WHAT RUBBISH !!!
People who seem perfectly well - 'OOH he was SO well too' - suddenly drop down dead as if something that WAS there is NOT there !!!!
I did miss out malfunction, which is another reason why both machines and living things stop working.
Humans are huge collections of trillions of cells (all of which are individually alive). If some critical part malfunctions, then most of the cells will die because the systems that keep them supplied with the things they need (like oxygen) are no longer working.
There is still no mystery for Sriram's woo to 'solve'...
-
I did miss out malfunction, which is another reason why both machines and living things stop working.
Humans are huge collections of trillions of cells (all of which are individually alive). If some critical part malfunctions, then most of the cells will die because the systems that keep them supplied with the things they need (like oxygen) are no longer working.
There is still no mystery for Sriram's woo to 'solve'...
Exactly.
-
This is beginning to sound like vitalism, the idea that there is a 'spark of life', or elan vital, which is crucial to living things. It was popular during the 19th century, and even figures such as Pasteur supported it, but it began to run out of steam, as scientists could find no evidence for it. It also began to be mocked, as notion such as 'aquosity' were suggested to explain fluids, and 'elan locomotif', to explain motion.
You can still find it in New Age treatments and philosophies, which recommend toning up the vital spark by paying loads of dosh, while somebody waves their hands over you, plus VAT.
have you heard of ''salt cave'' therapy. well worth a trip to Germany :o