Life after death

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[wigginhall]

"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.   

[Sriram]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"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

[Shaker]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.   

[Rhiannon]

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.

[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. 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

[Maeght]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[ekim]

Life is a process, not a thing.

I think he said life is an energy, rather than a thing.

[Walter]

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!

[Shaker]

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.

[Walter]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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!!!

[ekim]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Walter]

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.

[Stranger]

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...

[Sebastian Toe]

Interesting clue, especially as the above sentence has the word'energy' in it.

Interestingly so does your reply!

[ekim]

Interestingly so does your reply!

The difference though is that my sentence is an observable fact rather than an un evidenced  assertion.

[torridon]

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 ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?