Near death experience

[callywally]

very interesting, cheers

[scraglor]

Sounds like the last time I tripped acid minus the blood clot

I think is slightly missleading when someone "of science" waxes a little too lirical about so called spirituality, and gives false credence to the arguemts of religion and folk who believe in souls and strange "energies" that no one can find any trace of.

but the spark of consciousness/experience isn't something scientific, and she wasn't referring to "strange energy's" she was talking about how we are connected to the world by our senses, which sense energy and by this experience shows that we aren't all totally separate and are all productions of the same energy and are all essentially one. we're all made of stars as the song goes

Edited January 15, 2009 by scraglor

[martian]

Sounds like the last time I tripped acid minus the blood clot

I think is slightly missleading when someone "of science" waxes a little too lirical about so called spirituality, and gives false credence to the arguemts of religion and folk who believe in souls and strange "energies" that no one can find any trace of.

but the spark of consciousness/experience isn't something scientific, and she wasn't referring to "strange energy's" she was talking about how we are connected to the world by our senses, which sense energy and by this experience shows that we aren't all totally separate and are all productions of the same energy and are all essentially one. we're all made of stars as the song goes

Hi All.

Your quite right in what you say, for the most part, Its just that your doing exactly what my point was, talking about "energy". I quite agree we are "connected" but only by the fact that were all the same race, or we live in the same country, or by a shared goal, or belief, not connected in any real sense, just connections that we "like". I do not recognise this "energy" of wich you, (and lots of other poeple) speak.

One can only talk about energy, if one can state, if asked, what the energy is, or what it does, or some other actuality about it.

To simply state we are connected by an energy, i'm afraid in my book is simply not good enough.

I also am never quite sure what is meant by spark of conciousness, and surley unless something is scientificaly based, then it is merely in our heads, (and we all know what can go on inside there), so may just be down to imagination, and "wishing it to be so".

I do however, concure, we do indeed come literaly "From Stars", as does everything heavier than (don't quote me) I think Boron, or Carbon. But so does everything else in the universe, that we all are part of.

so the song should really be "We are all made of the same stuff that originally came out of the big bang, and the heavier elements were then forged from the lighter ones, inside stars, exept for the elements heavier than iron (I think) that were then forged in the heat of Nova/supernova.

But it isn't nearly as chatchy.

Ta Ta.

Martian.

[scraglor]

"I do not recognise this "energy" of wich you, (and lots of other poeple) speak."

so you don't recognize, light, sound, physical touch? that's all she was talking about. our sense of existence, our brains, our egos, is based on our senses detecting various forms of energy, ie feel, smell, sight, hearing etc. our 'existence' and the universes 'existence' is merely the product of our experience. wether it exists without our conciousness is irrelevant because something can only exist to you if you believe it/sense it. hence the phrase, "if a tree falls down in the woods, does it make a noise if there's no-one there to hear it"

"I also am never quite sure what is meant by spark of conciousness,"

" so may just be down to imagination, and "wishing it to be so"

conscious thought, doesn't exist in the physical world, it's not a tangible substance, it is pure thought. technically it doesn't exist, but it comes into existence when we are born. where does it come from? you're basing your sole and sense of self and whole existence of your sole on a simple meeting of chemicals, this may well be true, i don't know, i'm agnostic and remain open. your consciousness doesn't take up space or time. yet having an imagination or recognizing that you exist and have the capability to "wish it be so" means that you exist, albeit not in any kind of tangible way. i.e. i think therefore i am. these are all very old, and still very much unanswered (and most liekly never will be, if it's is even at all possible. if for example there is literally nothing after death, then how can we ever know what's after? no-one will ever know, even the dead, because they'll be dead! )

thanks to chaos theory (if it is true, as a theory can only ever be proved incorrect and never true) we all effect the universe by existing, therefore we all effect each-other and none of us would exist (how we do today, doing what we are right this instant, our brains having had the same inputs throughout our lives etc) without every other in existence. therefore we are all part of one another. literally

don't get me wrong, i'm no hippy, i'm a true believer in science, i'm also greatly interested in philosophy, the two are VERY closely linked

Edited January 15, 2009 by scraglor

[martian]

Hi All

"I do not recognise this "energy" of wich you, (and lots of other poeple) speak."

so you don't recognize, light, sound, physical touch? that's all she was talking about. our sense of existence, our brains, our egos, is based on our senses detecting various forms of energy, ie feel, smell, sight, hearing etc. our 'existence' and the universes 'existence' is merely the product of our experience. wether it exists without our conciousness is irrelevant because something can only exist to you if you believe it/sense it. hence the phrase, "if a tree falls down in the woods, does it make a noise if there's no-one there to hear it"

While I obviously recognise light as an energy, and physical touch as absolutely NOT an energy, Sound on the other hand is more complicated, while we refer to sound energy, it strictly speaking is not an energy as such, it is merely rarefaction and compression waves in air. so is probably a mixture of potential, kinetic, and thermal energy.

This is also the reason the tree doesn't make a "noise" (or more correctly a sound), unless there is something there to hear (perceive) it. the tree still causes the waves in the air, that would be perceived, if someone/thing were within range.

Granted I should have made it more clear, but I was referring to energy, in the fundamental sense, as in the four forces, that all the other forms of "energy" can be traced back to.

I have to disagree with, "'existence' is merely the product of our experience". someone who is totally brain dead, still exists. Maybe not sentiently to his self, but he still exists.

And "wether it exists without our conciousness is irrelevant because something can only exist to you if you believe it/sense". We could debate this much farther while talking about the Universe, however when you say "something" the statement becomes obviously false.

"I also am never quite sure what is meant by spark of consciousness,"

" so may just be down to imagination, and "wishing it to be so"

conscious thought, doesn't exist in the physical world, it's not a tangible substance, it is pure thought. technically it doesn't exist, but it comes into existence when we are born. where does it come from? you're basing your sole and sense of self and whole existence of your sole on a simple meeting of chemicals, this may well be true, i don't know, i'm agnostic and remain open. your consciousness doesn't take up space or time. yet having an imagination or recognizing that you exist and have the capability to "wish it be so" means that you exist, albeit not in any kind of tangible way. i.e. i think therefore i am. these are all very old, and still very much unanswered (and most liekly never will be, if it's is even at all possible. if for example there is literally nothing after death, then how can we ever know what's after? no-one will ever know, even the dead, because they'll be dead! )

Surely it must??? unless you believe it exists in some kind of other world, the physical world is the only one I recognise as being real. As you say chemical, AND electrical impulses, just because we can't YET describe or understand it, doesn't give us the right to dream up wishy washy, spark of consciousness theories. they never move intelligent thought on wards. Just as answering a question with God stops the further questions, you've already answered it!!!!!

I'm NOT basing my soul on anything, I don't believe such a thing exists, DO YOU????? You state that your an agnostic, and remain open, yet you talk as if you think a soul exists???

As for death, yes absolutely I believe there is nothing after death, all the chemical and electrical signals cease, we know this, just because we can't "prove" life after death doesn't exist, to just say it exists makes no sense, to me anyway.

thanks to chaos theory (if it is true, as a theory can only ever be proved incorrect and never true) we all effect the universe by existing, therefore we all effect each-other and none of us would exist (how we do today, doing what we are right this instant, our brains having had the same inputs throughout our lives etc) without every other in existence. therefore we are all part of one another. literally

Absolutely a theory CAN be proved to be true. (Einstein predicted the theory of gravitational lensing, Later to be Proved correct by observation). As one can be also proved untrue.

While I'm inclined to give "the Butterfly Effect" (I'm assuming thats what your referring to), some credence, and while I agree that without everything else being as it is, things wouldn't be how they are, it doesn't necessarily mean that if one doesn't exist then another couldn't, or that were linked in any tangible way, certainly not literally.

If your not referring to the Butterfly effect, and in fact referring to "the universe existing because we observe it" I would be more than happy to discus this farther.

don't get me wrong, I'm no hippy, i'm a true believer in science, i'm also greatly interested in philosophy, the two are VERY closely linked

I disagree, while philosophy really started science, (or western science at least) and were at one time closely linked, the link these days is less close, and when we refer to science these days we are usually referring to empirical, experimentation and observation, and Maths.

Granted there is some philosophical debate in the realms of physics/cosmology, but this is usually grounded in some form of experimentation.

Ta Ta.

Martian.

Edited January 16, 2009 by martian

[scraglor]

"physical touch as absolutely NOT an energy"

physical touch is the sensing of mass no? mass is energy, e=mc^2. we sense the physical world, the ENTIRE physical world is energy.

"Surely it must??? unless you believe it exists in some kind of other world"

yes of course it exists, i think, therefore i am. but not in the physical world, physical being measurable, observable, tangible. have a thought, go on, there you just did. now tell me how that exists. for it to exist physically, then it must still exist now, because things can't just pop into existence and then cease to exist. not physically (well they do in quantum physics, but it's not the same thing... or maybe it is, thought measurement could be a new branch of physics). unless of course you start to think about science philosophically. you can't measure or observe a thought, you can measure the EFFECTS of said thought and you can experience it and that's it, you can't observe or measure the actual thought because it's a personal thing, hence the idea of having a soul, you obviously believe you have no soul and are basically just a machine, organic but basically with no essence of life, just a bundle of molecules and nothing more, a very shallow existence imo, if you believe there is no possibilty that you are nothing deeper than chemical reactions (not that i believe this isn't possibly true either) measuring electrical impulses or chemical reactions is nothing like the same thing. so yes it does exist in "another world" it exists in our minds, or soul, spirit whatever you want to call it, it exists to yourself only, it is not a part of the physical universe which is shared by all.

"Absolutely a theory CAN be proved to be true"

no, it is impossible to prove any theory true, ask any physicist, you can PROVE a theory wrong. but you can never prove a theory right, hence why all scientific theory is known as theory and never fact.

you can observe something a million and one times, and say "that's how it is" but you can't prove it's going to happen again the next time you go to observe it, and if whatever it is happens differently to your theory, you've proved the theory wrong. but you can never PROVE a theory right because you don't know what's going to happen next time round. this is how good science works and is why we have progress in science, because people constantly go over the same theories looking to prove them wrong. i think it was strawberry on here "sorry if this is wrong" pointed me a to a recent discovery, where part of the second law of thermodynamics was proved wrong. so again, theory can ONLY be PROVED wrong

"it doesn't necessarily mean that if one doesn't exist then another couldn't, or that were linked in any tangible way, certainly not literally."

yes the butterfly effect, the actual name for it is chaos theory. yes you may exist, but you wouldn't be the same person, as you are at this instant, the difference may be undetectable to yourself, but the difference would still be there, because EVERYTHING else in the universe would be different, therefore everything literally effects everything else. if one single person ceases to exist or to have existed, then so does everything else, in it's present state, therefore we all literally make everyone else what they are, albeit in some small minute way, but every action and reaction is significant in it has an effect.

Edited January 16, 2009 by scraglor

[martian]

"physical touch as absolutely NOT an energy"

physical touch is the sensing of mass no? mass is energy, e=mc^2. we sense the physical world, the ENTIRE physical world is energy.

Yes, it is sensing mass, but that is not energy, mass is not energy, mass is "frozen" energy, there is an equivalence, yes , and thats what the equasion is describing, but they are not the same, things have to happen to transmute one to the other, thats the reason we have the two names, energy and mass, because they measure, and present differently.

The entire phyisical world, (the universe I think your refering to), WAS entirely energy, At the time of the big bang!!! very shortly after matter condenses out of it as it cools, leaving both energy and matter.

I believe thats a pretty thin argument, and I would expect more from you.

"Surely it must??? unless you believe it exists in some kind of other world"

yes of course it exists, i think, therefore i am. but not in the physical world, physical being measurable, observable, tangible. have a thought, go on, there you just did. now tell me how that exists. for it to exist physically, then it must still exist now, because things can't just pop into existence and then cease to exist. not physically (well they do in quantum physics, but it's not the same thing... or maybe it is, thought measurement could be a new branch of physics). unless of course you start to think about science philosophically. you can't measure or observe a thought, you can experience it and that's it. measuring electrical impulses or chemical reactions is nothing like the same thing. so yes it does exist in "another world" it exists in our minds, or soul, spirit whatever you want to call it, it exists to yourself only, it is not a part of the physical universe which is shared by all.

Your trying to tell me the world it DOESN'T exist in, (which BTW is the only world were trully aware of), surely you need to tell me the alternative of wich you speak? We can actually OBSERVE thoughts happening in alive brians, we can see different centres as they are stimulated, we might not be able to understand things anything like fully, but we know its going on in there, in a physical head. Yes that is exactly what can happen, a thought pops INTO YOUR HEAD, as the saying goes, just because we can't touch it with our hands, doesn't mean its in some netherworld.

Why on earth would you it rather be in some, never seen, proved, invented in some book, soul. rather than let it be, where we actually know it is, the mind???????

And I'm not being drawn into virtual particles, popping in and out of existence, (that is unless its happening at the event horizon of a black hole, in wich case the one of the pair uncapptured emerges as Hawking radiation). unless you'd like to tommorrow?

"Absolutely a theory CAN be proved to be true"

no, it is impossible to prove any theory true, ask any physicist, you can PROVE a theory wrong. but you can never prove a theory right, hence why all scientific theory is known as theory and never fact.

Rubbish, your just talking semantics. If one is true, then both are, it depends on the experiment, (and if your trying to disprove something, or prove it) and the outcome.

Your clutching at straws again, a theory can be unproved, (no experiment yet, or no tangible results), proved (experimented on and condition is met/obtain the answer your looking for), or disproved (experimented on and condition is not met/got an alternative result your looking for).

Darwins evolution, was a theory, now its taken as fact. also Plate tectonics, the Big Bang, Black holes, need I go on???

you can observe something a million and one times, and say "that's how it is" but you can't prove it's going to happen again the next time you go to observe it, and if whatever it is happens differently to your theory, you've proved the theory wrong. but you can never PROVE a theory right because you don't know what's going to happen next time round. this is how good science works and is why we have progress in science, because people constantly go over the same theories looking to prove them wrong. i think it was strawberry on here "sorry if this is wrong" pointed me a to a recent discovery, where part of the second law of thermodynamics was proved wrong. so again, theory can ONLY be PROVED wrong

Oh come on now, REALLY!!!!. I think youve been taking in a little too much quantum mechanics, only things on the very smallest scale behave like that, with things on the macro scale we can indeed be sure that something will happen as we expect it to do, we know the sun will still be here in at least another 4 1/2 billion years, it is not possible that it will just disappear randomly.

The theory that the Earth goes around the Sun, was once just a theory, since weve flown in space, and we KNOW it now to be absolute FACT.

Granted some theories are not proved totally and in cast iron, and from time to time get updated or even proved wrong, but to say NO theory is provable is patently wrong.

And That is not how science is done at all.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, your now telling me that it is wrong?????

In what way, I'm very very interested. If theyve managed to reverse entropy it won't be long before we have perpetual motion machines, in our cars.

"it doesn't necessarily mean that if one doesn't exist then another couldn't, or that were linked in any tangible way, certainly not literally."

yes the butterfly effect, the actual name for it is chaos theory. yes you may exist, but you wouldn't be the same person, as you are at this instant, the difference may be undetectable to yourself, but the difference would still be there, because EVERYTHING else in the universe would be different, therefore everything literally effects everything else. if one single person ceases to exist or to have existed, then so does everything else, in it's present state, therefore we all literally make everyone else what they are, albeit in some small minute way, but every action and reaction is significant in it has an effect.

Actually its the Butterfly effect, wich is itself a small part of chaos theory. If the difference would be undetectble to me then how would I be different? and not everything else in the universe would be different either. not everything afects everything else. the butterfly effect says A small difference here, CAN make a vast difference over there, not that everything MUST affect everything else.

I think your getting confused again, with multiverse theory, where every action, no matter how small, splits off that universe, from the universe where it didn't happen, therefore every probability is acted out along an ever forking timeline, and every thing that happens affects everything else.

[scraglor]

mass is potential energy. bring matter and anti matter together and they form pure energy. condensed energy, but still energy

" trying to tell me the world it DOESN'T exist in"

no i'm not, you're just missing the point. and i never said the world. i said a thought is not a physical thing. atoms are a physical thing, molecules etc. thought is not physical. you can't have a quanta of thought

"We can actually OBSERVE thoughts happening in alive brian"

we can see the processes that create the thoughts of another person but we cannot experience the thought ourselves, only the person having the thought can do that. and once he/she has finished thinking whatever it was, that experience is lost forever.

you said it yourself, we can OBSERVE it. we can't actually have the experience are same. back to my original point, the human mind is the experience of the universe, and not a part of it physically

"Rubbish, your just talking semantics."

hmmm... well my brother seems to think it's true and that and the professors and the scientific community agree, and he has a phd in particle physics. so i'll take his, and oxford university's word for it. semantics maybe, but this is still logical, and errr... yeah, physics meets philosophy.

"experimented on and condition is met/obtain the answer your looking for"

PROVE to me gravity exists. go drop a ball and i'll watch it fall down, if every time you drop that ball it falls down then you've proved gravity, unfortunately for you you'll be doing it for eternity, because next time it may not fall....... then you could come up with a THEORY, maybe the ball is being held there because it's made of iron and it's caught in a magnetic field (just as an example of course) then it's my job to disprove that theory to show that gravity is flawed. you could show there is a magnetic field there, but this still wouldn't prove that this is what is stopping it falling as you'd have to observe it for eternity to prove that it is the magnetic field holding it there, if the ball dropped while the magnetic field was present, then the magnetic field theory has been disproved. to prove something true, it has to remain true for eternity, to disprove something, it only has to be shown that the theory doesn't hold true once and can be shown any time (although you can't truly disprove anything either because there could always be some unobserved anomaly) “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.” -Socrates

philosophy meets theoretical physics

"Darwins evolution, was a theory, now its taken as fact. also Plate tectonics, the Big Bang, Black holes, need I go on"

EVERY single one of those is theory, and they are ALL known as theories, jesus (well maybe not plate tectonics, but that's geology not physics, noones trying to work out WHY they exist, plate tectonics science is just looking at HOW they work and observing their behaviour, not how they came to be) if you want to use arguments like that you better choose something that's at least known as a law. the only thing that changes whether or not something is considered theory or law is length of time and the general consensus of society, even then there are people that don't believe them and try to prove them wrong. just like the scientist who disproved entropy (second law of thermodynamics) always holds true.

"quantum mechanics, only things on the very smallest scale behave like that"

quantum particles are part of the physical world no?

"we know the sun will still be here in at least another 4 1/2 billion years, it is not possible that it will just disappear randomly."

no we don't, how do we know that? except from theory. we are pretty dam certain though, but you can never know for a fact. did you create the universe to know this? jeez you'll feel silly if the sun disappears tomorrow

"the butterfly effect says A small difference here, CAN make a vast difference over there, not that everything MUST affect everything else."

no, it's you that is confused, butterfly effect says that, CHAOS THEORY says:

" This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions"

if something ceases to exist, the initial conditions have been changed. simple as

the butterfly effect part is:

"As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions"

i.e. a small change may grow exponentially large throughout the universe

you say philosophy and science aren't linked, yet you have your own philosophy right there, everything is physical and exists somehow as a quanta, and use it to understand the universe

Edited January 17, 2009 by scraglor

[scraglor]

http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Pope, has pointed out that the theory of evolution cannot be proved because “we cannot haul 10,000 generations of animals into the laboratory.” The pope is right that the theory of evolution cannot be proved in the ultimate sense. Neither can Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity, or Dalton’s atomic table, or for that matter, Galileo’s idea that the earth revolves around the sun. We can’t even prove absolutely that 2 + 2 = 4. Actually, there are numerous occasions when it doesn’t.

What many people don’t understand is that scientific theories can never be proved in the final, absolute, ultimate sense. Scientific theories are accepted when they are the best, most effective explanation for what we observe, or the most effective way of enabling us to solve some problem or accomplish some goal. So Newton’s theory is accepted because of all the theories, it explains better than any other theory why apples fall to the ground and the stars don’t. There are a lot of explanations about why we see the sun come up in the morning and go down at night. We accept Galileo’s explanation because it tallies better than other theories with so many things we observe. Einstein’s relativity has been in practical use since it first was used to land the first space craft on the moon, but it might still be wrong.

So it is possible that any of these theories might be replaced by other theores that are even better at explaining what we observe or solving some urgent problem facing humanity. For myself, Darwin’s theory of evolution currently explains the world better than intelligent design or creationism or the biblical version.

I think the biblical story was never intended to be understood as the literal truth, but as a parable, a poetic paean in praise of the great world that the early biblical writers observed with awe. As do most people even today, believers and unbelievers, scientists and poets alike

just google theories can't be proven, you'll have to trawl through a fair amount of evolution vs creationism crap though

Edited January 17, 2009 by scraglor

[martian]

http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Pope, has pointed out that the theory of evolution cannot be proved because “we cannot haul 10,000 generations of animals into the laboratory.” The pope is right that the theory of evolution cannot be proved in the ultimate sense. Neither can Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity, or Dalton’s atomic table, or for that matter, Galileo’s idea that the earth revolves around the sun. We can’t even prove absolutely that 2 + 2 = 4. Actually, there are numerous occasions when it doesn’t.

What many people don’t understand is that scientific theories can never be proved in the final, absolute, ultimate sense. Scientific theories are accepted when they are the best, most effective explanation for what we observe, or the most effective way of enabling us to solve some problem or accomplish some goal. So Newton’s theory is accepted because of all the theories, it explains better than any other theory why apples fall to the ground and the stars don’t. There are a lot of explanations about why we see the sun come up in the morning and go down at night. We accept Galileo’s explanation because it tallies better than other theories with so many things we observe. Einstein’s relativity has been in practical use since it first was used to land the first space craft on the moon, but it might still be wrong.

So it is possible that any of these theories might be replaced by other theores that are even better at explaining what we observe or solving some urgent problem facing humanity. For myself, Darwin’s theory of evolution currently explains the world better than intelligent design or creationism or the biblical version.

I think the biblical story was never intended to be understood as the literal truth, but as a parable, a poetic paean in praise of the great world that the early biblical writers observed with awe. As do most people even today, believers and unbelievers, scientists and poets alike

just google theories can't be proven, you'll have to trawl through a fair amount of evolution vs creationism crap though

Hi All.

The term clutching at straws comes to mind again.

I'll get back to you shortly on a couple of your points.

See Ya.

Martin

[scraglor]

clutching at straws? this is taught at the highest calibre university's in the country!!! you don't even understand what a theory is!! you attempt to give examples of absolute truths, and use theories that are WELL KNOWN to be only theory. big bang THEORY, black hole THEORY. you have a very narrow 2d view of physics and obviously aren't that learned in the subject as you don't even understand the basic concepts

Edited January 17, 2009 by scraglor

[scraglor]

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.

Hypothesis: All swans must be white.

Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."

Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

if you like i can find COUNTLESS more examples.... "need i go on" - martian

e2a: although i don't think it's worth bothering, you don't seem to even understand what we're talking about, as you earlier said i was trying to say the universe doesn't exist?? wtf? never said anything of the sort!

Your trying to tell me the world it DOESN'T exist in, (which BTW is the only world were trully aware of), surely you need to tell me the alternative of wich you speak?

wtf?

Edited January 17, 2009 by scraglor

[Cambium]

Sorry....I had to

[scraglor]

^^ hahaha

[openthebox]

very very interesting read scarglor and martian. Didnt even watch the video but after the reading that.. WOW.

Thanks