Are you dead before you are born?

[billydkid]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.

[volatile]

That's an absurd question. You cannot, by definition, know what it's like to be dead. There's nothing to know - you're dead.

[tsig]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.

The last corpse I looked at was remarkably mute.

Are you asking what was your face before you were born?

[DoubtingStephen]

I don't remember much.

Pay attention to this part. Consider why it is that you remember nothing from before you were conceived. Since nothing of you existed before your conception, you were literally unable to know anything. Not knowing gets you almost all the way to not remembering.

Obvious answers are often very useful.

[Rasmus]

That's an absurd question. You cannot, by definition, know what it's like to be dead. There's nothing to know - you're dead.

I think the absurdity of it resides on a different level, even. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make sense to say "He is dead", because there no longer is a "he" to be anything.

It is not like anything to be dead, because it actually isn't anything to begin with.

So, to answer the OP, not existing is always the same, regardless of whether that is before or after an interrupting period of existence - but it is not something you do, because there isn't a "you".

[plumjam]

I still remember a thread g4macdad did on similar lines. I found it absolutely hilarious.
He was great, I wish he'd come back.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90710

ETA: It's only really the posts by macdad which are hilarious. Everyone else seemed to be taking the whole thing rather solemnly... which added to the overall mirth.

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's an absurd question. You cannot, by definition, know what it's like to be dead. There's nothing to know - you're dead.

Oh yeah!?!@?

Just listen to side one, track seven on Revolver. There. I run rings around your logic.:D

[volatile]

Oh yeah!?!@?

Just listen to side one, track seven on Revolver. There. I run rings around your logic.:D

The Beatles are hideously over-rated. :)

[Tricky]

Accepting that the question really means "are you dead before you are self aware" (since late-term fetuses are most definitely alive) I would still say "no". Death is, by most accounts, defined by the loss of life. Is a rock dead? No. It is simply not alive, although poets may metaphorically refer to it as "dead, unfeeling matter".

I would say though that you have the same degree of self-awareness before conception as you do after death, which is to say, zero.

[Rodney]

Consider why it is that you remember nothing from before you were conceived.
Then consider why it is that you also remember nothing from the time you were conceived until the time you turned 3 or 4.

[plumjam]

Then consider why it is that you also remember nothing from the time you were conceived until the time you turned 3 or 4.

Was too mesmerised and blissed-out by the breast-feeding.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Was too mesmerised and blissed-out by the breast-feeding.

That's really sick in an Oedipal sort of way. Did you pull a Revolver on old dad too?:)

[Gate2501]

I was merely disorganized!

All of those atoms that form my brain and body were all over the place!

Glad that it all sorted itself out.

[billydkid]

Well, apparently some were unable to see the slightly comical tone of the OP. That being said - is not being alive the same as being dead? Are they essentially equivalent? If was trying to be funny with the "I don't remember much." bit, but as usual no one appreciates my humor.

[dglas]

The Beatles are hideously over-rated. :)

Yes, but were they over-rated before they were formed?

[articulett]

Then consider why it is that you also remember nothing from the time you were conceived until the time you turned 3 or 4.

The brain starts becoming programmed by the environment as it develops... it takes a while until we get memory... but you sort of fade into consciousness... and if you lose your marbles as you grow older, you fade out too.

[andyandy]

Well, apparently some were unable to see the slightly comical tone of the OP. That being said - is not being alive the same as being dead? Are they essentially equivalent? If was trying to be funny with the "I don't remember much." bit, but as usual no one appreciates my humor.

I suppose you could say there was a semantic difference between not being alive and being dead. The first as a negative simply requires a lack of life. The second presupposes a former life. One could say my imaginary friend or Bigfoot were not alive. They have never been alive. But one could not say that Bigfoot was dead as that would imply he had lived previously.

[Rodney]

The brain starts becoming programmed by the environment as it develops... it takes a while until we get memory... but you sort of fade into consciousness... and if you lose your marbles as you grow older, you fade out too.
Do you agree or disagree that the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves no more than the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your third or fourth birthday?

[articulett]

Do you agree or disagree that the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves no more than the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your third or fourth birthday?

I can't even tell what you are saying. You can't remember anything before your birth because you have no brain... a brain... specifically a hippocampus is required for memories to form. You can and do have some degrees of memory and you are programming your body and how it works from infancy or prior... you cannot experience all the details of vision without this early programming (kids who were blind in infancy don't understand pointing at an object for example even when given sight later)-- but just because you don't remember your brain learning to "see", doesn't mean that the memory isn't there. We have increasingly detailed memories as we get into an age where such memories were important to our species... A dog doesn't need to know why he's hungry or how he knows to beg for food... a human is helped by knowing how they know and remembering and sharing the details via language. Our earliest memories tend to correspond with our development of language... we are able to narrate our lives to ourselves because we have the words to do so.

You can't have memory without a brain.... you have no brain before your conception... no self... no sense of self... nothing to remember. Just like the memory on your computer... it's material dependent... it doesn't exist absent your memory card.

[Rodney]

I can't even tell what you are saying.
It's pretty simple: You and DoubtingStephen seem to think the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves that you didn't exist prior to your birth. But, by that logic, you also didn't exist prior to your third or fourth birthday.

[Soapy Sam]

billy- I've often said this to people who consider themselves authorities on the "afterlife".
Functionally, I think not yet being born and being dead are identical experiences- and like you, I ain't afeared of either one!
(being dead is a doddle- it's the process of getting there that can be dodgy.)

[Normal Dude]

It's pretty simple: You and DoubtingStephen seem to think the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves that you didn't exist prior to your birth. But, by that logic, you also didn't exist prior to your third or fourth birthday.

Rodney - there are different types of memory. I suggest you look them up, and then tell me is there is no memory formed before 3 years of age.

[plumjam]

That's really sick in an Oedipal sort of way. Did you pull a Revolver on old dad too?:)

Strictly speaking, no. My Ma is a butch-dog lesbian with a mullet, and Pa is a Brazilian still-pre-op male transsexual. Pa takes pills to augment his cleavage, Ma is flat as a communion wafer on a marble corporate foyer floor.
Out of habit Pa and I are still physically closer, and whenever we embrace my head instinctively starts to lower towards the former joyful objects of my childhood.

Honest.

[DoubtingStephen]

It's pretty simple: You and DoubtingStephen seem to think the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves that you didn't exist prior to your birth.

That is not what I think at all, and it bears little resemblance to what I wanted to convey.

I think that if a person finds it puzzling why they can not remember anything before birth they ought to consider not existing as the most probable cause of that result.

[Rodney]

Rodney - there are different types of memory. I suggest you look them up, and then tell me is there is no memory formed before 3 years of age.
I didn't say that there was no memory formed before 3 years of age.

[plumjam]

Unfortunately for you chaps, lack of memory is no strong indicator of anything.

When a consciousness, for whatever reason, enters into amnesia.. does that mean that that consciousness could not have existed prior to the onset of the amnesia?
Obviously not. Otherwise, there could be no possible origin of human beings with amnesia.

[Rodney]

That is not what I think at all, and it bears little resemblance to what I wanted to convey.

I think that if a person finds it puzzling why they can not remember anything before birth they ought to consider not existing as the most probable cause of that result.
Fine, but we know that logic does not apply to the period between conception/birth and the first few years of life, so why do you think it applies before conception/birth?

[articulett]

It's pretty simple: You and DoubtingStephen seem to think the fact that you can't remember anything prior to your birth proves that you didn't exist prior to your birth. But, by that logic, you also didn't exist prior to your third or fourth birthday.

No Rodney... you are using your theist logic again to promote the idea that you were a "soul" before birth. You actually fade into consciousness as the embryo you are begins to differentiate and form neurons... which then are programmed by the environment. You don't exist before you were conceived any more than your dog does. You don't need to know about your dog's memories to answer or understand the question in the OP as it relates to him. Why would you assume you would have more. The evidence suggests that you were nothing before you faded into consciousness just as you will be nothing when you are gone. You won't exist. You are what your brain interprets "you" to be.

You created your own false analogy to prop up what you want to believe. Nobody can really say for certain what anybody is before they are born or after they die... but the evidence is rather compelling for the notion that the brain gives rise to self--and there is no kind of consciousness of any sort that can exist absent a brain. Not demons, thetans, ghosts, gods, or souls. It's a nice idea, but semantic games don't make it true. Moreover, human beings have no way of knowing about invisible immeasurable entities-- there is no way to distinguish such things from delusions of such things.

[dglas]

"Are you dead before you are born?"

Before conception there is no physical something that could be refered to, by me or anyone else, as dglas, except perhaps as an idea between wannabe parents. After conception there was a something that later did become a dglas. Until the persona and identity of dglas was socially constructed, however, there was no dglas to be alive or dead. The question fails for lack of a referent.

Until the socially constructed sense of self-awareness, the only dglas that existed was in the minds and behaviours of others, and then only as a non-sentient bundle of tissue with potential to become a self-aware entity.

Self-awareness is not a criterion for life/death. If you think there is, tell it to some bactieria. If they give you a nod, let me know. The question does not hinge on awareness.

[plumjam]

At what precise point does non-Dglas become Dglas? And what happens at this precise point to bring Dglas into being?

[dglas]

At what precise point does non-Dglas become Dglas? And what happens at this precise point to bring Dglas into being?

Lessee, should I answer you, knowing that you cannot be arsed to bother reading responses you don't like?

Oh, well. Maybe someone else will read it...

That is a point of contention, is it not? Certainly parents have an idea of a person when caring for their baby, whether that person is a full-fledged self-aware entity (even if we could properly define such a thing) or not. All we have are rough benchmarks, plumjam. That would be part of the social construction of self of the parents, I suspect, and a socially negotiated understanding of what it is to be a person.

It probably becomes appropriate to speak of dglas as dglas at the point where it can be socially verified (such as is possible) that a self-aware entity has developed with that understanding of self. Many societies, including our own, promote non-self aware entities as persons for the purposes of protecting the lives of potential contributors to our society (even if just as a workforce grunt). This may be mostly a function of biological instinct, social convention and/or a matter of the hard practicality of the helplessness of newborns. In deference to the parental instinct to protect and nurture their children, social conventions posit the identity of a person before self-awareness actually exists.

What I am saying is that identity is a social construct. Ideas, identities, so-called "non-material concepts" and theoretical frameworks exist in a social context, which means that their effects are material. And they need not have supernatural elements included. These ideas of things are material (in that they reflect in our behaviour and the development of our physical realm), but one must be careful to avoid confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself. It is perfectly possible to have an idea of a thing that simply does not exist. Unicorns, say, or ....

Assuming you can get a rough agreement on what the God-concept means (if anything), the god-concept is verifiable in the the bahaviours supervening upon it can be measured. This does not indicate the existence of God other than as an idea, however.

"What happens at the precise moment to bring dglas into being?"

Why are you assuming a sharp, instantaneous distinction between dglas and not-dglas? I would tentatively posit that it becomes socially verified that there is a self-aware entity with the label "dglas," but I see no "Eureka" moment where, POP! dglas suddenly sprang into being. We posit such Eureka moments as a matter of political convenience or as arguments to justify this or that social policy in the face of competing, negotiated values. Instead of seeing it as a POP! moment, one might be better served to see it as a gradual process. Actually, it seems that we, as a matter of convention, assume personhood until personhood is disproven, but we need not necessarily do so.

Hidden in your question is the assumption that there is a single moment of causation that turned that lump of tissues into dglas. Why are you assuming this?

[Arkayik]

It's a Zen Koan, you know, if a tree falls...

[Thabiguy]

Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born?
Well, I don't think the question is that absurd, I find it quite answerable.

I would agree that the experience of not living is essentially the same before someone is born and after they die. But we do not "already know what it is like to be dead" because we have no memory of our nonexistence. On yet another hand, the experience of not living was null, and so one could argue that our memory of that experience is, coincidentally, complete - we recall nothing from that period of time, which happens to be exactly what it was like: nothing.

That was a materialistic viewpoint. You would get a different answer from an idealistic or dualistic viewpoint: if, hypothetically, our identity was not completely a product of the structure of our mortal bodies, then we could be missing out actual experiences from before we were born. But in that hypothetical case it wouldn't also follow that the experience of before-life must be the same as the experience of after-life (almost all religions assume that it isn't), so one really couldn't say much at all.

It seems to me it wasn't all that bad...
This implies that not living is by default bad, and so it all boils down to one of the most basic human emotions: the fear of death. As long as the reasoning in the OP (that it can't be that bad not to live since we all had already been in that state for billions of years) helps to alleviate someone's anxiety of the inevitability of death and allows them to live a fuller life, I think it's a valid way of dealing with the ultimate.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Strictly speaking, no. My Ma is a butch-dog lesbian with a mullet, and Pa is a Brazilian still-pre-op male transsexual. Pa takes pills to augment his cleavage, Ma is flat as a communion wafer on a marble corporate foyer floor.
Out of habit Pa and I are still physically closer, and whenever we embrace my head instinctively starts to lower towards the former joyful objects of my childhood.

Honest.

That does explain a bit, yes, yes indeedy.

[DoubtingStephen]

Fine, but we know that logic does not apply to the period between conception/birth and the first few years of life, so why do you think it applies before conception/birth?

I dispute your assertion that "we know that logic does not apply to the period between conception/birth and the first few years of life".

And it really is not necessary for you to describe my positions, that's the part I do.

Logic applies.

[cyborg]

What is "you"?

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Regarding the OP, I would say that I can apply my concept of not-yet-existing to that of no-longer-existing. Sort of a "non-existance is non-existance" thing. That's one of the reasons why it's important to have a good life and accomplish what we want to accomplish while we're here. No latter atonement, punishment, return, or conscious influence.

[qayak]

At what precise point does non-Dglas become Dglas? And what happens at this precise point to bring Dglas into being?

At what point in our evolutionary histroy did we become human? There is no precise point for that and there is none for when we come into being. There are just arbitrary points that anyone can pick and defend in an argument.

Your question is as absurd as the theist who claims that for evolution to be true, and species can't inter-breed, then there must be a point where one of our ancestors was a different species than its own offspring and could not inter-breed with them.

That's not how it works. Evolution works on a sliding scale, so does consciousness and life itself.

[qayak]

Regarding the OP, I would say that I can apply my concept of not-yet-existing to that of no-longer-existing. Sort of a "non-existance is non-existance" thing.

Exactly! What we call existence (an arbitrary label) is a very brief period in the lives of the atoms and molecules that make us up. We are just a brief state/configuration that they find themselves in. They were in a different state/configuration before and will be different one after.

[billydkid]

Of course, I probably should not have used "before you were born" since you are living for some time before birth. For most of us, I suspect, our fear of death is all about no longer existing, but for many the fear of death is much more complicated - for those who can not conceive of the idea of non-existence. I have said and some other have echoed that the only thing more frightening than not existing anymore is the notion of existing for eternity - of not being able to cease to exist, ever. I suppose you could argue that our "souls" are much more well adjusted to eternal existence than we are a human beings, but it is hard to imagine being yourself anymore once you are reduced to your well adjusted soul essence.

[Ichneumonwasp]

For most of us, I suspect, our fear of death is all about no longer existing, but for many the fear of death is much more complicated ....

For me, at least, I think it has something to do with sharp pointy teeth and ripping flesh. I think it's the ripping flesh part that I don't like so much, but I could be wrong.

[Robin]

What is "you"?
It is that primate that looks back at you from the mirror.

[MattusMaximus]

Did this thread exist before it was posted? ;)

[articulett]

It is that primate that looks back at you from the mirror.

I know her.

[Rodney]

I dispute your assertion that "we know that logic does not apply to the period between conception/birth and the first few years of life".
So we do remember what happens during that period?

[Ichneumonwasp]

So we do remember what happens during that period?

I seem to remember a big party with people in tie dye smoking dope and grooving on some lesbian chick from the 20s. And Peter Sellers in the corner.

But I could have that confused with an old movie.

[articulett]

So we do remember what happens during that period?


False dichotomy, Rodney... and also semantic nothingness. Now, that may work when your preacher man is trying to convince you of something, but it really doesn't work well on a skeptics forum.

[Rodney]

False dichotomy, Rodney... and also semantic nothingness. Now, that may work when your preacher man is trying to convince you of something, but it really doesn't work well on a skeptics forum.
Which, I guess, is your way of saying: "No, we don't remember anything during that period, but that's different than not remembering anything before we were born, because . . . well, I think Randi, or Shermer, or Dawkins or somebody or other told me so." :)

[Robin]

Which, I guess, is your way of saying: "No, we don't remember anything during that period, but that's different than not remembering anything before we were born, because . . . well, I think Randi, or Shermer, or Dawkins or somebody or other told me so." :)
Wow, you don't even remember anything between reading a post and responding to it, do you?

[articulett]

To you... yes, Rodney

It's actually more like saying that our memory comes on gradually... that we have memories we are unaware of and our memories are malleable... but we can't form any memory until we have a working hippocampus... should our hippocampus get destroyed, we could not make new memories. It's not a simple thing that any simpleton can understand. You want to believe that you existed before you were born and that you will exist afterwards, so you keep yourself from computing any information which shows just how this is wishful thinking at best-- there is just no evidence to support this notion and lots of evidence to support what others are trying to tell you but refuse to hear. You don't exist without your brain... In fact, we could damage your brain to the extent that you wouldn't be any recognizable form of you to yourself or anyone else. You are an emergent property your brains interpretation of your body's experiences.

Trying to back people into semantic corners of the dishonest theist variety does nothing for your credibility or ability to understand... it just makes you feel that your non understanding means that your woo is true. Wanting something to be true, doesn't make it so, Rodney. You may be convincing yourself and your preacher man may have convinced you-- but it appears to be for the benefit of your own ego... not because you actually understand anything true.

I notice that you avoid saying what you "believe" happens because you know it's not supportable. Like a weeney you sit in the wings and pretend your criticism of science means that your imagined knowledge has validity. How self-important of you!

[Robin]

So we do remember what happens during that period?
It is not completely clear where you get this idea that logic does not apply to things we don't remember. Can you explain?

[Rodney]

You don't exist without your brain... In fact, we could damage your brain to the extent that you wouldn't be any recognizable form of you to yourself or anyone else. You are an emergent property your brains interpretation of your body's experiences.
You might want to check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html

[articulett]

I don't visit foxnews... I'm afraid I might start sounding like you --er... I mean woo.

[Rodney]

It is not completely clear where you get this idea that logic does not apply to things we don't remember. Can you explain?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you, articulett, or DoubtingStephen needs to explain why the inability of humans to remember what happens prior to birth proves anything one way or the other as to whether they existed prior to birth.

[Rodney]

I don't visit foxnews... I'm afraid I might start sounding like you --er... I mean woo.
That's all too typical of so-called skeptics, but the story originated on http://www.physorg.com

[articulett]

One day I'm sure you'll be able to convey information yourself, Rodney. The last link I followed of yours was some guy that you thought was levitating in front of the White House.

If you don't like skeptics, then why hang out here?-- Oh that's right, you imagine yourself as having something to teach them.

You can't remember anything prior to your conception because you have no brain... you slowly emerge as a conscious person and then develop memory that corresponds with the approximate time of learning language... these are all processes of the brain... as is logic, thinking, and feeling-- the stuff on which memory is built. We have no evidence that any form of consciousness can exist without a brain... and thus there is no evidence that things that "feel", "think", "interpret", "remember", "want", "imagine", can exist absent a material brain. If we had such evidence, we'd be refining it and adding to it and honing it like crazy--and using it to our own benefit. It's not like humans haven't spent eons imagining this were so.

That puts "souls" and "gods" in the same category as demons, thetans, fairies, hobgoblins, ghosts, invisible men, fairytale characters, greek mythological characters, and delusions. It would be the person positing otherwise, to give evidence that consciousness of some sort could exist absent a brain before claiming to know anything about such an existence. Your word and your preacher's word on the subject is as good as the Pope, a shaman, the Mormon Prophet, Tom Cruise, Sylvia Browne, or anuy other self appointed expert on "divine truths". Your arguments for your nebulous claims are on as shaky a ground as any of their beliefs... as belief in psychic powers. You can believe it--but it's not up to us to convince you that it has no basis in reality-- it's up to the one who disagrees to show evidence as to why his alternative viewpoint could be true. Just because you don't understand how people can't exist without a brain... doesn't mean that they can.

Why you think you have anything to offer on the OP question is something only you seem to know.
And what that point is seems to be escaping everyone but you, as well.

[Robin]

I'm not sure what you're talking about...
Well it was your claim that logic didn't apply to things we don't remember, so if you don't know what you are talking about then I certainly can't help explain what you were talking about.
..., but you, articulett, or DoubtingStephen needs to explain why the inability of humans to remember what happens prior to birth proves anything one way or the other as to whether they existed prior to birth.
Well the evidence appears to suggest that we only remember stuff beyond a certain level of brain development. And at the next level of brain development we only have sketchy memories. And we have good memories of the time we have full brain development. And then when the brain starts to decay memory becomes poor again and consciousness is visibly affected.

It would seem to suggest that our consciousness has a little something to do with the brain.

[Robin]

That's all too typical of so-called skeptics, but the story originated on http://www.physorg.com
Couldn't find it on Physorg, but here is the New Scientist link. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12301&feedId=online-news_rss20 The original Lancet article needs a log in.

I am not sure what this is meant to prove, however. That the brain can sometimes continue to function with 50% - 75% reduction in size. That is fairly astonishing, but not really relevant to the discussion.

[articulett]

But this does: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/story?id=4584659&page=1

We know that child abuse in infancy affects the brain and pain perception even when not remembered. We know that babies born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome will have their memories and brain affected.

Our brains are programmed by our environment whether we "remember" it or not. The brain is us. When the brain is damaged, there is no soul stepping in to do the seeing, remembering, thinking or whatever it is the brain damage causes.

[Bob Klase]

At what precise point does non-Dglas become Dglas? And what happens at this precise point to bring Dglas into being?

That would probably be at precisely the same point when a bunch of non-beard facial hair becomes a beard.

[articulett]

or when drying paint becomes dried paint.

[President Bush]

What is "you"?


I'm not sure.

But that guy shouting down the twin Gnostic dwarves of Quandary and Dilemma out of some cardboard box under the freeway must have been a real chucklehead in his past life to rate this.

[porch]

or when drying paint becomes dried paint.



Your analogy doesn't stand with the scruff/beard. I think paint does dry absolutely at a certain point. All I know is that if you apply a fast-drying coat to a slow-drying coat, it will result eventually in a cracked painting - unless you wait enough time between coats.

[Fiona]

That is not what I think at all, and it bears little resemblance to what I wanted to convey.

I think that if a person finds it puzzling why they can not remember anything before birth they ought to consider not existing as the most probable cause of that result.


Fine, but we know that logic does not apply to the period between conception/birth and the first few years of life, so why do you think it applies before conception/birth?

Not sure if this has been cleared up but some of the confusion here seems to arise from Rodney's quote above. It makes more sense if you insert another "that" before the word logic. As I understand it he is not saying logic does not apply; but rather that that logic does not apply. In short that in the period birth to 3 years we cannot remember: yet we exist; and in the period before birth we cannot remember; so from this it is not logical to assume that we do not exist.

I think the problem lies in confusing bodily existence and consciousness ( or personality or whatever word you want to use to characterise the "you" we have been discussing).

Sorry if that just adds to the confusion. I think, Rodney, that your substantive point has been answered, but perhaps it got lost in this particular ambiguity?

[dglas]

Suffering succotash!! I have become a sorite! :D

Methinks someone is not-so-subtly suggesting that reading my posts is like watching paint dry...

Win Powerball!!!

[articulett]

I love your posts!

The becoming of dglas is an emerging property like paint drying...
You read too much metaphor into the sorite.

Reading Dglas' post is more akin to the savoring of fine wine.

(Geez, I almost blew my chance to win powerbal. Yikes!)

[PrincessIneffabelle]

At what precise point does non-Dglas become Dglas? And what happens at this precise point to bring Dglas into being?

That would probably be at precisely the same point when a bunch of non-beard facial hair becomes a beard.

or when drying paint becomes dried paint.

My turn!

"When does dough become bread."

Pass the toast and jam, please.

:)

[Rodney]

Not sure if this has been cleared up but some of the confusion here seems to arise from Rodney's quote above. It makes more sense if you insert another "that" before the word logic. As I understand it he is not saying logic does not apply; but rather that that logic does not apply. In short that in the period birth to 3 years we cannot remember: yet we exist; and in the period before birth we cannot remember; so from this it is not logical to assume that we do not exist.
Congratulations, Fiona, you win the prize for reading comprehension. ;)

I think the problem lies in confusing bodily existence and consciousness ( or personality or whatever word you want to use to characterise the "you" we have been discussing).

Sorry if that just adds to the confusion. I think, Rodney, that your substantive point has been answered, but perhaps it got lost in this particular ambiguity?
Correct. There are only two possibilities here: There is a part of us (soul, or whatever term you want to use) that preexisted birth, or there isn't. If there is, it is possible that something would be remembered prior to birth, but it is also possible that nothing would be remembered. The latter possibility is supported by the fact that few of us can remember anything prior to our third or fourth birthday. Therefore, it does not follow that, if we cannot remember anything prior to our birth, that proves we did not exist prior to birth.

[Moochie]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.

You are not. :D


M.

[Moochie]

"Are you dead before you are born?"

Before conception there is no physical something that could be refered to, by me or anyone else, as dglas, except perhaps as an idea between wannabe parents. After conception there was a something that later did become a dglas. Until the persona and identity of dglas was socially constructed, however, there was no dglas to be alive or dead. The question fails for lack of a referent.

Until the socially constructed sense of self-awareness, the only dglas that existed was in the minds and behaviours of others, and then only as a non-sentient bundle of tissue with potential to become a self-aware entity.

Self-awareness is not a criterion for life/death. If you think there is, tell it to some bactieria. If they give you a nod, let me know. The question does not hinge on awareness.

That's why I think choosing a name for a yet-to-be human is so important. I've heard of a "Holly Greene" and a "Misty Hymen."


M.

[Moochie]

Regarding the OP, I would say that I can apply my concept of not-yet-existing to that of no-longer-existing. Sort of a "non-existance is non-existance" thing. That's one of the reasons why it's important to have a good life and accomplish what we want to accomplish while we're here. No latter atonement, punishment, return, or conscious influence.

Someone else might say, why bother to accomplish anything, since our life is but a blip in infinity.

M.

[cyborg]

It is that primate that looks back at you from the mirror.

Ah, so I cease to exist when the mirror is not there ;)

[cyborg]

I am not sure what this is meant to prove, however. That the brain can sometimes continue to function with 50% - 75% reduction in size. That is fairly astonishing, but not really relevant to the discussion.

Stupid! It's obvious!

By induction this shows that a 100% reduction in brain size will still function therefore your brain isn't the source of you and you exist without it.

QED.

[Silentknight]

Then consider why it is that you also remember nothing from the time you were conceived until the time you turned 3 or 4.
Was too mesmerised and blissed-out by the breast-feeding.

I quoted this, even though it was a joke, because I wanted to say something about this. I actually do have memories from before I was 3 or 4. My first conscious memory was just that: nursing with my mother in the hospital when I was a baby. It wasn't an implanted memory that I was later convinced I had from having the story retold or looking at pictures, I truly remember it. What likely cemented that memory was the fact that my mother hit me (okay, nudged me) because according to her I had bitten down or something. I mostly remember being nudged.

I also remember learning how to speak, I remember learning the alphabet, and I remember being cared for by my grandmother for the time before I entered preschool. So it's not unheard of for people to have memories from this time.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Someone else might say, why bother to accomplish anything, since our life is but a blip in infinity.

M.

True. People are different like that.

You know, I really think that is what PJ is eternally trying to say -- that atheism is a empty, meaningless, joyless, hallow, depressing, hopeless, selfish, and pitiful state. He seems to think that people who believe in magic are somehow happier or better or have "fuller" lives.

Now, I disagree with that particular view. I am an atheist; my life and my general outlook is anything but empty, meaningless, etc. The idea that this is my only life is precisely the reason why I feel that life is wonderful, special, awesome, and precious. It's why I feel that we should cherish our time and cherish each other. If I do the wrong thing or hurt someone, then I feel I should atone for it now and in person -- not at some nebulous later date with Jesus. I know that I won't be "watching over my son from Heaven", so I'm trying my hardest to be the best mom that I can be right now. I know that I don't have some invisible guardian angel, so I'd better be careful because I'm the one responsible for any risks I may take. I know that my life is not going to be some cosmic scrapbook for me to flip through during worship breaks in Heaven. My life is immediate. My life is important. My life is all I'm ever gonna have.

OTOH, a theist may feel that he will be offered the ultimate "out" by simple repentance, either in life or as a soul. A theist may believe that since he'll get the the chance to repent later, he can let some stuff slide in his life. Another (sinful) theist may be inclined to believe that since he's already damned to Eternal Torment (or other ultimate punishment), that there's no point in trying to be a better person. Or, he may find great joy and comfort in contemplating a Higher Power. Another member of that congregation may find that Higher Power to be a source of guilt, shame, and oppression. Or, he may constantly feel the need to prove his soul's worthiness. Or, he may get real satisfaction out of charitable works in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to dehumanize/hurt/oppress/abuse/punish/kill others in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to be pacifistic, humble and meek because of his Higher Power.

See, I don't think the theism is the same for every theist. I believe that "people are people" and that different people respond differently to different idealogies. I don't understand why some people presume to state repeatedly that atheism is the same -- bad, of course -- for every atheist. Atheism, like theism, is not intrinsically "good" or "bad". It's what people do with it -- and their lives -- that really matters.

[Moochie]

True. People are different like that.

You know, I really think that is what PJ is eternally trying to say -- that atheism is a empty, meaningless, joyless, hallow, depressing, hopeless, selfish, and pitiful state. He seems to think that people who believe in magic are somehow happier or better or have "fuller" lives.

Now, I disagree with that particular view. I am an atheist; my life and my general outlook is anything but empty, meaningless, etc. The idea that this is my only life is precisely the reason why I feel that life is wonderful, special, awesome, and precious. It's why I feel that we should cherish our time and cherish each other. If I do the wrong thing or hurt someone, then I feel I should atone for it now and in person -- not at some nebulous later date with Jesus. I know that I won't be "watching over my son from Heaven", so I'm trying my hardest to be the best mom that I can be right now. I know that I don't have some invisible guardian angel, so I'd better be careful because I'm the one responsible for any risks I may take. I know that my life is not going to be some cosmic scrapbook for me to flip through during worship breaks in Heaven. My life is immediate. My life is important. My life is all I'm ever gonna have.

OTOH, a theist may feel that he will be offered the ultimate "out" by simple repentance, either in life or as a soul. A theist may believe that since he'll get the the chance to repent later, he can let some stuff slide in his life. Another (sinful) theist may be inclined to believe that since he's already damned to Eternal Torment (or other ultimate punishment), that there's no point in trying to be a better person. Or, he may find great joy and comfort in contemplating a Higher Power. Another member of that congregation may find that Higher Power to be a source of guilt, shame, and oppression. Or, he may constantly feel the need to prove his soul's worthiness. Or, he may get real satisfaction out of charitable works in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to dehumanize/hurt/oppress/abuse/punish/kill others in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to be pacifistic, humble and meek because of his Higher Power.

See, I don't think the theism is the same for every theist. I believe that "people are people" and that different people respond differently to different idealogies. I don't understand why some people presume to state repeatedly that atheism is the same -- bad, of course -- for every atheist. Atheism, like theism, is not intrinsically "good" or "bad". It's what people do with it -- and their lives -- that really matters.


Well said, and I can only agree. My non-enthusiasm and non-ambitiousness have ought to do with my take on religion. I'm just lazy.


M.

[Robin]

True. People are different like that.

You know, I really think that is what PJ is eternally trying to say -- that atheism is a empty, meaningless, joyless, hallow, depressing, hopeless, selfish, and pitiful state. He seems to think that people who believe in magic are somehow happier or better or have "fuller" lives.

Now, I disagree with that particular view. I am an atheist; my life and my general outlook is anything but empty, meaningless, etc. The idea that this is my only life is precisely the reason why I feel that life is wonderful, special, awesome, and precious. It's why I feel that we should cherish our time and cherish each other. If I do the wrong thing or hurt someone, then I feel I should atone for it now and in person -- not at some nebulous later date with Jesus. I know that I won't be "watching over my son from Heaven", so I'm trying my hardest to be the best mom that I can be right now. I know that I don't have some invisible guardian angel, so I'd better be careful because I'm the one responsible for any risks I may take. I know that my life is not going to be some cosmic scrapbook for me to flip through during worship breaks in Heaven. My life is immediate. My life is important. My life is all I'm ever gonna have.

OTOH, a theist may feel that he will be offered the ultimate "out" by simple repentance, either in life or as a soul. A theist may believe that since he'll get the the chance to repent later, he can let some stuff slide in his life. Another (sinful) theist may be inclined to believe that since he's already damned to Eternal Torment (or other ultimate punishment), that there's no point in trying to be a better person. Or, he may find great joy and comfort in contemplating a Higher Power. Another member of that congregation may find that Higher Power to be a source of guilt, shame, and oppression. Or, he may constantly feel the need to prove his soul's worthiness. Or, he may get real satisfaction out of charitable works in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to dehumanize/hurt/oppress/abuse/punish/kill others in the name of his Higher Power. Or, he may be more inclined to be pacifistic, humble and meek because of his Higher Power.

See, I don't think the theism is the same for every theist. I believe that "people are people" and that different people respond differently to different idealogies. I don't understand why some people presume to state repeatedly that atheism is the same -- bad, of course -- for every atheist. Atheism, like theism, is not intrinsically "good" or "bad". It's what people do with it -- and their lives -- that really matters.
Excellent post!

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Excellent post!
Thanks.

:blush:



Oh, hey, did you ever notice that funny little button over there that says "nominate"?? Has that always been there?? I wonder what it does ....


:D

[Rodney]

I quoted this, even though it was a joke, because I wanted to say something about this. I actually do have memories from before I was 3 or 4. My first conscious memory was just that: nursing with my mother in the hospital when I was a baby. It wasn't an implanted memory that I was later convinced I had from having the story retold or looking at pictures, I truly remember it. What likely cemented that memory was the fact that my mother hit me (okay, nudged me) because according to her I had bitten down or something. I mostly remember being nudged.

I also remember learning how to speak, I remember learning the alphabet, and I remember being cared for by my grandmother for the time before I entered preschool. So it's not unheard of for people to have memories from this time.
True, but it's also not unheard of for people to (claim, at least, that they) have memories of past lives.

[Radrook]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.




What we are comparing here is the state of being unconceived with the state of ceasing to perceive. The situation is identical-no sense perception. However, as another poster pointed out, in the unconceived situation nothing has died. In the death situation something has died or ceased to function bringing about the non-perception condition of the unconceived once again. Adam was aware of this when told that he would die since he had experienced the non-perception of the noncreated which is identical to the nonperception of the unconceived.

BTW

The statements above are meant as approximations since when basic perceptions begin to take place in the womb is really irrelevant to the subject.

[Autolite]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.

I thought that the OP was interesting. I wouldn't sat that we were "dead" before we were conceived but that's just semantics. I prefer the term "non-existent". We were non-existent before our conception and we return to non-existence when we die.

However, the concept of non-existence presents a conundrum. Logically non-existence should not be feared yet the idea of not existing ever again (post mortem) still bothers me. Why is that???

[Silentknight]

True, but it's also not unheard of for people to (claim, at least, that they) have memories of past lives.

There's a distinct difference though. Past life memories are demonstrably false. There is no proven means for which memories from one individual can be transferred upon death into another upon birth. Memories from an age prior to 3 however are quite possible, especially given that the brain at that age is wired to soak up as much information as it can. The simple facts that you are speaking a language and using the bathroom is evidence that the brain is capable of retaining information from that age.

[Radrook]

....
However, the concept of non-existence presents a conundrum. Logically non-existence should not be feared yet the idea of not existing ever again (post mortem) still bothers me. Why is that???

Because it's equivalent to being deaf, blind, mute, uinable to smell, or taste, or feel. If we deeply fear these handicaps individually, then it's only natural to fear them happening all at once at death.

[Autolite]

Because it's equivalent to being deaf, blind, mute, uinable to smell, or taste, or feel. If we deeply fear these handicaps individually, then it's only natural to fear them happening all at once at death.

How is death equivalent to being handicapped? In most cases a handicapped person is still self aware. There is no self awareness when you are dead. You've stopped existing. You are no longer you. Logically there should be nothing to be worried about...

[Radrook]

How is death equivalent to being handicapped? In most cases a handicapped person is still self aware. There is no self awareness when you are dead. You've stopped existing. You are no longer you. Logically there should be nothing to be worried about...

Not comparing death with handicap. Only saying that we fear the perceptual loss involved in blindness, deafness, etcetera and that such loss is total in death so via extension, it's not strange that we fear death even more when we think of such a total loss.

It's a choice between

1. No suffering as a consequence of total perceptual loss. = death

2. Suffering with only partial perceptual loss. = handicap

Clearly, the first is more terrifying than the second due to the totality of the perceptual or abilities lost as opposed to the partial loss involved in the second.

BTW
This is not to say that under extenuating circumstances such as the perception of unbearable agonizing pain the first would not be considered preferable. Or that if the handicaps were severe enough the person would still choose to hold on to life. Only to say that loss of perception and abilities which characterize life is what our fear of death is based on.

[Autolite]

It's a choice between

1. No suffering as a consequence of total perceptual loss. = death

2. Suffering with only partial perceptual loss. = handicap

Clearly, the first is more terrifying than the second due to the totality of the perceptual or abilities lost as opposed to the partial loss involved in the second.


Perhaps, yet it seems illogical. When you're dead you don't know you're dead. It shouldn't be terrifying...

[Modified]

I quoted this, even though it was a joke, because I wanted to say something about this. I actually do have memories from before I was 3 or 4. My first conscious memory was just that: nursing with my mother in the hospital when I was a baby. It wasn't an implanted memory that I was later convinced I had from having the story retold or looking at pictures, I truly remember it. What likely cemented that memory was the fact that my mother hit me (okay, nudged me) because according to her I had bitten down or something. I mostly remember being nudged.

I also remember learning how to speak, I remember learning the alphabet, and I remember being cared for by my grandmother for the time before I entered preschool. So it's not unheard of for people to have memories from this time.

From a trip to California when I had just turned three, I remember the price of gas. My parents were comparing prices at a freeway exit. I didn't exactly know what the numbers meant, but I remember trying to figure out why one was better than the other, and I remembered the sounds - twenty-six-nine, twenty-five-nine. From that trip I also remember the submarine ride at Disneyland, looking out the window at rows of tall palm trees, the clown at a Jack in the Box drive through (we didn't have those at home), and my dad's friend who we stayed with (and who I never saw again) - not his face but I remember that he was fat, wore a brown suit, and smelled like cigars.

From before that, I remember figuring out how to ask for a cookie for the first time ("Want cookie") and getting it. I suppose that would be around age 1 1/2. I remember being jealous of my brother getting to breastfeed after I had been weaned, which had to be some time before age two.

I think I used to remember being put in an ice-bath for fever (frequently, over a two week period) when I was two months old. At least, the first time I was told the story I claimed to remember it. If it was a real memory, I suppose it is now subsumed by the much clearer memory of hearing about it a few times.

[Tricky]

Perhaps, yet it seems illogical. When you're dead you don't know you're dead. It shouldn't be terrifying...
Obviously, it is only terrifying when you are alive. But to a living person, it is quite terrifying. If there is one thing that is common to all life forms it is that they are vehicles for preserving DNA. They have evolved many strategies for doing this, including an advanced neural network, but even very simple animals run away from danger. Even plants have responses that they can use to avoid death. I can't think of anything that is more basic than an avoidance of death.

Only very neurologically advanced creatures like ourselves can be philosophical about it, and it still scares the bejabbers out of many if not most of us. In my opinion, it is the main reason for religion.

[Rodney]

Past life memories are demonstrably false.
How so?

There is no proven means for which memories from one individual can be transferred upon death into another upon birth.
Until the Wright Brothers, there was no proven means by which heavier than air machines could fly.

[Robin]

Until the Wright Brothers, there was no proven means by which heavier than air machines could fly.
So birds evolved after the Wright Brothers?

[bobrayner]

How so?


Until the Wright Brothers, there was no proven means by which heavier than air machines could fly.

We have evidence for one but not the other. Your "until" is misleading.

There is a good reason to believe that heavier-than-air machines can fly, because we can see it happen every day, and the workings are consistent with our understanding of physics.

There is no good reason to believe in transferrence of memories, because the best evidence is a small pile of silly anecdotes & wishful thinking, and because there's no mechanism that would fit our current understanding of physics, biology, &c.

[articulett]

Plus, every time we try to test it, it's a big pile of fail.

If there were an iota of promising evidence in that arena, people would be gathering and honing the knowledge-- there just is not an iota of evidence despite eons of belief. Eventually, the smart people let go of their delusion that the earth is flat.

[Robin]

It is interesting that when I was much younger, all the past life memory case studies involved people that had past memories of being famous people.

When skeptics started asking "why are all these people famous?" suddenly you started getting people recalling living ordinary and obscure past lives.

[edge]

Well if you believe there is a death for you, then there is.
But I don't think so, I think you are wrong.

[Robin]

Well if you believe there is a death for you, then there is.
But I don't think so, I think you are wrong.
I am not sure how believing would change things one way or the other.

So in what sense do you think you can survive the death of your brain? Do your memories, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, intelligence etc reside somewhere else but the brain? What then is the purpose of the brain? Why do physical alterations of the brain appear to have such profound effects on our minds?

[Rodney]

We have evidence for one but not the other. Your "until" is misleading.

There is a good reason to believe that heavier-than-air machines can fly, because we can see it happen every day, and the workings are consistent with our understanding of physics.

There is no good reason to believe in transferrence of memories, because the best evidence is a small pile of silly anecdotes & wishful thinking, and because there's no mechanism that would fit our current understanding of physics, biology, &c.
Did heavier than air flying machines fit the scientific understanding of the 19th Century? If you say yes, consider this quote from one of the most famous 19th Century scientists:

"In 1895, as president of the Royal Society, [Lord] Kelvin is quoted as saying, 'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', proven false a mere eight years later with the flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright's Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk in 1903." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin

[Autolite]

Did heavier than air flying machines fit the scientific understanding of the 19th Century? If you say yes, consider this quote from one of the most famous 19th Century scientists:

"In 1895, as president of the Royal Society, [Lord] Kelvin is quoted as saying, 'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', proven false a mere eight years later with the flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright's Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk in 1903." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin

Today we have airplanes so obviously past life memories are verifiable! I see the connection. What's wrong with you people???

[tramper]

Perhaps, yet it seems illogical. When you're dead you don't know you're dead. It shouldn't be terrifying...

Can we be dead before we die ? as in the case of Coma or Dementia where we loose or forget the knowledge of our pervious exsitance.

[edge]

I am not sure how believing would change things one way or the other.

So in what sense do you think you can survive the death of your brain? Do your memories, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, intelligence etc reside somewhere else but the brain? What then is the purpose of the brain? Why do physical alterations of the brain appear to have such profound effects on our minds?

If you believe there is nothing but darkness that's where you will wind up first.

Is your foot part of you?
Your brain sorts out what you have to do, isn't all the parts you and does the brain control all the parts.
Just because the brain controls all the parts what does the soul do?
Do you think that it too is all of the parts of your body sinse the whole body is alive and maybe it resides in the whole body?
But the part of the soul that thinks is in the brain, or is able to access the brain, the computer of our body.
The part that is the soul thinks, I must walk over there then the brain takes over like a button you hit and programming starts when the action of walking actually begins, should you have to think of every muscle involved in the action?
There is some one in there pushing the buttons.

Why do you think they say my heart was broken?
Shouldn’t it be my mind was broken?
When some body hurts you why is there that feeling in the chest?
Could it be where the center of the soul is?
What is the reason for the body to cry?

[Robin]

If you believe there is nothing but darkness that's where you will wind up first.
If I believe I own an Aston Martin will I wind up in an Aston Martin? Believing a false thing to be true will not make it so. Believing a true thing to be false will not make it so.
Is your foot part of you?
Your brain sorts out what you have to do, isn't all the parts you and does the brain control all the parts.
Just because the brain controls all the parts what does the soul do?
I think that is rather a question for you to answer.
Do you think that it too is all of the parts of your body sinse the whole body is alive and maybe it resides in the whole body?
But the part of the soul that thinks is in the brain, or is able to access the brain, the computer of our body.

The part that is the soul thinks, I must walk over there then the brain takes over like a button you hit and programming starts when the action of walking actually begins, should you have to think of every muscle involved in the action?
There is some one in there pushing the buttons.
Why then is the thinking so dependent on the good order of the computer? If a brain is damaged it is not just the ability to move the limbs that is affected. It is the thinking itself. Brain damage can lower intelligence, change personality. A person with brain damage might feel totally indifferent to somebody they loved deeply before the accident.

Have you ever been close to someone with dementia - not just some specific aphasia but fully fledged dementia? If the soul was simply using the brain like a computer to control the body why is the soul so utterly and heartbreakingly damaged by the decay of the computer's machinery?
Why do you think they say my heart was broken?
Shouldn’t it be my mind was broken?
When some body hurts you why is there that feeling in the chest?
Could it be where the center of the soul is?
What is the reason for the body to cry?
Why do you think we say the Sun rises?

[Robin]

Did heavier than air flying machines fit the scientific understanding of the 19th Century? If you say yes, consider this quote from one of the most famous 19th Century scientists:

"In 1895, as president of the Royal Society, [Lord] Kelvin is quoted as saying, 'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', proven false a mere eight years later with the flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright's Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk in 1903." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
Quite a lot of Kelvin's fame came from getting things wrong, notably the age of the Earth and the Sun.

All the same I can't find a source for the quote and it seems doubtful that he really said that since a number of heavier than air flying machines had already been demonstrated at the time he was supposed to have made the remarks and he commented on these.

He was skeptical, not about the possiblity of heavier than air flight, but it's practicality. See his letter to Baden Powell:
I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.
Or this in a 1902 interview with the Newark Advocate:
"Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?"
"No; no more than the other."
"Then we cannot navigate the air at all in a commercial way?"
"No; I think it cannot be done. No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."
So Kelvin was not saying that heavier than air flight was impossible, he was merely saying that it was an impractical technology.

So even an error-prone scientist like Kelvin at least knew that heavier-than-air flight was possible.

[Rodney]

All the same I can't find a source for the quote and it seems doubtful that he really said that since a number of heavier than air flying machines had already been demonstrated at the time he was supposed to have made the remarks and he commented on these.

He was skeptical, not about the possiblity of heavier than air flight, but it's practicality. See his letter to Baden Powell:

Or this in a 1902 interview with the Newark Advocate:

So Kelvin was not saying that heavier than air flight was impossible, he was merely saying that it was an impractical technology.

So even an error-prone scientist like Kelvin at least knew that heavier-than-air flight was possible.
Nice try, but according to -- http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt15_p --

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.

"Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple's Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight?

"The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: 'It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body.'

"Swedenborg's design, like so many, was based on a flapping-wing mechanism. Two things had to happen before heavier-than-air flight became possible. First, flapping wings had to be ditched and replaced by a gliding mechanism. And secondly, engineers had to be able to call on a better power supply – the internal combustion engine. Ironically, Nicolaus Otto had already patented this in 1877."

[Autolite]

"In 1895, as president of the Royal Society, [Lord] Kelvin is quoted as saying, 'Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible'

Perhaps Lord Kelvin wasn't so far off the mark. After all, the Theory of Flight, like Evolution, is still just a theory... :D

[Robin]

Nice try, but according to -- http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt15_p
I said I couldn't find a source. You didn't provide a source, the New Scientist article simply quotes it unsourced. What do you think this adds?

Everywhere you see this quote it is unsourced. Where exactly did he say it?

Add to this the fact that by 1895 heavier than air flight was a well established fact and a number of heavier than air aeroplanes had been successfully built and flown - even powered ones.

Would Kelvin really have been unaware of these facts?

My quotes show that he was well aware of them and my quotes (unlike yours) are sourced.

[edge]

Why do you think we say the Sun rises?
Because that's the way it looks accept it doesn't originate from inside the Earth and then rise but it is over your head.
I think that is rather a question for you to answer.

I have, "There is some one in there pushing the buttons".

Now the question is where you there before your computer brain and the physical body was ready for you to occupy?

I think there is something in the bible, but I don't have time to look up the verse right now.

[Robin]

Because that's the way it looks accept it doesn't originate from inside the Earth and then rise but it is over your head.
Same with your question. We don't automatically know everything about our biology so we make assumptions
I have, "There is some one in there pushing the buttons".

Now the question is where you there before your computer brain and the physical body was ready for you to occupy?

I think there is something in the bible, but I don't have time to look up the verse right now.
Hmmm... You missed most of the questions:
Why then is the thinking so dependent on the good order of the computer? If a brain is damaged it is not just the ability to move the limbs that is affected. It is the thinking itself. Brain damage can lower intelligence, change personality. A person with brain damage might feel totally indifferent to somebody they loved deeply before the accident.

Have you ever been close to someone with dementia - not just some specific aphasia but fully fledged dementia? If the soul was simply using the brain like a computer to control the body why is the soul so utterly and heartbreakingly damaged by the decay of the computer's machinery?

Oh, and by the way, I shall be very interested in that quote from the Bible about where your soul was before your body was ready. New Testament I assume, if anywhere.

[Rodney]

I said I couldn't find a source. You didn't provide a source, the New Scientist article simply quotes it unsourced. What do you think this adds?

Everywhere you see this quote it is unsourced. Where exactly did he say it?

Add to this the fact that by 1895 heavier than air flight was a well established fact and a number of heavier than air aeroplanes had been successfully built and flown - even powered ones.

Would Kelvin really have been unaware of these facts?

My quotes show that he was well aware of them and my quotes (unlike yours) are sourced.
In quoting Kelvin, Wikipedia cites FEBS Lett. 2004 Apr 30;564(3):269-73. But the main point is that Kelvin was representative of the old guard scientific establishment of the late 19th Century. For example, the renowned astronomer and mathematician Simon Newcomb is quoted as saying: "'Quite likely the twentieth century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different.' Newcomb, apparently, was unaware of the Wright Brothers efforts; whose work was done in relative obscurity." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb

Further, as late as January 1905, Scientific American magazine expressed skepticism about whether the Wright Brothers had flown. An article titled "The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance" states: "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?" See http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

[Moochie]

What happened to the topic?

M.

[articulett]

What happened to the topic?

M.

Rodney derailed with a straw man so he could keep his faith alive.

[Rodney]

Rodney derailed with a straw man so he could keep his faith alive.
Sorry for the derail, but I think your faith exceeds mine, dearest articulett. ;)

[Dogdoctor]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it is a silly question anyway. I have asked others this in the past and maybe even in here. Do we already know exactly what it is like to be dead because we were all dead (not alive) before we were born? It seems to me it wasn't all that bad - though I don't remember much.
It depends on your exact definitions of various words. Our bodies are composed of cells which have evolved from the primordial one celled organisms long ago. All through that process live cells create more live cells so in that sense we aren't dead. However before cells there was no life so we were all dead in that sense. Also our cells are made of atoms and molecules and most of these atoms and molecules were from dead sources (so we are made of molecules and atoms from dead sources.) However you have to consider at which point we are we, which is a big debate among abortion and anti-abortion activists. Then also, as has been pointed out by others, we wouldn't have any memory of the time preexisting the development of our neurological system. So of course you don't remember it because your neurological system hadn't developed enough for you to remember it.

[I Ratant]

"Dead before we're alive" is just plain silly.
The unorganized components that become organized on conception certainly can't be dead, and participate in the growth of the organism.
But aware of living as we understand, when it's just a component, no!
Many folks at the other end fear death because of the uncertainties we get exposed to by those pimping the ideas of the afterlife.
The many promises of eternal torment when one fails to follow the ideas of some god-shouter get too much priority, when, since we really only get one chance at life, we should be pushed towards doing the best we can with what we have to work with, not with the goal of a nice white (with gold trimming) robe and an always-in-tune harp to plunk forever praising what's his face's everlasting love (and endless torment if we put a foot wrong), but just because being nice to others makes life just a little bit better for everyone.

[Autolite]

Obviously, it is only terrifying when you are alive. But to a living person, it is quite terrifying.
Only very neurologically advanced creatures like ourselves can be philosophical about it, and it still scares the bejabbers out of many if not most of us. In my opinion, it is the main reason for religion.

Yes, I understand that it is "terrifying when you are alive" but why? When I said "when you're dead you don't know you're dead" what I meant to say was that a rational, alive person KNOWS that "when you're dead you don't know you're dead".

So why then do rational, alive people fear death (or "non-existence" if you will)? I am thinking that it is an emotional, biologically driven fear that is illogical...

[NonCleverName]

We didn't exist before we were conceived. The material we are made of existed, but it wasn't until it was organized in a certain way, by reproduction, that we became aware of what we all refer to as ''I''.

[Robin]

In quoting Kelvin, Wikipedia cites FEBS Lett. 2004 Apr 30;564(3):269-73. But the main point is that Kelvin was representative of the old guard scientific establishment of the late 19th Century. For example, the renowned astronomer and mathematician Simon Newcomb is quoted as saying: "'Quite likely the twentieth century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different.' Newcomb, apparently, was unaware of the Wright Brothers efforts; whose work was done in relative obscurity." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb

Further, as late as January 1905, Scientific American magazine expressed skepticism about whether the Wright Brothers had flown. An article titled "The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance" states: "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?" See http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
Wikipedia's source is simply someone else quoting this furphy unsourced.

It all boils down to the fact that nobody thought heavier than air flying machines were impossible in the late 19th century or the early 20th century.

Some thought them impractical like Kelvin. Some thought they would take longer to develop like Newcomb. Some thought the Wright Brother's specific claim was false, but nobody thought heavier than air flight impossible.

In fact every scientist and intelligent person for thousands of years had known that heavier than air flight was possible since it was an observable, inescapable fact.

[edge]

Same with your question. We don't automatically know everything about our biology so we make assumptions

Hmmm... You missed most of the questions:

Oh, and by the way, I shall be very interested in that quote from the Bible about where your soul was before your body was ready. New Testament I assume, if anywhere.

This secret gnosis emphasized spiritual "resurrection" (i.e,. spiritual rebirth) and physical "resurrection" (i.e., reincarnation) as opposed to a resurrection defined as people sleeping in their graves until it is time their corpses to crawl out of their graves at the last day. Christian Gnostics held the view that if spiritual resurrection was not attained in one lifetime, then the soul would be subjected to as many reincarnations as it takes until spiritual rebirth is attained.
This is all I can find for now it might be in the dead sea scrolls also it's a lot of looking I'll look some more but for now this is what I had at hand.
There is also a reference some where of us being there and before being born drinking the water of forgetfulness before we enter into this world.
It also gives the reason I’m mining now so My time is limited in here as I have that to do now so excuse me for not being quicker with my responses.
So right now my side interest in geology and mining make me tired too.
It is the only way I can get into shape again after winter up here, shoveling rock and dirt and sluicing for gold.
Nothing else works for me, and my job isn't that strenuous, matter of fact that’s what makes me fat around my belly and back.
If I can't keep up I might drop out for a while.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen06.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/history.asp

[Rodney]

Wikipedia's source is simply someone else quoting this furphy unsourced.

It all boils down to the fact that nobody thought heavier than air flying machines were impossible in the late 19th century or the early 20th century.

Some thought them impractical like Kelvin. Some thought they would take longer to develop like Newcomb. Some thought the Wright Brother's specific claim was false, but nobody thought heavier than air flight impossible.

In fact every scientist and intelligent person for thousands of years had known that heavier than air flight was possible since it was an observable, inescapable fact.
Let's continue this discussion in a new thread titled "Scientists Who Thought Heavier Than Air Flying Machines Were Impossible" in the science, mathematics, and technology forum.

[Southwind17]

The Beatles are hideously over-rated. :)

I couldn't agree more - simple case of right place right time. Some of the song-writing wasn't so bad, especially Lennon's (who, as you all know, is dead, so I'm keeping within the spirit(!) of the OP with this post!). McCartney's probably the most over-rated artist of last century, and continues with his tosh this century.

Did anybody watch American Idol recently when they had the Beatles night? Just about every contestant chose an obscure song, because they didn't have a clue what the more popular Beatles songs were! I think they should have required them to do the complete Dark Side of the Moon. That'd sort out the wheat from the chaff!

[billydkid]

"Dead before we're alive" is just plain silly.
The unorganized components that become organized on conception certainly can't be dead, and participate in the growth of the organism.
But aware of living as we understand, when it's just a component, no!
Many folks at the other end fear death because of the uncertainties we get exposed to by those pimping the ideas of the afterlife.
The many promises of eternal torment when one fails to follow the ideas of some god-shouter get too much priority, when, since we really only get one chance at life, we should be pushed towards doing the best we can with what we have to work with, not with the goal of a nice white (with gold trimming) robe and an always-in-tune harp to plunk forever praising what's his face's everlasting love (and endless torment if we put a foot wrong), but just because being nice to others makes life just a little bit better for everyone.I think you missed the point. It is this - is there any reason to believe that our "experience" after we die is any different at all for our experience before being conceived? The further point being - most of us are afraid of dying, but it seems to me we have already spent most of eternity in the state of deadness. Questions arise such as - What is the basis for our fear of death? The most obvious to me is our inability to grasp the notion of no longer existing. For others their fear may be based on some idea of what might come after death. All I know is this - from what I can tell, it didn't hurt not being alive (dead) and there is no reason to believe it will hurt when we expire. The real problem is that you miss so much - like when you have a bad cold in the summer time and everyone else is outside playing in the sun.

[Autolite]

Questions arise such as - What is the basis for our fear of death? The most obvious to me is our inability to grasp the notion of no longer existing. For others their fear may be based on some idea of what might come after death. All I know is this - from what I can tell, it didn't hurt not being alive (dead) and there is no reason to believe it will hurt when we expire. The real problem is that you miss so much - like when you have a bad cold in the summer time and everyone else is outside playing in the sun.

This is indeed puzzling. I have accepted the fact that there is no afterlife and that death means non-existence for eternity, yet the idea still bothers me. Your "bad cold in the summer time" analogy doesn't exactly fit either. In that scenario you are alive, self aware and you know that you are missing out on something. That isn't the same as death...

[Moochie]

I couldn't agree more - simple case of right place right time. Some of the song-writing wasn't so bad, especially Lennon's (who, as you all know, is dead, so I'm keeping within the spirit(!) of the OP with this post!). McCartney's probably the most over-rated artist of last century, and continues with his tosh this century.

Did anybody watch American Idol recently when they had the Beatles night? Just about every contestant chose an obscure song, because they didn't have a clue what the more popular Beatles songs were! I think they should have required them to do the complete Dark Side of the Moon. That'd sort out the wheat from the chaff!

S I G H . . . I saw it, and felt soooo old. My personal faves are Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's. And just about everything by Pink Floyd.

M.


ETA: I claim the "dead John" link to the OP, too. :D

[Moochie]

I think you missed the point. It is this - is there any reason to believe that our "experience" after we die is any different at all for our experience before being conceived? The further point being - most of us are afraid of dying, but it seems to me we have already spent most of eternity in the state of deadness. Questions arise such as - What is the basis for our fear of death? The most obvious to me is our inability to grasp the notion of no longer existing. For others their fear may be based on some idea of what might come after death. All I know is this - from what I can tell, it didn't hurt not being alive (dead) and there is no reason to believe it will hurt when we expire. The real problem is that you miss so much - like when you have a bad cold in the summer time and everyone else is outside playing in the sun.

"Miss so much"? The fact is, we simply don't know these "states-before-and-after-death." Some claim to, but cannot offer anything but fanciful scenarios ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. IMO, the fact that we really don't know anything is possibly cause for cheerfulness. It (dying) may be a great adventure.

M.

[I Ratant]

"It is this - is there any reason to believe that our "experience" after we die is any different at all for our experience before being conceived?"
.
There isn't any "experience" before conception. Just a bunch of chemicals in combination which when activated can become "alive" as we understand it.
And after death, those chemicals don't have any more life as a person.
They just decay back to some less organized condition.
Expecting there to be a conscious life after death is just pure ego.

[Dogdoctor]

I think you missed the point. It is this - is there any reason to believe that our "experience" after we die is any different at all for our experience before being conceived? The further point being - most of us are afraid of dying, but it seems to me we have already spent most of eternity in the state of deadness. Questions arise such as - What is the basis for our fear of death? The most obvious to me is our inability to grasp the notion of no longer existing. For others their fear may be based on some idea of what might come after death. All I know is this - from what I can tell, it didn't hurt not being alive (dead) and there is no reason to believe it will hurt when we expire. The real problem is that you miss so much - like when you have a bad cold in the summer time and everyone else is outside playing in the sun.
I don't know why people fear death. Perhaps it is normal. Perhaps we are conditioned to fear death by the societies we grow up in. But in my case I really don't fear death and this is likely due to severe depression I suffered through as a youth and the realization that death is nothing to fear compared to a life like I had. Death was always my companion through my deep dark painful life. I knew if I just couldn't take it anymore death was there waiting and willing to stop it all for me. I don't think dying will hurt unless you are slowly burned to death or some other horrible end to life.

[Whiplash]

The Beatles are hideously over-rated. :)


Wow, saying the the Beatles are over-rated is one thing, but hideously over-rated? Are you someone who also would say that Seinfeld is over-rated too (I see this alot)?

I have a hard time understanding some people who say things like this. It seems to me to fall into that category of being "too cool" to like things that are loved by a vastly large number of people. I would see statements like the above as being the textbook definition of that.

Some things that are widely loved and praised really are that good. It's understandable to not like everything that other people do. But there are some things that are undoubtedly of high quality and skill and worthy of the respect and praise they recieve. If you don't want to like it, that's fine. But you kid yourself if you just hand wave it away as really not being all that good after all, and that everyone else who thinks so is just a dumb sheep or something. The Beatles were incredibly talented individuals who did some very high quality work which is worthy of respect and praise.

[Southwind17]

Wow, saying the the Beatles are over-rated is one thing, but hideously over-rated? Are you someone who also would say that Seinfeld is over-rated too (I see this alot)?

The Beatles are definitely over-rated, especially when you look at what's happened with music since the 60s! Hideously, admittedly, is a somewhat provocative word. Seinfeld, however, is fantastic. Why do you feel that The Beatles and Seinfeld should necessarily be considered likewise, and that it's odd, or wrong, if somebody likes one and not the other? Bizarre! :rolleyes:

[Radrook]

The Bible compares death with a sleep from which a person can be awakened.

Psalm 13:3
Consider and hear me, O LORD my God;Enlighten my eyes, Lest I sleep the sleep of death;


John 11:

11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”
12 Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead....

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Of course if one never was alive then one can never have been asleep in death since to die is to pass from the wakefulness of life to the unconciousness of death which the non-REM dreamless, sleep condition mimicks to a certain degree.

[Southwind17]

Of course if one never was alive then one can never have been asleep in death since to die is to pass from the wakefulness of life to the unconciousness of death which the non-REM dreamless, sleep condition mimicks to a certain degree.

Look, let's get one thing straight: "Death" is a word used to describe the state of a former living being once it fails to be alive. Death, by definition, must follow life. Indeed, death is similarly surpassed once the dead entity fails so to constitute the entity any longer. For example, it is wrong to say that William Shakespeare is dead. He was once alive, and then he died. His body decomposed thereafter, so he no longer exists in any meaningful state comparable to the state in which he was known as a person. We can only, therefore, talk about him in the past tense, not the present - he was alive; he died.

As for sleeping, given the foregoing it should not be likened one iota to death. The fact that a dead person and a sleeping person might take on a similar visible appearance is completely irrelevant. It's like saying a TV appears to be broken just because it is switched off.

[I Ratant]

When I had a knee operation, the state of anesthesia was so different from anything I'd ever encountered I noticed it immediately when waking up.
I'd never been so totally blotto.
Not any sleep experience came close.
I expect death is the same. Absolutely no sensations of anything.
Talking with others, they have felt the same.
No sensations, therefore there's nothing.
What's to fear?
The partial deaths of dementia or advanced incapacitation are more to be feared.

[Southwind17]

When I had a knee operation, the state of anesthesia was so different from anything I'd ever encountered I noticed it immediately when waking up.
I'd never been so totally blotto.
Not any sleep experience came close.
I expect death is the same. Absolutely no sensations of anything.
Talking with others, they have felt the same.
No sensations, therefore there's nothing.
What's to fear?
The partial deaths of dementia or advanced incapacitation are more to be feared.

If you had no sensation how can you have a recollection of such "experience"? More often than not, I wake up of a morning having had no dreams and no recollections since falling asleep the night before. What's the difference?!

[NonCleverName]

So, you think you can think your way out of reality, huh? Ok, go sky-diving without a paracute and magically create a soft landing for yourself. No? Not going to try it? I didn't think so.

[NonCleverName]

If you had no sensation how can you have a recollection of such "experience"? More often than not, I wake up of a morning having had no dreams and no recollections since falling asleep the night before. What's the difference?!

I can relate to the author. When I was knocked out for surgery, my vision became really blurry and colorful, and right before I expected myself to pass out, suddenly my vision got clearer, the colors went away, four hours had passed and I was finished. It's very different from sleep because you are aware of yourself fading away but it never comes. Instead of fading away you just wake up seemingly a split-second later.

[Southwind17]

I can relate to the author. When I was knocked out for surgery, my vision became really blurry and colorful, and right before I expected myself to pass out, suddenly my vision got clearer, the colors went away, four hours had passed and I was finished. It's very different from sleep because you are aware of yourself fading away but it never comes. Instead of fading away you just wake up seemingly a split-second later.

Awe-inspiring! :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

So, you think you can think your way out of reality, huh? Ok, go sky-diving without a paracute and magically create a soft landing for yourself. No? Not going to try it? I didn't think so.

Funny, I too watched the Matrix (original) last night!

[NonCleverName]

Awe-inspiring! :rolleyes:

It was to me. The fact that I could achieve such a state of non-awareness was something in which I had never known. When I wake up from sleep, I feel as if a considerable amount of time has passed, but when I was put under for surgery, it felt completely different as if no time had passed. My brain was manipulated in a way that put me in a state of being completely unaware. It was quite an experience.

[billydkid]

"It is this - is there any reason to believe that our "experience" after we die is any different at all for our experience before being conceived?"
.
There isn't any "experience" before conception. Just a bunch of chemicals in combination which when activated can become "alive" as we understand it.
And after death, those chemicals don't have any more life as a person.
They just decay back to some less organized condition.
Expecting there to be a conscious life after death is just pure ego.Which is precisely why "experience" was in quotes. The point and the question remains - What is the basis for the fear of death except the fear of not being around anymore - or in the case of those who can not fathom not existing, the fear of "what dreams may come?"

[Silentknight]

Look, let's get one thing straight: "Death" is a word used to describe the state of a former living being once it fails to be alive. Death, by definition, must follow life. Indeed, death is similarly surpassed once the dead entity fails so to constitute the entity any longer. For example, it is wrong to say that William Shakespeare is dead. He was once alive, and then he died. His body decomposed thereafter, so he no longer exists in any meaningful state comparable to the state in which he was known as a person. We can only, therefore, talk about him in the past tense, not the present - he was alive; he died.

As for sleeping, given the foregoing it should not be likened one iota to death. The fact that a dead person and a sleeping person might take on a similar visible appearance is completely irrelevant. It's like saying a TV appears to be broken just because it is switched off.

Exactly. The word "death" means something very specific. No matter how apologists try to twist it in order to trivialize mass killings by characterizing them as "suspended animation" the fact remains that we're still talking about death in human terms. Otherwise, why use that particular word at all? It really doesn't matter what the word "death" means to God; to us it means the end of life and the state of non-living that follows life. Even if we assume the bible to be the word of God, he would surely have known that the word "death" would have to be interpreted a certain way by the humans who were intended to read it.

On the other hand, it might be funny to stuff a certain apologist into a casket and bury him the next time he dozes off. Hey, the bible itself said there was no difference! (We'd better do it soon too, because I think he's already starting to smell.)

[billydkid]

Whether you call it death or something else is beside the point. Granted, the implication of the word "dead" is that one is referring to the formerly alive. The point I am making - again - is, is there any reason to believe our state of existence (or non-existence) once we have died is in any way distinguishable from our state of existence before we came into being? To suggest there is any significant difference between having lived and then died for the hypothetical person involved - once dead - and never having lived at all implies that it is. Is being dead any different at all from merely not being alive?

[Southwind17]

Whether you call it death or something else is beside the point. Granted, the implication of the word "dead" is that one is referring to the formerly alive.

It's more than implication, much more. Life is a prerequisite!

The point I am making - again - is, is there any reason to believe our state of existence (or non-existence) once we have died is in any way distinguishable from our state of existence before we came into being?

The operative word being: "non-existence". Before you were conceived you did indeed exist, but as a jumble of atoms in other forms (maybe air, soil, water, plants, another person(!), a choroding motor car, etc, depending how far you'd care to look back). After you die you decompose and continue to exist, yes, you got it, as a jumble of atoms in other forms. Rumour has it that Shakespeare continues to "exist", in this sense, and is physically present within every living person on Earth. I'm not sure whether that's plausible, but one thing's for certain, there are some atoms making up your body that once made up parts of other people's bodies!

Now, if some people need to hang onto the idea of an afterlife, this is a far better way of considering it than imagining there's a heaven, or some such place, where one lives out another conscious life similar to this.

To suggest there is any significant difference between having lived and then died for the hypothetical person involved - once dead - and never having lived at all implies that it is. Is being dead any different at all from merely not being alive?

No, see above, other than the atoms that made up your body being in different places.

[I Ratant]

It was to me. The fact that I could achieve such a state of non-awareness was something in which I had never known. When I wake up from sleep, I feel as if a considerable amount of time has passed, but when I was put under for surgery, it felt completely different as if no time had passed. My brain was manipulated in a way that put me in a state of being completely unaware. It was quite an experience.
.
My experience was almost the same.
Totally nothing!
And after, being aware of that state was awe inspiring!
Actually soothing.

[Radrook]

Look, let's get one thing straight: "Death" is a word used to describe the state of a former living being once it fails to be alive. Death, by definition, must follow life.

Get things straight? So far we agree. So I really don't see what it is you are setting straight up to this point.


Indeed, death is similarly surpassed once the dead entity fails so to constitute the entity any longer. For example, it is wrong to say that William Shakespeare is dead. He was once alive, and then he died. His body decomposed thereafter, so he no longer exists in any meaningful state comparable to the state in which he was known as a person. We can only, therefore, talk about him in the past tense, not the present - he was alive; he died.

That's just semantics. The person saying that William Shakespeare is dead means that William Shakespeare is in the same condition as the person saying that William Shakespeare was once alive and died. So for all practical purposes the same concept is being conveyed albeit with different word choice.

As for sleeping, given the foregoing it should not be likened one iota to death.

But the foregoing is not totally relevant from the biblical perspective which allows the dead to regain consciousness via resurrection.

The fact that a dead person and a sleeping person might take on a similar visible appearance is completely irrelevant. It's like saying a TV appears to be broken just because it is switched off.

Please note that since I anticipated a degree of misunderstanding, I did use the qualifier "to a certain degree" when making the comparison. It would be irrelevant were it not for the awakening that takes place via a resurrection. That's the feature that is really being biblically focused on in reference to comparison. A sleeping person awakens from sleep. A dead person can be awakened from death.


Jesus never claimed that sleep is the equivalent of death in every aspect. His comparison was made because he intended to resurrect Lazarus and the resurrection can be likened, to a certain and very relevant degree-to an awakening. Psalms also mentions death as a sleep from the same awakening visa resurrection viewpoint since the writer also believed in the resurrection of the dead. Job requested the unconsciousness of death which would have been his had he not been born.

Job 3:13
For now I would have lain still and been quiet,I would have been asleep; Then I would have been at rest

Other Bible writrers continue to refer to death as a sleep based on that ressurection hope:

Matthew 27:52
and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

Stephen who was stoned to death by opposers of Christianity:

Acts 7:60
Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

And the term is applied to many others who experienced death as well.

Acts 13:36
“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 15:18
Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

1 Thessalonians 4:13
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have [/b]fallen asleep,[/b] lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

2 Peter 3:4
and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

[I Ratant]

If you had no sensation how can you have a recollection of such "experience"? More often than not, I wake up of a morning having had no dreams and no recollections since falling asleep the night before. What's the difference?!
.
That there was a discernible difference made the experience notable.
It was totally unlike waking up from sleep, when I woke up after the operation.
NonCleverName mentions the same thing, and others I've talked to have.
I have dreamed of dying, and woken up calm after, apparently the dream experience was also soothing, but more in the manner of removing a concern, than anything else.

[Radrook]

.
My experience was almost the same. Totally nothing! And after, being aware of that state was awe inspiring! Actually soothing.

I also underwent surgery, was put under general; anbesthesia and experienced no sense of temporal durarttion as you describe. However, instead of feeling comforted, I felt disturbed that my consciousness could be blotted out so totally with such ease.

However, from a biblical standpoint it did increase my understanding of how those who come back in the ressurection, such as David and Abraham will feel despite the passing of centuries.

BTW

This is my perception of the matter and does not constitute an invitation for debate.

[Southwind17]

.
My experience was almost the same.
Totally nothing!
And after, being aware of that state was awe inspiring!
Actually soothing.

Hang on a minute, whilst I appreciate what you're trying to convey here, we experience things via our senses, which, for the purpose of this discussion, might well extend beyond the classic five of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch to something more "emotional". That's the very essence of an "experience" - it somehow registers with us. Accordingly, one cannot "experience" nothingness; there is absolutely nothing to experience. One only becomes aware of the so-called "experience" once awake, but what, exactly, does one become aware of? That one experienced "nothingness"? Remember that one can only assimilate experiences when one is in the conscious, awakened state, by which time the perception of nothingness could well have become distorted through interpretation, just like when the mind sometimes distorts real-time information obtained in the fully-awakened state but leads one to think irrationally, or illogically, like people who contend they've seen ghosts. I suggest you were "awe-inspired" for the very same emotional reason that people who believe in miracles, or who see ghosts, become awe-inspired.

That's just semantics. The person saying that William Shakespeare is dead means that William Shakespeare is in the same condition as the person saying that William Shakespeare was once alive and died. So for all practical purposes the same concept is being conveyed albeit with different word choice.

I disagree completely, and firmly believe that your confusion over the relative states of "before life" and "after life" lies in the fact that you consider "dead" as synonymous with "after life" (that's post-life I mean, not "after-life"!). Whilst death, and hence the state of being dead, inevitably follow life and the state of being alive, you believe death takes on a special quality because it follows life. If I were to somehow separate all of the atoms from a dead adult's body and show them to you alongside all of the atoms that would one day go to make up the adult body of a person yet to be conceived you would not be able to tell the difference. You wouldn't know which atoms were "pre-life" and which "post-life". The idea of "death" is very, very different from that of "after life" (again, not "after-life").

But the foregoing is not totally relevant from the biblical perspective which allows the dead to regain consciousness via resurrection.

It's very relevant, the operative words being: "regain consciousness". In order to do so the body has to remain essentially intact. There would be a lot more involved in the "regaining of consciousness" were the body to be decomposed! That's the important, and in your mind semantic, distinction I'm making between being dead and after life in perpetuity, if you like.

Please note that since I anticipated a degree of misunderstanding, I did use the qualifier "to a certain degree" when making the comparison. It would be irrelevant were it not for the awakening that takes place via a resurrection. That's the feature that is really being biblically focused on in reference to comparison. A sleeping person awakens from sleep. A dead person can be awakened from death.

I agree. It happens every day, but not to everybody, unfortunately. I wouldn't use the word "resurrection", though. "Resuscitation" would be the right word, usually administered by trained medics.

That there was a discernible difference made the experience notable.
It was totally unlike waking up from sleep, when I woke up after the operation.
NonCleverName mentions the same thing, and others I've talked to have.

What experience?! (see above)

I have dreamed of dying, and woken up calm after, apparently the dream experience was also soothing, but more in the manner of removing a concern, than anything else.

I wake up calm most mornings - dreams or no dreams!

I also underwent surgery, was put under general; anbesthesia and experienced no sense of temporal durarttion as you describe. However, instead of feeling comforted, I felt disturbed that my consciousness could be blotted out so totally with such ease.

However, from a biblical standpoint it did increase my understanding of how those who come back in the ressurection, such as David and Abraham will feel despite the passing of centuries.

I think the word that eludes you is "notion". You cannot possibly claim to know, or even understand, how somebody feels who has allegedly been resurrected!

BTW

This is my perception of the matter and does not constitute an invitation for debate.

Gee, that would be so convenient! :rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

Hang on a minute, whilst I appreciate what you're trying to convey here, we experience things via our senses, which, for the purpose of this discussion, might well extend beyond the classic five of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch to something more "emotional". That's the very essence of an "experience" - it somehow registers with us. Accordingly, one cannot "experience" nothingness; there is absolutely nothing to experience. One only becomes aware of the so-called "experience" once awake, but what, exactly, does one become aware of? That one experienced "nothingness"? Remember that one can only assimilate experiences when one is in the conscious, awakened state, by which time the perception of nothingness could well have become distorted through interpretation, just like when the mind sometimes distorts real-time information obtained in the fully-awakened state but leads one to think irrationally, or illogically, like people who contend they've seen ghosts. I suggest you were "awe-inspired" for the very same emotional reason that people who believe in miracles, or who see ghosts, become awe-inspired.
.
As I was aware of what was going on around me before I went under (although I may be a "quick study", the last thing I remember before the operation was the anestheselogist greeting me, and then... nothing.. until waking up and the nurse telling me they need the bed), and aware thereafter, the "experience" of being under was really different from anything I'd ever encountered.
Which made it notable.
Waking up from sleep isn't that much of a deal, it just happens and is really no different day to day
I don't know what I may have expected, but what occurred was not anything I could have considered, especially when the resemblance to what I should expect when I die became obvious after the experience.
And others as I've mentioned say the same.

[AkuManiMani]

That's an absurd question. You cannot, by definition, know what it's like to be dead. There's nothing to know - you're dead.

I think that was kinda the point of the OP.

[Southwind17]

As I was aware of what was going on around me before I went under (although I may be a "quick study", the last thing I remember before the operation was the anestheselogist greeting me, and then... nothing.. until waking up and the nurse telling me they need the bed), and aware thereafter, the "experience" of being under was really different from anything I'd ever encountered.
Which made it notable.

I'm sorry, you're really going to have to try harder if you're to convince me you have something noteworthy here, seriously. By definition, the last thing anybody remembers is always followed by a period of ... well ... "nothingness"! Last night, for example, I went to be. I remember thinking about various things, and then ... nothing ... until the alarm going off. Oh, wait a second ... there might have been a couple of dreams. Yes, I have a vague recollection. But between the dreams ... yes ... still nothingness.

Now, tell me more about your experience of "nothingness" as you sensed it before you awoke please.

Waking up from sleep isn't that much of a deal, it just happens and is really no different day to day

If you're to contrast a so-called "nothingness" experience with sleeping I suggest you will need to be a little more objective when describing sleep than: "isn't much of a deal, it just happens". Somebody in, say France, might describe a tornado the same way, but that's little consolation to a Texan who's just lost her home to one.

I don't know what I may have expected, but what occurred was not anything I could have considered, especially when the resemblance to what I should expect when I die became obvious after the experience.

You couldn't consider a completely black spot of nothingness? I can easily imagine that. How, exactly, did the resemblance to death become "obvious"? You have a perception of what death "feels like", and this matched it, so it affirms it? I think not. But one thing's for sure: death is a state of nothingness, so cannot be experienced, just like your surgery experience, and my non-dreaming nightly sleeping experiences. There's nothing special about nothing!

And others as I've mentioned say the same.

This certainly doesn't validate or add credence to anything you've described. Many people say homeopathy works! What it probably does is make you feel like you experienced something profound because there's a "special group" of like-minded people supporting you.

[Robin]

I think that was kinda the point of the OP.
Rather poorly phrased though.

There is no "what it is like" to be not alive.

[Explorer]

Are we the only product of the universe that is self-aware? Is awareness of existence always an individual phenomenon, peculiar to organisms with brains and attendant memories?

Does a person with a severe memory problems not recognise the fact that they exist?

Does an embryo recognise that it exists? If so, at what point? At birth, when the senses are stimulated or in the womb, upon conception? Is self-awareness only possible with memory?

A person in a coma is unconscious, at least as far as we can tell. When a person comes out of coma, they will not remember anything that happened when they were in a comatose state, but is that because they can't recall any memories of that state, but were they still self-aware?

This surely is the conundrum. If an individual cannot report a given memory, then as far as their conscious observers are concerned ,they were unconscious and not self-aware, and no suitable test can determine the contrary. We assume that when brain activity ceases (which can be measured of course) the sense of still being alive also ceases. But is the sense of being alive, the same as consciousness?

[JonathanClement]

Here's how I see it: If I can come into this life, what's stopping me from entering another one? Come to think of it, why am I not in the consciousness of a dinosaur millions of years ago? Logic dictates that my consciousness shouldn't even exist because the first consciousness, not to mention the countless consciousness's that followed have arose and died. In fact, if consciousness doesn't exist, how can anything exist at all? Existence itself depends on consciousness. I'm not a theist, or even a deist. I'm a hybrid of atheist an pantheist. I don't believe there is a heaven or a hell. (Though, it would certainly be nice if there was a heaven where I could experience what it's like to make love to Belldandy. <3) And I don't believe one can control which life that they end up in because it's completely random. I don't believe that anybody remembers anything from their past life, because there is no "past" life because consciousness does not follow any particular order.

Try to imagine a DVD. This DVD has an infinite amount of space on it. It has an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of beings, each with an infinite number or different paths they can take. Infact, you can imagine this with a finite number as well. Now, the DVD is not playing. Does that mean the story on the DVD does not exist? Of course not. It's just dormant. When you watch a DVD and the movie is over, it hasn't stopped existing. It's still there. The time and space of the movie exist in one self-contained singularity independent of this dimension.

Now does that mean you shouldn't treasure life? Of course not. When you read or watch a story, you don't do so just to skim through it. You do so for the suspense any to see what happens next...

Well, that's my take on it, anyway.

[I Ratant]

[quote]This certainly doesn't validate or add credence to anything you've described. Many people say homeopathy works! What it probably does is make you feel like you experienced something profound because there's a "special group" of like-minded people supporting you.{/quote]
.
Sure, but, I was surprised to encounter similar feelings in other people.
I'd never had any reason to expect anything unusual after awakening from anesthesia, having never heard anyone mention anything like this.
Personal experiences are quite difficult to seperate out from the personality, unlike silly things like the homeopathy claims, which can be tested reliably.
It might rely on the ability to distinquish odd things in one's experience.
I'm kinda sure that you hitting your thumb with your hammer will irritate you the way it does me when I do it, but I couldn't guarantee your awakening experience would duplicate mine, or that of those others I mentioned.

[Southwind17]

Here's how I see it: If I can come into this life, what's stopping me from entering another one?

Well, that all depends on what you mean by "I". I assume you're referring to that unique collection of atoms that go to make up your body, many of which form your brain and neural connections that enable you to have "consciousness". Before you were conceived, and after you die and decompose, I can assure you that those very same atoms that currently make up your body never came together to form a previous body and will never come together to form another. THAT'S what's stopping you from entering another life. I think you're getting confused in thinking that your consciousness, feelings and thoughts are something more than simple electrical impulses and chemical reactions caused by unique combinations of atoms; atoms that, as described above, never did and never will uniquely cause consciousness, feelings and thoughts in another person. It's pretty simple when/if you think about it simply and logically.

Try to imagine a DVD. This DVD has an infinite amount of space on it. It has an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of beings, each with an infinite number or different paths they can take. Infact, you can imagine this with a finite number as well. Now, the DVD is not playing. Does that mean the story on the DVD does not exist? Of course not. It's just dormant. When you watch a DVD and the movie is over, it hasn't stopped existing. It's still there. The time and space of the movie exist in one self-contained singularity independent of this dimension.

Actually, you're wrong. The "story" on the DVD does not "exist". What does exist is a DVD encoded with a pattern of holes which, when played and decoded by a DVD player and translated by a TV displays an image and sounds that your brain (those atoms I referred you to earlier!) interprets from experience and learning into electrical impulses that you categorize as a "story". Think of the DVD as a unique combination of atoms, just like your body, or brain. If the DVD fails to exist, through destruction, say, then the "story" disappears with it, never to be seen again. Just like your consciousness (atoms) does when you die. Again, it's pretty simple when/if you think about it simply and logically.

[Southwind17]

Sure, but, I was surprised to encounter similar feelings in other people.

Surprised! Why? You all underwent exactly the same medical procedure, and you're all biologically identical, for all intents and purposes.

I'd never had any reason to expect anything unusual after awakening from anesthesia, having never heard anyone mention anything like this.

Given the "unusual" nature of anaesthesia I'm not at all surprised that you felt somewhat "odd" afterwards! I think you're attaching too much significance to what that "oddness" might mean, though.

I'm kinda sure that you hitting your thumb with your hammer will irritate you the way it does me when I do it, but I couldn't guarantee your awakening experience would duplicate mine, or that of those others I mentioned.

Your point?

[Irony]

I'm sorry, you're really going to have to try harder if you're to convince me you have something noteworthy here, seriously. By definition, the last thing anybody remembers is always followed by a period of ... well ... "nothingness"! Last night, for example, I went to be. I remember thinking about various things, and then ... nothing ... until the alarm going off. Oh, wait a second ... there might have been a couple of dreams. Yes, I have a vague recollection. But between the dreams ... yes ... still nothingness.

Now, tell me more about your experience of "nothingness" as you sensed it before you awoke please.

The fact that you can ask them to describe their experience as they sensed it before they awoke only shows that you don't understand the least bit of what they're saying. I've never experienced the sensation before, but I have known plenty of people who have. The concept is not that hard to get, and I sincerely don't understand why you can't seem to grasp it.

It's not like sleeping. When you're wake up after sleeping you are aware that time has passed. You experience a sort of blackness, but blackness is still something. When under certain types of anesthesia people feel nothing, not blackness, not numbness, not a sense of being unconscious, nothing. It is as if, for them, the time in which they were under never existed.

Do you understand what the word "nothing" means. It's really not that difficult to grasp.

[I Ratant]

Yeah, Iron, that's pretty much it.
Different enough to be of note.

[Radrook]

I disagree completely, and firmly believe that your confusion over the relative states of "before life" and "after life" lies in the fact that you consider "dead" as synonymous with "after life" (that's post-life I mean, not "after-life"!).

Wrong! I don't consider death as synonymous with afterlife. As I clearly said, death is the cessation of all sensory perception. Life involves perception. So I made a clear distinction between the twain.

Whilst death, and hence the state of being dead, inevitably follow life and the state of being alive, you believe death takes on a special quality because it follows life. If I were to somehow separate all of the atoms from a dead adult's body and show them to you alongside all of the atoms that would one day go to make up the adult body of a person yet to be conceived you would not be able to tell the difference. You wouldn't know which atoms were "pre-life" and which "post-life". The idea of "death" is very, very different from that of "after life" (again, not "after-life").

Of course!

It's very relevant, the operative words being: "regain consciousness". In order to do so the body has to remain essentially intact. There would be a lot more involved in the "regaining of consciousness" were the body to be decomposed! That's the important, and in your mind semantic, distinction I'm making between being dead and after life in perpetuity, if you like.

From a biblical perspective a body isn't essential for the person's consciousness to be regained. Even those cremated and ground into dust are capable of regaining consaciousness.



I agree. It happens every day, but not to everybody, unfortunately. I wouldn't use the word "resurrection", though. "Resuscitation" would be the right word, usually administered by trained medics.

We disagree here in what death involves.

I think the word that eludes you is "notion". You cannot possibly claim to know, or even understand, how somebody feels who has allegedly been resurrected!

My comparision was in reference to the lack of awareness that time has elapsed.


Gee, that would be so convenient! :rolleyes:

?????????????

[edge]

I am not sure how believing would change things one way or the other.

So in what sense do you think you can survive the death of your brain? Do your memories, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, intelligence etc reside somewhere else but the brain? What then is the purpose of the brain? Why do physical alterations of the brain appear to have such profound effects on our minds?

The suggestion, highlighted again this week, that donor patients could not only be acquiring the organs but also the memories - or even the soul - of the donor is surely one such story.
Memories yes possibly, soul no.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558271&in_page_id=1770

The soul resides in the entire body that is what I believe.
What if they were able to transplant a brain?
Interesting thought?

[volatile]

You're quoting from the Daily Mail as proof of your argument? Really?

[I Ratant]

Transplant recipients will have a real basis to "I have a gut feeling I've experienced/been here before" I expect when they do something the donor had done.
No doubt.:duck:

[Southwind17]

The fact that you can ask them to describe their experience as they sensed it before they awoke only shows that you don't understand the least bit of what they're saying.

... and shows that you have trouble following logic. One cannot possibly experience nothingness because nothingness, by definition, cannot be sensed. One can only try to assimilate and understand the state of nothingness after the event, by which time much has happened to the brain in the conscious state.

I've never experienced the sensation before ... It's not like sleeping.

Doh! :boggled:

When you're wake up after sleeping you are aware that time has passed.

You mean you've never woken up of a morning and thought to yourself: "Damn, what happened to the night?!" Seems I've had sleep experiences that you've never had!

You experience a sort of blackness, but blackness is still something.

Can you be more definitive?!

When under certain types of anesthesia people feel nothing, not blackness, not numbness, not a sense of being unconscious, nothing. It is as if, for them, the time in which they were under never existed.

They feel nothing? So at what point, exactly, do they become aware of this so-called "feeling"?

Do you understand what the word "nothing" means. It's really not that difficult to grasp.

I believe I do, but why don't you try to describe it to me, then explain how it is experienced and assimilated under anaesthesia.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Irony http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3619159#post3619159)
I've never experienced the sensation before ... It's not like sleeping. Doh! :boggled:

Wow. Using ellipsis to entirely remove the context of the statement. Are you a creationist by any chance?

You see, the whole thing about having it described to me by several independent parties is kind of important. The fact that the experience is described identically by a large number of people actually makes it more reliable evidence than a mere personal experience. A little honesty on your part, or at least refraining from being blatantly dishonest in the future, would be appreciated.

As for the rest, I now doubt your sincerity so I won't bother.

[Silentknight]

As someone who has been put under anesthesia for repeated medical procedures (don't ask) I know firsthand what it's like to go under. I would NOT describe it as similar or even analogous to dying. It's more like passing out from sheer exhaustion into dreamless sleep after having forced yourself to stay awake for an undue amount of time.

But even that isn't always the case. The first few times I was put under, I experienced (or remembered) no passage of time, because I didn't notice it and wasn't exactly paying attention. Subsequent times, probably after my body became tolerant of the drugs, I did in fact dream, and I remembered these dreams. The dreams, not unexpectedly, had to do with the procedure I was undergoing.

Point is, it is possible to dream and remember those dreams while under anesthesia, and it is possible to be aware of the passage of time.

[Southwind17]

Wow. Using ellipsis to entirely remove the context of the statement. Are you a creationist by any chance?

Certainly not, and I fail to see your logic, again.

You see, the whole thing about having it described to me by several independent parties is kind of important. The fact that the experience is described identically by a large number of people actually makes it more reliable evidence than a mere personal experience.

I've never heard such tosh before. You do realize what you're saying here? You're admitting that if you were to experience it directly your view of the whole thing might actually be different from the "large number" you've spoken to. I'd like to bet you believe everything that film and book critics say and write too, don't you. But what about this large number of reliable people who've undergone anaesthesia? Well, read above what Silentknight has to say on the matter!

The possible reasons you probably feel that sleep is somewhat profoundly different, notwithstanding you've never experienced anaesthesia, are:


When you sleep your body clock keeps ticking. Maybe anaesthesia affects your body clock.
When you go to bed you are aware of what time you expect to awake. When you do awake, therefore, you know immediately what time it is and, therefore, you're immediately conscious of the passage of time (not to mention that it's often light!)

Have you not ever awoken prematurely, and it's still dark, and you have no idea what time it is, and you look at the clock hoping you've still got hours of sleep time left to go, only to be completely disheartened by the discovery that the alarm is set to go off in 5 minutes?! That, too, is "nothingness"!

[Irony]

Certainly not, and I fail to see your logic, again.

Quote mining is a common creationist tactic. So common that it's almost a trademark of theirs.

Just to be clear, I don't really mind you disagreeing, or misunderstanding, or being pedantic, or whatever this is. I do have this thing about expecting others to be honest though, and quote mining is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I've never heard such tosh before. You do realize what you're saying here? You're admitting that if you were to experience it directly your view of the whole thing might actually be different from the "large number" you've spoken to. I'd like to bet you believe everything that film and book critics say and write too, don't you. But what about this large number of reliable people who've undergone anaesthesia? Well, read above what Silentknight has to say on the matter!

Multiple sources trump one source, even if the source is my own experience. To say otherwise would be to assume my senses are somehow superior to everyone else's, which is ridiculous.

Book critics can't really apply if your talking about something like personal enjoyment, I am the only data point for my own personal opinion on a book's worth. If, however, your talking about something more broad like how well put together the plot of a novel is, then I would trust the critical consensus more than my own opinion.

And yeah, I read what silentknight said. It sounds similar to some have told me and a bit different from others, that's to be expected.

The possible reasons you probably feel that sleep is somewhat profoundly different, notwithstanding you've never experienced anaesthesia, are:
When you sleep your body clock keeps ticking. Maybe anaesthesia affects your body clock.
When you go to bed you are aware of what time you expect to awake. When you do awake, therefore, you know immediately what time it is and, therefore, you're immediately conscious of the passage of time (not to mention that it's often light!)Have you not ever awoken prematurely, and it's still dark, and you have no idea what time it is, and you look at the clock hoping you've still got hours of sleep time left to go, only to be completely disheartened by the discovery that the alarm is set to go off in 5 minutes?! That, too, is "nothingness"!

I think I read somewhere that it's the former. Regardless, how does the fact the experience (or rather non-experience) has a known mechanism make it less real?

[Southwind17]

Quote mining is a common creationist tactic. So common that it's almost a trademark of theirs.

So that makes everybody who so-called "quote mines" a likely creationist does it? :eek:

Just to be clear, I don't really mind you disagreeing, or misunderstanding, or being pedantic, or whatever this is. I do have this thing about expecting others to be honest though, and quote mining is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Well, I've never heard the term "quote mining" before, so I guess I can't be guilty of it. But I fail to see how highlighting a fundamental flaw in your argument can be classed as dishonest.

Multiple sources trump one source, even if the source is my own experience. To say otherwise would be to assume my senses are somehow superior to everyone else's, which is ridiculous.

Ridiculous. You're prepared to accept other people's anecdotal recollections as "trumping" your own experience, not that you ever had such an experience. You obviously have great confidence in yourself. As for multiple sources trumping one, as a principle, you're a supporter of the Salem Witch Trials, I presume!

Book critics can't really apply if your talking about something like personal enjoyment, I am the only data point for my own personal opinion on a book's worth. If, however, your talking about something more broad like how well put together the plot of a novel is, then I would trust the critical consensus more than my own opinion.

So listening to other people's recollections of their "experiences" under anaesthetic doesn't fall into the category of "personal enjoyment", more "plot synopsis". OK, that makes perfect sense :boggled:

And yeah, I read what silentknight said. It sounds similar to some have told me and a bit different from others, that's to be expected.

So you've heard a complete spectrum of experiences then. I see.

I think I read somewhere that it's the former. Regardless, how does the fact the experience (or rather non-experience) has a known mechanism make it less real?

What "experience"? Oh, that complete "nothingness", you mean?!

[Explorer]

"Well, that all depends on what you mean by "I". I assume you're referring to that unique collection of atoms that go to make up your body, many of which form your brain and neural connections that enable you to have "consciousness". Before you were conceived, and after you die and decompose, I can assure you that those very same atoms that currently make up your body never came together to form a previous body and will never come together to form another."

Surely it matters not whether exactly the same atoms come together again or not. That presupposes that the original atoms that made up an individual person's brain carry an imprint of the original personality and memories of that person. Does anyone here really believe that?

It is the interaction of those atoms and molecules that form and store the memory that is lost on death and decomposition. The "I" therefore is the manner and pattern in which those interactions take place.

The pattern is going to be different in every individual as a result of random life experiences, but the mechanism that forms the pattern will be identical to everyone, and it could be argued that it is not the same as consciousness, which perhaps exists at a more basic and underlying level that is even present in the womb, before life outside impacts on one's memory banks.

[Southwind17]

"Well, that all depends on what you mean by "I". I assume you're referring to that unique collection of atoms that go to make up your body, many of which form your brain and neural connections that enable you to have "consciousness". Before you were conceived, and after you die and decompose, I can assure you that those very same atoms that currently make up your body never came together to form a previous body and will never come together to form another."

Surely it matters not whether exactly the same atoms come together again or not. That presupposes that the original atoms that made up an individual person's brain carry an imprint of the original personality and memories of that person. Does anyone here really believe that?

It is the interaction of those atoms and molecules that form and store the memory that is lost on death and decomposition. The "I" therefore is the manner and pattern in which those interactions take place.

The pattern is going to be different in every individual as a result of random life experiences, but the mechanism that forms the pattern will be identical to everyone, and it could be argued that it is not the same as consciousness, which perhaps exists at a more basic and underlying level that is even present in the womb, before life outside impacts on one's memory banks.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Each of us does not exist either before conception of after death other than as a collection or dispersion of atoms. Unless you believe in atomic "memory", in which case you'd do well to join the homeopathy brigade, forget about after-life, reincarnation, claiming to know what death feels like, etc.

[Belz...]

Well, I've never heard the term "quote mining" before, so I guess I can't be guilty of it.

Well, I've never heard the word "internet", so I guess I can't ever have used it.

Ridiculous. You're prepared to accept other people's anecdotal recollections as "trumping" your own experience, not that you ever had such an experience. You obviously have great confidence in yourself.

If he/she thinks his/her experiences are trumped by other people's, I'd say it's the exact opposite, in fact.

[Southwind17]

Well, I've never heard the word "internet", so I guess I can't ever have used it.

You've never heard the word "internet", but you use the word in writing?! So you've only seen it then! It's pronounced just as you'd expect, in case you're wondering! :confused:

If he/she thinks his/her experiences are trumped by other people's, I'd say it's the exact opposite, in fact.

What, that his/hers trumps theirs? Your point?

[slingblade]

You've never heard the word "internet", but you use the word in writing?! So you've only seen it then! It's pronounced just as you'd expect, in case you're wondering! :confused:

I'm having a frustrating day, so please pardon my tone.

He's telling you that just because you're unfamiliar with the common term for a practice, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

I could dance on my toes, twirl and jump, and do other particular movements common to ballet, and I'd be dancing ballet, even if I don't know that's what it's called.

Get it now?

[I Ratant]

Or like M. Jourdain finding he's been talking in prose for all his life...
http://books.google.com/books?id=O1R79-TsVKoC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=%22been+talking+in+prose%22+%26+jourdain&source=web&ots=Io6aHIdqjV&sig=4valobYlllW-Y6FvqmQ8pnCR7yw&hl=en

[Southwind17]

I'm having a frustrating day, so please pardon my tone.

He's telling you that just because you're unfamiliar with the common term for a practice, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

I could dance on my toes, twirl and jump, and do other particular movements common to ballet, and I'd be dancing ballet, even if I don't know that's what it's called.

Get it now?

I got it the first time :rolleyes: ...

... but felt compelled to point out, in a round about way, that unfortunately was lost on you, that sarcastically claiming that not knowing a decriptive noun for something that just about everybody uses every day does not necessarily invalidate its use is very different from being labelled with an obscure slang verb (common term?!) that describes a seeming disingenuous (dishonest, according to Irony) act when such act can clearly be seen not to have been committed, essentially because the statements were not quoted out of context but are logically contradictory.

My underlying point being that Irony was seeking to rely on a neatly coined term as a convenient defense for the gaping flaw in his/her argument. I believe that's also a signature style of creationists too!

Get it now? :p

[JonathanClement]

Well, that all depends on what you mean by
Actually, you're wrong. The "story" on the DVD does not "exist". What does exist is a DVD encoded with a pattern of holes which, when played and decoded by a DVD player and translated by a TV displays an image and sounds that your brain (those atoms I referred you to earlier!) interprets from experience and learning into electrical impulses that you categorize as a "story". Think of the DVD as a unique combination of atoms, just like your body, or brain. If the DVD fails to exist, through destruction, say, then the "story" disappears with it, never to be seen again. Just like your consciousness (atoms) does when you die. Again, it's pretty simple when/if you think about it simply and logically.

"I". I assume you're referring to that unique collection of atoms that go to make up your body, many of which form your brain and neural connections that enable you to have "consciousness". Before you were conceived, and after you die and decompose, I can assure you that those very same atoms that currently make up your body never came together to form a previous body and will never come together to form another. THAT'S what's stopping you from entering another life. I think you're getting confused in thinking that your consciousness, feelings and thoughts are something more than simple electrical impulses and chemical reactions caused by unique combinations of atoms; atoms that, as described above, never did and never will uniquely cause consciousness, feelings and thoughts in another person. It's pretty simple when/if you think about it simply and logically.

I think you're kind of oversimplifying it, as well as missing the point of my analogy... Sure, the impulses are there, and the intelligence is there, but how it is that it is actually ABLE to be translated? What you don't realize is that even if the DVD is playing, it's not being observed unless there's somebody there to actually see it. How is it that consciousness can be caused by a certain arrangement of molecules and energy? Why is existence, matter and time is not just some self-contained instance? How is it even possible that we are able to experience anything at all? We should all be just being born and dying in a single instance.

If you were to be vaporized and after 50 years, all those exact same molecules and brain functions were to continue as normal, those 50 years would seem to have happened in an instant.

It is ESSENTIAL for the universe to be more than just a pool of information describing cause and effect.

[Southwind17]

I think you're kind of oversimplifying it, as well as missing the point of my analogy... Sure, the impulses are there, and the intelligence is there, but how it is that it is actually ABLE to be translated? What you don't realize is that even if the DVD is playing, it's not being observed unless there's somebody there to actually see it. How is it that consciousness can be caused by a certain arrangement of molecules and energy? Why is existence, matter and time is not just some self-contained instance? How is it even possible that we are able to experience anything at all? We should all be just being born and dying in a single instance.

If you were to be vaporized and after 50 years, all those exact same molecules and brain functions were to continue as normal, those 50 years would seem to have happened in an instant.

It is ESSENTIAL for the universe to be more than just a pool of information describing cause and effect.

I would describe it, simply, as "simplifying", not "oversimplifying". Perhaps you should try it yourself sometime to avoid ending up with the nonsensical, tenuous, gobbledegook quoted above!

[Robin]

The suggestion, highlighted again this week, that donor patients could not only be acquiring the organs but also the memories - or even the soul - of the donor is surely one such story.
Memories yes possibly, soul no.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558271&in_page_id=1770

The soul resides in the entire body that is what I believe.
It is a very interesting story in the terms of the wishful thinking and dishonesty that surrounds this subject. Take for example the Daily Mail writer's claim:
He shot himself without warning, having shown no previous signs of unhappiness, let alone depression.

His friends described it as an act of passion, not of reason.
But if you go back to the Island Packet, the local newspaper that originally broke this story, you will find his best friend says he was 'despondent'. If you go back two years earlier to the original story of his marriage you will find that he had serious cancer.

So the man was in fact in several of the top risk categories for suicide: male; over 65; serious physical illness and access to firearms. This might have a lot more to do with it than the co-incidence of his donor. And he had full knowledge of his donor's act.

But of course the Daily Mail alterations will pass into the mythology of this story.

For the rest of the story we have these unsubstantiated anecdotes and Gary Schwartz's usual profoundly unscientific study.
What if they were able to transplant a brain?
Interesting thought?
Interesting thought, I doubt it would be possible, but if you told Arthur a secret and didn't tell Martha, then transplanted Arthurs brain into Martha's body and vice versa - who would know the secret?

[Southwind17]

Interesting thought, I doubt it would be possible, but if you told Arthur a secret and didn't tell Martha, then transplanted Arthurs brain into Martha's body and vice versa - who would know the secret?

Knowledge and memories reside in the brain (which organ were you thinking?!), therefore, whoever has the brain has the knowledge/memories, or in this case the secret, namely Martha, i.e. Martha's body now with her new brain, formerly Arthur's. Easy, isn't it?

Think of it like substituting a hard drive from one computer to another.

[Darth Rotor]

What is "you"?
1. A pronoun that can be either singular or plural.

2. A strange loop that isn't you.

I am so pleased with answer number two. It makes a paradoxical semantic loop, but without any analogy. Wouldn't Hofstadter be pleased!

DR


(The oblique reference is to the book I am a Strange Loop, an exploration of pattern aggregation and sentience.)

[Robin]

Knowledge and memories reside in the brain (which organ were you thinking?!), therefore, whoever has the brain has the knowledge/memories, or in this case the secret, namely Martha, i.e. Martha's body now with her new brain, formerly Arthur's. Easy, isn't it?

Think of it like substituting a hard drive from one computer to another.
I agree, however I was hoping for an answer from Edge who seemed to be suggesting that they might both know the secret.

[Southwind17]

I agree, however I was hoping for an answer from Edge who seemed to be suggesting that they might both know the secret.

Edge, any thoughts, including where, exactly, within the body do you suppose the "soul" might linger?!

[edge]

This is what appeared to me as I am in another discussion looking for other verses and time is limited.


Jeremiah
4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
6Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
7But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shall go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shall speak.
8Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
9Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

Luke
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God."


43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"


From Jeremiah and Luke. Before we are born, and in the womb there to them seems to be a communication of the unborn who cannot see the world around them but are just inches away from a whole new universe.
This is the way of death we can't see the other side but are reborn into a new spiritual plane and are mere inches away or less from the next plane of existence.
We are babies to that existence.
It is verification for me but not proof for you I know this.
BTW you don’t have to let me know…..


Edge, any thoughts, including where, exactly, within the body do you suppose the "soul" might linger?!

In darkness if you don't change your ways of thinking.
Are you all or part of yourself?
Cells have some form of memory so these are just residuals in some sense.

I'm presenting what is known and what is written, how they all tie up together is still a mystery even to me, I have faith so the soul must incorporate the whole self and body.
Memory must be spiritual and chemical to incorporate both, if tissue is alive during transplant then it is possible I.M.O. Simple memory isn't a persons living being, thoughts and memories are left behind in other ways also.

I.M.O.
They will never be able to transplant a soul.
Memory is a different issue as I have done that in the beginning of this post, from long ago in the bible where both Chemical and spiritual are used to record them.

I don’t know if I answered your questions, and I’ll be back.
Even I keep researching the issues as brought up as I am doing in This Guys thread.
Review is good and helps with memory.

[Southwind17]

I'm presenting what is known and what is written, how they all tie up together is still a mystery even to me, I have faith so the soul must incorporate the whole self and body.
Memory must be spiritual and chemical to incorporate both, if tissue is alive during transplant then it is possible I.M.O. Simple memory isn't a persons living being, thoughts and memories are left behind in other ways also.

I.M.O.
They will never be able to transplant a soul.
Memory is a different issue as I have done that in the beginning of this post, from long ago in the bible where both Chemical and spiritual are used to record them.

I don’t know if I answered your questions, and I’ll be back.
Even I keep researching the issues as brought up as I am doing in This Guys thread.
Review is good and helps with memory.

There's not much one can respond with to an argument based on faith and "IMO"s, other than the usual "scientific" and "common sense" suggestions, which invariably fall on deaf ears, but if we were to default to faith and opinon for all of our answers and actions how do you think the World might look today?!

[edge]

There's not much one can respond with to an argument based on faith and "IMO"s, other than the usual "scientific" and "common sense" suggestions, which invariably fall on deaf ears, but if we were to default to faith and opinon for all of our answers and actions how do you think the World might look today?!

Paradise....But since we chose to know from the beginning it looks like it does today science is what we needed back then after choosing the knowledge that was restricted and was written about to make things. Good or bad and that is derived through science, is it not?
Faith is still here science is still here so it looks like it does today.
The question is what will that be tomorrow?

[lupus_in_fabula]

It is ESSENTIAL for the universe to be more than just a pool of information describing cause and effect. This statement seems to be completely backwards: We do not get to set the rules for the state of the universe, we only get to set the rules for how we interpret stuff, and only to the physical degree the universe makes that possible; it’s us who are doing the describing (often in a cause and effect manner).

[Southwind17]

Paradise

Meaning?

....But since we chose to know from the beginning it looks like it does today science is what we needed back then after choosing the knowledge that was restricted and was written about to make things.

A little punctuation might help us to interpret what you're trying to say:
"Chose to know"?
"from the beginning"?
"science is what we needed back then"?
"after choosing the knowledge ..."?
"... that was restricted ..."?
"... and was written about to make things ..."?

This makes no sense, which I suppose suits your purposes, doesn't it!

Good or bad and that is derived through science, is it not?

What? Good and bad is derived through science. Is that what you're claiming?

Faith is still here science is still here so it looks like it does today.

And if science weren't "here", what then?

The question is what will that be tomorrow?

What will what be tomorrow?

Clearly, your esoteric response raises many more questions than it purports to answer!

[edge]

A little punctuation might help us to interpret what you're trying to say:


May be so, I'm in a hurry some times, like today.

[Southwind17]

May be so, I'm in a hurry some times, like today.

Well then I suggest you defer commenting until you have sufficient time to do so meaningfully and intelligibly. What's the point otherwise?!

[Robin]

I don’t know if I answered your questions, and I’ll be back.
You certainly didn't answer mine:
What if they were able to transplant a brain?
Interesting thought?
Interesting thought, I doubt it would be possible, but if you told Arthur a secret and didn't tell Martha, then transplanted Arthurs brain into Martha's body and vice versa - who would know the secret?