131 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Actually, becooming a butterfly after death is not that impossible lol

 

It is called "circulation of substances"

When you die, you get eaten from microbes and worms, and your atoms get inside them. Then something else eats these microbes and worms, or they simply shit out your atoms in the soil. From the soil your atoms go in the plants, some caterpillar then may come and eat your atoms from the leaves of the plant. Then the caterpillar makes a cocoon, and transforms into a butterfly

 

Circulation of substances. You should have learned this in the fifth grade.

 

https://www.google.b...gM&start=0&sa=N

Define death.  You learned it in the 5th grade.  Define "You". 
Are "you," ever worm shit?

[Danail Bulgaria]

Death is when something aive stops being alive.

As for what exactly means to stop being alive, this is an unsolved phylosophical question and everyone has a person-speciphic answer.

In the contemporary medicne (2016-2017) you are pronounced death after your heart and brain workings stop irreversibely.

If you ask me, we are alive until the very last cell of our body is still alive. When the last alive cell from the body finally dies, then you stop being alive.

 

Define "You" is also an unsolved phylosophical question and again everyone has a person speciphic answer. And yes, depending on the person-speciphic definition "You" can be worm shit

[shadowhawk]

Obviously none of this supports your metamorphosis into a butterfly.  You can't fully deal with our topic only appealing to science.  I have no problem with that because even science is a philosophical issue.  As you say, "You are worm shit."  Your blessed hope.  OK  I have no problem with that.  None. 

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 January 2017 - 11:42 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

The atoms in our body are not necessary to end up exactly in something disgusting. Simply the nature recycles everything organic.

 

Very the same as we, the people recycle everything non-organic. Just like how the atoms from a recycled car may end up as a set of spoons, just like that the atoms of our bodies may end up in whatever organic - new alive organism, most probabby the atoms will be spread in many parts in many still alive organisms.

 

I want to believe in something, that is not science, or at least not science based, but I find it very hard. Maybe simply can't open myself into the paranormal.

[shadowhawk]

You must be something but just atoms which can make up worm shit.  Science is a method itself not scientifically established.  Science is not science based.  It is a method with many limitations.

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Science has proven its efficiency in solving problems. If I have to rely on something, (when the option I need does not exist), I would rely on science.

 

I ahven't seen a spirit, nor an immortal soul. I can't be 100% sure of its existence.

[shadowhawk]

Science has many limits including some questions it is ill equipped to answer.  I would be happy to talk about the limitations of science but it is off topic and they are far to obvious.  By the way are you 100% sure of anything? 

http://www.bethinkin...campaign=buffer

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 January 2017 - 11:56 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Let me guess... 

 

Science has many limitations, but the religeon doesn't.

You can't be 100% sure in the scientific solutions, but you can be 100% sure in the religeous speculations.

There may not be a soul, but you have to be sure it exists. 

Am I right lol 

 

If you want to believe in God nevertheless, then believe. How that has to stop you from relying the science? 

[shadowhawk]

Who are you talking to?  You are the one making the claim YOU are worm shit.  You are the one making claims about Science.  Science is a method not a position.  Science does not p;rove itself as the way to ultimate truth.  Rather than face it you commit the logical fallacy of attacking something else totally off topic.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I did several claims actually. 

 

I claim that after death our bodies will be recycled from the nature and our atoms will enter in many other still living organisms. 

I also claim, that it is possible we to be calculated back and reassembled in the distant future. 

 

My third claim, is that these two can be combined with the belief of the existence of soul and the religeon. 

So, shadowhawk, for the above you have no problem to believe both in the God and in the science. 

[shadowhawk]

YOU cease to exist as you ? go through recycling.  YOU are either worm shit or not.  No hope.  Your second claim has one big problem.  If you could go back in time why doesn't someone from the future show up?  Lala   You are right I don't have any problem believing in science as it really is.  It is a method not a position which has limitations.  As for our topic, everything that is only physical dies.  Your body rots.  The worm awaits.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I don't have the intention to repeat the same things over and over. 

 

I answered these questions already. Read my above posts. 

Edited by seivtcho, 11 January 2017 - 09:22 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It doesn't matte how many times you say the same thing again.  Everything that is only physical dies.  Evidence?  Every physical thing dies.  Some live longer than others but......

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright. 

 

And to get back to topic

 

What do you think happens after death?

[shadowhawk]

The worm.   

[Clifford Greenblatt]

I think nothingess.

 

Then why is there not nothingness now?

[Danail Bulgaria]

Because we are still alive?

The nothingess for us will come after our death. The nothingness for the human kind will happen after the death of the last person.

 

Ofcourse, it depends on what exactly you mean by "nothingness". I still dont believe in soul and in God

At that moment I believe only the science and the capabilities of the people.

[shadowhawk]

Because we are still alive?

The nothingess for us will come after our death. The nothingness for the human kind will happen after the death of the last person.

 

Ofcourse, it depends on what exactly you mean by "nothingness". I still dont believe in soul and in God

At that moment I believe only the science and the capabilities of the people.

 

So how did science which is a method or process answer your belief that the nothingness (worm) does not happen until the last person dies? 
 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Why? Does the nothingness after death happen earlier? Before the death

[shadowhawk]

Why? Does the nothingness after death happen earlier? Before the death

First tell us what science is and then ask science. 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Science - the state of knowing

https://www.merriam-...tionary/science

 

And the current state of knowing is that after we die we get recycled from the nature. We simply close the eyes forever and the nothingness comes for us.

 

Everything else are specuations, good wishes or hopes for the future - mine and yours.

[shadowhawk]

Science - the state of knowing

https://www.merriam-...tionary/science

 

And the current state of knowing is that after we die we get recycled from the nature. We simply close the eyes forever and the nothingness comes for us.

 

Everything else are specuations, good wishes or hopes for the future - mine and yours.

We have known a lot of things calmed to be scientifically established only to find them wrong.  Science is not a belief but a method which itself is not scientifically proven.  It has limitations..  We just had a long discussion over what happens when you die.  What ever is only physical dies.  Your body is eaten by the worm.  To say you are only physical is speculation.  To say the nothingness comes is not scientific.  Based on what?  Lala  Science is a method with limitations. 

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Science is lala with limitations? Fine.

 

And what is religeon? Lala without limitations

 

lol

[shadowhawk]

Why are you connecting Science which is a method not a position which is wrong most of the time to its credit, and religion?  Two different things entirely..  Ever hear of the philosophy of science?  Took a couple of classes in it.  Science is not proven and does not claim to be the way to truth.  It is a logical method to discover how physical things work.  Science and religion are not opposed in any way to each other.  I said science has limitations.  It does.  I said your scientism which is lala, is not science.  Big difference.  If you are only physical you won't know if nothingness comes or not.  Death.  The worm.  Rot.  Even then you will not know it.  If you are not more than physical there is no hope. 

[nickthird]

 

Science and religion are not opposed in any way to each other.

 

Yes they are. Science is based on empirical evidence, while religion is based on hearsay. Science is guided by logical rules which are clearly defined, while religion is not.

 

 

 

Are YOU alive when you are frozen?  What is the motive to revive you?  In what way are you special enough to revive?

 

These are good questions. I hope to get a good amount of money saved, because I assume that when people are going to think about reviving me they will ask - "can this person support himself in today's world?" and "who will pay taxes etc on this?", and I intend to have the money saved to use as motive for my revival.

 

I suppose you are not alive when frozen because all chemical processes are stopped close to absolute zero. It doesn't mean you are dead either. You are paused.

 

 

 

If the deterministic resurrection works out, it does not matter when will it work out, because you may calculate infinitely in the forwards, and infinitely in the backwards direction. So everything, that has ever lived on that planet will be calculated from the beginning of life to the moment when the dterministic resurrection will be possible. So if once it happens, it may also work for me.

 

This is likely never going to be possible. The reason is limited memory and limited computational power. At best let's say that the solar system is approximately a closed system where nothing from the outside will impact life here on Earth. Unless time travel to the past is made possible, you will have to at the very least make a copy of the solar system and move it backwards in time. Normally you need more than one atom to simulate one atom so you'd probably need much more material to simulate it on any type of computer. The computational power would also have to be immense.

 

Also, quantum mechanics doesn't allow to calculate what happened before from my understanding, because you have probabilities and not exact trajectories for particles. But maybe this is a only a limit on very small things like atoms, and you may be able to do it with larger things like cells.

 

 

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Some time ago I made the decision not to comment anymore anything concerning the deterministic resurrections.

 

I see, that you have cited something from my posts, but I will keep my comments for me, even if I have some.

[shadowhawk]

(Quote  Science and religion are not opposed in any way to each other.

 Yes they are. Science is based on empirical evidence, while religion is based on hearsay. Science is guided by logical rules which are clearly defined, while religion is not.)

 Science is a method designed to test the physical, whatever that is.    History is not simply hearsay and there are lots of real issues not physical to give one example, math.  What is logic if things must be only physical?  I wont repeat myself, except to say science and religion are not opposed.

 

(Quote Are YOU alive when you are frozen?  What is the motive to revive you?  In what way are you special enough to revive?

 These are good questions. I hope to get a good amount of money saved, because I assume that when people are going to think about reviving me they will ask - "can this person support himself in today's world?" and "who will pay taxes etc on this?", and I intend to have the money saved to use as motive for my revival. 

I suppose you are not alive when frozen because all chemical processes are stopped close to absolute zero. It doesn't mean you are dead either. You are paused.)

And this is scientific? 

 

 (Quote If the deterministic resurrection works out, it does not matter when will it work out, because you may calculate infinitely in the forwards, and infinitely in the backwards direction. So everything, that has ever lived on that planet will be calculated from the beginning of life to the moment when the dterministic resurrection will be possible. So if once it happens, it may also work for me.

 This is likely never going to be possible. The reason is limited memory and limited computational power. At best let's say that the solar system is approximately a closed system where nothing from the outside will impact life here on Earth. Unless time travel to the past is made possible, you will have to at the very least make a copy of the solar system and move it backwards in time. Normally you need more than one atom to simulate one atom so you'd probably need much more material to simulate it on any type of computer. The computational power would also have to be immense.

 Also, quantum mechanics doesn't allow to calculate what happened before from my understanding, because you have probabilities and not exact trajectories for particles. But maybe this is a only a limit on very small things like atoms, and you may be able to do it with larger things like cells.)

Science says this?  Perhaps there are more limitations I need to add to my list.  I said that everything that is only physical dies, not that anything ceases to exist.

[nickthird]

 

 

Science is a method designed to test the physical, whatever that is.    

 

Science is a method to test anything that is testable and repeatable, so that the same initial conditions lead to the same end results.

 

 

 

History is not simply hearsay and there are lots of real issues not physical to give one example, math. 

 

History is not the same as religion because history is based on archaeology and physical findings, as well as DNA analysis, language analysis etc; all things that you can use science on.

 

 

 

What is logic if things must be only physical?

 

There is a scientific philosophy called positivism, which basically claims that you should base your behaviour in life only on empirical evidence and ignore the rest (questions like - "what is the meaning of life?" are meaningless under this view because you are not asking anything, merely putting words together in a grammatically valid sentence). I personally hold that while this approach is useful for many things in life, it is not necessarily useful for social relationships where you have to apply a fair amount of instinct, and sometimes do things that go against your experience. But that is the only area where I would not apply this approach.

 

 

 

And this is scientific?

 

What are you talking about?

 

[shadowhawk]

Quote Shadeowhawk     
    Science is a method designed to test the physical, whatever that is.    

 NICKTHIRD
Science is a method to test anything that is testable and repeatable, so that the same initial conditions lead to the same end results.

Are all things real testable with the scientific method?  What is three?  Is it real?  Did you test it?  Numbers are abstract objects and cam be used to describe the cosmos but Science did not make them anymore real than they were at the Big Bang.  By the way, the Big Bany is not repeatable.  That is why there is a philosophy of science.  Have you ever heard of the Kalam argument
 

Quote
History is not simply hearsay and there are lots of real issues not physical to give one example, math.

 History is not the same as religion because history is based on archaeology and physical findings, as well as DNA analysis, language analysis etc; all things that you can use science on.

 So how did you use this on Science itself.  What pproof do you have that science is the only way to truth and how did you scientifically prove science is the only way?  By the way I was a history major in my undergraduate work and I wonder how it is repeatable?  Some things are beyond this test and they are real..

Quote
    What is logic if things must be only physical?

 There is a scientific philosophy called positivism, which basically claims that you should base your behaviour in life only on empirical evidence and ignore the rest (questions like - "what is the meaning of life?" are meaningless under this view because you are not asking anything, merely putting words together in a grammatically valid sentence). I personally hold that while this approach is useful for many things in life, it is not necessarily useful for social relationships where you have to apply a fair amount of instinct, and sometimes do things that go against your experience. But that is the only area where I would not apply this approach.

 Did you prove this scientifically or is it your faith?  Why is Logical Positivism, A PHILOSOPHY,  now out of favor?

Quote
    And this is scientific?

What are you talking about?

Your scientism.  Are you consistent?

[nickthird]

 

 

Are all things real testable with the scientific method?  What is three?  Is it real?  Did you test it?  Numbers are abstract objects and cam be used to describe the cosmos but Science did not make them anymore real than they were at the Big Bang.  By the way, the Big Bany is not repeatable.  That is why there is a philosophy of science.  Have you ever heard of the Kalam argument

 

I think you are very confused about this, and I have no idea what you have in mind. Science is generally used to predict: if A then B, based on some experience. I have no idea why you are talking about numbers or "real" things here at all.

 

Certain aspects of the big bang are being repeated at the large hadron collider in Europe. The big bang is a theory that can be tested today. For example, you calculate from that theory that the processes of the big bang would produce a certain ratio of particles and you can test that ratio in the universe today.

 

Here is the thing with science as opposed to religion. If someone predicts from the theory of the big bang that you can travel in time, nobody would build a time machine, and nobody would trust that deduction even if the logic is valid. They would indirectly empirically test its components as much as possible, and only then would it be used in real life. With religion some guy shits some words out of his mouth and the sheep blindly follow.

 

 

 

So how did you use this on Science itself.  What pproof do you have that science is the only way to truth and how did you scientifically prove science is the only way?  By the way I was a history major in my undergraduate work and I wonder how it is repeatable?  Some things are beyond this test and they are real..

 

In practice the only reason people trust science is because you see it working all the time. You use it because it has worked in the past. Science is empirically tested. Don't take this the wrong way and assume I mean that all that science produces is correct - no it is not. By definition no theory can ever be proven in science and no theory is the "truth". Science is not a simple or black and white as that. It will never claim to have found the ultimate explanation because that is not the goal of science. The goal of science is simply to predict: if A then B. The theory is just a mental tool used to think about the prediction, but the theory is not the main product of science at all, and its goal is never to come up with a story, that is always up to personal interpretation.

 

If something is not testable some people will claim it cannot be real by the definition of the word real which is: "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.".

 

 

 

Did you prove this scientifically or is it your faith?  Why is Logical Positivism, A PHILOSOPHY,  now out of favor?

 

It is my empirical observation that sometimes you cannot rely on experience in social context. I suppose that makes that deduction scientific. A faith is when you trust someone else blindly to make decisions for you, I am not doing that.