Death

[thedoc]

'I' can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

I need to go and see if my wife is still awake?

[James Markham]

"If...life is an emergent property, it seems to me that all life must be examples of the same principle, and that one life emerging is necessarily the same as any other."

Hello again, Henry. Nice to hear from you.

You're right to point out that perhaps James has misunderstood a term. "Emergent" means "appearing suddenly and (apparently) without cause from an uncausually-related source," as when Materialists claim that somehow consciousness just magically "emerges" from unconscious materials when they are combined in some peculiar way. (This is a highly implausible suggestion, a dodging of a serious problem with Materialism, and clearly just a case of Materialism resorting to magical explanations.)

In any case, even if it were true (and we have absolutely no reason to think it is) it does not at all follow that "one life emerging is the same as another." That has to be recognized as a complete non-sequitur. If it were true, then *all* lives would be exactly the same thing, which is also clearly untrue. So James would have to do a lot to patch that statement up -- unless he meant something different that we do not yet understand.

Good catch.

Emanuel, I use the term emergent to simply mean "coming into existence", it says nothing about how or where from, but only that consciousness as a phenomena, comes to exist at a point that certain conditions are met. If we think about the way lightening emerges as a phenomena when storm clouds become adequately charged, we can see how physical conditions change the potential for what events are possible, electromagnetism doesn't always have the power to jump large gaps and burn through trees, so these properties are emergent. And although every bolt of lightening is distinct in terms of form and position, there is an aspect of the phenomena which is not unique to any particular example, it's substance and prerequisite conditions are indistinct, and common to each example of the phenomena.

To take the analogy further, it can be seen that there exists at every biological level of life, a form of volition, which is functional and implicit for the continuance of higher functions such as consciousness. Cells are colonies of organelles, which are found to exist in only fifteen distinct types throughout all biological organisms from bacteria to humans, each has a unique functional attribute which it adds to the cell unit, some build, some produce chemical energy, some transmit information, and others organise. Each of these organelles have a degree of autonomy with which it carries out its particular function within the cell, so they each have some ability to manipulate and overcome the natural forces that would otherwise command.

If we investigate further, it's seen that these organelles are created by amino acids, which are each constructed in such a way as to behave in a way not natural to any of their constituent parts, kind of like the way oils and water repel, but if the oils are bonded to a molecule that is attracted to water, it develops semi-chaotic motion, if you then have millions of examples all acting together, patterns emerge.

So at what stage do we say we have life? I would suggest that life is simply energy, and that what develops is that thing we call consciousness, the ability to evaluate and direct existence beyond the natural laws, and I would again suggest that this is an emergent property, but one which, like lightening, has distinct character in any individual instance, while being fundamentally the same principle at work.

[henry quirk]

"you yourself just become impossible, just like the rest of existence - its impossible, but its here"

Nonsensical: that 'I' am here (in a consistent, stable, way), that existence 'exists' (in a consistent, stable, way), illustrates both are possible (mebbe even probable).

##

"the degree to which one life differs from the next is possibly insignificant in a lot of cases"

Sez you. I say the differences (of degree and content) are highly significant in all cases.

Whole whacks of folks desperately try to 'fit in' to this group or that group only to be betrayed by the natural idiosyncrasies that make up each individual.

Can't understand why some want to homogenize everyone when Reality (like a two by four) keeps smackin' 'em in the head with singularities.

##

Doc,

HA!

[James Markham]

Henry, I was speaking in terms of reincarnation, I don't think your inclined to believe in past and future lives, so I assume your misinterpreting what I say, and thinking I refer to people in general.

But what the hell, to make a debate out of it, I'll broaden my stereotype, and say we are all practically the same, and get us started by listing all the things I think we share in terms of experience, and you can do the same for our differences.

1.) we're all born.
2.) we all have a mum and a dad.
3.) we all eat food.
4.) we all drink.
5.) we all breath air.
6.) we all talk.
7.) we all live on earth.
8.) we are all effected by gravity.
9.) we can all see.
10.) we can all hear.
11.) we can all feel pain.
12.) we are definitely all ticklish.
13.) we have all loved.
14.) we all hate brussel sprouts.
15.) we all see seven colours in a rainbow.
16.) we all learn the same history.
17. We have the same number system.
18.) we all hate treading in shit.
19.) we all like finding money.
20.) we all walk upright, though some tend to drag their knuckles.
21.) we all start life crying.
22.) we've all drunk milk.
23.) we all sit or squat to take a dump.
24.) we all have, or have had a bird that winds us up when we get a day off work.
25.) we all like bacon, burgers, cheese and coffee.
26.) we're all getting bored of this list.
27.) we all wonder at the stars.
28.) we all live a life that we think is unique.
29.) but really we're all just human, and humans are creatures of habit. It may feel like we're the only ones that understand ourselves, but if we want to look, there are many more similarities than the ones above. Ultimately, we get born, we work, we consume, we get old and then we all die.

[henry quirk]

"I assume your misinterpreting"

Probably.

#

"listing all the things I think we share in terms of experience"

A good list, but purely from a reductionistic place.

You could take me and dissect me...lay all the pieces of me on a table...write essays about each organ and gland and bone of mine...conclude that nuthin' about those parts is or was remarkable...conclude further the man those parts comprised, therefore, was unremarkable.

Nuthin' about those organs and whatnot (or the common facts of living) tell you anything about 'me' (or any individual) in the same way nuthin' about hydrogen and oxygen (when taken and examined separately) tells you anything about the remarkable substance formed when each comes together in just the right way.

#

"we get born, we work, we consume, we get old and then we all die."

Sure, the facts are the same but the perspective (the meaning) each brings to those facts is what counts.

In another thread, Voice takes me to task for reducing the 'man-woman' transaction to 'birth, maturity, fucking, babies, death'...in that thread, I go on to say 'I'm all for subjective meaning and subverting 'mechanics' for one's own end...my twisting the imperative to my own ends doesn't, however, negate the imperative.' So: while 'I' never trump the facts of my existence (facts we all have in common) I certainly twist them, subvert them (impose meaning on them) in ways that are idiosyncratic to 'me'.

#

"some tend to drag their knuckles"

I like my knuckles dirty.

[thedoc]

Henry, I was speaking in terms of reincarnation, I don't think your inclined to believe in past and future lives, so I assume your misinterpreting what I say, and thinking I refer to people in general.

But what the hell, to make a debate out of it, I'll broaden my stereotype, and say we are all practically the same, and get us started by listing all the things I think we share in terms of experience, and you can do the same for our differences.


9.) we can all see.
10.) we can all hear.
14.) we all hate brussel sprouts.
15.) we all see seven colours in a rainbow.
16.) we all learn the same history.
18.) we all hate treading in shit.
25.) we all like bacon, burgers, cheese and coffee.
26.) we're all getting bored of this list.
27.) we all wonder at the stars.

A few exceptions to your list,

9), except blind people.
10), except deaf people.
14), depends on how they are prepared, my mother ruined them, my wife found a really good way to prepare them.
15), Some people are color blind, Rod Stewart doesn't see red.
16), History is taught differently in different countries.
18), Some farmers might disagree.
25), Some people don't like cheese.
26), I think it's a nice list.
27), Not everyone.

[Bernard]

On similarities:


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... -evolution

I think the proposal that differences among humans are evident via the observation of individual idiosyncrasies is only evidence of similarity between humans in regard to possession, display and function of the idiosyncratic phenomenon as a whole within the species

[jackles]

on dieing the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time.time still is percieved by the energy impression in the normal way the self still sees its self as relating to the event but a dawning of what has occured eventual is experienced.and at this stage only the word or meaning releast from the shakles of the event will return to the nonlocal void of love where thought never existed.

[henry quirk]

"I think the proposal that differences among humans are evident via the observation of individual idiosyncrasies is only evidence of similarity between humans in regard to possession, display and function of the idiosyncratic phenomenon as a whole within the species."

Got no clue what the above means...reads as gobbledygook to me...seems akin to sayin' 'record cold is evidence for global warming'.

*shrug*

[henry quirk]

"the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time" = ghost

Evidence please.

[jackles]

o that ones got to you then henry.the truth often does.

[henry quirk]

Jack,

You said, "on dieing the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time".

I asked for evidence (knowing full well none is forthcoming).

I wasn't 'got to'...instead 'I got you'.

*shrug*

[James Markham]

Henry, it could be argued that the existence of life, proves there is something beforehand with the potential to become living, else how did it begin?

Admittedly this isn't evidence of spirit, but it may be proof something other than consciousness is preserved as something.

[henry quirk]

Okay...Jack says *'something' lingers after death...Jim posits a potential **'something' responsible for life.

My ***prejudice has me leaning toward 'nothing' in both cases, but, I'll be glad to view the evidence 'for' either or both.









*"the energy impression in consciousness still exists for a time"

**god?

***I'm just another damned atheist...materialistic to the core...

[Bernard]

Whatever your take is, I think we can agree that death is a separation of two things: the body and the being. When tied together the body functions, so does the being. Neither the being nor the body function when they are separated: the body breaks down and is absorbed by the environment. Its simple enough to witness the body decompose, but the most important partner is, by far, the being. Does it, like the body, decompose when it separates? Is it even made of constituent parts that decompose, or is it a singular affair that is irreducible? I believe the latter is the case. The evidence of this is as simple as mud: experientially, you are you, I am I, and nothing can be added to either without forming a 'we': something that can have no self awareness, ie; is not self experiential, whilst you can add to a composite arrangement - 'we' - and still have a non self experiential 'we' . It is extremely elementary evidence but, I believe, utterly valid and irrefutable.

Now if you are one who believes we are only bodies without being, then there is nothing whatsoever I have to say.