Death

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by thedoc »

Bernard wrote:You are a very resilient and determined chap Mr Quirk, but your argument disintegrates as soon as it gets started:
As I see it: when I'm alive, I 'am' (am 'being') and when I'm dead I 'am not' (am 'not being')
You can not be not when you are dead because, being death, death cannot be a state within which you can be. Have you ever met anyone who is not there/ have you ever met anyone who is dead?

You see... being does not equal not-being as your argument says it can. If being was reducible to other components, as the body is reducible to other components, then you could argue that being has altered state upon death, but there is no way to say that being all of a sudden equals not-being without some sort of good argument to back it up, or just repeating the flawed argument in some other manner.

You have an interesting way of stringing words together, but I don't see anywhere where it is stated that 'being' equals 'not being'. I did see a description of 'Not Being' (before conception), then 'Being' (life), then 'Not Being' again (death). A simple progression, and not the complicated process that you seem to imply.
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by thedoc »

jackles wrote:you are guessing henery.things are not as you think .but its difficult if not impossible to put across what faith is.what i have said is true to my knowledge.nonlocality is the cause of energy time and space and the brain has a direct connection to eternity which of its own self has no location and therefor no limit.

Faith is useful for those who believe, but for an unbeliever, faith (in this case of life after death) is of little use or meaning.
jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Death

Post by jackles »

thats not true thedoc meaning and faith are the same thing.meaning has life after death nothing else does.meaning is the point the nonlocal point that is.
Last edited by jackles on Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Post by henry quirk »

"you are guessing henery"

No, I think I'm makin' an accurate assessment of things based on how the world seems to work (the available information about how the world works).

You've offered nuthin' in this thread to alter that assessment.

#

"Faith is useful for those who believe, but for an unbeliever, faith (in this case of life after death) is of little use or meaning."

Yep.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Post by henry quirk »

"meaning and faith are the same thing"

No.

Meaning is what I bring to the world...meaning is reflective of perspective ('me').

Faith is believing in that for which there is no evidence.

My subjectivity (meaning, perspective, 'me') is rooted in an on-going, organic, event (my flesh).

Your belief in ghosts is rooted in nuthin' (no offense intended, Jack).
jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Death

Post by jackles »

nonlocality is the key to what moves moving things.everthing moves but nonlocality does not move.so it nonlocality never happened but is the cause of happening events.the consciousness of an individual is nonlocal it disinguishes good and evil in the moving event.
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by thedoc »

jackles wrote:nonlocality is the key to what moves moving things.everthing moves but nonlocality does not move.so it nonlocality never happened but is the cause of happening events.the consciousness of an individual is nonlocal it disinguishes good and evil in the moving event.

Thankyou, I couldn't have said it better myself. I haven't the faintest Idea what you just said.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Death

Post by henry quirk »

HA!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Death

Post by Immanuel Can »

A problem with discussing meaning is that we haven't decided what we are talking about. There are, at root, two different ways people use the word.

Definition 1: "Meaning" = something factual and objectively there; something discovered rather than created or made up. Something imposed by the order of the universe, or pre-existing my discovery or "finding" of it. Usually this definition implies finding a location within a larger order that is thought to be objectively present: a "place in the universe," so to speak. As when a person says, "When I discovered medicine, I realized the reason for which I had been brought into this world."

Definition 2: "meaning" = something purely subjective, but not pre-existently there; a personal feeling of well-being, fulfillment or self-chosen purpose. A sense of order imposed by the individual imaginatively upon inherently random events or phenomena. Something strictly personal, with no implication of universal relevance, and which is not actually a property of the world or universe itself (the universe is presumed to be random, so imposing an order imaginatively is all anyone can do).

To be logically consistent, a person who is holding to Def. 1 will use verbs like "find," "realize," "discover" etc. to describe their relationship to meaning. But a person who is being logically consistent with Def. 2 will use verbs like "made," "constructed," "created," etc., implying that they had to DO or MAKE something, not just DISCOVER something.

The problem, of course, is that in general people who are talking about meaning fail to be consistent in their usage. They pop back and forth between Def.'s 1 and 2 without even being aware they're doing it.

So when we ask someone, "Does your life have meaning?" are we asking them "Do you sense that you know something of your significance in the universal order?' or are we asking "Do you feel your life is worthwhile/happy/what you want it to be/filled with activities you value/etc.? Until we clarify, they won't really know what we're asking.

I think -- maybe you can confirm this, Henry -- that Henry is talking Def.2. I'm pretty sure jackles is aiming at something closer to Def.1. Again, feel free to correct me on that, j., if I'm off base.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Death

Post by henry quirk »

I'm a definition two kinda guy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Death

Post by Immanuel Can »

I have a question about Definition 2.

Could anyone who holds to it explain to me how it differs from what we might call a "personally-satisfying delusion?"

After all, according to this view, the universe itself is adamantly NOT arranged in any purposive way. So whatever "meaning" one attributes to it must be nothing other than a subjectively felt denial of what one secretly knows to be the truth -- namely that the universe first appeared for no reason and proceeds toward nothing in particular, and your birth, life and death are no more than an absurd accident within a schema-less chain of happenstance.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Death

Post by Immanuel Can »

Wow.

It got quiet out there.
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote:Wow.

It got quiet out there.

Well there are other threads, you do know that? I think I'm somewhere between 1. and 2. but I'll have to give it some thought.
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by thedoc »

FYI, in addition to there being other threads on this forum, there are other forums, I have a watch list on EBay, and this morning the grandkids were here. Some people have a life that is not centered on this thread. :)
James Markham
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: Death

Post by James Markham »

Immanuel Can wrote:Wow.

It got quiet out there.
Kind of like when I posted this "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."
Post Reply