Me and my friend talked about this one night for a few hours, we basicly got no where and I wanted your opion.
Printable View
Me and my friend talked about this one night for a few hours, we basicly got no where and I wanted your opion.
Most people's opinion's on this topic are worthless. Since they are basically re-iterating what they were told when they were young, and the people who told them are just reiterating what they were told when they were young and the people that told them.... you get the picture =)
I agree. I was taught that there is heaven after earth and I still believe it. I'm afraid if I didn't go to a catholic primary school and high school, I would think quite the contrary
if you look at it scientifically, youll probably see that we will not exist. Our brain makes us use our senses, and operate our organs. the heart makes the brain go. Without the heart, its simple, no more blood flows to your brain. Thus all of you organs go out, and since there is no blood flowing, bacteria will decompose you.
That is our defenition of death. Your still there, exept you dont know it and you are rotting.
nada, nothing, nilch.
I'm a scientific person, has to be an explanation behind everything.
Is there any evidence to there NOT being an afterlife?Quote:
Originally posted by xlnk
nada, nothing, nilch.
I'm a scientific person, has to be an explanation behind everything.
>>Is there any evidence to there NOT being an afterlife?
It is common and accepted practice to assume that the lack of evidence to support a theory suggests more about its lack of existance than it does about its existance. One doesnt assume that because there is nothing to disprove an argument that the argument is valid. An argument must have valid points in its favour before it can be considered legitimate.
This discussion is silly. We've done this a million times before.
As evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired-the literary brilliance in parts of the Gospel surpasses anything written by man
IMHO .......once you're dead.....that's it. No afterlife.........
It all comes down to faith (a belief in things we cannot prove). Science is no exception, as it is initially based on the assumption of the uniformity of nature.
>if you look at it scientifically, youll probably see that we will not exist.
If you look at it scientifically, you should see that we have no proof or even hint in any direction. So no theory can be said to be scientifically more probable. I don't know what to believe in. To each his own. I guess as doing good deeds won't hurt your afterlife in any way, and you cannot change it in any other way, doing a lot of good things and believing whatever makes you happy is the perfect choice.
Its simple, you come back again as another person.
Back hair is the proof for this:
Lots of back hair means you were evil.
A bit means you were still pretty bad.
Not much means you were an ok person.
The only problem with this theory, is how does the population keep rising? Where are all these new people coming from?
[edit]
Oh and something tells me I must have been Hitler in a pervious life.
[/edit]
"Science is no exception, as it is initially based on the assumption of the uniformity of nature."
The only thing science assumes is that we are not in the Matrix.
Whilst it would nice if there were an after-life, science makes it rampantly clear that there is not.
>science makes it rampantly clear that there is not.
I must have missed that part of science...
"I must have missed that part of science..."
..... probably not, you probably just don't want to see it.
Science shows that the brain is basically hugely complicated computer. If the brain is "everything" as science says it is, there is no room for an "after-life".
After death, is no different to before birth.
>>Science makes it abundantly clear that the brain is little more than a complex biological computer. Ergo no room for an afterlife, pity really.
And how does it do that?
Science doesn't even tell us how this complex biological computer manages to create our own self awearness, let alone what happens to it after it ceases functioning in ways we have observed.
According to the poll, a couple people said that they beieve that when you die you live in a blank void. Whats that all about? What type of religion/community teaches that? If they figured it out for tbemselves, they musn't be very immaginative...
"And how does it do that?
Science doesn't even tell us how this complex biological computer manages to create our own self awearness, let alone what happens to it after it ceases functioning in ways we have observed."
You expect me to teach you the field of neurology over a message board?
No just the small section that has to do with the point at wich the brain dies and scientists prove that there is no afterlife.
"No just the small section that has to do with the point at wich the brain dies and scientists prove that there is no afterlife."
............... neurology has shown that the brain IS "us", that there is no seperation between mind and brain. Furthermore science as a whole REJECTS the notion that there could ever be a separation between mind and brain, as it would break the laws of physics.
When you die, the brain ceases to function. Hence you cease to function. Here are someone else's words that offer quite a good explanation.
"Materialism would suggest that the conscious, aware "Self" is established by the structures and processes of the brain. When these structures are destroyed and the processes cease, the conscious, aware "Self" ceases to exist. Similarly, a television picture requires a functioning television set in order to exist; if the TV is broken, no television picture can exist. In this sense, the conscious, aware "Self" would be akin to the television picture, not the TV set itself. When the TV is functioning, a television picture results; when the TV set ceases to function, there is no picture in that TV set.
Everything we know about biology and neurology and how the brain works points toward the likelihood that this marvelous organ contains everything needed to establish a conscious, aware "Self." In fact, the case can be made that the consciousness is necessary in an organism that survives by its mobility, that organisms which evolved to be mobile necessarily evolved the ability to be consciously aware -- however dim that awareness may be in the simpler organisms such as worms."
Now you probably are going to say that all the neurology profs. and biology doctorates are wrong, and hell yea the laws physics can be broken, magic can happen... blah blah blah, but consider this: We can observe experimentally that personality is a property of the brain and nothing more; people who have brain damage in a specific region of the brain get complete personality changes, so when your brain dies, your personality (which defines who "you" are) dies with it.
"The prospect of personal annihilation is staggeringly frightening to most. Many of us would prefer almost any route other than to be given a convincing argument that death is final. In fact, many people will still opt to find ways to justify believing in the more comfortable and more comforting myth, even if shown that annihilation is extremely likely and that other possibilities are very unlikely. They can see it but they won't buy it. Of course: if a loved one is missing, people will ponder just about any scenario besides the prospect of her demise, clinging unashamedly to any hope of her survival. If diagnosed with a grave medical condition, we tend to think that something will happen and we will become one of those amazing success stories in the annals of medicine. This is so natural to the human that many will tell you that the route of "denial" is healthier if one is given such a diagnosis. But the face of the inevitable watches in pitiless consumption as we whistle in the dark valley of the shadow of death"
Oh and incidently we know exactly how and why, people have strange experience's close to death. When the brain is dying the neurones begin firing randomly and large levels of endorphins and other "natural pain killers" are released. The random firing of neurones in the brain creates the impression of a white light in the centre of a person's vision (basically because the greatest concestration of neurones is in the centre of the brain) , and the endorphins released makes them feel relaxed, happy, loved, and also can give people a "floating sensation" etc..... sound familiar?
Pick a better analogy.
Regardless if the TV works, the picture still exists (it is broadcasted), we're just not able to observe it.Quote:
Similarly, a television picture requires a functioning television set in order to exist; if the TV is broken, no television picture can exist. In this sense, the conscious, aware "Self" would be akin to the television picture, not the TV set itself. When the TV is functioning, a television picture results; when the TV set ceases to function, there is no picture in that TV set.
The problem with science is that it is based on observations and inferences from those observations. Remember the world was flat for a time? "Science" has been wrong before. Science is merely a set of rules to explain things that seem to hold true. Every now and again someone comes up with a better set of rules, but it would be silly to think that the set of rules we "know" and use now are completely correct.
Exactly. The likelihood. There still exists the possibililty that we're wrong.Quote:
Everything we know about biology and neurology and how the brain works points toward the likelihood that...
"Regardless if the TV works, the picture still exists (it is broadcasted), we're just not able to observe it."
The picture doesn't exist, by definition it doesn't exist. The cathode ray tube might still be spewing out electrons, but the picture does not exist.
"The problem with science is that it is based on observations and inferences from those observations"
Ah yes, here we go, the "science has got wrong" post.
" Remember the world was flat for a time? "Science" has been wrong before"
For a start it is a myth that "science" ever thought the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew the world was round thousands of years ago.
However science can be wrong, its greatest strength is that it adapts, if theory is proved wrong, it is either chucked or modified. Having said that, with the gargantuan amount evidence in favour of modern neurology and the fact that any alternative would violoate even the most basic laws of physics, means this particular piece of science is about as likely to be disproved as gravity.
So..... all the evidence and theory points one way...but you choose to believe the opposite, *searches for quote*... ah yes:
"The prospect of personal annihilation is staggeringly frightening to most. Many of us would prefer almost any route other than to be given a convincing argument that death is final. In fact, many people will still opt to find ways to justify believing in the more comfortable and more comforting myth, even if shown that annihilation is extremely likely and that other possibilities are very unlikely"
"Exactly. The likelihood. There still exists the possibililty that we're wrong"
Yes indeed, and there exists the possiblity we are in the Matrix..... thing is people don't believe that because they deem it rediculously improbable, about as probable say as all the laws of physics and everything known about neurology being completely wrong....
But its ok, i understand, denial is great.
To settle all of these religous discussions:
Even Einstein, one of the world's greatest scientists, said there had to be a god because the universe is just so enormous, mysterious, and he couldn't devise a way all of this could have happened.
"Even Einstein, one of the world's greatest scientists, said there had to be a god because the universe is just so enormous, mysterious, and he couldn't devise a way all of this could have happened."
....... Einstein thoroughy REJECTED the idea of a biblical "God" that was omnipotent omniscient, etc. etc. He did however think there was some underlying order in the universe. The reason is that many underlying principles seem "finely tuned" ie. if the nuclear strong force was a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit stronger, then protons would bind to protons and what we would have is a very different (and fairly dull) universe completely incapable of supporting life.
However, Quantum theory combined with the anthropic principle have scuppered that line of reasoning. Quantum theory shows that there could be a near infite number of universe's each with a slight variation in physical laws/properties, the anthropic principle points out that given that we exist, the universe we exist in is bound to have properties that support intelligent life.
In my tweaked little mind, this is how I picture it...Picture a combonation of of the Matrix and Jet Li's the One. Our minds percieve only what we "know" can exist in some preproggramed method we were born into. Other beings exist all around us, but our brain cannot perceive them because they are in a different state or "wave length". This is similiar to the way that we cannot dectect microwaves or alpha waves or beta waves. In some cases, I have read that some people have actually been able to listen to a radio for a long period of time on one station, then turn it off and still be able to "hear", in another form of perception, and tell what is playing 10-20 minutes later. The cause of this from the certain researchers performing this experemint was that once the brain recieves information in one way for long enough to figure out how to change it into sensable data, then an understandable perception results. Sooo...When we die, we simply change state into another wave length were we are reincarnated into ourselves as the same being only on another wave length. This, I suppose, happens constantly forever until we reach a Nirvana, a place kinda stuck inbetween waves, I think.:confused:
" Our minds percieve only what we "know" can exist in some preproggramed method we were born into"
What do you mean by "percieve"? We can directly sense stuff, using our 5 senses and we can picture stuff in our heads that is based on what we have previously seen: IE. a blind man can not picture red, but someone who has seen red can.
On the other hand, we can understand, and model things that we cannot picture in our heads: see quantum mechanics and relativity.
"Other beings exist all around us, but our brain cannot perceive them because they are in a different state or "wave length". "
.... We "percieve" things based on our 5 senses, and there are other beings all around us...... they're called animals.
"This is similiar to the way that we cannot dectect microwaves or alpha waves or beta waves"
Our eyes can only detect light which is radiation with wavelength 400-700 nm, almost all solids absorb some radiation in that limit, it's concieveable that if we got a "perfect" crystal and stuck it in a vacum it would be "invisable" but we could still sense it by touch, or bounce things off it, or (if we really wanted to) taste it, etc. Alpha waves......... are either patterns the brain makes and not really waves at all, or you could be refering to alpha particles which are chucked out when certain elements decay, beta waves/particles..... are just electrons.
" In some cases, I have read that some people have actually been able to listen to a radio for a long period of time on one station, then turn it off and still be able to "hear", in another form of perception, and tell what is playing 10-20 minutes later"
.... don't believe everything you read. Human beings cannot pick up radiowaves, fullstop.
"cause of this from the certain researchers performing this experemint was that once the brain recieves information in one way for long enough to figure out how to change it into sensable data, then an understandable perception results"
Heh "researchers"....... the brain cannot "percieve" radio waves because none of the sense's can detect them: The ears don't detect radiation at all, they detect vibrations in the air. If anything could detect radiowaves it would be the eyes but they can't.
"Sooo...When we die, we simply change state into another wave length were we are reincarnated into ourselves as the same being only on another wave length."
Change state? Changing state means going from gas -> liquid or liquid -> solid etc. etc. And errr you really should look up what wavelength is: The distance between two crest's or two trough's in a given wave.
Whilst you could claim human beings have a wavelength equal to h/p. A: It has absolutely no relation to how we percieve anything, and B: it's too small to have any real effect, only very small masses display wave-like properties.
When we die, we die. We cease, we stop, we end, thats it, game over, etc. etc.
I didn't mean to say that "science" said the world was flat. Sorry, I just meant that it was a common belief that the world was flat (yet was completely wrong). The science has been wrong before was another point.
Still, I do believe in science and I'm not going to go jump off a cliff and hope that gravity no longer exists as I fall (one day it might not who knows). I don't think science is completely wrong, but I do think there's a copious amount of knowledge we are not yet aware of.
>But its ok, i understand, denial is great.
No, I like to think of it more as scepticism, which is a great thing for a scientist to have.
I do believe in God and some form of after life. If I'm right, then all the better. If I'm wrong, I'll never know it.
"No, I like to think of it more as scepticism, which is a great thing for a scientist to have."
Skepticism is definitely a good thing, though i fail to see how skepticism leads one to conclude there is an after-life.
I doubt you will find anyone who considers themselves a skeptic who believes in an after-life (just check out the skeptics magazines or the numerous skeptics websites). Skeptics generally only accept the most rigorously proved of theorems.
"I do believe in God and some form of after life. If I'm right, then all the better. If I'm wrong, I'll never know it."
True enough. But make the most of life, I hate the idea that there are people out there who don't make the most of life, expecting that they will have an eternity of living in the clouds with a harp etc. etc. to do stuff in.
Then I guess the biography I read was wrong??
"Then I guess the biography I read was wrong??"
... guess so:
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
[Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
[Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
Is there any evidence that their is a heaven or reincarnation?Quote:
Originally posted by tyler
Is there any evidence to there NOT being an afterlife?
I'm Hindu, but I dont believe in reincarnation. Im more scientific minded.
Isn't reincarnation a significant part of Hinduism?
>Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people.
Doesn't this eliminate free will and mean that ultimately our actions are entirely predictable? Scary concept to accept.
It is very difficult to explain the existance of laws of nature (without a circular argument), there needs to exist an intial cause. For science, it's usually the big bang which if you think about it is totally against scientific reasoning.
Hume (an old philosopher) believed the same thing, human actions are just as predictable as physical objects, but have far too many variables for us to consider. But he cites God as the intial cause (which then only requires reasoning that God exists).
Neither one can be undoubtably proven, as far as I know.
>make the most of life
Indeed. Go program something. :)
yes, reincarnation is a significant part of Hinduism, but i mainly believe in the values set forth by the religion. For example being a vegetarian, etc.
Our actions are predictable and are unpredictable.
First people choose their own decisions, sometimes knowing fully the advantages and consequences in the future of the decision, predictable.
Second, I dont believe in fate, what happens well happens. You can get shot while at a gas station in broad daylight next to a high way, unpredictable.
But mainly i believe a persons future is based on the decisions that that person makes.
so in saying that, some people believe in God. I for one believe in my self. :)
and yes i agree, make the most of life. You dont know what is going to happen to you tommorow. Live life to the fullest, everyday.
"Clyde":
By "perceiving" I meant that the brain interprets our 5 senses in the only ways that we can undestand them. IE if you could "Touch" radio waves, then the brain would make you fully awhere that you were being constantly "touched" by these waves.
>>The beings around us, not animals, I meant to be other lives that we cannot sense. Hence there existances cannot be "percieved" by any senses that we have or have the technology to build.
>>Sooo... When we die....How do you know what happens when we die? Have been dead before? How long were you dead for? What was it like? Oh yeah, almost forgot, you don't know! Neither do I for sure. I think that you need to back off and be more open minded toward other peoples "opinions" because remember you don't know as much as you think you know and we don't know as much as we want to know. Alright.
"IE if you could "Touch" radio waves, then the brain would make you fully awhere that you were being constantly "touched" by these waves. "
Not nessesarily the brain filter's out "junk" information, thats how you can listen to people in noisy rooms.
"The beings around us, not animals, I meant to be other lives that we cannot sense. Hence there existances cannot be "percieved" by any senses that we have or have the technology to build. "
Oh I see, magic beings, who break all the laws of physics, of which we have no evidence. Riiiight, and errr we should believe in them.. why?
"Sooo... When we die....How do you know what happens when we die?"
.... i've already covered that question, read the thread.
" Have been dead before? How long were you dead for? What was it like?"
Actually "I" have been dead before, how long you ask? Hmm... since time appears to have a beginning I'd have to say the length I was "dead" was between the bigbang and my birth: a dozen or so billion years. What was it like? It wasn't.
"I think that you need to back off and be more open minded toward other peoples "opinions" because remember you don't know as much as you think you know and we don't know as much as we want to know"
Open minded, ... oh i see you mean ignorant. I should be more ignorant of neurology, more ignorant of physics, yea baby the path to open mindness is ignorance WOOT.
Richard Dawkins: "There is such a thing as being so "open-minded" that your brains drop out".
I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.
"Doesn't this eliminate free will and mean that ultimately our actions are entirely predictable? Scary concept to accept."
Indeed it is a scary concept..... but a true one. Free-will cannot exist without breaking the laws of physics. Further-more there is direct evidence that it doesn't exist:
In a neurology experiment, people were wired to a machine that looks at brain patterns and asked to push a button, whenever they felt like it........ well the researchers looking at the brain pattern's knew when the people were going to press the button half a second BEFORE the people themselves knew! The brain decides what to do, then lets us know.
"It is very difficult to explain the existance of laws of nature (without a circular argument), there needs to exist an intial cause. For science, it's usually the big bang which if you think about it is totally against scientific reasoning."
Er... no the big bang is NOT in anyway against scientific reasoning. Where's the cause? you ask, invalid question I say. What does that mean? you ask, It means that the way we look at things and understand them is based upon the way the universe works. We look for cause and effect, because causality is etched into the properties of the universe, but it is merely a reflection of the laws of physics, hence such principles cannot be applied to the big-bang itself. Also the question is doubly invalid, since it is currently believed that time itself began with the big-bang, you cannot have a "cause" if you don't have a "before". If we ever get an "answer" it will not be one that will satisfy us and "feel" right, it will be an answer written in maths.
"Hume (an old philosopher) believed the same thing, human actions are just as predictable as physical objects, but have far too many variables for us to consider. But he cites God as the intial cause (which then only requires reasoning that God exists)"
Hume generally wrote trite, however he is correct in that human beings are merely vastly complicated chemical systems. Whether they are predictable or not is another question. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle screws alot of prediction up, we could never have a computer and plug into it all the data of the universe and expect it to predict the future.
aye ayeQuote:
Originally posted by Clyde
I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.
im still open minded, and accept other peoples views and beliefs, just saying so, so nobody jumps at me ;)
"im still open minded, and accept other peoples views and beliefs"
Oh i accept other people's views and beliefs..... if they are rational.
You see there is a great hypocrisy, someone tells you that his goats are talking to him, you think "nutter", someone says he speaks to Napolean on a regular basis, you think "nutter", someone says that we are surrounded by invisable untouchable "beings", you think "I respect that".
of course, this supernatural stuff is utter bull.
If you don't have to prove the big bang, I don't have to prove God's existence. ;)
I'm tired of thinking, I'm done.
"If you don't have to prove the big bang, I don't have to prove God's existence. "
But we do have to "prove" the big bang occured! And we have vast reams of evidence showing just that, including: the expansion of the universe, the background radiation, the predictions from relativity, etc.
This is your personal belief. If you were an open-minded person, you would acknowledge the fact that even neurology isn't 100% perfect and such a thing as an AfterLife might exist.Quote:
I'll tell you what I know: there is no after life, it is not possible, you are your brain, when your brain ceases to exist, you cease to exist. FULLSTOP.
Religion is the blind faith in God and Afterlife. Just because some people believe in the contrary doesn't make the blind faith any better. No matter what you believe in, all you have as a base is a big book written by a species of mankind. And s/he might have been wrong. Failing to acknowledge this is blind faith, no matter if the book is the bible, quoran or a scientific book.
>I'll tell you what I know
And you know this because of what ? Did you read the book ( please replace with appropriate book from above ) ? Great.
Whatever. I know the absolute truth: It's 42 EXCLAMATION MARK !
"This is your personal belief. If you were an open-minded person, you would acknowledge the fact that even neurology isn't 100% perfect and such a thing as an AfterLife might exist. "
It is my personal belief because it's the scientific viewpoint, for an "after-life" to exist neurology has to be completely wrong as do even the most basic laws of physics.... they might be..... and we might live in the Matrix, and tommorow gravity might stop and we might all float away....... riiight
"Religion is the blind faith in God and Afterlife"
Yup, and when people say they have "blind faith" in their goats talking to them, we say: "Nutcase" but if on the other hand they have belief in a supreme being and a magical after-life that cannot possibly exist, we say "I respect that", complete hypocrisy, the reason though is a simple one. It's one of social acceptability:
If people had been saying that goats spoke to them for a few thousand years instead of saying that there was an after-life et. al. the situation would be entirely reversed, we would be sitting here and I would be saying "Yup and when people say they have "blind faith" in magically living after dieing we would say: "Nutcase", but if on the other hand they believe goats talk to them, we say " I respect that".........
"Just because some people believe in the contrary doesn't make the blind faith any better"
Faith.... let me tell you what faith is; its a get-out clause, a particularly ingenious one. How would one go about persuading people to believe the most irrational ideas known to man, how could one not only persuade them of these ideas but also get them to stick in the face of logic? The answer is brilliant; you tell these people from an extremely early age, that the very thing that makes these ideas irrational, is to be sought after! You give it a name and voila!
Of course, again, its so socially acceptable, so ingrained into all of our collective psyche, to think of "faith" as a good thing, that realising what it actually is, comes as quite the shock.
Though even the most learned of religious people flail hideously when you ask them what they think faith is, they normally resort to double talk, and supremely circular arguments.
It is used to justify belief in the rediculously improbable, but of course it doesn't really justify anything; I believe goats are talking to me.... why?... faith...... riiiiight.
"No matter what you believe in, all you have as a base is a big book written by a species of mankind"
Well quite, but just because two things were written by man does not make them equally true: I could write a book explaining in detail why i thought the Earth was flat it would not however be even remotely comparable in terms of what is useful in terms of truth with Newton's Principia Mathamatica. So then comes the question; how do we determine which sources of human knowledge to use? Which ones to believe and which ones to chuck on the bonfire?
Logic comes to our aid once again, what is the basis in the claims of said book? Is there evidence supporting it? Do other theories with evidence supporting them support the claims in said book? Etc. etc. In-fact people are pretty good at judging........ except when indocrination and social acceptablilty rears it's ugly head, then perfectly sane, intelligent people lose their minds entirely.
"Failing to acknowledge this is blind faith, no matter if the book is the bible, quoran or a scientific book. "
Oh i love this one, yea thats right, my belief in relativity is as much blind-faith as some-one's in the bible or that a tribal dance causes rain........... or ......... not. You see, relativity, has reems of evidence supporting it, has been mathematically derived from the laws of electo-statics, which in turn have trully gargantuan amounts evidence supporting them. See: No blind faith, evidence and logic. Blind faith = irrational = not usefull in getting the truth.
"And you know this because of what ? Did you read the book ( please replace with appropriate book from above ) ? Great. "
You know, you are seriously trying to argue that because it's in a book it must therefore be as valid as information in all other books!!!!!!!! That's so rediculous its almost funny.
Because neurology is in a book, it's just as valid as my book explaining that monitors are made out of pizza!....... ya!
Neurology whether taught in a book or at a lecture has reems and reems and reems and reems of evidence supporting it, not only that but it provides tangible mechanism that explains how the phenomenon it descibes arise, that are supported by biochemistry, genetics, and a whole host of other subjects. The same applies to the basic laws of physics; consertion of energy, entropy of the universe always increasing, etc. etc.
Like I said it could all be wrong..... or ... not. If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, taste's like a horse, feels like a horse, sounds like a horse, chances are ..... its a horse.
"I know the absolute truth: It's 42 EXCLAMATION MARK !"
Adam's rocked.
on topic of religion, i believe that religion was created to rule over people. Religion was put there so people are not barbarians, created by some king to rule over people, or something. but in the end religion is just text or word of mouth, something for people to believe in, just like i believe in my self, even though i'm Hindu, i also like to think as science as my religion, so to speak...:)
____________
open-minded
>Blind faith = irrational = not usefull in getting the truth.
You got it. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>Like I said it could all be wrong..... or ... not.
Right. There is no proof for the existance of a higher being.
But then, there is no proof of the absence of a higher being.
As a logical person, I would therefore conclude that both is
possible.
Same with Afterlife. Scientists say that as they have discovered
Neurology, they can say that we have no physical soul. We have
a heart, we have a brain, but noone found a soul yet. Yet.
But can it be found with physical explanations ? Who said the
soul or whatever survives this life has to be squeezed besides
the brain, that it rests in our skull until we die ? Who said
that ?
>chances are ..... its a horse.
That's right. I'm not saying that I can do anything to make you
believe in an Afterlife. It's not probable. I don't really believe
this either. But saying that there is none is simply ignorant of the
fact that even science can fail. Not acknowledging the chance that
science will know better in hundred years ( like it did for the last
10.000.000 years ) is blind belief, not better than any religion.
Albert Einstein: "...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
It all boils down to what you believe in. what comes after life is nothing that can be proven, so why debate about it?
"Right. There is no proof for the existance of a higher being.
But then, there is no proof of the absence of a higher being.
As a logical person, I would therefore conclude that both is
possible. "
Oh this is another classic:
There is no proof for the existance of santa-claus, but then, there is no proof of the absence of santa-claus, as a logical person, I would there conclude both are possible..........
Bzzzzt. I think not, you see we do not build up a picture of reality based upon what has not been disproved -> if we did we would end up living in a dream world. We build up a picture of reality based upon evidence and theory.
Plus there IS huge amounts of "proof" in the abasence of an after-life: Neurology and physics.
"We have
a heart, we have a brain, but noone found a soul yet. Yet"
Errr, a heart is made of cells, lungs are made of cells, a "soul" is made of magic. Furthermore, there is no rational reason to believe in a soul when every function of such a soul can be accounted to the brain.
"That's right. I'm not saying that I can do anything to make you
believe in an Afterlife. It's not probable. I don't really believe
this either"
You're clinging to hope, ignoring rationality blindingly believeing in what you choose. It's ok i've seen it dozens of times before. For a long time Ijust could not get my head around it, after all if I think one particular scientific theory has got it right, then another one comes along and blows it out of the water, I don't cling voratiously to the previously disproved theory.... But people do just that when it comes to religion, they believe not in what's rational, but in what they want to believe. Now it's not imposible for people to come around...... but normally you have to get em young, after say 20ish, the ideas are so ingrained into their heads, that no amount of reasoning makes any difference. It's sad really, but it's a flaw in the brain. To be expected i guess since out brain evolved not to ponder reality but to help us hunt antelope.
"But saying that there is none is simply ignorant of the
fact that even science can fail"
..... for there to be one, ALL of neurology has got to be wrong, completely wrong, as does ALL of physics. Even though we have voluminous amounts of evidence supporting them. The probablitly that they are both entirely wrong (which needs to happen for there to be an after-life) is so incomprehensibly small, that we can treat it as never happening. Atleast when dealing with other phenonmenon with EQUAL probability we ignore them as utterly rediculous:
Living in the Matrix: possible, but so improbable we ignore it, a dragon materialising over our heads when we eat lunch, possible, but so improbable we ignore it, the after-life, possible, but so improbable we ignore it.
"Not acknowledging the chance that
science will know better in hundred years ( like it did for the last
10.000.000 years ) is blind belief, not better than any religion"
Errr, science has only been around for 4,000 years. And no doubt we will know more (though in certain fields, like physics just how much more is unknown) in another 10,000 but there is no way in hell that all of physics and all of neurology are ever going to be proved wrong. (We can SEE neurology working with MRI scanners, we can test neurology by opening people's heads up, or stimulating the brain in certain regions with magnetic fields and noting the results, planes, cars, computers, stereos, all technology are all based on the laws of physics) That idea is as rediculous as suggesting that maybe in 10,000 years science will prove the Earth is flat!
There is no "blind faith" in science, just cold, hard reason.
So when you say:
"Blind faith = irrational = not usefull in getting the truth.
You got it. This is exactly what I'm talking about"
I take it then you have abandoned relgion then? And do not believe in any of this nonsensical after-life/ supreme being/ talking goats/ santa-claus etc.?
"It all boils down to what you believe in. what comes after life is nothing that can be proven, so why debate about it?"
Well A it can be proven, see neurology and physics. And B even if it couldn't (which it can) it would still be utterly irrational to believe in it, just like believeing in Santa-Claus would be irrational, even though there is no "proof" against his existance.
Oh and you might want to check out what Einstein means when he says religion :)
>I take it then you have abandoned relgion then? And do not >believe in any of this nonsensical after-life/ supreme being/ >talking goats/ santa-claus etc.?
I don't believe in these things and never have. I don't believe things I don't have proof for. And while I don't believe in a higher being myself, I cannot rightly claim to know better than a believer, because I cannot prove him wrong.
"I don't believe things I don't have proof for. And while I don't believe in a higher being myself, I cannot rightly claim to know better than a believer, because I cannot prove him wrong"
Whilst it is true you cannot prove him wrong, you can prove what he believes in is irrational, and you can prove that if you want the truth the only way to go about getting it is through rationality.
That is why you can also claim to know better than someone who believes in Santa/talking goats/(insert random rediculous statement here).
>>That is why you can also claim to know better than someone who believes in Santa
Ok, I'll let you argue against god and religion if you want. But leave Santa out of this!!
I know he exists!!!
Just because you don't deserve presents doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
"Ok, I'll let you argue against god and religion if you want. But leave Santa out of this!!"
Sorry, my bad :D
I don't believe in an afterlife, but if there is one, and I do come back, I want to be a cow!! Cows are great!!
And Santa does exist!! I sit on his knee at least once a year!!
God (or whatever) set off the big bang !!! and never interfered since !!
praying is a load of ********, 6 million jews (god's chosen!!) prayed like crazy, didn't help.
quote -
"we are all stardust...all atoms in your body were made in a star, we are the universe's attempt to understand itself , we ARE the universe" (something like that)
>>we are the universe's attempt to understand itself
i like that, thats neat.
PS
Don't come back as a cow unless you want to end up in my stomach, be digested and then EXCRETED !!
There ain't no Sanity Clause !!
>6 million jews (god's chosen!!) prayed like crazy, didn't help
Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?
"Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?"
LOL, right. They prayed and ...... they got slaughtered, but hey, maybe if they hadn't prayed.... errr... they would ..... errr.... have got slaughtered.
Exactly !!Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?"
LOL, right. They prayed and ...... they got slaughtered, but hey, maybe if they hadn't prayed.... errr... they would ..... errr.... have got slaughtered.
(or were they praying to the WRONG god eh ??? give me strength!!)
Whether theres a god or whatever, he/she/it most certainly doesn't interfere with our petty lives !!! i think this is borne out by history.
i hate to hear this "i'll pray for you" crap......
pray for good exam results, pray for this pray for that, nobody's listening.....................
my auntie was a Christian Scientist, they won't have transplants, go to the doctor etc because "its god's will" if you are sick !!!
so her husband is ill, and won't go to the doctor, they just pray at his bedside all day long etc
so he lay there a long time in agony and then he died. i can't remember what he died of, but it was NOTHING much, he could have been saved easily with antibiotics.
just one example of religion (extreme example i know), but i just want to get my tuppence in......
i hate all organised religion, we'd be better off without it.
and...
>>>And while I don't believe in a higher being myself, I cannot rightly claim to know better than a believer, because I cannot prove him wrong.
no you can't, but the onus is on a believer to prove god exists. if i say to you "i believe in fairies", its up to me to prove they exist..not up to you to prove they don't. just like any scientific theory etc.
(ps i was reading yesterday how the pope said NOTHING, did NOTHING, and he was well aware that jews were being slaughtered - and hes "gods representative on earth" - so mebe they WERE praying to the wrong god!!)
"I hate all organised religion, we'd be better off without "
Don't get me started! I LOATHE religion, More people have died in the name of God, than for any other cause (hell the Spanish inquisition alone killed more people than both world wars), religion is hugely damaging to human society, not only does it interfere with education, but it causes un-necessary pain, suffering and war.
Stamp it out.
Check out this page:
http://www.closetatheist.com/wtcdawkins.htm
Dawkins rocks!
I couldn't agree more Clyde, i really couldn't.
Have you heard the Bob Dylan song "with God on our side"??
classic.
thats a GREAT link ->
favourite quote->"If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place"
but
>>(hell the Spanish inquisition alone killed more people than both world wars
this isn't true matey !!!!!!
about 40 million died in WWII alone !!!!
"this isn't true matey !!!!!!
about 40 million died in WWII alone !!!!"
Hmm, seems you are quite right, I was told that by someone studying religious education about 5 years ago, but i checked up on it, and its not even remotely true.
Thanks for the correction.
Though i still stand by previous statement that more people have died in the name of God, than any other cause.
>>>>>Though i still stand by previous statement that more people have died in the name of God, than any other cause
I know what you're saying, religion causes so much grief...
but the statement isn't true....
WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations.
and neither was anything to do with religion...
neither was.....
gulf war, falklands war,vietnam, korea, Napoleonic wars, Franco-Prussian war, American war of independance, American civil war (greatest death toll for Americans), Crimean war, 30 year war, 100 years war..etc....
all were more about money/power/fear/ignorance/ambition/empire-building/defending yourself/no good reason/sparked off by nutcases etc...take your pic.....but not religion.
but Northern Ireland, india/pakistan, israel/arabs.and many other...these ARE largely religions fault in my opinion, although religion is often used as an excuse for something else...
what gets me though, is the way both sides in any conflict "have god on their side" !! and how intolerant religious people are to anyone of diffent faiths !!!!
All emotion-based lives are doomed. Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic. Those instincts were evolved and needed for animals to survive, not for rational lives. People will realize that they're just part of the world they're living in, and when they realize that everything except the facts of the world around them are lies, primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear. However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN. We're getting more efficient, as for the result, I have no idea.
"WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations. "
WW2 was the has the highest mortality of any war, around 50 million right?
"Let us look for a moment at the number of victims sacrificed on the altars of the Christian Moloch: -- 1,000,000 perished during the early Arian schism; 1,000,000 during the Carthaginian struggle; 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters. In Spain 5,000,000 perished during the eight Crusades; 2,000,000 of Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives in opposing the introduction of the blessings of Christianity. 1,000,000 were destroyed in the Holy(?) Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots. 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered ere they could be convinced of the beauties(?) of the Christian creed. 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft. Total, 56,000,000"
-> That is just the number who who have died for Christianity
I'm not saying more people have died, because of religion than have died for any other reason, i'm saying more people have died due to religion than any other single cause (ignoring human nature). The death toll for all non-religous conflict is probabably higher than the death toll for all religious conflict, but that was not the point i was making, the other conflicts have no link, they have no single cause (aside from human nature), it is not easy to see how they could have been avoided. Religious wars on the hand, are totally superfluous they are due to social construct that is not a nessesary part of human society.
"All emotion-based lives are doomed."
..... all humans have "emotion-based lives".
"Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic"
A meaningless statement.
"primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear."
Emotion and humour are part of human nature and are hard coded into our genes, you won't get rid of them. Religion will disappear, because it relies on indocrination and lack of education, it is slowly fading as education improves, it will inevitably fade away given enough time. Human beings enjoying entertainment will not change, again its part of human nature.
"However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN."
Uh..... the human brain evolved to help us pass on genes NOT to "seek answers" humanities knowledge seeking nature is a by-product of our intellect, and a certain restless-nature.
"We're getting more efficient"
More efficient at what?
well i dunno where you get your figures from but i see your point.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations. "
WW2 was the has the highest mortality of any war, around 50 million right?
"Let us look for a moment at the number of victims sacrificed on the altars of the Christian Moloch: -- 1,000,000 perished during the early Arian schism; 1,000,000 during the Carthaginian struggle; 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters. In Spain 5,000,000 perished during the eight Crusades; 2,000,000 of Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives in opposing the introduction of the blessings of Christianity. 1,000,000 were destroyed in the Holy(?) Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots. 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered ere they could be convinced of the beauties(?) of the Christian creed. 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft. Total, 56,000,000"
.
-> That is just the number who who have died for Christianity
I'm not saying more people have died, because of religion than have died for any other reason, i'm saying more people have died due to religion than any other single cause (ignoring human nature). The death toll for all non-religous conflict is probabably higher than the death toll for all religious conflict, but that was not the point i was making, the other conflicts have no link, they have no single cause (aside from human nature), it is not easy to see how they could have been avoided. Religious wars on the hand, are totally superfluous they are due to social construct that is not a nessesary part of human society.
although i would put the 30 million South Americans died due to human nature ie exploitation of weaker people/nations rather than religion, but yeah they were viewed as inferior beings largely due to not being Christian.
you talk a load of rubbish to put it mildly !!Quote:
Originally posted by Series X4 1.0
All emotion-based lives are doomed. Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic. Those instincts were evolved and needed for animals to survive, not for rational lives. People will realize that they're just part of the world they're living in, and when they realize that everything except the facts of the world around them are lies, primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear. However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN. We're getting more efficient, as for the result, I have no idea.
you are depressing. are you 12 ?????
"well i dunno where you get your figures from but i see your point"
Figures from:
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...al.html#1.1.25
More or less, still. And they're doomed - as stated above.Quote:
"All emotion-based lives are doomed."
..... all humans have "emotion-based lives".
Everything is "meaningless", including your emotions for having such a definition. If I redefine the word "meaningless" to fit the larger goal; evolution, exploration, whatever, then my statement is not meaningless as people are learning from it.Quote:
"Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic"
A meaningless statement.
Wrong. Emotions are caused by certain brain-structures and are easier to erase than you seem to believe. There are for example relatively simple methods to observe your emotions, and then removing them by being "aware", and by knowing why, when, and how they're invoked.Quote:
Emotion and humour and part of human and hard coded into our genes, you won't get rid of them.
It's also part of human nature to evolve and to change. Why don't you believe in my prediction for the future? It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions, the same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved. Emotions are clumsy laws when controlling an individual.Quote:
Religion will disappear, because it relies on indocrination and lack of education, it is slowly fading as education improves, it will inevitably fade away given enough time. Human beings enjoying entertainment will not change, again its part of human nature.
The human brain evolved to help us pass genes just as little/much as it evolved to help us seek answers. All those things are the result of the physical structure of the world. To draw lines here and there just to win the argument is "unnecessary".Quote:
"However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN."
Uh..... the human brain evolved to help us pass on genes NOT to "seek answers"
Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said.
I don't know. One thing to realize is that the "lies" among mankind are being removed.Quote:
"We're getting more efficient"
More efficient at what?
thats another good link Clyde, i'm currently reading it.....
i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not.
and all those dead in the Crusades, don't think its true, bearing in mind the extremely small populations in those days...
i think the link is a bit rabidly anti-religion, so i don't believe all of it, but i do agree with most of it, and the general point its making.....
"More or less, still. And they're doomed - as stated above"
...... doomed because we are going to die some day?
"Everything is "meaningless", including your emotions for having such a definition"
Well quite, but no-one has ebver claimed emotions "mean" anything.
"Wrong. Emotions are caused by certain brain-structures and are easier to erase than you seem to believe. There are for example relatively simple methods to observe your emotions, and then removing them by being "aware", and by knowing why, when, and how they're invoked. "
Wrong? I think not, emotions are part of the core brain, sure you might be able to physically chop out that part of the brain, and thats pretty much exactly what labotomies do. However other than that, there is no way of removing your emotions. Besides emotions help us, if they didn't we would never have evolved them.
"It's also part of human nature to evolve and to change. Why don't you believe in my prediction for the future? "
Because human nature will not change, it has not changed in any way, in the last 20,000 years. Human nature is purely determined by genetics, evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years to do anything.
"It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions"
Fear is more of an advantage than a disadvantage: yea the occasional animal will die from a heart attack due to fear, but huge numbers of animals will avoid getting eaten due to fear.
"same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved"
Bzzt nonsense, people can also die from heart attacks brought on by fear, in exactly the same way animals can.
". Emotions are clumsy laws when controlling an individual"
Nonsense, emotions are not laws. they a drives that give maximun benefit to the indivdual thats why they are there. Without love, children would be less likely to survive, without fear people would die all the time because they would do rediculously dangerous things, all the emotions have a purpose, man-kind could no more exist without emotions than he could without arms.
"The human brain evolved to help us pass genes just as little/much as it evolved to help us seek answers"
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about; the brain's SOLE purpose is the same as the sole-purpose for us, all of us; to pass on our genes, that's how evolution works. As i said our "answer seeking" nature is a by-product.
"Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said"
Actually no the human brain is not "obligated" to see answers at all, there are millions upon millions of people quite happy to live in ignorance.
"I don't know. One thing to realize is that the "lies" among mankind are being removed"
Lies? What? You mean like religion et al? Well yes we are gradually becoming more educated gradually discovering more about the universe etc. But emotions are not a "lie", any more than an itch is a lie.
"i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not."
You might be right (9 mil. does seem a bit much), but i found that document quoted as a source for figures in several other fairly realiable looking website's. I'll see if i can find any more figures that support the claims.
EDIT: OMG look at this: "Over 200 people who were accused of being witches were burnt to death in South Africa between the beginning of 1994 and mid-1995."
well even if it was 9 its 9 too many.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
"i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not."
You might be right (9 mil. does seem a bit much), but i found that document quoted as a source for figures in several other fairly realiable looking website's. I'll see if i can find any more figures that support the claims.
EDIT: OMG look at this: "Over 200 people who were accused of being witches were burnt to death in South Africa between the beginning of 1994 and mid-1995."
those "trials" were a joke, if he/she sinks in water and drown they aren't a witch etc !!!!
its usually somebody with a gripe that accuses someone of witchcraft, the south african thing is appalling !!!!!
This is my personal opinion, but I think that "Clyde" is a close-minded arrogant SOB who believes he knows everything and his reasoning is unquestionable. BTW, Clyde,
"Igonorance is bliss." - Joe Pantoliano.
This is actually quite wrong.Quote:
Because human nature will not change, it has not changed in any way, in the last 20,000 years. Human nature is purely determined by genetics, evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years to do anything.
The more we know, the faster we change. Mankind's development rate has basically been standing still for thousands of years, but just think how much it has been changing in the last 100 years. And it'll just go faster. Just because our physical appearance will take some more time (but we might integrate ourselves with machines etc.), doesn't mean that we aren't changing psychologically relatively fast.
Just to give an idea to consider: I read somewhere that just 100 years afo the IQ of an average person would be far lower than the IQ of a person of today. Seems likely due to the amounts of information that is available today. Our environment is no longer limited, as it were before.
Fear is an advantage for a primitive animal living in a primitive environment, not for an human being living in a civilized society. We humans still have fear, basically for no reason, that's why I believe that it will disappear in the future. The same theory counts for other emotions.Quote:
"It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions"
Fear is more of an advantage than a disadvantage: yea the occasional animal will die from a heart attack due to fear, but huge numbers of animals will avoid getting eaten due to fear.
We are not discussing physical strenght here. I've never heard of a healthy young person dying of fear, but I do suspect/know that animals can do so.Quote:
"same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved"
Bzzt nonsense, people can also die from heart attacks brought on by fear, in exactly the same way animals can.
Emotions can be seen as internal laws in the individual, in the same way that one would set up some sort of internal laws in an artificial neural net, one could also call them drives. In order to rationally advance, the neural net must adapt to the truth of the world outside, instead of creating internal lies (religions etc.). And as far as I know, when understanding the physical laws that everything follows (including oneself), there are no room for emotions.Quote:
Nonsense, emotions are not laws. they a drives that give maximun benefit to the indivdual thats why they are there. Without love, children would be less likely to survive, without fear people would die all the time because they would do rediculously dangerous things, all the emotions have a purpose, man-kind could no more exist without emotions than he could without arms.
In todays society, mankind would destroy itself without love, sympathy etc. agreed. I was however just speculating about the future - by then mankind/some other life might be able to live without emotions.
But they're all seeking answers, most of them in their own dream-worldsmaybe. Only the truth will last.Quote:
"Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said"
Actually no the human brain is not "obligated" to see answers at all, there are millions upon millions of people quite happy to live in ignorance
I consider emotions to be irrational beliefs, and maybe even lies, just like religons are lies. Religon tries to apply itself on the real world, just like emotions. Explain for example love or happiness, and you should realize that they doesn't exist in the physical world outside either.Quote:
Well yes we are gradually becoming more educated gradually discovering more about the universe etc. But emotions are not a "lie", any more than an itch is a lie
"This is actually quite wrong"
You do not know what you are talking about.
"The more we know, the faster we change. Mankind's development rate has basically been standing still for thousands of years, but just think how much it has been changing in the last 100 years. And it'll just go faster. Just because our physical appearance will take some more time (but we might integrate ourselves with machines etc.), doesn't mean that we aren't changing psychologically relatively fast. "
We improve techonologically, but our GENES have remained virtually unchanged for the thouands of years. The physical structure of our brain is SOLEY determined by our genes.
Society does change, human nature does not.
"Just to give an idea to consider: I read somewhere that just 100 years afo the IQ of an average person would be far lower than the IQ of a person of today"
That is because IQ and intelligence in general is very suseptible to mal-nutrition. 100 years ago nutrition was poor, malnutrition was rife hence the average IQ was substancially lower.
"likely due to the amounts of information that is available today"
Bzzzt, wrong answer. It's cause we have food.
"Fear is an advantage for a primitive animal living in a primitive environment, not for an human being living in a civilized society"
Nonsense again, fear is an advantage to all animals without it you are more-likely to do incredably dangerous things and hence more likely to die.
"We are not discussing physical strenght here. I've never heard of a healthy young person dying of fear, but I do suspect/know that animals can do so. "
Strength? When people "die of fear" they are actually dieing of a heart attack, it can happen to humans and animals. It is fairly rare in young mammals whether human or not human.
". We humans still have fear, basically for no reason, that's why I believe that it will disappear in the future"
What drivel, EVEN IF fear did not convey an advantage (which it does) it would take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years for humans to lose it.
"The same theory counts for other emotions. "
Emotions including fear are HUGELY beneficial to the human race, they aren't just advantages they are so key that without them humanity would probably die out.
"Emotions can be seen as internal laws in the individual, in the same way that one would set up some sort of internal laws in an artificial neural net"
........ emotions are not laws, they are drives.
"In order to rationally advance, the neural net must adapt to the truth of the world outside, instead of creating internal lies (religions etc.). "
What? Advance? And what prey does advance mean? And internal lies? As opposed to what? External ones!?
"And as far as I know, when understanding the physical laws that everything follows (including oneself), there are no room for emotions. "
What? Of course there is room for emotions when understanding the physical laws!!! What a rediculous statement, what do you think Einstein, Newton, Darwin were all robots!?
"In todays society, mankind would destroy itself without love, sympathy etc. agreed. I was however just speculating about the future - by then mankind/some other life might be able to live without emotions. "
I cannot invisage any way that mankind or any other form of complex life could exist without emotions, furthermore man-kind would could never evolve into a species that existed without emotions even if such a species were possible (which it so isn't anyway)
"But they're all seeking answers, most of them in their own dream-worldsmaybe"
Says who?
"I consider emotions to be irrational beliefs"
A rediculous statement, they are not beliefs at all, since they do not say anything about the nature of the universe.
"just like religons are lies"
Religion makes specific claims about the nature of the universe which are false, emotions make no claims whatsoever.
"for example love or happiness, and you should realize that they doesn't exist in the physical world outside either."
They don't exist in the physical world? Of course they don't exist in the physical world! They aren't objects you know! They are sensations, that's all.
"This is my personal opinion, but I think that "Clyde" is a close-minded arrogant SOB who believes he knows everything and his reasoning is unquestionable. BTW, Clyde,
"Igonorance is bliss." - Joe Pantoliano."
Close-minded because i'm not hugely ignorant of the workings of the world, because I only believe in what is logical, because i want to get the truth and not fantasy, or perhaps close minded because i can demolish religious arguments fairly easiy.
BTW, Jinx
"Ignorance might be bliss, but it's still ignorance" - Clyde
if you wanted a reliable answer you would go to a board where all types of people post. Posting on this board would probably come with the main reply being "You are nothing" after you die. I believe that too.
Computers is a science, and talking to people who make things of a science will give you a scientific answer.
You know what would be bad? If when you "die" you don't really die. I know how the brain operates the organs and stuff, but if we really do have some kind of "life force", or "soul", maybe our soul stays in our body. So when people are organ donors, umm... it would like, hurt verrry bad. Oops, when you die your nerves die too. Umm, you would at least see some really gory scenes of yourself. Or if you were buried, you would be bored forever.
That isn't what I believe, but it would be bad if that's what really happens.
One thing I don't like about religions is they don't include animals, they only include humans. We ourselves are animals in a sense. Why shouldn't we die just the same as them. We are all the same, blood, brain, and various other organs (except one-celled organisms, etc.).
PS: Here is the programmers theory of life (just a joke)
Aliens have programmed a game, and we are the NPC's in that game. The reason there is different personalities of people is because different programmers program differently. Each object in our "universe" is programmed by a alien programmer. The reason that a lot of people share the same things as others is because sometimes code is reused in different programs. The reason humans are smarter than animals is because better AI is used in some programs, and they turn out being "human". The reason people have certain talents is from different things programmed into our program. If the programmer spent a lot of time working on the basketball part of a program, they will be good in basketball, as long as they discover this. The reason for the "miracles" that happen in the world, is the aliens don't want us to get intelligent enough to figure out how they were formed. It makes people get confused, and start concentrating on religions, which will take away our efforts to discovering the origin. People will think they have the answer, so they won't concentrate on discovering origins of life.
I like your thoughts and thanks for the link
>>>Most people's opinion's on this topic are worthless. Since they are basically re-iterating what they were told when they were young, and the people who told them are just reiterating what they were told when they were young and the people that told them.... you get the picture =)<<<
I have no idea where this post goes to after page one, but I am not going to read all six pages.
On the contrary, to the above statment, I have changed my phillosophies many times throughout my life. I guess I am a "What Dreams May Come" kinda guy.
I believe you have a final dance on this planet, and then when you let go, you go to a place of your own creation within the afterlife.
It isn't heaven or hell or reincarnation or etc. It is what you make of it. Such is life in most cases.... what you make of it.
I think that life is training for death.
IMO anyway....