|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 17, 2007 10:19:19 GMT
Quite simply, our energy / electro magnetic field must exist after death. This CANNOT ever be destroyed because energy cannot be destroyed, this is scientific fact so I think we have something to work on here without proving anything one way or the other. When we die, our energy is released as heat into the atmosphere, this is scientific fact. The only way that us as a human can be compared to an icecube is as follows. Right now Human is a solid, like an ice cube Heat us up, eventually we will melt, yep all goey mess, we will be dead of cause, then heat us up even more, and eventually we will turn into a gas. Then and only then could we be compared to H2O. lol. Of course that is wrong, but thought i would make a point that made as much sense as Kendras original one. Take the brain out of the human, and the human ceases to exist, the mind, soul whatever exists purely in the brain, various electrical impulses nd so on, when we die these impulses and signals STOP, any energy is released as heat, this has been measured and is scientific fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything survives death.
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jan 17, 2007 10:23:36 GMT
Jon....
and this is a serious question i am not taking the mick, they say anything is possible, so do you think that do you think that such things like we are debating now could be proved in the future??
who is to say that a 100 years down the line this prove cant be found or will be found.
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 10:25:07 GMT
no but we know that the rain exists and ice cubes do Which is precisely why using them as an analogy for something ethereal is not valid. It is valid to use something like Sonar as an analogy for echolocation in bats as they're both physical systems which mimic each other. But using a physical system as an analogy for something that has no evidence to support it makes no sense. You know, like: Solid Carbon Dioxide (dry ice) turns from a solid to a gas without melting in between. Therefore Invisible Pink Unicorns may be true. Ice cubes melt and evaporate but the molecules oh H 2O still exist. Therefore the afterlife may be true. There's no logical link between the two.
|
|
|
Post by bone on Jan 17, 2007 10:35:44 GMT
What energy are you talking about? where is this energy stored? how is it measured?
You must answer these questions before you can even consider the next step in this "theory".
Can you provide evidence for "Quite simply, our energy / electro magnetic field must exist after death."?
You are almost correct in your statement " Quite simply, our energy / electro magnetic field must exist after death. This CANNOT ever be destroyed because energy cannot be destroyed" but what you fail to also mention is that energy changes form, so any energy that is contained in the cells of your body is broken down and reconverted" or "changed" by the bacterial process of decomposition as fuel for other organisims.
What are you trying to say exactly? Of course energy has always existed in the universe without it there would be no matter!..I can see another strawman being constructed...
Once again I ask what type of exotic energy are we talking about here? its all so vague isnt it? In fact we know quite a bit about forms of energy can you be more specific on what form of energy you mean??
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 10:38:46 GMT
they say anything is possible Who's 'they'? 'Anything is possible' is a commonly used statement but it's not therefore necessarily true. so do you think that do you think that such things like we are debating now could be proved in the future?? They could be proved now: Testing the afterlife. who is to say that a 100 years down the line this prove cant be found or will be found. I suspect that argument was being used 100 years ago and will still be being used in another 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 10:41:11 GMT
And I accepted the invitation. Not at all, the whole point of debate and reason is to try and solve these problems but the main issue here is that faith and belief by there own definition require no proof, so attempting to prove a faith position by poor analogy is just asking for trouble intellectually and logically. See your first statement in quote number 1. And I gave you my opinion which is obviously different to yours. Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but I can assure you that I respect a mind (like yours) that is eager to solve these theoretical problems than just blindly bleat along with the rest of humanity, but unfortunately if you don't want to be called to book on your theories or logical fallacies then posting them for review is ultimately pointless isn't it? Thats cool, but don't shoot the messenger of rationality and logic in the process.. I had noticed that it does suit me well and is a fair representation of my attitude to psychic pseudo-science babble and irrationality, honestly I only chose that one because the one I wanted to use couldn't be linked/uploaded The human race like all animals on Earth have evolved by the process of Darwinian evolution and natural selection, "thinking outside the box" is a result of this process within the structure of brain. If you have a "theory" of how something works you must test that theory based on the best available evidence and update where new discoveries are made and this is a logical process..not an illogical one. It is simply not feasible to entertain every theory or analogy or you will never actually get anywhere! So If you consider me harsh, unfair or overly critical then I will have to live with it. I would expect the same from anyone if I made similar assumptions. I have to disagree with you I am afraid Boney...I do not accept you should believe for beliefs sake!
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 10:44:51 GMT
Quite simply, our energy / electro magnetic field must exist after death. This CANNOT ever be destroyed because energy cannot be destroyed, this is scientific fact so I think we have something to work on here without proving anything one way or the other. When we die, our energy is released as heat into the atmosphere, this is scientific fact. The only way that us as a human can be compared to an icecube is as follows. Right now Human is a solid, like an ice cube Heat us up, eventually we will melt, yep all goey mess, we will be dead of cause, then heat us up even more, and eventually we will turn into a gas. Then and only then could we be compared to H2O. lol. Of course that is wrong, but thought i would make a point that made as much sense as Kendras original one. Take the brain out of the human, and the human ceases to exist, the mind, soul whatever exists purely in the brain, various electrical impulses nd so on, when we die these impulses and signals STOP, any energy is released as heat, this has been measured and is scientific fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything survives death. When a person dies it has been noted that there is a msall discharge of electrical energy..also a loss (though fractionally) of body weight.. How much does heat weigh?
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 10:46:38 GMT
Where are instincts based?
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 10:47:04 GMT
When a person dies it has been noted that there is a msall discharge of electrical energy..also a loss (though fractionally) of body weight.. That's a myth (!)
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Jan 17, 2007 10:47:56 GMT
If our bodies and cells are made up out of electromagnetic signals, then this must be energy. Jon says it has been proven that our energy disipates into heat. How do you know this Jon as this energy is invisible and even if this was correct, you have to admit this energy must therefore exist for ever...(as heat)
It is of course true, our physical bodies cannot survive without our brain (although I read today a cockroach can survive 10 days without its head before starvation kills it) but this answers nothing. This whole debate centers around the concept of energy invisible to the naked eye survivng in some shape or form.
If a single radio wave can exist without the aid of a physical object, then surely it is within the realms of possibility that our subconcious or thought processes can also exist outside our physical confinements?
|
|
|
Post by PILLSBURY on Jan 17, 2007 10:50:52 GMT
I thought that the minimal loss of weight was as a result of the bodies muscles relaxing and the bladder and bowels releasing.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 10:52:18 GMT
When a person dies it has been noted that there is a msall discharge of electrical energy..also a loss (though fractionally) of body weight.. That's a myth (!) U sure of that Inky?
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jan 17, 2007 10:54:34 GMT
I shall rephrase that Inquisitor
"It is said" anything is possible
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 10:56:35 GMT
The problem we're running into here is that we're arguing by analogy. Radio waves exist - therefore the afterlife may be real.... It does not logically follow and will get us nowhere. surely it is within the realms of possibility that our subconcious or thought processes can also exist outside our physical confinements? What good, factual reasons do we have to suppose this is true? If we take wishful thinking out of the equation what facts do we have to suggest that the mind is separate from the body?
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 10:57:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 17, 2007 11:06:36 GMT
It would seem from reading some of the comments here that we should still be living in caves and dressing in skins. Surely many off the advances in science,medicine,surgery have come about as a result of the same sort of thinking as Kendra is using. I call it the " what if" Many advances have gone against known theory and established practice and someone has dared to think out of sync with the rest of the world. Scientific or otherwise. No doubt many of those " what if" thoughts are destined to die,but some may not. It seems that many on here have no ability to think " what if" or simply as Kendra suggest,it was a medium who posted so it cannot have any validity. It is a shame if for no other reason then i see what i thought were posters who i thought were willing to be open and explore a thought simply dismissing it. Oh how my illusions are smashed apart.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 17, 2007 11:07:42 GMT
I watched a documnetary on the BBC a few months ago,where they stated in tests that is exactly what happens.
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Jan 17, 2007 11:12:24 GMT
The problem we're running into here is that we're arguing by analogy. Radio waves exist - therefore the afterlife may be real.... It does not logically follow and will get us nowhere. surely it is within the realms of possibility that our subconcious or thought processes can also exist outside our physical confinements? What good, factual reasons do we have to suppose this is true? If we take wishful thinking out of the equation what facts do we have to suggest that the mind is separate from the body? I've never once said I have facts to prove my theory but it gives us something to think about without people glibly dismissing the possiblities(yourself excepted) If I had facts , we wouldn't be having this conversation but I can only deal with the facts as we have them and then theorise as to the possible outcomes when we die. I am interested in what happens to our electrical impulses in the brain once our bodies expire even if this means these are not the soul/mind. It is a debate without end because it is impossible to prove in this moment in time, like the chicken and the egg theory regarding the beginning of life. I at least think people should always be open minded to the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Jan 17, 2007 11:19:51 GMT
The problem is that the afterlife hypothesis is not a new 'what if' that someone thinking 'outside the box' has just come up with. It has been around for a long time and there has been plenty of opportunity to test the claim and come up with evidence to support it. To date there is none.
Yes in science new ideas often take a good while to become accepted (continental drift for example) but once the theories have been formulated, the evidence collected and scrutinised, the idea will either be accepted or rejected based on the evidence.
It's all good and well to argue against 'closed-minded science' (a strawman argument) but how are we to stand any chance of ever finding the truth if we don't use science?
What is the most likely way of gaining evidence in favour of the afterlife hypothesis?
Doing a scientific test like the one I linked to earlier or comparing the 'possibility' to ice cubes or radio waves?
The answer should be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 17, 2007 11:32:58 GMT
My point was" if you don't think it,it wont happen" You cannot " test" sod all if the idea was not conceived in the first place.
|
|