Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Psyco Jelly]

Now can we get back on the topic of the afterlife? Before our warty amphibious ruler is forced to stop this?

I wonder what causes the belief in an afterlife to arise in humans, alongside the fear of death. One seems to increase the capacity of self-sacrifice, while the other is a self-preservation instinct. (I'm considering the belief in an afterlife to be an instinct instead of indoctrination, because it arose in so many isolated countries independently.)

They make sense separately, but together they leave me stumped.

[blah28722]

I think the concept of afterlife is pretty understandable, as it would come from "What happens after I die?".

I think the strange part is how the image of an afterlife took on so many different versions.

[Psyco Jelly]

Which leads me to think that if an afterlife exists, it varies wildly. Perhaps there are multiple, perhaps there is one that differs from place to place, like our world. OF course that leads me to wonder what a 'soul' is. It may be in it's nature to be undefinable, but the scientist in me hates that thought.

What concerns me are people that have died and been revived (after drowning, etc.) When the neurons stop firing. The new consciousness would be the same, but new anyway. They are the same neurons, but previously were not shooting every which way.

Is this the same being, or a new consciousness that is exactly alike?

[Vester]

Now can we get back on the topic of the afterlife? Before our warty amphibious ruler is forced to stop this?

I wonder what causes the belief in an afterlife to arise in humans, alongside the fear of death. One seems to increase the capacity of self-sacrifice, while the other is a self-preservation instinct. (I'm considering the belief in an afterlife to be an instinct instead of indoctrination, because it arose in so many isolated countries independently.)

They make sense separately, but together they leave me stumped.

Well, there's a common thread in the myths of almost all races.

I have no idea what that implies, except a collective unconscious. But that's kind of hard for me to believe.

[Eagleon]

Devil's advocate time! :3 (the irony of the expression here amuses me) Don't kill me, I just couldn't resist. I already made my post, which was ignored, so I'll just do this instead ^^

Time, as I understand it, is change. The dimensions we know and love, length, width, and depth, can be expressed as change in lower dimensions as well. We can perceive change, model it, etc. and to a certain extent we can predict it. In the exact same sense (although much more coherently to our minds), we can perceive objects in three dimensions, model them, and predict them. Yes, I do mean exact. Let me explain.

According to string theory (yes I know, untestable theory, blah blah, give me a second, it's useful), there are dimensions below us. What that means is that if you existed as an expression of three of these dimensions, under their physical laws, you would not have any trouble understanding them, provided understanding is possible at that level. As I understand it, these dimensions, even though they're curled up inside everything in our own dimensions and are completely invisible except for the small ways they affect our own, are not small. They're simply not significant to our level of perception. Size and significance are different - we can see our monitors, and focus on the image it displays, and never wonder about the parts behind it creating the image.

Time, on the other hand, is significant. But it's like us to lower dimensions. We're big mysterious forces that move things on their level in ways that are difficult to reconcile. Time is a dimension, but it doesn't completely make sense to us because we don't have the whole picture. That doesn't mean it can't be perceived. In fact it is perceived, in every sense, like it or not - our perception on every level is based on prediction from past events. This includes basic things like "That is a red ball" or "Oh god a monkey with a knife!". We're only making a prediction that the knife is a knife, and not a tunafish with a clever cloaking device.

We see the image on the screen, and to a certain extent, we can predict what's past it. That's enough to be called thinking and perceiving time. I really doubt Armok is saying he can see the future or the past with perfect accuracy. If he is, I agree completely that he's batshit crazy But in any case, he could use some more manners.

La dee daaa, we've alienated everyone!

[blah28722]

Now can we get back on the topic of the afterlife? Before our warty amphibious ruler is forced to stop this?

I wonder what causes the belief in an afterlife to arise in humans, alongside the fear of death. One seems to increase the capacity of self-sacrifice, while the other is a self-preservation instinct. (I'm considering the belief in an afterlife to be an instinct instead of indoctrination, because it arose in so many isolated countries independently.)

They make sense separately, but together they leave me stumped.

Well, there's a common thread in the myths of almost all races.

I have no idea what that implies, except a collective unconscious. But that's kind of hard for me to believe.

Actually, if you looked at different civilizations' renditions of dragons, you'll find that they varied wildly. The reason that it seems like there is a thread is because of translation. At some point, someone decided that the certain creature described is close enough to their view of a dragon, and decides that as the proper translation.

I mean, the european dragon hoards treasure and kills people. The chinese dragon is a creature that descended to godhood (I believe. Memory is a bit sketchy. Just note the difference).

They're all called dragons, but they really aren't the same things.

[Helmaroc]

I read through the first 8 pages, skipped to page 19, and read to here. But anyway, back on topic.

I'm a Christian, I believe in the whole heaven/hell thing.
Basically, I believe there has to be some kind of greater intelligence somewhere, because I don't think stuff just happens. The Big Bang Theory. Well, once, there was nothing. Except maybe a little tiny ball of condensed universe. Then it all exploded. Wa-la, we have a universe! I know that's exaggerating (not that much, though) but I just don't think that theory could be possible. Why, is the outstanding question, of course.

I am not sure there is a God, of course, no one can be. And if there was, I don't know if it would be the God in the Bible, or if it would be many gods, or anything. You could say that there is some race of aliens in a separate dimension or universe, and we are just their experiments. Or that there's a flying spaghetti monster floating around somewhere. Anyway I look at it, I just think that something made us for some reason.

The Earth is positioned so perfectly for life. I just think that everything would be really ironic if it was just a random occurrence.

[blah28722]

I'm going to step on quite a few toes here.

I have a hard time accepting the christian ideas of god.

He's an invisible being that knows all and can do all. Because of his incredible perspective, he's going to always make the right choice, even if it doesn't seem like it to us (Book of Job, "God works in mysterious ways").

Despite that, he wants us to worship him (or believe, whatever the case may be). So much that he would condemn someone to an eternity of torture for not being able to pick up those subtle hints of his existence.


I'm sure most of the problems stem from people's interpretation of "God's will" and such, and not actually God itself. That said, people do very irrational and weird things for religion.

That said, the same goes for science. Scientists do all kind of weird things in the name of science.

[lastofthelight]

I'm not religious. I'm a physicist by trade. That being said...what I am going to propose is pretty much heresy from either the scientific or the religious standpoint. Oh well, at least I'm an equal opportunity heretic.

I honestly doubt there is a god, though I don't rule it out or declare that science proves there is not one. Science doesn't prove there isn't a god, because in order to assert that science has disproved god I'd have to be doing experiments designed to falsify that hypothesis, or show that the concept of a god is philosophically unsound....neither is true.

However, what I do suspect, is that while we perceive the universe in terms of matter and energy, and interact mainly with the electromagnetic force...that such a view may only be one perspective. Honestly, I suspect that consciousness itself may be as crucial to reality as matter and energy are, and Quantum Physics is wierd enough to give me some support in this, though its always possible to find alternative explanations.

I don't really know where that leads or what that means, and I doubt that any other human does either. The simple fact is, as H.P. Lovecraft - who lived in an age where many thought science was nearing the end of accumulating all knowledge - pointed out: 

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

We don't really have brains designed to understand reality, and thus far we've learned very little of how or why the universe functions, aside from what little of it we can see and measure...which isn't very much. The athiest is as ignorant, I suspect, in the true secrets of the universe as any Christian. The scientific among you will object, perhaps even say that statement gives credence to some of the more fanatical, ignorant and offensive religious folk who object to such obvious things as evolution and physics and such...it is not meant as such. But consider this: In the grand scheme of knowledge of the universe, was even Aristotle that much more learned in the ways of physics then an uneducated Greek? Not really.

[Armok]

Wait a moment, I NEVER said I could perceive the future or past in any way, I was talking about thinking in more than 3 spatial dimensions, foresight is an absolutely ridiculous idea and violates causality.

[Vester]

I'm not religious. I'm a physicist by trade. That being said...what I am going to propose is pretty much heresy from either the scientific or the religious standpoint. Oh well, at least I'm an equal opportunity heretic.

I honestly doubt there is a god, though I don't rule it out or declare that science proves there is not one. Science doesn't prove there isn't a god, because in order to assert that science has disproved god I'd have to be doing experiments designed to falsify that hypothesis, or show that the concept of a god is philosophically unsound....neither is true.

However, what I do suspect, is that while we perceive the universe in terms of matter and energy, and interact mainly with the electromagnetic force...that such a view may only be one perspective. Honestly, I suspect that consciousness itself may be as crucial to reality as matter and energy are, and Quantum Physics is wierd enough to give me some support in this, though its always possible to find alternative explanations.

I don't really know where that leads or what that means, and I doubt that any other human does either. The simple fact is, as H.P. Lovecraft - who lived in an age where many thought science was nearing the end of accumulating all knowledge - pointed out: 

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

We don't really have brains designed to understand reality, and thus far we've learned very little of how or why the universe functions, aside from what little of it we can see and measure...which isn't very much. The athiest is as ignorant, I suspect, in the true secrets of the universe as any Christian. The scientific among you will object, perhaps even say that statement gives credence to some of the more fanatical, ignorant and offensive religious folk who object to such obvious things as evolution and physics and such...it is not meant as such. But consider this: In the grand scheme of knowledge of the universe, was even Aristotle that much more learned in the ways of physics then an uneducated Greek? Not really.

Nicely said!

I just like to think about it.

[blah28722]

Wait a moment, I NEVER said I could perceive the future or past in any way, I was talking about thinking in more than 3 spatial dimensions, foresight is an absolutely ridiculous idea and violates causality.

You were giving out a lot of mixed signals with all the talk of measuring time as a distance, relativity, and lightyears.

I'm having an even harder time imagining a fourth spatial dimension. Care to elaborate more than the "I can do it. You can't because you're a dummy."?

[Psyco Jelly]

Don't start anything back up. Let's bury the hatchet before we cut off a finger.

[Jackrabbit]

True, that kinda confused me.

As for what lastofthelight said, that was indeed very well said.

[lastofthelight]

Hey! I didn't pay any attention to the discussion on (whatever you were all yelling at Armok for) but I know the 4th spatial dimension thing! I did this in 7th grade. This is fun.


Ok....draw a square. Then draw another square, and make a rectangle....fuck it, I'll just find you  a link.

http://threesixty360.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/hypercube.jpg

I actually figured that out on my own when I was little. Here's the explanation:

If you take a rectangle, and move it through a piece of paper, on the plane of the paper is a square. If you take a sphere and do the same, on the plane of the paper is a circle. If you were a 2-dimensional paper person, you'd only see a circle or a square.

Well, a fourth dimensional square, passing through our space, would look like a hypercube. This is actually not abstract, there are aspects of physics - observed physics - and even biology whose descriptive equations require the objects have more then three dimensions. The movement of quarks for instance, requires 6. ... ...so does describing the dances of bees. Why thats true, I have no idea.

Of course, judging by page 20 and 19, by explaining the question above, I may be dragging up something bad, so uh...we may want to just pretend I didn't feed the fire. But I do know this! I also may be totally missing whatever tangent you guys got on with him, but the question above seemed to be about this.