belief in an afterlife

[Cris]

Lg,

the problem is that despite being in the environment of glucose, oxegyn, the sun and the heart metabolismis sometimes seen to fail - if metabolism is the cause of life, why is it sometimes seen to dissipate inthe presence of everything it requires to continue?

It doesn’t. If anything vital is missing the organism dies.

what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism

Answered already. Metabolism, which consumes fuel acquired externally. And the fuel originates from many sources but ultimately the energy from the sun is an essential part of a long chain of indirect processes responsible for the existence of the fuel.

there are numerous critical mechanisms in a car, but the most critical is the driver, thus it is understood that the source of energy for a car is the person driving it

Try gasoline. Without that the driver is irrelevant.

- what you are doing at the moment is talking about gaskets, drive shafts and fuel caps (heart, metabolism etc etc)

No we aren’t. We are talking about the engine and how it operates and how it consumes fuel to keep running.

All energy, apart from displaying symptoms, also displays a source - metabolism is the pathways of energy transformation amongst living entities, not the source of energy

That’s why we eat food, the fuel that metabolism requires to keep operating.

old age is not the ultimate cause of "losing metabolism" since even young people are seen to experience it

That doesn’t help. What’s the question?

Metabolism is not the cause, because metabolism is seen to diminish, and even expire completely, in the full presence of everything required for metabolism

No it doesn’t. Try giving an example.

- just like gasoline in a car is not the cause of its going since even a car with a full tank and a perfect engine goes nowhere without a driver.

If the engine isn’t running then the car is dead and it will slowly decay over time. Once the engine is started it will continue until either the gasoline expires or a fault develops in any vital components. The driver is essentially irrelevant once the engine is running. Living organisms never start from dead but are spawned alive from other living forms.

Living organisms simply use available energy to sustain their structures until those structures degrade and deteriorate to the point where their metabolic functions cannot persist. ”

your very statement alludes to an entity remarkably similar to the analogy of the driver in the car

There is no similarity. Once the engine is running the driver plays absolutely no role in keeping the car “alive”.

 

[Cris]

lg,

Metabolism is still seen to expire in the presence of all material arrangemnets for its continued existence

No it doesn’t. Try giving an example.

The metabolism of the living entity is still seen to diminish in the presence of the sun

So what? They are not directly related.

a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)

No it would slowly decay, and the analogy is irrelevant because the car does not have a brain, unlike humans. And a car that is not running is equivalent to being dead.

 

[Kron]

kron: you are debating with a moron, dont expect any sense.

He may be a moron, but he's at least trying to have a proper debate over here; not simply overriding everyone else's points and ignoring their counterpoints. And I have a sorta grudging respect for that

(Then again, maybe he IS......)

 

[audible]

then you havent read many of his posts, and the guys who've debated him, have you.
see the reply above from Cris.
all power to you, if you dont go mad in the process.

 

[Kron]

then you havent read many of his posts, and the guys who've debated him, have you. see the reply above from Cris.

I get what you mean. Here's a thought; can we make a thread purely for the discussion of crazies and WHY they are crazy?

 

[lightgigantic]

kron: you are debating with a moron, dont expect any sense.

This seems to be the guiding principles of your average ad hommer

- deny everything
- blame everyone
- be bitter

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“

Metabolism is still seen to expire in the presence of all material arrangemnets for its continued existence
”
No it doesn’t. Try giving an example.

You have the sun, the glucose and every required for a functioning body (including a functioning body) and then suddenly the body stops to function -
you can analyse the energy pathways to determine how it came to cease function (ie metabolism) but that doesn't explain why such a dysfunction appeared in the first place (everything required for existence was there, or at least according to current empirical evaluations ) - this tends to indicate that there is a cause outside of the current empirical scheme of what is required for a body to be alive

“
The metabolism of the living entity is still seen to diminish in the presence of the sun
”
So what? They are not directly related.

Then why did you bring up the issue that the sun was the sourec of energy?
[

“
a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)
”
No it would slowly decay,

ok than compare a fueless car to a driverless car over a period of 10 months - I think you would agree that a fueless car has been seen to be made locomotive by the influence of a driver (who can purchase some fuel) on more occasions than adriverless car has been seen be made locomotive - this indicates that while fuel and a driver are causes for the car's locomotion, the ultimate cause is the driver, since there is absolutely no possibility of a car moving without a driver

and the analogy is irrelevant because the car does not have a brain, unlike humans.

but according to mechanistic reductionist paradigms the brain is nothing but a mechanical arrangement - do you wish to change your stance on this or concede that such paradigms fall short of classifyng the phenomenal world
To quote Benjamin Wooley
Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.

And a car that is not running is equivalent to being dead.

Can you restart a dead person?

“
the problem is that despite being in the environment of glucose, oxegyn, the sun and the heart metabolismis sometimes seen to fail - if metabolism is the cause of life, why is it sometimes seen to dissipate inthe presence of everything it requires to continue?
”
It doesn’t. If anything vital is missing the organism dies.

Then why would an organism perish in an environment providing every vital requirement unless there is a cause beyond what we are merely observing as metabolism (the effect)
- its a common philosophical fallacy that evidences itself - this perplexing situation (the effect diminishing in the presence of what one considers the cause) arises when one considers the effect to be the cause - if you actually know what the cause was this wouldn't happen

“

what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism
”
Answered already. Metabolism, which consumes fuel acquired externally. And the fuel originates from many sources but ultimately the energy from the sun is an essential part of a long chain of indirect processes responsible for the existence of the fuel.

The glaring fault with such a statement is that metabolism is seen to expire in the environment of everything you deem as necessary for its existence
“

there are numerous critical mechanisms in a car, but the most critical is the driver, thus it is understood that the source of energy for a car is the person driving it
”
Try gasoline. Without that the driver is irrelevant.

Cleared that up above - a driverless car does not compare to a fueless car since people often run out of fuel in their cars and continue on with life- there is no precedent of driverless cars doing the same however .....

“
- what you are doing at the moment is talking about gaskets, drive shafts and fuel caps (heart, metabolism etc etc)
”
No we aren’t. We are talking about the engine and how it operates and how it consumes fuel to keep running.

exactly - the discussion deals with the cause of metabolism/combustion 's existence (why), not the technical aspects of its energy transformation (how)

“
All energy, apart from displaying symptoms, also displays a source - metabolism is the pathways of energy transformation amongst living entities, not the source of energy
”
That’s why we eat food, the fuel that metabolism requires to keep operating.

then why does metabolism expire even in the presence of food if food is the ultimate cause? Just like why does a driverless car stop even in the presence of fuel?

“
- just like gasoline in a car is not the cause of its going since even a car with a full tank and a perfect engine goes nowhere without a driver.
”
If the engine isn’t running then the car is dead and it will slowly decay over time. Once the engine is started it will continue until either the gasoline expires or a fault develops in any vital components. The driver is essentially irrelevant once the engine is running. Living organisms never start from dead but are spawned alive from other living forms.

There's your answer in bold regarding the question of the ultimate source of energy for a car

“
Living organisms simply use available energy to sustain their structures until those structures degrade and deteriorate to the point where their metabolic functions cannot persist. ”

your very statement alludes to an entity remarkably similar to the analogy of the driver in the car
”
There is no similarity. Once the engine is running the driver plays absolutely no role in keeping the car alive”.

so cars cause traffic accidents, not drivers?
Even if a driver is inattentive for a moment while driving, the car can lose its locomotion in a second

 

[Cris]

Lg,

You have the sun, the glucose and every required for a functioning body (including a functioning body) and then suddenly the body stops to function –
you can analyse the energy pathways to determine how it came to cease function (ie metabolism) but that doesn't explain why such a dysfunction appeared in the first place (everything required for existence was there, or at least according to current empirical evaluations ) - this tends to indicate that there is a cause outside of the current empirical scheme of what is required for a body to be alive

That is not an example that is an unsupported speculation.

What you are saying is nonsense. Try giving an example and quote the actual case of someone spontaneously dying where there is no physical cause.

Then why did you bring up the issue that the sun was the sourec of energy?

Because ultimately it is for everything on this planet.

Re the car without fuel example: That’s because the car does not have a brain, so your analogy breaks down. In humans there is a body that is kept alive because of an autonomic metabolism and a brain that knows it must instruct the body to consume fuel to stay alive.

but according to mechanistic reductionist paradigms the brain is nothing but a mechanical arrangement –

So why is that a problem?

do you wish to change your stance on this or concede that such paradigms fall short of classifyng the phenomenal world

Why, what is your point? The brain is a part of the body that is all kept alive by metabolism. Where is there a problem?

To quote Benjamin Wooley
Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.

Science does not claim that it can explain everything. This quote seems irrelevant to this debate.

Can you restart a dead person?

No one has achieved that yet. Note that death is not instantaneous in humans.

Then why would an organism perish in an environment providing every vital requirement unless there is a cause beyond what we are merely observing as metabolism (the effect)

We’ve been here many times already. Humans can die from a myriad causes. Why do you keep asking this trivial question?

- its a common philosophical fallacy that evidences itself - this perplexing situation (the effect diminishing in the presence of what one considers the cause) arises when one considers the effect to be the cause - if you actually know what the cause was this wouldn't happen

Total meaningless gibberish. I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

The glaring fault with such a statement is that metabolism is seen to expire in the environment of everything you deem as necessary for its existence

No it doesn’t. You keep saying this and I keep asking for you to show an actual example and you never do.

exactly - the discussion deals with the cause of metabolism/combustion 's existence (why), not the technical aspects of its energy transformation (how)

And in a human it is the brain that knows when to eat to fuel its metabolism so the body can stay alive.

then why does metabolism expire even in the presence of food if food is the ultimate cause?

It doesn’t, unless the organism develops a fault.

Just like why does a driverless car stop even in the presence of fuel?

It doesn’t, unless it develops a fault.

Living organisms never start from dead but are spawned alive from other living forms. ”

There's your answer in bold regarding the question of the ultimate source of energy for a car

That’s because the analogy of a car doesn’t translate to humans. Read my final statement listed above. A human isn’t started from a dead condition.

so cars cause traffic accidents, not drivers?

Of course not since a car does not have a brain. Why ask such a silly question?

Even if a driver is inattentive for a moment while driving, the car can lose its locomotion in a second

And your point is, what?

 

[c7ityi_]

Cris, I wish you knew that you are immortal...

In a life before this I said to you that you are immortal, and here you are again, but you don't remember.

To understand that you live forever, the most important thing is to understand that you are not the body, you are the consciousness of the body. The body is only a tool. Your body is like a character you control in a videogame. But if you identify yourself with your character/person[ality]/mask, you'll start to believe that you are it. That's why people who lose in a videogame spontaneosly say: "I died!"

Think of you (consciousness) as a signal which goes into a TV (body). Just because the TV breaks and loses contact with the signal it doesn't mean that the signal doesn't exist anymore.

Think of life as a dream. In a dream you experience everything as real (unless you become conscious that you're dreaming!) but everything in your dream is just your thoughts, including your own dream-body.

Imagine that you're actually a much vaster consciousness dreaming and your body is only a dream-character.

Life (consciousness) streams through everything and makes everything alive. Without a signal there's no picture on a TV screen.

Life is breath. When trees inhale the life in autumn all the leaves (bodies) fall off, and when they exhale in spring, new bodies are reborn. Likewise, the earth breathes and trees are born and then they die.

Our bodies are like leaves in a tree, but the consciousness (life) of the leaves is a part of the tree, so we are also the tree, and also the earth, and the entire universe.

Consciousness never dies because it exists in everything. It (everything) is constantly radiating from nothingness.

Consciousness (you, I) is formless like water.
Put it in a cup and it becomes a cup.
Put it in a teapot and it becomes a teapot.
Put it in a jar and it becomes a jar.
Put it in the body of Cris and it becomes Cris.
Put it in the body of c7 and it becomes c7.

When your body dies, the person also dies, because it's a part of the body, but the consciousness does not die. It is everywhere, omnipresent. Cris dies, but not you. Cris is a body. A personality (mental reflection of the body). A mask.

If you believe you are a body, I guess you also believe that the world is objective. There is no evidence that the world is objective. It's merely a belief, a hypothesis, a thought. It could all just be in your consciousness. And it is. Otherwise you couldn't be conscious of this text, because it's supposedly outside your mind. In reality, everything is inside you, like in a dream.

(If you lost your memory, would you still be you?
You can perceive many human bodies, but only one consciousness. Why assume there are several?
One consciousness controls everything)

-

 

[Cris]

C7,

Cris, I wish you knew that you are immortal...

It’s on my agenda.

In a life before this I said to you that you are immortal, and here you are again, but you don't remember.

Given that the universe is infinite then it is certain that this arrangement of atoms and interactions has occurred an infinite number of times.

To understand that you live forever, the most important thing is to understand that you are not the body, you are the consciousness of the body.

Absolutely agree.

The body is only a tool.

Agreed.

Your body is like a character you control in a videogame.

Agreed.

But if you identify yourself with your character/person[ality]/mask, you'll start to believe that you are it. That's why people who lose in a videogame spontaneosly say: "I died!"

Agreed.

Think of you (consciousness) as a signal which goes into a TV (body). Just because the TV breaks and loses contact with the signal it doesn't mean that the signal doesn't exist anymore.

No that’s not correct. Currently if my body dies then I die.

Think of life as a dream.

OK.

In a dream you experience everything as real (unless you become conscious that you're dreaming!) but everything in your dream is just your thoughts, including your own dream-body.

OK.

Imagine that you're actually a much vaster consciousness dreaming and your body is only a dream-character.

OK.

Life (consciousness) streams through everything and makes everything alive.

OK.

Without a signal there's no picture on a TV screen.

OK.

Life is breath. When trees inhale the life in autumn all the leaves (bodies) fall off, and when they exhale in spring, new bodies are reborn. Likewise, the earth breathes and trees are born and then they die.

Poetic.

Our bodies are like leaves in a tree, but the consciousness (life) of the leaves is a part of the tree, so we are also the tree, and also the earth, and the entire universe.

Nope that doesn’t work for me.

Consciousness never dies because it exists in everything.

Pity that that isn’t true. Unfortunately consciousness is entirely dependent on a physical medium.

It (everything) is constantly radiating from nothingness.

Pity, but no.

Consciousness (you, I) is formless like water.

To some extent since it is an emergent property supported by a physical matrix.

Put it in a cup and it becomes a cup.
Put it in a teapot and it becomes a teapot.
Put it in a jar and it becomes a jar.

Nope.

Put it in the body of Cris and it becomes Cris.

Only in as much that I choose that label.

Put it in the body of c7 and it becomes c7

Nope, my pattern is unique and different to yours.

When your body dies, the person also dies, because it's a part of the body, but the consciousness does not die.

Nope. The person and consciousness are one and the same thing and dependent on a supporting physical fabric.

It is everywhere, omnipresent.

Nope. It is quite localized.

Cris dies, but not you. Cris is a body. A personality (mental reflection of the body). A mask.

Nope. If the body dies then I die unless I can find an alternate host fabric before my body dies.

If you believe you are a body, I guess you also believe that the world is objective.

Nope, I’m not my body. The world is a thing, how it is perceived is subjective.

There is no evidence that the world is objective.

Can’t say I care.

It's merely a belief, a hypothesis, a thought.

Nope. It is a thing.

It could all just be in your consciousness. And it is.

Not quite, my consciousness is aware of it.

Otherwise you couldn't be conscious of this text, because it's supposedly outside your mind.

Everything is outside my mind apart from the patterns that represent the outside.

In reality, everything is inside you, like in a dream.

Only the patterns that reflect everything are in me.

(If you lost your memory, would you still be you?

No. My identity depends on my memory. If my memory is lost then the matrix that was me becomes an empty vessel ready to build a new identity.

You can perceive many human bodies, but only one consciousness.

Only if my matrix can one day be transferred between different fabrics.

Why assume there are several?
One consciousness controls everything)

Nope.

 

[Sarkus]

You have the sun, the glucose and every required for a functioning body (including a functioning body) and then suddenly the body stops to function -
you can analyse the energy pathways to determine how it came to cease function (ie metabolism) but that doesn't explain why such a dysfunction appeared in the first place (everything required for existence was there, or at least according to current empirical evaluations ) - this tends to indicate that there is a cause outside of the current empirical scheme of what is required for a body to be alive

Quote your evidence that someone merely ceases functioning for no cause.

Every death has a cause - every death is caused by the failure of something within the body.
No failure = no death.

The smallest organ might start to not work properly, increasing toxicity within the body.
A bacteria or virus might enter the body.
A cell might mutate and become cancerous.
Any number of causes of death - all of which bring to an end the necessities for life.

 

[lightgigantic]

Quote your evidence that someone merely ceases functioning for no cause.

Every death has a cause - every death is caused by the failure of something within the body.
No failure = no death.

The smallest organ might start to not work properly, increasing toxicity within the body.
A bacteria or virus might enter the body.
A cell might mutate and become cancerous.
Any number of causes of death - all of which bring to an end the necessities for life.

I think you have missed what I was in the middle of with cris - he was advocating that metabolism is the ultimate cause of life and I was advocating that metabolism is merely the energy pathway - my evidence was that metabolism is seen to fail (for reasons that you elaborate on) in the presence of everything required for metabolism (how can a cause be accepted as the cause if it is seen to fail in the presence of everything it requires to continue?)

In otherwords I was advocating that this indicates there is a further cause that regulates metabolism

 

[Kron]

Cris, I wish you knew that you are immortal...

In a life before this I said to you that you are immortal, and here you are again, but you don't remember.

To understand that you live forever, the most important thing is to understand that you are not the body, you are the consciousness of the body. The body is only a tool. Your body is like a character you control in a videogame. But if you identify yourself with your character/person[ality]/mask, you'll start to believe that you are it. That's why people who lose in a videogame spontaneosly say: "I died!"

Think of you (consciousness) as a signal which goes into a TV (body). Just because the TV breaks and loses contact with the signal it doesn't mean that the signal doesn't exist anymore.

Think of life as a dream. In a dream you experience everything as real (unless you become conscious that you're dreaming!) but everything in your dream is just your thoughts, including your own dream-body.

Imagine that you're actually a much vaster consciousness dreaming and your body is only a dream-character.

Life (consciousness) streams through everything and makes everything alive. Without a signal there's no picture on a TV screen.

Life is breath. When trees inhale the life in autumn all the leaves (bodies) fall off, and when they exhale in spring, new bodies are reborn. Likewise, the earth breathes and trees are born and then they die.

Our bodies are like leaves in a tree, but the consciousness (life) of the leaves is a part of the tree, so we are also the tree, and also the earth, and the entire universe.

Consciousness never dies because it exists in everything. It (everything) is constantly radiating from nothingness.

Consciousness (you, I) is formless like water.
Put it in a cup and it becomes a cup.
Put it in a teapot and it becomes a teapot.
Put it in a jar and it becomes a jar.
Put it in the body of Cris and it becomes Cris.
Put it in the body of c7 and it becomes c7.

When your body dies, the person also dies, because it's a part of the body, but the consciousness does not die. It is everywhere, omnipresent. Cris dies, but not you. Cris is a body. A personality (mental reflection of the body). A mask.

If you believe you are a body, I guess you also believe that the world is objective. There is no evidence that the world is objective. It's merely a belief, a hypothesis, a thought. It could all just be in your consciousness. And it is. Otherwise you couldn't be conscious of this text, because it's supposedly outside your mind. In reality, everything is inside you, like in a dream.

(If you lost your memory, would you still be you?
You can perceive many human bodies, but only one consciousness. Why assume there are several?
One consciousness controls everything)

-

This brand of logic will only lead you into a infinite regression. If there's a 'signal' emanating from somewhere that enters our body, then wouldn't there be a 'sub-signal' that emanates from somewhere else and creates the signal?

If you agree that there's a definite stopping point; a point where consciousness arises, why can't you accept the possibility that the consciousness arises in OUR world.

As for your cup/jar argument, you seem to have a very skewed definition of consciousness....

 

[Cris]

Lg,

my evidence was that metabolism is seen to fail (for reasons that you elaborate on) in the presence of everything required for metabolism

You have not presented any evidence to date. You keep quoting this and you never support it.

In otherwords I was advocating that this indicates there is a further cause that regulates metabolism

Which fails because your premise is invalid.

 

[c7ityi_]

This brand of logic will only lead you into a infinite regression. If there's a 'signal' emanating from somewhere that enters our body, then wouldn't there be a 'sub-signal' that emanates from somewhere else and creates the signal?

No, because the signal is not emanating from somewhere, it is emanating from nothingness.

As for your cup/jar argument, you seem to have a very skewed definition of consciousness....

Consciousness can also be called God.

 

[SkinWalker]

Consciousness could also be called that perception that people have that they are aware of themselves because of the bio-neural activity in their brains. People who go on and on about "metabolism" having a single cause don't understand biology, since they seem to imply that there is a single metabolic process.

There are many and they each have varied causes and are regulated by various systems. There is glycogenesis, glucose catabolism, photosynthesis, metabolisms for nitrogen, oxygen, sugars, carbohydrates, etc, etc.

Mystically minded significance-junkies can spout all the supernatural B.S. they want, it all boils down to biochemical processes, and there is no evidence that there is anything else that is in existence or required.

 

[lightgigantic]

Consciousness could also be called that perception that people have that they are aware of themselves because of the bio-neural activity in their brains.

without evidence its a speculation

Mystically minded significance-junkies can spout all the supernatural B.S. they want, it all boils down to biochemical processes, and there is no evidence that there is anything else that is in existence or required.

Thus its the same aroma

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

You have not presented any evidence to date. You keep quoting this and you never support it.

there is no evidence medicine having the ability to re-instigate metabolism in a body that's metabolism has expired - if you want to advocate that life is the sum of a series of mechanistic processes you also have a few requirements to meet in the evidence department

 

[SkinWalker]

without evidence its [biochemical/neural activity] a speculation

There *is* evidence for biochemical and neural activity in the brain. There is *no* evidence for mystical activity and the supernatural.

My grandpa used to have a saying that went like this, "the thing about that little purple speck in bird shit you need to remember is this: it's bird shit, too." You can keep going on about how mystical and spiritual superstitions are special: but they're still superstitions.

 

[lightgigantic]

There *is* evidence for biochemical and neural activity in the brain. There is *no* evidence for mystical activity and the supernatural.

My grandpa used to have a saying that went like this, "the thing about that little purple speck in bird shit you need to remember is this: it's bird shit, too." You can keep going on about how mystical and spiritual superstitions are special: but they're still superstitions.

Skinwalker

run to the bathroom .....

quickly!!!