BLRR.
Oh boy...
You let me down here, you know. The moreso since I didn't want this thread to degenerate from the sharing of views to a discussion based on arrogance.
Even though I think even this sentence is wrong, that was not the first sentence, it was:
Your first claim is that death is the end of life. I don't wanna disagree here.
Your second claim is that life and existence equal the biological process. This is something you cannot prove. I don't care to prove the contrary either.
Your third claim is that since the biological process is ended there is no existence. This is depending upon your second claim.
Your forth claim is that death is the end of existence. Again I refer you to the second clain.
Your fifth claim is that the question doesn´t make sense. That is based on the forth, since the forth is not proven. The fith is wrong. The question makes sense.
No, the biological body.
No, a definition is not necessarily fine if you say it is. Exactly the act that I didn't explain how I view death is what validates the question. Since I left that open; many people could fill in their definition and answer the question. So the question is valide. And so there were many answers.
Oh, mon ami. Read on and you will find the answer to these allegations. And by the way, you sound like the example you gave, limiting LIFE to the factors you can encompass and admit, to your limited level of understanding.
Exactly. You have an impression, no more.
That is not impressive. That only takes imitating the imput from the eye and correcting for the loss of data that ensues from the organic barriers. That is not the same as understanding the mind itself.
Funny how you guys keep playing these little games. Katazia, listen up! I did not say we will never understand it! You are trying to divert the course of the discussion. Are you afraid it is not going your way??
(Ir)rationality is a word overused lately. It is used by those deserving and those pretending.
Let's take your own assumption. Death is the cessation of the biological process. That means that if there is more than the biological process, which you can't possibly know for sure, then your conclusion is false since the body is gone but the essence/spirit/soul/rest is left. Note here that philosophers, most prominately aristotle, have, and since millennia, found the survival of the soul an established idea. The discussion was rather between those that said the body survivies too (religious) and those that said only the soul survives (religious and non-religious).
If I survive death according to this sentence than that means I have not died. And that means I did not survive death. That means your statement is absurd.
Peace be upon you.
Oh boy...
You let me down here, you know. The moreso since I didn't want this thread to degenerate from the sharing of views to a discussion based on arrogance.
Katazia said:Bruce,
That death means the end? Well, frankly, no. That is what death means.
Even though I think even this sentence is wrong, that was not the first sentence, it was:
Katazia said:Death is the end of life so by definition there cannot be anything after the end, and in that sense your question does not make sense.
Your first claim is that death is the end of life. I don't wanna disagree here.
Your second claim is that life and existence equal the biological process. This is something you cannot prove. I don't care to prove the contrary either.
Your third claim is that since the biological process is ended there is no existence. This is depending upon your second claim.
Your forth claim is that death is the end of existence. Again I refer you to the second clain.
Your fifth claim is that the question doesn´t make sense. That is based on the forth, since the forth is not proven. The fith is wrong. The question makes sense.
Katazia said:Are you talking here about memory?
No, the biological body.
Katazia said:The definition is perfectly fine. The real issue here is that you want to define death to mean something entirely different. Perhaps you should have begun with how you perceive death or how you want it defined.
No, a definition is not necessarily fine if you say it is. Exactly the act that I didn't explain how I view death is what validates the question. Since I left that open; many people could fill in their definition and answer the question. So the question is valide. And so there were many answers.
Katazia said:You sound like the people who defined the atom as the basic particle that could never be split any further. Well we have split it and are still splitting. You are on very dangerous ground when you try to state that science can NEVER do something when the history of science shows that science is continually discovering things once thought impossible.
Oh, mon ami. Read on and you will find the answer to these allegations. And by the way, you sound like the example you gave, limiting LIFE to the factors you can encompass and admit, to your limited level of understanding.
Katazia said:I also have the impression that you see the brain as some infinite mystical black box beyond the comprehension of the human mind, but really the brain is a finite mesh of cells that connect together in a fairly simple manner but which create a complex network. The best parallel is with the internet. If you think of each neuron as a simple computer which communicates with other computers then you can see how the internet is very similar. Now does anyone fully understand the internet? It is now quite complex but we know how it works and to a large extent we know how the brain works but we haven’t yet deciphered a great deal of the complex network. I don’t see any real obstacles to what is essentially a reverse engineering project that is going to take some time.
Exactly. You have an impression, no more.
Katazia said:We certainly know enough t be able to connect a video camera to the visual cortex at the back of the brain and allow the blind to see, although the images are fuzzy, it shows we are making significant progress.
That is not impressive. That only takes imitating the imput from the eye and correcting for the loss of data that ensues from the organic barriers. That is not the same as understanding the mind itself.
Katazia said:What reason do you have to suggest that the brain will always be beyond our comprehension?
Funny how you guys keep playing these little games. Katazia, listen up! I did not say we will never understand it! You are trying to divert the course of the discussion. Are you afraid it is not going your way??
Katazia said:Or that others have the same irrational perception as you that the END doesn’t mean the end.
(Ir)rationality is a word overused lately. It is used by those deserving and those pretending.
Katazia said:But of course I know what you mean, and the phrase ‘after death’ is common place, but my point here is that it doesn’t make sense regardless of how many use the phrase. If somehow “you” don’t die when your body dies, then you are not dead.
Let's take your own assumption. Death is the cessation of the biological process. That means that if there is more than the biological process, which you can't possibly know for sure, then your conclusion is false since the body is gone but the essence/spirit/soul/rest is left. Note here that philosophers, most prominately aristotle, have, and since millennia, found the survival of the soul an established idea. The discussion was rather between those that said the body survivies too (religious) and those that said only the soul survives (religious and non-religious).
Katazia said:The only way you can survive dying is not to die. And after-death means there was no death.
If I survive death according to this sentence than that means I have not died. And that means I did not survive death. That means your statement is absurd.
Katazia said:
Peace be upon you.
Last edited: