Russell's teapot

[lightgigantic]

A dead person is broken. Something has to be broken for the person to die.

Your definition was:

When broken, it can not easily be reconstructed by humans.

Try the computer analogy again, and keep in mind that there are NO spare parts.

thats the point - there are spare parts - and in fact the computer was clearly made from them (so it undoubtedly is a result of complexity)

you can indicate death in an organism by various factors (lack of bioelectricity in the cells, plasma deficiency, dysfunctional organ etc) but life cannot be restored or constructed from these things.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not yet.

hence relying on the credibility of empiricism will not help you in this regard

 

[Enmos]

:wallbang:

Ok, this is going absolutely nowhere..

 

[Myles]

hence relying on the credibility of empiricism will not help you in this regard

Nor will denying it support your argument. The wise attitude is to wait and see rather than invent a convenient answer.

Science has history on its side. Religious " explanations" have proved nothing whatever to date.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nor will denying it support your argument. The wise attitude is to wait and see rather than invent a convenient answer.

Science has history on its side. Religious " explanations" have proved nothing whatever to date.

there is also the philosophical issue whether classical empiricism has the monopoly on knowledge ...... which of course you are reluctant like hell to discuss

 

[Myles]

there is also the philosophical issue whether classical empiricism has the monopoly on knowledge ...... which of course you are reluctant like hell to discuss

State the alternative ! And don't subject us to the so-called wisdom of the East !

 

[lightgigantic]

State the alternative ! And don't subject us to the so-called wisdom of the East !

perhaps for a start you could examine on what basis you assert that life is materially reducible ... since it is obviously not an empirical claim

 

[Myles]

perhaps for a start you could examine on what basis you assert that life is materially reducible ... since it is obviously not an empirical claim

What is your point ? You are asking a question to which you, yourself, have no meaningful answer. Why assume that science will not eventually explain it ? I'm sure as hell that nothing else will. If you believe otherwise , explain what you mean !

 

[lightgigantic]

What is your point ? You are asking a question to which you, yourself, have no meaningful answer. Why assume that science will not eventually explain it ?

Why assume that it will?

I'm sure as hell that nothing else will.

You surety already indicates that you have violated empirical standards

If you believe otherwise , explain what you mean !

so you agree you are talking about your beliefs of what is capable for empiricism?

 

[Myles]

Why assume that it will?


You surety already indicates that you have violated empirical standards

so you agree you are talking about your beliefs of what is capable for empiricism?

I am makinfg no assumptions other than I consider it possible that science may come up with an answer. I do not say it will do so. In other words . I am venturing an opinion based on my experience of the world.Science has provided lots of answers to problems that were once considered imponderable; religious beliefs have done nothing of the kind.

If you have an opinion in the matter. I would like to know on what it is based.