Does death exist? New theory says 'no'

Not even for free. I won't be taking you up on your generous offer gd. Sooner or later we'all will get that experience. I' ll just take your word for it. It's a good maybe even great read.

No - I'm afraid I only do my own thoughts.

Sorry but this isn't science so save it.

No. You can see what happens if you look at a dead cat. Being the person you think you should be is up to you. The good news, it gets easier as you get older.

sorry pal u fail to factor in that we are nothing like cats.... they get nine shots a death we might get two and thats if we get lucky in a car accident or something...there for we learn nothing from looking at a dead cat. next time check ur facts before disagreeing wit me! but ur right about the getting older.

I fell off the roof.
Forth time for broken ribs. And, - cats like me.

Nice. Very similar to what I just said elswhere in this thread.

There's also no such thing as particles. The electron cloud is actually an electron charge potential. It is we that apply fictitious devices we call numbers and we who imagine rocks or particles or a "cloud"

This so called cloud is supposedly held by the charge of the nucleus - however it is the charge field alone and not an extra set of "things" or stuff held by it. -Cole

I agree, it is one thing to discuss quantum physics, which is fine and good. It is quite another to claim that you have "proven" something using quantum theory. Especially, when you start sounding like metaphysics junkie rather than a credible scientist.

Yeah......when you can explain how eternal unchanging motion works....let me know. Platonic theory was no better at explaining that than any other philosophical system has been.

It just doesn't make sense. Motion implies a change of state.

The theory of forms also has a number of other critical flaws- such as explaing the way in which an unchanging, eternal source can *interact* with a changeful, finite reality. Changeless entities simply aren't capable of much.

There is also the problem of proposing independent realities. The theory states that the realm of forms is separate from the realm of the changeful. How do separate entities interact without becoming part of each other?

If you consider it long enough, you'll recognize that the problem with the theory of forms is that it attempts to answer a stupid question.

The ocean "change" but its "oceaness" remains constant. Water can flow: have a current,...but the MOVEMENT itself is not a change of state. Plato wasn't trying to resolve problems in physics,....he was describing a hierarchy of mind,....for him there was no "interaction"; all of matter is,...for lack of a better set of terms,...a dream or illusion derived from and made knowable by "higher forms",.....the only "true" reality.

I have a friend who grasps for the same straw - that the universe is made up of consciousness as a foundation and everything else are meager, lowly states.
This allows him to think that ma-y-be, there'll be a God after all, etc, etc.

I love the guy - but hey. try being square with yourself. You don't want to be so meek that you cling to an idea that you are easily smart enough to punch holes through if you just took a moment for the exercise.

I just couldn't feel good about myself.

I have the strong suspicion that that I am dealing with an existentialist. If so,....I know from experience these sorts of conversations can go on for a loooooooooooong time. (They get more entertaining as they go on,...but they don't resolve, as there are a priori differences between Platonist and Existentialist rational structures. Pragmatically,....such discussions require that both camps start out with what amounts to a full descriptive statement of their respective schools of thought. Its actually starting to sound like work......And I already had fun doing it once. That binder is an a box in the closet somewhere. (Maybe after a beer....)

Oddly, in this instance, I would refer you to the 2nd century buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna for a full treatment of why 'essences' and 'entities' are bogus (and no, I'm not a buddhist). There is a truly excellent translation and commentary on his major phenomenological work- the mulamadhyamikakarika- by western analytical philosopher Jay Garfield, called 'the fundamental wisdom of the middle way' (which is a translation of the title, not a statement of Jay's opinion). Try it out. I promise you won't regret it. Many of the arguments Nagarjuna leveled against the Vedantists of his time are equally applicable to problems in western philosophy, particularly those of Platonic thought. Really, I can tell you won't regret it.

And remanns- movement IS a change of state.

note---I am aware that to science,...motion is a "change of state".
I am using a more fundamental use of the definition "the act of changing something into something different in essential characteristics"----water is always in molecular motion,....its all a question of degree. For my purposes,...water is water is water,....even if its being"steam" at the moment. (Waves passing through don't count at all,.....unless your discussing "waves" and "wave-ness") The "change of state" as you mean it is simply a tool to analyse/categorize /measure empirical reality---which of course is illusory with illusory changes,.....(but it gives us something to do).

p.s -thanks for the tip,....I shall "in fact" try to hunt down an illusory copy of Jay Garfields text,.....but I will be sure to do it quickly before it changes state. Perhaps squinting will help. Thanx for the lead!

I would argue quite the opposite- that instead it's the idea of 'essence' and 'identity' that's the illusion.

I think ultimately you'll find that your understanding that everything is in motion is in contradiction of your ideas of changeless realities.

The underlying problem here is that the theory of forms is attempting to answer a question that doesn't need to be asked, that of, 'how things came to be'. Every time philosophy gets into that discussion, they come up with hopelessly ridiculous abstractions.

The only reasonable response to such a question is simply, 'things have always been', or perhaps, 'who know?' From that standpoint it isn't necessary to formulate abstract metaphysical realities that underlie and generate our universe, and it's very easy to recognize the simplicity of a changeful, impermanent reality. While I think Occam's Razor is hooey, this might be one instance that it applies.

Part of the tendency to perceive essences can be blamed on the natural functioning of the mind, which has as it's central purpose the labeling of otherwise arbitrary phenomena. It is our own mental constructs that fool us into thinking that 'things' have 'essences' and 'identities'.

"the theory of forms is attempting to answer a question that doesn't need to be asked, that of, 'how things came to be"--------

this is not the first time it has occurred to me that one psychological predispositions make for philosophical favoritism;

for example,..."I' am only REMOTELY,... TANGENTIALLY,....(as an aside to weightier concerns) interested in "the how things came to be " problematic equation,....nor was,... I suspect,... Plato. The "IS" of "everything" is given. the question THEN is ; "IS" is what? ---sounds like Clintonian politics I know,...sorry) So, ....the Occam of THIS question,....becomes the definition of terms,...er forms. The terms ARE the definition. There is not else. Finito. (THAT is as simple as the solution can be) I trust that is Occomadating.

I have always suspected that the set that has the most,......hmmmmm,...'unrest' with Plato are the "causation" folk,.......uhm,......like Aristotle.
More in the Kant camp myself.

While you apparently dismiss the "importance" of the "how it came to be" quandary,....it NONE THE LESS features prominently in your hierarchy of discourse. (While it is only remotely germane to mine)

Think of what you've said here, 'The terms ARE the definition.'

That's exactly my point. And you (and Plato) imagine that such definitions have reality somewhere. But they are simply your own mental constructs fed back to you as 'reality'.

YES. You have grasped it. -- BUT; these are not "MY" mental constructs.--these "ARE"---back to the "IS" bit

let me put it this way
"Mental constructs exist,..[and are eternal yada yada yada ] ; therefore I am"

-----not "BECAUSE of me" are constructs born -------BUT-----------"there is a ME because I am of these principals constructed" ----the individual is derivative

And then you have something Plato described,...as "a source knowable not fully" and described only as metaphor.

just because you "thunk it" doesn't mean "you made it",.....it was there "a PRIORI" TO BE KNOWN!

One should try to avoid validating their prior conceptions with simple logic moves. One should question whether the preconceptions are correct; or false.
And besides, if you feel comfortable, there's that nasty little voice that whispers 'you might be blowing it.'

remanns- I'm sorry but that just doesn't make a bit of sense. In my opinion you've got things backwards.

You need to look more critically at this idea of 'essences' and 'forms'. Again, I'd highly recommend that book. It deals very specifically with these issues and is an excellent work. An extremely difficult read, but well worth it.

And your previous comment that causation is irrelevant here- the theory of forms is a generative theory on how it is that this world exists. It attempts to explain the basis of reality. If that's not an argument of causation, I don't know what would be.

Anyway, enough has been said about this.....

;-D

It is a quandary - what do we do with this time we have? I believe it's our only shot - so what do we do? That we can really do and that is really important?

You rock dude. That was bad ass.

YES.

EGGaxtly!

Assuming it were true (read my comment below on that) and it did provide proof of life after death, it does no more to add support to the christian theory of a god than it does to the ancient greek theory of gods.

Religion loses credence when it speaks of soul information in the spirit world. An example would be hell. A place where bad spirits go. Bad is a soul idea

For the record, all those commenting need to a crash course in theory v. hypothesis. This sounds like more of hypothesis struggling to become a credible theory.

Thank you priestess of the goddess.

Exactly! The new energy sources of the fertilizer kind.
All at once, everybody: "Th-h-h-h-e Worms crawl in, the Worms crawl out, the Worms crawl o'r your mouth & snout!"

And also, breaking with stupid and accepting that when you're dead, you're permanently boink-Oed. El Fry-Oed. zippiliated. Ka-put-afied.

Except entropy.

Actually entropy doesn't show the end end of energy, just the maximum diffusion of it.

There is no such thing as energy as a separate substance. Something has energy because you think it has - or because you have some "thing" that you think might be influenced by it. Energy is our idea of what potential may be understood as differentiating.
A hammer has the ability to hurt if you experience running into it a certain way, and we might conclude hammers have 'one head-blow' of "potential energy" per hammer.

But actually, hammers are hammers. There's no energy there. - It's all about comparing possible outcomes within a given state or given envelope of considerations.

In other words, energy is all in the eye of the observer. Or that is (and more appropriate) the brain of the observer.

If the next 'theory' proves there are no extra universes, are you gonna shake and vibrate and then fall over?

E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c represents the amount of Lil Wayne on your iPod.

Its defining the "me" of identity that causes people to have psychological shit-fits!
(Its not really so much "the death of ME",....but "WHAT" me?)
as a great philosopher once said; "What,.........me worry"?

As always Delia, an excellent post.

It sums up the implications of two of my previous posts:

First, that the SECOND law of thermodynamics basically says- 'systems break down over time', which means whatever sense of self those patterns of energy represent, that those patterns will also break down over time, and probably a very short time.

Second, my original comment about the tenuous assumption that there is indeed any 'you' to talk about in the first place, points to the fact that the consistency of what we consider 'me' is really not very consistent at all. Ideas change, the body grows, you're sense of self is always in flux, somedays you feel like the king of the world, other days you feel like a schmuck. Are you any of the things you thought about yourself last week? Last year? A decade ago? When you were 5? In my assessment, the 'person' represents nothing but habits of behavior and thought, all held together by memory. Nothing more. And I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Indeed , the mystic poets all say . It is always curious how this seems to have the ring of truth to it , and I had to try SO hard to believe in other systems . I know death . That is to say , I have seen it . Those who have lived life boldly and suffered much for others , do not seem to fear it at all , but embrace it . Those I saw that were burdened with materialism and conformity had a powerful terror of it . It was as if ... well , as I say , we all will find out . As the mystics the world over say "Be not afraid !" .

"Its not really so much "the death of ME",....but "WHAT" me?" Exactly!

"tenuous assumption that there is indeed any 'you' to talk about in the first place, points to the fact that the consistency of what we consider 'me' is really not very consistent at all."

Indeed, the "self" should be regarded as much less concrete than we treat it, and "I" have changed many times in my relatively short life and I'm sure "I" will change again. It's not consistent at all!

It always kind of bothered me that people think that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is evidence for some kind of soul or afterlife. "Energy" is much different than what we perceive to be "ourselves".

Philosophy according to Dave Barry: "Basically, this involves sitting in a room and deciding there is no such thing as reality and then going to lunch."

And I picked it as my major.

This is an infinite loop, you can't empirically or even evaluatively "study" whether or not death exists. If space and time are the only two components of the physical universe, and space and time are only tools for putting information together, then there is no physical universe.

Does the whompus oscillate between times of king-ship and schmuckness with definable regularity? Does this follow a particular wave form or pattern?

"Energy" is much different than what we perceive to be "ourselves".
Different in which way exactly?Are you implying that we are not living energy?Consciousness is energy.The "I am" presence is simply consciousness...If you popped up in this world and had no means of communication you would still have a conscience.To say that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain is absurd.

and yet........you have nothing with which to indicate that consciousness can exist without a brain. And any attempt to locate such an indication requires the use of said brain.

If you do a sincere study of the world's greatest 'I am' advocates, the Advaita Vedantists, you'll see that it's main proponent- Nisargadatta- eventually came to the conclusion later in life that consciousness WAS INDEED centered in the body.

02- I've studied that very question and the answer is no, no definable pattern there.

I knew it!

so are you saying that i cannot exist outside of my body??I'd suggest that you do some research into brain entrainment technologies where you can analyze your consciousness from another state of being.Of course me telling you that I leave my body on a regular basis is not enough evidence of the truth so i not only invite you but i challenge you to experience yourself from another waking perspective than the normal beta.Out of body travel is very real indeed and from that perspective one can understand that the body is simply a vehicle for physical experience.We are pure consciousness.

This is a phenomena of experience. It has been experienced by - Yogis and meditators and from Hypnosis - which is all the same thing.
Plus, the personal desire to experience such. Also, there is the subject of self-analysis. One can simply choose to think of oneself from a perceived point of view of an observer.

In relationships, as well. There is your immediate reaction. Then you might decide to think as another person - or the other person. Then there is seeing from a point of view of third, uninvolved person who happens by.
Then there is considering a situation from another point of view, as perhaps a non-human.

But all of them, are - your mind (which is working away at the process of grinding out your thoughts and experiences in your brain).

It is your memory (which is a kind of reconstruction of your thoughts and experiences by your brain) that you are happily recalling.

iamfree- I'm well versed in such techniques. However, when it comes down to an analysis of what they mean, there's simply no way to prove anything other than a psychological phenomena.

What you should maybe consider is that perhaps you're being fooled by your mind and the nature of the human condition? There are specific reasons why it SEEMS that we're pure consciousness, and indeed we are depending on what you mean by that. But you need to look at such experiences critically if you really want to have any insight into what's going on there. Otherwise you'll just end up another babbling mystic.

well where to start...1st and foremost it is not my memory i am experiencing...i have no physical memory of the places i visit in my journeys.there is a non-physical world that is booming with life.also to note,I physically leave my body..its not a trick or gimmick guys..plz let me help you experience it..there is no debate between to be had until you personally can enlighten me from experience.

iamfree- here's a test for you- hook yourself up to an eeg or any other type of brain scanner while you're out of your body......see if your brain is registering your experiences.

If it does, it would be difficult to uphold such a theory.

iamfree - You sound like you're having unique experience. I don't think it matters about the out-of-body thing. Several wiziers having several theories mean little. It's all in keeping it cool - keeping it good. So carry on...
:-}

You say "We are pure consciousness" but what does that REALLY mean? What is consciousness with no place to go, no brain to form an identity with? All identity and feelings of "self" come from the brain; this is why TBI patients frequently experience a loss of their personality. If consciousness was enough to make up a person's "self", there would be no issue when people suffer brain related issues and injuries.

We certainly feel the identity of self - but a lot of people can't wrap their brain around the idea that it is a happenstancial aspect. One might easily see that while dispassionately observing another animal or human - but they have trouble ordering their own experience.

We might say, we're pretty well fooled by our own 'selfs'.

Who's to say that the energy you once were was a human... or an animal for that matter. Also, keep in mind, the earth is constantly bombarded with energy on a daily basis.