Page 15 of 23

Re: Death

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:12 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.

Either you are alive or not. Being is a state of living.

Re: Death

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:23 pm
by Harbal
Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.
Everyone can be dead, Hobbes, it is a potential we all possess.
Either you are alive or not
By Jove, I think you may have grasped the concept. Well done, Hobbes.
Being is a state of living.
Don't forget it is also possible to be not living.

Re: Death

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:09 am
by Dubious
Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.

Either you are alive or not. Being is a state of living.
How about you, me and everyone posting will BE dead in spite of so many already BEING brain DEAD.

Re: Death

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:00 am
by Hobbes' Choice
Dubious wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.

Either you are alive or not. Being is a state of living.
How about you, me and everyone posting will BE dead in spite of so many already BEING brain DEAD.
You can die. But the state of death is not a state of being. You cannot experience death, you can experience dying.
It's a language thing.

Re: Death

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:46 am
by Greta
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Dubious wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.

Either you are alive or not. Being is a state of living.
How about you, me and everyone posting will BE dead in spite of so many already BEING brain DEAD.
You can die. But the state of death is not a state of being. You cannot experience death, you can experience dying.
It's a language thing.
We assume this based on what we know so far and what appears most likely and logical. Often our assumptions have been found to be wrong. A recent example came when Voyager approached Pluto. Due to Mars's dormant state it was assumed that small planets would rapidly lose their heat after the solar system's formation, yet Pluto has ice volcanoes and other evidence of a hot core, which is hugely anomalous for a dwarf planet about 1/25 the volume of Mars. This means that our models of planetary mechanics are wrong. There is something else going on that we haven't picked up.

I'm open to the possibility that the nature of life and death similarly could surprise us.

Re: Death

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:47 pm
by Dubious
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Dubious wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing is for sure. You cannot BE dead.

Either you are alive or not. Being is a state of living.
How about you, me and everyone posting will BE dead in spite of so many already BEING brain DEAD.
You can die. But the state of death is not a state of being. You cannot experience death, you can experience dying.
It's a language thing.
A while back, I asked in general terms what does "death" actually refer to with no response. It doesn't apply when you're alive regardless of condition and obviously not when you're dead. If it doesn't apply before and after it must denote something in-between, a transition. It often seems to be "a language thing" and misplaced when given as a noun but its meaning becomes much clearer when rendered as a verb. Death is more comprehensible as a momentary process of transitioning from a state of being to non-being. When consummated, death is rendered null and void, its process concluded. It's pure biology, not some idiotic religious mystery which implies more going on after the event.

Re: Death

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:52 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Dubious wrote:
How about you, me and everyone posting will BE dead in spite of so many already BEING brain DEAD.
You can die. But the state of death is not a state of being. You cannot experience death, you can experience dying.
It's a language thing.
We assume this based on what we know so far and what appears most likely and logical. Often our assumptions have been found to be wrong. A recent example came when Voyager approached Pluto. Due to Mars's dormant state it was assumed that small planets would rapidly lose their heat after the solar system's formation, yet Pluto has ice volcanoes and other evidence of a hot core, which is hugely anomalous for a dwarf planet about 1/25 the volume of Mars. This means that our models of planetary mechanics are wrong. There is something else going on that we haven't picked up.

I'm open to the possibility that the nature of life and death similarly could surprise us.
I do not think that the condition of Pluto is relevant to the human condition and the inevitability of death in ANY sense.
Dead bodies have functionless brains. All evidence of 'beingness" in humans is reliant upon the healthy functioning of a brain. We have a massive, almost burdensome amount of evidence, and thousands of years of medical knowledge and science. The delicacy of this sense of being can be easily interrupted with anything that interrupts the function of the brain; drugs, disease, or a sharp stick. When the heart stops the brain starts to rot in a very short time, and this is accompanied with an immediate cessation of all evidence of beingness, which has shown to be completely irrevocable, and irrecoverable in all human history.
So maybe you'd like to tell me who the condition of Pluto bears on these facts!

Re: Death

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:39 am
by Greta
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I do not think that the condition of Pluto is relevant to the human condition and the inevitability of death in ANY sense.
Dead bodies have functionless brains. All evidence of 'beingness" in humans is reliant upon the healthy functioning of a brain. We have a massive, almost burdensome amount of evidence, and thousands of years of medical knowledge and science. The delicacy of this sense of being can be easily interrupted with anything that interrupts the function of the brain; drugs, disease, or a sharp stick. When the heart stops the brain starts to rot in a very short time, and this is accompanied with an immediate cessation of all evidence of beingness, which has shown to be completely irrevocable, and irrecoverable in all human history.
So maybe you'd like to tell me who the condition of Pluto bears on these facts!
What you say is surely true if today's physical models are to never be significantly updated or changed.

How can one validly explore beyond the cutting edge of the knowledge of the time, revealed to us by great minds? We can't. However, we can question pure speculation, such as the assumption that subjectivity ends with death. It looks that way but we do not know.

Re: Death

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:31 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I do not think that the condition of Pluto is relevant to the human condition and the inevitability of death in ANY sense.
Dead bodies have functionless brains. All evidence of 'beingness" in humans is reliant upon the healthy functioning of a brain. We have a massive, almost burdensome amount of evidence, and thousands of years of medical knowledge and science. The delicacy of this sense of being can be easily interrupted with anything that interrupts the function of the brain; drugs, disease, or a sharp stick. When the heart stops the brain starts to rot in a very short time, and this is accompanied with an immediate cessation of all evidence of beingness, which has shown to be completely irrevocable, and irrecoverable in all human history.
So maybe you'd like to tell me who the condition of Pluto bears on these facts!
What you say is surely true if today's physical models are to never be significantly updated or changed.

How can one validly explore beyond the cutting edge of the knowledge of the time, revealed to us by great minds? We can't. However, we can question pure speculation, such as the assumption that subjectivity ends with death. It looks that way but we do not know.
I really do no think the issue of subjectivity is at issue here.
Nor the 'models' os physical reality. This is about the clear evidence of thousands of years of human history, made free from the errors of religious dogma; a dogma which, by its attraction you seem only too keen to hold onto. But the game is up. People die, you shall die, and there is bugger all you can do about it, so embrace it.

Re: Death

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:01 pm
by Greta
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What you say is surely true if today's physical models are to never be significantly updated or changed.

How can one validly explore beyond the cutting edge of the knowledge of the time, revealed to us by great minds? We can't. However, we can question pure speculation, such as the assumption that subjectivity ends with death. It looks that way but we do not know.
I really do no think the issue of subjectivity is at issue here.
Nor the 'models' os physical reality. This is about the clear evidence of thousands of years of human history, made free from the errors of religious dogma; a dogma which, by its attraction you seem only too keen to hold onto. But the game is up. People die, you shall die, and there is bugger all you can do about it, so embrace it.
Religion has nothing to do with this at all - the issue here is the nature of reality, not cultural shit. IMO the "lights out" death hypothesis is as much fuelled by wishful thinking as those who believe in heaven; nice to think that the slate will be wiped clean.

Some assumptions are required to hold the usual logical positivist viewpoint on death:

1) that the brain is only a producer of consciousness, never a filter

2) that deep sleep is always subjectively identical to death

3) that we know everything about all relevant aspects of reality, including the Planck scale

4) that all NDE claims are illusion, delusion and wishful thinking and dismissed as any kind of useful evidence, despite being our only evidence

5) that we all share the same fate in death.

We are kidding ourselves to imagine that we understand life and death. We can't understand a single broader narrative than our own even as we manifest at least one broader narrative ourselves. We still have no broader perspective or understanding - the whole universe to us is "stuff happening", with shallow consideration of the interrelated evolving natural systems of which we are a small part.

In my observation ideas about reality tend to veer between hopelessly emotional and mindlessly mechanistic, and each side assumes plenty (as per above list).

Re: Death

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:06 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What you say is surely true if today's physical models are to never be significantly updated or changed.

How can one validly explore beyond the cutting edge of the knowledge of the time, revealed to us by great minds? We can't. However, we can question pure speculation, such as the assumption that subjectivity ends with death. It looks that way but we do not know.
I really do no think the issue of subjectivity is at issue here.
Nor the 'models' os physical reality. This is about the clear evidence of thousands of years of human history, made free from the errors of religious dogma; a dogma which, by its attraction you seem only too keen to hold onto. But the game is up. People die, you shall die, and there is bugger all you can do about it, so embrace it.
Religion has nothing to do with this at all - the issue here is the nature of reality, not cultural shit. IMO the "lights out" death hypothesis is as much fuelled by wishful thinking as those who believe in heaven; nice to think that the slate will be wiped clean.

Some assumptions are required to hold the usual logical positivist viewpoint on death:

1) that the brain is only a producer of consciousness, never a filter

2) that deep sleep is always subjectively identical to death

3) that we know everything about all relevant aspects of reality, including the Planck scale

4) that all NDE claims are illusion, delusion and wishful thinking and dismissed as any kind of useful evidence, despite being our only evidence

5) that we all share the same fate in death.

We are kidding ourselves to imagine that we understand life and death. We can't understand a single broader narrative than our own even as we manifest at least one broader narrative ourselves. We still have no broader perspective or understanding - the whole universe to us is "stuff happening", with shallow consideration of the interrelated evolving natural systems of which we are a small part.

In my observation ideas about reality tend to veer between hopelessly emotional and mindlessly mechanistic, and each side assumes plenty (as per above list).
The thing about NDEs is the word "NEAR".
Otherwise all the evidence points exactly to the brain being the seat of consciousness. Ask anyone who has watched their loved one fade away in front of their eyes from dementia.
If you want to convince yourself, then poke a pointy stick into your brain, and pretend you are not unchanged.
And on religion. Let's face it, you'd not even be making this argument if you had not been brought up in with the idea of the eternal soul, and all the crap that goes with it.

Re: Death

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:51 pm
by Dubious
Greta wrote: IMO the "lights out" death hypothesis is as much fuelled by wishful thinking as those who believe in heaven; nice to think that the slate will be wiped clean.
One thing to depend on: within the universe the slate always gets wiped clean.

Re: Death

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:33 pm
by Greta
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Otherwise all the evidence points exactly to the brain being the seat of consciousness. Ask anyone who has watched their loved one fade away in front of their eyes from dementia.
If you want to convince yourself, then poke a pointy stick into your brain, and pretend you are not unchanged.
You didn't address the other points. As for NDEs, no matter how long a person is clinically dead, if they wake up then they are redefined as not dead. This has resulted in the definition of death being changed. So, by definition, it is not possible to report a "death experience" unless researchers stop shifting the goalposts every time there's an anomaly. Not that any report would be accepted as anything other than a dream by those who know best.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:And on religion. Let's face it, you'd not even be making this argument if you had not been brought up in with the idea of the eternal soul, and all the crap that goes with it.
Why must an afterlife imply an eternal soul? What do "eternal souls" do when the universe's black hole era ends in a quintillion years? Not much. There are ways of open-mindedly thinking about death that have nothing to do with the objects of dogmas or myths.

For thousands of years people have reported interesting experiences when on the verge of death. It's easy to write them all off as brain static when you've not been in the situation. I tend to side with people who are in a situation more than sideline commentators. We humans know much less than we think we do about reality. IMO we cannot make be sure about the nature of consciousness until we better understand quantum scales and understand at least something about the Planck scale. That's the only way we'll make a connections between cells sending around electrical signals and the cinematic experience between our ears.

Re: Death

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:46 pm
by TSBU

Re: Death

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:57 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Greta wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Otherwise all the evidence points exactly to the brain being the seat of consciousness. Ask anyone who has watched their loved one fade away in front of their eyes from dementia.
If you want to convince yourself, then poke a pointy stick into your brain, and pretend you are not unchanged.
You didn't address the other points. As for NDEs, no matter how long a person is clinically dead, if they wake up then they are redefined as not dead.

NO. They were never dead in the first place. What nonsense are you reading? The Fortean TImes? Maybe you are watching too much Discovery Channel?

This has resulted in the definition of death being changed.
NO it has not.
So, by definition, it is not possible to report a "death experience" unless researchers stop shifting the goalposts every time there's an anomaly. Not that any report would be accepted as anything other than a dream by those who know best.
Not true, not relevant. Everyone now alive has a healthy brain, and it stayed that way for a short enough period. Sadly some retune to consciousness as cabbages, or with severe malfunctions to to certain and definable regions of the brain being deprived of oxygen.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And on religion. Let's face it, you'd not even be making this argument if you had not been brought up in with the idea of the eternal soul, and all the crap that goes with it.
Why must an afterlife imply an eternal soul? What do "eternal souls" do when the universe's black hole era ends in a quintillion years? Not much. There are ways of open-mindedly thinking about death that have nothing to do with the objects of dogmas or myths.

I don't know why does religion insist on an eternal soul? Maybe to control people so they behave the way the priest wants them to?


For thousands of years people have reported interesting experiences when on the verge of death. It's easy to write them all off as brain static when you've not been in the situation. I tend to side with people who are in a situation more than sideline commentators. We humans know much less than we think we do about reality. IMO we cannot make be sure about the nature of consciousness until we better understand quantum scales and understand at least something about the Planck scale. That's the only way we'll make a connections between cells sending around electrical signals and the cinematic experience between our ears.

"on the verge"
"near death"

There are other amazing things to experience too. All you have to to is deprive yourself of oxygen or try from a large selection of psychoactive drugs. All the evidence. ALL of it - Points to the altered states engendered by altering the nutrition or complexion of the brain.
QED.