Life after death?

For those who wish to discuss the purely scientific aspects of sleep and dreams, including new research and future technologies.
User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Life after death?

Postby buildit » 25 Oct 2014 13:14

nesgirl wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBDz-nALvGo

I found this video. Actually studies are currently being investigated on the subject.

Good find. ;)
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3656
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Life after death?

Postby Summerlander » 04 Nov 2014 17:42

Yeah. No evidence for the afterlife. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
nesgirl
Posts: 1278
Joined: 25 May 2014 23:10

Re: Life after death?

Postby nesgirl » 04 Nov 2014 17:51

...
Last edited by nesgirl on 21 May 2015 02:33, edited 1 time in total.
Goodbye forever...
I dare you Summer and Deschain, to find where I am hiding, and try to attack.

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Life after death?

Postby buildit » 04 Nov 2014 18:53

Simply put science will never admit to an after life as it would destroy the one tenant of all science. All hypotheses need to be tested and proven in repeatable studies. There are obviously few volunteers for this study.
I do find it odd that people who cling to science to prove their world exists refuse the obvious process science has taken to get where it is today. There have been many dark periods of science where black box theories were implemented to describe the unexplainable. Even today string theory is used to try and create a grand theory of unification.
To what end would a continuing existence after corporeal life end serve? Would it prove the existence of God, other life outside our realm of understanding or simply be an eternal never ending hell as Nesgrl fears? For me I think it provides a possibility that the phrase "I am because I think" is true. We are conscious because we are, what other reason is needed? It's like asking why doesn't life go on forever in a corporeal sense? To date we have found no real reason for the "cycle that life exists inside". Most of the cells in our bodies are replaced every two years by new ones and yet we age, the new cells fail to accomplish what the old ones did easily, we become susceptible to diseases. Why? Biologically there is no good reason for the cells to fail, the DNA to require further replication or the simple build up of chemicals to occur which ravage our bodies. Unless it is because we are not meant to live forever. Unless we are meant to go beyond this form?
I can list a hundred scientific reasons this analogy would be failed but not one of them takes away from the stark reality that we die the same way animals did 3 million years ago. So where is evolution in the grand scheme of success from defeating the point of death? If evolution is based on producing variety in species with the end goals of better breeding, greater efficiency and greater survival why is there no creature which is immortal? Why do we all still die? So now an after life is a real possibility since it would explain what evolution is pushing us towards. Being better prepared, matured and capable of functioning in whatever comes after "life here" is done.
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3656
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Life after death?

Postby Summerlander » 04 Nov 2014 20:41

nesgirl wrote:
Summerlander wrote:Yeah. No evidence for the afterlife. :mrgreen:

It wasn't meant to be, it was meant to be evidence for dreaming while unconscious.


If you are dreaming you are perceiving, therefore you are conscious (even if it's not to the same degree as the waking state). I think you mean to say that consciousness may persist for longer than what people thought after the point of no return during the process of dying.

buildit wrote:Simply put science will never admit to an after life as it would destroy the one tenant of all science. All hypotheses need to be tested and proven in repeatable studies. There are obviously few volunteers for this study.


This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.

buildit wrote:I do find it odd that people who cling to science to prove their world exists refuse the obvious process science has taken to get where it is today. There have been many dark periods of science where black box theories were implemented to describe the unexplainable. Even today string theory is used to try and create a grand theory of unification.


If science demonstrates the existence of an afterlife, I will accept it. Why? Because it would be the truth. And I don't have to like the truth! But that's not the case. Even in its infancy, science brings us substantial evidence to suggest that an afterlife is improbable. (Just like an intelligent Prime mover.) You seem to think that science is dogmatic, that it doesn't revise the data garnered from reality as we constantly try to refine our understanding and expand our ken. Remember, string theory is not well established yet, it's only a "what if" scenario at the moment. But you seem to be implying, erroneously, that it is canonical, and, in doing so, you attack the very method that is science.


buildit wrote:To what end would a continuing existence after corporeal life end serve? Would it prove the existence of God, other life outside our realm of understanding or simply be an eternal never ending hell as Nesgrl fears? For me I think it provides a possibility that the phrase "I am because I think" is true.


You do know that Descartes's dualism is obsolete right? And it's "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). The materialist would tell you, however, that you only think because your functional physical body, which necessarily includes a brain, is.

buildit wrote:To date we have found no real reason for the "cycle that life exists inside". Most of the cells in our bodies are replaced every two years by new ones and yet we age, the new cells fail to accomplish what the old ones did easily, we become susceptible to diseases. Why? Biologically there is no good reason for the cells to fail, the DNA to require further replication or the simple build up of chemicals to occur which ravage our bodies. Unless it is because we are not meant to live forever. Unless we are meant to go beyond this form?


LOL! You are clearly not a scientist, or evolutionary biology is clearly not your speciality. DNA replication is not something that was intelligently designed in the first place. It is worth noting that genetic units can survive for many generations after countless acts of procreation. Our DNA, as a replicator, can be thought of as immortal even if our bodies aren't. If our bodies were immortal, there would be no point in replication or procreation for that matter. Our bodies are merely evolved armours for genes. It is not a perfect armour but it has the potential to protect genes long enough to give them a chance to be passed on (the act of procreation in adulthood). Anyway, DNA is not a flawless replicator. (In fact, RNA used to do it much better billions of years ago before DNA hijacked its role.)

DNA within a body will have a tendency to make more and more errors as time passes, hence senility. (Not to mention mutations caused by unproductive genes or rival alleles that survive through meiotic shuffling as well as environmental pressures such as inimical organisms and forms of radiation.) Bodies have a lifespan because nature dictates it so, not because some god made it so for some mysterious purpose. Evolution does not make predictions either, in fact, it makes lots of mistakes that human engineers wouldn't. It is not something that moves towards some goal or entelechy either. It is not a thinking agent. It is just blind nature. The teleological interpretation is simply false and ridiculous.

buildit wrote:I can list a hundred scientific reasons this analogy would be failed but not one of them takes away from the stark reality that we die the same way animals did 3 million years ago. So where is evolution in the grand scheme of success from defeating the point of death?


What!? Are you serious? :lol:

The reason why natural selection happens and makes evolution work is the very fact that creatures suffer, are pressured to make an effort, and ultimately die. Some species manage to survive and procreate. their genes are passed on. Others fail and go extinct. It is a game of adaptation involving predators and prey as the environment itself changes. Darwinian evolution, by the way (and to reiterate this so you don't forget), does not necessarily mean improvement, it means change. We may not have defeated death (who knows, we may succeed through technology) but nature has managed to willy-nilly prolong our lives in general. We no longer die in our twenties like our ancestors used to, we can live for more or less a century! This is not some intelligently accomplished goal by nature, you see, because this one is not a living agent making decisions.

This is the product of natural selection. People who lived longer tended to pass on their genes and over time our lifespans gradually extended. Enough time was available for this to happen because we have been a successful species so far. I hope you understand evolution a bit better now. :D

buildit wrote:If evolution is based on producing variety in species with the end goals of better breeding, greater efficiency and greater survival why is there no creature which is immortal? Why do we all still die?


And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting. :ugeek:

buildit wrote:So now an after life is a real possibility since it would explain what evolution is pushing us towards. Being better prepared, matured and capable of functioning in whatever comes after "life here" is done.


Erm... no. LOL! Evolution is not God. The afterlife hypothesis is not filling any void here. We are still mortal through blind natural processes over billions of years. We have merely become more complex, not necessarily more efficient. (Although the more efficient organisms tend to survive and pass on their genes.) Also, what preparation could a stillborn possible have for the next life. There is nothing intelligent guiding evolution, buildit. Was Hitler better prepared? 8-)
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
nesgirl
Posts: 1278
Joined: 25 May 2014 23:10

Re: Life after death?

Postby nesgirl » 04 Nov 2014 22:28

...
Last edited by nesgirl on 21 May 2015 02:34, edited 1 time in total.
Goodbye forever...
I dare you Summer and Deschain, to find where I am hiding, and try to attack.

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Life after death?

Postby buildit » 04 Nov 2014 23:20

Summerlander wrote:This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.


Please post the study you are referring to where science says what you are saying.

Summerlander wrote:And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting

Please identify your information from this definition available on line for anyone to read...
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago.[2][3] Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences.[4] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5]
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Life after death?

Postby buildit » 04 Nov 2014 23:36

buildit wrote:
Summerlander wrote:This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.


Please post the study you are referring to where science says what you are saying.

Summerlander wrote:And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting



Please identify your information from this definition available on line for anyone to read...
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago.[2][3] Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences.[4] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5]




There is nothing intelligent guiding evolution, buildit. Was Hitler better prepared? 8-)
Summerlander


Again please identify a source that has proven this without doubt. As far as I am aware what you are saying is untrue and based only on your bigoted point of view concerning anyones ideas that don't match your idea. Keep in mind we are discussing ideas and you cynical and demeaning attitude only demonstrates your malevolent attitude towards those who don't share your opinion.
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3656
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Life after death?

Postby Summerlander » 05 Nov 2014 00:26

LoL! Buildit, what are you doing? :-D

As a scientist, you should already know what science has found. Regarding consciousness you should take a look at the whole of neuroscience.You don't even need specific studies to be pinpointed here. Everybody knows what dementia can do to a person. How about the mental impairments from certain agnosias? Take prosopagnosia, for instance. On evolution, our eyes are so poorly designed that the optic nerve actually impairs much of the vision that we could have. Hence the blind spot! How about the fact that we now walk upright and this causes us to acquire back problems? So much for intelligent design and purpose in nature.

What I espouse here is pretty much straight forward common sense. They are only logical observations derived from common knowledge. There is consensus in the scientific community on all these things.

You call yourself a scientist and yet it appears that I am more of a scientist than you... and I'm not even one! I have typed off by heart without needing to copy and part excerpts from Wiki like you (which don't even contradict what I've said in any way). I am surprised to find that you lack common scientific knowledge and what's worse, you don't think like one.

Hmm... :-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Life after death?

Postby deschainXIX » 05 Nov 2014 00:50

:lol: ^^^ Summer knocks it out of the park yet again.
It really is strange how buildit doesn't understand the fundamentals of basic evolution and biology. I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of scientist he is...
Well said.


Return to “Dream Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests