BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Life, Death, Consciousness
reich42
post Jul 28, 2010, 08:37 AM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Jul 28, 2010
Member No.: 32951



The state of non-existence is bad. I will explain why. People who suffer just want it to end. People who are happy want it to last forever. People who suffer don't want to die. They really want to be happy and free from suffering. Death is the end of happiness so I find it to be a bad thing. Anyone who has experienced true transcending, euphoric, happiness knows that to not exist is a problem. There are many reasons to believe that consciousness is infinitely better than non-consciousness. Some argue that life and death are equal, that it is a flawed believe that death is bad, it is a good thing. If you really don't mind being dead for eternity, you probably missed out on true happiness, joy, love, peace whatever. If you have these experiences, you want to live forever. Wanting to live forever and not accepting death is just desire though. Everyone should accept death, because everyone is going to die. But maybe we are already immortal beings? Death is just part of being immortal, part of being born again? We may never know what happens after death, but maybe it doesn't matter. I figure the potential of the universe lies in consciousness. All I know for sure is that I need as much happiness as I can get. Isn't that the ultimate purpose or goal of being conscious, to be as happy as possible? Life > Death. Existence > Nothing. ?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jul 28, 2010, 06:40 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(reich42 @ Jul 28, 2010, 08:37 AM) *

I figure the potential of the universe lies in consciousness. All I know for sure is that I need as much happiness as I can get. Isn't that the ultimate purpose or goal of being conscious, to be as happy as possible? Life > Death. Existence > Nothing. ?

Wise thinking. Also try distancing yourself as far away as possible from budhism. wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
paperdragons
post Aug 21, 2010, 10:14 PM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
Member No.: 32993



1. The idea of happiness lasting forever is absurd. Happiness is a permutation, not a condition. Contentment is static, happiness requires change. Thus, it is by definition transient. If happiness persists, it decays into contentment.

2. Other emotions can be appreciated just as deeply as happiness. I believe I have experienced the transcendent happiness you speak of (as far as one can believe something like that); however, I question whether you've experienced the rich sadness or profound suffering I've enjoyed as well. Enjoyment and happiness are different.

3. We do not know what death is like, so it is absurd to pass judgment on death as a condition.

4. It could be argued that we will never die, in the sense that our perceptions at the moment of death will not have time to be interpreted by interneurons and brought into conscious perception (since we would be dead).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Aug 22, 2010, 09:14 AM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(paperdragons @ Aug 22, 2010, 07:14 AM) *
4. It could be argued that we will never die, in the sense that our perceptions at the moment of death will not have time to be interpreted by interneurons and brought into conscious perception (since we would be dead).
When you start to stink, others will most certainly perceive that you are dead. You will die ...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vertigo
post Aug 27, 2010, 02:59 PM
Post #5


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Aug 24, 2010
Member No.: 33029



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Aug 22, 2010, 10:14 AM) *

QUOTE(paperdragons @ Aug 22, 2010, 07:14 AM) *
4. It could be argued that we will never die, in the sense that our perceptions at the moment of death will not have time to be interpreted by interneurons and brought into conscious perception (since we would be dead).
When you start to stink, others will most certainly perceive that you are dead. You will die ...
Right but I think he meant from our own point of view, as we experience things rather than as can be observed by others.

It's an interesting idea and I've heard it posed before with more than one explanation but it could very well be that dying is like going from a waking state to sleeping or passing out (but without dreams after) in that you simply lose consciousness (when, oh I don't know, your brain stops functioning?) and that nothing spectacular happens before that loss of consciousness. Still, I have to admit the implications of my brain chemistry altering as I die and skewing my perception of time so that a few moments become seemingly eternal would be pretty crazy. It's an idea some people would think has as little scientific basis as the concept of the afterlife or resurrection but I've had a few experiences on mushrooms that convinced me of the brains ability to do something like that although I have no reason to think that would occur during death. I think the idea is appealing to many people because if it were true it would scientifically support somewhat of an "afterlife" that so many people either believe in or want to believe in but if you think this whole idea of "evolution" makes sense (and I do) then I would point out that I see no likely reason natural selection would give us brains that would do such a thing... unless, I suppose, the benefit of such an experience was developed through natural selection not because of any inherent value of going into such a state as we die but rather because of something useful about going into such a state when certain physiological conditions are met and we survive, though those physiological conditions (whatever they may be) that trigger such a state of brain activity just happen to also kill us most of the time. Not only do I fail to see how such an experience would contribute to the survival of any living specimen that experienced it in nearly fatal physiological conditions and contribute to that breeds reproduction and thus pass it on through evolution, but if it were commonplace enough to make such a difference in our evolution you would think it would be triggered far more easily and we would see quite a lot of evidence supporting such phenomena.

In case it wasn't clear... I've got my doubts, I like to speculate anyway and I tend to state the obvious sometimes.

Sure it would explain some accounts of near-death experiences, but it's a hell of a stretch!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Aug 27, 2010, 05:56 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



If only we were big enough to accept that when we die we rot, period. I don't like the idea either, but it's likely and I'm at peace with it. Not that I want to go painfully, but I don't care that there's nothing after.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 30, 2010, 11:50 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



I'm grateful for the life I have and think it's presumptious to ask for more. Giving my children and the future generations the best start on life is reward enough for me.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Aug 30, 2010, 02:04 PM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Aug 30, 2010, 08:50 PM) *

I'm grateful for the life I have and think it's presumptious to ask for more. Giving my children and the future generations the best start on life is reward enough for me.
That's my approach too. I both believe in evolution and its mechanisms (scientifically) and I believe that evolution selected a set of mechanisms that are also satisfying for intelligent human beings wrt their mortality. This does require that one thinks about science and makes an effort to understand why evolution is the optimum choice for a free thinker. Else "blind leaders and blind followers" springs to mind.

Rick, maybe we should have an "Evolution is right, creationism is wrong" button at the side of every BM page to save having to keep repeating the essence of the topic?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 30, 2010, 03:17 PM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Good idea!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kaloa
post Nov 05, 2010, 06:02 PM
Post #10


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
From: Nebraska U.S.A.
Member No.: 33114



From Dictionary.com

Creationism
1.the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Evolutionism
1.a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

Evolution
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Creation
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.


It seems superior, to me, just stick to the root words, without adding the ism.

I think that Creationism seems ingorant, and so does evolutionism. We would be better off to remove the last three letters. They both seem to be determined to undernime each other by completely denying either rapid transformations, or gradual ones, which is silly when both happen in nature all the time. If you take away the ism's here; the time imbalance is removed, and allows for more freedom of thought. Of course, we all have our own definitions of things. For example, when I looked up Buddhism on dictionary.com, it only has one definition, and it is entirely religious, but the different kinds of buddhisms are exactly as numerous as there are people who call any part of their life 'buddhist', even if it is so marginal that they themselves do not wish to call themselves Buddhist to associate with the more religious definitions of buddhism.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Nov 05, 2010, 06:20 PM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Kaloa @ Nov 06, 2010, 02:02 AM) *
They both seem to be determined to undernime each other by completely denying either rapid transformations, or gradual ones, which is silly when both happen in nature all the time.
The mechanisms to explain rapid transformations (through for example, punctuated equilibrium, early 1970s by Steven Jay Gould and Nils Eldredge) and gradual changes (through reproductive causation, developed by Darwin himself) are so well and repeatedly explained in the scientific literature (much of which is now available on the internet) that I just can't be bothered to explain it personally any more. Like Richard Dawkins, I feel that to try and convince anyone who is so myopic they would not see the overwhelming evidence presented in support of evolution generally and for various mechanisms underlying the phenomenon, is a pointless task. Dawkins, of course, famously said that those that don't believe should just, "Fuck off!" I'd rather just ignore them, or better still mock them for the uneducable fools they are.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kaloa
post Nov 05, 2010, 06:35 PM
Post #12


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
From: Nebraska U.S.A.
Member No.: 33114



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jul 28, 2010, 06:40 PM) *

Wise thinking. Also try distancing yourself as far away as possible from budhism. wink.gif

I am one of those people who do not agree with alot of the religious austerities of some buddhisms, but for me; Buddhas teachings(the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama) are not dependent on the former, and in no way affect what lies behind his words, exept in those who do not interpret their meaning without a certain level of mindfulness about how distorted views can become on a thing over time. The words are for the most part, veracious, and not involving the subsequent, supposed nihilistic mentality, as if to say that Buddha said, "All life is suffering", and that's it. I personally interpret this, the first noble truth, as admitting a temporal, illusory nature, because the rest of the noble truth's are indicating that there is MORE to life than suffering. But the Buddha does not simply stop there either, as if to say, that the only purpose in life is to get beyond suffering, in fact, he was extremely adament about finding these things out for youself, and is quoted as to having said,"If you find a better path; follow it." in regards, not to his own, but to any path. I have come to half-conclude that it is more likely that people do not allways give Buddha credit to his achievments, because they base their understanding of him through the lense of mostly cultural variables. I don't think that he declared his state of enlightenment absolutely IT, and I think he was aware that there is allways a beyond, but then again, I do not know everything about the man either, and I am just making a possible scenario based on my own limited knowledge.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kaloa
post Nov 05, 2010, 06:42 PM
Post #13


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
From: Nebraska U.S.A.
Member No.: 33114



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Nov 05, 2010, 06:20 PM) *

QUOTE(Kaloa @ Nov 06, 2010, 02:02 AM) *
They both seem to be determined to undernime each other by completely denying either rapid transformations, or gradual ones, which is silly when both happen in nature all the time.
The mechanisms to explain rapid transformations (through for example, punctuated equilibrium, early 1970s by Steven Jay Gould and Nils Eldredge) and gradual changes (through reproductive causation, developed by Darwin himself) are so well and repeatedly explained in the scientific literature (much of which is now available on the internet) that I just can't be bothered to explain it personally any more. Like Richard Dawkins, I feel that to try and convince anyone who is so myopic they would not see the overwhelming evidence presented in support of evolution generally and for various mechanisms underlying the phenomenon, is a pointless task. Dawkins, of course, famously said that those that don't believe should just, "F**K off!" I'd rather just ignore them, or better still mock them for the uneducable fools they are.

Lol! This is actually kind of my point. It is in trying to make things; you don't completley understand--understandable by adding something that doesn't have anything to do with what is. By that I mean that yes, I am aware that there are endless variables to the understanding of evolution and creation, but when it is made into and 'ism', it is somehow not as simple or pure as it once was. If I understand your deffindition of "F**K off!" correctly, you just mean that there is no point in trying to think for other people. Beyond a certain point; people unwittingly turn themselves into ism's. Right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kaloa
post Nov 05, 2010, 06:48 PM
Post #14


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 120
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
From: Nebraska U.S.A.
Member No.: 33114



Well anyways, I may not know alot of the terms and definitions, or even historical facts, but I am aware that a principle behind them, that does not rely on them, thouroughly exists before their myriad conceptions through science, religion, or otherwise.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2017 - 04:49 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles