Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What do you believe happens when we die

1181921232426

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ Was the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz a trained medic?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ Was the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz a trained medic?

    He was highly placed in the the inner sanctum of the NAGP - lack of heart being the main qualification.

    :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    I still can't comprehend how any analysis of physical theory bears any meaning on the human project.

    It just seems too hippy dippy to me.
    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    The sitting of the Dalai Lama next to a quantum physicist says it all. But maybe that was of its day.

    It's all very 1970s
    saabsaab wrote: »
    I must say it does seem 'hippy dippy' However, this seems to be the way with quantum physics in recent times.
    Well to be fair you don't actually know what Bohm is saying, since he's referencing concepts from advanced theoretical physics. I'd also like to know how quantum physics seems to be "hippy dippy" in recent times considering it's the most stringently tested theory in science.

    Bohm's point is a very old one going back to Pauli and Heisenberg. Quantum theory directly means reductionism is false and some large scale properties/features don't emerge from/aren't patterns on top of lower level things. It's then a simple suggestion that perhaps the mind is one of these non-emergent holistic features. It might be wrong, but it's not "hippy dippy". There are people investigating it today still with some evidence for and some against. It's quite possible the mind might not arise from the actions of neurons and yet be physical. This is not to say some features of it would not correlate with neuronal action.

    It also ties into a notion called complementarity, that ultimately observations of nature aren't coherent/don't fit together logically, but that is much harder to explain. Also (it has various names) contextuality, that physical properties don't have values outside of observation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Fourier wrote: »
    Well to be fair you don't actually know what Bohm is saying, since he's referencing concepts from advanced theoretical physics. I'd also like to know how quantum physics seems to be "hippy dippy" in recent times considering it's the most stringently tested theory in science.

    Bohm's point is a very old one going back to Pauli and Heisenberg. Quantum theory directly means reductionism is false and some large scale properties/features don't emerge from/aren't patterns on top of lower level things. It's then a simple suggestion that perhaps the mind is one of these non-emergent holistic features. It might be wrong, but it's not "hippy dippy". There are people investigating it today still with some evidence for and some against. It's quite possible the mind might not arise from the actions of neurons and yet be physical. This is not to say some features of it would not correlate with neuronal action.

    It also ties into a notion called complementarity, that ultimately observations of nature aren't coherent/don't fit together logically, but that is much harder to explain. Also (it has various names) contextuality, that physical properties don't have values outside of observation.


    To be fair I said 'seems' and not that it is based on sound mathematics and confirmation in experiments. There are things such as quantum entanglement that appear to contradict so called 'common sense'



    'Einstein described quantum mechanics as "spooky" because of the instantaneousness of the apparent remote interaction between two entangled particles.'


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    saabsaab wrote: »
    To be fair I said 'seems' and not that it is based on sound mathematics and confirmation in experiments.
    It is based on confirmation in experiments.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    There are things such as quantum entanglement that appear to contradict so called 'common sense'

    'Einstein described quantum mechanics as "spooky" because of the instantaneousness of the apparent remote interaction between two entangled particles.'
    There's a big difference between defying common sense and being "hippy dippy". Entanglement also isn't "recent", it's been known about since the early 30s.

    As a side note things aren't actually interacting remotely in entanglement.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Fourier wrote: »
    It is based on confirmation in experiments.


    There's a big difference between defying common sense and being "hippy dippy". Entanglement also isn't "recent", it's been known about since the early 30s.

    As a side note things aren't actually interacting remotely in entanglement.


    It is confirmed the 'not' was unintentional, my mistake. 'Hippy dippy' wasn't defined but I took it to mean weird that's all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    saabsaab wrote: »
    It is confirmed the 'not' was unintentional, my mistake. 'Hippy dippy' wasn't defined but I took it to mean weird that's all.
    Ah no worries. It's certainly weird.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Fourier wrote: »
    I'd also like to know how quantum physics seems to be "hippy dippy" in recent times considering it's the most stringently tested theory in science.

    It's used, or rather misused, in a hand-wavey fashion by charlatans like Deepak Chopra to justify all sorts of bullshít they come out with...

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    It's used, or rather misused, in a hand-wavey fashion by charlatans like Deepak Chopra to justify all sorts of bullshít they come out with...
    I tend to have mixed feelings about this.

    Deepak Chopra spouts total nonsense, but the problem is he gets refuted by people spouting total nonsense back. In an attempt to refute the insanity and woo of Chopra they over tame the actual oddness of quantum theory. I'll take for example this blog post here:
    https://mjwrightnz.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/my-gripe-about-the-misappropriation-of-quantum-physics-by-new-age-woo/

    It's just an example of many such writings. Taking two things he write. First:
    From this emerged the misconception that the human mind is integral with the outcomes of quantum events, such as the collapse of wave functions. That’s a terribly egocentric view. Physics is more dispassionate; wave-functions resolve without human observation. Bohr pointed that out early on – the experimental outcome is NOT due to the presence of the observer.
    So it's correct that the human mind is not integral to the outcome of quantum events. However (some) wave functions do resolve due to human observation and Bohr not only did think the observer was crucial to quantum outcomes, but the fact that the observer is required is exactly how he resolved an inconsistency in quantum theory Einstein thought he had found in 1935.
    Part of this boiled down to the fact that you can’t measure when the measuring tool is the same size as what you’re measuring
    This is another very common error. Thinking the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is due to measuring noise. So when you try to measure the position of an atom the light you use to do so changes its momentum or some similar idea. Where as in fact atoms don't have a position or momentum unless you choose to measure position or momentum. Unlike most everyday objects they only have properties when being observed.

    So it's like:
    Chopra: You create atoms with your mind
    Counter-Chopra: Atoms are very small and you just jostle them a lot when measuring them or some nonsense about them being "in many places at once"
    Truth: Atoms lack many properties until they're observed

    In fact even how many atoms you are made of depends on the method of observation and in a sense they're not real like trees and stones since they have an observer dependent nature
    If the quantum theory is correct … elemental particles are not real in the same sense as the things in our daily lives—for example, trees or stones—are real

    I know this is probably a bit much to go into, but the details here don't matter too much. It's just to some degree the counter woo from often atheist writers is just as inaccurate as what Chopra writes and undersells the shocking nature of what we learned in the 1930s. The average person interested in science still understands the world in a 19th century paradigm of determinism, atoms, reductionism and emergence which I think is a pity as that stuff ended nearly 100 years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 TheManeMan


    People who don't believe in the metaphysical exist as nothing other than very complex calculators incapable of knowing anything for sure.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,083 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah




  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    What is "the metaphysical" and what is your basis for claiming to know it exists "for sure"?

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4 HazeNee


    How can anyone prove that they do or don't exist?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 TheManeMan




  • Registered Users Posts: 15 TheManeMan


    It's a paradox. Proof, empiricism requires observation and knowledge (complete confidence in your faculties and that the external world exists). If you are nothing more than a complex calculator (that is to say "you" (conscious being) dont exist as an entity separate from your neurons firing) then consciousness is merely an illusion and cannot be trusted to accurately interpret the physical world or trust in the "laws" of logic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 TheManeMan


    Who said I knew it exists? Do you know what the word metaphysical means? I'm an atheist.


    The problem is that as an atheist who doesnt believe in the metaphysical, in aware that any objective truth claims are logically contradictory, including this statement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4 HazeNee


    Empiricism...true dat!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,083 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    Spoken like a true disciple of George Berkeley, the olde bishop of Cloyne, philosopher extraordinaire…

    I once lived on his namesake street in Dublin, many auld meeoons ago. Jayz.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Do you know what the word metaphysical means?

    Go on, humour us...

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 TheManeMan




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    the alternative being what? Absolute certainty? How would something as a creature of supposed "Free will" even act in a moment of complete certainty? That moment would belie the very concept of you being a creature of free will either way.

    Its is our very uncertainty that makes us human. As the old saying goes "The journey is the destination".

    You seem to be operating under a different definition of "atheist" than I am. I am yet to see a definition of the word that mentions the "metaphysical". For example in recent times one of the most well known atheists is Sam Harris. And Harris remains.... in his own words.... agnostic about the concept of consciousness surviving the death of the brain.

    So you may be in danger of heaping more meaning onto the word atheist than is warranted.

    For me and most of the dictionaries I have met..... the word atheist means nothing more than saying "We appear to exist.... we appear to exist in a universe..... and whatever the explanation for this state of affairs may be.... the idea that the explanation is the machinations of a non human intelligent intentional agent is currently not supported by a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning".

    Even that definition of the word might not sit well with many atheists..... but in general that is what being an atheist means. We do not know how we ended up being here.... we just do not generally believe the reason is because of the choices of some other conscious agent.

    Usually I try to be fair and "steel man" the arguments people make around here. But seriously.... you picking up on his use of the word "us" in order to dodge the question he actually asked in his post.... is pretty poor form. I am not sure who you thought you might impress with a pedantic linguistic move like that. Other than yourself of course :/ But I reckon you can do better than that.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    "For me and most of the dictionaries I have met..... the word atheist means nothing more than saying "We appear to exist.... we appear to exist in a universe..... and whatever the explanation for this state of affairs may be.... the idea that the explanation is the machinations of a non human intelligent intentional agent is currently not supported by a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning".

    Even that definition of the word might not sit well with many atheists..... but in general that is what being an atheist means."

    Not sure what dictionary you're using there Nozz, any I've looked at state that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. No mention of the universe, existence or non-human intentional agents. Worth remembering that most of the world's atheists are non-English speaking, likely have never heard of the likes of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, may well be superstitious and subscribe to a worldview rather alien to most self declared atheists in this country. Most of the worlds atheists are in fact Chinese, the notion put forward by some atheist organisations in the west that atheists share a common world view is, in my humble opinion, entirely specious.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,946 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    Really? Wow. Can you remember being "out", or was it like anaesthasia?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,946 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    Descartes points to the undeniable observer of thoughts, as the ground of existence, and it's hard to disagree with that, despite the debate about objectivity or subjectivity.

    I think (observe my thinking, my senses, etc.), therefore, I am (or something is).



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,083 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    To get back to the OP.:

    Death is only the beginning of something. That premise has been hammered into my Judeo-Christian skull for like, ever… well, okay; maybe not ever, since we’re talking about eternity here, it would be facetious to posit everlastingness in that sense.

    But, on a personal basis, my lifestyle is so boring, that the unproved notion that something happens "AFTER" you get slashed, or your heart bursts, or you get hit by a bus; becomes an attractive thought.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    A good point not lost on those using religion as a tool to keep the impoverished masses under control throughout the course of history. A promise of just reward for a life of hard work, delivered postmortem, seems like the ultimate long con from this atheist's perspective. Opium for the masses without having to plant a single poppy 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    It's not an attractive thought to me, I can't imagine anything worse than eternal existence.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,946 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    Me too. Can you imagine how awful the universe feels :(



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,946 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    It's not considered outlandish, in modern thinking about physics, to say that time and space are not fundamental. It seems plausible that spacetime emerges from a deeper structure. And so, our experiences of ourselves, our lived lives, as rooted as they are in our experience of space, and time, may not represent reality at all.

    I'm open minded to the idea, as has been expressed for millennia in Eastern philosophies, that there might be a coherent consciousness of sorts, that does not depend on the notions of time, or space. A different reality, where there still exists an "I am".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Yeah but they had no reason to think there was any such "different reality" when those Eastern religions invented the idea. The idea that time and space might not be fundamental isn't within an ass's roar of being evidence for the existence of reincarnation or the continuation of consciousness. It's a pretty big leap of faith.

    The question I ask is: what happens after we die according to the evidence. The answer to that question is very clear.



Advertisement