Nature and anti-nature

[requirer]

Can something cease to "exist" or is everything only transformation of matter? Since this is life, including this post, is it possible to go against life and "die"? Occult teachings only provide an explanation of life, and material science only observes external phenomenon, therefore interprets, while consciousness and thought are life by their own right, so where is death?

[studiot]

Can you demonstrate a living dodo or dinosaur ?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, requirer said:

Can something cease to "exist" or is everything only transformation of matter? Since this is life, including this post, is it possible to go against life and "die"? Occult teachings only provide an explanation of life, and material science only observes external phenomenon, therefore interprets, while consciousness and thought are life by their own right, so where is death?

Death is part of the process of life; it comes at the end and the beginning.

Besides, what is anti-nature?

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, requirer said:

while consciousness and thought are life by their own right,

By what definition? They seem more like emergent properties of high intelligence. They can't live independently from the body as far as we know.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, requirer said:

Can something cease to "exist"

Yes, but that of course depends on what you mean by "something."

New thoughts are "something," and will not occur in the body of a person dead for 3 years, for example. The same for feelings of affection, or fear, or fatigue. You might argue that the body is transformed, decomposed, added to the surrounding earth upon death, or that hair and fingernails may continue growing and individual cells keep functioning for some time, etc... but I wasn't referring to the body or its parts, so that's all moot. I was referring to the generation of new ideas and new thoughts... something which ceased to exist at some point shortly after the autonomic functions of that body ended... after it died. 

Another approach is to look at things like physical abuse from a husband toward his wife. Throw the husband in jail and transfer the wife to a safe environment and the physical abuse has ceased to exist. Examples such as this are numerous. 

So, it depends on what you mean by "something," but yes. In the current framing of your question, something can indeed cease to exist.

[Area54]

8 hours ago, requirer said:

Can something cease to "exist" or is everything only transformation of matter? Since this is life, including this post, is it possible to go against life and "die"? Occult teachings only provide an explanation of life, and material science only observes external phenomenon, therefore interprets, while consciousness and thought are life by their own right, so where is death?

More than three quarters of a million people commit suicide every year. That's three quarters of a million people who will never have another conversation, enjoy a meal, take a walk, view a sunset, have an idea. I think, in its most generally understood sense, that is three quarters of a million dead people, that is death.

[requirer]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you demonstrate a living dodo or dinosaur ?

I do not quite understand this rhetoric, however knowledge of these constructs only gives further evidence that it is none other than life behind these. These "entities" could not exist whatsoever without being compared to that which is NOT a "living dodo" or a "dinosaur", thereby pointing out that contrast, or that which changes, is a basic constituent of life. Death is the lack of movement, change, contrast, and I fail to observe this phenomenon in daily life.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Death is part of the process of life; it comes at the end and the beginning.

Besides, what is anti-nature?

Anti-nature is in my own personal definition the inertia to change

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

By what definition? They seem more like emergent properties of high intelligence. They can't live independently from the body as far as we know.

Can you prove this?

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, requirer said:

Can you prove this?

I can provide evidence that thought as we define it currently ceases upon death. I can point to the current definitions of life and show that "thought" and "consciousness" don't qualify. There is no evidence to support that either are separate entities, or have a life independent of their host. I can support the statement with a myriad of sources.

There's no mathematical proof, and I wouldn't trust a philosophical one. Proof isn't really a scientific concept. Best current explanation is as good as it gets.

[requirer]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, but that of course depends on what you mean by "something."

New thoughts are "something," and will not occur in the body of a person dead for 3 years, for example. The same for feelings of affection, or fear, or fatigue. You might argue that the body is transformed, decomposed, added to the surrounding earth upon death, or that hair and fingernails may continue growing and individual cells keep functioning for some time, etc... but I wasn't referring to the body or its parts, so that's all moot. I was referring to the generation of new ideas and new thoughts... something which ceased to exist at some point shortly after the autonomic functions of that body ended... after it died. 

Another approach is to look at things like physical abuse from a husband toward his wife. Throw the husband in jail and transfer the wife to a safe environment and the physical abuse has ceased to exist. Examples such as this are numerous. 

So, it depends on what you mean by "something," but yes. In the current framing of your question, something can indeed cease to exist.

"Something" is anything you direct your attention to. All from colorful ideas, notions, abstract thoughts, emotions, experiences, actions and down to passive absorption, a clear mind, listening, sleeping. All expressions of interaction. "Something that has ceased to exist" still exists in the memory, rendering it observable through the desire to express it in the desired medium

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, requirer said:

Anti-nature is in my own personal definition the inertia to change

If you don't understand something, you should ask questions instead of making stuff up. Using your own personal definitions is NOT science, and is, quite frankly, ignorant behavior. Why are you choosing "something that makes more sense to me" over "accumulated human knowledge"?

[requirer]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

More than three quarters of a million people commit suicide every year. That's three quarters of a million people who will never have another conversation, enjoy a meal, take a walk, view a sunset, have an idea. I think, in its most generally understood sense, that is three quarters of a million dead people, that is death.

I like to think that their consciousness (electromagnetic structure) left to where it is most appropriate, depending on the state of consciousness when they left the physical plane

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If you don't understand something, you should ask questions instead of making stuff up. Using your own personal definitions is NOT science, and is, quite frankly, ignorant behavior. Why are you choosing "something that makes more sense to me" over "accumulated human knowledge"?

How do you think science would be born were it not for those who all had to start with personal suppositions, tackling the problems relevant to their times, rather than sticking to those beliefs and methodologies of the old? Are you stating that breakthroughs, independent, critical thinking are not allowed in science?

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I can provide evidence that thought as we define it currently ceases upon death. I can point to the current definitions of life and show that "thought" and "consciousness" don't qualify. There is no evidence to support that either are separate entities, or have a life independent of their host. I can support the statement with a myriad of sources.

There's no mathematical proof, and I wouldn't trust a philosophical one. Proof isn't really a scientific concept. Best current explanation is as good as it gets.

Well, religious adherence to a fixed body of knowledge at the cost of the all-inclusive phenomenon of nature and all its unpredictable aspects and creative potential, that doesn't sound like science to me

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, requirer said:

How do you think science would be born were it not for those who all had to start with personal suppositions, tackling the problems relevant to their times, rather than sticking to those beliefs and methodologies of the old?

By confining their conclusions to a rigorous set of methodologies that yielded observable results. Anyone can make things up, but by using an approach that minimizes human bias and error, we hope to develop best current explanations that are trustworthy. Waaaaaay past the "my own personal definition" phase.

1 hour ago, requirer said:

Are you stating that breakthroughs, independent, critical thinking are not allowed in science?

Are you trying to knock down a man of straw?

1 hour ago, requirer said:

Well, religious adherence to a fixed body of knowledge at the cost of the all-inclusive phenomenon of nature and all its unpredictable aspects and creative potential, that doesn't sound like science to me

You make things up. Why am I not surprised science doesn't sound like science to you?

Science has accumulated a great deal of trustworthy knowledge, but most of it isn't "fixed". That's why a theory is the strongest explanation there is, because it's always being updated with the latest information. It may seem rigid to you, but that's mostly because definitions are much more important in science than almost anywhere else. It sounds like you have some misunderstandings about science. Welcome to the forums, I hope you gain something from discussion.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, requirer said:

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you demonstrate a living dodo or dinosaur ?

I do not quite understand this rhetoric,

 

This is not rhetoric it is a simple straightforward question.

You  stated

14 hours ago, requirer said:

so where is death?

Since both dinosaurs and dodos are names for creatures that once lived on Earth, and you have denied death I asked for evidence that they are still living.

 

Either you can provide this or you can't.

2 hours ago, requirer said:

however knowledge of these constructs

They were once creatures, not 'constructs.'

Are you have difficulty with the English language ?

[requirer]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

By confining their conclusions to a rigorous set of methodologies that yielded observable results. Anyone can make things up, but by using an approach that minimizes human bias and error, we hope to develop best current explanations that are trustworthy. Waaaaaay past the "my own personal definition" phase.

Are you trying to knock down a man of straw?

You make things up. Why am I not surprised science doesn't sound like science to you?

Science has accumulated a great deal of trustworthy knowledge, but most of it isn't "fixed". That's why a theory is the strongest explanation there is, because it's always being updated with the latest information. It may seem rigid to you, but that's mostly because definitions are much more important in science than almost anywhere else. It sounds like you have some misunderstandings about science. Welcome to the forums, I hope you gain something from discussion.

 

 

14 hours ago, studiot said:

 

This is not rhetoric it is a simple straightforward question.

You  stated

Since both dinosaurs and dodos are names for creatures that once lived on Earth, and you have denied death I asked for evidence that they are still living.

 

Either you can provide this or you can't.

They were once creatures, not 'constructs.'

Are you have difficulty with the English language ?

It seems that we have a different perception of reality and that this debate won't lead anywhere. In my understanding of your terminology, "I lose"

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, requirer said:

Anti-nature is in my own personal definition the inertia to change

How can we have a meaningful discussion if only you understand what you're talking about?

I wonder what inertia is required to change you're mind/learn something?

[requirer]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How can we have a meaningful discussion if only you understand what you're talking about?

I wonder what inertia is required to change you're mind/learn something?

I'll just end with this, I tried to die without action, didn't work, was frustrated. Pain doesn't go away. I will also leave this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[Area54]

17 hours ago, requirer said:

I like to think that their consciousness (electromagnetic structure) left to where it is most appropriate, depending on the state of consciousness when they left the physical plane

It is, perhaps, a pleasant thought. Unforunately belief in what lacks significant evidence is a form of self deception.

You doubtless detect a measure of seeming hostility in replies from other members. Rather than hostility this is more in the way of frustration at yet another new member arriving with the same tired ideas to challenge science, thinking they have arrived at something original and penetrating. You have not.

There is, however, a great oppotunity for you, through dialogue on this site, to gain improved insights into the nature of reality. To do that you will have to open your mind and cast aside your ill informed notion of the nature of science. I hope you make the right decision.

[Curious layman]

52 minutes ago, Area54 said:

frustration at yet another new member arriving with the same tired ideas to challenge science, thinking they have arrived at something original and penetrating. You have not.

Is this really such a bad thing? 

If somebody wants to believe in their own ideas where's the harm.

If you offer them advice and they choose not to take it then that's their prerogative, just move on, there's no need for hostility

Note: This wasn't directed at you personally, I've just used your quote.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Curious layman

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Is this really such a bad thing? 

If somebody wants to believe in their own ideas where's the harm.

What an odd perspective, given this is a science discussion site with clearly posted rules, and the member came here instead of harmlessbeliefs.com. Personally, I think it's extremely harmful to lend tacit support to WAGs by remaining silent, much less encouraging them to jump to baseless conclusions with reinforcement. Where does integrity and honesty fit into your perspective?

 

21 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

If you offer them advice and they choose not to take it then that's their prerogative, just move on, there's no need for hostility

I object strongly to the sensitivity setting on your "hostility meter". I think you're being vividly misleading. 
 

[Area54]

46 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Is this really such a bad thing? 

If somebody wants to believe in their own ideas where's the harm.

If you offer them advice and they choose not to take it then that's their prerogative, just move on, there's no need for hostility

I think it is a "bad thing". I can't envisage how ignorance and misinformation can ever be a good thing. I doubt you place any value on fake news. I hope you find its existence abhorent. This is no different.

You ask what harm can having odd ideas do. Ask that of the families who lost members to covid because they thought it was all a big conspiracy, or that mask wearing was an infringment of their civil liberties.

Science is under attack by segments of society who seem to glorify ignorance and sneer at the educated. I think such an attack on one of the cornerstones of civilisation merits an ounce or two of hostility.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I object strongly to the sensitivity setting on your "hostility meter". I think you're being vividly misleading. 

I think my earlier words show I am in broad agreement with you, except on this point. You need to reset your hostility meter. Several posts in this thread are hostile to the OP. It is a hostility I support. You may wish to call it a genteel earth moving implement, but it reads like a ****ing spade.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Area54
genteel for gentile

[Curious layman]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

You ask what harm can having odd ideas do. Ask that of the families who lost members to covid because they thought it was all a big conspiracy, or that mask wearing was an infringment of their civil liberties.

You make a good point, but there's a big difference between anti vaxxers and people with different/wrong views on philosophy.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I think my earlier words show I am in broad agreement with you, except on this point. You need to reset your hostility meter. Several posts in this thread are hostile to the OP. It is a hostility I support. You may wish to call it a gentile eartmoving implement, but it reads like a ****ing spade.

We definitely disagree on this then. I don't use a toothless definition of hostility where our thinking is merely opposed. To me, hostility is treating someone like an enemy, and wishing them ill will. That is NOT my intent when I try to help someone with an ignorance problem. It's the way I was treated when I first joined here, with respect but no tolerance for guesswork where rigor and research serve us more consistently.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, requirer said:

I'll just end with this, I tried to die without action, didn't work, was frustrated. Pain doesn't go away. I will also leave this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

Of course it does, no-one lives in eternal pain; much like no-one lives in eternal happiness; frustration is just a lack of humility. 

33 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Science is under attack by segments of society who seem to glorify ignorance and sneer at the educated. I think such an attack on one of the cornerstones of civilisation merits an ounce or two of hostility.

There in lies the problem, surely an ounce or two of acceptance and or understanding would proffer a better result?

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's the way I was treated when I first joined here, with respect but no tolerance for guesswork where rigor and research serve us more consistently.

Hey, me too... I've learned a lot since then...

[Area54]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There in lies the problem, surely an ounce or two of acceptance and or understanding would proffer a better result?

No. A pound or two of acceptance and understanding. An ounce or two of hostility.

[Curious layman]

57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Where does integrity and honesty fit into your perspective?

I think people with these WAG are interesting. so what if it's wrong and they refuse to budge. I've got a friend who's a flat earther. So what, who cares. I like listening to his conspiracy theories.

From the outside reading these types of threads, you learn more. There's generally more explanations from more viewpoints. Their good for the site.