By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How do you want to die?

 

How do you want to die?

Slow/Peacefully 10 29.41%
 
While doing something worthwhile 17 50.00%
 
Other 7 20.59%
 
Total:34
SciFiBoy on 11 February 2010
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

I would define those things as "delusions" or "hullicinations", which are biological unless im mistaken.

1) how are they not biological?
2) why would I believe in something that is unscientific?

1) They are connections between neurons in the brain, so of course they're biological. But can we say for sure that they are purely biological? What causes those specific neuron connections which lead to a specific dream?

2) Because the scientific knowledge of humanity has enormous holes in it, and thus something which is unproven isn't necessarily "unscientific". How can a group of people on a rock orbiting a smallish star in one of several billion galaxies that make up our universe possibly know everything there is to know about any aspect of science? Indeed, for all we know, the entire Big Bang Theory could be completely false, but let's not go there. The point is that, until there is concrete evidence that consciousness ceases after death of the body, nobody can say that they "know" anything about "afterlife", or lack of it.

1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?

2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?

1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.

2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.

sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?





Around the Network
Kantor on 11 February 2010
zexen_lowe said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

what can a human being do that cannot be explained by our cells allowing us to do such things?

Think and act consciously, speak, use mathematics, etc.

And believe in religion.

Animals can't do any of these things, except perhaps the first. While this isn't definite proof for the existence of a "soul", it does show that we don't "know" very much at all regarding what makes up the human mind, and how it came to be created.

dont we have scientific theories for the first though? (I thought they were part of how our brains work?)

also, we ARE animals


Yes, we're animals, but we are clearly vastly superior to any other animal species in the world.

To such an extent that we worry about them. Do you see rabbits worrying about the financial crisis, or deer worrying about swine flu, or sharks worrying about global warming?

sure, but that doesnt mean that animals dont think or communicate, in fact it seems likely to me that they do.

They certainly think and communicate, but not to such a degree as humans.

But that's because human brain is much bigger (relative to body size) than any other animal

Size shouldn't really have very much to do with it. It's not that animals can do everything we can do, but not to such an extent: there are things that humans can do that animals simply cannot.

Now structure, that would have an effect. But how do we know that structure is purely biological? Or to be more accurate, purely physical?

If a machine were to make an exact clone of you (exact- down to every last cell and atom) and had you both, say, give a talk to an identical group of people in an identical room, would you make exactly the same talk both times?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor on 11 February 2010
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?

2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?

1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.

2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.

sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?

It's both good and bad. Good because yes, science is evolving. Bad because we'll never know one billionth of the rules that govern the universe.

There's no concrete evidence to suggest that this particular theory is correct or incorrect, and there are arguments on both sides, so I would say either way it's plausible.

I'm not doubting gravity and electromagnetism, they are almost certainly correct. But nothing is ever certain in science.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

SciFiBoy on 11 February 2010
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?

2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?

1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.

2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.

sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?

It's both good and bad. Good because yes, science is evolving. Bad because we'll never know one billionth of the rules that govern the universe.

There's no concrete evidence to suggest that this particular theory is correct or incorrect, and there are arguments on both sides, so I would say either way it's plausible.

I'm not doubting gravity and electromagnetism, they are almost certainly correct. But nothing is ever certain in science.

thats my point really, until we have evidence, whats better than a scientific theory?

surely superstition is contrary to the aims of science, it doesnt look for answers, it just makes them up based on...well, nothing really.

 



Kantor on 11 February 2010
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?

2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?

1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.

2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.

sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?

It's both good and bad. Good because yes, science is evolving. Bad because we'll never know one billionth of the rules that govern the universe.

There's no concrete evidence to suggest that this particular theory is correct or incorrect, and there are arguments on both sides, so I would say either way it's plausible.

I'm not doubting gravity and electromagnetism, they are almost certainly correct. But nothing is ever certain in science.

thats my point really, until we have evidence, whats better than a scientific theory?

surely superstition is contrary to the aims of science, it doesnt look for answers, it just makes them up based on...well, nothing really.

 

I don't see what's "superstitious" about a human being more than a collection of cells.

It's every bit as scientifically correct as the alternative.

"Scientific" is not a synonym for "bleak".



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 11 February 2010
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?

2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?

1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.

2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.

sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?

It's both good and bad. Good because yes, science is evolving. Bad because we'll never know one billionth of the rules that govern the universe.

There's no concrete evidence to suggest that this particular theory is correct or incorrect, and there are arguments on both sides, so I would say either way it's plausible.

I'm not doubting gravity and electromagnetism, they are almost certainly correct. But nothing is ever certain in science.

thats my point really, until we have evidence, whats better than a scientific theory?

surely superstition is contrary to the aims of science, it doesnt look for answers, it just makes them up based on...well, nothing really.

 

I don't see what's "superstitious" about a human being more than a collection of cells.

It's every bit as scientifically correct as the alternative.

"Scientific" is not a synonym for "bleak".

1) well, it would depend on what you meant by "more than"

2) how so?

3) eh?



Kantor on 11 February 2010
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:

thats my point really, until we have evidence, whats better than a scientific theory?

surely superstition is contrary to the aims of science, it doesnt look for answers, it just makes them up based on...well, nothing really.

 

I don't see what's "superstitious" about a human being more than a collection of cells.

It's every bit as scientifically correct as the alternative.

"Scientific" is not a synonym for "bleak".

1) well, it would depend on what you meant by "more than"

2) how so?

3) eh?

1) "More than" has a pretty clear meaning. Cells and physical matter are not the sole ingredients of a human, or so the theory states.

2) There's evidence on both sides, neither side has concrete evidence.

3) Just because something appears more believable doesn't mean it's true.

We're going around in circles here, let's just agree to disagree and return to the topic at hand.

I would want it to be painless, but I wouldn't want to know that I was going to die for any huge length of time, because I'd just spend all of that time worrying about it.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

dsister44 on 11 February 2010
Kantor said:

I would want it to be painless, but I wouldn't want to know that I was going to die for any huge length of time, because I'd just spend all of that time worrying about it.

You don't know that you are going to die? I hate to break it to you but...



Kantor on 11 February 2010
dsister44 said:
Kantor said:

I would want it to be painless, but I wouldn't want to know that I was going to die for any huge length of time, because I'd just spend all of that time worrying about it.

You don't know that you are going to die? I hate to break it to you but...

You know what I mean >_>

I wouldn't want to know that I had a month left to live, for example.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

halogamer1989 on 11 February 2010

@Ninja guy.  Most likely after I finish OCS after graduation.  I am interested in it and when I finish I will do what they tell me to do and go where they tell me to go.  It is called patriotism. 

 

Edit: Btw, since you are banned, read the following when you return:

I am not offended by your pic.  It only gives credence to the most likely accurate portrayal of you as an uninformed liberal flamer.  Have fun on the VGC vacation.  If you wish to reply, I will most likely be in the process of working political campaigns so I won't have the time.  But take care man.