By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Meaning life force,energy ,consciousness of the individual.....Many people believe it lives on after death of the body.Like everything else in the universe it is re cycled.
Since early civilizations man has believed this,all over the world regardless of religion.
For a few academics at Harvard University to dismiss it all as nonsense I find a bit hard to believe myself but there you go...
The clue is in "early civilisations"...
A few "Harvard academics" - is that all?
0
Life after Death on 02:52 - Jan 25 with 2263 views
Years ago, after having read two books by persons who had had near death experiences, and one by a physician who told of some of his patients, and who believed in them, I was still not completely convinced.
Then the elderly aunt of a girl friend of mine was hospitalized and later released, so Maureen and I went to see her. I had visited with her several times before this one.
During the conversation, Aunt Leah told Maureen that she had a strange experience, but was hesitant to tell us about it because she thought we would not believe her. After some gentle urging, she told us what happened. I will condense it here.
As she lay on her hospital bed, with a nurse and a doctor by her side, she felt herself "let go" and found her self looking down at her body and the two persons. She then felt herself moving through space away from the bed and toward a bright light far away. When she arrived at the light, she saw a pleasant place and felt herself being at peace. She also saw a man whom she had known as a teenager and with whom she had had a love affair and wanted to marry him. Her parents refused to give their consent and she was forbidden to see him again.
After a short period of time, she felt herself moving back away from him and that place, but did not want to leave. She heard a voice telling her that she had to go because it wasn't her time.
She first found herself back in her room, again looking down at her body, and then looking up from inside her body with the doctor working on her. He told her that they had lost her, meaning that she had died.
Knowing that her story was essentially the same as those I had read about, I asked her if she had ever heard of, or read about, out-of body experiences or near death experiences. No. Did she know anyone else who had a similar experience? No.
Because I knew her and knew that she was a relatively unsophisticated person and a person who would not have made up that story, and because her demeanor was one of absolute truthfulness, I believed her.
That was the clincher for me, as it made me accept the phenomenon as true.
Her niece and I discussed it at length on the ride home, and she also absolutely believed her Aunt Leah. Of course, she had known her all of her life and knew her to be someone who would not have made up the story.
I was down from university visiting my parents with my then girlfriend one day in 1988.
We had gone to bed and I was dozing off, when I suddenly regained what I can only describe as consciousness or maybe full awareness. I was floating in some kind of space when I noticed a tunnel of light was forming, I guess very much like the phenomenon described in near death experiences. I had certainly never heard of those at the time, however.
Floating further into the tunnel of light I became enveloped in an incredible sense of love and somehow returning home. And although I don't recall seeing anything specific to indicate this I was convinced that Jesus was somehow present.
This experience continued for a while but then I convinced myself that the only explanation for this was that I was dead. I said to myself that I had unfinished business to complete on earth and then sort of willed myself to arrest the gentle pull into the tunnel.
Gravity then subsequently asserted itself and I felt myself accelerating wildly in a blur first through unknown regions then at the last moments perceiving earth from above then smashing back down into my body with an incredible force.
I then lay in bed for an unknown period of time totally paralysed. I was desperate to tell my girlfriend about this incredible experience, but my body simply failed to respond as if it wasn't fully engaged with my spririt or soul or whatever.
Finally after some time I was able to move and I immediately woke her up to tell her of this experience to which she relied "that's nice" before falling asleep again.
I had maybe drunk a few glasses of wine at dinner, hadn't taken drugs for at least several weeks, and the only hallucinogenics I had ever taken at that time were shrooms on a few occasions several years earlier.
Furthermore, I am pretty sure I wasn't near death at the time, however, the whole experience left me the sense I had somehow been reborn and that persists to this day.
So - brain function while asleep is "being transported into another reality."
The change in body mass (or weight...) after death (assuming people are still weighed seconds before their final breath - the experiment you presumably refer to was in 1909) doesn't "mystify scientists" either.
F*ck. My. Eyes.
Sorry Oracle,
So we don't retain our senses while we dream? touch, sight, hearing? Maybe you're just too sharp, but the majority of people are unconsciously living another reality of their lives while they dream.
Sorry, I forgot you were the nominated spokesmen for the science community as well, heh.
thats one heluva experience there....and I really believe a lot of people experience the same about 1 in 10 apparently ...with training it can be self induced called Astral Projection
[Post edited 25 Jan 2014 11:16]
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
So we don't retain our senses while we dream? touch, sight, hearing? Maybe you're just too sharp, but the majority of people are unconsciously living another reality of their lives while they dream.
Sorry, I forgot you were the nominated spokesmen for the science community as well, heh.
thats one heluva experience there....and I really believe a lot of people experience the same about 1 in 10 apparently ...with training it can be self induced called Astral Projection
[Post edited 25 Jan 2014 11:16]
A few years later I got to know some hippies from California and told them about this, and they gave me some books on Astral Projection/Out of Body Experiences/Vivid Dreaming.
I then tried a couple of the approaches outlined but never had any satisfactory experiences. A couple of times when I was stoned I managed to 'get out body' but I never had any real freedom of movement and didn't get very far, and there was a sort of fog enveloping the whole 'world' reinforcing its mundane nature.
Certainly these experiences contained nothing like the total clarity I had felt back in my parent's spare room although one notable thing was the sense of movement you experienced when pulling out of the body. It is something like when a starship goes to warp in star trek; a very fast and powerful pulling away.
BTW, where did you get you 1 in 10 number from?
FWIW. I have spoken to quite a few people over the years about my experience, and the only time I have come across somebody in a similar situation was a woman from Lithuania I sat next to on a flight a couple of months ago.
You believe what you want. One question for you tho, where did the universe come from and before you say the Big Bang I mean pre-Big Bang where did all the atmos come from.
Atoms come from the big bang E = mc^2. High school physics, mass and energy are equivalent.
Upthecity!
0
Life after Death on 12:38 - Jan 25 with 2132 views
'Brane' theory provides an explanation of where the universe came from. In short our universe came from two other universes hitting each other. Why do we suppose ours is the only one? We learned that we can create tiny universes in a hadron collider. It become apparent that scale is something we domnt truly understand, and that things can get as impossibly small in this universe as they are big. Atom means indivisible. We thought atoms were as small as things got. We now now this to be far from the truth.(Nanotechnology is predicted as being the next huge revoloution) How much smaller do things get down there? Small enough for whole microscopic(to us) world. I mean we are infinitesimal in the scheme of the universe, but this universe could be just an atom in some other macroscopic world. We just dont know.
Good luck in trying to explain it to the "a big boy did it then ran away" faction on here.
Just to play devils advocate I'm going to give them some scientific ammunition. When I first started reading into this I did really make me have a long think about my stance on God. I now fall in the non-believer camp though.
It's easy to say when someone states a story that they have died, etc that they are a hoaxer or similar, because someone says 'on the internet' they are a hoaxer why do people automatically believe that? The fact is, people have these experiences. I'm not even saying that these are not always related to chemical reactions in the brain, there is increasing research on this.
Going back to science tho, at the end of the day you need an awful lot of faith to believe that we are here on earth 'by accident'. Laws of physics state that order can not come out of chaos. The 'chances' of us existing of earth, at the right distance from the sun, the right sized planet, water, atmosphere, winds not too strong, the influence of Jupiter protecting us from comets, etc, etc Mathematically the combination of elements runs to millions to one. For me, whatever way you look at it, there is more to it than us just ending up on a pretty rock.
We could debate this all day. This is a good video...
Good luck in trying to explain it to the "a big boy did it then ran away" faction on here.
Yep
Here's the response I had the last time I mentioned e=mc2.
"And when I asked you how matter was created, you snidely answered something like "a hint is E=MC2." That's a formula on how to calculate [or describe] energy, not an explanation of how matter was or is created. There cannot be any energy without matter [you know all about formulae, so remove the "M" and what is energy?]. - See more at: http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/87603/page:2#sthash.JuLV
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
0
Life after Death on 13:27 - Jan 25 with 2087 views
It's easy to say when someone states a story that they have died, etc that they are a hoaxer or similar, because someone says 'on the internet' they are a hoaxer why do people automatically believe that? The fact is, people have these experiences. I'm not even saying that these are not always related to chemical reactions in the brain, there is increasing research on this.
Going back to science tho, at the end of the day you need an awful lot of faith to believe that we are here on earth 'by accident'. Laws of physics state that order can not come out of chaos. The 'chances' of us existing of earth, at the right distance from the sun, the right sized planet, water, atmosphere, winds not too strong, the influence of Jupiter protecting us from comets, etc, etc Mathematically the combination of elements runs to millions to one. For me, whatever way you look at it, there is more to it than us just ending up on a pretty rock.
We could debate this all day. This is a good video...
"Laws of physics state that order can not come out of chaos."
This is entropy, I really refer you to the link I posted in one of my previous posts. The above statement is true if the "order" and "chaos" takes place in a closed system. I'll quote the article as it is by a professional writer.
"Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low – that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms – by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings."
So a high entropy system would be your "chaos" where low entropy would be your "order". This should be the tagline for the article.
"“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England [proposer of the theory] said."
"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life."
"Laws of physics state that order can not come out of chaos."
This is entropy, I really refer you to the link I posted in one of my previous posts. The above statement is true if the "order" and "chaos" takes place in a closed system. I'll quote the article as it is by a professional writer.
"Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low – that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms – by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings."
So a high entropy system would be your "chaos" where low entropy would be your "order". This should be the tagline for the article.
"“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England [proposer of the theory] said."
"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life."
p.s I don't like Dawkins myself I think he sees himself as some sort of atheist prophet but his debate with rowan williams is well worth a watch
Sorry, yescomeon, but there are so many refutable [I had to search hard for a word that was not personally insulting] statements in your post that it is daunting to try to correct them. In point of fact, you remind me of another poster [name withheld just in case I'm wrong] who used to argue complicated issues - usually scientific - by referencing Wikipedia entries that he did not understand
I think you don't understand "entropy." First, it has to do primarily with thermodynamics, not with the creation of life. Second, entropy increases, period. Entropy is the random, chaotic movement of elements. A closed environment would keep them in the same vicinity, whereas an open environment would allow them to scatter even more chaotically, with even less chance of becoming "order" even if that were possible. This reminds me precisely of the unlimited number of monkeys at an unlimited number of typewriters for an unlimited amount of time turning out the complete works of Shakespeare. Absurd beyond absurd, both of them.
The only way your "professional writer" [unnamed] could be even marginally correct that an "open" system can keeps entropy low is by allowing the elements to disperse. Absurd.
There is absolutely no truth that "low entropy would be your 'order." Although "order" can be seen as low entropy, low entropy is not "order."
And this one: "“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England [proposer of the theory] said." No citation, but it's someone quoting someone else, quoted by you with no source.
The line "...it should not be so surprising that you get a plant" is hysterically non-scientific. No self-respecting scientist would conclude that something "should not be so surprising." No reputable scientist would make a sweeping statement like that without not only the support of scientific experiment - but also with the completely objective reproduction of results by an independent scientist.
Can you find on Wikipedia any example of a reputable scientist putting "a random clump of atoms" under "a light" and getting the result of a plant? And what kind of "atoms"? And what kind of light"? Absurd. Especially in an entropic situation? Absurd.
One more silly quote before I lose my reason: "From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat."
The one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms is not their ability to capture energy and dissipate it as heat. The differences are life itself - the ability to reproduce itself, to have cells which can self-differentiate, to have cells which can self-reproduce in order to maintain life, and the "ability" to die and return its elements to the inanimate state.
Nah, one more: "This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." Weasel words expressing falsehoods. "could mean," is not "does mean," and scientists deal in "does mean"; "under certain conditions"; "acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." I assume that by "the key physical attribute associated with life" he means the ability to "capture energy from their environment and dissipate that energy as heat," meaning to eat, digest, burn energy, and void the remainder. What an absurd "key physical attribute," indeed.
Sorry, yescomeon, but there are so many refutable [I had to search hard for a word that was not personally insulting] statements in your post that it is daunting to try to correct them. In point of fact, you remind me of another poster [name withheld just in case I'm wrong] who used to argue complicated issues - usually scientific - by referencing Wikipedia entries that he did not understand
I think you don't understand "entropy." First, it has to do primarily with thermodynamics, not with the creation of life. Second, entropy increases, period. Entropy is the random, chaotic movement of elements. A closed environment would keep them in the same vicinity, whereas an open environment would allow them to scatter even more chaotically, with even less chance of becoming "order" even if that were possible. This reminds me precisely of the unlimited number of monkeys at an unlimited number of typewriters for an unlimited amount of time turning out the complete works of Shakespeare. Absurd beyond absurd, both of them.
The only way your "professional writer" [unnamed] could be even marginally correct that an "open" system can keeps entropy low is by allowing the elements to disperse. Absurd.
There is absolutely no truth that "low entropy would be your 'order." Although "order" can be seen as low entropy, low entropy is not "order."
And this one: "“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England [proposer of the theory] said." No citation, but it's someone quoting someone else, quoted by you with no source.
The line "...it should not be so surprising that you get a plant" is hysterically non-scientific. No self-respecting scientist would conclude that something "should not be so surprising." No reputable scientist would make a sweeping statement like that without not only the support of scientific experiment - but also with the completely objective reproduction of results by an independent scientist.
Can you find on Wikipedia any example of a reputable scientist putting "a random clump of atoms" under "a light" and getting the result of a plant? And what kind of "atoms"? And what kind of light"? Absurd. Especially in an entropic situation? Absurd.
One more silly quote before I lose my reason: "From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat."
The one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms is not their ability to capture energy and dissipate it as heat. The differences are life itself - the ability to reproduce itself, to have cells which can self-differentiate, to have cells which can self-reproduce in order to maintain life, and the "ability" to die and return its elements to the inanimate state.
Nah, one more: "This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." Weasel words expressing falsehoods. "could mean," is not "does mean," and scientists deal in "does mean"; "under certain conditions"; "acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." I assume that by "the key physical attribute associated with life" he means the ability to "capture energy from their environment and dissipate that energy as heat," meaning to eat, digest, burn energy, and void the remainder. What an absurd "key physical attribute," indeed.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2014 16:16]
It may well be that I have not communicated myself well. I am aware of the second law of thermodynamics. With regards to order disorder situation I was referring to atomic arrangement i.e. you are unlikely to find all of the air molecules in a room huddled together in one corner of the room (order), naturally they will be homogeneously distributed throughout the room (disorder). There is always problems writing these kind of dissemination articles as they have to express simply incredibly complex ideas. I'm bloody awful as is evident in my other post and the clump of atoms and light statements is clearly a gross oversimplification of the idea and not something that can be knocked together in a lab, I do not believe it has been made as a scientific statement. It was likely something said in the exchange with the author and included to get attention. The work that has been done by England is essentially modeling of certain systems intended to represent life but clearly not life. There is a link to his paper from the journal of chemical physics on the page which looks at self replication from a statistical physics point of view. The key thing that England has done is to go at the problem from thermodynamics point of view, which is the key idea I am taking from this. Sorry if I have failed to communicate fully again I am still struggling with hangover.
Upthecity!
0
Life after Death on 20:11 - Jan 25 with 1966 views
It may well be that I have not communicated myself well. I am aware of the second law of thermodynamics. With regards to order disorder situation I was referring to atomic arrangement i.e. you are unlikely to find all of the air molecules in a room huddled together in one corner of the room (order), naturally they will be homogeneously distributed throughout the room (disorder). There is always problems writing these kind of dissemination articles as they have to express simply incredibly complex ideas. I'm bloody awful as is evident in my other post and the clump of atoms and light statements is clearly a gross oversimplification of the idea and not something that can be knocked together in a lab, I do not believe it has been made as a scientific statement. It was likely something said in the exchange with the author and included to get attention. The work that has been done by England is essentially modeling of certain systems intended to represent life but clearly not life. There is a link to his paper from the journal of chemical physics on the page which looks at self replication from a statistical physics point of view. The key thing that England has done is to go at the problem from thermodynamics point of view, which is the key idea I am taking from this. Sorry if I have failed to communicate fully again I am still struggling with hangover.
In the post above, there are two distinct writing styles - one yours and the other that of someone else.
When you are borrowing ideas from someone else, you need to put them within quotation marks and give the citation to the original source.
And now I'm going to leave you alone. Sorry to have put you through this.
In the post above, there are two distinct writing styles - one yours and the other that of someone else.
When you are borrowing ideas from someone else, you need to put them within quotation marks and give the citation to the original source.
And now I'm going to leave you alone. Sorry to have put you through this.
I wish there was - there are so many more things I need to ask my Mum :(
'Sorry, your password must contain a capital letter, two numbers, a symbol, an inspiring message, a spell, a gang sign, a hieroglyph and the blood of a virgin"
0
Life after Death on 11:38 - Jan 26 with 1900 views
Just to play devils advocate I'm going to give them some scientific ammunition. When I first started reading into this I did really make me have a long think about my stance on God. I now fall in the non-believer camp though.
So do you think the Fine Tuning laws of Nature for life is coincidence for our planet or is there some mystical,intelligent nay divine intervention behind it all?
The point being that everything is perfect for life,the right amount of gravity,distance from sun,right distance of the moon,atmosphere etc.
Whichever way it's a miracle in itself.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
So do you think the Fine Tuning laws of Nature for life is coincidence for our planet or is there some mystical,intelligent nay divine intervention behind it all?
The point being that everything is perfect for life,the right amount of gravity,distance from sun,right distance of the moon,atmosphere etc.
Whichever way it's a miracle in itself.
Richard Dawkins suggested that the probability of life evolving as it did was as likely as a watchmaker being able to assemble a watch, from scratch, totally blindfolded. Yet that's what happened. Those conditions necessary for life, which are so critical, just happened to arise on our planet. You only have to look at all the planets in the known universe to see that there are billions and billions of them. Out of those there are going to be millions and millions of planets with right conditions for life. We just happen to be on one of them. Id say it was luck more than design.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2014 12:08]
And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
0
Life after Death on 12:32 - Jan 26 with 1856 views
So do you think the Fine Tuning laws of Nature for life is coincidence for our planet or is there some mystical,intelligent nay divine intervention behind it all?
The point being that everything is perfect for life,the right amount of gravity,distance from sun,right distance of the moon,atmosphere etc.
Whichever way it's a miracle in itself.
Life exists because the conditions are perfect for life if it was different there would be no life to observe the conditions. It has to be that way, why should we be surprised it is that way if it was different we wouldn't be here.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
