I'm agnostic, but I'm starting to believe in an afterlife

[aerogurl87]

Memories don't go anywhere. Memories are just as physical as anything else. That's like asking where the body goes where it dies. The body's still there. The memories are still there. It's like turning a computer off when it's too old and broken-down to function anymore. The data's still in the hard drive, but there's no power coursing through anything anymore.

 

Most of the "out of body personal accounts" or "'logical' deductions" are hallucinations, confirmation bias, and faulty logic to begin with -- or just plain ol' deception.

 

No, science doesn't know everything yet, but that's no reason to discount what we DO know. We DO know a *ton* about the brain -- enough to know that everything about our function is physical. Saying anything to the contrary is wishful thinking, emotional appeal, or simply not being aware of what we know about the brain today.

 

I respect your views and you made very valid points and comparisons of the human brain to a computer. The only problem with that (for me) is that humans didn't create the brain, so we still don't know if it works exactly like anything we could create. Did God create it inside us or was it just a miracle of nature? I have no idea, though I'm betting something came up with the idea of it. With that said, not everything in this world is physical. Just because you can't feel, see, or test something, doesn't mean it isn't there. For all we know scientists could find out a century or two from now that scientifically there is more to our world than just the physical. Maybe the technology just hasn't been developed for that kind of research yet.

 

Could the after life be a lie fabricated by men to control the masses? Yes. But I'm open to the possibility that it also may not be.

[TaraMaiden]

Except everything about is originates in the brain. Memories, consciousness, processing, signal interpretation, personality, etc -- they all occur in a very physical way.

 

Yes, but even scientists acknowledge there is a difference between 'Brain' and 'Mind'.

And it's this leap - from one to the other - that is puzzling to them.

 

Because we all have a brain that functions in specific physical, neurological ways - but everybody's Mind' is different.

And this is where the mystery lies.

[VertexSquared]

I respect your views and you made very valid points and comparisons of the human brain to a computer. The only problem with that (for me) is that humans didn't create the brain, so we still don't know if it works exactly like anything we could create. Did God create it inside us or was it just a miracle of nature? I have no idea, though I'm betting something came up with the idea of it. With that said, not everything in this world is physical. Just because you can't feel, see, or test something, doesn't mean it isn't there. For all we know scientists could find out a century or two from now that scientifically there is more to our world than just the physical. Maybe the technology just hasn't been developed for that kind of research yet.

 

Could the after life be a lie fabricated by men to control the masses? Yes. But I'm open to the possibility that it also may not be.

 

Except we can trace our evolution back to very simple structures and we know how our brain has developed from the primitive brain stem to the more advanced neocortex. "Miracle of nature" would perhaps be the more accurate claim, here. Just because humans didn't create the brain doesn't mean we can't analyze it and understand how it works or how it has come about.

[VertexSquared]

Yes, but even scientists acknowledge there is a difference between 'Brain' and 'Mind'.

And it's this leap - from one to the other - that is puzzling to them.

 

Because we all have a brain that functions in specific physical, neurological ways - but everybody's Mind' is different.

And this is where the mystery lies.

 

What? No leading scientist I have ever heard of has "been puzzled" by this distinction. We know exactly what the brain and mind are and how they reconcile one another -- the unknowns are the more intricate details about specific subfunctions. Everyone's mind is different, yes, but this is because everyone's brain is different. It's the beauty of genetic variation -- the driving force behind evolution.

[aerogurl87]

Except we can trace our evolution back to very simple structures and we know how our brain has developed from the primitive brain stem to the more advanced neocortex. "Miracle of nature" would perhaps be the more accurate claim, here. Just because humans didn't create the brain doesn't mean we can't analyze it and understand how it works or how it has come about.

 

No humans can analyze it and understand it, but still that knowledge will be somewhat limited. The human body is very complex and is more than just a bunch of physical elements thrown together. And that's why I still think there's stuff that we don't know yet, and who knows the after life could be one of those things. Maybe it is hallucinations, maybe it's not, but I don't think anyone can completely say for sure if it does or doesn't exist as there is no way to prove for a certainty it's existence or lack thereof.

[VertexSquared]

No humans can analyze it and understand it, but still that knowledge will be somewhat limited. The human body is very complex and is more than just a bunch of physical elements thrown together. And that's why I still think there's stuff that we don't know yet, and who knows the after life could be one of those things. Maybe it is hallucinations, maybe it's not, but I don't think anyone can completely say for sure if it does or doesn't exist as there is no way to prove for a certainty it's existence or lack thereof.

 

Ungh, see, this is why I have an insanely difficult time holding myself back in these kinds of debates.

 

"No humans can analyze it and understand it, but still that knowledge will be somewhat limited" --This says nothing. You're saying that science may never know everything. This may be true, but that again shouldn't mean you should discount everything that we do know because you wish to fulfill an emotional impulse.

 

"The human body is very complex and is more than just a bunch of physical elements thrown together." --Pure assumption. All evidence points to the fact that we ARE indeed just a bunch of physical elements. To assume otherwise, is, again, purely an emotional appeal.

 

"Maybe it is hallucinations, maybe it's not, but I don't think anyone can completely say for sure if it does or doesn't exist as there is no way to prove for a certainty it's existence or lack thereof." --Just because something is logically unprovable does not necessarily mean it is worth believing in. Especially when we already have a ton of proof that gives an overwhelmingly obvious answer in favor of something.

[aerogurl87]

VertexSquared I look at things from both sides of the coin. I see how you could reason this is all there is as there are no major signs pointing to there being some supreme being(s) out there or us living on past the grave. But at the same time, it is the unexplained phenomena that drive me to wonder "what if". By the way I didn't say science may never know everything or not, I said right now their knowledge is limited and it is because scientists don't know everything about how our minds and brains work. And your reasoning in that just because we don't know everything yet, shouldn't mean I should consider the other point of view, can be turned around as well. Because just because we know alot doesn't mean we know everything yet and who knows, maybe science will one day discover that something more occurs after we die. Maybe they won't, but I won't rule out the possibility.

[Trimmer]

I think if a computer could think and live then yes it would have some kind of soul. I personaly think explaining away my life as chemical reactions to stimuli is an oversimplification... as I do experience consiesness and a feeling that I am actualy here in the moment.

I always hawk this book when this subject comes up, and so far, nobody has come back and acknowledged they've looked at it. But I'll try again: Check out I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter (2007, Basic Books, New York) for an intetesting treatise on how the brain may develop consciousness, as an extendible, learning machine incorporating a self-observational feedback mechanism. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

VertexSquared I look at things from both sides of the coin. I see how you could reason this is all there is as there are no major signs pointing to there being some supreme being(s) out there or us living on past the grave.

Or minor signs, either...

[TheLoneSock]

Both religion and science are full of hypocrisies. Anyone who thinks that one side alone has all the answers is either misguided or a fool. They are directly intertwined and neither of them can tell the whole story alone. Scientific agnostics/atheists and religious fanatics are both guilty of the same flaw.

 

Why is it that we can reclaim skeletal evidence of ancient dinosaurs extinct for over 200 million years, yet we cannot locate one single example of the missing link? Did modern humans simply sprout out of the ground?

 

Why is it that we have no confirming record of where Christ went after his 'resurrection' other than theory and prediction? Did the most symbolic man in human history simply vanish?

 

The above two questions are both questions that each side cannot answer outside of pure theory. No one is indefinitely right. The argument from the scientific community is that all things can be proven, they simply have not been yet. The argument from the religious community is that all things require faith, and time will reward the most ardent.

 

The logical yet spiritually aware man rests in the middle of the two sides and pilfers the best of both sides to explain his (mankind's) story. We are entering an era the likes of which mankind has not yet seen, that of tremendous technological advancement and idea evolution, yet nearly %85 of the world's population still (and will continue to) anchor themselves in some kind of firm religious belief.

 

My opinion is that the further we advance, the more we will come to realize that creationism and evolution are so closely intertwined that they will soon no longer be a separate idea. Where, you might ask, are we to find the answers that lead us to this belief? In my opinion, it will be the study of our own DNA.

[aerogurl87]

Both religion and science are full of hypocrisies. Anyone who thinks that one side alone has all the answers is either misguided or a fool. They are directly intertwined and neither of them can tell the whole story alone. Scientific agnostics/atheists and religious fanatics are both guilty of the same flaw.

 

Why is it that we can reclaim skeletal evidence of ancient dinosaurs extinct for over 200 million years, yet we cannot locate one single example of the missing link? Did modern humans simply sprout out of the ground?

 

Why is it that we have no confirming record of where Christ went after his 'resurrection' other than theory and prediction? Did the most symbolic man in human history simply vanish?

 

The above two questions are both questions that each side cannot answer outside of pure theory. No one is indefinitely right. The argument from the scientific community is that all things can be proven, they simply have not been yet. The argument from the religious community is that all things require faith, and time will reward the most ardent.

 

The logical yet spiritually aware man rests in the middle of the two sides and pilfers the best of both sides to explain his (mankind's) story. We are entering an era the likes of which mankind has not yet seen, that of tremendous technological advancement and idea evolution, yet nearly %85 of the world's population still (and will continue to) anchor themselves in some kind of firm religious belief.

 

My opinion is that the further we advance, the more we will come to realize that creationism and evolution are so closely intertwined that they will soon no longer be a separate idea. Where, you might ask, are we to find the answers that lead us to this belief? In my opinion, it will be the study of our own DNA.

 

Beautifully written.

[Trojan John]

Both religion and science are full of hypocrisies. Anyone who thinks that one side alone has all the answers is either misguided or a fool. They are directly intertwined and neither of them can tell the whole story alone. Scientific agnostics/atheists and religious fanatics are both guilty of the same flaw.

 

Why is it that we can reclaim skeletal evidence of ancient dinosaurs extinct for over 200 million years, yet we cannot locate one single example of the missing link? Did modern humans simply sprout out of the ground?

 

Why is it that we have no confirming record of where Christ went after his 'resurrection' other than theory and prediction? Did the most symbolic man in human history simply vanish?

 

1) Please explain the hypocrisy in science, specifically, how something so based on observable, demonstrable and objective evidence can be hypocritical.

 

2) You should google "intermediate" or "transitional fossils". They exist for several species.

 

3) There is hardly any extra-biblical evidence for even the EXISTENCE of Christ.

[BubbleFreak]

I'm also agnostic and can't reply directly to the original post. But, I just have to point out something that I've noticed in a few posts that worries me a bit- the assumption that science can "prove" things.

 

From my psychological science degree I have learnt you can never "prove" something. Scientists will look for evidence to support their theory, but it doesn't prove they are absolutely right, as another scientist can likewise find more evidence to support their own theory for the same phenomena/behaviour. Science is all about collecting evidence to make sense of something and this is done from different perspectives, and in every experiment there is a small chance of error.

 

How does this idea extend to the existence of an after life? I'm not sure.

[Trojan John]

I'm also agnostic and can't reply directly to the original post. But, I just have to point out something that I've noticed in a few posts that worries me a bit- the assumption that science can "prove" things.

 

From my psychological science degree I have learnt you can never "prove" something. Scientists will look for evidence to support their theory, but it doesn't prove they are absolutely right, as another scientist can likewise find more evidence to support their own theory for the same phenomena/behaviour. Science is all about collecting evidence to make sense of something and this is done from different perspectives, and in every experiment there is a small chance of error.

 

How does this idea extend to the existence of an after life? I'm not sure.

 

You are arguing semantics. A small chance of error does not an afterlife make. Scientific theories -- your proof -- is based upon, once again, a collection of demonstrable, empirical evidence. The belief in an afterlife is based on feeling (influenced by...?) and general speculation, with ZERO demonstrable evidence. You can believe anything you want, but that does not make it true unless you can "prove" it.

 

Tell me, what is the term used in psychology for people who pathologically believe things different from actual reality?

[BubbleFreak]

You are arguing semantics. A small chance of error does not an afterlife make. Scientific theories -- your proof -- is based upon, once again, a collection of demonstrable, empirical evidence. The belief in an afterlife is based on feeling (influenced by...?) and general speculation, with ZERO demonstrable evidence. You can believe anything you want, but that does not make it true unless you can "prove" it.

 

Tell me, what is the term used in psychology for people who pathologically believe things different from actual reality?

 

I never said I thought an after life is real or is not real, I admit I didn't have anything to say about the actual topic, just the assumptions people are making about science "proving" things (and using it to "disprove" the belief of an after life).

 

I just wanted to say that even if science finds support to explain a phenomena/behaviour in a particular way, there will be others out there who can explain it in a different way with their own evidence. In the end, results from one study (or many studies showing similar findings) are not an absolute. That is why I am saying science can not "prove" something, only find evidence to support a certain way of thinking. It is also a very valid point that every study has a chance of error, and in every good journal, the studies will have a section addressing this.

 

To try and relate what I am saying to the idea of an after life, I am saying that science has not found evidence to support an after life (that I am aware of), but like the OP suggested, who is to say that one day scientists won't find some evidence.

 

And to answer your rhetorical question. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) used to list homosexuality as a disorder. These days, it is no longer on there, because quite simply society and its ideas change. So you can see that just because in present society a certain belief for certain groups of people is unacceptable, it doesn't mean views don't change and what is "real" won't change with it.

[Trojan John]

I never said I thought an after life is real or is not real, I admit I didn't have anything to say about the actual topic, just the assumptions people are making about science "proving" things (and using it to "disprove" the belief of an after life).

 

I just wanted to say that even if science finds support to explain a phenomena/behaviour in a particular way, there will be others out there who can explain it in a different way with their own evidence. In the end, results from one study (or many studies showing similar findings) are not an absolute. That is why I am saying science can not "prove" something, only find evidence to support a certain way of thinking. It is also a very valid point that every study has a chance of error, and in every good journal, the studies will have a section addressing this.

 

To try and relate what I am saying to the idea of an after life, I am saying that science has not found evidence to support an after life (that I am aware of), but like the OP suggested, who is to say that one day scientists won't find some evidence.

 

And to answer your rhetorical question. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) used to list homosexuality as a disorder. These days, it is no longer on there, because quite simply society and its ideas change. So you can see that just because in present society a certain belief for certain groups of people is unacceptable, it doesn't mean views don't change and what is "real" won't change with it.

 

I completely understand what you mean when you write that science does not prove, but rather explain. But you're still arguing semantics, and again, no small study error could lead one to such a radical conclusion. We will argue this topic from both the lay and scientific sides, so the words "evidence" and "proof" will be used interchangeably. Similarly, fact and scientific theory.

 

Also, science does not describe a "way of thinking", but rather observed natural phenomena. It's fine to say "one day, science will possibly explain X", but it's not fine to affirm a belief in X based on this speculation.

 

The fact that scientific theories --the highest form of "proof" for a phenomenon available-- appear in peer-reviewed journals for scrutiny, and are subject to change based on new evidence speaks VOLUMES more for their validity than any amount of belief in wild, religious-based speculation. I could argue where the burden of proof lies, but I won't bother. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence to support them.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Trojan John

[Shakz]

I always find these arguments amusing. Here's one side saying there is no evidence of an afterlife. Here's the other side saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It goes on ad-infinitum. It cannot be resolved and even that fact might be by chance or design. It may be a bit like looking for evidence of love; as soon as you start looking you've already made it start to disappear.

[VertexSquared]

VertexSquared I look at things from both sides of the coin. I see how you could reason this is all there is as there are no major signs pointing to there being some supreme being(s) out there or us living on past the grave. But at the same time, it is the unexplained phenomena that drive me to wonder "what if". By the way I didn't say science may never know everything or not, I said right now their knowledge is limited and it is because scientists don't know everything about how our minds and brains work. And your reasoning in that just because we don't know everything yet, shouldn't mean I should consider the other point of view, can be turned around as well. Because just because we know alot doesn't mean we know everything yet and who knows, maybe science will one day discover that something more occurs after we die. Maybe they won't, but I won't rule out the possibility.

 

This is like saying because you don't know exactly how fire works, you can't explain how an iron gets hot without considering that it may have a soul. The things we don't know about the brain have no bearing on whether or not there is a soul. We know that everything the mind does is physical in nature. We know where things are centralized. Knock one part of the brain out briefly, and you lose that function. You can stimulate/knock out sight, hearing, touch, feeling, certain types of emotions, certain functions of memory, other functions of consciousness, certain aspects of personality, etc. What we are, as humans, is derived from the cumulative sum of our physical subfunctions. This isn't "speculation" -- we know this just as much as we know that gravity works.

 

To extrapolate anything further is *purely* an emotional appeal and is not a valid scientific inquiry with respect to "looking at the other side of the coin." Again, we have both sides of the coin here, and we know both sides intimately. It'd be like giving you a quarter, showing you both sides, and then having you claim that "I'm allowing myself to wonder if there's actually a third side somehow hidden within this quarter." All I can do is stare at you quizzically -- if you're going to imply that science can't disprove there isn't a third quarter, then you're warping facts to fit the desired emotional conclusion rather than taking what we know on the merits of their evidence.

 

At this rate you may as well "not eliminate the possibility" that fairies live in your ears or that when we die we all go to a massive, epic rave at the center of the Earth. All of it is equally as valid as an afterlife. There are an infinite number of possibilities, and they're all without proof, and are all equally nonsensical.

Edited June 28, 2010 by VertexSquared

[VertexSquared]

Both religion and science are full of hypocrisies. Anyone who thinks that one side alone has all the answers is either misguided or a fool. They are directly intertwined and neither of them can tell the whole story alone. Scientific agnostics/atheists and religious fanatics are both guilty of the same flaw.

 

The "logical" and spiritual man does not exist. Faith by definition is not logical. You can certainly be rational and spiritual, but not logical.

 

You also cannot say that religion and science are both guilty of the same hypocrisies, as they are certainly not. Religion is actually guilty of this by claiming that "God did it" without any further line of critical inquiry because what is known is in the Holy book. Science is at least humble enough to say that "we may not know for sure yet, but here's what we do know -- and this is as best that anyone can do." Science can never disprove God, but that doesn't make God a compelling reason to believe in him.

 

Why is it that we can reclaim skeletal evidence of ancient dinosaurs extinct for over 200 million years, yet we cannot locate one single example of the missing link? Did modern humans simply sprout out of the ground?

 

We have tons of transitional fossils despite the fact that fossilization itself is a rare event. We see clear transitions from fish to land animal, for example, and we can trace back those animals into shared lines and so on. The standard Creationist argument is assuming something like this:

 

Stage A ---- Gap ---- Stage Z

*Then a fossil gets found:

Stage A --- Gap --- Stage M --- Gap --- Stage Z

 

And then a Creationist will point out that there are still gaps. Just because there are gaps, it doesn't mean we can't trace back the evolution. It only gets difficult when you trace it back to the very origin of life. We know the kind of event it must have been (this is delving into abiogenesis, to which we've already shown is a very possible phenomenon), and we didn't need a Creator for this. The transitional fossils exist. You can go to a museum and see this for yourself.

 

 

Why is it that we have no confirming record of where Christ went after his 'resurrection' other than theory and prediction? Did the most symbolic man in human history simply vanish?

 

Dead people tend to stay dead. You assume any resurrection occurred to begin with.

 

The above two questions are both questions that each side cannot answer outside of pure theory. No one is indefinitely right. The argument from the scientific community is that all things can be proven, they simply have not been yet. The argument from the religious community is that all things require faith, and time will reward the most ardent.

 

Well, the fossil question can certainly be answered, and the "missing Jesus" question is not hard to postulate. Science never, never says "all things can be proven." But the common Creationist argument is to latch onto that, misunderstand it, and say that just because science may only be able to explain 99% of a phenomenon, there's a missing 1% and therefore the other 99% should be discarded. Even for n>0% evidence, that is better than throwing in with 0%.

 

My opinion is that the further we advance, the more we will come to realize that creationism and evolution are so closely intertwined that they will soon no longer be a separate idea. Where, you might ask, are we to find the answers that lead us to this belief? In my opinion, it will be the study of our own DNA.

 

Except that this is not true. If you study evolution and DNA, as you reference, we already show that Creationism is largely debunked. To claim otherwise is to be putting your fingers in your ears and not acknowledging the evidence.

Edited June 28, 2010 by VertexSquared

[VertexSquared]

Lonesock:

 

Regarding transitionary fossils, let me quote something from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

 

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

 

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

 

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould,

Natural History

, May 1994

If you're going to speak out against concepts like these, then please look at the evidence and get back to me with a better argument that is not simply a disregarding of what we've found.

 

Let me also quote http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/

 

Actually, many transitional fossils do exist – for example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their dinosaur ancestors, as well as whales and their land mammal ancestors. There are many transitional forms that have not been preserved, but that is simply because some organisms do not fossilize well or exist in conditions that do not allow for the process of fossilization. Science predicts that there will be gaps in the record for many evolutionary changes. This does not disprove the theory.

Edited June 28, 2010 by VertexSquared

[aerogurl87]

I like science, I really do, but my simple point is there is no way it can 100% prove that an afterlife does not exist, at least not at our present time. Yeah it's made many advancements in life, but look at how much it's changed over the centuries. What may be today's "fact" may become tomorrow's "myth". Those are facts no one can disprove. So until science, which no I do not think is the end all, be all, prover of facts, can for a certainty state that an afterlife does not exist there will always be the possibility that it does. If a person's soul goes out of them at death as is speculated, how will you measure what isn't there? That's all I'm saying.

[TaraMaiden]

The "logical" and spiritual man does not exist.

*Ahem*! I think you'll find 'he' does....

[VertexSquared]

*Ahem*! I think you'll find 'he' does....

 

You can't be both at once. Faith and spirit are illogical concepts.

[aerogurl87]

You can't be both at once. Faith and spirit are illogical concepts.

 

I know some illogical athiests, my ex boyfriend being one of them. Common sense goes hand in hand with logic, and just because someone believes in a higher power does not make them illogical. If it makes sense to them, then it makes sense to them based on their own experiences. If it doesn't make sense to someone else, that's great, but I don't think that makes either person illogical. It just means they've both come to different conclusions about things in life.

[Trojan John]

Nevemind. This is a pointless discussion.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Trojan John

[Ronni_W]

Memories are just as physical as anything else.

Memories are as much physical as electricity, microwaves and sound waves. These are non-physical (energetic) but measurable phenomena. But just because they are measurable does not make them physical.

 

That's like asking where the body goes where it dies. The body's still there.

No, the body starts decaying and eventually it will not be "there" at all. There will only be dust where the body used to be. Unless you are going to refer to that dust as "a body"(?)

 

No, science doesn't know everything yet, but that's no reason to discount what we DO know.

What if, though, SOME of what science currently thinks it knows turns out to be incomplete? Or totally inaccurate? Science, like the rest of us, doesn't know what it doesn't know.

 

Saying anything to the contrary is wishful thinking, emotional appeal, or simply not being aware of what we know about the brain today.

Well, colour me a wishful thinker, then . Or label me ignorant, stupid, brainwashed and deluded.