0

Defining things as perceptions of them doesn't make any sense.

For instance if an large asteroid hits your house while you are asleep (unconscious & unable to percieve it) you still die.

Gamma rays and bacteria existed before we developped techniques to detect them and make them perceptible. Bacteria don't pop into existence in pus from infections when you look at it through a microscope, nor vanish again when you throw it in the bio-waste bin.

That is what Shrodinger's cat is all about -> pointing out that an observer-based interpretation of quantum theory is flawed because it implies the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously which is non-sensical.

In addition, perception-based definition are subjective which undermines the utility of language for communicating information. If "red" can be subjectively defined then telling someone "this apple is red" does not empart any information to them because they don't know what you mean by "red", you could be red-green colour blind and call both "red".

0

This is like the "if a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?".

And your answer is:

My answer is that of course it does (and time would still exist without conciousness/observation).

However, wiki states and I quote:

Some years later, a similar question is posed. It is unknown whether the source of this question is Berkeley or not. In June 1883 in the magazine The Chautauquan, the question was put, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?" They then went on to answer the query with, "No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion."[3] This seems to imply that the question is posed not from a philosophical viewpoint, but from a purely scientific one.

So would you like to revise your answer agileMind considering that in order to experience sound humans have to be around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

Let me pose another question?

is sound only sound if a person hears it?

Edited by iamthwee

0

I'm not trying to derail this thread... but a lot of you have answered with 'There is life after death because ______' or 'There isn't life after death because _________.'

Interesting take on it... I guess?

Let me tell you a story. On my travels I've happened to meet a few interesting characters. Perhaps one of the most interesting was this 'Old Chinese monk.' I got chatting to him once and he told me a story.

"There's this cute kid whose parents bring to the temple every Sunday morning. He basically scouts around the place and makes a game out of everything he sees. The monk enjoyed a long running quiz with this little boy. Every time the monk saw the kid, he would ask, "Hey, where did you come from?" The boy's answers began with:

Kid: From over there ... (Pointing to where he was a few minutes ago)

Then the monk would continue . . .

Monk: Where were you before that?
Kid: At home.

Monk:Where did you come from before that?
Kid: (Twist of the head) I don't know. (Hands up in the air)

The monk persisted and after a few weeks of "I don't know", the boy offered a different answer:

Kid: From my mommy's belly.
Monk: Where were you before you were in your mommy's belly?
Kid: ???

So then this persisted for a few more weeks. It frustrated the boy enough to avoid this crazy monk but the old guy chased him around and made sure to ask the question until finally:

Monk: Where were you before you were in your mommy's belly?
Kid: (Red faced with his fist in the air) NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The end.

0

is sound only sound if a person hears it?

Taking the wikipedia definition, yet again

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through some medium

If a tree falls in the wood there will be an oscillation of pressure transmitted, regardless of if an observer exists or not.

Clearly you can never truly know it existed, although the mind is a fickle thing, even if you could hear the sound you could never really truly know it existed ( hence why the question is posed ).

The resonable assumption that we make is that if a rigid object falls on another with a large enough force there will be a large oscillation of pressure. This is a resonable assumption thats based on prior experience.

It's also a demonstraton of how sciance works, Ohm's law states V = IR, we can say this law hold true with resonable certainty although since we have a infinite spectrum of numbers there is no possibly way we have ever observed Ohm's law for all possible values of I and R.

This also stands true for evolution, Some criticism is placed on it since we don't have a complete lineage in the fossil record, but as with Ohms law the theory adequately explains what we can and have observed.

Edited by Paul.Esson

0

Defining things as perceptions of them doesn't make any sense.

In some cases it does. We consider things like shape, hardness, etc. to be properties of an object. The result of an asteroid hitting my house is not a property. Colour, however, depends on perception. As you point out, a colour blind person perceives colours differently than a "normal" person and a blind person does not perceive colour at all.

Ketsuekiame made the statement

If nothing is concious, abstractly, time ceases to exist as an observable concept.

So he is not saying that time ceases to exist, just that it ceases to be observable. The statement is factually true because it is self-evident.

0

If a tree falls in the wood there will be an oscillation of pressure transmitted, regardless of if an observer exists or not.

Clearly you can never truly know it existed, although the mind is a fickle thing, even if you could hear the sound you could never really truly know it existed ( hence why the question is posed ).

The resonable assumption that we make is that if a rigid object falls on another with a large enough force there will be a large oscillation of pressure. This is a resonable assumption thats based on prior experience.

It's also a demonstraton of how sciance works, Ohm's law states V = IR, we can say this law hold true with resonable certainty although since we have a infinite spectrum of numbers there is no possibly way we have ever observed Ohm's law for all possible values of I and R.

This also stands true for evolution, Some criticism is placed on it since we don't have a complete lineage in the fossil record, but as with Ohms law the theory adequately explains what we can and have observed.

^^Nice one Paul, you requoted wikipedia, and along the way made a citation from Ohm's law. However, in all of that I didn't see an ACTUAL answer from you and you alone.

is sound only sound if a person hears it?

Care to try again?

Edited by iamthwee

0

Seeing how my nephew and niece (3 and 2 years old, now) are developing, it is pretty clear to me that consciousness is something that develops as higher-order thinking develops. It's clearly a product of the brain's development. As you see an infant develop from being a kind of instinctual automaton that cries when hungry, that sleeps when tired, that giggles when stimulated by sounds or funny faces, etc.., to becoming aware of its actions, aware of other people, aware of the passing of time, able to imagine scenarios, and so on.., you are looking at the development of consciousness right there, and it's a beautiful thing. And this natural process is beautiful enough in my opinion, I don't see a reason to want some additional cosmic explanation for it, it spoils the extraordinary beauty of what consciousness really is.

^^Wow, within this entire thread that one really touched me. Beautiful.

0

Nice one Paul, you requoted wikipedia, and along the way made a citation from Ohm's law. However, in all of that I didn't see an ACTUAL answer from you and you alone.

Sorry for the Wikipedia definition, but I thought it would be good to agree on what sound is before trying to ascertain if the tree makes one.

The actual answer from me and me alone along with the explanation of why it is indeeed the answer, referencing both wikipedia and Ohms law was in that post.

Yes, it does make a sound, it's unreasonable to think it does not.

0

Sort of interesting tidbit about Scientology is that they have branch called SeaOrg; in order to join SeaOrg, you sign a pretty long contract; one of the items on the contract is that you agree to work for SeaOrg for one billion years. I am trying to imagine what someone would be thinking if they signed such a contract and what someone was thinking when they wrote the contract.

0

what someone was thinking when they wrote the contract

Probably: "Yay, I'm getting someone to agree to be my slave for life."

0

Some members have left SeaOrg, so either the contracts arn't legally binding or Scientology is the one true religon and they have found the elixir to eternal life.

I think it may be the former....

0

In my book the only thing that lives on is meaningful communication you made with people that survive you.

0

I'm getting slightly confused (again!). There seems to be a lot of "philosophy" going on here when discussing this topic. The "sound" one has been done to death. Yawn...
The article title mentions "theories". As I understand it, this would pertain to science and scientific method, not that feeble-minded "all soldiers are men, all soldiers eat potatoes..." nonsense.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I won't regurgitate it and claim it as my own - you're all perfectly able to read from source, if you can be bothered.

Anyway, are there any "life after death theories", with respect to the correct use of the word "theories"? Or is it all codswallop, dreamt up by the fearful and mad?

0

There are no "theories" about life after death that can be observed or tested scientifically. Is there life after death? Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is no because no one in a million years or so of human existance has ever come back from the dead to tell us about it. Another reason is that I had an operation about 6 or 8 months ago, I blinked my eyes and it was all over, yet people who were there said that an hour or so had passed. I had no knowledge about the time I was under anastasia, I saw no white lights and I didn't see myself lying on the operating table -- I knew nothing. That's most likely what it is like to be dead.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

And for those people who claim to have been dead and were "brought back", if you were brought back then you weren't dead. As far as I am concerned there is a difference between medically dead and real dead (Miracle Max notwithstanding).

6

I had no knowledge about the time I was under anastasia

Same thing happened to me at a party, but her name was June.

Votes + Comments
I guess it was AFTER the party :D
0

I also disagree that none of the life-after-death theories (vs scientific Theories) can be tested scientifically - there have been many attempts to scientifically measure "the soul" based on various interpretations of what that might mean. For instance many many years ago a scientist tried weighing people while they died to try to detect a change in mass as the "soul" left, another put playing cards on top of cabinets in ORs to try to test out-of-body experiences, and I think there have been some trying to find the place in the brain where the "soul" resides.

So far they have all failed to find anything.

0

I hope that my conscious will someday meet up with my mom and my sister. I miss them so much, it almost makes me cry to type it out. But I'm getting stronger - and even if that day never happens, I will either know, or I won't. And for now, there is nothing wrong with feeling some hope to set aside the mental pain.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.