@SamanthaW68 : Which matters how? Credible discussions about energy may only emanate from a voice of educated physics. Is that the point from which you proceed?
@websnarf to say nothing happens after we die makes the entire conversation just as moot of a point. If you believe nothing at all happens when we die, then why even bother giving an explanation to your answer?
@hexusziggurat : Answers are useless if an explanation is not forthcoming. For me this is a core principle of intellectual honesty. I don't want to know people's positions and *NEVER* have any interest in their beliefs if they are unwilling to provide the justification for their position. If I had answered in the way you suggest, I would consider it a complete failure of intellectual process.
@websnarf mmm k. Do you get all your friend's to justify themselves to you when they express their beliefs? just curious.....
I see what you're getting at. If you want to express ideas, the foundation of that idea is neccessary as a platform. Though at times perhaps providing explanation could make things like love or faith a bit watery as it were?
@hexusziggurat : My friends do tell me about their beliefs. On the rare occasions where they might I either try to ignore them (sometimes people just don't know better) or I will challenge them or justify what they are saying as necessary. I've met people who feel insulted by such challenges, but they are not my friends.
I have no respect for faith unless its faith in people. Explaining love as a strong personal feeling, doesn't diminish it to me. Explanations don't have to trivialize.
@websnarf I'm just trying to get a temperature of your criteria. So only "faith in people" ....so would that qualify a persons' faith for God? (as in you trust they have good reasons for belief in God) or more like a "trust" in their actions to do as they say or not betray you?
@hexusziggurat : Trust to me is only meaningful in terms of betrayal and expected levels of competence. Obviously everyone has reasons for things, but they are their reasons, not mine.
Trusting that people are *right* is a completely meaningless concept to me. I am unaware of anyone in the history of humanity whose standard of correctness is above questioning. I take as axiomatic that reasons not revealed are indistinguishable from reasons that don't exist.
@websnarf "Trusting that people are *right* is a completely meaningless concept to me." For some reason I find this statement strange. Such that you could never really believe in anything by somebody else's statements.
question 1 "do you believe in God?" others told you about Him
question 2 "do you believe in science?" unless you practiced everything...others have simply told you about it.
Your body also assumes another form -- nutrients for other living organisms, perhaps. But the form of the sculpture is gone for sure, just as the abstract concept of the mind is as well (when you die.)
@websnarf Lets see... I have a question for you... Have you ever died before? Obviously not. You are one single person, who has one single explanation on what happens after you die. So how do you know your right? Cause you look like you think you're right...
@JirkProductionz : People in vegetative states don't suddenly come back to life. "Souls" or other supernatural embodiments of the mind have never been verifiably observed to exhibit any external effect other than as embedded within a person's body. Sufficient physical brain damage causes the "mind" to degrade for adults but far less to in children.
It called data. What possible counter proposal do you have that has anywhere near that level of support?
@hairysuit : In my analogy, the water is the cells of your grey matter and the mind is the form/shape of the sculpture. When the ice sculpture melts the form is gone except in people's memories, and the water is free to be something other than ice for sculptures. I.e., the mind truly disappears.
Third: if you do want to make an argument that a vertex is the "perfect comparison", you actually prove the other guys point. The scissors could be crushed and even melted down but the concept of a vertex never will be smashed; it will keep showing up everywhere you look...Look at the edge of your computer screen...Whoa! A vertex!
I like you!Actaully I was limiting the idea of a vertex to the vertex of the scissors (So I guess my words are also subject to scrutiny).The top of ones head is also an example of a vertex so I am aware of the point.
Secondly,I did not approve of the comparison because it validates the point of him,her or the other guy's point.I'am merely suggesting that the the evidence is completly lost without the body of the scissors.Though I do admit that the vertex is easier to prove than the soul.
Second all all, maybe the ice sculpture had fooled everyone into thinking it was a sculpture all along and even that it was ice, and when it melted away it actually didn't change very much at all, only superficialy. The point I am making is that maybe we aren't who we think we are.
"The Ice sculpture fooled everyone"? Would it not be more proper to say that the "Ice Sculptor" fooled everyone?The sculpture isn't a consciousness.Secondly:the vertex does indeed exist,if not as a thing,certainly as a classification of a thing.I presume that this would be like asking "do words exist"?
First: I guess I should have said "people were fooled by the ice sculpture" I didn't think my wording would be analyzed for minut errors. Second: The guy is applying a mathematical conceptual idea to a real world object to prove a point about the physical world. It's like Zeno's paradoxes; our world is not made up exactly as our system of mathematics is so this kind of proof is not valid.
Duh (I pressed post by accident)...First of all there is no such thing as a vertex, it's an abstract concept accounting for a condition, but there is air within the scissors, which moved to the outside of the scissors when it closed.
the vertex in sissors and the shape of an ice sculptre can not be compared with an eternal soul. the soul is not embeded in the body. the body should more so thought of as a casing. when the case is gone the contents still remain.
Right because an eternal soul does not exist. The mind, which theist call the soul for some reason, does exist for as long as it is functional and the body which houses it is also functional.
That's how I feel personality etc are. They are consequences of our physicality.
We only have ourselves to judge ourselves, this presents some potential problems. Humans also have a tendency to attach emotional value to symbols - i.e. moving house can be very psychologically disturbing.
Where did the vertex for the V in the scissors come from? The details of concepts like the soul or mind are not that relevant; but what's wrong with the theory that they are essentially software (with a long boot up time) that runs on your gray matter (the hardware)?
Nothing wrong with what you said. I find it an agreeable theory since it is a sounding explaination. I think of the brain as nothing more than a task manager plus data storage. Mentioning vertex caused the task manager to retrive all data on graph theory.
Great analogies! I often compare the sense of consciousness with the user interface we use to interact with our pcs. By looking at your monitor it isn't apparent that what you're seeing is a result of complex electronic circuitry. The UI is gone once you put the hardware under a steamroller.
Yeah. With computers you could think of its "state of mind" or "soul" as the programs, the data and hardware state its currently holding in its memory and processors at any given instant. If you have a sudden power loss, where does that instance of unsaved data go?
Thanks a lot for the video response. Because I have to go to work very soon, I'm very rushed here, and don't have much time to make a thoughtful response, sorry.
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU EITHER ARE CREMATED OR END UP AS WORM SHIT.HOWEVER, MORONS LIKE YOURSELF WOULDN'T BE NEARLY AS GOOD A FERTILIZER AS COW SHIT, PEA BRAIN.
yourtreat2 3 months ago
This guy looks like its live from hereafter cos his camera is not of this world !
baskuk 1 year ago
the examples you gave are of objects not energy...........
SamanthaW68 1 year ago
@SamanthaW68 : Which matters how? Credible discussions about energy may only emanate from a voice of educated physics. Is that the point from which you proceed?
websnarf 1 year ago
I disagree with this point of view. /shrug
peace be with you
hexusziggurat 3 years ago
@hexusziggurat : If you don't say why, then why would anyone care if you agreed or disagreed?
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf to say nothing happens after we die makes the entire conversation just as moot of a point. If you believe nothing at all happens when we die, then why even bother giving an explanation to your answer?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat : Answers are useless if an explanation is not forthcoming. For me this is a core principle of intellectual honesty. I don't want to know people's positions and *NEVER* have any interest in their beliefs if they are unwilling to provide the justification for their position. If I had answered in the way you suggest, I would consider it a complete failure of intellectual process.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf mmm k. Do you get all your friend's to justify themselves to you when they express their beliefs? just curious.....
I see what you're getting at. If you want to express ideas, the foundation of that idea is neccessary as a platform. Though at times perhaps providing explanation could make things like love or faith a bit watery as it were?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat : My friends do tell me about their beliefs. On the rare occasions where they might I either try to ignore them (sometimes people just don't know better) or I will challenge them or justify what they are saying as necessary. I've met people who feel insulted by such challenges, but they are not my friends.
I have no respect for faith unless its faith in people. Explaining love as a strong personal feeling, doesn't diminish it to me. Explanations don't have to trivialize.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf I'm just trying to get a temperature of your criteria. So only "faith in people" ....so would that qualify a persons' faith for God? (as in you trust they have good reasons for belief in God) or more like a "trust" in their actions to do as they say or not betray you?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat : Trust to me is only meaningful in terms of betrayal and expected levels of competence. Obviously everyone has reasons for things, but they are their reasons, not mine.
Trusting that people are *right* is a completely meaningless concept to me. I am unaware of anyone in the history of humanity whose standard of correctness is above questioning. I take as axiomatic that reasons not revealed are indistinguishable from reasons that don't exist.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf "Trusting that people are *right* is a completely meaningless concept to me." For some reason I find this statement strange. Such that you could never really believe in anything by somebody else's statements.
question 1 "do you believe in God?" others told you about Him
question 2 "do you believe in science?" unless you practiced everything...others have simply told you about it.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Marvelously calm and succinct answer, with all the conclusive accuracy of a Karpov endgame, no?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago 3
Well if quantum physicists think that we live in a multidimensional existence, theres got to be more to this reality
zodiacie 3 years ago
Gee, i wonder if all of those parents who sold their kids' souls to da devul feel cheated?
rosetwitches 3 years ago
Your body also assumes another form -- nutrients for other living organisms, perhaps. But the form of the sculpture is gone for sure, just as the abstract concept of the mind is as well (when you die.)
websnarf 4 years ago
@websnarf Lets see... I have a question for you... Have you ever died before? Obviously not. You are one single person, who has one single explanation on what happens after you die. So how do you know your right? Cause you look like you think you're right...
JirkProductionz 1 year ago
@JirkProductionz : People in vegetative states don't suddenly come back to life. "Souls" or other supernatural embodiments of the mind have never been verifiably observed to exhibit any external effect other than as embedded within a person's body. Sufficient physical brain damage causes the "mind" to degrade for adults but far less to in children.
It called data. What possible counter proposal do you have that has anywhere near that level of support?
websnarf 1 year ago
Inadvertantly you actually offer a good analogy for some sort of continuation of the mental process after death with your ice sculpture.
You dismiss the water... "It just goes" You say, where? It cant dissapear, it merely assumes another form.
Examine the nature of your own mind: It is energy that, like the water, cannot just dissapear when its form 'melts'
hairysuit 4 years ago
@hairysuit : In my analogy, the water is the cells of your grey matter and the mind is the form/shape of the sculpture. When the ice sculpture melts the form is gone except in people's memories, and the water is free to be something other than ice for sculptures. I.e., the mind truly disappears.
websnarf 1 year ago
An even better question is: Why do all atheists/liberals look like they work at Barnes and Noble?
What's up with that?
MGR1900 4 years ago
your full of shit dickhead we have a soul and its goin to heaven or hell are you afucked or what
mactroy81 4 years ago
very clear and beautifully put.
arykhoon 4 years ago
noone knows thats the great mystery about death.
fancypantsuk 4 years ago
The vertex and the scissors are a perfect comparison for body and soul.If the scissors are destroyed how could you prove the existence of the vertex?
In8observer 4 years ago
Third: if you do want to make an argument that a vertex is the "perfect comparison", you actually prove the other guys point. The scissors could be crushed and even melted down but the concept of a vertex never will be smashed; it will keep showing up everywhere you look...Look at the edge of your computer screen...Whoa! A vertex!
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
I like you!Actaully I was limiting the idea of a vertex to the vertex of the scissors (So I guess my words are also subject to scrutiny).The top of ones head is also an example of a vertex so I am aware of the point.
In8observer 4 years ago
Secondly,I did not approve of the comparison because it validates the point of him,her or the other guy's point.I'am merely suggesting that the the evidence is completly lost without the body of the scissors.Though I do admit that the vertex is easier to prove than the soul.
In8observer 4 years ago
Dman typos! I must begin proof reading my work!
In8observer 4 years ago
Second all all, maybe the ice sculpture had fooled everyone into thinking it was a sculpture all along and even that it was ice, and when it melted away it actually didn't change very much at all, only superficialy. The point I am making is that maybe we aren't who we think we are.
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
"The Ice sculpture fooled everyone"? Would it not be more proper to say that the "Ice Sculptor" fooled everyone?The sculpture isn't a consciousness.Secondly:the vertex does indeed exist,if not as a thing,certainly as a classification of a thing.I presume that this would be like asking "do words exist"?
In8observer 4 years ago
First: I guess I should have said "people were fooled by the ice sculpture" I didn't think my wording would be analyzed for minut errors. Second: The guy is applying a mathematical conceptual idea to a real world object to prove a point about the physical world. It's like Zeno's paradoxes; our world is not made up exactly as our system of mathematics is so this kind of proof is not valid.
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
First of all, there is no such physical thing as a vertice
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
Duh (I pressed post by accident)...First of all there is no such thing as a vertex, it's an abstract concept accounting for a condition, but there is air within the scissors, which moved to the outside of the scissors when it closed.
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
the vertex in sissors and the shape of an ice sculptre can not be compared with an eternal soul. the soul is not embeded in the body. the body should more so thought of as a casing. when the case is gone the contents still remain.
superdustin5 4 years ago
Right because an eternal soul does not exist. The mind, which theist call the soul for some reason, does exist for as long as it is functional and the body which houses it is also functional.
websnarf 4 years ago
That's how I feel personality etc are. They are consequences of our physicality.
We only have ourselves to judge ourselves, this presents some potential problems. Humans also have a tendency to attach emotional value to symbols - i.e. moving house can be very psychologically disturbing.
pdoeman 5 years ago
HA!!!! That was genius!! your ideas are amazing, where do you come up with them? awesome analogies, well done!!
mooeypoo 5 years ago
Where do I come up with them? They are sent to me as visions from the one true pink invisible little dancing elephants. ;)
websnarf 5 years ago
Very good video, I really enjoyed it
siener 5 years ago
I was too tired to deal with the dog thing he did (can you tell?) I thought you handled it brilliantly.
websnarf 5 years ago
Not to allow asymmetry, where did our mind and soul came from?
HeHasSpoken 5 years ago
Where did the vertex for the V in the scissors come from? The details of concepts like the soul or mind are not that relevant; but what's wrong with the theory that they are essentially software (with a long boot up time) that runs on your gray matter (the hardware)?
websnarf 5 years ago
Nothing wrong with what you said. I find it an agreeable theory since it is a sounding explaination. I think of the brain as nothing more than a task manager plus data storage. Mentioning vertex caused the task manager to retrive all data on graph theory.
HeHasSpoken 5 years ago
why would you classify mind and soul separately?
fattychunks 5 years ago
It was done so in the title.
HeHasSpoken 5 years ago
Great analogies! I often compare the sense of consciousness with the user interface we use to interact with our pcs. By looking at your monitor it isn't apparent that what you're seeing is a result of complex electronic circuitry. The UI is gone once you put the hardware under a steamroller.
BipedalHumanoid3 5 years ago
Yeah. With computers you could think of its "state of mind" or "soul" as the programs, the data and hardware state its currently holding in its memory and processors at any given instant. If you have a sudden power loss, where does that instance of unsaved data go?
websnarf 5 years ago
Awesome video, these are great points.
Sloobag 5 years ago
Thanks a lot for the video response. Because I have to go to work very soon, I'm very rushed here, and don't have much time to make a thoughtful response, sorry.
dexarouskies 5 years ago
The same objections to Socrates 3000+ years ago, as he proves the existence of the eternal soul. But Socrates cut them down.
dexarouskies 5 years ago
Uh oh, I'm stepping on Socrates toes am I? I guess I'll have to look this up.
websnarf 5 years ago
socrates didn't have a laboratory ;)
WorldinMotion 5 years ago