On Life and Death. Facts and Myths

[Thunder_Gr]

Do you accept all writings of a certain age that make any claim, or only those referring to people living a long time? I mean, the Qur'an says that Adam was 50 feet tall (I think), is this more or less plausible than him living for 900 years?

Here comes where the misconception resides. I am as concerned as you about that. But then I remember some references in Greek mythology. Then I read some asian tranditions that also say that there were people living that long. Then, some Incan texts saying the same, celtic references to immortals, african references to the same thing. And I think, this cannot be a cuincidence, what if there is something true in it?

Then, you read arabic texts, soviet scientific texts, and things fit. You compare religions, other facts. Some things fit too nicely from many different sources to be dispached as "myths".

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Do you accept all writings of a certain age that make any claim, or only those referring to people living a long time? I mean, the Qur'an says that Adam was 50 feet tall (I think), is this more or less plausible than him living for 900 years?

I had never heard this before, but I just googled it. I don't see anything about the Koran mentioning Adam's height, but a Hadith (oral traditions and sayings attributed to Muhammad) claims he was 90 feet (60 cubits) tall. Hadith and the Koran and both important Islamic scriptures, but Hadith are not considered to be infallible. Some are considered about as good as the Koran, and others considered wholly false. What Hadith are accepted and which are rejected may vary.

 

[nonconformist]

We are a series of chemicals. And we do consider ourselves intelligent. Next you are going to argue if cables are intelligent when you interact with an intelligent robot?

We are a series of macromolecules which interact in such a way as to give us wha we call "conciousness". This mechanism is not known, but is probably a funementall chemical process.

Don't say that to an Israely. He can get quite upset

.
I don't care. Telling me there is evidence that people lived for thousands of years, while using a book as evidence that most beleivers actually think is not supposed to be literal upsets;
1)Me
2)Scientists
3)Pretty much veryone else who is not a YEC

Sure, sure. Then Pythagoras was stupid, and Socrates was a fraud. Iraklitos was a quiz winner, and Thalis was...well, run out of adjectives.

All philosophers, not scientists.
In fact, most of their contributions (well, ecepting trig, which was infinitely refined by Liebnitz etc) were philosophical.

Learning what the tell you is truth what questioning it, makes someone a good tool in the hands of the scientific community, not a good tool of a society that is interested in the truth(Our society is not one such society, and I guess this explains everything).
In issues of Life and Death, the progress of all sciences must be combined. A specialist can contribute, but someone with a view of all of them is the only one that can reach a conclusion.

That's why we publish papers in nice peer-reviewed journals.

You can prove an experiment wrong, if you repeat it and the outcome is different.

No, you prove the outcome was different.
You don't prove the original wrong, because different circumstances produce different results.

Proving negatives is impossible in Theoritical sciences, not in practical ones.

Wut. It is pretty much axiomic to the sciences a negative cannot be proved.
Physics is pretty practical. Prove gravity doesn't exist.

I am sure you are going to get upset if I point you out that we still haven't explained in a convinsing way how elecromagnetic waves travel in space, that "ether" has not actually been "proved" inexistant, that heat is energy, and the definition of plasma is something that needs to be given. Of course, I cannot say anything about the dark spots. It is the only one of the three that actually agree with you that has been proven wrong.

You know why? Because you can't prove something doesn't exists or a negative, but you said yourself:
"Proving negatives is impossible in Theoritical sciences, not in practical ones".
I'd like to point out:

a)Wave-particle duality
b)de Broglie
c)Einstein's photoelectric effect
d)Laws of thermodynamics
e)Kelvin's work on thermodynamics
f)Plasma is a disassociated state between uclei and electrons.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What is your opinion?

What's this idea that people chose to die? We accept death as inevitable (for now) because that's what we see. Our cells gradually get irreparably damaged over the years. Cells are even programmed to die if they sustain a certain amount of damage. The mechanism of death is not under our control (for now).

 

[nonconformist]

If you wish hard enough you can be the messiah too

 

[nonconformist]

or a very naughty boy

 

[Thunder_Gr]

We are a series of macromolecules which interact in such a way as to give us wha we call "conciousness". This mechanism is not known, but is probably a funementall chemical process.

My point exactly. Why isn't it a property of a proton/neutron/electron? Since the mechanism is unknown, there is no reason to assume differently, unless, of course, if this gives us the right to overcome the resistance of the masses in polluting the environment, destroy the earth by consuming every single tree/animal/other resources, etc.

I don't care. Telling me there is evidence that people lived for thousands of years, while using a book as evidence that most beleivers actually think is not supposed to be literal upsets;
1)Me
2)Scientists
3)Pretty much veryone else who is not a YEC

I also said that I used several references. I was not there. To dispatch them as "myth" is what they have told me to do. But it is hard to do with so many references pointing otherwise. I am not a religious person, but religion(all religions combined) have managed to save some facts that modern science would like to dispatch as "myth"

All philosophers, not scientists.
In fact, most of their contributions (well, ecepting trig, which was infinitely refined by Liebnitz etc) were philosophical.

Hmm...Interesting. So, what exactly is science in your opinion? Thalis studied the planets and the stars(amongst other things of course), Pythagoras was much more than a scientist and philosopher. I would suggest reading a bit about him.

That's why we publish papers in nice peer-reviewed journals.

Sure, and this is why noone ever has the time to read them. Most scientists have trouble following the publishings of their own specialty, not to read about other fields they are not specialized, even in their own field of science.

No, you prove the outcome was different.
You don't prove the original wrong, because different circumstances produce different results.

This is not true. If you release a paper with experiments, you have made sure the experiment can be repeated, so that you can prove it to other scientists. Noone releases ppers based on one single experiment.

Wut. It is pretty much axiomic to the sciences a negative cannot be proved.
Physics is pretty practical. Prove gravity doesn't exist.

I can prove gravity doesn't exist in space. I could prove gravity doesn't exist, if gravity was discribed as something I should feel but couldn't. You prove it wrong by refuting the logic and experiments.

You know why? Because you can't prove something doesn't exists or a negative, but you said yourself:
"Proving negatives is impossible in Theoritical sciences, not in practical ones".

It happens that some scientists claim to have proven the ether exists. Someone could start by proving their experiments wrong.

I'd like to point out:

a)Wave-particle duality
b)de Broglie
c)Einstein's photoelectric effect
d)Laws of thermodynamics
e)Kelvin's work on thermodynamics
f)Plasma is a disassociated state between uclei and electrons.

I am a bit confused. The photoelectric effect has been proved. I have some serious arguments against the second law of thermodynamics.
I have not read about the others.I would be greatful if you include a sentence of what they say.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

What's this idea that people chose to die? We accept death as inevitable (for now) because that's what we see. Our cells gradually get irreparably damaged over the years. Cells are even programmed to die if they sustain a certain amount of damage. The mechanism of death is not under our control (for now).

We are taught that we are going to die since before we are born. Experiments have sawn that, if a person is convinced in his subconcious that something will happen, it will happen, because he is going to make it happen.
As I already said, Hypnotism has proved that, if a persons subconsious is conviced that will be cured, he will. No explanations. It will just be cured from every possible genetic/uncurable/fatal/whatever disease. This means there is power in the mind. A power that can effect the body in any way possible.

If, we are never told about it, we will not know about it. If we do, perhaps we can find out if death is really unavoidable or a choice.

It is very well known that happiness has nothing to do with reality, but with the perception of reality. Basically, it is a state of the Mind.
Everything concerning "living" organisms, is a state of the Mind.
If you were told that a Rock is alive, wouldn't you admire his ability to stay alive for thousands of years?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

We are taught that we are going to die since before we are born. Experiments have sawn that, if a person is convinced in his subconcious that something will happen, it will happen, because he is going to make it happen.
As I already said, Hypnotism has proved that, if a persons subconsious is conviced that will be cured, he will. No explanations. It will just be cured from every possible genetic/uncurable/fatal/whatever disease. This means there is power in the mind. A power that can effect the body in any way possible.

If, we are never told about it, we will not know about it. If we do, perhaps we can find out if death is really unavoidable or a choice.

It is very well known that happiness has nothing to do with reality, but with the perception of reality. Basically, it is a state of the Mind.
Everything concerning "living" organisms, is a state of the Mind.
If you were told that a Rock is alive, wouldn't you admire his ability to stay alive for thousands of years?

Wow, I didn't know the subconscious could control apoptosis...

A rock is not alive. It does not feed, it does not grow, it does not reproduce. It is not life.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Wow, I didn't know the subconscious could control apoptosis...

A rock is not alive. It does not feed, it does not grow, it does not reproduce. It is not life.

This is what we are told. People were not always told so. We are the ones that tie life with feeding/growing/reproduction.
It is our definition of life that accepts as living only the beings that preform actions similar to what we do.

Is this true, though? Perhaps we are victims of our own self-appraise. We have appointed ourselves that we know what is true and what not. What is alive and what is dead.

We are comprised of chemicals, which are comprised of protons/neutrons/electrons. So is the rock. We are both alive, but in a different way.

The problem is, we have yet to learn to respect different manifestations of life.

 

[warpus]

Here comes where the misconception resides. I am as concerned as you about that. But then I remember some references in Greek mythology. Then I read some asian tranditions that also say that there were people living that long. Then, some Incan texts saying the same, celtic references to immortals, african references to the same thing. And I think, this cannot be a cuincidence, what if there is something true in it?

Then, you read arabic texts, soviet scientific texts, and things fit. You compare religions, other facts. Some things fit too nicely from many different sources to be dispached as "myths".

Wait, you really believe that people used to live to be 900 years old?

Do you know what a myth is?

 

[nonconformist]

My point exactly. Why isn't it a property of a proton/neutron/electron? Since the mechanism is unknown, there is no reason to assume differently, unless, of course, if this gives us the right to overcome the resistance of the masses in polluting the environment, destroy the earth by consuming every single tree/animal/other resources, etc.

Because they atre component parts of a chemical and physical sytem which work based on very simple physical rules, rather than sentient particles?

I also said that I used several references. I was not there. To dispatch them as "myth" is what they have told me to do. But it is hard to do with so many references pointing otherwise. I am not a religious person, but religion(all religions combined) have managed to save some facts that modern science would like to dispatch as "myth"

I'm not even touching this one anymore, because I really don't know what to say except....why have we found no evidence of a single person who has lived that long?
Do you also accept all the other religious teachings?
Did Kane really wipe out a quarter of the earth?

Hmm...Interesting. So, what exactly is science in your opinion? Thalis studied the planets and the stars(amongst other things of course), Pythagoras was much more than a scientist and philosopher. I would suggest reading a bit about him.

Science first started around the 1750s, when there began to be a differentiation between philosophy and mathematics, and sciences.

Sure, and this is why noone ever has the time to read them. Most scientists have trouble following the publishings of their own specialty, not to read about other fields they are not specialized, even in their own field of science.

"Noone"? To be peer-reviewed, it needs to be inherently read.
I've also read a number, as have most people in university.
Some people read hundreds.
The PNAS is fairly well regarded, as is the RSC, and the RAS.

This is not true. If you release a paper with experiments, you have made sure the experiment can be repeated, so that you can prove it to other scientists. Noone releases ppers based on one single experiment.

Papers define a very, very specific set of conditions, which even if followed to the leter may not produce the same result.

Lord knows the number of times I've done a ligand exchange process and ended up with salmon pink crystals, whereas the guy next to me who did it exactly the same ennded up with brown sludge.

I can prove gravity doesn't exist in space. I could prove gravity doesn't exist, if gravity was discribed as something I should feel but couldn't. You prove it wrong by refuting the logic and experiments.

Primo:
-gravity exists everywhere within our universe, excepting certain possibilities.
Secundo: no you can't prove it doesn't exist, you can only "provE" the existance of another force.

It happens that some scientists claim to have proven the ether exists. Someone could start by proving their experiments wrong.

You can't, because ether is some catch-all explanation for the half-arsed, and you can't prove ether doesn't exist, you can show that heat travels in a way inconsistant with ether.

I am a bit confused. The photoelectric effect has been proved. I have some serious arguments against the second law of thermodynamics.
I have not read about the others.I would be greatful if you include a sentence of what they say.

Wave particle duality is quantum mechanics, and explains wh light has differing properties.

De Broglie showed light has a momentum, as photons.

Kelvin basically defined modern thermodynamics. Except maybe Carnot and Clayperon.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Wait, you really believe that people used to live to be 900 years old?

Do you know what a myth is?

Be sure I do. But I also know what isn't a myth. Don't make me list several "myths" that have been proved to be actual historical events. Lets just stay with the Troy and several cities of the Bible that were thought to be a "myth", but some people that thought there are too many evidence to be a myth went there and dug them out.
The problem is, you cannot dig out a person that died 6000 years ago to prove he lived 800 years, when you do not know where to look for him.

Because they atre component parts of a chemical and physical sytem which work based on very simple physical rules, rather than sentient particles?

I am sure you know that these "simple" rules are not as simple as they appear to be.

I'm not even touching this one anymore, because I really don't know what to say except....why have we found no evidence of a single person who has lived that long?
Do you also accept all the other religious teachings?
Did Kane really wipe out a quarter of the earth?

I said, and repeated, that I give consideration to claims that can be cross-referenced with other sources. I did not say Adam lived x years, I said that the references of people living hundrends of year are to many to disregard as a myth. It is not the same thing. As far as I am concerned, Adam may have never existed, nor Kain. But people that lived hundrends of years have a good chance to have existed.

Science first started around the 1750s, when there began to be a differentiation between philosophy and mathematics, and sciences.

So, according to your point of view, someone that excells in Mathematics, biology, physics and chemistry is not a scientist?

"Noone"? To be peer-reviewed, it needs to be inherently read.
I've also read a number, as have most people in university.
Some people read hundreds.
The PNAS is fairly well regarded, as is the RSC, and the RAS.

OK, so, if someone is a biologist specilised in the study of plants, does his best to keep in par with the latest developments in quantum physics?

Papers define a very, very specific set of conditions, which even if followed to the leter may not produce the same result.

Lord knows the number of times I've done a ligand exchange process and ended up with salmon pink crystals, whereas the guy next to me who did it exactly the same ennded up with brown sludge.

If I agree with what you say, then all science is wrong. Science is counting on experiments to support the theories, and to produce results that can be applied in practice. If you say that all science is based on experiments that cannot be reproduced, even in closely monitored conditions, then I lose any confidence in science.

Primo:
-gravity exists everywhere within our universe, excepting certain possibilities.
Secundo: no you can't prove it doesn't exist, you can only "provE" the existance of another force.

If that force behaves exactly like gravity, then it is gravity. Simple, isn't it?
Remember, Gravity is just a name, the influence is what interests us.

You can't, because ether is some catch-all explanation for the half-arsed, and you can't prove ether doesn't exist, you can show that heat travels in a way inconsistant with ether.

They have measured it. If someone repeats the experiment(that they performed repeatedly for 3 years or so) and fails, we can talk about it. Just refusing to try and disprove a theory, does not make the theory wrong, nor your own theory right.

Wave particle duality is quantum mechanics, and explains wh light has differing properties.

De Broglie showed light has a momentum, as photons.

Kelvin basically defined modern thermodynamics. Except maybe Carnot and Clayperon.

Ah, these. I knew the first two, couldn't remember the name. Thank you.

 

[Dachs]

To die, to sleep! To sleep, perchance to dream...aye, there's the rub!

 

[Gooblah]

IMO, looking at death and the supposed afterlife through science is the wrong approach; however accurate the portrayal of degenerate proteins and calculated cell death may be, its not exactly comforting or a motivation for humanity (at least, not to me, and I have yet to meet anyone to which it is). Thus, the philosophical (and, by extension, theological) lens is the way to go.

My philosophy:
Death is inevitable. Instead of attempting to resist the natural order, let it be viewed as an end to material attachments and the fitting destination to the journey of life. By fulfilling our obligations in life, to ourselves and to society, than death becomes easier, as we know that we have completed certain personal goals, or have set others on the path towards their completion. No person dies unnoticed and forgotten; memories of their lives remain present in those whose lives they affected - even in the slightest manner. Thus, death is simply the end to life, not to the goals sought during it.

/deep thought.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

IMO, looking at death and the supposed afterlife through science is the wrong approach; however accurate the portrayal of degenerate proteins and calculated cell death may be, its not exactly comforting or a motivation for humanity (at least, not to me, and I have yet to meet anyone to which it is). Thus, the philosophical (and, by extension, theological) lens is the way to go.

I am glad you touch the core of the theory. There are many questions to consider:
1)What is really death? If life can be traced down to protons(and even more in the particles comprising the protons), can there be real death?
2)What is life? If each our cells feel alive and thinks, and so do their particles, is it really a matter of choice "Life or Death"? or rather a matter of choice "How long as a Human being"?

My philosophy:
Death is inevitable. Instead of attempting to resist the natural order, let it be viewed as an end to material attachments and the fitting destination to the journey of life. By fulfilling our obligations in life, to ourselves and to society, than death becomes easier, as we know that we have completed certain personal goals, or have set others on the path towards their completion. No person dies unnoticed and forgotten; memories of their lives remain present in those whose lives they affected - even in the slightest manner. Thus, death is simply the end to life, not to the goals sought during it.

/deep thought.

As a comforting solution to people that feel they cannot seek the truth behind the labyrinth that has been placed before us through ages of misguidance and lies, I would also agree.

But, as I can remember myself I have always had the feeling that there is a truth that is waiting for us behind this thick mist, and that can be reached if we try enough.
I do not know the purpose, nor I say that my theory is what exists. I just feel it has to be told, and I hope that some things may become more clear to me and to other people by presenting arguments and thoughts on the subject.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Ooh, do we clone our consiousness? Once that is done.. who is the original?

The term "original" seems incoherent in such a case. There are two of the person, 'nuff said.

 

[Gooblah]

I am glad you touch the core of the theory. There are many questions to consider:
1)What is really death? If life can be traced down to protons(and even more in the particles comprising the protons), can there be real death?
2)What is life? If each our cells feel alive and thinks, and so do their particles, is it really a matter of choice "Life or Death"? or rather a matter of choice "How long as a Human being"?

Life cannot be traced down to protons (and various sub-sub-sub-atomic particles). Life is considered a self-replicating, self-sustaining, adapting system. Protons cannot self-replicate. Death would be considered the end of the self-replication, self-sustenance, and adaptation of the given system. The flaw in your 'theory' (more of a hypothesis, but whatever) is that you misinterpret the currently accepted definition of life.

 

[Brighteye]

How come and the DNA in our cells accumoulate damage, and what can possibly damage them? Why the DNA of an Oak or an Olive-tree does not accummulate damage?

And why our genetic cells do not accummulate damage as well? It is well known that egg-cells taken from a woman that is too old to become pregnant, can be used for reproduction.

In addition, this also does not explain the fact that the free cells can reproduce forever, without ever aging. If this wasn't the case, there would have been no bacteria, fungi, amiboaes or any other simple organism alive at this moment.

Oaks and Olive trees do not replicate as fast, nor suffer such wear from mammals' high metabolic rates.
The eggs are made when a female foetus is still developing, and a woman then has a set number of eggs. Thus the reproducing cells go through far fewer replications than any other cell.
Secondly, once something is an independent entity it lives and dies by its own merits. Many humans do have defects and die early, often before birth or as spontaneous termination. Similarly, many single-celled organisms die from inaccurate replication but the species or colony survives. The ageing process applies, but not to everything.

Couldn't it simply be wear and tear? People who live unhealthy lives or work till they drop, don't live as long on average.
Our livers accumulate rubbish. Joints wear out. Teeth go bad. Our species do not regenerate everything.

It is wear and tear, but at a molecular level. People die even with new teeth and joints, and even with new livers.

We are taught that we are going to die since before we are born. Experiments have sawn that, if a person is convinced in his subconcious that something will happen, it will happen, because he is going to make it happen.
As I already said, Hypnotism has proved that, if a persons subconsious is conviced that will be cured, he will. No explanations. It will just be cured from every possible genetic/uncurable/fatal/whatever disease. This means there is power in the mind. A power that can effect the body in any way possible.

If, we are never told about it, we will not know about it. If we do, perhaps we can find out if death is really unavoidable or a choice.

It is very well known that happiness has nothing to do with reality, but with the perception of reality. Basically, it is a state of the Mind.
Everything concerning "living" organisms, is a state of the Mind.
If you were told that a Rock is alive, wouldn't you admire his ability to stay alive for thousands of years?

If believing in death makes us die and is truly instilled in us by society, why have all the lunatics and madmen who believed themselves to be immortal died?

 

[Lay_Lay]

How can one not see what is special about DNA, cell divison, or mitosis? A rock doesn't take part in those special activities. It's called Life. Yes, very different from a rock or a planet.