The science of death.

[warpus]

that would suck, the pinnacle of evolution, just a tool to survive. but in reality we could only evolve to help us survive. hmmmm.....interesting

We are not the pinnacle of evolution - there is no such thing.

I really don't understand all of these threads trying to scientifically prove whether or not there is an afterlife, a soul, whether God exists, etc. etc. If someone believes something, they believe it as a matter of faith. Honestly, what does it matter to you if someone has a belief in the soul or an afterlife? You will NEVER convince them otherwise or it wouldn't be a matter of faith. That's the whole concept of faith.

We are after the truth - not people's beliefs.

 

[Brian_B]

We are after the truth...

Good luck with that.

Particularly in this instance where the only people who can give you an authoritative answer are dead.

 

[warpus]

Good luck with that.

Particularly in this instance where the only people who can give you an authoritative answer are dead.

Yeah, so the only thing we can rely on to get to the truth in this case is what we ourselves can observe. We can look at a dying/dead body, take measurements, and see what conclusions we can come to based on the evidence we uncover.

 

[El_Machinae]

There might be more to it that the stopping of electrical activity in the brain. Research on pigs and dogs indicate that the brain can be stopped, and the dogs still have functioning minds when it is restarted.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

We are not the pinnacle of evolution - there is no such thing.
QUOTE]

sorry i meant the current pinnacle, which i believe we are

 

[warpus]

sorry i meant the current pinnacle, which i believe we are

Only if you consider our level of intelligence and sentience. If you use other factors to determine 'pinnacle of evolution' then other species might/would beat us.

 

[El_Machinae]

Considering that our sentience and intelligence can improve, I wouldn't say that we're at the pinnacle.

As well, I believe that we can always improve, no matter how excellent we are, so we're never at the pinnacle.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Only if you consider our level of intelligence and sentience. If you use other factors to determine 'pinnacle of evolution' then other species might/would beat us.

i dont see another animal that can adapt like us

the point is, whatever any animal can do, we can emulate it if we tryed long enough using technology, tools, etc.

 

[warpus]

i dont see another animal that can adapt like us

the point is, whatever any animal can do, we can emulate it if we tryed long enough using technology, tools, etc.

Well, in that respect - yes - we're the pinnacle of evolution - but only from our point of view.

My point is just that evolution doesn't strive towards anything - and using the word pinnacle sort of implies that it does.

 

[El_Machinae]

And the more technology we have, the more we can do!

Therefore, pushing technology evolves us more quickly.

 

[warpus]

And the more technology we have, the more we can do!

Therefore, pushing technology evolves us more quickly.

Well.. Technology has allowed pretty much anyone to breed and pass on their genes. So while we might be still evolving - natural selection doesn't really play a part anymore... for humans. It's kinda more like random selection.

 

[El_Machinae]

Natural Selection still plays a huge part, but you don't see it on a geological timescale, because we're so young.

In the future, certain genes will be massively selected for, over the course of centuries. While genes for good eyesight won't become more common, genes that encourage long-term thinking very likely will be.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Good luck with that.

Particularly in this instance where the only people who can give you an authoritative answer are dead.

Why do you say that?

 

[Stile]

I've also read that in the course of dying one's stored endorphins are released. I have not tested this myself. This was selected for by 'nature' as one who dies a severely painful death is less likely to pass his genes on to the next generation.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I have not tested this myself.

we had no idea

 

[warpus]

Natural Selection still plays a huge part, but you don't see it on a geological timescale, because we're so young.

In the future, certain genes will be massively selected for, over the course of centuries. While genes for good eyesight won't become more common, genes that encourage long-term thinking very likely will be.

How though? Almost anybody who wants to pass on their genes in today's world does.

 

[Brian_B]

Yeah, so the only thing we can rely on to get to the truth in this case is what we ourselves can observe. We can look at a dying/dead body, take measurements, and see what conclusions we can come to based on the evidence we uncover.

Unfortunately the outcome of such observations tend to be: "Well, if we can't observe it through science then it must be false/nonexistant." While that sounds compelling on one level it seems flawed on others.

Why do you say that?

Because what happens to a person upon death may not be observable solely by scientific means. I haven't died myself so I can't say one way or the other if there is an afterlife that houses souls or you just die and that's that.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

You also loose 29 grams of weight upon death.

 

[Bill3000]

Unfortunately the outcome of such observations tend to be: "Well, if we can't observe it through science then it must be false/nonexistant." While that sounds compelling on one level it seems flawed on others.

It's not flawed. If there actually was an effect, it would be observable in some way. Simple.

The "29 grams of weight" thing (mass actually, as grams are not a unit of weight) is false.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

I was speaking metaphorically.......