What is death? If there is an afterlife?

[horizon_mj1]

The word 'Dark Matter' is just a place-holder until we can figure out what this stuff really is, and I have never heard any scientist even mention that it could be something not physical.

You can't insert whatever you like into the gaps of our knowledge.

So far we have no evidence of ANYTHING being not physical.

Well let me say that no reputable scientist that I know of would say there is a "physicality" to Dark Matter. Maybe this is the very evidence of non-physicality that has been sought. As far as inserting anything into the gaps of our knowledge, I take it you do not like facts or discoveries; after all that is what fills the gaps of "true, pristine" knowledge. Wouldn't that put a crimp in the "know-it-all" population.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well let me say that no reputable scientist that I know of would say there is a "physicality" to Dark Matter.

Then they'd be wrong. AFAIK, dark matter interacts a lot, except it only does so in ways that are very hard to see on this particular scale we inhabit. It has massive gravitational effects, and allegedly interacts with the weak force. That's two out of four, which is physical enough for me.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Then they'd be wrong. AFAIK, dark matter interacts a lot, except it only does so in ways that are very hard to see on this particular scale we inhabit. It has massive gravitational effects, and allegedly interacts with the weak force. That's two out of four, which is physical enough for me.

So lets make a comparison to dark matter and a thought. So a thought is physical; after all it interacts on an evolutionary scale by impacting this planet continually? Dark Matter does not have gravitational effects, it allows gravitational effects from a weaker force.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well let me say that no reputable scientist that I know of would say there is a "physicality" to Dark Matter.

That is because it is redundant.
We know that it interacts with the matter around it through gravitational pull, which makes it physical.

Maybe this is the very evidence of non-physicality that has been sought.

Yeah... Good luck with that.

As far as inserting anything into the gaps of our knowledge, I take it you do not like facts or discoveries; after all that is what fills the gaps of "true, pristine" knowledge. Wouldn't that put a crimp in the "know-it-all" population.

I love facts and discoveries.
But I also love the Scientific Method, which means that you cannot just postulate whatever you like whenever you encounter something you don't understand.

I'll give you an example: String/M-theory. Despite the name, this is not an accepted Scientific Theory. It may turn out that it explains a lot of the underlying mechanisms of Quantum Theory, which is an accepted Scientific Theory, but since we are unable to practically falsify String/M-theory yet, it is not. It does, as all Scientific Hypotheses must, make several claims that can be falsified in theory, but we do not, as of yet, have the technology to do so. So for now, it remains a hypothesis.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So lets make a comparison to dark matter and a thought. So a thought is physical; after all it interacts on an evolutionary scale by impacting this planet continually? Dark Matter does not have gravitational effects, it allows gravitational effects from a weaker force.

Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons, which makes thoughts very much physical.
Mate, deal with it.
There is no reason to thing that there is something that is not physical, and until someone can provide evidence of the contrary, that is how it will remain.
All your claims otherwise are equivalent of blowing smoke and trying to mystify things.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I do not believe in mystifying things Jarofthoughts. Nothing in science is considered viable until the theories can be tested and proved. Well here is one for science, does the past exist even though we can not "go" to it? The neurons that pass electrochemical signals is done by the brain, not the thought, therefore the embodiment of the thought itself is not physical, only the making of a thought is physical. The claims I am making are no different from anyone else looking for fact, I just choose to start at the most difficult aspects of theory and work back-wards to the simplest. I agree 100% that nothing the we "know" has no physicality or has not manifest through a physicality, but I argue that this is a fact (where is the experimental test proving otherwise?). When you look scientifically at theory, you can not leave out any aspect or plausibility of what may be the fact revealed. Humanity is constantly surprised by science through the ability to learn and the fact that not everything is as it appears.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I do not believe in mystifying things Jarofthoughts.

Could have fooled me...

Nothing in science is considered viable until the theories can be tested and proved.

Correct, although "backed by evidence" is more accurate than "proved".

Well here is one for science, does the past exist even though we can not "go" to it?

That would be the conundrum of time, which currently appears to be based in the statistical laws of Thermodynamics.
The answer to your question is a tentative "yes".
I won't go into the full explanation here as that would take too long as well as derailing the tread even more, but if you like I can recommend some books that do.

The neurons that pass electrochemical signals is done by the brain, not the thought, therefore the embodiment of the thought itself is not physical, only the making of a thought is physical.

No mate, that is what thoughts are.
If the process and components of something is physical, then the thing itself is physical.

The claims I am making are no different from anyone else looking for fact, I just choose to start at the most difficult aspects of theory and work back-wards to the simplest.

They are different because they are backed up by absolutely @#$%& all.

I agree 100% that nothing the we "know" has no physicality or has not manifest through a physicality, but I argue that this is a fact (where is the experimental test proving otherwise?).

You make the claim, you substantiate it.
It's not up to me to disprove your claims.
As Hitchens accurately stated: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

When you look scientifically at theory, you can not leave out any aspect or plausibility of what may be the fact revealed.

Science is all about plausibility.
What you have is wild speculation.

Humanity is constantly surprised by science through the ability to learn and the fact that not everything is as it appears.

I have no problems with that.
Just follow the scientific method and we'll be fine.
And if you can actually back these claims up with evidence I see a Nobel price in your future.
If you can't though, then you are no better than the people who think that Homoeopathy works.

 

[PolyHedral]

So lets make a comparison to dark matter and a thought. So a thought is physical; after all it interacts on an evolutionary scale by impacting this planet continually? Dark Matter does not have gravitational effects, it allows gravitational effects from a weaker force.

The entire point of the dark matter hypothesis is that dark matter interacts gravitationally. The reason it was conceived of in the first place was because the stars and so on inside galaxies were too light to hold the galaxy together.

And thought is physical, as jarofthoughts said, but it hasn't impacted the evolution of anything to any great degree. Anything we'd recognize as organized though has been around for far too short a time.

 

[atanu]

Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons, which makes thoughts very much physical.
Mate, deal with it.

No mate, that is what thoughts are.
If the process and components of something is physical, then the thing itself is physical.

You make the claim, you substantiate it. Demonstrate a thinking electrochemical signal.

 

[PolyHedral]

You make the claim, you substantiate it. Demonstrate a thinking electrochemical signal.

Define "thinking".

 

[horizon_mj1]

Ok, so being made from something physical makes the product physical, so maybe the same applies to dark matter. There are so many different scientific views from one end of the spectrum to the other, it makes it hard to find accurate facts on certain subjects. NSF and NASA are two of my favorite resources and are the ones who have shown me nothing (in logic) can be dismissed when searching for fact. Not too many scientist were willing to believe that life without carbon could exist, we recently found out they were quite wrong. All I am trying to say is there could be a similar concept here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You make the claim, you substantiate it. Demonstrate a thinking electrochemical signal.

No single signal represents a thought.
Rather, the sum of many signals constitutes a thought, or a series of thoughts, depending on which parts of your brain are involved.
The brain has different centres for handling and storing all the different sensory input (sight, sound, smell, etc.) and draws upon them to 'sew' together a complete impression of what you are thinking about.

As for the electrochemical bit: "A neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information by electrical and chemical signalling."
Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That article gives a nice summary of how it works, but keep in mind that neurology and neuropsychology is a vast and growing field of science.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok, so being made from something physical makes the product physical, so maybe the same applies to dark matter. There are so many different scientific views from one end of the spectrum to the other, it makes it hard to find accurate facts on certain subjects.

You won't find accurate facts about Dark Matter because we simply don't know yet.

NSF and NASA are two of my favorite resources and are the ones who have shown me nothing (in logic) can be dismissed when searching for fact.

You have to apprechiate the difference between "can logically exist" and "does actually exist". Those are not the same.

Not too many scientist were willing to believe that life without carbon could exist, we recently found out they were quite wrong.

And then they changed their mind when reliable evidence could be provided.
The ability to change its mind in the face of new facts and evidence is one of science's greatest strengths.

All I am trying to say is there could be a similar concept here.

So far everything we have discovered has been physical.
You can't expect people to go along with things just because you can think them up.
There could be an invisible blue goblin under my kitchen sink, but unless compelling evidence is provided to support that I'm going to assume that there is not.

 

[atanu]

No single signal represents a thought.
Rather, the sum of many signals constitutes a thought, or a series of thoughts, depending on which parts of your brain are involved.

Is this is a demonstration that I asked for?

You made an emphatic statement: Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons.

You should be able to demonstrate that elecrochemical signals have self awareness that can have experiences and also articulate those experiences.

 

[Penumbra]

Is this is a demonstration that I asked for?

You made an emphatic statement: Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons.

You should be able to demonstrate that elecrochemical signals have self awareness that can have experiences and also articulate those experiences.

This is not how it works.

Electrochemical signals don't have self-awareness any more than individual transistors in the computer can operate windows 7. Self-awareness is thought to be an emergent property of the brain that arises from the summation of these events. The lowest level of operation in the computer is that of a switch (transistor), and the brain is fairly similar in that regard- the lowest level basically consists of switches.

 

[PolyHedral]

Is this is a demonstration that I asked for?

You made an emphatic statement: Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons.

You should be able to demonstrate that elecrochemical signals have self awareness that can have experiences and also articulate those experiences.

You have your abstractions confused. You are asking which electron of a water molecule is wet.

 

[atanu]

This is not how it works.

----Self-awareness is thought to be an emergent property of the brain that arises from the summation of these events.

That demonstration I am asking.

Saying "Is thought of" is very different from "Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons."

 

[atanu]

You have your abstractions confused. You are asking which electron of a water molecule is wet.

And you are disregarding the questioner as null and void. You are placing the questioner as an effect of wetness of water, without even realising it.

 

[PolyHedral]

And you are disregarding the questioner as null and void. You are placing the questioner as an effect of wetness of water, without even realising it.

...Yes. The question, as you posed it, is nonsensical. "Awareness" is not a property of an electrochemical signal; it is a property of a construction of many such signals.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Is this is a demonstration that I asked for?

You made an emphatic statement: Thoughts are electrochemical signals passing between neurons.

You should be able to demonstrate that elecrochemical signals have self awareness that can have experiences and also articulate those experiences.

Self awareness, often called consciousness, is an emergent property from the multitude of signals passing between the neurons.
A multitude of signals constitutes a thought.
A multitude of thoughts constitutes self awareness.
In sum, this is consciousness.

A single signal does not have self awareness any more than a single atom constitutes a table.