Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 15 Jun '10 00:31
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/what-happens-when-you-die_b_596600.html
  2. 15 Jun '10 13:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/what-happens-when-you-die_b_596600.html
    It doesn't make any sense. Sounds like another person afraid to accept death.
  3. 15 Jun '10 15:07
    Well, the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Egyptian Book of the Dead lay out some specific details.

    Pretty creepy and scary, but maybe that is why we are afraid of death? We have some subtle sense of what is going to happen?
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '10 16:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/what-happens-when-you-die_b_596600.html
    That piece says pretty much nothing:
    It mentions the word 'biocentrism' and 'quantum theory' with no links or anything then at the end of the piece, this:

    Without consciousness, space and time are nothing; in reality you can take any time -- whether past or future -− as your new frame of reference. Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities. That's the reality that the experiments mandate. And when I see Mr. O'Donnell's old shop, I know that somewhere the chimney cap is still going round and round, squeak, squeak. But it probably won't rattle for long.


    Just writing that out as if it were fact with nothing to back it up, in other words, the author's opinion, nothing more. Notice the part where it says 'that's the reality that the experiments mandate'. Well that's nice, but what experiments? No links. So it's a nothing article.
  5. 15 Jun '10 18:49
    maybe he's just putting it out there to get people to buy his book, Biocentrism.

    actually, i can imagine there are departments full of (taxpayer-funded) philosophers who go gaga over this stuff.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '10 22:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    maybe he's just putting it out there to get people to buy his book, Biocentrism.

    actually, i can imagine there are departments full of (taxpayer-funded) philosophers who go gaga over this stuff.
    For one thing, we presumably have to just take his word for his comment 'without consciousness, there is no space and time'. Seems intuitively obvious but that does not make it true. For one thing, when the universe was born, presumably in the BB, there certainly was no consciousness in OUR universe, that didn't come about at least on Earth for billions of years. Of course there MUST be other consciousnesses in the universe now and most certainly in the first couple billion years of the universe I would think but still, the first billion years there would have been a very low probability of any kind of consciousness in our universe. So connecting consciousness to space and time seems just a bit more than iffy to me.
  7. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    15 Jun '10 22:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So connecting consciousness to space and time seems just a bit more than iffy to me.
    'Space', 'time', 'space-time' are concepts.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '10 22:54
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    'Space', 'time', 'space-time' are concepts.
    What is that got to do with the issue? Are you saying space-time being just a concept means it is not connected to consciousness?
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    15 Jun '10 22:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What is that got to do with the issue? Are you saying space-time being just a concept means it is not connected to consciousness?
    Concept requires consciousness. Consciousness modifies concepts. Hence the development:'space', 'time'; 'space-time'.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '10 23:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Concept requires consciousness. Consciousness modifies concepts. Hence the development:'space', 'time'; 'space-time'.
    Well does that mean you are saying space and time or space-time didn't exist before consciousness, that consciousness is REQUIRED for space-time to exist?
    It is pretty clear, if the BB started our universe, there had to be a really long time in which there was no consciousness in our universe for the simple reason there was no regular matter to make stars, nothing more complex than helium. Do you agree with that statement?
  11. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    15 Jun '10 23:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well does that mean you are saying space and time or space-time didn't exist before consciousness, that consciousness is REQUIRED for space-time to exist?
    No, simply that 'space' and 'time' are meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend them.

    Your statement accords with what is generally accepted, but note that it would be meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend it.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Jun '10 00:04
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, simply that 'space' and 'time' are meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend them.

    Your statement accords with what is generally accepted, but note that it would be meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend it.
    I think you mean 'comprehend' it? I don't think we are in a position to apprehend the whole universe, I don't think the universe has committed that big a crime

    Silliness aside, The universe seems to have gotten along quite well with our our touted consciousness for maybe a billion years or so. It doesn't seem like the universe really needs consciousness, it may be just a side issue in the larger picture.
  13. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    16 Jun '10 15:12
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, simply that 'space' and 'time' are meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend them.

    Your statement accords with what is generally accepted, but note that it would be meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend it.
    This is as profound as the falling tree in the forest with nobody around to hear it fall.
  14. 16 Jun '10 15:26
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, simply that 'space' and 'time' are meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend them.
    'Meaningless' you say. Define 'meaningless'. Meaningless for whom?
  15. 16 Jun '10 16:04
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    No, simply that 'space' and 'time' are meaningless without some consciousness to apprehend them.
    I disagree. A book written 1000 years ago about space still retains meaning even if no consciousness has read it since it was written, or even if no consciousness ever reads it.