Spirituality and the human life force

Originally posted by Nyxie
We use the energy we aquire, yes. We do not create new energy. We do not destroy energy. I guess that's where the conservation law fits in.

Do we affect the energy? Can we change it's direction and it's output?

We are concious and in that we affect through our choices. These choices are not set. Our thought patterns are measured as energy. Synapses ...[text shortened]... s continue past the point of the modifier (us) because the energy can not be destroyed.

Nyxie

Hi Nyxie,

Suppose I incinerate your body and brain, and most of your chemical and electrical energy gets converted to heat energy (just a few ashes remaining).

Now I suppose I incinerate my own body and brain, and most of my chemical and and electrical energy gets converted to heat energy (with just a few ashes remaining).

Further suppose we are both incinerated in the same chamber, which gets nice and hot a result.

Do you think our energy "signatures", our souls, or our consciousnesses, would still be distinguishable in this heat energy, plus or minus the ashes?

Originally posted by eagles54
Perhaps it is mind itself that continues on after so-called death.

Trying to bring your mind discussion across the forum boundry are we?

If we give the mind the characteristic of being able to escape death, then that might help in the struggle to define it. After all, we know that the body does not escape death, so then the mind, in this case used as synonomous with the soul, cannot have any unseverable conncetions with the body. This also brings up the question of what the afterlife would be like, without memories stored in the brain (left behind in the skull) or chemicals to induce emotional responses. There's more to think about all the time, isn't there?

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Trying to bring your mind discussion across the forum boundry are we?

If we give the mind the characteristic of being able to escape death, then that might help in the struggle to define it. After all, we know that the body does not escape death, so then the mind, in this case used as synonomous with the soul, cannot have any unseverable conncetions ...[text shortened]... emotional responses. There's more to think about all the time, isn't there?

... --- ...

If we give the mind the characteristic of being able to escape death, then it's no longer clear whether minds exist or not. This is a poor definition of 'mind', as it's clear they exist.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If we give the mind the characteristic of being able to escape death, then it's no longer clear whether minds exist or not. This is a poor definition of 'mind', as it's clear they exist.

Now, how can it no longer be clear if the mindn exists or not when it is so clear that it does? You have my head spinning now.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Now, how can it no longer be clear if the mindn exists or not when it is so clear that it does? You have my head spinning now.

... --- ...

"Mind" is a word - that is, an arrangement of pixels as well as a certain sound.

We associate with that word a definition. There is an intuitive definition as well as a dictionary definition. The thing described by the intuitive and the dictionary definitions of the word 'mind' clearly exists.

You said

If we give the mind the characteristic of being able to escape death, then that might help in the struggle to define it.

This characteristic of "being able to escape death" is not part of the intuitive definition necessarily. Nor is it part of the dictionary definition. Therefore I assumed you were defining the word differently than the dictionary and the intuition do. I meant to communicate that I felt that your choice of definition was a poor one.

Does that clear things up?