death

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 15 Oct 2004, 14:38

do you ever think about death?

even if you think nothing will happen after death, or if you believe in something, it's weird to think about it. it's hard to imagine that you will never wake up again.

it's also kind of strange to have all plans and everything in life, because when you die those plans will never ever be done.

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 15 Oct 2004, 15:33

I dont like to think of "alive" as anything else then that you still got electrical signals in your brain. what i think is more interesting is "what is a thought".
That do connect to this topic i think, because i thinÂ´k therefor i am.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 15 Oct 2004, 18:21

I think when you're dead you're just DEAD.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Oct 2004, 23:14

dead = afk

chux · Post by **chux** » 16 Oct 2004, 18:06

lol, eyah, more like away from life though...ez on deathbed I say "Urgh! a...f...l"

I dunno, but its probably like sleeping but with no thoughts. You just go sleep and not wake up hopefully. You stop being alive when you stop thinking or maybe other way round...cogito ergo sum, whatever

Bonobo · Post by **Bonobo** » 16 Oct 2004, 18:54

If you think what i read it as, then it's stupid calling it "sleep", cuz if you can't think or feel or do anything i wouldn't call it sleep.. maybe more like *poff* and nothing else happens

Post by **SveinR** » 16 Oct 2004, 22:40

I believe that when you die.. You stop existing. You're gone.
I sometimes think about death, even though I'm very clear with myself what will happen. It is very weird to imagine you just being gone. But then I think about what someone said in a similar thread on another message board. After you're dead, it will become as what it was before you were born. You didn't exist, and have absolutely no recollection now of what happened before the day you were born. So when you're dead, it will be pretty similar to before you were born.
(And I don't believe you will be reincarnated and 'born again')

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 16 Oct 2004, 23:00

when you die and dont think you will be gone you wont go anywhere you will stop thinking and thats it.

petsen · Post by **petsen** » 16 Oct 2004, 23:22

John wrote:dead = afk

LOOOOLZ!!!!

I cant imagine to die, so there must be something after death.

Post by **SveinR** » 17 Oct 2004, 00:11

petsen wrote: I cant imagine to die, so there must be something after death.

Can you imagine to live on forever and ever and ever?

epp · Post by **epp** » 17 Oct 2004, 10:35

i hope that we will be somewhat "reborn" or "reincarnated" - but i dont believe that we will.
i hope i die old ;\ i first whane die when im an old, tired man who just want to relax in the afterlife.

death is scary ;(

bob · Post by **bob** » 17 Oct 2004, 14:56

i'll never understand life and death.

Ky.Jelly · Post by **Ky.Jelly** » 17 Oct 2004, 15:05

bob wrote:i'll never understand life and death.

i dont think we are meant to understand, just do it

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 18 Oct 2004, 16:52

I'm still hoping to be that one person that lives forever

I mean it's never proven that a person can't live for 252454 years.. had it?

epp · Post by **epp** » 18 Oct 2004, 16:56

yes it has - the human body decays even if you replace most of it after some time.

jw · Post by jw » 18 Oct 2004, 18:26

usualy i'm not afraid more for the death than for life

but i don't believe in things after the death, i thinks it is the end for me

i think people believe there is something more because they having so much trouble with letting things go, nice things like they loved ones, you parents, people still miss them after they died. or they still miss there ex-girlfriend after they broke up, it is just fucking difficult to admit nice things end.

propably being afraid for death is because you like to live

Juzam · Post by **Juzam** » 26 Oct 2004, 07:23

If you die, you die and that's it

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 26 Oct 2004, 09:56

I personally often think what really happens after the death. I bet u all have heard shit abiout those, seeing a light when youre close to death, but i really dont believe it means anything since ure still alive when u see the 'light', so its kinda just imagination. kinda youre aware that youre close to death and you imagine the light. I think everything bases on science and can be explained (almost) by science so thats why i simply think that when you die, nothing happens after it, dunno how to say it, unconscious space or smt, i bet u know what i mean. i think its damn scary. braincells dies, u cant think anymore, brain-fucking-dead, end of story

Juzam · Post by **Juzam** » 26 Oct 2004, 10:01

Would sax to die and reincarnate as a squirrel

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 26 Oct 2004, 10:06

some bird would rox, most likely some that wont get eaten, like eagle or something

Juzam · Post by **Juzam** » 26 Oct 2004, 10:14

yeah woodpecker would be coal to be

:D
Just bang your head to a tree all day. hmm. maybe it would sack too =/

jw · Post by jw » 26 Oct 2004, 12:03

or being a pinguin, not able to fly, but freezing your balls of all your life....

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 26 Oct 2004, 13:42

i wanna come back as a duck, they're so funny

quack

epp · Post by **epp** » 26 Oct 2004, 15:34

yes ducks the best

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » 27 Oct 2004, 19:40

i would like to win liek 1-2 millions, then eat pizza and nice stuff with lotsa fat, drink beer and cola etc, every day, no school or work, then eat some more pizza. then when i get 30 or something, where no more money left, then sach suicide. dame it could be nice

John · Post by **John** » 27 Oct 2004, 20:07

I think that when u die nothing really happens, the signals in the brain just stops and thats it. No soul lives on etc blah blah ;X and when ur lying in that coffin ur just slowly becoming earth/dust.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 27 Oct 2004, 20:08

asche zu asche...und staubt zu staubt

Ramone · Post by **Ramone** » 28 Oct 2004, 10:18

Juski wrote:I dont like to think of "alive" as anything else then that you still got electrical signals in your brain. what i think is more interesting is "what is a thought".
That do connect to this topic i think, because i thinÂ´k therefor i am.

you think, therefor you are? there is an error in that, you think, therefor your Mind are. All you can be sure of is your mind, how can you know your body, aswell as everything around you, is s mental projection? Maybe youÂ´d say, canÂ´t be: IÂ´m not that smart. E.g, you dont think you could come up with everything around you, everything you read etc. But, if your mind were the only mind (only thing it seems you could be surtain of) you have nothing to compare. Maybe your current world is very trivial, and what you imagine "smart" and so on is just bullshit. So, your thoughts are NOT proof of your existance. And how the hell can you not think about "alive" as any else than "electrical signals"?!?!?!
Come on, alive is eating, laughing, sex. Interacting and so on. (maybe just mental prjection... so what?) I find it hard to belive your honest thoughts when you here "alive" is: electrical signals. really.

and yes, what is a thought is very interesting. Wanna share your opinion?

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 28 Oct 2004, 10:34

whoa scary, any1 seen preview for 'the forgotten'? imagine that, it's worse than the matrix (in a scary omg could be true kinda way)
btw i didn't write this message, you just made it up in your head

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 28 Oct 2004, 11:30

well ramone i mean all teh emotions u getwwhenhaving sex or laughing, thats just electrical signals running around yoiur brain. And yes i always thought of that this world may not exists. We laugh at little babies that belive in monsters under their beds, but we belive in life dont we?? and thats may be just as stupid.

chux · Post by **chux** » 30 Oct 2004, 14:36

No...life is just what we live. Real or not we are what we are, and you read this so you are as well

It doesnt matter if this is mental projection or not because its real to me. You must have same mental projection too seeing as you have the same or?
You dont, and youre just nothing. My imagination again being you. And being Ky. And being Abula. No, we're all just what we are, human, alive, blahh.

What was around before you? Not your mental projection surely. So who was Hitler? He died before I was born. I didnt imagine him. Am I imagining history? If I am then nothing would have existed before me. Pretty coal, me being sach teh important, but not happen...

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 30 Oct 2004, 16:30

If world is mental projection then you just imagined you were born and you imagine there IS a history too

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 30 Oct 2004, 17:23

ramone:
if those things are a mental projection, what is the mind?

then about "i think therefore i am", i think it is true in a sense. i agree with you that it doesnt prove the existance, but did you ever try to not think at all? if we were to not think for a few days, would we still see ourselves as what w e are? try it and see.

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 30 Oct 2004, 22:30

1. The mind also is a mental projection of someting else.
2. Or maybe it just is.

onlainari · Post by **onlainari** » 14 Nov 2004, 23:28

... brain has all the data of your life(memory). Has all the knowledge you have gained. All those books and different aspects to certain things. Your brain might know more about "sports" than about "politics".

When you die, your brain does die also. Then there is this: mind or a soul. Mind uses your brain all the time to make the decisions. So when your brain die, your mind is being formatted dame :((((( unless:

Is your mind capable of storing memory? How would that be, since there is a slot in your brain for memory. So probably when you die and you go to heaven or ascend to another level you aren't you anymore, that's strange, since when I think something like ascending to somewhere I always think myself being there, but I aind me, if I don't have my principals that I have built here while human.

But then if you think these "concrete" physical things aind real and they just a projection, then there is no way of telling that the brain is your knowledge and memory center.

When I have these dreams and thoughts about life after death, I feel like I am there as me of course, that is what I hope, so I hope we are living in a mental projection , and that our memory,principles and/or knoledge is restored, because the brain actually isn't our brain.

Why I hope it ? Because I want to keep my information. Why I feel like I want to keep them? I guess it is some kind of nature of all the living things, they try to obtain what they have.

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 15 Nov 2004, 02:19

"Cogito ergo sum", or "I think therefore I am" is irrefutable. Descartes proved it with logical principles, which are of the same form of knowledge as pure mathematics, i.e. 'a priori' knowledge. It IS true, you cannot debate it, sorry.

[quote=ramone]So, your thoughts are NOT proof of your existance.[/quote]

Of course they are, they must be, in the same way that 2 + 2 must = 4. How could we imagine ourself, if we didn't exist in any form. The law of contradiction states that nothing may both be and not be. 'Nothing' cannot imagine 'something', it is pure nonsense.

Personally, I don't believe in heaven or any afterlife. But this is a belief - not provable by logic. 'Cogito ergo sum' is not a belief. Read Descartes' Meditations, and understand it, and then you'll want to delete these posts.

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 15 Nov 2004, 12:47

just by looking at the sentence "i think therefore i am" i can find if not errors at least suggestions to interpret it erroneously. one can interpret this as the thinking creates the existance, or in other words: i think and this is the cause of my existance. if he would say "i think, that is a proof that i exist", this wouldn't happen.

i'm really not that much into logics, but maybe my arguments have already been handled, you can read about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

i dont know why it is so important to use complicated logics, because this makes it very hard to discuss something, and is usually why theories are constantly disproven. the more complicated problem you have, the more likely it is that you will forget something.

you might think that you need complicated logics to go into this, but you don't. i haven't read descartes and i dont know if i will, it is deepening in logics to an uncomfortable level to me, and that makes it contra-productive in learning, since i have a more practical cognition already anyway.

i have by experience realized that logics are not very useful for human thinking, if you just try some advanced programming you will see how you make stupid mistakes over and over again. things that will be overlooked when you dont let a computer process it.

also, if reality were to be logical, no one is logical enough to percieve it. you would have to go to the most primitive elemental units and use them to explain everything. it is not logical to say that "i like ice-cream because it tastes good", because every single word in that sentence is arbitrary, or if you dont agree with that, at least those words are not invented as the structural components of reality, and therefore do not explain reality with its supposed absolute logics.

yet another perspective of a logical reality would be the need of determinism. determinism means that everything that has ever happened in history is a linear cause and effect happening. if this is true, no scientific experiment can be used to prove truth, because proving that if you mix oxygen with hydrogen you create some explosion gas would defy the idea that it is a cause of everything that has happened since the beginning of time. in other words: you can't do something and explain that what you did is the cause, because according to determinism the cause for everything is anything that has happened since the beginning of time.

actually you could say that you happened to observe a part of the process of determinism, which would make it logically possible to explain reality with experiments. but that is not an evidence of determinism, and to me it seems unlikely that the complexity of reality's cause and effect (which i described in some above paragraph) would result in the absolute situations as scientific experiments claim to be.

so now that i have failed using somewhat complex logics as so many other ppl have, i will go back to using more simple logics to address the problem. this perspective is about language. i hope we can agree that "i think therefore i am" is about proving existance. but what is existance? (or what is to be, or even what does the word "am" mean?) it's a word that has been used for ages, and the definition and usage have changed through time, just like with any word.

do we know what concept of existance or being is, that descartes is discussing? [can you name something that doesn't exist? if you can do that, can you also name something that does exist, which doesn't oppose the first statement of something that doesn't exist? if you try you might find some paradoxes]

then, do we know if this concept is absolute (does it have to be?)?

then, do we know if this concept can possibly exist in reality (here it must be absolute, right?)

if these two last questions are answered yes, then how can we know if this is a valid description of reality?

im sure many ppl can answer these questions easily. if you want to answer, would you please check that you really answer the questions completely?

i won't explain further, because it would be to deepen in logics, whereas logics can easily go too deep for any human to understand, and the point is not to throw up some absolute truth, but rather to understand deeper the mystery of reality.

sudge RAT-squid toilet.

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 15 Nov 2004, 13:32

woah. nat reading that. death is end of life. you like stop living and walking around and stuff. i don't think there's an afterlife, but i'll believe in one because belief doesn't need to be proven. when beliefs are proven they're no longer beliefs, they're facts etc.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 15 Nov 2004, 13:40

I think ribot, you are first using some faulty arguments to not read descartes' theory, and after you explain us that weak contra-theory.
I believe in existance, and that if when you die, you won't cease to exist, but you will continue on as dust. In fact every atom of you will at one time be a part of something else, or even a living thing.

In that way after death, it isn't stop, but just a unconsious reincarnation.

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 15 Nov 2004, 14:12

of course thinking is not the cause of existence. 'Therefore' means 'and so it can be deduced that', not 'and consequently'.

You seem to have more of a problem with language than logic. I agree, English is an inferior language. So are all spoken languages around the world. There is too much ambiguity, and this misunderstanding above is a clear example. This is why philosophers invent formal languages, using symbols and quasi-mathematical notation, to explain themselves. But I don't see why 'cogito ergo sum' is very complicated. I might be imagining everything I sense, except myself, because I would still need to exist in some (any) form to act out the imagination. Where is the problem with this?

onlainari · Post by **onlainari** » 15 Nov 2004, 14:48

Existence I have just accepted through that popular phrase "I think therefore I am" concept. But is still questionable

It is possible to go to the smaller particles like ribo goes and maybe come up with something logical to explain that you can non-exist or smth like that. Simply because as long as there exists unknown factors and things in universe you can't be sure whether anything you have thought logical actually is logical. If you understand the universe 100% you can write a logical manual of it and start making conclusions etc...

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 15 Nov 2004, 15:30

let's look at this from this view

does elma kuski exist?
he can turn (he thinks because he wants), he can volt, throttle, brake
world for him is that small 2d one

let's imagine biiig computer where whole space is stored
it has some ez algorhytms for counting differencial equations (so called physics here)
it that world some humans exist, they think they do what they want
do they exist? or is it only some imagination?

jw · Post by jw » 15 Nov 2004, 16:08

an imagination of who? there has to exist something, otherwise exist nothing and there can't be no imagination.

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 15 Nov 2004, 17:14

milagros wrote:let's look at this from this view

does elma kuski exist?
he can turn (he thinks because he wants), he can volt, throttle, brake
world for him is that small 2d one

let's imagine biiig computer where whole space is stored
it has some ez algorhytms for counting differencial equations (so called physics here)
it that world some humans exist, they think they do what they want
do they exist? or is it only some imagination?

I hope you know that the "kuski" ur talking about is nothing more then a bush or an apple, and the kuski does wants to do anything, he just gets controlled by the computer when we press the buttons.

But then you prolly say that the computer lives in a kind of cyber world, it doesnt. all it does is controlled by humans, and so far there is no artificial intelegence created BY humans. Basicly i think the computer is just an exstension of the human mind, the difference is that its not in our bodies.

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 15 Nov 2004, 17:20

do you think you control yourself?
or is it just pure chemistry/physics? (then all we need is a big comp to count it)

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 15 Nov 2004, 19:00

I can't continue this discussion any more with you guys. If you really think it's possible for 'nothing' to be 'something', then you are not philosophers, you are psychopaths.

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 16 Nov 2004, 04:41

my post wasn't a contra-theory to descartes, but rather a suggestion for why not to go into such depths when the deepening is into the created concepts which are clumsy and paradoxical, and on top of that it is too complicated for most ppl using it.

far earlier than at this point, the logics were too complicated to have a discussion about any logical truth. some ppl didnt even read my post because it was too long. other ppl responded with arguments without acknowledging all the logics of my previous post, or at least not explaining why the reasoning is false.

i will rephrase. my point is why logics are not a good way to philosophize, at least if you are seeking the truth. it's kind of a stupid way of me to demonstrate it with supposed logical reasoning, but i don't believe in my own arguments. however, if you do believe in logical reasoning, you should be able to respond to my reasoning.

for me philosophy is a way to describe reality and find the truth. for others philosophy is the academic definition which is probably something like what sierra is looking for. academic philosophy is interesting but so deep into its own traps it seems very unlikely to me they will ever dive deep into the mysteries of reality.

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 16 Nov 2004, 11:13

academic philosophy is interesting but so deep into its own traps it seems very unlikely to me they will ever dive deep into the mysteries of reality.

right. and being unashamedly illogical will?

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 16 Nov 2004, 20:27

I guess it makes the illusion it will.

onlainari · Post by **onlainari** » 16 Nov 2004, 20:48

I can't continue this discussion any more with you guys. If you really think it's possible for 'nothing' to be 'something', then you are not philosophers, you are psychopaths.

I would put it other way around. I only think that it is possible to this so called "something" to be actually nothing. You can't say it is 100% sure that something exists if you base that on the math and the knowledge of such weak structure as the structure is that we humans have gained here.

What if something existed and this our imagination can't be anymore expressed as something or existence. <- or let's say rather, "I have problems inserting correct letters here that some old n years ago ended particle of "something" that thinks still exists can conceive this."

"how can that particle then still think?" Maybe the 'time' is something else than you thought. and this wway of phrasing this would make the most sense we were forced to say that "it thinks even when it doesn't exist" or maybe we can just say that you had that thought n years ago that you are going to have here in your imagination in 10minutes(humans time concept) from now etc etc :X