Chrisp sadi: "you simply exist, as do other humans, organisms, and more typically stable chemical formations because the things that are more stable or better at existing tend to be in existence more often than those that are not."

yeah, that's really cool. As i've studies a bit of physics rather than Neuroscience i've thought a lot about this from a physics perspective.

If you have lots of wires, or string, then tend to get knotted up. IT takes ages to unknott them. I could say 'the natural state of string is knotted'. It is an entropy thing, but for string once it is stuck in a decent knot it is difficult to change, so knotted states last longer than others. (also there is only one unknotted state, there are many possible knoted states, thus the knotted ones are more likely, by the way that is equivalent to entropy increasing - higher entropy states are more likely)

So with entropy increasing, something has happen that certain structure (like crystals) become more stable and ordered and replicate. (once you have a crystal in a solution you can get more of the same pattern growing on that structure) So even though entropy is always pushing toward disorder we get things ordering themselves in lower entropy states. (locally, globally they increase the entropy elsewhere to decrease their local entropy) Eventually these ordered structures (biological-molecular machines like ATP, protiens which produce mayn different chemicals, individual cells are really cool) formed life, and intelligence arose. Intelligence allows us better control our enviroment, whether it is to find shelter, burn wood to keep warm. In all instance we're reducing our energy loss (or need to eat) or finding better ways to extract energy from our enviroment (farming, hunting, growing yeast in vats... whatever)

When we eat our body takes a highly ordered structure (say sugar) and converts it into useful work it then produces a lower order structure, (water, carbon dioxide) Intelligence allows us to figure out better ways of dereasing our local entropy. It allows us understand the universe (or at least our little part of it) and hence survive better. However it is always working against entropy.

I propose that if t wasn't for the fact of entropy in this universe, there would have been no use for intelligence. (it would not have been a big enough advantage to have survived.) Which is kinda cool.

orathaic, those are big conclusions and I applaud you! The existence of localized areas of low entropy mostly have something to do with the second major driving force of the universe besides entropy, which is enthalpy. It's the tendency for things to fall to a lower energy state rather than the reverse. It's much more likely a ball will roll down a flight of stairs than roll up it. This is why events that lower entropy, such as the freezing of water, might occur if the temperature is right, but this doesn't violate the Second Law.

However, you've got a great idea, and it has already been explored in Erwin Schroedinger's "What Is Life?" Despite being a physicist, he makes a very important claim that life is negative entropy in the sense that it's whole existence is to perpetuate it's existence and maintain internal order against the ever disordered universe. This is not some conscious physical process, but just a simple coincidence of the fact that whatever tends to exist will exist, and that physical, chemical, and biological system that happens to be good at existing will be existing more than anything that isn't, and it happens that maintaining your internal order and state of negative entropy is very helpful in retaining the existence of that organism. Intelligence is indeed another tool in the box that helps us maintain homeostasis. Life is special because it goes beyond simple physical and chemical and into the biological realm where it's not just simple laws that govern stability but an evolution, thanks to the replicating nature of life, that leads it down fantastic roads to achieve this end. Today, most biologists use Schroedinger's idea in their definitions of life, which is surprisingly hard to put down, despite our innate intuitive sense of what is alive.

Of course, this intuitive sense exists because it is important for humans to know what else is a living organisms because living organisms can be depended on to have their own interests, desires, fears and arsenals... while the inorganic is static and uninteresting, not because it is made up of different physical particles, but simply because it is not as much of a concern to our survival. This is why you immediately start watching a squirrel when you see one, despite it's relative triviality in modern day life, and you ignore rocks and even other biological organisms such as trees because for the most part they don't concern your survival. This is a tangent, but I think it's interesting to show why we can have such trouble defining life when we already have an intuitive grasp of this, but really our intuitive grasp is flawed and can undermine our efforts to put out a logically consistent classification of the living versus the nonliving.

replace "coincidence" with "consequence" in the second paragraph.

Hi Chrisp :) Shall we just schedule a quarterly debate?

You say:
"Yes, I would say there's always the possibility that your exact interpretation of life after death happens to be correct, but the theory isn't on nearly the same level as the theory that your consciousness simply ceases to exist in terms of the evidence and science in support. You might have some small evidence in the form of trusting the revelations of prophets, but that's nothing compared to repeatedly tested empirical results that are used to form a scientific model that has thus far been shown to be accurate in prediction to a certain degree all of the time."

Give me this evidence, because this entire paragraph smells of "you're not as smart as me." "Repeatedly tested empirical results"? On life after death? Really?

When a light bulb burns out, where does the light go?

To the next life. Unless someone can show evidence this is not true :)

@Chrispminis: wow, i should read some more.

I never paid attention to entalpy, but i understand why there is a lowest energy states (or why all the negative energy states are filled... ) and i understand why there is a conservation law for mass/energy. (you couldn't have stable states of matter if it was not conserved, equally if things could drop to any negative energy level they would give off arbitrary amounts of energy.)

I know that you can order a state by putting energy in, thus if an ordered state is a lower energy then randomly each part of it will give off this energy and not be able to climb back out. That is how crystals form....

anyway this is rather tangent to the conversation.

@Bartdogg: it is not ''you're not as smart as me.'' it is, the evidence i value is more rigorous than the evidence you value.

But really i would say that the scientific method of evaluating truth is better than most religious methods, or at least more successful in answering the problems it is capable of tackling..

Still with no verifiable evidence of the next life a scientist has to conclude we can't test your theory thus we are skeptical of it. As we are skeptical of the existance of unicorns (i've seen some in books but that isn't enough) as we are skeptical that here is a teapot orbiting jupiter.

That said a psychologist/evolutionist might claim that belief in an afterlife satisfies a very human desire for completness, for answers questions and fears about death. (because only an intelligence with a survival instinct can survive very long, thus we all fear things which can kill us) Religion tells us that there is meaning in our lives, and we don't have to waste time worrying about these things. Thus we have more time to keep ourselves alive and those who believe are more successful and procreate more often.

And are happier, and as many zooligists can tell you, unhappy apes tend to lose interest in sex.

Still that we have an explaination for this belief which doesn't require it to be true does not contradict the belief. Iy could equally be true, we just can't test it, so you are wasting your time argueing about it.

You may really care about what you believe, but what others believe is their choice, and most people have already made their minds up. No amount of argueing will convert them because they choose to believe what they want to (based on inconclusive evidence either way)

If someone comes to you asking for answers then they want to understand your ideas and may embrace them, but no amount of talking about it on the internet wil change anyone's mind. So go out and do something nice for your neighbour, because you'll feel good about yourself. (humans also evolved to form supportive communities, and thrive in them - of course if you don't value your own happiness then you shouldn't follow my advice.)

@ zeno - (a) a lightbulb has to be supplied energy in order to remain lit, so your analogy is already flawed (the energy that went into the lightbulb is still there--be it a battery or a generator--it just can't fill the lightbulb because the bulb is busted.

(b) when the light actually goes into the bulb, it still exists (energy cannot be destroyed, only changed into something like heat).

So yeah, if I want to continue with your analogy, I could say that the lightbulb is like a human body: whatever it is that is keeping your body alive, when you die that the thing (you can call it electrical impulses, I'll call it spirit), that thing goes somewhere and/or becomes something else. The real question is whether your consciousness goes with it (and since I believe a spirit is really just fine matter, it means that the same electrical impulses that went through your carnal body can be transferred into your finer "spirit" body). The electrical charges don't stop, and they still have a place to go.

@ orathaic: "You may really care about what you believe, but what others believe is their choice, and most people have already made their minds up. No amount of argueing will convert them because they choose to believe what they want to (based on inconclusive evidence either way)

If someone comes to you asking for answers then they want to understand your ideas and may embrace them, but no amount of talking about it on the internet wil change anyone's mind."

I heartily agree.

When you die, the energy that is stored up in your body does go somewhere. It rots into the ground. Some of it provides nutrients for plants, some is eaten by worms, maggots, etc. It doesn't fly off into the ether or go to heaven or whatever, don't be silly.

@ Zeno: "When a light bulb burns out, where does the light go?"

A traditional light bulb lights up due to the filament heating up, causing it to give off both heat and light. Essentially the bulb takes energy from the battery or mains electrical supply, and converts that electrical energy into heat and light, which are given off and do not remain in the bulb for any length of time.

When a bulb 'burns out', this is because the filament has broken. A working bulb forms part of an electrical circuit. When the bulb breaks, the circuit is broken. Therefore it is no longer possible for the energy to flow through the bulb, and it instead remains in the battery or mains.

So "where does the light go?" is not a sensible question in terms of the bulb breaking. You may just as well ask "where does the light go?" when the bulb is lit as the light is being given off, and leaving the bulb, all the time it is glowing.

If you mean "where does the energy go?" then, as Talus says, the answer is that the energy remains in the source (ie the battery) waiting to be used - for example when a replacement bulb is fitted. Until then, it doesn't go anywhere.

@ Orth - you say:

" it is not ''you're not as smart as me.'' it is, the evidence i value is more rigorous than the evidence you value.
But really i would say that the scientific method of evaluating truth is better than most religious methods, or at least more successful in answering the problems it is capable of tackling.."


So, you're saying "our evidence is better than your evidence?" Have you looked into any of the supposed "evidence for God?" If so, give me the evidence against also. I'd like to compare the two.
None exists either way, so you conclude, (And Dawkins/Harris etc) "ok, since we can't empirically prove the existence or lack thereof for God, then believing in him must be no different than believing in unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster!" Dawkins, and Chrisp (and you I would venture to guess), say that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and convices almost everyone. They won't believe in God until they see it. They throw down the "verification principle" which says no one should believe anything unless it is empirically proven by some sense experience or rationally by logic.

The major problem with this thinking is that you really can't (and I've already had this discussion with chrisp) empirically prove much of anything. You're system answers very little; and it doesn't even live up to its own standards. You worship at the altar of science verifying everything when really science is always changing; even Dawkins admits that, regarding the Darwinian theory for example, "new facts may come to light which will force our successors... to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition." You're playing with a house of cards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't. Besides, you (and Dawkins et al) assume that your beliefs are "the view from nowhere," as though you have no bias and complete objectivity. Philosophers today agree that is impossible.

Heres the reality. You have a BELIEF system, and so do I. Let the public choose and present your arguments, but get off your high horse in thinking you have a corner on psychological, philosophical, any other type of truth; or that your "evidence" is better.

And Orath you say this:

"You may really care about what you believe, but what others believe is their choice, and most people have already made their minds up. No amount of argueing will convert them because they choose to believe what they want to (based on inconclusive evidence either way)
If someone comes to you asking for answers then they want to understand your ideas and may embrace them, but no amount of talking about it on the internet wil change anyone's mind."

If that is true, Talus or Orath, then I would love to hear any type of motive for why you've been active in this thread.

@Talus - Do you feel like it would undermine your sanity and/or capacity to live a decent life if you were to receive some sort of undeniable confirmation that what you've just said is entirely untrue?

"If you mean "where does the energy go?" then, as Talus says, the answer is that the energy remains in the source (ie the battery) waiting to be used - for example when a replacement bulb is fitted. Until then, it doesn't go anywhere."

That is how I like to think of the Ether. Where ideas/souls take place of the 'energy' and the ether itself is the 'battery.' Thanks for the metaphor.

@ bartdogg42: I agree with your arguments. And as for your lumping me with Orathaic for agreeing with him...I should like to clarify that many/most people will not be swayed by any kind of argument (regardless of the evidence or lack thereor). They have simply made up their minds. Orathaic is someone who has made up his mind for science with no God (as has Dawkins and others). So yes, many people have already made a decision and won't budge from it.

I have made up my mind for science with God. I don't intend to budge on it, but, to answer lulzworth's question indirectly, I do listen to all arguments and all points of view. I'm not impervious to logic or the spirit or any other means that can convince me of something that is true. I am perhaps one of the most open minded people you will meet. Does that mean you will ever change me from my point of view? Not likely (unless my point of view is flawed, in which case my open discussions with other people would eventually reveal some kind of problem with my belief system). That has not happened yet though and, since I believe I know the truth, I don't believe I will ever change that belief system.

Sooooo, yes. Many people (for whatever reason) have their minds made up already. But that's not everyone. A lot of people sincerely seek to know the truth (irrespective from whence it comes) and a lot of people have sincere questions that they can't find the answers to. For those people, it's kind of a crap shoot where they can find those answers. I suspect an online diplomacy forum is just as likely to reach them as any other channel.

So yes, I agree with Orathaic that many people refuse to change their minds and that posting online will do nothing for them. But I also believe that there are people with open minds (not necessarily seeking religion, but seeking answers to the greater questions in life) and it is those people I wish to address (because if I didn't speak up they would never hear my perspective).

@ Lulzworth: To answer your question directly, the answer is no. It would not "undermine [my] sanity and/or capacity to live a decent life if [I] were to receive some sort of undeniable confirmation that what [I've] just said is entirely untrue." That's silly anyway. Lots of people don't know or don't believe what I do and they lead good lives. Why would I suddenly change into a social miscreant just because my relgious beliefs changed? True, I might live my life differently, but I wouldn't become a psychopath.

The inherent problem with your question though is that many of the things I know to be true are both part of religion and part of my understanding of the world. I know for a fact that I feel good when I do good things; likewise, I know that lasting happiness comes from serving others, working hard and being industrious, and spending time with my family (and extended family). Soooo...even if I received some sort of divine revelation telling me that my religion was not true, I would still continue doing the things that I have learned make me happy.

I'll tell you this though. I am 100% certain that such a revelation will not come to me. You might think that makes me nuts or (more likely) narrow-minded, but I say it's just that my faith has progressed into a near-knowledge of things. You wouldn't know of course how the heck I could say that unless you had lived my life...so I can't blame anyone else for not seeing things the way I do. But what I CAN say is that I'm an intelligent, open-minded person. I'm not a religious fanatic or hate-monger. I'm not a bigot nor am I prejudice against other peoples views. But that hasn't stopped me from having my own set of views which I firmly believe in.

@bartdogg42:
1) taking part in this discussion, both myself and Talus have different views on this topic. Both are different, both are not mainstream thought, and we've both said a lot about them. We've also agreed not to argue with each other as it would likely be pointless.

2) Thanks for taking my words away from the spirit they were intended.

I said science is better at getting to truths it can handle. see: "more successful in answering the problems it is capable of tackling"

There are problems science isn't good at, social science is very difficult to do (without infringing on people's personal freedoms, and without breaking ethical rules which scientists - as all humans - should be bound by)

Until the 60's scientists didn't really understand of study complex/disordered systems like bubbles. There is a lot of new science which maybe you don't here much about, other than string theory or looking for some kind of unified theory combinding both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Even within physics we are still learning a great deal.

Science is really good at answering these questions very well. It's not a house of cards, It is more like a bubble structure, things change over time, sometimes a bubble bursts, but all the other ones merge, and new bubble are being built up all the time.

It is a belief system, on that at least you are right. However it is also a very successful one. Science has progressed over the past 100 years to the point where we understand the technology required to have this conversation across the world. Technology is not science, but it is built upon science, and this is not a shakey foundation.

Trust me, of all the interesting things which are going to change, no-one is going to come out and find something new which means the internal combustion engine doesn't work anymore. We understand how it works now, and that isn't going to change much in the next million years.

Also I never claimed there was no God. I simply claim that we always exist, and our minds are not very good at comprehending what time is. What it means that it is a dimension like the other three spatial ones we're so used to. I can barely get my head around what i'm trying to say which makes it even harder to explain it to others...

And to address your comment on dawkins and darwin.

New facts have come to light since Darwin, he propossed that parents produce children with similar characteristics. Tall parents produce tall children, red haired parents produce red haired children(most of the time) but it wasn't until the discovery of DNA about 100 years later that we understand why this was the case. (and when sometimes we get traits like hair/eye colour skipping a generation... and why oh... lots of things) But one thing this discovery did do was explain how mutations occur, which is a requirement for Darwins theory of Evolution.

It is always possible something will come along and overturn our ideas, but it is very very unlikely. Less likely than finding unicorns living on mars, I'd imagine.

Meanwhile I stand by my comment, Science tests it's theories more rigioursly than most religious beliefs. Science re-evaluates it's theories with new evidence and discrads mistakes. I know of no religion which has tested one of it's claims and found it to be false.

Or perhaps everytime someone sees a thing which is obviously false and being preached by their religion then they set up their own one. For example when the protestant reformers decided that the practice of selling indulgences was not one which was good for people othe than the church. (even though the Roman catholic church believed that their pope was infallible, and thus if he sold indulgences then it was fine to do so...)

Other religions have had similar schisms just because there is no way to test any of their beliefs. It is all a matter of opinion, and dogma.

The only way science has to deal with such problems (of multiple competing theories) is Ockham's razor. Science can simple choose the simplest theory which explains all the evidence at the present time.

Religion has no such method of deciding which books are holy and which are muslim and therefore the prohpets who wrote them don't count. (or mormen, or Ba'hai, or Hindu, or one of those forgotten Christians whose account didn't get approved of in the 1st or 2nd century by the big important meeting of bishops...)

So i do consider myself a scientist. However that doesn't mean I believe there is no God.

As an agnostic I'm appalled at myself for reading a belief thread :P

Oh I should clarify "Strong Agnostic"

being a Strong Agnostic, if i understand the position correctly, you don't believe it is possible for humans to know whether God exists.

Does that also extend to saying you don't believe it is possible to know what happens after death?

Also does that mean you don't think the answers are important? I mean, obviously a scientist would take it that the simplest answer was correct, a christian would take it that the answer written down in the bible is correct, do you take it that asking an unanswerable question is a waste of time because you can never be sure?

@ Oralthaic - You pretty much summed it up but I in no way devalue the importance of the answers. Just understand how relative they are. The answer value to a question to an individual is not less than any other question or answer another prefers.

Go bartdogg!

You're better at this than I am =)