Re: Afterlife?
By: Angus McLeod to Dali's Llama on Tue Oct 02 2007 10:18:00
> > > That's your theory and I have not yet acknowledged it's validity.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. However, at least my "theory" is in line with empirical
> > evidence - namely physics, and biology.
>
> Such as what?
Well, it's a fact that not one single cell of our bodies survives from the
time we're born, to the time we die - unless, of course, we die as toddlers.
(biology)
It's a fact that we never experience the world as such, only as filtered
through our own habitual perceptions, and processed by our brains.
(biology/neurophysics)
It's a fact that all matter is densely packed energy - potential kinetic, for
the most part.
(physics)
It's a fact that simple iterative systems form complex emergent patterns,
given time and chance mutation.
(complexity/"chaos" theory, cybernetics [genetic algorithms], biology
[dna/evolution])
Do you need more, or will that suffice for now?
>
> > My metaphysical arguments are based entirely on provable physical evidenc
> > unlike "afterlife" theories based on religious mysticism (or worse, dogma
>
> Afterlife? I thought we were talking about what constitutes "you", not
> what might constitute you after you're dead...
>
Well, I *did* change the thread header to read "afterlife?", and the post to
which I was responding was on that theme. And really, the question of what
constitues "me" bears specific relation to any concept of an afterlife. The
two are connected, are they not?
Surreality is just an illusion.
---
■ Synchronet ■ [aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org] - Come fly our friendly skies!
|
