jugfingers
Smash Champion
lol ok I forgive you.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Reincarnation
- Thread starter jugfingers
- Start date
- Status
1) You're just plain wrong here. I don't know how else to explain this. I must ask you: Have you ever taken a university level physics course? You don't seem to really understand what "energy" is at all. Can you even try to define what "primal independent energy" even means? What a contrived phrase that is. Independent from what? The rest of the universe? Then how does it interact with the normal universe without violating causality?
2) A computer program written for windows will not work under Linux. And consider how similar those systems are. Now you want me to believe that something as complicated as human intelligence can be ported over to something other than a human brain? Come on.
3) I was calling a dualist worldview superstition. As it certainly is "something that you believe in not based on knowledge or experience".
You see, when you do propose a theory such as this, you have to do two things:
A) Show that your theory is possible. This is to prove that it can at least conceivably be true. It must not contain any internal contradictions.
but also
B) Show that it is supported by evidence. This is to show that it actually is true. There are an infinite number of theories which satisfy A, but do not have any evidence to support it. These are worthless theories. Imagine alien abductions, massive conspiracy theories, etc... They all COULD be true. But have no supporting evidence.
You have yet to even bypass restriction A. Reincarnation as you're putting it violates all kinds of physical and logical laws. And even THEN, you haven't put forward a shred of evidence to suggest that it actually IS true.
2) A computer program written for windows will not work under Linux. And consider how similar those systems are. Now you want me to believe that something as complicated as human intelligence can be ported over to something other than a human brain? Come on.
3) I was calling a dualist worldview superstition. As it certainly is "something that you believe in not based on knowledge or experience".
Oh, come now. Where do you think you do all of your thinking, then? Your knee cap?
You see, when you do propose a theory such as this, you have to do two things:
A) Show that your theory is possible. This is to prove that it can at least conceivably be true. It must not contain any internal contradictions.
but also
B) Show that it is supported by evidence. This is to show that it actually is true. There are an infinite number of theories which satisfy A, but do not have any evidence to support it. These are worthless theories. Imagine alien abductions, massive conspiracy theories, etc... They all COULD be true. But have no supporting evidence.
You have yet to even bypass restriction A. Reincarnation as you're putting it violates all kinds of physical and logical laws. And even THEN, you haven't put forward a shred of evidence to suggest that it actually IS true.
...uh, what?
Oh, sorry, I must have missed the memo that says we disregard all scientific research in this thread.
jugfingers
Smash Champion
uh yea I'm taking physics right now in university. but thats not really a prerequisite for this topic, or understanding that everything in the universe is energy I think it is you who does not understand what energy is if you disagree with the assertion that everything is energy
everything is energy! wtf its not complicated.
ok so heres my point
Everything in the universe is energy as Einstein has already pointed out
consciousness exists in the universe.
consciousness is therefore energy
what about this do you not understand?
about my wild claim that humans contain primal energy:
for something to be completely dependent on another source of energy would imply a starting point in the universe, but the big bang did not happen at only one point in the universe it happened everywhere, so all the points space at this moment existed in the original space at the time of the big bang. but the distance between them has changed, this means that every living creature is a creation of points in space that evolved independently from a very dense hot point,
if you cannot understand the paradox of being independent while simultaneously being interrelated then you won't understand how this can work
being independent doesn't violate causality as all of your actions still effect everything else, but the origin of your actions at some level is independent.
lol what? I agreed with you on point #2 I said that humans Consciousness cannot be transported into anything other than a human brain...
read it again.
oh...well when you put it like that.
...you should publish your findings in a Neurophysiological journal,
is that really your argument?
"c'mon guys its obvious, just believe me!"
so where exactly in the brain is my love for hiding dried unhusked cobs of blue corn on people who pass out at parties located. I'd be interested to know so I can make sure to protect that brain tissue.
I mean narrowing down the brain as the source of human thought isn't really narrowing it down to anything.
its the equivalent to narrowing down human thought from the entire human body to the upper half of the human body, its essentially meaningless.
1) what physical and logical laws does reincarnation violate?
2) there is some people who have compiled evidence for reincarnation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research
Collections of anecdotal reports suggestive of reincarnation have been published by Stevenson, in books such as Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Stevenson spent over 40 years of his life devoted to the study of children who have spoken about putative past lives. Generally, Stevenson documented the child's statements and then attempted to identify the deceased person the child identifies with. Where possible Stephenson attempted to verify the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory.[11][12] During interviews and when reviewing documents, Stevenson searched for alternate ways to account for the testimony given: that the child came upon the information in some normal way, that the witnesses were deluded or engaged in fraud, that the correlations were the result of coincidence or misunderstanding. But in many cases, Stevenson concluded that no normal explanation sufficed.[13] In summing up his investigations of 2500 cases of children who appeared to remember past lives, Stevenson has said:[14]
“ My conclusion so far is that reincarnation is not the only explanation for these cases, but that it is the best explanation we have for the stronger cases, by which I mean those in which a child makes a considerable number (say 20 or 30) of correct statements about another person who lives in a family that lives quite remote from his own and with which his family has had no prior contacts."
uh no I guess I just missed the scientific proof that higher faculties of human thought are located in physical brain tissue
but judging by your response im sure you'd be more than happy to provide those for me.
conclusive proof....not hypothesis.
No, that is absolutely not what Einstein said. Special Relativity states that matter and energy are proportional. That's it. It does not make blanket claims about "everything being energy". That would be nonsense.
You have to recognise the difference between an object and a behavior. A snowball is an object. Being cold is a behavior. "Cold" is not an object. "Cold" is not made of matter nor energy. It is a word we use to describe the behavior of the snowball.
Humans are made of matter. "Intelligence" is not. "Intelligence" is a behavior that humans exhibit. It is perfectly possible that all life in the world will perish. A simple asteroid is all that it will take. Upon the death of all human beings, conservation of matter will ensure that none of the atoms used inside humans will disappear. Those atoms will still be around after the asteroid.
The quality of "intelligence" will not. All intelligence will have been eradicated. And this will not violate any physical laws, since intelligence is NOT made of energy. It is a behavior that humans used to exhibit.
Just consider the absurdity of what you're claiming. If "everything is energy" then so is Mozilla Firefox. And since it is "made of energy" it must be conserved when I turn my computer off, right? Therefore every time when I turn my computer off, Firefox must be re-incarnated into someone else's computer.
You have to recognise the difference between an object and a behavior. A snowball is an object. Being cold is a behavior. "Cold" is not an object. "Cold" is not made of matter nor energy. It is a word we use to describe the behavior of the snowball.
Humans are made of matter. "Intelligence" is not. "Intelligence" is a behavior that humans exhibit. It is perfectly possible that all life in the world will perish. A simple asteroid is all that it will take. Upon the death of all human beings, conservation of matter will ensure that none of the atoms used inside humans will disappear. Those atoms will still be around after the asteroid.
The quality of "intelligence" will not. All intelligence will have been eradicated. And this will not violate any physical laws, since intelligence is NOT made of energy. It is a behavior that humans used to exhibit.
Just consider the absurdity of what you're claiming. If "everything is energy" then so is Mozilla Firefox. And since it is "made of energy" it must be conserved when I turn my computer off, right? Therefore every time when I turn my computer off, Firefox must be re-incarnated into someone else's computer.
Ryu Shimazu
Smash Master
We live, we die, we hope we go somewhere afterwards. Hope, not reincarnation, maybe hope is in reincarnation, but honestly if you dwell on what's after or what is mystical you'll either go insane or..well that's about it.
Burden of proof is on the one challenging the scientifically supported data with some false claim.
In this case, that's you.
jugfingers
Smash Champion
E=mc2!
matter and energy are two different forms of the same thing thats why there is an equal sign between them lol.
everything in the universe can be converted into energy with this equation.
everything is energy, yes this is what this equation Claims, and no it is not nonsense.
wtf I can't believe you are arguing against this. Your clearly an Arts student lol.
harharhar.... k first of all you reduced the state of being cold to a word as though the same reduction doesn't apply to an object
2nd the state of being cold IS made out of energy, it is the perception of an energetic being.
it is a state of awareness of a being who is made of energy.
without energy there is no perception of cold.
hence the awareness or perception of cold is an energetic state, ironically denoted by a lack of energy(heat).
intelligence and behaviour both require energy!
our brains run primarily on glucose and need a constant supply of oxygen and glucose or you will pass out because we as humans Transform glucose into thought. it may be a subtle form of energy but it is energy nonetheless.
your argument only works if thoughts/thinking/intelligence do not actually exist.
whether or not this energy form stays intact at the time of death is controversial,
But evidence for this cohesion is seen in our dream bodies.
This wouldn't have anything to do with the conservation of energy because energy is not being released at the time of shut down, energy is being diverted
but if you had an amazingly sensitive incredibly sophisticated device that could pick up and read the subtle electrical and magnetic resonances emitted from a computer into the universe you could theoretically pick up and receive this data and thus reincarnate firefox lol. but this wouldn't have anything to do with shutting off the computer because you could do this at any time, Your computer is constantly emitting this energy so shutting down your computer would inhibit any further information from being sent. The conservation of energy is satisfied with the diversion of power The energy that was once powering your computer is now able to power something else through the electrical lines.
the difference between dying and shutting off a computer is that when you die all of your energy is released.
but computers don't contain any independent energy source so energy is simply being diverted away.
...lol actually in this situation you have it backwards, because my claim was that there is no scientific data to support the physical location of higher human thinking, I wasn't trying to challenge any scientific data, I was saying that there is none.
so the burden of proof if you disagree with me is to show me some scientific proof of the contrary.
because really how would I prove this? show you every neurophysiological journal every published?
see look its not there! lol
researchers may look at general regions of the brain stimulated by different mental activites, but have never proven that thoughts are actually located in brain tissue.
I think this is the pivotal point where you make your fundamental mistake. What does it mean "to exist"?jugfingers said:
My laptop exists. It is made of atoms and is located right in front of me. We can define existence as "being made of atoms".
So then I ask you the question, does the color blue exist? No. Not in the same manner that my laptop exists. Blue is not an object. Blue is not a thing. It is a quality that objects exhibit. It is not an object all by itself.
If blue were to "exist" in the same sense that laptops, apples, and chairs do, then it must be made of atoms. And therefore it must have a weight? How much does the color Blue weigh? How much does love weigh. How much does Intelligence weigh? These are nonsensical questions. Because these words do not represent objects. They represent qualities that objects exhibit.
When we say "love exists", what we are saying is really shorthand for "people that exhibit the behavior of love exist". Not love itself. You can't hit love with a baseball bat. It is not an object.
Neither is intelligence. Consciousness is not an object. You yourself keep harping on how there is no one part of the brain responsible for consciousness. You are right, it is a behavior resulting from the entire brain as a whole. (With redundant sub-compartments) But Consciousness itself is not an object.
If consciousness were made of energy, then it would have a definite location. You would be able to see it and say: there it is. That's consciousness. It would have a definite weight and size and temperature. Do you see how absurd this notion is?
And yes, energy is required for the quality of "cold" to be present in an object. But this is NOT the same as saying that the quality of "cold" is MADE of energy. (It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition) The energy is contained within the object. And the word "cold" describes how much energy there is.
And I am an Engineering graduate student, thank you very much. I also have a degree in mathematics and computer science.
That's not quite what that equation means.
A simple trip to Wikipedia should help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
To quote yourself:
jugfingers
Smash Champion
the colour Blue is refracted or reflected light and it does exist the same way labtop apples and chairs do. it is just less dense.
can you hit gamma rays with a baseball bat, can you weigh gamma rays? do they have a definite size and temperature?
do you see how absurd your argument is
..........................lol being able to hit something with a baseball bat is not the litmus test of existence.
lol wtf kid please
yes that is what that equation means. and thats what the wikipedia article says wtf are you talking about?
the fact that mass is energy is the reason your able to blow up a city with an atom
The fundamental concept of e=mc^2 is that everything in the universe is energy
from your wikipedia article and I quote
"mass and energy as commonly understood are two names for the same thing"
get *****, by your own article....lol
good luck next time sophmore.
No. the color blue is not refracted nor reflected. Photons are refracted and reflected. "Blue" is merely a word to describe that those photons are of a particular wavelength. The photons are the thing which exist. The color blue is not.
So I leave it up to the judgement of the reader to observe that where you are mistaken. I can see that you are unwilling to see it yourself.
So I leave it up to the judgement of the reader to observe that where you are mistaken. I can see that you are unwilling to see it yourself.
Again, you don't get it.
There is no such thing as "blue". There are things called "photons" and electromagnetic waves (their rest mass is zero. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon).
"Blue" does not exist, unless there is something to perceive it. When you look at the sky, it's not "blue". The ocean is not "blue". It's not as if water molecules are "blue". Due to the electronic properties of these molecules, they reflect light at a certain wavelength. The light is measurable, the number of photons is measurable, the wavelengths are measurable. "Blue" is not. Blue is what happens when those waves of light enter the eyes, hit the retina, stimulate the optic nerve to send signals of a certain frequency to the cerebral cortex and surrounding areas, where these signals are analyzed and interpreted based on myriad factors, allowing the wavelength of light to be identified as "blue". But "blue" itself is nothing.
There is no "blue" without a brain to interpret wavelengths of light. Similarly, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, there is no sound. Sound is also dependent on perception. If that tree falls and nobody's around, air molecules will vibrate. But the characteristics of the vibrating air molecules, in other words, loudness, timbre, pitch, tonal quality, all these things happen in the brain. Without brain function and perception, there's no such thing as sound.
edit: tl;dr version: what Alt just said
Also, have you even taken basic physics?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Jug, your argument lacks one fundamental thing - population growth.
http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html - According to this site, the Earth has 6,000,000,000 as of 1999. Using that chart, in 700AD, there were 210,000,000 people. With these numbers, that's an increase of 5,790,000,000 people. But, according to your account, thoughts and consciousness are energy, which cannot be created, so are nearly 5.8 million people without thoughts and consciousness? If not, where did this energy come from?
http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html - According to this site, the Earth has 6,000,000,000 as of 1999. Using that chart, in 700AD, there were 210,000,000 people. With these numbers, that's an increase of 5,790,000,000 people. But, according to your account, thoughts and consciousness are energy, which cannot be created, so are nearly 5.8 million people without thoughts and consciousness? If not, where did this energy come from?
...? Where in my posts did I dispute this point?
jugfingers
Smash Champion
reducing the colour blue to a photon is the same as reducing a person to an atom.
it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
lol the colour blue is a frequency of light not a subjective perception
and its made of photons, as you so conveniently pointed out,
it is photons of light vibrating at a particular frequency.
and yes things need to be percieved to exist. at least for the perceiver, but when they are being perceived they exist. so whats your point?
if I see the colour blue it must exist then ....at least for me
so according to your tree falling argument the colour blue exists if I see it.
plants, animals, stars,
are you arguing that energy in the universe has somehow increased?
when you said thats not quite what this equation means lol. cause thats what I said it means.
And I would also like to point out that mass and energy are not equivalent. They are proportional. They are fundamentally different things. They are measured in different units. E=mc^2 says merely that they are proportional.
It's kind of like saying that money and ducks are equal. Well, of course they're not. But they are proportional. You can exchange ducks for money, and you can exchange money for ducks. But they are not "equal".
It is an unfortunate choice of words that places like Wikipedia say "Mass-Energy Equivalence". But that's just the title of the page. If you read the content, you will see that they are careful to point out that mass and energy are merely convertible to and from one another.
It's kind of like saying that money and ducks are equal. Well, of course they're not. But they are proportional. You can exchange ducks for money, and you can exchange money for ducks. But they are not "equal".
It is an unfortunate choice of words that places like Wikipedia say "Mass-Energy Equivalence". But that's just the title of the page. If you read the content, you will see that they are careful to point out that mass and energy are merely convertible to and from one another.
ru5514n
Smash Ace
No, he's pointing out a loophole in your argument. Unless you're stating that living objects can reincarnate into inanimate ones, and vice versa (which doesn't happen either way) you're stating that there is more energy in the universe, which, as any physics students will tell you, is a fallacy.
jugfingers
Smash Champion
lol.....
no.
the equivalence of money......to ducks is not the same as energy to mass
lolol.....jesus.
from the wiki article
"According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood are two names for the same thing"
the fact that they are convertible is evidence that they are two different forms of the same thing.
I am not stating there is more energy in the universe, that appeared to be what he was saying.....and asking me to account for this increase lol.
are you saying that plants animals and stars are inanimate objects?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
I have a cursory understanding of physics, and I am dizzy from how much you do not understand it.
Like at all...
Like at all...
jugfingers
Smash Champion
says the guy who just asked me to account for an increase of energy in the universe! LOLOL
energy stays constant junior.
leave you childish comments at home unless you have something to add to the discussion.
You have an incredible penchant for just barely not understanding the point of a post, my dear jugfingers. Matter and energy have different units. They are not the same thing. QED.
The fact that one has to be converted into another is demonstrative of the fact that they are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, then no conversion would be necessary. Conversion would in fact make no sense.
Meters and feet both measure the same thing: length. Joules and Grams do not measure the same thing. Please go and ask your physics professor if Joules and Grams measure the same thing. The answer you will get is no.
It is possible to convert one into another, however. You can do some special things and transform matter into energy (and vice versa). But this is not the same thing as saying that they are identical. There is a big difference between having an object with a lot of energy near you, and an object with a lot of mass near you. One if likely to kill you, one is not.
The fact that one has to be converted into another is demonstrative of the fact that they are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, then no conversion would be necessary. Conversion would in fact make no sense.
Meters and feet both measure the same thing: length. Joules and Grams do not measure the same thing. Please go and ask your physics professor if Joules and Grams measure the same thing. The answer you will get is no.
It is possible to convert one into another, however. You can do some special things and transform matter into energy (and vice versa). But this is not the same thing as saying that they are identical. There is a big difference between having an object with a lot of energy near you, and an object with a lot of mass near you. One if likely to kill you, one is not.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
What? No, I asked you for to explain your ridiculous argument when facts oppose it.
If your troll posts translates to you trying to say that since we have 6 billion people and counting, the energy was in other parts of the universe to fit your flawed hypothesis, then you really are just reaching.
You have proven NOTHING to make your argument even somewhat realistic much less logical, and you are talking down to the two biggest physics/science people on the boards in Alt and GoldShadow. They, individually, know more about physics and everything you are arguing more than you ever will. Until you can actually provide FACTS to back-up anything you are asserting, this trolling will not last much longer.
jugfingers
Smash Champion
I never said they were identical.
I said they were different forms of the same thing
like saying ice and water aren't both h20 because you have to convert one to the other, because theres a big difference between having a a large amount of ice near you and a large amount of water near you,
one is likely to get you wet, the other is likely to make you cold! ohhh they must be different things entirely!!!
but no there just different forms.
just like matter and energy
this is why you can blow up a city by splitting an atom as I mentioned earlier.
because mass is a solid more stable form of energy
just like ice is a solid more stable form of water.
no thats the only place it could have been.....lol ?
where else would it have been, it must have been somewhere and been able to be absorbed by pregnant women?
I really don't understand what your argument is?
alt and goldshadow know everything about physics and the universe so nobody should question them?
we'll right now Alt is trying to argue that
matter and energy are not two different forms of the same thing
so im not sure what that says for the scientific knowledge on smash boards.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
jugfingers
Smash Champion
go back under your bridge.
matter is another form of energy
and everything in the universe is some form of energy
I have einstein on my side. alt4 and goldshadow don't got **** on him
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Yeah, you pretty much proved you're just trollin'.
- Status