So... what happens when you die?

[rumrunner]

Yeah, I know that you so-called brainiacs constantly change what the facts mean when a new variable pops up. Come on you guys actually think you know the mass of the universe, I nearly shit myself when I heard an astro-physics proffessor say "The energy within the universe is too great for the known mass of the universe". He then went on to explain about dark matter, and then all of a sudden there was too little energy for the mass, which led to the discovery of dark energy. Then, and only then, was the equation balanced. Oh, sorry, balanced does mean equal to the smart people, doesn't it? Get some sun,son.

edit: btw, speaking specifically on an esoteric philosophical topic such as "what happens when you die?" is rather arrogant.

[Tempus Vernum]

Yeah, I know that you so-called brainiacs constantly change what the facts mean when a new variable pops up.

Well of course, when you get new data you have to account for it. I'm not sure how you can see that as a bad thing. We don't have the luxury of ignoring reality and sticking to dogma like the theologists.

Come on you guys actually think you know the mass of the universe

We have a reasonable approximation sure. It's not hard to make one if you make a few reasonable assumptions[1], and if you decide that you shouldn't be assuming things about the universe then you have to use more difficult but also more rigorous methods.

I nearly shit myself when I heard an astro-physics proffessor say "The energy within the universe is too great for the known mass of the universe". He then went on to explain about dark matter, and then all of a sudden there was too little energy for the mass, which led to the discovery of dark energy. Then, and only then, was the equation balanced.

was it this guy?



'cause that was an awesome lecture and I thought it was a fairly understandable look at how science and scientists work, and the difference between theorists (who like their equations coming out as simple solutions) and experimentalists (who have to determine whether or not they actually do come out as simple solutions)

Oh, sorry, balanced does mean equal to the smart people, doesn't it? Get some sun,son.

edit: btw, speaking specifically on an esoteric philosophical topic such as "what happens when you die?" is rather arrogant.

If you're not a religious person you can only go by the evidence, which suggests there is no afterlife nor any dieties to create one.



[1]For example, assuming that the universe is roughly the same in all directions, with an even distribution of galaxies and quasars and the like then all you have to do is observe a small patch of sky, estimate the mass in that area, then extrapolate it to the rest of the observable universe and voila... an estimation of the observable universe's mass. Probably not a very good estimate but it might not be off by much.

[Steely Glint]

Why does nature abhor a vacuum,hmm? maybe because it's an imbalanced state in relation the rest of nature.

How is a vacuum "unbalanced"? It's fucking empty. If there really were a law of balance there'd be nothing but vacuum with a sparse but even distribution of matter and energy.

How does nature deal with a vacuum? perhaps by filling until it is equal in proportion to the rest of nature

Most of nature is vacuum. All the matter and energy seems to have clumped together into large pieces, spread unevenly, over unfathomably vast tracts of fuck all.

This should tell you something important.

no more no less. imagine a gas cylinder filled to capacity. When the valve is opened, the gas escapes. Why? Because the surrounding atmosphere is analogous to vacuum in relation to the pressurized cylinder. Bonus question: How much of the gas escapes without outside influence (in other words,naturally)? The amount required to equalize the pressure inside to the pressure outside the cylinder (until the pressure is balanced).

Since it happens in this one specific example, it must be true of the whole of nature! This is why the atmosphere of the Earth has been sucked into space. Because the movement of gases in these instances is nothing to do with the physics of the various pressures involved but because nature is seeking balance.

Stars and galaxies actually do in some ways compete. Especially galaxies, they'll leach gasses from each other to power themselves. Not saying galaxies are sentient or even conscious. Just anthropomorphizing them for sake of explaination. Some pulsars other stellar objects also exhibit these behaviors.
Oh, and bacteria (and other single-celled organisms) "evolve" without any sexuallity whatsoever so I'll ignore that.

No, but they key thing is that they reproduce, you stupid tit. That means mutation, and the development of traits which are more advantageous/disadvantageous for a given environment. Stellar bodies do not do this. A galaxy that is good at leaching gases or some such shit does not have baby galaxies, then pass its gas leaching genes onto its offspring which creates a new successful species of galaxy.

Oh, and by the way, how is any of this supposed to mean that God can't fuck up Satan? If they are beings bound by the laws of nature, as we are, then they should be able to kick each other in the teeth just as much as two humans can.

[Cedar Point]

Probably not a very good estimate but it might not be off by much.

What?

[Tempus Vernum]

Doesn't the phrase "nature abhors a vacuum" refer, not to the way matter redistributes itself in response to a pressure differential, but to how a truly empty vacuum is actually a boiling froth of virtual particles popping in and out of existence down at the sub-subatomic level?

[Steely Glint]

Neither, it was first coined by Aristotle. He was simply talking about how empty space will always be filled with liquid or gas. He didn't know about pressure differentials, virtual particles or anything like that.

[Tempus Vernum]

What?

Is there a problem with that? Your estimate will only be as good as your measurements and how right or wrong your underlying assumptions of the structure of the universe are.

[Tempus Vernum]

Neither, it was first coined by Aristotle. He was simply talking about how empty space will always be filled with liquid or gas. He didn't know about pressure differentials, virtual particles or anything like that.

Oh right, silly me

[']['ear]

I was raised thinking there was something else, and I have tried hard to fit that square peg into a round hole. I can't do that while living an evidence-based interpretation of the world. I've tried hard to reconcile the two, and it's just not possible. There is NO evidence for any kind of existence after death. As BJ says, the power plant sputters, dies, and the brain grinds to a halt like the Terminator viewscreen in the original movie. And unless you get an alternative power source like Arnie did within a couple of minutes, that decomposition will have already progressed far enough for it to be curtains.

Oblivion. Nothing. You no longer exist. Anything else is just blind faith.

But let's try this angle.

ACC is dead, but some keep posting in it, for whatever reason they won't let it go. Some may want to play a sarcasm or dry humor game as a way to deal with their loss or grief. Or is it a subconscious game against a power they can't control?

Timmy wants to keep the dying thing alive, with strings attached. He is earnest, even in his wayward hopefulness. He figures that siding with the admins might turn his approach from helplessness into empowerment.

Whether you admit it or not, transitions are forms of death (and birth). Deaths have grievance patterns and stages. It's not just Change as a phenomenon, but the Emotions attached.

Why is this so hard to see? The reason (in analogy) that members had such a hard time with the Sudden Death of ACC was how it was handled. We were not edged or eased into the death, or given any explanation, or time to absorb it, but instead we were expected to accept its fast and incoherent demise. Boom, cremation, and soldering embers.

At least we have this place to hold hands and move ahead. In real life, and real death, it's not so easy.

Nice! Fun analogy.

I have no trouble with saying it public, and if Dread had a problem with it all he had to do was say stop, and I would have instantly. Still would, even. But since he has not, and I have not crossed any lines at all, what the hell is the problem? Can I assume then that you also sent OG and Rumrunner PMs asking them what they were thinking?

I'm terribly sorry you can't see the humor in what the CC has become. I was actually growing rather bored with playing and about to give up, but there is no way in hell I'm going to give you the satisfaction of thinking you convinced me with your self-righteous nonsense.

Actually, I'm sad that any of the real members bother in returning. In doing so, you obscure the real effect of Phuxor's actions, and allow him the sop that he didn't completely kill CC. Y'all should cut the cord, let CC become the wasteland that is its destiny, and let Phuxor and the Atari donkeys reap what they sowed. And ffs don't HELP them in any way. Turn about is fair play.

[']['ear]

Yeah, I know that you so-called brainiacs constantly change what the facts mean when a new variable pops up. Come on you guys actually think you know the mass of the universe, I nearly shit myself when I heard an astro-physics proffessor say "The energy within the universe is too great for the known mass of the universe". He then went on to explain about dark matter, and then all of a sudden there was too little energy for the mass, which led to the discovery of dark energy. Then, and only then, was the equation balanced. Oh, sorry, balanced does mean equal to the smart people, doesn't it? Get some sun,son.

Thank you for illustrating the robustness of the scientific method as a means of understanding our "context." You see, a religious person sees something they don't understand, a contradiction, and they wave a magic wand called faith and claim that it is "God." A scientist sees a contradiction and goes to work his butt off to figure out an explanation for said contradiction and then to test his model. Consequently, the picture painted by science becomes richer and rocher over time: an ever-closer approximation of the truth. Picture, if you will, a lemma.

The religious guy? He stays where he was for thousands of years, because why explain anything if you've already got the explanation (God)?

Funny thing is that you mock scientists in this way, and probably mock ancient Greeks for thinking that Zeus threw thunderbolts. But the fact is that YOU are the ancient Greeks, if I read you aright. Do I?

Good thing there are scientists around, eh? The two greatest intellectual construct-type inventions (as opposed to concrete inventions, like the wheel or the polio vaccine) of all time were commerce and science. Without those, humans would still be in caves.

[Cedar Point]

Is there a problem with that? Your estimate will only be as good as your measurements and how right or wrong your underlying assumptions of the structure of the universe are.

I agree with the "probably not a very good estimate" part, but you lost me when you contradicted yourself by saying it might not be off by much.

[Tempus Vernum]

I agree with the "probably not a very good estimate" part, but you lost me when you contradicted yourself by saying it might not be off by much.

I have a bad habit of always trying to hedge my bets with my statements which often results in such things but hey, maybe you'll luck out and accidentally manage to get just the right measurement to make your estimate work even though your assumptions were way wrong

[rumrunner]

Well of course, when you get new data you have to account for it. I'm not sure how you can see that as a bad thing. We don't have the luxury of ignoring reality and sticking to dogma like the theologists.

I agree. Just stop saying know when you mean believe. If the science changes, for any reason, those who swore they knew something look rather foolish. By you I mean scholarly types.

We have a reasonable approximation sure. It's not hard to make one if you make a few reasonable assumptions[1], and if you decide that you shouldn't be assuming things about the universe then you have to use more difficult but also more rigorous methods.

Assumption is sometimes the key to unlocking a mystery. It can be dangerous. dealer'choice

was it this guy?

'cause that was an awesome lecture and I thought it was a fairly understandable look at how science and scientists work, and the difference between theorists (who like their equations coming out as simple solutions) and experimentalists (who have to determine whether or not they actually do come out as simple solutions)

I believe it was him, and it was understandable, even to me. Although, I probably got less from it than you.

If you're not a religious person you can only go by the evidence, which suggests there is no afterlife nor any dieties to create one.

[1]For example, assuming that the universe is roughly the same in all directions, with an even distribution of galaxies and quasars and the like then all you have to do is observe a small patch of sky, estimate the mass in that area, then extrapolate it to the rest of the observable universe and voila... an estimation of the observable universe's mass. Probably not a very good estimate but it might not be off by much.

No afterlife, no deities, I can accept. It's the assumption of human superiority that I can't reason. No evidence of anything smarter than us, so it doesn't exist? Bah!
A reasonable approach for the observable universe. Thats the part where human arrogance and assumption become a big risk. But as they say, the bigger the risk the bigger the reward.
Oh, and I'm not a religious guy, per se. I'm undecided. I don't mean to bash science, but rather, challenge the scholar. Without challenge,... ...

[Tempus Vernum]

I agree. Just stop saying know when you mean believe. If the science changes, for any reason, those who swore they knew something look rather foolish. By you I mean scholarly types.

The problem with using the word "believe" is that it's tied up with the word "faith" in many peoples minds and then people take it to mean that science is a matter of faith. "accept" might be a better word to use.

Assumption is sometimes the key to unlocking a mystery. It can be dangerous. dealer'choice

Generally the less asumptions you have to make the better, and your assumptions should be backed up with damn good reasons for making them.

I believe it was him, and it was understandable, even to me. Although, I probably got less from it than you.

I understand most of what he's saying, but he begins to lose me around the point where he starts using the microwave background to create a triangle large enough to be affected by the universes curvature, and the anthropic stuff near the end mostly goes over my head.

No afterlife, no deities, I can accept. It's the assumption of human superiority that I can't reason. No evidence of anything smarter than us, so it doesn't exist? Bah!
A reasonable approach for the observable universe. Thats the part where human arrogance and assumption become a big risk. But as they say, the bigger the risk the bigger the reward.
Oh, and I'm not a religious guy, per se. I'm undecided. I don't mean to bash science, but rather, challenge the scholar. Without challenge,... ...

Depends on what aspect of humanity you try to define as being superior I guess. As much as people in the CC liked bashing Alberjons transhumanist philosophy (he was pretty optimistic and overenthusiatic about it) I see alot of appeal in humanity using its technology and intellect to master the secrets of time and space

[rumrunner]

Transhumanist thinking, what little I've heard, does sound intriguing. I do beleive it would be quite impossible. Even if the memories of a person could be transferred, the personality could not. I stayed away from calling the soul ther intentionally, because the arguement is the same for both I think. The intangible elements of our existence(soul/spirit/personality) just can't be manipulated in that manner.

[Tempus Vernum]

Our knowledge of how the mind works is so limited and there are so many different approaches to transhumanism that it's hard to know which are plausible and which are mere fancy, which is why everyone made fun of Alber so much as he regularly brought up the more whimsical aspects of human augmentation.

[Wraith]

His ridiculous optimism, refusal to listen to anything else, and arrogance didn't help his side at all.

[EyeKhan]

The intangible elements of our existence(soul/spirit/personality) just can't be manipulated in that manner.

Personalities obviosuly exist, but souls and spirits? There's no evidence for them, why believe in them just because the Shaman at church says so? Strong evidence points to the simple answer - your mind IS your brain. When your brain stops - aka dies - so does your mind.

[EyeKhan]

His ridiculous optimism, refusal to listen to anything else, and arrogance didn't help his side at all.

Its the arrogance I had the problem with. Optimism's fun. Being ignored is way to common place to pin to his shirt, but that attitude. Grrr.

[rumrunner]

Personalities obviosuly exist, but souls and spirits? There's no evidence for them, why believe in them just because the Shaman at church says so? Strong evidence points to the simple answer - your mind IS your brain. When your brain stops - aka dies - so does your mind.

I'm not so sue that the brain IS the mind. The brain is an information processor/sensory organ. I think (just a working theory here) that the mind is somehow independant of the brain. The brain perceives either the bio-electrical field of the body, or some "cosmic consciousness"( I know, pfft!), or whatever, and translates that into thought. Like I said just working on an idea.

[EyeKhan]

I'm not so sue that the brain IS the mind. The brain is an information processor/sensory organ. I think (just a working theory here) that the mind is somehow independant of the brain. The brain perceives either the bio-electrical field of the body, or some "cosmic consciousness"( I know, pfft!), or whatever, and translates that into thought. Like I said just working on an idea.

There is no evidence that a mind exists outside the physical brain - no soul, no spirit. There IS evidence that the physical brain is the mind. There's many documented cases of brain damage that resulted in major personality changes. If you have a soul or spirit that is your moral center, how can you become a lying, cheating bastard just because a metal rod got rammed through your brain? I don't want to be disrespectful, but unless you're doing actual scientific research, whatever you're working theory is has no more validity than Greek Mythos.

[Nessus]

There is no evidence that a mind exists outside the physical brain - no soul, no spirit. There IS evidence that the physical brain is the mind. There's many documented cases of brain damage that resulted in major personality changes. If you have a soul or spirit that is your moral center, how can you become a lying, cheating bastard just because a metal rod got rammed through your brain? I don't want to be disrespectful, but unless you're doing actual scientific research, whatever you're working theory is has no more validity than Greek Mythos.

Well if the brain is some kind of receiver for personality waves from planet Omikron Persei 8, the receiver becoming damaged could harm the reception of the signal.

That no such signals are known to exist shouldn't interfere with these kinds of theories, one can but point at something like dark matter or dark energy and say the signal is some kind of vibration in it, or whatever else dumb crap one feels is sufficiently ridiculous. And trying to explain why only human brains can receive these personality signals, well, they just do and you can't show otherwise, neener neener

So basically minds are these things shooting through the universe, and we're all part of a collective consciousness that is all gods dreaming together, and the world will end when one of them wakes up and finds Patrick Duffy in the shower.

[Illusions]

His ridiculous optimism, refusal to listen to anything else, and arrogance didn't help his side at all.

Also his unfathomable ability to marginalize any studies or statements by people in fields that would actually have some knowledge or say in areas dealing with the mind, while simultaneously uplifting any statements by Kurzweil and the like, or studies/statements that agreed with his point of view. Or the "we already know everything we need to know about the human brain" line of reasoning...

[EyeKhan]

Well if the brain is some kind of receiver for personality waves from planet Omikron Persei 8, the receiver becoming damaged could harm the reception of the signal.

That no such signals are known to exist shouldn't interfere with these kinds of theories, one can but point at something like dark matter or dark energy and say the signal is some kind of vibration in it, or whatever else dumb crap one feels is sufficiently ridiculous. And trying to explain why only human brains can receive these personality signals, well, they just do and you can't show otherwise, neener neener

So basically minds are these things shooting through the universe, and we're all part of a collective consciousness that is all gods dreaming together, and the world will end when one of them wakes up and finds Patrick Duffy in the shower.

OMG, you may very well have given me an epiphany. It IS dark mattergy. That's where heaven is. That's where hell is. That's where my soul is. DAMN. That explains everything.

[Nessus]

OMG, you may very well have given me an epiphany. It IS dark mattergy. That's where heaven is. That's where hell is. That's where my soul is. DAMN. That explains everything.

Obligatory

[Steely Glint]

Even if the memories of a person could be transferred, the personality could not.

Why is this?

[EyeKhan]

Why is this?

Who you are is more than just a sum of things you remember, depending on what you're calling a memory.

[EyeKhan]

Obligatory

I think you have the makings of a new religion, one that will be more plausible and more difficult to show as inane stupidity. You just need to write all that down in flowery language, take a vacation to a desert or something and claim that while lost and thirsty as hell you got a revelation. Next stop? PARADISE.

[Nessus]

I think you have the makings of a new religion, one that will be more plausible and more difficult to show as inane stupidity. You just need to write all that down in flowery language, take a vacation to a desert or something and claim that while lost and thirsty as hell you got a revelation. Next stop? PARADISE.

I'm not sure drug-fueled sodomy parties count as paradise. Maybe. Might get pretty nasty, health-wise, after awhile.

[Steely Glint]

I'm trying to get at why he thinks the personality couldn't be transfered.