i'm scared to die

[Doodle Bunny]

Do we have to have such intense arguments in such a vulnerable thread? I think OP wanted some empathy.

 

[Saurex]

We aren't special. Get over it.

I'm sure that's exactly what the OP wants to hear... nice work....

 

[PercyD]

The lesson here is don't show vulnerabilities ever. People are assholes and will take advantage of your weakness in order to make them feel better about themselves. *Tsun*

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

The lesson here is don't show vulnerabilities ever. People are assholes and will take advantage of your weakness in order to make them feel better about themselves. *Tsun*

I think that's a pretty irresponsible thing to day.
We're all vulnerable in some way. It should be said that we must choose who we share them with, not to never open up.
Sure, locking ourselves away from the world means never being hurt, but it also means never enjoying what it has to offer.

That being said, OP, I don't fear death because I know when I leave, I have left it a better place. My works have already validated my existence and the things I have done may echo through the future for generations.
I think if you want some semblance of defeating death, earn immortality by making the world a better place. Once you save a life, no matter how small a life it is, that action can have great benefit to the future through the Butterfly Effect.

Volunteer at an animal shelter or hospice center, perhaps.
Maybe you can do what I did and become a suicide counselor for a while.

 

[Pipistrele]

The lesson here is don't show vulnerabilities ever. People are assholes and will take advantage of your weakness in order to make them feel better about themselves. *Tsun*

There was a lot of support in this thread actually, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[CaptainCool]

Sorry, can't take someone who quotes Wikipedia seriously....

Also, what nerve did I hit? That's quite an impassioned response.

So my entire argument is invalid because of a definition that I could have taken from literally anywhere else?

 

[Saurex]

So my entire argument is invalid because of a definition that I could have taken from literally anywhere else?

No, but since that is your go-to for information I'll take everything you present with a grain of salt... a big one since the site you choose to use for information is one of the largest perpetrators of what you accuse me of.

You also dodged my question.

 

[PercyD]

There was a lot of support in this thread actually, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I was being facetious while stating an unfortunate truth about trolls.

 

[Minerva_Minx]

the world is going to shit, the afterlife, souls, or even god is not real, and everything i look forward to for the future has been dis-proven by science. should i live or should i even accept death?

why does does reality fucking suck? at least i can make the most out it i guess.

suicidepreventionlifeline.org: Home
1-800-273-8255
Espanol, deaf, or other languages 1-800-799-4889

Now, if philosophy on death, Epicurus states:
“Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?"

 

[Pipistrele]

I was being facetious while stating an unfortunate truth about trolls.

don't be facetious

 

[Misha Bordiga Zahradník]

@Saurex @CaptainCool

While CaptainCool actually does have a point I was honestly holding out on Fallow to make, they do need to chill.

Simple explanation; We actually understand the mechanisms of brains well enough to know that the structure and complexity of our brain defines our conciousness and drives our living. Many other animals with complex nervous systems actually have distinct personalities and emotions, even base language and names in some cases.

So humans are not in fact special in that regard, but it's nothing to get that heated over.

And while Wikipedia isn't a terribly reliable source, you are making an Argument from Ignorance as described; which is a failure of logic. One which Wikipedia does not itself typically make despite it's myriad flaws. Rejecting correct information because of the source is itself a fallacy known as a Genetic Fallacy. You are also assuming that Captain's go-to site is Wikipedia, when this could very well be the only time he's ever used it.

Now chill y'all.

 

[Ramjet]

@Saurex @CaptainCool

While CaptainCool actually does have a point I was honestly holding out on Fallow to make, they do need to chill.

Simple explanation; We actually understand the mechanisms of brains well enough to know that the structure and complexity of our brain defines our conciousness and drives our living. Many other animals with complex nervous systems actually have distinct personalities and emotions, even base language and names in some cases.

So humans are not in fact special in that regard, but it's nothing to get that heated over.

And while Wikipedia isn't a terribly reliable source, you are making an Argument from Ignorance as described; which is a failure of logic. One which Wikipedia does not itself typically make despite it's myriad flaws. Rejecting correct information because of the source is itself a fallacy known as a Genetic Fallacy. You are also assuming that Captain's go-to site is Wikipedia, when this could very well be the only time he's ever used it.

Now chill y'all.

Considering just a few months ago a discovery of EEG waves that self propagate, bypassing regular chemical communication (even as far as communication from served brain tissue) this statement is false..

We have very little knowledge about the inner workings of consiousness, and what actually makes you you.

 

[Misha Bordiga Zahradník]

Considering just a few months ago a discovery of EEG waves that self propagate, bypassing regular chemical communication (even as far as communication from served brain tissue) this statement is false..

We have very little knowledge about the inner workings of consiousness, and what actually makes you you.

Spoiler: What I believe you are referencing.

Scientists have also known, however, that when many neurons fire together they generate weak electric fields that can be recorded with the electroencephalogram (EEG). But these fields were thought to be too small to contribute to neural activity.

These new experiments in the Durand’s laboratory, however have shown that not only can these fields excite cells, but that they can produce electric fields of their own and generate a self-propagating wave of activity.

This newly found form of communication was discovered while scientists at Case Western Reserve were analyzing the propagation mechanism of relatively fast brain waves similar to those generated when we sleep. They call it ephaptic (or electric) coupling, a reference to the known and observed low-level electric field in the brain—but now believed to also be capable of generating neural activity.

www.google.com: Discovering a New Form of Communication in the Brain

That is still created by the structure and complexity of the brain as these signals are generated by brain cells in the first place.

We actually understand the mechanisms of brains well enough to know that the structure and complexity of our brain defines our conciousness and drives our living.

In no way does this discovery undermine that, it means that the human brain, and likely most animal brains, are even more complex in their function than we realized.

 

[Saurex]

@Saurex @CaptainCool

While CaptainCool actually does have a point I was honestly holding out on Fallow to make, they do need to chill.

Simple explanation; We actually understand the mechanisms of brains well enough to know that the structure and complexity of our brain defines our conciousness and drives our living. Many other animals with complex nervous systems actually have distinct personalities and emotions, even base language and names in some cases.

So humans are not in fact special in that regard, but it's nothing to get that heated over.

And while Wikipedia isn't a terribly reliable source, you are making an Argument from Ignorance as described; which is a failure of logic. One which Wikipedia does not itself typically make despite it's myriad flaws. Rejecting correct information because of the source is itself a fallacy known as a Genetic Fallacy. You are also assuming that Captain's go-to site is Wikipedia, when this could very well be the only time he's ever used it.

Now chill y'all.

I'd still like to know what logical failing ya'll are losing your crap over is. The statement on my end was simply that chemical processes (metabolism and the conversion of energy specifically were what was being discussed... if only someone had read prior posts....) do not yield the functions we refer to in common parlance as "personality"... that is literally what the statement that lit CaptainCools hair on fire means (it's what he quoted specifically).

Liking certain things, having passions, fearing death (well... okay, that's instinctual, all creatures do that)... those things don't result directly or solely from chemical reactions in the body. No chemist or neurologist whose work I've read would make such a statement, so the ignorance lies in not being open to the idea that there is something more to humanity than a "mess of chemical reactions."

I assumed their preference in reference material based on two things: The odd need to cite the origin of the reference material (which is typically done to lend credibility) and the fact that if you type that particular phrase (argumentum ad ignorantiam) into Google, Wikipedia is not the first thing to pop up (since Wikipedia was intentionally cited, its use was more than likely deliberately sought out in this instance).

 

[Ramjet]

Spoiler: What I believe you are referencing.

www.google.com: Discovering a New Form of Communication in the Brain

That is still created by the structure and complexity of the brain as these signals are generated by brain cells in the first place.


In no way does this discovery undermine that, it means that the human brain, and likely most animal brains, are even more complex in their function than we realized.

Yes it's been published...

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP276904

Yes electrical pulsations causing a field of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma waves, which were previously thought to be too insignificant to be anything other than neuronic background noise...

They were wrong, and still haven't even touched the realm of what this actually means when this type of communication was once thought impossible.

We are far far from knowing what is actually going on up there.

 

[Saurex]

Yes it's been published...

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP276904

Yes electrical pulsations causing a field of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma waves, which were previously thought to be too insignificant to be anything other than neuronic background noise...

They were wrong, and still haven't even touched the realm of what this actually means when this type of communication was once thought impossible.

We are far far from knowing what is actually going on up there.

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.

 

[Misha Bordiga Zahradník]

I'd still like to know what logical failing ya'll are losing your crap over is. The statement on my end was simply that chemical processes (metabolism and the conversion of energy specifically were what was being discussed... if only someone had read prior posts....) do not yield the functions we refer to in common parlance as "personality"... that is literally what the statement that lit CaptainCools hair on fire means (it's what he quoted specifically).

Liking certain things, having passions, fearing death (well... okay, that's instinctual, all creatures do that)... those things don't result directly or solely from chemical reactions in the body. No chemist or neurologist whose work I've read would make such a statement, so the ignorance lies in not being open to the idea that there is something more to humanity than a "mess of chemical reactions."

I assumed their preference in reference material based on two things: The odd need to cite the origin of the reference material (which is typically done to lend credibility) and the fact that if you type that particular phrase (argumentum ad ignorantiam) into Google, Wikipedia is not the first thing to pop up (since Wikipedia was intentionally cited, its use was more than likely deliberately sought out in this instance).

Yes it's been published...

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP276904

Yes electrical pulsations causing a field of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma waves, which were previously thought to be too insignificant to be anything other than neuronic background noise...

They were wrong, and still haven't even touched the realm of what this actually means when this type of communication was once thought impossible.

We are far far from knowing what is actually going on up there.

Except we have myriad documented cases of personality change after physical damage to the brain, so personality is in fact a result of the physical function and structure of the human brain despite gaps in our understanding of how the think-engine functions.

And metabolism is well explained in medical texts and biology texts much better than I can explain it. It involves the interaction of complex cellular processes all throughout the body and relays of chemical signals. This is why our body can accidentally cook our brain alive during a fever in an automatic response to a pathogen.

Personality isn't by any means perfectly understood, but it results from the combination of hormonal responses and brain activity. It is a physical phenomena that requires no supernatural explaination. The "god of the gaps" argument has never and will never be a rational one.

Making a claim that a god or soul exists requires evidence that proves its existence. Lacking evidence to the contrary of that claim, be it due to a lack of understanding of or in medical science, psychology, etc is not evidence to that claim, and pretending it is evidence is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Again, this is the God of the Gaps that had us explaining natural phenomena such as lightning as the actions of Thor, Giants, Zues, God, etc.

Spoiler: Sauces

www.google.com: After Brain Injury: The Dark Side of Personality Change Part I
Psychiatry Online
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: A model of personality change after traumatic brain injury and the development of the Brain Injury Personality Scales
Etc.

And none of this should be considered to disprove the existence of the soul or afterlife, but rather that such explanations of death shouldn't and needn't come at the expense of science, logic, and reason.

 

[Dragoneer]

I am, too. I think about death and dying every single day. I wish I didn't, but I do. I'm scared of what happens, but... at the same time I know it's natural. Everything dies eventually. It's the cycle of life. Nobody quite knows what lay on the other side. Everybody has their assumptions, but until we cross that threshold...

 

[Misha Bordiga Zahradník]

I imagine death so much it feels more like a memory
When’s it gonna get me?
In my sleep, seven feet ahead of me?
If I see it comin’, do I run or do I let it be?
Is it like a beat without a melody?
See, I never thought I’d live past twenty
Where I come from some get half as many
Ask anybody why we livin’ fast and we laugh, reach for a flask
We have to make this moment last, that’s plenty
Scratch that this is not a moment, it’s the movement
Where all the hungriest brothers with something to prove went?
Foes oppose us, we take an honest stand
We roll like Moses, claimin’ our promised land
And? If we win our independence?
‘Zat a guarantee of freedom for our descendants?
Or will the blood we shed begin an endless cycle of vengeance and death with no defendants?
I know the action in the street is excitin'
But Jesus, between all the bleedin’ ‘n fightin’
I’ve been readin’ ‘n writin’
We need to handle our financial situation
Are we a nation of states what’s the state of our nation?
I’m past patiently waitin' I’m passionatelymashin’ every expectation
Every action’s an act of creation
I’m laughin' in the face of casualties and sorrow
For the first time, I’m thinkin’ past tomorrow
And I am not throwing away my shot
I am not throwing away my shot
Hey yo, I’m just like my country
I’m young, scrappy and hungry
And I’m not throwing away my shot

 

[Fallowfox]

You missed the point. I know what makes the muscles go, the heart beat, all that good stuff. I'm talking about animation. Cars have plenty of "go", as you put it, but there are not "alive".

Just because a chemical reaction creates low voltage in the cerebral cortex does not mean there will be a personality, likes, desires, needs... nothing. There are plenty of brains in the animal kingdom that don't produce anything other than basic instinct. So what makes a human different? It definitely isn't the complexity of the brain, because other than some differences in size our brain is no more or less complex than that of other mammals. Computers function similarly to a human brain- electrical impulses supply alternating "yes" and "no" answers to basic questions and something happens as a result. What makes the human different?

The animating force is what I was referring to. Personality, rational thought, desire, ingenuity, none of these things are born from chemical process. If they were, the insects of this planet, who possess the same chemical functions as we do, would have decided we were unfit to rule this planet and exterminated us long ago. These things all require energy. Compelling a mass of cells that are breaking down other material for energy to work together to do something, the mere fact that we're even having this debate, speaks to the notion that there is energy being expended that isn't chemical or electrical.

Also, what makes you so sure there isn't anything there? As trite as it may be to say this, I've never seen my brain... so how do I know it's even there? I've never seen you... so do you really exist? Science has yet to measure the soul... so is it there?

I'd rather spend my life believing in something positive, such as an afterlife or continued existence, than wandering around crippled from the brain down because I can't stand the idea that one day nature will do what it does to all creatures and that- oh no!- I'm no exception to the rules.

You've outlined that you have emotional reasons for wanting to believe in an afterlife, and that's fine- I hope that makes you happy. You don't need to believe this stuff about human brains not being any more complex than gerbil brains (this is false) in order to hold spiritual beliefs.

I'm all for people having spiritual beliefs if that's what they want- I just think we should be very careful about involving scientific concepts because as we've seen here, lots of incorrect and misleading ideas about science can be spread around when this happens.

Do you think that's reasonable enough?

On the subject of seeing brains, I've been fortunate enough to have a brain scan, but I received a written explanation of what my brain looks like and I didn't get to see the original image. :[

 

[Slytherin Umbreon]

You don't need to believe this stuff about human brains not being any more complex than gerbil brains (this is false)

Are you sure it is, though?
'Cause I've met some pretty gerbil people.

 

[Fallowfox]

Are you sure it is, though?
'Cause I've met some pretty gerbil people.

Yes sometimes I wonder!

 

[ManicTherapsid]

 

[CaptainCool]

I'd still like to know what logical failing ya'll are losing your crap over is. The statement on my end was simply that chemical processes (metabolism and the conversion of energy specifically were what was being discussed... if only someone had read prior posts....) do not yield the functions we refer to in common parlance as "personality"... that is literally what the statement that lit CaptainCools hair on fire means (it's what he quoted specifically).

Liking certain things, having passions, fearing death (well... okay, that's instinctual, all creatures do that)... those things don't result directly or solely from chemical reactions in the body. No chemist or neurologist whose work I've read would make such a statement, so the ignorance lies in not being open to the idea that there is something more to humanity than a "mess of chemical reactions."

I assumed their preference in reference material based on two things: The odd need to cite the origin of the reference material (which is typically done to lend credibility) and the fact that if you type that particular phrase (argumentum ad ignorantiam) into Google, Wikipedia is not the first thing to pop up (since Wikipedia was intentionally cited, its use was more than likely deliberately sought out in this instance).

My issue with your reasoning is that our consciousness can't be result of chemical reactions and yet you back that up with a view on conservation of energy that is purely emotional.
There is no evidence that even hints at our consciousness being any more special than that of other animals.
Also, to say that Wikipedia is my source for everything when I took one definition from there? THAT is what made me mad.

 

[Shadow of Bucephalus]

Ah Hedonism

Bein' Pagan HAZ eet's advantages!