Explaining Death - Page 6

It depends on many factors, but ultimately the decision about what to tell the child will come down to the subjective beliefs of the individual. Age will play a major role and should determine how much one tells the child. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong way to approach the subject given that nobody can be certain what occurs. The child will determine for themselves in due time. A problem occurs, in my opinion, when the child is forced to adhere to a single explanation or isn't allowed the opportunity to explore other explanations.

I myself have been brought up as a Catholic and still believe in God but I also studied and thoroughly enjoyed the sciences. I'm not a devout Catholic though, which I think has allowed me to remain open minded when it comes to philosophical questions about life and to pursue my interests in science. The topic of death is something I have pondered, both from a religious perspective and a scientific one. Though I can't prove in the existence of an afterlife or God I still believe. Even though I understand the possibility that death may be final and that nothing comes after. The reason I still believe is not attributed to the promises of an afterlife, rather the observations I've made and the things I've learnt.

The second point I have to make is that when discussing these subjects it is important to remain as open minded as possible. Our perceptions about death are entirely built upon our understanding of the world. I think it is imperative to continue questioning this understanding. Through this, one may be more enlightened about a particular subject. Entirely dismissing another's opinion without fully understanding their perspective leads you nowhere. There is no room for growth or deeper thought only the statement 'what I believe is fact and that is final'. That would be something unfortunate given the complex nature of the universe and considering that there still remains things we don't yet fully understand. The origins of the universe is an example. Humans as a species should constantly ask 'why'? This is the basis for my continued enjoyment of science, given that theories are always tested and new ways of doing things developed.

It's great to see Xeno and DG discuss the subject in a dignified way without resorting to personal attacks. It's been a pleasure reading it, so thank you.

quote KR_1250

I think the only honest way to educate a child about mortality is to make it absolutely clear that "Nobody knows". Then you can develop the conversation and tell the child your opinion if that is important to you.

That is indeed the most honest way to do it. It may lead to other questions but the parent(s) can decide if they need to take it further. The opinion of the parent should be phrased as 'we believe' or 'I believe'. The Mother mentioned in the OP for example could have phrased it a little differently to ensure the child understands it is a belief in heaven and not necessarily factual. There was nothing wrong I think, in saying that she lived on in their memories and heart, in fact it was a beautiful way to put it to a young child.

Haha, I would pull out a Kill Bill reference.

I would use the example of a goldfish. If you take it out of the water, it starts flapping- it's alive.
But after awhile, it stops flapping, meaning the opposite of alive- death.

Something as simple as that would be easily understood by children. Although they won't exactly understand the consequences of death, they will understand the basic concept.

Sorry, DG. I've been a bit busy the past few days. Hope this doesn't find you too late.

As well, thank you, Bullet for the kind words. Appreciate it.

quote DG

Eyes work by reflected light ending up in the retinas. There's simply no way for you to see using your eyes unless your eyes are facing what you're meant to be seeing. And besides the eyes would usually be shut since these experiences tend to be during surgical operations.

I mean, there's no way for a soul to beam information into your eyes. Either you're seeing with your soul or you're not.

See, this only really lends credence to the claims of those that believe in out-of-body experiences. There -is- no way to see when your eyes are closed. Generally speaking, of course. It's hard to debate what a soul would be capable of, or how much of the body's functions it governs. As of now, it's not an entity recognized by science, and maybe it won't ever be. I honestly don't know, and I am incapable of delving further into the matter, so it is not really for me to determine. As far as I know, some of these experiences have been reported with great accuracy, as if the people sedated really had experienced the event from another perspective. It, as far as I know, remains unexplained and could seemingly be easily chalked up to the paranormal, rather than simple scientific theories.

quote

"Identical twins" are truly identical in terms of their DNA. The differences are such things as fingerprints etc which rely on other factors to determine them.

Yup, that's true. But, like I said, they're not identical on every level. DNA is an important factor, yes. But that's not to say DNA is the only factor.

From what I recall, we were discussing how identical DNA still led to the development of differing mental states. Sort of like Nature vs. Nurture, if I understand properly what you were proposing. What I had initially put forth, was that our DNA was stunted, disabling our souls from performing their full range of functions. Though I've never quite said souls are necessary in displaying the gamut of emotions or memories, I just question how much they possibly could. Maybe they don't exist, or maybe they do, but scientists are finding new particles every day, so it's not beyond the scope of reason that they might find something a little more difficult to explain.

quote

Well, a lot of religious people (Christians mostly) claim that only humans have souls. Since animal brains work perfectly well without souls (supposedly) it seems they perform no useful purpose.

Depends on those people being right, of course. And they have absolutely no reason to think they are.

The thing is, we could look at a body as having an 'auto pilot' function. Avoiding all possible Click references, since that movie sucked, it doesn't seem beyond reason that our bodies are more than capable of existing without souls. Science itself loves to separate humans from animals, so if we look at it from a scientific standpoint, animals simply don't experience the range of emotions humans do. Regret, betrayal, love, etc. Perhaps it is from the lack of a soul, or the lack of comparative cognitive capabilities, it's never quite explained in detail.

quote

Yeah but not one I'd want to worship. What would be the point? Losing all your memories is effectively ceasing to exist.

Well I do think that existence is pointless unless you make up your own purpose in life, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

The thing is that if you lost all your memories you would effectively have died and been replaced by a new person. This new person is of no interest to me. It's not me. No matter what paradise or deep meaning awaits this individual, it matters not to me, because I wouldn't be the one experiencing it!

If our memories are what makes us who we are, then we are allowing our past to define our future. That is to say, what's in the past simply remains there. Losing your memories would only be relative to succumbing to time itself. And since it's physically impossible to overcome time, I see no shame in waving the white flag to a superior foe. But, the thing is, once you had lost your memories, you would not long for them. You'd not necessarily lose your identity, but perhaps discover your true one. It's not much different from ceasing to exist, just with a bit of a twist.

But, as you said, it isn't -you-. But you now have to define what 'you' are. Is it DNA? Is it your life experiences? A mix of both? Each likely uncontrollable and at least one is pre-determined before your birth. Do you base who you are on that which you've experienced for yourself? Are you positive the person you were a year ago is the exact same person you are right now? Same concept, just on a higher level.

As far as I'm concerned, the best way to live is in the present. If I forgot all I was and had to build anew, perhaps it wouldn't be comfortable at first, but I'd adapt. And I'd likely not care, since a forgotten memory is no longer a memory.

quote

True. But I see no use for the neural links in the brain if the soul can store memories from this life. Direct soul-body linkage would be more efficient.

More efficient, possibly. But it remains reasonable that we are unable to establish a link with the soul to dredge up old memories. The same might not be said of the reverse, it's impossible to tell, but it's not without merit to believe that the human body is designed the way it is with precise intentions. Science has yet to fully understand the human body-- the most accessible and available of subjects. When it irrefutable does understand each and every function, then perhaps we could start to rule out the possibility of a soul's existence.

quote

Yeah but again this discredits near death experiences. If your soul left your body and went temporarily to the afterlife, you should be able to access all that information. Effectively wouldn't you expect anyone returning from "death" like that to become omniscient?

That's calling into question how much of the soul's memories the brain is able to process. It's possible, that while out of the body, the soul is able to access all of that information. But it's also possible, that due to the limitations of the human body, the brain is unable to tap the soul for all of that information, and instead is able to only skim the surface, indulging itself in familiarity. Maybe that is why people with near-death experiences seem to always recall seeing themselves.

quote

Yeah but they don't evolve at the same rate. It varies depending on how long the organism takes to reach reproductive age. Not to mention how easily that organism mutates. What DNA error checking mechanisms it has (the more, the slower the evolution), how many offspring it produces, etc.

For example, humans take many years to reach reproductive age, produce relatively few offspring, and we have SEVERAL DNA error checking mechanisms, so relatively speaking we do not mutate much.

Therefore humans evolve slowly.

If we mutate and evolve so slowly, there is no reason for us to be on top of the food chain. We shouldn't even be where we are, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint. We are ill-suited to our environment and have to take pains to adapt it to suit us. We are defenseless, without weapons, against predators. We are feeble compared to other creatures, though we dominate in intelligence. That seems to be the only aspect in which we excel; sheer brain power. Perhaps in all of this evolution, it is not unreasonable to think that maybe we should have developed stronger defenses on top of our mental prowess, causing me to once again suggest that maybe there is a larger consciousness determining how we adapt. Just keeping us within certain parameters to prevent us from causing a mass extinction or what-have-you. Possibly via a little reverse-evolution, which we humans seem to be good at as well.

quote

Think of it as the various countries at war having different industrial capacities. The ones with better scientists and more factories can make more advanced weapons quicker.

That's a perfectly legitimate analogy, although it doesn't really cover the issue I was talking about. Evolution necessitates evolution-- If there was nothing to strive for, we would cease to evolve. So, in the world of evolutionary advancement, the creatures evolving -should- need a cause to evolve for. If mutations occurred all willy-nilly, we would be flying and shooting lasers out of our eyes by now. It seems as though adaptations are countered and built upon. You know, a country builds a castle, so another country builds a catapult. So on and so forth.

quote

Evolution is a constant process. Each species is constantly mutating and going through natural selection.

Whatever selection pressures there are will guide the course of the evolution.

This is going on all the time. What you're talking about is competition from another species. But a species won't start mutating faster just because another species is competing with it.

It might have the balance shifted to be harsher on the individuals lacking advantageous mutations... For example if there is a lot less food available due to the competition, so only those more able to find food better or survive on less food would be able to survive.

So evolution is always happening but the selection pressures can at times be harsher which would speed it up.

So, what you're saying is basically: Creatures evolve at a flat rate determined by their surroundings and the pressures of natural selection. But, it's in this basic statement that I wonder why you don't believe competition spurs evolution. Surely competition is a part of selection, just as a lack, or abundance of resources is.

quote

Well it all depends what you mean by keeping up. Humans are not invading the environmental niches of these "lower" creatures you're referring to. We aren't competing with them.

In some cases we are trying to kill them off. And in those cases they ARE evolving against us. For example antibiotic resistant bacteria like MRSA and VRSA.

Bacteria actually evolve super fast so this is a good example.

Er, in all fairness, we're in competition with many animals on earth. We do invade their territory and operate within their domiciles. Maybe we're far enough above them that we don't consider it a competition, but I'm sure many of them do. Especially when we're leveling their homes and making their habitats inhabitable.

Evolving against us? I don't know about that. Evolving against the bacteria we harvest to fight them? For sure they are. But bacteria evolving to fight bacteria isn't exactly a viral uprising against humanity.

quote

Actually yes, I believe this does mean that humans are messing up their own evolutionary process. When we help people with crappy genes to live long enough to reproduce, we're filling the gene pool with crappy genes and "reversing evolution", you could say.

Humans are basically removing selection pressures and therefore allowing bad genes to be equally harmless as good genes.

For example animals with short sight would die off so short sight would evolve into non-existence. Humans on the other hand pass those genes on leading to more problems in later generations.

I doubt we'll become a "lower rung on the food chain" because we compensate through scientific and industrial advancement. But surely you've noticed that humans are actually pathetically weak and easy to kill compared to a lot of other creatures out there?

As for chaos, mutation is always a random process. It's whether or not the mutations stop individuals surviving that we have some control over.

I made that point before reading this: That humans kind of suck as far as physical defenses go. But I'm not necessarily talking about near-sightedness. Our downfall won't be in the fact that we can't see 100 feet ahead of us without squinting, it's more or less about passing 'stupid' genes down the line. It feels as if, though we've made significant advances in science, medicine and technology, that we're now allowing ourselves to be dumbed down. As if there are few scientific advances left to lead, and fewer discoveries to make each day. As if intelligence means nothing now that we know so much. It's possible that we'll maintain our position of dominance, but our only defense is intelligence. With that written out of the equation, we're no better off than the common deer. I'm sure, if it ever happens, that it will be well beyond the date of either of our deaths, but it's something to consider anyways.

quote

It's not a perfect balance. Plenty of species die out. Some organisms do become ridiculously over-prevalent. Like humans for example. We are taking over too much of the planet and screwing it up for all the other species that used to live in those places.

Rainforest deforestation for example.

Perfect now? Not really. We've *bleep*ed up many selection processes and continue to do so. But I don't think I ever said it was perfect. Just a balance. And currently, humans are the ones who continuously upset the balance and stand opposed to it. In terms of intelligence, it feels as though we've outgrown this planet, because there isn't a creature that can stand up to us. Even our closest relative can't even try to compare, though they could probably tear our arms off. Just, perhaps, there's a little something more to the one species that stands so far above the rest.

quote

What's wrong with that? My main belief is that no intrinsic purpose exists. That everything is at some level the result of chaos and basic physical interactions.

The thing is that if you start claiming that there's an intelligent deity in charge of everything, a deity WOULD have reasons for things. Because intelligent beings like to make up reasons.

It's a perfectly fine belief, but no religious man knows what God intended or now intends for us. There may be a purpose, though it is not within our capacity to divine it. What seems purposeless to you, may, on a higher level, be in perfect order. Stars exploding, asteroids hitting planets-- From afar, it might seem like senseless junk, but who knows if there is a specific reason to it all? Sadly, no one, so this particular argument could feasibly wage infinitely.

quote

We're talking about creatures that don't even really have the capacity to "choose" where to live. They drift in currents or stick to rocks. And besides, developing intelligence is a lot more complex and difficult than developing heat resistance.

Also, that's not correct. A creature can mutate to be resistant to heat even if it lives in freezing cold environments. Mutations are entirely random. They are not situational.

The only thing that matters about actually being exposed to the selection pressure is whether or not the mutant survives.

So let's say a bacterium was floating around in the sea with some other bacteria. This one bacterium randomly mutated to have cell walls that were resistant to heat.

They floated near the thermal vent. All the bacteria died apart from the one with the resistance.

Therefore this mutant reproduced.

The thing is, I don't quite understand why certain insects develop very specific defenses against their natural predators. Assuming evolution is random, it would arguably be impossible for certain defenses to be so situationally dependent upon their aggressor's method of attack. It's not simple strategy-- There are many insects that evolve to combat their natural predators, which is kind of odd if you assume all mutations are entirely random.

But, then again, you're likely not speaking of adaptations. I typically consider evolution to be a series of adaptations that take gradual effect. Mutation, on the other hand, could probably be defined as a spontaneous alteration of the DNA itself. I wouldn't say it's evolution, simply because it can be induced by factors that are completely outside of the organism's environment, and can be as detrimental as they are beneficial. Not to split hairs, and with complete awareness that this falls under the definition of 'evolution' itself, it's just how I look at it.

But, I mean, I'm not trying to argue the merits of evolution, nor the scientific understanding of the subject, I'm just being me-- argumentative and a bit on the not-sober side. =p

quote DG

As for human evolution, the thing is we evolved to use TOOLS. Once you can use tools you don't need as many bodily adaptions to survive.

If you have swords and spears, you don't need claws and sharp teeth. So since any given human can survive better just by finding and using a tool, there's less of a selection pressure for humans to survive better with mutated bodies.

Yeah agree'd, and not onyl that but I think even before the invention of tools our intelegence and growing brains negated the need for adapted weapons to survive.

We humans were able to simply avoid or remove ourselves from dangerous situations more easily. We would learn to pay attention to our predators capabilities, ranges and weaknesses. We also realised that we can scare and intimidate our would be predators and make an attack undesirable without violence.

I think perhaps by the time we developed weapons we were already intelegent enough to rely on brains rather than brawn. We already lost the need for combat based physical adaptations.

Death can be good for the ones that are in pain and dying so dying takes the pain and suffering away and that bad thing is that they're gone and we won't see then again for the rest of or lifes but I also think people get reincarnated as other beings on this planet or any other planet in the cosmos that is what I have to say

quote EpicGamer

without death there is no life that is true if you think a while about it

Why should that be true? There's no reason why you couldn't create an immortal lifeform.

quote DG

quote EpicGamer

without death there is no life that is true if you think a while about it

Why should that be true? There's no reason why you couldn't create an immortal lifeform.

        Our earth, indeed our universe exists as a seeming collection of opposites. It can be readily seen, very visibly in the natural world. And in all the following examples which I shall offer there is a wondrous purposeful implication which once understood, can help you to understand your own life better and more so the mysteries of being itself. Please remember that all the following are concepts only but if you can transcend the conceptual and move towards the unifying factor itself, you might be amazed. Try to find the unity of the following and at the same time try to see if there is any borderline between them. They are in no specific order of importance; some are more obvious than others. There's a billion more for you to explore on your own.   Day and Night: The day does not last; the night always returns. There can be no day without night and vice versa. Life would be very different without both. The whole or unifying factor is the movement back and forth between the two. They comprise the 24 hour period we call one earth day. One can not know the brightness of day without the darkness of night. Which really is more necessary? The careful, yet various and spontaneous combinations of both allow living beings to propagate and diversify.     Waking and Sleeping: Our day is divided between these two states. Which is more important? Can one be without the other? Without the deep sleep we have no energy to be awake and yet we can not sleep all the time. Both exist as compliments. Are they not both needed? Funny how we devote so much of our attention to the waking state and yet deep restful sleep is life sustaining and renewing. Think about that the next time you ponder purchasing a new mattress!     Black and White (or any color combinations): If these words were not black and instead were white you would not see them. The white of this page allows the black letters to appear.     Sorrow and Joy: How would you know joy is not for the sadness interspersed?     Male and Female: The seeming opposites when brought together allow for the creation of new life. This is the living universe at its finest. In the union of the two a visible miracle happens.     Past and Future (what has been vs. what will be): This is a neat one. Where does one end and the other begin?     The Ocean and the Shore: Where does one end and the other begin? How do they need each other? Which contains which?     Work and Play: Why do we work at all? Is it not for the purpose of granting us the time to play and relax? And yet if we played all the time would anything get accomplished?     Movement and Stillness: One cannot even understand reality without these two basic scientific concepts. The whole universe acts through these. Watch the natural world. There is an underlying stillness apparent and yet movement occurs. It is the movement which is called change that accentuates, diversifies and endlessly recreates.     All and Nothing: The question of the ages. Can nothing exist? Are they the same?     Life and Death: Ok so I saved this one for last as most folks are not fond of talking about "the end of the Line" to quote the Traveling Wilburys. And yet this is perhaps the greatest seeming opposite we face in our existence. The fact is that there can be no living without dying and vice versa. One needs the other both logically and physically. For this one, the world of nature is the greatest teacher. Just direct your attention there: to the seasons, the changes, the animals, the whole process. And yes, it is one process that defies any and all concepts and philosophies. Beings die. Beings are born. It is endless. It is the greatest miracle of all. We are intimately connected to it. Human beings die. Others are born. Is it not the life "dynamic", that continues? Is it not this whole that exists always, independent upon the forms or names or shapes. Does it not always exist? Now the key is to find that in yourself right now. abide in that, in this sense of life.