Life After Death

[Zinjanthropos]

people in these forums take themselves VERY SERIOUSLY and tend to be intolerant of anything that doesn't fit their idea of good science.  

You won't have to worry about me, I'm still trying to figure out what casual means here. You have to be real (can I say real?) careful on a science forum. 

I like you find it hard to believe that natives would not see a ship because they weren't looking for one. So much of science is observation yet we often only think of the sense of sight.

[Syne]

Quantum physics does not support the idea that we would fail to perceive real things if we lacked previous knowledge of them.

I thought the idea strange, but I am sure that is what was said in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know".  They said the natives did not see the ships because ships were unknown.  I don't know, but a dog or other animal would probably not register a ship as something to pay attention to.  Heck, my dog is not mindful at all of moving things.  But I expect a human to be curious, but maybe not?

My dog, sighthound, notices, and barks at, new and stationary junk left on my neighbor's curb (probably trying to scare the new thing into motion). And humans have a long behavioral evolution of needing to take special care that anything new isn't also dangerous. Granted, the closer things are, the more likely they are to be noticed. So if we're talking far enough it would be hard to make out what it was, it might not be immediate enough to warrant attention.

[Carol]

The correct computer analogy would be that the soul is BKAC, and yes, those are interchangeable...and typically forget what they've learned from one computer to the next.

Finally something we can sink our teeth and chew on!  Zinjanthropos thank you for the question that got  Syne's reply.  If we have souls that is energy, and somehow that energy needs to be organized.  I can not think of any way to explain this as a real possibility unless it is a quantum physics explanation.  Memories in a donated heart make sense because the material heart maintains its organization when it is transferred from one body to the next.  But a soul without a material body?  That seems doubtful, right?

---

people in these forums take themselves VERY SERIOUSLY and tend to be intolerant of anything that doesn't fit their idea of good science.  

You won't have to worry about me, I'm still trying to figure out what casual means here. You have to be real (can I say real?) careful on a science forum. 

I like you find it hard to believe that natives would not see a ship because they weren't looking for one. So much of science is observation yet we often only think of the sense of sight.

This is totally off topic, but we are being causal, right?  I once went through an art museum with my eyes closed and touching things.  I kind of knew this wasn't okay, but that day I couldn't control the urge to do that, and I guess it was a hormonal thing or something, but the experience was awesome!  I was made so aware that when we depend on sight as our number one perception, everything is at a distance.  But when we must rely on feeling,   that means contact and it enters us through our fingers and stimulates the nerve endings that travel through our bodies to our brain.  I am not sure how touch info travels to our brain, but it is different from sight.  I have never been able to repeat that experience, and that is why I said it could have been hormonal.   I would love to knw the world through smell as my dog does.

We are playing on the edge of consciousness and I think many things influence that of which we are conscious.  I think hormones are part of the mix.

---

Syne said,

My dog, sighthound, notices, and barks at, new and stationary junk left on my neighbor's curb (probably trying to scare the new thing into motion). And humans have a long behavioral evolution of needing to take special care that anything new isn't also dangerous. Granted, the closer things are, the more likely they are to be noticed. So if we're talking far enough it would be hard to make out what it was, it might not be immediate enough to warrant attention.

That is interesting.  My dog most certainly does not have that behavior.   Again a matter of consciousness and coding and decoding information to determine behavior or a thought.  This is mystifying to me.  Obviously, not all dogs experience life in the same way, and neither do humans.  In this thread, the question is, just how different can experiences be?  We know we see only a small band of light, and that we need instruments to see a reality that is outside of our normal ability to see.  Is it possible for a few to be sensitive to information that is beyond the average range of perception?