What happens after death page 5

212 posts

Flag Post

“I’ll ignore the obvious paradox in your answer. By definition, your conscience self cannot control your subconscious. You could make an argument that your conscience can veto your unconscious, but such a claim would have no evidence. Still, it would be an improvement.”

I made the paradox so obvious so you can notice it but instead you ignored it.
You have made a couple claims yourself that has no evidence too. Like not being able to use the Godel’s incompleteness theorem. That is just a load of bull.

“I know that we aren’t, but there are times where it looked like you didn’t.”

So you where NEVER talking about every impulse yourself?……………(Mind fuck.)

“But there was a point when i believed in free will. Once I stopped believing in free will, nothing changed. Nothing is being subdued.”

Ok, but sadly I don’t care when you began and stopped believing in free will, I care that your logic subdues you to a mental rape.

  • You believe that everything is set to happen…. Your atheist right?

“Are you suggesting that if I did know what choice I would make before the choices were presented, and could do nothing to change it, it would still be free will?”

Exactly my point, mind blowing isn’t it? So yeah, but the thing is you where talking about free will succumbing to your ever impulse so that was your point in this matter. And I said it didn’t matter.

  • You already chose your choice already in the future. You already made a choice, you just wan’t to focus on why you made it.

“I am only able to say this off the top of my head because I researched it beforehand. There exists strong arguments for free will, and I invite you go and research them. Once you fully understand them, use them against me.”

The feeling is mutual. Very VERY very mutual.

“Are we reading the same thing?”

Well YOU ARE the one who gave me the link. I just opened it and I read it. Must be your fault.

I am still talking about Godel. Let me see where you might be reading it wrong.

Yeeeeaaah your link is bologna..

“Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.”

That is more of a rule that some people accept because it is sometimes right, it only determines the CHANCE a person might do action A than action B.

“By “most trivial”, the mean the systems that aren’t really capable of doing anything at all. While it was intended for arithmetic, the theorems hold true for any system. Reading his two theorems should make that evident. Next part is really important:”

No….Its not.

“*The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931*”

It also says that it is widely accepted but not universally. So I don’t accept it its not universal, its not taught in Christian schools, its not taught in normal schools, Its not taught in college, I think it is taught in some clubs or organizations.

“The page also contains the proofs. If you think you can argue against them, be my guest."

No, I just finished working out, my fingers hurt, but since you insisted.

“Hilbert’s second problem”

(Hilbert had a problem for a reason………..) :P

“Perhaps this is the point that through you off. His second problem doesn’t really apply here, as it is self evident that the conscious and subconscious have problems of consistence and completeness. Argue against it if you can. Be sure to point toward specific flaws."

The scriptures say that God gave us choices, a conscious too. It is consistent and complete every time. And I don’t have to write a really long pointless explanation that is really long and pointless to prove a point.

“I liked your answers much better, actually. You started providing evidence.”

I hope you grow taste buds in your but-hole so you taste shit all day every day.

(Don’t tell me that I edit too much because you have grammar mistakes too.)

 
Flag Post

You have made a couple claims yourself that has no evidence too. Like not being able to use the Godel’s incompleteness theorem. That is just a load of bull.

I can, and have, used it.

So you where NEVER talking about every impulse yourself?

I was using a much broader definition of subconscious than just habits one does unwittingly.

Ok, but sadly I don’t care when you began and stopped believing in free will, I care that your logic subdues you to a mental rape.

I am saying I am not mind raping myself, and never have.

You believe that everything is set to happen…. Your atheist right?

I am an agnostic atheist. This is unrelated to my views of free will. There are quite a few denominations of Christianity that believe in predeterminism, such as the Calvinists.

Exactly my point, mind blowing isn’t it?

It is self-contradictory. If you are unable to change your decision, it is set in stone. Meaning, predetermined.

So yeah, but the thing is you where talking about free will succumbing to your ever impulse so that was your point in this matter. And I said it didn’t matter.

That was not my point. My point is that the act of resisting an impulse itself is made subconsciously before you begin to consciously resist the impulse.

You already chose your choice already in the future.

The definition of predetermination.

You already made a choice, you just wan’t to focus on why you made it.

That sentence could mean two completely different things, depending on if you meant want or won’t.

Yeeeeaaah your link is bologna.

If you don’t like Wikipedia, find some other source. Find somewhere—anywhere—that claims Godel is wrong. Just calling it bologna accomplishes nothing.

It also says that it is widely accepted but not universally

It says this concerning wither or not it applies to Hilbert’s second problem. The theorems themselves are proven to hold true in all situations they apply to. If you think they don’t apply to consciousness, explain why.

Its not taught in college

It is taught in college. It is one of the pillars of modern mathematics.

The scriptures say that God gave us choices, a conscious too. It is consistent and complete every time. And I don’t have to write a really long pointless explanation that is really long and pointless to prove a point.

If you are going to argue from the Bible, please cite specific passages from the Bible. I gave you examples from the Bible that supported the idea of predestination. Find a passage that supports free will. Otherwise, your argument is no better than hearsay.

I hope you grow taste buds in your but-hole so you taste shit all day every day.

That was uncalled for. I gave you a compliment. Your arguments are improving. In fact, that is all I am trying to accomplish by arguing with you. I don’t particularly care if you believe in free will or not. I’m not trying to “convert” you to my side. There is no one right answer. I just want to ensure you understand what you believe, it’s implications, and that you are able to support your belief.


Concerning editing, I didn’t mean simply correcting mistakes. I do that all the time. When I called you out on it, you had completely changed the format of your post a few times, making it inconvenient to respond to. Sometimes you added more information too. This is acceptable, but you should do this by putting at at the end of your post after saying something like “EDIT:”, to ensure that it will get noticed.

 
Flag Post

“I can, and have, used it.”

Well then, that explains a lot.

“I was using a much broader definition of subconscious than just habits one does unwittingly.”

“I am saying I am not mind raping myself, and never have.”

The point is not you mind raping yourself. Its just your logic is like mind rape.

“*I am an agnostic atheist. This is unrelated to my views of free will. There are quite a few denominations of Christianity that believe in predeterminism, such as the Calvinists.”*

Oh wow if you had mentioned that in the beginning this conversation would have been over.(Free will)

“It is self-contradictory. If you are unable to change your decision, it is set in stone. Meaning, predetermined.”

And that is why it is mindblowing. No, your future self already made it stone for you to pick it. Making a paradox. That is free will.

“That was not my point. My point is that the act of resisting an impulse itself is made subconsciously before you begin to consciously resist the impulse.”

This is what I mean by mind rape. You already resisted it in the future, which is the choice you made in the future for you to do now. Its like time but back wards, all the choices where already made in the future, but now it is traveling back in time to figure out why you did that.

“The definition of predetermination.”

You already predetermined your choice in the future for yourself today that you changed it the future.

“That sentence could mean two completely different things, depending on if you meant want or won’t.”

…….? Ok, I got this quote from the Matrix, what does it mean? Because I clearly meant what it said.

“It is taught in college. It is one of the pillars of modern mathematics."

BOLOGNA I say! Not until I see that in MY COLLEGE! It is not universal. It must be an atheist college.

“If you are going to argue from the Bible, please cite specific passages from the Bible. I gave you examples from the Bible that supported the idea of predestination. Find a passage that supports free will. Otherwise, your argument is no better than hearsay.”

YES TRUE but I prefer hearsay.

“That was uncalled for. I gave you a compliment."

OR it was probably you being a passive aggressive jerk.

“Your arguments are improving. In fact, that is all I am trying to accomplish by arguing with you. I don’t particularly care if you believe in free will or not. I’m not trying to “convert” you to my side. There is no one right answer. I just want to ensure you understand what you believe, it’s implications, and that you are able to support your belief.”

Oh why thank you very much for making be a better arguer I will do it more often with my girlfriend and future wife.

You are being passive aggressive again…. I hope you grow taste buds in your butt-hole.

 
Flag Post

No, your future self already made it stone for you to pick it. Making a paradox. That is free will.

If free will is a paradox, then it cannot be true. Paradoxes cannot happen in reality, aside from quantum dynamics.

This is what I mean by mind rape. You already resisted it in the future, which is the choice you made in the future for you to do now. Its like time but back wards, all the choices where already made in the future, but now it is traveling back in time to figure out why you did that.

So all my choices were already made in the future, and already made in the past. At what point are the choices determined? If you follow time all the way back, you end up when you are are born. If choices are made then, that would be predestination. I don’t see where free will comes into this.

You already predetermined your choice in the future for yourself today that you changed it the future.

…come again?

Ok, I got this quote from the Matrix, what does it mean? Because I clearly meant what it said.

You had made a typo, and said “wan’t”. What did you mean to type, “won’t” or “want”?

BOLOGNA I say! Not until I see that in MY COLLEGE! It is not universal. It must be an atheist college

Is that a joke?

YES TRUE but I prefer hearsay.

I don’t see why you would. You can’t convince anyone of anything with hearsay.


I am not being passive aggressive. I’m not that type of person. If I wanted to insult you, I would use sarcasm, or be extremely forthcoming about your flaws.
I am really not trying to teach you how to argue, though that would be an effect.

 
Flag Post

“If free will is a paradox, then it cannot be true. Paradoxes cannot happen in reality, aside from quantum dynamics."

As if you knew anything about quantum dynamics. Your opinion is your opinion.

“So all my choices were already made in the future, and already made in the past. At what point are the choices determined? If you follow time all the way back, you end up when you are are born. If choices are made then, that would be predestination. I don’t see where free will comes into this.”

AND THAT IS WHY YOU FAIL! -Yoda Quote

“…come again?”

It is self explanatory. If you don’t understand it then too bad.

“Is that a joke?”

No it wasn’t. I really meant it.

“I don’t see why you would. You can’t convince anyone of anything with hearsay.”

Then why do you continue?

“I am not being passive aggressive. I’m not that type of person. If I wanted to insult you, I would use sarcasm, or be extremely forthcoming about your flaws.
I am really not trying to teach you how to argue, though that would be an effect.”

Bro you made my day.

  • You just said in that is what you where trying to accomplish the entire time, I am going to quote it before you edit it.
  • You JUST contradicted yourself you…….fail.

That was uncalled for. I gave you a compliment. Your arguments are improving. In fact, that is all I am trying to accomplish by arguing with you. I don’t particularly care if you believe in free will or not. I’m not trying to “convert” you to my side. There is no one right answer. I just want to ensure you understand what you believe, it’s implications, and that you are able to support your belief.



So I assume you didn’t use sarcasm here and there?
You are lowering yourself.

 
Flag Post

Your opinion is your opinion.

It isn’t an opinion. Paradoxes do not happen in reality, for obvious reasons.

AND THAT IS WHY YOU FAIL! -Yoda Quote

Point out the flaw in my reasoning then.

It is self explanatory. If you don’t understand it then too bad.

There is at least one grammatical mistake in that sentence, which makes it a bit hard to understand what it says. If i am interpreting it right, it is another paradox.

You just said in that is what you where trying to accomplish the entire time, I am going to quote it before you edit it.

You JUST contradicted yourself you…….fail.

At no point in that paragraph do I say I am teaching you how to argue. I am teaching you to support your opinions, not so you can argue with others, but for yourself.

And no, I wasn’t using sarcasm.

 
Flag Post

It isn’t an opinion. Paradoxes do not happen in reality, for obvious reasons.

??? Now you have me confused, I thought you believed in paradoxes. Why mention it when you don’t believe in it? You should have said that Paradoxes don’t exist earlier.

Point out the flaw in my reasoning then.

You said you don’t see the reason. So that is why you fail.

There is at least one grammatical mistake in that sentence, which makes it a bit hard to understand what it says. If i am interpreting it right, it is another paradox.

I believe you have a problem involving paradoxes.
Edit: You also have a couple grammatical errors yourself.

At no point in that paragraph do I say I am teaching you how to argue. I am teaching you to support your opinions, not so you can argue with others, but for yourself.

So I am good at arguing but not supporting it…. I…… OK whatever you say.

And no, I wasn’t using sarcasm.

Of course…You where just being passive aggressive is’ all.

 
Flag Post

??? Now you have me confused, I thought you believed in paradoxes. Why mention it when you don’t believe in it? You should have said that Paradoxes don’t exist earlier.

Paradoxes involve logical inconsistency. They exists in flawed reasoning, but not reality. If you are supporting your belief in free will with a paradox, that would indicate a problem.

You said you don’t see the reason. So that is why you fail.

So where does free will come into play, if not at birth?

Edit: You also have a couple grammatical errors yourself.

I know.

So I am good at arguing but not supporting it…. I…… OK whatever you say.

I never said you were good at debating. It simply isn’t what I am trying to teach you.

Of course…You where just being passive aggressive is’ all.

I wasn’t being passive aggressive either.

 
Flag Post

Paradoxes involve logical inconsistency. They exists in flawed reasoning, but not reality. If you are supporting your belief in free will with a paradox, that would indicate a problem.

And that problem is?

So where does free will come into play, if not at birth?

I don’t understand the birth part of the question, but free will lets you decide what to do in your life.

I know.

WELL THEN. Don’t mention my errors.

I never said you were good at debating. It simply isn’t what I am trying to teach you.

Well that is just a boring remark.

I wasn’t being passive aggressive either.

COUGH COUGH yes you where COUGH COUGH

 
Flag Post

AHEM! Let me fix that…..

Fixed it…

 
Flag Post

And that problem is?

Logical inconsistency.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

And that problem is?

Logical inconsistency.

Well then, I hope you grow taste buds in your anus.

And by the way, subconsciousness is just God acting for your brain, Impulse has the same characteristics.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

And that problem is?

Logical inconsistency.

Well then, I hope you grow taste buds in your anus.

And by the way, subconsciousness is just God acting for your brain, Impulse has the same characteristics.

Cute, now prove it and you may claim some Nobel Prize too.

Now, as for the “what happens after death” thingy. No one knows what happens after death. Anyone who claims to know is a liar. Someone might claim to think to know but there is a huge difference between thinking to know and actually knowing.

 
Flag Post

If someone guarantees you that you will go to heaven, ignore them. if someone guarantees you that you will cease to exist, ignore them. Not even science says anything one way or the other on this subject. Nobody has any idea what happens, really, but it’s a good thing to think about every now and then. Don’t let the thoughts consume you though. It’s always good to take things like this into deep consideration at some point or another, but if you spend too much time trying to figure out life, you run out of time to spend actually living it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by slasher:

If there is no Heaven or Hell, I shouldn’t really care. I’ve lived a good life and am proud of it. I don’t require a reward or punishment, and it’s not like my body will be tortured in the decaying earth, nor will I feel any pain or emotion from this decaying body of mine.

I agree 100% man. I’m pretty grateful as it is that I got a chance to live this life in the first place, I don’t mind if I get eternally rewarded in an afterlife or not. I’m happy either way.

 
Flag Post

Well then, I hope you grow taste buds in your anus.

Instead of dismissing me, you should reconsider and reconstruct your arguments. That is the only way to learn.

And by the way, subconsciousness is just God acting for your brain, Impulse has the same characteristics.

So now our thought are directly influenced by God, and you still are arguing for free will? Subconscious or God, the results are the same: our choices aren’t really our choices.

 
Flag Post

Originally posted by MyTie:

So, let me ask you, Tenco, what would happen to me if I were to light a bonfire, and then jump into it?

You would get severely burned and end up smearing ointment on your skin for years. Next?

Originally posted by tenco1:

Would you not be classified as suicidal if you were to jump into a bonfire?

Why are you two arguing about jumping into bonfires on a forum about what happens after death.

There is a person on here who is probably relying on this thread to help him figure out a big problem.

Why can neither of you be mature enough to actually try to help this person out. Shame on you both.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pughead9000:

Why are you two arguing about jumping into bonfires on a forum about what happens after death.

There is a person on here who is probably relying on this thread to help him figure out a big problem.

Why can neither of you be mature enough to actually try to help this person out. Shame on you both.

Because it’s been weeks since the thread was crated and more than a week ago when we were posting on here.

Also, you can just use the quote button that’s by your avatar to quote posts instead of directly copy-pasting it.

 
Flag Post

I never did get back to you on the last points you raised here, Karma. It’s about a month old now, but I hope my answer has not come too late. That said, I don’t think you’re going to be at all pleased with some of the answers I have for you.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

LOL…vika, always the optimistic visionary: ..(which we CURRENTLY cannot do)..

Its how I think. I’m always looking to the possibilities; considering what we can do now, and understanding what is possible, certainly in theory, and increasingly so in practice. Replacing a brain in its entirety is certainly one theoretical possibility, but one which brings with it a whole host of other problems, which I shall try not to get into here.

I would luved to have sat in on that AGI conference as they presented various thoughts….esp. that of using EX-minds of humans to drive intelligent machinery. Of course, they don’t mean using the actual physical brain of a dead person (Frankie?), but rather that essence which ya’re talking about being (soon?) able to be “harvested”….post mortem I hope…lol.

No, it absolutely could not be done post mortem. The brain deteriorates too fast after death for anything to be done. You would have to start the process whilst the person is still alive, and most likely, whilst they are conscious to be sure it is working. As such, it would have to be a strictly opt-in kind of thing.

Even freezing the brain in cryogenic suspension won’t really help, as whilst it’ll prevent decay, it’ll also shut down all the circuitry. At the very least we would need to connect it to a support system and ‘reboot’ the brain in order to copy the mind off of it. The problem with electrochemical systems is you really need both halves – the chemicals and the electrical networks, to be sure of getting everything pertinent. Whilst most long-term memory storage is chemical, active memory and much of the personality is going to be electrical for what I would hope are fairly obvious reasons. Namely the extreme plasticity the personality needs to show in order to function in an ever-changing environment (survival adaptations again). Chemical processes are much slower to change than electrical processes. So most (and possibly all) of the actual personality in the cortex is going to be electrical in nature.

Since that’s what you’ll need to transfer, the brain will have to bhe operational to do so.

Also yes, the conference was brilliant, albeit exhausting; so much was covered that I’m still not really sure how to assimilate it all. I’m definitely picking up a copy of the post conference proceedings when they’re out. Depending on how my scanner holds up, I might even be able to digitise them.

But, it certainly did answer my question about a brilliant, yet impoverished, mind being valued well beyond those of the “gentry”. The ramifications of having brilliant minds being—at the very least—a kind of “living library” that can still function well beyond that station. This then begs the question: would this “functioning brain” still be able to “grow”? Would it be able to assimilate NEW data and continue its great work well beyond that thus achieved at the death of its former “host”?

Logically, the answer both questions would be yes. In order to copy the mind effectively, you would need to copy it over to a blank ‘template file’ if you will, that replicated much of the original structure. Thankfully we know that human brains don’t differ too much from one another in basic structure, and when they do, we can map these changes. The resultant graphs are extremely interesting and rather pertinent, so I shall have to try and dig them out, and figure out how to place them on here.

But we’d basically need a simulation model to place the mind onto. As I said before, we wouldn’t need all of the original processes. None of the hind brain or cerebellum would be needed at all, for example. It only deals with controlling the body, and there is no-longer a physical body there to deal with.

Likewise the long-term storage from the mid-brain could be transcribed into a different format. So long as accessing it works the same way from the perspective of the active mind itself, it does not matter how these memories are stored. A format which is searchable by the general public as well as by the mind itself would make sense – this is where the ‘living library’ comes into play.

the mind itself, basically the higher thought processes, would have to be laid out the exact same way they were in the original brain, in order for this whole thing to work. This means the neural network takes the same form, and function. It also means that the assimilation of new knowledge and new perspectives would essentially be ‘built in’.

The mind was never meant for long periods without sensory stimulation. We see this now, with humans in sensory deprivation tanks. Five minutes is blissful, six hours is torture. Likewise, an uploaded consciousness would need sensory feedback in order to stay sane – it would keep the ability to process this sensory data, and learn from it thusly.

There are all sorts of lovely legal questions there, about whether such a being would qualify as a person, since they still retain everything that made them a person in the first place, but I will sidestep those for now.

However, this bit:

continue its great work well beyond that thus achieved at the death of its former “host”?

Is right on the money. Great minds are then not lost through death. We still have them and can interact with them, and their unique ways of thinking, along with the knowledge the original possessed. They could be stored in a static form, and ‘activated’ at need, for example, so you get the mind as it was at the moment it was uploaded; the person as they were on their deathbed.

Or you could leave the person simulacrum running, and they would change over time, gaining new ideas, delving new philosophies or refining their old ones. Changing and integrating new data like any living mind. Over time they would become a quite different person from who they were as they died, but still retain all the knowledge they ever had.

Ideally of course, you would have both; the living mind, and copies of the preseved mind from their original uploading, which you could use in limited sessions, to ask the original Hawking, Warwick or Mann, what they thought of your experiment, and they would look at it from the perspective of their own minds at their peak.

Yeah, I totally forgot that such technology would be so advanced that the cost of it should be quite low. BUT, we mustn’t forget the CAPALTISTIC nature of humans to suck blood from a stone. I cite the pharmaceutical industry as an example. Hopefully, common sense in regards to the welfare of society at large would prevail…..OH GAWD, I’m a fucking socialist.

Even the pharmaceutical industry is benefitting from increasingly advanced technology which lowers their development costs and shortens development time. With far less money and time investment needed up front (it can take upwards of ten years to research a new drug) there is less intense need for high prices to justify good financial returns.

Even if common sense to the welfare of society at large does not prevail, we are looking at the near-certainty of sufficiently powerful computer systems so cheap that almost anyone could own one in their garage, within two to three decades. What is needed then is the research on how to upload a mind – and that is already underway.

I don’t know “Ray”, but I agree w/ his “rule”.

Sorry, that was my fault. Ray Kurzweil. You’d like him. He’s a brilliant inventor. Also has an uncanny knack for predicting when a technology will mature, so he can plan his inventions years in advance.

We have just recently opened the door to the Information Age….not even sure if all we’ve yet really done is just peeked in rather than having even crossed the threshold. I see a huge explosion of innovation because of the aggregation of ALL KNOWN EXISTING DATA.

No, we have crossed the threshold, and such mammoth data integration and visualisation programs are underway. Problem is, the task is huge and we don’t yet have the proper tools – still figuring out what those are. It will be years before we get that part straightened out. But again, its an ongoing, massive push. This is where the acceleration comes in. The more we learn, the better the tools we are able to create, and the better tools allow us to learn more, faster, and to retain more. It becomes a self-perpetuating circle, and is expected to continue to gain speed (exponentially) all throughout this century.

If we follow Ray’s predictions to the hilt, we are expected to see 25,000 years worth of development, at year 2000 speeds, by the year 2100. So the further into the century we go, the more rapid the pace of development is going to be.

A bit like with the human genome project, a ten year project in which fully one half of the data was crunched in the last year of the project – and we’re now at the stage where we can crunch a genome in a week. As our abilities exponentially increase, so the speed at which we can gather and use that data exponentially increases.

AND, just as the microchip replaced the tubes, transistors, etc…..our current “computers” very likely WILL BE evolved into something resembling them in only that they access, process, and express data….

Yes, that’s a certainty. There are many models being explored currently for future computing needs. Everything from qubits and quantum computing, to 3d microchips, and dna based computation. Future systems are likely to use a plethora of different methods.

PROBABLY even w/ EMOTION factored in.

Modern computer systems can handle emotion. Emotion is software-based, not hardware based. It doesn’t matter what architecture it runs on, you can still produce emotional responses.

 

 


 

Pausing to gather breath, and begin the semi-related Q & A section of the post:

 

 

BUT, this brings me to a couple of areas I want a comparison on from ya. How much of the movie Matrix could be a possibility?

Certainly not all of it, not as we currently understand the physical limits on computational power to be. If we have radical paradigm shifts there it would be nice, but currently, we could not generate a simulation as complex and all-encompassing as the Matrix. Simulations as lifelike would indeed be possible, but at a far smaller scale. Think in terms of the Matrix sparring programs, or testing programs, not in terms of an entire copy of Earth down to the smallest nut and bolt.

Smoke and mirrors would be used to give the impression of lots of things being there that really aren’t, or aren’t there all the time. Think of it like looking through a microscope; the level of detail the microscope shows you isn’t actually there until you use the equipment to see it. Another example would be that the innards of a clock aren’t actually being simulated until you open it.

As to the interface itself? yes, that’s possible, even likely. Going in through the brainstem is the most logical choice to create a full-body simulation.

‘Residual self image’ is likely a myth though. Enough experiments have been done with ‘musical chairs’ style bodies to make that concept highly suspect. Most likely you would still have to build an avatar from scratch or from a preformed model.

How likely could this battle between science & “religion” eventually Devolve to something akin to a modern “dark ages”. I say this reversal of progress being absolutely possible because of that ya said about: There will likely be a few incidents as the zealots decide what we are doing is too ungodly to be allowed to continue.

These zealots can run the gamut from the lunatic assassin (Dr. Tiller’s death) right on up to politicos (our own Gov. Sam Brownback) so filled w/ running a society by the Word of God that they lose sight of the utter destruction they are doing.

Extremely unlikely. Worst case scenario? We lose the technological capability and input of the USA, as that country devolves back into an extremist, highly religious dark age. It is still just one country. There are elements pursuing these ideals in every country on Earth (except most likely, North Korea).

In the worst-case scenario, losing much or all of the scientific input of the US would not be devastating. The work would continue, albeit at a slower pace, and we would hopefully see an increased brain-drain of the great minds out of the US, towards the other countries working towards these goals.

China for example has really been picking up the pace lately. Their volume of scientific papers is exploding, year on year.; The quality is still poor, but it is rising. In the absolute worst-case scenario, they could take over for the loss of the US.

It would of course mean that the US itself would be denied the fruits of this labor, as it would devolve into something of a theocratic nation. However, that particular scenario is highly unlikely.

Most likely the US will resist much of this tech, and much of it will be prevented from being enacted within US borders, but the rest of the world will contine on, different countries developing different components at different rates, and sharing data as an international effort, the same as occurs now.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

You cant really know what is to come when you die.
I myself dont believe in an afterlife but i actually hope im wrong as it would be quite boring if nothing happened….Anyway its not something you should be worried about. Just enjoy life since there is nothing you can do except hope that there is some kind of afterlife.

 
Flag Post

how do you expect us to know?
no one us died yet
otherwise we wouldnt be here
who says otherwise is completely wrong

 
Flag Post

One of these will happen.

1. God exists: then you would go to heaven or hell.
2. God doesn’t exist: your brain just shuts down and you DIE.

Now that leaves us with 1 question: Does god exist?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Roki123:

One of these will happen.

1. God exists: then you would go to heaven or hell.
2. God doesn’t exist: your brain just shuts down and you DIE.

Now that leaves us with 1 question: Does god exist?

Those are not the only possibilities.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Roki123:

One of these will happen.

1. God exists: then you would go to heaven or hell.
2. God doesn’t exist: your brain just shuts down and you DIE.

Now that leaves us with 1 question: Does god exist?

Those are not the only possibilities.

What else are there?