Since you’ve put “alive” in quotes, I’m interested to hear what “alive” means to you. I know how the discipline of biology defines life and wonder if you define it as the same. Also, though I’m not well read in the personal philosophy of W. Ockham, perhaps you can enlighten me as to which processes of being alive relates to consciousness in this philosophy. What is consciousness? Are all things “alive” also conscious?

As for why life dies - the short answer is programmed cell death and an ever-shortening chain of DNA (via replication over millions of times) that eventually shortens to the point that critical parts of chromosomes are lost.

Don Lopez:

I’ve heard of the “God zone” of the brain before, though I forget what it’s actually called. It’s an interesting topic. However, if you are examining the issue scientifically, there is more evidence to support that man did create “God” in order to inhibit “unwanted” behaviors and to encourage “desired” behaviors going back many thousands of years. Granted, I have not read the article you referenced. Perhaps in my “spare time” I can get to it.

DID MAN CREATE GOD?

It’s quite intriguing. Michael Shermer of SKEPTIC magazine describes it as “the definitive scientific reference on religion for some time to come.”

Human brains just might be genetically hardwired to be spiritual….

My personal view is somewhat inspired by William Of Ockham.

Our bodies while alive convert food into energy. Some process of being ‘alive’ releases this as the energy perceived as consciousness. When we die this process stops and any latent energy disperses (as heat or whatever it has to go somewhere) leaving behind a cold lump of matter which get eaten. All matter/energy is conserved.

The real question to me is What is life and why does it die.

Life and death trip me out almost as much infinity and quanta.

Interesting question…and one that I do not think was addressed (not really, except that worms eat your energy) in this entire topic. I would be interested to hear what you think regarding your question.

NJDrummer

My point with the analogy was that conscious processes require, at least according to ALL evidence, a particular type of functioning biology. True enough that perceptions and thoughts are not the same (which is why we use different words for them), but they do not differ in their dependence on an biological substratum, which is the issue in question.

Much like a colorblind person being taught of the existence of the distinction between red and green, or much like you or me being taught about ultraviolet wavelengths, we can understand them from a third person perspective. But lacking the correct perceptual apparatus wired into our own brains, we will never perceive them. The conscious experience is independent upon the correctly functioning biological component, although the ultraviolet wavelengths themselves are not.

You die, brain stops working, no more thoughts, no more perceptions, no more _you_, world keeps chugging along. That’s the simplest interpretation of all available evidence, and so obvious.

You’re right…our previous exchange does speak volumes. As for your current post regarding perception of color: that is not a good analogy. Basically what you’re saying is that if there is no mechanism for perception of color, then color does not exist. True. Same as the old “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” No, it doesn’t. Does that also mean if there were no life on this planet, Earth would not exist? That depends on your philosophical beliefs (and possibly your belief of intelligent life on other planets)However, the brain’s perception of outside stimulus through a sense organ is not the same as an internal thought that requires no external stimulus at all. In fact, deaf, blind children can learn to understand what “red” or “blue” is even though they’ve never seen it.
NJDrummer

“If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes.”

And you followed that with:

“So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules???”

I think that exchange speaks volumes.

Consider this. “Red” isn’t a thing made of molecules. But “red” _is_ the name we give to the internal experience of interactions between types of molecules (ones that reflect light of a certain wavelengths and ones organized into an eye-brain system). You can discuss “red” as not being the same as its physical substrata, but without them, there is no “red”. “Red” can be considered separately, but cannot _exist_ separately. Same with any other noun denoting a process or product consciousness. Some people wish it were otherwise, and I wish I had a million dollars.

So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules??? Neurotransmitters are the vehicles for impulses of the brain. Although they may “carry” thought (remember I said MAY; more precicely information) from one part of the brain to another neurotransmitters are not thoughts. Similarly, gravity waves “carry” or transmit gravity, they are not however gravity.
NJDrummer

Just because it’s amazing doesn’t mean it’s mysterious, and just because it’s not mysterious doesn’t mean it’s not amazing.

Well said. I am in a similar situation as you. I have no intention of home schooling, but my daughter is now 5 and I have a lot of the same questions.

Gor

Nice response to “matty”. LOL!

I have no idea who you are, nor do I necessarily agree with a lot of your statements, but I believe sitting down, and having a conversation with you, would be most educational and entertaining.

Gor