Thought help: i’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and i was just wondering. - Help.com

wordfarer wrote:
Geez Dak, how many holes were you planning on conjuring with all this excess deepness? haha ha 0_o’ *coping method pokes out from stage left*

hey. as many as people want to dig. lol i’m just a bit curious cause i’ve hit the point where i’m being honest with myself and saying that i truly don’t know what will happen but i know what i believe in. it’s actually turning out rather well.

haha don’t worry. i’m just wondering cause i have a slight morbid fascination with death cause i feel a sort of cosmic inspiration to question myself and the world. lol

we have no proof that there is life after death. emotion, thought, and action is all energy in our brain. this energy disperses after death, i agree. but you surely know that energy can not be destroyied(sp?) but only gained or lost. perhaps it is this energy that is life, that cause our exsistence. so what happens to it when we die is yet to be explained.

i think our aversion to death is caused by a lack of belief and overpowering uncertainty in whatever an individual believes. seeing as how we can easily swing the data either way to help prove either side about death, i think that people are afraid of death because they do not know what to think about it.

Verum Causa wrote:
You can’t swing the data either way.

give someone enough reason(money) and they’ll find a way.

most likely, unless the brightest minds are in favor of the altered results. the problem arises when you place a person in among any plan. everything looks good on paper

for what? the “everything looks good on paper”?

what i meant was that a person is more likely to accept false information if it agrees with their beliefs or actions more so then they would accept true data if it disagreed with them.

Verum Causa wrote:

Daksha Cromwell wrote:
for what? the “everything looks good on paper”?

But on a tangent, yes. I don’t see any basis for that conclusion either.

the main idea i meant behind the statement was that many ideas sound good and show the promise of working to perfection. until you actually try them in real life, where under the pressure of natural occurences and the ever changing needs and thoughts of humanity, it cracks.

i did not specify scientists in any way. the brightest minds are not defined to be only scientists. there is more to life then the things that science can dissect and describe.

Verum Causa wrote:
That’s what you think.

ahh good. i forgot to say that that was my viewpoint on life. i try not to place my ideology as fact because who knows what really happens or what is the truth.

but who’s to say that they know nothing? perhaps they have an insight into matters beyond science. examples escape me at the moment but there must be more than one type of the brightest minds because there is more then one aspect of human knowledge. you have science/mathematics, astronomy, geography, psychology, artistic, and many other facets to the great gem that is know as knowledge.

and in which lies the problem. math and physics are tools created by humans to deal with the world around them. they are used to describe normal and sometimes abnormal occurences.

in a sense yes and again no. it is when you considered the idea that if all of knowledge is created by humans, all of our understanding is the cause of people trying to control their surroundings. but we can see and feel things that can not be explained by our understanding. what are these things if they can not be explained? there is no equation that you can put numbers in to get emotions. there is no known forumla to life. yet we have life and we have emotions.

Verum Causa wrote:

Daksha Cromwell wrote:
but we can see and feel things that can not be explained by our understanding. what are these things if they can not be explained? there is no equation that you can put numbers in to get emotions. there is no known forumla to life. yet we have life and we have emotions.

That’s not true. There is an explanation, we just don’t know it yet/haven’t learned enough.

yes i know there is an explanation but i’m saying that our mathimatically-dependent way of thinking is not capable of showing yet (or in my opinion, will ever be).