How Does Science Explains Life After Death?

[ingkiang]

---

Never jud ma relate ang duha kay ang computer dispensable kaayo ilisdan ra nimo ang uban components dagan nasad. Ang brain once maguba ang parts ana wala nakay ikailis. So once ilisdan nimo ang defective component sa computer BALIK nasad na ug andar so pirting pagkasayupa ana nga analogy. Kung ako pa anang Stephen maypa mo ingon siya nga brain is like a CPU. Wala ko kaila ana niya pero feel nako naa na sa edaran 60+ mga tawng old school. Kaon tag shakoy oi.

Not totally true, ky kana d i heart transplant, eye transplant, etc. same ra mana sa defective component sa computer. Ang science karon wala pa lang maabot sa stage na kaya mka preserve ang tanan organs and ma preserve longer. But there are people working on it. Diretso man dayon judge sa tao nya wala man d i ka kaila...tsk..tsk..tsk...
@TopIc
We will know once we are dead ra cguro...hehehe..but maybe quantum physics can answer this, only if ma complete na ang theory or laws sa quantum physics.

[BetterPhilippines2015]

Du basaha ang quote,

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”


― Stephen Hawking

Ikaw na nag sulti nako nga ang science wala pa maabot anang brain transplant so ni agree ka nako nga sayop na nga saying d ba? Nariribog man ta nimo du! Ingnon pata dayon judge. Ka klarong sayop ana iyang quotes. Kay mao lagi abi sikat sakto na d ba?

[igibouy]

Never jud ma relate ang duha kay ang computer dispensable kaayo ilisdan ra nimo ang uban components dagan nasad. Ang brain once maguba ang parts ana wala nakay ikailis. So once ilisdan nimo ang defective component sa computer BALIK nasad na ug andar so pirting pagkasayupa ana nga analogy. Kung ako pa anang Stephen maypa mo ingon siya nga brain is like a CPU. Wala ko kaila ana niya pero feel nako naa na sa edaran 60+ mga tawng old school. Kaon tag shakoy oi.

You are taking his analogy literally. You shouldn't. Also note that he's using the analogy so that the general public can understand what he was trying to say. Using the computer comparison is a good choice. Kaon sa ngadto ug shakoy kaw

[BetterPhilippines2015]

Did Stephen told you nga dili bason literally?

[BetterPhilippines2015]

“I regard humans as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”


― BetterPhilippines2015

[cjmagowan]

Sir Hawking just made an example and its for us ourselves to interpret them, and yeah human components are really accessible nowadays when you have the money. And like computers, when you could no longer coupe up with components the needed a replacement, you'll just have to let the machine die.

He might just be right, when things ceased to exist they just turn to nothing, so when we die I think it's just that there will be no longer us.

[yhokz101]

“I regard humans as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

well it depends on a person's perspective. Hawking is just one example of a person that does not or do not acknowledge God or the afterlife for the matter. There are also those in the scientific field, yes, scientists that have a different approach and explanation. True, science cannot tell or prove if there's indeed life after death, but it does not mean it cannot be proven (yet), there isn't or it can also prove that there is no life after death indeed. Science has stick with it's stand as long as facts and proof is their basis of it, nothing more and nothing less.

What is the essence of life? The brain? Our consciousness? Our existence as we call it, our awareness of ourselves?

How about the NDE experiences that some people went through? Sure, science have an explanation of that. The idea that human consciousness and the body exist distinctly from each other flies in the face of science. A brain-dead person should not be able to form new memories; he shouldn't have any consciousness at all, really. So how can anything but a metaphysical explanation cover NDEs?

In a scientific approach they describe NDEs are actually REM intrusions triggered in the brain by traumatic events like cardiac arrest. If this is true, then this means the experiences of some people following near-death are confusion from suddenly and unexpectedly entering a dream-like state. This is how science take a approach of the Near Death Experience episode where people claim there is indeed life after death, when they saw their dead relatives and friends.

As far as science is concerned, they won't go as far as to explain the spiritual aspects, hence the Life after Death issue remains in the qualm reality.

[carmicael]

The scientific consensus is that the mind and consciousness are closely connected with the physiological functions of the brain. Thus, according to the current scientific view, consciousness stops at the time of the cessation of the chemical reactions in the brain.

Death, by definition, is the termination of all biological functions that sustain life. In as so far as science is concerned, there is no life after death.

All other explanations/comments will tend to include more metaphysical jargon. Little by little this thread is becoming pseudoscience. I think it is time to close this thread.

[yhokz101]

OT: ^^ don't be such a kill joy..

Some people might want to share their ideas.. No harm in that unless they will go to fantasy and fairy in full blast. Just leave this thread be.

[dab_s_bad]

as per topics sayings..., to make it super short..., current explanations will lead us nowhere... ^_^