Death is a wave of chemical reactions?

As you will all no doubt be aware, cells in your body undergo 'programmed cell death' (PCD) daily through a process called apoptosis (cellular waste disposal), which differs from the process of necrosis (death of cell before its natural time).

It has been known for quite some time that full body death does not happen instantaneously, but is a slow and modular process that eventually envelops the whole body. The physical body is a modular system whose parts cooperatively function to sustain the higher systems of sentient awareness and person-hood of 'self'.

The ageing process can be considered as part of the natural apoptotic system, although strictly speaking it wouldn't be accurate. Cells have a finite amount of times they can reproduce which is regulated by an RNA ribbon that shortens each time the cell undergoes reproduction. When the RNA ribbon runs out, and the last reproduced cell reaches the end of its natural cycle, it sends out a chemical message that tells the body it needs to be killed and its material disposed of. This in a nutshell is the process of apoptosis, and is obviously far more complex than the way I have stated it.

The blue phosphorescent wave detected passing through the worm's cells at death is called 'necrotic radiation', and this, what has been termed the 'light shout' has been extensively studied in other animals other than worms, such as molluscs and even mice, by Dr. Janus Slawinski

...an important finding is that all dying cell populations and organisms emit a radiation ten to 1,000 times stronger than their stationary emission during homeostasis. That phenomenon of degradation or necrotic radiation. . . called a 'light shout', is universal and independent of the cause of death. Its intensity and time course reflect the rate of dying." (Slawinski, 1987)

Another way to look at this is to imagine the light shout acting like a self-introduced EMP blast upon the electrical systems of the organism, shutting down the higher functions firstly. In human beings, this would be akin to switching off the outer-expressions of consciousness, but retaining for a short time inner consciousness (beyond the recording ability of ECG) which after a matter of minutes eventually dissipates and concludes the death process of the organism. It is possible that during the interlude where outer consciousness is lost whilst inner consciousness is retained that NDE occurs?

reply to post by Astrocyte

This still doesn't really say anything about the presence or non-presence of a non-physical cause to this process.

I know something that does say something about the presence or non-presence of a non-physical cause to this and any process—the non-physical cannot act on the physical, making ideas such as non-physical causes, which is a contradiction if I've ever seen one, impossible.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

the non-physical cannot act on the physical, making ideas such as non-physical causes,

That depends on how we define "physical".

As mentioned, from the perspective of quantum mechanics, what we see as "solid" is in effect empty space, held together by mysterious forces like strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity.

But even though we can describe the activity of these forces, it's still difficult to understand just "what" they are. Gravity seems to be the most difficult to explain, even at a descriptive level.

If the mental and physical lie along a continuum, and the difference being a matter of reification, then its plausible that the mental and physical could exist simultaneously as "one product". The physical body would be the part of the organism which is apparent to our 5 senses (I can see, hear, taste, smell or touch), while the more subtle features which transcend the physical senses - such as a "life force" - would essentially exist within and around the body at all times. It's hard to taxonomize consciousness in the same way that we do physical matter. Some metaphysical systems, like the Kabbalah, nevertheless try to. They imagine "will" which seems to be the most abstract and ephemeral of mental forces, to lie at the "top"; below it our found progressively more concrete types of consciousness: preconceptualization, and conceptualization. Beneath these are "feeling tones" which, I guess, being "felt" make them more physical than "thoughts". Modern Kabbalistic writers have gone on to hone this system by linking feeling tones with astral dimensions; imaginative realms which become more and more conditioned by physical form. The system itself is complex, but if it is true - if physical reality is "hologramic", a superimposition of a metaphysical reality onto a physical landscape, then, we will be able to establish a logical causal relationship between the mental and physical.

That you say "it is impossible", when at this point we don't even know what is possible, is premature. Perhaps, what you mean to say is: "I don't want it to be possible". Which would mirror my: "I want it to be possible". At present, science can't explain consciousness; all it can do at the moment is ignore it while concentrating on the physical. But to infer from this dismissive attitude good reason to deny an objective mental realm is to really not appreciate the nature of a hypothesis.

Astrocyte:

This still doesn't really say anything about the presence or non-presence of a non-physical cause to this process.

With all due respect, Astrocyte, there can be no such condition as a 'non-physical' cause, and certainly not a chained sequence of them. Instead of using the term 'non-physical', would you agree we could use the term 'immaterial' and still retain the same sense of contextual meaning?

If so, then perhaps we can elaborate and clarify why something 'immaterial' cannot interact with something that is 'material'.

Taking into account your statement...

That depends on how we define "physical".

...physicality to me results from Newton's 3rd Law of motion, that when a force acts upon an object, the object resists with an equal and opposite force, action - reaction, cause and effect. All particles exhibit Newton's stated law when impinged upon by external energy. It is a physical process, not non-physical.

If we allow for the quark to be the smallest unit of matter, that is to say smallest piece of solid, by this attribute we call it material, because it has a mass defined by its velocity of momentum, and is not divisible any further. Whereas 'immateriality' can only be considered as the spatial vectors between disparate particles, and holds no interactive attributes at all. Anything immaterial cannot interact with any particle or any of the known forces, because it has no possible centre of condensation from which it can give an opposite reaction. Immateriality has no energetic output whatsoever, and by this understanding cannot be a non-physical cause to a physical effect.

reply to post by elysiumfire

because it has a mass defined by its velocity of momentum, and is not divisible any further.

When we say "quark" or "electron", a contradiction is involved. A quark and electron exists in the mind. It is a mental concept. We infer their existence by analyzing their effects. At present, quarks are the "lowest", but string theorists are positing an even more fundamental reality: "strings". Where will this process take us? Should we remind ourselves of the late 19th century physicalists who thought our scientific knowledge was "almost complete"? And then Einstein came and blew their world up.

Anything immaterial cannot interact with any particle or any of the known forces, because it has no possible centre of condensation from which it can give an opposite reaction.

Don't you think this is an over-generalization? Granted, the spatial vectors you described are an example of a mathematically describable "immateriality" that lies between particles. But these spatial vectors exist, though, right? There existence appears ancillary to the interactions between particles.

Is consciousness - my awareness of the world - like the "spatial vectors" that lie between disparate particles? Or does consciousness feel like it has a "center" - an area where consciousness is condensed - as awareness, attention - and thus, resembles a particle rather than a spatial vector?

And perhaps the spatial vectors which exist for the sake of interacting particles is akin to a consciousness that exists for the sake of interacting minds?

The theory i've postulated assumes that nature is composed of a mental and physical part. I'm not a physicist, so I probably wouldn't be able to do a convincing job explaining just how consciousness interacts with matter. Logically, though, based on that one matter alone - that a spatial vectors "immateriality" disproves the possibility that something non-physical can affect something physical, I don't think that should become a "law".

If there is a cosmic "source" animating all of existence, and this sources mode of activity is like an emanation, or evolution, from something increasingly abstract, to something condensed, like in physical matter, than ultimately, all things would be the consequence of this sources invisible influence. A background vector, electromagnetism, nuclear forces and gravity, along with the particles themselves, would all be explicable based on this sources activity.

I'll write more later. As so far, my rebuttal is incomplete, and you did bring up a strong point. Dinner time.

reply to post by Astrocyte

That you say "it is impossible", when at this point we don't even know what is possible, is premature. Perhaps, what you mean to say is: "I don't want it to be possible". Which would mirror my: "I want it to be possible". At present, science can't explain consciousness; all it can do at the moment is ignore it while concentrating on the physical. But to infer from this dismissive attitude good reason to deny an objective mental realm is to really not appreciate the nature of a hypothesis.

No, I do want it to be possible. The implications would be astounding. But when we allow our desires to bully our reason, we end up weaving a tangled web even the most articulate of folks cannot reason their way out of.

At present, no one can explain consciousness. Why someone would posit something they cannot even define, understand or articulate as some"thing" that is fundamental is beyond foolhardy, if not deceptive.

Would just like to say I'm genuinely enjoying this debate between Astrocyte and elysiumfire. Please don't let my post interrupt it.

An interesting train of thought is the idea that Eastern medicine generally treated the physical body as a whole, whereas Western medicine generally divided the body into key points. Our notion of a 'whole' at some level may dictate our train of thought?

Not sidetracking, just something I was thinking about. Do we consider ourselves as 'spiritually' whole or scientifically segmented? What is our form? Is it a vehicle for the soul composed of a myriad synchronous biological organs? Are we experiencing everything simply as a sterile bunch of reactions, or is their something more grandiose about our experiences? Are we a coded/encoded collection of events , transferred through seed and experience, an ever learning, ever reactive, timeless 'entity' (I say timeless because this code is passed throughout generations via DNA) --- Or do we have a metaphysical, observing spirit?

Hmm?

Hi Astrocyte,

Thanks for the response. While you have your dinner, I respond to what you have already posted.

A quark and electron exists in the mind. It is a mental concept.

Once upon a time it was, not any more...

www.youtube.com...

phys.org...

Hmm, got to go,,,catch you later.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Astrocyte:

This still doesn't really say anything about the presence or non-presence of a non-physical cause to this process.

With all due respect, Astrocyte, there can be no such condition as a 'non-physical' cause, and certainly not a chained sequence of them. Instead of using the term 'non-physical', would you agree we could use the term 'immaterial' and still retain the same sense of contextual meaning?

If so, then perhaps we can elaborate and clarify why something 'immaterial' cannot interact with something that is 'material'.

Taking into account your statement...

That depends on how we define "physical".

...physicality to me results from Newton's 3rd Law of motion, that when a force acts upon an object, the object resists with an equal and opposite force, action - reaction, cause and effect. All particles exhibit Newton's stated law when impinged upon by external energy. It is a physical process, not non-physical.

If we allow for the quark to be the smallest unit of matter, that is to say smallest piece of solid, by this attribute we call it material, because it has a mass defined by its velocity of momentum, and is not divisible any further. Whereas 'immateriality' can only be considered as the spatial vectors between disparate particles, and holds no interactive attributes at all. Anything immaterial cannot interact with any particle or any of the known forces, because it has no possible centre of condensation from which it can give an opposite reaction. Immateriality has no energetic output whatsoever, and by this understanding cannot be a non-physical cause to a physical effect.

well is a force physical? would u say pressure is a physical force or a non-physical force? what we are dealing with in the non-physical is an intelligent force. the force lives.. understand. it moves through everything because it is made out of the very fabric of the blackboard. the blackboard creates the chalk.. not the other way around.

also remember we are dealing with what is considered extra-dimensional. which also means.. non-local consciousness. the rules of time and space which physicality are bound to do not exist for this intelligent force.

Filledcup:

Well, is a force physical?

Yes, indeed it is, as stipulated by Newton's 3rd Law of motion, which I have explained in an earlier post. The concept of 'immateriality' is an abstracted idea that tries to explain Dualism's and Idealism's position regarding the relationship between mind and body. Dualism assumes that mind and body are not identical, that the former is non-physical and the latter physical, whereas Idealism assumes there to be only non-physical mind. Both arguments are in error and always have been.

As I explained earlier, something that is non-physical cannot hold interactive aspects, either with itself or any physical object. It is a universal law that anything that can interact either with itself or with anything other than itself cannot be classed as non-physical. Interactions only occur with aspects of physicality. The crux of the matter is all to do with tuning, that is to suggest that energy interactions occur across a seemingly infinite-wide spectrum of wavelengths, and in order to detect them, perceive them, participate and manipulate them, we require some form of method or sensory apparatus that helps us to tune to the wavelengths upon which the interactions are occurring.

A radio signal is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If it has a wavelength of say 98.5kHz it will not clash or interact with another radio signal that has a wavelength of 100.5kHz. If each radio signal had perceiving aspects, neither one of them would be able to perceive the other, and yet both would be able to co-exist in the same vector point in space at the same time, totally oblivious of the other. Some might say that this is a proving for the case of immateriality, but it isn't, because we must never forget that if both radio signals were of the same wavelength, an interaction would occur between them.

If we allow for mind to be the environment of mental phenomena, and thoughts to be mental objects, we would still be in error to say that mind, and by that relation all mental phenomena, is immaterial...they are not, because thoughts can be the cause of physical effects, such as intentional movement of a limb, and immateriality has no interactive capability.

Death is a spirit entity. Ifs hunger is life and it feeds on it. We are all food.

reply to post by elysiumfire


i dont understand how in one breath, some law by someone states that non-physical cannot interact with itself, yet in almost the same breath u describe the nature of movement as it comes from the source of the immaterial.

two universal aspects of 'communication' disagree with such a law. more than one force can be combined. which can be viewed as the forces communicating or 'interacting' with eachother. in essence birds of a feather flock together and a dog cannot mate with a cat, but cats can mate with eachother. to be clearer on this point, when we are moved by something we see, hear, feel etc, this drives emotion. the immaterial 'feels' this emotion, but it is translated as chemical reactions in our chemical bodies. from the immaterial being aware of it's own emotion being excercised, is this not the immaterial interacting with itself?

secondly, as uve stated, the immaterial source is what drives the body to lift a leg and perform movement in general. e.g.. the immaterial issues it's intention to move the arm and a host of chemical and physical equations interact to achieve the final desired result. it is this thought vehicle of immaterial consciousness which does this. it is obviously not the spine which keeps us standing, nor the muscles that give us movement, since once this consciousness has vacated the body, standing and moving those muscles to accomplish a task becomes defunct. nor does issuing a 'dumb electric charge' re-animate a corpse to consciousness, thought, decisionmaking etc. even tho all the parts of the body are available. this negates any claim that the brain independently controls the body, and supports that it is more of a receptor for commands from something else.. the immaterial consciousness or soul.

interaction is smooth and continuous throughout existence from the quantum state into the physical state. consciousness interacts with itself every time we touch something and feel it. a robot can touch something, yet not feel it. it sensors will translate a host of numerical data, but it will feel nothing. this is because it is unconscious. and of course 2 spirits can interact with eachother. just as cats can mate with cats.

there is a great deal of interaction. this is how the entire universe was formed and is propogated. if immaterial consciousness ceases for a moment to feed the material, it would collapse so quickly that we wouldnt know that we were gone. all the building blocks of existence would immediately come apart. there would be no earth, no sun and no other planets, no orbital forces, no material-light and no atoms!

think pre big bang.. or pre the Lord saying 'let there be light'. darkness and the absence of any 'thing' leaves only consciousness. God's consciousness was there before the light. and even before the sound was propogated into existence simply.. by thought. a superconsciousness' willful thought.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Death is a spirit entity. Ifs hunger is life and it feeds on it. We are all food.

it is supposed to be this way, equal opposites form a whole in dualistic perception. death is life and life is death. ying and yang come together to create a continuous cycle of autonomy. to say that we are death's food is to be overly simplistic to what is actually occuring.

first of all.. who is 'us'? the ego brain? or the soul intellect? because the material is broken down by 'death' isnt to say it feeds on it parasitically. death is the living life force of the soul, it is dead because it carries no pulse. this is what the teachings of science alludes to. that something must have a pulse to be living and by extension.. a physical body. but it is not true.

u would have to separate the different aspects of life and death together.

living on the scientific level requires a pulse and a detection or physical interaction.

living on the spiritual level is to be dead through the looking glass of science. but the soul is independently conscious thus it is living. regardless of whether science is able to detect it using physical tools.

dont mix them up. death according to science and spiritual existence firmly disagree. looking at death thru the limited scope of scientific eyes will lead u to believe it is a parasitic relationship. but this same death animates our bodies. and this same death departs from it and taking with it the physical attributes of life and consciousness.

FilledCup:

...yet in almost the same breath u describe the nature of movement as it comes from the source of the immaterial.

This is not what I state. If, as I have stated, immateriality has no interactive capability, how can it then be a source for anything? Immateriality is nothing more than an abstract concept, it does not have, nor could it, an existential reality.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
FilledCup:

...yet in almost the same breath u describe the nature of movement as it comes from the source of the immaterial.

This is not what I state. If, as I have stated, immateriality has no interactive capability, how can it then be a source for anything? Immateriality is nothing more than an abstract concept, it does not have, nor could it, an existential reality.

ok, i was wondering. the way u explained seemed a bit confusing.. at least to me. i focused on the word 'law'. as in which law? a man's law? or natures law? the law itself which u stated seemed a bit incoherent and disconnected from the rest of what u said.