Where does your life energy (soul/spirit/breath,etc) go when you die?

[spliffendz]

If the below paragraph is true, then, where does our life energy go?


The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics.

It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).

A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed: it can be transformed from one form to another or transferred from one place to another.

The only thing that can happen to energy in an isolated system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_energy can become kinetic energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy; energy can enter or leave a closed system.

 

[kmksrh21]

Newborn baby...

EDIT: More precisely 10 months before the newborn...

For every loss there's sex happening to keep it flowin'

 

[mindphuk]

This is a fallacy called begging the question. You are assuming that there is such as thing as life energy that is above and beyond normal metabolic energy. The existence of a soul can be doubted and your question supports that doubt as there is no evidence of any extra energy. The body requires input in energy in order to keep it going. When cell death occurs, most energy is lost as heat.

 

[gfreeman]

This is a fallacy called begging the question. You are assuming that there is such as thing as life energy that is above and beyond normal metabolic energy. The existence of a soul can be doubted and your question supports that doubt as there is no evidence of any extra energy. The body requires input in energy in order to keep it going. When cell death occurs, most energy is lost as heat.

soooooo WHERE DOES YOUR LIFE ENERGY GO WHEN YOU DIE? LOL
no seriously. your opinion on the OP question and not trolling someone elses honest OPINION. god damn fkn trolls. lol

 

[cannabineer]

gfreeman, one has to believe that "energy" is real in order to play along. Some of us do; others do not. If I don't believe that energy, soul etc. have real meaning, I won't be wondering where they go.

The op apparently believes in spirit-energy ... but then posts tenets that are strictly physics. The implication is that spirit-energy follows the rules of physics-energy, with the nested implication that spirit-energy can be measured, quantified and converted like physics-energy. That is where mindphuk is crying foul (correct me where needed ...) and I tend to agree. I dislike the appropriation of the scientific term "energy" with all its implications of tangibility for what amounts to a mystical concept. cn

 

[Brazko]

Its really not that serious and every thread on a pot forum isn't goint to result in a World Educational Advancement of the People, as if they have put forth effort in doing their part. It's just people passing their time shooting the shit with things that they find interesting, especially while High.

Holding scrutiny to every thing said that is not specific to scientific standards of accepted knowledge is just fucking nuts (imo). The part that I found in MP post that needed to be shared was her opinion through fact of what happens to the composited energy that is stored and manifested as the physical body. So yes, give us your opinion about the OP and not a jab at someone's intellect about the said topic. Rather I believe in Life Energy (spirit/soul/breath,etc) is one thing, but I'm intelligent enough to comprehend the OP for its intent and purpose, without having the need to scrutinize his use of related science/physics terms.

My answer probably would have been closely comparable to how MP answered except I would have given more details of my opinion of where that broken down energy went versus trying to play name that logical fallacy game.

yayyyy, you get a point

 

[cannabineer]

If you think I was jabbing at anyone's intellect, please re-read my post.

Holding scrutiny to every thing said that is not specific to scientific standards of accepted knowledge is just fucking nuts (imo).

I agree. That isn't the case in my post. My complaint is more specific: using not only the language of science but some well-known schoolbook physics to "scientize" a nonscientific concept by association. Imo that's being unfair to scientists as well as animists.

 

[Brazko]

If you think I was jabbing at anyone's intellect, please re-read my post.

No need to re-read. If you wasn't jabbing then who was.. - please re-read my post - aaahhhhhh

I agree. That isn't the case in my post. My complaint is more specific: using
not only the language of science but some well-known schoolbook physics to
"scientize" a nonscientific concept by association. Imo that's being unfair to
scientists as well as animists

Its not that serious. I wasn't offended. I'm on a pot smokers forum.

If people start talking about magical flying dragons and I had nothing positive to add in dialogue, I'll just probably listen/read with interest and get blowed..

 

[Brazko]

People can accumulate energy and have reserved energy that is not simply a reflection to what is taken in and expended.

A person can expend more energy and become fully exhausted after a days work of sitting at a desk answering telephones. Were a person who does costruction work may be fit to go out and party that night.

A person who gets 8hrs of sleep may still need their caffeine in the morning to feel energized in making it through the day, wereas a person with only 4hrs of sleep could wakeup ready to take on the world.

This is indirectly related to the topic but I'm just showing ways to contribute without having to denote fallacy in an arguement.

 

[Heisenberg]

Its really not that serious and every thread on a pot forum isn't goint to result in a World Educational Advancement of the People, as if they have put forth effort in doing their part. It's just people passing their time shooting the shit with things that they find interesting, especially while High.

Holding scrutiny to every thing said that is not specific to scientific standards of accepted knowledge is just fucking nuts (imo). The part that I found in MP post that needed to be shared was her opinion through fact of what happens to the composited energy that is stored and manifested as the physical body. So yes, give us your opinion about the OP and not a jab at someone's intellect about the said topic. Rather I believe in Life Energy (spirit/soul/breath,etc) is one thing, but I'm intelligent enough to comprehend the OP for its intent and purpose, without having the need to scrutinize his use of related science/physics terms.

My answer probably would have been closely comparable to how MP answered except I would have given more details of my opinion of where that broken down energy went versus trying to play name that logical fallacy game.

yayyyy, you get a point

Correcting ignorance is not a jab at someone's intellect. The poster specifically linked his question to scientific principals governing energy in his premise. In this context, the question makes no sense. Pointing out that it makes no sense is in fact the only valid answer. The only one who forced the context was the OP, and by framing his premise in this context he indicated the answer should also be in this context. Perhaps the OP's question was intended to point out the absurdity of the idea, in which case assuming ignorance is unfair, but the OP did nothing to suggest his question was not genuine.

Meanwhile your proclamation that you would not participate in a thread if you had nothing positive to add seems to be false, as you've done nothing to answer the OP's question except to say your answer would be similar to the one you criticized, but more explanatory. That additional explanation was not stated. This is the sort of thing that is easily understandable on a pot forum, it's not serious, but questions of science are.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Whether life energy exists or not, we won't know where it goes when we die. Of course you're going to have the skeptics and of course you're going to have the people that believe we have life energy and they believe they know where it goes. Well truth is nobody knows because no one has yet come back from the dead and be fully aware they once had a previous life. NOBODY has done that and people who believe they have done that are usually referred to as the messiah or other names. So yeah let's just wait until we die for the answer, but for now you guys should just get along. Hmm I'm tired.

 

[Brazko]

Arguement Correcto!! Yaayyyy You get a Point too...

He wasn't asking for an ignorance correction but an opinion to the topic. And as I stated before if the only way you can contribute is by trying to educate somebody on a pot smokers forum, which is specific to spirituality/philosophy/sexuality, as there is no formal and correct way to only discuss these topics because everyone's opinon about the categorical subjects is subjective opinion. It seems a little OCD of trying to be the intelligent one and point out the logical fallacies on every thread.

I did contribute. I made reference to MP post were she made reference to the aspects of Energy and Metabolism in her stated opinion. I also wasn't trying to criticize their attempt for simply trying to start a discussion thread. Stating that the said topic is not credible isn't a positive way to continue positive discourse of the subject. It would seem that the post made by MP should lead to the thread being closed if there is nothing credible to discuss in their opinion. And if nothing credible to discuss why join in?

But the theme is if something doesn't make sense to you. Don't Play!!

Correcting ignorance is not a jab at someone's intellect. The poster specifically linked his question to scientific principals governing energy in his premise. In this context, the question makes no sense. Pointing out that it makes no sense is in fact the only valid answer. The only one who forced the context was the OP, and by framing his premise in this context he indicated the answer should also be in this context. Perhaps the OP's question was intended to point out the absurdity of the idea, in which case assuming ignorance is unfair, but the OP did nothing to suggest his question was not genuine.

Meanwhile your proclamation that you would not participate in a thread if you had nothing positive to add seems to be false, as you've done nothing to answer the OP's question except to say your answer would be similar to the one you criticized, but more explanatory. That additional explanation was not stated. This is the sort of thing that is easily understandable on a pot forum, it's not serious, but questions of science are.

 

[Heisenberg]

Whether life energy exists or not, we won't know where it goes when we die. Of course you're going to have the skeptics and of course you're going to have the people that believe we have life energy and they believe they know where it goes. Well truth is nobody knows because no one has yet come back from the dead and be fully aware they once had a previous life. NOBODY has done that and people who believe they have done that are usually referred to as the messiah or other names. So yeah let's just wait until we die for the answer, but for now you guys should just get along. Hmm I'm tired.

This is the best answer anyone could give to the question of afterlife.

I perceived the question to be a little different though. The OP seemed to be indicating that the 'essence of being' is driven by energy (in fact it is) and since energy does not end, but is transformed, what does the essence of life become at death? The problem is that this essence is made possible by energy, but not made of energy itself, in which case there is no way to give an accurate answer. The processes which do supply energy for life cease at death, with the immediate energy loss being mostly through heat.

 

[Brazko]

This is the best answer anyone could give to the question of afterlife.

I perceived the question to be a little different though. The OP seemed to be indicating that the 'essence of being' is driven by energy (in fact it is) and since energy does not end, but is transformed, what does the essence of life become at death? The problem is that this essence is made possible by energy, but not made of energy itself, in which case there is no way to give an accurate answer. The processes which do supply energy for life cease at death, with the immediate energy loss being mostly through heat.

You see!! You know how to play... A positive reply to the subject

 

[Heisenberg]

Arguement Correcto!! Yaayyyy You get a Point too...

He wasn't asking for an ignorance correction but an opinion to the topic. And as I stated before if the only way you can contribute is by trying to educate somebody on a pot smokers forum, which is specific to spirituality/philosophy/sexuality, as there is no formal and correct way to only discuss these topics because everyone opinon about the categorical subjects is subjective opinion. It seems a little OCD of trying to be the intelligent one and point out the logical fallacies on every thread.

I did contribute. I made reference to MP post were she made reference to the aspects of Energy and Metabolism in her stated opinion. I also wasn't trying to criticize their attempt for simply trying to start a discussion thread. Stating that the said topic is not credible isn't a positive way to continue positive discourse of the subject. It would seem that the post made by MP should lead to the thread being closed if there is nothing credible to discuss in their opinion. And if nothing credible to discuss why join in.

But the theme is if something doesn't make sense to you. Don't Play!!

Why are you mocking the fallacy game from my thread?

Explaining opinion in this case involves explaining the misconception. The best way for MP to give a sensible answer was to explain the mistake, explain the facts, and give an answer based on those facts. The only way this stopped conversation was in the sense that it answered the question. The OP framed the question in an objective context, and MP was being frank and objective. Whether a fallacy is named in this thread or any other is simply being precise and inclusive. I know it certainly helped me in the past to understand the mechanics of my mistakes by reading about fallacy descriptions. Do I know this is the spirit in which MP wrote his response, I do not, no more than you know that it was made in the spirit of intellectual superiority.

Most importantly I am perplexed at your unstated major premise, which is that MP is a woman!

 

[Brazko]

Why are you mocking the fallacy game from my thread?

Because it's being played here, I didn't know we were playing name that Fallacy here too. Is that what we are doing, naming that fallacy? Don't be so touchy feely about it. I thought it was a great thread, corny, but good. I enjoyed reading the examples giving by you and others. I found it to be very informative.

Explaining opinion in this case involves explaining the misconception. The best way for MP to give a sensible answer was to explain the mistake, explain the facts, and give an answer based on those facts. The only way this stoppedconversation was in the sense that is answered the question. The OP framed the question in an objective context, and MP was being frank and objective.

No it doesn't. You just gave an interpeted explanation of the question in your opinion. If anyone saw this as an objectively motivated topic, then I would have to question their so called affirmation of intellect.

Whether a fallacy is named in this thread or any other is simply being
precise and inclusive. I know it certainly helped me in the past to understand the mechanics of my mistakes by reading about fallacy descriptions. Do I know
this is the spirit in which MP wrote his response, I do not, no more than you know that it was made in the spirit of intellectual superiority.

I have enough to draw opinion about the degree of superiority and I made no claim of her superiority. I am just as likely to take a street smart intellect into a business meeting as I am a book intellect. I would almost have to say a street intellect is far more advanced at sniffing out bullshit on presentation anyway. I can say that I do know it was made with intent of trying to intellectually correct someone. The OP sought no purpose for correction. And in all cases a position of superiority wasn't found on my part to give preference to who was in a position of superiority anyway.

Most importantly I am perplexed at your unstated major premise, which is that MP is a woman!

I have my reasons to think so, but if she isn't, he can simply state it so. I'm sure he's a honest guy...

 

[eye exaggerate]

...I know the head of the department of health in my city. Once, she told me that even she was a little uneasy about the weight that is lost at the moment of death. What is it? Where does it go? It's that '21 grams' theory. She's seen it with her own eyes in clinical settings. That's no proof for this thread. I'm just relaying her experience with it...

Very well could be myth or some kind of subjective interpretation.

Please, no grenades

 

[mindphuk]

...I know the head of the department of health in my city. Once, she told me that even she was a little uneasy about the weight that is lost at the moment of death. What is it? Where does it go? It's that '21 grams' theory. She's seen it with her own eyes in clinical settings. That's no proof for this thread. I'm just relaying her experience with it...

Very well could be myth or some kind of subjective interpretation.

Please, no grenades

How has she seen it in a clinical setting? People don't typically die on top of a scale. The loss of weight that MacDougall reported has never been replicated by other researchers.

 

[blazinkill504]

i dont know and neither do any of you because im pretty sure we're all still alive.

 

[eye exaggerate]

i dont know and neither do any of you because im pretty sure we're all still alive.

...definately breathing over here