Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context?
Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.
I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.
Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me.
Are there other physical aspects to consider here?
Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.
It's just a standard fallacy of equivocation: the statement that "energy cannot be destroyed" only applies to the physical definition of "energy", not the colloquial use that refers to a person's enthusiasm or motivation.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the "energy" in the brain was mostly electro-chemical in nature, hence it would simply break down into simpler chemical constituents and be consumed by bacteria upon death?
Vbloke
Quite right - but a biodegrading brain is something woo's have never thought off in relation to their strange view of 'energy'.
Good point - but its more than that at the same time. The point is, even if you allow them to use a nebulous notion of energy - it still falls down for other reasons as well as those you mention.Originally Posted by Araneus
So it's a flawed argument on numerous levels - but it is a common fallacy and i think it is helpful (educational) here for us to discuss the many problems.
I guess the concept of entropy is also foreign to them as well then - if your mind survives as energy after death, it must surely disperse over time.
Someone (I cant remember who) made an argument that the mind does survive brain death but only briefly.....
There was no evidence of course. It's an argument that never really got adopted.....with good reason me thinks......
I'm not sure there is any more to it than that, though. The fact of the matter is that they are attempting to apply a physical property of "energy" to something else, which is NOT in fact energy but just referred to using the same word, in order to pretend that their beliefs have some physical foundation.
One could similarly declare that bicycles are a form of energy (they move, after all), and from this deduce that bicycles are indestructable because "energy cannot be destroyed". This is of course nonsense, because bicycles are not a form of energy, and the physical comparison does not apply. I'm sure there are other reasons why bicycles could still be destroyed even if they were considered a form of energy, but with a fundamental semantic error so grievous I am not convinced of the benefit in examining them.
No - I think there is. Biodegrading matter involves processes - though not in the manner implied by the woo woo.
I am saying that even if you concede the nebulous concepts of 'energy' - it still does not stand up.
I think both points work on different levels - but i disagree that equivocation explains it all.
It is my understanding of the matter, that this brain "energy" simply becomes another form of energy during the death process. If the energy is electircal in nature while the person is alive it will be transferred to kintetic (as the person falls over and dies) and thermal as the body cools.
I dislike the way the practitioners of woo use this seemingly immutable law of physics to bolster their own claim to survival after death, and then totally disregard most other forms of physics when they conflict with their views. Talk about cherry picking data. :-\
Hiya Bob
Exactly my point - the 'energy' is transformed, even if we overlook the fallacies of equivocation.
I totally agree with you on that oneI dislike the way the practitioners of woo use this seemingly immutable law of physics to bolster their own claim to survival after death, and then totally disregard most other forms of physics when they conflict with their views. Talk about cherry picking data. :-\
Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context?
Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.
I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.
Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me.
Are there other physical aspects to consider here?
Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.
Spookily enough, this just popped up at JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87952
Mind you, this chap doesn't content himself with the " energy can't be destroyed" patter. He's going for the full set!
Oooh, synchronicity!
(spooky music plays in background)
We were first!!!!!
Considering what's happening to the chap now, I think the theme from Jaws might be more apt. :-)Oooh, synchronicity!
(spooky music plays in background)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks