Question For Naomi

[nailit]

I read on another thread that you used to live in a haunted house. Can you tell us a little more about what happened there? Im genuinely interested. One of my sisters seems to constantly have unexplained things happening to her and other members of my family have had 'spookey' experiences.
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?

[jomifl]

Energyis necessary to run the mostly chemical processes that are life, but energy is no more life than petrol is a motor car.

[naomi24]

Jom, Good example. Just as a motor car can't run without energy, neither can a living being - but while we're on the subject how would you define 'life'?

[pixie373]

Hardly Naomi! Why should saying energy can be transferred, be the same as "life after death". It isn't the same at all.

[naomi24]

Who said energy can be transferred? I didn't, and I'm reasonably sure you didn't.

[DTCwordfan]

life, when an organism, simple or complex, takes in aerobic or anaerobic energy and other nutrients and usually water so as to be able to exist for a period of time and, consequently, with the capability in most organisms to reproduce themselves, thereby ensuring continuity or evolution of the species.

[pixie373]

I have never believed or suggested there could be life after death. I'm not quite sure why you're trying to tell me i think that.

[pixie373]

Well, if energy isn't destroyed, but it disappears (from a dead person), it must be transferred elsewhere.

[naomi24]

Hey ho.

[jim360]

Surely that's a clash of definitions, though? The energy that "cannot be destroyed" is a physical quantity (or more precisely a set of physical quantities, measuring electrical energy, heat energy and so forth, that can be shown to balance against each other in an isolated system), but the "energy" in Pixie's definition of life is rather closer to an abstract concept of vigour, livelihood, activity etc. I don't see that you can equate the two. Things can have energy without having life or consciousness, or even any sort of organised structure, so that the "energy" that outlasts death doesn't have to retain any information about the person/ animal who's died. It could just as easily survive as nothing more than heat. ("could", not "does".)

I'm not saying that there definitely isn't something more to life that outlasts death; rather that if there is then it's got little to do with energy or conservation of energy.

[naomi24]

Jim, no, I don’t think it is a clash of definitions. Energy is a physical quantity and vigour isn’t an abstract concept - its source is energy.

//…if there is then it's got little to do with energy or conservation of energy.//

Really? You know that? Do you have a better idea then?

// ("could", not "does".)//

You didn’t intend to, but you’ve agreed me.

[jim360]

Just to make sure I am not misquoting you at all, please could you state the way you're using Conservation of Energy in this discussion exactly?

The most direct quote I can find in a short search is "...I’ve always said that since energy cannot be destroyed, something must remain after death." (Colmc's thread). It seems important to clarify what you mean by "something". Without that clarification it's open to interpretation in all sorts of ways.

[jomifl]

Naomi, vigour is an abstract concept, so far there appears to be no way of quantifying it and definitions of it are a bit vague.

[naomi24]

Jim, if I could clarify what I mean by ‘something’, I wouldn’t have termed it ‘something’. As it is, the problem should be open to interpretation in all sorts of ways – and to all sorts of ideas. That’s the only way there’s ever going to be any chance of hitting upon the right answer - eventually.

Jom, The definition of vigour is perfectly clear.

[jim360]

I suppose the two interpretations I had in mind would be:

- the "mundane" interpretation of the dead body itself as well as, say, some leftover chemical energy that's released over time;

- Anything more profound than this.

The first one goes without saying, really, and is the thing that actually is a consequence of Conservation of Energy (and matter) -- the second is so vague that it's not clear how we can even begin to discuss it; but it can hardly be said to have anything to do with Conservation of Energy.

[naomi24]

Jim, if you think we can’t even begin to discuss it, fair enough. Perhaps others may like to.

[zoe76]

There's some great stories here, but personally I don't believe in ghosts. I do however believe in demons as pugwashjw explained. Demons can shapeshift, hence seeing your deceased relatives or random people.

[jomifl]

Jom, The definition of vigour is perfectly clear.
and completely subjective..and has more to do with mental attitude and physical fitness than energy as a physicist would understand it.

[jomifl]

Naomi , there is a standard definition of life(in the biological sense), I am inlined to use this as I haven't developed a definition of my own.
This is as good as any, though lacking detail.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=life+definition

[cazzz1975]

thats interesting zoe, how do you know a deceased relative is a demon?

[jomifl]

zoe doesn't believe in ghosts but she does believe in demons... so what else could it be?