Anonymous wrote:I just called my husband at work on his landline and he noticed that my phone number on his caller ID showed up as a different person (my number, but it said I was Jane Doe for example). I have had this cell number for over 10 years. I did a search online and that phone number does indeed show up as a Jane Doe in Manassas (I live in Arlington), with a PO Box. Now I am freaked out. I called Verizon Wireless, they said I am the only one with the number and my account is secure. Anyone know how this could happen and is this a sign that my identity is stolen????

Does it show up that way consistently - i.e., on your husband's phone multiple times and on other people's phones?

It's possible that it's simply an error, and it may not be Verizon's error. There may be a caller id service that has a database of names/numbers, and they could've made the error.

Do you get phone calls looking for Jane Doe on your phone?

Not yet time to panic about identity theft. If you see any other signs that make you worry about identity theft, you can put a temporary alert on your credit report if you're concerned. See, for example, https://www.alerts.equifax.com/AutoFraud_Online/jsp/fraudAlert.jsp

Important stuff in my home: I have insurance
Wallet: remember traveler's checks, yes you are stupid if you carry lots of cash
banks: FDIC
Online: Use a credit card, it is protected, Debit cards are not.

Be responsible people.

You have insurance that provides for monetary compensation for things you lose.

As anyone who has been robbed will tell you, the insurance money doesn't do anything for your peace of mind.

In this case, something personal was stolen and shared with the world. The money (if there were any to be had) doesn't change that.

Anonymous wrote:

Theoretically, Jennifer Lawrence could sue the thieves and any website posting the pictures and anyone emailing the pictures around for copyright violations. That would be an incredibly expensive game of whack-a-mole that would, at best, result in some of the pictures being taken down and the possibility that she might collect some monetary damages, but that doesn't change what was done to her.

Copyright belongs to the person that took the picture. So if it was a selfie, maybe, but if somebody else took the picture Jenn can't claim a copyright violation.

My point was a response to the person who wrote this -

Publishing internet images is a copyright thing you would need legal advise on that.

As you correctly note, it's possible that she might not have any recourse under copyright law.

But the real point is that, at best, copyright law would enable her to send takedown notices and get monetary damages, but it can't make the pictures unseen and isn't really a tool designed to deal with this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't like women not being responsible for their own decisions. Im a woman and thats how I see it.
You are stupid if you don't know by now that material on phones and in clouds can be hacked. She has responsibility for her actions in this matter, the Apple service agreement even warns about it.

So by your logic a woman who wears some sexy underwear or goes commando because it turns her on or she's doing it for her lover who gets upskirted is guilty because there has been lots of publicity about creeps who take upskirt pictures and post them on the net.

And a woman who gets on a crowded subway and gets groped is responsible because we all know that happens on subways and she put herself in a position where it could happen.

And a woman who walks past a construction site is responsible for the catcalls she receives because we all know about the stereotype of construction workers who do that.

Etc., etc.

Where on that slippery slope would you propose that we stop and accept that the woman is not at fault?

Who said anything about fault. I believe it was about accepting responsibility for being careless.
Seeing a nude of a person is not the same as sexual assault. As I womn who has been rapped I find your assertion disturbing.

About what was she careless?

She did something private and put it in what is considered a reasonably secure place. She took reasonable precautions to protect herself.

Someone had to commit a crime to publish those pictures - it was not her choice and they were only published because of their sexual nature.

How is that situation different from an upskirt picture or catcalls?

Resonable privacy.....when the company clearly states it cant not accept liability for hacking, I guess the diference is in what you think reasonable is. Publishing internet images is a copyright thing you would need legal advise on that.

There are a couple of different legal issues mixed up in your post.

First, she saved the pictures in a location that advertises itself as secure, and that she reasonably believed was a safe place to store such things. The fact that the fine print of Apple's terms of use says that they are not legally liable if a third party breaks in and steals the stuff that is stored there is simply a function of contract law, not an abdication of any responsibility on their part. The language in the Apple terms of use basically says that as long as Apple made reasonable efforts to protect her stuff, she can't sue them for failing to protect it.

As discussed above, more than likely your agreement with your bank says that you can't sue them if they get robbed, but you put your money there anyway. Your money is insured up to a certain amount, and that's all you'll get. Every contract you sign or terms of use you accept has similar limitations of liability in them to protect the business you're contracting with.

Like a bank, Apple works very hard on their security and has teams of people dedicated to keeping the stuff stored there safe.

Theoretically, Jennifer Lawrence could sue the thieves and any website posting the pictures and anyone emailing the pictures around for copyright violations. That would be an incredibly expensive game of whack-a-mole that would, at best, result in some of the pictures being taken down and the possibility that she might collect some monetary damages, but that doesn't change what was done to her.

Imagine that you wrote explicit, very kinky sexual fantasies in your diary. You keep the diary in your safe deposit box at your bank. Someone breaks into your bank, steals the diary and publishes your sexual fantasies online under your name. They become the next viral meme and get posted all over the world. You are horribly embarrassed and are forced to wonder who among your neighbors, family, friends, business contacts, etc. has read them, shared them, etc.

Here's a selection from a Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement from a bank:

Our Duty Our duty is to use reasonable care to prevent anyone from opening the box other than you or your appointed deputy (agent) or court appointed representative, except as we may otherwise be required or permitted by law.
...
Liability Although your safe deposit box is designed to be fire- and water-resistant and burglar-resistant, we do not guarantee absolute safety nor are we liable for any contents that are claimed to be lost. Except for the duty specifically stated above, we have no liability for any damage to the contents of your box even if the damage resulted from our negligence. (emphasis added)

The whole internet comes alive with people talking about how careless you were and how you should recognize your responsibility for the fact that those fantasies were disclosed to the public.

Do you think making a claim of copyright infringement against all of the sites where your fantasies are posted will help?

How is that situation different?

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim blaming on here is astounding and disgusting, and yet one more example of a culture that seeks to shame women for being sexual beings, while at the same time feeling entitled to their bodies at all times.

- She doesn't need to apologize or explain why she took nude photos.
- The fact she took nudes for someone else doesn't entitle you to view them. Knowing that they were stolen, if you CHOOSE to seek them out, you are complicit.
- She doesn't need to justify not being super tech savvy or unable to keep them out of the cloud. Or perhaps they were hacked from her phone or computer. It doesn't matter. They were stolen.
- By the logic presented here, anyone who utilizes online banking or any form of online credit transaction deserves to have their account information stolen, disseminates, and repeatedly reposted. It is your fault if you are victimized and you should no better.

Women have a right to their own sexualiity. They have a right to choose when and with whom they want to share it.

Fuck all you shamers and apologists. Seriously. Fuck you.

Right on. I think there are a few pervs on this thread who did indeed look at the stolen nudes and don't like being told they are gross human beings.

I don't like women not being responsible for their own decisions. Im a woman and thats how I see it.
You are stupid if you don't know by now that material on phones and in clouds can be hacked. She has responsibility for her actions in this matter, the Apple service agreement even warns about it.

So by your logic a woman who wears some sexy underwear or goes commando because it turns her on or she's doing it for her lover who gets upskirted is guilty because there has been lots of publicity about creeps who take upskirt pictures and post them on the net.

And a woman who gets on a crowded subway and gets groped is responsible because we all know that happens on subways and she put herself in a position where it could happen.

And a woman who walks past a construction site is responsible for the catcalls she receives because we all know about the stereotype of construction workers who do that.

Etc., etc.

Where on that slippery slope would you propose that we stop and accept that the woman is not at fault?

Who said anything about fault. I believe it was about accepting responsibility for being careless.
Seeing a nude of a person is not the same as sexual assault. As I womn who has been rapped I find your assertion disturbing.

About what was she careless?

She did something private and put it in what is considered a reasonably secure place. She took reasonable precautions to protect herself.

Someone had to commit a crime to publish those pictures - it was not her choice and they were only published because of their sexual nature.

How is that situation different from an upskirt picture or catcalls?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim blaming on here is astounding and disgusting, and yet one more example of a culture that seeks to shame women for being sexual beings, while at the same time feeling entitled to their bodies at all times.

- She doesn't need to apologize or explain why she took nude photos.
- The fact she took nudes for someone else doesn't entitle you to view them. Knowing that they were stolen, if you CHOOSE to seek them out, you are complicit.
- She doesn't need to justify not being super tech savvy or unable to keep them out of the cloud. Or perhaps they were hacked from her phone or computer. It doesn't matter. They were stolen.
- By the logic presented here, anyone who utilizes online banking or any form of online credit transaction deserves to have their account information stolen, disseminates, and repeatedly reposted. It is your fault if you are victimized and you should no better.

Women have a right to their own sexualiity. They have a right to choose when and with whom they want to share it.

Fuck all you shamers and apologists. Seriously. Fuck you.

Right on. I think there are a few pervs on this thread who did indeed look at the stolen nudes and don't like being told they are gross human beings.

I don't like women not being responsible for their own decisions. Im a woman and thats how I see it.
You are stupid if you don't know by now that material on phones and in clouds can be hacked. She has responsibility for her actions in this matter, the Apple service agreement even warns about it.

So by your logic a woman who wears some sexy underwear or goes commando because it turns her on or she's doing it for her lover who gets upskirted is guilty because there has been lots of publicity about creeps who take upskirt pictures and post them on the net.

And a woman who gets on a crowded subway and gets groped is responsible because we all know that happens on subways and she put herself in a position where it could happen.

And a woman who walks past a construction site is responsible for the catcalls she receives because we all know about the stereotype of construction workers who do that.

Etc., etc.

Where on that slippery slope would you propose that we stop and accept that the woman is not at fault?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder--JP Morgan just had a bunch of information hacked, including client account information. If Lawrence had her account hacked, would people be blaming her for having an online account? Do people really think that we shouldn't expect any level of privacy online? That we have no right to complain when personal information of whatever sort is stolen?

And I agree with Lawrence--the people looking at the nude pictures aren't physically assaulting her, but they are complicit in a crime.

Yes, you have no privacy online, don't upload your nudes. If you have a higher level of security like a bank maybe you will fair better. Have you noticed the ads on DCUM utilize tracking.

Yeah, you're not making any sense. There is no difference here between having a private online photo account and having an online bank account.

Storing pics in a private account isn't the same as saying "sure, entire world, go ahead and look at my naked body" any more than having a JP Morgan account is saying "sure, entire world, go ahead and have some of my money." It's a sex crime, and the people viewing those pics are gross, disgusting asshats.

Clearly you did not read the terms of service reguard a cloud account with Apple Inc.

Yeah. Me and 99.99% of the iPhone-using population. That still doesn't make it ok to steal my stuff.

Heres what you agreed to :
"APPLE DOES NOT REPRESENT OR GUARANTEE THAT THE SERVICE WILL BE FREE FROM LOSS, CORRUPTION, ATTACK, VIRUSES, INTERFERENCE, HACKING, OR OTHER SECURITY INTRUSION, AND APPLE DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY RELATING THERETO."
If you don't like the terms don't use the service.
I use an iphone and dont use their cloud service. I have a private cloud in my home.

Your bank doesn't represent or guarantee that they won't get robbed, either. Guess if you don't want to take that risk you should keep your money under your mattress. Like Apple and every other online service, they agree to use reasonable efforts to perform the services you've purchased, and they agree that they are liable if they commit gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Your private cloud is less of a target than iCloud because it's a lower value target and the return for hacking it is lower. But odds are it's less secure than most online services that have teams of security experts and who conduct penetration tests, etc., etc., just like your house is less secure than your bank, but also a less rewarding target.

And if you feel that confident about your configuration of your private cloud, you might want to take a look at this - http://www.kaspersky.com/about/news/virus/2014/hacking-a-living-room

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder--JP Morgan just had a bunch of information hacked, including client account information. If Lawrence had her account hacked, would people be blaming her for having an online account? Do people really think that we shouldn't expect any level of privacy online? That we have no right to complain when personal information of whatever sort is stolen?

And I agree with Lawrence--the people looking at the nude pictures aren't physically assaulting her, but they are complicit in a crime.

+1

The (big) difference is that there is no longer any way to avoid having financial information online; I'm not aware of any financial institution that forswears computers entirely. So if you want to use the banking system in any way, you will be vulnerable to online hacking. And it's very hard, if not impossible, to live in the modern American economy without any access to banking: no mortgage, credit/debit cards, checking account, etc. It would be about as common, and about as practical, as trying to live off the electrical grid.

Whereas with nude selfies, it's pretty easy and obvious to avoid having this material online. I'm middle aged but I can't imagine any reasonable argument in favor of having nudie pics uploaded to the cloud. Frankly I don't see why anyone, particularly not a much photographed actress, needs nude pictures at all, but maybe I'm just old. Either way, no need whatsoever to put them online. And therefore infinitely more complicit in their eventual hacking and dissemination.

Ok, so take her storage off the net and how you do feel? Let's say she and a lover had used the Polaroid camera posted above, and all the pictures were in a safe in her house when her house was robbed. The thieves found the hard copy photos and posted them on the internet for all to see. Do you think that's a different scenario? She believed they were in a safe location because she trusted the security of that location in the same way we trust companies to keep our financial and medical information safe. It's not like she posted them on her FB page and then got upset when people looked at them. We don't look at JP Morgan or any disclosure of personal medical information and say, "Meh, that's what they deserve for using a company that stores data electronically. My doctor is safely in the 1950s and still uses paper files!"

I'm a guy, and Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful and sexy woman, and if she were to willingly do a nude scene in a movie or a spread in Playboy I would happily enjoy it because that would be her choice to share. I have not gone looking for and do not want to see pictures stolen from her because the display is not by her choice.

There's so much in the media today about how women deal with objectifying looks, catcalls and harassing behavior just for the crime of being female and being in public that I'm astounded at the victim blaming on a site that has a majority female membership. Even though she is a celebrity, she now has to walk around wondering if every person she meets, every guy she interacts with, has seen her private, nude photos.

Leslie Rutledge, the Republican candidate for Attorney General in Arkansas, and staunch defender of the integrity of voting laws (see https://www.facebook.com/lesliecrutledge/posts/433572576778008) has been discovered to have been registered to vote in multiple states in addition to Arkansas, and even voted by absentee ballot in Arkansas’ general election in November of 2008 – after she had registered to vote in Washington, D.C., in July of the same year.

Rutledge has now been removed from Arkansas’ voting rolls by the Pulaski County Clerk, after he confirmed that she was registered to vote in D.C., and possibly Virginia. The removal from the rolls may also lead to her ineligibility to be elected to office among other things, since

The whole issue is covered in its delicious irony here - http://www.bluehogreport.com/2014/09/30/breaking-leslie-rutledges-voter-registration-canceled-candidacy-now-in-question/ which includes the following:

First, under Arkansas law, a candidate is required to file an affidavit of eligibility at or before noon on the filing deadline date. This affidavit attests that the person is eligible to hold the office for which she is filing. By definition, an affidavit is made under oath or affirmation. An affidavit is (by definition) made under oath or affirmation.

Of course, by signing and filing an affidavit that she was eligible to hold the office of Attorney General when she was not, Rutledge opens herself to a charge of false swearing under Ark. Code Ann. 5-53-103, a Class A misdemeanor. She could plead ignorance to the whole thing — the Mark Darr, “I’m too dumb to know this was illegal” defense — but how will a lack of legal knowledge play with voters?

Secondly, it is a Class D felony for someone to “vote in any election in the state unless the person is a qualified elector of this state and has registered to vote in the manner provided by law.” (Ark. Code Ann. 7-1-104) Under that same subsection, any person convicted of a felony related to voting “shall be barred from holding public office or employment in any of the departments of the state from the date of his or her conviction.”

If Rutledge moved back to Arkansas more than three years ago, the statute of limitations would have run on that felony. Nevertheless, does she really want to run under the banner of “I would have been charged with a felony if someone had caught it earlier”? Conversely, if she moved back to Arkansas within the last three years, she could still be looking at a felony charge. In either event, it might be better just to slink away as “ineligible,” whether she is or not, if only to save what little bit of dignity she has left.

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

The conclusion that the Earth is not flat was based on observations and the assumption that there was a natural and consistent explanation for the observed behaviors. It turned out that there was, and no supernatural entity was required to explain what was going on.

The same has been true for numerous observed phenomena throughout history - weather, cosmology, biology (including evolution), etc. There have been questions over time where science has said, "We just don't know, yet," for example, we're still trying to figure out abiogenesis and the reasons for the Big Bang, but there has yet to be a single instance where science has determined that an observed phenomenon is so inconsistent with other established natural explanations that such phenomenon can only be explained via some supernatural activity. Some people say that since science hasn't explained abiogenesis it must have been a supernatural event, but that's faulty logic. It's conceivable that it happened through purely natural activity (and there's a fair amount of research in this area), it's even possible that an alien race was responsible, and, of course, we can't disprove the possibility that a supernatural entity reached down and caused life, but to leap to the conclusion that it must have been a supernatural entity is premature, at best.

Oh the other hand, if you want to believe that it was a supernatural entity, that's your prerogative and it's a hypothetically possible explanation. And if a supernatural entity chose to do something in a way that is indistinguishable from how it could have happened naturally, then there's no way for us to tell that the supernatural entity did it.

As discussed in the other threads the PP mentioned, individuals are reporting certain experiences classified as "near death experiences" or "NDEs" (the "out-of-body" floating in the corner of the hospital room looking down on your body kind of thing). Like abiogenesis and the causes of the Big Bang, science has not fully explained all aspects of those experiences, but to say that because science hasn't explained the observed phenomena that it must be true that people have a soul is inaccurate. Some researchers are looking into the experiences described by those people trying to find a natural explanation, but anything that relies on human description that can't be separately observed or detected is fundamentally unreliable from a scientific perspective and difficult to research. However, to leap to the conclusion that these reported experiences are proof that there is a separate spiritual essence to our consciousness that can exist outside of the body is logically unsound and, at best, premature.

Even from a theological perspective, assuming that NDEs are the result of our having souls, you can't conclude that means any specific religion is correct. Religions that believe in reincarnation believe that there is a spiritual essence that moves from life to life, while the Abrahamic traditions believe that the soul goes to an afterlife. So, you can only have faith that such a spiritual essence is associated with your particular belief structure.

Anonymous wrote:Could anyone recommend a book with beautiful prose that you enjoyed? I would like to read something and expand my vocabulary. Thanks!

Jorges Luis Borges - Collected Fictions - http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Fictions-Jorge-Luis-Borges/dp/0140286802/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412346289&sr=8-1&keywords=Borges.

If you like sci fi, China Mieville - Perdido Street Station - http://www.amazon.com/Perdido-Street-Station-China-Mieville/dp/0345459407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412346404&sr=8-1&keywords=Perdido+Street+Station

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a terrific article on proof of the soul, or if not proof, at least something that current science can not explain:

SATURDAY, APR 21, 2012 04:00 PM EDT
Near death, explained
New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences -- with shocking results.
MARIO BEAUREGARD

Near death, explained
This article was adapted from the new book "Brain Wars", from Harper One.

...
Mario Beauregard is associate research professor at the Departments of Psychology and Radiology and the Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. He is the coauthor of "The Spiritual Brain" and more than one hundred publications in neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry.

The article was on Salon.com in 2012 at http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

The article prompted this response from PZ Myers, who writes the science blog Pharyngula: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/30/near-death-rehashed/

Myers' response included a quote from The Spiritual Brain. I'll let you be the judge of Beauregard's scientific conclusions:

“Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physics (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world…it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems. With regard to this issue, it is interesting to note that quantum physicists increasingly recognize the mental nature of the universe.”

Ahhhhh, yes, PZ Myers. While Dr. Beauregard's information has been confirmed in the Lancet, the world's most prestigious medical publication, PZ Myers is nothing but a zebrafish researcher who should go back to playing with his zebrafish.

Do you have a cite for the Lancet article? The article you posted came from Salon.com and was excerpted from Beauregard's book. When you go to Lancet.com and search for Beauregard as an author, no articles about near-death experiences come up for any of the Lancet journals.

Anonymous wrote:Here is a terrific article on proof of the soul, or if not proof, at least something that current science can not explain:

SATURDAY, APR 21, 2012 04:00 PM EDT
Near death, explained
New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences -- with shocking results.
MARIO BEAUREGARD

Near death, explained
This article was adapted from the new book "Brain Wars", from Harper One.

...
Mario Beauregard is associate research professor at the Departments of Psychology and Radiology and the Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. He is the coauthor of "The Spiritual Brain" and more than one hundred publications in neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry.

The article was on Salon.com in 2012 at http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

The article prompted this response from PZ Myers, who writes the science blog Pharyngula: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/30/near-death-rehashed/

Myers' response included a quote from The Spiritual Brain. I'll let you be the judge of Beauregard's scientific conclusions:

“Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physics (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world…it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems. With regard to this issue, it is interesting to note that quantum physicists increasingly recognize the mental nature of the universe.”

Well, I'm not sure I'd pick Homer.

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Is it just me, or does this post make absolutely no sense. The energy that makes a heart beat, makes brain waves, that are produced within the cells, leaves the body once it dies. Where does this energy go after the body dies? It has to go somewhere. It clearly isn't leeching onto the body because the EEG's show no activity when a person is dead.

It's just you. The energy that makes a heart beat is electricity, the same as is measured in brain waves (EEG stands for electro-encephalograph).

Where does the "energy" go when you turn off a light? Where does the "energy" go when you turn off the generator that provided the electricity that powered the light? Where does the "energy" that powers your car go when you turn off the engine?

The body converts food to energy used by the body in different forms. Cells use that energy to perform certain functions. When you stop taking in food, the body has reserves that the cells can use for a while, but ultimately, they run out of "gas." When you turn off an incandescent light bulb, the filament continues to glow briefly as it cools off and releases all of its radiant energy, and if you looked at it in the infrared spectrum it would glow for a lot longer, but without electricity continuing to pump energy into the filament, the light goes dark.

When you die, higher functions of your brain cease. Among other things, the brain stops sending the electrical nerve impulses that cause the heart muscle to contract, and you stop breathing. If the heart doesn't beat and the lungs don't exchange CO2 for oxygen, then the rest of the body runs out of fuel pretty quickly.

There's no mystery to this. It's a pretty well understood biological process.

Fruminous, I'm no physicist but apparently, neither are you.

Well, you're half-right, at least. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:You pull quite a bit of information from other sources, including wikipedia.

Damn. Twice in one day getting accused of plagiarism. That's annoying. Please point out what you think I took from other sources.

Anonymous wrote:If I understood correctly, you said food is what provides our bodies energy. When food is deprived, so is the energy provided to our bodies. So you imply that our bodies do not have any energy on their own. I believe you are incorrect in this assumption.

Our bodies consume food and we breath air. Those are the only inputs we have. The cells, bones, muscles, tissues are built from the matter that we consume.

Anonymous wrote:The best example I can give is of a stick of dynamite. A stick of dynamite, under your analysis, has no energy on its own. It can not explode without being ignited. So the flame that ignites it is what provides the stick of dynamite energy to explode. However, this is incorrect. Actually the stick of dynamite has energy, but it is in the form of chemical energy or potential energy. When it is ignited, it explodes into a different form of energy, kinetic energy. So here's an explanation of why energy from our body doesn't just "die" from wikipedia:

Matter is composed of such things as atoms, electrons, neutrons, and protons. It has intrinsic or rest mass. In the limited range of recognized experience of the nineteenth century it was found that such rest mass is conserved. Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity showed that it corresponds to an equivalent amount of rest energy. This means that it can be converted to or from equivalent amounts of other (non-material) forms of energy, for example kinetic energy, potential energy, and electromagnetic radiant energy. When this happens, as recognized in twentieth century experience, rest mass is not conserved, unlike the total mass or total energy. All forms of energy contribute to the total mass and total energy.

[u]For example an electron and a positron each have rest mass. They can perish together, converting their combined rest energy into photons having electromagnetic radiant energy, but no rest mass. If this occurs within an isolated system that does not release the photons or their energy into the external surroundings, then neither the total mass nor the total energy of the system will change. The produced electromagnetic radiant energy contributes just as much to the inertia (and to any weight) of the system as did the rest mass of the electron and positron before their demise. Conversely, non-material forms of energy can perish into matter, which has rest mass.

Your original point was "The energy that makes a heart beat, makes brain waves, that are produced within the cells, leaves the body once it dies. Where does this energy go after the body dies? It has to go somewhere. It clearly isn't leeching onto the body because the EEG's show no activity when a person is dead."

The energy that makes a heart beat is an electrical impulse sent from the brain, through the nervous system to the cardiac muscle. The cardiac muscle contracts when it receives the signal.

Brain waves are electrical currents, measured, as I said, with a device that detects and records electrical currents call the electro-encephalograph.

When your brain dies, those electrical impulses cease pretty quickly.

When the cells in your body do not receive oxygen or nutrients, they die.

However, you're correct that there is potential energy remaining in the matter that makes up the body. It doesn't matter whether the body is alive or dead, though, because it's the same energy that is associated with all matter. You can convert matter to energy via E=mc^2, and it doesn't make a difference whether I'm talking about a kilogram of rock or a kilogram of flesh. That's not energy associated with being alive, that's energy associated with being matter.

None of that has anything to do with the soul being made up of some other form of energy.