Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

mickrock

The conventional view is that consciousness is a product of the brain. However, there are strong indications that consciousness is nonlocal and that the brain is more a receiver/modulator of consciousness rather than its producer.

If it is nonlocal and can exist apart from the body(as in out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences) this has clear implications for the possible continuation of consciousness after physical death.

Science postulates a materialist understanding of consciousness, but there are significant gaps in this understanding. The materialist view occasionally appears like that of the mythical tribesman who discovered a TV set. Although ignorant of the existence of radio waves, he is confident that he understands the origin of the voices and images in the TV. After he has carefully disassembled the TV, he is able to demonstrate that applying a voltage to certain points produces an audible noise in the speaker, or a dot of light on the screen. He has even worked out how the electron beam can be modulated to create a matrix of dots. On account of these discoveries, he triumphantly declares that the voices and pictures are produced inside the electronic circuits of the TV set and that the operating principle of the TV set can be explained without invoking “supernatural” radio waves. Yet, his fellow tribesmen are not quite satisfied with this explanation. It seems too mechanical to them and they keep wondering why the voices and images in the TV set appear so real. The tribal scientist justifies himself: “We have not worked out all the details yet, but we understand the principle.”

This situation is perhaps analogous to present day consciousness research. Mainstream scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is based on and produced by the brain. This might be compared to the idea that TV images and sounds are produced inside the TV set. Obviously, in case of the TV set, it is only half the truth. The TV images and sounds are neither local to the TV set, nor do they have a life of their own. They are produced elsewhere and transmitted by radio waves. We all know that a TVs have an antenna and a receiver that pick up radio waves and translate them into voltages to generate images and sounds.

What if the brain and nervous system relate to consciousness like the TV set to radio signals? Let's call this the nonlocal model of consciousness. If we accept the nonlocal model of consciousness provisionally, we can compare TV reception to sense perception. We can compare qualia (conscious experience) to TV images and sounds; we can compare memories to the recording function, thoughts to the playback and edit functions, and mental chatter to audiovisual noise. Furthermore, if the nervous system/brain functions as receiver/modulator of consciousness rather than its producer, it follows that consciousness is not based on the brain, but that the brain is based on consciousness. There are a number of theoretical considerations and phenomena that point in this direction. These phenomena show the limits of the current mainstream (materialistic) understanding of consciousness and provide theoretical support for the nonlocal model of consciousness. In the remainder of this section, we will look at five such points: a) the epistemic gap in materialism, b) the absence of a neural correlate of consciousness, c) out-of-body experiences (OBEs), d) near-death experiences (NDEs), and e) the measurement problem in quantum physics.

http://www.thebigview.com/mind/nonlocal.html

Sarky

Um, don't you think we'd have found something even a little bit like an aerial in the brain if this idea was true?

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

Um, don't you think we'd have found something even a little bit like an aerial in the brain if this idea was true?

It's an analogy.

Lol, It's been a while since I've seen a honest to god argument from quantum mechanics.
I had hoped that people had grown out of them..

Chuck Stone

Who's broadcasting?

magicbastarder

if i die while asleep and dreaming, is it the me who was being chased by chuck norris across a pond of treacle on a unicycle who goes on to the afterlife?

Zombrex

I could literally feel my brain getting dumber as I read that.

The argument is basically TV's have external source inputs, so if (for absolutely no reason at all) we assume that the brain is like a TV, then it stands to reason that the brain also has external source inputs.

In other news it turns out that the idea that the Moon is made of cheese is not so crazy after all. Let me explain

Cheese has a hard lining on the outside where the material is exposed to the air, and then in the middle where there is no air it is soft and mussy.

Now lets, for absolutely no reason at all, imagine that the moon was like cheese. Now when man kind examined the crust they found it was hard. It stands to reason then that the Moon also has a soft creamy centre since we know the Moon is like a ball of cheese (and by "know" I mean assumed this was the case for absolutely no reason).

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

I could literally feel my brain getting dumber as I read that.

Yes, I could tell because of the drivel you then wrote.

Ellis Dee

mickrock wrote: »

The conventional view is that consciousness is a product of the brain. However, there are strong indications that consciousness is nonlocal and that the brain is more a receiver/modulator of consciousness rather than its producer.

Gosh, I almost have to admire the neck of you god-botherers and your ingenuity in coming up with new ways to try and convince people there is some immaterial force that controls things ...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

But you can't get me as long as I am careful to dress appropriately.

MagicMarker

mickrock wrote: »

The conventional view is that consciousness is a product of the brain. However, there are strong indications that consciousness is nonlocal and that the brain is more a receiver/modulator of consciousness rather than its producer.

If it is nonlocal and can exist apart from the body(as in out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences) this has clear implications for the possible continuation of consciousness after physical death.




http://www.thebigview.com/mind/nonlocal.html

smokingman

I know who's broadcasting!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76129694&postcount=4571

Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na....

sephir0th

I like the part where you assume the brain is like a TV for absolutely no reason at all.

Lucy8080

thanks for the link mick.

Gregor Samsa

mickrock wrote: »

Yes, I could tell because of the drivel you then wrote.

You may want to ask for a Drivel Detector for Christmas. Yours appears to be broken.

fitz0

magicbastarder wrote: »

if i die while asleep and dreaming, is it the me who was being chased by chuck norris across a pond of treacle on a unicycle who goes on to the afterlife?

When Chuck Norris kills you, you stay dead.

Logical Fallacy

All i can take from that is if can come up with an analogy that some fool will think it's true.

"Well, the brain (if looked at in a manner that ignores everything we know about the brain) is kind of like a TV, ergo it must be exactly like a TV"

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Um, don't you think we'd have found something even a little bit like an aerial in the brain if this idea was true?

Clearly, evolution has equipped the tellytubbies for "non-local consciences":

robindch

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

"Well, the brain (if looked at in a manner that ignores everything we know about the brain) is kind of like a TV, ergo it must be exactly like a TV"

Quoth the Great Adams:

Douglas Adams wrote:

A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"

Lucy8080

faculty.virginia.edu.consciousness/

stanley sobottka emiritus professor of physics.

will take e mail comments and questions i do believe.

mickrock...shares a little something that might be of interest...meets the posse.

oh well mick! maybe they will give the guy above a fair hearing.

thanks for sharing.

18AD

Is the problem here not that they are trying to explain a modular organ in terms of a singular consciousness?

It's like trying to explain vision and thought and hearing and proprioception as all being the same thing.

Gregor Samsa

The general consensus of so-called out of body reports is that one can see and hear "out of body". So, if the theory is correct, it turns out the non-local consciousness can see in the visible spectrum of light, hear in the 20 Hz to 20 kHz range of audio, independently of our biological organs.

So why do we have eyes, when our non-local consciousness can see perfectly well without them? And why are we blinded if we sufficiently damage our eyes? Surely if our non-local consciousness can see so well, it could just kick in if we damage our eyes.

Ditto for ears.

It doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?

mikhail

phutyle wrote: »

You may want to ask for a Drivel Detector for Christmas. Yours appears to be broken.

He just needs to reverse the polarity apparently.

recedite

Its an interesting proposal alright. A bit like theism, in that there is no particular evidence for or against it.
Scientology had a similar theory, in that thetans control bodies here on earth, and move on to another one after the body dies.

mickrock

phutyle wrote: »

So why do we have eyes, when our non-local consciousness can see perfectly well without them? And why are we blinded if we sufficiently damage our eyes? Surely if our non-local consciousness can see so well, it could just kick in if we damage our eyes.

There are reports of people blind since birth being able to see during a near-death experience when out of the body.

It seems that a near-death experience enables an enhanced consciousness compared to normal embodied consciousness.

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

There are reports of people blind since birth being able to see during a near-death experience when out of the body.

It seems that a near-death experience enables an enhanced consciousness compared to normal embodied consciousness.

So then why does the non local conciousness need eyes at all?
Why if it is able to see without them, why can't blind people see all the time?

Why does the non local consciousness behave as though it is in fact local and dependant on biology?

And this assumes that all the NDE nonsense on the page was confirmed and scientifically verified. It has not.

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

There are reports of people blind since birth being able to see during a near-death experience when out of the body.

It seems that a near-death experience enables an enhanced consciousness compared to normal embodied consciousness.

Alternatively it's all that DMT coursing through the brain.

It MIGHT just have an effect.

Personally i wouldn't take someones word as verbatim when discussing an experience they had while they were cheyne stoking.

Just me though.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

Why does the non local consciousness behave as though it is in fact local and dependant on biology?

Just because being in the physical body under normal circumstances seems to put a limit on consciousness doesn't mean that consciousness isn't ultimately nonlocal.

mickrock

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

All i can take from that is if can come up with an analogy that some fool will think it's true.

"Well, the brain (if looked at in a manner that ignores everything we know about the brain) is kind of like a TV, ergo it must be exactly like a TV"

Analogies have limitations as can be clearly seen by people who think the article implies that the brain literally operates like, or similarly, to a tv("Where's the antenna?", "Who's broadcasting? etc).

The brain-as-tv analogy is just meant to give an idea of the nonlocal nature of consciousness.

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

Just because being in the physical body under normal circumstances seems to put a limit on consciousness doesn't mean that consciousness isn't ultimately nonlocal.

Indeed it doesn't, but it's still a jump to assume that consciousness is non-local just because we can't prove otherwise.

The brain-as-tv analogy is just meant to give an idea of the nonlocal nature of consciousness.

But the article doesn't even attempt to establish that consciousness is non-local in the first place!

RichieC

thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

few questions.

what about animal brains? i assume they are also non locally controlled? flies.. chickens? are we to assume there's a extra dimentional fauna with hirerachy like here?

mickrock

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Alternatively it's all that DMT coursing through the brain.

It MIGHT just have an effect.

Large quantities of DMT are released during major physical or psychological stress and, it is thought, during the process of dying.

Instead of merely producing hallucinations during a near-death experience, as you suggest, DMT may lift the body's natural inhibitions against experiencing an enhanced consciousness.

bnt

As with all these things: what's the point in speculating about something we can never detect or interact with? The existence of an afterlife would do me absolutely no good whatsoever in this life.

Lucy8080

"life is what happens to u while ur busy making other plans."

john lennon.

ill get in on this when i get a chance. good questions being asked...lets keep it in the spirit of possibilities rather than whose right or wrong.

exploration might serve us all equally.

hope to get back soon.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Large quantities of DMT are released during major physical or psychological stress and, it is thought, during the process of dying.

Instead of merely producing hallucinations during a near-death experience, as you suggest, DMT may lift the body's natural inhibitions against experiencing an enhanced consciousness.

Why would the body have inhibitions against experiencing enhanced consciousness. What evolutionary advantage would that provide.

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

Large quantities of DMT are released during major physical or psychological stress and, it is thought, during the process of dying.

Instead of merely producing hallucinations during a near-death experience, as you suggest, DMT may lift the body's natural inhibitions against experiencing an enhanced consciousness.

Hang on, i thought the consciousness was outside the body...so i fail to see why the limitations of the body would affect it.

Unless we are looking at a square peg, round hole scenario in which case i would state that our consciousness is clearly not very smart to need a physical avatar which severely limits it's experience.

Lucy8080

just a quick reply about consciousness.

who said it was " ours"?

who is the tyrant making the claim on it?

soterpisc

Zombrex wrote: »

I could literally feel my brain getting dumber as I read that.

The argument is basically TV's have external source inputs, so if (for absolutely no reason at all) we assume that the brain is like a TV, then it stands to reason that the brain also has external source inputs.

In other news it turns out that the idea that the Moon is made of cheese is not so crazy after all. Let me explain

Cheese has a hard lining on the outside where the material is exposed to the air, and then in the middle where there is no air it is soft and mussy.

Now lets, for absolutely no reason at all, imagine that the moon was like cheese. Now when man kind examined the crust they found it was hard. It stands to reason then that the Moon also has a soft creamy centre since we know the Moon is like a ball of cheese (and by "know" I mean assumed this was the case for absolutely no reason).

Look Science can't fully explain basics like matter. There are still lots of question marks around subatomic structures.. And you think a post about the complexity of out mind is crazy?? We will have a long way to go to understand consciousness.

Lucy8080

would a nonlocal consciousness...depend on evolution?

or would evolution depend on it?

and whats the difference between local and nonlocal consciousness?

Zombrex

soterpisc wrote: »

Look Science can't fully explain basics like matter. There are still lots of question marks around subatomic structures..

And.....?

soterpisc wrote: »

And you think a post about the complexity of out mind is crazy??

I don't know what "out mind" is, but I think a post that uses its own analogy to support its position is crazy (if we assume the mind is like a TV then it stands to reason that the mind will be like a TV....QED mo-fo).

Zombrex

Lucy8080 wrote: »

would a nonlocal consciousness...depend on evolution?

or would evolution depend on it?

Non-local consciousness would depend on it. I would be very interested in anyone who believes the brain is not solely responsible for the production of the mind explaining how we evolved a "mind" external to our own bodies.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

and whats the difference between local and nonlocal consciousness?

In the sense that it is being used I think they mean produced by the brain vs something external to the brain (and the rest of the human body one assumes).

Lucy8080

hi zom,

what does nonlocal mean?

what is the sense that it is being "used"?

Zombrex

Lucy8080 wrote: »

hi zom,

what does nonlocal mean?

what is the sense that it is being used?

Ok .... lets try this again

In the sense that it is being used I think they mean produced by the brain vs something external to the brain (and the rest of the human body one assumes).

Dave!

soterpisc wrote: »

Look Science can't fully explain basics like matter. There are still lots of question marks around subatomic structures.. And you think a post about the complexity of out mind is crazy?? We will have a long way to go to understand consciousness.

And as we all know, the best way to understand something is to pull baseless theories out of the sky!

Lucy8080

hi zom,

not playing with ya. thx for ur reply.

ill ask again

what does non local mean.

thx for ur smiley...i wish i wasnt so computer illiterate

i would have started and ended this post with one.

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

Just because being in the physical body under normal circumstances seems to put a limit on consciousness doesn't mean that consciousness isn't ultimately nonlocal.

So if it behaves exactly as if it wasn't non-local or as if it's totally dependant on biology, and that none of the silliness claimed in the article has actually been verified, why should we take the notion at all seriously?

And if the body is somehow made to limit stuff, why does the eye behave exactly as if it's the source for vision?
And since without the lens or retina's or other stuff we need to see, by what mechanism does the separated conciousness detect light as our eye does?

mickrock wrote: »

Large quantities of DMT are released during major physical or psychological stress and, it is thought, during the process of dying.

Instead of merely producing hallucinations during a near-death experience, as you suggest, DMT may lift the body's natural inhibitions against experiencing an enhanced consciousness.

So then, if we give DMT to blind people they would suddenly be able to see?

And why if the conciousness is separate, why would DMT have an effect on it at all?

Lucy8080

can nonlocal consciousness behave as if it was anything other than it is?

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

can nonlocal consciousness behave as if it was anything other than it is?

I don't know, but the OP is claiming that it behaves pretty much like normal conciousness.

Zombrex

Lucy8080 wrote: »

ill ask again
what does non local mean.

Given that the question has been answered (twice in fact) perhaps you can expand on the question and what precisely you are asking, since there is clearly some misunderstanding take place either on my part or yours.

Do you mean what do the words "non-local" mean in a general sense?

strobe

Lucy8080 wrote: »

ill ask again

what does non local mean.

Well I thought his description was pretty good but to put it another way. 'Non local' consciousness in the context being discussed in the OP means conciousness that is originating from somewhere that is not the brain.

So to use the awful TV analogy from the OP. If you are watching the All Ireland Final on a TV, it is not originating in the TV. It is originating in Croke Park, and the signal is being received by (the aerial on) your TV. So in terms of 'non local' conciousness, conciousness is originating from somewhere else and your brain is just acting as the TV aerial that is receiving the signal...

God, it really is an awful analogy...

Where as 'local' (awful terminology too) would mean that conciousness is actually originating in/from your brain.

Lucy8080

o.k ill expand.

can the brain be separate from nonlocal consciousness?

how would a physicist describe nonlocal consciousness?

as none here are physicists...lets give the o.p. a break for opening an interesting topic..

cos ill tell ya something guys...i could have played ya on this one...

the way ya played the o.p.

but it strikes me as mean. for the sake of meaness.

Sarky

Really? No physicists?