Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

King Mob

Lucy8080 wrote: »

give us your description so k.m.

and whats " a " nonlocal consciousness?

Again, as described several times on the thread, it's a consciousness that is not contained in or a result of the biological brain.

Lucy8080

and what are the implications of such k.m.?

King Mob

Lucy8080 wrote: »

and what are the implications of such k.m.?

I don't know, because I have not seriously considered them as the idea is unfounded and pseudo-scientific.

Lucy8080

thanks for ur honesty and lack of consideration.

science will thrive in such an environment.

King Mob

Lucy8080 wrote: »

thanks for ur honesty and lack of consideration.

science will thrive in such an environment.

So maybe you could supply something to suggest it's more that pseudo-scientific waffle.
Or should we take seriously any brain fart that's presented to us.

There's a difference between having an open mind and being gullible.

joseph brand

Ellis Dee wrote: »

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.

Cheers Ellis Dee. Choking here with the laughter. One of the funniest posts on boards.

joseph brand

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mean boards guys. you let yourselves down sometimes. u deserve every kick up the behind u get.

and so many decent folks here.

clear off...or clean up ur act.

i can handle ya...but think for others.

I think you are looking for the Christianity forum. You'll find it easier in the morning, unless you have a bad hangover.

roosh

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

Just for the purpose of the discussion, I think the TV analogy extends to the sensory stimuli which the brain processes; which themselves would not be produced by the brain, and would constitute the external source inputs being referred to.

Galvasean

5 pages. I should have gone to bed ages ago.
What a f#cking awful thread. I mean, WTF?!

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

5 pages. I should have gone to bed ages ago.
What a f#cking awful thread. I mean, WTF?!

5 pages and a tinfoil hat. It was worth it.

recedite

The original link mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The point they are getting at is that certain subatomic particles may make a quantum leap from one state to another, depending on their simply being observed by an exterior conciousness. In this set-up, it may be possible that a minute amount of energy is being applied to the system by the conciousness itself.
It seems that there is no requirement for a "non-local" consciousness though; it could still be emanating from the brain itself.

An example of a non-local consciousness was in the Avatar movie, where the planet itself had some kind of collective consciousness, channelled through the various native animals. That in itself was based on the much older Gaia theory of earth.

Von Neumann; "The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.
This interpretation attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. Specifically, a non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus." source

All just propositions of course, but I wouldn't laugh at something just because I don't yet understand it.

Gregor Samsa

Lucy8080 wrote: »

and what are the implications of such k.m.?

A better question would be where is the evidence of such.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

5 pages. I should have gone to bed ages ago.
What a f#cking awful thread. I mean, WTF?!

Stop it Galvasean!! Your soooo mean... everyone here is soooo mean. Why do you people have to disagree with people you disagree with? It's sooo mean...Stop, plee-eee-eee-ease!

(Am I doin it right Lucy?)

The Mad Hatter

strobe wrote: »

Stop it Galvasean!! Your soooo mean... everyone here is soooo mean. Why do you people have to disagree with people you disagree with? It's sooo mean...Stop, plee-eee-eee-ease!

(Am I doin it right Lucy?)

Not condescending enough.

sephir0th

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between having an open mind and being gullible.

Lucy, this is just for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

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

Why is there always an attempt to reduce everything to the theory that something can only be because it is evolutionary advantageous?

It's somewhat of a spurious notion when trying to explain general human behaviour but it becomes ridiculous when it tries to explain the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Icepick

To illustrate the logic in OP's link, please watch the following video:

..and by logic, I mean silliness.

mickrock

Dave! wrote: »

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

Sometimes the best way to understand something is to think outside the box and go against the orthodox view.

Ever hear of Einstein?

Gregor Samsa

mickrock wrote: »

Why is there always an attempt to reduce everything to the theory that something can only be because it is evolutionary advantageous?

It's somewhat of a spurious notion when trying to explain general human behaviour but it becomes ridiculous when it tries to explain the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Why is it ridiculous, when it's arguably the best model we have to explain the development of biological organisms?

Even if evolution by natural selection was to turn out not to explain the origin of consciousness, it's hardly ridiculous to attempt to employ the theory now to explain it, given it's success in explaining so much else about biology.

sensibleken

mickrock wrote: »

Sometimes the best way to understand something is to think outside the box and go against the orthodox view.

Ever hear of Einstein?

that guy had evidence and logic though. 'imagine the brain is like a tv, therefore the brain is like a tv' is not logic

Gregor Samsa

mickrock wrote: »

Sometimes the best way to understand something is to think outside the box and go against the orthodox view.

Ever hear of Einstein?

Einstein really wasn't doing what you're doing.

Dave!

Indeed. Einstein was a creative thinker, but not gratuitously so,

mickrock

phutyle wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous, when it's arguably the best model we have to explain the development of biological organisms?

Even if evolution by natural selection was to turn out not to explain the origin of consciousness, it's hardly ridiculous to attempt to employ the theory now to explain it, given it's success in explaining so much else about biology.

Abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism assume that life and consciousness emerged from inanimate matter by chance.

Maybe this idea is wrong. What's wrong with exploring alternative views?

sensibleken

mickrock wrote: »

Abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism assume that life and consciousness emerged from inanimate matter by chance.

Maybe this idea is wrong. What's wrong with exploring alternative views?

nothing. but if your proposing an alternative the first thing you should show is some evidence. If you dont have that then propose a logical arguement. otherwise you can just say any ould shíte like this:


Imagine the brain is an apple.
you like apples,
ZOMBIE!!!KILL IT!KILL IT!


QED

those arguements are for the history channel

mickrock

sensibleken wrote: »

that guy had evidence and logic though. 'imagine the brain is like a tv, therefore the brain is like a tv' is not logic

No, Einstein didn't have any evidence when he proposed his theories.

The evidence came years later.

sensibleken

mickrock wrote: »

No, Einstein didn't have any evidence when he proposed his theories.

The evidence came years later.

he had mathematical evidence and logic. he didnt say 'imagine energy is like really fast mater, ok see ya'

mickrock

sensibleken wrote: »

he had mathematical evidence and logic. he didnt say 'imagine energy is like really fast mater, ok see ya'

Mathematical evidence is an oxymoron.

The actual evidence came many years after the theories.

Gregor Samsa

mickrock wrote: »

No, Einstein didn't have any evidence when he proposed his theories.

The evidence came years later.

His theories were developed based on quite a bit of evidence, experimentation, mathematics and observation that had preceded him. The both General and Special Relativity explained phenomena that were known, but unexplained, at the time.

What's really cool about both theories is that they also made predictions about other possible phenomena that hadn't even been observed at the time, but that were subsequently observed - thus further validating his theories.

He didn't just pluck the ideas out of the air - they were based upon the building blocks of what had been established before him. The later evidence just corroborated his theories.

Basically, through his equations, Einstein said "Here's what we currently know about energy/mass/motion, and here's where this knowledge leads to when we to the maths.". It led to some pretty strange stuff. People then said "OK, so your theories seem to work well with the stuff we know about, but they also predict stuff we don't know about. So lets go and see if we can find this stuff. If we can't, then you're wrong. If we can, then you're not wrong (but you're not necessarily right either)." This is the basic way science works.

He didn't just come out and say "Gravitational lensing exists! I decided this because optical lensing exists. Now prove me wrong!" (even then, gravitational lensing was proposed more than 10 years before Einstein published his thought on it)

It's quite different to the way the article in your OP works.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

Mathematical evidence is an oxymoron.

So how do you know what to pay after doing a grocery shop since the bill/receipt isn't good enough for you?

Logical Fallacy

mickrock wrote: »

Why is there always an attempt to reduce everything to the theory that something can only be because it is evolutionary advantageous?

It's somewhat of a spurious notion when trying to explain general human behaviour but it becomes ridiculous when it tries to explain the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Not really, considering evolution is the accepted mechanic of species development it always pays to try and figure out what kind of advantage non-local consciousness would pose with regard to humans getting to the number one spot.

Especially as the argument seems to be that only humans would have non-local consciousness it would just make sense to examine that link.