Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

MagicMarker

mickrock wrote: »

Mathematical evidence is an oxymoron..

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

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

He imagines it's like a television.

mickrock

koth wrote: »

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

My grocery bill isn't a theory.

The Mad Hatter

mickrock wrote: »

My grocery bill isn't a theory.

Have you any evidence for that?

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

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

Because we are evolved biological life forms. I would have thought that would have been obvious.

mickrock wrote: »

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.

No actually it is vital to both those things.

I suspect you don't like that because you are trying to go on flights of fancy supposing we have supernatural non-local consciousness and you don't want to tackle the very difficult question of how such systems would have evolved (eg. at what point did our ancestors's primitive brains evolve into detached non-local consciousness and how the heck would such a process have happened).

But unfortunately for you you don't just throw out current biological understanding because it is inconvenient.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Ever hear of Einstein?

Einstein based his work on the observations and experiments that came before him, specifically Lorentz.
His work was supported by his mathematics and understanding of physics, not complete waffle and a misunderstanding of physics that the article your posted displays.

Though I like how you're trying to say that Einstein was an out of the box thinker who was trying to spread new radical ideas, but in reality he was very very skeptical and dismissive of the fledgling quantum mechanics.

And I also like how you are saying that "mathematical proof" isn't proof while the nonsense in the article you posted relies on quantum mechanics (or more accurately a misunderstanding of it), which is almost entirely mathematical.
Especially the idea of wavefunctions and superpositions which your article butchers.

Now I've asked several questions about your theory, would you like to answer them and examine a new idea, or would you prefer to close your mind entirely and play at being a victim?

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

My grocery bill isn't a theory.

You said "mathmatical evidence is an oxymoron".

A bill/receipt shows that statement to be nonsense.

Gregor Samsa

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?

You didn't answer the question. I asked why it was ridiculous to propose an evolutionary origin for consciousness. Your reply is "maybe this idea is wrong", which is really not answering the question.

mickrock

Daftendirekt wrote: »

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

It does say that there have been verified cases of out-of-body experiences where things were perceived that would be impossible under normal circumstances.

sensibleken

actually i couldnt be arsed

mickrock

phutyle wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. I asked why it was ridiculous to propose an evolutionary origin for consciousness. Your reply is "maybe this idea is wrong", which is really not answering the question.

There's nothing wrong with proposing an evolutionary origin for consciousness.

The fact that it hasn't remotely explained how consciousness can be the product of matter would lead to the consideration of other theories.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

Though I like how you're trying to say that Einstein was an out of the box
thinker who was trying to spread new radical ideas

Einstein wasn't an out-of-the-box thinker?

Hindsight is a great thing.

Gregor Samsa

mickrock wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with proposing an evolutionary origin for consciousness.

The fact that it hasn't remotely explained how consciousness can be the product of matter would lead to the consideration of other theories.

The issue of consciousness is certainly being actively investigated within a purely biological (and by extension, evolutionary) framework.

There's certainly no harm in considering other theories - provided they have the evidence to back them up. I'm not seeing that in the theory you're proposing.

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

But unfortunately for you you don't just throw out current biological understanding because it is inconvenient.

Current biological understanding is fine but it can't explain how life and consciousness arose from inanimate matter by chance.

There is an assumption that in principle they can be explained by purely materialistic means, but it's still just an assumption.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Einstein wasn't an out-of-the-box thinker?

Hindsight is a great thing.

If this is the case, why was he so skeptical of quantum mechanics?
Why was his work so heavily based on the work of other physicists?

Why, it's almost like you haven't a clue about Einstein or his work and you're talking entirely out of your ass.

And since you ignored the question, can I assume you don't actually have any interest in discussing your article, only in crying about how mean we all are for applying basic skepticism?

mickrock

phutyle wrote: »

There's certainly no harm in considering other theories - provided they have the evidence to back them up. I'm not seeing that in the theory you're proposing.

Would a verified out-of-body experience where things are perceived that would be impossible under normal circumstances count as evidence?

The idea that consciousness is purely the product of matter has no evidence at all.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

And since you ignored the question, can I assume you don't actually have any interest in discussing your article, only in crying about how mean we all are for applying basic skepticism?

What question am I ignoring?

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

What question am I ignoring?

Well aside form the two in my last post that you directly left out of your reply when you quoted it, we have:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76143309&postcount=45

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?

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?

And that's just the questions I asked, I'm entirely sure that you've ignore many others from other posters.

mickrock

RichieC wrote: »

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?

There's no reason to believe it just applies to humans.

There have been studies done on dogs who appeared to be able to sense when their owners were returning.

Also, relatively few animals died in the 2004 tsunami. They seemed to sense what was coming and moved to higher ground.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

There's no reason to believe it just applies to humans.

There have been studies done on dogs who appeared to be able to sense when their owners were returning.

Also, relatively few animals died in the 2004 tsunami. They seemed to sense what was coming and moved to higher ground.

Any chance you can back either of these claims up?

pH

mickrock wrote: »

Would a verified out-of-body experience where things are perceived that would be impossible under normal circumstances count as evidence?

If it was at some level repeatable then of course. Give patient drug X - patient can now observe things in the next room - certainly you're now one of the most revered scientists in the world - probably win Nobels in multiple fields and most of science needs to be restarted from the ground up. You think Einstein is famous? The person who discovered this would make Einstein look as famous as the guy who finished 3rd in the X-Factor.

The idea that consciousness is purely the product of matter has no evidence at all.

And talking about evidence, the idea that a brain (that is quite similar in structure to other primate brains) suddenly evolved the ability to "tune in" to a "consciousnesses" that exist elsewhere has even less.

It is really obvious that a brain that is merely a "receiver" of conciousness is different from a brain that produces that conciousness, and any number of experiments can be imagined that can differentiate one from the other.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

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?

Because of the inability of current scientific theories to explain consciousness and certain indications(OBEs, NDEs etc) that it might be nonlocal. Just because it appears local doesn't mean it is.

King Mob wrote: »

And if the body is somehow made to limit stuff, why does the eye behave exactly as if it's the source for vision?

Because it is "the source for vision" in normal, embodied consciousness.

King Mob wrote: »

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?

It's unknown at the moment. (When you dream how do you "see" when your eyes are closed? Don't take that literally, it's just an analogy.)

King Mob wrote: »

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

No, why would they?

King Mob wrote: »

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

During near-death experiences DMT seems to lessen the limits of embodied consciousness and normally results in out-of-body experiences and certain paranormal abilities.

Icepick

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

with regard to humans getting to the number one spot.

What number one spot?

Dave!

mickrock wrote: »

Because of the inability of current scientific theories to explain consciousness and certain indications(OBEs, NDEs etc) that it might be nonlocal. Just because it appears local doesn't mean it is.

This is where you post all of those verified NDEs that have been studied and published in scientific journals after passing peer review.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

Any chance you can back either of these claims up?

There's a book called "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home":

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-That-Their-Owners-Coming/dp/0609805339


About the tsunami:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0104_050104_tsunami_animals.html

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Because of the inability of current scientific theories to explain consciousness

We'll get back to that.

mickrock wrote: »

and certain indications(OBEs, NDEs etc) that it might be nonlocal. Just because it appears local doesn't mean it is.

But none of those things have actually been verified in proper scientific tests.

And if it appears local, and none of the "indicators" stand up to scrutiny, why then should we take the idea seriously?

mickrock wrote: »

Because it is "the source for vision" in normal, embodied consciousness.

But why?
The claim is that conciousness can see without it. So why does it need the eye?
What does the eye need a lens and a retina and an optic nerve if the conciousness can be aware of the light around it without the eye?

mickrock wrote: »

It's unknown at the moment. (When you dream how do you "see" when your eyes are closed? Don't take that literally, it's just an analogy.)

But then seeing as it's also unknown how the brain produces conciousness, then surely we must apply the same logic and reject the possibility of non local conciousness as you are unable to explain how it is able to see.
Right?

mickrock wrote: »

No, why would they?

Because:

mickrock wrote: »

During near-death experiences DMT seems to lessen the limits of embodied consciousness and normally results in out-of-body experiences and certain paranormal abilities.

But of course no one has ever actually show this to be true.

There's a book called "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home":

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-That-Thei.../dp/0609805339

Which was written by a crank who doesn't understand how to do science.

About the tsunami:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...i_animals.html

So no actual serious study, just anecdotes of behaviour and of a lack of bodies.
Again, there's a distinction between open minded and gullible.

mickrock

pH wrote: »

It is really obvious that a brain that is merely a "receiver" of conciousness is different from a brain that produces that conciousness, and any number of experiments can be imagined that can differentiate one from the other.

These experiments already exist. In hospital settings it is well documented that a certain proportion of clinically dead patients who are successfully resusitated report having near-death experiences, sometimes including out-of-body experiences where they could look down on their dead body and have perceptions that cannot be explained by conventional science.

I will soon post a link to a prospective study of NDEs.

pH

mickrock wrote: »

These experiments already exist. In hospital settings it is well documented that a certain proportion of clinically dead patients who are successfully resusitated report having near-death experiences, sometimes including out-of-body experiences where they could look down on their dead body and have perceptions that cannot be explained by conventional science.

I will soon post a link to a prospective study of NDEs.

And you clearly ignore the millions (dare I say billions) of experiments carried out annually with alcohol and drugs which pretty much prove that consciousness originates in the brain.

ɪ happen to be conductiŋg one on my self at θe moment.

mickrock

pH wrote: »

And you clearly ignore the millions (dare I say billions) of experiments carried out annually with alcohol and drugs which pretty much prove that consciousness originates in the brain.

Just because drugs can alter one's state of consciousness doesn't prove that it originates in the brain. Drugs just alter the perception of consciousness.

mickrock

Dave! wrote: »

This is where you post all of those verified NDEs that have been studied and published in scientific journals after passing peer review.

From The Lancet, 2001:


Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope. Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

It contains this example of a veridical OBE:

During the pilot phase in one of the hospitals, a coronary-care-unit nurse reported a veridical out-of-body experience of a resuscitated patient:

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm