Why an afterlife/soul may not be so crazy

mickrock

If mind is nothing more than the product of matter, how can memory storage and retrival be explained?

The brain might be described as similar to a computer's hard drive but that analogy breaks down because the cells of the brain are continually being renewed.

At some point not one atom of the brain will be the same as it once was, yet long-term memories are still intact.

This would indicate that there's more to consciousness/mind than it being simply a product of the brain. Some factor "outside" the brain must be involved, pointing to the fact that consciousness may be nonlocal.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

If mind is nothing more than the product of matter, how can memory storage and retrival be explained?

By examining neuronal activity in the brain. It's fairly well understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

By examining neuronal activity in the brain. It's fairly well understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

Neuronal activity might be well understood but it doesn't explain how memories are retained (or how the brain gives rise to consciousness).

How are memories stored in an ever-changing piece of matter?

Dave!

mickrock wrote: »

It is true that her first OBE of the procedure occurred before she was brain dead.

But she did perceive the conversations despite being anesthesized and having earplugs that emitted very loud, frequent clicks.

On this, because you're just taking the Sabom book as gospel...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#pam

Sometime after 7:15 AM that August morning, general anesthesia was administered to Pam Reynolds. Subsequently, her arms and legs were tied down to the operating table, her eyes were lubricated and taped shut, and she was instrumented in various other ways (Sabom, "Light" 38). A standard EEG was used to record activity in her cerebral cortex, while small earphones continuously played clicks[20] into her ears to invoke auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), a measure of activity in the brain stem (39).

Sabom considers whether conscious or semiconscious auditory perceptions were incorporated into Pam's OBE imagery during a period of anesthesia awareness, but dismisses the possibility all-too-hastily:

Could Pam have heard the intraoperative conversation and then used this to reconstruct an out-of-body experience? At the beginning of the procedure, molded ear speakers were placed in each ear as a test for auditory and brain-stem reflexes. These speakers occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing (Sabom, "Light" 184).

But is this last claim really true? Since Sabom merely asserts this (and has an obvious stake in it being true), we have little reason to take him at his word—especially on such a crucial point. What is the basis for his assertion? Does he have any objective evidence that the earphones used to measure AEPs completely cut off sounds from the external environment?

Since Sabom does not back up this claim in Light and Death, I did a little research and discovered that his claim is indeed false. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as a matter of procedure, a patient who is monitored by the very same equipment to detect acoustic neuromas (benign brain tumors) "sits in a soundproof room and wears headphones" (NINDS). But a soundproof room would be unnecessary, of course, if the earphones used to measure AEPs "occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing." It is theoretically possible that the earphones used in 1991 made physical hearing impossible, whereas the earphones used today do not. However, it highly unlikely, as it would be far cheaper for medical institutions to continue to invest in the imagined sound-eliminating earphones, rather than soundproofing entire rooms to eliminate external sounds. As Gerald Woerlee points out, "earplugs do not totally exclude all external sounds, they only considerably reduce the intensity of external sounds," as demonstrated by "enormous numbers of people ... listening to loud music played through earplugs, while at the same time able to hear and understand all that happens in their surroundings" (Woerlee, "Pam").

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Neuronal activity might be well understood but it doesn't explain how memories are retained (or how the brain gives rise to consciousness).

How are memories stored in an ever-changing piece of matter?

But your theory does not explain any of it's mechanisms at all.
So why can't we just reject it out of hand like you are doing?

Galvasean

mickrock wrote: »

If mind is nothing more than the product of matter, how can memory storage and retrival be explained?

The brain might be described as similar to a computer's hard drive but that analogy breaks down because the cells of the brain are continually being renewed.

At some point not one atom of the brain will be the same as it once was, yet long-term memories are still intact.

This would indicate that there's more to consciousness/mind than it being simply a product of the brain. Some factor "outside" the brain must be involved, pointing to the fact that consciousness may be nonlocal.

You do realise that by saying this you are also implying that goldfish have 'nonlocal' consciousness? Think about it.

18AD

Of course goldfish have non-local consciousness.

Each goldfish tacitly assumes that it is itself, a unity, and is not another goldfish. That is, each subjective goldfish thinks 'me', tacitly.

So, that thought is the same in each contingently separate goldfish. Each goldfish is a part of one transcendental consciousness.

This guy actually knows how to tap into that transcendental goldfish consciousness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUglpZ-PPb4

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Neuronal activity might be well understood but it doesn't explain how memories are retained [...]

I'm afraid it does. Very well.

RichieC

for years I was convinced I was having regular OBE's. to the point where i was swallowing crap from new age sites. after all.. so many people have the same thing, buzzing ears followed by the ability to fly around a sometimes perfectly realised reality..other times more Daliesq wonderlands. described by new agers as the levels of reality or something.

they are fantastic experiences but I am utterly satisfied that they are not my spirit popping out for a bit of fun.

mickrock

Galvasean wrote: »

You do realise that by saying this you are also implying that goldfish have 'nonlocal' consciousness? Think about it.

Goldfish would "tune in" to nonlocal consciousness but not to the same intensity as humans can.

Because of this we perceive a wider, deeper reality than a goldfish would. Our consciousness is still limited though, which is why we can never fathom absolute reality.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid it does. Very well.

Just because you believe it does doesn't make it so.

mickrock

RichieC wrote: »

for years I was convinced I was having regular OBE's. to the point where i was swallowing crap from new age sites. after all.. so many people have the same thing, buzzing ears followed by the ability to fly around a sometimes perfectly realised reality..other times more Daliesq wonderlands. described by new agers as the levels of reality or something.

they are fantastic experiences but I am utterly satisfied that they are not my spirit popping out for a bit of fun.

Maybe what you experienced weren't true OBEs.

They may have been lucid dreams in which your spirit seemed to leave you body and travel around.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

Just because you believe it does doesn't make it so.

And let's pretend that neuroscience hasn't actually explained it, so what?

You can't explain how the non-local conciousness actually does anything.
You can't explain how it perceives the world without the organs to do so.
You can't explain how it came to be.
You can't explain the mechanism by which it is transmitted or received.
You can't actually explain what the non local concious is.
And the list of things you can't explain goes on for a while...

So if we are to follow your logic, we must either reject your theory out of hand as you are doing with the real science because you theory can't explain anything at all, or we must conclude that a theory not explaining something is not a factor here.
So which is it?

Galvasean

mickrock wrote: »

which is why we can never fathom absolute reality.

I think you need an absolute reality check.
You are dismissing tried and tested scientific reasoning in favour of something which has no real backing whatsoever. Yet you persist and expect us to come around to your way of thinking?

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

And let's pretend that neuroscience hasn't actually explained it, so what?

You can't explain how the non-local conciousness actually does anything.
You can't explain how it perceives the world without the organs to do so.
You can't explain how it came to be.
You can't explain the mechanism by which it is transmitted or received.
You can't actually explain what the non local concious is.
And the list of things you can't explain goes on for a while...

So if we are to follow your logic, we must either reject your theory out of hand as you are doing with the real science because you theory can't explain anything at all, or we must conclude that a theory not explaining something is not a factor here.
So which is it?

It's not just plucked out of the air.

There is science underpinning it, particularly quantum mechanics.

We should conclude, like many others, that quantum mechanical processes could have something critical to do with how consciousness and memories relate with the brain and the body during normal daily activities as well as during brain death or clinical death.

I would like now to discuss some aspects of quantum physics, because this seems necessary to understand my concept of the continuity of consciousness. Quantum physics has completely overturned the existing view of our material, manifest world, the so-called real-space. It tells us that particles can propagate like waves, and so can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function. It can be proven that light in some experiments behaves like particles (photons), and in other experiments it behaves like waves, and both experiments are true. So waves and particles are complementary aspects of light (Bohr). The experiment of Aspect, based on Bell’s theorem, has established non-locality in quantum mechanics (non-local interconnectedness). Non-locality happens because all events are interrelated and influence each other.

Phase-space is an invisible, non-local, higher-dimensional space consisting of fields of probability, where every past and future event is available as a possibility.Within this phase-space no matter is present, everything belongs to uncertainty, and neither measurements nor observations are possible by physicists. The act of observation instantly changes a probability into an actuality by collapse of the wave function. Roger Penrose calls this resolution of multiple possibilities into one definitive state “objective reduction”. So it seems that no observation is possible without fundamentally changing the observed subject; only subjectivity remains.

The phase-speed in this invisible and non-measurable phase-space varies from the speed of light to infinity, while the speed of particles in our manifest physical real-space varies from zero to the speed of light. At the speed of light, the speed of a particle and the speed of the wave are identical. But the slower the particle, the faster the wave-speed, and when the particle stops, the wave-speed is infinite. The phase-space generates events that can be located in our space-time continuum, the manifest world, or real-space. Everything visible emanates form the invisible.

According to Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, microtubules in neurons may process information generated by self-organizing patterns, giving rise to coherent states, and these states could be the explanation of the possibility of experiencing consciousness. Herms Romijn argues that the continuously changing electromagnetic fields of the neuronal networks, which can be considered as a biological quantum coherence phenomenon, possibly could be the elementary “carriers” of consciousness

http://iands.org/research/important-research-articles/43-dr-pim-van-lommel-md-continuity-of-consciousness.html?start=6

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

It's not just plucked out of the air.

There is science underpinning it, particularly quantum mechanics.



http://iands.org/research/important-research-articles/43-dr-pim-van-lommel-md-continuity-of-consciousness.html?start=6

No, it's not plucked out the air, it's plucked from someone's ass apparently.

The quote you posted is a butchering of quantum mechanics by someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. It's technobabble.
And it still doesn't address the point I was making.

For every thing you (falsely) claim that actual neuroscience can't explain I can show you 2 far more fundamental things your theory can't.
So why the double standard?

Also I like how you are relying on quantum mechanics for your proof, considering you've said that mathematical proof isn't real proof.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

mickrock wrote: »

Neuronal activity might be well understood but it doesn't explain how memories are retained [...]

I'm afraid it does. Very well.

Just because you believe it does doesn't make it so.

Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean that nobody does.

If you haven't had time to read the wiki article above and are looking for something deeper, then I strongly recommend the following beginners-level course on neurobiology:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1597

celticcrash

Consciousness turned towards its self, recognizing its own empty nature, Also reconizing the empty nature of all phenomenon.
What is left?

Galvasean

I don't think I've ever rated a thread on boards before. This one is getting one star...

robindch

celticcrash wrote: »

Consciousness turned towards its self, recognizing its own empty nature, Also reconizing the empty nature of all phenomenon. What is left?

Nihilism?

sensibleken

robindch wrote: »

Nihilism?

brussel sprouts. theyre always left over. Basically if you remove god and consciousness all you are left with is stuff you cant put in a sandwich

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Nihilism?

F#CKIG NIHLISTS!!!

celticcrash

robindch wrote: »

Nihilism?

If we chase after the phenomena of our thoughts and emotions, the appearances or projections of mind, trying to understand each one individually.we will never succeed. If we go straight to the mind itself and the true nature of consciousness than we can turly understand.

celticcrash

robindch wrote: »

Nihilism?

What recognizes the concept of nihilism? The answer is in the question.

robindch

celticcrash wrote: »

What recognizes the concept of nihilism?

Nothing. That's the point!

enfant terrible

celticcrash wrote: »

If we chase after the phenomena of our thoughts and emotions, the appearances or projections of mind, trying to understand each one individually.we will never succeed. If we go straight to the mind itself and the true nature of consciousness than we can turly understand.

****ing Magnets, How Do They Work?

sensibleken

enfant terrible wrote: »

****ing Magnets, How Do They Work?

intelligent hugging

18AD

celticcrash wrote: »

If we chase after the phenomena of our thoughts and emotions, the appearances or projections of mind, trying to understand each one individually.we will never succeed. If we go straight to the mind itself and the true nature of consciousness than we can turly understand.

Is the nature of consciousness itself not a phenomena?

celticcrash

robindch wrote: »

Nothing. That's the point!

The concept of nihilism can not cognize consciousness. But consciousness can recognize the concept of nilhilism.
To cognize is to know. Again the concept of nihilism can not exist without
consciousness.
Consciousness is like a mirror, what ever you throw up before it will reflect back. The mistake here we look and belive in the reflection and not the consciousness that reflects it.
Like a cat chasing a been spot of light trying to pin it down.

celticcrash

18AD wrote: »

Is the nature of consciousness itself not a phenomena?

All phenomena is cause and effect. Consciousness is not cause and effect, it may seem to be but on true examanation of its nature it is not.