Fear Of Death..

nozzferrahhtoo

There is a lot of perhaps, ifs, maybe and what ifs in the above thinking though. I am well open to the idea that the operations of the brain, including consciousness, are not just based on the direct passage of electrical impulses throughout it but could _possibly_ have something to do with the interaction between those things too (such as induction etc etc). Clearly a lot more work needs to be done to get us past the hypothesis stage here and we should not run away with any hypothesis which is merely pleasing to us.

But going from the idea this happens WITHIN close knit areas of the brain... and the idea that the brain is some kind of transmitter/receiver is an incredible leap. So is moving from and idea like "EM fields might have some influence within the brain" to an idea like "EM fields anywhere could potentially be conscious/consciousness/related to consciousness".

As you say all this is as yet "highly speculative", especially given it is based on things like "perhaps" and "as yet undiscovered" and so forth.

recedite

My interpretation of this study is that the brain is utilising the interaction of the magnetic fields to carry additional information. So the brain becomes smarter without getting any bigger.
This would be similar to getting broadband on a telephone cable; engineers discovered that extra information could be carried on a 2 wire system that was originally just used for stimulating the speaker in a telephone handset. So in this analogy, the neurons firing to control the muscles in an earthworm are like the basic 1980's landline, but we humans have the internet going on in parallel with the landline.

However, if someone cuts the telephone wires, the broadband dies at the same time as the landline.

Correct me if I'm wrong nagirrac, but your belief seems to be that the brain is a receiver for some cloud-based information signal. So if the brain dies, the signal is still there, and could be picked up by some other means. This would be either by another brain tuned in to the correct signal (reincarnation ) or by some ethereal means (a soul in the afterlife). This would be a different proposition entirely, and one that could be neither proved nor disproved, much like God herself, or Russell's Teapot.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong nagirrac, but your belief seems to be that the brain is a receiver for some cloud-based information signal. So if the brain dies, the signal is still there, and could be picked up by some other means. This would be either by another brain tuned in to the correct signal (reincarnation ) or by some ethereal means (a soul in the afterlife). This would be a different proposition entirely, and one that could be neither proved nor disproved, much like God herself, or Russell's Teapot.

For any theory of consciousness that is based on a physical mechanism (such as some type of EM field) we should be able to be test it experimentally against predictions like any theory. Historically there are three categories of hypotheses on consciousness, dualist which says consciousnes is non material (and thus cannot be examined by science), quantum theories (Penrose, Hameroff) which to date have little compelling evidence, and non quantum physical theories based on known mechanisms.

Although there are other physical theories of consciousness, the EM theories separately proposed by McFadden and Pockett are interesting because they can be tested against various predictions and in several cases have been supported by the evidence. The key to these hypotheses is that consciousness arises not from individual neurons firing which generates a very low intensity EM field but neurons firing in synchrony which produces a specific spatial EM pattern.

Although these theories sound dualist, they have the important distinction that the dualism is between matter (neurons) and energy (EM fields) and not the traditional dualist thinking which was between the physical (body) and non-physical (soul). One of the hardest things to get your head around is if consciousness exists as a unified information field, where is it localized? The answer seems to be "everywhere" as described by John Joe McFadden from the article attached; "From the reference frame of the outside observer, a field is a continuum of values (information) extended in time and space. However, from the reference point of the field, there is no space and time between any part of the field or any part of its information. Because photons travel at the speed of light and time stops at that speed, it takes no time at all for the photon to travel from its point of origin to its point of anniliation, it is everywhere at once. So all of the information contained in the field is everywhwre at once, bound into a dimensionless point. The CEMI field theory proposes that consciousness resides in that dimensionless point."

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/Seven%20Clues%20to%20the%20Origin%20of%20Consciousness.pdf

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

The key to these hypotheses is that consciousness arises not from individual neurons firing which generates a very low intensity EM field but neurons firing in synchrony which produces a specific spatial EM pattern.

I assume you agree that if these neurons die, the energy field containing conciousness ceases to exist. How then could the energy field exist independently, after the brain's death?

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

I assume you agree that if these neurons die, the energy field containing conciousness ceases to exist. How then could the energy field exist independently, after the brain's death?

First Law of Thermodynamics. An energy field cannot "cease to exist" it can only change from one form to another.

Geomy

Oh to be as blank as un carved wood and as receptive as hollows in the hills...

I don't think they understand where you're coming from when you refer to the transformation of energy...

Pherekydes

Geomy wrote: »

Oh to be as blank as un carved wood and as receptive as hollows in the hills...

I don't think they understand where you're coming from when you refer to the transformation of energy...

Perhaps you'll explain it to us?

Geomy

How can I explain it to ye....

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

First Law of Thermodynamics. An energy field cannot "cease to exist" it can only change from one form to another.

And for that to hold true then there should be a measurable difference between the energy contained in the neuron before and after death i.e. there should be some form of energy missing entirely that we can longer detect as it has been lost in the exchange between the physical and meta-physical.

To put in another way, the death of person or thing should result in a net energy loss for the entire observable universe realm. Have we observed such a thing?

Geomy

Jernal wrote: »

And for that to hold true then there should be a measurable difference between the energy contained in the neuron before and after death i.e. there should be some form of energy missing entirely that we can longer detect as it has been lost in the exchange between the physical and meta-physical.

To put in another way, the death of person or thing should result in a net energy loss for the entire observable universe realm. Have we observed such a thing?

That's a tough one to figure out,especially when I swing more twoards a layman's way of thinking and writing rather than the more intellect approach that I'm finding hard to adapt to here

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

To put in another way, the death of person or thing should result in a net energy loss for the entire observable universe realm. Have we observed such a thing?

Not if I understand your question correctly. Before death an individual neuron like every cell in the body is both emitting and absorbing photons (called biophotons). This has been demonstrated in numerous studies, with Popp the leading historical researcher. There is no energy loss by the production of photons as it is part of the normal energy conversion cycle that goes on in every cell.

At death of the individual cell or organism all this photon activity ceases. Energy conversion obviously continues as the cells begin to decompose, but whatever photons were produced during the cell's or organism's lifetime have to exist somewhere. The field based theories of consciousness suggest that photons emitted by neurons are the basis of consciousness and form some type of spatial EM pattern.

Not sure if I am answering your question but its the best I can do for now without going down the rabbit hole of QFT. Electromagnetic fields are challenging things to wrap your head around, not so much the classical level of Maxwell's equations but at the quantum level where everything gets tricky.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

First Law of Thermodynamics. An energy field cannot "cease to exist" it can only change from one form to another.

OK then, it takes on the form of a rotting corpse.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

The field based theories of consciousness suggest that photons emitted by neurons are the basis of consciousness and form some type of spatial EM pattern.

Without the neurons creating the emf "pattern" these are just random loose photons, available for recycling somewhere else in the universe. You might as well say that your urine carries your soul because it was once a part of you.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Without the neurons creating the emf "pattern" these are just random loose photons, available for recycling somewhere else in the universe. You might as well say that your urine carries your soul because it was once a part of you.

Do you understand what an EM field is and how it carries information? How do you think a radio works? When you type a text message on your phone and press send, why don't the photons that carry your text message dissipate into the universe? How do you think your message gets from one country to another literally instantaneously?

Artful_Badger

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you understand what an EM field is and how it carries information? How do you think a radio works? When you type a text message on your phone and press send, why don't the photons that carry your text message dissipate into the universe? How do you think your message gets from one country to another literally instantaneously?

Because they are retransmitted many times by many physical devices. After death where does the information originate from and what interacts with that information to create conscious experience ?

nagirrac

Artful_Badger wrote: »

After death where does the information originate from and what interacts with that information to create conscious experience ?

I don't know the answer to that, nor does anyone for that matter, and until we have a complete standard model unifying all four fundamental forces in the universe (a TOE) I would say we will struggle to understand how this could be possible. What I would say is that it is not useful to think about dimensions and time when discussing how EM fields behave. An EM field travels at the speed of light so the only way to think about it that is consistent with known physics is that it is everywhere at once, until we use a physical device to localize it.

I'm sure someone will quickly ridicule this statement but if a human mind were encoded in an EM field (like a text mesasage is) then it would not perceive either time or dimensions unless it interacts with some physical device (like a brain). It is head wrecking to think about this concept but QFT is headwrecking. The more we learn about the universe, the stranger it becomes, and we are forced to believe things that we thought were impossible.

For anyone interested in exploring the strange and wonderous world we inhabit, I would strongly recommed Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" which is available on itunes as a 4 part series.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

First Law of Thermodynamics. An energy field cannot "cease to exist" it can only change from one form to another.

And it does so. Bacteria unlock the energy in the body and brain by digesting it and using it to fuel their own life cycles. Yet other energy is lost through the dissipation of heat on death. We have a full understanding of where the energies in the brain go after death.

Alas what many in the woo community mean when they talk of consciousness energy not being destroyed seemingly is that they are inventing a whole new energy not measured or observed and declaring that A) it is THAT energy that causes human consciousness and is is THAT energy that survives death.

If one has to wholesale invent based on nothing an entire new tier of energy in order to carry their hypothesis it would by wise to take their hypothesis not just with a pinch of salt, but with the whole packet.

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We have a full understanding of where the energies in the brain go after death.

Alas what many in the woo community mean when they talk of consciousness energy not being destroyed seemingly is that they are inventing a whole new energy not measured or observed and declaring that A) it is THAT energy that causes human consciousness and is is THAT energy that survives death.

Quite hilarious and a classic example of the kind of confirmation bias many atheists suffer from. "A full understanding of where the energies in the brain go after death"?? We don't even have a rudimentary model yet for how the energies in the brain produce consciousness, yet you are quite confident what happens to this mysterious aspect of our existance after death? We have absolutely no means of physically measuring the subjective experience yet you are confident what happens to this thing we cannot measure after we die?

Are you seriously calling a leading Irish scientist a woo practioner or would you like to reword what you wrote? JohnJoe McFadden is Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey and his CEMI theory of consciousness is one of at least three theories for an EM field basis for consciousness. Where are you getting the idea that this is some kind of "new" energy? There is nothing new about EM fields, what is new is we continue to learn about the kinds of information that can be encoded into EM fields. How EM fields interact with biological systems is one of the most interesting areas of current scientific
research.

Sarky

You're still trying to shoehorn magic into something that doesn't require it.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

You're still trying to shoehorn magic into something that doesn't require it.

It's not magic, unless you believe that my typing this message and your ability to read it literally instantaneously is magic. Don't forget everything about reality appears magical until you understand it:).

Stella Virgo

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

As an atheist, is it normal to have a fear of death?

I'm quite young but find I have a strong fear of being dead. Not dying.

The thought of not being alive and just nothingness.

The thought of life carrying on without me.

Does anyone else have this fear?

How can an atheist deal with or accept mortality?

countless billions of people have died over the centuries,nobody has ever not died,dont give it a second thought.........

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Quite hilarious and a classic example of the kind of confirmation bias many atheists suffer from.

And that kind of silly generalization is typical of woo-merchants and the unfortunates who follow them.

Look, nagirrac, would you ever grow up and lay off your cock-eyed insults of atheists in general? It really doesn't add much to precisely whatever it is you're trying to say.

Thanks.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Look, nagirrac, would you ever grow up and lay off your cock-eyed insults of atheists in general?

How is pointing out that atheists suffer from confirmation bias an insult? Relative to calling someone "cock eyed" for example?
Everyone suffers from confirmation bias, why would atheists be excluded from a common human condition?

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm sure someone will quickly ridicule this statement but if a human mind were encoded in an EM field (like a text mesasage is) then it would not perceive either time or dimensions unless it interacts with some physical device (like a brain).

Is that my cue?
If all the data of a mind was being transmitted like that, it could be downloaded like some mega program by any random alien with a sufficiently advanced receiver and the hardware to run it. The alien could copy and clone your mind (even before your brain died) Fortunately I wear a tinfoil hat, which acts as a faraday cage to prevent unauthorised access to my EMF.

Your statement does make a certain amount of sense if you start with the premise that the mind is remote from the brain and survives after it. But this is a matter of faith on your part. The various learned articles that you have cited only purport to show that the living brain uses the patterns of its own physically generated EMF in some sort of information feedback loop that creates self-awareness.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

It's not magic, unless you believe that my typing this message and your ability to read it literally instantaneously is magic. Don't forget everything about reality appears magical until you understand it.

Isn't that a great argument for assuming that that which appears magical is simply science waiting to be discovered?

Thinking about thinking, and thinking about thinking about thinking, reminds me of the verse by De Morgan:

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

How is pointing out that atheists suffer from confirmation bias an insult?

Pointing and laughing at your fellow posters is considered insulting -- please drop it -- thank you.

That is all.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

Quite hilarious and a classic example of the kind of confirmation bias many atheists suffer from. "A full understanding of where the energies in the brain go after death"? We don't even have a rudimentary model yet for how the energies in the brain produce consciousness, yet you are quite confident what happens to this mysterious aspect of our existance after death?

You appear to be conflating two entirely different things with comical results.

True we are not sure how the energy moving around the brain produces consciousness.

But that the energy is there, what it is, how it gets there and where it goes when we die are all things we know perfectly well, even if you personally don't.

Also I never once mentioned McFadden so stop putting words in my mouth thanks.

Geomy

True we are not sure how the energy moving around the brain produces consciousness.

But that the energy is there, what it is, how it gets there and where it goes when we die are all things we know perfectly well, even if you personally don't.

We know,what do mean by we ?

I don't have a clue where it goes.

I like your theory,but that's something our lecturer in Horticultural College told us.

Im not convinced though

nozzferrahhtoo

Generally when I say "we" in that kind of context I mean we as a species as a whole.

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You appear to be conflating two entirely different things with comical results... But that the energy is there, what it is, how it gets there and where it goes when we die are all things we know perfectly well, even if you personally don't.

Also I never once mentioned McFadden so stop putting words in my mouth thanks.

Careful now, laughing at posters is frowned upon here
No offense taken, I fully understand you are finding humor in my post as opposed to mocking me, just as I was when I described your earlier post as "hilarious":).

If we think about energy in classical terms then I agree the idea of consciousness as energy surviving death is nonsensical. However, if you shift your thinking from the classical to the quantum world your whole worldview in terms of what is possible or not possible has to change. This is where things get difficult as everytime the word quantum is introduced into a discussion on this forum there is a chorus of "woo".

In a previous post you described as "woo" the idea of a "new" energy that causes human consciousness. This is incorrect as what is being proposed by McFadden, Pockett and others is not a "new" energy, but a 3D spatial configuration of an electromagnetic field that encodes information, something we are already familiar with. Whether the woo community latches on to their ideas or not is irrelevant, the only relevance is whether what is being proposed is possible in our known reality.

The fundamental issue here is the classical materialistic view of reality versus the modern quantum / relativity view. Quantum mechanics has decisively rejected the idea that our senses and observations lead to a fundamentally true view of reality. Our senses reveal reality as it appears to us, but what modern physics is telling us is that reality is only accessible through mathematical descriptions, allowing all kinds of space-time configurations we can barely imagine. In other words the reality described by modern physics is nothing like the reality we ordinarily observe.

How the objective world we observe emerges from the reality described by QM is as big a mystery as the mind-brain problem (and perhaps related as many scientists like Henry Stapp suggest). We simply cannot exclude the possibility that consciousness is a fundamental irreducible aspect of reality just because we do not like the idea. Only in a strict materialistic view of the world can we make claims like God cannot exist, or consciousness cannot exist outside the brain or survive bodily death, but we know this strict materialistic view of the world is completely false.