Death is not the end

a reply to: Quintilian

"As far as we know". Exactly. Consciousness is immeasurable. It can't be deduced to a quantifiable definition. So how is it then possible to know what its limitations are if it has any at all. Awareness is a component of consciousness..."I think, therefore I am". But we don't yet know all that consciousness is, where it arises from, what form(s) it takes, what its size or shape is (if it has a size or shape), what it's purpose is or what happens to it after the body dies. What separates your consciousness from mine? What separates ours from A.I.? So many questions about consciousness remain unanswered. It seems a bit premature to assume that it "dies" when the brain dies when there is no clear evidence to refute or confirm that assumption.

a reply to: glend

God is all knowing in the sense that He is aware of past, present, and future. So everything He puts into action is known before the action completes.

God is all knowing in EVERYTHING. He knows your thoughts and the number of hairs on your head. You're limiting God.

There is no "our" only the vine. The son being the witness of the Father.

That doesn't make any sense when talking about where WE as human individuals, with our own separate free wills, fit in. The Bible tells us that vines and branches have to be trimmed and cut off to stay healthy.

A perfect God isn't going to create imperfect beings. You in your true state already exist in a state of perfection being made in the image of God (perfection). The realm of dualities was created so we can experience that perfection through our senses. Again to know thyself.

While God did not create us to be imperfect beings, we became that way through free will. We do not currently exist in a state of perfection. We experience perfection through Jesus, who declared himself the way, the truth, and the life.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

So many questions about consciousness remain unanswered. It seems a bit premature to assume that it "dies" when the brain dies when there is no clear evidence to refute or confirm that assumption.

You both make good arguments. Maybe the key is determining when human consciousness ends and spiritual consciousness takes over. They can exist together while we are alive in the physical, but only spiritual consciousness will ultimately survive.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

"As far as we know". Exactly. Consciousness is immeasurable. It can't be deduced to a quantifiable definition. So how is it then possible to know what its limitations are if it has any at all.

That it "can't be deduced (reduced?) to a quantifiable definition" by yourself is quite honest of you. But that doesn't really mean it can't be or that nobody has done it. They have. This is generally a pre requisite in science or for academic discussion. Although it's not uncommon for discussion to not get past this point (where everyone agrees on the definition).

Awareness is a component of consciousness...

There's a whole world of difference between saying that, and saying that consciousness is awareness.

"I think, therefore I am".

I also think this is wrong regarding consciousness. We can have thoughts ramble on endlessly without being conscious of them. Often it only becomes apparent in retrospect, after something snaps us out of our reverie. This seems to happen far more than the opposite. I often wonder whether we would be much different without consciousness (as I see it at least).

Here's a little curio for you. When speaking there is something acutely "aware" enough to not only choose particular words and know the meaning to be imparted, but to enunciate it with some precision (usually). Yet all of this happens beyond conscious comprehension at the time. Generally, in other words, we have no idea what we are going to say, until after we say it. So much of what we do is similar and there are so many different examples.

But we don't yet know all that consciousness is, where it arises from, what form(s) it takes, what its size or shape is (if it has a size or shape), what it's purpose is or what happens to it after the body dies.

Consciousness is a series of brain states. It stops when the brain (truly and permanently) dies. There is no evidence to indicate otherwise unfortunately. Only anecdotes.

Though I can see where it might be more than this. But this would involve a specific form of panpsychism IMO, and while I'm not a believer, I don't think it can be completely ruled out. Our psyche does seem to arise from and have matter as its basis, after all.

Unless you are a believer in a "soul" or a separate "consciousness" as in mind/body duality (which is just another word for the religious version of a "soul" anyway). In that instance there is probably little to debate as that is purely belief.

What separates your consciousness from mine? What separates ours from A.I.? So many questions about consciousness remain unanswered. It seems a bit premature to assume that it "dies" when the brain dies when there is no clear evidence to refute or confirm that assumption.

There is overwhelming evidence confirming that brain death is the end of experience. To believe otherwise accepts the notion that the brain affects "mental states" (which surely includes consciousness) and that these things can be impaired to the level the brain becomes damaged. Yet somehow when the brain is damaged completely beyond repair (with death) it suddenly becomes "never better".

Though apart from that, we still don't agree on a working definition of the term lol.

a reply to: Quintilian

Deduced was the right word. "Deduced: arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion."

Consciousness has not been concretely defined according to classical physics. It has only been theorized.

No there's not a whole world of difference. I initially told you awareness was my simplified definition. I told you there are more indepth theories of consciousness that go beyond awareness. For example, in quantum physics, consciousness is described as having a function. It's theorized that particles are in superposition until they are measured, at which point they collapse into one state or the other. Consciousness is the awareness or the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction.

Now you're delving into the behavior of the subconscious mind. It records everything that your conscious mind misses. This prevents a "lag" in time so that even when your conscience mind is unconscious , you don't completely lose consciousness. You're performing on autopilot so to speak.
The subconscious predicts patterns in the outer world and also creates predetermined patterns within your neuronal circuitry. This explains things like the phenomenon of word flow, physical movement without thinking about it and even your autonomic nervous system.

Quantum consciousness
Consciousness and the physics of the brain
Current events in Orch-OR
Does brain make mind?

a reply to: Deetermined

In quantum physics spiritual consciousness would be the equivalent of the Quantum Field or Zero Point Energy Field which permeates All. Source Energy.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

While I agree that there is a source energy that permeates all, the only difference we may have at that point is who or what that source energy is. As for my personal beliefs...

Matthew 10:28 - Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Consciousness depends on the gods you make your master.

a reply to: LeeMich83

The ancient writings do not address science, they address spiritual matters, matters of conduct, justice, love, mercy, faithfulness, grace, hope, peace & so on. They are not intended to explain how the world is made, they are intended to be used as a basis for how we live our lives, and in that respect Christian scripture has been very successful, seeing as all of western civilisation & morality, laws (etc) is entirely based upon those writings & their successive layers of interpretation over the past two thousand years. When you post a single paragraph refutation of organised religion you really need to make sure you understand the subject - as I have clearly pointed out in a single paragraph, you have no idea what you're talking about.

But it's true, life continues after death, information can never be destroyed, it simply transfers to a new mode of expression. The world to come is just as real as this one, and in fact all evidence we have (such as testimony from near-death experiencers) points to it being 'more real' than this world, as in, it has a greater sense of dynamic, interactive realism. People who have crossed over temporarily in a near death state have reported vivid colours which cannot be seen on Earth, they describe a sense of love infused with the atmosphere surrounding them, a sense of divine power coursing through their being as they speak with angels & departed relatives.

Life continues, but you should reevaluate your position on the Christian faith in particular - it's the only faith group that can banish demons, and that should give everyone pause for thought. Demons are real spiritual entities which are witnessed by psychiatrists in particular, they seem to have an effect on the minds of severely mentally traumatised people in roughly 2-5% of cases where the person is presenting with what appears to be severe schizophrenia or a manic bipolar disorder episode. Only in the name of Jesus would an entity of that nature be banished completely, though it is difficult for these people to encounter Christians with enough experience in the ministry of deliverance/ exorcism. But still, the truth remains - you cannot cast out a demon in the name of Buddha.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

Deduced was the right word. "Deduced: arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion."

Consciousness has not been concretely defined according to classical physics. It has only been theorized.

Science gives us theories to explain the natural world. An acceptable explanatory theory is the height of science.

There are no viable and accepted scientific "theories" of consciousness involving a mind/body duality, because there is no real scientific evidence for it to begin with.

The best ideas I have seen are from neuroscientists and psychologists. Like pretty much any physical phenomena there will be underlying effects involving particle physics out of necessity. This will increase knowledge but is unlikely to be necessary as an explanation. In no way is it accepted as yet that the mind requires quantum effects as the explanation.

No there's not a whole world of difference. I initially told you awareness was my simplified definition. I told you there are more indepth theories of consciousness that go beyond awareness. For example, in quantum physics, consciousness is described as having a function. It's theorized that particles are in superposition until they are measured, at which point they collapse into one state or the other. Consciousness is the awareness or the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction.

That in no way even begins to tell us what "consciousness" is. It tells us one particular thing that consciousness is claimed to do. Though it also treads a fine line between science and Deepak Chopra style "quantum flapdoodle". I know of at least one physicist who feels the whole thing (the measurement problem) is easily resolved and the mystery removed once you realise that humans are also bound by the laws of physics (even psychologically).

Now you're delving into the behavior of the subconscious mind. It records everything that your conscious mind misses. This prevents a "lag" in time so that even when your conscience mind is unconscious , you don't completely lose consciousness. You're performing on autopilot so to speak.

Whatever you want to call it, it is the human state far more often than not. It demonstrates that we can be acutely aware without doing so consciously.

The subconscious predicts patterns in the outer world and also creates predetermined patterns within your neuronal circuitry. This explains things like the phenomenon of word flow, physical movement without thinking about it and even your autonomic nervous system.

What we think of as "consciousness" is mostly a persistent and convincing illusion that we are given to. Illusory in the sense that it does almost none of the things nor has the properties we ascribe to it. In many instances it is a cumbersome liability as regards "awareness".

Quantum consciousness
Consciousness and the physics of the brain
Current events in Orch-OR
Does brain make mind?

I'm aware of the work of Penrose and Hameroff and it should be encouraged. Though Penrose has always been humble enough to admit that it is based mostly on belief and has more holes than a sieve.

One problem I have is that they started out with a belief that consciousness can exist outside of the body, then looked for a way that might explain it. This is ass backwards and lends itself to pseudo science from the beginning.

Another problem I have noticed with those approaching this from other fields (particularly physics though it happens even with relevant academics) is that they start of with a bundle of assumptions and preconceptions that they assign the vague term "consciousness" to, and go from there. They end up studying their beliefs and illusions.

I have yet to hear a simple coherent definition from either of them regarding the phenomena they claim to be trying to explain.

a reply to: Quintilian

Whatever I want to call it? It is called the subconscious mind. That is a technical label. There is plenty of research on it, you can look it up. These explanations aren't coming from me.

As for the rest of your post, it's incoherent. I can't follow the points that you are attempting to make. When you say things like, "quantum flapdoodle" and "pseudoscience" and claim that Hameroff's research into microtubules is "ass backwards" and "has more holes than a sieve", it tells me that you zero knowledge and zero interest on his Orch-OR theory or any other quantum theories and thought experiments concerning consciousness. Your mind is closed to new concepts and ideas. Quantum Physics is hardly "flapdoodle". The quantum computers being built today will show evidence of that in a future that will hardly resemble this present time.

If you are too lazy to take the time to delve into this topic and actually learn something about it rather than simply dismiss it as pseudoscience and flapdoodle, then I'm not wasting anymore of my valuable time on this argument.

a reply to: Deetermined

My beliefs aren't much different than yours.

If we knew something about the mind we would know how to raise our kids. Either you make them lifeless drones to your command or you make them part of the community.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

... It's theorized that particles are in superposition until they are measured, at which point they collapse into one state or the other. Consciousness is the awareness or the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction.

After refuting those ideas/philosophies by using a valid thought experiment that proves these particular interpretations of quantum mechanics to be wrong (just as Dr. Erwin Schrödinger did with his cat example, showing that these interpretations, as put forward in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, lead to a contradiction/paradox, therefore, they must be wrong*, cause you cannot actually have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, that was his reason for bringing up that paradox), physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson draws the following conclusions in the presentation further below (21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms" (Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle"; which is related to this issue of applying and interpreting QM incorrectly as described at 2:40 in the video)

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."


*: synonyms for the word paradox as found on thesaurus.com:

error
mistake

Those 2 are in orange, which is the way thesaurus.com shows how closely related or similar these words are, the ones in red are the most similar, then orange, then yellow. When something is in error, it is wrong (another synonym for that expression).

a reply to: whereislogic

When did that lecture take place, a thousand years ago? There's an old saying goes, "science advances one funeral at a time". lol

You used that same argument and that exact same video in another thread. Your cut&paste knee-jerk rebuttals tells me that you're another one...mind closed to new concepts, different ideas... you're more interested in winning debates rather than actually learning. Freemon Dyson didn't mention anything about quantum entanglement or retrocausality. I would go search for some updated, current information for you to read but I know you won't read, you'll just slap back with more knee-jerk responses so why bother.

You can try all you want but you'll never debunk quantum physics. You just won't. It's here to stay and it's going to continue branching out. It's going outpace classical physics and materialism....paving the way to an extraordinary future.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

Whatever I want to call it? It is called the subconscious mind. That is a technical label. There is plenty of research on it, you can look it up. These explanations aren't coming from me.

It is nowhere near that simple or black and white, in any sense (technical or otherwise). Much of our time is spent in similar non "conscious" states, to varying degrees, although most people are convinced otherwise. Human "consciousness" is a very intermittent phenomena.

As for the rest of your post, it's incoherent. I can't follow the points that you are attempting to make. When you say things like, "quantum flapdoodle" and "pseudoscience" and claim that Hameroff's research into microtubules is "ass backwards" and "has more holes than a sieve", it tells me that you zero knowledge and zero interest on his Orch-OR theory or any other quantum theories and thought experiments concerning consciousness. Your mind is closed to new concepts and ideas. Quantum Physics is hardly "flapdoodle". The quantum computers being built today will show evidence of that in a future that will hardly resemble this present time.

I have little doubt it appears incoherent to you. I'm paraphrasing Penrose himself who, unlike Hameroff has a long background in academia which allows him to take the critique of his ideas far more gracefully. But to imply that criticism or non acceptance of their hypothesis (calling it a scientific theory is way overstating it) must require ignorance or lack of interest? This seems a good example of "logical incoherence".

Quantum physics itself isn't flapdoodle, but it lends itself exactly to that regarding quantum "consciousness" explanations. Penrose started with a bundle of beliefs, namely in a "soul" that can exist independently of the body, and looked for a way to give his beliefs some philosophical and mathematical possibility. I can remember him openly saying that at one stage (pre Hameroff collaboration). Hameroff has also always been a firm believer.

So whether right or wrong, it's harly a basis on wich to begin an objective enquiry. I can see where the very thing they are setting out to explain doesn't exist to begin with as anything other than an illusion.

There are various forms of pansychism that are more interesting IMO. It seems undeniable that whatever you define "consciousness" as it exists in matter in a latent form at the very least. I can also see the likelihood that AI will become conscious. It might already be to some extent (again, depending on definition).

If you are too lazy to take the time to delve into this topic and actually learn something about it rather than simply dismiss it as pseudoscience and flapdoodle, then I'm not wasting anymore of my valuable time on this argument.

No small amount of presumption there.

You seem to have quite emotional attachment to your beliefs.

So far I have been told that "awareness" equates to consciousness (it is trivially obvious it doesn't) and that it needs to be explained via quantum processes (unlikely at this stage). There is an entire field of study that doesn't accept the Penrose/Hameroff idea and plenty of highly qualified critique. A situation that Hameroff seems to find unacceptable.

This doesn't mean that it has no value. For instance, I now wonder if my liver isn't also conscious (the microtubules and all)? Perhaps it is? lol

I'm also still waiting for you to offer a reasonable definition of what you mean by the term "consciousness".

a reply to: Quintilian

"Much of our time is spent in similar non "conscious" states"

It's called the subconscious.

"No small amount of presumption there.

You seem to have quite emotional attachment to your beliefs."

Presumption works both ways.

I consider my understanding of consciousness and quantum mechanics to be shallow at best but compared to my limited knowledge, yours appears to be pretty much non-existent. You're caught up in an incoherent loop of confusion where you keep repeating the same flapdoodle over and over again. You're redundant.


A.I. will become conscious"

Do you mean sentient?

Both consciousness and sentience are components of self-awareness. Sentience is usually considered the capacity to sense feelings, perceptions, and experiences such as suffering and enjoyment, pleasure and pain—sensations. Consciousness is also awareness, but at a much higher level—the ability to think and use reason to solve problems and make sense of the world around an individual.

The higher the level of consciousness, the greater is the intellectual capacity of a being to contemplate phenomena and events, as well as to integrate knowledge from diverse fields, together with causes and effects and the development of novel solutions. The highest levels of consciousness allow an animal or human to question their own existence—the whys, purpose and their own futures.

Threads like this have been popping up on this forum for years, and I always give the same stock answer.

There is no life after death. There is no post-mortem continuation of consciousness, for two simple reasons. Before I get into those reasons, you have to ask what do you expect is going to survive the death and annihilation of the human body? Do you mean both the personality and character of a person, or are you suggesting the existence of spirit?

Consciousness is most certainly an 'emergent' phenomena. It emerges within the human body out of the quantum interactions inside the body's electro-chemical activity and becomes organised as memory, which is cross-referenced with present moment life experiences. So when the body dies, consciousness dies with it, as there is nothing from which it can emerge. A thing to understand in perspective, is that we do not have a mind that is conscious, but a conscious that is perceived as mind. I have wrote about this in past posts years ago.

The other reason as to why there is no life after death is because you have to be able to honestly answer this question: If consciousness survived death...what powers it?

a reply to: elysiumfire

When you're talking about "quantum interactions" you're referring to the subatomic realm. At the planck scale, matter doesn't exist, only units of energy. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

In my past posts I discussed consciousness as an emergent resonance out of the correspondence between quantum fields, lasting only as long as the interaction. The American psychologist William James gave me the inspiration to intuit the concept I have proposed. Of course, at the sub-quantum level the resonance is not itself human-like conscious or consciousness, it is just an energy field arising out of the interaction between two or more sub-quanta: ergo, it is everywhere in the universe. When it occurs in any organic body, it becomes the consciousness if the organic structure can act as a conduit for it. It's highest expression currently known is in the human body and brain.