Scientist Claims That Consciousness Continues After Death – Life Is Just The Beginning. (God, believer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, nothing then. You are simply pedaling a narrative that you can not verify in even the smallest way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth_teller
think of someone......................Then he hit the sea with his rod So it divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain.
I am going to guess you have nothing to verify that ever happened either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth_teller
Now we can prove that there is a life after death if we can prove that this miracle is true And there are proofs for it..
Then go for it. Show us any substantiation you have that such a "miracle" ever occurred. I am agog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Does a candle have it's own consciousness that it will lose after the flame burns it out?
A candle flame is just a manifestation of the processes that are going on chemically at the level of the candle. I have certainly seen no evidence, certainly not from the regulars on this thread, that there is any reason to think consciousness any different to that. Let alone that it is so different that it can survive independent of those processes like a candle flame lifting off the candle and going on to burn independent of it or anything else to support it.
The common trope of people who think there is a life after death is the citation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. What such people are NOT telling you, or hoping you will not notice, is that no energy at the level of the brain or body is unaccounted for. We essentially know what it is, where it goes, and how and why (and into what) it is converted and so conserved.
So people citing that Law are violating it themselves, because they are imagining some energy never before observed, measured or evidenced to exist simply coming into being out of nowhere and ambling happily on in whatever form their narrative requires it to take. All, of course, entirely independent of the energies we DO know are associated with consciousness and we DO know go elsewhere at death. So this magical energy is not just popping into existence, but is doing so in quantities that compensate for the loss of energies that were associated with that consciousness previously.
Okay. The flames go out into the universe and if you had the proper equipment on some planet light years away from here, you would be able to see the flames long after the candle went out. Our consciousness is of a similar EM-like character to a flame and it continues out into the universe as well, long after we stop producing it, perhaps to infinity.Yes, you do!
Well, well, well...let's see. Very coincidentally...this comports perfectly with known "Laws" that "govern" the Universe, that humankind has figured out.
That's a pretty cool "How things work" observation and contemplation.
Okay. The flames go out into the universe and if you had the proper equipment on some planet light years away from here, you would be able to see the flames long after the candle went out. Our consciousness is of a similar EM-like character to a flame and it continues out into the universe as well, long after we stop producing it, perhaps to infinity.Yes, you do!
That's a neat analogy . The 'flame' (consciousness) doesn't exist here, but it does somewhere out in the universe. But the analogy breaks down in a couple of respects.
(a) the observer is not seeing the situation as it really is; he is merely getting late news.
(b) light travelling through space dissipates. If that were not the case, we would be frying under a million suns.
(3) there is no good reason to suppose that the mind emits coherent particles as a flame emits particles of light.
That's a neat analogy . The 'flame' (consciousness) doesn't exist here, but it does somewhere out in the universe. But the analogy breaks down in a couple of respects.
(a) the observer is not seeing the situation as it really is; he is merely getting late news.
(b) light travelling through space dissipates. If that were not the case, we would be frying under a million suns.
(3) there is no good reason to suppose that the mind emits coherent particles as a flame emits particles of light.
Consciousness is necessarily energy TRANS...and guess what that means for it always existing?
Also..."observers" of it could be anywhere along an infinite gap once it is "put out" into Reality.
My prediction: It won't be all that long before Mystics overall ideas are born out as a valid theorem.
Nor is anyone suggesting you should "help" that or even apologize for it. But you DO have the opportunity to learn from it. You get to talk to real scientists, with real knowledge, like myself and learn not just THAT the paper does not suggest life after death but WHY it does not.
Alas you do not seem willing to do that. You are more intent on straw manning everything I say...........
....... and claiming things that I PATENTLY and DEMONSTRABLY did not say. Why you feel the need to get this defensive and dishonest is not known to me, but I doubt it is fooling anyone here but yourself.
I have said MULTIPLE times now that I am not discussing the findings, but the interpretation of the findings. Yet you insist, with fetid consistency, on pretending the opposite. Why is that?
How about, no. How about you let ME phrase my positions, rather than have you do it for me? Especially given you have proven your intention is to summarize my positions to be exactly the opposite of what they are.
Ok let us here demonstrate the depth of your dishonesty. QUOTE me saying I disagreed with the results of the study, or it's findings. Show EXACTLY where I said that.
You will not find it. You know why? Because you 100%, blatantly, dishonestly, and demonstrably made it up. I never said it. I never did it. I never even IMPLIED it. You simply made it up. You are lying.
What I DID say was that I disagree with the interpretation of what the study said.
And what I DID say was that two things the news paper quoted Parnia as saying, were errors and Parnia was wrong.
But I NEVER at any point, questioned the findings of the study. You. Simply. Made. That. Up.
oh you poor misunderstood noz, come on down from your cross some else might need the wood
oops found it.This is your quote.
Quote:
Quote:
But I also insist that this article AND this study in no way evidence consciousness surviving after death.
Now you might not have meant it the way I took it, but of course that cannot be the answer oh I must be a liar, dishonest, etc.
I am done with people like you noz, I simply have no time for those who cry foul over what could easily be taken different then what they meant.
oh you poor misunderstood noz, come on down from your cross some else might need the wood oops found it.This is your quote.
I am rarely understood except by the people who are doing it dishonestly and willfully and you demonstrate that PERFECTLY here.
I asked you to quote me where I disagreed with the findings of the report.
INSTEAD you quote me saying I disagree with some peoples interpretation of the findings of the report.
Seeing the difference yet? Or do you plan to continue pretending they are the same thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now you might not have meant it the way I took it, but of course that cannot be the answer oh I must be a liar, dishonest, etc. I am done with people like you noz, I simply have no time for those who cry foul over what could easily be taken different then what they meant. Have a nice life.
Ah a great chance to test out "nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of a user replying to you goes up in proportion to how many times they have indicated they will not.
But if you, with any honesty, go back over the thread you will find that my accusations of the dishonesty and fantasy in your position were not made on you merely "taking me up wrong"....... but on insisting on CONTINUING to take me up wrong despite being corrected CLEARLY and OFTEN multiple times in multiple posts.
Communication is a wonderful, but fraught, thing. Mis-communication happens. Mis-understandings happen. All the time. And I would never fault anyone for that. Neither the speaker or the target.
But when someone insists on continuing at length to perpetuate the false version, despite multiple corrections, then it moves out of the realm of mere mis-communication and into the realm of contrived, wanton, and wilful dishonesty.
AGAIN:
I have not disagreed with the findings of the paper at all.
I have stated however that NOTHING in the findings of that paper indicate any survival of consciousness after actual death.
I have made it VERY clear the difference between clinical death and actual death.
Some of the quotations you have offered from Sam Parnia (which I can at least hope are misleading and out of context) are simply false or misleading or both. They show genuine errors in knowledge that I have corrected here on this thread.
Now if you want to simply run away without conceding any of those points, that is your issue not mine. But the points stand, they are correct, they have not been rebutted, and I stick with them.
But I don't think I got "game", which is human -imagined convention. It doesn't exist, apart from human convention. Parts (if you mean particles) do. And we can tell what becomes of those after death: they dissipate. Aren't we actually agreeing?
yes, we do agree. There is no "human mind" interactions that can be classified as you after you die. At least from what we understand anyway. But let us look into what we think we know.
I am not sure about the dissipate part tho. And let me use it as an example of our disconnect arg. If we use science to try and nail down what are valid claims and what are less valid claims we really need to be accurate.
Again, please allow me to point out where I think we disconnect, I analyze a claim based on the standard model. I do not analyze a claim based on me being an atheist. I draw no conclusion based on my beliefs, my beliefs are drawn from the standard model.
I never answer 'as an atheist, I believe". as soon as that is said, I might as well say "because I believe the bible, I believe ...". I only say "we know "this" about the world around us, so that might mean ..." My atheism never draws the conclusion.
The particles in the SM do not actually exist. They, too, are like a football game. The "particles" are better described as an average set of events we call gluons, quarks, photons, and what not. they are human -imagined conventions that we use to communicate.
we are an average set of events not a "thing" and those events dissipate, well, I am not sure dissipate is the right word. Those events are 'recorded" in the universe from your life on.
So again, I use the word illusion. Something goes on, its just not what religions teach. It is also another example of our disconnect. I sit down and teach them what might "go on", I just don't slam them with "you're wrong'. I discuss the possibilities. What they have been taught doesn't fit, most of them see it.
90% of the people can't understand whats going on and yet they sure do tell us what we don't get. Neil gets it. I don't have an "atheist card", because its not a "thing". atheism is not a "team" playing the "religious team". "fandom" doesn't apply for me.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-22-2017 at 03:47 AM..
Consciousness is necessarily energy TRANS...and guess what that means for it always existing?
Also..."observers" of it could be anywhere along an infinite gap once it is "put out" into Reality.
My prediction: It won't be all that long before Mystics overall ideas are born out as a valid theorem.
Energy is just particles, and maybe they always exist, maybe not. But what they comprised, either as what we call matter. or what we call Energy, when it ceased to be and the particles that composed it dissipate, does not.
You could have an infinite sting of the King's horses and all the King's men , observing the light emitted by the defunct candle-flame, but that wouldn't put the candle - flame back together again (1). And, unless I am very much mistaken, somewhere along the line. the light particles would become so dissipated, that there would be nothing for them to observe.
And that still leaves the point that nothing valid shows that consciousness emits anything coherent in the way a candle - flame emits light. And, if Mystic's theories are validated, I shall be the first one to sign up for them. Until then, they are 'just a theory' - in the sense of unverified hypothses, and I should not with intellectual integrity, accept them, and neither should you.
(1) indeed, I wonder whether I misunderstood Dodgson's Humpty. Not as a superior intellect showing up fixed but ultimately subjective modes of thinking, but an exemplar of irritatingly illogical thinking.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-22-2017 at 05:07 AM..
yes, we do agree. There is no "human mind" interactions that can be classified as you after you die. At least from what we understand anyway. But let us look into what we think we know.
I am not sure about the dissipate part tho. And let me use it as an example of our disconnect arg. If we use science to try and nail down what are valid claims and what are less valid claims we really need to be accurate.
Again, please allow me to point out where I think we disconnect, I analyze a claim based on the standard model. I do not analyze a claim based on me being an atheist. I draw no conclusion based on my beliefs, my beliefs are drawn from the standard model.
I never answer 'as an atheist, I believe". as soon as that is said, I might as well say "because I believe the bible, I believe ...". I only say "we know "this" about the world around us, so that might mean ..." My atheism never draws the conclusion.
The particles in the SM do not actually exist. They, too, are like a football game. The "particles" are better described as an average set of events we call gluons, quarks, photons, and what not. they are human -imagined conventions that we use to communicate.
we are an average set of events not a "thing" and those events dissipate, well, I am not sure dissipate is the right word. Those events are 'recorded" in the universe from your life on.
So again, I use the word illusion. Something goes on, its just not what religions teach. It is also another example of our disconnect. I sit down and teach them what might "go on", I just don't slam them with "you're wrong'. I discuss the possibilities. What they have been taught doesn't fit, most of them see it.
90% of the people can't understand whats going on and yet they sure do tell us what we don't get. Neil gets it. I don't have an "atheist card", because its not a "thing". atheism is not a "team" playing the "religious team". "fandom" doesn't apply for me.
Yes, we agree on a lot. The idea of events being 'recorded' is a deep one. The sci fi stories about time travel are based on an idea that events are somehow fixed in a matrix of "Time" that is a physical thing - and maybe it is, but maybe not as a a Place that we can go back to, if we can just work out how to build a time -machine.
That is, events may be utterly ephemeral and my not be 'recorded. Until that is shown to be so, that is an unverified hypothesis and we should be Agnostic about it.
That logically mandates not accepting that claim until validated. And that - in respect of one particular claim - is what atheism is. You seem to have got a mistaken view of atheism and it's perhaps understandable that it can look like a like -minded community all chanting from the same book. And it might get that way at times - atheists are, after all, fallible humans with human instincts and traits, but that is not the fault of atheism or its' rationale.
Not believing until verified is logically correct, and trying to maintain a midway belief - position between theism and atheism, especially if it requires positing unverified hypotheses as credible, never mind misunderstanding one at least of the belief positions is not the logically even - handed reasoned position that you take it to be.
You would probably be astonished to find that, if you accepted the logical basics of knowledge and belief, and applied them to the god -claim, that much of your beef with atheism would vanish. The political disagreements are (or should be) irrelevant.
From the point of a man of faith, I think it more important that believers concentrate on being servants of others in THIS life. "Proving" life after death is simply a detraction from the most important points of the Christian belief---and maybe that of some of Allah's followers as well..
if a believer has a doubt about life after death then he is not a believer.
Quote:
Many of us have a "need" to know if life goes on. But some years ago I began asking myself if I would remain a man of faith if there was no God--or, more importantly, if He gave no afterlife to anyone. When one can answer that in the positive, they are free from religious constraint to live putting others ahead of themselves--which I think was the whole point of the "Christian" God. ..
I think that is because the source of the followed religion is not from the god or it was modified by man
and fake things added to it or deleted from it
Quote:
By the way, there are about 3000 gods worshiped in the world today. Most religions believe in only one, as does Christianity (many of our sects work very hard to have three Gods in One). In other words, we believers generally hold to only ONE God, while discarding the other 2999. That means atheists are very much exactly like us--they just don't believe in one more. So why should I disparage their failure to accept MY God, when they have 3000 choices. Just because I say so? That's a pretty self-serving thought. I give them the freedom to search and find or just make fun of us who have selected one of the 3000. It's not like any of us are that different from one another with regard to "beliefs.".
it is very easy to filter all those 2999 gods by looking at each god product if there is any.
.
Quote:
And when it comes to putting "faith" into practice, I find religious people are frequently far more annoying and foster much more civil unrest (in the name of their god) than atheists ever have been.
not every religious people are following the correct religion and even the correct one are not perfect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.