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.
Based on everything you know about how the human brain works, do you believe that we will still be capable of thought after our brain is dead?
The physical body and brain will no longer produce consciousness . . . but what has already been produced must have some fate. Like the TV programs broadcast into the universe . . . destroying the TV transmitter does nothing to those programs already broadcast. Our consciousness is "broadcast" as some composite form of energy we recognize as Self. Interfering with the production system (brain) or destroying it only has an impact on any future "broadcasts." Does that answer your questions, Boxcar?
The physical body and brain will no longer produce consciousness . . . but what has already been produced must have some fate. Like the TV programs broadcast into the universe . . . destroying the TV transmitter does nothing to those programs already broadcast. Our consciousness is "broadcast" as some composite form of energy we recognize as Self. Interfering with the production system (brain) or destroying it only has an impact on any future "broadcasts." Does that answer your questions, Boxcar?
It does, and I appreciate that you didn't dodge the question. But it's not a very good answer. Because even if there were some sort of by-product of our thoughts that was left behind after we died, that wouldn't mean that by-product was sapient. The brain is both the creator of the electro-chemical energy, as well as the interpreter. That energy, if any minute traces of it were still around after we died, would be no more sapient that energy you get from a common wall socket. There's nothing special about the electro-chemical energy itself. It's the ability of the brain to organize and interpret it that gives us thought.
Beyond that, energy is not capable of feeling pain or joy. That occurs because a brain is interpreting energy. But without the brain, pain doesn't exist. Based on what we know about a central nervous system, physical pain is not possible after the brain is dead, and after the nerves have decomposed. So the ideas about a Heaven or Hell afterlife that impy some sort of sensor stimulus is inconsistent with what modern science tells us about what happens in a dead central nervous system.
To sum it all up, the whole religious idea that there is life after death is a product of pre-14th century understanding of the way the human body works. If one accepts what modern science tells us about the way the mind works, then one must also accept that after a body is dead there will be no more thought, emotion, or sensory experience.
It does, and I appreciate that you didn't dodge the question. But it's not a very good answer. Because even if there were some sort of by-product of our thoughts that was left behind after we died, that wouldn't mean that by-product was sapient. The brain is both the creator of the electro-chemical energy, as well as the interpreter. That energy, if any minute traces of it were still around after we died, would be no more sapient that energy you get from a common wall socket. There's nothing special about the electro-chemical energy itself. It's the ability of the brain to organize and interpret it that gives us thought.
Beyond that, energy is not capable of feeling pain or joy. That occurs because a brain is interpreting energy. But without the brain, pain doesn't exist. Based on what we know about a central nervous system, physical pain is not possible after the brain is dead, and after the nerves have decomposed. So the ideas about a Heaven or Hell afterlife that impy some sort of sensor stimulus is inconsistent with what modern science tells us about what happens in a dead central nervous system.
To sum it all up, the whole religious idea that there is life after death is a product of pre-14th century understanding of the way the human body works. If one accepts what modern science tells us about the way the mind works, then one must also accept that after a body is dead there will be no more thought, emotion, or sensory experience.
I appreciate your views . . . but they do not account for the Self. Everything that exists is some form of energy. I understand that the homunculus is rejected as illusion by neuroscientists . . . but illusions cannot independently interact with the universe as our Self does. It is identifiable and an abstraction like melody that only exists above the notes that comprise it. The difference is that melodies do not independently interact with the universe . . . but the abstraction of the Self does. That makes it real. There is no way to write it off as an illusion of brain function. Function is a term used to make ignorance sound scientific. Illusions don't interact independently. The Self is energic and real.
Bbbbzzzzzz... "No Martha, I AM trying to tune it in better! Be Patient!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Just trying to keep you guys honest while you have your fun with the IDT's . . . rifleman. At least be humble enough to admit the areas that we simply don't know about or are simply the preferred beliefs.[/color][/color]
Oh but we do! And that honesty, i.e.: our statements that the tools of science have only scratched the surface so far as to the possibilities for the origins of (or possible re-birth of an already existing) universe is happily admitted. You know that we've always stated that we don't know, but there are those pesky bits of evidence that keep us going.
I'm always curious to have an honest answer here: would you rather have us stop investigating and just accept your version, with a permanent dull glazed-over look in our eyes? I know that those various fundy-populated school boards of education certainly would love to stamp on the neck of scientific investigation. And you?
Frankly, it does surprise me that you, of all people, have fallen here into that constantly repeated error of (purposefully???) confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Again we glance up and note that this thread is about evolution, not the origins of life, or what happens in an afterlife.
Part of our growing intransigence is that the proofs of evolution, in terms of the common-sense hypotheses which coincidentally produce rational predictions, we then find in abundance in our subsequent observations in nature. Those older proofs are also now coupled (within the last 12- 18 months) with spectacularly elegant and absolute proofs of speciation through exactly the predicted processes. I'll possibly post one of those tomorrow, but of course I know what the response will be, because I've already done it about 3 months ago. While that was absolute, one of the usual suspects here then took to shouting: "Yeah, well, that was just in bacteria! That's not speciation and that's not a "species"! Blah blah blah"
Well, last time I looked, the coli part of Escherichiacoli was defined as the species. We get to define it as a new species when it behaves radically different, like comparing a giraffe to a cheetah. The fundies can't go unscientifically altering definitions to fit their distorted mis-information, but I know they'll try.
Will a toad work as an example for them and you? Or are toads also not a species, or all the same species world-wide, despite their appearances, habitats, feeding habits, biochemistry, etc? BTW, if that's the case, then we are also just chimps, dinos, starlings, salmon, etc., since everything's the same as everything else! Pretty illogical, huh?
Your analogy to our brain-souls leaving behind the same traces of energy and coherance as old I Love Lucy TV or radio broadcasts that those off-world aliens are wondering about tonight is pretty illogical, though I'll admit, quite romantic. Much of religion is similarly appealing simply due to its unscientific but romantic appeal.
In no way does our brain produce the sort of measurable electromagnetic focused energy that must be placed on a piece of resonating metal wire or screen in order to fly across space. I am more than a little "up" on that phenomenon as well, being a long-time HAM radio operator, and I also know that many many attempts have been made to detect transmitted brain waves outside of the body. All frequencies, all bands, any sort of radiant energy.
Again, nada, and it also makes sense as we do not possess even a pico-watt of potential radiant electromagnetic power. The max "wattage" we humans can generate is so micro that we'd have trouble frying a dehydrated bacterium with it if a hundred people combined to focus their brainpower on that quite safe single organism. On the other hand, you should also realize that, if we were capable of such power transmittals, that would also fry our brains, right? Ever seen those warnings around radio towers and TV broadcast towers? ZZzzzaaaappp!
It's also cute to leave out the exact definition of that energy as you state here: " Our consciousness is "broadcast" as some composite form of energy we recognize as Self." Too open. Too convenient. "some form" of undefined energy? Unlikely. I bake bread. I turn off the oven. Energy source gone. Then I eat the bread. Nothing left from that transient increase in entropy. The energy focused into that bread is transferred as kilo-calories into my body's heat output, which then eventually adds to global warming. Nothin' else, unless we want to get all romantic and unscientific.
So... while your nice metaphor might appeal to those with less understanding of the electromagnetics and physics of it, and who will agree, saying "Yeah, man, that just makes sense! We're just like a TV broadcast antenna, man!", sorry. Nice pipe-dream for the fundies, but No Sale with legitimate thinkers.
Your particular pivotal experiences in life lead you to conclude that there must be some driving overall complex force behind all we see. Mine have led me in exactly the opposite direction. Why is your's more valid than mine, especially when many or most of the keystone elements of basic religion have been so absolutely disproved by constant curiosity coupled with a rigorous and defensible Q&A methodology.
Those elements that pretty much define Christianity result from a peasant-level, scientifically illiterate hard-literal interpretations of the bible. Even you advise the rabid fundies that those simply can't be taken at face value. Take them away, and what do most Christians have?
I know you've stepped away from many of those IDT beliefs, precisely because of their silly literalism, but we're still left with those Christian absolutists who populate these forums. It is with those that I, and others here, battle daily.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-10-2009 at 01:33 AM..
Reason: Typose, Clarifications. Questions to be answered!
A simple bit of Education about Evolution & Science
I wonder if the anti-science types here have the courage to watch this one all the way through. I realize it may be too intellectual for them, but then again, if it saves the head of even one fundamentalist, it's worth it!
I appreciate your views . . . but they do not account for the Self. Everything that exists is some form of energy. I understand that the homunculus is rejected as illusion by neuroscientists . . . but illusions cannot independently interact with the universe as our Self does. It is identifiable and an abstraction like melody that only exists above the notes that comprise it. The difference is that melodies do not independently interact with the universe . . . but the abstraction of the Self does. That makes it real. There is no way to write it off as an illusion of brain function. Function is a term used to make ignorance sound scientific. Illusions don't interact independently. The Self is energic and real.
Actually, the brain does account for the Self. Without the brain, we are inanimate objects, incapable of self-awareness, sight, sense, memories or logic. All of that requires, at a minimum, a functioning brain.
The definition of death is the complete failure of electrical activity in the brain. When the brain dies, so to does all of the functions it is used for. When we are dead, we cease to be rational thinking creatures and become inanimate objects like clay, or a park bench.
Even if some residual energy were to dissipate after we die, it will be no more sapient or congnizant than the static electricity one may generate when dragging their feet across the carpet. There is nothing mystical about the energy that drives conscience thought. There is nothing special or other-worldly about the energy in the brain. Any energy left behind after we die will be no more capable of self-awareness than the energy contained in an average 9 volt battery.
Just what exactly do you predict an afterlife without a functioning brain will be like? And what evidence do you have to support that?
There are two points to consider about this subject:
The evolution: is it true or false?
And the Bible and in particular the Book of Genesis: is it correct or not?
First:The evolution.
The truth has to be said; God is True and Truthful, and He is the absolute truth.
IMO the evolution is false and wrong; I tell you how:
Now leave all the confusion and the propaganda about this evolution (for various purposes), and let us think about the subject from the start:
Without any complexity: all the theory of Evolution is unreasonable: there is no evidence to it. None has ever seen such evolution occur; it is only postulation and fabrication.
The other point: for thousands of years of the present human history, nothing has been narrated in the history that the hen, the sheep, the cow were different from the present form; so if such evolution was true and applicable, then why shouldn’t it continue: then the hen, the sheep or the cow will be some other species completely different from now? And the story is true concerning all other known animals and plants: the ancient ate the same meat and the same vegetables and fruits. Man after Death
Second: The Bible and in particular the Book of Genesis.
The thing that made the atheism spread in the West in particular is this form of the available translations of the Bible (from intermediary sources; the originals have almost been lost.) because they see included in it much of fallacies, and contradictions to logic and science.
The present Old Testament is not the originally the revealed heavenly book, but it was rewritten by the priest Ezra son of Siraeh, following their return from the captivity of Babylon; it includes a large number of mistakes and lies against the apostles of God.
The Book of Genesis in particular was not revealed to Moses, but was inherited by the Children of Israel from the time of Noah and Abraham. Then they included it in their bible.
There are two points to consider about this subject:
The evolution: is it true or false?
And the Bible and in particular the Book of Genesis: is it correct or not?
First:The evolution.
The truth has to be said; God is True and Truthful, and He is the absolute truth.
IMO the evolution is false and wrong; I tell you how:
Now leave all the confusion and the propaganda about this evolution (for various purposes), and let us think about the subject from the start:
Without any complexity: all the theory of Evolution is unreasonable: there is no evidence to it. None has ever seen such evolution occur; it is only postulation and fabrication.
The other point: for thousands of years of the present human history, nothing has been narrated in the history that the hen, the sheep, the cow were different from the present form; so if such evolution was true and applicable, then why shouldn’t it continue: then the hen, the sheep or the cow will be some other species completely different from now? And the story is true concerning all other known animals and plants: the ancient ate the same meat and the same vegetables and fruits. Man after Death
hi , enassir
i think that you misunderstand this concept scientificaly
most of theist understand this concept to mean that human descendent from monkey .... , i was one of them actually
but once i started to argue with athiest about the facts of evolution theory i understood the true meaning of it and i discovered that my understanding for this concept was wrong
as long as you are muslim , i will try to define the evolution from quran
22-5
O mankind! if ye are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We may make (it) clear for you. And We cause what We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed time, and afterward We bring you forth as infants, then (give you growth) that ye attain your full strength. And among you there is he who dieth (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the most abject time of life, so that, after knowledge, he knoweth naught.
And thou (Muhammad) seest the earth barren, but when We send down water thereon, it doth thrill and swell and put forth every lovely kind (of growth).
so we can see two examples for the evolution process
the first one is about evolution of our creation inside the womb
and the second one is about the evolution which bring the barren earth to the life by sending down water thereone
the same as the unvirse , God didn't created the universe suddenly , nay it was by science of physics and mechanism , it created through evolution process starting with big explosion , and the universe is in extension utill this day ,, all of these are examples for the evolution
and all these facts mentioned in quran
this is my understanding for the thoery of evolution , i hope if aheists agree with me
I dont need to do 20 lines of heroine to know how it messes you up. And I dont need to keep doing heroine until I get some bad stuff to know what frying my brain is like. Further, I dont have to sleep around to know what getting an std is like.
Sorry, but, Yes you do. You may believe (rightly in this case) that heroine is bad for you and is addictive, belief is not the same thing as knowledge, True Opinion is not a euphemism for knowledge, they are two separate and distinct things.
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.
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.
Bbbbzzzzzz... "No Martha, I AM trying to tune it in better! Be Patient!
