Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Pargat Perrer]

And when a nasty troll realizes that there is evidence only for the brain producing consciousness, all he can do is LOL,LOL LOL !!

No such realization, no such evidence. Still a lot of laughter, the guy claiming such evidence exists also claims Libertarianism will enforce Naturel Law but does not support outlawing fossil fuels, which violate Natural Law even under the meaningless "fair competition" clause.

So yeah ... there's gotta be a lot of people laughing at you, Dilip.

[Bob Armstrong]

It is a logical truth - it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

The response is that it is just hiding!

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

LOL this is very funny ....

Atheists hate it when Christians tell them, "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist."

And here we have an atheist saying "You cannot prove that the brain does not produce consciousness."

LOL LOL LOL

And when a nasty troll realizes that there is evidence only for the brain producing consciousness, all he can do is LOL,LOL LOL !!

[Pargat Perrer]

Well, as you yourself have indicated, though in slightly different terminology, consciousness in nature is found only in brains and nowhere outside brains (as yet, and Eben Alexander's claims and the theories discussed by Sid and me, are without any proof). Being an I/O device does not rule out the fact that the brain also produces the consciousness, which after death could (not proven yet) exist independently.

LOL this is very funny ....

Atheists hate it when Christians tell them, "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist."

And here we have an atheist saying "You cannot prove that the brain does not produce consciousness."

LOL LOL LOL

[Sid Belzberg]

The biggest challenge is that our current understanding and methods of detecting consciousness might be biased towards recognizing it in systems similar to our own brains. This is the most probable answer to why consciousness only appears to exist in organic systems only.

In our experiments applying parameters to a quantum computer circuit post-program operations pre-measurement, if one were unaware that the parameters were applied, the output of the Quantum computer would not appear unusual except that detection rates of correct answers improved. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, only observation/detection influences a quantum state, and parameter addition post-quantum operations to a circuit will not influence Quantum State evolution, but we found it does. In particular when the parameters are continually dynamically updated via a genetic algorithm. This is reproducible proof that quantum state evolution is real.


DNA itself is a product of quantum evolution. A gram of subatomic particles in superposition potentially offers computational resources greater than those on the entire planet, yet we have no way of detecting this incredible resource except by the traces it leaves behind, such as the improved detection rates in our Quantum computing experiments.

[Dilip Panjwani]

From Quora Digest:


Divine Atheists
·
Follow
Answered by
James Davis
May 26


If God isn't real, then how could something as big as the Sun work?
Oh, I love this one! If God isn't real, then how could something as big as the Sun work? Well, sit back, my friend, because I'm about to blow your mind with this thing called science.

First off, let's get something straight. The Sun isn't some magic lantern in the sky that God turns on every morning. It's a gigantic ball of hot gas, mostly hydrogen and helium, that’s been burning for about 4.6 billion years. And it works thanks to this nifty process called nuclear fusion. You see, in the Sun’s core, hydrogen atoms are squishing together to form helium, releasing a ton of energy in the process. No divine intervention required, just some good old physics.

Now, I get it, it’s hard to grasp that something as colossal and powerful as the Sun just happens naturally. It’s much easier to believe in a sky daddy waving his magic wand. But let’s give the universe a little more credit. It doesn’t need a celestial handyman to keep things running. Gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism – these are the real heroes making sure the Sun does its thing.

So, the next time you’re tempted to attribute the workings of the Sun to some deity, remember this: humans have landed probes on comets, mapped the human genome, and even figured out how to make a burrito in under a minute with a microwave. Trust me, understanding the Sun isn’t that much of a stretch.

So to boil it all down… the Sun works because the universe is a complex, fascinating place governed by natural laws that we’re slowly uncovering through observation and reason. And that’s way more impressive than any divine finger-poking could ever be.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Well, as you yourself have indicated, though in slightly different terminology, consciousness in nature is found only in brains and nowhere outside brains (as yet, and Eben Alexander's claims and the theories discussed by Sid and me, are without any proof). Being an I/O device does not rule out the fact that the brain also produces the consciousness, which after death could (not proven yet) exist independently.

[Pargat Perrer]

Thank you, Sid, for stressing the fact that consciousness (or soul, as the theologists call it) has a definite physical structure and is a product of our brain;
....

I guess you didn't read what Sid wrote ....

"The brain might be more analogous to an I/O device than the source of consciousness itself."

Exactly what I wrote about souls leaving the body and still having 100% clarity and existence, including vision and hearing, but NOT being able to interface to the physical realm. For that interfacing, and ONLY for that interfacing, the brain / body is required.

Why? Maybe to show us the intelligent design behind it all.

NO ... consciousness is NOT a product of the brain. You can believe what you like, but you can NEVER prove such a claim. Dr. Eben Alexander totally DISPROVED it.

If you want to discuss consciousness arising out of quantum effects, you must address the elephant in the room: Why does consciousness ONLY appear to exist in ORGANIC systems?

And why do such organic systems contain DNA which is by far the most computationally complex entity known to man? (1 gram of DNA can contain the equivalent digital data of a TRILLION CDs).

Why isn't Mt. Everest a conscious being? Well, if you want to claim it IS, you go right ahead and see where it gets you.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thank you, Sid, for stressing the fact that consciousness (or soul, as the theologists call it) has a definite physical structure and is a product of our brain; whether that is quantum in nature or whether the unique building blocks of consciousness are the same as the uniqueness of electromagnetic brain wave shapes (which can all get added to each other), is debatable. We all hope that our total consciousness (which includes our memories) survives after death, and is able to interact with other consciousnesses even after death, and as you point out, some physical phenomena have raised hopes about that, though nothing is proven yet...
Studying those physical phenomena in some depth, it appears that Deepak Chopra may be right in his interpretation of the ancient Indian belief that after death, all consciousnesses merge into one universal consciousness... and if bliss is a property of every bit of our consciousness (which in this life, we can realize only after training ourselves in 'mindful meditation'), imagine the immense ecstasy after death when we merge into the universal consciousness...

[Sid Belzberg]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12


Is there any scientific proof that after life, there is no heaven or hell?
Well, yes. In fact, there is a simple and blindingly-obvious proof, but it’s not the sort of proof that many people are willing to accept since it conflicts with their childhood indoctrination and/or conflicts with what they really, really want to be true.

Before I present the proof, however, there are two important things that you need to keep in mind:

1. The complete and utter lack of any consistent, objective evidence for an afterlife is, in and of itself, evidence against an afterlife. Not proof mind, you, but certainly evidence.
2. Seriously, if you don’t have any good evidence for an afterlife in the first place, why would it matter if nobody can prove that there isn’t an afterlife? At best, asking somebody to provide evidence that an afterlife doesn’t exist is an admission that you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in an afterlife in the first place and are relying entirely on wishful thinking.

Still with me? All right, here is your proof:

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies). We should, for example, be able to damage or even replace a toe or an arm or a lung or a heart and not have our consciousness be affected (assuming we don’t die in the process).
3. And this is generally what we find to be the case, with one glaring exception — our brains. Every other part of our body can be damaged or even replaced without our consciousness being affected, but not our brain. If our brains are damaged, our entire personality can change. We become, in effect, completely different persons. And, while practically any organ in the body can be replaced without changing who we are (they can even transplant faces now), does anybody imagine that if it were possible to receive a brain transplant that our consciousness with the new brain would match that of the previous brain?
4. Therefore, since it appears that our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains, that would indicate that our consciousness cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.” Q.E.D.

And, there you go! What further proof could you possibly want?

OK, OK, so maybe this isn’t an absolute proof that there is no such thing as an afterlife. After all, I suppose one could come up with all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals to explain the known facts while still preserving the possibility of an afterlife, such as, oh, I dunno, that our brains are just “receivers” for our consciousness that is being broadcast from some other dimensional plane (whatever the heck that means) and brain damage is like what happens when a radio has a damaged antenna and the signal gets all static-y or something. Or maybe there exists some sort of all-powerful “immaterial pure spirit” (whatever the heck that actually means) that somehow exists “outside of time and space” (whatever the heck that actually means) that for some unknown reason wants to make it seem as though our brains create our consciousness for reasons of its own. You get the idea. But the thing is, if you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to provide for the mere possibility of an afterlife, you’ve already abandoned rationality to such extent that you might as well just throw in the towel and admit defeat anyway.

What Barry Goldberg is not aware of is that the scientific phenomenon of 'entanglement' does raise the possibility of life after death!

Based on recent research into quantum evolution and information patterns, we can consider a more scientifically grounded perspective on consciousness beyond physical death, distinct from traditional religious concepts.

Our work demonstrating deterministic quantum evolution suggests that complex information patterns can emerge and evolve at the quantum level, independent of classical physical structures. Just as we've shown a 67% improvement in quantum algorithms through parameter optimization, we've proven that quantum systems can develop sophisticated organizational patterns that aren't directly observable but have measurable effects.

Think of consciousness like an evolved quantum information pattern, similar to how complex crystalline structures emerge in nature. While we can't "see" subatomic particles, we know they're real physical phenomena. Similarly, consciousness might exist as an organized quantum pattern that interfaces with, but isn't dependent on, the physical brain - much like how modern AI systems could eventually evolve beyond needing keyboards and screens for interface.

Our research shows that quantum states evolve deterministically (respecting special relativity) rather than through mysterious "instant collapse." This suggests consciousness could be more like an evolved quantum structure that uses the brain for interaction with the classical world, rather than being generated by the brain itself.

While this doesn't prove traditional concepts of afterlife, it opens the possibility that consciousness, as an evolved quantum information pattern, might persist independently of biological structures. The brain might be more analogous to an I/O device than the source of consciousness itself.

This isn't mystical - it's based on empirical evidence of quantum evolution, demonstrated through reproducible experiments. Just as subatomic particles are real but not easily observable, consciousness might exist as a genuine physical phenomenon at the quantum level.

Important caveats: This is early theoretical work based on quantum evolution evidence. While it suggests interesting possibilities about consciousness's quantum nature, we need much more research. However, unlike traditional afterlife concepts, this framework is grounded in physical principles and reproducible experimental evidence soon to be published.

We can be cautiously optimistic that consciousness might be more fundamental than previously thought - not supernatural, but natural at a quantum level.

[Pargat Perrer]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12
....

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies).

....

The logical error is to think that consciousness (the soul) is "wholly dependent on" the brain for survival.

What is the case is that the consciousness / soul needs the brain and body to interface to this physical realm. Without the functioning brain, the soul evacuates and survives 100%, but cannot interface to the physical realm. This is the message of thousands of NDEs, that at some point the soul leaves the body and in most cases stays around for a while, looking down at the scene of the body's demise. The evacuated soul can see and hear everything that is happening, but cannot be detected, seen, or heard by anyone in the physical realm. It must re-enter the body to be able once again to interface to the physical, and for that to happen, the brain must be brought back to life, as happened to Dr. Eben Alexander and many thousands of others.

[Dilip Panjwani]

From Quora Digest:


Barry Goldberg
·
Author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books Updated Apr 12


Is there any scientific proof that after life, there is no heaven or hell?
Well, yes. In fact, there is a simple and blindingly-obvious proof, but it’s not the sort of proof that many people are willing to accept since it conflicts with their childhood indoctrination and/or conflicts with what they really, really want to be true.

Before I present the proof, however, there are two important things that you need to keep in mind:

1. The complete and utter lack of any consistent, objective evidence for an afterlife is, in and of itself, evidence against an afterlife. Not proof mind, you, but certainly evidence.
2. Seriously, if you don’t have any good evidence for an afterlife in the first place, why would it matter if nobody can prove that there isn’t an afterlife? At best, asking somebody to provide evidence that an afterlife doesn’t exist is an admission that you don’t have any evidence to support your belief in an afterlife in the first place and are relying entirely on wishful thinking.

Still with me? All right, here is your proof:

1. In order for there to be an afterlife, our consciousness must be capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies (call it a “soul” or a “spirit” or what have you).
2. And if our consciousness is capable of surviving apart from our physical bodies, it can’t be generated by or produced by or be wholly dependent on our physical bodies (and certainly not by any one particular part of our bodies). We should, for example, be able to damage or even replace a toe or an arm or a lung or a heart and not have our consciousness be affected (assuming we don’t die in the process).
3. And this is generally what we find to be the case, with one glaring exception — our brains. Every other part of our body can be damaged or even replaced without our consciousness being affected, but not our brain. If our brains are damaged, our entire personality can change. We become, in effect, completely different persons. And, while practically any organ in the body can be replaced without changing who we are (they can even transplant faces now), does anybody imagine that if it were possible to receive a brain transplant that our consciousness with the new brain would match that of the previous brain?
4. Therefore, since it appears that our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains, that would indicate that our consciousness cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.” Q.E.D.

And, there you go! What further proof could you possibly want?

OK, OK, so maybe this isn’t an absolute proof that there is no such thing as an afterlife. After all, I suppose one could come up with all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals to explain the known facts while still preserving the possibility of an afterlife, such as, oh, I dunno, that our brains are just “receivers” for our consciousness that is being broadcast from some other dimensional plane (whatever the heck that means) and brain damage is like what happens when a radio has a damaged antenna and the signal gets all static-y or something. Or maybe there exists some sort of all-powerful “immaterial pure spirit” (whatever the heck that actually means) that somehow exists “outside of time and space” (whatever the heck that actually means) that for some unknown reason wants to make it seem as though our brains create our consciousness for reasons of its own. You get the idea. But the thing is, if you have to go to such ridiculous lengths to provide for the mere possibility of an afterlife, you’ve already abandoned rationality to such extent that you might as well just throw in the towel and admit defeat anyway.

What Barry Goldberg is not aware of is that the scientific phenomenon of 'entanglement' does raise the possibility of life after death!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Pargat:

Nice post with greater elaboration.....there are a number of your statements that I agree with.......I'll specify, since I fundamentally don't accept your "Soul Plan/Suffering" Theology, but wish to get your package right.

I'm playing a weekend chess tournament this weekend, out of Toronto.

I'll respond some time next week.......I find our discussion of your theology most interesting......from lack of comments, except Dilip's somewhat rote atheist responses, though, I'm not sure any other CT'ers care....there comes hence only "crickets" (= silence).

Bob A (Theist)

Bob,
For you, truth lies only in theism, which itself is based on 'dogmatic faith' in blind assumptions... hence your search is doomed from the start.
May you someday realize this and get closer to Truth...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Nice post with greater elaboration.....there are a number of your statements that I agree with.......I'll specify, since I fundamentally don't accept your "Soul Plan/Suffering" Theology, but wish to get your package right.

I'm playing a weekend chess tournament this weekend, out of Toronto.

I'll respond some time next week.......I find our discussion of your theology most interesting......from lack of comments, except Dilip's somewhat rote atheist responses, though, I'm not sure any other CT'ers care....there comes hence only "crickets" (= silence).

Bob A (Theist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Well, Bob A,
As has been said, though God may not exist, as far as you or me can confidently say, he needs to be invented for those of us who need to cling onto something promising us heavenly bliss, in order to live a contended life. But like opium, this leads to addiction, as we see in various faith-based fanaticisms, and history is full of examples of the harm thereby caused...

Rather than needing God to cling onto, we need God to rationalize the existence of evil. Even in the book of Genesis, the forbidden fruit came from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The animal kingdom doesn't know anything about good and evil. Only humans know of it.

What you attribute to addiction is actually coming from dogma. When a religion starts making God to be like humans in having jealousy and wrath and choosing one people over all others dividing humanity into those favored by God and those not favored by God, that religion deviates from the truth and becomes dogmatic. Since many religions do this, it is inevitable that they clash with each other in wars and crusades.