There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

Read what I said again. The scientific physics default position is that there is no heaven. There is If you claim there is a heaven, but you cannot prove your claim, I do not have to believe you, and I do not have to prove there is no heaven.

I cannot even describe the imaginary concept of heaven in any language. Can you?
Actually, we have better descriptions of Unicorns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I don't have to believe you if you tell me there is a heaven and you cannot prove it to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you simulate Heaven? What does it look like and does your simulated character need to die for its soul to enter the simulated heaven?

 

How many times do I need to say it? When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter . The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion. And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.
If this is true for all people, then the concept of souls of dead and unconscious people going to heaven is moot, no? Or are we now expected to create an abstract personal soul that can have an existence independent of all universal physical laws, but remains dormant until we die?

 

Lot's of experiential pleasures, 40 virgins, you think?

I guess the universe is designed by a simulated intelligent computer programming God.
But it would still be a mathematical program, yes? Tegmark has been absolved.

 

All you are talking about here is that which is limited to the material realm.

No. Because there may be more to our existence than the material realm. Certainly some people believe that.
The issue you are facing, Write4U, despite several attempts to move you away from it, is that you are still arguing against that which science can not comment on (the non-material realm) by appealing to science. Science can neither prove nor disprove that which is outside its purview, so you appealing to science to claim it doesn't exist is irrational. At best you should be saying that science can not comment as it is an unscientific matter, and that as a result you do not believe there is a heaven, etc.

Not dormant, necessarily, but inhabiting your mortal body and co-existing with it, perhaps. At least until death.
But see, you have quite easily managed to create a concept of "soul" that you can now work with. So let's use that. Can you show that this "soul" does not exist in, say, a non-material realm that is "independent of all universal physical laws"? Are you going to appeal to science in your answer? Science's view on this "soul" would be that it is not something science can examine / answer.

 

What are you expecting heaven to be for you, if you say bliss, then you’re are just reflecting your materialistic physical freedom from every earthly worry of being alive and what that entails.
To feel bliss you have to be alive.
So, explain what you expect heaven to be like without using any alive ‘experiences’.

 

How many times what?
I asked, and note, I did not say brain dead I said under a general anesthetic?
My bold below

Please explain what you expect to experience of a heaven, since you seem to know what it is like to not experience a heaven.

 

No I am talking about the proposition that there is a place somewhere where people's soul go and experiences blis if you have been a good boy during your life.
There will be other souls that will comfort and assist you in every way that can be imagined.

They have for thousands of years. Yet not a single piece of evidence that when a person dies there is an immeasurable something that leaves the body and finds a place where it settles and assumes immortality.
It seems to me that now "life" has been explained, the concept of an elan-vital and words related to elan-vital, such as psyche, soul, vital force, and vitality, are no longer "necessary" for explaining what life is.
What we have is emergent properties such as consciousness from certain complex patterns, but when that pattern, in this case the brain, disintegrates as it does in death, any emergent properties cease along with it.

No, what you are talking about is the probability of the existence of a non-material realm without a shred of evidence. Moreover, it seems practically "unnecessary". How many gods have died along with their heavenly abodes? Religion has debunked itself. Every sect believes that their god is the real god and have fought wars to prove it. Now you, as scientist, come along and claim that Asgard may actually exist?

No my non-belief was never an issue until someone claimed that I needed religion because heaven exists. I am sorry, but I do not believe the claim there is a heaven. And if there is no heaven, there is no god, or angels, or the devil. The claim that the non-material world cannot be examined is scientifically incorrect. The affect the non-material world has on the material world can be examined.
In fact Tegmark makes a cogent argument that if there is a non-material causality that has any effect on the physical world, it can be measured as an anomali that does not belong in our material world.

OK, I can see several emergent properties in many complex patterns, but when the pattern dies, the emergent properties also die. This cannot be denied.

If something is "independent of all universal physical laws", but does have an effect on physics, the difference can be measured.
If it is totally removed from the physical world, how can it affect the physical world.

There may be 11 dimensions, but only 3 dimensions + time count in our reality.
And our souls have no access to these dimensions either.

 

If you were honestly talking about that proposition, you wouldn't be limiting your analysis of it to that experienced by the material realm.

To be measurable it would have to be part of this material realm. Since it is not, or so some believe, then expecting to see some evidence of it in the material realm is... odd.

"Life" has been explained??? That's hubris on your part, and naive. Certainly the scientific component of "life" might have been explained (at least to some degree or other) by science, but, again, this is only applicable to the material realm. As I and others keep saying, you're limiting your inquiry to that of science, but then trying to answer a question that sits outside of science.

All this is limited to the material realm. When you can start discussing the non-material, and how science can interrogate that, and how anything science says has an impact on the non-material, I'm afraid you're just whistling in the wind, so to speak.

No, I'm saying that I don't know about the non-material realm to be able to give it a probability of existence. It may exist. It may not. Your and my belief one way or the other isn't going to change that. I don't need any evidence to say that "I don't know". But I do know that science can't answer the question of whether or not it does exist, because science only speaks to the material realm. So you appealing to science for an answer is, and continues to be, odd.

This speaks to justification for not believing, which is perfectly fine. I'm with you on that. But note that you have shifted from using science to say that something unscientific doesn't exist, to now simply not believing that it exists.

No, I don't claim it may actually exist. I claim I don't know enough, or anything, about it say whether it exists as anything other than a concept. You don't seem to appreciate the subtleties of the various positions at play here.

No, it's not scientifically incorrect, because all science can do (as has been explained to you for the umpteenth time) is investigate and explore the material realm. Per science, all material interactions are between matter/energy. I.e. within the material realm. So, please, tell me how science can investigate the non-material realm?

Sure. But who is to say that the non-material has any interaction with the material?

It's not. But it's limited to the material realm.

Sure. IF.

I don't know. That doesn't mean that it's not there, not interacting with the physical world. Or that it is interacting but in a way that science wouldn't recognise. You see, it is an unscientific issue, yet you are naively tethered to science.
That's more than adequate to justify belief, or non-belief. It is where I am at as well. But it isn't sufficient to say that it does not exist in the non-material realm, for example.

One day you'll start to understand what we're saying here, Write4U. Unfortunately today does not seem to be it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well yes anesthesia renders you conscious part of the brain unconscious and totally oblivious as a result. We do that so you cannot feel pain under surgery. Interesting tidbit; All organisms are susceptible to anesthesia. Which lead me to suspect it has to do with microtubule function.

The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate

And it appears to be directly connected to microtubule function. Note that in all instances there is a disruption of the cytoskeletal elements and microtubules, the "common denominator" of ALL Eukaryotic life.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

more.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902878/

No. That is the wrong question. I don't expect anything after I die.
That is the whole point. When you die there is nothing but, total oblivion. You, the emergent product of your brain, cease to exist when the brain dies.

 

Not odd. If this alternate dimension has influence in this dimension, then it should be measurable. If it has no influence on this dimension, then you cannot access it under any circumstance, especially if one must die before having access to this domain.
You are suggesting that a living organism can experience another life in a place that cannot be experienced until you are dead and cannot experience anything. Bizarre.
The alternate dimension is a home for the dead? I find that concept very, very odd.

What is the definition of Nirvana?
nir·va·na,
noun

1. Oxford dictionary

Now that I can understand. Freedom from suffering along with all the other earthly experiences. i.e. oblivion.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes no logical sense.
Perhaps someday you'll understand that what you are saying is grossly paradoxical.

 

Only if it interacts via a means that science can measure. If science can not detect it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that science can not detect it. One could say that from a scientific perspective it does not exist, but that merely qualifies the claim, not proves it.

Your personal incredulity is noted, but within the scope of the discussion is actually irrelevant. It is, of course, all reasonable justification for you to not believe such things, but the point about all of this is that you are not seeming to recognise, willfully or otherwise, what science is able to comment on.
Here's a rule of thumb: if something is not scientific then science can not comment on it beyond saying that it is outside the purview of science. That may be reason enough not to believe the proposition, but that is not the same as saying that the proposition is false.

Unfortunately you clearly don't understand, because you keep replying in the same manner. If you understood you would also recognise that what I, and others, are trying to tell you is actually the most logical.
Here's a syllogism to help you:
P1: Science can not comment on things that are outside the purview of science.
P2: Heaven and its nature is outside the purview of science.
C: Science can not comment on the nature of Heaven.
This is valid logic.

What you are arguing is as follows:
P1: Heaven is outside the purview of science
P2: Science has no evidence for Heaven
C: Therefore Heaven does not exist.
Or an argument to that effect - since you have previously accepted P1.
This is not valid logic.

The only position here - not with regard belief but with your approach of trying to appeal to science to argue for/against the existence of that which you accept is outside the purview of science - that is paradoxical is, unfortunately, yours. Now, you can claim to understand, sure, but what actually counts in that regard is what you post. And your posts betray your lack of understanding in this regard.

You could argue as follows:
P1: Science has no evidence of Heaven
C: I therefore do not believe that Heaven exists
This is valid, at least if you insert the hidden proposition of P2, something along the lines of P2: unless science has evidence for something then I will not believe that it exists.
Voila, a valid syllogism.
However, note the difference between this valid syllogism, which concludes in a matter of belief, and the first one above, which concludes on what can be stated about the nature of Heaven (in that example).

Are you any closer to understanding yet?

 

No, it (?) does not need to be measured. It's the difference that the influence makes on the measurable system that is measurable as an anomaly. It's simple algebra.
2 + 3 + ? = 6
? = 1
If 2 + 3 + ? = 5, then ? has no value.
If there is no difference to measure, then there is no influence and the source lies outside our dimensions.

 

I claim that I don't believe you if you claim heaven exists, but you cannot provide proof.
I don't need to prove what I believe about the existence of a biblical heaven. I know that if you claim heaven exists, but you cannot provide proof, I do not have to believe your claim.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I didn't say that it does "need to be measured". I said "can be measured" - as in it needs to be able to be measured.
And you then go on to agree with this.
So please, please, please can you pay attention to what is written, and not fill your time here by arguing strawmen? Please?