There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

Because partial brain incapacity produces a state of oblivion that is identical to brain death. (Stuart Hameroff, Anil Seth).

The conscious mind is an emergent phenomenon of neural data proccessing. When the neural network has been destroyed by any causality, the result is a gradually dimming mindscape as in Alzheimers and Dementia.

I did not say "it is the same". I said that the effect is the same. (Seth, myself).

Define soul.

First, OT.
Then Cell Theory.

Long strands of self-duplicating polymers (RNA, DNA) encased in a self-organizing envelope and all the way back to basic chemical reactions and self-organization of biochemistry (Robert Hazen).

I don't. The bible claims to know.

Define soul.

Like Carlos Castaneda?
Allow me to ask: do other dimensions have access to our three? And if they do are they measurable?

Have yourself anesthetized and you will understand.

There is no evidence to the contrary. "I think, therefore I am" .
Tegmark observes that "we already have all the tools necessary for conscious patterns. We have the pieces of the puzzle. And therein lies the problem. At that level any form of observation affects the data being observed and measured and the data itself becomes unreliable.

But I have never seen a clairvoyant who's skill doesn't lie in the complexity of his/her "mirror neural" network, the network that generates "empathic responses".
---

Yep, and also the more scientific metaphysical approach, and the psychological approach that define Angels and Demons as the symbolification of human character models.

I always do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's reasonable.
But it is somewhat irrelevant to the points people are trying to make to you, that you can't seem to grasp.

You have claimed that "there is no heaven". This is a positive claim about the nature (non-existence) of Heaven.
You appeal to science to try to argue for this, yet you seem to understand that Heaven is outside of science's purview.

This is your illogic that we are trying to address, and which you keep trying to ignore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I still disagree with the way "it" is worded.
"It" does not necessarily need to measured at all. If "it" interacts in any way with our dimensions, that can be measured. The Higgs particle cannot exist in our geometry. We can tease it out of the field yet it instantly decays.
Virtual particles don't physically exist except as "values", yet to be expressed as patterns. I cannot conceive of heaven as an evolved pattern.

I have nothing against the concept of multiple dimensions. But if they don't interact with our dimensions, then the concept of an undefined soul entering an undefined heaven in another undefined dimension, in another undefined universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see absolutely no necessity, nor do I see a sufficiency, for a heaven. Take it away and what? Everything stops?

All my arguments are based on "reducible complexity". I cannot conceive of an irreducible complexity before the beginning of evolutionary complexity.

In any case, the OP asks a direct question and my answer is, that even if there was a heaven, the "dead" brain cannot physically maintain the patterns necessary for conscious experience of heaven for that brain. Substituting the brain with soul is just another unsupportable term for an undefined spiritual condition, whatever that means.

The claim that religion is exempt from scientific scrutiny is a false claim, IMO

I simply cannot see the intellectual indulgence afforded the imaginary feel-good/feel-bad world of mythology.

 

I see no necessity for a biblical god that favors humans. It has been pretty well proven that everything we observe and experience does not require a god for it to be self-referentially quasi-intelligent.

Yes, Scripture is literature of the metaphysical. The Bible is the judeo-Christian description of an imaginary account of Genesis and Universal events from which evolved the current human Reality?

The point is that Science does not interfere with Religion, but historically, Religion interferes with Science. Witness Hypatia.

p.s.The movie "Angels & Demons" with Tom Hanks is fictional but very informative on several levels.

 

Then unfortunately that is your weakness with the English language, because, once again, all you are saying is that it needs to be able to be measured. Do you not comprehend the difference between: 1. needs to be measured, and 2. needs to be able to be measured.
The first refers to the action of measuring something. The latter refers to the capacity to have someone measure it.
All of science requires the latter. All of it. There's no escaping it. But not everything needs to be measured. My height has not been measured in a loooong time, and has undoubtedly changed since last time it was measured. But my height still exists as what it ism irrespective of whether someone measures it. It has the capacity to be measured.

Now, do you comprehend the difference?

 

That is your belief. That's fine.

"Even if there was..." is a fundamental shift in your position from "there is not...". Maybe that shift is lost on you?
As to what you are saying - sure, the physical material brain can no longer support experience of the material realm. So what? How does that answer whether there is a heaven or not?

Sure, but it's a strawman, as noone has done that.

"Religion" is more than "belief in heaven", or "belief in God", though, and might well entail aspects that are scientifically examinable. But let's examine this: what do you see as a means of scientifically scrutinising religion? Can you give an example?

Sure. That's not an issue. Noone is asking you to believe. You have your justification / rationale for not believing. It is the same for me. But the reasons you don't believe are not the issue. It's whether or not you can support that there is no heaven, when you admit that heaven is outside of science. You still haven't acknowledged the glaring illogic of that.

And obviously what I wrote was sooooo good that you replied to it twice...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you think that "self-referentially quasi-intelligent" has meaning to you. But, again, what you see as the necessity for something, whether or not you believe, is not the issue. The issue is you appealing to science to examine claims that you seem to acknowledge are outside the scope of science.

Is this a question? If so then I'm not sure what you're asking. Perhaps you can elaborate?

None of that is relevant to the discussion.

No, it's not. It's a rather silly film that appeals to people who find conspiracy-theory and treasure-hunts. It's fiction, though. That's the important part. Fiction. But, again, it's irrelevant to the discussion here. No surprise there, though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No you didn't, you saw a YouTube video on the subject.

For the umpteenth time can you PLEASE stick to the topic. This is not about MT and consciousness, how it works or where it resides. This nebulous thread of your previous off topic fixations is whether Heaven exists when an individual is not conscious.

 

I have told that the OP is misleading and asks the wrong question.
It asks if an individual creates a real heaven when the brain is conscious. No, but it can create an imaginary heaven (belief) that goes away when the brain is rendered unconscious such as under anesthesia.

 

Would not heaven and all its glory reveal itself in the moment of death?
That is kind of the point isn't it?

 

And that can be done directly or indirectly.

Huh?

You do NOT need to measure that actual thing at all as long as you can measure its effects on something else that is measurable. But it is you who claims heaven cannot be measured. So why do I need to measure heaven and you do not, because you believe and I do not.
If I weigh 100 lbs and standing on a scale I pick up a very strange object that I have never seen or touched. After I pick it up the scale I stand on registers 150 lbs. I can now deduce that the object I picked up weighed 50 lbs without needing to weigh the object itself. Science does this all the time. I believe the term displacement is appropriate here.

Oh yes, but you refuse to accept my alternate explanation.

I welcome your questions and they trigger several responses. When a question triggers a response in my mind I expand on my original response.

Yes, it does.
What do you think it means?

I have.

All of the beliefs in unseen beings in the sky are imaginary and "unknowable?????
How convenient. It has been thus for maybe hundreds of thousands of years. Belief does not make something real, nor does unbelief destroy something real.

You insist on scientific research and measurement, yet you give a pass to religious scripture????
Is that consistent?

 

That piqued my interest and drove me to research the existence of gods, angels, demons, and imagination.

The topic has been addressed from several different perspectives.

You just want to hear what I cannot give you. With microtubules the brain cannot experience, without experience the brain cannot even identify itself.

When the brain is dead it is unable to experience anything at all. Total oblivion.
And that has been proven via anesthesia.

Tell me, when one is under anesthesia, are they able to consciously experience anything?
Of course not. That is why we administer anesthesia. Inability to experience pain, or comfort, or anything at all. That is how we can cut people open and mess around inside the body.

When the brain is dead, that is tantamount to an irreversible anesthesia and therefore the person cannot experience heaven, regardless if it exists or not! No heaven for that dead person.

Heaven no longer exists for that person. For a dead person there is nothing, absolutely nothing, and we can test that, by measuring brain activity, which of course has ceased altogether. It has nothing to do with the rumored existence of an undefined heaven.

And I am confused? I think I am spot on .
I think you are engaging in category error. Better check your sources.

 

Well if it can tell the whole story in a couple of minutes, maybe. But from what I can tell death is usually accompanied by some form of agony, not ecstasy. That would be really kinky.
And of course, whatever happens after death is moot , because when consciousness fades, reality fades along with it, until there is "nothing". nothing at all.

 

Quantum immortality might allow limited continuance in other (speculative multiverse) versions of this world. But you would never know that you had died in the last one (i.e., the final memories wouldn't exist in the brain surviving elsewhere). And the "immortality" would be bogus, since at some point the copies and their universes would have to become radically different in nature in order for _X_ person to avoid dying from old age. (I.e., no longer the same person after all those extreme changes, becoming more akin to incremental reincarnation than living forever.)

If this world was a simulation, then your identity-related information might be given a new body in a likewise simulated Heaven. But that reeks of computers all the way down or up. "Something completely different" which put an end to that Russian-doll repetition would concern a non-biological origin and bizarre (non-replicable) realm as yielding the simulation, instead of deliberate technology. Which consequently would have no goals in providing afterlives for the chance inhabitants (i.e., that kind of cognition, interest, intelligence and empathy wouldn't be available).

Since our descendants might create such in the future, a finite number of simulations running within simulations might be possible. But that just cannot be the case indefinitely without running into the recursive fallacy of explaining a scenario with a repeat of that same scenario. It's difficult to rationally defend the possibility for that reason.
_

 

I think these two replies of yours shows that you are either unable or unwilling to follow what someone is saying. It's almost as if you see key words and then guess as to what they're saying, with that guess being along the lines of what you want to answer rather than what was actually asked or stated.

Oh, for Pete's sake! If the thing, the "it", interacts and we measure that interaction then we are measuring the "it". Specifically we are measuring the "it"'s capability to interact. That is sufficient a measurement. It doesn't mean we have to measure every aspect of "it". FFS!

See, you still don't understand or take on board what people tell you. Countless times now I have told you that I am an atheist, that I am not a believer, and yet you repeatedly consider me as someone who believes in such things. I'm not offended by the label, just astounded by your inability to take on board what I have repeatedly told you.
Further, I am not saying you need to measure heaven. I am saying that heaven, if it exists, is outside of science. It is not measurable by science. The issue here is that you are trying to use science to say that there is no heaven, when all science can do is conclude that it is not a scientific issue.

You have measured the item in that scenario. You have measured the item+you. It is not an explicit measurement of just the item, but it is a measurement of the item itself. And the key thing is that the item is measurable.

No, you still don't understand the difference, as evidenced by this latest post of yours.

I think it means you're using words that really don't amount to a hill of beans, because you're unable to explain what you actually mean.

Where is the elaboration of the question? What question are you asking?

I haven't used the word "imaginary". As to whether they are unknowable will depend on whether they are, for example, falsifiable, or their nature allows them to be recognised in a manner that one can accept as knowledge. If not, it would be correct to consider them unknowable.

I'm not sure of the point you're making here. It was written by you in response to my comment about the film Angels & Demons... So what relevancy does your comment / point have to that?

"Give a pass to"? In what way do you think I "give a pass to" religious scripture? Again, I have told you previously that I am an atheist, that I share your lack of belief. But I don't claim to know about things that are unknowable. Unlike you. That is the issue/discussion here, despite your ongoing efforts.

 

OK, as atheist, do you believe there is a heaven? And I want a yes or no direct answer in context of a scriptural heaven, not some hidden metaphysical dimension to the universe itself.

You see, I do not discount the potential existence of some hidden dimensions to the universe.
I am talking about a scriptural heaven that would encompass an entire metaphysical world with virgins, angels, demons. I see no reason why these things should exist.
These are the products of human thought, God in the image of Man?

 

And how do you know it is heaven what interacts and can be measured.

You don't have a description or evidence of anything, yet you accuse me of being non-scientific. If you are an atheist, then you are required to be scientific and not religious in your consideration. This is really bizarre.

Science does not consider Heaven to be a scientific object, yet according to you, a scientist, there might just be a reason why it is necessary that Heaven should exist for humans only.

 

No, I do not believe there is. But I do not know there is not, nor can I use science to show that there is no such heaven.

I believe that is the case. But I do not know it is the case, nor can I use science to show that this is the case. One may be able to show that Man came up with the concepts, but that does not mean that those things do not also exist, independent of any creation of Man's concept of them.

I don't. That's the point. You can't know. I don't believe it is, but I can not know it, nor can I use science to provide that knowledge.

FFS!!! I am not accusing your, nor have I at any point accused you of being non-scientific. That is you once again failing to understand what people write, and their criticisms of your posts. Get a grip, man!

??? So all atheists are required to be scientific??? Atheist just means "don't have the belief that God exists". That's it. There need be no specific rationale or reason for not having that belief.

Alas you are providing all that is bizarre to this "discussion" - and I use that word loosely, because you rarely, if ever, argue against the actual points made but rather argue against misrepresentations or simple strawmen, such as...

??? Where are you digging this garbage up from?
First, you once again claim that I am "a scientist", yet you know nothing about what I have done as a career, nor what my education level is, beyond what I post here. So stop guessing.
Second, at no point have I ever said that there "might just be a reason why it is necessary that Heaven should exist for humans only". Stop creating strawmen.
If you don't comprehend what people have written, ask them. Don't just make shit up and argue against it.