to MJ,

first I am a he not a she. (not that you will pay attention as you continued to refer to daydream as a he even after she asserted otherwise.)

I have to counter your point, not once did I assert that a soul must exist, nor did I say it mush survive detached from the body. those are both presumptions that you made. I did assert hope in continuation of consciousness after this life.

It was your assumption that I was referring to a soul, understandable given that is typically how afterlife is postulated. I assure you I am not. 'afterlife' in my world view is not limited to only a soul that lives on disembodied.

you asked for proof, I brought up a book on the subject that you readily dismissed with an 'I read something like that argument'

You clearly have not interest in anyone's opinion but your own. I can support my ideas with research on the topic and have referenced such materials already. But you dismissed them out of hand. If you have spent time studying quantum physics, information theory and hyperspace theory we can find common ground to work from and see if we can broaden each others understanding. If you simply want to dismiss every point I make with a blah and a wave of the hand as appears to be the case then there really is no point in continuing.

If I might ask, what is it you do for a living? what have you studied and what do you specialize at? there are several questions like this in our threads that I have asked so that I can see if there is common ground of understanding to work from, but for what ever reason you side step these questions and toss bombs at me instead. I get the feeling you have no desire at all to understand my point, but to only defeat it.

OK, then, let's get the terminology right, what is it exactly that you believe survives death? I'm willing to use what ever word you want, be it soul, consciousness, Identity, bozo, ralph, the little factory, what ever you wish, my point remand the same. So give it a name and go back and read what I have written about "soul" and substitute the name you want for "soul"

Then, if it does not detach from the body, how does it do anything except get buried or burned with the body? My assumption is that if what ever it is that you think survives of the person does not detach from the body, how can it go anywhere other than where the body goes? Seems to me that your talking about other dimensions etc, make it clear that the, what ever you want to call it, goes someplace other than where the body is.

So, which is it, the, whatever you call it, stays with the body and gets buried and burned with the body, or it separates (detaches) from the body so it can exist someplace other than the body?

Oh, yeah, how does this ability to survive the death of a body come into existence, Evolution can not account for it, so how is it that your ideas would work?

The books I read I dismissed because of REASON, the reason is, they can not account for how the ability to survive death EVOLVED. Does your book explain that? If so, why can't you answer my question about EVOLUTION?

What I do for a living is IRRELEVANT and I am embarrassed for you that you would think it is a valid thing to bring up in this conversation.

And to add, I am interested in other peoples opinion, so long as they can give a reasonable, logical explanation for what they are claiming. As of yet you have not provided such an explanation.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 11:20PM by MJ.

it is absolutely relevant what you have studied and do for a living. it is very hard to explain quantum physics to someone that hangs drywall for a living, not that it cannot be done mind you. but you need to know where you are starting from to seek common understanding.

me I'm a published author of an electrical engineering book. I am an EE by trade and studied physics as an undergrad. I have taught microprocessors at USU gotten over 28 patents for my ideas.

now you will probably get pissy about it, but I think I do have a reasonably educated opinion when it comes to EM physics.

every time, every time I have extended an olive branch of finding an understanding point you have dismissed it out of hand.

so please tell me your credentials, tell me why you are an expert in this area and why I should take your word without any supporting documentation because up to this point that is all you have offered.

There are a great many people that have gone a long way with out education. To think that I can only discuss what do for a living shows your lack of understanding of the word around you.

BTW, I happen to know a physicist that is a Gardner, it was the only work he could get in the bad economy,. So, take your condescending, elitist attitude elsewhere.

when you were actualy able to say something other than "READ THIS PARTICULAR BOOK" I was able to express my objection to what you said the book said.

there a lot of people that go a long way without education, I have no intent of projecting an elitist attitude. simply stating the facts of my education so you understand where I am coming from.

since the capital letters are coming out I must presume I am angering you on this topic.

you say that I give you no supporting evidence or logic, and then when I do you dismiss my point without any evidence of you own.

BTW I do have a job. ;)

Sparky, it's hopeless man. Your last sentence nails it.

I'm only interested in other's opinions if they can explain them in the way I demand...LOL

To be clear I am also uninterested in unreasonable and illogical opinions. I may have a different definition of such, but it doesn't change that my interest is peaked when it makes sense.

But I see that you can not actual address what I have said so you have to use ad hominiems to discredit me. FIGURES.

ballzac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sparky, it's hopeless man. Your last sentence
> nails it.
>
> I'm only interested in other's opinions if they
> can explain them in the way I demand...LOL

Hmmmm... If I learned that a fellow poster had devoted
a good deal of his/her life to working with deaf and
dumb folks, attempting to communicate under difficult
circumstances, that sort of revelation could make all
the difference in the world, in how I chose to deal
with their on-line responses.

But, to each his own, I guess.

UD

And in working under such conditions, I have learned the value of communication using VALID LOGIC and supporting ideas with evidence. Too much gets lost in translation otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 11:37PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

Sorry to have assumed that some were born deaf
and were unable to speak intelligibly, along with
their hearing-enabled peers.

I meant no insult to you nor to helper professionals.

UD

sparkyguru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I did assert hope
> in continuation of consciousness after this life.
...

Did you mean it, in the sense that a part of you and
your individuality can survive death? Perhaps in the
memories of your friends and families? Or, perhaps in
shared commitments and goals, which are still in the
process of being fully realized?

Did you mean in the sense that your teaching and example
can live on in the minds of your children, or students,
or disciples? Your video-taped messages? That sort of thing?

Or, did you mean something more along the lines of a
unique consciousness, preserving your personal experiences,
loves, hates, memories, etc?

UD

first for me life after is a continuation of consciousness.

it doesn't have to survive without a break for one. that happens every night when I go to sleep. For a time I lose awareness and then get it back. An after life is some form of life after this one.

so postulate for a moment. If I die, and then some point in time later I come to with awareness of what I once was and who I once was then for me that is a life after this one.

so the question is how could that be accomplished? this is one reason I pointed you to 'the physics of immortality' there is a pretty reasonable physics based proposition on how that could be accomplished. To summarize it in a nutshell, every thought you have had that makes you you has an electromagnetic wave associated with it. This wave front propagates into space at the speed of light. Given a super civilization in the future it could be possible within the known realms of physics to slip trough a wormhole use a really awesome antenna and capture those wave fronts, save them then download them into a computer, the future you might wake up and be running on different hardware, but with all your memories and experiences intact. Tippler goes into far greater detail in his explanation of the how.

sure you can say impossibly small chance, but so was the fact that life started in the first place, it happened because even though the chance is small its a damn big universe and that means you get lots of throws of the dice.

this is a form of life after IMHO.

That does not go away when you sleep, the act of dreaming shows that. The sub-conscious is a very big part of who you are, so a big part of you does not survive death? Or is it more likely that your sleep explanation is flawed?

your explanation shows is that energy moves away from you, but noting that shows that your sub-consciousness consciousness is carried with it. Energy does not equate to consciousness.

Now, you seem, when you do more than just say some book will explain it to you, I can respond with an actual objection to the point the book made.

And to add, if it radiates into space, it sorta has to be detached from the body.

I am interested in what you have to say, so long as you make a logically valid point. Without valid logic, you do not make the conclusions you think you do.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 11:41PM by MJ.

there is a period of time during sleep that there is no awareness, zip, zero, none. there are cases where we have documented brainwave activity of zero and revived a person and they continued on before.

you insist in this case that there is something besides consciousness and memories at work to carry on your being. Yet at the same time dismiss the idea of a soul?

are we just a program running on a meat computer or not? you can't have it both ways, if we are not, then there is some soul like thing. if we are then that 'program' can run on any piece of hardware and be conscious.

please MJ define your point that we have or do not have a soul? this is the question I was postulating at the beginning of our argument. what is consciousness. If we simply evolved into being there is no room for a soul as you point out.

If there is no soul, then what makes us us is the software on the hardware so to speak. you are just memories of being you. if your memories were running on some future computer simulation you would remember being a flesh and blood person before being a computer simulation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 11:49PM by sparkyguru.

Or could it be we lack the tools to measure all of the activity? To state that there is no activity as a fact is BULL SHIT. There is no activity that we can measure, that is true, but can we measure all brain activity, yes or no and how would you know for certain if we could or not?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 11:53PM by MJ.

now you are using the same argument theists use for arguing god exists, we just can't measure it.

call BS all you want. Unless you want to listen you wont. no different than arguing about the church with my dad.

if you want to continue, please enlighten me as to what you think consciousness is. Give me your description so we can start from there. if we dont agree on what gives rise to you and I being people that can think about stuff like this and even argue about it here on the interwebs then there really is no point in arguing about what happens to it when we die.

so if you can define in MJ terms what consciousness is then I am willing to continue. Other wise we are just gonna chase in circles and there is no point in that.

Does measure brain waives measure WHO we are?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 12:13AM by MJ.

I have explained what I think gives rise to consciousness several times. If it wasn't clear enough.

1. memory, if we have no memory of 'I' then there is no acknowledgment of self. Doctors and scientists have pretty well proven memories are stored in the synapsis of our brains, we have also measured EM activity when these synapsis fire.

2. processor, the neural network of the brain is a massively parallel processor using bioelectrical components to take in information and process it. By looking at the cells, it processes data at some 36 petaflops, we have supercomputers that can do that and more now.

3. feedback, This as far as I know is my own postulation. The human brain is wired with extensive feedback loops. Thats why you can 'hear' your self think its also why you get ringing in your ears and crazy people that talk to themselves and see hallucinations. this massive feedback plus the above two facts IMHO give rise to the ability for us to think about thinking.


there you have my basis of consciousness. no need for a spirit or soul. can you measure it, yes you can measure the thoughts (current tech does it poorly) but the operation of the brain running the 'program' can be measured. At this point the only way I think awareness could be measured is buy the turing test.

that is the definition of consciousness that I use and by that definition my other postulates about life after make sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 12:35AM by sparkyguru.

You claim that consciousness includes a processor that you call the brain.

"processor, the neural network of the brain is a massively parallel processor using bioelectrical components to take in information and process it."

So, in order for consciousness to continue past death, what takes the place of the dead brain?

Here is a link on the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/sleep_stages.htm

It describes the sleep cycle, but no where does it say that the brain goes through a period or non-awareness. At no point does it say there is no "awareness" At no place does it say there are cases where there is no measurable activity.

Please explain why what you say does not match what reputable scientific institutions say?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 12:08AM by MJ.

that study uses the very brain waves that you called BS on in a previous post. so now they are valid, but if they all flat line and we still revive a person then they are not. come on MJ use the same logic you are so fond of saying you are an expert in.

I see no reason to continue unless you define what being consciousness means. If it means the brain wave activity in this study fine, I will work from that point with you. But if you get to just call BS as soon as the data doesn't support your preconceptions this is all a waste of time.

sparkyguru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that study uses the very brain waves that you
> called BS on in a previous post.

I did NOT claim bullshit to the brain waives, I questioned if they were a measure of who we are, that is not the same thing. None the less, your attacking what I said does not negate what SCIENTISTS have said, nice try at diverting from the REAL QUESTION:

You claimed there was NO AWARENESS. Please explain why what you said does not match what legitimate, reputable scientific university states.

I am happy to say that if anything I have said contradicts what they have said, I am in error.

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/05/dead-woman-with.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/end-of-life-brain-activit_b_684176.html

http://se7en.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/22/1507032-dead-woman-wakes-up-after-17-hours-with-no-brain-activity

http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38

here are a few, see I can use the google machine too :)

I don't argue the possibility because that of course would be useless. I would argue that after determining that it was possible how one would figure out that it was in fact probable. There could possibly be consciousness after death, but is that probable? In addition to the extreme unlikely situation that there is life after death how would one test the manner in which some part of you would survive?

For me the discussion dwells in the realm of philosophy. There is only one what of testing the hypothesis and most are unwilling to take that test. Those who are willing to take the test are unable to report on the results. So you can talk about what it might look like, how it might happen, and where it might take place, but you can never say that any of your ideas are more correct than any others. This renders the argument in my mind moot. Our reality is unchanged by the possibility of life after death and so what is the point of dwelling on it?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... In addition to the extreme
> unlikely situation that there is life after death
> how would one test the manner in which some part
> of you would survive?
...

This is the question that arose in my mind, in my almost
daily conversations with Tibetan Buddhists some years back.

They were convinced that a local high lama (in Manang) was
a reincarnation of another lama who had died a decade
previously. They cited all sorts of occurrences that led
them to this belief.

But none of their examples -- unusual as they were --
stood as a proof of reincarnation, let alone a conclusion
that the mind and memory of the departed lama had come back.

At the very most, perhaps some of their cited examples
might convince a few people that a bit of the departed
holy man's memories had somehow survived his death.

And, even that assumption could not be rationally called
"proof." I came away unimpressed with their arguments, but
not for the young new lama himself. He seemed nice enough.

UD