There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[Write4U]

Moderator note: This thread was split from another thread, for which the following discussion was off topic. For other parts of the discussion, see the following threads:

Relationship of agnosticism to theist/atheism
Why do people believe in God?

Pascal's Wager. It works for some. "I don't think it's possible to know (in this life) if God exists or not, but if I don't believe and am wrong, Hell awaits, while if I believe I at least have a chance of eternal happiness... and maybe this is my test of faith!" I'm not saying I find this sufficiently convincing for me to believe, only that it can be for some.

Especially if compared to Anil Seth (neural scientist) proven claim that consciousness disappears altogether when the brain dies and conscious information processing stops.

The proof lies in anesthesia (Hameroff).
Note that the unconscious homeostatic control remains active even as the person is under anesthesia.

 

[Write4U]

Note that the unconscious homeostatic control remains active even as the person is under anesthesia.

There is no heaven when the brain is rendered unconscious under anesthesia. Nor is there when the brain is rendered unconscious when dead. Both states promise oblivion.

 

[Sarkus]

Especially if compared to Anil Seth (neural scientist) proven claim that consciousness disappears altogether when the brain dies and conscious information processing stops.

The proof lies in anesthesia (Hameroff).
Note that the unconscious homeostatic control remains active even as the person is under anesthesia.

You're going to have to explain the relevance, I'm afraid. Pascal's wager has nothing to do, either in content or form, to the point you're trying to make.

You do know that the point of replying to, and quoting, someone is to respond with something that is actually relevant to what you're quoting, right? At the moment it seems as though you are just quoting and then saying anything you want. That approach is not conducive to discussion.

 

[Write4U]

You're going to have to explain the relevance, I'm afraid. Pascal's wager has nothing to do, either in content or form, to the point you're trying to make.

It has to do with consciousness and the oblivion that accompanies unconsciousness (from anesthesia).
There is no heaven when under anesthesia.
It would follow that there is no heaven when the brain is dead. Is that not what falsification is all about?

You do know that the point of replying to, and quoting, someone is to respond with something that is actually relevant to what you're quoting, right? At the moment it seems as though you are just quoting and then saying anything you want. That approach is not conducive to discussion.

Now that I have explained my POV and its relevance, does that make a difference?

 

[Halc]

Especially if compared to Anil Seth (neural scientist) proven claim that consciousness disappears altogether when the brain dies and conscious information processing stops.

Not that I buy any kind of afterlife, but such a neural scientist claim seems to be equivalent to proving that a radio station goes off the air when the radio is smashed. I may agree with the conclusion, but not the validity of the proof.

 

[Write4U]

Not that I buy any kind of afterlife, but such a neural scientist claim seems to be equivalent to proving that a radio station goes off the air when the radio is smashed. I may agree with the conclusion, but not the validity of the proof.

True, but it does prove that you are prevented from receiving the data. For you there would be neither heaven nor hell when you are unconscious.

Religion claims that consciousness (the aware soul) continues after dead, but IMO, that has been disproved.

 

[James R]

It has to do with consciousness and the oblivion that accompanies unconsciousness (from anesthesia).
There is no heaven when under anesthesia.

The question of whether heaven exists is independent of the question of whether one can perceive it at any given moment.

I am currently oblivious to the Eiffel Tower. Right now, I can't see it; I can't touch it; I can't smell it; I can't taste it; I can't hear it. But I'm still confident that it exists.

Put me under a general anesthetic and the Eiffel Tower won't disappear. Neither will heaven, if it exists.

It would follow that there is no heaven when the brain is dead.

No. That doesn't follow.

Now that I have explained my POV and its relevance, does that make a difference?

Not in this case, because you're wrong again.

Religion claims that consciousness (the aware soul) continues after dead, but IMO, that has been disproved.

Tell me what you think disproved it.

If I cannot confirm anything about agnosticism or theism, should I refrain from commenting ...

Probably, other than to ask basic questions like "What is agnosticism?" or "What is theism?" You can't comment usefully on something if you have no understanding of it.

...and thereby silently acquiesce to the concept of God in heaven where He dwells...

It does not follow that if you don't understand theism or agnosticism you must therefore acquiesce to the concept of God in heaven. What gave you that idea?

... in spite of a better model advanced by serious scientists?

?? Better model of what? Something you can confirm nothing about? What are you talking about?

 

[Halc]

Religion claims that consciousness (the aware soul) continues after dead, but IMO, that has been disproved.

Something being disproved or not is not a matter of opinion. It has or it hasn't been disproved.
If it has, I'd love to see this proof. I pretty much guarantee it is fallacious.

For starters, not all believers in some sort of 'afterlife' believe in 'the aware soul'. The latter seems a more specific claim that needs disproving, and the former a more general claim. Again, I'm not suggesting an afterlife.

 

[Write4U]

I am currently oblivious to the Eiffel Tower. Right now, I can't see it; I can't touch it; I can't smell it; I can't taste it; I can't hear it. But I'm still confident that it exists.

And why is that? What knowledge gives you confidence that the Eiffel tower exists?

Put me under a general anesthetic and the Eiffel Tower won't disappear. Neither will heaven, if it exists.

It will for you and that is the important part isn't it?

 

[foghorn]

And why is that? What knowledge gives you confidence that the Eiffel tower exists?

Poor old JR being put under a general anesthetic and having his microtubules disappearing along with the Eiffel Tower, may mean JR can’t regain consciousness according to W4U. "Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?"

 

[Pinball1970]

The proof lies in anesthesia (Hameroff).
Note that the unconscious homeostatic control remains active even as the person is under anesthesia.

This is another one, homeostasis is complex system involving all sorts of tissues and chemical feedback systems.
I do not why you keep referring to it in discussions on consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

Poor old JR being put under a general anesthetic and having his microtubules disappearing along with the Eiffel Tower, may mean JR can’t regain consciousness according to W4U. "Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?"

No, the microtubules will not disappear. Under anesthesia they become deactivated and the result is loss of consciousness. When consciousness disappears, total oblivion follows until the anesthesia is reversed by the anesthesiologist such as Stuart Hameroff.

Your argument seems to rest on the notion that one should be able to experience or recognise the existence of heaven, should it exist, when under anesthesia. Perhaps you can provide some papers that attest to this?

If you cannot recognize heaven under anesthesia, you won't recognize heaven when you are brain dead. So even if there is a heaven, when you are dead, you cannot recognize it. Consciousness resides in the brain. Take the brain away, no consciousness at all of any kind. There is total oblivion. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all!

I wish I could persuade you to watch this excellent short lecture by Anil Seth.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

 

[foghorn]

No, the microtubules will not disappear. Under anesthesia they become deactivated and the result is loss of consciousness. When consciousness disappears, total oblivion follows until the anesthesia is reversed by the anesthesiologist such as Stuart Hameroff.

Yes, they are still there just like the Eiffel Tower.
So, why should a heaven (assuming one exists) disappear when someone is under a general anesthetic?

And why is that? What knowledge gives you confidence that the Eiffel tower exists?

 

[Write4U]

Yes, they are still there just like the Eiffel Tower.
So, why should a heaven (assuming one exists) disappear when someone is under a general anesthetic?

Because under anesthesia you become an object, total oblivion. It's called "vegetable state".
Do plants go to heaven?

Even if we assume there is a heaven, how far does a soul have to travel without loss?
And if you don't know if you are in heaven, the concept of heaven becomes moot, no?

If the soul exists within the brain microtubules and the microtubules experience total catastrophe (inability to transmit data), I'm afraid the soul would..."fade"?

The human-invented concept of soul only applies to humans. The hubris is astounding.
The only "energy" that leaves your brain when you are dead is "heat" and as a result, all the dynamic patterns of the neural network experience collapse along with all the "information" contained therein.

 

[Sarkus]

If you cannot recognize heaven under anesthesia, you won't recognize heaven when you are brain dead. So even if there is a heaven, when you are dead, you cannot recognize it. Consciousness resides in the brain. Take the brain away, no consciousness at all of any kind. There is total oblivion. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all!

How do you know? How do you know that when you actually die your spirit, your soul, whatever you want to call it, does not "wake up" again in heaven? How do you know? I'm not asking how you know that we can not recognise heaven under anesthesia, but how do you know that your conclusion is true, that this means that when we die there is just total oblivion? It is an unwarranted jump that takes it from being knowledge to merely a belief on your part. A reasonable one, sure, but that's not the point.
Sure, for the mortal body there is no heaven, but the mortal body doesn't go to heaven, or so the idea goes. So, no, you're making claims you can't support. The question of heaven is outside the scope of science, yet you're linking your claims to what science can show you. Realise that, and understand that.

I wish I could persuade you to watch this excellent short lecture by Anil Seth.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

You could persuade me by summarising what the video aims to show, what it argues, how it helps the discussion in this thread.

And on that point, you've derailed this thread again. Please stop doing that.
This thread is not about why you are an atheist, or an agnostic, or why some people believe. It is about the relationship between agnosticism and a/theism. Not once have you actually addressed that issue, but instead used this thread as yet another chance to push your claims regarding microtubules, and regarding Tegmark's position.
Please stop.

 

[Sarkus]

Because under anesthesia you become an object, total oblivion. It's called "vegetable state".

No, it's not called "vegetable state", or even the correct term "vegetative state" (VS). Being under anesthetic is more similar to a coma than a VS, as the VS is commonly identified by significantly reduced brain-stem activity. In a coma or under general anaesthetic the brain-stem activity is not so severely reduced.

Do plants go to heaven?

Not according to scripture. But your equivocation of "vegetable" is noted.

Even if we assume there is a heaven, how far does a soul have to travel without loss?

Who says there is any loss for a soul?

And if you don't know if you are in heaven, the concept of heaven becomes moot, no?

How do you know they would not recognise heaven?

If the soul exists within the brain microtubules and the microtubules experience total catastrophe (inability to transmit data), I'm afraid the soul would..."fade"?

IF. Where in any religious text does it say that the soul exists within the brain, let alone within microtubules? It doesn't. I think you are possibly confusing "soul" with your ideas of "consciousness" of the material body.

The human-invented concept of soul only applies to humans. The hubris is astounding.

That is your belief, sure.

The only "energy" that leaves your brain when you are dead is "heat" and as a result, all the dynamic patterns of the neural network experience collapse along with all the "information" contained therein.

And thus ends the material form. That's rarely disputed. Unfortunately you now need to move your discussion to that of the relationship between agnosticism and a/theism. All you're doing at the moment is derailing another thread so that you can talk about your microtubules or Tegmark. Please stop doing that.

 

[Sarkus]

It has to do with consciousness and the oblivion that accompanies unconsciousness (from anesthesia).
There is no heaven when under anesthesia.
It would follow that there is no heaven when the brain is dead. Is that not what falsification is all about?

Okay, now that this line of discussion has been split out, Write4U, feel free to post in this thread to your heart's content as to why you think there is no heaven when the brain is unconscious, and how you aim to prove it. Or maybe you'd like to accept that the issue of heaven is outside of science's purview, and that you're therefore talking beyond what you could possibly know?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

And why is that? What knowledge gives you confidence that the Eiffel tower exists?

Seriously, Write4U? Do you ever actually stop to consider what has been said before firing off the first thought that pops into your head?

Why don't you have a guess at what knowledge I might think I have that gives me confidence that the Eiffel tower exists? I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

But, back to the topic: do you think the Eiffel tower ceases to exist when you go to sleep? Or does it only disappear when you're under an actual anesthetic?

And while you're under that anesthetic, can I still go to the Eiffel tower, or will I just find a blank space when it ought to be?

It will for you and that is the important part isn't it?

You're mincing words. I would say it's deliberate but, since it's you, one can never be sure.

Do you think it is possible for Eiffel tower to exist for you but not for me, simultaneously? Do you think that the existence of things in the world depends on the psychological states of individual human beings? Do you think that places and things can simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time?

Poor old JR being put under a general anesthetic and having his microtubules disappearing along with the Eiffel Tower, may mean JR can’t regain consciousness ...

No, the microtubules will not disappear. Under anesthesia they become deactivated and the result is loss of consciousness.

Are you aware that you just contradicted yourself?

Remember your initial claim: there is no heaven when the brain is unconscious. In other words, being unconscious -according to you - literally means that heaven, if it ever existed, ceases to exist.

And then, just above, you said that the Eiffel tower will cease to exist when the brain is unconscious. Of course, we don't know whose brain is supposed to be important, there. Is it my brain that allows the Eiffel tower to continue existing, or your brain? And what about the logical contradiction of things simultaneously existing for one person and not for another?

But let's stick with your initial claim and this new one you just made. You told us that heaven ceases to exist when a person is unconscious. But now you're saying that microtubules continue to exist when a person is unconscious. So, why are the answers to the same question different for heaven and for the microtubules? Are microtubules not dependent on consciousness, while heaven is? What about the Eiffel tower? Is that in the category with the microtubules, so that it can go on existing despite unconsciousness, or is it in the category with the heaven, which isn't allowed to continue existing when you're unconscious?

In general, then, how do you separate the class of things that continue to exist when you're unconscious from the class of things that cease to exist when you're unconscious?

I don't think you've thought this through.

When consciousness disappears, total oblivion follows until the anesthesia is reversed by the anesthesiologist such as Stuart Hameroff.

How does that oblivion cause objects in the real world to cease to exist? And why doesn't it affect the microtubules' existence? Has Stuart Hameroff explained that? Can you explain it?

If you cannot recognize heaven under anesthesia, you won't recognize heaven when you are brain dead.

So now you're flipping into recognising, instead of asserting that heaven ceases to exist?

Will you retract your previous claim that heaven (if it exists) will cease to exist when a person goes unconscious, then?

Make up your mind, Write4U.

So even if there is a heaven, when you are dead, you cannot recognize it.

How do you know where "you" is, when you are dead? Is there a "you"?

Consciousness resides in the brain.

Did Stuart Hameroff prove that, too?

Take the brain away, no consciousness at all of any kind.

Of any kind.

How do you know? Did Stuart Hameroff prove that, too? How?

There is total oblivion. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all!

How do you know?

I wish I could persuade you to watch this excellent short lecture by Anil Seth.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Why? What's in it? Is it relevant to your argument that heaven ceases to exist when you're unconscious or dead? Does Anil Seth discuss either of those things?

Because under anesthesia you become an object, total oblivion.

I hope not. I hope that the doctors and anesthesiologists who are looking after me when I'm under an anesthetic think of me as a person, not an object.

It's called "vegetable state".

No. It isn't.

Do plants go to heaven?

Are you going to argue that plant consciousness is somehow relevant to whether heaven exists, next?

Even if we assume there is a heaven, how far does a soul have to travel without loss?

That would very much depend on your assumptions. What are your assumptions about where this heaven is, that you're assuming? What are your assumptions about how souls travel to this heaven that you're assuming? What are your assumptions about the spacetime geometry of this heaven you're assuming?

And if you don't know if you are in heaven, the concept of heaven becomes moot, no?

No. Whether heaven exists or not is independent of what somebody knows about it. And whether the concept is relevant or not is independent of both those things.

If the soul exists within the brain microtubules and the microtubules experience total catastrophe (inability to transmit data), I'm afraid the soul would..."fade"?

Why?

Do you know what's needed to sustain a soul?

The human-invented concept of soul only applies to humans. Hubris is astounding.

Would you consider it hubris to pretend to have knowledge about souls and heaven, that you don't actually have?

The only "energy" that leaves your brain when you are dead is "heat" ...

How do you know that?

...and as a result, all the dynamic patterns of the neural network experience collapse along with all the "information" contained therein.

All of them, eh? How do you know that?

---
This is a useful thread on the topics of epistemology and ontology, and the errors people make about those topics. Thanks, Write4U!

 

[C C]

There is no heaven when the brain is rendered unconscious under anesthesia. Nor is there when the brain is rendered unconscious when dead. Both states promise oblivion.

Even if non-living matter activity was still internally manifesting as primitive events (randomly), there would no longer be a memory-dependent cognitive system available for identifying and understanding those, as well as validating such was even present.
_

 

[Write4U]

Even if non-living matter activity was still internally manifesting as primitive events (randomly), there would no longer be a memory-dependent cognitive system available for identifying and understanding those, as well as validating such was even present. _

Absolutely.
It is estimated that it takes several minutes before all brain activity stops. But that is not the question.

The question if heaven exists is moot if you cannot experience it. And when the brain dies all experience stops. Total oblivion. And we know what oblivion means by the effects of anesthesia, which causes temporary experiential total conscious oblivion.