There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

Write4U:

I appreciate that you tried to answer some of the direct questions I asked you previously. Your responses don't make much sense, but at least you tried. That's a step in the right direction.
Because partial brain incapacity produces a state of oblivion that is identical to brain death. (Stuart Hameroff, Anil Seth).
That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.
The conscious mind is an emergent phenomenon of neural data proccessing.
You're just stating your belief, again. You can't show that your claim is true. It's just one more claim you make that you pretend has sufficient evidence.
When the neural network has been destroyed by any causality, the result is a gradually dimming mindscape as in Alzheimers and Dementia.
This only says things about the physical brain and the observable personality etc. It says nothing about souls or anything like that.
I did not say "it is the same". I said that the effect is the same. (Seth, myself).
The effect of being under an anesthetic is not the same as the effect of being dead. Seth and you are both wrong. You can tell him from me.
Define soul.
Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.

So, again: how do you know there is no soul?
First, OT.
What's an OT?
Then Cell Theory.
You think cell theory has explained life, along with the OT (whatever that is)?
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).
Sorry? Is this relevant to something?
I don't. The bible claims to know.
Great! That's the first time you have actually admitted that you don't have all the answers to something - that you don't know.

Progress.

Maybe there is hope for you, yet.
Like Carlos Castaneda?
I don't know who that is.
Allow me to ask: do other dimensions have access to our three? And if they do are they measurable?
I'm not sure how to answer. For instance, consider the three familiar spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forwards-backwards. Would you say that the up-down has access to forwards-backwards? What do you mean by having dimensions having access to one another?
Have yourself anesthetized and you will understand.
I have been under a general anesthetic before. It didn't show me that heaven doesn't exist.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
You shouldn't claim to know something is true on the basis of "there's no evidence to the contrary". You should, in fact, only believe things for which there is positive evidence.

For instance, there's no evidence to the contrary that small jelly-like lifeforms exist in the sub-ice oceans of Europa. So, do you think you now know that those lifeforms exist there? It would be a mistake for you to think that.
Yep, and also the more scientific metaphysical approach, and the psychological approach that define Angels and Demons as the symbolification of human character models.
No. You're way off base, with that nonsense.

The common theme to my questions was your knowledge. Over and over, I asked you "how do you know?" that various things you believe are true. You completely missed the point.

I get the impression that you are content to just believe things, without appropriate justification. Questions about how you know what you know don't seem important to you. You just know what you know.

This forum has seen a parade of people just like you, over its lifetime. People who are utterly confident about the truth of their own beliefs, but at the same time completely unable to justify them to the satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers.
 
No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.
You are being silly. There is nothing wrong with that phrase. If you cannot make sense of it, it isn't my problem.
So, far, the main argument against heaven that you have put has concerned anesthesia. That argument goes like this:
  1. Human beings aren't conscious under anesthesia.
  2. Human beings aren't conscious after they die.
  3. Therefore, heaven doesn't exist.
Get it right. You are parsing!

Heaven doesn't exist for that person!

And from now on, if your post contains ad hominem I will not respond to it.
You play nice or we won't play at all, understood?
 
No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.
Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.
And that is a meaningless statement. What exactly is an immaterial person and where does it come from?
The "actuating cause of an individual life" ? Just because it is listed in Webster's doesn't mean squat.
This is your claim now, so prove it!

Here I'll give a good start.
soul
/soʊl/
Noun
  1. The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death.
  2. The spirit or essence of anything.
  3. Life, energy, vigor.
Verb
  1. To endow with a soul; to furnish with a soul or mind.
    "(Can we find and add a quotation of Chaucer to this entry?)"
  2. To beg on All Soul's Day.
"Often believed to live on after the person's death." Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
"Life after death", a new theory.
Oh, no, it's a 2000 year old claim made by non-scientists, that has never been proved, right?
 
That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.
Well, it is clear that you have not read Hameroff and/or Seth.
If you had, you would know that homeostasis is a function of the brain but it is a sub-conscious function that is not affected by anesthesia.

Exploring the concept of homeostasis and considering its ...
Specifically, the traditional concept of homeostasis calls attention to a non-conscious form of physiological control which operates automatically without awareness or deliberation on the part of the organism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726811500325X
It is a function of the brain, unaffected by anesthesia.
 
Last edited:
Write4U:
I appreciate that you tried to answer some of the direct questions I asked you previously. Your responses don't make much sense, but at least you tried. That's a step in the right direction.
If you had started reading my post a little closer the first time, my responses would have made a lot more sense.
That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.
No, you are projecting again.
I said that anesthesia only affects the conscious part of the brain and that the effect on consciousness is the same as being brain-dead. Total oblivion, i.e. no emergent conscious thoughts, just like being dead.
Anesthesia does not affect homeostasis, but that is an unconscious control function.
You're just stating your belief, again. You can't show that your claim is true. It's just one more claim you make that you pretend has sufficient evidence.
No, I back up my beliefs with reason.
As atheists we play in the same playground. Don't tell me that mathematics is my religion. It is your refusal to critique religion that makes you agnostic, not atheist. Apparently you believe what the bible has told you might be true. That makes you just an agnostic, you just don't really know anything about God, Heaven and all that unknowable stuff that is religion, right?
This only says things about the physical brain and the observable personality etc. It says nothing about souls or anything like that.
What exactly is there to say about souls or anything like that?
soul
/soʊl/
Noun
  1. The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death.
  2. The spirit or essence of anything.
  3. Life, energy, vigor.
  1. Oxford Dictionary
1. Now that is an illogical position: "live on after death" is a contradiction in terms.
2. If mathematics is the essence of spacetime geometry, then the Universe has a mathematical soul, no?
The effect of being under an anesthetic is not the same as the effect of being dead. Seth and you are both wrong. You can tell him from me.
What do you remember about being anesthetized?
Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.
Webster's dictionary.

Examples of actuating causes.
fig-10-9-applications-of-actuating-cylinders.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33990-y

The above are examples of actuating causes. Are they examples of living systems?
So, again: how do you know there is no soul?
Like God, the concept of Soul is superfluous, unless you include the concept of a mathematical universe. Then the soul of the universe is a mathematical pattern and that is demonstrable.
What's an OT?
You have to be kidding? Never read the Old Testament?
You think cell theory has explained life, along with the OT (whatever that is)?
Yep, cell theory explains the evolution of dynamical systems into living systems. A cell is a self-organizing pattern of dipolar properties of biomolecules.
Sorry? Is this relevant to something?

Great! That's the first time you have actually admitted that you don't have all the answers to something - that you don't know.
And you do? I haven't heard you admit your limitations. Besides, I have never claimed to know everything. This is just another one of your projections.
Indeed, instead of ad hominem, you are asking me to clarify. And we are making progress!
Maybe there is hope for you, yet.
I think you are beginning to realize that you have underestimated me a little bit, no?
I don't know who that is.
Don't know what OT means, never heard of Carlos Castaneda? What do you know about spiritual matters?

I'm not sure how to answer. For instance, consider the three familiar spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forwards-backwards. Would you say that the up-down has access to forwards-backwards? What do you mean by having dimensions having access to one another?

I have been under a general anesthetic before. It didn't show me that heaven doesn't exist.

You shouldn't claim to know something is true on the basis of "there's no evidence to the contrary". You should, in fact, only believe things for which there is positive evidence.
For instance, there's no evidence to the contrary that small jelly-like lifeforms exist in the sub-ice oceans of Europa. So, do you think you now know that those lifeforms exist there? It would be a mistake for you to think that.
I know that those lifeforms exist. I can show you a picture.
ScottHotaling_6_16x9.jpg

Ice worm

Genus of annelid worms

Ice worms are enchytraeid annelids of the genus Mesenchytraeus. The majority of the species in the genus are abundant in gravel beds or the banks of riverine habitats, but the best-known members of the genus are found in glacial ice. They include the only annelid worms known to spend their entire lives in glacial ice, and some of the few... and some of the few metazoans to complete their entire life cycle at conditions below 0 °C (32 °F).[5]Wikipedia

Yep, and also the more scientific metaphysical approach, and the psychological approach that define Angels and Demons as the symbolification of human character models.
No. You're way off base, with that nonsense.
OK, you tell me what angels and demons are.
The common theme to my questions was your knowledge. Over and over, I asked you "how do you know?" that various things you believe are true. You completely missed the point.
You are completely missing the point that when you ask "how do you know", I cite a scientific paper that addresses that question, but you refuse to read them and insist that I tell the story "in my own words".
Then it is you who is complaining that I am offering too much supporting material. Read what I give you and you won't have any problem with the "meaning" of my posts.
I get the impression that you are content to just believe things, without appropriate justification. Questions about how you know what you know don't seem important to you. You just know what you know.
Obviously you haven't learned anything from my MT thread.
This forum has seen a parade of people just like you, over its lifetime. People who are utterly confident about the truth of their own beliefs, but at the same time completely unable to justify them to the satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers.
I am not so sure about that "satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers."
More like the Inquisition. They were seldom satisfied. I guess they knew too much about the unknowable to fool around with mere mortal souls.

In reference to information processing in cytoplasm and cytoskeleton and neural network.
Collective behavior of oscillating electric dipoles (see microtubule thread)
 
Last edited:
No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.
Well, lets see.

What is the default mode network of self-referential processing?

images


Abstract. The brain's default mode network (DMN) has become closely associated with self-referential mental activity, particularly in the resting-state. While the DMN is important for such processes, it has functions other than self-reference, and self-referential processes are supported by regions outside of the DMN.May 15, 2016

Mapping the self in the brain's default mode network
ScienceDirect

In living cells, microtubules are organized relative to their intrinsic polarity into characteristic patterns of microtubule polarity orientation. These microtubule polarity patterns dictate the distribution of both ends of the microtubule, and hence the locations where in the cell microtubule assembly/disassembly occur, as well as where plus-end-associated proteins can interact with other cellular structures. In addition, the polarity patterns of microtubules direct motor-driven traffic within the cytoplasm, and hence establish asymmetric distributions of various organelles. For all of these reasons, the characteristic polarity patterns of microtubules in various types of cells are instrumental for establishing and maintaining the structural and compositional polarity of each cell type.

Highlights
1. Self-reference and rest-fixation evoked extensive common activation; though distinct differences were also evident.
2.Within commonly activated regions greater self-referential activation was shown in MPFC, PCC, and left IPL.
3. Dynamic causal modeling showed that self-related processes were driven via PCC activity, and moderated by MPFC.
4. We speculate that this brain model provides the basis for the conscious awareness of the self.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33990-y

OK, that takes care of self-referential

If human intelligence is an emergent property of the neural network then one can argue that the neural network is quasi-intelligent (can't say proto-) in order to produce the consciously intelligent results.

Now do the phrases "self-referential and "quasi-intelligent" make a little more sense? Just read what is meant by the compound definitions.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2023-11-28_7-52-9.png
    upload_2023-11-28_7-52-9.png
    301 bytes · Views: 1
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.
I don't need to guess. It has been proven that when you are under anesthesia, you have no knowledge of ANYTHING!
That is how they can cut your body to pieces and you won't "experience" the pain because you are "dead to the world". (Oxford dictionary)

And to answer your question directly, on that fateful April 14, 1912, how many millions of people did not know that the Titanic had sunk. If on that day, you had stated; "I know that the Titanic (or Eiffel Tower) exists", you would have been wrong, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
You resurrected a dead thread to post that?
Yes, I wanted to clear up a few of your misunderstadings. Perhaps it was inadequate clarity on my part.
In any case, if it was relevant then it should be relevant now, no?

Isn't it curious that this prayer should posit: "Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust", from the funeral service in the Book of Common Prayer.

I see no mention of; "Heaven to heaven". If Heaven existed and we actually go there, why is that not promised?
 
[...] It has been proven that when you are under anesthesia, you have no knowledge of ANYTHING! [...]

So the dogma goes, anyway. But...

  • Dreaming under anesthesia

    EXCERPT: Dreaming under anesthesia: is it a real possibility? For years anesthetists believed that there was no dreaming during anesthesia, yet, a portion of patients reported dreams after recovery from anesthesia.

    Initially it was hypothesized that the patients who spoke of their dreams had been awake during a period of anesthesia. In this case dreams might show a relationship to external events; they are "dream-like” processes, unpleasant and undesirable side-effects that can sometimes lead to posttraumatic stress syndrome.

    However, Aceto’s and Leslie’s as well as our patients recalled dreams characterized by contents that were not operative events but similar to that of their habitual dreams with predominant positive emotions. It has been proved that dream reports can be obtained even after properly-carried out anesthesia with an adequate depth.

    [...] Suggestions used immediately before the induction of general anesthesia help us in guiding our patients’ imagination. Patients imagine their favorite place as a dream plan of their own choice which is emotionally important and pleasant to them. Guided imagination impacted the patients dream recalls experienced under recovery of general anesthesia.

    In addition to the subjective experience the characteristics of the recovery state supported the likelihood of dreaming. The recovery of the patients who reported dreaming was often accompanied by emotional manifestations corresponding to the dream content (smiles, anger, crying), elements of behavior in line with the dream (embracing arms, a foot pressing down on the accelerator).

    In the first statistical analysis of our study we examined the effect of the psychological method and the hypnotic agents on the incidence of dreams. It has been demonstrated that dream recalls are more frequent in patients with preoperative suggestions applied before and during induction. Furthermore, formation of dreams and dream recalls were dependent on the anesthetic technique, especially propofol as an induction agent.

Traditional view:


  • EXCERPT: Anesthesia is a complex medical intervention that induces a state of unconsciousness, making patients oblivious to their surroundings and sensations. This is achieved by targeting specific neural pathways and blocking nerve signals. The suppression of brain activity under anesthesia is a key factor in why dreams do not occur during this period. The interaction between anesthetics and brain receptors alters the natural course of consciousness, leaving no room for the dreaming process to take place.

And clinical death is a condition where wholesale non-functioning of the brain should apply in all areas. And yet occasional near death experiences indicate that low-level maintenance of introspective experiences can continue as vivid dreams. The memory system must be still be storing information, also, in order for such to be recalled after revival.

This is the problem of a brain, which a rock does not share. Until the stubborn organ is well into the process of decay, the possibility of an internal presentation of "stuff" persisting can't be entirely rejected. The rock, in contrast, enjoys the nirvana of "absence of everything" without interruption throughout its long but still limited existence. Thanks to the rock's utter lack of organization devoted to consciousness (presentation, identification, understanding, and data retention).
_
 
Back
Top