I Want To Believe

[Chronus]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What?

I have shown you. You never responded or watched the presentation I offered for you. 

Have you heard of Google or YouTube? There are many scientists teaching basic physics and why it refutes that afterlife.

The first recorded study would be the study published in 1907 by Duncan MacDougall. You're a bit out of touch. 

Alot actually by the sound of it.

Is it the presentation on the Gettysburg ghost thread, if so I watched it, I even told you and you never responded.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Chronus said:

Is it the presentation on the Gettysburg ghost thread, if so I watched it, I even told you and you never responded.

If you watched it, why would you call it a roller coaster of emotions, and what did you learn from it? 

It's all about science and how it refutes the afterlife. Yet you said no studies have been done. So how can you have watched it? 

Edited October 21, 2020 by psyche101

[Guyver]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If you watched it, why would you call it a roller coaster of emotions, and what did you learn from it? 

It's all about science and how it refutes the afterlife. Yet you said no studies have been done. So how can you have watched it? 

Science refutes the afterlife.  Right.  What a joke.  You must not know science very well.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Science refutes the afterlife.  Right.  What a joke.  You must not know science very well.

Yes it does exactly that.

You obviously don't know science as it is basic physics that refutes the afterlife. 

It's a joke that you don't know basic physics. Your arrogance is equal to your ignorance in this subject. 

[Horta]

As a non physicist, science seems to point to the following.

As a simple layman understanding, there is no separate force or particle that could be responsible for "consciousness" or that could be a "soul". If there was it would have been found by now as the standard model of physics is complete enough at this level of interaction that such a thing would be extraordinarily unlikely. There could be something more weakly interacting that isn't able to be measured or found yet, but if so it would also be too weakly interacting to have the effect on the brain that the "soul" or "consciousness" has.

Therefore, underneath it all, "consciousness" is derived from the same everyday ordinary old constituents of matter as everything else (via the brain). No soul or magic involved, or necessary.

There are other very good reasons also that are far more specific and more involved, but I think the above is the basic gist. The belief that there is a separate soul or consciousness is not only unsupported by science, it is being more and more discredited as science moves on. The idea of a body/mind duality lost favour with academia long ago.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Horta said:

As a non physicist, science seems to point to the following.

As a simple layman understanding, there is no separate force or particle that could be responsible for "consciousness" or that could be a "soul". If there was it would have been found by now as the standard model of physics is complete enough at this level of interaction that such a thing would be extraordinarily unlikely. There could be something more weakly interacting that isn't able to be measured or found yet, but if so it would also be too weakly interacting to have the effect on the brain that the "soul" or "consciousness" has.

Therefore, underneath it all, "consciousness" is derived from the same everyday ordinary old constituents of matter as everything else (via the brain). No soul or magic involved, or necessary.

There are other very good reasons also that are far more specific and more involved, but I think the above is the basic gist. The belief that there is a separate soul or consciousness is not only unsupported by science, it is being more and more discredited as science moves on. The idea of a body/mind duality lost favour with academia long ago.

The attention schema theory is making great inroads with understanding consiouness. And like evolution, it's elegantly simple. 

But like you say, there's thermodynamics that explains how the energy in your body escapes, there's brain surgery which can predict how certain parts will react to treatments, imaged by PET scans, MRI, Lobotomies show we can manipulate the brains functions, the neural structure is understood and atomic theory doesn't allow that complex structure to exist as the body decays. And of course, no force strong enough to detect has been found, any force that has escaped our incredible machines and every theory across time in science wouldn't be capable of maintaining the incredible complexity of a human brains neural network.

There's literally mountains of evidence, all supporting each other that the afterlife doesn't exist.

And then researching afterlife myths takes a decidedly human path to its origin. Humans made up the afterlife myth a long time ago, and it was widely appealing and caught on. Easy to sell, easy to manipulate people with. All the makings of a cultural icon. 

Most people actually know all this but don't put two and two together. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by psyche101

[+joc]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you watched it, why would you call it a roller coaster of emotions, and what did you learn from it? 

It's all about science and how it refutes the afterlife. Yet you said no studies have been done. So how can you have watched it? 

It was a Roller Coaster of his emotions.  

Sometimes when people point out the absurdity of things we hold on to tightly from our birth box, it has that effect.

 

[Chronus]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you watched it, why would you call it a roller coaster of emotions, and what did you learn from it? 

It's all about science and how it refutes the afterlife. Yet you said no studies have been done. So how can you have watched it? 

If I must get you to believe me, I will name a few things I remember from it.

 

The guy showed pictures of the universe, what it looked like, and what it will look like.

He was talking about a debate he was in with a priest for few a minutes.

He was popping jokes here and there.

And then he started talking about atoms I believe (don't quote me on that one)

 

And that's all I remember from it.

Don't go around pointing fingers.

[+Desertrat56]

6 hours ago, Horta said:

As a non physicist, science seems to point to the following.

As a simple layman understanding, there is no separate force or particle that could be responsible for "consciousness" or that could be a "soul". If there was it would have been found by now as the standard model of physics is complete enough at this level of interaction that such a thing would be extraordinarily unlikely. There could be something more weakly interacting that isn't able to be measured or found yet, but if so it would also be too weakly interacting to have the effect on the brain that the "soul" or "consciousness" has.

Therefore, underneath it all, "consciousness" is derived from the same everyday ordinary old constituents of matter as everything else (via the brain). No soul or magic involved, or necessary.

There are other very good reasons also that are far more specific and more involved, but I think the above is the basic gist. The belief that there is a separate soul or consciousness is not only unsupported by science, it is being more and more discredited as science moves on. The idea of a body/mind duality lost favour with academia long ago.

There are nuerologists exploring the idea that consciousness does not reside in the brain.  And if you want to debunk it go ahead but you are no scientist nor do you understand science if you think what you said is the complete truth.  Any scientist that claims there is no proof is not using scientific theory, just their own bias.  We don't know every thing yet and physics may not be the way to determine where our consciousness actually reside, nor whether there is more to us than what we consider physical "reality".  Some people use science like others use religion. 

[Horta]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

There are nuerologists exploring the idea that consciousness does not reside in the brain.  And if you want to debunk it go ahead but you are no scientist nor do you understand science if you think what you said is the complete truth.  Any scientist that claims there is no proof is not using scientific theory, just their own bias.  We don't know every thing yet and physics may not be the way to determine where our consciousness actually reside, nor whether there is more to us than what we consider physical "reality".  Some people use science like others use religion. 

Quite a rant that Desertrat56. Feel better?

I would have thought neurological research would be aimed at their branch of medicine ie. further understanding and better treatment of brain and nervous system disorders, rather than the origins of consciousness itself. Got a link? There is some research by an anaesthesiologist (in collaboration with a mathematician) into the idea (belief) that consciousness is not confined to the brain due to quantum effects. It's been quite poorly received though. 

Science doesn't prove anything. Though they have studied the structure of matter well enough to basically rule out the idea of some mysterious force interacting with it at the level required to control the brain (as in a soul). It simply isn't there and the chances that it has been overlooked aren't good. 

Consciousness arises out of the physical function of the brain. All scientific observation and evidence suggests this is so, and there really is no science indicating otherwise. This forms the basis of neuroscience and is accepted by mainstream academia.

No doubt there are "fringe" academics who can't let go of their unsupported and archaic belief in a mind/body duality (particularly amongst philosophers it seems). The same way there are "creationist scientists" who can't let go if the idea god made it all, or "bigfoot scientists" who believe a species of man apes inhabit North America.

[+Desertrat56]

35 minutes ago, Horta said:

Quite a rant that Desertrat56. Feel better?

I would have thought neurological research would be aimed at their branch of medicine ie. further understanding and better treatment of brain and nervous system disorders, rather than the origins of consciousness itself. Got a link? There is some research by an anaesthesiologist (in collaboration with a mathematician) into the idea (belief) that consciousness is not confined to the brain due to quantum effects. It's been quite poorly received though. 

Science doesn't prove anything. Though they have studied the structure of matter well enough to basically rule out the idea of some mysterious force interacting with it at the level required to control the brain (as in a soul). It simply isn't there and the chances that it has been overlooked aren't good. 

Consciousness arises out of the physical function of the brain. All scientific observation and evidence suggests this is so, and there really is no science indicating otherwise. This forms the basis of neuroscience and is accepted by mainstream academia.

No doubt there are "fringe" academics who can't let go of their unsupported and archaic belief in a mind/body duality (particularly amongst philosophers it seems). The same way there are "creationist scientists" who can't let go if the idea god made it all, or "bigfoot scientists" who believe a species of man apes inhabit North America.

Yep, you can call it a rant if you want.  That was not what it was, but your response looks like a rant.  Like I said some people use science like religion.  Don't worry about anything I say, if you disagree I don't worry about it.  You can do the research if you don't believe me.  I have already done my research.  Maybe you earn a living as a scientist, but you are probably not a very good one if you think any answers in this area are static and unchanging.

[XenoFish]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yep, you can call it a rant if you want.  That was not what it was, but your response looks like a rant.  Like I said some people use science like religion.  Don't worry about anything I say, if you disagree I don't worry about it.  You can do the research if you don't believe me.  I have already done my research.  Maybe you earn a living as a scientist, but you are probably not a very good one if you think any answers in this area are static and unchanging.

Horta is very adamant that we are nothing more than autonomous meat machines. I only think that way on my more nihilistic depressing days. 

Sciences doesn't know everything. So I'm agnostic in regards to a lot of things. I have my own comfortable lies and don't care what anyone thinks. 

So you're going to be arguing with a set mind. I mean, what choice does he have.

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Horta is very adamant that we are nothing more than autonomous meat machines. I only think that way on my more nihilistic depressing days. 

Sciences doesn't know everything. So I'm agnostic in regards to a lot of things. I have my own comfortable lies and don't care what anyone thinks. 

So you're going to be arguing with a set mind. I mean, what choice does he have.

Yeah, no, I am done arguing.  I understand what you are saying.  I have never been so nihilistic or religious towards anything.  That is probably why I sometimes don't understand people.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yeah, no, I am done arguing.  I understand what you are saying.  I have never been so nihilistic or religious towards anything.  That is probably why I sometimes don't understand people.

New information can change everything. I go with what I know now, tomorrow I might be wrong. 

[Dejarma]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Any scientist that claims there is no proof is not using scientific theory, just their own bias

it's not a claim it's a fact= there is no proof

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, Dejarma said:

it's not a claim it's a fact= there is no proof

Which does not mean something does not exist or not real.  

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Chronus said:

If I must get you to believe me, I will name a few things I remember from it.

 

The guy showed pictures of the universe, what it looked like, and what it will look like.

He was talking about a debate he was in with a priest for few a minutes.

He was popping jokes here and there.

And then he started talking about atoms I believe (don't quote me on that one)

 

And that's all I remember from it.

Don't go around pointing fingers.

Ok, thanks, I apologise for my comment. 

You seen to have missed a great deal. Would you like me to summarise it and how it refutes the afterlife? 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

There are nuerologists exploring the idea that consciousness does not reside in the brain.  And if you want to debunk it go ahead but you are no scientist nor do you understand science if you think what you said is the complete truth.  Any scientist that claims there is no proof is not using scientific theory, just their own bias.  We don't know every thing yet and physics may not be the way to determine where our consciousness actually reside, nor whether there is more to us than what we consider physical "reality".  Some people use science like others use religion. 

Who?

I would like to see people who point fingers at anonymous scientist's who disregard current accumulated knowledge actually state who these people are.

I would suggest that the people you refer to are low calibre sham artists. 

I suggest you watch the clip that I have been discussing with chronus. There's a world leading physicist saying outright, yes, there is no afterlife. Then he spends 45 minutes explaining why, and how physics refutes it. 

He is not using bias. He is using solid well known physics. To say he is biased and we don't really know is like saying a mathematician who states that 2+2=4 is biased and we don't really know. 

The afterlife concept is not based in neurology either. Hypothetically, you f it existed, it would firmly be in the realm of physics. When you die, the brain is dead. 

You need to learn more about science too. When you say it is used as a religion, and let's face it, that's because it refutes your beliefs, not because you have a genuine grievance, you sound like a denier kook. 

[Chronus]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Ok, thanks, I apologise for my comment. 

You seen to have missed a great deal. Would you like me to summarise it and how it refutes the afterlife? 

Go ahead, I watched it last month so I can't remeber a great deal of it.

[Dejarma]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Which does not mean something does not exist or not real.  

Yes, you are correct- it does not. But that is not the issue here, is it?

It's quite possible things of this nature are real- what do I know, but although there's a ton of 'evidence' in the form of stories, there is no proof= that is a fact. Why are you having trouble understanding this? All due respect

[+Desertrat56]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Yes, you are correct- it does not. But that is not the issue here, is it?

It's quite possible things of this nature are real- what do I know, but although there's a ton of 'evidence' in the form of stories, there is no proof= that is a fact. Why are you having trouble understanding this? All due respect

All due respect, I am not having trouble understanding anything.  Why do you care so much that someone agree with you or change their mind to your way of thinking?  If there is no proof for or against, then we each get to choose what we believe.  And don't add any meat puppet comments like Psych who seems to be an angry nihilist.  His anger has nothing to do with me.

[Horta]

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yep, you can call it a rant if you want.  That was not what it was, but your response looks like a rant.  Like I said some people use science like religion.  Don't worry about anything I say, if you disagree I don't worry about it.  You can do the research if you don't believe me.  I have already done my research.  Maybe you earn a living as a scientist, but you are probably not a very good one if you think any answers in this area are static and unchanging.

Oh well, apologies for that if untrue. It did seem somewhat emotional, but like anyone else my perception can be full of flaws.

I don't earn a living as anything (an old retiree).

If you would be kind enough to share some of this research, I would be interested in perusing it.

There is no proof of anything, that very concept is more in keeping with religion than science, but all the scientific evidence I can find so far leads only in one direction.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Chronus said:

Go ahead, I watched it last month so I can't remeber a great deal of it.

Put basically

The mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

We know how atoms work 

There is no way for that complex structure that is you to survive the death process. 

Here is a transcript of the presentation for those why prefer to read .

https://ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/22128-sean-carroll

[ChrLzs]

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

If you would be kind enough to share some of this research, I would be interested in perusing it.

Me too.

[Chronus]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Put basically

The mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

We know how atoms work 

There is no way for that complex structure that is you to survive the death process. 

Here is a transcript of the presentation for those why prefer to read .

https://ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/22128-sean-carroll

Someone wrote down what he said?

Dedication.

I am not the brightest star or bulb, or sharpest tool, so I don't understand how they can say there is no afterlife, seeing how your soul goes and not your physical body.