Why is life after death really not possible?

[Endercreeper01]

16 hours ago, Prometheus said:

But it is a logical fallacy to say something can't happen because you can't believe it does happen. You have been asked many times on many threads why a mathematical universe can't give rise to consciousness. Your answer has always been 'Because it is composed of mathematical systems', or ''Because it has no reason to arise'.  

These do not answer the question., they just restate your assertion with slightly different words.

So, why can't a mathematical universe give rise to consciousness?

Because mathematical systems such as the brain are based on logical systems with causes and effects which are supposed to be able to operate independently, without the need of a conscious observer. Consciousness therefore has no reason to arise out of a completely logically based system of mathematical operations, such as the brain. If we assumed that consciousness has no free will and cannot influence the machine it inhabits, that would make consciousness something which is even more meaningless.

If we suppose consciousness does have a need to arise then that would mean it would have to preform a function in and of itself that would allow it to affect the logical processing of what it is arising in in order for consciousness to be of any significance or importance of the machine or logical processes of that which it is attached with, which could only mean that it is something separate able to affect change in the brain.

Not to mention the impossibility of something as abstract and conceptual as math to ever be able to, in a direct and clear way in accordance with cause and effect, have a clear mechanism which leads it to cause something which cannot be described mathematically, which is a sentient being. It is impossible for mathematics, a system arising for logic, to have something arising from it which isn't logic. If sentience and subjective cannot be described by math, then it can't be caused by math. Need I say more?

Edited November 15, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

that would make consciousness something which is even more meaningless.

So what?

Your repeated arguments from ignorance are not convincing anyone. Perhaps you can try a new tack?

[Endercreeper01]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

So what?

Your repeated arguments from ignorance are not convincing anyone. Perhaps you can try a new tack?

So what? It implies that science can't explain the nature of consciousness.

[iNow]

I understand that’s your opinion. I find it misguided, but I can’t force you to be correct. 

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Because mathematical systems such as the brain...

So from this it would appear you are a mathematical Platonist, believing that mathematical objects are in some sense real and underlie the reality we perceive. This is one of your premises but you haven't even tried to discuss whether it is true or not. No one knows if it is true or not and i don't think it could ever empirically be investigated.

The alternative is that you believe maths just happens to be a useful tool to understand reality, in which case the rest of your argument doesn't follow.

But let's assume for now you are correct and say the brain is based on mathematical Platonism

 

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Consciousness therefore has no reason to arise out of a completely logically based system of mathematical operations, such as the brain. If we assumed that consciousness has no free will and cannot influence the machine it inhabits, that would make consciousness something which is even more meaningless.

You say therefore, but it doesn't follow. You state the brain is based on logic with causes and effects then declare consciousness cannot arise from these. That is just another statement. Why can't consciousness arise from a purely logical based system and mathematical operations?

We know this is what you believe so need to to restate it. But you claim this is based on logic - what is your chain of logic? And why give logic primacy over empiricism?

 

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If we suppose consciousness does have a need to arise then that would mean it would have to preform a function in and of itself that would allow it to affect the logical processing of what it is arising in in order for consciousness to be of any significance or importance of the machine or logical processes of that which it is attached with, which could only mean that it is something separate able to affect change in the brain.

What, like an iterative process? Maths is replete with examples of such.

I assume you think computers can never achieve consciousness then? I was going to say that at least that would be an empirical statement, but i suspect you would not accept a computer as conscious even if it were behaving in an identical fashion to humans - that would just be mimicry, right? In other words, would you put your 'logic' before evidence?

 

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Not to mention the impossibility of something as abstract and conceptual as math to ever be able to, in a direct and clear way in accordance with cause and effect, have a clear mechanism which leads it to cause something which cannot be described mathematically, which is a sentient being. It is impossible for mathematics, a system arising for logic, to have something arising from it which isn't logic. If sentience and subjective cannot be described by math, then it can't be caused by math. Need I say more?

But you have mentioned it, several times. You have just reworded the same statement in your first paragraph. Why is it impossible? Why can't logical systems produce consciousness?

I don't know much of the Incompleteness Theorem, but i know it proves that not all maths can be reduced to logic. Therefore, you have to make the additional assumption that the brain is only based on that subset of mathematics which is entirely bound by logic.

It's not 'logical' for an electron,  a point particle, to not have a precise position and velocity. But the maths makes perfect sense. When discussing reality, it is far more important to trust in empiricism rather than demand that it is 'logical' and conforms to our expectations. It was that kind of reasoning that led Aristotle to conclude that the moon was made of some sponge like material.

 

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Need I say more?

Saying less but actually addressing points would be appreciated.

 

 

[Strange]

On 15/11/2017 at 4:09 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

So what? It implies that science can't explain the nature of consciousness.

No it doesn’t. 

[interested]

On 11/14/2017 at 9:13 AM, Prometheus said:

But it is a logical fallacy to say something can't happen because you can't believe it does happen. You have been asked many times on many threads why a mathematical universe can't give rise to consciousness. Your answer has always been 'Because it is composed of mathematical systems', or ''Because it has no reason to arise'.  

These do not answer the question., they just restate your assertion with slightly different words.

So, why can't a mathematical universe give rise to consciousness?

Having lost interest in my threads on entanglement and dark matter because scientists can not explain them. I noticed your comments on this thread, or more precisely the words Universe and Consciousness 

Forgive my ignorance on this subject but

The subject of metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of being ie what ultimately is there. My understanding is all things are quantum fluctuations and may be connected, in some entangled way to a certain level, throughout all of space. 

There is no physical life or consciousness after death, how can their be with no functioning body or mind, it is absurd to think so, unless you are christian and believe in the resurrection, or that science can revive a frozen body and brain, with the brain still functioning. 

Universal Consciousness is a concept from religion and also from metaphysics covering the fundamental nature of the universe, could the universe be regarded as conscious? (a big quantum computer perhaps) When we die do we just become part of the universe again ie one with the universe/god etc. What is the buddhist take on this, zen does not believe in an afterlife, theravada does. 

What we do in this life may affect the future, for a zen thats the end of it, for a theravada a more chances at a life are given.

My own take is that when we die everything that we were is absorbed back into nature and recycled eventually.

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Universal Consciousness is a concept from religion and also from metaphysics covering the fundamental nature of the universe, could the universe be regarded as conscious? (a big quantum computer perhaps) When we die do we just become part of the universe again ie one with the universe/god etc. What is the buddhist take on this, zen does not believe in an afterlife, theravada does. 

Both Mahayanan (including Zen) and Therevadin Buddhism include the concept of rebirth - a type of afterlife. I think rebirth is at at odds with the Buddhist idea of no-self - if there is no self above the aggregates of the body then what gets reborn?

The idea of universal consciousness is explored in Buddhism in the lankavatara sutra which is not based on the original collection of the Buddha's teachings, but is a later addition. I don't know enough about it to comment much, but it seems at odds with other Buddhist teachings.

When we die we don't become a part of the universe again. We were always a part of it: in life and in death. It's this realization (on an emotional level rather than intellectual level) which the Zen tradition works towards when to teaches 'Buddha nature'. Buddha nature is sometimes taken as a synonym for universal consciousness, but i don't think it refers to the universe being conscious.

I think the Hindu tradition has some interesting ideas about universal consciousness if you don't take them literally.

[interested]

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

When we die we don't become a part of the universe again. We were always a part of it: in life and in death.

Taking your statement to be plausible (We were always a part of it: in life and in death.) who should care about the concept of life after death unless you follow a religion that teaches punishment after death if you did not do as you were told by your lords and masters.

Our molecules were part of nature before we were born and will be after our death, they will live on forever and were part of us, they therefore will go on for ever. 

From the metaphysics point of view and investigating the fundamental nature of all things. Is it possible to drill further down at the quantum foam level and find some remnant of self after death existing in space after death perhaps which does not consist of atoms ? from the Buddhist perspective were we always in life and death as we are now part of the universe as a whole even at the quantum foam level. 

Quantum foam and space is absorbed by mass according to some theories, so if we were to exist as quantum froth after death, it may be short lived, unless of course you believe in reincarnation like Tibetan Buddhists and the Dalai Lama or transmigration etc etc.

Is one life enough? I think so. 

What is the scientific point of view on the fundamental nature of everything can life after death happen as a quantum anything? I understand it to be it has never been been proven, and is therefore generally disbelief in the global scientific community, although they have tried detecting ghosts in allegedly haunted houses.

Does anyone believe in an afterlife of any kind, and if so what do you think it might be?  Up to present it appears to be a big NO

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by interested

[interested]

A guess its a NO then unless you are into science fiction and inter dimensional beings etc.

I think this may be a joke or something from the many new age religions, but  there is loads of amusing stuff on this subject mainly the ufo type, but it seems some people including nasa might even believe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_being  . Errrr Um, It makes me wonder what planet some folk are on. The space drive looked interesting!

[seriously disabled]

Biological science is a broken science in my opinion.

I'm sure that in a couple of years much of what is taught biology will become pseudoscience.

Biology can't even answer the question of why you feel very severe pain when you are cut by something sharp or the very severe pain that you feel when you put your hands on something very hot.

Scientists assume that all pain after an injury is caused by the brain but what if it's not caused by the brain but by something else that we haven't discovered yet?

Edited November 20, 2017 by seriously disabled

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Biological science is a broken science in my opinion.

I'm sure that in a couple of years much of what is taught biology will become pseudoscience.

Some things will no doubt gain more clarity and depth, and some will fall by the wayside as no longer a viable explanation. But all of biology broken and thrown out in a couple of years?! Why make such a ludicrous assertion? Have you seen what medical science is doing?

9 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Biology can't even answer the question of why you feel very severe pain when you are cut by something sharp or the very severe pain that you feel when you put your hands on something very hot.

I get the feeling this is wildly off-topic, but I'll bite. What makes you think we don't understand pain receptors? Science isn't much interested in the why of things, but the mechanism is fairly well understood, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

16 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Scientists assume that all pain after an injury is caused by the brain but what if it's not caused by the brain but by something else that we haven't discovered yet?

We observe that intervention between the brain and the injury using various methods makes the pain vanish completely. Pain reception is a conscious reaction, so I'm not sure where you're going to find a cause outside the brain. Remove the brain and there is no pain.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What makes you think we don't understand pain receptors? Science isn't much interested in the why of things, but the mechanism is fairly well understood, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I believe he struggles with pain across the majority of his days. I suspect it’s enormously frustrating that our treatment options are so ridiculously limited and that we can’t yet give a pill or perform a simple surgery to stop it. 

To your deeper point, though, this doesn’t accurately lead to the conclusion that we don’t understand pain receptors. 

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I believe he struggles with pain across the majority of his days. I suspect it’s enormously frustrating that our treatment options are so ridiculously limited and that we can’t yet give a pill or perform a simple surgery to stop it. 

I understood this. I understand frustration too, but it shouldn't lead to hasty generalizations. Nobody gets help from misinformation.

The problems are most likely a matter of degree. We can take away the pain, but it takes most of the consciousness with it. I have peripheral neuropathy, and it's always a blend of too much feeling = pain, and too little feeling = fumbling what you're holding. We can understand the mechanisms without having a good solution to their problems.

It's like mechanical gear in the desert. We know why sand is destructive to it, but we have few good solutions for it.

[Endercreeper01]

On 11/15/2017 at 5:26 AM, Prometheus said:

So from this it would appear you are a mathematical Platonist, believing that mathematical objects are in some sense real and underlie the reality we perceive. This is one of your premises but you haven't even tried to discuss whether it is true or not. No one knows if it is true or not and i don't think it could ever empirically be investigated.

The alternative is that you believe maths just happens to be a useful tool to understand reality, in which case the rest of your argument doesn't follow.

But let's assume for now you are correct and say the brain is based on mathematical Platonism

 

You say therefore, but it doesn't follow. You state the brain is based on logic with causes and effects then declare consciousness cannot arise from these. That is just another statement. Why can't consciousness arise from a purely logical based system and mathematical operations?

We know this is what you believe so need to to restate it. But you claim this is based on logic - what is your chain of logic? And why give logic primacy over empiricism?

 

What, like an iterative process? Maths is replete with examples of such.

I assume you think computers can never achieve consciousness then? I was going to say that at least that would be an empirical statement, but i suspect you would not accept a computer as conscious even if it were behaving in an identical fashion to humans - that would just be mimicry, right? In other words, would you put your 'logic' before evidence?

 

But you have mentioned it, several times. You have just reworded the same statement in your first paragraph. Why is it impossible? Why can't logical systems produce consciousness?

I don't know much of the Incompleteness Theorem, but i know it proves that not all maths can be reduced to logic. Therefore, you have to make the additional assumption that the brain is only based on that subset of mathematics which is entirely bound by logic.

It's not 'logical' for an electron,  a point particle, to not have a precise position and velocity. But the maths makes perfect sense. When discussing reality, it is far more important to trust in empiricism rather than demand that it is 'logical' and conforms to our expectations. It was that kind of reasoning that led Aristotle to conclude that the moon was made of some sponge like material.

 

Saying less but actually addressing points would be appreciated.

 

 

Consciousness is not something which can "be" the logical and physical processes in the brain, because the components which make up the brain, such as the neurons and the mechanical circuitry of the brain, are not conscious. The mathematical and physical components of the brain cannot be conscious in and of themselves, which is why logical processes cannot be the sole reason for consciousness. Consciousness is something which can arise out of these structures, but it doesn't have to "be" made up of only the brain, as something distinct from the brain which perceives what it perceives.

On 11/16/2017 at 4:42 PM, interested said:

What is the scientific point of view on the fundamental nature of everything can life after death happen as a quantum anything? I understand it to be it has never been been proven, and is therefore generally disbelief in the global scientific community, although they have tried detecting ghosts in allegedly haunted houses.

Does anyone believe in an afterlife of any kind, and if so what do you think it might be?  Up to present it appears to be a big NO

Science cannot explain the nature of consciousness, so it can't be used to answer questions about the afterlife.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Consciousness is not something which can "be" the logical and physical processes in the brain, because the components which make up the brain, such as the neurons and the mechanical circuitry of the brain, are not conscious.

So, be the same "logic", your computer cannot play videos because the logic gates and wires that make up the physical processes of the computer cannot play videos. Brilliant.

[Endercreeper01]

Just now, Strange said:

So, be the same "logic", your computer cannot play videos because the logic gates and wires that make up the physical processes of the computer cannot play videos. Brilliant.

"Playing videos" is fundamentally the result of, or "caused" by many different processes working together to carry out an algorithm. However, with consciousness, there isn't a "cause" by which the algorithms in the brain create an individualized consciousness, with subjective experience and sentience.

[Prometheus]

18 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Consciousness is not something which can "be" the logical and physical processes in the brain, because the components which make up the brain, such as the neurons and the mechanical circuitry of the brain, are not conscious.

The individual components which make up water are not wet. Therefore wetness cannot arise from the molecules alone - there must be something more. Logically, therefore, science cannot explain water.

 

[Endercreeper01]

1 minute ago, Prometheus said:

The individual components which make up water are not wet. Therefore wetness cannot arise from the molecules alone - there must be something more. Logically, therefore, science cannot explain water.

 

What is considered "wetness" fundamentally arises from the mathematical properties of water in a direct and logical manner. Consciousness, however, cannot be shown to arise in such a direct manner.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

"Playing videos" is fundamentally the result of, or "caused" by many different processes working together to carry out an algorithm. However, with consciousness, there isn't a "cause" by which the algorithms in the brain create an individualized consciousness, with subjective experience and sentience.

How do you know there isn't a cause?

You arguments consist entirely of baseless assertions of your belief. Not very convincing, I'm afraid. After all, using exactly the same level of logic and evidence I can simply say: you are wrong.

[Prometheus]

5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What is considered "wetness" fundamentally arises from the mathematical properties of water in a direct and logical manner.

It's apparent you believe this. It is far from clear the universe is fundamentally mathematical in nature. This is (yet another) point you have continued to ignore. 

Please show me the mathematical proof that wetness will logically emerge from its constituents.

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

It's apparent you believe this. It is far from clear the universe is fundamentally mathematical in nature. This is (yet another) point you have continued to ignore. 

Please show me the mathematical proof that wetness will logically emerge from its constituents.

This is the trouble with emergence, it's not predictable. Even one or two scientific people here scoff at its apparent mystique, like it's some hand-wavy phenomenon.

Edited November 20, 2017 by StringJunky

[Endercreeper01]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

How do you know there isn't a cause?

You arguments consist entirely of baseless assertions of your belief. Not very convincing, I'm afraid. After all, using exactly the same level of logic and evidence I can simply say: you are wrong.

It's not that there isn't a "cause", but that the algorithms of the brain and the brain itself are not what the consciousness fundamentally "is", since the algorithms of the brain cannot be conscious.

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

It's apparent you believe this. It is far from clear the universe is fundamentally mathematical in nature. This is (yet another) point you have continued to ignore. 

Please show me the mathematical proof that wetness will logically emerge from its constituents.

"Wetness" is a concept which is related to the way water behaves. The behavior of water is determined by mathematics, so it follows that wetness is a concept which arises from the behavior of water. Consciousness, however, is not a concept, but "real" in a sense, which distinguishes it from other emergent properties, which are concepts about the way a particular system will behave, but which can be shown to, in a direct chain of logic, to arise from the mathematical properties of a particular system.

[Prometheus]

Wetness is a concept but consciousness is real? This implies wetness isn't real, or consciousness is somehow more real.

Basically it's only different because you can't imagine it being otherwise, which is unfortunate for you, but what can you do?

And until you show me that mathematical proof of the wetness of water, i'll continue to hold it has a 'special' property. I just can't imagine it being otherwise.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not that there isn't a "cause", but that the algorithms of the brain and the brain itself are not what the consciousness fundamentally "is", since the algorithms of the brain cannot be conscious.

This is another unsupported assertion. And also the fallacy of begging the question. 

If you have nothing to contribute but just repeating your beliefs, then we should ask the mods to close the thread.