If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife

[KennyJC]

No, at arrive that conclusion to what is found in modern text books. I stated that most neurologists will tell you that there probably is more to consciousness than just neural activity. Go read one and see how many missing pieces there are in explaining consciousness based only on neural activity. Look up what the "hard problem of consciousness" is.

The 'hard problem of conciousness' is something coined by a mind philosopher. These questions do nothing to suggest that conciousness is anything other than physical brain activity. I still haven't read anything that shows that 'most' neuroscientists think that coinciousness and the brain are separate entities.

The fact is, atheists, using blind atheistic faith, do not even consider that consciousness can possibly be independantly of matter (and therefore continue on after the death of the body). You can't even handle that it can be true.

I'm not using any faith at all, I'm using rational logic. The brain is a castiron explanation of where conciousness comes from. It defies common sense and empiricism that conciousness has nothing to do with the brain. As for continuing after the death of the body, you should be laughed at. That really is a ludicrous & farfetched concept that is unsupportable.. Keep believing it to be true because of your insecurity - comfort blankets never lead to new discoveries.

Also, you face a great dilemma. You state in this post that you believe whatever the evidence moves towards. But evidence is ever-changing, an ancient man has no reason to believe in electromagnetism, in other words, evidence is proof of something, but evidence doesn't cause something to be true. Its true with or without evidence. Oh yeah, prepare to be shocked.

You only see it as a dilemma because you are so used to dogmatic beliefs. You want to click your fingers and have the 'truth' there to see. So you go with the status quo of fantasies which promise you the 'truth'. In the process of doing this you automatically delude yourself. In science we go with what we have reason to believe (just as there's no reason to believe conciousness is separate from the brain). Much of science is unlikely to change very much - others may expand beyond all recognition. But for rational minds, it's a prerequisite that we must change our thories from time to time.

 

[Sauna]

.....It defies common sense and empiricism that conciousness has nothing to do with the brain.

Is that why the straw man turns up so often? I still haven't read anything to propose that conciousness has nothing to do with the brain.

Who said that?

References please.

You only see it as a dilemma because you are so used to dogmatic beliefs. You want to click your fingers and have the 'truth' there to see.

And there was I, thinking that there was already more than enough out there to see, to cope with.

How would clicking the fingers help?

So you go with the status quo of fantasies which promise you the 'truth'. In the process of doing this you automatically delude yourself. In science we go with what we have reason to believe (just as there's no reason to believe conciousness is separate from the brain).

And there was I, thinking that it was a logical problem, because perception implies a viewer and an object, hence the impossibility of a subject that knows itself.

What did I miss?

Much of science is unlikely to change very much - others may expand beyond all recognition. But for rational minds, it's a prerequisite that we must change our thories from time to time.

Which of yours do you expect to change?

 

[(Q)]

All still theoretical.

Oh look, sam's demonstrated once again her god exists. Nice work.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh look, sam's demonstrated once again her god exists. Nice work.

O ye of little (or no) faith!

 

[VitalOne]

The 'hard problem of conciousness' is something coined by a mind philosopher. These questions do nothing to suggest that conciousness is anything other than physical brain activity. I still haven't read anything that shows that 'most' neuroscientists think that coinciousness and the brain are separate entities.

Actually regardless of who it is coined by the fact remains neurology has yet to explain these things. You're just attempting to disrepute it in order to preserve your athestic faith.

I'm not using any faith at all, I'm using rational logic. The brain is a castiron explanation of where conciousness comes from. It defies common sense and empiricism that conciousness has nothing to do with the brain. As for continuing after the death of the body, you should be laughed at. That really is a ludicrous & farfetched concept that is unsupportable.. Keep believing it to be true because of your insecurity - comfort blankets never lead to new discoveries.

Ok, How's this for logic. The neural-correlate explanation DOES NOT WORK on a quantum level. There's something known as the double-slit experiment. You see with that experiment its been proven that when there's no observer electrons exist in a state of superposition or all possible states at once. Now, neurons are made of electrons...right? So that means the electrons that make up the brain also exist in superposition until observed, therefore neurons CANNOT be the observer and therefore CANNOT be the cause of consciousness. The electrons that make up the neurons (that supposedly cause consciousness) exist in a state of superposition until observed. The only conclusion could be that there is something independant of matter bringing these electrons into a particular state (the observer).

Ironically, in the last few sentences you seem to be talking about yourself. You hold on to your atheistic faith so the results of Quantum Physics cannot be true to you.

You only see it as a dilemma because you are so used to dogmatic beliefs. You want to click your fingers and have the 'truth' there to see. So you go with the status quo of fantasies which promise you the 'truth'. In the process of doing this you automatically delude yourself. In science we go with what we have reason to believe (just as there's no reason to believe conciousness is separate from the brain). Much of science is unlikely to change very much - others may expand beyond all recognition. But for rational minds, it's a prerequisite that we must change our thories from time to time.

It IS a dilemma. You move only where the evidence goes. Here's the dilemma, you see there are many things that are true, but currently there's no evidence for, and conversely, there are many things that aren't true, but the current evidence shows them to be true. You see the dilemma? A fool who moves only where the evidence goes ends up with this problem.

 

[Cyperium]

We know the brain is needed for thinking, emotions, and memory so when the body dies and the soul moves to an eternal afterlife what would be its characteristics?

It would have no memory and hence no identity.

No ability to think, so the notion of "I think therefore I am" would not operate.

And no emotions.

So what useful things could be said about such an entity?

We will be like a leaf blowing where the wind takes us. That is what the Bible says about the rebirth in spirit.

The Bible also mentions that when we die we can have no thoughts.

However when we are ressurrected (in our new form) then thoughts are probably possible.

Keep your clothes white. Can you change clothes without taking them off?

 

[geeser]

A fool who moves only where the evidence goes ends up with this problem.

and the fool who believes whatever he's told without any evidence, is truely a fool.

 

[VitalOne]

and the fool who believes whatever he's told without any evidence, is truely a fool.

Yeah, it works both ways for someone who believes only what the evidence currently holds and to one who believes nothing that the evidence holds.

For anyone who is seeking the actual truth they will have to drift away from the extremes either of the above.

 

[swivel]

Wow. You sound like an ignorant person. You're living in the past, using classical, newtonian physics.

Go read up on what "Quantum immorality" is. Atheists probably aren't fans of Quantum physics, because it makes many religious concepts very likely. Just as the Quantum immortality states you are immortal, so too does Vedantic philosophy state that atman or brahman is immortal, and inexhaustible, existing before material existence. Its no wonder that founders of Quantum Physics like Robert Oppenheimer became Vedantists.

Oh yeah, Stephen Hawkings believes in the Many-worlds-interpretation which would make "Quantum Immortality" true. Everything I say not only can be true, but is probable or likely.

So... you understand Quantum Mechanics? Congratulations, you are the first person to do so.

Please tell me what religious concepts are "very likely" due to QED. I am very much interested in hearing how the most precise, DETERMINISTIC theory ever developed by man is somehow mystical at its root.

The accuracy of QED has been likened to measuring the distance from L.A. to NYC and being accurate within 3 millimeters. Where is the magic in something so precise and predictable?

You see... when you TALK about QED, everything sounds bizarre and fuzzy. Mystics love to latch on to a few theories, like Bell's Theorem, and run crazy in a Freudian-By-The-Seat-Of-Your-Pants-Way. But that is just talk and speculation about processes that nobody understands. When you start using the actual math, and collapse your first few wave functions, or sum some vectors, you see how predictable and accurate the underlying mathematics is. It is even more deterministic than Newtonian Physics.

All I have is my undergraduate degree in Physics, with a Minor in mathematics. It sounds like you must have your Masters or PhD in Physics, so you are probably more up-to-date on the mathematics than I am, right? So, I am willing to learn, please use the principles of Quantum Mechanics to prove some of the claims of theists.

 

[Cris]

VitalOne,

Actually regardless of who it is coined by the fact remains neurology has yet to explain these things. You're just attempting to disrepute it in order to preserve your athestic faith.

It is not so much that science hasn’t explained how consciousness operates but more about the difficulty understanding the question. There is no precedent in human knowledge for anything not being explained by natural processes once the issues are understood, so there is no justification for supposing there ever will be. Until we can exclude neurology as the explanation then there is nothing to suggest it can be anything else. And I repeat - please also bear in mind the incredible power that exists with 200 billion neurons and the trillions of interconnections between them. On the one hand we have this almost unimaginable processing power and on the other hand we have consciousness. It doesn’t take much of a leap in common sense to conclude there must be connection, and cause and effect seems the most likely conclusion. Until we have unraveled the obvious complexity why would you want to look for something exotic?

Ok, How's this for logic. The neural-correlate explanation DOES NOT WORK on a quantum level. There's something known as the double-slit experiment. You see with that experiment its been proven that when there's no observer electrons exist in a state of superposition or all possible states at once.

Not quite. The correct conclusion is that we cannot determine the location of the particles, but this is specific for the quantum perspective. It is also been shown that these effects do not translate to macro events.

Now, neurons are made of electrons...right? So that means the electrons that make up the brain also exist in superposition until observed, therefore neurons CANNOT be the observer and therefore CANNOT be the cause of consciousness. The electrons that make up the neurons (that supposedly cause consciousness) exist in a state of superposition until observed. The only conclusion could be that there is something independant of matter bringing these electrons into a particular state (the observer).

No. Neurons exist at a macro level way above quantum effects. You have invalidly attempted to scale up quantum events to a macro level which is known not to be true.

 

[francois]

What does the soul do in the afterlife?

Materialize as apparitions and scare the piss out of small children. Duh!

 

[nds1]

What does the soul do in the afterlife?

According to the christian doctrine, which may or may not be true or false, God, which has no physical body and is pure "soul" or "spirit", has shown some key emotions which we currently can have:
1) Anger
2) Jealousy
3) Grief
4) Joy

So, according to christianity, the soul in the afterlife can feel all of these emotions because God can, and angels can as well. Since we were created in his image, this means we will also.

So in the afterlife we can feel joyful, sad, angry, or jealous. So the soul must then be able to do things which cause those emotions. What exactly it does though to cause those emotions, is beyond me.

 

[swivel]

Now, neurons are made of electrons...right? So that means .....

Wrong. Neurons are made of cells. And current research hints that more thought processes are chemical rather than electrical. It looks like white matter has more to do with brain processes than previously thought.

Again, you are pretending to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics AND Neuroscience, two fields that are nowhere close to being sussed out. Coincidence that you are getting your proof from the boundaries of science? Nope, that is what mystics have ALWAYS DONE. They point to the gaps in our understanding and SOMEHOW make those unknowns their KNOWNS. How in the world do you guys justify this? How does my ignorance equal your understanding?

It doesn't. You have an agenda. You are an illogical mystic that can't embrace the concept of faith, so you look to the dark recesses of science and try to buttress your ignorance with whatever slivers of data you can, IGNORING all the data that proves you wrong.

And when you meet resistance, like you have with me, you lash out in a rude and demeaning way, because your ideas have the same sort of esteem problems that bullies have with their own sense of worth. The sad part of this is that you will never temper your views with evidence. Even though neurons ARE NOT MADE OF ELECTRONS, you will continue to pretend that they are rather than going to pick up a biology book. You are more interested in proving an arbitrarily divined viewpoint than you are with discovering the truth.

As such, you fail in this discussion and in all future ones. You will never learn anything worth sharing with another human being. This is fact.

Good day.

 

[VitalOne]

Wrong. Neurons are made of cells. And current research hints that more thought processes are chemical rather than electrical. It looks like white matter has more to do with brain processes than previously thought.

HAHAHA this is real funny..hold on a second HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you know what chemicals are made of? They're made of atomic elements...now do you know what atomic elements are made of?

Do you even know what electric current is? Do you even have a high school education?

Again, you are pretending to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics AND Neuroscience, two fields that are nowhere close to being sussed out. Coincidence that you are getting your proof from the boundaries of science? Nope, that is what mystics have ALWAYS DONE. They point to the gaps in our understanding and SOMEHOW make those unknowns their KNOWNS. How in the world do you guys justify this? How does my ignorance equal your understanding?

I'm pretending...you don't even know that chemicals are made of atoms...which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons....hahahaha

What boundaries of science? This is what the physicists say, but you being an atheist must try to invalidate it in any imaginable way. Just look up the many-minds intepretation, quantum immortality, etc....to the atheist anything that would make religion more plausible can't be true, why because "we the atheist must defend our atheistic faith"...yet atheist constantly request evidence...when it already exists in vast quantities

It doesn't. You have an agenda. You are an illogical mystic that can't embrace the concept of faith, so you look to the dark recesses of science and try to buttress your ignorance with whatever slivers of data you can, IGNORING all the data that proves you wrong.

I'm not IGNORING data, thats in fact what YOU are doing. According to you chemicals aren't made of atoms. This is the typical atheistic argument, if you can't beat them using science just accuse them of being an "illogical mystic". At least everything I say I backup with evidence. Where's your evidence that chemicals aren't made of atoms? HAHAHA

And when you meet resistance, like you have with me, you lash out in a rude and demeaning way, because your ideas have the same sort of esteem problems that bullies have with their own sense of worth. The sad part of this is that you will never temper your views with evidence. Even though neurons ARE NOT MADE OF ELECTRONS, you will continue to pretend that they are rather than going to pick up a biology book. You are more interested in proving an arbitrarily divined viewpoint than you are with discovering the truth.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As such, you fail in this discussion and in all future ones. You will never learn anything worth sharing with another human being. This is fact.

Good day.

Hold on a second...let me get this out my system HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

 

[S.A.M.]

Wrong. Neurons are made of cells. And current research hints that more thought processes are chemical rather than electrical. It looks like white matter has more to do with brain processes than previously thought.

Neuronal processes require maintenance of the redox potential which is controlled by electron transport.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.01176.x/abs/

Plus all chemicals have an atomic structure and contain electrons.

edit: I see Vital got there already.

 

[rjr6]

What does the soul do in the afterlife?

According to the christian doctrine, which may or may not be true or false, God, which has no physical body and is pure "soul" or "spirit", has shown some key emotions which we currently can have:
1) Anger
2) Jealousy
3) Grief
4) Joy

So, according to christianity, the soul in the afterlife can feel all of these emotions because God can, and angels can as well. Since we were created in his image, this means we will also.

So in the afterlife we can feel joyful, sad, angry, or jealous. So the soul must then be able to do things which cause those emotions. What exactly it does though to cause those emotions, is beyond me.

Hey nds1.

Where in Christian doctrine does God demonstrate jealousy? Are you interpreting 'no false idols' as jealousy? I am not disputing your claim, just curious what it is based on.

 

[VitalOne]

VitalOne,

It is not so much that science hasn’t explained how consciousness operates but more about the difficulty understanding the question. There is no precedent in human knowledge for anything not being explained by natural processes once the issues are understood, so there is no justification for supposing there ever will be. Until we can exclude neurology as the explanation then there is nothing to suggest it can be anything else. And I repeat - please also bear in mind the incredible power that exists with 200 billion neurons and the trillions of interconnections between them. On the one hand we have this almost unimaginable processing power and on the other hand we have consciousness. It doesn’t take much of a leap in common sense to conclude there must be connection, and cause and effect seems the most likely conclusion. Until we have unraveled the obvious complexity why would you want to look for something exotic?

I agree for the most part that neurons are involved in consciousness...however neural activity is connected EMF waves and other things that aren't made of matter...that fact is with so many varying theories on how consciousness exists the area is very open that consciousness can indeed exist independantly of matter...but the atheist using blind faith ignores all other possibilities

Not quite. The correct conclusion is that we cannot determine the location of the particles, but this is specific for the quantum perspective. It is also been shown that these effects do not translate to macro events.

Actually, the Copenhagen interpretation says basically what I just stated, that the particle exist at every point or state. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely accepted theory by physicists...

However, there are other theories....like the many-worlds-interpretation...but if you accept the MWI, then the many-minds-interpretation becomes probable, as does Quantum immortality

No. Neurons exist at a macro level way above quantum effects. You have invalidly attempted to scale up quantum events to a macro level which is known not to be true.

What you're effectively saying is that skin cells have nothing to do with skin...one atom of titanium has nothing to do with a gigantic structure made of titanium....in other words what you're saying just doesn't make sense...electrons are a small bit of matter that make up the universe....

Ofcourse they don't scale up to a macro-level, but this doesn't invalidate it. The macro-level is just how things appear not how they actually are. Its what classical physics is based on.

 

[nds1]

Where in Christian doctrine does God demonstrate jealousy? Are you interpreting 'no false idols' as jealousy?

rjr6,

The Lord himself says that he is jealous. See below.

Exodus 20:5
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
King James Version

Then, Moses says the Lord is jealous later on in the book of Exodus:

Exodus 34:14
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
King James Version

Below is a demonstration of the Lord's jealosy, and states that he is not only jealous over fasle idols.

Joel 2:18-19
18 Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.

19 Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen:
KJV


Zech 1:14-16
14 So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.

15 And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.

16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.
KJV


A couple more things to consider:
1) It doesn't matter what God is jealous of. The fact that God is jealous of false idols shows jealousy. Also, It doesn't matter whether or not he demonstrates jealousy in the bible, because he himself says he is jealous. However, I still have included "demonstration" examples in this post.
2) As you can see from this post, God has demonstrated jealousy for things other than false idols.

 

[rjr6]

nds1

Thanks for responding. I am not a scholar of the Christian bible. Please explain your definition of 'jealousy'.

 

[swivel]

Neuronal processes require maintenance of the redox potential which is controlled by electron transport.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.01176.x/abs/

Plus all chemicals have an atomic structure and contain electrons.

edit: I see Vital got there already.

That's like saying that Iron is made of electrons.

Sure, neurons have electrons in them, but they are mostly protons and neutrons by mass. When VitalOne tries to make an entire cell subject to the quantum effects of single electrons he makes a leap not supported by any know process. In other words, he is making stuff up.

Besides, the workings of the cell are mostly chemical, not quantum. Once atoms bond with each other based on valence properties, the molecules react according to shape and shape alone. There is a very deterministic (some might even say Newtonian) way in which molecules interact based on shape and the sharing of electrons in outer orbits. So predictable that my computer crunches these shapes and interactions in its spare time. And since my computer is not a quantum computer...

...look, both of you guys aren't just wrong about all of this. You are speaking insanity.

Respectfully yours.