Life after death

[Xylene]

Personal opinion--I think that the entity we see as God is a collection of super-evolved minds. It would be nice to think that those eternal minds are actually interested in the progress of the Human species, but we're such a bunch of noddies that I'm dubious about whether they can be bothered.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I believe that "I" am a component of an informational process (sort of like a computer program) that takes place in the parietal part of the brain, when my body is not in deep sleep (or dead). This informational process is the only thing "I" directly perceive. Effectively it is a Real Time Simulation, RTS, of the sensed world, made by projecting ahead the sensory inputs to compensate for the synaptic delays (diffusion of neuro-transmitters etc across the synaptic clefts). If we really perceived the results that "emerge" after dozens of these synaptic delays, then a fast game of ping-pong would not be possible.

No one hits a ping-pong ball by seeing where it is or even by believing he sees it where it is. The delays in the physical motion of our muscles are just as long as the synaptic delay--on the order of magnitude of .1 second. He aims his paddle so that when it completes its planned motion it will be at the point where he also expects the ball to be. And both the planning of the motion of the arm he controls and the expectation of the motion of the paddle governed only by inertia, gravity and air pressure is derived from kinematic calculations. I suppose you could call that real-time simulation since it's a mental hologram, as it were, of the projected path of both the ball and the paddle. But I don't think it fits your definition of RTS because its performed to compensate for the delay in the motion of the arm, not the synaptic delay. Even though the timing and the result are roughly the same, the process is not.

That is why the construction of the RTS evolved. Humans probably evolved it prior to Neanderthals. . . .

Also, it doesn't fit your definition of RTS because no advanced evolution was involved. Other species, felids in particular but also many or most of the advanced primates, are very adept at kinematic calculation.

. . . . and thus were able to kill off these bigger brained and stronger creatures.

Homo sapiens likely prevailed because the ice age the Neanderthals were better adapted for was ending. Anomalies in the DNA of Europeans suggest that they assimilated the surviving small population of Neanderthals by interbreeding.

Thus, "I" do not exist when my body is in deep sleep or dead - both Death and deep sleep terminate "me." Note: I or me in quotes is how I distinguish my conscious (or dreaming) personality from my body.

You might consider adopting Jungian terminology for clarity--not to mention ease of punctuation. His terms include the "conscious," "unconscious" and "dream ego."

 

[listeria_m]

You are religious and you do believe in the supernatural, by definition.

Since you know me better than I do.

Everything has a logical, scientific explanation, even if it hasn't presented itself.

Not everything.

 

[Billy T]

No one hits a ping-pong ball by seeing where it is or even by believing he sees it where it is. The delays in the physical motion of our muscles are just as long as the synaptic delay--on the order of magnitude of .1 second. He aims his paddle so that when it completes its planned motion it will be at the point where he also expects the ball to be. And both the planning of the motion of the arm he controls and the expectation of the motion of the paddle governed only by inertia, gravity and air pressure is derived from kinematic calculations. I suppose you could call that real-time simulation since it's a mental hologram, as it were, of the projected path of both the ball and the paddle. But I don't think it fits your definition of RTS because its performed to compensate for the delay in the motion of the arm, not the synaptic delay. Even though the timing and the result are roughly the same, the process is not. Also, it doesn't fit your definition of RTS because no advanced evolution was involved.

I have never defined the RTS, but I agree with most of this, except the "he aims his paddle" seems to ignore or greatly over simplify what is actually happening. In my POV a conscious "he" is only an observer/ perceiver of the action. A conscious "he" had nothing to do with planning how to hit the ball.

About 30 (or more?) years ago, Dr. Libbet demonstrated that our decision only appear to be made by "us." Actually they are made and then we learn of them and falsely think "we" made them. Libbet's technique was simple and clever: He had surface electrodes on the exposed brain of his alert patients, mainly in the pre-motor cortex as I recall. The patient would push a button at random interval, whenever “he” decided to do so. He also watched a clock, which had a much faster than normal sweep second hand, and reported the position of that sweeping second hand when he had decided to push the button, but the report was after the button was pushed (avoiding some possible confusing motor/motor interactions).

Libbet’s electrical records recorded the neural activity associated with the planning of the mussel commands needed for the button push up to a second prior to the reported decision making instant. Within the last few years, using MRI techniques, focused on activity in the frontal lobes, it has been shown that decision related activity may begin even 10 seconds prior to the subject deciding to push a button.

Even something as simple as pushing a button, which your finger is already resting on, is very complex, tightly scheduled, set of planned mussel commands, Some mussels must be relaxed while their counter posed mussels are contracted, all in an analog fashion for smooth motion. Walking is an extremely complex rhythmic cycle that does include corrections for even the transmission delays of neural impulses traveling down the long axons to the feet. It typically takes a year to learn how to walk – how complex that simple act is only became very clear when man tried to make a robot do it (even very poorly).

My point is that “I” have nothing to do with the complexities of a fast game of ping-pong. “I” only think “I” do.

I will try to define a little what I think is the RTS. It certainly includes both the correction for the synaptic delays of the sensor system AND all of the delay and complex sequential scheduling of the mussel commands for even the simplest actions, like reaching for a glass of water, which is an integrated eye/ hand feedback process. Thus, both the sensory sensations and my body’s movement activities are experienced by “me” in real time, but “I” am oblivious to the complexity actually taking place earlier. “I” only perceive the act and think “I” made it happen, but really my brain did and “I” only watched, like a passive observer. Libbet’s and the recent MRI experiments show this is the case.

“I” am only a very tiny component in the RTS. That “I” component is mainly supplied to the parietal RTS by and from the frontal cortex. – Much like the old Fortran “subroutine call routines” (I assume you remember Fortran.) “I” am very actively evolving in the frontal cortex, connected to my memories, emotion states, and beliefs, much like an active data set with constant processing by many different users occurring; however, “I” am oblivious to all this activity, which is actually changing “me.” “I” can ONLY perceive my current nature, the location of my limbs and their movements, in the real time model of my body and the external world, etc within the parietal RTS. “My” perceptions / experiences in this simulated world are “returned” to the frontal lobe, again much like the information returned to the subroutine of an old Fortran call.

I.e. although I am constantly evolving via frontal lobe activity (perhaps becoming happy or sad) “I” do not experience / perceive this frontal lobe activity. “I” find out or perceive the changes in “me” within the RTS, just as it is only there that “I” learn about the decisions made earlier by my brain but I believe “I” am playing a good game of ping-pong making the decision to try to put spin on the ball etc. but in reality, “I” am only a self deluded passive observer of what my body (brain included) have earlier done.

Other species, felids in particular but also many or most of the advanced primates, are very adept at kinematic calculation.Homo sapiens likely prevailed because the ice age the Neanderthals were better adapted for was ending. Anomalies in the DNA of Europeans suggest that they assimilated the surviving small population of Neanderthals by interbreeding. You might consider adopting Jungian terminology for clarity--not to mention ease of punctuation. His terms include the "conscious," "unconscious" and "dream ego."

I have read only a little of Jung. Not sure I accept his “collective conscious” POV but I do think humans come with some archetypes. Even most primates do. For example, a monkey born and raised for years in captivity will instinctively flee from the first snake it sees but most other animals are attractions for it – things to play with or torment. As Freud is so much better known and also uses many of the same terms, I try not to use any of them (except “conscious” in the sense of “aware of”) . I do not want the prior concepts, but try to define my ideas without them.

As you like birds, you probably know that the Baltimore Orel makes a distinct hanging nest. I think it was Florida where none are found that there was a large aviary with many other bird types. Some Baltimore Orel eggs were hatched there in it. When they were mature, they built their characteristic nest although they were not raised in one and never saw one. All animals, humans included, have strong built-in behavior dispositions and concepts (archetypes, if you like). The existence of some greater power (God) is probably one, but it may just be the sequence of transfers from the initially omnipotent mother to a postulated God when she is discovered to be lacking, as Freud suggested. I liked The Economist discussion of why these, even the psychological attitude, archetypes evolved. See it at:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795581
IMHO, it is one of the best articles they have publised in last several issues. I think you will like reading it if you have not.

With the above discussion of the separate frontal lobe unconscious processing of “me” perhaps I can make clear what I think is the difference between human and many animals’ RTSs, including birds. I am nearly certain that birds have a RTS also as flying thru a ticket with many tiny branches at high speed does not seem to be possible without a real time understanding or where its wings are wrt the multitude of branches and twigs. I suspect, however, that the bird does not have any “I.” I.e. I think birds are very sophisticated biological machines. Some of the higher primates, and probably the Neanderthals, have/ had an “I,” but not as complex as that of the early humans. I.e. were not as “constructively conscious” but perhaps mainly “passively conscious.”

I think it was Humphrey who first advance a plausible reason why humans have an “I”/ are “constructively conscious,”* not just “passively conscious.” – We could just be biological robots too. (Concept referred to in this context as “zombies” but totally distinct for the “living dead” of Haiti etc.) As Humphrey put it: The function of consciousness, (or the existence of an “I,” I add) is to let our hypotheses die instead of us. – I.e. “We” can and do consider ourselves and the probably consequence of various alternative acts before doing one.)

I doubt dogs have any significant “I” because of an experiment done long ago (Pre-Human Society days.):
There were about 20 “pound dogs” which had been held the require time, unclaimed. They were tied by short leash to stakes spaced uniformly around a small circle and had not been feed that day yet. The pound keeper, who normally feed them, was in the center of the circle with a club. Systematically he approached one dog and clubbed it to death and then returned to the center of the circle before doing the same to the next dog. As he approached the next dog (and even the very last one still alive later) it exhibited “happiness signs” (tail wagging, advancing towards its approaching killer as far as the short leash would allow.) Not one dog seemed to understand that it was about to be clubbed to death but behaved as if it expected to finally be feed that day’s meal, by the man who normally did so.
-----------------
*As explained earlier, much of human “constructive consciousness” is unconscious activity in the frontal lobes that “we” become conscious of later when the results are available in the RTS. This is NOT to say that no “thinking” occurs within the RTS. – Yes we can consciously, especially via the use of language, consider various alternative acts.

Feral children (without language) however, I suspect do not think consciously but they surely do “think” in the sense of evaluate various alternatives and transfer one to the RTS to use and become aware of. – This is just speculation, of course. Based on what I read years ago about a feral child a German doctor tried to teach language to, tried to “civilize” etc.

 

[(Q)]

Since you know me better than I do.

It has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with definition. You believe in a god, hence you're religious. Simple, really.

Btw, you never mentioned which god? Is it Zeus, he was one of my favorite mythical gods.

Not everything.

Yes, everything. But, I get the impression that's what you WANT to believe.

 

[temur]

Very interesting ideas, Billy T! I have some questions.

I don't understand how RTS can offer GFW (I have read the article you linked), since RTS is itself based on physical brain, much like any program running on a computer will be deterministic.

“I” only perceive the act and think “I” made it happen, but really my brain did and “I” only watched, like a passive observer. Libbet’s and the recent MRI experiments show this is the case.

This feels really strange. How can I not know when I am not "in charge" What is the evolutionary advantage of it?

As Humphrey put it: The function of consciousness, (or the existence of an “I,” I add) is to let our hypotheses die instead of us. – I.e. “We” can and do consider ourselves and the probably consequence of various alternative acts before doing one.)

One can imagine "biological robots" too can have this ability to simulate alternative acts and choose one of them. Consciousness seems to be not necessary.

 

[listeria_m]

It has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with definition. You believe in a god, hence you're religious. Simple, really.

Btw, you never mentioned which god? Is it Zeus, he was one of my favorite mythical gods.

I LOVE reading about them ( the mythical gods, I mean) ....okay let's put it this way, I don't consider myself religious since I don't go to church and I don't pray.

Yes, everything. But, I get the impression that's what you WANT to believe.

Umm...it just occured to me that you could very well be right....but hey I'm sarcastic, and skeptical by nature

 

[(Q)]

I LOVE reading about them ( the mythical gods, I mean) ....okay let's put it this way, I don't consider myself religious since I don't go to church and I don't pray.

Being religious doesn't necessarily mean going to church and praying. It simply means the belief in the supernatural; gods.

Umm...it just occured to me that you could very well be right....but hey I'm sarcastic, and skeptical by nature

It's great that you're skeptical. But, you most certainly have to remain skeptical in light of supernatural beliefs, as many are simply the myths and superstitions handed down over the centuries.

 

[Billy T]

Very interesting ideas, Billy T! I have some questions.

and very good ones!

I don't understand how RTS can offer GFW (I have read the article you linked), since RTS is itself based on physical brain, much like any program running on a computer will be deterministic.

This is truly the weak link in my ideas that the RTS may permit Genuine Free Will. I do not have a good answer, only a "hope." I know too little about logic (especially its various forms) to do anything more than hope.

Clearly any set of instructions (a program) running in any physical machine (and very probably even in a virtual or simulated machine) will be deterministic if the statements of the program have well defined consequences. (Make a definite change in the state of the machine running these instructions.) I believe this is the same (or closely related to) saying that any set of logical statement which have a fixed "truth value" will of necessity produce deterministic results. (Or at best some probabilistic results) Neither would allow for what I call Genuine Free Will; perhaps can produce "random free will," but personally I would prefer to be a deterministic biological machine, well evolved via millions of generations than have random free will.

My hope is that the program could extensively use statements that are neither true nor false, probably a network of self-referencing statements. The simplest example I know of is the statement:

"This sentence is false."

Although that is a simple declarative statment, it has no truth value. In the brain the program of the RTS could have many mutually referencing statements. Perhaps the results would be neither random, nor deterministic, but depend upon some dynamic interactions within the set. I really do not know enough about possible logical structures to know if this makes any sense, but am not sure that anyone knows how such a network of self and mutually references statements might work, especially if "I" am part of the dynamic and mutually interacting mutually referencing set.

I was long troubled by the inconsistency of the natural laws and genuine free will. At least now, it seems there MAY be some way they could co-exist, but I tend to doubt it. I never assert that GFW exists - only that I am no longer forced to chose between it being based on some non-material "sprit" or not being compatible with Physics (more generally "the natural laws). Now, I can hope there is some type of logical structure that can govern the operation of a program, in which "I" am a component, that allows that "I" component to control the results. Sorry if this is not clear - only trying to suggest the vague ideas I have had on this very fundamental weak point, which you and only a few others have recognized.

This feels really strange. How can I not know when I am not "in charge" What is the evolutionary advantage of it?

I think perceiving the world in real time (including where my hand is, for example) is a huge evolutionary advantage, but admit (as your next question suggests) that the need for and "I" is less obvious. Knowing whether or not "I" decided something or only have the illusion that "I" dicided, is probably impossible.

One can imagine "biological robots" too can have this ability to simulate alternative acts and choose one of them. Consciousness seems to be not necessary.

Yes, they certainly could, but unless they have some identity with the actor making these hypothetical alternatives, they would need some other selection criteria. I think they need to identify themselves in the simulations of the alternatives. I.e. if they have no wishes, hopes, desires etc. what criteria are they to choose by? In psychological terms, they need "quali" (roughly "feelings" or an inter life filled with joy, anger, hope, greed, beliefs, wishes, etc. - all the things that the Behaviorist denied even existed).

Reminds me of an old anti-behaviorist joke: (Guy to girl, just after sex.) He says:
"It was good for you, how was it for me?"

Later by edit:
Certainly the brain is a system with very many self-referencing neural systems and the consequence of firing of any nerve "A" is highly dependant upon what several hundred, at least, other nerves have been doing in the very recent past. -Almost a perfect model of an non-determistic, self-referencing system. Man has no idea as to what this corresponds to as a logical processing system.

 

[Tnerb]

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think we get caught up in the nirtogen cycle.

What does this say about atheism? If such a thing is not disproven, what does it leave? Does it mean that atheists do not believe in God- then they do not believe that this is a possibility? Therefore atheists accept that this is possible, but "don't believe in god"? This is a problem with lixluke's theories. I do not believe there is a part of any person where it is "do believe" "don't believe"- then that atheism is an improper assessment. If someone claims they do not believe in God, then they dismiss all possible evidence because they do not believe in the possiblity of for example, Pantheism, etc etc, all such realitys which are more than possible according to any of their "beliefs"....

Does anyone agree? Is "Disbelief in God" illogical then?
One stance is correct, and claiming that you are Disbelieving in god is illogicial so that leads us to what?

Is then Agnosticism the only possible stance to take... Anyone?
Besides of course for belief in God, which is "the only possible stance to take."
Thank you.

 

[swivel]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

 

[Enmos]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

"None of the above"
I can't think of any reason to believe in any of the options, nor do I see any evidence for any of them.

 

[Enmos]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

Agreed

 

[Billy T]

I also agree with all in Fraggle's post 14, but not that he has “said it all.” For example, his first paragraph contains:

"... we, alone, evolved something that completely falsifies science: a soul--a supernatural force that interacts with the natural universe. If this were true it would violate the fundamental principle underlying all science, that the natural universe is a closed system. Understandably, there is absolutely zero evidence that such a bizarre anomaly is true, but that doesn't stop people from embracing the cognitive dissonance of believing it anyway. Because of their human hubris. "We're so important that the natural laws of the universe don't apply to us." Yeah right! ..."

This is why I too reject the idea of a "soul" but the argument applies equally well to reject the idea that humans have genuine free will. Fraggle did not comment on that consequence.

For a long time I believed that humans are just very sophisticated biological machines and incapable of making any real choices as agents with genuine free will. (Being material, humans are controlled by the natural laws just like all matter is.) Now, for reason I have recently described in posts of this thread, I am not so sure that this follows from Fraggle's quote above, but I still tend to think that my belief that I have free will is just the most universal of all "human hubris."

What do you think about the falseness of “free will” as also following from your argument, Fraggle?

 

[Orleander]

I always wondered if heaven was another dimension and ghosts showed up where that one and ours rubbed against each other.
Not that I believe it, but I have wondered.

 

[Billy T]

To the four who believe in re-incarnation I note that there are many more humans alive now than even only 1000 years ago and each is living about twice as long, on a rough average as back then. Where did all the souls now tied to this vast hord of human bodies come from? Is God making new souls all the time? If so why does he need to re-cycle the already lived ones.

These and other questions seem to show that your belive is sadly lacking in mathematical consistency.

 

[Tnerb]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

Total mass hysteria there bud!

He didn't cover everything at all. He is missing at the biggest areas of concern.

 

[John Connellan]

I believe it will be the same blackness we will (or won't) experience when we die as it was befre we were born*

*and no, I don't believe that the transition between world's erases our memory of the previous world

 

[lightgigantic]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

in one sense, the process of changing bodies is something we already experience in this life

BG 2.13 As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.


the difference is that the spirit soul never undergoes change .... unlike the material body

SB 7.718 Just as the fruits and flowers of a tree in due course of time undergo six changes—birth, existence, growth, transformation, dwindling and then death—the material body, which is obtained by the spirit soul under different circumstances, undergoes similar changes. However, there are no such changes for the spirit soul.

The soul is unaffected by whatever body it happens to inhabit

SB 11.7.48 The various phases of one's material life, beginning with birth and culminating in death, are all properties of the body and do not affect the soul, just as the apparent waxing and waning of the moon does not affect the moon itself. Such changes are enforced by the imperceptible movements of time.

What determines the next material body is largely due to the activities of the mind

SB10.1.42 At the time of death, according to the thinking, feeling and willing of the mind, which is involved in fruitive activities, one receives a particular body. In other words, the body develops according to the activities of the mind. Changes of body are due to the flickering of the mind, for otherwise the soul could remain in its original, spiritual body.

so this could be any one of the numerous lifeforms that are available in this universe

Padma Purana - There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are 2,000,000 nonmoving living entities [sthävara] such as trees and plants. There are 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, and 1,000,000 species of birds. As far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species.


If however one (properly) develops the desire to reciprocate with god, they can leave this repetitive cycle of repeated birth and death

BG 11.55 My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being—he certainly comes to Me.

while making spiritual progress is definitely easy, perfecting it is rare


BG 7.3 Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

This is not because god makes it hard.
This is because we are commonly assailed by so many desires that we have to "finish with" before we can focus on spiritual desires

 

[swivel]

I think there is something really wrong with the title of this thread.