There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[Write4U]

No. You keep making the claim that heaven does not exist.

Read what I said again. The scientific physics default position is that there is no heaven. There is If you claim there is a heaven, but you cannot prove your claim, I do not have to believe you, and I do not have to prove there is no heaven.

I cannot even describe the imaginary concept of heaven in any language. Can you?
Actually, we have better descriptions of Unicorns.

 

[Write4U]

You haven't made any argument yet. All you have done is stated (repeatedly) what you believe. Do you have any reasons for your beliefs? Or not?

No, I don't have to believe you if you tell me there is a heaven and you cannot prove it to me.

 

[James R]

Read what I said again.

Why don't you read what I just said to you again? Clearly, you didn't understand it, and you've skipped over the most important parts in your response - including (as usual) the direct questions I asked you.

The scientific physics default position is that there is no heaven.

No. The scientific default position is that it is unknown whether there is a heaven.

It's the same with ducks. The scientific default position is "It is unknown whether ducks exist." Note that our current scientific understanding of ducks has moved away from the default, whereas that is not true in the case of heaven.

There is If you claim there is a heaven, but you cannot prove your claim, I do not have to believe you, and I do not have to prove there is no heaven.

Why are you repeating what I literally just told you in the post you're apparently replying to?

Are you able to tell me what I disagree with you about? If you can't, then FFS go back and read what I wrote to you, then think it through before shooting off a response.

I cannot even describe the imaginary concept of heaven in any language. Can you?

Yes. Try this, for instance: "Heaven is the home of the Christian God. It is the place where souls go after people die, if they are Saved through the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

English. Simple. Done.

Actually, we have better descriptions of Unicorns.

Irrelevant, even if true.

No, I don't have to believe you if you tell me there is a heaven and you cannot prove it to me.

Do you think we are in a dispute about that? If not, why do keep bringing this up, while failing to address our actual disagreement?

 

[Write4U]

There is nothing you can do to disprove that you are in a simulation

Can you simulate Heaven? What does it look like and does your simulated character need to die for its soul to enter the simulated heaven?

 

[James R]

Can you simulate Heaven?

Yes.

What does it look like and does your simulated character need to die for its soul to enter the simulated heaven?

It looks like fluffy clouds. Angels with wings and harps fly around the place. Saint Peter welcomes newcomers at the Pearly Gates. Everybody is dressed in white and they're all smiling and happy.

Yes, my simulated character needs to die for its simulated soul to enter the simulated heaven.

Glad I could help you, Write4U.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, they are still there just like the Eiffel Tower.
So, why should a heaven (assuming one exists) disappear when someone is under a general anesthetic?

How many times do I need to say it? When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter . The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion. And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.
If this is true for all people, then the concept of souls of dead and unconscious people going to heaven is moot, no? Or are we now expected to create an abstract personal soul that can have an existence independent of all universal physical laws, but remains dormant until we die?

 

[Write4U]

↑ W4U said ; Can you simulate Heaven?

Yes.
It looks like fluffy clouds. Angels with wings and harps fly around the place. Saint Peter welcomes newcomers at the Pearly Gates. Everybody is dressed in white and they're all smiling and happy.

Lot's of experiential pleasures, 40 virgins, you think?

w4U said: And your soul is also programmed to leave your character when it dies?

Yes, my simulated character needs to die for its simulated soul to enter the simulated heaven. Glad I could help you, Write4U.

I guess the universe is designed by a simulated intelligent computer programming God.
But it would still be a mathematical program, yes? Tegmark has been absolved.

 

[Sarkus]

How many times do I need to say it? When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter . The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion. And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.

All you are talking about here is that which is limited to the material realm.

If this is true for all people, then the concept of souls of dead and unconscious people going to heaven is moot, no?

No. Because there may be more to our existence than the material realm. Certainly some people believe that.
The issue you are facing, Write4U, despite several attempts to move you away from it, is that you are still arguing against that which science can not comment on (the non-material realm) by appealing to science. Science can neither prove nor disprove that which is outside its purview, so you appealing to science to claim it doesn't exist is irrational. At best you should be saying that science can not comment as it is an unscientific matter, and that as a result you do not believe there is a heaven, etc.

Or are we now expected to create an abstract personal soul that can have an existence independent of all universal physical laws, but remains dormant until we die?

Not dormant, necessarily, but inhabiting your mortal body and co-existing with it, perhaps. At least until death.
But see, you have quite easily managed to create a concept of "soul" that you can now work with. So let's use that. Can you show that this "soul" does not exist in, say, a non-material realm that is "independent of all universal physical laws"? Are you going to appeal to science in your answer? Science's view on this "soul" would be that it is not something science can examine / answer.

 

[foghorn]

How many times do I need to say it? When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter . The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion. And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.

What are you expecting heaven to be for you, if you say bliss, then you’re are just reflecting your materialistic physical freedom from every earthly worry of being alive and what that entails.
To feel bliss you have to be alive.
So, explain what you expect heaven to be like without using any alive ‘experiences’.

 

[foghorn]

How many times do I need to say it? When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter . The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion. And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.
If this is true for all people, then the concept of souls of dead and unconscious people going to heaven is moot, no?

How many times what?
I asked, and note, I did not say brain dead I said under a general anesthetic?
My bold below

Yes, they are still there just like the Eiffel Tower.
So, why should a heaven (assuming one exists) disappear when someone is under a general anesthetic?

When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter.

Please explain what you expect to experience of a heaven, since you seem to know what it is like to not experience a heaven.

 

[Write4U]

All you are talking about here is that which is limited to the material realm.

No I am talking about the proposition that there is a place somewhere where people's soul go and experiences blis if you have been a good boy during your life.
There will be other souls that will comfort and assist you in every way that can be imagined.

No. Because there may be more to our existence than the material realm. Certainly, some people believe that.

They have for thousands of years. Yet not a single piece of evidence that when a person dies there is an immeasurable something that leaves the body and finds a place where it settles and assumes immortality.
It seems to me that now "life" has been explained, the concept of an elan-vital and words related to elan-vital, such as psyche, soul, vital force, and vitality, are no longer "necessary" for explaining what life is.
What we have is emergent properties such as consciousness from certain complex patterns, but when that pattern, in this case the brain, disintegrates as it does in death, any emergent properties cease along with it.

The issue you are facing, Write4U, despite several attempts to move you away from it, is that you are still arguing against that which science can not comment on (the non-material realm) by appealing to science. Science can neither prove nor disprove that which is outside its purview, so you appealing to science to claim it doesn't exist is irrational.

No, what you are talking about is the probability of the existence of a non-material realm without a shred of evidence. Moreover, it seems practically "unnecessary". How many gods have died along with their heavenly abodes? Religion has debunked itself. Every sect believes that their god is the real god and have fought wars to prove it. Now you, as scientist, come along and claim that Asgard may actually exist?

At best you should be saying that science can not comment as it is an unscientific matter, and that as a result you do not believe there is a heaven, etc.

No my non-belief was never an issue until someone claimed that I needed religion because heaven exists. I am sorry, but I do not believe the claim there is a heaven. And if there is no heaven, there is no god, or angels, or the devil. The claim that the non-material world cannot be examined is scientifically incorrect. The affect the non-material world has on the material world can be examined.
In fact Tegmark makes a cogent argument that if there is a non-material causality that has any effect on the physical world, it can be measured as an anomali that does not belong in our material world.

Not dormant, necessarily, but inhabiting your mortal body and co-existing with it, perhaps. At least until death.

OK, I can see several emergent properties in many complex patterns, but when the pattern dies, the emergent properties also die. This cannot be denied.

But see, you have quite easily managed to create a concept of "soul" that you can now work with. So let's use that. Can you show that this "soul" does not exist in, say, a non-material realm that is "independent of all universal physical laws"? Are you going to appeal to science in your answer? Science's view on this "soul" would be that it is not something science can examine / answer.

If something is "independent of all universal physical laws", but does have an effect on physics, the difference can be measured.
If it is totally removed from the physical world, how can it affect the physical world.

There may be 11 dimensions, but only 3 dimensions + time count in our reality.
And our souls have no access to these dimensions either.

 

[Sarkus]

No I am talking about the proposition that there is a place somewhere where people's soul go and experiences blis if you have been a good boy during your life.
There will be other souls that will comfort and assist you in every way that can be imagined.

If you were honestly talking about that proposition, you wouldn't be limiting your analysis of it to that experienced by the material realm.

They have for thousands of years. Yet not a single piece of evidence that when a person dies there is an immeasurable something that leaves the body and finds a place where it settles and assumes immortality.

To be measurable it would have to be part of this material realm. Since it is not, or so some believe, then expecting to see some evidence of it in the material realm is... odd.

It seems to me that now "life" has been explained, the concept of an elan-vital and words related to elan-vital, such as psyche, soul, vital force, and vitality, are no longer "necessary" for explaining what life is.

"Life" has been explained??? That's hubris on your part, and naive. Certainly the scientific component of "life" might have been explained (at least to some degree or other) by science, but, again, this is only applicable to the material realm. As I and others keep saying, you're limiting your inquiry to that of science, but then trying to answer a question that sits outside of science.

What we have is emergent properties such as consciousness from certain complex patterns, but when that pattern, in this case the brain, disintegrates as it does in death, any emergent properties cease along with it.

All this is limited to the material realm. When you can start discussing the non-material, and how science can interrogate that, and how anything science says has an impact on the non-material, I'm afraid you're just whistling in the wind, so to speak.

No, what you are talking about is the probability of the existence of a non-material realm without a shred of evidence.

No, I'm saying that I don't know about the non-material realm to be able to give it a probability of existence. It may exist. It may not. Your and my belief one way or the other isn't going to change that. I don't need any evidence to say that "I don't know". But I do know that science can't answer the question of whether or not it does exist, because science only speaks to the material realm. So you appealing to science for an answer is, and continues to be, odd.

Moreover, it seems practically "unnecessary".

This speaks to justification for not believing, which is perfectly fine. I'm with you on that. But note that you have shifted from using science to say that something unscientific doesn't exist, to now simply not believing that it exists.

How many gods have died along with their heavenly abodes? Religion has debunked itself. Every sect believes that their god is the real god and have fought wars to prove it. Now you, as scientist, come along and claim that Asgard may actually exist?

No, I don't claim it may actually exist. I claim I don't know enough, or anything, about it say whether it exists as anything other than a concept. You don't seem to appreciate the subtleties of the various positions at play here.

The claim that the non-material world cannot be examined is scientifically incorrect. The affect the non-material world has on the material world can be examined.

No, it's not scientifically incorrect, because all science can do (as has been explained to you for the umpteenth time) is investigate and explore the material realm. Per science, all material interactions are between matter/energy. I.e. within the material realm. So, please, tell me how science can investigate the non-material realm?

In fact Tegmark makes a cogent argument that if there is a non-material causality that has any effect on the physical world, it can be measured as an anomali that does not belong in our material world.

Sure. But who is to say that the non-material has any interaction with the material?

OK, I can see several emergent properties in many complex patterns, but when the pattern dies, the emergent properties also die. This cannot be denied.

It's not. But it's limited to the material realm.

If something is "independent of all universal physical laws", but does have an effect on physics, the difference can be measured.

Sure. IF.

If it is totally removed from the physical world, how can it affect the physical world.

I don't know. That doesn't mean that it's not there, not interacting with the physical world. Or that it is interacting but in a way that science wouldn't recognise. You see, it is an unscientific issue, yet you are naively tethered to science.
That's more than adequate to justify belief, or non-belief. It is where I am at as well. But it isn't sufficient to say that it does not exist in the non-material realm, for example.

One day you'll start to understand what we're saying here, Write4U. Unfortunately today does not seem to be it.

 

[Write4U]

How many times what?
I asked, and note, I did not say brain dead I said under a general anesthetic.

Well yes anesthesia renders you conscious part of the brain unconscious and totally oblivious as a result. We do that so you cannot feel pain under surgery. Interesting tidbit; All organisms are susceptible to anesthesia. Which lead me to suspect it has to do with microtubule function.

The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate

One of the most fascinating questions in biology is why all living organisms can be anesthetized by the same simple chemical molecules—the volatile anesthetics. In November of 1846, just one month after the first public demonstration of painless surgery using ether, Oliver Wendell Homes coined the term “anaesthesia.”

This term is derived from the Greek word for insensibility and signifies a state in which the organism is no longer susceptible to stimuli from the external world. In the 21st century, the anesthetized state is considered primarily in the surgical context, with therapeutic endpoints encompassing amnesia, analgesia, immobility, and unconsciousness. However, volatile anesthetics exert actions not only on human patients, but on species spanning the evolutionary tree of life [1–8] (Figure 1).

And it appears to be directly connected to microtubule function. Note that in all instances there is a disruption of the cytoskeletal elements and microtubules, the "common denominator" of ALL Eukaryotic life.

From bacteria to yeast, from worms to flies, from plants to poets, all of life’s creations show a similar disruption of function within a relatively narrow 10-fold volatile anesthetic range. Experiments in the 1800s on plants led Claude Bernard to speculate that one definition of life itself is the ability to be anesthetized by volatile anesthetics: “what is alive must sense and can be anesthetized, the rest is dead.”

This remarkable ]conservation across diverse living organisms has sparked the theory that natural selection may have led to an evolutionarily conserved anesthetic responsiveness dating back to a common unicellular ancestor

more.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902878/

Please explain what you expect to experience of a heaven, since you seem to know what it is like to not experience a heaven.

No. That is the wrong question. I don't expect anything after I die.
That is the whole point. When you die there is nothing but, total oblivion. You, the emergent product of your brain, cease to exist when the brain dies.

 

[Write4U]

If you were honestly talking about that proposition, you wouldn't be limiting your analysis of it to that experienced by the material realm.
To be measurable it would have to be part of this material realm. Since it is not, or so some believe, then expecting to see some evidence of it in the material realm is... odd.

Not odd. If this alternate dimension has influence in this dimension, then it should be measurable. If it has no influence on this dimension, then you cannot access it under any circumstance, especially if one must die before having access to this domain.
You are suggesting that a living organism can experience another life in a place that cannot be experienced until you are dead and cannot experience anything. Bizarre.
The alternate dimension is a home for the dead? I find that concept very, very odd.

What is the definition of Nirvana?
nir·va·na,
noun

1. (in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

1. Oxford dictionary

Now that I can understand. Freedom from suffering along with all the other earthly experiences. i.e. oblivion.

One day you'll start to understand what we're saying here, Write4U. Unfortunately today does not seem to be it.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes no logical sense.
Perhaps someday you'll understand that what you are saying is grossly paradoxical.

 

[Sarkus]

Not odd. If this alternate dimension has influence in this dimension, then it should be measurable.

Only if it interacts via a means that science can measure. If science can not detect it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that science can not detect it. One could say that from a scientific perspective it does not exist, but that merely qualifies the claim, not proves it.

If it has no influence on this dimension, then you cannot access it under any circumstance, especially if one must die before having access to this domain.
You are suggesting that a living organism can experience another life in a place that cannot be experienced until you are dead and cannot experience anything. Bizarre.
The alternate dimension is a home for the dead? I find that concept very, very odd.

Your personal incredulity is noted, but within the scope of the discussion is actually irrelevant. It is, of course, all reasonable justification for you to not believe such things, but the point about all of this is that you are not seeming to recognise, willfully or otherwise, what science is able to comment on.
Here's a rule of thumb: if something is not scientific then science can not comment on it beyond saying that it is outside the purview of science. That may be reason enough not to believe the proposition, but that is not the same as saying that the proposition is false.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes no logical sense.
Perhaps someday you'll understand that what you are saying is grossly paradoxical.

Unfortunately you clearly don't understand, because you keep replying in the same manner. If you understood you would also recognise that what I, and others, are trying to tell you is actually the most logical.
Here's a syllogism to help you:
P1: Science can not comment on things that are outside the purview of science.
P2: Heaven and its nature is outside the purview of science.
C: Science can not comment on the nature of Heaven.
This is valid logic.

What you are arguing is as follows:
P1: Heaven is outside the purview of science
P2: Science has no evidence for Heaven
C: Therefore Heaven does not exist.
Or an argument to that effect - since you have previously accepted P1.
This is not valid logic.

The only position here - not with regard belief but with your approach of trying to appeal to science to argue for/against the existence of that which you accept is outside the purview of science - that is paradoxical is, unfortunately, yours. Now, you can claim to understand, sure, but what actually counts in that regard is what you post. And your posts betray your lack of understanding in this regard.

You could argue as follows:
P1: Science has no evidence of Heaven
C: I therefore do not believe that Heaven exists
This is valid, at least if you insert the hidden proposition of P2, something along the lines of P2: unless science has evidence for something then I will not believe that it exists.
Voila, a valid syllogism.
However, note the difference between this valid syllogism, which concludes in a matter of belief, and the first one above, which concludes on what can be stated about the nature of Heaven (in that example).

Are you any closer to understanding yet?

 

[Write4U]

Only if it interacts via a means that science can measure

No, it (?) does not need to be measured. It's the difference that the influence makes on the measurable system that is measurable as an anomaly. It's simple algebra.
2 + 3 + ? = 6
? = 1
If 2 + 3 + ? = 5, then ? has no value.
If there is no difference to measure, then there is no influence and the source lies outside our dimensions.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Clearly, we're making no progress with you here. I'm beginning to suspect that the only thing you want from this conversation is to keep it going. If that means repeating the same point inanely over and over, that's just fine with you. But it's a troll tactic.

I have directly asked you, many times, how you know your claim that there is no heaven is true. You have not even attempted to answer that question. So, either you're an idiot who is unable to appreciate why it's the most important question, given your initial claim, or else you're a troll who understands that he can't answer that question without giving the game up, and so he'll try to ignore it just to string the thread along and waste more of everybody's time.

Which is it, Write4U? Have you being follow Magical Realist's antics, so that now you think you can take a leaf out of his book and just troll away?

With this in mind, I'm going to ask you one last time to answer some questions. If you can't or won't answer them, I think we can call this thread done. Here are the questions, quoting statements you have made:

When you are braindead, you cannot experience heaven or anything else for that matter.

How do you know that experience ends with brain death?

The mind has been rendered into a state of oblivion.

How do you know that the mind does not persist after brain death?

And that state has been experienced and described as devoid of any conscious experience whatsoever, by all who have been under anesthesia, including me.

Why do you keep repeating the empty claim that being under anesthesia is the same as being brain dead, when you know it is not?

Or are we now expected to create an abstract personal soul that can have an existence independent of all universal physical laws, but remains dormant until we die?

How do you know there is no soul?

It seems to me that now "life" has been explained....

How do you know that life has been explained? Who explained it?

No my non-belief was never an issue until someone claimed that I needed religion because heaven exists.

Who, in this thread, has claimed that heaven exists? Please name names. If you cannot, retract your false accusation, please.

And if there is no heaven, there is no god, or angels, or the devil.

How do you know that a heaven is required for god, or angels or the devil to exist?

The claim that the non-material world cannot be examined is scientifically incorrect. The affect the non-material world has on the material world can be examined.

How do you know there is a non-material world?
How do you know that science can examine a non-material world?

There may be 11 dimensions, but only 3 dimensions + time count in our reality.
And our souls have no access to these dimensions either.

How do you know that souls have no access to other dimensions?
How do you know that we human beings, here and now, have no access to other dimensions?

When you die there is nothing but, total oblivion.

How do you know there is nothing but total oblivion?

You, the emergent product of your brain, cease to exist when the brain dies.

How do you know that you are (only) the emergent product of your brain?
---

Can you see the common theme to these questions, Write4U?

If, in fact, you don't know any of these things, now is the time to come clean. Otherwise, I look forward to reading your explanations of how you know all these things, one by one.

Please think carefully before you respond.

 

[James R]

While I'm waiting for your response to the above, Write4U, I might as well respond to some peripheral matters.

Lot's of experiential pleasures, 40 virgins, you think?

What I think is irrelevant to what I could create a simulation about. Focus. Remember what we are discussing.

I guess the universe is designed by a simulated intelligent computer programming God.
But it would still be a mathematical program, yes? Tegmark has been absolved.

Why would you imagine that any guess of yours could absolve anybody of anything?

Yet not a single piece of evidence that when a person dies there is an immeasurable something that leaves the body and finds a place where it settles and assumes immortality.

How could there be evidence of an immeasurable something?

No, what you are talking about is the probability of the existence of a non-material realm without a shred of evidence.

If so, that would be an a priori guess at that probability. I'm not sure how somebody would go about trying to make that particular estimate.

Moreover, it seems practically "unnecessary".

*shrug* Lots of unnecessary things are real, so that doesn't seem like a reason to reject.

How many gods have died along with their heavenly abodes?

How could we possibly determine that?

Religion has debunked itself. Every sect believes that their god is the real god and have fought wars to prove it.

How do wars debunk religions?

Now you, as scientist, come along and claim that Asgard may actually exist?

Sarkus has already told you he isn't a scientist. Or, at least, he has told you not to assume that he is.

What makes it logically impossible for Asgard to exist? Is there anything?

No my non-belief was never an issue until someone claimed that I needed religion because heaven exists. I am sorry, but I do not believe the claim there is a heaven.

Are you saying you became an atheist because you're unwilling to contemplate the idea that a heaven might exist? If so, what's your issue with that?

And if there is no heaven, there is no god, or angels, or the devil.

Surely, that would depend on one's conception of heaven?

In fact Tegmark makes a cogent argument that if there is a non-material causality that has any effect on the physical world, it can be measured as an anomali that does not belong in our material world.

I don't think he makes that argument.

There is a vaguely similar argument that could be made, which is one that perhaps Tegmark did make. I don't know. That argument is that anything that has material effects on the world (detectable using ordinary scientific methods) will have to be included in scientific models, one way or another, regardless of any "ultimate" orgin.

Interesting tidbit; All organisms are susceptible to anesthesia. Which lead me to suspect it has to do with microtubule function.

Keep your microtubule nonsense out of this thread, please. There's an entire separate thread dedicated to your microtubule religion elsewhere.

 

[Write4U]

how you know your claim that there is no heaven is true.

I claim that I don't believe you if you claim heaven exists, but you cannot provide proof.
I don't need to prove what I believe about the existence of a biblical heaven. I know that if you claim heaven exists, but you cannot provide proof, I do not have to believe your claim.

 

[Sarkus]

No, it (?) does not need to be measured.

I didn't say that it does "need to be measured". I said "can be measured" - as in it needs to be able to be measured.
And you then go on to agree with this.
So please, please, please can you pay attention to what is written, and not fill your time here by arguing strawmen? Please?