There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[Write4U]

I think he means you tend to pull threads in certain directions, like Bohm, Tegmark, MT MUH even though they are not the topic of the thread.
If you think religion is bad for humanity that is a different thread.

No, I am pulled away from these scientists and the sciences they represent that are pertinent to the subject under discussion.

When you want to discuss fundamentals there are no directions. All fundamental knowledge is pertinent to discussions of fundamentals.
I am addressing a purported aspect of the fundamental Universal Wholeness and that includes the concept of Heaven, where the fundamental Creator is supposed to dwell and only some human souls are allowed to enter. Pretty exclusive stuff.

This cannot be parsed as an "unknown fundamental" into bits and pieces. A discussion of the existence of a heaven and a soul as that which enters heaven after death, includes a discussion of the soul as an aspect of human consciousness . How can you ignore what human consciousness is and how it manifests, when you want to use that as a possible description of "soul".
I am trying to do science, but I am not allowed to expain or defend the information that I believe is pertinent to the dicussion.

To declare the soul and heaven exist but are unknowable and cannot be defined is absolutely meaningless.
Unknowable? Ok, were done. Really???

And if we want to get an idea of what the allegory of God actually represents as a "watchmaker", an "intelligent designer", we must include what we know about reality and how it manifests itself especially if we have access to esteemed physicists who are also versed in both the quasi-intelligent natural pattern formations and evolving adaptions to nature and the abstract deisms that use nature as expressions of such quasi-intelligent processes.
Those are the people we should at least listen to.

To exclude any portion of science that can be used to examine abstract universal concepts is not productive.
IMO, this subject warrants the application of all related knowledge of universal fundamentals.

You won't hear me talk about abstractions when discussing the merits of a motorcycle's suspension designed for long distance travel as opposed to off-road scrambling.

 

[Write4U]

If you think religion is bad for humanity that is a different thread.

No, my rant is only in response to the claims of truth in scripture. I have already stipulated to some of the positive aspects of Christian teachings.

But I do think that biblical scripture is no more than all other allegorical mythology, notwithstanding some historcal facts of names and places, that are not relevant to the veracity of the many false claims.

In any case, I really appreciate your responses to my posts. If I seem to stray it is from enthusiasm of trying to explore a subject in-depth, rather than paying lip-service to a real human anomaly of belief in supernatural agency.

 

[Sarkus]

You mean I have disrespected religion.

No, I meant what I said: you have disrespected this thread.

No, I am pulled away from these scientists and the sciences they represent that are pertinent to the subject under discussion.

You're not "pulled away" from them. You're simply being asked not to raise them in every thread. If you do raise them, and noone takes the bait, move on.

But it's not the appeal to those scientists, or their ideas, per se, that is the problem here, but rather the way you comport yourself. It's that in a thread ostensibly about a relationship between a religious concept and another concept that spans many philosophies, you shut down all debate related to the religious side, refuse to engage with it, decry the very nature of religion, shout about the suffering that it has caused etc, and you also refuse to engage with any philosophy other than science. That is disrespectful to this thread.

That you then compound your behaviour by trying to turn every thread toward your favourite subject is also not particularly appreciated. If people wanted to engage with that subject then they would almost certainly go to a thread specifically about it. The fact that you can hear people almost audibly sigh when they see that you have yet again posted about Tegmark, the MUH, microtubules etc, in yet another thread where the link to the ongoing discussion is nebulous, should tell you that it is not appreciated. Yet still you do it. Still you get no uptake, or minimal at best, and still it at best sidetracks the ongoing discussion and at worst derails the thread entirely. And then complain when people ask you not to keep doing it.

That is disrespectful on your part.

 

[Write4U]

you shut down all debate related to the religious side, refuse to engage with it,

What debate? What is there to debate? AFAIK the only debate is with me. And I welcome it. But I am not allowed to bring my perspective to the table, because it is only tangently (but importantly) related to debate on scriptural science.

If there is a heaven, even in the abstract, then it belongs to science. You can only raise the veracity of religion to some kind of gnosticism.

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός, romanized: gnōstikós, Koine Greek: [ɣnostiˈkos], 'having knowledge') is a collection of religious ideas and systems that coalesced in the late 1st century AD among Jewish and early Christian sects.

Gnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's all there is in any kind of religious context./ I don't even hear any philosophical debate about the reason for a heaven or a soul other than ignorance of consciousness and a pre-historic instinctual fear of some kind of unseen threat.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Ignoring all your attempts at diversion onto your three (or so) obsessions, looking back to post #2 of this thread, we find your central claim of this thread:

There is no heaven when the brain is rendered unconscious under anesthesia. Nor is there when the brain is rendered unconscious when dead. Both states promise oblivion.

There's the claim "there is no heaven" and the circumstances under which the claim is supposed to be true: "...when the brain is rendered unconscious under anesthesia [or] when the brain is ... dead."

Have we all been over-analysing this? Are your qualifiers about brains and consciousness necessary to the central claim that there is no heaven, or not?

You could have simply posted a general claim that there is no heaven, period. But you didn't. So, what gives? Do you believe there is a heaven when your specified conditions are not met - i.e. when the brain is not rendered unconscious or dead?

If your assertion is simply that heaven doesn't exist at all, it would seem that your talk of brains and consciousness and stuff is redundant. It doesn't affect what you really want to argue. You should have left it out and given us your real reasons for why you claim there is no heaven.

Here's what I think. I think that you only mentioned heaven in conjunction with the stuff about brains and consciousness because you were trying to trojan-horse your way into yet another discussion about consciousness in general, so you could again try to direct the conversation onto Tegmark's MUH and microtubules and Bohm. The whole "no heaven" thing was just a pointless distraction. Am I right?

So, let's clarify. Please answer the following simple questions. All of them. "Yes" or "no" will probably be sufficient, for starters.

1. Does heaven exist, under any circumstances?
2. Does heaven exist when the brain is conscious?
3. Does heaven exist when the brain is conscious and somehow cease to exist when the brain is unconscious?
4. Is there any connection at all between the existence of heaven and the brain?
5. Do you care whether heaven exists?
6. Do you just want to talk about Tegmark, microtubules and Bohm - your three fixated obsessions, to the exclusion of other topics?
7. Are you capable of discussing other topics, without bringing up Tegmark, microtubules or Bohm at all?

Thanks.

 

[James R]

A biblical God that made humans in his image.

This is the image of God I object to. A guy floating in the clouds that make a human, just by a touch.

Well, a talking burning bush doesn't quite do it for me. The descriptionof an abstract allpowerful being doesn't quite sound convincing either.

If we destroyed all scriptures and mythology, andtried to rewrite it a 1000 years later, it would all be different.
IOW current scripture does not accurately describe the concept of a creator God.

The one where Jesus is the virgin begotten son of god?
Explain to me how a virgin can conceive of a male child? Are telling me there was only an abstract impregnation of male DNA?

The argument that religions have social value is pure BS. Their exclusivity begs for conflict.

If these are the real reasons you don't believe in heaven, why introduce all that irrelevant rubbish about consciousness and brains etc.?

Why didn't you just start a thread titled "Why I don't believe in God." or "Why I am not a Christian." Then we could discuss that without all the irrelevant padding about brains and Tegmark.

 

[James R]

I see, we can pretty well answer every question about the "beginning" and all subsequent events that evolved the universe into what we can prove scientifically.

You think? Every question, eh? Who is "we", in this context? You?

The one question that remains is "causality of the beginning", an event of unimaginable violence. After the inflationary epoch, we have a pretty good idea how the rest evolved.

Do we? I guess we ought to tell all the scientists to pack up their stuff and call it quits, then, seeing as science is finished and all.

One thing is pretty clear, whatever was causal to the formation of the universe, it was not out of love and humans were not created in the image of god.

How do you know?

That allegory is an expression of human hubris. Humans have souls in the image of god? Another allegory?

I think it is meant to be taken literally, by those who believe it.

Yes, we are all-knowing, all-powerful, and full of love.

Who says that? Especially the "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" stuff? Who's "we" in this scenario? Does anybody actually make these claims, or are you putting up straw men?

 

[James R]

"There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious" is not a religious declaration. It is a scientific observation.

This is almost a deepity, but probably too lacking in real content to even qualify as that.

If all you're saying is that human beings aren't aware of things when they are unconscious, that's just stating the bleeding obvious - it readily and obviously follows just from the word "unconscious" itself.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to imply that heaven flickers into or out of existence depending on some individual human being's perception of it, then you have yet to make any sort of argument for why or how it could possibly do that.

Calling this "science" is just you trying to gain some legitimacy for your vague and ill-thought-out ideas on the topic. It doesn't work.

 

[James R]

I agree totally, I mention MUH as but one example of the newer proposals that are being fashioned with all the new information coming from the Webb telescope looking much deeper than before, allowing for much larger sampling of universal processes.

The MUH isn't informed by any information from the Webb telescope. Don't kid yourself.

Several new propsals have been made, like a "halting universe", which could explain the cause for the BB itself.

Why bring this up in a thread about heaven and anesthesia? Stay on topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss the "halting universe".

Can you focus?

But after watching this, a toroid universe came to mind, where the universe alternately expands, losing energy, and contracts, gaining energy.
The implications of such a model are staggering, but could potentially explain the creation and conservation of energy.

Why are you bringing this up in a thread about heaven and the brain?

As too "consciousness" there are several new proposals.
There is IIT (Integrated Information theory), ORCH OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction), GWT (Global Workspace theory)
Which are all promising but still seem to have their strengths and weaknesses.

Do they promise to disprove heaven? That's the thread topic, remember.

But our electron microscopes are now beginning to reach down to the finer scales which is yielding much greater clarity as to the neural processes in brain and body.

Do tell. What recent electron microscope studies can you point to that have yielded much greater clarity as to the neural processes in brain and body?

Does this have anything to do with heaven?

IMO, when you deal with grand landscapes you cannot single out a blade of grass and expect to get an impression of the whole landscape.

How "New Age" of you. Everything is connected! How profound your ideas are! We've never heard anything like this before, have we?

I have made my position very clear and propsed alternative concept that could replace the erroneos concept of a biblical god.

What?

What is your "alternative concept" that is to replace the biblical god?

Are you trying to start a new religion, Write4U?

But you won't let me propse alternative ideas.

Do you have any "alternative" ideas, or are you only able to recycle the three derivative ideas you're fixated on, over and over again?

And that is what religion does. It excludes all other concepts, while avoiding all criticisms or corrections, not in spite of, but because of the admitted allegorical nature of an abstract creative agency as described in scripture, a collection of mythological hearsay stories..

It's the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. Imagine, the power that is given an Islamic mufti, who can issue a fatwah, a death warrant on anyone he deems infidel. Talk aboyt individual rights.

Is this thread about individual rights now? What happened to heaven and anesthesia?

Can you focus?

I have posted this before, but it bears repeating.

Spanish Inquisition | Key Facts

List of important facts about the Spanish Inquisition, judicial institution first authorized in 1478, ostensibly to combat heresy, or dissent, from Roman Catholic teachings and beliefs in Spain. The institution served to consolidate power in the Spanish monarchy, achieving that end through...

www.britannica.com

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[James R]

What debate? What is there to debate? AFAIK the only debate is with me. And I welcome it.

So you'll post on topic from now on, and answer the questions I have asked you about your central claims about heaven and anesthesia?

If there is a heaven, even in the abstract, then it belongs to science.

Is there a heaven?

You can only raise the veracity of religion to some kind of gnosticism.

What does that mean?

I don't even hear any philosophical debate about the reason for a heaven or a soul other than ignorance of consciousness and a pre-historic instinctual fear of some kind of unseen threat.

How much searching for philosophical debates on the matter have you done?

 

[Write4U]

Dear James, I have made my case. Make of it what you will. I rest my case and will no longer comment on this subject.

But I am eagerly awaiting something informative from you, other than an attack on my character and competence.

So far, you have offered nothing at all. Stop your complaining and say something informative, please.

click!

 

[James R]

Where are your answers to the 6 simple "yes/no" questions I asked you, Write4U, in post #205?

Are you going to answer them, or are you going to dishonestly claimed that I "have offered nothing at all", despite several posts posted with the aim of getting you to clarify your position?

Are you just going to run away now?