ForumsWEPRwhats the difference?

183 43652
killersup10
offline
killersup10
2,739 posts
Blacksmith

so,just about everybody has ruled out the possiblity of their being spcific Gods for a element.Such as the greek Gods,what is the difference however between believing in "mythology" and say for instance a Christan religion.Why is it more beliveable?Does anybody have a answer to why it is more believed that their is one God and not many? Why do people who believe in a God not realize that they are believing in the same thing that they also call rubbish?

  • 183 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Ah, sorry. Ignore the last two posts. I meant to copy the thing I wrote for the first 10 minutes of the video, but the forum glitched as I posted it. And now I pasted what I had on clip board, which was supposed to be the thing, and refreshed, so it did not work out...

Ah, here is a general recap. His experience was pretty typical of an NDE, where oxygen can not get to the brain. Morgan Freeman explains this, pretty much. The memory thing was probably the same thing that happens to everyone's memories over time, they change them to fit with their image. As a neat little experiment you can try, find out where people really where on 9/11 and ask them where they where now, many years later, and see how many are accurate.

On to the next. Forum, don't quit on me this time.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

10:00 -11:00

That guy does not exactly look like a trustworthy source for this, after all he is pretty much a medical doctor. Other than that, the brain surgery going on is starting to distract me more then the subtitles.

Who in hell would agree to have their brain opened in front of a camera?

11:00-14:00

I always thought the microtubules where just for structure and to help with motion, kind of like the bag that the computer goes in. *Looks up* Yep. Really, there is no reason to assume that they bring in consciousness. There is some research on this to, going against what the video is saying. To add, what would this mean for all the other animals on earth? Do they have similar things in their brain as well?

And this guy's logic is what I like to call "Insane troll logic". Even if he was correct, that would still be insane. Lets look at his thought processes.

1. Your microscopic brain motor can interact with other microscopic brain motors from far away.
2. This means that microscopic brain motors give you conciseness.
3. Since they can interact within your brain, they must be able to interact with EVERYTHING!

Somehow.

14-16. I am not using seconds anyway.

What? When did quantum mechanics decide all that stuff. *Looks up* *Finds nothing*. Would...Morgan Freeman lie to me?

16-17.

Nothing more to report. Just a camarcial break and time to post again before I get a big post in and get it all deleated. Sorry for the double post.

halogunner
offline
halogunner
807 posts
Nomad

scientists and spiritualist attempt to define what is consciousness

How can that end well...

Necromancy,

Story time!

The Odyssey

Story time again!

Roman neuromancers


none of these things are actually mentioned in the video it goes straight into the science, unfortunately it was the only website I could find with the full video

now watch it I say!

Wait, I thought the video was for me...Aww...


originally it was, until people decided to join the debate again

No, you were trying to use quantum mechanics as an excuse to explain an afterlife.


Its not an excuse, anyway I was trying to show both sides the video shows both sides too
halogunner
offline
halogunner
807 posts
Nomad

ah ha!

I've found the studies from the guy in the video

here is his abstract

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

I've found the studies from the guy in the video

Mhm. I think 314d1 already addressed the issues of this paper in his comments on the video. He seems to do a good job on that.

And I still fail to see how this should support souls, or extrabody consciousness. It just gives a model trying to explain how we make decisions and all that, how our consciousness works.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I posted a TV tropes link. The next hour became a blank. Somehow I made it out.

*Cough* Anyway...

17-22

This guy has a difficult accent, and the subtitles are not helping. I will try my best to understand what he is saying.

What I am getting from this is that he thinks that conciseness is basically the result of the brain working together with itself, like a machine with a bunch of cogs. The cogs will work when they hit each other, but when they separate it no longer works. What I don't get is what this has to do with the current topic, even if it is correct. Does not sound that out there, to be honest. A little bit more likely then that brain motor thing.

22-24.

What. "The brain is complex and manages to get conciseness. But many things are complex. Chess is complex, computers are complex, and a bunch of other things are complex. But do computers give conciseness? NO. So logically you must be complex like a brain."

Not sure what he is trying to say there.

Another break. Posted.

halogunner
offline
halogunner
807 posts
Nomad

Mhm. I think 314d1 already addressed the issues of this paper in his comments on the video. He seems to do a good job on that.


You did not watch the video, besides just because he looks something up and fails to find information on it does not mean that information fails to exist, he did not even list actual facts on which he was skeptic.

And I still fail to see how this should support souls, or extrabody consciousness. It just gives a model trying to explain how we make decisions and all that, how our consciousness works.


watch it, watch it and base your opinioning on your own perception not 314d1's
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

24-27

Some irrelevant information to start off with. Then walking back into consciousness. This guy thinks the brain is like a computer, with the neurons making up the consciousness like the coding in a computer. So far far more plausible then the other guys. Actually pretty likely. He is probably correct, the brain is like a computer. It functions when it has data in it, but when the data is wiped it no longer works. No afterlife, no life after death.

28-31

I don't get what this guy is trying to say. Is he saying that conciseness, or the "soal"( I still can't spell that word) is formed by how you look at yourself? In that case, I am apparently the deity of everything who all the females love and all the men want to be. I am not sure what that has to do with an afterlife, or what he is trying to say, to be honest.

A break with the promise of someone making souls after the break. Did I spell it right that time?

halogunner
offline
halogunner
807 posts
Nomad

I don't get what this guy is trying to say. Is he saying that conciseness, or the "soal"( I still can't spell that word) is formed by how you look at yourself? In that case, I am apparently the deity of everything who all the females love and all the men want to be. I am not sure what that has to do with an afterlife, or what he is trying to say, to be honest.


some of the views are obsolete to me I mostly side with the rodger penrose/hammeroff view
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

some of the views are obsolete to me


Wait. Did you not just say this morning that this has been "Discussed for decades"?

I mostly side with the rodger penrose/hammeroff view


And why is that? (Who was that again?)
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

BS and you know it


if that is so, answer me this, where did life come from.

p.s. you cannot say this happened in little steps because it wouldn't work at all if all, or at least most, was there.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

if that is so, answer me this, where did life come from.


Where do you want to start? The start of life or the universe?

To put it in the simplest form, the building blocks of life are all around. Amino acids and other ingredients for life basically "mixed" millions and millions of years ago to create simple lifeforms. That is the simplest way to say it, here is the wiki on abiogenisis if you want to get a more complicated explanation.

p.s. you cannot say this happened in little steps because it wouldn't work at all if all, or at least most, was there.


Uh. Ok?. That tenth bottle of vodka was a bad idea, comrade.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Since the talk has been on quantum consciousness I thought it would be interesting to see what rationalwiki had on the subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_Consciousness#Roger_Penrose

Considering these guys names came up as what's being believed I thought these parts of the wiki were pertinent.

"
Roger Penrose

The most famous proponent of this theory is Roger Penrose (a renowned mathematician whose collaborators include Stephen Hawking). Penrose's argument starts off based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, stating that the existence of the theorem demonstrated that the mind had the capability of thinking outside of an algorithmic fashion, i.e. that consciousness is non-computable. Quantum physics then gives him the out to argue that neurons, and thus the brain as a whole, operate in a probabilistic fashion. Somehow probablistic fashions lead to consciousness. Max Tegmark claims that the brain is simply too hot for quantum states to be influential but naturally other scientists disagree.

Penrose and Hameroff

Penrose then teamed up with Stuart Hameroff, who developed a similar theory about quantum claptrap independently, to further this idea. They developed something called the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) model. Most of it is dependent on Hameroff's assertion that the micro-tubules in neurons could have quantum effects on neuronal behavior. Max Tegmark then actually did the math and found that any quantum effects within micro-tubules would be subject to decoherence and thus not affect brain activity.. Further falsifications of the Orch-OR model have been performed. Penrose is an atheist and his arguments are usually used to support free will without invoking spirits, making this something like materialist woo.

----

As of late, it seems that Penrose and his followers have allowed their brand of quantum consciousness to bleed into Chopra's and that of other woo-meisters.[9] This is rather unfortunate due to the fact that while many predictions made by the Orch-OR model have been wrong, it might have eventually shown promise in a protoscientific sense, while Chopra's nonsense is mostly unfalsifiable and not even wrong.

citation: 9. Hameroff has become a particularly bad offender, having gone on to be featured in What the Bleep Do We Know? and palling around with Chopra himself.
"

And I happen to like the last words on the wiki.

"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world." -Victor Stenger

halogunner
offline
halogunner
807 posts
Nomad

"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world." -Victor Stenger


well It looks like I have nothing left to argue on this subject

(walks away and waits for new scientific evidence on what happens after we die or the technology to make us immortal)

by the way I actually used part of this quote to describe 314d1's views on the subject
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

To put it in the simplest form, the building blocks of life are all around. Amino acids and other ingredients for life basically "mixed" millions and millions of years ago to create simple lifeforms. That is the simplest way to say it, here is the wiki on abiogenisis if you want to get a more complicated explanation.
that article says, in black and white. "NO ONE KNOWS WHERE LIFE CAME FROM"

Uh. Ok?. That tenth bottle of vodka was a bad idea, comrade.
In order for life to work, all the dna needs to be in correct arrangement in order for the recipe for the right proteins and commands are given out. And the chance that it could happen all at once gets smaller and smaller and smaller, exponentially, as more dna pairs are required.
Showing 91-105 of 183