Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

reply to post by BlueMule

First of all, are we going to have conversation, or you prefer for me to grab someone's writing like you do? I do like if people point to articles or quotes of great minds, but that would be just supportive material.

I am well aware of Sam Harris view about this, but him being atheist and having this view does not make it true or possible. I agree that we should try to learn more about everything possible, but when someone 'experience' something year after year spending most of day meditating as he suggested, I wonder how healthy is that for body and mind of the person. I know that there are studies that people who were studied under complete isolation (hearing, no contact to outside world) were more likely to believe in ghosts, but today we know that it is human mind that makes people make those assumption and conclusion. Only difference between schizophrenic and normal mind is that one knows what is real, while other does not.

And now, another atheist view about reincarnation...




Here is Sam Harris explaining about his views on 2 issues (there is more if you follow link at the end):

My views on the paranormal: ESP, reincarnation, etc. (link to here)

My position on the paranormal is this: Although many frauds have been perpetrated in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleged), I would like to know about it. However, I have not attempted to authenticate the data put forward in books such as Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe and Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. (Here, I am making a point about gradations of certainty: Can I say for certain that a century of experimentation proves that telepathy doesn’t exist? No. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the statistical data. Can I say for certain that the Bible and the Koran show every sign of having been written by ignorant mortals? Yes. And this is the only certainty one needs to dismiss the God of Abraham as a creature of fiction.)


My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc. (link to here)

My views on “mystical” or “spiritual” experience are extensively described in The End of Faith, in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled Waking Up: Science, Skepticism, Spirituality. Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging in disciplines like meditation, and these experiences obviously shed some light on the nature of the human mind. (Any experience does, for that matter). The metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of these experiences, however, are highly questionable. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others.

Several neuroscience labs are now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. I am not personally engaged in this research, but I know many of the scientists who are. This is a fertile area of inquiry that is deepening our understanding of human well-being.

While I consider Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists. It is available here:

Killing the Buddha

* Source: Response to Controversy

SuperFrog
I know that there are studies that people who were studied under complete isolation (hearing, no contact to outside world) were more likely to believe in ghosts, but today we know that it is human mind that makes people make those assumption and conclusion. Only difference between schizophrenic and normal mind is that one knows what is real, while other does not.

It sounds like you think you know what's real and what isn't, and know what the human mind is. Do you?

Replies to SuperFrog

You and me need to have a separate thread.
I like your style.

"Sorry, but I have this misconception that Vedic religion covered times between 1750BC and 500BC. This is time when caste system was developed, circa 1200BC."

How did you develop this misconception?

"I just wonder if you believe eveything proposed from teaching, or just parts that you like and make sense to your."

My views are based on Vedic literature - the Veda and six authentic 'shashtra' which are affirmed by countless 'Yogis'.

"I don't see aboriginal or other uncivilized people developing schools on their own. Even when pressed, they actually avoid schools. How come you did not see chimps in school?"

Not going to school does not mean they lack intuition and intelligence? How did you come to that conclusion?
The schooling and training teaches you skills including politics and organization. However tribals are able to hunt or grow food and do many other tasks which require a good amount of intelligence.

"So, question is still there, do Chimps have soul or not?"

Yes they have, and similar soul as you. You read my posts selectively. Search and read all of my posts on ATS. Then only you will get clarity of my views.

"This lead us into next question - when soul gets born, as if at the moment we have a bit more then 7 billion people (read 7 billion souls), where all those extra come from, as just 1960 we had about 3 billion. Somehow that theory just does not work with numbers, for example on one of close to extinction event, scientist believe that our race population was close to only 18K."

The souls are countless. Your question has been answered by many people before. An increase in humans means a decrease in numbers in other species. And these extra humans live no better than animals. Half of humanity lives in poverty.

interupt42

webedoomed
reply to post by sulaw

 

There is no science in this, whatsoever.

Would you agree that the human vessel while alive is a system of energy requiring external energy as in a form or calories to sustain life. Once death occurs the body no longer intakes energy and eventually that energy...

... ceases. The human vessel is no longer fueled due to the inability to produce energy from ingested calories. The use of this energy in the form of calories is then used by a different human vessel capable of producing energy from calories to maintain the perception of consciousness until such time as the intake of calories by that vessel ceases and the available calories are then used by another human vessel, and so on, and so on...

Just as the chemical processes in the brain that give us the perception of consciousness would cease to function due to the lack of energy provided by the intake of calories.

People who have 'past life' and 'spiritual' experiences may be using parts of the brain that we do not yet understand.

Grey Matter. You inherited it from your parents.

BlueMule
It sounds like you think you know what's real and what isn't, and know what the human mind is. Do you?

Based on your arrogance, I am sure that you will provide us with comprehensive answer about mind and what is real or not. Let me ask you simple question, have you ever been close to schizophrenic person?

At least you did not c/p huge amount of someone's else work in your answer, thank you. Please read rules about 1 line replies.





reply to post by GargIndia

First time I studied more details about Hinduism and vedic religion was while I was in college. It was class about religions in world, and before that I rarely read anything more detailed about Hinduism. Reason I persistently asked you about caste system, for which I still did not get answer (and no, I will not read all your other threads just to find answer to simple question like this) is simple, I wrote an paper for that class about use of religions as tool to control masses.

As soon as I read any 'spiritual' text and rules, I find all those little details that usually have couple things and no religion in world is exempt from those:

1. self preservation of religion (only this religion is true, all other are wrong, and only those believing will be saved or go into higher state of mind. questioning religion mostly lead you out of it)
2. control of masses (religions as tool to control and set rules in society, vedic teaching is no exempt from this)


In my own opinion (again, just opinion), all those claims made by people who claim that have experienced 'higher state of mind' is just delusion. Most of those so called 'mystics' are already proven crooks, praying on people with problems and giving false hopes.

Richard Dawkins has covered many of those 'teachings' in his 'The Enemies of Reason'. Here are both videos, please let me know what you think.





Another person that has exposed many crooks is, already mentioned in this topic, James Randi. He offered 1 million to anyone who will prove any paranormal ability under conditions that they will agree prior to test. So far, after many years no one ever won price.

And speaking of souls, so many souls existed before even start of universe? Do you believe that human soul can end up in animal? And if chimps have souls, how come they don't experience previous life, the same as human kids sometimes experience them according to late Ian Stevenson or his successor Jim Tucker. How come we don't have a chimp making a drawing of something great, speaking any language...

reply to post by SuperFrog

Another person that has exposed many crooks is, already mentioned in this topic, James Randi.

You said in another thread a while back that you were going to read Chris Carter's book about Psychic Phenomena and The Fall of the House of Skeptics....

reply to post by wildtimes

I have book on hold, it should be in my library right after holiday and in time for me to finish what I am reading atm. I will post more about it once I start reading.

From Nov 26th. In your thread: Does Paranormal Exist?


apparently you lied, or changed your mind, if you're still touting Randi as some 'messiah of truth.'

He's a fraud.
o_O

SuperFrog

BlueMule
It sounds like you think you know what's real and what isn't, and know what the human mind is. Do you?

Based on your arrogance, I am sure that you will provide us with comprehensive answer about mind and what is real or not. Let me ask you simple question, have you ever been close to schizophrenic person?

At least you did not c/p huge amount of someone's else work in your answer, thank you. Please read rules about 1 line replies.

Close. Based on my arrogance, I'm going to wait for you to answer my question instead of deflecting it. Based on that answer, I will decide if you are going to be any fun to talk to. So far it looks like you won't be any fun at all, but I'll give you another shot since you're a super-powered frog and all.

It sounds like you think you know what's real and what isn't, and know what the human mind is. Do you?

wildtimes
You said in another thread a while back that you were going to read Chris Carter's book about Psychic Phenomena and The Fall of the House of Skeptics....

apparently you lied, or changed your mind, if you're still touting Randi as some 'messiah of truth.'

Unfortunately I was unable to read book at the time, and soon I will have more free time and your book is on the top of my reading list. As I said, as soon as I read it, I will open topic about it. As for Randi being 'messiah of truth', I never said such a thing, only that he exposed and showed how to do tricks what supposed people with 'gift' could do.

reply to post by SuperFrog

As for Randi being 'messiah of truth', I never said such a thing...he exposed and showed how to do tricks what supposed people with 'gift' could do.

Thanks for saying so.

He has NOT, however, proved EVERYONE does tricks or exposed them ALL as frauds. That's what I'm saying - he found a few, then jumped to the conclusion that they ALL are frauds. And it just isn't so.

I hope to hear from you again when you've had a chance to look at the book(s).

reply to post by wildtimes


That quote you shared...I believe you read it wrong. From what I'm seeing, he was referring to someone who had proven themselves invaluable in exposing other people as frauds.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That quote you shared...I believe you read it wrong. From what I'm seeing, he was referring to someone who had proven themselves invaluable in exposing other people as frauds.

Perhaps.

But, I don't really think so. SuperFrog is allergic to the idea of paranormal.

He's referring to James Randi and his "Million Dollar Challenge" - and it isn't as he described, really. Randi himself has to "approve" of the 'experiment' setup; and when prepared people, with a track record of success, have taken him up on the challenge - he hems and haws and says, "yeah, sure - let me pass this on to my colleagues", and then oh-so-conveniently never gets back to them.

I'm just saying.....read the book! Chris Carter. Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics.
That's the one SuperFrog said he'll read also.

I was new to the author myself - but wow, does he give a thorough examination of the evidence: both PRO and CON.

Randi focuses on "con", and chooses the lamest examples to shore up his sketchy 'confident debunking.' The FACT is that physicists are more and more open to the idea that 'consciousness' is not 'a product of the brain'......but exists outside of it; the brain works as both a transmitter and a receiver. No matter how many 'brain sections' scientists shut down looking for the "house" of consciousness IN THE BRAIN ITSELF, they can't find it.

It lies OUTSIDE the brain.
Combine that with QM/QP and you have an excellent leg to stand on. All buff and everything!

tencap77
ok. besides the fact we KNOW that quantum physics DOES NOT WORK! (another evolutionary dead end, like bicameral governments or the betamax) you can prove this how? with math? ok. gothca. So what your saying is, when I kick, my "id" can transfer to a Universe that quantum physics says might exist in a fold of a racoons rectum! Gotcha! Now, please pass that bong and the chicken wings, oh , and don't forget the hot sauce and hit play on the quantum porn in the betamax would ya !

You see if you read the book before contributing to this thread you wouldn't sound like such a tool.

I'm half way through it and yet to see any 'math'. Instead what is being presented is simple observations, documented and proven observations on how particles behave whilst being observed.

Loving the book by the way.

angryhulk

tencap77
ok. besides the fact we KNOW that quantum physics DOES NOT WORK! (another evolutionary dead end, like bicameral governments or the betamax) you can prove this how? with math? ok. gothca. So what your saying is, when I kick, my "id" can transfer to a Universe that quantum physics says might exist in a fold of a racoons rectum! Gotcha! Now, please pass that bong and the chicken wings, oh , and don't forget the hot sauce and hit play on the quantum porn in the betamax would ya !

You see if you read the book before contributing to this thread you wouldn't sound like such a tool.

I'm half way through it and yet to see any 'math'. Instead what is being presented is simple observations, documented and proven observations on how particles behave whilst being observed.

Loving the book by the way.

It seems a lot of this idea that consciousness can transfer to another universe pre-supposes that consciousness is a separate thing to begin with -- i.e., some "thing" that exists separate from brain functions (a "soul" if you will). Others see consciousness as not a real thing, but as something that the brain perceives; a product of brain functions.

I admit I did not read the book, but from what I heard and read from other sources claiming that "consciousness" or "the soul" are real things, the evidence promoting these things as real was circumstantial.

Granted -- the evidence is also only circumstantial promoting that consciousness is NOT real, and is simply a imagined construct of our brains doing its thing -- i.e., something that the brain perceives as real, but isn't. When our brains die, and the chemicals in the brain stop moving around, then the perceived "consciousnesses" just ceases, along with the brain.

The point is that nobody (yet) knows for sure. When we die, we may then discover that we have a separate consciousness and/or soul. Or maybe when we die, we won't find out anything at all.

here is an interesting little article about "What is Consciousness". It doesn't give any evidence one way or the other, but asks the broad questions:

www.psychologytoday.com...

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory

Highlights
• The Orch OR theory proposes quantum computations in brain microtubules account for consciousness.
• Microtubule ‘quantum channels’ in which anesthetics erase consciousness are identified.
• Evidence for warm quantum vibrations in brain microtubules is cited.
• Interference of microtubule vibrations are ‘beat frequencies’ seen as EEG.
• Orch OR links consciousness to processes in fundamental space–time geometry.

Stuart Hammeroff is an anesthesiologist, and so is uniquely qualified to study consciousness whereas he is intimately familiar with turning it off and how that affects the brain's functioning.



Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist and is very widely respected in the field of cosmology and is thus intimately familiar with the fabric of the observable universe.



This is cutting edge science we are discussing here and shows that much of what has been said in the subtext of various mystic and religious teachings (that is common among them) is being born out by the most advanced science we have.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Yay!! Thank you!

Those are awesome.....!!

It's getting harder for the 'materialists' to deny this stuff; and we need to not let up the pressure to accept it as newly recognized TRUTH!

wildtimes
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

 

Yay!! Thank you!

Those are awesome.....!!

It's getting harder for the 'materialists' to deny this stuff; and we need to not let up the pressure to accept it as newly recognized TRUTH!

I personally do not "deny" the possibility of a separate consciousness. However, I have yet to read or hear anything that convinces me. Those videos above are nice and all, but they are still not the solid evidence I would need to believe that my consciousness can transfer to something/somewhere when I die.

I wonder things like "where did my consciousness come from"? "How did it get into my brain"? "For that matter, when did it get inside my brain"?

Did it happen at birth? Conception? somewhere in between?

What triggered the movement of consciousness from wherever it was before into me?

Soylent Green Is People

I wonder things like "where did my consciousness come from"? "How did it get into my brain"? "For that matter, when did it get inside my brain"?

Did it happen at birth? Conception? somewhere in between?

What triggered the movement of consciousness from wherever it was before into me?

All fair questions, which ironically is the beauty (or curse) of consciousness at work.

I too often wonder- what determined that my sense of "me" would exist in this body? At this time and place? Or at all? When "I" decide to lift my right arm, is that "me" controlling my brain or my brain controlling "me"? What commands the brain to do these things in the first place? My mind? Well what the eff is that? My mind is my consciousness to some extent, is it not?

I've been exploring the concepts of non-local consciousness- where quantum biology and quantum physics will converge. Science is advancing on this front and I do believe that one of man's greatest achievements (other than the domestication of dogs ) will be the discovery that humans are not only biochemical systems but also highly sophisticated resonating quantum systems. That perhaps we are not just the physical vessels that we see.

We're the first species on this planet (that we know of) to ever "peak behind the curtain" of the universe. To embark on a quest to unravel its secrets. I wonder if we are the only living things in the last 4 billion years in this neck of the galactic woods to be able to do this. And if it was all by just lucky chance ( as much of the materialist view suggests), then are we even supposed to be seeing and wondering about it all in the first place?

Humans are the 00, as I see it. After millions of spins of the evolutionary roulette wheel, we finally hit. I think it was bound to happen as it's coded in the very DNA we came out of. But like the 00 could we wipe everything out, or did the universe double up on it? Our species could very well be on the cusp of taking control of our own evolution as we know it. Given enough time we might very well merge with robots, be able to live forever, and perhaps even leave this planet for others, reproduce, and spread. This all thanks to that very elusive thing we call consciousness...

These are interesting times indeed...

Soylent Green Is People

wildtimes
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

 

Yay!! Thank you!

Those are awesome.....!!

It's getting harder for the 'materialists' to deny this stuff; and we need to not let up the pressure to accept it as newly recognized TRUTH!

I personally do not "deny" the possibility of a separate consciousness. However, I have yet to read or hear anything that convinces me. Those videos above are nice and all, but they are still not the solid evidence I would need to believe that my consciousness can transfer to something/somewhere when I die.

I wonder things like "where did my consciousness come from"? "How did it get into my brain"? "For that matter, when did it get inside my brain"?

Did it happen at birth? Conception? somewhere in between?

What triggered the movement of consciousness from wherever it was before into me?

And what would prove it for you? Transferring the consciousness of a rat into a robotic counterpart and watching it learn how to crawl all over again?

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Great videos!

It's true, materialist just ASSUME that consciousness must emerge from the material brain and there's zero evidence to support this notion.

Consciousness is an immaterial aspect of reality that knows and navigates the information stored in the material brain. For instance, when I recall a specific memory, the brain just stores the memory of when I first went swimming. There's zero evidence that the material brain knows which memory you wish to recall. How can it know? How does the material brain know the difference between a memory where I first went diving vs. a memory where I first went swimming and which memory I wish to recall? It doesn't.

The brain stores information and the mind operates and navigates this stored information. Even Oxford Professor and Atheist David Deutsch realizes reductionism has it's limits and there's an immaterial aspect to reality.

Oxford physicist David Deutsch is an atheist -- who also endorses the reality of information as irreducible to physics.

"Information, in my view," he says in the clip (at about 40:35), "cannot be reduced to statements about atoms." He then gives a story about the transmission of information which should be familiar to any intelligent-design advocate. "It's only special kinds of information," he goes on, "that are preserved and instantiated," not because of their physical instantiations, which are strictly irrelevant, but because of their informational properties.

www.evolutionnews.org...

He also said:

I think that the argument against free will from reductionism is just a mistake. It's a fundamental mistake. It's the idea that all explanation must be in terms of microscopic things. There's no philosophical argument in favor of that that I'm aware of. It's just an assumption. It has historical roots in how science centuries ago escaped from the clutches of the supernatural. And as I said earlier, certainly I'm opposed to any kind of modes of explanation in terms of immaterial things, in terms of abstractions, that contradict physics, but the idea that all such explanations by their very nature contradict physics is simply false….

These are the same things people are saying with the Quantum Mind or Biocentrism. It makes no sense to try to reduce everything to it's material components.

wildtimes
reply to post by SuperFrog
Thanks for saying so.

He has NOT, however, proved EVERYONE does tricks or exposed them ALL as frauds. That's what I'm saying - he found a few, then jumped to the conclusion that they ALL are frauds. And it just isn't so.

I hope to hear from you again when you've had a chance to look at the book(s).

I never said otherwise.

He did prove everyone who tried to get price, many of them on national television and many of them were very upset as their business collapsed due to exposure of truth. Geller comes to mind, as he was exposed using simple tricks, but once set by night show host, he was unable to do ANYTHING, because there was no way to trick them.

It is very arrogant not to recognize all good this man has done for us. Something similar was done by famous Houdini in his time. He offered the same, price for someone who could talk to dead people iirc. Guess how many succeeded to get price.

Speaking of paranormal and hoax, someone who Randi was trying to get to prove him wrong for over 10 years has just passed away recently - Sylvia Browne - but no worries, her son Chris can take reading and there is 20 bucks 'New Year' discount. Just wonder if his price is now at his mom's level - $475 for 20 minutes reading.

Talking about real crooks...