/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10363083
We dont know.
Perhaps emergent property of highly complex and powerful Turing Machines

>>10363083
Thalamocortikal and cortikocortikal connectomes explain it very well

>>10363083
science does not explain consciousness, please stop making these threads

>>10363086
>consciousness emerges from computation
I disagree strongly. You can't have computation without consciousness.

>>10363098
So all computers are conscious?

>>10363090
How so? what's the difference between those and regular motor neurons?

>>10363097
Why not? Is it not in the realm of reality?

>>10363083
Science doesn't disprove souls. Fedora tipper NPCs do, or at least show souls are not always mutually exclusive with a human body.

>>10363083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>10363083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbFuudKAic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsM4CKnpfn8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui8oEvUwzkc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

>>10363108
Computers do not compute, we compute using computers.

>>10363083
How could a made-up concept based on absolutely nothing like the soul be an explanation ?
Science doesn't have a real answer at the moment, that doesn't mean we should invent one.

Lost. This is probably the most used pic on /sci/.

>>10363184
>made up based in nothing
It's based on the fact that consciousness exists.

How do you explain gravity then? There's a sheet of cosmic space and time that is pulled down by objects attracted to something under said sheet of shit?

>>10363083
Science may not be able to explain consciousness at present, but that doesn't make a supernatural explanation more likely.

Obviously a bait thread but it is weird that people think some magic ghost thing is needed to explain consciousness. If someone takes a scalpel to a brain and effectively makes that person a retard, did their soul also get sliced? Do animals get a certain portion of soul juice depending on how close to sapience they are?

>>10363083
Soul doesn't explain it either. Religious retards actually do it the opposite way: soul is the whole point for them and they don't care about consciousness.

>>10363239
>hurr, intelligence is the same as consciousness.
Fucking retard.

>>10363322
where was that stated?

If we think of the contents of consciousness as models of variables in the world e.g. the tv's we see, the words we hear etc; then consciousness itself would be the model's material.

Like a model of a toy car made of wood.

The question is. How can you use the wood to model itself (i.e. carve it into a good representation of itself).

Its almost nonsensical.
And even if you could, what makes a good model of a toy car is the way you carve it; thats where the information is.
So even if you managed to model the wood itself, it would some how be through the carving.
If you had some kind of machine that could sense the shape of the wood to identify what was being modelled then even if you managed to model consciousness, the machines detection of it would be in no reference to the material itself.

Dare i say it, talking about qualia is nonsensical. It cannot be done. There is no issue to be solved.

AI could never have consciousness because _________

>>10363436
>How can you use the wood to model itself
Easy. Whatever you do with it, the wood will always model itself

>>10363083
it's an ILLUSION

There once was a
THERE ONCE WAS A MAN WHO SAID THOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE I THAT KNOWS ME WHEN I KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW
> THERE ONCE WAS A MAN WHO SAID THOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE I THAT KNOWS ME WHEN I KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW
THERE ONCE WAS A MAN WHO SAID THOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE I THAT KNOWS ME WHEN I KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW
>THERE ONCE WAS A MAN WHO SAID THOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE I THAT KNOWS ME WHEN I KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW
THERE ONCE WAS A MAN WHO SAID THOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE I THAT KNOWS ME WHEN I KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT I KNOW

>>10363472
thats a nonsensical statement and violates the definition of what a model is - a morphism.

>>10363570
So you can't have a morphism between a thing and itself?

>>10363083
It’s just brain computation.

>>10363121
Please show me physics being violated inside of a brain.

>>10363208
No it isn’t. It’s based on primitive humans being dumb and making up explanations for things they don’t understand. That’s like saying Thor is based on lightning.

>>10363599
See >>10363098

>>10363160

>>10363322
He never said that. He’s asking how brain damage can alter subjective experiences, capabilities, memories, etc, if there’s some magical immaterial soul. If the brain is a “receiver”, which would require physics evidently being violated in the brain, the soul is mindless, deaf, dumb, and blind on its own.

>>10363607
Computers are not conscious. Neither are iPhones or abacus. What is this meme shit?

>>10363469
they can though, nothing says they can't eventually

>>10363591
no what would be the point.

>>10363469
Because of no reason. We know.

>>10363208
don't bother arguing with the materialist

>>10363631
Because that's what reality is, wood woods. A pencil pencils. A concrete block concrete blocks. And so forth. The morphism is ultimately the thing, because that object isn't actually separate from the definition you impose upon it, it takes on those qualities, at least memetically.

>>10363645
Souls, if they existed, would be material. Supernaturalism falls flat on its face.

>>10363083
Science tries, is the point. Anything pertaining to the idea of a "soul" does not.

The main issue with consciousness is that people seem to treat it as some kind of a binary concept. When it's not. Observing children, or mentally handicapped people, we can clearly see that it's a spectrum that typically seems to be tied to one's mental development. Or intellect. A normal human is fully conscious, where someone with down's syndrome, or just 2 years old is less than that. In fact, animal studies have shown that many other animals too are conscious on varying basic levels. Of self, of immediate family, of the concept of safety or threat.

So it's safe to say that consciousness and intellect walk hand in hand, the more you have of one, the more you have of the other too. Why? Who knows. My personal favorite is because of abstraction. Abstract thinking, the ability to recognize properties not immediately obvious such as the passage of time, difference between density and volume, cause and effect, basically requires the ability to go beyond what your immediate senses tell you. The ability to simulate scenarios based on your experiences and use that to predict what would happen and what you can do to affect it. The sense of self, and how to simulate yourself in those events, and which events are most beneficial for you specifically, is basically how consciousness works. Of course, any real intelligence requires external stimulus. The ability to interact with an environment. Otherwise it could never be anything but a self-repeating program.

So tldr; Intellect is the ability to understand cause and effect, and to act upon that information to manipulate events in your favor. The higher the intellect, the better it is at abstraction. And the better it is at abstraction, the higher its consciousness.

>>10363660
They could be higher dimensional, ergo, metaphysical.

>>10363648
but models arent reality, they are descriptions of reality. the object is separate. look at those words. pencils. concrete blocks. are those words the same as the object? no. they are models though.

>>10363676
Existing in some other spatial dimension or spacetime manifold doesn’t make them any less material than a stick.

We (you)have to rely on personal experience.
Have a lucid dream and a OBE.
That shall answer your questions.

>>10363620
perhaps the brain is the interface between the soul and the physical world

>>10363681
A thing is a model of itself through our representation of that thing in acts of perception. Thus the wood is always a model of the wood, albeit a transcendental one (contrary to immanent models we make, like our knowledge of physics).

>>10363660
how can you even be a scientist if you're unable to fathom the existence of things that could contradict your current understanding
I'd bet you do some mundane slightly-above-average-intelligence job, the kind robots will be doing soon

>>10363667
>safe to say that consciousness and intellect walk
arent you begging the question? you havent justified yourself. Im not sure people would synonymise intellect and consciousness.

>>10363684
Interesting take, in my own definition, something consisting of and embedded within higher dimensional space and geometries would have a completely different "system" of constituent components (as opposed to atoms, quarks, etc) and thus be non physical or you could even say metaphysical, or supernatural, it seems like it's possible that any n-dimensional space has to be embedded or nested within at least n+1 dimensional space, or else it couldn't "fit" into reality at all (the 3D universe, for example, may not have created the 3d space to be able to expand in, it may have been grown in a 4D space).

>>10363717
but then a perceptual representation isnt the same as the wood itself and is far less complex even so that they cannot be the same. based on just looking or feeling we cant capture all the aspects of the wood like atoms or cells etc.

>>10363717
This. The whole world is illusion, science is just seeing it through certain lenses and relative viewpoints, namely the ones of 21st century humans, and ai it now seems...

>>10363604
>Please show me physics being violated inside of a brain.
Why would souls violate physics?
The existence of a soul is unfalsifiable, like gods. Science doesn't prove they don't exist but they're also not necessary for the physical world we observe around us.

>>10363083
It's just neurons firing in your brain. Yours is unique because you have a unique set of conditions for your firing neurons.

>>10363702
Maybe a monkey will be born from my asshole one day and start reciting Hume. If there’s a “soul” and it “interfaces” with the brain, please demonstrate the apparent violation of physics in a brain.

>>10363733
That's the thing though, separation is an illusion. Everything acts like a droplet, or a wave, in an ocean. The whole ocean makes the waves wave the way they wave. Thus, every action effects everything else. the butterfly effect. So, the wood of a tree is effected by our perception of it, both individually and collectively, and so, that becomes the life of the tree. For someone who never saw that tree, well he doesn't give a damn about that tree, so he doesn't care if the tree gets cut down or dies from rot or all sorts of nasty things. So, his apathy towards the tree effects what it is, itself and its life.

>>10363752
Why does a soul have to "violate" the physics of a brain? Why can't it work with them?

>>10363733
Interesting, but I don't see how atoms are part of the wood. I'm changing the subject a bit because I'm getting out of my depth.

>>10363742
“Science doesn't disprove souls. Fedora tipper NPCs do, or at least show souls are not always mutually exclusive with a human body.”

“Why would souls violate physics?”

“The existence of a soul is unfalsifiable, like gods.”

Not true. If the soul actually exists and interacts with the brain, this would be observable. An ion bouncing off of nothing or appearing from nowhere. Physics being apparently violated. If souls DON’T do that, then they’re completely redundant and their non existence is identical to their existence.

Unfalsifiable things aren’t worth even considering.

>>10363752
why do atheists always talk so arrogantly and make pretentious allusions in their arguments, to sound smarter? it might fool stupid people but not anyone whose opinion actually matters

>>10363766
I think you're missing the bigger picture: things we haven't been able to detect yet for whatever reason, whether higher dimensional or just some form of "matter" or "energy" that we haven't seen yet, we are ALWAYS discovering new shit, why do you think it just would stop? I think you're some kind of troll, desu.

>>10363775
Maybe we will one day, but you’re going to have to wait until this hypothetical discovery is made for me to believe it. I’m suuuure that’ll happen.

>>10363799
no one's telling you you ought to believe it, get over yourself

>>10363799
I don't even "believe it", I just realize the only rational position is that we may find more things out there, and some may answer questions we've always had.

>There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

>>10363768
Not an argument.

>>10363762
If the soul isn’t observable itself, what we would see is molecules interacting with what looks like nothing, like making an invisible man visible by throwing flour on him. Gonna have to see some evidence of that.

>>10363835
Good for you.

>>10363826
No one “ought” to believe it.

>>10363847
why not? what harm does it do?

>>10363083
>how does science explain consciousness?
how would souls?

No serious individual claims that souls don't exist, only edgy teenager's.

>>10363854
It causes people to prioritize a nonexistent afterlife over the actual universe. Pretty harmful.

>>10363875
No serious individual claims that souls exist, only edgy teenagers. Bare assertions are true!

>>10363887
Dualism the most effective view. Claiming both as fundamental. Material and Soul. Then, leaning towards any of them in a pragmatic matter.

>>10363907
Manner*

>>10363907
That’s lovely. Now prove souls exist.

the self is a useful evolutionary fiction, a way to bring all the sensory information into a single unit capable of acting based on them together.

>>10363907
Please outline how "souls" interact with the material world. What are the requirements, what are the effects, what is the mechanism?

>>10363921
Going to need to start pulling a cybernetic ship of theseus on our brains before that's accepted

>>10363915
There is no outlined absolute proof for anything that emerges in reality, one cannot prove that anything material exists just as one cannot prove that anything spiritual does.
This is because the mere action of measurement implies interaction between two bodies (mind with matter). One can only approach the truth by both means, the material and the spiritual. Material by the scientific method (experiment) but also spiritual by reason and intuition. The way we take for granted that the things that surround us are proof of their existence is an illusion of the implied interaction between the object, you, and all the other bodies that interact with the object.
>>10363924
By difference. Any two bodies are going to interact if there is a difference of energy between them. The continual difference between any two bodies across space-time is the fundamental spirit. Any two bodies that don't have a difference have no soul. The body is the material. The Difference is the soul.

>>10363764

all mental representations are fictions. we dont have stable internal representations. we are just a flow of states in an of themselves.

hence why we often say or do contradictory thinga in different contexts.

hence the ignorance that racism is not a real single construct but complicated

hemce why Liam Neeson has been fucking blackwashed and blacklisted and misunderstood. That one act doesnt make him a racist.

>>10363992
>There is no outlined absolute proof for anything that emerges in reality, one cannot prove that anything material exists just as one cannot prove that anything spiritual does.
This is because the mere action of measurement implies interaction between two bodies (mind with matter). One can only approach the truth by both means, the material and the spiritual. Material by the scientific method (experiment) but also spiritual by reason and intuition. The way we take for granted that the things that surround us are proof of their existence is an illusion of the implied interaction between the object, you, and all the other bodies that interact with the object.

Holy shit I love /x/ sophistry.

I’ll ask you again.
Prove souls exist. Demonstrate them.

>>10364000
>That one act doesnt make him a racist


Yes it does, at least at some point. What?

>>10364006
not now though and not even then necessarily. its all context. Neeson has been framed though and ganglashed by the femipanthernazis

>>10364001
Proof matter exists...

Okay. The only way I can answer you without me being completely misunderstood is by first asking you to outline what you understand by the word soul.
I understand the soul to be all transformation phenomena. That is movement, forces, flow, attraction, repulsion.

What is your understanding? to be on the same page.

>>10364041
You’ve redefined the soul into something everyone knows exists. Congrats!

Touch your arm. Matter proven.

>>10363148
You have a weird fetish.

>>10364052
how old are you?

Ok, let's go with that, what processes the signal when you touch your arm? And, what is the condition for you to able to touch your arm?

>>10363160
Psychosis is fun

>>10364069
>Ok, let's go with that, what processes the signal when you touch your arm?

More matter. Nothing else for computation to take place in.

>And, what is the condition for you to able to touch your arm?

What? Humans can touch their own arms as long as they have them and the chemical energy necessary to perform said action.

>how old are you?

Irrelevant. Keep your dementia-riddled mind on topic.

>>10364088
>More matter. Nothing else for computation to take place in.

there you go, assuming we know all there is to know and theres nothing outside the bounds of our knowledge, try again.

>>10364114
>there you go, assuming we know all there is to know and theres nothing outside the bounds of our knowledge, try again.


Never said that. Try again. /x/ schizophrenia isn’t working very well, is it?

>>10364118
>Nothing else for computation to take place in.

Yes, you did.

>>10364088

Nice you used a very nice word in the first answer: Computation. You are right in saying that matter is there to process it, but that same matter moves and arranges itself to do a computation, would you say that a computation is matter?

The second one, yes. First you need a body, but also you need chemical, and potential energy to move, would you say that energy and the movement of your arm is matter?

Also the thing you are missing is the difference in density and temperature for you get the signal of your arm. If not, you would pass right through.

>>10364125
>Yes, you did.

Nope. I said there was nothing else for computation to take place in. I did not say that
“we know all there is to know and theres nothing outside the bounds of our knowledge”

Maybe lying works on /x/ but it’ll be caught here. Better luck next time.

Please demonstrate the existence of another computational substrate that exists independent of the brain.

>>10364126
>but that same matter moves and arranges itself to do a computation, would you say that a computation is matter?

Wrong. Computation is something performed by Matter. It is not matter inofitself.

>First you need a body, but also you need chemical, and potential energy to move, would you say that energy and the movement of your arm is matter?

Wrong. Energy is not matter as it lacks rest mass. Movement is something that matter does. It is not matter inotitself.

>Also the thing you are missing is the difference in density and temperature for you get the signal of your arm. If not, you would pass right through.

There’s not supposed to be any difference between the temperature of your hand and your arm.

>>10364129
Well you obviously think there is nothing else to learn as far as matter, exotic matter, or possible higher dimensional or otherwise so far undetected/untedetctable "matter" or "energy". I don;t need to denmonstrate evidence of it, I can take the only rational position and say "we simply don't know, and don;t know enough to say". You on the otherhand, seem to be very defensive about the existence of a "soul"? Does the idea of possibly having one scare you? What does that mean, if you do? If you cannot handle the idea of an immortal soul, maybe you have some growing to do. I'm fine either way, honestly, how about you?

>>10364139
Okay, Finally, if it is not matter inofitself, what is it?

>>10364146
Mini 2D universes created by electrochemical and electromagnetic reactions and flux that may or may not be tied to higher dimensional geometries and or unknown exotic matter.

>tfw animism/panpsychism solves all of this and takes it to go.

Hello God, it's me, God.

>>10364153
Yep, soul.
It is also a pragmatic word u know?

>>10363086
>We
nigga who

>>10364142
>Well you obviously think there is nothing else to learn as far as matter, exotic matter, or possible higher dimensional or otherwise so far undetected/untedetctable "matter" or "energy".

Wrong. These things may exist. Burden of proof is on you if you’re going to start involving these things in hypothesis.

>I don;t need to denmonstrate evidence of it, I can take the only rational position and say "we simply don't know, and don;t know enough to say".

You do need to demonstrate evidence of it if you’re going to claim it exists or involve it in hypothesis.

>You on the otherhand, seem to be very defensive about the existence of a "soul"?

Prove souls exist.

>Does the idea of possibly having one scare you?

No, because it’d be redundant and not actually do anything. Memories and thoughts are neural processes and entities.

>What does that mean, if you do?

It’d mean there’s some kernel of mindless, deaf, dumb “soul” that continues to exist after brain necrosis. Not very interesting.

>If you cannot handle the idea of an immortal soul, maybe you have some growing to do.

Prove an immortal soul exists. Until you do, there’s nothing to discuss.

>I'm fine either way, honestly, how about you?

Irrelevant.

>>10364153
Prove it. You made a claim. Let’s see that burden of proof.

>>10364146
Computation. Information processing.

>>10364175
Circular argument.
Computation is what I'm referring to with soul, and the second phrasing is exactly what I meant with dualism. Information (body) processing (soul).

>>10364189
>Computation is what I'm referring to with soul, and the second phrasing is exactly what I meant with dualism. Information (body) processing (soul).

So the soul is just mechanical actions ongoing between particles. So dualism is Wrong.

I’ve never seen someone so stupid.

>>10364175
Sure, go look up all the cia and fbi declassified documents about psychic activity and astral projection/remote viewing, among other things. Or actually read some spiritual philosophies our planet has produced over the millenia and realize what they are saying at the core makes a lot of sense, in a logical way. I don;t even think your version of a materialist reality is very different from one that someone like Alan Watts would consider his normal reality, just maybe more interconnected. Do the research, you may be surprised by what you find.

>>10364201
Why would it be wrong, do you understand what dualism means?

It is not mechanical actions but actions themselves, any kind of transformation. And the neverending succession of them is the totality of the soul.

Saying shit doesn't make you right.

>>10364175
>Prove it. You made a claim. Let’s see that burden of proof.

It's called a speculation, it helps us see the possibilities with logic, of course you don;t belive it outright, but you consider this may be close to the "actual" configuration.

>>10364221
>Saying shit doesn't make you right

>>10364221
“Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.” Redefining the soul as information processing renders it a mere physical process.

>And the neverending succession of them is the totality of the soul.

Sophistry

>>10364220
Peer-reviewed double blind experiments, please.

>>10364225
Oh, you’re just going on a schizophrenic rambling.

>>10364236
Man, you must really not want to have a soul, if you can't even concede they may exist. Where did God touch you?

>>10364244
>Man, you must really not want to have a soul,

Why would I want to have a mindless, blind, deaf, dumb kernel of nothing that exists somewhere after I die?

>if you can't even concede they may exist.

They could, I’ve said that repeatedly. Stop lying, little one. If you redefine the “soul” to just be information processing, we can acknowledge that the “soul” exists under such an arbitrary definition as a physical process, but that’s not a definition I would use since it refutes dualism.

>Where did God touch you?

Not an argument. Good to see /x/‘s best has nothing to offer.

>>10364236
I did not redefine the soul as information processing just the process itself. The process is non-physical! The process is the non-physical part, not the "physical". And it is separable as you use one word for physical and the other for process. The fact that you use both of them to describe phenomena is dualism.

Good night fellow anons.

>>10364278
>The process is non-physical!

How the fuck is neurons shooting ions at eachother not physical?

>>10364257
Not the same as the information processing guy. Well, at least you've conceded that souls may exist, but, I think your current definition of what a soul could be is too constricting and limiting. The best science happens when we peak into places and find things we haven't seen before. If God exists his machinations would probably be nigh unfathomable to our human minds, doesn't mean they can't exist, we may just not be able to sense them in our current state.

>>10363604
>That’s like saying Thor is based on lightning.
do you even know who thor is you fucking asswipe? he is literally the god of lightning.

>>10363742
>It's just neurons firing in your brain.
so if we had a being with 2 neurons firing it would be conscious? (assuming it could survive with that many)

>>10364244
>you should believe things exist because you want them to exist

>>10364328
Uh Anon I think his argument was that Thor isn't actually making the lightning happen, that the existence of lightning does not prove Thor exists.

>>10364328
Thor doesn't exist.

>>10364332
you do

>>10364332
Maybe, how would we know? Obviously wouldn’t think anywhere near as complexly as we do, but profound thoughts don’t define consciousness.

>>10364324
>but, I think your current definition of what a soul could be is too constricting and limiting.

Yes, how should we define this thing humans literally made up? I think most people agree that it’s supposed to be a nonmaterial aspect or source of consciousness.

>>10364328
Yes, German people’s invented the mythology of Thor to explain the lightning they saw.

>>10363766

The placebo effect is evidence for consciousness or some human mental condition affecting matter.

>>10364332
Are you?

>>10364408
No they aren’t, because the placebo affects only subjective experience.

https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/clinical-trials/placebo-effect.html

Brain expects less pain. Feels less pain.

>>10364408
I think you've misinterpreted the (often whimsically described) explanations of the placebo effect Anon

The soul is superlative of consciousness, no matter how well-defined or necessary you may think it is. And the conceptual basis is consequential of consciousness.What an entity considers of the soul is hugely dependent upon its conscience. There are also huge dogmatic and thematic expressions of the psyche attaching lengthy chains of possibly inconsistent sophistry and garble along with any other good there may be. On the other hand, consciousness can be effectively generalized as awareness.

soul bad

cosmological model good

>>10364439
The stunning argumentative skills of the election tourist

>>10364378
>>10364376
>Thor is based on lightning.
>based on
i never said thor was real im saying that his IQ is off the charts low for thinking that thor wasnt created with lightning in mind

>>10364466
Not sure you read what I was replying to.

“>made up based in nothing
It's based on the fact that consciousness exists.

How do you explain gravity then? There's a sheet of cosmic space and time that is pulled down by objects attracted to something under said sheet of shit?”

>>10363083
If NFKRNVKSDNVIBDSNV doesn't exist, how does science explain consciousness?

>>10364466
He didn't say that though ffs
The train of thought goes
>That’s like saying Thor is based on lightning (and then using it as an argument)
i.e.
>Thor is based on lightning!
>Yes, but that doesn't prove Thor exists because lightning does
>The soul is based on consciousness!
>Yes, but that doesn't prove the soul exists because consciousness does

It's like every time someone uses IQ as an insult they're the brainlets

>>10363436
Machines already understand consciousness: https://techxplore.com/news/2019-01-brain-speech.html

>>10364740
They understand words inside a machine. What is observed is a machine, system, or whatever you want to define the brain as having some sort of thought process. This in no way implies consciousness. If we observed the same in a computer, we would have no reason to believe it conscious. You're missing the philosophically important fact that we can never observe a quale as such. I see no reason why it's unreasonable to suggest that neurology will progress to the point where it can decode every bit of human thought, but it will never be able to replicate the experience of a 'me'. And that should be incredibly frightening and fascinating to anyone interested in natural science.

At the moment science doesn't explain, or indeed even describe consciousness . It provides a few interesting scraps, mostly through case studies of people with brain damage and our limited understanding of the mechanisms of the brain and nervous system.

>>10364332
Comes down to your definition of conscious.
If a conscious being has to be aware of itself, its surroundings and be able to interact with other things, then probably not. Having just two neurons wouldn't allow such a being to store and modify information such that it could be aware of itself, let alone its surroundings.

>>10363083
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/traveling-brain-waves-may-be-critical-for-cognition/

>>10363083

But souls do demonstrably exist, we are just too afraid to admit it because of the religious baggage inherent to the idea. Just because religions are demonstrably silly, it does not mean that materialism is true and that death implies oblivion. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that suggests that our mind or consciousness continues past the point of physical death and that there is an infinitely amazing afterlife awaiting unconditionally around the corner of a ceased heartbeat for everyone.

Easily digestible tier:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/day-i-died/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwyVFW9kT8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw3oaNUR1iI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhANf60Y4Nk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W-PLmMwl2o
https://vimeo.com/7464750
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PX2x0FxDTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzz-nG5pjFg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq9KrYEeNe4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5or66dI6akU

World-leading research tier:

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/
https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences/dp/0997560800/
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Dying-Peter-Fenwick/dp/0826499236/
https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

>>10365014
just an unrelated question do you frequent /x/

>>10365071

No, because I am interested in the science and philosophical arguments behind these claims, not just the claims themselves.

I think there must exist a “soul” as the uniqueness of a consciousness. It isn’t material and possibly not even immaterial in that it is just a label that we can use to distinct two of the same consciousness from each other. If consciousness arises only from neurons, these neurons can be exactly replicated into another “you”, but since there can be no instantaneous transfer of information, the you and the new “you” must necessarily experience consciousness differently, and I suppose you could consider this the soul

>>10364417
>>10364430
The placebo effect is not just for pain. The placebo effect is a process that is always in action.
Watch this short video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V22CTJwQkjM

The body and minded are one, there is a very strong relationship with mind and body. "miracle healing" has no doubt happened with saints and prophets, but it was not them who healed the sick and defected, it was the sick and defected's faith in the saints built up reputation and persona.
A sick mind can give you a sick body. This is a new frontier in the science of medicine, however the pharmacies are not happy about this because it means there is less of a need for them. They refer to it as "just" the placebo effect and assume it is for things like headaches where nothing really changes. They try to undermine the placebo effect because why wouldn't they?

There is lots of proof, go look it up.
Now in saying this, this does not necessarily mean woo woo spiritual stuff, we don't have to jump to any conclusion about that. But it does suggest and demonstrate how intimate the relationship between mind and body is. Also it does show you why spirituality is a thing. In ancient times life was very, very harsh so every little thing helped you to go on and to survive. A bit of faith not only helped psychologically but also physically. So I won't ever try to knock someones faith down and heck if I can muster enough I'll take it!

>>10364875
If you observed a brain, there’s no reason to believe it’s conscious. Everyone else is a P-zombie.

>>10365221
That’s...not a soul. By definition, replicating a person would create a new person that is not the other person. It doesn’t matter if their neurons are all in the same position with the same properties for a Planck second.

>>10365014
Souls demonstrably don’t exist.

>Empirical
>unfalsifiable and uncomfirmable personal anecdotes

Good god

You know I'm going to ask a better question.

If souls DO exist how does THAT explain consciousness?

>>10363083
Read Dennett.

>>10365242
I doubt OP has even said anything. It’s a bait thread.

How do souls explain concioussness

>>10365236
By whose definition of a soul? I put it in quotation marks exaxtly because soul is loosely defined in the first place, but I think it’s an apt word to describe the uniqueness of an one consciousness against its exact replica

>>10365238

The testimonies are explicitly falsifying materialism. Learn2science.

>>10363083
Consciousness is a constant process of relating current sensory inputs to instinct and memory to motivate action. Humans have trouble grasping that because one of their instincts is that something has to look and communicate like a human for us to empathize with it.

>>10365303
I saw an alien eat another alien’s ass. UFO skeptics BTFO by personal anecdote

>>10365317
That’s not true. I can empathize with fucking fleas.

>>10365319

See, this is a good illustration of the level of immaturity of pseudo-skeptics.

Plain for all to see.

>>10365328
>You’re immature

Not an argument. Your attempt at deflection is really sad and displays your dishonesty for all to see. Personal anecdotes of seeing spooky fairies when you die, which aren’t possible to give anyway since medical death is defined as irreversible failure of brain activity, are no better or valid than Bigfoot sightings and tales of alien ass eating.

>>10365323
Only as far as you can empathize with anything that isn't human. You may consider things from the flea's perspective, but your instincts don't tell you at a glance whether that flea is well fed or not, or tell you a situation is dangerous if that flea is killed, or tell you what the flea is feeling based on its facial expressions.

>>10363083
>this has 100s of replies
Just kill yourselves, you retarded monkeys.

>>10365338
>spooky fairies

Yeah, you are not being immature at all in grossly mischaracterizing what NDEs actually are.

>What is a strawman DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH xD *drools*

>>10365341
Fleas don’t have facial expressions, but determining how well-fed they are isn’t too difficult. They’ll be fat and big if they’ve been eating well. Doesn’t prevent me from imagining the flea’s sensations or otherwise being concerned with its wellbeing. If anything, humans are easier to have no empathy for, since fleas aren’t moral agents.

>>10365356
>Yeah, you are not being immature at all in grossly mischaracterizing what NDEs actually are.

Unfalsifiable and unverifiable personal testimonies detailing some weird qualia, probably caused by the brain figuratively shitting itself.

>>10365370

Thank you for finally replying in a more serious manner. Now it feels less of a waste of time to actually engage in the arguments you are presenting.

>Unfalsifiable

While true, as is the existence of the sun. Does not sun not exist, just because its existence is unfalsifiable?

Materialism, however, *is* falsifiable. It makes predictions about reality we would not expect to see if it were true. When we then see those things, it has to be concluded that materialism has been falsififed. What are some instances of that? Well, children who accurately remember previous lives, NDEs and ADCs being confirmed, etc. Which brings us to

>unverifiable

You can, for instance, verify the OBE component of an NDE, which has already been done, with the material for that being linked here >>10365014.

>weird qualia

It is more than just weird, though, it is the most real, rich, detailed, and tangible experience the person has ever had. If you had an NDE yourself, and it was of sufficient depth, it would convince you as well that there was an afterlife. Because people more skeptical than you are have already gone through that process.

>probably

That is a reflection of your ideology, and is not in line with what the data actually has to say on the issue.

>personal testimonies

Which have epistemic relevance in neuroscience, medicine, the social sciences, psychiatry, psychology, etc. Furthermore, within the philosophy of testimony, which is a subcategory of epistemology, it is not in dispute at all that testimonies convey knowledge and the justification for that knowledge.

>brain figuratively shitting itself

And yet, NDEs happen at a time during which we know that there is no brainwave activity sufficiently intense to cause such ultradetailed experiences.

Of course, it is always a logical possibility that the brain caused those experienced still somehow. But it is not an empirical possibility. In science you have to demonstrate how your hypothesis is backed by data.

>>10365403
>While true, as is the existence of the sun. Does not sun not exist, just because its existence is unfalsifiable?

Wrong. The Sun is falsifiable. If it ceased to exist, we’d notice.

>Materialism, however, *is* falsifiable. It makes predictions about reality we would not expect to see if it were true. When we then see those things, it has to be concluded that materialism has been falsififed. What are some instances of that? Well, children who accurately remember previous lives, NDEs and ADCs being confirmed, etc. Which brings us to

Prove children accurately remember past lives. Prove “NDES and ADCs” have been confirmed.

>You can, for instance, verify the OBE component of an NDE, which has already been done, with the material for that being linked here

Link it yourself. I like where this is going.

>It is more than just weird, though, it is the most real, rich, detailed, and tangible experience the person has ever had. If you had an NDE yourself, and it was of sufficient depth, it would convince you as well that there was an afterlife. Because people more skeptical than you are have already gone through that process.

Awesome story. The alien ass eating was incredibly rich and detailed. You’d believe it too if you only saw

>That is a reflection of your ideology, and is not in line with what the data actually has to say on the issue.

Prove it. Link it yourself.

>Which have epistemic relevance in neuroscience, medicine, the social sciences, psychiatry, psychology, etc. Furthermore, within the philosophy of testimony, which is a subcategory of epistemology, it is not in dispute at all that testimonies convey knowledge and the justification for that knowledge.

If you think a fake story can be called knowledge, sure.

>psychology

/x/ is that way. ->>>

>And yet, NDEs happen at a time during which we know that there is no brainwave activity sufficiently intense to cause such ultradetailed experiences.

Prove it. Link it yourself.

>>10365403
This

>>10365427
>p-prove it

Can you do anything but spout reactionary drivel? Why not think for yourself for once?

>>10365434
>Can you do anything but spout reactionary drivel? Why not think for yourself for once?

There we go. The aversion to proving claims. My cock is now hard.

>>10365359
>since fleas aren’t moral agents.
And you say you can empathize with fleas.

>>10365441
>And you say you can empathize with fleas.

Something doesn’t have to have any sense of ethics or empathy of its own for me to wonder about it’s sensations and care for its wellbeing.

Reminder for /x/tard children that OBEs are caused by failure at the Temporo-Parietal Junction. We’ve known this for years.

>>10365468

That hypothesis is explicitly falsified by the data, though >>10365014. See for instance the AWARE study and the book The Self Does Not Die.

>>10363625
See >>10363165

>>10365547
>AWARE study

My god lol still citing that one. Out of two thousand cardiac arrests, nine reported an NDE, and only one actually reported on it, offering nothing conclusive since the marked shelves, the focus of the study, weren’t near that subject. That study makes a mockery of NDEs as anything significant. Never cite it again holy shit.

>and the book The Self Does Not Die

Respectable research is published in journals and peer-reviewed.

>That hypothesis is explicitly falsified by the data, though

Not even a hypothesis. Just how neurology works.

https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/154867/files/2005_Blanke_TN_the%20obe%20-%20disturbed%20self-processing%20at%20the%20tpj.pdf

>>10365303
>>10365547
>explicitly falsifying
>testimonies

soul is external

spirit is internal

if consciousness is a contant feed of the external

there is also the external that loves us personally

it's not God

it's just a relationship we share with the surroundings, we do receive energy.

>>10365665
>we do receive energy.

I’m not sure the chemical energy of broccoli loved me but okay

>>10363097
>science does not explain consciousness

Self-referencing biological computing illusion, compounded by the effects of various neurotransmitters and the emotions they generate.

Simple premise, but the human brain is really, really dense, and we're only just developing computers able to match the sheer volume of computation going on.

>>10365638
>If materialism was true, you should not be able to gain knowledge about the world during a time at which the brain is not working
>This still happens
>Hence

>>10365571

>the marked shelves, the focus of the study, weren’t near that subject.

Because the study was underfunded. And why was it underfunded? Because it is too controversial for the fundamaterialists who are the gatekeepers of funding in the academic climate.

If we had shelves in all the rooms of all the hospitals in the world - something that a billionaire could easily pay for, I might add - we could have conclusive data within a year. And since this is such a promising field of inquiry, then, why are we not doing that? It seems to be the most important question of all, and yet, here we are with the demonstrable hostility you are an illustrative example of toward this subject.

>nothing conclusive

The patient reported things that were beyond astronomically unlikely to just be guessed.

>That study makes a mockery of NDEs as anything significant.

On the absolute contrary, it has helped NDEs come into the mainstream a lot more. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuR_a98Vi2Q&t=35m20s (At 35:20)

>Respectable research is published in journals and peer-reviewed.

No, publishing one's findings in books happen all the time. And were it not for how controversial and disagreeable you find the data to be, you would see how obvious that is as well. Additionally, how do you publish hundreds of pages as a single journal article? And lastly, it is a compilation and analysis of respectable research done in those journals many times.

>https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/154867/files/2005_Blanke_TN_the%20obe%20-%20disturbed%20self-processing%20at%20the%20tpj.pdf

>ctrl+f "nde" / "near" -> No mention of NDEs

OBEs during non-NDE states are very different than OBEs occurring during NDEs. Hence that paper is irrelevant.

>>10363165
Suppose we set up a computer in a self driving car on a track, and have it calculate whether to turn right or left to keep driving, and then all humans died. Does the car stop computing when all the humans are dead?

Suppose that same car and the road were to spontaneously pop into existence to due random quantum fluctuations on a planet in a universe which never had any human beings. Is it not calculating?

Seems to me that a computer is fully able to calculate without humans there to "use" it. Calculation is a fully physical process which we understand, and has little to do with consciousness.

>>10363083
how does one explain half consciousness if souls do exist?
A family member suffered a stroke and I believe pretty firmly that souls can't exist now.

>>10363083
>If souls don't exist, how does science explain consciousness?
souls don't create consciousness, brains do

If I damage part of your brain it can damage part or all of your consciousness, the reason for that is your brain is the creator of your consciousness.

If I damage your soul nothing happens because there is no such thing

>>10365439
Go read the countless CIA and FBI papers about psychic abilities, astral projection, OBEs, remote viewing, etc, or the mountain of literature and data on prana and kundalini experiences, not to mention chi/qi. I don't need to prove anything to you, do the footwork yourself, if you want to know the truth you must search for the answers yourself. Otherwise you are just choosing to stay ignorant out of fear of the unknown.

picture of dorian gray fascinated me. Like, if I killed a man. Would my soul change forever? even action, thought pattern seems to shape me mentally physically emotionally spiritually.

remember coming across my father in later years and was horrified by his presence. same way dorian couldn't stand the portrait.

>>10363742
>It's just neurons firing in your brain
but ye... this

How come your soul coincidentally stops working when your brain gets injured?

The brain acts as an anchor for the soul, but the synchronicity makes the soul vulnerable to damage.

Soul is an artificial construct, there is nothing but very dense neuron swarms firing in sequence giving you the illusion of everything. Hence why phsycadelics work so well, all they're doing is changing brain chemistry, and the result is a completely different world of sensation and perception that can become permanent if you alter it enough. The soul is just what people tell themselves is there to make it make sense, though I'm not sure how a extra universal aura makes any more sense.

>>10363083
Your brain creates it.
Easy experiment:
>open your skull
>take a drill
>start drilling
>consciousness is soon gone for good

>>10365776
Calculation is not a physical process, it is the interpretation of formal physical systems.

>>10364875
>You're missing the philosophically important fact that we can never observe a quale as such.
That's literally what happened, there's no other way to know what speech is in brain.
>will never be able to replicate the experience of a 'me'.
It will decode that experience just like any other experience.

>>10363083
Define"souls".

>>10365303
Basically anecdotes. Some people believe their sect leader is a god, testimony my ass.

>>10363165
>Computers do not compute
You just went full nigger.

>>10363876
What the fuck does afterlife has to do with conciousness?
Man, what the fuck.

>>10364088
Lol, what is this faggot doing in this board?

>>10363083
Chemistry allows neurons to act as quantum computers. And every single one of them is a sub-node in the quantum computer that is the brain. Neurochemistry examines the biochemistry involved, it's really fascinating and complex yet completely logical, thousands of input switches that receive, process and convey inputs with different levels of prioritization.

Assume those capabilities, apply a few million years of evolution favoring complex decision making, input processing and memory. Consciousness is the side-effect of complex decisions requiring a unit of 'self'. Many animals have it 'partially' compared to us, our sense of self is special because we are especially deep decision makers. An evolutionary niche most species don't really require but the investment paid off for us.

Doesn't make the 'soul' an illusion, we are this decision-making process.

>>10366384
>something is necessary therefore it is sufficient

What's sub 130 IQ like anon?

>>10366521
Every other part of what makes you "you" comes from your body. Why not your consciousness?
Your consciousness is part of a bigger construct. We know the other parts of that construct are produced by your brain.

But you assume that one part is produced by magic... why exactly?

>>10366531
Other parts of "me" coming from my body, no matter how numerous, do not in any way entail that another part of "me" will come from my body. I never said it was magic either by the way, only that just because something is necessary to something else does not mean that it is sufficient for that thing itself. A neural complex may allow for the potential of conciousness, but does not imply that it is the totality of consciousness.

>>10366548
That is technically true. But how do you do go from that to "therefore soul"?

Assuming there was such a thing as a soul. What is it? How do you detect it? Is there any indication that there is a vessel in your body holding it? And if not is there some kind of receiver in your skull that receives the soulness?

It's literally wishful thinking that you are inserting into a gab of knowledge.

>>10366562
I don't need to have the answers to your questions, and I don't, and I don't even claim to, but I don't need any of those things to know that your reasoning is flawed. Not everything real is provable with science. OP asked a loaded question.

>>10366569
>Not everything real is provable with science.
If it's not provable with science then its not provable at all. Just because we don't know how consciousness works at the moment, doesn't mean it is impossible.

>your reasoning is flawed
How?

>>10366424
Define 'Define"souls".'

>>10366578
Prove your first statement is true with science. I'll wait.

Your faith that science will one day be able to explain consciousness is just as much wishful thinking as those that believe in a soul.

>>10366587
>Prove your first statement is true with science.
Which one? That you brain produces your consciousness?

It's a hypothesis. A pretty good one compared to yours, for the reasons outlined above.

>>10366594
>If it's not provable with science then its not provable at all.
Prove this statement is true with science.

What's my hypothesis for conciousness anon? I don't remeber ever stating one.

>>10366598
>What's my hypothesis for conciousness anon? I don't remeber ever stating one.
Something about souls I assumed.

>>If it's not provable with science then its not provable at all.
>Prove this statement is true with science.
Science makes predictions about the universe by observing the universe in a systematic fashion. The only things that cannot be observed are things outside of the universe. Because things outside of the universe per definition have no influence on the universe (or they would be part of it). You see that the scope of science encompasses everything that can be known.

>>10366628
Not a proof.

>>10366400
Let's back up a little. Can you explain in depth the reasons why you think calculation necessitates consciousness, and what you mean by consciousness and calculation.

>>10366587
Souls are anti-wishful thinking.
People who accept them would rather have they dont exist so they can live without rules

>>10366648
>they dont exist so they can live without rules
How do you live if you don't exist??

>>10366641
If it is valid method of confirming something then it is part of science. So per definition my statement is true.

>>10366648
I don't believe they exist, yet I follow rules. What now?

>>10366648
>I would be killing fucking everyone if God/Karma wouldn't punish me for it
This line of reasoning freaks me out, kind of implies believers are often restrained psychopaths
Shouldn't need a cosmic punishment to not want to kill people

>>10365876
Link me the most reputable papers. If there is mountains of data, there should be some reputable meta-analysis done on this. Surely you'd know about them?

>>10366658
Things that cannot be proved with science are not provable anon, remember?
Please start again and use science.
>If it is valid method of confirming something then it is part of science
Interesting definition of science there.

>>10366655

Souls are anti-wishful thinking.
People who accept them would rather have they (souls)dont exist so they can live without rules

>>10366665
Logic is part of science.

>>10366660
You are lying to seem smart.you just do
What you see fit.
You DONT follow ethics,for example you probably masturbate which breacks the rules of morality.

>>10366668
They as in souls?
People who accept souls would rather souls not exist? This is paradoxical to say the least.

>>10366661
Let yourself be freacked out,then.

>>10366671
>the rules of morality
Your rules of morality. There isn't just one moral system.

>>10366670
It was agreed earlier that something being necessary, in this case logic, does not mean that it is sufficient. Science uses logic, but logic does not necessarily use science. Please prove that statement with science anon.

>>10366673
No,its anti-wishful thinking.
Since people who accept souls would rather have them not exist they cant be said to be wishful thinkers

>>10366648
Criminals are predominantly believers though.

>>10366675
You have yet to deny masturbating

>>10366677
I used logic which is part of science.

>>10366661
>most believers go to hell for trying to game the system
>non-believers go to hell if they didn't live by the golden rule
>believers and non-believers who did go to heaven

>>10366679
Let them be so,you arent any bettter than them just because you didnt breack a human made law

>>10366681
I masturbate often and furiously.

>>10366678
Bruh, you're being extremely vague. What do you mean by "them"? I'm confused about how people who are accepting souls would rather not have souls exist. This is how I am interpreting your statement.

>>10366688
If i didnt revel in my own disgust i would call you disgusting or disturbing

>>10366691
People who accept souls would rather be full atheists so they can be inmoral hedonists.
Thus the masturbating anon who said wishful thinking is wrong

>>10366683
Anon, that is not how that works. Using some kind of logic does not mean that you are using scientific logic. There are different types of logic, science is only one type, please present proof of your statement using scientific logic only, not any other type of logic.

>>10366697
Then why do they accept souls?

>>10363620
>How can damage to a wire alter the electromagnetic field around it? If there's some magical immaterial field and the wire is a receiver, it would require physics evidently being violated in the wire.

Isn't this what someone would say to proponents of electromagnetic fields before we incorporated them into physics?

A similar relationship could be happening with consciousness and the brain. A two way causal interaction; the brain gives rise to consciousness in some unknown way, and the consciousness has then some effect on the physical brain. This effect is not directly noticeable because it's right in front of our eyes, we've made whatever the effects are part of our physical models, we just don't know that it's consciousness that makes that certain behavior happen.

>>10366698
All (valid) kinds of logic are a subset of science as per the definition I gave before.

>>10366699
Becasue the evidence compels them to do so despite their desires

>>10366687
Because I commit a thought crime of not believing ancient jewish fairy tales while criminals commit real crimes with blood and violence?

>>10366703
Anon, what is a valid form of logic? As in logic of something in the universe? If you have valid logic then you have science. Either your logic is not valid or you have science. Mathematical logic is valid. Therefore math is science? Anon are you sure about your definition?

>>10366702
But we know of the electromagnetic field because of the effects it has, the soul is giving no such output or reason to be considered to exist. There's nothing even hinting at a soul to chase down.

>>10366707
How do you know that everybody that believes in souls also wishes to be immoral?

>>10366708
Are you a Proud man?just because you dont shed blood those mean you arent evil.

>>10366716
Because everyone has immoral sexual urges and if evidence deters them from acting them out that evidence is pretty strong

>>10366721
Sounds like projection.

>>10366714
Logic that is coherent and compatible with reality. Which is pretty much all logic people tend use in modern time since sophistry has fallen out of fashion.

>Therefore math is science?
Yes. Math is also science.

>>10366697
But not all atheists are immoral hedonists

>>10366724
LET it sound like that,then!

>>10366719
I may as well be evil, but I'm obviously less evil than death cult niggers.

>>10366727
Buddhists and jains are atheists but not materialist oblivinionists.
All oblivionists are hedonists,even if closeted ones

>>10366731
Racism is a death cult too :,)

>>10366725
You're changing around definitions now anon. Earlier you said that the domain of science was only that which is in the universe. Now you suggesting that science, and therefore logic, must posses the domain of reality. Reality implies all things that are real, in order for you to use scientific evidence to dismiss the existence of the soul, you would already need to know that the soul was not real. How did you determine this anon?

>>10366742
There is no evidence to suggest that there is such a thing. And also no logic that would lead you to the hypothesis of there being a soul.

You niggers just need to stop masturbating and start having OBEs

>>10366734
>even if closeted ones
Unfalsifiable? Also irrelevant if they still aren't acting on it despite not fearing a karmic/creator inflicted punishment.

>>10366752
I won't debate that there is any logic that would lead one to believe in a soul, for I do not know that logic conclusively, but anon, there is just as much of a lack of evidence of science being real; at least according to your definition.

>>10366755
>tfw your country blanket bans any substances with "psychoactive effects", making stated exceptions for coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc

>>10366760
>lack of evidence of science being real; at least according to your definition
What do you mean with that? We have already discussed several ways of figuring out what is real in the universe. If there is even just one then there is science, per definition.

>>10366715
It does though. Our first person epistemic certainty about consciousness and how it differs from mere physical interaction is something that should come before any trust in scientific frameworks.

See http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

>>10366734
>72 houris
>not hedonism
Nice try.

>>10366758
Not irrelevant;relevant.

>>10366774
I believe you stated earlier that Science is all valid methods of confirming something is real, so then I would like to ask, how did you have knowledge of Science before you had any knowledge of a valid system of reasoning?
If what you're trying to imply is that there is no conclusive reason for believing in a soul, then that's fine I won't debate that, but believing that science is able to disprove the existence of the soul due to a lack of evidence is merely an appeal to ignorance, which would be a logical fallacy, and thus by your definition of Science, also equally fallacious. Anon, you have watered down the definition of Science so much that we're not even talking about the same thing anymore.

>>10366755
Amok doesn't prove shit even if it feels great.

>>10366783
I DEFEND AND UPHOLD my opinion.
I never said i was moslem;if i was;what gives?
Islamics are basically atheists because they give value to sex

>>10366799
If you have a true OBE youll understand

>>10366664
Well, you should realize these were very recently released, so any worthwhile meta-analysis is going to probably still be in progress. Or, more classified work.

Nonetheless, here are some I've found:

Start with these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVr1p-FlLtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al-X7kFVIWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBl0cwyn5GY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLkzg8bFgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZJrQY9SuQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FIwbnFAH8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVdhKVb9WE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FksKjCy58

https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-proof-is-there-of-universal-energy-such-as-prana-and-what-debunks-the-existence-of-this-energy?awc=15748_1549574894_b40367f2341bbfa813cfeead64be4216&uiv=6&txtv=8&source=awin&medium=ad&campaign=uad_mkt_en_acq_us_awin&set=awin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4097910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2934574/
Next the cia papers:
http://www.awaken.com/2018/05/cia-document-confirms-reality-of-special-humans-able-to-do-impossible-things/


I pretty much found all of those links just now besides the videos. Just actually look and you may find.

>>10366801
>Islamics are basically atheists because they give value to sex
This is a level of incel that goes beyond these three dimensions

>>10366798
>how did you have knowledge of Science before you had any knowledge of a valid system of reasoning
I didn't? Science is a concept. Someone came up with that concept. I don't get your point.

>but believing that science is able to disprove the existence of the soul due to a lack of evidence is merely an appeal to ignorance
I did not say that. You can not prove a negative according to logic.
And unless you can provide any good reason (evidence, train of logic) that would indicate that there is such a thing then the rational position is to assume that there is no such thing.

>>10366812
I'm a mewtwo main so I know all of this already

>>10366816
>You can not prove a negative according to logic.
If I have a car then I have a Mustang. I don't have a Mustang. Therefore I don't have a car.
Is this what you meant by negative?

Ok, so there being a lack of evidence is just as much proof that the soul could exist. You see the problem yet? There is no reason to believe or disbelieve the soul until you can present some valid evidence for or against it.

How did the first person to conceptualize science have that knowledge? Since after all, Science is all valid methods of knowledge. Did this valid system come from something invalid?

>>10366697
>>10366734
>>10366801
>sex is evil

>>10364244
Why do non-materialists always do this shit?
>Man, you must really not want to have a soul,
Are they all complete fucking brainlets?
Disbelief =/= Don't-want-it-to-be
Belief =/= want-it-to-be-so

How in the everloving hell do people hear "oughts" from other peoples' "is"?

>>10366830
No proving a negative is something like:
"Prove that there are no unicorns"

You would have to comb through the entire universe to demonstrate that there is no unicorn hiding somewhere. If we accepted that as a valid argument then we would have to assume unicorns exist. Just like kobolds, fairies, spirits and incidentally souls.

Since we cannot assume that literally every imaginable thing exists, we assume it doesn't exist until there is a form of positive evidence indicating it.

>How did the first person to conceptualize science have that knowledge?
Someone came up with it, just like someone came up with everything.

>Did this valid system come from something invalid?
People were doing science before the label "science" was slapped on it.

>>10365014
>gay and cheesy stories about god
Rejected

>>10366851
I guess because a lot of anyone's raised beliefs we categorize as being of our own creation rather than instilled. If you were to move to another topic like animal ethics your views might differ from some views of the farmer even though you both feel like you've come to your conclusions logically.
The ego doesn't like thinking it was programmed.

>>10366857
If 2 is defined as even, then there are no odd 2's. 2 is defined as even. Therefore there are no odd 2's.
I just proved that there are no odd 2's.
>Someone came up with it, just like someone came up with everything.
Ok, so answer my question.
>People were doing science before the label "science" was slapped on it.
Doesn't answer the question.

>>10366838
I DEFEND AND UPHOLD my position

>>10366921
>schizo babble
>>>/x/

>>10366874
That's no proof, that's a definition. You have defined 2 to be even, therefore it's even.

And number fields are an abstraction of reality. Not reality itself.

>>10366931
I Refuse and deny

>>10366938
It's a proof by definition. Are the abstractions part of reality?

>>10366999
>Are the abstractions part of reality?
Generally only so far as they exist in our minds.

>>10363484
you mean a trick

>>10367019
>Generally only so far as they exist in our minds.
So abstractions are every bit as real as non-abstractions?

>>10366424
>>10366583
Define "

>>10363660
Numbers exist and they aren't material

>>10367029
No, like I said they only exist in our heads. I would classify that in a different category to things that exist in the universe regardless of whether we think about them.

>>10363083
This is literally the same retarded question as asking if software doesn't exist as a physical thing then how come computers compute.

>>10365303
Bringing back a dead meme just for you friendo

>>10366812
I was expecting a stack of top respectable papers, since you yourself said there are mountains of them. Instead I learn that you haven't even looked at them yourself, and give me a bunch of literal meme videos of faked shit.

Nice fucking meme..

>>10363148
stop shilling your shitty videos, you fuck

>>10367419
Dipshit jones, read the last link and read the papers yourselves, some of the most important ones are linked directly in the article, also, how are you saying tis video isn't evidence of the type of stuff normally considered "paranormal" or "supernatural":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVr1p-FlLtk

>>10367619
Oh I'm in the process of looking at them. Just wanted to say you didn't exactly give a good first impression.

>how are you saying tis video isn't evidence of the type of stuff normally considered "paranormal" or "supernatural":
Which video in particular? The first video is a prime example of bullshit: Muted audio, zoomed in, spooooky music, etc. What's more likely, that there actually is a new phenomena demonstrated in this video, or that this guy faked this video in the thousands of ways he could fake it in?

>>10367649
How could you concentrate heat like that on the paper, im assuming from behind the camera for example, without burning his hand in the process, you couldn't!

>>10367661
Oh my sweet summer child. If you ever went to see a magic show I bet your head would explode.

>>10367666
You're "clever replies" won;t fool me, Satan, you have to attempt to disprove those videos and papers now. Get to it.

>>10367619
You'd think this guy would shake James Randi's hand and be a million dollars richer

>>10367042
No, there’s definitely a chain of neurons somewhere in your head associated with “two”.

>>10368622
Only materialists care about riches, people who learn shit like that have no need for fame and fortune, their spirit is stronger than that.

>>10368638
Shit and predictable argument, he could help so many people with that money, there's no need for greed to be a factor at all

>>10366702
>A similar relationship could be happening with consciousness and the brain. A two way causal interaction; the brain gives rise to consciousness in some unknown way, and the consciousness has then some effect on the physical brain. This effect is not directly noticeable because it's right in front of our eyes, we've made whatever the effects are part of our physical models, we just don't know that it's consciousness that makes that certain behavior happen.

Wake me up when you prove the existence of the soul field like we’ve done with the interchange of electrons.

>>10365876
> I don't need to prove anything to you

Then we’re done here.

>>10365743
>Because the study was underfunded. And why was it underfunded? Because it is too controversial for the fundamaterialists who are the gatekeepers of funding in the academic climate.

It was actually because there was difficulty getting hospital authorities to cooperate with their goofy ghosthunting, but whatever delusion fits your narrative.

>The patient reported things that were beyond astronomically unlikely to just be guessed.

No they didn’t. They knew what one of the people that operated on them looked like with no controls preventing them from finding this out through normal means after days had passed.

>On the absolute contrary, it has helped NDEs come into the mainstream a lot more. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY [Embed]

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuR_a98Vi2Q&t=35m20s [Embed] (At 35:20)


>YouTube

>No, publishing one's findings in books happen all the time. And were it not for how controversial and disagreeable you find the data to be, you would see how obvious that is as well. Additionally, how do you publish hundreds of pages as a single journal article? And lastly, it is a compilation and analysis of respectable research done in those journals many times.

Books aren’t peer-reviewed, so whatever included findings aren’t valid.

>OBEs during non-NDE states are very different than OBEs occurring during NDEs. Hence that paper is irrelevant.

Wrong. They are identical, only combined with other phenomena.

>>10363083
when you die critical neurons in your brain go without oxygen, making you unrevivable. some people are luckier and these cells survive, and they are in turn revived. no soul required.

>>10368635
>associated with
Precisely.

>>10368644
Isn't Randi's contest closed anyway? In any case, the hguy obviously knows that money is power, and money is corrupted by occult powers on this planet, so the best plan of action is to stay away from that mess. If everyone knew how to channel chi correctly, you would barely need doctors except for extreme emergencies. Plus, shouldn't we be trying to get away from a money based economy? Something more in like with automation and sustainable post scarcity?

>>10368660
Go read the papers then, if you want evidence. No one is stopping you except your own laziness and lack of drive to learn.

>>10368820
Yeah I'm hoping automation goes over smoothly and we stop being such well conditioned good goy wageslaves
But for now those ideals don't mean much to the starving homeless person

>>10368826
I work with the homeless, so I get where you're coming from, thing is, there are tons of programs in place to help get the homeless back on their feet, the thing is a lot of them don't want anything to do with society or worse, have some really bad mental issues so they just like to live alone in the woods to cope with it. Those are the ones who will stay homeless the longest. It's a rough world out there, but there are people who care, including yourself apparently. Still, on the subject of gaining fame and fortune for "showing off" your mastery of chi, doing so would have some massive karmic consequences, for example if you were utilized as the "living proof" that stuff like this existed, your whole life would be turned upside down by the people of the world. No one who is sane wants that kind of load on their back. The best plan of action is for enough people to come forth with their own proves and studies that the world collectively "wakes up" to the reality that this shit is real, and no one individual has to be the scapegoat or patsy.

>>10368671

>It was actually because there was difficulty getting hospital authorities to cooperate with their goofy ghosthunting

So you are demonstrably not a scholar familiar with the data. If you go into the book where the main author of the study actually elaborates on the study, which you can find here: https://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Death-Science-Rewriting-Boundaries-dp-006208061X/dp/006208061X/

Then you will realize that it was a matter of funding restrictions primarily for why they could not do it. There were some hospitals who said no, indeed, but mostly it was a lack of money.

>No they didn’t. They knew what one of the people that operated on them looked like with no controls preventing them from finding this out through normal means after days had passed.

What normal means? And what evidence is there that the patient gained the information this way? Again logical possibilities != science. More info here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc937962/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no3-227.pdf

>>YouTube

So scientists talking seriously about NDEs on mainstream news and leading resuscitation conferences is not representative of it having entered the mainstream? They are already publishing in mainstream journals. What more evidence do you need to accept that it is in the mainstream now much more than it was decades ago?

>Books aren’t peer-reviewed, so whatever included findings aren’t valid.

You do know what peer-review actually is, right? It is other experts in the field checking out the data and saying "Yeah, this looks good." That is essentially it, and it is also a highly flawed and criticized approach anyway.

People who dismiss anything that is not peer-reviewed are sheep and brainlets.

>Wrong. They are identical, only combined with other phenomena.

Then why do OBEs during non-NDE states never include verifiable observations?

>>10368841
For example, imagine being "the scapegoat" for this situation. People would honestly revere you as the Second Coming, and others would think you are the Anti-Christ performing miracles. People would try and kill you honestly. It's just not worth the trouble to be the one guy to "prove it to the world", especially if you get roped into it by some sort of convoluted contest like Randi's, where I'm sure TPTB would be breathing down your neck like no tomorrow.

>>10363083
Consciousness create science as the mind creates the brain stop with this nonsense onions bullshiet