/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11253835
>without breaking any laws of physics?
The laws of physics don't apply to souls, because they're non-physical.

>>11253835
First off learn what a law is. A scientific law is something that has withstood rigorous testing and has never been shown to be false. How can the laws of physics apply to something that we have no evidence even exists.

>>11253835
If this is all just a simulation and you wake up in the real world when you die your consciousness would persist after death.

>>11253835
Since consciousness relies solely on the brain, it’s impossible it would persist its death.

>>11253835
If you preserve a skin sample, you can take it to a laboratory and have them process your skin cells into pluripotent stem cells. From here, you can obtain as many genetically identical clones of yourself that you would like. Would they all have souls of their own?

>>11253866
Doesn't the brain persist after death?

>>11253906
Obviously the soul and brain would have to be a RAID array.

>>11253835
Do chickens have souls?

>>11253895
>you can obtain as many genetically identical clones of yourself that you would like
So why has this never been done?

>>11253906
By “its death” I meant the death of the brain.

>>11253923
If there's no such thing as a soul, and consciousness is merely the result of the physical, like everything else, then why is it not possible to bring someone back to life after death? I know people say they've died and been brought back to life again, but it's more like they got very close to death and came back in a short space of time. It's not like they were pronounced dead and then came alive the next day.

When someone is truly dead, there doesn't seem to be any physical way of bringing them back to life. There is something missing. A soul leaving the body can explain this, how can a materialist explain it?

>>11253978
Because it's difficult to fix a broken brain.

>>11253942
Why can't a truly dead person be brought back to life? What's missing between the alive body and dead body if it's not a soul?

>>11253991
Retardville invasion?

>>11253986
What makes it broken?

>>11253999
Answer the question you soulless creep.

>>11253835
Maybe different dimensions with different vibration of energy
Being the classical matter too ''heavy'' it vibrates at low frequency.
Souls (etheric body) could vibrate at another frequency so it could be visible only in other dimensions
This aauming everything is energy

>>11253835
>What is a way that souls could exist without breaking any laws of physics?
Here you go m8

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

>>11253991
The body you are referring to is a colony of eukaryotic cells. If the heart is not working, blood doesn't flow, cells start to rapidly die, neuronal activity halts. Pure biology.

maybe we simply lack soul

>>11254196
Why can't the heart start working again to pump blood around the body? Just because cells have died doesn't mean the body can't be alive again. The person might be retarded and in pain, and only live for a short period of time, but at least it'd prove that they didn't have a soul and were simply the result of physical mechanisms.

>>11254257
There are numerous accounts of people revived after being dead for several minutes. Longer periods are not possible, because brain cells die very fast without blood flow.

>>11253835
>What is a way that souls could exist without breaking any laws of physics?
Easily, if things don't obey the laws of physics merely by existing, then there's no reason souls are even unlikely. Even if souls, for some logical reason, had to interact with physical stuff, e.g. our brains, there are no laws of physics that say the laws of physics can't be manipulated or diverted by some force, therefore, in doing such, neither would any physical law be broken. I'm going to post this later to a facebook group filled with brainlets, so for their sake, I feel I should also mention something obvious: Physical phenomena exist; the physical laws that describe them, don't. They're written by men, you goddamned, insufferable idiots. Even if souls, metaphysically-free will, or God implied intervention, manipulation, or diversion of physical laws, how does that make any of those things even unlikely?
>b-because we observe the laws are never broken
Again, no physical law would need be broken. And even if some were by some kind of logical necessity -- so what?

>>11253978

>If I drop a delicate vase, why is it difficult or impossible to reassemble it? Surely this implies that there is some intangible aspect of the vase permanently ruined by dropping it.

>>11253835
They can't, there are no souls.

>>11253906
No, it doesn't. Brain death can easily be measured.

FIrst you need us a measssure and container to experiment on a soul. At least o measure it.>>11253835

>>11254547
There exists no known methods, tools, or containers to experime-
Wait, you're implying it's true that the soul doesn't exist otherwise, aren't you?
First you need to use a measure and container to experiment on the truth of your claim. If it can't be experimented on, it doesn't exist, and therefore your claim would be false. Kill yourself with this absolute brainlet-tier "it has to be containable and measurable," nonsense.

>>11254573
oops
are you asking something to be valididated because your horoskop said. or rather as often as you look for it your soul is still there where you placed it

>>11254573
>I can't prove that it exists, but it does, I swear!
>>>/x/

>>11253835
>What is a way that souls could exist without breaking any laws of physics?
If you're looking for some kind of physical thing to call the soul, there may very well not be one.
It's entirely possible the soul exists as a tiny point in space that is physically separated from the rest of the universe, privileged to have a brain around itself that grants it the means to be conscious, providing the point with data and peripheral control to move the associated body.

>How could consciousness persist even after the death of the physical body?
Going with the soul being a point in space as I describe, this point will not vanish upon decomposition, but reunite with the rest of space.
Maybe this point will return to having a brain around itself, or maybe it will never be conscious again. Void of any capacity to feel, it's not like it would care.

>>11253843
>How can the laws of physics apply to something that we have no evidence even exists
Literally the question OP asked

>>11253939
Who said it hasn't been done?

>>11253866

We actually don’t know that. The leading theory of consciousness is IIT and even that suggests a kind of panpsychism.

Until someone can explain, in detail, the mechanism in which brain signaling gives rise to any kind of experience/feeling/subjective experience, then no one can make claims about what consciousness is.

Yes we can have correlates of consciousness, but still that doesn’t shed light on consciousness. We don’t say the transistors and computer code make a computer run, it’s the electricity.

I know people will jump at the chance to prove my seemingly air-headed response wrong, but the thing is: you can’t.

We have no idea about how neuron-neuron connections, no matter how complex, can give rise to a thing feeling or experiencing.

If anyone can give me a hint on the mechanism in which this happens, I would love to hear it. I’m serious.

I’m going to laugh at people who say “the hard question of consciousness doesn’t exist” and “dur evolution” or “dur consciousness is selected because it’s efficient. Those are all likely true, but I’m asking for the mechanism.

If you cop out with a quantum reason, then you’re just as pseudoscientific as me with my brain candy panpsychism.

>>11256403

Don’t grapple onto the computer analogy. I admit it’s dumb. I’m tired and drunk.

/FFwRXKq

>>11253838
First post best post
>>11253835
>What is a way that souls could exist without breaking any laws of physics
Its data is no longer being managed by universe.exe and its physics functions.
>>11253843
>A scientific law is something that has withstood rigorous testing and has never been shown to be false
Are you in elementary school? Come back here after you learn calculus.

>>11253835
>>11256963

>>11253978
>then why is it not possible to bring someone back to life after death?
It is uppity fucking retard. Ever heard of resuscitation?

>>11257057
>Resuscitation is the process of correcting physiological disorders (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely ill patient.
Uh oh, guess you're the retard now.

>>11257073
>the action or process of reviving someone from unconsciousness or apparent death.
Uh oh I guess you're still retarded.

>>11257075
>apparent death
So not death. You're still wrong, buddy.

>>11257079
>death cannot be apparent

>>11257093
If it's apparent it's not true death. That's what the word "apparent" means.

>>11257096
Apparent just means easily seen or obvious. Not everything apparent is true but neither is everything false. Dumb autist.

>>11253835
Buddhist here. Consciousness doesn't persist after death. Consciousness is dependent upon senses/mind/mental objects. In the absence of these, whether eye injury or brain death or body death, consciousness ceases to be. Or rather stream of consciousness ceases after death. Consciousness is a stream that comes on/off as our sensors change and our minds change. When death happens, there's nothing that generates new consciousness.

>>11257100
That's not the point tho.
The point was that it isn't possible to bring people back from death and that resuscitation isn't the term for bringing them back from death.
People you resuscitate aren't truly death, they still have a working brain.

.

>>11257107
>The point was that it isn't possible to bring people back from death
It is, resuscitation from death occur.

>resuscitation isn't the term for bringing them back from death.
It is by definition.

>People you resuscitate aren't truly death, they still have a working brain.
Then it's not possible to bring people back from death by your tautology that anyone who is brought back was not truly dead. Happy?

>>11257206
>It is by definition.
Definition of resuscitation
: an act or process of resuscitating someone or something:
amedical : the act or an instance of reviving someone from apparent death or from unconsciousness
The EMS response times were generally fast in both groups, but successful prehospital resuscitations were not associated with significantly shorter response times than those reported in cases of refractory cardiac arrest.
— Arthur L. Kellermann et al.
… resuscitation techniques differ from other procedures in medicine in that they are usually performed only in critical situations, and thus the opportunities to learn and practice them are inherently limited.
— Jeffrey P. Burns et al.
— see also CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION
b: the act or an instance of restoring someone or something to an active or flourishing state
Punk may not be dead, but it certainly could use some resuscitation. And that's where Anthrax comes in.
— Craig Tomashoff
His resuscitation is evident in the 1982 reissue of his autobiography, "An Artist in America."
— Grace Glueck

>>11256403
consciousness is just an expression of language

>>11257208
>the act or an instance of reviving someone from apparent death

>>11257248
Yes. Once again, "apparent" death. Apparent isn't actual death otherwise it would just say "death".

>>11257321
Wrong, spparent includes actual death and near death. Resuscitation applies to both, so saying only death would be an incorrect definition.

>>11253835
One singular soul that changes quality and not quantity

>>11253838
God fucking damn, destroyed in first post.

>>11253843
>A scientific law is something that has withstood rigorous testing and has never been shown to be false.

Like saying a hammer can only put in nails the right way every single time you use it.

>>11253906
It does/can, but what it does does not

>>11253923
It's a conjugate yes. It's like saying a radio IS the signal/vice versa. Doesn't work that way.

>>11253991
Does a broken radio receive a fully coherent signal?

>>11254257
It can and it has literally been done. How do you suppose that conclusion was made?

>>11256403
The form of the brain. You have the form of
a. Live regulated brain with the parts working as on in order. Literally "working", doing something. Committing an action.
vs
b. Dead brain that does nothing, parts withering with no order. Not working and not committing any action

They are literally quantitatively the same. You don't even need to introduce "soul" unless you're defining soul as "animation" or "action" itself. What causes action? The answer is "yes", it is cause.

>>11257206
>>11257208
>>11257248
>>11257321
>>11257422

>this "dead" thing is still full of living things in motion

What death?

>>11257512
>>>/x/

>>11257525
>>>/trash/

>>11257512
I'm afraid not even having sex will help you at this point.

>>11257552
I'm afraid you have neither refuted nor contributed anything that I said.

>>11257552
Ugh...

>>11257225

Uh ok. So then why does an expression of language feel?

Do you seriously think animals with no language can’t feel?

>>11257512

So you’re saying that something “committing an action” inherently has consciousness.

I asked for a mechanism. You don’t have to pretend you know something you don’t.

I’m well aware that the 3-D connections of neuron to neuron might be vital to consciousness (this is IIT theory), but still there is no reason why that oh so special structure creates an experience.

No matter how I link up neuron SPECIFICALLY how can that arrangement create a human.

>>11259600
>So you’re saying that something “committing an action” inherently has consciousness.

Well if it does nothing then how is it even a thing? I never said "consciousness", I suppose I equated "soul" to "having animation".

>I asked for a mechanism. You don’t have to pretend you know something you don’t.

If you honestly think there is empirical evidence of a soul then you have thousands of years of philosophy to catch up on that states the opposite. What something is and what something does CANNOT be differentiated, qualitative or quantitatively. There is "the mechanism" and "what the mechanism does". Otherwise you have "mechanism" and all it does is sit there and do nothing definable. If fact it can't even be defined, it just "is".

>I’m well aware that the 3-D connections of neuron to neuron might be vital to consciousness (this is IIT theory), but still there is no reason why that oh so special structure creates an experience.

Stack sandbags in front of yourself. Then stack glass in front of you. Ensure that both have the same quantity of silicon dioxide. Record how you feel about each experience the material gives and then tell me what the difference is. (remember it's not going to be a quantitative difference).

>No matter how I link up neuron SPECIFICALLY how can that arrangement create a human.

What are you talking about? Yes, different arrangements of neurons literally does make a different animal. How the fuck do you think a dog can smell better than you? How do you think any animal that is literally made of the same shit as you can do something drastically different? All it comes down to is the arrangement of that material, how else could it be different?

>>11257552
Not an argument

>>11259583
Fun fact: "Anima" literally means "to have a soul".

>>11253978
We don't know if physics can create consciousness (as opposed to just facilitating it), but we do know that consciousness can simulate physics through dreams or imagination.

>inb4 but physics can simulate a mind

Unlike physics, we know for sure that consciousness is not simulated because it is experienced first hand rather than as an external trapping. It is fair to assume the thing that has to be real (consciousness) came first before physics came around.

>>11260218
responded to wrong guy but whatever. Here's a cool pic

What the hell is this "soul" everybody talks about?

>>11260218
>It is fair to assume the thing that has to be real (consciousness) came first before physics came around.
Until you take into account that the only consciousnesses we have any evidence of require a physical substrate to run on.

>>11260243
Probably something from this picture unless it's a viral/eukaryotic feature.

>>11253835
You're free to imagine anything you like. What we know of our material world so far, very clearly indicates that we no more have souls than we have free will. We're simply biochemical automatons created and programmed by our DNA and every event that followed our birth. There is no evidence at all to support any kind of dualistic universe. And as per Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

If we don't need dualistic nonsense to explain reality, and if in order to get souls and dualistic nonsense to fit in, we would need to do an fuck ton of mental gymnastics and asinine assumptions to produce the extra 10 billion steps required to somehow explain souls and other BS in a manner which would be compatible with current scientific knowledge... then mathematically the idea that the latter would be true and former not, would seem impossibly unlikely.

Hence, it's a pretty safe bet to say that the concept of a soul is just that: a human concept. Nothing more. It doesn't exist. And when we die, we die a final death and there's nothing after that ever again.

>>11260314
>created by our DNA
Not agreed. Neither created nor our nor by other DNA.

>>11260314
Does logical reasoning exist?

>>11260246
Past-life researchers have actually found some evidence that kids have verifiable memories of past lives, though I'm not sure if it's solid enough to be proof. The fact that academia dismisses stuff like that rather than investigating it further means that lack of evidence may be cause by lack of investigation rather than lack of existence.

>>11260496
Academia would be all over actual evidence of past lives. The fact that none can be found is not a testament to biased scientists, but to a shitty hypothesis.

>>11260496
Even though I'm actually kind of open to the idea of interactionist dualism in some sense, the idea of memories surviving brain death seems extremely improbable. Damage to the physical brain whether it's because of Alzheimer's disease or something else seems to be very tightly connected to the destruction of memories. It thus seems very odd that that information could somehow just float somewhere after physical death.
The way in which I'm open to interactionist dualism is in that there seems to be an inherently first person aspect to qualia that would never follow from a third person description of brain activity with a 100% logical inevitability. And this qualia also seems to cause us to talk about it - the alternative dualist view of epiphenomenalism is basically self-refuting (it itself demands that if it's true, those who argue for the view do it for reasons completely unrelated to it being true). So perhaps you could call this non-physical aspect of yourself your "soulstuff" or whatever, and perhaps it could survive your physical death. But this wouldn't be really any different from the physical matter that you were made of surviving the death of your body, even after it keeps rotting away. It doesn't seem to leave any room for any of your memories being still stored anywhere. The patterns that make you what you are would still be destroyed.
The only way I can imagine you could argue for afterlife is via some bizarre philosophies on personal identity (open individualism and whatnot).

>>11254591
literally the opposite of what he said

>>11260597
Why are you basing the soul on "memories"?

>>11260702
I'm not necessarily. After all I said
>So perhaps you could call this non-physical aspect of yourself your "soulstuff" or whatever, and perhaps it could survive your physical death
What I am basing on memories is personal identity. Ego. Self. Personhood. So the point is, even if your "soul" survives how is this of any consolation (or significance) to you any more than the matter that you are made of surviving? In what sense it is *you* that survives?
What is "soul" to you?

>>11260597
>>11260702
>>11260733
Memory is stability of knowledge, just as immortality is the stability of life and eternity is the stability of being.

>>11260733
Your human self dies, which is your ego, personhood, etc. But these things aren't really "you", what "you" is, is the thing experiencing these things, which is why you're able to separate yourself from these "things" in the first place, in order to label them.

The "soul" represents the logical opposite to the physical - it is infinite, eternal, non-physical, etc.

>>11253835
>How could consciousness persist even after the death of the physical body?
By being a meaningless word you can pretend means anything you want.

>>11260756
>which is why you're able to separate yourself from these "things" in the first place
If you just add all the experiences I'm having right now plus all the memories I have I don't see what's missing of me. Seemingly I have to refer to an "I" that's having those experiences and memories that's above the parts when I make that sentence. But the same thing happens when you say that if you just add up and arrange properly the legs, the seat and the back that a chair has you get the selfsame chair as a result. In order to make that sentence I refer to a "chair" that those parts belong to. But that doesn't mean there exists a chair over and above the parts and the way they are arranged.

>>11253835
Copying the brain's structure onto some substrate.

>>11256403
Helllo

I am

Mr. Reddit Spacer.

And I do not know anything about neuroanatomy, neuroscience, neurology or anything and just like to give baseless word-salad one liners in an attempt to overwhelm any cogent counter argument in the air of sophistry because pseud I am.

>>11260846
>If you just add all the experiences I'm having right now plus all the memories I have I don't see what's missing of me. Seemingly I have to refer to an "I" that's having those experiences and memories that's above the parts when I make that sentence
How do you quantify the amount of experiences and memories you have?
>But the same thing happens when you say that if you just add up and arrange properly the legs, the seat and the back that a chair has you get the selfsame chair as a result
At which point does the chair become a separate thing to everything else? Could that chair exist without the metal/wood/oil etc that it's made of, which came from the earth? Is the chair a static thing? Or is it made of energy that is constantly changing like everything else? So how can it ever be the same thing?

There has to be something static that experiences the ever changing physical - that is the soul.

>>11254063
Thanks for the video, it was intriguing

>>11260886
>How do you quantify the amount of experiences and memories you have?
Well I don't really. Is the point here that because I can't in fact do that in a nitty-gritty detail that there must be something irreducible about the whole thing? I don't see how that's different from any complex inanimate object that we'd agree to be soulless and reducible to smaller parts but can't in practice describe in detail.

>At which point does the chair become a separate thing to everything else?
The chair becomes distinguishable from its environment as a chair when it performs its function as a chair to human satisfaction, which is not a precise point but up to human decision.
>Could that chair exist without the metal/wood/oil etc that it's made of, which came from the earth?
No.
>Is the chair a static thing? Or is it made of energy that is constantly changing like everything else? So how can it ever be the same thing?
The chair isn't 100% the same thing and doesn't remain the same exact thing through time, just similar enough that we can refer to it as the same chair. It can go through changes that are just big enough - when we replace one of its parts, for instance - that it's ambiguous whether we should consider it the same chair. But there isn't any deep question whether it's still the same chair, it's just a question of convenience and human purposes of using language in a certain way.
The same I think applies to human beings as well. I'm not 100% the same person I was few moments ago. It's genuinely dubious whether I and the infant I developed from should be considered the same person, although obviously my causal history is deeply tied to it. Alzheimer's disease could likewise result in a situation where it was dubious whether I survived as a person or not, not to mention more exotic thought experiments with split brains, all kinds of sci-fi technology and transhuman scenarios.

Can anyone come up with a test to prove or disprove that a soul exists in a human?

I'll give you as many human test subjects as you need, but I need the test to be scientifically rigorous.

>>11254001
The body ceases to function and everything begins to decay. But the most immediate problem is the lack of oxygen getting to the brain which very quickly causes irreparable damage so even if brought back one would be braindead. Too much of the brain has died and much of its functionality along with it. This happens a lot when people are brought back.

Souls are a cope for people who can't accept death.

>>11260948
>Well I don't really. Is the point here that because I can't in fact do that in a nitty-gritty detail that there must be something irreducible about the whole thing? I don't see how that's different from any complex inanimate object that we'd agree to be soulless and reducible to smaller parts but can't in practice describe in detail.
You claim that "you" are simply the sum of your memories and experiences, and nothing else, yet this is unquantifiable - "memories" and "experiences" are ever changing and don't have a clear beginning and end to be considered separate things in the first place. Again, there has to be something static that doesn't change, for there to be a "you".
>The chair becomes distinguishable from its environment as a chair when it performs its function as a chair to human satisfaction, which is not a precise point but up to human decision.
Can the chair perform its function without a solid floor underneath it?
>The same I think applies to human beings as well. I'm not 100% the same person I was few moments ago. It's genuinely dubious whether I and the infant I developed from should be considered the same person,
Just like a chair never truly remains the same physically, neither does the human body. Just like a chair, the human body is never truly a separate entity to the physical world, it's in complete harmony and balance with it, we just arbitrarily separate the physical world into objects because it's useful. But what is actually separate to the physical, is the non-physical soul. The soul doesn't change like the physical, it is what gives you the subjective experience of human life, and is what takes it away when you die. It is what allows us to separate the physical world into "things".

Your dead body will prove it was never separate to the physical world as it decomposes harmoniously with it, but there had to be something about you, beyond the body, that kept you separate before death.

>>11253835
/thread

>>11253835
The soul is made up of electricity and is likely in your pineal gland.

>>11253978
>after death
You're aware that you can't actually define "death" in physics terms, right?
It's basically the doctor saying "yeah, he's fucked" and calling it a day.

>>11261283
Do you have anything to back up your fantastical suppositions?
Consider taking your pills and/or permanently migrating to >>>/x/, schizo.

everyone ITT is acting like its utterly logical that when we die, thats it and its nothing for eternity. I don't get why this is the accepted "logical" view when there is no more evidence for this than anything else.

>>11263744
Because it makes the most sense and there's no evidence for anything else.

>>11263761
The part about it that makes the most sense and has evidence for it is the idea that there won't be anyone who remembers being the person who physically died. The part about "thats it and its nothing for eternity" is a lot more dubious. When you think about it it's actually kind of solipsistic way of thinking.

>>11253835
your soul would be a construct similar to the 11 dimension of the universe (m theory). it's bound to the mitochondria energy of the cells.

Nobody can deny reincarnation as a possibility. Everyone assumes that there are three stages in life: pre-birth, life and death, but there's nothing that suggests we're unable to go back to the pre-birth stage, whatever that may be.

>>11263766
>dubious
How so?
People are "aware" of the state of non-existence, namely the time before being born. Why should post-"death" non-existence be different?

>>11263830
...asserted without evidence... dismissed without evidense etc. etc...

>>11263855
>People are "aware" of the state of non-existence, namely the time before being born.
Not really, we simply lack memories from times before we existed. We lack memories from our infant days as well, it would be mistake to interpret this as an awareness of the state of non-existence. The infant we developed from has very little to do with our adult selves. The infant is changed so much that it's gone, really. Yet if an infant could ponder such questions, should it think that an abyss of nothingness awaits it once it develops into something that doesn't remember being it?

>Why should post-"death" non-existence be different?
Well it isn't. There won't be anyone who remembers being you. The psychological continuity will be broken. That's all there is to "death". If you cease to think yourself as some kind of irreducible entity with a clearly enduring identity through time, and think of yourself rather as an loosely tied bundle of experiences, and take the existence of other minds seriously - if you take all the evidence that you are not the center of the world seriously - death starts to look a lot different than some kind of void of non-existence that you will be stuck in.

>>11261041
Almost nobody can actually accept death. Chances are you have a bunch of "copes" yourself like a belief in love, meaning or fulfillment, despite the fact that none of this will matter when dead.

If death was so easy to accept we would all just painlessly kill ourselves and be done with it. But no matter how stone cold logical we are and we think that nothingness awaits us; a part of our minds still cannot quite accept this completely. Most of us are hoping that *something* happens after death

>>11260246
The only consciousness you have evidence of is your own, and it's not empirical evidence but rather the pre-existing medium allowing you to gather empirical evidence in the first place. You infer that other members of the species you fall under must share your consciousness, but you do this without any empirical evidence to do so, merely an assumption based on comparison to yourself. If you also denied the presence of consciousness in any non-living entity, such as a rock, you would similarly be doing it without empirical evidence. The fact that human beings are limited to their own anthropic seat of consciousness does not mean that consciousness itself is remotely limited to an anthropic vessel itself - it's merely a bias imposed by the constraints on our investigation. Until a procedure can be formulated whereby the presence of consciousness in a system can be affirmed or denied, then there's no way to make a claim in either direction - except as a guess, based in one's existing assumptions.

>>11263830
>Everyone assumes that there are three stages in life: pre-birth, life and death

No, there’s just life. There is no “you” before conception and there’s no “you” after death either.

Scientifically, we can only make conclusions based on experience. We have no experience of what happens after death, so based on that alone we cannot conclude anything about it.
However, we all have once experienced non-life prior to birth and know that non-life resulted in our life, and can conclude that it is possible for a state of non consciousness to result in consciousnesses. Therefore, scientifically speaking, since we have never experienced permanent non consciousness, there is no reason to assume it is the result of death, while all we have experienced is either temporary non consciousness leading to new life which should give us at least some inductive reason to assume that death is not the end.

>>11264484
How do you know? Sounds like you're making a claim without evidence

i believe our souls are being transmitted from an outside source and our bodies are just how they are expressed. like a song playing on the radio