/sci/ - Science & Math

the existence of the soul, afterlife or anything you want, whichever electromagnetic or gravitational waves it travels on, does not or never defined the existence of god. it's like relating the existence of assault rifles and the invention of the microprocessor.
soon or late we will know what kind of fuck is going on about what we are made of, and everything will be clear until the last lie spurted by the bible will be dismantled.

science !

That in any journals? Any fucker can write a book

>>1599223
>In 2001, he and his fellow researchers published his study on near-death experiences in the renowned medical journal The Lancet.

Read things before you rage for no good reason.

>>1599111
>>1599111

>In Consciousness Beyond Life, the internationally renowned cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel offers ground-breaking research into whether or not our consciousness survives the death of our body. If you enjoy books about
>internationally renowned cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel
>renowned cardiologist
>cardiologist

I'm waiting fr the results of Sam Parnia's study to give any opinion.
Also, the existance of souls and afterlife still would in NO FUCKING WAY prove the existence of a god.

>>1599245
i lol'd at this, too.

more seriously, what scientific theory could define the existence or a soul devoid of material support (the brain)

>>1599111
No, you can check out the Lancet, it is a real journal. His results actually don't lead to a conclusions of a "continuing consciousness" though. In Fact his results indicate otherwise.

The Lancet,
Vol. 359 No. 9323 p 2116

"comment attributed to Kerry Packer, Australia's wealthiest man. Packer had a myocardial infarction while riding a polo pony. A nearby ambulance crew resuscitated him. Packer reported his experience with the telling comment: “Mate, I tell you there is nothing there”. "

SO YEAH, FUCK OFF TROLL!

>>1599287

Magic science, obviously.

Consciousness itself IS brain activity. Without the firing of neurons, the illusion we call thought cannot exist. It is purely a chemical reaction brought on by a reverse in the polarity of ions surrounding the tail of a neuron and NOTHING MORE. A dead brain is a dead person and there is no soul.
saged for religious content.

>>1599293
“Mate, I tell you there is nothing there”.

SO how the fuck do you interpret this as "consciousness persists after death"? OP is a retarded FAGGOT!

>>1599300

if consciousness is reducible to certain, quantifiable chemical reactions, does this mean that consciousness can be created via synthetic means?

>>1599307
Uhh, that was one incident. The title of the book and the study seems to suggest that his conclusion was contrary to that singular anecdote.

>>1599317
All we are is a complicated chemical reaction, our brains are just a soup of chemicals, everything about us is quantifiable!
If you tossed all the atoms in a human body together in the right way you would have made consciousness. You may think there is something special about our brain from your perspective but there is not. A sufficiently advanced computer would have the exact same perspective about itself: "what, you mean a consciousness could be recreated NATURALLY or CHEMICALLY through evolution? HA!"

Boy, I see to have churned the water in this sea of trolls here.

For my next trick: Soul Samples, Personal Explorations In Reincarnation and UFO Experiences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u5KdfHAju0

>>1599307
well, obviously op is a troll.

>>1599340
>All we are is a complicated chemical reaction
This is not provable. You should wonder why you believe it.

>>1599330
Nope, if you actually read some of the papers, they dont conclude shit.

The Brain still functions moments after "death".
People report this, that is all. It is just akin to a dream state, this has been known for years.
If you are dead too long, your brains stops altogether, no more dreams. This is basic Neuroscience.

AGAIN, THESE ARTICLES AND BOOK DON'T PROVE SHIT.

>>1599340

thanks for the non-answer. can you, personally, recreate the chemical reactions required for consciousness in a lab setting?

>>1599357
I like how you troll.

>>1599340
>All we are is a complicated chemical reaction

Agreed

>>1599371
jeeze, it's trolls within trolls here

>>1599355
>>1599361
How is it provable? Ummm...by looking at a developing human egg, zygote, and embryo in a fucking microscope?
You can WATCH the process with your very eyes, there is no mystery here.

As for creating consciousness myself, that is quite the idiotic statement yeah? Considering that the crucible of nature & evolution took so long to create such an advanced organ, what makes you think that me or anyone else can just throw stuff in a pot and make it?
The concept behind the individual brain cells are clear, it's the amount of cells working in tandem that presents the only impossible barrier to creating consciousness.

I hope you two aren't being serious...

>>1599355
>This is not provable

Someone doenst know how to Logic.
I can't prove that you are not a faggot, therefore you are a faggot? I can't prove that there isn't an imaginary speggetti monster orbiting the sun, so there must be a speggetti monster orbiting the sun?

Thinking that we are just made up of chemicals is a reasonable scientific hypothesis, as that is all we have or will ever observer. Believeing in fairytales and some greater unphysical consciousness has no fukcing basis in reality and is akind to bullshit.

GTFO, and take your fail with you!

>>1599377

nice double-doubles

4chan is digital depiction of russian nesting dolls, except all the dolls are trolls, and the number of dolls isn't finite

>>1599391
Yeah, I'm serious.

You have no idea what you are, and can't conclude that you are a result of chemical reactions.

Also, consciousness isn't quantifiable.

>>1599391

>It is purely a chemical reaction brought on by a reverse in the polarity of ions surrounding the tail of a neuron and NOTHING MORE

You make the process sound incredibly simple, yet now you argue that it is too complex for you to recreate on your own. Which is it, simple or complex? And why is it not possible for you to recreate such chemical interactions that lead to consciousness?

>>1599401
Well, I have an idea of what YOU are though:
a troll.

>>1599401
FAGGOT

>>1599408
I already explained that before. The process behind a neuron firing and releasing neurotransmitters into the receptor sites of an adjacent neuron, and that neuron releasing it's transmitters into the next adjacent neurons, is the one process that makes thought happen.
Making your own artificial cell and then making a massive matrix of trillions of them and having them all communicate in a way that enables thought is not easy, why don't you try it in a lab and prove me wrong.

"Near-death experiences" can't be used to suggest the existence of an afterlife because anyone who can be revived was never truly dead. Sure, maybe their hearts stopped beating but that doesn't mean that their brains were dead yet. Obviously their brains didn't die since they were able to be resuscitated. Therefore, anything they think they "experienced" could just be a dream influenced by the environment around them.

Considering that brain damage produces striking changes in personality or cognitive function, I think its safe to say that consciousness is entirely dependent on the brain.

>Van Lommel provides scientific evidence that the near-death phenomenon is an authentic experience that cannot be attributed to imagination, psychosis, or oxygen deprivation. He further reveals that after such a profound experience, most patients' personalities undergo a permanent change.

>Patients with no brain function, and their ears covered, can see and hear the operation as it is being performed with exceptional detail.

And again, no serious, examinable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence has been presented.

>>1599428
your just explaining the process of how our consciousness works

wow its like fucking inception in here but with trolls instead of dreams.

Trolls layered within trolls, trolling trolls being trolled by other trolls.

Christian here and this is what I think about this thread.

I have just added Consciousness Beyond Life to the rhizome under Texts > Neurology. (Not OP here, btw.)

It's an .epub file. For Windows users, you can get the epubreader for firefox or use bookworm.oreilly.com to view it online (need to make account, doesn't need authentication though).

I swear for a science loving geek sci gets me depressed every time time here. I was going to bring up that consciousness is dependent on physical and chemical reactions in the body but it's so pointless. It's just retards saying you're wrong I'm right (insert theological stance) is wrong. And whenever any actual evidence for anything is brought up it's warped, dismissed or completely misunderstood by the other arguer. I mean I think the book is full of shit completely but it's so pointless to try to validate my stance with logic or evidence.

>>1601220
>I mean I think the book is full of shit completely

You've read the book?

>mfw a lot of people who goes into a centrifuge experiences "near death" visions.

Also, it is because of the blood being driven out of their brain, carbon dioxide and whatever. It is also stated so in the article.

The faggot who wrote that book sees what he wants to see.

captcha: oacarder scientific

>>1601226
You don't have to read it to know its full of shit.

Besides its the Lancet we can't trust them - they're the reason why people think vaccinations lead to autism in the first place. Anyone can scribble something down and publish it in that Journal.

>>1599300
Van Lommel provides scientific evidence that the near-death phenomenon is an authentic experience that cannot be attributed to imagination, psychosis, or oxygen deprivation. He further reveals that after such a profound experience, most patients' personalities undergo a permanent change. In van Lommel's opinion, the current views on the relationship between the brain and consciousness held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists are too narrow for a proper understanding of the phenomenon. In Consciousness Beyond Life, van Lommel shows that our consciousness does not always coincide with brain functions and that, remarkably and significantly, consciousness can even be experienced separate from the body.

>>1599394
>Thinking that we are just made up of chemicals is a reasonable scientific hypothesis, as that is all we have or will ever observer
That no longer coincides with observation. Time to either change your hypothesis or stick to it, turning it into a mere dogma.

>>1601107
thanks! looking for it now...

>>1601107
I just downloaded Adobe Digital Editions epub reader. It works just like a pdf reader. No problem at all. Reading the book now

http://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/?PID=2984329

Hey, guys what's going on in this thread? I like this book.

>>1601220
You realize you just did what you were complaining about right? You dismissed the book as being full of shit solely because it contains evidence that is inconsistent with your beliefs.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the the irrefutable evidence here that would leave Atheists grasping at straws?
Even if there would be such a thing as conciousness persisting beyond the brain, how would this be evidence of a god?
It would just be evidence that there are some things we don't know yet and should investigate.

>>1601327
and that would be a pretty good start.

Sure is extremist materialism in here. Materialist fags, why is empiricism the only correct way to view reality?

It has now been proven beyound a shadow of a doubt that OP is a theist butthurt troll
http://www.op.is.a.giant.fag.com/faggot_tree/opisfag.php

>>1601350
Someone sounds butthurt...

>>1601347
Conflating empiricism with materialism indicates you really know what you're talking about. Materialism is an ontological position, empiricism an epistemological position.

Anyway: We like to work with what we can systematically investigate instead of making shit up.

>>1599111
yea a CARDIOLOGIST writes a book about consciousness >_> if it at least was a nerologist or something....
Also atheism != belief that consciousness ends after death
Atheism = lack of believe in deity... thats it.

>>1599261
>>1599261
>>1599261

Greatest Post I have read in /sci/

I try to argue with Creationists that if Evolution is somehow magically proven wrong that does not automatically mean that creationism is the correct answer.

And if creationism were proven to be correct that does not mean that God is proven to be real.

As with any subject you are so very very correct good Sir. Thank you for making my day.

>>1601361
But materialism (pure materialism) is the only position that "intellectuals" take.

>>1601379
>Creationism: There is a God such that He __________

Proving creationism proves the existence of the God that is posited to exist in the creationism hypothesis. Also, there's no proving a hypothesis strictly speaking. Go back to elementary school.

>>1599111
We already knew that consciousness still lingers on the brain after death before finally shutting out. What does it mean? It means the neurons are still just circling around for a little bit before finally disappearing. This just proves the brain can be the last organ to power down in the body, that's it.

>>1601381
Yeah because they work with what can be systematically investigated instead of making shit up. Who says they won't update their beliefs if given reason to?

>>1601382
Would just prove that some intelligent thing once created the universe...
Does not prove that this being called "God" by most people would do heck now...
maybe it came to earth transformed into a hippie and now smokes weed all day long while laughing at christians for their belief in "god" because he actually does nothing...

>>1601382
>>1601382

NEGATIVE

God is not the ONLY answer one could give for Creationism.

Creation could have been done by a Vastly Superior Alien Species that arose through Abiogenesis.

Not even the UFO freaks are dumb enough to go with that one though. Only the idiotic Christfags.

http://www.wholescience.net/2009/10/scientist-and-researcher-dr-sam-parnia/

here, a serious (not yet concluded) study on the matter.

>>1601399
>>1601398
>Implying "God" is a well-defined concept.

The Intelligent Creator is referred to as "God", too. Need not be omni3 etc.

>scientifically proven
>scientifically proven
>scientifically proven

Sure is weasel words in here. Adding this phrase to my automatically-hide filter.

>>1601413

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

*Cough Cough*.....were you saying something?

>>1601438
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God

>>1601438
ANother guy here,

>God
cannot be defined. There's no agreement on what s/he can do and whether or not s/he is bene- or malevolent.

It's just concept that is exploited by the clergy to bind the faithful and gullible.

To bring the train back onto the tracks let us discuss experiments that have attempted to prove the existence of a human soul.

Since there is no experiment that proves the existence of a human soul we as /sci/ entists must accept that there in fact does not exist a human soul.

Enjoy your death being much like the ending of Terminator 2.

Hasta La Vista

Baby

Followed by nothingness for the next infinite amount of time after your death.

>>1601379
>>

I try to argue with Creationists that if Evolution is somehow magically proven wrong that does not automatically mean that creationism is the correct answer.

FFFFFFFUUUUUUCKKKK...
Not the form of creationist bullshit that makes me rage the most but still in the top ten.

PS, the n1 is when they genuinely misunderstand scientific facts and quote them trying to be smart:
"we all have different DNA, therefore we are created individually, therefore God exists" and "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics OMG!

>Creationists decry science as bullshit
>Science comes out and says something
>Creationists try to use said science as a weapon
>Instead, it ends up proving them even more wrong
>Creationists decry science as bullshit

2001? So, before it was laid out that NDE was a result of malfunction in the angular gyrus?

I don't agree with the hardcore materialists. I believe there's something about our brains we don't (yet) understand that can't be explained via our understood interactions of neurons. Everything physical I do can be explained via materialism (as far as I know), but no materialism can explain what I experience in day to day life.

I thought we already found out NDEs are produced by your brain releasing Ketamine when you are close to death.

>>1601107 here
I haven't read or skimmed the book yet (I'm finishing The Girl Who series), but I will be later. Speaking of which, DICKS. I barely got through any of that neuroscience paper anon posted here awhile back, even though I promised I would. I'll have to get back to that too.

In the meantime,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

Also, it looks like /sci/ just got over 9000 theistfags and (obvious) trolls all overnight. What could be the cause? Did we get raided?

inb4 what is it like to be a bat

>>1602236
No. What don't you read the book? It's on Rhizome, if you missed it.

>>1602236
No it's due to lack of Oxygen.

Which could create effects similar to Dissociative class drugs.

>>1601477
NDE experiments do prove the human soul. You can no longer claim to be both a materialist and a scientist. For example there's the experiment in which an elderly woman, while clinically dead, experienced floating above the hospital and seeing a red tennis shoe on the roof. A maintenance worker and medical researchers then searched the hospital roof, and found the shoe.

>>1603160
It's not lack of oxygen. And the NDA is nothing like a mere dissociative state. That's the most dishonest thing, where they -- using magnets or drugs -- induce a feeling of dissociation or a feeling of floating, and then say they've repreduced an NDE. Stay classy, /sci/entists.

>>1603169
Is that from the book? like a recorded incident or are you just being a dick?

these threads are concrete proof that there are many cases where there is no consciousness even BEFORE death

>OP being one such case.

>>1603201
A nurse at Hartford Hospital states that she worked with a patient described an NDE in which she saw a red shoe on the roof of the hospital during her OBE, which a janitor then retrieved. Kenneth Ring describes three such cases involving shoes, shoelaces and a yellow smock and also tells a story from a Seattle social worker who also retrieved a shoe outside a window ledge that was identified by a patient during an NDE.

Ring, Kenneth, Ph.d. & Lawrence, Madeline, R.N., Ph.D. "Further evidence for veridical perception during near-death experiences", Journal of Near-Death Studies, 1993 11 (4)223-229

>>1603179
It's lack of Oxygen.

>>1603268
(1) Where can I get free access to this? Can you provide an upload?
(2) How did the shoes/items get where they were in the first place?
(3) What are the relevant backgrounds of the witnesses and their relation to the researchers and subjects?

A lot of the time you can tell the results of a study by its methodology.

>>1603179
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG4wTZuT3wM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5uYhXpa-E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmEkCJ87s&feature=related

It's starts out on the Ouija Board, but moves to OBE's and NDE's. Around part 2, I believe.

Stay classy, pseudo-/sci/entist faggot.

So I take it you're just ignoring the whole peer review part and jumping onto one jumped up paper and then immediately claiming victory?

Typical theist.

All NEDs prove is that people can dream up some weird shit, and until I see a study backed by experts in the fields of neurology-rather than cardiology-I don't see any reason to change that view.

CAPTCHA: Kauffmann's coreth
That could be relevant, I'm to lazy to google it and find out.

What is consciousness?

Why are we alive right here and right now?

>>1603302
Typical. It's useless talking to someone with a dogma.

The brain is a vessel; a receiver.

Yes, there is a soul. You will only come to understand this through personal experience, though it will likely be proven within the coming future through science and technology as well.

Do you really think it's just a great coincidence that you somehow managed to manifest as an intelligent being during the most important period in human history? You could have just as easily been some insect on some forsaken planet, or even this one, but instead you were born into a world that's changing at such a rapid pace. You will live to see the singularity.

>>1603358
>Implying that "you" are distinct from your body and thus begging the question.

>>1603299
i especially liked how they ask an opinion on wether the NDE are just a brain fart to a psychologyst with a computer screen showing a brain scan behind him.

>>a psychologyst

>>1603370
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that whatever it is that makes you you somehow lucked out in manifesting in this form.

I'm sure within 50 years everyone will understand.

>>1603386
If it were a different form, it wouldn't be me. You= pretty much your brain.

If you're interested in that kind of stuff, though, read up on the "Non-identity problem".

>>1603358
>Yes, there is a soul
preach it!

The asylum was getting rather quiet.

>fitting captcha: institute, madness

>>1603358
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Obbligatory

Unless this study is done more times by different scientists under even more rigorous conditions and is properly peer reviewd, like real fucking science is done, it proves nothing.

This guy could be forging the evidence for quick fame and jewgold, wouldn't be the first fucktard to do that.

>consciousness persists after the death of the brain

>after the death of the brain

Please point to the part where it says this.

Wouldn't that disprove the existence of god then? Because according to the bible and most other monotheistic religions, your "soul" leaves the body upon death, leaving just a carcass. If there's still consciousness then wouldn't that mean you soul is still there?

>>1603444
A lot of people are doing this science. Ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit your belief system, and making stupid excuses like you need different people to do it, or you need it to show up in different journals, or you need the investigators to have different degrees IS NOT RATIONAL. IT IS DOGMATIC. IT IS UNSCIENTIFIC. Follow the evidence, and stay classy, /sci/entists.

>>1603455
You make one faulty assumption:
- God is somehow linked to any existing religion.

>>1603455
The consciousness leaves and then returns. There's at least one example of that in the Bible -- Lazarus.

sage goes in all fields

yes, even the captcha field

>>1603465
>implying the bible is historical fact
>>1603468
very true

>>1603463
>implying blindly believing in non-peer-previewed hoax that seeks to validate religious dogma is what science is all about
which is why christianity started out, and should have stayed, in the desert

>captcha: sands tell

­

>>1603477
Despite whatever your bias is telling you, the book is filled with and based upon results from peer reviewed journals, especially the Journal of Near-Death Studies, the only peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN 0891-4494) devoted exclusively to the field of near-death studies.

Sam Parnia.

Look it up, he's doing a serious research on the matter
http://vimeo.com/11302423

>>1603489
all fantasy is based on reality, doesn't make it true, though

>>1603489
>
The founding editor has published such highly scientific books as Life at Death (1982), Heading Toward Omega (1985), The Omega Project: Near-Death Experiences, Ufo Encounters, and Mind at Large (1992), Mindsight: Near-death and out-of-body experiences in the blind (1999) and Lessons from the Light (2000). He is also the coauthor of Methods of Madness: The Mental Hospital as a Last Resort.

UFO's?

Also:
Journal of Near-Death Studies?

I'm glad it's based in US or it might have had some small stain of legitimacy attached to it.

Just more religious quackery.

>>1603518
UFO's abduction could be linked to NDE in some ways, as suggested by a number of researchers.

I suggest we test this theory out by killing OP and seeing if his consciousness remains.

Who's with me?

>scientifically
>proven

>>1603528
>UFO abductions linked to NDE
>_>

I don't even have to say anything myself to ridicule this.
Wait till Biggu Dickus hears of this!

>>1603532
I won't be, but I'll be cheering you on, all the way.

Oh come on. This book has been shown to be utter nonsense time and again. His whole argument is based on a single isolated case (yes, a sample size of fucking ONE) and doesn't even consider the possibility that the brain is fabricating nonsense together as a result of oxygen deprivation (which is a very well-known phenomenon). This book is NOT taken seriously in the scientific community, despite what the back of the book might say.

>>1603556
its true, some people argue that the same kind of brain mechanism could be responsible for both the NDE and the so called "alien abduction", since there are some common points, its only a geuss thou.

>>1603528
and we hear that kind of shit so often... mixing up paranormal things into one big phenomenon called mysteries. things will never get seriously as long it will be called paranormal.

i thought atheist meant no belief in god, not no belief in some kind of afterlife