# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/141 "2010-12-06T17:45:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > As I understand it, energy has no beginning or end, it only changes form. Electricity does not stop existing because my computer was smashed and is no longer equipped to receive and use that electricity. Energy for practical purposes can’t be created or destroyed (except through nuclear processes) but here you are confusing one form of energy with energy in general. Electricity gets created from chemical energy in a battery. When you turn off your computer, or smash it, that electricity, which is the movement of electrons, is gone. > [@](#): > > And hell, computers are another analogy of soul/self vs. meatbrain: > > Memories, skills, abilities, personality… all of these are the programs and software of the brain. Like the computer, the brain can “break” and not be able to run those programs anymore…but the programs and software can exist in other computers and work perfectly well there. The software and data are not the computer itself and are not dependent on it for their existence, only their existence _inside that particular computer._ > > To take the analogy further (and the computer one is good for the reincarnation believers) the data and programs don’t have to continue their existence consistently whole…they can be transferred in bits and pieces, across wires and wirelessly, and reassembled elsewhere. Two problems. One - our software exists nowhere else. If you have a standalone computer, and create a program on it, with no backups or transfers, and smash the computer, that program is gone forever. Now, in the general case you can get a second computer and move the code there. But, if you build an exact model of your brain, neurons and all, would the soul exist there also, in duplicate? Which would be the original? Later on you talk about the soul being like an operating system, which just shows you don’t seem to know enough about them. An operating system is just software. Firmware, in the current sense, is just software stored in a ROM so it doesn’t have to be loaded. It is possible to have a computer with the OS in firmware. The very first computer I programmed had no OS. The line between OS and apps is pretty cloudy in any case. And of course you can load a new OS onto any computer; do you think you can load a new soul? Souls switch all the time in fantasy and Star Trek, but do you think your personality would be the same if your “soul” wound up in the body of a woman or a child or an Alzheimer’s victim? I think that in the future we will be able to back ourselves up, like computers, because I think our personalities are a total function of the current state of our brain, which includes our memories. I think any reasonable computer analogy argues for the purely physical interpretation. A running process is an emergent property of the physical implementation of a computer - turn the computer off and it goes away forever. If you have ever tried to debug an intermittent hardware problem that only shows up five hours into a test you’d be aware of this. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/142 "2010-12-06T18:21:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Energy for practical purposes can’t be created or destroyed (except through nuclear processes) but here you are confusing one form of energy with energy in general. Electricity gets created from chemical energy in a battery. When you turn off your computer, or smash it, that electricity, which is the movement of electrons, is gone. > Two problems. One - our software exists nowhere else. If you have a standalone computer, and create a program on it, with no backups or transfers, and smash the computer, that program is gone forever. > > Now, in the general case you can get a second computer and move the code there. But, if you build an exact model of your brain, neurons and all, would the soul exist there also, in duplicate? Which would be the original? > > Later on you talk about the soul being like an operating system, which just shows you don’t seem to know enough about them. An operating system is just software. Firmware, in the current sense, is just software stored in a ROM so it doesn’t have to be loaded. It is possible to have a computer with the OS in firmware. The very first computer I programmed had no OS. The line between OS and apps is pretty cloudy in any case. And of course you can load a new OS onto any computer; do you think you can load a new soul? Souls switch all the time in fantasy and Star Trek, but do you think your personality would be the same if your “soul” wound up in the body of a woman or a child or an Alzheimer’s victim? > > I think that in the future we will be able to back ourselves up, like computers, because I think our personalities are a total function of the current state of our brain, which includes our memories. I think any reasonable computer analogy argues for the purely physical interpretation. A running process is an emergent property of the physical implementation of a computer - turn the computer off and it goes away forever. If you have ever tried to debug an intermittent hardware problem that only shows up five hours into a test you’d be aware of this. You went exactly where I said it was pointless to go…I wasn’t saying the soul/body connection operates exactly the same way, I was using it as an analogy - an imperfect one, since I do not know how the soul operates. And you missed my point as well about personality vs. soul. Have you ever read “Time Enough for Love” by Heinlein? One of the Lazarus Long novels, I never read any others. (SHIT title…) I love the idea of being able to just keep cloning ourselves and downloading ourselves into the new body… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/143 "2010-12-06T18:54:10Z")
What is this “soul” you keep referring to, and how is it distinct from the neurological activity of the physical brain? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/144 "2010-12-06T20:36:35Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You went exactly where I said it was pointless to go…I wasn’t saying the soul/body connection operates exactly the same way, I was using it as an analogy - an imperfect one, since I do not know how the soul operates. And you missed my point as well about personality vs. soul. > > Have you ever read “Time Enough for Love” by Heinlein? One of the Lazarus Long novels, I never read any others. (SHIT title…) I love the idea of being able to just keep cloning ourselves and downloading ourselves into the new body… If the analogy doesn’t work, maybe you shouldn’t bring it up. I actually think it works pretty well for the materialist side, since a process running on a computer seems a lot like thought in some sense. How is our brain/thought all that different from that a dog or chimp, except that our conscious mind looks at itself. If you have an active subconscious mind which can solve quite complex problems below the level of conscious thought, is that much different from a dog or a chimp solving problems without looking at themselves doing it? As for downloading personalities, that is quite a common theme. Arthur C. Clarke’s “Against the Fall of Night” (expanded into “The City and the Stars”) has the personalities of people stored in a computer, where they are reincarnated for a 1,000 year life every 100,000 years or so. That was written in the early 1950s, and is probably not the first instance of the idea. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/145 "2010-12-06T21:32:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is not a physical possibility. ``` There is no evidence that it is not a physical possibility. ``` You make a large amount of assertions without backing them up. I used to do the same thing when I was less knowledgeable, as I was sure I was correct based on acquired beliefs without evidence or even considering whether something was logically possible or not. You’re doing it now. Analyze what is written, don’t automatically go with your first thought or the first thought that feels reasonable: be critical of your own thoughts instead of replying without self critique. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The brain is still active during unconsciousness or anastheis. Which supports the idea that the brain could be creating the sensation of “unconsciousness”. If you didn’t want to support my statements, you should not have said what you said: this is an example of when self-critique comes in handy. However, if your aim is to arrive at a logical conclusion rather than simply being disputatious, your statement might help you understand the point I am attempting to convey. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it isn’t. When it comes to the individual consciousness of a human being, You aren’t following the argument: there are forms of consciousness besides human consciousness, which is readily evidenced by observing nature. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There are no states of consciousness outside the brain’s control. You need proof for such an assertion. While I don’t doubt that the brain is the primary influence over our consciousness, this doesn’t mean that outside influences (or internal, non-brain structure related influences upon the structure of the brain) cannot effect the consciousness (and/or the brain). If you want to say a true statement, you have to say something along the lines of: “I don’t think there are states of consciousness outside of the brain’s control.” And then, when someone points out that there are possible physical scenarios in which consciousness can be influenced by something other than the brain, you have to acknowledge that what you initially thought is incorrect (in order for you to gain wisdom). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. The consciousness ofa given individual is confined to the physical process of that individual’s brain. The barin “controls” every bit of it. None of it is trasnferable to the “universe,” whatever that means. You really need to read what people write (elsewhere in the thread someone pointed this out to you as well). Let’s retrace what you wrote and my response: you: There is no such thing as “beyond the control of the brain.” The brain is all there is. me: Wrong, unless you define the brain as the whole universe. We haven’t determined that the conscious field cannot collapse down to inhabit (and be influenced by) a smaller material structure, nor have we determined that it cannot expand beyond the confines of the brain to inhabit a larger material structure (such as the milky way galaxy). Nowhere do I say that an individual’s consciousness is “transferable” to the universe, nor imply it. If a consciousness expands or contracts to be influenced by a different material structure (besides a brain), it could loose the controlling functions that belong specifically to the brain. This doesn’t mean that the data the brain contained would not transfer in some way to the new controlling structure (whether the new material substructure was quantum (smaller) or galactic (larger)). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I am making categorical statemnts of proven fact. Saying that does not make it true. You will eventually learn to make statements with a more respectful and humble attitude as you learn the limitations of your knowledge. When you learn humility, you will be able to approach the truth in such a way that you will not hide it from yourself with _your_ fallacious ideas and _your need_ to have been right. Did you see how I adjusted my approach to what the term “afterlife” meant? That is an example of the humility required to learn. Here is an example of forceful ignorance: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We know this beyond all question. ``` You have no evidence nor logical support for your position (which follows), which makes the intellectual stance "We know this beyond all question." as forcefully ignorant as the previous stance of the catholic church on the centrality of the earth in the universe. ``` > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Once again, the unproven statement without evidence or logical support. You need to work on this. The correlation between _human_ conscious activity and _human_ brain activity is readily apparent. Of course, correlation does not equate to causation. Your equating correlation with causation is a common error among those unfamiliar with the error. It’s an error that you should become familiar with, if you desire to advance your knowledge. Back to the topic: There is the possibility that the brain is simply a physical framework upon which consciousness interfaces with this layer of reality. This physical framework, when damaged or altered, could alter or damage the consciousness’s ability to function due to the brain’s great influence upon the consciousness while the consciousness inhabits the brain. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Thgere is no magic involved, and no possible way for consciousness to continue without the brain or be transferred to some kind of non-material nether region. You’re making reading comprehension mistakes here as well: I’ve never posited any type of “non-material” nether region, rather I’ve proposed other natural (material) sub-structures that the consciousness could inhabit. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/146 "2010-12-06T21:49:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What is this “soul” you keep referring to, and how is it distinct from the neurological activity of the physical brain? Not sure, that’s the point. Do try to keep up… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/147 "2010-12-06T21:51:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Not sure, that’s the point. Then you’re talking nonsense. You insist on this distinction, and then you say you don’t know what the distinction is. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/148 "2010-12-06T21:56:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then you’re talking nonsense. You insist on this distinction, and then you say you don’t know what the distinction is. The soul is the same as the Heiryon Essence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/149 "2010-12-06T22:13:50Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > There is no evidence that it is not a physical possibility. There is a ton of evidence, actually. > [@](#): > > You make a large amount of assertions without backing them up. I used to do the same thing when I was less knowledgeable You are still less knowledgeable > [@](#): > > as I was sure I was correct based on acquired beliefs without evidence I have not expressed any beliefs. > [@](#): > > You aren’t following the argument: there are forms of consciousness besides human consciousness, which is readily evidenced by observing nature. You mean animal consciousness? Not relevant, since we aren’t talking about consciousness in the abstract, but distinct, individual consciousness. Individual human consciousness does not and cannot exist outside of th individual human brain which creates and sustains it. > [@](#): > > You need proof for such an assertion. It’s already amply proven by all neurogical evidence. > [@](#): > > While I don’t doubt that the brain is the primary influence over our consciousness The brain IS our consciousness. Consciousness is physical. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t mean that outside influences (or internal, non-brain structure related influences upon the structure of the brain) cannot effect the consciousness (and/or the brain). Sure they can. Of course external sensory stimuli, and other influences (including injury to the brain) can affect consciousness. Those things do not _contain_ consciousness, though, and consciousness cannot be transferred to them, so it’s an irrelevant point. > [@](#): > > If you want to say a true statement, you have to say something along the lines of: > > “I don’t think there are states of consciousness outside of the brain’s control.” No, it is a fact that individual consciousness has no existence outside the physicalityof the brain which creates it. > [@](#): > > And then, when someone points out that there are possible physical scenarios in which consciousness can be influenced by something other than the brain, you have to acknowledge that what you initially thought is incorrect (in order for you to gain wisdom). You seem to be confusing influence with transference. There are no possible, physical scenarios by which individual consciousness can exist outside the brain which creates it. It IS the brain. It’s all just electrochemical imprints. No imprints means no consciousness. > [@](#): > > You really need to read what people write (elsewhere in the thread someone pointed this out to you as well). > > Let’s retrace what you wrote and my response: > you: There is no such thing as “beyond the control of the brain.” The brain is all there is. > > me: Wrong, unless you define the brain as the whole universe. We haven’t determined that the conscious field cannot collapse down to inhabit (and be influenced by) a smaller material structure, nor have we determined that it cannot expand beyond the confines of the brain to inhabit a larger material structure (such as the milky way galaxy). > > Nowhere do I say that an individual’s consciousness is “transferable” to the universe, nor imply it. If a consciousness expands or contracts to be influenced by a different material structure (besides a brain), it could loose the controlling functions that belong specifically to the brain. This doesn’t mean that the data the brain contained would not transfer in some way to the new controlling structure (whether the new material substructure was quantum (smaller) or galactic (larger)). None of this is physically possible. This is woo woo gibberish. > [@](#): > > You have no evidence nor logical support for your position (which follows), which makes the intellectual stance “We know this beyond all question.” as forcefully ignorant as the previous stance of the catholic church on the centrality of the earth in the universe. That remains a factual statement. Sorry. We know beyond all question that consciousness is purely a biological, physiological event. Deal with it. > [@](#): > > Once again, the unproven statement without evidence or logical support. You need to work on this. It actually is a completely proven statement. Sorry. > [@](#): > > The correlation between _human_ conscious activity and _human_ brain activity is readily apparent. It’s not a correlation. It’s the same thing. > [@](#): > > There is the possibility that the brain is simply a physical framework upon which consciousness interfaces with this layer of reality. What does “this layer of reality” mean? Reality isn’t “layered.” > [@](#): > > This physical framework, when damaged or altered, could alter or damage the consciousness’s ability to function due to the brain’s great influence upon the consciousness while the consciousness inhabits the brain. The brain IS the consciousness. There is no separation. There are no other “layers” of reality. This is it. > [@](#): > > You’re making reading comprehension mistakes here as well: I’ve never posited any type of “non-material” nether region, rather I’ve proposed other natural (material) sub-structures that the consciousness could inhabit. We know for a fact that no other material substructures exist. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/150 "2010-12-06T22:42:14Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Consciousness comes (partially) from memory [/QUOTE] Where does memory come from? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/151 "2010-12-07T04:35:21Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Where does memory come from? From sensory inputs, which are then biochemically imprinted on the brain. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/152 "2010-12-07T04:48:31Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Where does memory come from? What **Dio** just said. Or Eric Kandel can expand on that for you: I haven’t yet seen the documentary [In Search of Memory](http://icarusfilms.com/new2009/mem.html), but the book is well worth reading. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/153 "2010-12-07T05:29:10Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Mmm… not really. > > **Snip…** > > So, having said that, it seems that the breakdown in understanding regarding the operation of the brain is a microcosm of the whole question itself. Yes, the brain is what makes a living human being “conscious”… but what “activated” the brain to begin with? **Stoid** , thanks for your response. Sorry I haven’t replied to it before now, I’ve been away from the computer for a long time. Anyway, embryogenesis activates the brain: about 33 days after it begins the posterior commissure and the Medial forebrain bundle appear. I’ll not respond to the rest of the post because both **Diogenes** and **Voyager** already addressed it more than satisfactorily. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/154 "2010-12-07T06:17:47Z")
First, you will notice that I skipped your childishness, and your assertion that you didn’t back up whatsoever. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You mean animal consciousness? Not relevant, since we aren’t talking about consciousness in the abstract, but distinct, individual consciousness. We are talking about the possibility that a consciousness survives even if it is in a different form (with a material substrate other than the human brain). > [@](#): > > There are no possible, physical scenarios by which individual consciousness can exist outside the brain which creates it. It IS the brain. It’s all just electrochemical imprints. No imprints means no consciousness. I skipped a few of your unsupported claims, to address this unsupported (by anything you are saying) claim. There is no evidence that a consciousness can or cannot be maintained by a different material substrate. We don’t have the scientific knowledge to determine whether or not it can be done at this point in time. On another note you’ve brought up transference several times: I tend to believe that eventually, humanity might have the technological ability to do so, although I temper my optimism with the knowledge that fundamentalists and crazies may hamper humanities scientific progress. Imagine if someone like you was in charge of scientific endeavors? It would be a total disaster: you would say “we know for sure that there is no possible other substrate that consciousness can inhabit” and forbid all research that could find that substrate. Anyways, I suppose you won’t actually debate, but just make your unsubstantiated claims, and I tend to think it is ultimately your fault for being too stubborn to try and understand what is being said. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/155 "2010-12-07T06:26:37Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > We are talking about the possibility that a consciousness survives even if it is in a different form (with a material substrate other than the human brain). There is no such possibility. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence that a consciousness can or cannot be maintained by a different material substrate. We don’t have the scientific knowledge to determine whether or not it can be done at this point in time. What we do have the ability to know with scientific certainity is that human consciousness is an emergent property of each individual human brain, that it’s not transferable or separate from the brain, and that’s the end of it. > [@](#): > > On another note you’ve brought up transference several times: I tend to believe that eventually, humanity might have the technological ability to do so, although I temper my optimism with the knowledge that fundamentalists and crazies may hamper humanities scientific progress. Now THIS is not automatically impossible, but the technology does not _currently_ exist, and there is no _natural_ mechanism for it, so it currently cannot, does not, has never once happened. > [@](#): > > Imagine if someone like you was in charge of scientific endeavors? It would be a total disaster: you would say “we know for sure that there is no possible other substrate that consciousness can inhabit” and forbid all research that could find that substrate. You can try to build one, but currently no such mechanism exists. we know that it doesn’t happen naturally. > [@](#): > > Anyways, I suppose you won’t actually debate, but just make your unsubstantiated claims, and I tend to think it is ultimately your fault for being to stubborn to try and understand what is being said. I understand perfectly well what’s being said, and calling me “stubborn,” “Ignorant,” “childish,” etc. are not rebuttals of anything and do not make your hypotheses coherent. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/156 "2010-12-07T07:11:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because it would require a physical mechanism for transmission (not just “other dimension” magic) and a physical receiver and receptacle in which to store it. Memories are chemical imprints. They are physical. If the information were to be copied or “transferred,” it would require a new physical medium to copy itself onto. The information is already copied in this _li_f_e_. Sensory imput is transfered, encoded, and integrated into existing memory. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s a complicated process, but they are initially encoded electrochemically in the hippocampus (short term memory) before being analyzed and filtered for significance, then moved to the frontal cortex. Are you describing a homunculus? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is physically impossible for consciousness to continue without a brain. Is there a difference between continuity of consciousness in _the_ human brain and continuity of memory in _a_ human brain? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/157 "2010-12-07T07:22:43Z")
This: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What we do have the ability to know **with scientific certainity** is that human consciousness is an emergent property of each individual human brain, does not prove this: > [@](#): > > that it’s not transferable or separate from the brain, and that’s the end of it. At least, I haven’t seen anything that shows that it does, and as fond as you are of yourself, Dio, your declarations of your absolute certainty aren’t even in the same room with “proof” of anything except your absolute certainty. And since we know with even greater certainty than just about anything that you can be certain about things which are wholly untrue, I think it’s fair to say that without some research showing this, you’re just saying stuff cuz you like the sound. > [@](#): > > I understand perfectly well what’s being said, and calling me “stubborn,” “Ignorant,” “childish,” etc. are not rebuttals of anything and do not make your hypotheses coherent. Are you suffering from the belief that you making rigid declarations that a thing is simply so without even trying to explain it, much less give evidence for it is an adequate rebuttal, or coherent? It’s not. I started this thread to discuss ideas, possibilities, and to increase understanding of HOW we decide that a thing is so or not. You have contributed nothing to any of that by doing your usual shtick of showing up, announcing what reality is, and persisting in announcing that it is what you say it is and that there is no point to discussing it. So now you’ve declared absolute immutable truth, it seems clear your job is done and you dont’ need to hang around anymore, right? Because you aren’t going to be saying something new or different, and you’ve said what you came to say at least ten times already. There are hundreds of active threads that could probably use some declarations of perfect truth, Dio, you wouldn’t want to deprive them by repeating yourself here. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/158 "2010-12-07T07:29:44Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > The information is already copied in this _li_f_e_. Sensory imput is transfered, encoded, and integrated into existing memory. It’s not copied, just encoded. > [@](#): > > Are you describing a homunculus? No. > [@](#): > > Is there a difference between continuity of consciousness in _the_ human brain and continuity of memory in _a_ human brain? There is a difference between consciousness and memory, yes. Memory is a contributing factor to consciousness, just like sensory stimuli. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/159 "2010-12-07T07:36:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > This: > > does not prove this: Yeah, actually, it does. Sorry. > [@](#): > > At least, I haven’t seen anything that shows that it does The one thing necessarily follows the other. If you agree to the first thing, then you agree to the second, because they are essentially the same statement., > [@](#): > > Are you suffering from the belief that you making rigid declarations that a thing is simply so without even trying to explain it, much less give evidence for it is an adequate rebuttal, or coherent? It’s not. What would you like explained to you? I ask this with the full knowledge that absolutely no amount of explanation or evidence will dissuade you from your woo of the gaps position, but I will humor you anyway. > [@](#): > > I started this thread to discuss ideas, possibilities, and to increase understanding of HOW we decide that a thing is so or not. We start by understanding physical laws, and making rational inferences from observed evidence. I will ignore the ad hominems. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/160 "2010-12-07T07:47:46Z")
It’s possible after we die our consciousness will be reawakened outside the observable universe, maybe following laws we don’t understand yet. The chances of it being a particularly place known to a current religion when weighted against all possibilities seems low, but let’s grant that as well. Lots of things are possible, especially when you don’t need evidence. It’s possible the cute girl across the street will visit me in the middle of the night wearing nothing but a Santa hat. And that wouldn’t do violence to reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=9)