ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Dwarf** · 21-07-2012, 21:42

Originally Posted by ScouseD

Dwarf, I agree with you that the standard of debate here has dropped dramatically.

You mentioned in your post that an avenue to an afterlife is "quantum physics". As I think we've discussed before I've got a couple of degrees in physics (yeah, get me, I'm great) and during my undergrad and post-grad studies there was nothing, not a sausage, absolutely bugger all, about any sort of afterlife. Instead we concentrated on lasers, sub-atomic and high-energy physics, wave-particle duality and its application to electron and scanning microscopes, water (I spent twice as long studying water as I did relativity, it's very strange), quantum-electrical bonding (and, as an aside, why some metals such as gold aren't magnetic), holograms (that was hard work, really it was), quantum-electrodynamics (the movement of things in stuff) and many other areas.

None of this made even the slightest sense without a mathematical basis, but the maths are so difficult as to put almost anyone off (I'm not that clever and had to put in a lot of extra time to keep up). Like anyone else I sat back and asked what it meant, but that's just a human construct. The best way to sum it up is the old physics saying of "shut up and calculate".

Those that push "quantum" are very rarely qualified to do so and not one of them, not a single one, has published the maths to prove their point. There's a very good reason why they don't publish in journals. It's because they can't.

Given that quantum mechanics is so far away from everyday experience and so mathematically difficult it's no surprise that some dishonest people will misappropriate it in order to make money. If any of these people had a track record of publication in physics journals as well as their websites, books and other money making endeavours I would take them seriously, but they don't. They are at best wrong , but most likely dishonest and on the make.

I will accept one point. According to the present understanding of quantum mechanics no information is destroyed. The papers for this are almost unintelligible (thanks, Prof. Hawking, you lazy git. Try getting up and making your own tea once in a while), but come down to a perseverance of information based on Hawking radiation (he bloody would say that, rather than getting up and making the tea).

What that means (apart from me sitting there without a cuppa) is that if no information is destroyed it can be analysed and recreated. However, and this should be stressed, there is as yet not the slightest evidence for this (or of my cuppa, I might add, despite my polite waiting).

Scouse

As per your original, the problem may well be that I have actually been off the mead, though will have batches of nettle wine (very refreshing in a catalan summer) and old ale ready for when my holidays start next week. Perhaps that will improve my coherence. You will be welcome to help me sample them if you fancy a quick trip over here to the sun. -Perhaps in the depth of an induced altered level of consciousness we will find the truth.

I don’t offer Quantum as an avenue to an afterlife, the throw-away comment in a regrettably short interview by Van Lommel was that Quantum is the explanation for continuance of consciousness which merely changes dimension. Now I can’t understand the underlying mathematical concepts, and if you find it hard work, then I have no hope in hell of getting close. However ever since on the original thread I had Quantum explained as Wyrd, then I have read a bit and find myself reasonably close on general concepts, especially the hologram and energy information communication which does seem to tie in with Wyrd. The problem being that you would have to understand Wyrd in depth in order to see the parallels and a cursory study is not enough. I am certain that a few people on Arrse understand Wyrd better than me but there won’t be many and almost certainly none currently posting on this thread.

The point that the man was making in the article in the Lancet is that there is scientific evidence for a continuation of consciousness after apparent brain-death according to his experience and work in this medical field. It is well set out, does not refer to QM, and makes a point which was accepted by a publication with impeccable credentials. Have you read the full article? (It actually got me signed up to The Lancet as there is some quite interesting stuff on it, have a look.)

When asked how this could be in a separate newspaper article with limited space he said that it was explained by QM that was all. However if no information (or energy) is ever lost, as you say, then this does fit in with esoteric thought and we have the potential situation where QM eventually gives the mechanical/mathematical explanation of how this comes about. Van Lommel appeared to me to be talking about some of our energy moving dimension while the physical remains behind, though I may easily be wrong.
Speculation aside, the point remains that he has posited that in a number of cases after brain death consciousness remains. Where it may or may not go to in the cases where there is no return to consciousness is another can of worms.

I am still full of busy hence the delayed reply, though am unlikely to return to the thread except maybe briefly in the future. However I will PM you with a further discussion of this in terms of QM sometime in August.

As an addendum, I had this debate in mind and picked up a book of quotes from Marcus Aurelius the mystic Roman Emperor who nevertheless had his feet firmly planted on the ground. I opened the book at random and got this:

“If the power of thought is universal among mankind so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows therefore that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its ‘thou shalt’ or ‘thou shalt not’. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason and law derive. If not, whence else? As the earthy portion of me has its origin from earth, the watery from a different element, my breath from one source and my hot and fiery parts from another of their own elsewhere (for nothing comes from nothing nor can return to nothing), so too there must be an origin for the mind.”

ATB

**Dwarf** · 21-07-2012, 21:47

Originally Posted by Higgs_bosun

Dwarf, I have looked closely at the NDE stuff and have decided it not worth further discussion. It has been explained away by equal amounts of plausible information. There exists no evidence for life after death.

This is just the stuff of religions... If there is some 'real' evidence let's have it.

It is apparent that in a sense we never die... In another sense perhaps we were never alive. Draw a line based upon likelyhood. It's all about consciousness... This I am quite sure cannot survive the physically destructive nature of death any more than an iPad will work after passing through an industrial crusher. All that is left are the bits of non functioning material and the information that was stored exists elsewhere anyway.

After death your memory is gone along with senses.. The mind is matter and it only works during the phase we call sentience. If there is something wrong with that assertion please let me know.

Well that’s it all sorted then, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Higgsy has declared and we can all relax.

Seriously, in the Blue Corner I have a reputable non-religious figure who has spent many years amassing a body of work and case studies which are worthy of serious debate or at least a seriously weighted rebuttal. He has been published in reputable publications whose integrity is not in doubt. Whereas in the Red Corner I have HB who has not made us aware of his published works, nor does he back up his argument with references so that I can judge, and thus remains merely opinion and pronouncement.
Whose opinion do you honestly expect me to give more weight to?

Have you actually read the article? If you do and then answer the points I will take note and appreciate the debate.

As to that website then, gosh, I’m am truly impressed by it. Wow! Everything explained! - Why even bother posting that or reposting as it merely lowers the level? And I don't believe in religions either, when will that sink in?
I am actually leaning to the opinion that Oggie is really you under a second alias.

The original article, which you haven’t read, makes the point that in certain cases memory does survive brain death and you personally may be quite sure that consciousness does not survive physical death but Van Lommel has a body of scientifically controlled work which states that this is indeed possible. He himself is also non-religious, as am I.

You say that the mind is only matter. Is that true? Certainly debatable.
Quick wiki point to show the debate is open. Mind
But if matter is energy in its lowest state then can you categorically state scientifically with proof that 100% of our energy merely dissipates when our body dies?
See you can’t, just as scientifically I can’t prove otherwise.
-see Marcus Aurelius quote in reply to Scouse.

I did try to give a scientifically-based article as a spur to debate, if it didn’t spark off interest then that’s no big deal, but a solidly based rebuttal would have been nice.

Here’s a Marcus Aurelius quote from the same page for us both.
“That men of a certain type should behave as they do is inevitable. To wish it otherwise were to wish the fig-tree would not yield its juice. In any case remember that in a very little while both you and he will be dead and your very names will be quickly forgotten.”

Anyway have a good summer, what’s left of it, if the sun actually does get out in whichever part of the rain-sodden Isles you hail from.

**StickyEnd** · 21-07-2012, 21:59

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Every post has an issue.

typical lack of substance.

**Dashing_Chap** · 22-07-2012, 00:59

Originally Posted by Dwarf

Scouse

As per your original, the problem may well be that I have actually been off the mead, though will have batches of nettle wine (very refreshing in a catalan summer) and old ale ready for when my holidays start next week. Perhaps that will improve my coherence. You will be welcome to help me sample them if you fancy a quick trip over here to the sun. -Perhaps in the depth of an induced altered level of consciousness we will find the truth.

I don’t offer Quantum as an avenue to an afterlife, the throw-away comment in a regrettably short interview by Van Lommel was that Quantum is the explanation for continuance of consciousness which merely changes dimension. Now I can’t understand the underlying mathematical concepts, and if you find it hard work, then I have no hope in hell of getting close. However ever since on the original thread I had Quantum explained as Wyrd, then I have read a bit and find myself reasonably close on general concepts, especially the hologram and energy information communication which does seem to tie in with Wyrd. The problem being that you would have to understand Wyrd in depth in order to see the parallels and a cursory study is not enough. I am certain that a few people on Arrse understand Wyrd better than me but there won’t be many and almost certainly none currently posting on this thread.

The point that the man was making in the article in the Lancet is that there is scientific evidence for a continuation of consciousness after apparent brain-death according to his experience and work in this medical field. It is well set out, does not refer to QM, and makes a point which was accepted by a publication with impeccable credentials. Have you read the full article? (It actually got me signed up to The Lancet as there is some quite interesting stuff on it, have a look.)

When asked how this could be in a separate newspaper article with limited space he said that it was explained by QM that was all. However if no information (or energy) is ever lost, as you say, then this does fit in with esoteric thought and we have the potential situation where QM eventually gives the mechanical/mathematical explanation of how this comes about. Van Lommel appeared to me to be talking about some of our energy moving dimension while the physical remains behind, though I may easily be wrong.
Speculation aside, the point remains that he has posited that in a number of cases after brain death consciousness remains. Where it may or may not go to in the cases where there is no return to consciousness is another can of worms.

I am still full of busy hence the delayed reply, though am unlikely to return to the thread except maybe briefly in the future. However I will PM you with a further discussion of this in terms of QM sometime in August.

As an addendum, I had this debate in mind and picked up a book of quotes from Marcus Aurelius the mystic Roman Emperor who nevertheless had his feet firmly planted on the ground. I opened the book at random and got this:

“If the power of thought is universal among mankind so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows therefore that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its ‘thou shalt’ or ‘thou shalt not’. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason and law derive. If not, whence else? As the earthy portion of me has its origin from earth, the watery from a different element, my breath from one source and my hot and fiery parts from another of their own elsewhere (for nothing comes from nothing nor can return to nothing), so too there must be an origin for the mind.”

ATB

Interesting post, and if I may reply?

I can understand why one would wish, hope or desire consciousness to remain after death. I can also understand why some might think it remains due to information not being destroyed. However, does the information simply not go elsewhere? What determines consciousness and is it changeable? I'm not the same person I was when I was 17 and won't be when I'm 60, does that mean my conscious dies when I mature and is unchangeable after death?

The human race is inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, we're here by biological chance and can think on a higher level simply due to our evolutionary success. Civilisation, cultural thought, intelligent enquiry and debate are late comers to the world, all before was barbarism and chaos. Why should our little glimmer of light be so important when nature is obviously chaotic and uncaring about our lot? Why should we have consciousness after death when every other animal does not? What level does consciousness exist at? What happens if you're brain damaged or have a stroke?

All these questions spring to mind and create an edge to slip down where for me there's no recovery. After death is still the same as before birth. Consciousness reaches the same state as before we existed because the atomic matter of our minds go on to create other things like tables, chairs and chickens. Nature remains chaotically uncertain, mutating and meandering life by random events and chance. The path of the mllar bus weaves uncontrollably, but all we can do is mush our faces up against the window and look for the balloons.

DC

**bigpod** · 22-07-2012, 01:10

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

Interesting post, and if I may reply?

I can understand why one would wish, hope or desire consciousness to remain after death. I can also understand why some might think it remains due to information not being destroyed. However, does the information simply not go elsewhere? What determines consciousness and is it changeable? I'm not the same person I was when I was 17 and won't be when I'm 60, does that mean my conscious dies when I mature and is unchangeable after death?

The human race is inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, we're here by biological chance and can think on a higher level simply due to our evolutionary success. Civilisation, cultural thought, intelligent enquiry and debate are late comers to the world, all before was barbarism and chaos. Why should our little glimmer of light be so important when nature is obviously chaotic and uncaring about our lot? Why should we have consciousness after death when every other animal does not? What level does consciousness exist at? What happens if you're brain damaged or have a stroke?

All these questions spring to mind and create an edge to slip down where for me there's no recovery. After death is still the same as before birth. Consciousness reaches the same state as before we existed because the atomic matter of our minds go on to create other things like tables, chairs and chickens. Nature remains chaotically uncertain, mutating and meandering life by random events and chance. The path of the mllar bus weaves uncontrollably, but all we can do is mush our faces up against the window and look for the balloons.

DC

All that is perfectly fair and rational, if there is no God. If God exists, the answers to your many "whys" become part of something worth looking deeper at, and those of us with faith have found at least some answers in our own understanding of God.

BTW, I'm intrigued, who created chickens?

**Dashing_Chap** · 22-07-2012, 01:52

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears chickens are a freak genetic mutation, this has also been confirmed many times at KFC.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Higgs_bosun** · 22-07-2012, 02:52

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

You say you're an 'ex-Christian' so what took place that's given you to the above form of discourse; it's not that edifying for anyone is it really HB. Was there a 'critical incident' during this period, not so much abuse maybe, but say a broken relationship with a Christian girlfriend or similar? What actually happened? Something surely?

I can give you an endless list of shit that has happened not only to me but to billions of honest and innocent beings, without reason... but that is only part of it. The 'good' things also needed to be rationalised..."For what we are about to recieve may the lord make us truly thankfull".... Saying that like zombies at school meals started alarm bells ringing. The prayers that did'nt work, the absurd stories, the lack of evidence ...the process of debunking blind faith began. Observation, knowledge and thought = atheism. Not a critical incident springs to mind...it was a gradual errosion of the delusion.

There are many accounts available of why christians loose their faith BSL...none involve the bitterness that you allude to. Start using your mind as an altar and not the written 'text' from a primitive book.

**Higgs_bosun** · 22-07-2012, 03:00

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

I don't feel I'm any less sceptical than the next chap, but am interested in what is a reasonable criteria for verification. It would be an easy 'get out' to set the bar unreasonably high and sit back.

Applying scientific method to life is inappropriate so what checks and balances are there. Science is searching for the Physically Real and its Laws where in verifying life experience we're after What's True.

My criteria would include phronesis. What of Christ's teaching results in practical wisdom in the lived experience of ordinary life.

Apparently you are unable to think of the other ways to accumulate wisdom and experience in the absence of a jesus story.

You have therefore been stultified pal...

**Higgs_bosun** · 22-07-2012, 03:43

Never mind...it really doesn't matter

Originally Posted by Dwarf

I am certain that a few people on Arrse understand Wyrd better than me but there won’t be many and almost certainly none currently posting on this thread.

Don't be so sure... and far more important is that others here are able to 'understand' why you said that.

Also, as you feel above the level of discourse to post only to Scouse as if to display some common intellectual ground is a perverted appeal to authority, tantamount to waving a red rag. It does nothing to strengthen the notion of life after death...that is still without evidence. As you disappear up the backside of QM in search of it, at least have the temerity to admit when conjecture has failed.

“If the power of thought is universal among mankind so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows therefore that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its ‘thou shalt’ or ‘thou shalt not’. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason and law derive. If not, whence else? As the earthy portion of me has its origin from earth, the watery from a different element, my breath from one source and my hot and fiery parts from another of their own elsewhere (for nothing comes from nothing nor can return to nothing), so too there must be an origin for the mind.”

Of course there is an origin for the mind...you have not been paying attention Dwarf. But an origin of the origin is another matter...a place/ dimension/ domain where the organisation of matter into minds and consciousness is not likely or necessary.

Reboot!

**Higgs_bosun** · 22-07-2012, 04:04

Originally Posted by Dwarf

Well that’s it all sorted then, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Higgsy has declared and we can all relax.

Seriously, in the Blue Corner I have a reputable non-religious figure who has spent many years amassing a body of work and case studies which are worthy of serious debate or at least a seriously weighted rebuttal. He has been published in reputable publications whose integrity is not in doubt. Whereas in the Red Corner I have HB who has not made us aware of his published works, nor does he back up his argument with references so that I can judge, and thus remains merely opinion and pronouncement.
Whose opinion do you honestly expect me to give more weight to?

Have you actually read the article? If you do and then answer the points I will take note and appreciate the debate.

As to that website then, gosh, I’m am truly impressed by it. Wow! Everything explained! - Why even bother posting that or reposting as it merely lowers the level? And I don't believe in religions either, when will that sink in?
I am actually leaning to the opinion that Oggie is really you under a second alias.

The original article, which you haven’t read, makes the point that in certain cases memory does survive brain death and you personally may be quite sure that consciousness does not survive physical death but Van Lommel has a body of scientifically controlled work which states that this is indeed possible. He himself is also non-religious, as am I.

You say that the mind is only matter. Is that true? Certainly debatable.
Quick wiki point to show the debate is open. Mind
But if matter is energy in its lowest state then can you categorically state scientifically with proof that 100% of our energy merely dissipates when our body dies?
See you can’t, just as scientifically I can’t prove otherwise.
-see Marcus Aurelius quote in reply to Scouse.

I did try to give a scientifically-based article as a spur to debate, if it didn’t spark off interest then that’s no big deal, but a solidly based rebuttal would have been nice.

Here’s a Marcus Aurelius quote from the same page for us both.
“That men of a certain type should behave as they do is inevitable. To wish it otherwise were to wish the fig-tree would not yield its juice. In any case remember that in a very little while both you and he will be dead and your very names will be quickly forgotten.”

Anyway have a good summer, what’s left of it, if the sun actually does get out in whichever part of the rain-sodden Isles you hail from.

I enjoy debate Dwarf...that's one of the reasons why I do this. As a sceptic I reserve the right to debunk and discard the notions of any person making claims without proof regardless of their backgound. Life after death is conjecture... The best tool to counter the work of Van Lommel is entropy... nothing will survive heat death that you can be aware of. If a mind can come into existence in the way we understand from the biology, it can die in the way we understand too. The mechanisms of bio-chemical reactions are not so difficult to understand. Accept that 'you' are energy and matter that once disipated cannot be 'you' any more. 'You' depends on the organisation of molecules... once destroyed so are 'you'.