Is There a Scientific Basis for an Afterlife?

[BoxxyBabee]

Well, our consciousness is the result of the chemical processes in our brain.
Those processes are carbon based, as is the rest of our body.

Again, this is from my point of view, based on my limited scientific knowledge.

[fr0d0]

So our consciousness is something stored within our brain... which would make it reliant on a chemical process. But is the information stored on a computer hard drive purely the digital representation... or is the sum of the information something entirely different that has no meaning without the interpreter?

I believe it's the latter: I believe the physical processes only carry information and interpret it. That the information isn't "physical".

[Darwinian]

So if we made an exact copy of you, star trek style, you would exist twice and have two souls?

[BoxxyBabee]

Hmmm, the sum of information having no meaning without an interpreter... hmmm....
I have to think upon that.

I think i may understand the hard drive analogy.
It sounds like you're comparing the brain to a hard drive, and the consciousness to the information stored.

I'm not sure what you're stating by "interpret" when we talk about human consciousness.
Are you using information as an analogy for consciousness?
And that consciousness is not physical?

[fr0d0]

I'm suggesting everything we think goes through the CPU (the cognitive brain processes) and then is stored on the Hard Drive (the retentive/ storage area of the brain).

Yeah 'consciousness' could be contained in the sum of the information stored - that information being useless without interpretation.. and therefore more than it's physical representation of raw data (and also separate from the interpreter (the cognitive brain processes)).

[Purple Rabbit]

So our consciousness is something stored within our brain... which would make it reliant on a chemical process. But is the information stored on a computer hard drive purely the digital representation... or is the sum of the information something entirely different that has no meaning without the interpreter?

I believe it's the latter: I believe the physical processes only carry information and interpret it. That the information isn't "physical".

Well, I agree that information (on a semantic level) is not the physical storage in our brain. Still there is ample evidence that consciousnes without a brain is seriously problematic, it hasn't been observed to exist. Not under the conditions of scientific scrutiny that is.

So I agree that consciouness is not the same as physical storage, yet the evidence for the fact that some brain is neccessary for experiencing consciousness of any sort is overwhelming.

[Autumnlicious]

Information is a particular ordering of states. Information in the brain is composed of particular patterns, which in turn the main EEG is just an integral over time of all patterns. Hence there is nothing new here. So what? You want to argue that information is truly unique? It isn't. A physical process interred it and now keeps it shuffling around like a slowly decaying zombie. Don't feed it, you lose it eventually. And that is our bad analogy for the brain. Zombies are most appropriate.

[fr0d0]

the evidence for the fact that some brain is neccessary for experiencing consciousness of any sort is overwhelming.

I unreservedly agree. The soul I think is different... with different cultures placing it's location above/ outside the head, in the head, in the chest, in the stomach.

[Purple Rabbit]

the evidence for the fact that some brain is neccessary for experiencing consciousness of any sort is overwhelming.

I unreservedly agree. The soul I think is different... with different cultures placing it's location above/ outside the head, in the head, in the chest, in the stomach.

Name one feature of the thing you call soul that sets it separate from consciousness.

---

Information is a particular ordering of states. Information in the brain is composed of particular patterns, which in turn the main EEG is just an integral over time of all patterns. Hence there is nothing new here. So what? You want to argue that information is truly unique? It isn't. A physical process interred it and now keeps it shuffling around like a slowly decaying zombie. Don't feed it, you lose it eventually. And that is our bad analogy for the brain. Zombies are most appropriate.

If consciousness is fully explained by information processess in the brain then show me how neuronal activities can give rise to perception of "I".

[fr0d0]

I knew I shouldnt've said that

How about "immortal essence"? "Consciousness relates to "conscious", ie "alive".