Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[Brian37]

Doesn't square with it lol?

IIT provides a mathematical recipe for consciousness. They literally give you the instructions on how to build a minimally conscious system. And describe which simple systems could be minimally conscious, and which complex systems remain unconscious (Oizumi, 2014). Far from being incompatible with the possibility of resurrections, IIT tells us what exactly needs to be done to a brain to reconstruct consciousness—integrate its information.

Reference: Oizumi M, Albantakis L& Tononi G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: Integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Computational Biology 10(5). 

Um no. Evolution and DNA lead to consciousness. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for evolution to occur. Life is a result of amino acids. But life does not require a human like or super cognition as a starting point to cause evolution. 

Consciousness is an emergent property of evolution, not a starting point. 

"Instructions" in science when referring to DNA isn't like say a drill instructor giving recruits orders. "Instructions" when science talks about DNA/RNA is a word denoting observations that can lead the observer to expect predictable outcomes in interactions. 

There is absolutely nothing in modern science or our modern understanding of biology that says consciousness survives death. 

I also hate it when si fi fans argue that humans could be part of a giant "simulation". Even this version of "something bigger in the grand scale" fails. It suffers the same problem of infinite regress as the claims of gods of old mythology. There simply is no need to insert a super version of humans in as a cause. If one is to claim  a "super cognition" or a " giant simulation intelligently caused" both would beg the question, what caused that bigger thing, and what caused that bigger thing, and so on and so on and so on.

Human cognition exists because the conditions of our history of our planet, and the extinctions that made way for us to evolve. But we have no cognition as individuals before we are born, and our individual cognition dies with our brain when our brain dies.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There is absolutely nothing in modern science or our modern understanding of biology that says consciousness survives death. 

I would argue that consciousness doesn't need to survive death to be brought back. In much the same way that turning off a computer wouldn't prevent you from turning it back on.

P.S. I have nothing but respect for the story you shared; and understand the arguments you are making so far.

[Brian37]

There is absolutely nothing in modern science or our modern understanding of biology that says consciousness survives death. 

I would argue that consciousness doesn't need to survive death to be brought back. In much the same way that turning off a computer wouldn't prevent you from turning it back on.

P.S. I have nothing but respect for the story you shared; and understand the arguments you are making so far.

HELLO MCFLY, try smashing your computer into a million pieces then try to turn it back on.

That is permanent death. That means, a majority  cells in your brain, are damaged beyond all repair and once that damage is beyond repair you don't come back from that.

 "Brain death" can still leave you alive, but your consciousness is no longer you. You at that point are merely a shell. It would be like removing your cpu and hard drive and still have the "on light" work. It would no longer be a usable computer. And try removing a fan from over a cpu, it will fry in seconds. 

You are still confusing lack of finding vital sings as being death. No, you can still be plugged in, and seem off, but not be off. Permanent "OFF" is when the computer "your brain" is unplugged long enough to cause irreversible death. When too much damage beyond repair happens to the cells in your brain, you don't come back from that. 

"Should be dead" but not dead, is a misdiagnosis, or lack of understanding of conditions if you don't die. 

If your computer turns back on, that means it was still in the condition of having the ability to be turned back on. But a human brain isn't a a non human computer, it is biological life.  Very powerful biology sure, but human brains are not non living mechanical things like a non human computer. A human will not come back to life if their brain is starved long enough of oxygen and blood flow. They most certainly will not come back if they are decapitated or blow their brains out. 

If you come out of a brain health event, you were never past the point of no return. If you go past the point of no return, meaning too much damage due to lack of oxygen and blood flow, and pass that point of no return, you are not going to come back from that. Your consciousness dies with your brain at that point.

[John 6IX Breezy]

HELLO MCFLY, try smashing your computer into a million pieces then try to turn it back on.

Your arguments are based on difficulty not possibility. There is a New Yorker article on hypothermia and gunshot wounds that makes an interesting point: injuries that by themselves are fixable, often lead to death because their cumulative effect surpasses our limited supply of time and resources. The article makes the case that hypothermia loosens the time constraint before death occurs, making a difficult task manageable and successful.

You are opting for scenarios in which brains and computers are blown to bits because they appear difficult to repair. However, a scenario in which only one nerve or one transistor requires repair appears more manageable. If you can fix one transistor you can fix a million of them, the rest is just a numbers game.

[Brian37]

HELLO MCFLY, try smashing your computer into a million pieces then try to turn it back on.

Your arguments are based on difficulty not possibility. There is a New Yorker article on hypothermia and gunshot wounds that makes an interesting point: injuries that by themselves are fixable, often lead to death because their cumulative effect surpasses our limited supply of time and resources. The article makes the case that hypothermia loosens the time constraint before death occurs, making a difficult task manageable and successful.

You are opting for scenarios in which brains and computers are blown to a billion bits because it appears difficult to repair. However, a scenario in which only one nerve or one transistor is damaged appears manageable. If you can fix one transistor you can fix a million of them, the rest is just a numbers game.

No. My arguments are based on science.

There is a window of time that can be argued for coming out of a brain health event, and doctors, neurologists are always trying to see if they can extend that window to avoid irreversible damage to the brain, but there still is a window to greater of lesser degrees. 

Again, it still amounts to damage. My late mother did not jump out of her coffin  at the funeral home. There always will be a beyond repair death for everyone eventually. The human body does not last forever. Sometimes life can be extended sure, and new technology/science seeks to do just that. 

You really simply need to stop trying to separate consciousness from the brain. You really are nothing more than your brain in motion. But even if sometimes you can repair it, it will still eventually wear out completely beyond repair. At that point you are dead, you won't feel anything just like you had no consciousness before you were born 100 years ago.

There is no "forever" for any form of life. This planet will suffer a few more mass extinction events before the sun expands and kills all life on this planet. By that time, humans are extremely likely to be gone as a species before that happens.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You really simply need to stop trying to separate consciousness from the brain.

I am not separating the two; I agree nothing persists after you die. But I disagree that dead tissue cannot be repaired and consciousness with it. There is no objective "beyond repair" threshold―only an ever decreasing limitation to what is fixable. Resurrection is essentially abiogenesis 2.0.

[Brian37]

You really simply need to stop trying to separate consciousness from the brain.

I am not separating the two; I agree nothing persists after you die. But I disagree that dead tissue cannot be repaired and consciousness with it. There is no objective "beyond repair" threshold―only an ever decreasing limitation to what is fixable. Resurrection is essentially abiogenesis 2.0.

Now we are getting into the fantasy world. I forgot the comedy movie staring Bruce Willis, and these two rival woman who made a concoction that could allow them to repeatedly repair damage to their bodies. The plot of the movie basically has them ending up decrepit and ugly and practically useless.

It is absolutely true that you can clone living cells and stem cell research is very promising to the prospect of extending life. But again, even with things like that there still is no forever. 

But the word "resurrection" is a word rooted in mythology, not science. Doctors and neurologists I consider not quacks will use words like "revive", "repair" "regenerate" "restore", and if they fail to have an answer as to why someone came out, they simply say, "I don't know".

I can't speak for you, but I don't want to live forever. I want to live as long as I find life enjoyable, and can still care for myself. But when my mom had her last diagnosis, and she chose not to do anything further, it killed me emotionally and I was in a deep depression for a couple of months. But even back then, I understood why she did it. And getting old myself, I have the same attitude. 

Theists argue abiogenesis for one reason only, to draw the person they are debating into buying into the bible. 

Carbon atoms can make up both living and non living things, but the difference is the structure of the molecules . Molecules of non living carbon have very ridged structures, whereas the carbon atoms in biological life are not ridged but snake in the double helix DNA strands.

There is no super cognition needed to cause either mere non living objects or living biology. Every time I see a theist argue abiogenesis I get a lip twitch and fear they are trying to lead me back into that old book of mythology.

[AFTT47]

I would argue that consciousness doesn't need to survive death to be brought back. In much the same way that turning off a computer wouldn't prevent you from turning it back on.

P.S. I have nothing but respect for the story you shared; and understand the arguments you are making so far.

HELLO MCFLY, try smashing your computer into a million pieces then try to turn it back on.

A sufficiently advanced technology could do exactly that, reproducing the original based on analysis of the pieces. Indeed there is a theory by Leonard Susskind that says information is indestructible. Admittedly, it is way over my head so I am unable to evaluate it. Google it and see what you can make of it.

The point is that you are oversimplifying this. I don't know how much you intuit or understand that there is absolutely NOTHING in known physics that allows for chemical and electrical processes to lead to consciousness. That isn't to say that it can't (because it apparently does) but the mechanism is utterly outside our understanding. Try to understand fire without any inkling of chemistry or the atomic theory of matter. That's where we are with consciousness. With that level of ignorance, it is pure hubris to declare that physics "proves" that consciousness cannot survive the death of the body - especially with outside help.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Indeed there is a theory by Leonard Susskind that says information is indestructible. Admittedly, it is way over my head so I am unable to evaluate it. Google it and see what you can make of it.

I found your comment interesting. I had to read a review paper on the philosophy of information a few years ago (and agree it is way over my head as well). But there was a paragraph in that paper that always stood out to me and which I always wanted to go back and review:

"Informational realism arises from Wiener’s conception of information, according to which information is neither matter nor energy, but a third property that constitutes the world. Moreover, Wiener says that information is the content that can be exchanged with the environment to adjust us to it. In this view, the universe, including human beings, is composed of information, matter, and energy" (Adams, 2016).

Viewing information as an entity unto itself is interesting, but observing the universe from the standpoint of information is fascinating. It brings a certain cohesion to everything from consciousness to genetics, over into spacetime. I'm sure Leonard Susskind's theory fits nicely into that framework. (Norbert Wiener was the originator of cybernetics.) 

Reference: Adams, F., de Moraes, J.A. (2016) Is there a philosophy of information? Topoi 35, 161-171. 

[The Grand Nudger]

That's funny. You don't even understand your own strawman well enough to argue it:

IIT provides a mathematical recipe for consciousness. They literally give you the instructions on how to build a minimally conscious system. And describe which simple systems could be conscious, and which complex systems remain unconscious (Oizumi, 2014). Far from being incompatible with the possibility of resurrections, IIT tells us what exactly needs to be done to a brain to reconstruct consciousness—reintegrate its information.

Reference: Oizumi M, Albantakis L& Tononi G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: Integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Computational Biology 10(5). 

I see that you're still linking shit like you gave a shit.  It doesn't matter that IIT asserts a recipe for consciousness.  When god bakes the bodily resurrection cookie, assuming you don't pull your pecker too many times, IIT states that this guy is not you.  

Individual, and intrinsically actual.

Is that a problem, or is it not, or is it only a problem when other peoples silly beliefs rub up against things you don't give a shit about? Feckless...fucking...troll.