and again - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

and again
in Science

By maxxmaxx 181 Pts
scientifically speaking; will and can an individual consciousness live before and again?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I believe so because our consciousness belongs to a soul which is a type of energy that forms our consciousness as well as our brain. Energy can never  disappear it always exist in some form so the energy might begin a new life.
  • Nope... We have no evidence whatsoever of even the possibility of a non-corporeal consciousness... Consciousness, according to all gathered evidence, is an emergent propriety of brains, there is no consciousness without brains... When we physically or chemically alter the brain, we alter the subject's consciousness...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • You spake if it yourself; there is no “evidence “ of consciousness outside of a brain; lack of evidence is not  necessarily proof.@Plaffelvohfen
  • True, but we do have plenty (understatement) of evidence that consciousness and brain are inherently linked... Why would you discard all those evidence in search of something for which there is none??
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Well- we may not have data or testable evidence- we do have very interesting consistent experiences unexplainable by science. Take Astral Projection for example. There are theories explaining it, yes, but this doesn't explain the consistency of it. People describe it the same way; Right down to a silver thread connecting their floating self to their body. While we may not be completely certain when applying the scientific method, there are some things that can't be explained by science, but may still exist. The possibility of a soul is one.
  • @EmilyRouse

    Science can explain how they happen, can provoke some of them (meditation techniques, drug induced, physically altering the brain), but they are all subjective experiences in essence, and science is not in that business... Science will never be able to explain "what it is like to taste chocolate", it will show which areas of the brain are stimulated when you do, but cannot say nothing about the experiencing itself.

    Now, the consistency of those subjective experiences just tells us that we do have such experiences, nothing else... Is the consistency of reported alien abduction experiences enough to assert that actual aliens do abduct people? The consistency of those astral projections, NDE/OBE, alien abductions, etc, is easily explainable with one word : suggestion...

    All it takes is one person describing his/her experience to people and it's enough to spread into other minds... There's a reason those "experience" are always described the same, it's because you read it or heard it somewhere, in folklore, fairy tales, religion, etc, it suggestively implanted itself in your memory and if or when, you have one of those experience, your brain will recall that information and be influenced by it, you'll use those same references to describe your own experience...

    There are meditation techniques that will, with practice, make you experience an "out of body" event, but you do not actually "leave your body", you just 'feel" like it, just like stimulating a specific spot in your brain can make you experience the smell of burnt toasts or the taste of chocolate... With enough time, we might produce nano-delivery systems of specific drugs or other stimuli to narrowly targeted areas of the brain to actually manufacture those experiences on demand... 

    The soul falls into that folkloric realm too... There's never been evidence of any, and frankly, there is no need for one either.

    Sure, it's fun to fictionalize, it's in our nature to see patterns, we're biologically compelled to seek them, so much so that we often create some where there are none. We must stay aware of that, lest we delude ourselves...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • all we really know is our experience with consciousness  here upon earth. we assume that it must require a brain because that is the only way we can perceive it. what reason does consciousness have to be encased in something to exist? @Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx

    We do not assume that consciousness requires a brain, we only observe that it does...  

    If consciousness were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured? Indeed, it is very frequently the case that one can even predict and explain the kind of mental or psychological deterioration or change that human beings will undergo when specific parts of their brains are damaged.

    So the question for the dualist to try to confront is how can all of this be explained if the mind is a separate and immaterial substance from, or if its properties are ontologically independent of, the brain.
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 181 Pts
    edited September 2019
    first, the mind is a human concept. it is really just another word for our brain and the information that it contains.. humans have a brain and humans have consciousness. yes, our brains observe that that it requires itself to have consciousness and we believe that it requires a casing such as a brain. yet people once believed that it required a casing such as wires to transmit information. consciousness may require a signal point but not a brain. why do you believe that it can not exist outside of one?  . behavior.@Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1062 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @maxx

    First, "The Mind is a human concept...", well sure, every single concept you can think of will be a human one so I fail to see the relevancy of that point... And no one "believes" that consciousness requires a brain, we observe that it does, there's no belief here only observations... We never, not a single time, in all of human history so far, observed (directly or indirectly) any evidence of incorporeal consciousness of any kind...

    See, it's like the Invisible Purple Unicorn of Happiness, there has never been any evidence of such a magnificent creature, and it would be like me asking you "why don't you believe it exists? Since absence of proof is not proof of absence, you thus can't deny its existence... And if you can't deny its existence then why don't you believe it?". 

    There's no evidence whatsoever supporting the possibility of incorporeal consciousness, why would I believe in anything without the tiniest bit of evidence? Provide me with evidence of this and I'll gladly reconsider but until then, there is no valid reason to. It's still a possibility, but so incredibly remote (I'm understating here) that, to me at least, doesn't warrant any serious inquiry, do so as a hobby sure, I have fun ideas linking consciousness with quantum theories, but I don't delude myself about the reality of them, they're just sci-fi musings...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • First my post is not about time travel or astral projection or junk like that. There is a growing Theory among Those who study quantum mechanics that there is a field of consciousness That fills  The entire universe all the way down through the micro level. It is quite possible that physical reality is nothing but a byproduct of consciousness.There is no proof as of yet however if and or when it is proven I hope you are open minded enough to except it. Remember there are still people today that do not believe we have been to the moon. @Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1062 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @maxx

    That theory is not "growing", it is very marginal and it all stems from a misunderstanding of the "Observer effect" and the collapse of a wavefunction...

    Whether we take the double-slit experiment or Schrodinger's conjecture, these are all incorrect interpretations of the observer effect. In each one, there is an underlying assumption of a conscious observer altering or fulfilling the results in the real universe with their perception or knowledge. In the double slit experiment, the observer has an effect by knowing which slit an electron or photon passes through. In Bishop Berkley’s tree falling in the forest, the sound is only present if there is a human ear to hear it. In Schrodinger’s Cat, the state of the cat is undetermined until the box is opened and a person looks inside.

    To think about how the observer is vaguely or incorrectly specified, we should ask ourselves, “When  precisely does the observation actually occur?” Is it when the photons from the slit-detector first reach the light-sensitive molecules in our retina? Or when sound stimulates the ear drum? When that causes an electrical signal in the optic nerve or the cochlea? When that signal reaches the occipital cortex or temporal lobe? When it is transmitted to the frontal cortex? Or only when the (likely nonexistant) soul is informed?

    Is consciousness required for the observation? Experiments with severing the corpus callosum demonstrate that one half of the brain can identify an image without the conscious awareness of the other half. So, the answer seems to be that consciousness is not required for observation. Or, at best, that “consciousness” is so poorly understood that saying it is *required* for the universe (or any part of it) to exist, is simply another form of “god of the gaps” mysticism.

    Bishop Berkley was confused about cause and effect and so is Robert Lanza. More than anything, these “observer effects” are all arguments to support the (perhaps unspoken) claim that “consciousness” is special, whether human consciousness or the conscious intent of a Creator. 

    In essence, the argument says, “Look! Here’s something we don’t understand (physical existence). Let’s take something else we don’t understand (consciousness or a Creator) and say that the first thing depends on the second thing.”

     So, how can we understand what is really meant by the act of observation. In “Hidden In Plain Sight” physicist Andrew Thomas says:

    An excellent definition can be found in the book Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner: “Whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical reality.” For example, when a microscopic photon hits the macroscopic screen in the double-slit experiment, then that will reduce the quantum superposition state of the photon to a single value (the single mark it leaves on the screen). This explains why we do not see bizarre quantum superpositions — such as a cat being both alive and dead at the same time — in the human-scale, macroscopic world. So as long as there is a macroscopic effect from a quantum entity, that object can be considered to be “observed” or “measured” — with no need for a conscious human observer.

    In the double-slit experiment, the electron is “observed” by the detector at the slit. The state of Schrodinger’s Cat is “observed” by the air it breathes (or not) inside the box, which is “observed” by interacting with the molecules of the box, which is “observed” by interacting with photons in the rest of the universe. The simple act of a particle *interacting* in any way with other particles in the universe, means it is “observed” by the universe. It’s quantum state (or wave function) collapses at that point; indeterminacy becomes resolved.

    Consciousness plays no role in that observation.

    If you want to see quantum indeterminacy on the macroscale, you need to completely isolate the thing you are observing from the rest of the universe. That’s hard to do. Even the deepest vacuum of space has light (photons) passing through it. Plus, virtual particles arise constantly even in a quantum vacuum devoid of any other particles of matter (including photons). Isolating something from the universe would require it not to even be capable of interacting with any of the real or virtual particles of this universe. But then it would be completely separate form this universe, including any of its observers. The question of the “observer effect” would become irrelevant in this universe.

    The physicist Richard Feynman said, “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.

    So, those who claim observers *create* reality in this universe can only be true if either 1) the universe is a simulation; or 2) they live in a solipsistic universe...

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 181 Pts
    edited September 2019
    I do not believe that you are actually reading and keeping up with the quantum mechanics of today’. Did you even read the link I sent to you in turtles all the way down?@Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx

    Of course I did read it, and although I'm not actually holding a theoretical physics degree nor working in that field, I do try to keep up, it's not an obsession mind you but I'm more aware than the lambda citizen... And anyway, it is irrelevant to my last post... Care to address the points? Can you?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 1326 Pts
    @EmilyRouse


    Well- we may not have data or testable evidence- we do have very interesting consistent experiences unexplainable by science.
     That’s not true and is totally inaccurate , what “experiences” can science not explain 

    Take Astral Projection for example.
    Astral projection is absolute nonsense and regarded as such by rational beings 


    There are theories explaining it, yes, but this doesn't explain the consistency of it.
    I’ve spent a lifetime debunking such nonsense on a committee of magicians who are expert at debunking such nonsense , indeed the Randi foundation in the U S does the same job and offers 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate “psychic powers “ they have come and not one has passed the test yet 


    People describe it the same way; Right down to a silver thread connecting their floating self to their body. While we may not be completely certain when applying the scientific method, there are some things that can't be explained by science, but may still exist. The possibility of a soul is one.


    People describe it actually in different ways depending on which societies they live in and which belief system they follow just like near death experiences a Muslims from Saudi Arabia being totally different to a Christians from the U S , why is that do you think?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • It is unfortunate that I have less time on this site and other people seem to have. I seem to be limited to fast paragraphs in reply Instead of writing an essay. I will attempt to formulate a better reply as I get the time.@Plaffelvohfen
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxx said:
    It is unfortunate that I have less time on this site and other people seem to have. I seem to be limited to fast paragraphs in reply Instead of writing an essay. I will attempt to formulate a better reply as I get the time.@Plaffelvohfen
    Actually, you'll find people will be more likely to read your posts if they're short, sweet and to the point as opposed pages of nonsensical non-interesting rubbish. The quality of posts matters far more than how many pages one can write.

    As for your question in the OP the answer I say is that we simply don't know, and nor do we currently have any data to go on to determine one way or the other yet, as far as I know.

    Veni Vidi Vici







  • Your idea of there is no proof that consciousness exists outside the brain is similar to a parrot being toldThat there are such things as penguins. No there is not any evidence but that does not make it any less likely so. You claim that consciousness need a containment  field Such as a brain to exist in. Very well, the universe it’s self is a containment field  for the consciousness that is in it. I do not claim that the universe is a biological being however it is possible that it is simply a part of another being in the same way that our brain is part of ourselves @Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx
    No there is not any evidence but that does not make it any less likely so. 

    But of course it makes it less likely, it's still a very remote "possibility", but it is less likely to be so, a lot less...  How likely is it that there exists a Purple Invisible Unicorn if there is no evidence whatsoever for it? If there is no evidence, it is less likely to exist... 

    And I don't claim that consciousness requires a "containment field", I'm saying it needs a brain and the universe is not a brain...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • first  you seem to be stranded in a dogmatic view of everything with no way to open your mind to new possibilities; one does not need evidence to open ones mind to what may be.  this world would still be in the stone age if people like you did not look around and began discovering new things. There is no evidence at all that there is anything new said the caveman;so why bother exploring new possibilities. humans do not understand the universe; we only understand it to the relation of our miniscule size. you do not know what the universe is, you only think you know what it is because someone else told you so and you can not escape that belief anymore than a steadfast christain would believe you. we are too small to understand the universe.  think of a cell in our body; if it were self aware it could never understand the universe(body) that it is in.  It would not even be able yo understand a vein that the blood cell is in; to it blood itself would be empty space.  That is how we mostly see the universe; a few lights and rocks and such.  we are to the universe like a cell in our body.  do you believe that if (for the sake of debate) a cell inside a tree could actually understand the tree?  no, the cell could and can only understand where it is at and how it relates to it due to its size.  we simply can not perceive the universe as it is at its own level.@Plaffelvohfen
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx
    No there is not any evidence but that does not make it any less likely so. 

    But of course it makes it less likely, it's still a very remote "possibility", but it is less likely to be so, a lot less...  How likely is it that there exists a Purple Invisible Unicorn if there is no evidence whatsoever for it? If there is no evidence, it is less likely to exist... 

    And I don't claim that consciousness requires a "containment field", I'm saying it needs a brain and the universe is not a brain...

    maxx said:
    first  you seem to be stranded in a dogmatic view of everything with no way to open your mind to new possibilities; one does not need evidence to open ones mind to what may be.  this world would still be in the stone age if people like you did not look around and began discovering new things. There is no evidence at all that there is anything new said the caveman;so why bother exploring new possibilities. humans do not understand the universe; we only understand it to the relation of our miniscule size. you do not know what the universe is, you only think you know what it is because someone else told you so and you can not escape that belief anymore than a steadfast christain would believe you. we are too small to understand the universe.  think of a cell in our body; if it were self aware it could never understand the universe(body) that it is in.  It would not even be able yo understand a vein that the blood cell is in; to it blood itself would be empty space.  That is how we mostly see the universe; a few lights and rocks and such.  we are to the universe like a cell in our body.  do you believe that if (for the sake of debate) a cell inside a tree could actually understand the tree?  no, the cell could and can only understand where it is at and how it relates to it due to its size.  we simply can not perceive the universe as it is at its own level.@Plaffelvohfen
    Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, while there is lack of evidence and or evidence leading to high probabilities then there is no reason to as of the current time to believe in remote possibilities, at least until new evidence may (not probably) come to light.

    Veni Vidi Vici







  • @maxx
    think of a cell in our body; if it were self aware...
    With ifs we could put the Sun in a bottle... Makes for good sci-fi but poor science... Sorry you don't like that...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 1326 Pts
    edited September 2019

    first  you seem to be stranded in a dogmatic view of everything with no way to open your mind to new possibilities; one does not need evidence to open ones mind to what may be.  

    How is it “dogmatic “ to accept what one thinks is persuasive evidence for views based on scientific thinking  and rationality?

    People like Deepak Chopra spout interminable pseudoscientific nonsense regarding “new possibilities “ should views like his be accepted as one keeping an “open” mind?

    ; one does not need evidence to open ones mind to what may be.  


    Really? I certainly do, what does one need instead of evidence in your opinion?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • There are now and have been many individuals who faced ridicule and ruin for Pursuing what others simply refused to believe in. Some people would rather sit back and reap the benefits and rewards of the hard work of others. Sure, why should you believe that the sun does not orbit the earth? The heck with Galileo. Many people would rather wait until evidence is thrown in their face and then laugh at those who choose to research what others think are merely fallacies and dreams.
  • @maxx A lot of people have been making countless theories about various topics since the beginning of the humanity( I am not sure when they started making though). Some of them turned out to be acceptible, and the rest not. Probably, the ratio of acceptible theories to unacceptible ones would be at least more than 1:100(this is underestimation). Since there are so many theories that turned out to be wrong, people do not simply believe in numerous theories they hear from others, even though they may sound plausible. That's why some of us reject the theory you claimed to be plausible. Heck, when I was very young, I used to make countless theories such as that thunder and lightning is God's fart.
    maxx
  • A theory is a bit different than ideas@대왕광개토
  • DeeDee 1326 Pts
    @maxx

    Sure, why should you believe that the sun does not orbit the earth? The heck with Galileo. Many people would rather wait until evidence is thrown in their face and then laugh at those who choose to research what others think are merely fallacies and dreams.


    Well many that do that are displaying gross ignorance, I don’t mock those who have academic qualifications and have displayed sound thinking throughout their careers in academia. A line has to be drawn somewhere though otherwise idiots like Deepak Chopra and others who make claims based on pseudoscientific nonsense take hold , indeed many believe such people are intellectual powerhouses whose every “ theory “  must be true because they say so 

  • Any theory without significant evidence that has been orchestrated so that it cannot be falsified should not warrant any form serious consideration.
    Plaffelvohfen

    Veni Vidi Vici







  • I'll interject here on the idea that "There is no consciousness without a brain".

    There's actually some great evidence from the field of Psychology that the Brain and the Mind are two separate entities and, more importantly, that your consciousness is not necessarily located in your brain.  This is popularly known as "Dualism".

    The primary research and conclusion that the Brain and Mind are not one comes specifically from hypnosis and the results of certain experiments therin.  When under hypnosis a patient can be instructed to prepare themselves to be touched by a piece of metal so hot that it's glowing red.  In reality they're only being touched by a pencil that's room temperature at best.  When touched, subjects repeatedly show physical signs of having been burned at the site they were touched.  Their skin turns red immediately, blisters and reacts as if burned.  There's no charring obviously as there's no heat source but the skin's reaction is the same regardless.

    This contradicts the monism approach, if the mind and brain are the same thing then the body should not react to unconscious suggestions in this way. This study supports the idea of dualism, the view that the mind and body function separately. 

    The debate between Dualism and Monism is still persistent in today's world but in my own view I can rationally understand how the brain may very well process information from the rest of the body and present it to the mind but the Mind ultimately controls everything in the body.  If thoughts, ideas and reasoning can exist metaphysically within the body...then likewise the mind can exist metaphysically in the body. 
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch