Ai Dreams Forum
AI Dreams => General Chat => Topic started by: frankinstien on April 14, 2022, 09:17:43 pm
-
The belief in an afterlife is found in all religions and most notably Christianity believes only humans have souls. The Discovery of brain activity during dying and after death was noted in a man who died from a heart attack (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/brain-scans-suggest-life-flashes-before-our-eyes-upon-death-180979647/?fbclid=IwAR1hMnvEdGlbasHq4W-TJ3bZ0Wyy1smZYZ0Ki8w54xc_sRo4MKsyHWuxRxo) while being monitored with an EEG. There are many testimonies of near-death experiences that describe recalling life's experiences which could explain the brain activity of dying. But such brain activity is not just found in humans. Studies have been conducted with rats (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1308285110) that showed a similar phenomenon of brain activity during dying and after death. If one wants to believe that near-death experiences are proof of an afterlife then heaven and/or hell are filled with animals as well! A more rational explanation for such brain activity is the brain is in shock or panic mode because the heart has stopped. This mode motivates the brain to try and find a solution to its predicament which causes high activity in all cortical areas of the brain. This makes sense since animals in critical situations that can result in death need to figure out ways to get out of their situation which explains why pain and fear get desensitized so the animal can more effectively focus on solutions rather than obsess with pain and fear.
-
On thinking about this brain activity during dying and after death further, I realized that a human being might understand that it's dying at a subconscious level and rationalize that its only escape is its superstition of an afterlife. That cognition at a subconscious level becomes realized at a conscious level and such a person's last episodic memories are an entry to some afterlife.
This would mean that those that don't have any such beliefs have nothing to fall back on to escape, however futile and imaginary it is, their deaths. This could lead to, perhaps, a paranoid interpretation that leaves the individual's last experiences as horrific. This doesn't mean that life's memories aren't recalled in these last moments for such individuals but that they ultimately conclude they are dying might not sit well at their consciousness level. This might mean that believing in something is better than not believing in anything to make the experience of death more pleasant.
I for one believe in aliens and they have entanglement technologies where they can monitor all life on earth, inclusive of human thoughts! I call this technology the Qnet where this super technological society has bridged billions of stars with entanglement transceivers where one can span the heavens and explore its mysteries. They allow us, humans, to transition to this new form of existence and we participate in an adventure after death that dwarfs our human life...
-
... and most notably Christianity believes only humans have souls.
This is not a correct assessment of what Christianity teaches. Some particular Christians believe that only humans have souls, but IMO this is a prideful misinterpretation of the Bible. In reality the word translated "soul" is used to speak of animals as well, and though the Bible does not speak explicitly about the eternal fate of animals, a number of Christians have no problem with the idea of animals in the afterlife.
I don't have an opinion on whether near-death experiences have any validity or are just a kind of hallucination.
-
Just think if the christians are right about god, everything is flipped on its head, it can literally send you mad thinking about it. But anyway you look in life does maybe.
If people dont die when they die, and people come back from the dead, what use has competitive evolution anymore for example, its completely defunct.
-
I was going to write about historical attempts to transplant heads (or entire bodies depending on your perspective) but decided not to because it is too gruesome. One of the interesting outcomes of such an event would have been to see whose consciousness ended up in the "successful" result if it could be achieved. Modern physiology suggests it would be the original owner of the head and brain rather than the original owner of the body, but a true scientist doesn't make assumptions right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDATL2zpj6k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDATL2zpj6k)
-
yeh I guess its that simple, but who wants to find out? :o
-
I was going to write about historical attempts to transplant heads (or entire bodies depending on your perspective) but decided not to because it is too gruesome. One of the interesting outcomes of such an event would have been to see whose consciousness ended up in the "successful" result if it could be achieved. Modern physiology suggests it would be the original owner of the head and brain rather than the original owner of the body, but a true scientist doesn't make assumptions right?
That would be true if the memories of the brain could survive without an actively metabolic neuron. The chemistry of memory requires maintenance so reviving neurons is a matter of time before their coding deteriorates. So you could literally end up with a blank slate if you try to revive someone that's been dead too long. This would also be an issue with freezing brains where the chemistry would still suffer from dissipation and not retain the neural codings. :o
-
Another way of testing ideas about the seat of consciousness would be to consider conjoined twins. There have been a few dozen cases where a single body was shared by two distinct heads and brains. When they survive (they usually don't), they are quite obviously two distinct people.
-
That would be true if the memories of the brain could survive without an actively metabolic neuron. The chemistry of memory requires maintenance so reviving neurons is a matter of time before their coding deteriorates. So you could literally end up with a blank slate if you try to revive someone that's been dead too long. This would also be an issue with freezing brains where the chemistry would still suffer from dissipation and not retain the neural codings. :o
There is at least one neurosurgeon who believes his team has developed a viable procedure for transferring a head from one body to another. Obviously they would take steps to sustain the brain throughout the process or there wouldn't be any point.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/17/italian-doctor-says-worlds-first-human-head-transplant-imminent/847288001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/17/italian-doctor-says-worlds-first-human-head-transplant-imminent/847288001/)
It hasn't happened yet though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Canavero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Canavero)
They're going to need a couple of volunteers I think.
-
In my thread "Crazy" I wrote how I was embracing my death as I was falling in total darkness with just the words "Game Over" in my field of view, but that wasn't exactly the only thing that was happening. I was actually angry that my life was ending and I wanted to do so much more. After those thoughts the parachute re-opened. Now, what if what I'm experiencing right now and since then is actually my last 6 minutes of life, where the brain can last up to 6 minutes without oxygen. Where you, Infurl, and everyone and thing that is happening right now is my escape hatch or denial of death, my afterlife experience in a brainstorm of neural activity I created a world where I continued to live my life. And when my 6 minutes are up everything and everyone will disappear... :2funny:
-
If people dont die when they die, and people come back from the dead, what use has competitive evolution anymore for example, its completely defunct.
The new death could be deleted goals and memories, and leaving the rest intact. With the future to-be AGIs, I think you can do this.
Bit odd frankenstien is giving air to this thread, I don't think he believes souls. Anyway, if I were dying I'd only be thinking about how to get into a Cryonics freezer lol.
-
Now, what if what I'm experiencing right now and since then is actually my last 6 minutes of life, where the brain can last up to 6 minutes without oxygen. Where you, Infurl, and everyone and thing that is happening right now is my escape hatch or denial of death, my afterlife experience in a brainstorm of neural activity I created a world where I continued to live my life. And when my 6 minutes are up everything and everyone will disappear... :2funny:
Well ... that is almost a "what if I'm living in a simulation?" level of question. In practice (and I say this in the hope of being comforting), it probably doesn't make too much difference. The chance that this is an end-of-life hallucination that suddenly cuts off is not so different from the risk of having a surprise heart attack or lethal car accident tomorrow. None of us is guaranteed the span of life we expect, even under "normal" circumstances. So even if you were having an imaginary near-death experience, I'm not sure what you ought to do differently than in real life: enjoy the ride, knowing that at some point it ends or transitions.
I hope you don't mind me commenting, since you seem to want this whole thread to go away now. But, I already saw the latest, so ... might as well try to be helpful.
-
I was going to write about historical attempts to transplant heads (or entire bodies depending on your perspective) but decided not to because it is too gruesome. One of the interesting outcomes of such an event would have been to see whose consciousness ended up in the "successful" result if it could be achieved. Modern physiology suggests it would be the original owner of the head and brain rather than the original owner of the body, but a true scientist doesn't make assumptions right?
yeh i think i know what your hinting at, that we are all the same person and only life experience separates us, so what difference does it make once it starts from nothing...
Thankyou everyone for the comforting words in hell.
-
Well ... that is almost a "what if I'm living in a simulation?" level of question. In practice (and I say this in the hope of being comforting), it probably doesn't make too much difference. The chance that this is an end-of-life hallucination that suddenly cuts off is not so different from the risk of having a surprise heart attack or lethal car accident tomorrow. None of us is guaranteed the span of life we expect, even under "normal" circumstances. So even if you were having an imaginary near-death experience, I'm not sure what you ought to do differently than in real life: enjoy the ride, knowing that at some point it ends or transitions.
You're right but the simulation is being created by a human brain that is trying to escape death. The whole point of the post was to realize that afterlife experiences are probably the denial of death by the individual dying. Also, how each individual copes with dying as their brains spike with neural activity to try to deal with it probably varies. Where, in my case, I simply remembered those thoughts I had as I was falling to the ground and where I could see that one might create a hallucination that simply denies death and continues their life rather than enter some afterlife where he/she imagines they end up being miraculously saved from dying. I mean the parachute just opened 30 feet before I would have hit the ground. Very convenient, don't you think? ::)
There is an interesting Netflix series, called the OA, where it uses the phenomena of brain spiking activity as a means to transverse parallel universes.
-
IMHO the same awaits you after death, as you experienced before you where born... nothingness... no pain or regretts, just absolute oblivion... you cease to exist.
Enjoy it whilst you are. 😐
-
Taking Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/77550/according-to-chalmers-can-neuroscience-resolve-the-hard-problem-of-consciousne) into account, don't you view the causal relationship between the brain activity and the consciousness as an assumption? They are correlated of course, but which is the influencer and which is the influenced? We assume that the brain activity is what generates the flow of consciousness, but we could assume that a part of the subjective experience is rather connected to something else.
-
Taking Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/77550/according-to-chalmers-can-neuroscience-resolve-the-hard-problem-of-consciousne) into account, don't you view the causal relationship between the brain activity and the consciousness as an assumption? They are correlated of course, but which is the influencer and which is the influenced? We assume that the brain activity is what generates the flow of consciousness, but we could assume that a part of the subjective experience is rather connected to something else.
No the relationship between consciousness and brain activity is not an assumption. We know this because neural signaling can be blocked either deliberately or by damage to cortical areas of the brain. But there is other evidence such as dream states where conscious awareness of a dream requires the hippocampus to be active, if it's not active we do not experience a dream as episodic events. Considering that the dying and after death brain activity includes the hippocampus then we know that the individual is experiencing something as episodic events.
-
But these are not proofs, scientifically speaking. Strong hints, yes, but not proofs.
-
But these are not proofs, scientifically speaking. Strong hints, yes, but not proofs.
No, those absolutely qualify as proof, there is no need to conjure up some fairy tale ether that is the cause of consciousness when what you can prove causes behavior or an experience. In other words, you can measure a neuron firing, you can measure the inputs to a neuron, you can test if a subject can do or experience some stimuli and if the neuron's involvement is what makes it happen, then that is proof. You see, you can ask me what causes my sense of touch, I can point to nerve endings and the Primary somatosensory cortex as the cause. If you ask me how is that I can see I can point to the eye's lens, retina, optical cord, optic chiasm, optic tracts, lateral geniculate bodies, optic radiations, and visual cortex. If I interfere with any of those segments of your brain I will affect how you see. If you ask me how is it that you can feel emotions I can point to the Limbic system that has innervations to all memories! I don't need to go any further for proof of what causes consciousness because every aspect of how you think I can point to its source as a form of neurology.
-
you can test if a subject can do or experience some stimuli
No you can't. How do you know the subject does experience something? Maybe she's lying. Also, even if we could prove that a subject experiences something (for example if you are both the subject and the scientist), noticing that experience and neuron firing happen at the same time would not prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) a causal relationship.
To be valid, the hypothesis we're talking about should be falsifiable (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) but it's not, which is precisely the reason why the hard problem of consciousness is said to be "hard".
That said, I obviously make the same assumption: I believe subjective experience is a product of brain activity. But I don't ignore that it is no more than an educated guess. This is part of why AI is fascinating.
-
No you can't. How do you know the subject does experience something? Maybe she's lying. Also, even if we could prove that a subject experiences something, noticing that experience and neuron firing happen at the same time wouldn't prove a causal relationship.
No, we can prove if the person is experiencing something. This is why I stated we can measure neurons' inputs and outputs, currently, we do it with fMRI, but that measurement is a low-resolution measurement since it measures the metabolism of a neuron. Now, we look for trends, if interference with the segments of brain tissue give consistent responses then that is a falsification. Now let's take your perspective of skepticism, we could locate what parts of the brain are used to formulate a lie, again looking for trends or consistency from other samples of human brains we prove when a person is lying. So, in the end, because neurons can be measured we can prove their effects not just in a direct response but in more subtle ways that provide stimuli that the subject has to cope with in order to reach some objective, but the subject doesn't know what piece of information is being manipulated, and therefore from lack of reactions to the tests we'd know that those parts of the brain indeed are the cause.
-
No, measuring neurons' activity doesn't prove that a subject is experiencing something.
-
No, measuring neurons' activity doesn't prove that a subject is experiencing something.
Oh yes, it can. E.g. When the dentist gives you a shot of novocaine it blocks the nerve endings from signaling which prevents you from feeling pain. We know that novocaine blocks the signaling of nerve endings because those types of neurons have been measured when under the influence of the drug.
-
No it doesn't prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) that the subjective experience is exclusively a product of the brain function.
-
This is a time waster, not a debate.
You're right, novocaine blocks pain, therefore we are networks of neurons. Good luck.
:)
-
No it doesn't prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) that the subjective experience is exclusively a product of the brain function.
"As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Statistical methods have been proposed that use correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping."
But yes it can...
-
No.
-
you can probe a computers I/O but it probably isnt alive.
Same goes for robots, but animals and people and insects, they might actually be alive, hence all the "hell'"p involved.
-
No.
The quote I posted is from your link... :2funny: