Philip Cunningham: Everything is information

J-Mac:

I’m different. I search for the truth and not for the support of the preconceived ideas.

I am sure you are searching for truth, so please offer me the same courtesy. As I outlined @15 and in much more detail on the other thread, any rational exegesis involves looking at the general thrust of doctrine across time, across experiences, and across different prophets and Jesus himself, as reflected in scripture. So far, you have offered a couple of phrases from Ecclesiastes. That's it. I am not questioning whether we can find a few inconsistent passages in a massive tome like the Bible. Of course we can, as I discussed in the other thread (especially if we insist on reading them literally and in isolation, rather than considering the overall context and the overall message of the book). The real issue is what the overall weight of the evidence is across all of scripture. And on that score, it isn't even close. If you are interested in the truth, as I'm sure you are, then I would recommend a little exercise: Write down all the passages that suggest there is no life after death, that there is no soul or spirit beyond the body. Then write down all the passages that suggest there is. Then see what the evidence says and how that impacts your search for truth. Until then, I don't mean to be rude, but let's not pretend that latching onto a couple of questionable passages from an allegorical book, to the exclusion of many more passages with direct experiential and doctrinal teachings, constitutes a "search for the truth" without preconceptions. Eric Anderson

Eric' There is a relatively clear and consistent teaching across scripture, particularly in the New Testament. No. If the teaching were clear, as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion... Scholars still argue about what the whole point of Ecclesiastes even is. Of course that scholars who want to support the teaching of an immortal soul are going to question it. So do you. I'm different. I search for the truth and not for the support of the preconceived ideas. J-Mac

kurx78, Did you actually watch the video? Or you've just read the provocative title "Stuart Hameroff - Do we have a quantum Soul?". Anyway, Hameroff mentions the term "quantum soul" and says briefly that it is compatible with eastern philosophy , reincarnation etc. What he is talking about is the theory both him and Robert Penrose developed that consciousness is quantum state or arraignment of subparticls; generated by microtubules in neurons. Universe is basically an arraignment of particles generated by quantum information plus dark energy and matter. Penrose doesn't support the idea of a quantum soul because he is not religious. Hameroff is more prone to believe in a quantum soul. Both of them believe that quantum information "rearraigned by the microtubules"-our memories, experiences, subjective experience, free will, sense of being etc. can survive after death because of quantum information conservation. It says that quantum information can't be created or destroyed. Penrose doesn't believe that quantum information that survives death is a quantum soul, Hameroff thinks it is possible... Therefore, as I said earlier, quantum information rearraigned by the brain leading to consciousness can survive death as per QIC, but needs a quantum information processor, such as human brain to bring back those conscious experiences and the sense of "I". There could be another quantum information processor, a non-material one, similar to human brain, possibly a multidimensional one, but that is not the same thing as quantum soul. Hameroff thinks quantum information survives death and he thinks it could be a quantum soul, but that quantum information needs a quantum processor either material-human brain-or multidimensional one or from another dimension or realm... Otherwise it just quantum information dissipating back into the universe after death... J-Mac

J-Mac writes: "I would however stipulate that if there is some kind of existence after death, it wouldn’t be a conscious existence… If quantum information is what makes us aware, we still need some kind of processor to process that quantum information to have a subjective experience, which appears to be our brain…a part of it …" I think it may be possible to "reconnect" the quantum states to another processor (aka a living thing) but during the lapse between your "disconnection" and "connection" your are not going to be conscious at all, you are not going to experiment or feel anything until a new processor relinks with your "soul". A part of you will vanish and another will reform itself in a new entity. Penrose and Hammerof's claim is pretty strong, even stronger than Koch/Tononi's IIT snakeoil crackpot theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8 kurx78

Compare:

It seems that you, and many believers in the immortality of soul on this blog look at the bible verses that seem to support your views, and ignore the ones that don’t.

with:

What I do know is that the bible seems to indicate that after we die, there is no conscious experience Ecl 9:5-10 “The the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.”

The Bible indicates no such thing. There is a relatively clear and consistent teaching across scripture, particularly in the New Testament. A verse that can easily be understood as symbolic or worldly in nature doesn't override the broad teaching of multiple other verses. Particularly when it is from Ecclesiastes, a book known to be unusual in its general approach. Scholars still argue about what the whole point of Ecclesiastes even is. One thing we can say with some confidence is that we shouldn't assume that Ecclesiastes is the final word on any doctrine, particularly when the verse in question can easily be interpreted in a different light and particularly when the plain face reading of the verse is contradicted by many other experiences and teachings in scripture. I'm not sure why you've latched onto a couple of verses from Ecclesiastes to the exclusion of so many other teachings and experiences in the Bible. Eric Anderson

Eric Anderson @17 I have looked at the issue in some depth on my own and have had exposure to several Biblical commentaries, but I’m certain there are probably many others I’m not aware of and whose arguments I haven’t spent time with. I don’t have a lot of time for this particular issue right now, but would be willing to invest a little bit of time if you can point me to one or two of the best examples of scholars arguing against an immortal soul. The whole issue with the teaching of the immortality of the soul starts with the origins of the teaching; The Greek Mythology, ancient Egypt, Babylon and so on... It seems that you, and many believers in the immortality of soul on this blog look at the bible verses that seem to support your views, and ignore the ones that don't. Are there contradictions? —– Incidentally, we also have to be careful about definitions. For example, it wasn’t clear from the above discussion whether you were questioning any kind of existence beyond this life, or whether you were questioning a particular definition of the concept of “soul” or what existence might be beyond this life. Maybe once we get the definitions cleared up there won’t be that much of a disconnect anyway . . . I'm not questioning what I don't know...What I do know is that the bible seems to indicate that after we die, there is no conscious experience Ecl 9:5-10 "The the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten." I would however stipulate that if there is some kind of existence after death, it wouldn't be a conscious existence... If quantum information is what makes us aware, we still need some kind of processor to process that quantum information to have a subjective experience, which appears to be our brain...a part of it ... If the part of the brain where quantum information seems to be processed is temporarily out commission, like during anesthesia, the brain functions fine, but we are not conscious... So, if after death we are no longer conscious, but quantum information about our conscious experiences survives, it still seems to need some kind of processor either material or immaterial (multidimensional) which you might call spiritual, to retrieve that quantum information to continue to have conscious experience again...IMO... J-Mac

Thanks, J-Mac. I have looked at the issue in some depth on my own and have had exposure to several Biblical commentaries, but I'm certain there are probably many others I'm not aware of and whose arguments I haven't spent time with. I don't have a lot of time for this particular issue right now, but would be willing to invest a little bit of time if you can point me to one or two of the best examples of scholars arguing against an immortal soul. ----- Incidentally, we also have to be careful about definitions. For example, it wasn't clear from the above discussion whether you were questioning any kind of existence beyond this life, or whether you were questioning a particular definition of the concept of "soul" or what existence might be beyond this life. Maybe once we get the definitions cleared up there won't be that much of a disconnect anyway . . . Eric Anderson

Eric Aderson, How you looked at the issue of the immortality of the soul from both sides? I have... There are many scholars that still debate it... These two verses are just an example of a broad issue both scriptual and historic... J-Mac

J-Mac: Exegesis requires that we look at a doctrinal concept in a broader sense, and not get caught in a single scripture, particularly not in a hyper-technical and rigid interpretation that is inconsistent with other passages. You have quoted two verses that could -- if we were to read them in a particular light -- suggest that, perhaps, there is no "memory" or "knowledge" after death. Yet those same scripture can quite easily be interpreted in a different light. And given all the other references to life after death, one would have to seriously question the interpretation you seem to be offering for those two verses from a single chapter in a book known to be rather allegorical and subject to very different interpretations. What we can say for certain is that those two verses do not affirmatively teach that there is not an immortal soul. Eric Anderson

BTW: in the video, Phillip makes one of the most powerful points about consciousness from the scientific point of view or quantum mechanics. He states that after death of human body and brain, quantum information that used sustain the faculties of the human brain actually continues on because of laws of quantum mechanics.... J-Mac

Anthropoid, If Judeo-Christian religions teach that "conscious existence" or soul lives on after death, then it's definitely not scriptual... Eccl 9:5 and 10 5 "For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten." 10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going." Sheol is often translated as hell... J-Mac

J-Mac 9 "Let’s ignore the fact that the Judaeo-Christian scriptures don’t seem to support the teaching of an immortal soul." If by soul you mean conscious existence, that is exactly what they teach. Either in Heaven or Hell... anthropic

Seversky: I thought Szostak, at least as of a few years ago, was on board with the idea that we are dealing with functional information, for example (in the OOL context he is interested in) the specification of a protein to perform a particular function. Do you happen to have handy a link to the various definitions he has looked at? I'd be curious to see whether there are some other definitions we should be considering. ----- EDIT: I just realized Szostak was cited here, on the need for functional information: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/functional-information-vs-classical-information-two-mistakes/#comment-631166 Eric Anderson

Seversky:

So what is information? Which of the forty or so definitions on information and complexity collected by Jack Szostak is the right one?

I agree with Seversky! There can only be one right definition! And the one single right definition of definition is ... Mung

At the end of the video Phillip comes to a predictable conclusion that since quantum information never gets destroyed, even if the quantum state is, which apparently happens in microtubuls in human brain at death that scientist suspect consciousness resides. Therefore the quantum information that created the quantum state and consciousness in microtubules in human brain can "live on indefinitely" somewhere as a soul...(He quotes Stuart Hameroff-one of world's authorities on consciousness and life after death). Let's ignore the fact that the Judaeo-Christian scriptures don't seem to support the teaching of an immortal soul. 1. Where does the soul come from and when? Does it come from one of the parents or both and at the conception? Or later? 2. If the soul comes from God, and it is an indestructible quantum information, it must have existed before it was given to the new conceived. And if it did exist, what quantum information does it contain? Or who's soul or consciousness is it? There are many, many more questions like that when an immortal soul as quantum information is considered... To me, the only logical explanation of consciousness is that it is created as the human organism and the brain develop. If a human dies, it is up to the creator of the human to restore his consciousness, memories, experiences exactly probably due to the amazing properties of quantum entanglement. If human body and consciousness on the subatomic level are just different quantum states of 3 particles, how difficult could it be to restore consciousness and memories exactly if our bodies and mind are entangled with God's "hard drive" that stores all of our quantum information thanks to quantum entanglement? J-Mac

Current activity. He is still around out there, I was concerned something had happened to him. kairosfocus

KF @4: PC's DOB? Dionisio

PC (a.k.a. BA77) definitely has a very interesting video collection @YT. Well done! BTW, here's a minor observation: shouldn't the video title: "Michael Strauss interviewed by Fazale Rans" rather read: "Michael Strauss interviewed by Fazale Rana" ? i.e. Rana instead of Rans? Dionisio

Very good to hear from Bornagain, who makes a compelling case for the independence of information. No energy is consumed by the computer during computation, it only takes energy to remove information from a computer (Landauer's principle), therefor, information is "physically" real, in the sense that it's interaction with matter is measurable. Origenes

The best news is in the date. May 8, 2017. All the very best wishes, PC! kairosfocus

PeterJ, That article seems to show someone's opinion on the given subject. That's all. There are many interpretations of the ultimate reality. To me the whole article reminds me of the Russian word 'yerunda' or the Polish word 'bzdura' or the Spanish word 'tonteria'. As professor John Lennox said, nonsense remains nonsense regardless of who says it. Functional complex specified information (FCSI) is the product of the mind. Energy as the foundation of matter does not resolve the issue of the origin of the mind that produces the FCSI. Actually I believe that God is the ultimate reality that creates energy and matter. Dionisio

I came across this article recently, very interesting. http://curiousmindmagazine.com/scientists-find-everything-energy-reality-isnt-think/ PeterJ

So what is information? Which of the forty or so definitions on information and complexity collected by Jack Szostak is the right one? Seversky