Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Does a New Scientific Study Offer Evidence of Life after Death?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

Wesley J. Smith writes:

Photo: Life after death, by Christopher Campbell, via Unsplash.

A new scientific study of people whose hearts stopped but received CPR and remained among us found that many remembered what are often called “near-death experiences.” From the NYU Grossman School of Medicine:

One in five people who survive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest may describe lucid experiences of death that occurred while they were seemingly unconscious and on the brink of death, a new study shows. . . .

Survivors reported having unique lucid experiences, including a perception of separation from the body, observing events without pain or distress, and a meaningful evaluation of life, including of their actions, intentions and thoughts toward others. The researchers found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams or CPR-induced consciousness.

The study also detected some brain activity associated with the phenomenon:

A key finding was the discovery of spikes of brain activity, including so-called gamma, delta, theta, alpha and beta waves up to an hour into CPR. Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception.

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called near-death experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” says Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, the lead study investigator and an intensive care physician, who is also an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health, as well as the organization’s director of critical care and resuscitation research. “Our results offer evidence that while on the brink of death and in a coma, people undergo a unique inner conscious experience, including awareness without distress.”

Life After Death?

Does this prove that there is life after death? No. But I think it is evidence that could support that hypothesis. Indeed, that seems to be what the study authors conclude, at least between the lines:

Identifying measureable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity, together with similar stories of recalled death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, adds Parnia.

“These lucid experiences cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” says Parnia. As the brain is shutting down, many of its natural braking systems are released. Known as disinhibition, this provides access to the depths of a person’s consciousness, including stored memories, thoughts from early childhood to death, and other aspects of reality. While no one knows the evolutionary purpose of this phenomenon, it clearly reveals “intriguing questions about human consciousness, even at death,” says Parnia.

No Natural-Selection Benefit

Or, maybe there is no evolutionary explanation. There is certainly no discernible natural-selection benefit. Moreover, what purpose would such a “soft exit” offer? Why would it appear? How would it develop if consciousness is solely generated by the brain and is purely a materialistic phenomenon?

Perhaps these findings should be deemed circumstantial evidence of something beyond this existence, which moves us out of the scientific realm and into the theological. And — since those reporting on the experience claim to have engaged in an extensive life review — perhaps we should also consider the study as demonstrating that what we do and how we act in the here and now will impact our experience of whatever comes next.

If so, it would be prudent to govern ourselves accordingly, “for nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”

Evolution News

Of course, the study referenced above is by no means the first scholarly investigation into near-death experiences (NDEs). If the testimony of thousands of people who have reported these experiences mean anything, there seems to be consistency with the concept of life after death and a continuing existence of the soul. An in-depth analysis of NDEs that I’ve found helpful is Imagine Heaven, by John Burke.

Comments
Querius at 40, Nope. I don't buy it. relatd
Related @39, The question that a number of scientists have asked is how could we tell if we were living in a very realistic computer simulation. There is indeed some evidence. For example, the Planck length is analogous to the pixels on your computer monitor. Again, Neil deGrasse Tyson on PBS Space Time likes the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58 And then there's what Jesus said about money that's indicative that we're living in an ultra-realistic simulation . . . -Q Querius
Querius at 38, No evidence of a simulation. What we experience every day is what we experience. Aside from the subatomic quantum world, the things we interact with every day follow certain laws. The quantum world has unusual aspects, and its own rules. relatd
Relatd @34, And other gullible people believe that the universe created itself out of non-existence. Note that both Planck length and the non-infinite speed of light are used as evidence that we live in a simulation. If true, it also supports the idea of life after death, the subject of the OP. How? Imagine people playing an online video game. If their character dies, the player goes on living. However, the players' actions within such a game can reveal a lot about them. Did you know that at least one of the recorded statements of Jesus also supports the idea that we're living in a simulation? Hint: It was about money. -Q Querius
Does this prove that there is life after death? No. But I think it is evidence that could support that hypothesis. Indeed, that seems to be what the study authors conclude, at least between the lines:
Between which lines might this conclusion lie?
Identifying measureable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity, together with similar stories of recalled death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, adds Parnia.
This is not talking about conscious experience absent brain function. On the contrary, this is assuming that heightened brain activity is responsible for conscious experiences while (not after) the brain is dying. Obviously there is no evidence that anyone has ever experienced anything once the brain permanently ceases to function. Consciousness is easily lost - a bump on the head or the ingestion of certain drugs is all that is needed. It appears most likely, then, that conscious experience does require certain brain function to be active, and this study confirms rather than refutes that assumption. (Full disclosure: I am not a "materialist" in the sense often used here - I don't believe that consciousness can be reduced to, or explained by, physical mechanisms that we currently understand). dogdoc
SG at 35, Yes, and I'm one of them. relatd
Relatd: Honestly, it’s easy to come up with a hundred possible scenarios and still not learn anything.
I completely agree. Are you aware that there are even some gullible people who believe that some all-knowing, all loving, non-corporeal being created the universe and all life on earth? Sir Giles
Querius at 32, Well, I don't think anyone can show a beginning for the universe since there is no physical evidence. In theory, the Planck Length came from nowhere, it gently uh... blew up - not really - and expanded into uh... uh... well, darn it... nothing, I guess. So as far as evidence, they've got nothing. So, all they do have is: The Universe exists. That's it. Speaking scientifically. relatd
Relatd @32, All I'm doing is considering what scientific or derivative logical evidence is available for the origin of the universe. Unlike the Deists of the past, I'm not suggesting that one can arrive at a full knowledge of God simply by extrapolation (which is what Darwinists do regarding the origin of life). Specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim dependence on revealed truth rather than logically derived truth. Such claims can be evaluated with historical, archaeological, and testimonial evidence, which is generally not within the grasp of science. However, archaeological artifacts such as pottery, inscriptions, writings, and ruins ARE subject to scientific examination. So is the Shroud of Turin. Some instances of medical miracles are also within the grasp of science such as this one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/ And so do some NDEs, going back to the subject of the OP. -Q Querius
Some alien? Really? Why would an alien do anything like create a universe? How about humans time traveling back into the past from our future? Honestly, it's easy to come up with a hundred possible scenarios and still not learn anything. relatd
Jerry @29 and Relatd @30, Exactly, and here's why: The list I provided comprises reasonable deductions without assuming a god or gods, much less the Christian God. In contrast, Chuckdarwin @28 immediately jumped to the conclusion that I referred to the Christian God, WHICH I DID NOT. The source of the design and emergence of the universe could be some intelligent and powerful alien, or the source could be what's called "an ancestor simulation." Here's a discussion of the possibility that we're in an ancestor simulation with Neil deGrasse Tyson on PBS Space Time, hardly considered a Christian organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58 All Chuckdarwin's immediate emotional response reveals is his psychological projection of lower human nature on an entity that he doesn't understand, perhaps in defense of a selfish lifestyle or a guilty conscience. I'll leave it at that. -Q Querius
CD at 28, And more and more evidence of railing against God. Get over it - puny human! If you actually knew anything about God, you would worship Him. As God, there are no other creative entities. Afraid of going to Hell? You should be - including myself and all reading. God loved His creatures - humans - and gave them free will instead of making them ROBOTS. But nooo, they decided to listen to some stranger instead of God. Source: The Bible. Get it. Read it. Don't be a goof... relatd
I’m sure I’ve missed a few
All wrong. Trying to get his “sadly mistaken” batting average up to 1000, ChuckDarwin strikes out every time. Nothing ID says is relevant to anything Chuck says. Maybe Chuck should just ask questions since he gets nearly everything wrong. Keep swinging since eventually you will connect. Possibly try bunting. jerry
--Its creative power is imperfect and limited because it three times couldn't get humans right --It is vain because it demands worship --It is jealous because it abides no other creative entities --It is vindictive insofar as it allows indescribable suffering (including in the "afterlife") --It is cowardly because it places the blame for its flawed creation on its human creatures I'm sure I've missed a few... chuckdarwin
Seversky, To paraphrase your statement, non-existence cannot be the cause of the existence of the universe--space-time, mass-energy, quarks, leptons, perhaps dark matter, dark energy, gravity, black holes, etc. So what must be the qualities of whatever caused the existence of the universe? - it must exist outside of time - It must exist outside of the dimensions of space - It cannot consist of mass - It cannot consist of energy - It cannot consist of we can measure in our universe What does it have? - It has superhuman design intelligence - It has inconceivable power - It acts with purpose and has volition - It seems to care about what it created with so much detail, variety, and complexity - It has more complexity and information than anything it created - Humans can contemplate it Anything else you can think of? -Q Querius
BA77 One of my favorites. I haven’t read it for a long time…….. chuckdarwin
Seversky@18 As expected, you closed-mindedly skipped over my summary descriptions of observations that do strongly demonstrate the independence of the mind and the brain during NDEs.
(There are) hundreds of independently verified veridical NDEs involving, among many other things, verified observations of the resuscitation team working on their body below, appearances to physically distant family members, and encounters with not-known-to-be-dead loved ones in a spiritual realm (as witness the excellent survey volume “The Self Does Not Die” by Rivas, Dirven and Smit). And there are many other factors, such as the “realer-than-real” intensity and clarity of consciousness in these states.
Your requirement to "show us" a mind separated from its body is a straw man argument of course, since a disembodied mind is presumably invisible, especially to scientific instruments, and in any case NDEs obviously can't practically or ethically be demonstrated or replicated in the laboratory. They are rare and spontaneous occurences usually due to great trauma. Oh well, I guess part of the materialist mythology is the notion that nothing is real unless it can be demonstrated at will and replicated in the laboratory. Your faith in materialism creates a big lacuna in your vision. doubter
ChuckyD, not to be too picky with prose and/or poem selection, but since Darwinian materialists hold that free will, personhood, morality, beauty, meaning, and purpose for life, etc.. etc.. are all merely illusory, I think this is a much better poem for Darwinists to be reciting,
A Dream Within a Dream - By Edgar Allan Poe Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
Of note:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
August 2022 - Moreover, to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves are not ‘real’. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-recognizing-providence-in-the-history-of-life-is-a-hint-about-our-own-lives/#comment-763046 Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic/materialistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
CD at 22, You just don't quit, do you? relatd
BA77 O brawling love! O loving hate! O anything of nothing first create! O heavy lightness, serious vanity! Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms! Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health! Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is! This love feel I, that feel no love in this. Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1 An oxymoron by any other name....... chuckdarwin
Again, good questions and still without definite answers. Just bear in mind that kf and I both agree that you cannot get something from nothing. Had there ever been truly nothing, there would still be truly nothing and we would not be here asking such questions The corollary of that position is that there must always have been “something”. For Christians, that something is their God, for agnostics/atheists it’s more of a “don’t know”.
Well that "something" whatever it is/was produced a very fine tuned universe for life. This "something" made choices which indicates something about else about it besides being very powerful and incredibly intelligent. It had an objective. People have wondered about it since man first walked on this world. Whatever it was, it inspired various religions and other beliefs. The incredible thing is how anyone can deny that such a "something" exists. jerry
PyrrhoManiac1/10
I cannot see how that can be true. Information is medium neutral and therefore multiply realizable: we can recognize a vinyl record, a CD, and an MP3 as all conveying the same information. That doesn’t mean that the information could exist independently of all storage media. So it’s simply not “immaterial” in the sense of existing independent of all physical structures. Shannon does not vindicate Plato.
Exactly so, and the information on the LP, CD or MP3 is placed there by human beings for the purpose of communicating it to other human beings. But that is not always the case. A dendrochronologist can acquire information about the history of a tree from the growth rings in its trunk. A geologist can acquire similar historical information about the Earth from rock strata. It can even be argued that our genomes have incorporated information abstracted from our environments over the millennia. But there is no good reason to think that there was an intelligence behind any of those sources of information that was trying to communicate something to us. My understanding, for what it's worth, is that we acquire data from various sources which only becomes information when it is incorporated into an internal model or organized according to an internal narrative. Information in its common usage is what we are informed by. There are more technical usages but they do not mean the same thing. Seversky
Seversky at 16, "To confront the issues that ID/creationists dare not?" Oooh, sounds important. So, YOU take the >>risks<<< and confront the issues that... ? Seriously? You attach a little too much importance to yourself. Or to put it another way: Pffft. relatd
Doubter/14
All of this is very much not to be expected by the materialist neurological paradigm when the brain is largely disfunctional but still expected by the materialists to produce such extraordinary experiences as complex hallucinogenic illusions. Very much against the materialist neurological assumption that the mind is the function of large parts of the brain, in particular the cerebral hemispheres.
Show us a conscious mind existing separate from a physical brain and you have a case. Until then we have to go by what we observe, which is that when the brain ceases to function the associated consciousness disappears. Seversky
Jerry/11
What does immaterial and physical mean?
Good question. Could BA77 be equivocating on the different meanings of "materialism" and "physicalism"?
The statement implies that immaterial means non existence and that only the physical universe that we observe is all that exists. Where did the physical universe come from? Does it have a cause? Maybe that cause is best described as immaterial
Again, good questions and still without definite answers. Just bear in mind that kf and I both agree that you cannot get something from nothing. Had there ever been truly nothing, there would still be truly nothing and we would not be here asking such questions The corollary of that position is that there must always have been "something". For Christians, that something is their God, for agnostics/atheists it's more of a "don't know". Seversky
Relatd/15
My role as apologist for Ba77? And your role here?
To confront the issues that ID/creationists dare not?
Along with AF, JVL and Seversky? You guys are just the ‘natural order of things’ here?
Of course. We're not exclusive. We're all a part of the natural order, even you and BA77. Seversky
CD at 9, My role as apologist for Ba77? And your role here? Along with AF, JVL and Seversky? You guys are just the 'natural order of things' here? And IDers are the outliers? Just because I have read and agree with Ba77's carefully worded posts does not mean I'm voting for him in the next election. I could write: 'You're nothing but a secularist noisemaker!' but I'd rather not. relatd
Chuckdarwin@9 As usual the skeptic materialists complacently ignore very many facts, in order to desperately hold onto their secular religious faith in materialism. Facts such as there being hundreds of independently verified veridical NDEs involving, among many other things, verified observations of the resuscitation team working on their body below, appearances to physically distant family members, and encounters with not-known-to-be-dead loved ones in a spiritual realm (as witness the excellent survey volume "The Self Does Not Die" by Rivas, Dirven and Smit). And there are many other factors, such as the "realer-than-real" intensity and clarity of consciousness in these states. All this experienced with a largely disfunctional greatly oxygen-deprived brain with negligible or greatly reduced neuronal processing (in the brain stem for instance). And there are the many long-term positive character/personality transformations towards higher spirituality occuring later in the life of the NDEer. All of this is very much not to be expected by the materialist neurological paradigm when the brain is largely disfunctional but still expected by the materialists to produce such extraordinary experiences as complex hallucinogenic illusions. Very much against the materialist neurological assumption that the mind is the function of large parts of the brain, in particular the cerebral hemispheres. doubter
PMI, "That doesn’t mean that the information could exist independently of all storage media." See post 3, 'Quantum Teleportation'. bornagain77
ChuckyD, you, by your own inept argumentation, are a far better apologist for Intelligent Design than any ID advocate is. :) For instance ChuckyD states, "Mockery is a legitimate rhetorical device",,,
rhetoric - definition language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
Welcome to world of Darwinian apologetics where mockery and ridicule is held to be a 'legitimate rhetorical device' and where that, ahem, 'legitimate rhetorical device' takes the place of any actual empirical evidence that might refute the empirical evidence I presented to support the 'physical reality' of, and/or existence of, the immaterial soul. Moreover, the heavy reliance of Darwinists on a self-admitted 'rhetorical device', and not on any compelling scientific evidence, supports my overall position that whatever Darwinian evolution is, it certainly is NOT an empirical science. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter to the validity of their 'theory' (as if Darwinism even deserves to be called a scientific 'theory'),
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
nonsense… the physical reality of the immaterial soul
What does immaterial and physical mean? The statement implies that immaterial means non existence and that only the physical universe that we observe is all that exists. Where did the physical universe come from? Does it have a cause? Maybe that cause is best described as immaterial As usual ChuckDarwin hasn’t thought this through. Maybe ChuckDarwin needs to be mocked for a near 100% failure rate? He’s not perfect. Aside: is what causes gravity physical? I assume it has existence. Aside2: my guess is that ChuckDarwin gets agita from other’s statements and this explains his lack of coherence when commenting. jerry
@2
The interesting thing about information, the primary thing about information that prevents information from ever being reducible to materialistic explanations, is that information is ‘immaterial’ in its foundational essence.
I cannot see how that can be true. Information is medium neutral and therefore multiply realizable: we can recognize a vinyl record, a CD, and an MP3 as all conveying the same information. That doesn't mean that the information could exist independently of all storage media. So it's simply not "immaterial" in the sense of existing independent of all physical structures. Shannon does not vindicate Plato. PyrrhoManiac1
Relatd Apparently, it is now your role to act as apologist for BA77. Mockery is a legitimate rhetorical device when warranted. A most effective "rebuttal" to nonsense (i.e., "the physical reality of the immaterial soul"), is to use mockery to (1) highlight the obvious absurdity of the statement and (2) point out that the statement doesn't deserve to be taken seriously......... chuckdarwin
ChuckyD states,
The physical reality of the immaterial soul? Welcome aboard the Oxymoron Express. Have your ticket ready for the conductor……..
Firstly, I made clear that, by the term 'physically real', (and in establishing the physical reality of the immaterial soul), I meant that "immaterial information", (which is ubiquitous within molecular biology), is, (contrary to what Darwinian materialists hold), shown to be 'physically real' in the sense that it is now shown to have a ‘causal effect’ on material particles." Thus, in my posts I was careful to differentiate what I actually meant by immaterial information being 'physically real', (in that I meant immaterial information is 'physically real' in the sense that it can have causal effects on material particles, and thus it must be 'physically real' is some real and meaningful sense), and thus it is disingenuous for ChuckyD to falsely accuse me of employing an oxymoron. Moreover, that immaterial information has a causal effect on material particles, (and is therefore to be considered a 'physically real' entity in some real and meaningful sense), is not really all that controversial of a position to hold, (save for those who are wedded to the worldview of Atheistic materialism), and I don't even have to appeal to advances in quantum information theory, and/or to the experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, to prove it. To prove that immaterial information, (contrary to what Darwinian materialists hold), can have a causal effect on material particles, (and is therefore to be considered 'physically real' in some real and meaningful sense), all I have to do is point to computer software. As the following article notes, "anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities.
How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? - September 29, 2013 Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what's in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all. Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.” Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it "breaks the symmetry" of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space. But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains: “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.” In other words, it's software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom. For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. ... A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.” The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/29/225359504/how-does-the-world-work-top-down-or-bottom-up
And here is Ellis's article, "Recognising Top-Down Causation"
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
Secondly, for ChuckyD to falsely accuse me of employing an oxymoron is simply laughable. Darwin's entire theory of 'Natural Selection" itself turns out to be built on an oxymoron.
",, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose." - William Dembski - Science and the Myth of Progress - pg 294 - 2003 https://books.google.com/books?id=9w53fjGdnAoC&pg=PA294
And finally, it is also laughable that ChuckyD would use the term "Oxymoron Express", i.e. ,,, "Oxymoron Express. Have your ticket ready for the conductor",,, The reason why it is laughable that ChuckyD would choose to use the term "Oxymoron Express" is that it is very similar to Adam Sedgwick's critique of Darwin's theory when he stated, to Charles Darwin himself, that, "you have,, started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon,,",,,
From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, in speculating upon organic descent, you over state the evidence of geology; & that you under state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree:,,, Lastly then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as a summary—for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the Vestiges),7 & prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time; nor, (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense & the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.— https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And indeed 160 years hence, 'the fertile womb of man’s imagination" is the only place where any evidence for Darwinian evolution has ever been found. Specifically, Darwinian evolution is notorious for substituting imaginative 'just-so stories' in place of any substantiating empirical evidence. No less than Stephen Jay Gould honestly admitted that fairly dramatic shortcoming of Darwin's theory,
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
What is glaringly obvious, and almost embarrassing to have to state, imaginative 'just-so story' telling is NOT empirical science but it is in reality, as Sedgwick noted, "a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon",,
“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
Thus in conclusion, it turns out that ChuckyD "Oxymoron Express" criticism of my posts is much more aptly applied to his own theory of Darwinian evolution than it is to my 'empirically based' defense of the physical reality of the immaterial soul. Verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
CD at 6, And more evidence that worldview, as opposed to a detailed rebuttal, matters more to some here. Instead of science. Nice bit of mockery there - but only if you think mocking a post is nice. relatd
Of supplemental note, besides quantum mechanics offering strong empirical support for the physical reality of the immaterial soul.
The physical reality of the immaterial soul? Welcome aboard the Oxymoron Express. Have your ticket ready for the conductor…….. chuckdarwin
While various discoveries have been made about the quantum world, it does have rules. It has the same intelligibility as the Classic or classical physics world. There is a direct connection between the two and processes overlap. I believe that not enough study has gone into quantum-classical phase transition states. In other words, a molecular process involves only classical processes but may, under certain conditions, shift to involve quantum activity and shift back to classical function only. It's not just one or the other. As far as non-local effects. It appears that photons entangling at great distances involves only one possibility. In other words, there are still non-entangled photons out there. Again, I propose that photons can go from entangled to not entangled, or switch from a classical to quantum state. This phase transition, as I call it, needs to be understood as such. And its implications for cellular and molecular life functions included. relatd
In further establishing the physical reality of immaterial ‘souls’, it is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, cannot be created nor destroyed, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal, immaterial, soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum mechanics and quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance. To repeat, and as Jesus once asked his disciples along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Of supplemental note, besides quantum mechanics offering strong empirical support for the physical reality of the immaterial soul, special relativity, ‘surprisingly’, also offers strong empirical support for the physical reality of a higher, heavenly, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension.
Sept. 2022 – Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-765987
Verse:
Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
bornagain77
And although the experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment are certainly impressive, the easiest way to ’empirically’ demonstrate the physical reality of this immaterial information, (that Darwinists have denied the existence of), is with quantum teleportation. As the following article states. “scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart,,, information,,, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium.”
First Teleportation Between Distant Atoms – 2009 Excerpt: For the first time, scientists have successfully teleported information between two separate atoms in unconnected enclosures a meter apart – a significant milestone in the global quest for practical quantum information processing. Teleportation may be nature’s most mysterious form of transport: Quantum information, such as the spin of a particle or the polarization of a photon, is transferred from one place to another, but without traveling through any physical medium. It has previously been achieved between photons over very large distances, between photons and ensembles of atoms, and between two nearby atoms through the intermediary action of a third. None of those, however, provides a feasible means of holding and managing quantum information over long distances. Now a team from the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the University of Michigan has succeeded in teleporting a quantum state directly from one atom to another over a substantial distance https://jqi.umd.edu/news/first-teleportation-between-distant-atoms
And as the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
In fact, ‘classical’ information, such as what is encoded on DNA, (and in computers), is now found to be a subset of this immaterial ‘quantum’ information that was teleported via quantum entanglement “without traveling through any physical medium.” In the following site entitled “Quantum Information Science”, a site where Charles Bennett, (of quantum teleportation and reversible computation fame), himself is on the steering committee,
Quantum Information Science Steering Committee C. H. Bennett IBM D. P. DiVincenzo IBM N. Gershenfeld MIT H. M. Gibbs University of Arizona H. J. Kimble Caltech J. Preskill Caltech U. V. Vazirani UC/Berkeley D. J. Wineland NIST C. Yao Princeton University https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/nsf00101.htm
On that site, they have this illustration showing classical information to be a subset of quantum information
Classical Information is a subset of Quantum information – illustration https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf00101/images/figure1.gif below that illustration they have this caption, “Figure 1: The well-established theory of classical information and computation is actually a subset of a much larger topic, the emerging theory of quantum information and computation.”
The thing that is so antagonistic, indeed the thing that so devastating, for Darwinian materialists with quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information, is that it takes a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
In fact, the evidence for 'beyond space and time' quantum ‘non-locality’ has now become so strong that, just last month, a Nobel prize was finally awarded to the main scientists, (John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger), who empirically established the physical reality of quantum non-locality.
The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality – Daniel Garisto – October 6, 2022 Excerpt: This is, of course, deeply contrary to our everyday experiences. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the demise of local realism has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Blame for this achievement has now been laid squarely on the shoulders of three physicists: John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger. They equally split the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
Darwinian atheists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no 'beyond space and time' cause that they can appeal to in order to be able to explain quantum non-locality. Whereas Christian Theists readily do have an explanation that they can appeal to in order to explain the quantum non-locality of quantum entanglement, (and/or quantum information). (and have been postulating just such a 'beyond space and time' cause for a few thousand years now).
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Moreover, this non-local quantum entanglement, (and/or quantum information), that Darwinian materialists have no hope of ever explaining the existence of, is now found to be ubiquitous with molecular biology, “in a wide range of important biomolecules”.
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
It is even found in DNA itself. As Dr Rieper explains in the following video, “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information,,,”
“What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.” Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
bornagain77
As to:
Perhaps these findings should be deemed circumstantial evidence of something beyond this existence, which moves us out of the scientific realm and into the theological.
And although the 'circumstantial evidence' for life after death is certainly very strong,,,
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html Characteristics of memories for near-death experiences - Lauren E. Moore, Bruce Greyson - March 2017 Abstract: Near-death experiences are vivid, life-changing experiences occurring to people who come close to death. Because some of their features, such as enhanced cognition despite compromised brain function, challenge our understanding of the mind-brain relationship, the question arises whether near-death experiences are imagined rather than real events. We administered the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire to 122 survivors of a close brush with death who reported near-death experiences. Participants completed Memory Characteristics Questionnaires for three different memories: that of their near-death experience, that of a real event around the same time, and that of an event they had imagined around the same time. The Memory Characteristics Questionnaire score was higher for the memory of the near-death experience than for that of the real event, which in turn was higher than that of the imagined event. These data suggest that memories of near-death experiences are recalled as ‘‘realer” than real events or imagined events. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/03/NDE-85-MCQ-ConCog.pdf
,,, although the 'circumstantial evidence' for life after death is certainly very strong, yet as the term 'circumstantial evidence' itself implies, it is necessary to dig down a little deeper in order to 'scientifically' establish, via empirical evidence, that life after death is indeed physically possible. In other words, it is necessary for us to 'scientifically' establish that we have immaterial souls, and that we are not purely material beings as Darwinian materialists hold.
"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly." - Adam Sedgwick - quoted from his letter to Charles Darwin - 24 November 1859
As every ID advocate intimately knows, the main debate between Darwinian materialists and ID advocates is over the sheer inability of unguided Darwinian processes to account for the origin of the functional information in life.
Information Enigma: Where does information come from? - Stephen Meyer - Douglas Axe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
The interesting thing about information, the primary thing about information that prevents information from ever being reducible to materialistic explanations, is that information is ‘immaterial’ in its foundational essence. As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains, “(Immaterial information is) not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that (immaterial) information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; (immaterial) information.”,,,
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” – Stephen Meyer – Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8
In fact, Darwinists, (in keeping with the presuppositions of their materialistic philosophy), have, in the past, denied the physical reality of the immaterial information in life altogether, and have claimed that when they use the term 'information' in biology that they are merely using 'synonyms, metaphors, or analogies', and that life is really just based on 'complicated biochemistry', and that it is not based on immaterial information.
Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521802932&ss=exc Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” (Let me provide the unstated conclusion:) But they don’t. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/living-things-machines-and-intelligent-design-part-two-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/#comment-353336
Yet despite Darwinian materialists claiming that immaterial information in life is just 'synonyms, metaphors, or analogies', and that life is really just based on 'complicated biochemistry', and that it is not based on immaterial information, there are a couple of ways to demonstrate that immaterial information is physically real. By which I mean that immaterial information is physically real in that it is now shown to have a 'causal effect' on material particles. One way that immaterial information is now shown to have a causal effect on material particles is by the fairly recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment where it is now shown that “information has a thermodynamic content,”
Nov. 2022 - As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/extraterrestrial-life/at-quanta-magazine-a-dream-of-discovering-alien-life-finds-new-hope/#comment-769483
bornagain77
There is some evidence of altered states of consciousness. There are people who reported out of body experiences, including while on the operating table. These included the activity of surgeons that included precise details about what they were doing. Further investigation revealed that those reporting these details did not have the medical knowledge or experience to report such things as they did. Still, it's not conclusive. Theology comes in for NDEs. There have been Biblical, and other reports of life after death experiences. Contrary to what some think about religion in general, the Catholic Church thoroughly investigates miracles and religious visions. A lot gets excluded after investigation. relatd

Leave a Reply