Are we still conscious after death?

[Namarupa]

Some mystics claim that the psyche can live on for as long as a hundred years after the death of the body, as it's fed unto other forms of organic life.

 

[J&L383]

Speculative. Perhaps. The science doesn't support it, but science doesn't explain everything. So your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Sans]

I sure hope not.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

That's sth we cannot answer bc we don't even know what causes consciousness. How do molecules in certain combinations become conscious and can reproduce themselves? What's the exact step in between dead atoms/molecules and life and later consciousness like we developed it.

Assuming that consciousness (the soul) is a kind of energy or sth that is bound to higher dimensions in the micro-cosmos of atoms then it's likely that this energy will be there forever after it leaves our bodies and leaves behind dead clusters of atoms that decay.

 

[Unicr0n]

we don't even know what causes consciousness

Neurons allow for consciousness. The molecules that make up a neuron aren't conscious. It's the DNA that allows the neurons to configure themselves in a way that promotes consciousness. One may argue that this is not the case because sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, but research has found that sponges have cells that behave similarly to neurons i.e. the precursor for the evolution of neurons (source), likewise with Trichoplax (source).

In a way, your heart experiences consciousness, too, because it has neurons. A study has shown that heart transplant recipients gain some memories of their donor (even though they had never known who the donor was). Memories of the once-conscious can be transferred in this way. (source)

What's the exact step in between dead atoms/molecules and life and later consciousness like we developed it.

Atoms won't 'die' for a time that is inconceivable to humans. The lifetime of a proton is greater than 10^25 years (that's 10 with 25 zeros after it). We don't know how life began but we have a theory of it being a primordial soup. Elements coming together, forming bonds over millions to billions of years in the water, chemical reactions caused by the hot vents in the earth and the chemicals exhausted from those vents. Nowadays? If you're cremated, your dead remains may fertilize the earth that grows food for an animal to ingest, in which that animal is ingested by humans and you help eventually feed the development of a growing baby. :) All of the elements within us were created made from a star. Rinse and repeat until the end of the universe.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Neurons allow for consciousness. The molecules that make up a neuron aren't conscious. It's the DNA that allows the neurons to configure themselves in a way that promotes consciousness. One may argue that this is not the case because sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, but research has found that sponges have cells that behave similarly to neurons i.e. the precursor for the evolution of neurons (source), likewise with Trichoplax (source).

In a way, your heart experiences consciousness, too, because it has neurons. A study has shown that heart transplant recipients gain some memories of their donor (even though they had never known who the donor was). Memories of the once-conscious can be transferred in this way. (source)

Then probably there's nothingness after death which would be pretty good imo. I heard about the fact that people who have transplanted hearts gained memories and such from the donor.

 

[Unicr0n]

Then probably there's nothingness after death which would be pretty good imo

The reincarnation cases of Shanti Devi and Ryan Hammons have me second guessing! >_< There's many cases of children around the age of 4-8 claiming that they lived another life (especially prior to wide-spread television) and the memories tend to fade as they get older. You gotta wonder...

 

[3/4Dead]

Similarly to what a few people have said; energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, so it reasonable to figure that our energy than forms out consciousness probably just moves elsewhere. Just like you don't remember what it was like to cease to exist before living right now, if your energy gets transfered, I doubt you'll remember what it was like to exist before then.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

The reincarnation cases of Shanti Devi and Ryan Hammons have me second guessing! >_< There's many cases of children around the age of 4-8 claiming that they lived another life (especially prior to wide-spread television) and the memories tend to fade as they get older. You gotta wonder...

Reincarnation is a thing. Possible - we don't know. Imo the vast majority of living humans don't remember their previous lives - if there were any. At some point in history there was only a very small population of early humans then where did all the reborn souls come from? There're 8 billion humans now. Maybe there are many more new souls created than reincarnated. I also would assume the if reincarnation is real we could be reincarnated as anything else not necessarily as a human.

That again raises the question what is behind "consciousness". It could very well be sth what we will never be able to discover. Quantum fields / higher dimensions ... that cause consciousness.

 

[MortalityScares]

This is one of the many things I've been wondering about on a daily basis ever since I started really fearing for my life.

This is actually a topic I would like to discuss with people on this site in particular, because seeing everyone's perspective may make me fear less for what comes next. Whoever posted this, thank you.

 

[FuneralCry]

No, I believe that once we die we lose consciousness, I believe death to simply be the absence of everything where all is finally forgotten about which is why I find so much comfort in the thought of ceasing to exist. To be conscious and aware is a curse to me that just causes suffering, under no circumstances would I ever wish to be conscious, I simply wish to be permanently unaware.

 

[whywere]

This world, existence, is just one of many. that a person will experience. Yes, this "flesh shell" goes away, but our spirit never does, and it continues forever.

Walter

 

[Forever Sleep]

If we are then, we can't seem to communicate reliably with those that are alive and conscious. Or- surely, we'd all be having communications with deceased loved ones.

I'd say a lot of being 'us' relies on input too. Sight, sound, taste, touch. How do we get stimulus from our environment to think about, if we no longer have a body?

I would have thought- if consciousness still exists after death, it mostly exists some place else/on another plain of existence or whatever. Consider that approximately over 109 billion humans have already died, surely- if consciousness as we understand it lingers on- wouldn't we have more solid proof by now? That seems to suggest to me that either it doesn't exist beyond the body. It changes into something less tangible- like energy or, it goes off somewhere else where we haven't found yet.

 

[DarkRange55]

Neurons allow for consciousness. The molecules that make up a neuron aren't conscious. It's the DNA that allows the neurons to configure themselves in a way that promotes consciousness. One may argue that this is not the case because sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, but research has found that sponges have cells that behave similarly to neurons i.e. the precursor for the evolution of neurons (source), likewise with Trichoplax (source).

In a way, your heart experiences consciousness, too, because it has neurons. A study has shown that heart transplant recipients gain some memories of their donor (even though they had never known who the donor was). Memories of the once-conscious can be transferred in this way. (source)


Atoms won't 'die' for a time that is inconceivable to humans. The lifetime of a proton is greater than 10^25 years (that's 10 with 25 zeros after it). We don't know how life began but we have a theory of it being a primordial soup. Elements coming together, forming bonds over millions to billions of years in the water, chemical reactions caused by the hot vents in the earth and the chemicals exhausted from those vents. Nowadays? If you're cremated, your dead remains may fertilize the earth that grows food for an animal to ingest, in which that animal is ingested by humans and you help eventually feed the development of a growing baby. :) All of the elements within us were created made from a star. Rinse and repeat until the end of the universe.

Someone beat me to it. Thank you for clarifying!

Neurons allow for consciousness. The molecules that make up a neuron aren't conscious. It's the DNA that allows the neurons to configure themselves in a way that promotes consciousness. One may argue that this is not the case because sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, but research has found that sponges have cells that behave similarly to neurons i.e. the precursor for the evolution of neurons (source), likewise with Trichoplax (source).

In a way, your heart experiences consciousness, too, because it has neurons. A study has shown that heart transplant recipients gain some memories of their donor (even though they had never known who the donor was). Memories of the once-conscious can be transferred in this way. (source)


Atoms won't 'die' for a time that is inconceivable to humans. The lifetime of a proton is greater than 10^25 years (that's 10 with 25 zeros after it). We don't know how life began but we have a theory of it being a primordial soup. Elements coming together, forming bonds over millions to billions of years in the water, chemical reactions caused by the hot vents in the earth and the chemicals exhausted from those vents. Nowadays? If you're cremated, your dead remains may fertilize the earth that grows food for an animal to ingest, in which that animal is ingested by humans and you help eventually feed the development of a growing baby. :) All of the elements within us were created made from a star. Rinse and repeat until the end of the universe.

However, in the Standard Model of particle physics, protons are considered stable particles and do not decay. However, some theories beyond the Standard Model, such as certain grand unified theories (GUTs) or theories involving supersymmetry, predict that protons could decay with an extremely long half-life. However, as of now, experimental evidence has not confirmed proton decay within the parameters predicted by these theories.
Protons are a type of baryon, because baryon number (quark number) is conserved (under normal circumstances - Chiral anomaly is an exception).

Also the relationship between neurons and consciousness is complex and not fully understood. While neurons play a crucial role in the functioning of the brain, which is associated with consciousness, it's an oversimplification to say that neurons alone "allow for" consciousness. Cognition, for example arises from the complex interactions of neural networks, neurotransmitters, and other factors within the brain. The exact mechanisms by which consciousness emerges from neural activity remain a subject of ongoing scientific investigation.

Lastly, hydrogen is the one element in the human body that was not primarily created through stellar nucleosynthesis. While hydrogen is indeed abundant in stars and the universe, it is believed to have been produced during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which occurred in the very early stages of the universe's expansion. Therefore, hydrogen predates the formation of stars and was not solely created within stellar cores.

Similarly to what a few people have said; energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, so it reasonable to figure that our energy than forms out consciousness probably just moves elsewhere. Just like you don't remember what it was like to cease to exist before living right now, if your energy gets transfered, I doubt you'll remember what it was like to exist before then.

When people talk about "scientific proof of ghosts" they usually site the first law of thermodynamics: matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. So the total amount of energy and matter in the universe always remains constant. So when we die is it possible that our energy manifests as ghosts? Well not if we're gonna stay consistent. Energy is transferred into the environment meaning that human energy transfers like all other organisms energy into other life forms and plants that absorb it. In order to live, we consume and compete for energy. Carnivores eat herbivores. Herbivores eat photosynthesizers. Photosynthesizers eat energy from dying stars. Stars eat energy from disappearing atoms. The last one is technically more of a metaphor: Stars don't exactly "eat" energy from disappearing atoms, but they do generate energy through nuclear fusion. In the core of a star, hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium, releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process. This energy is what powers the star. So, rather than "eating" energy from disappearing atoms, stars create energy through nuclear fusion reactions.
Concentrations of energy in the dissipate, but the total is constant (AFAWK).

As far as electricity, it typically goes to ground.
In nature, electricity often seeks the path of least resistance, which can include going to ground. Lightning is a prime example of this phenomenon. When a thundercloud builds up a significant amount of electrical charge, it can discharge that electricity in the form of lightning. Lightning seeks the path of least resistance to the ground, typically through air or other conductive objects such as trees, buildings, or the Earth's surface. This discharge to the ground helps balance the electrical potential between the cloud and the ground. So, in natural occurrences like lightning, electricity does often go to ground.
In nature, electricity can flow through various conductive paths depending on the circumstances. Besides going to ground, electricity can also flow through conductive materials such as water, metals, or even living organisms. For example, in certain types of storms, such as dust storms or volcanic eruptions, electrical charges can build up and create phenomena like dust devils or volcanic lightning, where electricity travels through the air or through particles in the atmosphere.Moreover, in some cases, electricity can stay within an object or system, such as in the case of static electricity buildup on objects like balloons or clothing, where the charge remains until it is discharged.

When a person dies, the electrical impulses in their body cease as the functions of the nervous system stop. The electrical energy dissipates through various processes, such as heat production and chemical reactions within the body. Ultimately, the energy is dispersed and doesn't "go" anywhere in the sense of being transferred to another form outside the body.

Single-wire earth return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some mystics claim that the psyche can live on for as long as a hundred years after the death of the body, as it's fed unto other forms of organic life.

The conduction time of the axons of the neurons responsible for the percept (the time it takes for the action potential to zip down from the body of a neuron, to where it connects to its neighbours), 2) the synaptic delay between then neurons responsible (the time it takes for neurotransmitters to travel between the neurons) and 3) the membrane time constant of the neurons responsible (the time it takes for the membrane to respond to neurotransmitters). I've listed them in order of speed, with conduction between neighbouring neurons taking maybe 100 microseconds, synaptic delay being 200 microseconds, and then the time constant of the membrane being 5-50 milliseconds. So it's unlikely that any form of thought generation can be faster than 5-50 milliseconds. That's simply because the brain generates the mind, and if the brain can't change faster than on the order of 5-50 milliseconds, then neither can the mind. Thinking at least requires a recognition. That is a P-300, which takes about 200-300 msec. when normal. Distance is impossible to measure in the cortical cell columns because the processes & pathways followed creating the recognition are unknown.

 

[Illegal Preclear]

Perish the thought, these are things I have nightmares about. Like after I CTB, becoming a ghost. Just a disembodied consciousness. Ending my life but still having my same consciousness floating around is the most hellish, nightmarish thought I can imagine...

 

[DarkRange55]

I think you could argue that there is a distinction between the continuation of consciousness and the existence of an afterlife or reincarnation.
While the fundamental nature of consciousness is still a mystery that is under scientific investigation - my general thought is that there is not an afterlife. I wish that there was. But I don't think there is some solar repository that we go to when we die. Currently all scientific indication is that your consciousness parishes along with you. But for some of these big questions, I have to answer with, "insufficient data."
There are many ideas and much speculation, but nobody truly knows for certain. Many profess to have the answer and many believe they know. I can honestly tell you that I do not know.

 

[Unicr0n]

neurons alone "allow for" consciousness. Cognition, for example arises from the complex interactions of neural networks, neurotransmitters, and other factors within the brain.

We've grown in vitro neurons in my research. They naturally reach out to each other and form their own neural networks. Once they connect, they begin to synchronise their electrical output. This becomes the beginning markers of consciousness--they are able to react to certain stimuli, which is what we see in those creatures with no neurons! Neurons themselves can react to a breath blown across them (it was fun to test them!) Neurons produce neurotransmitters.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full

"Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness; at the fine and gross scale, aspects of our conscious experience depend on specific patterns of neural activity – in some way, the connectivity of neurons computes the features of our experience"

Neurons are what allow for consciousness. Without neurons, you cannot have consciousness (outside of two of over 1.5 million species, that exhibit neuron-typical activity as well).
I'm a neuroscientist! XD

 

[DarkRange55]

We've grown in vitro neurons in my research. They naturally reach out to each other and form their own neural networks. Once they connect, they begin to synchronise their electrical output. This becomes the beginning markers of consciousness--they are able to react to certain stimuli, which is what we see in those creatures with no neurons! Neurons themselves can react to a breath blown across them (it was fun to test them!) Neurons produce neurotransmitters. They can learn to play a game https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36228614/ You need neurons for consciousness. An animal (outside of the two species with no neurons but has neuron-typical activity) that has no neuron activity is a dead animal.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full

Neurons are what allow for consciousness.
I'm a neuroscientist! XD

Right on dude thats awesome! My background is mathematical physics and career wise high-finance. So I'll definitely defer to you in this field! What is your opinion on consciousness being an emergent property?

We've grown in vitro neurons in my research. They naturally reach out to each other and form their own neural networks. Once they connect, they begin to synchronise their electrical output. This becomes the beginning markers of consciousness--they are able to react to certain stimuli, which is what we see in those creatures with no neurons! Neurons themselves can react to a breath blown across them (it was fun to test them!) Neurons produce neurotransmitters.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full

Neurons are what allow for consciousness. Without neurons, you cannot have consciousness (outside of the two animals that exhibit neuron-typical activity).
I'm a neuroscientist! XD

So I'm assuming when you say "animal," you're referring to organisms within the animal kingdom because my understanding is that fungi and plants lack neurons but they are in separate kingdoms.

I guess what I meant was, yes, neurons produce neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are synthesized within the neuron and stored in synaptic vesicles at the ends of axons. When an action potential reaches the end of an axon, it triggers the release of neurotransmitters into the synapse, the gap between neurons. These consist of the presynaptic terminal (the end of the axon of one neuron), the synaptic cleft (the gap between the presynaptic terminal and the postsynaptic cell), and the postsynaptic membrane (the membrane of the receiving cell, which can be another neuron or a target cell).
The neurotransmitters then bind to receptors on the membrane of the neighboring neuron or target cell (which can be another neuron or a muscle cell or glad cell), leading to changes in the electrical or chemical properties of the receiving cell and transmitting the signal.

You also have glial cells playing a role in regulating neurotransmitter levels, providing structural support, and contributing to synaptic transmission.

But I will defer to you on in this area specifically.

What do you think about quantum cognition?

 

[Unicr0n]

So I'm assuming when you say "animal," you're referring to organisms within the animal kingdom because my understanding is that fungi and plants lack neurons but they are in separate kingdoms

Yes, the animal kingdom. That's why I didn't say fungi/plant

What is your opinion on consciousness being an emergent property?

I'm not sure it's an opinion so much as it's a fact. A single neuron cannot produce consciousness—~200 neurons working together can and are the minimum number required from what we've found.

What do you think about quantum cognition?

I am a neuroscientist, not a physicist. Quantum systems lack inherent properties that can be delineated without considering the context of measurement. I study the physical components of the brain... not so much the quantum physics.

 

[DarkRange55]

Yes, the animal kingdom. That's why I didn't say fungi/plant


I'm not sure it's an opinion so much as it's a fact. A single neuron cannot produce consciousness—~200 neurons working together can and are the minimum number required from what we've found.


I am a neuroscientist, not a physicist. Quantum systems lack inherent properties that can be delineated without considering the context of measurement. I study the physical components of the brain... not so much the quantum physics.

Quantum cognition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Emergence And Consciousness

Authors: Arpan Dey and Sanchari SenAbstractThe primary question we will attempt to investigate in this article is whether consciousness is a fundamental property of nature, or is it an emergent phenomenon. The nature of consciousness is shrouded in mystery. Although we understand a lot about how...

www.journalofyoungphysicists.org

 

[Unicr0n]

Quantum cognition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Emergence And Consciousness

Authors: Arpan Dey and Sanchari SenAbstractThe primary question we will attempt to investigate in this article is whether consciousness is a fundamental property of nature, or is it an emergent phenomenon. The nature of consciousness is shrouded in mystery. Although we understand a lot about how...

www.journalofyoungphysicists.org

Thank you for the links. I have read both of those in the past, but what I've said still stands.

 

[DarkRange55]

Thank you for the links. I have read both of those in the past, but what I've said still stands.

Ah, yes - quantum indeterminacy or the principle of quantum superposition.

Thank you for the links. I have read both of those in the past, but what I've said still stands.

So you don't believe in the quantum mind? It's not something I have really looked into, tbh.

 

[Unicr0n]

Ah, yes - quantum indeterminacy or the principle of quantum superposition.

So you don't believe in the quantum mind? It's not something I have really looked into, tbh.

I don't have the fundamental prerequisites of knowledge required to talk about quantum cognition. What I do know is that quantum systems lack inherent properties that can be delineated without considering the context of measurement. I study the physical components of the brain, not so much the quantum physics. The other article you linked only talked about quantum mechanics in regards to free will. That's not specifically talking about consciousness.

 

[DarkRange55]

I don't have the fundamental prerequisites of knowledge required to talk about quantum cognition. What I do know is that quantum systems lack inherent properties that can be delineated without considering the context of measurement. I study the physical components of the brain, not so much the quantum physics. The other article you linked only talked about quantum mechanics in regards to free will. That's not specifically talking about consciousness.

It's complicated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

I'm sure you've seen this

https://consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf

My area of concentration didn't really touch on quantum cognition at all and I haven't read much about it. Mainly heard about second-hand. So I can't really comment extensively about it.
What do you think about freewill?

I don't have the fundamental prerequisites of knowledge required to talk about quantum cognition. What I do know is that quantum systems lack inherent properties that can be delineated without considering the context of measurement. I study the physical components of the brain, not so much the quantum physics. The other article you linked only talked about quantum mechanics in regards to free will. That's not specifically talking about consciousness.

A friend of mine has a PhD in cellular and molecular neuroscience, I'm curious what your area of concentration within neuroscience is?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146510/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695456/

In a different study, researchers found that the lower bound for perception of cortical activity is approximately 14 pyramidal neurons.
This implies that even a small ensemble of neurons can contribute to conscious perception.

Anatomically revealed morphological patterns of pyramidal neurons in layer 5 of the motor cortex - Scientific Reports

Neuronal cell types are essential to the comprehensive understanding of the neuronal function and neuron can be categorized by their anatomical property. However, complete morphology data for neurons with a whole brain projection, for example the pyramidal neurons in the cortex, are sparse...

www.nature.com

Recent research challenges this reductionist perspective. Single-cell organisms lacking synapses exhibit purposeful intelligent functions using their cytoskeletal microtubules.
Microtubules are cylindrical structures within neurons, composed of tubulin protein subunits. They play a crucial role in maintaining cell shape and intracellular transport.
Evidence suggests that self-similar patterns of conductive resonances occur in microtubules across various frequency ranges (terahertz, gigahertz, megahertz, kilohertz, and hertz).
These resonances originate from quantum dipole oscillations and optical interactions among pi electron resonance clouds within tubulin rings (tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine).
Cultured neuronal networks also reveal gigahertz and megahertz oscillations in dendritic-somatic microtubules, influencing membrane and synaptic activities.

The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory, proposed by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules. While controversial, it suggests that a minimum number of neurons alone may not suffice for consciousness.

Viewing the brain as a scale-invariant hierarchy.
Upward: From individual neurons to larger neuronal networks. Downward: Deeper, faster quantum and classical processes within cytoskeletal microtubules.

Single Neuron Theory Of Consciousness

Hello, Senior at Port Townsend High School in Washington State here. I’ve been reading up a bit on theories on consciousness, and I’ve come across a couple that worry me, hoping to get a neuroscientist’s take on this. I read a presentation given by Dr. Steven Sevush about the single neuron...

community.brain-map.org

Another friend, his girlfriend works at the Paul Allen Brain Institute. Can't remember what she does lol


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9245524/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695456/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8291083/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546804/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374724769_Quantum_Consciousness_Empirical_Evidence_for_Quantum_Mechanisms_in_Human_Cognition_and_Consciousness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6629860/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490228/

 

[Unicr0n]

What do you think about freewill?

Humans do not have complete free will. We are not free from our biology. Our actions are based on how we feel which is influenced by our genetics and environment, which conflicts with how many define free will. I don't want to get into philosophical debate about whether one is morally responsible for their actions. I don't care as long as I can kill myself when I feel the time is right.

A friend of mine has a PhD in cellular and molecular neuroscience, I'm curious what your area of concentration within neuroscience is?

We did not have concentrations at our university for Neuroscience. The degree is simply for Neuroscience. My research is currently focusing on glial cell cytoskeletons, molecular complex @ NoR + axon initial segment.

 

[DarkRange55]

Humans do not have complete free will. We are not free from our biology. Our actions are based on how we feel which is influenced by our genetics and environment, which conflicts with how many define free will. I don't want to get into philosophical debate about whether one is morally responsible for their actions. I don't care as long as I can kill myself when I feel the time is right.


We did not have concentrations at our university for Neuroscience. The degree is simply for Neuroscience. My research is currently focusing on glial cell cytoskeletons, molecular complex @ NoR + axon initial segment.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674979581

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393223001665

Neuroscientist Says Humans Are Wired for Free Will

Dartmouth’s Peter Tse ’84, an associate professor of psychological and brain sciences, says he has identified a neurological basis for free will in the human brain, challenging a majority opinion that has dominated neuroscience for the last 40 years.

pbs.dartmouth.edu

I'm skeptical on free will as a whole. There certainly are many facets and things that limit it from being possible. And while I haven't really studied it, my understanding is it's still debated in scientific circles.

Humans do not have complete free will. We are not free from our biology. Our actions are based on how we feel which is influenced by our genetics and environment, which conflicts with how many define free will. I don't want to get into philosophical debate about whether one is morally responsible for their actions. I don't care as long as I can kill myself when I feel the time is right.


We did not have concentrations at our university for Neuroscience. The degree is simply for Neuroscience. My research is currently focusing on glial cell cytoskeletons, molecular complex @ NoR + axon initial segment.

Haha I leave those sorts of discussions up to philosophers and such.
Do you mind if I ask why you want to cbt?
And why did you choose neuroscience? It is fascinating but what drew you specifically to that?

 

[Unicr0n]

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674979581

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393223001665

Neuroscientist Says Humans Are Wired for Free Will

Dartmouth’s Peter Tse ’84, an associate professor of psychological and brain sciences, says he has identified a neurological basis for free will in the human brain, challenging a majority opinion that has dominated neuroscience for the last 40 years.

pbs.dartmouth.edu

I'm skeptical on free will as a whole. There certainly are many facets and things that limit it from being possible. And while I haven't really studied it, my understanding is it's still debated in scientific circles.

Haha I leave those sorts of discussions up to philosophers and such.
Do you mind if I ask why you want to cbt?

I can't buy the first book.

Although the definition of free will is a matter of debate in neuroscience and philosophy, our commonsense experience of free will involves two core elements (Balaguer, 2009). First, our decisions and actions must not be completely determined by antecedent causes beyond our control. When facing a situation with different alternatives (for instance, when deciding which gift we should choose for a birthday or what meal we should have for lunch), an intuitive way to consider that we have chosen freely is that we could have done otherwise, all other conditions remaining the same. By contrast, if our actions were completely determined by antecedent causes, we could not have done otherwise, and hence we could not have chosen freely.

Genetics and the environment are beyond your control. If the universe repeated itself exactly as it did the first time up to that moment, you would still choose the same option as you did the first time. Because every event that led up to that moment determined what you would choose despite having the "free will" to choose the other option, all other things considered. Your past experiences color what option you would naturally lean towards first. Ergo, not free will.

 

[DarkRange55]

I can't buy the first book.



Genetics and the environment are beyond your control. If the universe repeated itself exactly as it did the first time up to that moment, you would still choose the same option as you did the first time. Because every event that led up to that moment determined what you would choose despite having the "free will" to choose the other option, all other things considered. Your past experiences color what option you would naturally lean towards first. Ergo, not free will.

Again, I'm skeptical if free will is real at all. It could very well be illusion.

What do you think about this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/

 

[Unicr0n]

Again, I'm skeptical if free will is real at all. It could very well be illusion.

What do you think about this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/

Before I read it: have you read it entirely? That's a boatload of text. You're editing your previous posts with copied text from the articles that don't really have to do with what we're talking about. eg. this post

Just seems really weird to me. Like you took the text from frontiers and ran it through chatgpt to reword it to make it sound like you read the paper. I've caught multiple of my students doing this XD

Please discuss this with me if you actually read the papers and understand and know what you're talking about xD It's a big time waste otherwise :p

 

[DarkRange55]

Before I read it: have you read it entirely? That's a boatload of text.

Hahaha it certainly is. You don't have to. On average I read a couple studies daily (not usually neuroscience and again I am by no means an expert in field nor do I have a background in it), I read phys.org daily which has new studies on many areas of science. I did however read this one and it's an interesting conclusion. A little nuanced. Just thought you might appreciate it. Food for thought haha. I know what you mean, though. Things like methodology for example are critical in evaluating a study. Headlines are usually sensationalized and often times misleading.
So why do you want to ctb? If thats private, you aren't obligated to answer. I'm one of the few users on this site that doesn't want and never has wanted to.

Before I read it: have you read it entirely? That's a boatload of text. You're editing your previous posts with copied text from the articles that don't really have to do with what we're talking about. eg. this post
View attachment 133715
Just seems really weird to me. Like you took the text from frontiers and ran it through chatgpt to reword it to make it sound like you read the paper. I've caught multiple of my students doing this XD

Please discuss this with me if you actually read the papers and understand and know what you're talking about xD It's a big time waste otherwise :p

I don't use ChatGPT generally since I've caught it giving me wrong answers to basic things on many occasions plus it's designed to agree with the user depending on the wording which it's very sensitive to. My best friend is a career software engineer and he can explain this far better than I can. Again, my area of study was physics and finance, not neural networks or computation.
I've also had it correct itself after I correct it. Like "my apologies, you are right. Xyz…" lol
Hence, I would rather ask someone who actually an expert in a given field and defer to the opinions and facts put forward by them.

Sometimes, however, I will copy pasta a section of a study if the articulation is better and generally I try to use quotes and site it if you read posts of mine on other threads.

Before I read it: have you read it entirely? That's a boatload of text. You're editing your previous posts with copied text from the articles that don't really have to do with what we're talking about. eg. this post
View attachment 133715
Just seems really weird to me. Like you took the text from frontiers and ran it through chatgpt to reword it to make it sound like you read the paper. I've caught multiple of my students doing this XD

Please discuss this with me if you actually read the papers and understand and know what you're talking about xD It's a big time waste otherwise :p

So if you're a professor and a researcher, why ctb? You genuinely peaked my interest