A simple "airbag" theory of Life After Death

Ironically, a post like this will “raise the ire” of the moderators.

Sincerely, a moderator.

I don’t evaluate the quality of the physics, as long you don’t spout pseudo science that is harmful. Straying off topic is pretty standard. Posting on old threads, happens. Let me know if something actually violates a rule.

Allow me to add a slight modification

I “liked” his comment and recognized it as response to Martin’s typically flippant baiting. No matter what the moderator thinks or chooses to overlook.

Not that I buy everything George said, the afterlife thing was beyond comprehending.

Still he made some interesting points, and from the little I know about it, valid observations regarding microtubules. It would be nice to see that part of the discussion develop.

His previous comment was fine, then he claimed his degree and his age as if they were evidence. Not a violation, but not logic either

Maybe just, tit for tat.

:wink:

Okay, your turn, you say you’ve studied this. Your turn…

Such as running through that one more time.
Have any references to offer, that might explain some of that?

I mean do a few milliseconds justify being called Life After Death?
Our human body and it’s brain and neurons are way complex, expecting everything to shut down at the same instance seems unrealistic at best.

Our consciousness is produced by our bodies, what would ‘consciousness’ do with an After Life that doesn’t include the body through which it receives all of it information and commands?

Heck who would my consciousness be serving as my body rots away?

1 Like

I refer to my thread : Microtubule network, the seat of consciousness?

[George Hammond]
…Okay write4u, you have essentially asked if I could cite a single instance where (human) life continues after death… and here is the closest indication of that known to modern science (2009).
…Palliative care hospitals due to the increased use of EEG monitoring
on dying patients, have accidentally discovered that there is a startling
and unexplained 2 minute surge of a conscious-level EEG signal
approximately a minute after clinical death (Chawla 2009) ! See Chawla’s
startling deathbed EEG charts here:

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jpm.2009.0159

The entire medical community, scientists of all description,
and enormous numbers of religious people are furiously
debating the meaning of it in the literature and on the Internet.
So far they have discovered that it is a highly synchronized
gamma wave EEG signal and not an artifact. The religious
people say it is the soul leaving the body, and even the
World’s leading authority on microtubule research has said
“maybe it is, we don’t know" (Stuart Hameroff 2015).
…This isn;t “proof” that my theory is correct, but it sure is
“exactly” what we would expect if it is !!

No, any electrochemical system that shuts down may experience a “surge”. That is not proof of anything.

Just look at being under anesthesia. “You” are no longer there, even as you brain continues with homeostasis.

If you checked out the Anil Seth video, you will agree that you cease to exist while under anesthesia. And it is not even like being asleep. When you come back from anesthesia , you could have been out for 5 min, 5 hr, 5 yrs, 50 years. The part of the brain that constitutes “You” was totally absent.
This is why Seth concludes his lecture with "when the end comes, there is nothing to be afraid of, “nothing at all”.

When your microtubules cease to function they begin to break down and deteriorate . After 10 minutes there is not brain activity of any kind. What was you is gone.
Only the body may remain relatively intact , especially when it is frozen, but eventually your biome will disintegrate and begin to devour itself.

Don’t forget that your biome is about 10% human and 90% bacterial.

Check this wonderful lecture by Bonnie Bassler.

I sent the link to my brother, who is a professor and a scientist, specialized in geriatric psychiatry, internationally referenced.

He sent this answer :

Microtubules are structures present in all cells (including neurons) of which they form the “backbone”
[(Microtubule - Wikipedia)

And yes, microtubules are involved in certain cellular diseases (including Alzheimer’s disease, which is a degeneration of neurons).

But there is no evidence that microtubules are the origin of consciousness (neither during life nor after death).

When neurons die, consciousness disappears (“the mind is what the brain does”).

[write4u]
No, any electrochemical system that shuts down may experience a “surge”. That is not proof of anything.

[George Hammond aka Kurvature66]
I’ll prefer Stewart Hameroff’s opinion over yours, and his opinion is “Maybe it is, we don’t know.” So Stewart Hameroff who far out ranks you in Science says it “could be” evidence of Life After Death, which is intuitively obvious to even a casual observer !

Let’s talk when there is evidence

1 Like

In what way?

Logically?

If you were/are a scientist then you must know that an “opinion of could be” is by no means persuasive as a scientific argument, let alone as proof of anything.

I have read much about ORCH OR and I like the concept of microtubule quantum processing, but that only confirms the concept of “energy conservation”, not of a “conscious” universe.

I prefer Max Tegmark’s vision of a quasi-intelligent functioning universe. Our entire mathematical symbolization is proof that there is a mathematical aspect to spacetime.

But consciousness? Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, but “music of the spheres” does not imply a cosmic composer or conductor . It implies “logic”.

This is a common misunderstanding of probability. “Could be” is a form of “it’s possible” with no assigned probability. That would require data, evidence, experimental results. We don’t have that. What we have is centuries of claims about souls.

1 Like

As a fantasy it’s no better than Hameroff’s.

[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:45, topic:7725”]
As a fantasy it’s no better than Hameroff’s.

Ok, then explain to me the “unreasonable effectiveness” of human mathematical symbolization of universal properties and functions.

In all other sciences the effective application of “values” and “mathematical functions”
would surely be considered proof of a mathematical aspect to the spacetime.

But where most scientists assign “some” mathematical aspects to the Universe, Tegmark assigns “only” mathematical aspects and that is an entirely defensible position.

How does a daisy “know” to grow its petals in the Fibonacci Sequence? It doesn’t know, right? But it does grow via that sequence as do many natural biological organisms and that can be attributed to natural selection of mathematical symmetries and that is demonstrably true.

10 FACTS ON LEONARDO FIBONACCI AND THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE

#7 FIBONACCI SEQUENCE IS RELATED TO THE GOLDEN RATIO

Two quantities are said to be in golden ratio if (a+b)/a = a/b where a>b>0. Its value is (1 + root 5)/2 or 1.6180339887 … Golden ratio can be found in patterns in nature like the spiral arrangement of leaves which is why it is also called divine proportion .

The proportion is also said to be aesthetically pleasing due to which several artists and architects, including Salvador Dali and Le Corbusier , have proportioned their work close to the golden ratio.

The Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio are intimately interconnected. The ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers converges and approaches the golden ratio and the closed-form expression for the Fibonacci sequence involves the golden ratio.

So, what is causal to this recurring regular phenomenon? It ain’t luck!

Are there non-mathematical symmetries? Spiral growth is not a first order phenomenon, it’s a second order one. There are no genes for spirals.

Why do you do that? That’s like saying elections are tiny planets orbiting a nucleus, simply because there’s a mathematical formulation that reduced the atom to a solar system.

June 13, 2012

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body’s mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.

Plus, that figure has been shown to be inaccurate.

# Human microbiota: The microorganisms that make us their home
Written by Maria Cohut, Ph.D. on June 27, 2020 — Fact checked by Hilary Guite, FFPH, MRCGP

Researchers have long debated the true ratio of human cells to microorganisms in the average body. Estimates have fluctuated, but the most recent study to consider the matter — which appeared in PLOS Biology in 2016 — suggests that we likely have about as many microorganisms in and on our bodies as we do human cells.

In addition to bacteria and viruses, these microorganisms include archaea.), primitive organisms with no nucleus, and eukaryotic microorganisms, or eukarya, a type with a nucleus that protects its chromosomes. In the latter group are fungi and protists, tiny organisms at the “border” between a plant and a fungus. (that is ~50/50 - as of 2016)

All of these together make up various microbiota: communities of microorganisms present at different sites on or in the human body.

Gut environment
Microorganisms in the mouth
Female urogenital areas
Male urogenital areas
On the skin
Microorganisms of the eye
In the lungs
(not sure why they left out Ears and Nose)

Now that brings all this biome hype from the fantastical “you are 90% germs” to perhaps 50% (which equal about a couple pounds or a little more if you are heavy) and the not insignificant point of fact that most all of them are at contact points with the outside world.

Now that framework brings this whole biome concept back from Oh WOW incredibility and flights of fancy, down to Earth and comprehensibility.

… just for producing them.

How? They emerge automatically by the production of self-similar units from a growth point. Crystals, macromolecules, organelles, cells, florets, shells, storms, gyres, galaxies. There are no genes just for producing spirals. Why would there be?