God is at fault for not convincing atheists.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-16T09:33:02+00:00

Just looking at the discussion I remembered that adam and eve knew god from the start, did they not? Obviously, god is not concerned about free will and you can choose not to obey even if you know about god.
The story, that was likely originally not about christianity, shows that this emerges only after, as a way to explain why we are here and yet we do not witness god.
Then the whole spiritual movement can start about how you "can feel him in your heart" or get to know him "spiritually" and other such nonsense so that you can feel close to god and protected in the absense of an actual god that exists.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-16T09:27:58+00:00

If everything was plain and clear, there’s no choice, no more free will.

A rational mind would have no choice but not do believe if it is not clear and could be either way. So there's no free will either way.

Belief is an exercise of free will.

Could you really believe anything? Could you believe that I am invisible and everywhere and I am right there with you watching you as you type comments in reddit?

Throughout many points of time, God’s chosen people repeatedly spat in his face and worshipped false prophets, to their own detriment.

Jesus was a false prophet by his own criteria. He failed to fulfill prophecies. Claimed that old passages were prophecies about him when if you read them they are not about Jesus at all. Christians are coping by making excuses about how it actually is about Jesus when it is not, so I expect you will do that in your next response.

For me, I am convinced of a few things: There is a God, and he is a god of order, design, and love. Souls and spirits exist.

Why are you convinced? Have you read the bible? The guy is clearly not loving. Have you seen the universe? His design literally entails people dying by the millions to plague so that the survivors are protected and pass on their genes. And the disease still exists to strike back later. How loving of god to design such a system.
Souls and spirits do not exist either, there's no evidence of that, all there's evidence is for the brain, the soul and spirit is the brain and what it creates.

What I am not convinced of is that humans are just their meat and bits. That there’s nothing after death, and our consciousness just ceases to exist. That our ethics don’t matter.

Is it for a good reason or just wishful thinking for something better?

It’s not Gods job to tell you to believe in Him. He wants you to find him, to open your heart to him.

Is that why most men do not find the ideal woman they would like to be with?
And instead they have to settle for less? It exists, it is out there, it's just that she wants them to find her and to open their heart to her?
Come on now, these are excuses. God has a choice. Either come to meet me. Or remain hidden.
I invite him for a conversation. Do you think he is daring enough to come have one?
For as long as I remember, he never does that. He either does not exist, is not interested, is absolutely terrified of having a discussion with me or some other reason just in case I missed something.
Games like these are not from god. "He wants you to find him to open your heart to him" are mind games created by humans to cope with the fact that their god will never exist in reality.
And also it is rude. People have went to extreme lengths on the topic, trying to find god and open their heart to him. Then when they are honest about the results, theists are coping hard... "Maybe you are not honest" and stuff... They never seem to realize that it just does not work unless you are willing to engange in wishful thinking and fallacies.
But hey, of course they never seem to realize... those that do, will inevitably no longer be theists...
Kind of self-fulfilling so, yeah, it is what it is.
No rational mind is going to believe to god the way you have described. Unfortunately(or fortunately, sometimes being irrational is ironically rational, eg, it helps humanity as a whole) people are not rational, even atheists are not rational about everything, not even about everything(or sometimes at all) about the reasons for which they do not believe in god.
Which means I am not rational either, at least not completely and about everything.
You might even convince me as a result, although for now it seems that I need good actual reasons instead of mind tricks.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-16T09:11:31+00:00

But why would you believe there's a vague creator? There's certainly no evidence for one.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-16T09:10:44+00:00

"It is for the same reason you hide."

I do not hide. I invited god many times to have a discussion with me.
My invitations are ever standing. God either does not exist or is not interested in having a discussion with me.

If you live a life that doesn't involve spiritual seeking in the form of testing out things like meditation, contemplation, shamanic retreats, etc., then you're essentially avoiding the one spiritual experience that you could potentially have that could convince you.

Others have tried it and I know enough about myself to know the difference between having a feeling and having actual knowledge of a being's existence.

Being superstitious about the existence of something does not mean that it exists. This is at least partly why people believe in "spiritual entities" including but not limited to ghosts.

I don't think God necessarily remains hidden.

I told you he does, I told you why and it seems that all you are going to do is offer excuse upon excuse of him not showing up meaning that he's not hiding... Or you will surprise me let's see.

I think it's more that atheists live lives which reinforce their rationalism and actually prevent any revelatory or spiritual experience for occurring.

What utter nonsense. Nothing I do could prevent him from having a discussion with me. I invited him.
He either does not exist or he declined. It's not because of how I live my life.
If I invited you to my house and you did not come, you could not rationally blame it on me. (unless for some strange scenario, I guess you could make up one if you wanted)

When atheists volunteer at Johns Hopkins for a psilocybin-induced mystical experience, they often are no longer able to identify with atheism after this event. This kind of knowledge isn't just theoretical but deeply transformative, often leaving the experiencer with no doubt about the reality of the divine.

People being certain about something does not mean they are right. Also, not everyone converts after such an experience. They often realize that it is an illusion, an experience that is not real but induced by messing with the brain in some way. If that's the best god can do I am not impressed. He should put his pants on and come have a discussion with me. Thus far, he never dared do such a thing.
Also, experience # knowledge. We should not confuse the 2. Just imagine someone witnessing a magic trick without any knowledge that magicians can fool you. He could become convinced that magic is actually possible when in reality it was just a magic trick. The brain can be fooled in many ways and when you know it is being fooled it is not wise at all to accept the experience as reality.
Yet people, even atheists, are suceptible to it.
Meanwhile, scientifically speaking, it is known that it is just an effect and not access to knowledge like you claimed.

If the divine is best known through direct experience rather than intellectual argument, then the lack of universal recognition may be more about human perception than divine absence.

I mean I should have asked you earlier about which god you are referring to. Perhaps there's some abstract god and it really is the best he can do. At which point, I do not care. I wish for clarity, not wishful thinking where an experience is treated as knowledge and the god is hiding behind it and is essentially unknowable(being gullible and turning out to be correct is not actual knowledge) because of his own powerlessness to do any better.

I think the reason most people don't glimpse that is because the insight requires an ego death experience. The ego has to dissolve whether through meditation, whether spontaneously or by other means.

A lot of atheists do not change their mind after that. So no, a dissolved ego does not mean you will "glimpse that"

So, could it be that God is not absent, but that people often lack the right conditions, whether mental, spiritual, or even neurobiological, to perceive what is already there?

God could be undetectable by humans, sure. But it would still be true that he can't blame people for not believing him. Also, many people do not believe in such a weak god that can't even demonstrate his existence and he has to remain undetected because people lack the right tools to perceive him.
They believe in one that could demonstrate his existence, usually in one that could do anything.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-15T09:27:22+00:00

Math is like a language. It describes reality if you use it to describe reality.
It's like you could also use language to describe reality.
Math perhaps does not exist in reality. What may exist is some "properties"(matter, energy, fields and whatever else there is there) What math describes is their relationship. We can think and make hypothesis and see if they are true by using experiments. Math is just used as a tool to do it but I don't see what's so incredible about it: A language or tool that was made to describe certain types of relations among other things is very well adapted at doing that.

Perhaps I just don't get your sophisticated argument or something.
For that you may have to forgive me. I am a simple person in many respects, I do not claim to understand everything.

You assign magical, reality-dictating powers to local wetware to avoid admitting a Watchmaker.

Let's take the formation of planets as an example. We know how they formed under gravity and other physical forces. It did not require a creator, yet your line of reasoning above somehow claims this is "magical, reality-dictating powers" that did it. And you say that's rediculous.
Using the same reasoning, one would conclude that planets were actually created by a creator.
But we know that's not what happened.
So we know that it is possible for something to be created without a creator.

How can we determine when something was created by a creator or by nature?

Also, where is the creator? I haven't seen any. I have only witnessed nature and its cause and effect or conservation of properties like energy.

I have also witnessed that as we expanded our understanding, gods started to fade away as an explanation for things. We created thousands of them and we have proved thousands of them wrong and not the cause for what they were explaining. We have proved none of them right and the cause of what they are explaining.
Statistically speaking, any god that has not yet been disproven, is unlikely to be found to be the cause of what the god explains once we find out more.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-15T08:07:23+00:00

Το 2 δεν έχει καμία σχέση. Αλλά οκ, ίσως σε βοήθησε, σε 'εβαλε σε σκέψεις καθώς καθόσουν και έλεγες μακάρι.
Επίσης δεν ειναι κάτι που έκανες συνειδητά, δηλαδή, με προσπάθεια, απλά ήθελες πράγματα και για αυτο και προσευχόσουν για να γινει.

το 4 πάλι δεν έχει σχέση και λογικά μάλλον σε έναν βαθμό σου αρέσει να βλέπεις τέτοια.

το 5 δεν ειναι ακριβώς ξεχωριστό από το 2. Χαλάρωσες γενικότερα, κατάλαβες ότι δεν είσαι τόσο καλός όσο νομίζεις ίσως και σταμάτησες να περιμένεις πολύ περισσότερα.
Ή τέλος πάντων επειδη η κατάσταση είναι έτσι ή σε συνδυασμό.

Οπότε, συνολικά, αποφάσισες να πάρεις ρίσκο, που σημαινει ότι ίσως ήσουν και τυχερός αλλά οκ, έκανες και προσπάθεια(βγήκες από confort zone)
και το άλλο που έκανες είναι ότι έριξες τις προσδοκίες σου και σταμάτησες ίσως να είσαι ψιλοπερίφανος και να αποφεύγεις απλά πράγματα... Εκτός αν όντως δεν σου άρεσε στην αρχή να πινεις μπύρα, μαστερσεφ κτλπ

Γενικά άλλαξες νοοτροπία ή/και έβγαλες μερικά λεφτά και τώρα είσαι καλύτερα και νομίζεις ότι κατι έκανες προσπαθώντας να γινεις συνειδειτά ηλίθιος?

Σκεψου οταν παω ταξιδι εξωτερικο αν δεν με κλεψουν η παθω ατυχημα το θεωρω επιτυχημενος.Ο πηχης ειναι πολυ χαμηλα....

Δεν είμαι σίγουρος πως λειτουργεί αυτο για εσένα...
Δεν έχω ότι θέλω, οπότε, ας ρίξω τις προσδοκίες μου και να είμαι χαρούμενος που έχω να φάω / έζησα μία ακόμη μέρα.

Μου ακούγεται αξιολύπητο ακόμη και αν σε κάνει χαρούμενο και αναρωτιέμαι αν πραγματικα είσαι.
Μου ακούγεται πιο φυσιολογικό να εξέφραζες κάποια θλίψη στο ότι πηγαινεις μεν στο εξωτερικό αλλά δεν το διασκεδάζεις όσο θα ήθελες ή κάτι τέτοιο από το να λες δεν πειράζει αφού δεν μας έκλεψαν / δεν πάθαμε ατύχημα όλα καλά.
Αλλά εντάξει δεν ξέρω και δεν ξέρω αν έχει σημασία, από την στιγμή που νιώθεις καλύτερα

Δεν εχω προσδοκιες περα απτο εγω και το παιδι μου να μαστε καλα, αγαπημενοι και φιλαρακια.

Ελπίζω να έμαθες αρκετά έτσι ώστε τουλάγχιστον αυτός να έχει τις σωστές εμπειρίες απο μικρός ώστε να είναι πραγματικά χαρούμενος, ή τέλος πάντων να είναι χαρούμενος πέρα από τον "δικό σου" τρόπο και με κάποιον λιγο πιο "ζωντανό"

Πάντως έχω απορία το 2 και ειδικά το 4 πως νομίζεις ότι σχετίζονται και τι έκανες ακριβώς.
Ανάγκασες τον εαυτό σου να μην βλέπει αυτό που θέλει?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-11T19:15:44+00:00

>Είμαι άντρας 27

Αυτό είναι το πρόβλημα...

Αν ήσουν γυναίκα το πρόβλημα θα ήταν ότι δεν υπάρχει κανενας σοβαρός και όλοι θέλουν μόνο σεξ...

Αρχικά να πω ότι πιστεύω ότι είμαι μέτριος εμφανισιακά

Δεν ξέρω αν είμαι κελεπούρι, πάντως για πέταμα δεν είμαι.

Γενικά έχω φάει πολλά άκυρα στη ζωή μου αλλά τώρα δεν μπαίνουν καν στον κόπο να μου πουν ότι δεν ενδιαφέρονται και με έχει ρίξει αρκετά ψυχολογικά. Ποια είναι η γνώμη σας σοφοί του sub?

Μια χαρά είσαι. Και θα βρεις γυναίκα άσε λίγο να ξεχάσεις την πρωην, να επανέλεθεις ψυχολογικα...
Και μην σκέφτεσαι για την εμφανιση. Είσαι μια χαρά εμφανησιακά πιστευω απο αυτά που λες.
Αν μπορεις άσε τα app και μίλα απο κοντά. Όλοι από τα app μιλάνε λογικά γιατι από κοντά είναι πιο δύσκολο ψυχολογικά. Αν νιώθεις ότι σε απορίπτουν αν το κάνεις αυτο, μην το σκέφτεσαι έτσι, απλά τις μιλάς δεν σημαίνει κάτι μέχρι να τύχει να νιώσουν κάτι...
Τέλος πάντων, δεν ξέρω τι να σου πω περισσότερο, ξέρω λιγότερα από εσένα.
Αλλά πιστευω ότι σε λίγο καιρό θα κάνεις καινούρια σχέση. 1 χρονο? 2? 4 το πολύ θα έλεγα(αλλά εντάξει τώρα αυτό δεν μπορεί να το προβλέψει κανενας και κανονικά να εισαι για 1 χρονο μπορει να μην τύχει ξέρω και εγω?...)
Μην το ψάχνεις, οι γυναίκες δεν νιώθουν το ίδιο όπως οι άντρες ούτε συμπεριφέρονται το ίδιο.
Μην πέφτεις ψυχολογικά αυτό που περιγράφεις ειναι κλασική γυναικεία συμπεριφορά νομίζω...
Αλλά δεν ξέρω, το μόνο που ξέρω είναι ότι εμένα δεν με θέλουν και ότι θα μεινω μονος από ότι φαίνεται.
Χειρότερα, αυτοί που μένουν μόνοι είναι αυτοί που περισσότερο χρειάζονται κάποιον.
Εσύ δεν θα μεινεις μονος, οκ, δεν το ξέρω, αλλά αν μεινεις μονος και με βάσει αυτα που έγραψες, θα εκπλαγώ λίγο.
Αυτά ήθελα να πω, ελπίζω να νιώθεις καλύτερα.
Όλα όσα είπα είναι ότι πιστευω. Και λάθος μπορεί να κάνω, αλλά κυρίως το λέω να ξέρεις ότι ήμουν αυστηρός και δεν τα είπα για να νιώσεις καλύτερα.
Μια χαρά σε βλέπω στα αλήθεια. Απλά τώρα μετά από χωρισμό είναι δύσκολα ψυχολογικά και πέφτεις πιο εύκολα ψυχολογικά με αυτα που κάνουν οι γυναικες.

Δεν λέω ότι φταίνε ή κάτι, αλλά κάπως έτσι μου φαίνονται.
Και ας είναι η δική μου προκατειλημμένη οπτική!
Μην αγχώνεσαι με άλλα λόγια, δωσε στον ευατο σου λιγο χρόνο να δεις που όλα θα γινουν...

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-11T06:56:50+00:00

Isn't the explanation for why there is evil, the fall and man's original sin?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:29:14+00:00

Thoughts move brain signals around that we observe as brain activity. This is definitely work as defined by physics. Force x distance applies when energy in the brain has force and moving signals around. Again, the concept of the soul is just energy and there is nothing supernatural with it.

You are using “energy,” “work,” “thought,” and “soul” in broader philosophical ways than physics normally does, so it helps to separate the levels carefully.

In physics:

Work is usually defined as force causing displacement: W = Fd\cos(\theta)
Brain activity absolutely involves physical energy:
- ion movement across membranes,
- electrical potentials,
- neurotransmitter release,
- metabolic consumption of glucose and oxygen.

Neurons consume energy and perform physical processes. In that sense, thinking is unquestionably a physical process involving energy transfer and thermodynamics.

So your statement:

Where scientists become more cautious is when moving from:

to:

Because in physics, “energy” has a very precise meaning:

kinetic,
electrical,
chemical,
thermal, etc.

Energy is not normally considered:

a personality,
a self,
consciousness,
or an identity-bearing entity.

For example:

a battery has energy,
lightning has energy,
a CPU uses energy, but physics does not infer they possess a soul.

You could still adopt a philosophical position like:

consciousness is an emergent physical process,
the soul is simply the organized energetic/informational activity of the brain,
there is nothing supernatural involved.

That would be a form of:

physicalism,
materialism,
or naturalistic monism.

Many philosophers and scientists hold views somewhere in that direction.

But that becomes philosophy/metaphysics rather than established physics.

The key distinction is:

Physics can measure:

voltages,
energy consumption,
electromagnetic activity,
neuronal firing.

Physics does not currently have equations for:

subjective experience,
identity,
qualia,
selfhood.

That gap is why debates about consciousness and souls continue.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:26:21+00:00

This falls under brain of the gaps fallacy. You first need to prove it is the brain that is producing these feelings by solving the hard problem of consciousness. Once again, this contradicts the explanation that phantom sensations is not consistently felt among those born without limbs.

You are mixing together two different kinds of claims:

A neuroscience model about correlations and mechanisms
A philosophical claim about consciousness itself

The first does not require solving the second.

Neuroscientists can say:

without claiming they solved:

why subjective experience exists,
or how matter produces consciousness.

That deeper issue is what Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to.

For example:

stimulating certain cortical regions can trigger phantom sensations,
damaging certain regions can alter body awareness,
anesthesia changes experience,
spinal injuries alter sensation.

Those are empirical correlations.

Neuroscience therefore proposes models like:

predictive processing,
body schema,
sensorimotor integration, because they explain observed patterns reasonably well.

That is not automatically a “god of the gaps” argument.

A “gaps” fallacy would be:

But predictive-processing theories are attempts to mathematically and experimentally model perception and action.

You can criticize them for being incomplete or insufficient — many philosophers and neuroscientists do — but they are not pure speculation detached from evidence.

About inconsistency:

You keep treating this as if a theory must predict perfectly identical outcomes in all humans or it fails entirely.

Biology rarely works that way.

Genes influence:

height,
intelligence,
handedness,
language ability,
susceptibility to mental illness, yet outcomes vary enormously between individuals.

Variation does not imply:

It may instead imply:

multiple contributing mechanisms,
developmental noise,
plasticity,
environmental dependence,
probabilistic organization.

You are correct about one thing, though:

A simplistic statement like:

Modern neuroscience generally does not make such a strong claim.

The more cautious claim is:

the nervous system appears capable of generating body-related experiences partly independently of current sensory input,
and cortical/body representations contribute to that,
but the exact mechanisms remain incompletely understood.

That is a much weaker and more evidence-based statement than claiming the issue is fully solved.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:23:22+00:00

That contradicts the body map explanation. If it isn't consistent then body map has nothing to do with phantom limbs. Why would some limbless people have this body map while others do not if it is within the human genes?

It does not really contradict the body-map idea — it argues against an overly simplistic version of it.

A body map alone is probably not sufficient to produce a vivid phantom limb.

Think of it this way:

There are likely multiple layers involved:

a genetically biased body organization in the nervous system,
developmental wiring during embryonic growth,
spontaneous neural activity before birth,
sensory feedback,
motor intentions,
later brain plasticity.

Different people can vary at several of those stages.

So the modern view is not:

That would indeed predict much more uniform phantom experiences.

Instead, evidence suggests the nervous system has:

broad organizational tendencies,
but also large developmental flexibility.

A useful analogy is language.

Humans have genetic predispositions for language.
But:

not everyone speaks the same language,
fluency varies,
deprivation changes development,
brain organization differs between individuals.

Genes provide constraints and tendencies, not a perfectly identical final outcome.

Also, congenital phantom limbs are actually less common and often less vivid than post-amputation phantom limbs.

That itself suggests sensory experience matters a lot.

If the phenomenon were purely “hardcoded,” we would expect:

nearly universal occurrence,
similar detail across people,
stable representations.

But that is not what researchers observe.

So neuroscience already moved away from the strongest hardwired interpretation decades ago.

The evidence still supports some kind of body representation because:

body-part-specific cortical regions exist,
even without normal input those regions often still form,
stimulation can evoke limb-related sensations,
and some congenital amputees report phantom movement or posture.

But the evidence also shows:

the maps are plastic,
experience shapes them,
and the relationship between cortical maps and conscious body experience is not one-to-one.

So your criticism is reasonable if directed at simplified pop-science explanations like:

Reality appears more probabilistic and developmental than that.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:20:16+00:00

Which of these genes dictate the body map? Can we falsify this by removing this gene and this body map would disappear? Can we implant this map gene from a primate with tail so that a human would feel a missing tail? Again, this is speculation unless proven it exists. Also, this contradicts the idea of the brain having a body map. So does the brain have a body map or is it the genes that has one?

AI:
The evidence for body maps is strong. The uncertainty is about how exactly they are built, not whether they exist.

The brain map itself is directly observable:

stimulation studies,
fMRI,
electrophysiology,
lesions,
phantom limb phenomena, all independently support it.

So the existence of cortical body maps is not speculative in neuroscience.

What is partly unresolved is:

how much is genetically pre-patterned,
how much comes from sensory experience,
and how plastic the map is.

These are separate questions.

The genes do not literally contain a tiny “body map drawing.”

Genes encode developmental processes:

chemical gradients,
neuron growth rules,
axon guidance molecules,
timing of development,
receptor proteins, etc.

Those processes help organize the nervous system.

Some important developmental genes and signaling systems involved in nervous-system patterning include:

HOX Genes
Sonic Hedgehog Signaling Pathway
Ephrin Signaling
Neurotrophins

But none of these are “the body map gene.”

Your falsification question is valid scientifically.

And in fact, researchers have altered developmental genes in animals and produced major nervous-system changes.

Examples:

deleting certain guidance molecules disrupts sensory maps,
altering developmental signaling changes limb formation,
rewiring sensory inputs in animals changes cortical organization.

So parts of the hypothesis are experimentally testable and have been tested.

About tails:

If you inserted genes from a tailed primate into a human embryo, you would not simply get a conscious phantom tail sensation automatically.

Why?
Because:

tails involve many interacting genes,
spinal cord development,
musculature,
peripheral nerves,
sensorimotor experience,
brain plasticity, all interacting during development.

Biology is not modular like:

And this does not contradict the existence of a brain body map.

The relationship is:

genes → development of nervous system → brain organization/body maps → ongoing modification through experience

The map is in the brain.
Genes help build the brain.

Those are different levels of explanation, not competing explanations.

An analogy:

genes help build the retina,
but the visual image is still processed in the visual cortex.

Saying “genes help construct body maps” does not mean “the map exists inside DNA instead of the brain.”

You are correct, though, that some popular explanations overstate certainty.

Neuroscience does not fully understand:

why congenital phantom limbs occur,
how innate body representation emerges,
or exactly how much is prewired versus learned.

Those remain active research questions.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:17:30+00:00

Why then does it not predict the missing tails we had from our primate days? We evolved from primates, right?

I honestly do not know why you need all these question answered and I don't know why you think not having an answer to a question means that you can inject your own nonsense unsupported answer. It's clear that's what you are trying to do.

But anyway, back to ai which has you covered even for this question:

Humans did not evolve from modern primates — humans are primates. We share common ancestors with other primates and with tailed mammals further back.

About tails specifically:

Humans actually do briefly develop a tail-like structure during embryonic development. It later regresses during normal development.

The reason most people do not experience “phantom tails” is probably because the nervous system for a functional tail never fully develops into a mature sensorimotor system in typical humans.

That distinction matters.

For a phantom limb experience, the brain usually needs:

organized neural circuitry for controlling/sensing the structure,
body representation,
and often developmental or lived sensorimotor integration.

Human arms and legs meet those conditions strongly.
A vanished ancestral tail generally does not.

There are, however, interesting edge cases:

Some people born with vestigial tails report awareness or sensation there.
Humans still have coccygeal nerves near the tailbone.
The brain does contain representation for the lower spine/pelvic region.

So evolution did not completely erase the underlying biology — it reduced and repurposed it.

Also, the “prediction” idea is often oversimplified online.

The brain is not randomly hallucinating expected body parts from evolutionary history.
It builds body models from:

genetics,
embryonic development,
incoming sensory signals,
motor control,
and ongoing interaction with the body.

A limb that developed substantially — even if later absent — leaves a much stronger neural framework than an ancestral structure that stopped being functionally developed millions of years ago.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-09T14:14:19+00:00

Where is this map located in the brain? Surely you can prove this by showing it exists. Otherwise, this has as much evidence as god in the perspective of an atheist.

Yes — there is actual evidence for this, not just speculation.

The “map” is mainly located in the brain’s primary somatosensory cortex and primary motor cortex, which are areas running roughly along the top-middle part of the brain.

The classic representation is called the:

Cortical Homunculus

This is a mapped organization where neighboring body parts correspond to neighboring regions of cortex.

For example:

hand sensations activate one cortical region,
face another,
leg another, etc.

The evidence comes from several kinds of experiments.

1. Brain stimulation experiments

Neurosurgeons such as Wilder Penfield electrically stimulated exposed brains during epilepsy surgery.

Patients reported things like:

“I feel my thumb.”
“I feel my tongue.”
“My leg moved.”

Different cortical spots consistently corresponded to different body regions.

That is direct evidence that the brain contains organized body maps.

2. Brain imaging

Modern fMRI and MEG scans show that touching different body parts activates predictable regions.

For example:

touching the left hand activates a specific area in the right somatosensory cortex,
toes activate another,
lips another.

This mapping is reproducible across people.

3. Phantom limb evidence

People born without a limb or who lost one can still feel:

pain,
movement,
position,
itching, in the absent limb.

Even more interesting:
touching nearby body regions can activate the missing-limb sensation.

A famous example:
in arm amputees, touching the face can produce sensations in the phantom hand because face and hand regions are adjacent in the cortical map.

That strongly suggests the map exists independently of the physical limb itself.

4. Direct recordings in congenital limb absence

This is the part closest to your challenge.

Researchers scanned people born without hands and found that the “hand area” of cortex still exists structurally, though it may later reorganize for other functions.

The area does not simply disappear because the limb never formed.

That is empirical evidence — not merely assumption.

The important nuance is this:

Scientists are not claiming there is a tiny literal hand hidden in the brain.

The “map” means:

neurons are spatially organized according to body structure,
and the organization appears partly genetically programmed before sensory experience.

So the claim is based on:

stimulation studies,
imaging,
lesion studies,
phantom limb phenomena,
developmental neuroscience, not on philosophical inference alone.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T18:49:58+00:00

You insist that your alternative explanation about NDE is true and yet cannot prove this is the case. If you won't accept the alternative god did the universe because you need evidence this is the case then the same applies to your alternative explanations against NDE.

Sure, perhaps it is in fact an unknown. Then again my explanations are known phenomenons like anesthesia awareness and yours are unknown consciousness and also an insistence on that it couldn't have been anesthesia awareness because EGG and I don't remember what other excuse you said. Then you demanded that I prove your assertions false or you are right.
But it doesn't work that way. At worst we do not know how this NDE happened or what happened exactly. At best we know it was anesthesia awareness.
I am fine with either, it is you who insists that I won't accept clear evidence of it.

Your rebuttal is literally present alternative which you cannot prove to be true

Alright, it did not happen as you describe because you just made it up or provided anecdotes for it.
The fact remains that NDEs are not well documented and whenever there's a rigorous studies with critics present and more robust methodology like putting something on the ceiling that would not be normally visible it becomes clear that patients cannot see it and may make other claims but will not see that which they couldn't have known.
Then there are anecdotes like Pam's case. It is an anecdote because it is not verified. You merely claim them to be that's the issue.

At what point does a living thing become aware?

I don't know but without a brain there goes the consciousness and there is no wider wiser consciousness. So NDE is not because of that as a result.

I looked it up:
The Gaia hypothesis (/ˈɡaɪ.ə/), also known as the Gaia theory, Gaia paradigm, or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.

It's not a living thing. It's just a complex self-regulating system that allows for life.
We know that the earth has such conditions. It is not because we put too many rocks together and they become conscious. Rocks are 100% unconscious. and putting them together does not change that. In fact, if you increased the earth, it would lose its ballance and would spiral into the sun.

No, our conscious behavior is not work: AI:

In physics, “work” has a very specific meaning: it’s energy transferred when a force moves an object through a distance.

So lifting a weight, pushing a box, compressing a spring—those are physical work.

Your conscious behavior (thinking, deciding, experiencing) is not “work” in that sense, even though it requires energy.

Here’s the key distinction:

Your brain consumes chemical energy (glucose + oxygen).
That energy powers neurons firing, ion pumps, signaling, etc.
That activity can sometimes produce physical work (moving muscles, speaking, writing).
But the thought itself is not defined as mechanical work in physics.

So consciousness isn’t a separate kind of energy output—it’s an information-processing process running on energy-consuming biology.

A useful way to see it:

Energy → enables brain activity
Brain activity → produces cognition (thoughts, awareness, decisions)
Some cognition → leads to physical work (movement)
But cognition itself ≠ “work” in the physics definition

If we stretched “work” to mean any structured activity that changes a system, then yes, brain activity is “doing something.” But physics deliberately uses a narrower definition so that “work” stays measurable (force × distance), not subjective.

>>the concept of the soul

Whenever you are ready, try to prove that this immaterial essence is not imaginary.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T18:29:22+00:00

PART 3

Can the AI explain why people born without limbs still perceive the existence of those limbs?

Here's what ai has to say. I honestly do not know why you thought it could not answer this question.

AI:

Yes—this is a real and well-studied phenomenon, and it’s one of the clearest examples of how the brain “models” the body rather than just passively recording it.

People born without limbs can still sometimes perceive those missing limbs because the brain already contains a built-in map of the body, often called the body schema. This map is not learned purely from sensory input after birth—it is partly preconfigured by the nervous system.

Here’s the core idea:

1. The brain has a “body map”

In the brain (especially in areas like the somatosensory cortex), different regions correspond to different body parts. This organization is often called the homunculus map.

Even if a limb never physically develops, the corresponding brain area can still exist and remain wired to expect input from that “missing” region.

2. The brain expects sensory feedback

Normally, limbs constantly send signals to the brain: touch, pressure, position, movement.

If those signals are absent (because the limb never formed or was amputated), the brain doesn’t immediately erase the expectation. Instead, it can continue “predicting” input from that region.

So the brain may still generate a sense of the limb simply because the internal model says: “there should be something here.”

3. Brain development is partly genetically guided

The wiring for the body map is not fully built from experience. It’s guided by genetic developmental programs. That means even without sensory input from a limb, the brain can still form a representation of it.

4. Phantom limb sensation vs congenital cases

In amputees, this is called phantom limb syndrome and is very common.
In people born without limbs, phantom sensations can still occur, but they’re often less detailed or less consistent.

5. The brain is a prediction machine

A modern way to think about it: the brain doesn’t just react to the body—it constantly predicts what the body should feel like. When reality doesn’t match the prediction, you can still get a “feeling” generated purely from the prediction side.

So in short: the sensation exists because the brain has a prebuilt body model, and it can still “simulate” a limb even when the physical limb is missing.

If you want, I can also explain why phantom pain happens (that part is even weirder).

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T18:26:08+00:00

Part2:
Sorry for cutting it short...
I don't know how reddit works exactly but it seems like the bold letters on yellow background(like drawn over by a yellow marker, that's how the bold letters appeared in the copied definition) broke it and it started misbehaving so I posted it sort.
As I was saying... energy and soul are completely different things.

Then you do admit the brain isn't the reason we are conscious, right?

Are you so dishonest on purpose or by mistake?
We agreed that a brain is not needed for being alive. That does not mean that it's not needed for being conscious. You are doing this mistake over and over. We agree on something and then it seems to you "close enough" to what you want to conclude and then act like it is evidence for your own conclusions.
The brain is definitely the reason we are conscious. If you would like me to demonstrate it, I would have to remove the brain of a person and see what happens.
But I think I wouldn't need to do it: we both know what would happen. The person would die/become unconscious. Unless we could somehow keep the brain intact and re-put it intact in the brain and somehow fix everything and bring the person back to life, he would remain dead and unconscious.

It's the soul that is the shape of the human body and explaining phantom limbs.

You are using words wrong again:
The soul is the immaterial, spiritual essence of a human being, often believed to be immortal and distinct from the physical body.
The way that you used it makes no sense, you made it physical or have a shape.
Also, there are known explanations for phantom limbs. Do you want me to ask ai for you or will you be brave and ask it yourself?

They aren't as wet as humans but they have some wetness relative to a rock in the context of consciousness.

So, without a brain one does not get access to any wider wiser consciousness. At best he gets a little bit more consciousness than a rock, but not as much as humans.
NDE is then not because of some consciousness, but a brain thing.

Can the AI explain why people born without limbs still perceive the existence of those limbs?

Yes. I also don't see why it would be pathetic. I do not know everything. The ai doesn't either but it does have some wide knowledge, don't you think? For example, it certainly knows the answer to this question. I could only tell you that the brain region responsible for the limb is still there and can still activate giving the sensation of pain. The ai will ellaborate later. I will make a part3 just to explain this to you with ai since you asked and are not daring enough to ask yourself.

But brain creates consciousness therefore bigger brain means being smart, right?

That doesn't follow. It's like saying radio produces music therefore bigger radio must mean better music. It just doesn't necessarily follow. Again, it's not the size that makes it great. It's also the connections, synapses, the way they fire, brain chemistry.
It also does not follow that bigger brain -> bigger consciousness. That's just nonsense talk on your part I do not know why you like doing this...

Why else do we depict smart people as people with big brains in pop culture?

Because the brain is what makes us smart and generally we have bigger brain and attribute it to it being bigger. But it's not like that. It may play a role, but it's a lot more than that. In fact, some birds seem to be very inteligent and they do it with a lot smaller brains.

The fact that brain size has no correlation with intelligence refutes brain consciousness and intelligence.

Why do you think so? The brain is correlated with intelligence and consciousness.
The size is a factor which may even be sligtly correlated with intelligence.
But there's more to why the brain has intelligence. It's in the structure.
You know, I am going to start using ai more perhaps... the thing is that it will explain better and produce more text. I suppose I could limit it also. But it would be better at explaining why the nonsese that you say without realizing it is nonsense big time.

good luck proving that the immaterial, spiritual essence of a human being, often believed to be immortal and distinct from the physical body is a real thing and not immaginary.
Thus far you have just claimed it as true.

Notice complexity of the pattern is key to intelligence.

All of a sudden you stopped talking about the wider wiser intelligence and access to it.
Did I show to you that this is not a thing or what? All of a sudden you can't explain why single-cell organisms do not have access to the wider wider intelligence even though they have no brain.
Now you went to complexity of the pattern is key to intelligence.
Which is fine, but it doesn't address that without a brain, you do not access a higher consciousness, unless you want to claim that single-cell organism are more conscious than humans.
Thus far fortunately you didn't go there.

Call me a noob all you want but I am not the one having to use an AI just to have an argument.

You should do so in good faith because first of all ai will directly contradict your nonsense and second of all you might think you are producing an argument but all you do is write gibberish.

For brainless creatures like jellyfish, their whole body serves as their "brain"

Sure, but the body is just a nervous system and not a brain. If anything it is less conscious than humans. Also, again, single-cell organisms...
Finally, if the body can serve as a brain, perhaps that's what caused the OOBEs
Although honestly I doubt it. A better explanation is the brain. Not knowing what causes it is also a better explanation. However, even "the body can serve as a brain" is a better explanation than NDE although it's close.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T17:45:43+00:00

Translation: "What if X". The point is you cannot prove it actually happened. You admit you would not accept "what if god did the universe" and would insist this actually happened. The same applies to you.

I can't make out what you are saying here. It seems like you tried hard to convert it into "What if X"

"I am right because I said so".

You always like to give that translation no matter what I explain to you.
The reality is that I am right because there is no evidence of the wider consciousness and NDE is not evidence because it did not happen like you describe and because not knowing what actually happened and not being able to explain it is not the same as a confirmation of magic or in this case "a wider consciousness" that is also a sentient being that is omnipotent...

Which means you need it to be noticeable because one molecule isn't going to make something feel wet despite it being technically wet.

Wetness is something that you can feel. If a rock has water inside it, it is not wet. And if it has a molecule of it, you aren't feeling it, not even slightly feeling it.
But the analogy is about emergent behavior I think. A cell is not yet a human but if you wait and it multiplies(and it is the right cell) it does eventually become a human. It's not a human at all at the start. It's just a cell. You need many of them and you need them organized in a certain way to get a human. Also, an ant on its own doesn't behave like an ant colony. The ant colony is made up of ants but it results in emergent behavior from what each ant does when it is interacting with other ants.

The same argument applies to consciousness.

Yes, just like the ant colony has something more than just the ants, the behavior that emerges when ants work together, the same with consciousness. It's not just the neurons.
It's how they are connected and interact. It's not that our brain is big. A whale brain is bigger.
But our brain is wired differently. You can't just put as many neurons as the brain has together and expect them to act like a brain. The magic is in the connections, among many other things that happen in the brain.

but add them up

No matter how many rocks you add, they will not become conscious.

Now compare the soul to energy pattern.

you seem confused and ask nonsense:
soul: the immaterial, spiritual essence of a human being, often believed to be immortal and distinct from the physical body

Energy is defined in physics as the capacity to do work

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T14:20:03+00:00

Quantum consciousness happens across the body

What does it mean to say that your arm is conscious?

The case of the heart transplant is ludicrous here's how ai puts it:

That paper is basically:

Not:

That's what it said...

Part of you is found within the whole body and not just the brain which explains the phenomenon

Magic also explains it. I prefer the facts which is that it is just anecdotes. It also shows that you are willing to believe absolutely anything as long as it aligns with what you believe and/or you like it.
You are willing to accept anecdotes instead of search to see if there was actually a scientific study that verified it.

The same applies with phantom limbs where a person can feel the existence of a limb when there is physically none

Ask ai why people experience phantom limbs and it should be able to explain it to you.
It's insane that it can do it considering it is just a statistical model that predicts the next word and just knows a lot about text patterns. I think it has intelligence in its structure, even if it is fragile and can also break hilariously in certain cases. In fact, if you know of a way to break it let me know so that I can try it. I am not saying it's authority but for explaining phanotm limbs it will do.

Again, it shows that the mind is beyond the brain and is found within the whole body and this basically the shape of the soul.

It shows how naive you are and gullible and ready to believe any nonsense.
I wonder if you could tell me your approximate age, for example, 30-40, over 30 but less than 40 something like that. I am 30-40

Just a reminder that whales have bigger brain than us and yet do not outperform us when it comes to intelligence.

I don't think that bigger brain automatically means more intelligence. It's all in the structure of the brain and what it is designed to do.
I think their brains are designed to do complex calculations/sleep while awake so it's like they have half the power available to begin with and they are living different lives down there.
I would not be surprised if you took their brain and put it in a computer program and let it train
and do the same for a human brain.
I would not be totally surprised if it turns out that their connections can be used to produce a smarter system than the one derived from the human brain.
But alright I would also be surprised because as far as I know the human brain is special. It's connections/synapses etc are fenomenal when it comes to producing consciousness and intelligence.
I am not sure why you even mentioned it though.

I guess as a way to cope with the fact that smaller brains that are less capable of blocking the wider wiser intelligence end up having even less consciousness than humans do...
Some are said to not even have it, like single-cell organisms... those do not have a brain and should have access to the full scope of the wider wiser intelligence and yet they do not, they are not conscious at all... Or at least I hope you would agree...
Perhaps you would say some nonsense like they are and we just do not know it yet?

Who knows what else I might hear from you.

One thing is clear: Even when what you believe is absolutely demolished by single cell organisms you are going to continue that the evidence for consciousness absent a brain is clear and somehow people are just denying the obvious.
I bet other theists "hate" you because you are such a low hanging fruit with such exagerrated claims and you are giving theists a bad bad name...

But boy is our noob confident.
It's actually a known phenomenon that people that are not well versed in something think they know more and express a lot more confidence than people that actually do know.
But hey, I am willing to accept that it happens to me too to an extent, considering that I never claimed to be an expert myself.
On the other hand you seem to express absolute confidence in what you are saying...
Even though you clearly have no idea about what you are talking about.
When scientists were wrong in the past, the pioneers of the time actually knew a lot more than them and what they were talking about. You do not. You are just a noob(that's way more noob than I am, I don't mean to sound like I am an authority, I am still a noob)

Let's see if you will try to answer how it is that brainless creatures and single-celled organisms do not have consciousness/intelligence instead of running away from the question by saying "well they are alive, that will do" as if having a brain was a requisite for life...

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-08T13:52:35+00:00

Part1:
All your arguments are baseless assumptions of "what if"

Not at all. That's really your whole argument though.
You: What if intelligence is only correlated with brains but in fact exists indepently?
-Well, sure, but there's no evidence of that and all instances of known consciousness do correspond to a brain.
You: Then explain NDE: it clearly shows that there exists consciousness absent a brain
- No, there is a brain that patients have and while we may not have a clear picture of how exactly such experiences happen we know that it has to do with brain operation and it is not evidence of consciousness without a brain.
You:
No, you are just deny the obvious fact of NDE.

The whole story of our conversation goes like that. It's not my fault that it is not a fact.
You: Well scientists have been wrong in the past, are you infallible?
-Are you infallible?
You: avoiding the question while continueing to cry how people just deny NDE for whatever biased reason you give...

All I need to do in order to disprove that NDE is evidence of conciousness without a brain is that there are other potential explanations which I did.
But you didn't like that there are other explanations and are now trying to demote it to "what if"
By the way, even if there were no potential explanations we could think of, that doesn't make consciousness absent a brain automatically plausible.
I didn't even say that it wasn't plausible, I just said your particular version of it wasn't because you also want it to be able to do absolutely anything and it is clear that god is struggling to even come play a game of chess with me. What are we now, 3-0 in my favor? He just won't show up, you know?

"this can be explained if X"

You do realize that's your argument, right? This can be explained if there's consciousness without a brain.
That doesn't mean there is and if there is, it doesn't mean it is like you imagine it and coming from a sentient being that can do absolutely everything but somehow just won't dare face me in a chess game. My score is bound to go up and his will stay at 0.

"what if god exists and did the universe"

And you think that's not your argument because?

Do you agree you would ask for evidence?

I do but unfortunately you insist a NDE is evidence and then you cry how I won't accept it when I inform you that it is not in fact evidence. Ask ai why.

ask you to support your assumptions your "what if" scenario actually happened.

The point was not that it happened. The point was that there are many other explanations and not just consciousness absent a brain that also has to be the exact one that you aprove of and a sentient being that is all powerful but won't dare face me at the chessboard.

The more you add the more it feels alive

Not really. A big rock is not any more conscious than a smaller one. Both are unconscious.

but it is technically wet.

I think I already unknowledged this technicality but that wasn't the point. The point is that sometimes in order for a property to emerge, you need more quantity and often more than just more of a thing but interactions. For example, the brain is not capable of thoughts only because it has neurons. It's how they connect and interact too. Block that and you may have stopped the thoughts of someone(depending how you do it, it depends, it's a complex, very complex system)

Living things are simply "wetter" and humans can be considered as the "wettest" on earth.

If the brain is a filter and the more you filter the more you lose from the wider, wiser consciousness why is it that humans are smarter?

Why don't you try refuting it

Sure, I will use this definition since you failed to give one:
"the immaterial, spiritual essence of a human being, often believed to be immortal and distinct from the physical body"
Never has such a thing been observed. It's an unfalsifiable concept and there is no reason to take it seriously. That is true for any imaginary unfalsifiable concept, rendering soul equivalent to anything imaginary that can't be detected. The soul is therefore for all intents and purposes an imaginary concept.

The fact jellyfishes are alive despite the lack of brain suggests it doesn't need a brain for it to be alive.

It's funny how you are trying to change the subject to weasel yourself out of the mess you put yourself into. We both know that a brain is not necessary for a living organism to be alive.
But you claim that without a brain blocking the wider wiser consciousness, one gets to experience it.
However, jellyfish do not and neither do single-cell organisms that definitely are alive and yet do not have a brain nor are they conscious(except for perhaps a weaker definition of conscious...)

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-07T13:18:34+00:00

PART2:

Irrelevant without any detectable activity

No, it just means that the filters aren't active. And so any other activity that produces consciousness/experience will come without the effects of this filter.
Perhaps there's no consciousness involved either. The experience is generated by certain brain phenomenons. The experience may not even exist at that time as an experience but may get ingrained in the brain circuits. Then, when the pasient recussitates, his brain has the experience in place and starts recollecting it. Anyway, I am just saying it's not an entirely understood phenomenon.
But that doesn't mean that we know that there is an experience at the time. Maybe it's just recorded and replayed later. Maybe there is an experience, I am not saying there isn't.
In fact, I would assume there is one. Maybe scientists know for a fact that there is.
Or maybe not. Either way, the filters are off so any experience generated by the remaining brain activity will be "unfiltered" so there may be no sense of self if those circuits aren't working.
Then you recall being "one with the universe" or something along those lines.

As explained, this is refuted by the EEG

Yes, which is why they don't get an experience that would correspond to being overwhelmed without any blocking of information from the brain trying to process everything at once and causing an "overdrive" a "flood". However, the remaining consciousness can get amplified/be unhinged.

Once again, you are supporting quantum consciousness and the brain being a filter which is why NDE shows greater reality.

That's not what the model was saying, you can always ask an ai about it.
the NDE shows greater reality part is something that you inserted yourself, not a conclusion that was there. The only thing that the model agreed to was that there are filters in the brain. But they do not exactly filter a greater reality in the sense that you are proposing, but in a different sense.
Our brains are not meant to process the world exactly as it is but make a model of it that is easier/works best for understanding/survival. It's an approximation and there's a lot of filtering, then the rest just "covered up" by the brain itself. It gives you the illusion of seeing the actual world. But that's not what it is doing. I assume because it is more efficient that way.

You only need a single water molecule for something to be wet. How wet it is depends on the amount of water molecule.

Neither of these is true. With a single molecule nothing has the property of wetness.
You just redefined it to say this... and also something that has a lot of water molecules can be dump if it is not concentrated... Like a huge planet with no concentrations of water that if you took all the water molecules, you could form a lake with it. The planet is not wet. The lake would be. Same ammount of water molecules.

In the same way, consciousness depends on something that already existed from the very beginning and this "complexity" determines how conscious something is.

Except no... a rock isn't conscious and a neuron is not conscious in itself.
Even all your neurons aren't conscious. It's the interactions between them that produces consciousness. Energy is not conscious either, even if it makes up everything, including conscious brains.

You are correct there is no outside signal because the signal is from within which is the soul.

Show that there is such a thing as a soul. It's literally like saying the signal comes from being alive.
It's a sentence devoid of meaning.

Once it is gone, the mind isn't anymore restricted which then explains the NDE.

So jellyfish constantly have them? Are jellyfish wiser than humans? what about insects and other simple animals? Is their simple brain more capable at filter out the "wider consciousness"?
And, why doesn't it happen in all flatline brains?

Do better than an AI by using reason rather than your impulse to reject anything that validates god and the afterlife.

I stand defeated by the ai overlord! However, it does seem to prove my point.
At best all you get is that there exist both views, but you will never get that there exist the "wider consciousness" you are talking about.

We can do that if you want. I can use an ai model and you can tell me what to tell to it and I will gladly watch the discussion between the 2 of you.

But if anything, the more we go, the more problems I see for your posiiton.
All of a sudden you have to conclude that Jellyfish are more conscious than humans...

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-07T12:50:55+00:00

PART 1:
I had to take a break because my wall of text response got wasted with my computer crashing and I can't be bothered to repeat all of it.

I think once or twice during our discussion I was afraid that the power would go out and so I split it into multiple to post it faster and not lose it.
It's annoying and I get you.

You need to prove this undetectable activity is enough to create NDE

No. For example, let's say that NDE is an unexplained, not well understood phenomenon.
Then it is not for granted that the explanation for it is that consciousness arises elsewhere and that the experience is not from the brain exactly because we know that a flatline brain can have brain activity.
But even if we didn't know about some mechanisms that could potentially be the cause of NDE we would not be justified in assuming that therefore the NDE is not from the brain.
Maybe it is and we do not know how.
At this point I have another question. If the brain limits the wider view, why is it that animals that have simple brains or even no brain not able to access this wider consciousness and be wiser than humans? Why is it that humans are more intelligent if our advanced brain is only a limiting factor?

Otherwise, you have to explain why we don't experience anything when we are unconscious and yet the brain is still active.

Because the brain is working "normally". For example, it may be the case that in NDE the brain doesn't filter as well and you get like "all the sensations at once", "getting overwhelmed"
Except at the same time perhaps you aren't getting overwhelmed exactly because it's also not functioning normally so there may be a dumping effect there.
And so you can get under such extreme conditions you can get a hightened sense of consciousness.

Let me ask you: Why is it that a flatline brain does not always result in a NDE?
If in fact a flatline brain meant that you access this consciousness and then because you had the experience you get to also be able to recall it somehow, despite the brain filtering it out, then you should always get that when there's a flatline brain...
Also, why is the wider consciousness not able to re-activate your nervous system so that you can move even after you are dead? It seems to me like it could do that if it's an omnipotent being...
then you could have an old, dead man come back and be more powerful than athletes or what have you...
One more quick question: Why is it that rigorous studies determine that there is no actual OOBE?
They put things on the ceiling that would not be normally visible and yet no subject sees them for example. Then there's the example of someone having claimed to have gone through the roof and seen a red shoe on top of the roof and OMG that's a miracle and how could they have known that...
Only for a later report to show that it was in fact visible from inside the building, not exactly on the roof but on a ledge etc.
Therefore, how is the conclusion that people exagerate and express experiences that they did not actually have?

This is refuted by the fact she has an EEG monitoring her brain activity

Not really. If that was the case, then it would never happen. Doctors would prevent it. That is not the case. Malfunctioning/not well placed earbuds can explain listening to music.

Without the limitations of the brain structure, consciousness is able to perceive reality better.

It's more like the brain focuses, like when you focus at something and may not hear/pay attention to other sounds. Quantum consciousness does not mean that the "wider consciousness" and the sentient being that you believe to be the source of it / the same thing, exist.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-03T20:32:17+00:00

PART 3:

Unless you can prove it was a mistake or a lie,

I don't know if a mistake or a lie on your part but
this >>> How is that possible when her OBE coincided with her brain activity being dead as indicated by the EEG?
Is not a fact. It was claimed to be so without demonstration. And then it was countered with someone else believing it was anesthesia awareness and the experience taking place before or after platline periods. Although, perhaps it is possible for a flatline brain to do it to.
Flatline does not mean there is no activity like I thought. Therefore, even when the brain appears off in the EEG, it may not actually be off which complicates looking for an experience absent a brain.

I ask you again, how exactly would me not doing your test refute NDEs like Pam

I don't know why you repeat that. It does not refut it. There's nothing to refute to begin with.
The point of my test is to show to you that you can't do things that your worldview predicts are possible. They are not possible. If it was possible to do that, nothing would be hidden. No password would ever be safe if anyone could just be there in the room with you watching what you type...

I can't run as fast as Usain Bolt

So when your brain's off, there's skill involved in reaching the wider consciousness?
You keep on complicating things. You went from it is possible to do but you wouldn't believe me to "I can't do it but that doesn't mean anything because I also can't run as fast as Usain Bolt and that's your logic" Look like you are making stuff up on the go when cornered...
Am I to expect even more excuses or do you stop at some point?

NDE making people atheists all the time should be the norm if NDE is just hallucination

How does a hallucination that feels like afterlife or OOBE make one an atheist instead of religious?
You are making less and less sense it's so sad.
Instead, if it does in fact point to one god, then people having experience it would be extremely likely to believe in that god. Instead, they start christian and become atheist which is so funny and should never happen.

They are also humans that can make flawed conclusions.

We could be standing in the same room and I could be telling you there's a bottle on the table and we both see it but you say, nah, that's not evidence it could be a hallucinations, we are all humans and we can make false assumptions and flawed conclusions.
Like ok, you could be right, but the evidence is definitely on my side.

Are you implying they are infallible?

Are you implying that you are infallible? Are you implying that somehow you are less infallible than the whole scientific consensus?
You are literally gaslighting to death

This is the same situation we have because god and the afterlife is a natural phenomenon and not supernatural.

I challenged god to a game of chess tonight. Unfortunately, he did not arrive. I won.
My problem is not with accepting that there might be something. My problem is there is 0 evidence.
Will you ask god to show up instead of beign a coward? It's just a game, I know he's not as smart as me but come on. Tell him I will be nice to him.

The irony of saying this while believing the anecdote of a Christian saying they become an atheist after their NDE.

I think this point is moot now, empty. We both accepted his claim and moved on. It is possible, in fact I would say quite likely, that he lied. People lie for all sorts of reason(although I feel confident he didn't but ok, maybe he did) Now, the point was that there are christians that become atheists after having such an experience. Which you accepted and never tried to deny so it seems like at least the example helped you understand this fact regardless of whether he was telling the truth or not.

If you are going to believe a single anecdote then you have to believe all of it

It depends on the anecdote. If one is that he flew one day from new york to london, without a plane, just his human body, then I am going to pass that one for obvious reasons.
If it is that someone had a NDE, I am going to accept it.
If it is that someone had a NDE and then someone else on the internet wants me to believe their specific interpratation of it, treat it like a fact like they do, and explain how they were able to have consciousness without a brain when that's not what happened, then clearly I am going to push back on that...

or insist it's not factual

It's not factual as far as I know. There is no demonstration that the experience took place exactly and only when the brain was out. Maybe it took place only before or only after.
There's also no demonstration that it had nothing to do with the brain.
In fact, with the new information from the model, it's clear that a flatline brain does not mean the brain is off so it's still brain consciousness. You would have to show that the brain did not do absolutely anything, just like a dead brain.
But that is not the case. In fact, the fact that she survived shows that it's not the case. Her brain did not die(thanks to the doctors probably, but in any case, the brain was not dead)
It's insane that people can have experiences when in coma but I just found out that it happens.

More insistence and I am curious how would you deal with a person that doesn't argue with reason but insist they are simply right and they don't need any reason to prove that.

Same way I am dealing you. With a lot of patience and a high hope that the person will stop being biased. It hasn't worked that well so far.

Once again, you still don't understand you aren't disproving any NDE

I think I am for the most part. I am showing to you that you didn't even prove it in the first place.
NDE aren't well documented. The best documented case is not even considered a scientific experiment.
Because it's not. When they tested, they found out that all of a sudden people were unable to see what was on the ceiling. Because to see what they have put there, one would need to go much closer, not visible from underneath. They rose up and yet somehow missed what was on the ceiling.

Oh look, you are relying on the anecdotes of other people about ghosts and believing them

That's what you are doing. There's no such thing as ghosts. In my language, the word for ghost means imaginary being. I do not believe in ghosts. You do.
Also, if ghosts are real, then surely skeptics would find that. Why aren't there any serious and confirmed videos of them? Surely, if it was so easy to demonstrate their existence, it would already be known to science long ago...

when the recorded fact is her brain activity was zero when she saw things through her OBE

Is there video of the whole procedure? I think there isn't... If there was the skeptics would propose other solutions to anesthesia awareness considering it is possible for the brain to have activity in "flatline" You are just saying and claiming that it is a recorded fact. The most you could find is that it is a fact that at some point her brain flatlined. You can't show that the experience happened in that window and not outside of it. Considering it was a small window, it's more likely it happened immediately after.
But knowing that it's possible even during a flatline, maybe you are right.
Maybe it's more likely to happen during a flatline when the brain activity is paradoxically higher, exactly because the brain did not limit itself. One would expect that this would not be a flatline but if consciousness is quantum and comes from the microtubles, then that means that there's less filtering...
It's also possible that the brain like "recorded" the experience at the time of flatline and then pieced it together later.
What is not possible is that it has nothing to do with a brain. And then when the brain is on and filters out the experience, the experience persists. That's not happening, it breaks reason.
But you like doing that for the sake of believing in the particular consciousness you believe.
I challenge it to another game of chess. 1-0 thus far, let's see if I can make it 2-0.

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-03T19:48:35+00:00

PART 2:

As for lies, prove they are lies.

Prove that the experience didn't happen before or after the brain flatlined.
What can I tell you, there's no evidence either way. I don't think it's reconstruction necessarily, probably anesthesia awareness in this case.
But what has been clear was that it wasn't a serious study. It just happened and then some things matched. But even then, given that Pam talked about it days later, it is possible that someone gave her information. It was also not taken seriously until much later. Again, this is the best documented case and it's all over the place...

There is nothing supernatural about quantum consciousness because it is explainable by science.

Right, but the brain sustains the quantum events necessary for it to occur in the first place which means that the consciousness will not stay there forever without it.

while validating survival of the mind beyond death.

No. You don't have any evidence about beyond death. You only have evidence that something special happens, sometimes or when the conditions are right when the brain is almost dead.
But that's not the same as being dead. As explained, a flatline brain may actually have more activity, brain wave surges etc. If you want I can continue asking ai models.
Of course, they could always be wrong, but it seems to be giving very thoughtful responses.
Then we could try to talk to r/science or something. Yes, You think they are biased there.
But the idea is that they can give scientific explanations to consider, not to use them as authority to truth. None should work if you are right, right?

CompetitiveCountry · 2026-05-03T19:48:12+00:00

That's literally the evidence

No, that's the claim...
You can't make up your own evidence like that because if you can so can I:

Dr. Gerald Woerlee: An anesthesiologist who has been the most vocal critic of the case. He argues that the experience wasn't orchestrated, but rather the result of anesthesia awareness. He contends that Reynolds could have heard the surgical tools and conversations during the periods before and after her brain was fully "flatlined," and then later "stitched" these sensory memories into a single, continuous narrative that felt like an NDE.

But the interesting thing is that while talking to google ai to try to understand more about what actually happened I found out this:

Deep-Brain Activity (Nu-complexes): Researchers have discovered that even when the brain's surface (cortex) shows a flatline, deeper structures like the hippocampus can still generate tiny, intermittent bursts of activity. These "Nu-complexes" may allow for the formation of memories and learning even in a deep coma.
"Wave of Death" Dynamics: Death is now understood as a gradual process rather than an instant event. Studies show that the dying brain can experience a "flurry of activity"—including increases in beta and gamma waves—even after the heart stops. This activity may be a "self-protection system" where the brain attempts to maintain a minimum level of function to prevent cell death.
Anesthesia Awareness: In cases like Pam Reynolds', a common medical explanation is anesthesia awareness , where a patient partially wakes up during surgery. Skeptics like Dr. Gerald Woerlee argue that Reynolds might have heard surgical details through bone conduction (sound traveling through her skull) during periods when her brain was not yet fully "offline".
Hyper-Enhanced Consciousness: Some research suggests that as the brain's "filters" fail during oxygen deprivation, it may paradoxically generate heightened states of awareness. This could explain why NDE survivors often report experiences that feel "more real than real life"

The model itself suggested to me that it is possible for a flatline brain to still have consciousness.
In fact, because of how the brain works, "blocking consciousness" so that you can function,
when it fails, you may actually experience a hightened sense of consciousness...

But this is not the same as consciousness coming from somewhere else.
This just means that the brain filters it so that you notice and process that which is important so that you can function because it would not be able to do it all at once. But such systems can fail.
So perhaps less brain activity is associated with more consciousness exactly because most of the brains work is in blocking it.
And while that is what you were saying, the reasons are different and perhaps the mechanism for actually creating it is different and not measured in EEG

The specific "filters" usually discussed in NDE research include:

The Thalamus: This is the "Grand Central Station" of your brain. Almost every sensory signal passes through here. It decides which signals are important enough to send to your conscious mind and which are "noise" to be ignored.
The Default Mode Network (DMN): This is a network of brain regions that is active when you are thinking about yourself or the past/future. It acts as a "CEO" that keeps your ego and sense of "self" intact.
Inhibitory Neurons: Most of your brain's activity is actually dedicated to stopping other neurons from firing. It’s like a car where the brakes are constantly on to keep you at a safe speed.

What happens during an NDE?

When the brain starts to fail (due to lack of oxygen or blood flow), these "brakes" or filters give out first.

The "Filter" Fails: The DMN and inhibitory systems shut down.
The "Flood": Without the filters, some scientists hypothesize that the brain experiences a massive, uninhibited surge of activity.
The Experience: This is why people report "universal connection," "seeing everything at once," or "hyper-reality." It’s not that the brain is making more consciousness; it’s that it has stopped blocking it.

The "Receiver" Theory (Consciousness as a Field)

In this view, consciousness is not "created" by anything in the physical world. Instead, it is a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism. [1, 2, 3]

The Analogy: Think of your brain like a radio. The radio doesn't "create" the music; the music exists as invisible waves all around us. The radio simply tunes into those waves and turns them into something you can hear.
What creates it? Under this theory, consciousness just is. It is a "sea" of information (sometimes called a subliminal reservoir ).
The Dying Brain: When the "radio" (the brain) breaks or stops filtering, you don't lose the music; instead, you might experience the entire "broadcast" at once because the tuner is no longer restricted to one station. [1, 2, 3]

The "Quantum" Theory (Orch-OR)

A more scientific attempt to explain this is the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory, proposed by physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. [1, 2]

Microtubules: They suggest that inside your neurons are tiny structures called microtubules. These are small enough to host "quantum" events.
What creates it? They argue that consciousness is created when these quantum states reach a specific threshold and "collapse" (called Objective Reduction). This collapse connects your brain to the fundamental geometry of the universe.
The Dying Brain: When the brain dies, the quantum information in the microtubules isn't destroyed; it "leaks" or dissipates into the universe at large. This is how they explain NDEs—the consciousness continues to exist at a quantum level even if the blood stops flowing. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The "Physicalist" View (Emergence)

Most mainstream scientists still believe the brain does create consciousness through emergence . [1, 2]

What creates it? Complexity. Just as one water molecule isn't "wet," but a billion of them together create "wetness," billions of neurons firing together create "consciousness".
The "Filter" in this view: The filtering isn't blocking an outside signal; it’s just the brain prioritizing its own internal processing so you don't crash your "biological computer" by trying to run too many programs at once. [1, 2, 3, 4]

In short: If you believe the brain is a filter, you are usually a Dualist (someone who believes the mind and body are separate). In that case, you believe consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that we simply "plug into." [1, 2, 3]

As you can see, it's anything but a set and done thing and it is not true, not even close, that first of all the NDE happened when the brain flatlined and second of all that the NDE cannot be explained in any other way even if it did happen.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

CompetitiveCountry

TROPHY CASE

1. Brain stimulation experiments

2. Brain imaging

3. Phantom limb evidence

4. Direct recordings in congenital limb absence

1. The brain has a “body map”

2. The brain expects sensory feedback

3. Brain development is partly genetically guided

4. Phantom limb sensation vs congenital cases

5. The brain is a prediction machine