A flaw with the belief in reincarnation?

[Batman Jr.]

Death is quite easily perceived outwardly. The rotten corpse is a dead give away. If you are dead you are not at all 'possessing' consciousness.

I have already pointed out that it matters more about what is going on inside (the brain) than what appearances are on the outside.

On the outside you can have a perfectly formed baby. Inside there is no brain. No consciousness. You can determine that on the outside in that the baby will not respond to any stimuli and will rot away.

No brain, No consciousness. This can be perceived in any lifeless thing. Near death will show brain activity still. Death is death. Alive is alive. No life, no consciousness.

The End

Gosh, I don't know how else to explain this. I'm running out of ways.

Whenever you want to look for a correlation between any two things, you need more than one piece of data to do this. You're attempting to connect the states of "possessing an active brain" and "consciousness" together, right? I can only be certain of my own consciousness (that's the "one piece of data"). You can't observe another's conscious mind. The closest you can ever come to it—provided that it exists—is by making the inference that it is there from the behaviors that the other person exhibits. Nebulous inferences such as these cannot serve in the place of concretely drawn relationships (i.e. with water, we always detect the presence of hydrogen and oxygen; there is always twice as much hydrogen as there is oxygen, so a water molecule may be expressed as H2O), and they are certainly not sufficient for discovering the correlation you so proudly declaim exists.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Gosh, I don't know how else to explain this. I'm running out of ways.

You can't observe another's conscious mind. The closest you can ever come to it—provided that it exists—is by making the inference that it is there from the behaviors that the other person exhibits.

You can observe another's conscious mind. EEG, brain waves, etc.

You can also observe when the mind is no longer alive.

You cannot deny that a person without a brain is not conscious. It's a fact. No brain, no consciousness.

Dead brain. No consciousness.

Observable. Testable. Factual.

The liver cannot provide you consciousness. Your heart cannot provide you consciousness. Put a brain in the body, and Voila, consciousness.

 

[Batman Jr.]

You can observe another's conscious mind. EEG, brain waves, etc.

These phenomena are subsumed into the aforementioned group of behaviors.

You can also observe when the mind is no longer alive.

No. That's a misnomer. You can observe when the brain is no longer alive.

You cannot deny that a person without a brain is not conscious. It's a fact. No brain, no consciousness.

Show me another way other than saying that "our brains are what make us conscious" over and over again that you can know this. Don't try too hard though because it's logically impossible to figure this out.

Observable. Testable. Factual.

The tests must have been devised by parapsychologists.

 

[materia3]

There are alternatives to explain the belief in reincarnation; all or none of them may be true.

In response to the objection to the implanation of memories on conception in the absence of a storage faciliy, i.e. the brain, the alternative which nobody mentioned yet is that the reincarnated personality is implanted after conception, perhaps even at or after birth. I think there were cases where the descendent host was born before the alleged reincarnated personality died. This leads to another inevitable but perhaps equally as implausible explanation that reincarnation is actually a form of possession which then inevitably leads to the possibility of dissociative disorders such as MPD and schizophrenia as non-paranormal explanations. It may also provide an explanation for (sincere) mediums who say they act as mouthpieces for the departed. It doesn't matter what Sylvia Brown says or any religion says: what matters is the truth. Who cares about explanations we know have no scientific basis in fact other than the delusions or rantings of a small number of so-called experts, some with an axe to grind or an agenda to promote (especially where religion is concerned). These people have no credibility.

The inadequate number of souls available argument doesn't wash when cross species reincarnation such as embraced by the Hindus is invoked. Also: has anyone done the math? how many people have lived on the earth since man emerged? Would all those dead primates cover the needs for a current living earth bound population?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

These phenomena are subsumed into the aforementioned group of behaviors.


No. That's a misnomer. You can observe when the brain is no longer alive.



Show me another way other than saying that "our brains are what make us conscious" over and over again that you can know this. Don't try too hard though because it's logically impossible to figure this out.



The tests must have been devised by parapsychologists.

Our brains are what make us conscious because you are no longer conscious without it. I would say you and all the others who believe in the more paranormal stuff will have to prove otherwise (and win a million bucks). Science has already shown that when we die there is no proof that any consciousness remains.

I don't know what you mean by "These phenomena are subsumed into the aforementioned group of behaviors."

EEG and such are not phenomena, and brain activity is not behavior.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Our brains are what make us conscious because you are no longer conscious without it. I would say you and all the others who believe in the more paranormal stuff will have to prove otherwise (and win a million bucks). Science has already shown that when we die there is no proof that any consciousness remains.

I don't know what you mean by "These phenomena are subsumed into the aforementioned group of behaviors."

EEG and such are not phenomena, and brain activity is not behavior.

Like it or not, there's nothing paranormal about what I'm saying.

From Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: be·hav·ior
Pronunciation: bi-'hA-vy&r
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English behavour, from behaven
1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2 : the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
3 : the way in which something functions or operates
- be·hav·ior·al /-vy&-r&l/ adjective
- be·hav·ior·al·ly /-r&-lE/ adverb

I thought you might have known well enough that I was talking about the electrical activity in the brain when referring to the EEG readings.

Brain activity is the aggregate of all the different goings on the brain. These little interactions define "the way in which [the brain] functions or operates."

There is no proof that the brain has anything to do with consciousness either. By your own logic, you should be defeating your own arguments in addition to mine.

I never said there had to be consciousness after death. All I put forth was that we cannot rule out the the existence of consciousness after death.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Like it or not, there's nothing paranormal about what I'm saying.



I thought you might have known well enough that I was talking about the electrical activity in the brain when referring to the EEG readings.

Brain activity is the aggregate of all the different goings on the brain. These little interactions define "the way in which [the brain] functions or operates."

There is no proof that the brain has anything to do with consciousness either. By your own logic, you should be defeating your own arguments in addition to mine.

I never said there had to be consciousness after death. All I put forth was that we cannot rule out the the existence of consciousness after death.

Brain activity (electrical, magnetic, and chemical) is not behaviour. I'm talking about "brain waves", not human behaviour. You can have brain activity when you're not "behaving". You can have brain activity in a comatose state.

The fact that when the brain dies consciousness ceases is adequate proof that there is no existence of conciousness after death. To claim there is does mean you are making a paranormal claim.

Why? Because you are saying there is brain activity (consciousness) after death without a brain.

You cannot think, hear, feel, touch, taste, percieve, etc. Without your brain. You need your nervous system in connected with your brain to process anything that would lead to 'consciousness' and/or thought.

If you google "brain waves" or anything else you can see why I've drawn these conclusions.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Brain activity (electrical, magnetic, and chemical) is not behaviour.

What else do you want? I gave you the definition of the word; I showed you how it relates to "brain activity." Brain activity describes the behavior of the brain, and the brain is on the person, isn't it? At any rate, you're just needlessly nitpicking at what are fundamentally semantic issues.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Why? Because you are saying there is brain activity (consciousness) after death without a brain.

Again, how do you come to equate consciousness and brain activity with insufficient data?

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

You cannot think, hear, feel, touch, taste, percieve, etc. Without your brain. You need your nervous system in connected with your brain to process anything that would lead to 'consciousness' and/or thought.

Well, we can analyze this proposition by scrutinizing the time periods before we were born, when we were all without brains (I cannot verify that I was without a brain, but assuming I was...; consider the "Brain in the Vat" scenario, an idea probably germane in more ways than one to this conversation, but we can get into that later). We seem to come to the conclusion that we were "unconscious" because of our lack of recollection of that time period. Is this correct? I'll wait for your response before I go on as I'm afraid of further obfuscation of our subject of discussion.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What else do you want? I gave you the definition of the word; I showed you how it relates to "brain activity." Brain activity describes the behavior of the brain, and the brain is on the person, isn't it? At any rate, you're just needlessly nitpicking at what are fundamentally semantic issues.

The brain doesn't have 'behaviour'. Brain wave activity is not defined by your above posted definition of behaviour. Call it nitpicking, but it it's a rather looming issue.

?Again, how do you come to equate consciousness and brain activity with insufficient data.

Well, we can analyze this proposition by scrutinizing the time periods before we were born, when we were all without brains (I cannot verify that I was without a brain, but assuming I was...; consider the "Brain in the Vat" scenario, an idea probably germane in more ways than one to this conversation, but we can get into that later). We seem to come to the conclusion that we were "unconscious" because of our lack of recollection of that time period. Is this correct? I'll wait for your response before I go on as I'm afraid of further obfuscation of our subject of discussion.

We don't have insufficient data. It's rather conclusive.

Lack of recollection? You see it as that?

We had no brain before we were conceived. Thus we had no brain activity. Thus we had no consciousness. Our eggs and sperm have no consciousness. Again, the baby with no brain has no consciousness even though it was born. Our hearts have no consciousness, our liver has no consciousness, our skin cells have no consciousness. Our live, properly functioning brains are what give us consciousness.

I'm gonna steal some words from another thread and say our consciousness/brain can be altered by drugs or lack of sleep, or even be affected by music. Without our brain though, there is no consciousness to alter.

 

[Batman Jr.]

The brain doesn't have 'behaviour'. Brain wave activity is not defined by your above posted definition of behaviour. Call it nitpicking, but it it's a rather looming issue.



We don't have insufficient data. It's rather conclusive.

Lack of recollection? You see it as that?

We had no brain before we were conceived. Thus we had no brain activity. Thus we had no consciousness. Our eggs and sperm have no consciousness. Again, the baby with no brain has no consciousness even though it was born. Our hearts have no consciousness, our liver has no consciousness, our skin cells have no consciousness. Our live, properly functioning brains are what give us consciousness.

I'm gonna steal some words from another thread and say our consciousness/brain can be altered by drugs or lack of sleep, or even be affected by music. Without our brain though, there is no consciousness to alter.

The supposition required to accept your arguments: If you are conscious, then you are so as the result of brain activity.

PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!! PROVE IT!!

How many times do I have to say this to get you to respond?

If the brain doesn't have behavior, then what does it have?

 

[DanishDynamite]

There is no proof that the brain has anything to do with consciousness either.

Well, yes, stricktly speaking you can't prove anything about the Universe. There are however mountains of peer reviewed evidence which support that consciousness is the result of brain processes and no reliable evidence that it is not.

Just read almost any neurological or pharmacological journal.

(Here's hoping you won't stoop to the old "those are just neural correlates" in your reply. This is afterall a thread on reincarnation, not dualism. )

I never said there had to be consciousness after death. All I put forth was that we cannot rule out the the existence of consciousness after death.

We also can't rule out that weather is actually the result of invisible fairies pushing molecules hither and dither. There is just no reason to believe this is the case and many reasons not to.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If the brain doesn't have behavior, then what does it have?

Chemical, magnetic, and electrical brain activity.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Well, yes, stricktly speaking you can't prove anything about the Universe. There are however mountains of peer reviewed evidence which support that consciousness is the result of brain processes and no reliable evidence that it is not.

Just read almost any neurological or pharmacological journal.

(Here's hoping you won't stoop to the old "those are just neural correlates" in your reply. This is afterall a thread on reincarnation, not dualism. )
We also can't rule out that weather is actually the result of invisible fairies pushing molecules hither and dither. There is just no reason to believe this is the case and many reasons not to.

Neural correlates have nothing to do with sentience. They relate certain animal behaviors with certain neurological phenomena (call it whatever you want; I'm not going through that nomenclature shtick again), not consciousness with certain neurological phenomena. Dualism doesn't have anything to do with my arguments. All I say is that something else may be responsible for consciousness. There's nothing mystical or spiritual about it.

Speaking of Occam's Razor and the fairies, what reason do you find that the animal behavior created by a few simple mathematical algorithms compounded on top of one another over and over again must entail a conscious mind within its framework? You would have to make the unnecessary postulation relating consciousness and animal behavior in order to use neural correlates to validate those "mountains of evidence."

 

[DanishDynamite]

Neural correlates have nothing to do with sentience.

Glad to see you agree.

They relate certain animal behaviors with certain neurological phenomena (call it whatever you want; I'm not going through that nomenclature shtick again), not consciousness with certain neurological phenomena.

I'm afraid you are wrong, but nevermind. Neural correlates are not the point of this discussion.

Dualism doesn't have anything to do with my arguments.[ Thank god.

All I say is that something else may be responsible for consciousness. There's nothing mystical or spiritual about it.

Oh but there is. Once you say that "something else" may be responsible, you are delving into the non-materialistic.

Speaking of Occam's Razor and the fairies, what reason do you find that the animal behavior created by a few simple mathematical algorithms compounded on top of one another over and over again must entail a conscious mind within its framework?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. What mathematical algorithms and in what way compounded and what does this have to do with animals?

You would have to make the unnecessary postulation relating consciousness and animal behavior in order to use neural correlates to validate those "mountains of evidence."

I'm sorry, but you lost me. I vehemently deny any such thing as "neural correlates". I find them a cop-out for dualists. I'm not a dualist.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

 

[Batman Jr.]

I'm not a dualist and I'm not one who believes in reincarnation. Epistemology in general, however, presents a blind spot to us in the realm of consciousness. We don't know what brings rise to consciousness, what can cause it to end, what maintains it, really anything in other words. I don't see how people can be so adamant about consciousness being produced by the brain (it could be something else physical that's causing it; there's nothing immaterial about what I'm expressing). That's what I'm trying to say.

You can't observe some particular structure and call it "the conscious mind." There are studies on the neural correlates of motor activity, vision, etc. As I said before, these things have nothing to do with sentience. They have to do with how the nervous system reacts to certain stimuli and nothing more. There is a study on the neural correlates of consciousness, but that can never be substantiated because we can't prove that the subjects being examined to establish the correlation are actually conscious. They may be acting in an anthropomorphic fashion, but since all of these actions can be explained without the presence of a conscious mind (as numerous but mundane calculations being performed by the brain), we cannot assume them to be conscious.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm not a dualist and I'm not one who believes in reincarnation.

Thnaks for clearing that up.

Epistemology in general, however, presents a blind spot to us in the realm of consciousness. We don't know what brings rise to consciousness, what can cause it to end, what maintains it, really anything in other words.

In other words, no. You are wrong. As I said before, read a neurological journal. We know quite a bit about it.

I don't see how people can be so adamant about consciousness being produced by the brain (it could be something else physical that's causing it; there's nothing immaterial about what I'm expressing). That's what I'm trying to say.

And I don't see how anyone could be anything but adament.

Add a particular drug to a human's brain chemistry and said person's consciousness changes in a predictable manner. Perform a lobotomy and likewise said person's personality and consciousness changes as expected. Add an anathesic and the person will "loose" consciousness in a predictable way. Measure the alpha rhythyms and you can even to a limited degree determine what the consciousness is currently thinking.

You can't observe some particular structure and call it "the conscious mind."

Why not?

There are studies on the neural correlates of motor activity, vision, etc. As I said before, these things have nothing to do with sentience. They have to do with how the nervous system reacts to certain stimuli and nothing more.

It seems we have a different understanding of "neural correlates".

There is a study on the neural correlates of consciousness, but that can never be substantiated because we can't prove that the subjects being examined to establish the correlation are actually conscious. They may be acting in an anthropomorphic fashion, but since all of these actions can be explained without the presence of a conscious mind (as numerous but mundane calculations being performed by the brain), we cannot assume them to be conscious.

Kindly tell me more of this study.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

And I don't see how anyone could be anything but adament.

Add a particular drug to a human's brain chemistry and said person's consciousness changes in a predictable manner. Perform a lobotomy and likewise said person's personality and consciousness changes as expected. Add an anathesic and the person will "loose" consciousness in a predictable way. Measure the alpha rhythyms and you can even to a limited degree determine what the consciousness is currently thinking.

On effecting consciousness: Simply because consciousness can be possibly affected by the state of the nervous system doesn't mean it was produced by the nervous system.

On ending consciousness: It is simply based on lack of recollection that we conclude we were unconscious. We often can't remember times when we were conscious either, so how do we really conclude we were unconscious at all?

On maintaining consciousness: Furthermore, as I have said a million times before, using Occam's Razor, one can't assume anyone else to be conscious as a conscious mind isn't required to explain the behaviors exhibited by any animal. It would be shaky logic to say that a lobotomy, for instance, changes consciousness because we don't know if the people receiving the lobotomies were actually conscious to begin with. Even if I myself, whom I know to be conscious, were to undergo a lobotomy and my awareness were to change, I am still only one person. One case of manipulating consciousness is not enough to say anything.

Just forget about the whole neural correlates thing; it's really not important right now. Even before, I wasn't referring to "neural correlates"; I was explaining certain principles behind correlation in general.

I hope this helps.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Batman Jr.:

On effecting consciousness: Simply because consciousness can be possibly affected by the state of the nervous system doesn't mean it was produced by the nervous system.

And we are back to the old "neural correlates" of the dualists. I'm sorry, but have you heard of Occam's Razor? And BTW, there is no "possibly affected". It is very definitely affected. Every time.

On ending consciousness: It is simply based on lack of recollection that we conclude we were unconscious. We often can't remember times when we were conscious either, so how do we really conclude we were unconscious at all?

What do you mean we often don't remember times we were concious?

On maintaining consciousness: Furthermore, as I have said a million times before, using Occam's Razor, one can't assume anyone else to be conscious as a conscious mind isn't required to explain the behaviors exhibited by any animal.

We could ask the person. Or are you now reverting to solipsism?

It would be shaky logic to say that a lobotomy, for instance, changes consciousness because we don't know if the people receiving the lobotomies were actually conscious to begin with.

How would we not know this? Again, I'm assuming you are not a solipsist.

Even if I myself, whom I know to be conscious, were to undergo a lobotomy and my awareness were to change, I am still only one person. One case of manipulating consciousness is not enough to say anything.

How many do you need?

Just forget about the whole neural correlates thing; it's really not important right now. Even before, I wasn't referring to "neural correlates"; I was explaining certain principles behind correlation in general.

I'm afraid I can't leave alone as you implictly brought it up.

I hope this helps.

Not much, I'm afraid. Please clear up one thing for me: Are you arguing from a solipsist point of view?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite

Not much, I'm afraid. Please clear up one thing for me: Are you arguing from a solipsist point of view?

You've hit the nail on the head. If you read my posts above, I do mention that I use solipsism in coming to my conclusions.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

What do you mean we often don't remember times we were concious?

I'd highly doubt that you remember every waking moment of your life. Well, I certainly don't and that's what really matters to me.

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite

How many do you need?

Most definitely more than one. No scientific inquest could be justified by just one specimen.

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite

And we are back to the old "neural correlates" of the dualists. I'm sorry, but have you heard of Occam's Razor? And BTW, there is no "possibly affected". It is very definitely affected. Every time.

Occam's Razor is an agent of discernment against extraneous beliefs. I believe nothing. My belief is in the absence of belief. You are the one who assumes everyone to be conscious without basis.

 

[Piscivore]

You've hit the nail on the head. If you read my posts above, I do mention that I use solipsism in coming to my conclusions.

So you feel you are having this discussion with yourself, then?