Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[NavyPack]

Perhaps "you" is just a verbal shortcut to "the entity I am addressing".

Words are approximations of ideas, shorthand.

They do not have any intrinsic value, other than what we assign.

We cannot "define" or "declare" things to existence, merely use these verbal tools to describe reality.

 

[Malerin]

There is nothing in the phenomena you mention that could not be created by the brain. In fact, NDEs and OBEs can be triggered stimulating the temporal areas of the cortex. These areas are connected to the vestibular organs that sense our position in space.

Not really:

And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

If you want to have a full-blown NDE, taking Ketamine, holding your breath, or stimulating your brain electrically just won't cut it.

From the same article:

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?

Interesting that the largest ever study of NDE's would end on a note like that, isn't it?

Malfunction creates bizarre experiences that are known to pilots and astronauts in weightlessness situations.

I'm never heard of fighter pilots or astronaughts claiming to have life-changing religious experiences and communicating with dead people during weightlessness or hypoxia/anoxia.

Universal religious experience is not universal but seems to be connected to a certain imbalance imbalance in the dopaminergic tracts of the brain. Different populations show diferences in religiosity.

Is there a culture that does not report any religious experience among its members?

Children can be made to remember things that never happened. Adults have gone to jail because of some over-enthusiastic psychologist had decided that they were abusing their children sexually.

True and true. Kids can be convinced they were molested when they never were. Does that mean we should ignore all molestation claims of children? Are you claiming that every child that claims to have remembered a past life was "made to remember" it? Evidence?

If you look at the probabilities only, would you put your money on an entity that nobody thus far has been able to detect or measure or a brain malfunction? Or which one do you think you'll meet first walking down a street, a holy man or a liar?

How is this true? Countless people report experiencing God's presence. Experiencing the presence of an entity is clearly a "detection" of it.

 

[joobz]

Haven't changed? You no longer have a biological brain. Isn't that a change?

You're now fighting the hypothetical YOU created. You said it was an exact replacement, then I'm fine with it. Since you are now claiming it isn't exact, than you are right. It isn't the same person.

So let's explore this idea that "you" are still "you" after I completely swap out your biological neurons for their functionally equivalent mechanical counterparts.

Let's say I keep the biological neurons around, and after I'm done replacing all the neurons in your brain, I take the old biological neurons (which you've admitted are no longer "you") and reconstruct your old brain. Which one is you?

See Ship of Theseus.



No, that would be "an exact replace of you". You were the original, which was killed. If you weren't, then you would have the incredibly odd view that "you" refers to two people: the replica and the original.

See teleportation and personal identity.






Why would I make that claim?

You brought in the soul, not me.

Yes, If you made 100 exact replicas of me, they would all beconvinced they were me and would all be correct. 5-10 years later, they would all be very different individuals than what I would be. But, they would all think of themselves as "me".

When you realize there's no such thing as a soul, there's no longer a problem here.

 

[Malerin]

Perhaps "you" is just a verbal shortcut to "the entity I am addressing".

Words are approximations of ideas, shorthand.

They do not have any intrinsic value, other than what we assign.

We cannot "define" or "declare" things to existence, merely use these verbal tools to describe reality.

Why do I have the feeling "an entity is a brain" will be claimed if we go down that road?

 

[Malerin]

You're now fighting the hypothetical YOU created. You said it was an exact replacement, then I'm fine with it. Since you are now claiming it isn't exact, than you are right. It isn't the same person.

Where did I claim it isn't exact? Is an exact replica of the Mona Lisa the "Mona Lisa"? No, it's an exact replica replica. The original remains at the Louvre, correct? Or do you think "Mona Lisa" can refer to more than one painting?

You brought in the soul, not me.

No, why why I claim that a soul moves around from replica to replica?

Yes, If you made 100 exact replicas of me, they would all beconvinced they were me and would all be correct. 5-10 years later, they would all be very different individuals than what I would be. But, they would all think of themselves as "me".

Problem is that "you" refers to a single person. If 100 people claim they're you, and you think they're correct, you have a problem. If they're correct, you wouldn't mind dying, right? 99 other "you's" would still be alive.

When you realize there's no such thing as a soul, there's no longer a problem here.

On the contrary, we're running into nothing but problems here.

 

[Paulhoff]

So Malerin, did you was the video that I linked to from TED?

Paul

 

[NavyPack]

Why do I have the feeling "an entity is a brain" will be claimed if we go down that road?

Not necessarily.

I can imagine that in my daughter's lifetime, there will be entities without a biological brain.

I just don't know of a solitary instance of an entity without one, currently.

 

[joobz]

Where did I claim it isn't exact?

you said

Yes, they're functionally equivalent. They behave just like biological neurons.

I took your hypothetical at face value. You are now trying to spring a "But they are different" argument at me. That's just silly. Either they are functionally equivalent, hence The me will still be, or they aren't.

Is an exact replica of the Mona Lisa the "Mona Lisa"? No, it's an exact replica replica. The original remains at the Louvre, correct? Or do you think "Mona Lisa" can refer to more than one painting?

If it is an exact replica, than in terms of all relevant facts, they are interchangable.

No, why why I claim that a soul moves around from replica to replica?

You didn't claim this and i didn't say you did. I was simply pointing out that the soul doesn't make sense in terms of this discussion. Does the mechanical replacement still have a soul?

Problem is that "you" refers to a single person. If 100 people claim they're you, and you think they're correct, you have a problem. If they're correct, you wouldn't mind dying, right? 99 other "you's" would still be alive.

It's all relative. If I was "number 54" writing you, I would certainly not want number 54 me to die. If I was number 55, I would certainly not want number 55 to die. But none of the number mes wouldn't want the other mes to die. But from each internal "me's" frame of reference, each one would be utterly convinced they are "me" and there would be no rational argument to select one over the others. It's a bizarre scenario,for sure. But I do not see how that invalidates anything I've said.

The "Me", the consciousness of "me" is entirely built into the brain. It is the programming of the brain that comes from the chemo-structural aspects of the brain. There isn't anything "more" to it.

On the contrary, we're running into nothing but problems here.

For you, not for me. I am very happy with the organic/fleeting nature of "me".

 

[lemurien]

Malerin:"How is this true? Countless people report experiencing God's presence. Experiencing the presence of an entity is clearly a "detection" of it."

Countless people detect an experience.
That is totally different from detecting the existence of God.

 

[lemurien]

Malerin: "Is there a culture that does not report any religious experience among its members?"

That is rare.
Also, most cultures explain how their part of the world was created.
There is variation, however, in how seriously people believe in these stories.
Education level seems to have an inverse correlation to religiosity.

 

[lemurien]

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?

Malerin: Interesting that the largest ever study of NDE's would end on a note like that, isn't it?

Lemurien: Yes. It is interesting that Lancet would accept the term 'clinically dead' in such a context. To me it appears that the author has not been in clinic for a couple of decades.

As for the NDE reports, obviously the person has to 'come back' to report them.
It is not a momentary flash but the recovering brain parts are starting at different times.
One essential part is the timekeeping module. The order of events is not necessarily as the patient describes. Also, it is well known that in self reporting people want to seem coherent and make sense. They falsify their reports.

This is an obstacle the researchers of the subjective aspect of consciousness are constantly bumping their heads. What really was experienced is an elusive thing.

Now, I do admit that very little is known of a huge subject that the human consciousness represents. Maybe the soul stuff of Descartes will be found eventually, maybe all the materialists are wrong.

But thus far, the only real scientific progress has been seen with the neural hypothesis.

 

[Ignosticist]

Malerin:"How is this true? Countless people report experiencing God's presence. Experiencing the presence of an entity is clearly a "detection" of it."

Countless people detect an experience.
That is totally different from detecting the existence of God.

Countless people report experiencing the presence of many different gods. Does this mean they are detecting the existence of this many gods? And how is that reconciled with the fact that many of this gods say they are "the only one" and the others are not real?

 

[Lowpro]

Actually, we do. NDE's, veridical OBEs, past life recollections of children, universality of religious experience, reports of certain paranormal acticities by reliable witnesses, etc.

You need to give up this tact. You can induce chemicals in the brain to fake NDE experiences ( hippies can attest )

Past life recollections of children are not indicative of a past life and there's been no real case for it other than anecdote ("Hey did you hear that this kid thought he was a WW2 fighter pilot? Yea, he said so after he learned about WW2 from the History Channel!")

I mean really Malerin, one skeptic to another...you belong in the CT/Paranormal sections, not the philosophical sections.

And to address the teleportation/clone phenomenon Malerin you're just playing a word game and it's beneath you (I think, you're coming off like Punshhh more and more)

If I have a 99 clones, they are each an individual replica of myself. Just because they are replicas doesn't mean my clones will share my consciousness, though our consciousness may run very similarly (it'd be the Captain Kirk robot replica screaming "Shoot him! I'm the real one!")

There's no sharing of consciousness; each brain is a closed system and over time experiences for each clone will be different.

Now how about I take a stab at you and your stupid NDE belief (and yes, it is stupid) if you think NDE's are evidence for a soul, you'd need to explain why the soul sucks so much at quitting before the game's over like an audience at a baseball stadium, and then you'd need to further explain how a soul will go back in because it was obviously VERY wrong.

You'd have to explain how a soul is able to perceive like NDE's claim they do: That they have senses, obviously visual senses, and that they have full brain capacity because many claim to recognize objects, where they are, they claim to recognize faces which requires a full brain function.

In essence, read my signature and feel free to describe how anything more than throwing "NDE's and children remembering past lives" into a discussion to validate your opinion actually helps you -.-

 

[Malerin]

Malerin:"How is this true? Countless people report experiencing God's presence. Experiencing the presence of an entity is clearly a "detection" of it."

Countless people detect an experience.
That is totally different from detecting the existence of God.

How do you know that?

 

[Malerin]

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?[/I]

Malerin: Interesting that the largest ever study of NDE's would end on a note like that, isn't it?

Lemurien: Yes. It is interesting that Lancet would accept the term 'clinically dead' in such a context. To me it appears that the author has not been in clinic for a couple of decades.

Pim van Lommel (b.1943) worked as a cardiologist at the Rijnstate Hospital, an 800-bed teaching hospital in Arnhem in the Netherlands, from 1977 to 2003
http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/?Pim_van_lommel_eng

As for the NDE reports, obviously the person has to 'come back' to report them.

Right, it's a near-death experience.

It is not a momentary flash but the recovering brain parts are starting at different times.

One essential part is the timekeeping module. The order of events is not necessarily as the patient describes.

True, although there are reports of veridical OBE's. One is included in the study.

Also, it is well known that in self reporting people want to seem coherent and make sense. They falsify their reports.

So the Dutch patients were lying? What's your evidence? What did they have to gain? Is your position that NDE is an entirely made up phenemenon?

ETA: If you look at the study, you'll notice very few people reported a "very deep" NDE (2%). The highest category of NDE report was "some recollection" (6%). Apparently, not many people wanted to impress the researchers (again, why would they?)

Also, in the follow-up interviews two years later:

At 2-year follow-up, 19 of the 62 patients with NDE had died and six refused to be interviewed. Thus, we were able to interview 37 patients for the second time. All patients were able to retell their experience almost exactly...

For instance, people who had NDE had a significant increase in belief in an afterlife and decrease in fear of death compared with people who had not had this experience. Depth of NDE was linked to high scores in spiritual items such as interest in the meaning of one's own life, and social items such as showing love and accepting others.

The patients would have had to continue the deception years later. There's no evidence of that.

This is an obstacle the researchers of the subjective aspect of consciousness are constantly bumping their heads. What really was experienced is an elusive thing.

Other people's experiences will always be elusive things. For example, your subjective experience of the color red might be much different than my own. But many of the NDE's apparently weren't elusive to the people who experienced them; they were life-changing experiences that they recalled vividly, years after the event.

Now, I do admit that very little is known of a huge subject that the human consciousness represents. Maybe the soul stuff of Descartes will be found eventually, maybe all the materialists are wrong.

I applaud your skepticism. Seriously.

But thus far, the only real scientific progress has been seen with the neural hypothesis.

Science has made progress studying the scientific aspects of consciousness. Van Lommel's NDE study was scientific, but you'll notice it ended on a very metaphysical note, questioning basic scientific assumptions about consciousness and memory.

 

[Malerin]

Countless people report experiencing the presence of many different gods. Does this mean they are detecting the existence of this many gods? And how is that reconciled with the fact that many of this gods say they are "the only one" and the others are not real?

It can mean that they may be detecting a supernatural being but differing on their interpretation of the experience. Different people will interpret the same thing differently. For example, if SETI received the message "We will visit your planet soon", many people will interpret that many ways. Some will see it as a threat, others as a boon. But the underlying fact, that alien life exists, would not be disputed. Theists may differ about what god is, but they all agree that god(s) exists.

ETA: also eyewitnesses can have vastly different recollections of the details of the same event (what the suspects looked like, what they said, the timeline of what they did), but still agree on the basic event itself (a bank robbery).

 

[Ignosticist]

Theists may differ about what god is, but they all agree that god(s) exists.

Theists may differ about what god are, and they also differ about which god(s) exists... many of them believe only their particular interpretation of god(s) is "real", and the others do not.

On the other hand... what does that proofs? Many people once believed that diseases were caused by "evil spirits", we now know the real causes of diseases are not "evil spirits". Does the fact that all the ancient cultures were unable to discover microbiology by intuition or "divine revelation" says nothing to you? Or you believe they were actually "detecting a supernatural evil spirits but differing on their interpretation of the experience"?

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually, we do. NDE's, veridical OBEs, past life recollections of children, universality of religious experience, reports of certain paranormal acticities by reliable witnesses, etc.

Well, as soon as you have any of those that stands up to even cursory examination, do let us know.

 

[Robin]

True, although there are reports of veridical OBE's. One is included in the study.

But it has to be noted that this was not part of the study, it was simply a report of an anecdote volunteered by an ambulance nurse about an alleged incident that happened before the period of the study. None of the facts recounted were subject to any sort of confirmation.

So the Dutch patients were lying? What's your evidence? What did they have to gain? Is your position that NDE is an entirely made up phenemenon?

I can't see anything in the study itself that suggests anything supernatural or about a soul or anything that is any way contradictory to Materialism. People who are in extremis appear to have strange sorts of dreams.

Science has made progress studying the scientific aspects of consciousness. Van Lommel's NDE study was scientific, but you'll notice it ended on a very metaphysical note, questioning basic scientific assumptions about consciousness and memory.

But I can't see anything in the study itslef that supports such questioning.

 

[Aepervius]

Actually, we do. NDE's, veridical OBEs, past life recollections of children, universality of religious experience, reports of certain paranormal acticities by reliable witnesses, etc.

As Lemurien said, all of which can be explained by "the brain=self". I will go one step further : some can be reproduced by careful chemical or electromagnetic stimulation, EVEN the *religious* feeling, quite an evidence that it is ALL in the brain.

When a single evidence can be interpreted in 2 ways, one with a single entity (brain), another with the SAME entity and an additional one (brain+soul), then parsimony principle imply the single one is enough => brain only is enough.

If you had *ONE* evidence which COULD NOT be explained by the brain function alone, you would have a point, but you have none.