Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[zooterkin]

I understand this,

Did you take on board how adamant someone can be about their version of what happened, unless someone else who was actually there can show they were wrong? For that reason, I think we're unlikely to convince you no matter what we say, unless you accept the fallibility of the human mind.

however I analyzed the situation at the time within a few minutes. The circumstances and the event were clear and unambiguos.

How old were you at the time, and/or how long ago did this take place? Are you familiar with how unreliable memory can be?

This is the entire situation, it is very clear and I went over the sequence of events carefully within the next five minutes. So that I would remember what happened.

Is that something you would normally do? It seems an odd thing for a child.

 

[Mashuna]

One of the advantages of invoking a soul is that it lets "you" refer to the original and all the duplicates, because "you" isn't equivalent to a single brain&body, as you define it to be. "You" refers to a soul, and there's no a priori reason why a soul should be limited to one brain and body.

So to answer the first question, replacing the neurons in my brain wouldn't confer any change in identity because my identity isn't bound up with my brain and physical body in the first place. If the transporter spits out a bunch of copies of me, they're all me, original and duplicates because there's an overarching soul that we all share. All of the instantiations of my soul would simply go their seperate ways and have different experiences. It's like the concept of reincarnation: you live multiple life-times, each one different, but all of them you. In the cases above, the differnent lives that you're living just happen to be occuring at the same time.

So in your hypothetical, would you expect all the bodies sharing one soul to be able to share experiences, or communicate via this overarching soul in some way? Otherwise it's the same problem as reincarnation - in what sense is the soul really me if I have no knowledge or recollection of what it's doing when it's with other or previous me?

 

[Robin]

Now can anyone offer a scientific explanation for my roller coaster ride of emotions during what was about 3 minutes?

Off the top of my head:

1) It was a random feeling unconnected with any event and the juxtaposition of it with the event was a co-incidence

2) You heard, but did not consciously register, a subdued, sombre greeting rather than a happy one and it set alarm bells ringing.


Obviously without being able to investigate all the facts I cannot come up with anything other than suggestios.

 

[Robin]

OK, here is mine.

My kid, who is just learning to talk - just single words - points at the television screen and says very clearly "bus!". Then again "bus!".

The trouble is there is no bus on the screen - just an advertisement for a bathroom supplies warehouse - and no bus or picture of a bus in the room.

Then, a couple of seconds later the next advertisement comes on. In the first frame is a picture of - a bus.

What happened?

 

[Darat]

I experienced a sudden feeling of grief and sadness for no reason, while standing in a quiet peaceful place.

I appreciate that there may have been some kind of communication from the other people, but I remember at the time that I did not hear any screams or cries. There may have been some high frequency signal of some kind.

How do you know this?

 

[Darat]

OK, here is mine.

My kid, who is just learning to talk - just single words - points at the television screen and says very clearly "bus!". Then again "bus!".

The trouble is there is no bus on the screen - just an advertisement for a bathroom supplies warehouse - and no bus or picture of a bus in the room.

Then, a couple of seconds later the next advertisement comes on. In the first frame is a picture of - a bus.

What happened?

He's an advanced reader for his age and has read the TV guide?

 

[Akhenaten]

OK, here is mine.

My kid, who is just learning to talk - just single words - points at the television screen and says very clearly "bus!". Then again "bus!".

The trouble is there is no bus on the screen - just an advertisement for a bathroom supplies warehouse - and no bus or picture of a bus in the room.

Then, a couple of seconds later the next advertisement comes on. In the first frame is a picture of - a bus.

What happened?

I'm not sure about where you are, but television ads here come in mindlessly repetitive batches such that (for example) the ad with the gorgeous redhead always follows the ad for funeral insurance, and thus I always find myself paying close attention to the last few seconds of the ghoulishness and saying "Hi honey!" to myself in anticipation of Ginger making her appearance.

 

[Simon39759]

I'm not sure about where you are, but television ads here come in mindlessly repetitive batches such that (for example) the ad with the gorgeous redhead always follows the ad for funeral insurance, and thus I always find myself paying close attention to the last few seconds of the ghoulishness and saying "Hi honey!" to myself in anticipation of Ginger making her appearance.

Alternatively, the kid likes to spend time in front of the TV, and try to talk to it and making random noises that you only listen with a distracted ear because the little bastard has no conversation to speak of...

One day, out of the many vocals he makes one sounds a bit like "bus" (for example, buu; ba; bas) and by sheer happentance a bus commercial arrive a few seconds after. That understandably shocks you and, post hoc, colour your memory so that the vaguelly similar sound now becomes a clear "bus" word...

 

[Aepervius]

Sure.

One of the problems of materialism is that you're locked into a response where one of the duplicates must be you (either the original or a copy). There's no mechanism to account for "you" to refer to more than one brain/body because, as you put it: you are your brain (and body). So if you step into a transporter and a dozen identical copies step out the other end, you're stuck with trying to figure out which one is/was you. If you think you're your brain, and your brain is slowly replaced with something functionally equivalent, you're also stuck with trying to figure out when you stop being you.

That is a downright fully completely wrong interpretation. Only the original will be "Me", the other will be DIFFERENT individuals, which accidentally have the same memory, body, as I had at the moment of the copy, but will ultimately become to diverge the nanoseconds the copying is finished.

There is no paradox or problem into knowing who is me. The problem is only for the OUTSIDE world which will have no way to differentiate the copy from the original. For the external world all will be interchangeable at the moment of the copy, and even if the original and the copy have no way themselves to know who came first, they are all distinct individual, there is no interraction ebtween two copy/original which would make any dent into the "self" feeling each brain has got. ETA Think of this as special kind of twin.

ANd this is completely compatible with a "materialistic" view.

One of the advantages of invoking a soul is that it lets "you" refer to the original and all the duplicates, because "you" isn't equivalent to a single brain&body, as you define it to be. "You" refers to a soul, and there's no a priori reason why a soul should be limited to one brain and body.

It is not an advantage it is a made up stuff on the spot. For all you know the soul could be duplicated by the copy, you have no way to know since soul were not demonstrated to EXISTS. Or heck the copy could be soulless whatever. Once you start making up entity you can also make up the result of experience.

So to answer the first question, replacing the neurons in my brain wouldn't confer any change in identity because my identity isn't bound up with my brain and physical body in the first place. If the transporter spits out a bunch of copies of me, they're all me, original and duplicates because there's an overarching soul that we all share. All of the instantiations of my soul would simply go their seperate ways and have different experiences. It's like the concept of reincarnation: you live multiple life-times, each one different, but all of them you. In the cases above, the differnent lives that you're living just happen to be occuring at the same time.

No evidence for soul : no dice.

 

[Aepervius]

I said "seriously" because about five posts after the one Craig quoted (asking for a study), I linked the Lancet study, where the authors do, in fact, make very unmaterialistic conclusions:

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...

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception...

Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

Youa re either misreading or the author outstep his conclusion. Firstly there are other theory for NDE so "lack of theory" is quite interesting to purport. Secondely there is no EVIDENCE of the consciousness being outside the brain and all sort of evidence it is fully inside the brain. So I call BS on the "assumed, but never proven" proof is for mathematic, biology has evidence, and we have plenty that consciousness is a brain by product.

 

[dafydd]

A major point of the video was the fallibility of human perception, cognition and memory. You don't seem to have taken this on board.

I was on the phone with an old friend the other day. I used to share a flat with him in Antwerp. One night i came home and left a tap running in the kitchen and flooded the place. He said to me 'Do you remember the night the river broke it's banks and flooded our flat?' He swears this is what happened,but I say I left the tap running. Who is right? Memory is not reliable.

 

[Robin]

Alternatively, the kid likes to spend time in front of the TV, and try to talk to it and making random noises that you only listen with a distracted ear because the little bastard has no conversation to speak of...

One day, out of the many vocals he makes one sounds a bit like "bus" (for example, buu; ba; bas) and by sheer happentance a bus commercial arrive a few seconds after. That understandably shocks you and, post hoc, colour your memory so that the vaguelly similar sound now becomes a clear "bus" word...

Something like this I would say. However he did not like to watch television at this stage - he came into the room, pointed at the television and said a word that sounded like "bus".

My guess is that given the nature of the previous commercial he said "bath" - like many kids he sometimes confused a "th" with an "ss".

However it was quite startling at the time.

 

[jond]

If you are going down this road, I'm wondering how it might be if I had two souls instead of just the one? Two souls, one body. Is there anything in your calculus that prevents this?

Or, for that matter 7! Merlin's Beard!!! I don't want to think about the implications of 7 souls stored in horcruxes!

 

[punshhh]

Did you take on board how adamant someone can be about their version of what happened, unless someone else who was actually there can show they were wrong? For that reason, I think we're unlikely to convince you no matter what we say, unless you accept the fallibility of the human mind.

Yes I take this on board, I don't see it applying here, as the phenomena itself was very simple and clear cut.
I experienced this emotion without the information which the others had been given resulting in them reacting with a similar emotion.
I had not received this information and was very puzzled about what I was experiencing.

How old were you at the time, and/or how long ago did this take place? Are you familiar with how unreliable memory can be?

I was 16, it was over 25 years ago. Yes I am aware of how unreliable memory can be. I don't see how this applies here, as I questioned and noted the event straight away. Some of the details around the event may have been modified, but the essential experience I am drawing to your attention(bolded) did occur as I say it did.

Is that something you would normally do? It seems an odd thing for a child.

I was a curious thoughtful child and would question many aspects of the world I experienced. Something like this experience, being out of the ordinary, I would question and seek some sort of explanation straight away.

 

[joobz]

I do not think that peeing contests with the religious people really take us any further on the road to knowledge. One cannot make anybody to change his mind by dismissing his/her beliefs and ways of thinking or calling him/her an idiot (by any name).
Time wasted.

I'm not sure your point here.
I didn't call anyone an idiot or any other name. And I'm not outright dismissing beliefs. I made 4 statements which are, as far as I know, true. It is for the person I am discussing with to demonstrate why my statements are false. I will concede points where I am wrong and will defend my arguments when I find counterarguments flawed. This is the general approach I use to every discussion on these threads.

People challenged me with my arguments here, and I took no offense at those challenges. Why are my 4 statements any different? Why is it acceptable to call my argument regarding you as a brain "logical limping to save face", but my simple statement of what we have evidence for as "Time wasted".

ETA:
I am, once again, reminded of the "Shut Up, That Why" argument. It's funny how often it comes up.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes I take this on board, I don't see it applying here, as the phenomena itself was very simple and clear cut.
I experienced this emotion without the information which the others had been given resulting in them reacting with a similar emotion.
I had not received this information and was very puzzled about what I was experiencing.

No observation or memory of same is clear cut. Our perceptual access to the external word, and the processing our minds apply to it to give us experience are faulty. This is why observation has to be such a disciplined task in science.

What justification have you got to dismiss the possibility of unconscious cues triggering your feeling before your concious mind became aware of them? Justify the assertions that you have made in bold.

 

[PixyMisa]

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...

That assertion by itself betrays a degree of ignorance, delusion or dishonesty sufficient to dismiss anything the author says on any subject at all. The evidence that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain is vast and incontrovertible.

 

[dafydd]

Yes I take this on board, I don't see it applying here, as the phenomena itself was very simple and clear cut.
I experienced this emotion without the information which the others had been given resulting in them reacting with a similar emotion.
I had not received this information and was very puzzled about what I was experiencing.



I was 16, it was over 25 years ago. Yes I am aware of how unreliable memory can be. I don't see how this applies here, as I questioned and noted the event straight away. Some of the details around the event may have been modified, but the essential experience I am drawing to your attention(bolded) did occur as I say it did.



I was a curious thoughtful child and would question many aspects of the world I experienced. Something like this experience, being out of the ordinary, I would question and seek some sort of explanation straight away.

Did you see my tap story? I have a clear memory of leaving the tap on and my friend has a clear memory of the Schelde overflowing its banks.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes I take this on board, I don't see it applying here, as the phenomena itself was very simple and clear cut.

Then I'm afraid you haven't taken it on board.

I experienced this emotion without the information which the others had been given resulting in them reacting with a similar emotion.
I had not received this information and was very puzzled about what I was experiencing.

That's how you remember it now.

I was 16, it was over 25 years ago. Yes I am aware of how unreliable memory can be. I don't see how this applies here, as I questioned and noted the event straight away. Some of the details around the event may have been modified, but the essential experience I am drawing to your attention(bolded) did occur as I say it did.

That's how you remember it now.

 

[lemurien]

Joobz, answering your 'why' question: Because you master a lot of subjects, you are capable of analytical thinking and able to produce coherent and text that reads well, I feel disappointed when your arguments make no sense or your logic fails.

That's all.