Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

Sideroxylon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of the imperfect nature of our interaction with the world, especially when it comes to scientific enquiry. This is perhaps partly why anecdotes like mine are not recognised as out of the ordinary by science.

Also you have provided a hole(or gap) into which any anecdote like mine how ever numerous can be thrown and dismissed.

I do not dismiss the possibility of unconscious cues etc. I just have not come up with a feasible explanation other than perhaps a high frequency sound like a scream, or some communication which is subconscious.

I repeat, I considered the entire situation at length immediately after it happened. I definitely experienced the feeling of shock and sadness over two minutes before I was told that the cat was dead.
 
zooterkin said:
Then I'm afraid you haven't taken it on board.

That's how you remember it now.



That's how you remember it now.
Click to expand...

I questioned the event as I am now, immediately after it happened. I don't need to remember the event itself precisely as at the time I concluded that there was no way I could see at the time which could explain how I had the same feeling as the others.
They were over 25 metres away, behind two walls and two heavy doors(which were partly open).

At the time I made a mental note to myself that this was some kind of emotional empathy at a distance, having considered every conceivable explanation I could come up with at the time.
 
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of that is evidence at all Malerin, unless you want to bend the word to mean something else.

That is not evidence of some event occurring that means there is a transcendent self, it is all pure speculation.

Seriously.

Now from teh abstract:
"We do not know why so few cardiac patients report NDE after CPR, although age plays a part. With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one"

Once again a bold assumption, cerebral anoxia is not the sole cause, nor will all people experience such events the same way.

let us take a serious analogy event: which you will probably ignore.

Traumatic confabulation and amnesia:

Many many many people get hit in the head severely, some have memories around the time of the event that are not true, they are confabulated by the brain. When checked they are false, yet just like delusions the person experiences them as real. They will give you details and why they were doing things. None of which are valid.

Other people when they are hit in the head they will not remember things: they will have amnesia for events. They will almost always not remember memories around the time of the trauma, but sometimes it can mess with their recall of unrelated events.


So why don't all people who get hit in the head have confabulated memories, why don't all people who get hit in the head have amnesia?

By the logic of the authors of the paper, it must have something to do with and promote the idea of a transcendent self, because a single physiological cause could not cause the disparity of events.

Seriously Malerin, really

Is that the path you want to go down that we should investigate confabulation as proof of a transcendent self from a parallel universe?

So all people who don't respond to oral medication for their type II diabetes is evidence that there should be considered a transcendent self or a little diabetes fairy?
 
lemurien said:
Malerin:"How is this true? Countless people report experiencing God's presence. Experiencing the presence of an entity is clearly a "detection" of it."

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

Malerin: How do you know that?

Lemurien: Simple.
For instance, if I rub my eyes, I see flashes of yellow light.
There is no yellow light anywhere but still I have the experience of it.
ergo: The experience can exist without the real thing.
Click to expand...

No, that is proof of the meta-space for yellow flashes! :D
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does the news paper say? :D
 
punshhh said:
I do not dismiss the possibility of unconscious cues etc. I just have not come up with a feasible explanation other than perhaps a high frequency sound like a scream, or some communication which is subconscious.
Click to expand...

You do realize that "unconscious cues" is not an alternative to such explanations, but rather subsumes it, don't you?

If the unconscious cue explanation is correct, it simply means your agency was presented the emotion, and you weren't aware of the cause; the only question is how you mind assembled cues. Psychic screaming through walls is a possibility. Uncharacteristic inactivity is another.

Given that you haven't ruled out understood processes, why would you even bother to entertain extraordinary processes?
 
punshhh said:
I questioned the event as I am now, immediately after it happened. I don't need to remember the event itself precisely as at the time I concluded that there was no way I could see at the time which could explain how I had the same feeling as the others.
Click to expand...
That's how you remember it now.

At the time I made a mental note to myself that this was some kind of emotional empathy at a distance, having considered every conceivable explanation I could come up with at the time.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
lemurien said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, flattery will get you everywhere. :D

But seriously, I have no problem admitting error or being called on making a bad argument. It is unfortunate that we seem to disagree as I do not believe I made a bad argument this time or used failing logic. It seems the entire trouble was in the semantic use. My whole point is that I do not believe there is a clear cut division between "you as the program that runs on the brain" and the brain itself. After all, the program seems to be able to rewrite the hardware, which makes the two interminably linked. Hence, my point that your brain is you.
 
punshhh said:
So I am indulging in magical thinking am I. This sounds like a claim that phenomena not yet known to science is magic.

I have only experienced this kind of emotional phenomena twice. Both times it was strikingly different to how I normally experience feelings.
It did not originate through an activity or phenomena I was experiencing myself, but rather was somehow delivered to me from elsewhere. As such I did not forget the experience and am sure it has not happened at any other time.
Click to expand...

So your knowledge comes from personal experience and can't be replicated?
 
punshhh said:
So I am indulging in magical thinking am I. This sounds like a claim that phenomena not yet known to science is magic.

I have only experienced this kind of emotional phenomena twice. Both times it was strikingly different to how I normally experience feelings.
It did not originate through an activity or phenomena I was experiencing myself, but rather was somehow delivered to me from elsewhere. As such I did not forget the experience and am sure it has not happened at any other time.
Click to expand...

If this doesn't sound like so many other people over the years about different things happening to them. And not once can anyone verify it and you want it to count. I know NOT.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
We look at things a bit differently.

My way of thinking...well...let's look at a computer.
You are saying that a computer is its processor running an operating system and you cannot really differentiate between the two. (this was a question)

Whereas I see that there is a processor that can run this or that operating system (Christian, Muslim, Atheist) which is one thing and that the processor actually running an operating system is another thing.

And still, you do not have a computer yet.
You have to have ports and energy sources and an interface.

In my mind, the things have a similar kind of logic.
You have a structure, in the case of the brain it is very intimately knitted together with the human flesh.

Then you have the different level processes (as you undoubtedly know) from the basic life homeostasis functions and the animal reactions we share with other primates all the way up to mathematics and philosophy and the power of introspection.

Now, then.
You have a bigger entity that is you. It consists of flesh and signaling neurons.
The signaling neurons is all you have access to subjectively but it does not change the fact that you are a mammal. An animal.

Your identity is created in your brain, OK.
What you know of yourself is in your brain, OK.
But you weigh some 80 kilos and your brain only 1.6kg.

And there is more than that.
You cannot be the real you as a numeric representation of your brain processes.
Your representations of the outside world and you yourself are created by the flesh interface.
You are in the world in a certain way because you are the biped mammal you are. A lot of wetware working there at different levels.

No computer will ever use human flesh as the interface with the external world.
There will be attempts, certainly. But just think of what kinds of physical dimensions a metallic port would need and how you could plant the electrodes to the right neurons..they are very small and they keep changing their functions.

The perfect copy of yourself would be processing differently from the original the moment it is turned on, because of the number of the degrees of freedom an infinitely complicated entity like the human consciousness has.

Every new observation, every novel connection there is leaves a mark on the construction.
Yes, the software does rewrite the hardware all the time.

The most stable thing in the process is the body maps.
All the rest is aleatory and take whatever whimsy it might come up with.
But the body maps (let's not talk about hallucinations and amputations here) remain stable.
They are the backbone against which the changes in the neural patterns are measured.

Of course, the body maps are in the brain. But hey could not be adequately created with the body.

So I say that what you know about yourself is in the brain.
But there is more.
 
Doc, its just one lame argument after another. Claptrap like that must put a lot of people off religion.

Page 129: "How much does love weigh?" How much does your web browser software weigh, Doc?
 
DOC said:
No I believe it comes from God.
Click to expand...
You believe this with out evidence, reason or support.

DOC said:
The book cited in post #1 probably explains this better than I can. Hit the arrow to page 130 and it starts 5 lines down.
Click to expand...
That book is terrible and makes bad arguments. You explain it better, but it is still a bad argument.
 
Last edited:
lemurien said:
We look at things a bit differently.

My way of thinking...well...let's look at a computer.
You are saying that a computer is its processor running an operating system and you cannot really differentiate between the two. (this was a question)

Whereas I see that there is a processor that can run this or that operating system (Christian, Muslim, Atheist) which is one thing and that the processor actually running an operating system is another thing.

And still, you do not have a computer yet.
You have to have ports and energy sources and an interface.
Click to expand...
And here is where we disagree. A computer is just the box WITH operating system. It does not need the interface and peripherals to be a computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom