Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Reality Defined
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 12:21:38 AM5/27/12
to
In article
<6732fa55-02f0-4bf1...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> But the atheist cannot abide in reality,
The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
The IDiot's (like Liarboi Broiljab's) reality is based on ignoring
objective physical evidence whenever it conflicts with whatever they
wish to believe.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<6732fa55-02f0-4bf1...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> But the atheist cannot abide in reality,
The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
The IDiot's (like Liarboi Broiljab's) reality is based on ignoring
objective physical evidence whenever it conflicts with whatever they
wish to believe.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Jahnu
May 27, 2012, 3:43:56 AM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:38 -0600, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
hahaha :) where is the physical evidence that life comes from matter?
>The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
where is the physical evidence that conscious awareness is merely some
chemicals floating around in your brain? Only a complete nitwit would
believe that. It is so obvious that consciousness or the soul or the
bserver i anti-material.
Here is why you don't get the obvious - Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg. 7.25)
Have a look at my art
http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
Ken
May 27, 2012, 10:39:49 AM5/27/12
to
Krishna says: "Jahnu is one really fucked up piece of crap"
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 3:04:13 PM5/27/12
to
In article
<c87d1bb8-264c-4fd7...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Remember too. Atheism is a slob's worldview
Since non-theism is based largely on a careful examination as respect
for the available objective physical evidence, and Creationist religions
are based on a careful ignoring of an disrespect of the available
objective physical evidence, Those faux religions are even more slobbish
than any form of atheism.
<c87d1bb8-264c-4fd7...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Remember too. Atheism is a slob's worldview
Since non-theism is based largely on a careful examination as respect
for the available objective physical evidence, and Creationist religions
are based on a careful ignoring of an disrespect of the available
objective physical evidence, Those faux religions are even more slobbish
than any form of atheism.
R Brown
May 28, 2012, 8:58:32 AM5/28/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:38 -0600, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>
> > The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
>
> hahaha :) where is the physical evidence that life comes from matter?
> where is the physical evidence that conscious awareness is merely some
> chemicals floating around in your brain? Only a complete nitwit would
> believe that. It is so obvious that consciousness or the soul or the
> bserver i anti-material.
>
Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:38 -0600, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>
> > The atheists reality is based on objective physical evidence.
>
> hahaha :) where is the physical evidence that life comes from matter?
> where is the physical evidence that conscious awareness is merely some
> chemicals floating around in your brain? Only a complete nitwit would
> believe that. It is so obvious that consciousness or the soul or the
> bserver i anti-material.
>
Probably not. That's why I say ...
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown
> Here is why you don't get the obvious - Krishna says:
>
> I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
> covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
> am unborn and infallible. (Bg. 7.25)
>
>
> Have a look at my art
>
> http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
> http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
> http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
Jahnu
May 28, 2012, 7:28:36 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, "R Brown" wished:
>Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
That's like saying no light-bulb no light. Get it?
Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Dr. Michael Sabom was a Professor of Medicine in the Division of
Cardiology at the Medical School of the Emory University and a staff
physician at the Atlanta VA Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA
during the time that he studied autoscopic experiences. In a typical
autoscopic experience, a person reports that he comes out of his
physical body and observes it from a viewpoint outside of it. In the
beginning of his study, Dr. Sabom thought that these so-called
autoscopic experiences are nothing more than imagination. But after
interviewing dozens of people over a period of five years, he
concluded that there is something more than imagination at work in
these reports.
Why did he change his mind? As a practicing cardiologist, Dr. Sabom
had daily access to people who had suffered cardiac arrest (a
life-threatening situation in which the heart stops pumping). Dozens
of people told Dr. Sabom that they had an autoscopic experience during
their cardiac arrest and observed medical personnel attempting to
revive their physical bodies using a procedure called cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR). Some people said that they could not only see but
also hear what the medics were saying. The people said that they were
not seeing and hearing with the senses of the physical body, but
rather with a completely different kind of senses which can function
independently of the physical senses. In particular, when they were
seeing what the medics were doing, they were seeing from a viewpoint
above the physical body looking down on it.
Skeptics say that these people were either hallucinating or
deliberately lying. The hypothesis of lying loses force when we
consider the special trick that Sabom used in interviewing the
patients. Dr. Sabom said (1982, p.9) that he approached each patient
privately and acted as if he were conducting a routine medical
examination involving standard questions for patients recovering from
cardiac arrest. Thus the patients did not know in advance that Dr.
Sabom intended to ask them about anything unusual that they might have
experienced during CPR. Dr. Sabom was a regular member of the
hospital, a staff physician.
Thus when he was walking through the halls, no one suspected that
anything unusual was going on. He was not like an outsider coming in
on a special mission which would have alerted the patients that
something unusual was going on. It is important to note that Dr. Sabom
approached them: they did not approach him to tell him about an
experience they had. Dr. Sabom would just walk into a room and begin
asking questions right on the spot. The patients did not know that
Sabom was going to ask them about out-of-body experiences. If we are
to believe that the patients deliberately lied to Sabom, then we would
have to believe that they all of a sudden made up an elaborate
out-of-body lie on the spot with no advance warning. It is hard to
believe that a person would do this.
Thus there appears to have been no atmosphere of sensationalism or
trying to advertise publicly some new mystical experience with the
aim of attracting attention. Most of the people Dr. Sabom interviewed
were just ordinary people such as automobile mechanics and security
guards who were not overly educated or overly sophisticated.
Dr. Sabom approached each patient as if conducting an ordinary
medical interview and, after a series of routine questions about his
physical recovery, Sabom asked him if he had experienced anything
unusual during his CPR. At this point some patients simply said that
they were unconscious during the CPR and could not remember anything.
But other patients looked cautiously at Dr. Sabom to make sure that he
was not an undercover psychiatrist and then said something like: "I
did have a very unusual experience but if I told you about it, you
would think I am crazy."
The people hesitated to reveal their experiences because they were
afraid that Dr. Sabom would consider them insane. Dr. Sabom would then
say that he was genuinely interested in any experience they had during
CPR as a matter of scientific interest. After reassuring themselves
that Dr. Sabom would not consider them hopelessly deranged, the people
would then reveal how they had come out of their physical bodies and
observed the body from a viewpoint outside it. According to Dr.
Sabom's report, the people were not trying to advertise their
experience: quite the contrary, they were trying to hide it! Thus the
usual motives for lying do not seem to be at work in these cases.
Dr. Sabom mentioned that after a while it became known to other
doctors that he was conducting a study on autoscopic experiences and
then people began to approach him to tell him about experiences they
had. The honesty of these people is more difficult to evaluate than
that of the patients who were privately approached by Dr. Sabom with
no knowledge in advance of his intentions. My discussion throughout
this article is therefore based on Sabom's privately-approached cases.
Let us assume, then, that the people in these privately-approached
cases (who claimed to have observed their own resuscitations from
outside their bodies) did not deliberately lie to Dr. Sabom. But could
these people have been hallucinating? Skeptics suggest that a person
may take refuge in fantasy to avoid acknowledging the unpleasant fact
that he is dying. But Dr. Sabom (1982, p.86) noted that persons
claiming to have had an autoscopic experience during CPR (called
"group 1") gave a much more accurate description of the general
procedure of in-hospital CPR than persons who, although having had a
cardiac arrest, did not report an autoscopic experience during their
CPR (called "group 2").
This is significant because Dr. Sabom specifically said that the
members of both of these groups had similar prior knowledge of CPR
technique (in fact, group 2 was deliberately selected by Sabom as a
control group to test how much prior general knowledge of CPR a
typical cardiac patient has). Since the members of both groups had the
same background knowledge of CPR, we expect that the members of both
groups should have given equally accurate descriptions. But they did
not. In fact, Sabom said that 80% of the members of group 2 made at
least one major error in their description of in-hospital CPR whereas
none of the members of group 1 made such errors. Group 2 members made
such big mistakes as saying, for example, that the doctor delivered a
sharp blow to the solar plexus to try to get the patient's heart
beating again, or that the doctor used mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to
provide oxygen to the patient (this is almost never done in a hospital
since in the hospital there are far better means available for
oxygenating a patient).
But Dr. Sabom was very impressed with the accuracy of the
descriptions given by the members of group 1. For example, Sabom
(1982, p.91) said the following about one description: "His
description is extremely accurate in portraying the appearance of both
the technique of CPR and the proper sequence in which this technique
is performed -- i.e., chest thump, external cardiac massage, airway
insertion, administration of medications and defibrillation."
A defibrillation is an electric shock applied to the chest in an
attempt to start the heart again. Sabom said that, at the time he
interviewed this man, the man did not possess more than a layman's
knowledge of medicine and the man had never seen CPR on television.
This man said that during his resuscitation he saw (from a point above
his physical body looking down) that the medics delivered two
defibrillations to his chest. Dr. Sabom then read the medical record
which was written by the doctors who actually performed the
resuscitation.
Sabom said that this record also stated that two defibrillations had
been delivered. It is important to note that the number of
defibrillations varies from one patient to the next depending on the
medical circumstances. Sabom (1982, p.90) said that in this case the
man had not been allowed to see his medical record. Those who are
seriously interested in the actual nature of man should read Sabom's
book in its entirety. Sabom presents many interesting cases that have
a very important bearing on our understanding of our ultimate nature.
In summary, the fact that group 1 descriptions of CPR are far more
accurate than group 2 descriptions led Sabom to reject the hypothesis
that the group 1 descriptions are simply hallucinations.
Dr. Sabom believed that the hypothesis that the living being is
able to leave his physical body and function independently of it
explains both the subjective experience of the patients he interviewed
as well as the accuracy of their autoscopic observations during their
resuscitations. Furthermore, reports in which a person sees and hears
without using the senses of his physical body support the hypothesis
that the living being has transcorporal senses.
Many people told Sabom that when they were having their out-of-body
experience they directly realized that they were fundamentally
different from their physical body which is just a shell or machine
that they customarily inhabit. The out-of-body experience was so
profound that it made a permanent change in their world-view.
One might suggest that ESP is a better explanation for these cases
than out-of-body experiences. But the ESP hypothesis ignores the fact
that again and again people reported seeing from a view point outside
of their physical bodies. The viewpoint outside indicates that the
living being has departed from his physical body.
This is strengthened by the case described in the next section in
which a person is able to come out of her physical body at will. Her
experience is that her actual self comes out and functions
independently of her physical body.
Leaving and reentering your physical body at will
Dr. Sabom (1982, p.116-121) reported a case in which a woman was
walking across a street when she was suddenly hit by a car. She
reported that she came out of her physical body and saw her body being
hit by the car. Before the car accident, she had no interest in
out-of-body experiences, astral projection or other "psychic"
phenomena. But after the accident she became very interested to find
out what had actually occurred.
After the car accident, she found that she had acquired the ability
to come out of her body at will. For example, at night she would
routinely come out of her body and check to make sure that the windows
and doors of her house were locked. Some of the windows were up high,
and thus it was much easier to check them in the out-of-body state
than in the physically- embodied state. She said (Sabom, 1982, p.119):
"...it seems like I could just get out of my body and see it lying
there and go check on everything ... I had powers to go to whatever
height I wanted and I was not limited, as I am in my physical body
....".
At a certain point in her life she was living in a "house trailer"
in which there was one back door which was never used and consequently
was always closed. On one occasion, however, she saw (in her
out-of-body state) that, to her surprise, this door was open. She
returned to her physical body, entered it, got out of bed, and walked
over to the door in order to examine it in her physical body. She
discovered that the door was open just as she had seen it in her
out-of-body state.
At first she described her out-of-body excursions to her mother,
but her mother could not understand them and thought that something
was wrong with her. She figured that this is the typical reaction and
thus she decided not to tell anyone else about it (until she finally
told Sabom). For about two years she made regular excursions out of
her physical body. Leaving her body was natural and easy for her; she
could do it with the same ease with which an ordinary man effortlessly
gets out of his automobile. She mentioned that she could even get out
of her body when it was walking down the street (in such cases she was
hovering next to her walking body); she said (Sabom, 1982, p.120): "I
just jumped out and jumped right back in...".
But after a while she began to fear that someone else might enter
her body when she was outside of it and she would thus lose the
opportunity to get back into her body. This anxiety continued to grow
as she considered that if she were permanently barred from her body,
she would be unable to care for her young child. For this reason she
stopped making regular excursions out of her body, although she was
perfectly able to leave her body whenever she wanted to. Sabom's
report suggests that each one of us is different from his physical
body and possesses a superhuman, transcorporal body with transcorporal
senses.
It is worth noting that after decades of research, Nobel
Prize-winning neurobiologist John Eccles and renowned brain surgeon
Wilder Penfield both concluded that each one of us is fundamentally
different from his physical body (see Popper and Eccles 1977; Penfield
1975). Now we must ask the question, if each person is different from
his physical body, why does each person identify himself as his
physical body? If I do not need a physical body, why am I in one now?
How did this strange state of affairs come about? This is an excellent
question which I shall attempt to answer in Chapter 3 after having
presented extensive evidence for the conscious self in Chapter 2.
SCIENCE DISCOVERS THE SOUL
by
Stephen Bernath
Bhaktivedanta Institute
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
>Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Dr. Michael Sabom was a Professor of Medicine in the Division of
Cardiology at the Medical School of the Emory University and a staff
physician at the Atlanta VA Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia, USA
during the time that he studied autoscopic experiences. In a typical
autoscopic experience, a person reports that he comes out of his
physical body and observes it from a viewpoint outside of it. In the
beginning of his study, Dr. Sabom thought that these so-called
autoscopic experiences are nothing more than imagination. But after
interviewing dozens of people over a period of five years, he
concluded that there is something more than imagination at work in
these reports.
Why did he change his mind? As a practicing cardiologist, Dr. Sabom
had daily access to people who had suffered cardiac arrest (a
life-threatening situation in which the heart stops pumping). Dozens
of people told Dr. Sabom that they had an autoscopic experience during
their cardiac arrest and observed medical personnel attempting to
revive their physical bodies using a procedure called cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR). Some people said that they could not only see but
also hear what the medics were saying. The people said that they were
not seeing and hearing with the senses of the physical body, but
rather with a completely different kind of senses which can function
independently of the physical senses. In particular, when they were
seeing what the medics were doing, they were seeing from a viewpoint
above the physical body looking down on it.
Skeptics say that these people were either hallucinating or
deliberately lying. The hypothesis of lying loses force when we
consider the special trick that Sabom used in interviewing the
patients. Dr. Sabom said (1982, p.9) that he approached each patient
privately and acted as if he were conducting a routine medical
examination involving standard questions for patients recovering from
cardiac arrest. Thus the patients did not know in advance that Dr.
Sabom intended to ask them about anything unusual that they might have
experienced during CPR. Dr. Sabom was a regular member of the
hospital, a staff physician.
Thus when he was walking through the halls, no one suspected that
anything unusual was going on. He was not like an outsider coming in
on a special mission which would have alerted the patients that
something unusual was going on. It is important to note that Dr. Sabom
approached them: they did not approach him to tell him about an
experience they had. Dr. Sabom would just walk into a room and begin
asking questions right on the spot. The patients did not know that
Sabom was going to ask them about out-of-body experiences. If we are
to believe that the patients deliberately lied to Sabom, then we would
have to believe that they all of a sudden made up an elaborate
out-of-body lie on the spot with no advance warning. It is hard to
believe that a person would do this.
Thus there appears to have been no atmosphere of sensationalism or
trying to advertise publicly some new mystical experience with the
aim of attracting attention. Most of the people Dr. Sabom interviewed
were just ordinary people such as automobile mechanics and security
guards who were not overly educated or overly sophisticated.
Dr. Sabom approached each patient as if conducting an ordinary
medical interview and, after a series of routine questions about his
physical recovery, Sabom asked him if he had experienced anything
unusual during his CPR. At this point some patients simply said that
they were unconscious during the CPR and could not remember anything.
But other patients looked cautiously at Dr. Sabom to make sure that he
was not an undercover psychiatrist and then said something like: "I
did have a very unusual experience but if I told you about it, you
would think I am crazy."
The people hesitated to reveal their experiences because they were
afraid that Dr. Sabom would consider them insane. Dr. Sabom would then
say that he was genuinely interested in any experience they had during
CPR as a matter of scientific interest. After reassuring themselves
that Dr. Sabom would not consider them hopelessly deranged, the people
would then reveal how they had come out of their physical bodies and
observed the body from a viewpoint outside it. According to Dr.
Sabom's report, the people were not trying to advertise their
experience: quite the contrary, they were trying to hide it! Thus the
usual motives for lying do not seem to be at work in these cases.
Dr. Sabom mentioned that after a while it became known to other
doctors that he was conducting a study on autoscopic experiences and
then people began to approach him to tell him about experiences they
had. The honesty of these people is more difficult to evaluate than
that of the patients who were privately approached by Dr. Sabom with
no knowledge in advance of his intentions. My discussion throughout
this article is therefore based on Sabom's privately-approached cases.
Let us assume, then, that the people in these privately-approached
cases (who claimed to have observed their own resuscitations from
outside their bodies) did not deliberately lie to Dr. Sabom. But could
these people have been hallucinating? Skeptics suggest that a person
may take refuge in fantasy to avoid acknowledging the unpleasant fact
that he is dying. But Dr. Sabom (1982, p.86) noted that persons
claiming to have had an autoscopic experience during CPR (called
"group 1") gave a much more accurate description of the general
procedure of in-hospital CPR than persons who, although having had a
cardiac arrest, did not report an autoscopic experience during their
CPR (called "group 2").
This is significant because Dr. Sabom specifically said that the
members of both of these groups had similar prior knowledge of CPR
technique (in fact, group 2 was deliberately selected by Sabom as a
control group to test how much prior general knowledge of CPR a
typical cardiac patient has). Since the members of both groups had the
same background knowledge of CPR, we expect that the members of both
groups should have given equally accurate descriptions. But they did
not. In fact, Sabom said that 80% of the members of group 2 made at
least one major error in their description of in-hospital CPR whereas
none of the members of group 1 made such errors. Group 2 members made
such big mistakes as saying, for example, that the doctor delivered a
sharp blow to the solar plexus to try to get the patient's heart
beating again, or that the doctor used mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to
provide oxygen to the patient (this is almost never done in a hospital
since in the hospital there are far better means available for
oxygenating a patient).
But Dr. Sabom was very impressed with the accuracy of the
descriptions given by the members of group 1. For example, Sabom
(1982, p.91) said the following about one description: "His
description is extremely accurate in portraying the appearance of both
the technique of CPR and the proper sequence in which this technique
is performed -- i.e., chest thump, external cardiac massage, airway
insertion, administration of medications and defibrillation."
A defibrillation is an electric shock applied to the chest in an
attempt to start the heart again. Sabom said that, at the time he
interviewed this man, the man did not possess more than a layman's
knowledge of medicine and the man had never seen CPR on television.
This man said that during his resuscitation he saw (from a point above
his physical body looking down) that the medics delivered two
defibrillations to his chest. Dr. Sabom then read the medical record
which was written by the doctors who actually performed the
resuscitation.
Sabom said that this record also stated that two defibrillations had
been delivered. It is important to note that the number of
defibrillations varies from one patient to the next depending on the
medical circumstances. Sabom (1982, p.90) said that in this case the
man had not been allowed to see his medical record. Those who are
seriously interested in the actual nature of man should read Sabom's
book in its entirety. Sabom presents many interesting cases that have
a very important bearing on our understanding of our ultimate nature.
In summary, the fact that group 1 descriptions of CPR are far more
accurate than group 2 descriptions led Sabom to reject the hypothesis
that the group 1 descriptions are simply hallucinations.
Dr. Sabom believed that the hypothesis that the living being is
able to leave his physical body and function independently of it
explains both the subjective experience of the patients he interviewed
as well as the accuracy of their autoscopic observations during their
resuscitations. Furthermore, reports in which a person sees and hears
without using the senses of his physical body support the hypothesis
that the living being has transcorporal senses.
Many people told Sabom that when they were having their out-of-body
experience they directly realized that they were fundamentally
different from their physical body which is just a shell or machine
that they customarily inhabit. The out-of-body experience was so
profound that it made a permanent change in their world-view.
One might suggest that ESP is a better explanation for these cases
than out-of-body experiences. But the ESP hypothesis ignores the fact
that again and again people reported seeing from a view point outside
of their physical bodies. The viewpoint outside indicates that the
living being has departed from his physical body.
This is strengthened by the case described in the next section in
which a person is able to come out of her physical body at will. Her
experience is that her actual self comes out and functions
independently of her physical body.
Leaving and reentering your physical body at will
Dr. Sabom (1982, p.116-121) reported a case in which a woman was
walking across a street when she was suddenly hit by a car. She
reported that she came out of her physical body and saw her body being
hit by the car. Before the car accident, she had no interest in
out-of-body experiences, astral projection or other "psychic"
phenomena. But after the accident she became very interested to find
out what had actually occurred.
After the car accident, she found that she had acquired the ability
to come out of her body at will. For example, at night she would
routinely come out of her body and check to make sure that the windows
and doors of her house were locked. Some of the windows were up high,
and thus it was much easier to check them in the out-of-body state
than in the physically- embodied state. She said (Sabom, 1982, p.119):
"...it seems like I could just get out of my body and see it lying
there and go check on everything ... I had powers to go to whatever
height I wanted and I was not limited, as I am in my physical body
....".
At a certain point in her life she was living in a "house trailer"
in which there was one back door which was never used and consequently
was always closed. On one occasion, however, she saw (in her
out-of-body state) that, to her surprise, this door was open. She
returned to her physical body, entered it, got out of bed, and walked
over to the door in order to examine it in her physical body. She
discovered that the door was open just as she had seen it in her
out-of-body state.
At first she described her out-of-body excursions to her mother,
but her mother could not understand them and thought that something
was wrong with her. She figured that this is the typical reaction and
thus she decided not to tell anyone else about it (until she finally
told Sabom). For about two years she made regular excursions out of
her physical body. Leaving her body was natural and easy for her; she
could do it with the same ease with which an ordinary man effortlessly
gets out of his automobile. She mentioned that she could even get out
of her body when it was walking down the street (in such cases she was
hovering next to her walking body); she said (Sabom, 1982, p.120): "I
just jumped out and jumped right back in...".
But after a while she began to fear that someone else might enter
her body when she was outside of it and she would thus lose the
opportunity to get back into her body. This anxiety continued to grow
as she considered that if she were permanently barred from her body,
she would be unable to care for her young child. For this reason she
stopped making regular excursions out of her body, although she was
perfectly able to leave her body whenever she wanted to. Sabom's
report suggests that each one of us is different from his physical
body and possesses a superhuman, transcorporal body with transcorporal
senses.
It is worth noting that after decades of research, Nobel
Prize-winning neurobiologist John Eccles and renowned brain surgeon
Wilder Penfield both concluded that each one of us is fundamentally
different from his physical body (see Popper and Eccles 1977; Penfield
1975). Now we must ask the question, if each person is different from
his physical body, why does each person identify himself as his
physical body? If I do not need a physical body, why am I in one now?
How did this strange state of affairs come about? This is an excellent
question which I shall attempt to answer in Chapter 3 after having
presented extensive evidence for the conscious self in Chapter 2.
SCIENCE DISCOVERS THE SOUL
by
Stephen Bernath
Bhaktivedanta Institute
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
R Brown
May 30, 2012, 9:08:11 AM5/30/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, "R Brown" wished:
>
> > Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
>
> That's like saying no light-bulb no light. Get it?
>
> Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
>
>
There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, "R Brown" wished:
>
> > Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
>
> That's like saying no light-bulb no light. Get it?
>
> Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
>
>
There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
Back to square one: no brain; no mind. Get it?
Probably not. Which is why I say ...
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown
MelissA
May 30, 2012, 9:14:32 AM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:11 GMT
"R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Jahnu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, "R Brown" wished:
> >
> > > Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
> >
> > That's like saying no light-bulb no light. Get it?
> >
> > Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
> >
> >
>
> There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
>
> There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
No, but there can be illusion of out of body experience.
"R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Jahnu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:58:32 GMT, "R Brown" wished:
> >
> > > Dude. No brain; no mind. Get it?
> >
> > That's like saying no light-bulb no light. Get it?
> >
> > Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
> >
> >
>
> There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
>
> There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
What is obvious is that when brain is damaged mind
changes to the worse...
What is defined by personality depends on
brain.
Jahnu
May 30, 2012, 7:44:49 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:11 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
Nope. Good analogy.
>There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
Because you assert so? hahaha :)
>Back to square one: no brain; no mind. Get it?
That's like saying when I turn off the TV the people in the studio
disappear. Get it?
>Probably not. Which is why I say ...
>
>"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
>stupidity." - R.Brown
--- but, but, but the world appeared out of a point just like that -
poof, and then there was a bunch of chemicals that became an amoeba
that grew legs and learned to talk.
Nothing is more stupid than to think the world created itself without
intelligent direction. That's why you have to be extremely stupid to
be an atheist.
Look, you are predicted in the Bhagava Gita - Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
wrote:
>There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
>There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
>Back to square one: no brain; no mind. Get it?
disappear. Get it?
>Probably not. Which is why I say ...
>
>"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
>stupidity." - R.Brown
poof, and then there was a bunch of chemicals that became an amoeba
that grew legs and learned to talk.
Nothing is more stupid than to think the world created itself without
intelligent direction. That's why you have to be extremely stupid to
be an atheist.
Look, you are predicted in the Bhagava Gita - Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
Jahnu
May 30, 2012, 7:48:36 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:14:32 +0200, MelissA <me...@a.com> wrote:
>No, but there can be illusion of out of body experience.
>What is obvious is that when brain is damaged mind
>changes to the worse...
>What is defined by personality depends on
>brain.
http://hsc.virginia.edu/personality-studies
>No, but there can be illusion of out of body experience.
>What is obvious is that when brain is damaged mind
>changes to the worse...
>What is defined by personality depends on
>brain.
Anyone, regardless of his beliefs and convictions, can experience that
he is a constant or eternal observer of existence.
Krishna says:
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at
death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. (Bg. 2.13)
What Krishna is saying here, is that one's body changes all the time
from childhood, to youth, to old age. But the self or the I within,
remains constant. One's mind and intelligence change, sure. You are
are supposed to grow wiser with age. One's thoughts, feelings,
willpower, and convictions change as time progresses.
But it is the same I-feeling, who experience all these changes. It is
the same observer. The person stays the same despite the altercations
in matter.
That is the eternal soul. It is the same person, or the same soul who
sits in a child's body as the one who sits in the old man's body. The
person didn't change, in the sense that he is the same observer. His
thoughts and feelings and intelligence changed, but he remained the
same soul. In this way anyone can experience his own eternality.
It's a question of absorption - either one is absorped in matter,
which is in constant change. One is absorped in his thoughts,
feelings, and will. Or one is absorped in one's eternal self. That
means, one is absorped in observing one's thoughts, feelings, and
will. IOW one is absorped in his own consciousness.
That is a choice one has. And one's choice will be determined by the
way one is controlled by matter. When one's choice is motivated by the
desire to become FREE from matter, then one begins his spiritual
journey back home, back to Godhead.
Krishna says:
A person who is not disturbed by the incessant flow of desires - that
enter like rivers into the ocean, which is ever being filled but is
always still - can alone achieve peace, and not the man who strives to
satisfy such desires. (Bg 2.70)
A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who
lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship
and is devoid of false ego - he alone can attain real peace. (Bg 2.71)
That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which
a man is not bewildered. If one is thus situated even at the hour of
death, one can enter into the kingdom of God. (Bg 2.72)
Ken
May 30, 2012, 9:14:52 PM5/30/12
to
Krishna says: Jahnu one really fucked up piece of crap
R Brown
May 30, 2012, 10:30:32 PM5/30/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:11 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
>
> Nope. Good analogy.
No, it's a false analogy. Read this sloooowly: there are many sources
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:11 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are many sources of light besides light-bulbs. False analogy.
>
> Nope. Good analogy.
of light. Get it? There is only one source of mind.
>
> > There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
>
> Because you assert so? hahaha :)
>
No, because you can't provide any objective evidence of mind existing
> > There are no other sources of mind besides brain.
>
> Because you assert so? hahaha :)
>
without brain.
> > Back to square one: no brain; no mind. Get it?
>
> That's like saying when I turn off the TV the people in the studio
> disappear. Get it?
>
surprising because you're a creationist.
> > Probably not. Which is why I say ...
> >
> > "When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
> > stupidity." - R.Brown
>
> --- but, but, but the world appeared out of a point just like that -
> poof, and then there was a bunch of chemicals that became an amoeba
> that grew legs and learned to talk.
>
masturbating to get yourself off.
> Nothing is more stupid than to think the world created itself without
> intelligent direction. That's why you have to be extremely stupid to
> be an atheist.
>
> Look, you are predicted in the Bhagava Gita - Krishna says:
>
> I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
> covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
> am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
>
I'm gonna get struck by lightning now? As if.)
>
>
>
>
> Have a look at my art
>
> http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
>
> http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
> http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
--
>
>
>
> Have a look at my art
>
> http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
>
> http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
> http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
Jahnu
May 31, 2012, 3:22:58 AM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:30:32 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>No, it's a false analogy. Read this sloooowly: there are many sources
>of light. Get it? There is only one source of mind.
Nope it's a real good analogy. It shows how braindead your statement
is.
>No, because you can't provide any objective evidence of mind existing
>without brain.
hahaha :) Evidence? you wouldn't know evidence if it fell on your
head, bozo.
People from all over the world have NDEs and OBEs.
Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
wrote:
>No, it's a false analogy. Read this sloooowly: there are many sources
>of light. Get it? There is only one source of mind.
is.
>No, because you can't provide any objective evidence of mind existing
>without brain.
head, bozo.
People from all over the world have NDEs and OBEs.
Out-of-body experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
R Brown
May 31, 2012, 8:48:41 AM5/31/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:30:32 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > No, it's a false analogy. Read this sloooowly: there are many
> > sources of light. Get it? There is only one source of mind.
>
> Nope it's a real good analogy. It shows how braindead your statement
> is.
> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:30:32 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > No, it's a false analogy. Read this sloooowly: there are many
> > sources of light. Get it? There is only one source of mind.
>
> Nope it's a real good analogy. It shows how braindead your statement
> is.
> > No, because you can't provide any objective evidence of mind
> > existing without brain.
>
> hahaha :) Evidence? you wouldn't know evidence if it fell on your
> head, bozo.
>
Thank you.
<skip anecdotal bullshit that serves to fool creationists only>
That's why I say ...
Jahnu
May 31, 2012, 12:55:22 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:41 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
You say that the fact you can alter the mind's perception by
chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
mind.
So the light bulb is the brain. By altering the llght (ie.
consciousness) in the bulb - you can make the light weaker or stronger
or different colors - so from that you conclude that the light-bulb is
the caue of light. Or you say, if you smash the brain the mind stops,
so thereore the brain causes the mind. But that's not so. Everybody
knows electricity causes light, and even if you smash the bulb the
electricity stays - the light bulb is just the via media through which
electricity manifests light.
Similarly, the brain is simply the via media through which emotions,
thought, feelings, and intelligence manifest. To say the brain is the
cause of the mind is like saying a light bulb is the cause of light.
Krishna says:
O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the
moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether
and ability in man. (Bg 7.8)
wrote:
>> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
mind.
So the light bulb is the brain. By altering the llght (ie.
consciousness) in the bulb - you can make the light weaker or stronger
or different colors - so from that you conclude that the light-bulb is
the caue of light. Or you say, if you smash the brain the mind stops,
so thereore the brain causes the mind. But that's not so. Everybody
knows electricity causes light, and even if you smash the bulb the
electricity stays - the light bulb is just the via media through which
electricity manifests light.
Similarly, the brain is simply the via media through which emotions,
thought, feelings, and intelligence manifest. To say the brain is the
cause of the mind is like saying a light bulb is the cause of light.
Krishna says:
O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the
moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether
and ability in man. (Bg 7.8)
Ken
May 31, 2012, 1:27:23 PM5/31/12
to
Krishna says: Jahnu one really fucked up piece of shit
Jahnu
May 31, 2012, 10:57:56 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT), Ken whined:
>Krishna says: I am one really fucked up piece of shit
Krishna says:
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be
understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen
directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My
understanding. (Bg 11.54)
>Krishna says: I am one really fucked up piece of shit
Krishna says:
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be
understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen
directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My
understanding. (Bg 11.54)
R Brown
Jun 1, 2012, 9:28:49 AM6/1/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:41 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
>
> You say that the fact you can alter the mind's perception by
> chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
> mind.
>
> So the light bulb is the brain. By altering the llght (ie.
> consciousness) in the bulb - you can make the light weaker or stronger
> or different colors - so from that you conclude that the light-bulb is
> the caue of light. Or you say, if you smash the brain the mind stops,
> so thereore the brain causes the mind. But that's not so. Everybody
> knows electricity causes light, and even if you smash the bulb the
> electricity stays - the light bulb is just the via media through which
> electricity manifests light.
>
> Similarly, the brain is simply the via media through which emotions,
> thought, feelings, and intelligence manifest. To say the brain is the
> cause of the mind is like saying a light bulb is the cause of light.
>
Look dude, I'll try and slow this down for you so you can keep up. Pay
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:41 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
>
> You say that the fact you can alter the mind's perception by
> chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
> mind.
>
> So the light bulb is the brain. By altering the llght (ie.
> consciousness) in the bulb - you can make the light weaker or stronger
> or different colors - so from that you conclude that the light-bulb is
> the caue of light. Or you say, if you smash the brain the mind stops,
> so thereore the brain causes the mind. But that's not so. Everybody
> knows electricity causes light, and even if you smash the bulb the
> electricity stays - the light bulb is just the via media through which
> electricity manifests light.
>
> Similarly, the brain is simply the via media through which emotions,
> thought, feelings, and intelligence manifest. To say the brain is the
> cause of the mind is like saying a light bulb is the cause of light.
>
attention.
Light bulbs running on electricity is but one source of light.
There are many other sources of light besides that combo. Shall we list
them?
Brain is the only, as in solitary, singular, one, source of mind. It's
not a mere conduit. The brain generates and sustains mind.
Theists have been struggling for eons trying to convince the rest of us
that there can be a mind with no physical substrate. It's always some
sort of ubber-mind that has no physical existance. They talk a lot, as
you do, but have not yet produced any objective physical evidence. All
we get from you nutters is anecdotes.
You say that if a light bulb burns out, that electriciy would still
exist. True enough as far as that goes, now you're modifying your
little analogy to say that electricity is the mind and the light bulb
is the brain. Your point being that if your analogy is true then when
the brain burns out, mind would still exist. Right?
Then it's very simple to prove your claim: simply show us objective,
emprical evidence of a mind at work with no brain to substantiate it.
Of course, you guys will simply scream that that is what all your cut
and paste anecdotes are: real empirical evidence.
They are not.
If such stories suffice for you then you are too easily satisfied. You
just wanna believe because reality doesn't appeal to you. Sorry dude,
you're gonna die. Our conscious existance is finite. When the brain
dies, so does the mind associated with it.
Tough shit. Deal with it. How do the reality-challenged like you deal
with it? You make up soothing stories to keep the fear at bay. Mind
will go on independent of brain you say. We understand, we're human
too. You choose a fantasy; I choose reality. You're full of fear and it
fucks you up. My balls are simply bigger than yours.
Now throw in some more lame Krishna quotes because you can't formulate
your own thoughts very well and you're whipped.
(note to all: if this clown doesn't throw in a Krishna quote I'll be
amazed!)
That's why I say...
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown
linuxgal
Jun 1, 2012, 10:30:00 AM6/1/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:41 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
>
> You say that the fact you can alter the mind's perception by
> chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
> mind.
Marijuana is a gateway drug to Doritos.
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:41 GMT, "R Brown" <bro...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Please demonstrate how your analogy is accurate.
>
> You say that the fact you can alter the mind's perception by
> chemicals, that means the chemicals in the brain are cause of the
> mind.
Jahnu
Jun 1, 2012, 1:03:18 PM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:28:49 GMT, "R Brown" blithered:
<blah blah blah>
Look, here is the proof you are less intelligent and foolish -
Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
<blah blah blah>
Look, here is the proof you are less intelligent and foolish -
Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
R Brown
Jun 3, 2012, 2:57:31 PM6/3/12
to
Jahnu wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:28:49 GMT, "R Brown" blithered:
>
> <blah blah blah>
>
> Look, here is the proof you are less intelligent and foolish -
>
> Krishna says:
>
> I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
> covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
> am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
>
Well lookee here - a Krishna quote! I totally called it.
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:28:49 GMT, "R Brown" blithered:
>
> <blah blah blah>
>
> Look, here is the proof you are less intelligent and foolish -
>
> Krishna says:
>
> I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
> covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
> am unborn and infallible. (Bg 7.25)
>
Yippee! I win! Creationists are so predictable and simply can't help
themselves. That's why I say ...
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity. " - R.Brown
>
>
>
>
> Have a look at my art
>
> http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
>
> http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
> http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
--
>
> http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
>
> http://sandhedenerildehoert.blogspot.com/
> http://truthunwelcome.blogspot.com/
Ken
Jun 3, 2012, 4:29:21 PM6/3/12
to
Krishna says: "Jahnu one really fucked up useless piece of shit!"
0 new messages