The Buddha
Dan Fake
a religious figure such as the Buddha to be of interest?
Well, many of the Buddha's tenets are similar to mine
(a small number are not), and curiously, many of the
Buddha's tenets are similar to the pro-human aspects
of the Jesus Christ of gospel fame.
For those not aware of the Buddha and what, traditionally,
has been attributed to him, the following is provided for
enlightenment in that regard and in consideration of the
profound philosophies present before any of the Christ
stories were written into the gospel documents of the
christian bible.
For those familiar with christianity, compare the following
to christianity and note the differences:
Introduction
Flourished c. 6th–4th century BCE
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108287
Excerpt:
"... The term buddha, literally meaning 'awakened
one' or 'enlightened one,' is not a proper name but
rather a title, such as messiah (the Christ).
Thus, the term should be accompanied by an arti-
cle, such as 'the Buddha' or 'a buddha' (because
of a belief that there will be innumerable buddhas
in the future as there have been in the past).
The Buddha who belongs to the present world era
was born into the Gotama (in Pali), or Gautama (in
Sanskrit), clan and is often referred to as Gotama.
When the term the Buddha is used, it is generally
assumed that it refers to Gotama the Buddha. ..."
- - -
The Great Enlightenment
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108287&tocid=67697
Excerpt:
"... (In order to attain buddhahood, all bodhisattvas
[i.e., those who aspire to become buddhas] have to
perfect, during innumerable lives, these 10 paramitas
('great virtues': charity, morality, renunciation, wis-
dom, effort, patience, truth, determination, universal
love, and equanimity.) ...
"The battle with Mara (the evil one, the tempter who
is the lord of the world of passion, determined to
defeat him and prevent him from attaining Enlighten-
ment) is graphically described in ancient Buddhist
texts and depicted in paintings on the walls of Bud-
dhist temples.
In the Padhanasutta ('Discourse on the Exertion')
of the Pali Suttanipata, one of the earliest texts, the
Buddha states that, when he was practicing austerities
by the Nerañjara River in Uruvela, Mara approached
him, speaking such words as: 'You are emaciated,
pale, you are near death. Live, Sir, life is better. Do
meritorious deeds. What is the use of striving?'
After some preliminary words, Gotama replied:
'Lust is your first army;
the second is dislike for higher life;
the third is hunger and thirst;
the fourth is craving;
the fifth is torpor and sloth;
the sixth is fear (cowardice);
the seventh is doubt;
the eighth is hypocrisy and obduracy;
the ninth is gains, praise, honour, false glory;
the tenth is exalting self and despising others.
Mara, these are your armies. No feeble man can
conquer them, yet only by conquering them one
wins bliss. I challenge you! Shame on my life if
defeated! Better for me to die in battle than to
live defeated."
Mara, overcome with grief, disappeared. ...
- - -
Four Noble Truths
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?idxref=72793
Excerpt:
"... The essence of Buddhist religious doctrine,
expounded by Gautama Buddha in his first sermon
at the deer park near Benares (Varanasi), India,
shortly after his having attained Enlightenment.
The four truths are:
(1) that existence is suffering (dukkha);
(2) that this suffering has a cause (samudaya);
(3) that it can be suppressed (nirodha); and
(4) that there is a way (magga) to accomplish this,
the noble Eightfold Path ..."
- - -
Eightfold Path
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=32692
Excerpt:
"... Doctrine taught by Gautama Buddha in his first
sermon at the deer park near Benares (Varanasi),
in India. Together with the Four Noble Truths, of
which it forms a part, it sums up the whole of Bud-
dhist teaching.
It is also called the Middle Path, as it steers a course
between the sensual pleasures of the materialists and
the self-mortification of the ascetics.
Those who follow the noble Eightfold Path are freed
from the suffering that is an essential part of human
existence and are led ultimately to Nirvana, or Enlight-
enment.
Some Buddhist teachings have held that to enter this
path in itself implies an experience of Nirvana.
The Eightfold Path consists of:
(1) right understanding—faith in the Buddhist view
of the nature of existence in terms of the Four Noble
Truths;
(2) right thought—the resolve to practice the faith;
(3) right speech—avoidance of falsehoods, slander,
or abusive speech;
(4) right action—abstention from taking life, stealing,
and improper sexual behaviour;
(5) right livelihood—rejection of occupations not in
keeping with Buddhist principles;
(6) right effort—avoidance of bad and development
of good mental states;
(7) right mindfulness—awareness of the body, feelings,
and thought; and
(8) right concentration—meditation."
- - -
The Founding of the Sangha (Buddhist monastic
order, traditionally composed of four groups:
monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108287&tocid=67699
Excerpt:
"The Buddha spent about three months in the Vara-
nasi/Benares region. During this period an important
and influential wealthy young man named Yasa be-
came his disciple and entered the order.
His father and mother, along with his former wife,
also were converted. They were the first lay disciples
to take refuge in the 'Triple Jewel': the Buddha, the
dhamma (the interrelated elements which make up the
empirical world), and the sangha (see above).
Later, four of Yasa's close friends followed his ex-
ample and entered the order. Enthusiasm for this new
movement became so impelling that 50 of their friends
also joined them in the sangha. All these became arhats
(a Buddhist who has reached the stage of enlighten-
ment) in due course, and the Buddha soon had 60
disciples who were perfected ones.
The Buddha addressed this group in the following
words and sent them out into the world to spread his
message of peace, compassion, and wisdom:
'Bhikkhus, I am freed from all fetters, both divine and
human. You, too, are freed from all fetters, both divine
and human. Wander forth, bhikkhus, for the good of
the many, for the happiness of the many, out of com-
passion for the world. . . .
Let not two of you go by one road [i.e., go in different
directions]. Teach the Dhamma which is good at the
beginning, good in the middle, and good at the end. . . .
There are people who will understand the Dhamma. I,
too, will go to Uruvela to teach the Dhamma.'
The 60 disciples went in various directions to spread
the teaching of the Buddha. The Buddha himself set
out for Uruvela. On the way he converted 30 young
men, who then entered the order. ..."
- - -
Death
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108287&tocid=67700#67700.toc
Excerpt:
" ... The Buddha told Ananda that he had decided to die
after three months and asked him to assemble in the hall
at Mahavana all the monks who were at that time residing
in the neighbourhood of Vesali.
At this meeting, the Buddha advised the monks to follow
what he had taught them and to spread it abroad for the
good of the many, out of compassion for the world.
He then announced that he had decided to die after three
months. ..."
- - -
Assessment of the Personality
and Character of the Buddha
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108287&tocid=67701
Excerpt:
"... The Buddha, affectionate and devoted to his
disciples, was always inquiring after their well-being
and progress. When he was staying in a monastery,
he paid daily visits to the sick ward. Once, he himself
attended a sick monk neglected by others and made
the comment that 'he who attends on the sick attends
on me.'
The Buddha refused to recognize the religious signifi-
cance of the caste system that was a long-established
and respected institution in India and recognized the
religious potential of men and women of all social
ranks.
He also recognized the connection between economic
welfare and moral development. Trying to suppress
crime through punishment, he said, was futile. Poverty,
according to the Buddha, was a cause of immorality
and crime; therefore, the economic condition of people
should be improved.
He appreciated both natural and physical beauty. On
several occasions he was moved aesthetically, as he
told Ananda how delightful certain places were to him.
At Vesali he told the monks that, if they had not seen
the devas (gods) of Tavatimsa (Heaven), they should
look at the handsome Licchavis, beautifully and
elegantly dressed in different colours.
King Pasenadi could not understand how the Buddha
maintained such order and discipline in the community
of monks, when he, a king, with the power to inflict
punishment, could not maintain it as well in his court.
The Buddha, however, kept order and discipline on
the basis of a mutual love, affection, and respect that
exists between teacher and pupil.
Many miraculous powers were attributed to the Buddha,
and he performed a number of miracles during his min-
istry. At the same time, however, he did not consider
magical powers to be of primary importance. Once,
when one of his disciples performed a miracle in public,
the Buddha reproached him and laid down a rule that
his disciples should not perform miracles before the
laity. In his view, the greatest miracle was to explain
the truth and to make people recognize its importance.
Behind his philosophy and strict ethics, the Buddha had
a quiet sense of humour. A conceited Brahman, who
was in the habit of denigrating others, questioned him
as to the qualities of a true Brahman. In a list of such
high qualities as freedom from evil and purity of heart,
the Buddha gently included 'not denigrating others.'
The portrait of the Buddha, as can be inferred from the
lines of the ancient texts, is thus one of a man of great
wisdom and great compassion, one who was moved
by the spectacle of human suffering and was determined
to teach his fellow human beings how that suffering
could be confronted and overcome. ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://home.att.net/~danfake/freelover.htm
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://home.att.net/~danfake/origins.htm
Top Posts: http://home.att.net/~danfake/top_posts.htm
Books: http://home.att.net/~danfake/books_index.htm
Webpedia: http://home.att.net/~danfake/webpedia.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J Forbes
>
> Why would a disbeliever in gods and religions find
> a religious figure such as the Buddha to be of interest?
>
> Well, many of the Buddha's tenets are similar to mine
> (a small number are not), and curiously, many of the
> Buddha's tenets are similar to the pro-human aspects
> of the Jesus Christ of gospel fame.
>
> For those not aware of the Buddha and what, traditionally,
> has been attributed to him, the following is provided for
> enlightenment in that regard and in consideration of the
> profound philosophies present before any of the Christ
> stories were written into the gospel documents of the
> christian bible.
>
> For those familiar with christianity, compare the following
> to christianity and note the differences:
<snip>
> "... (In order to attain buddhahood, all bodhisattvas
> [i.e., those who aspire to become buddhas] have to
> perfect, during innumerable lives, these 10 paramitas
> ('great virtues': charity, morality, renunciation, wis-
> dom, effort, patience, truth, determination, universal
> love, and equanimity.) ...
Dan--
I wonder how one person can have innumerable lives?
What is it that would remain from one life to the
next? Just curious...I don't know if you know, or
if you believe that such a thing is possible...but
it does seem to be a central theme of many religions
(some type of afterlife or reincarnation).
The other moral aspects of Buddhaism seem to be
relatively sane :)
Jim
kames.smiths
"J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3AF4F1F5...@yahoo.com...
> I wonder how one person can have innumerable lives?
>
> What is it that would remain from one life to the
> next? Just curious...I don't know if you know, or
> if you believe that such a thing is possible...but
> it does seem to be a central theme of many religions
> (some type of afterlife or reincarnation).
>
> The other moral aspects of Buddhaism seem to be
> relatively sane :)
I find Buddhist philosophy attractive, but the Buddhist notions of
nirvana and reincarnation are not easy to understand. Nirvana seems to
be a state of complete tranquility and happiness resulting from
extinguishing all psychological desires. The nearest that science comes
to positing reincarnation would seem to be the idea of genes copying
themselves from generation to generation.
Dave Smith
Ron Peterson
> The other moral aspects of Buddhaism seem to be
> relatively sane :)
Is it moral to create a priesthood and monastaries?
Ron
J Forbes
Dave--
thanks for the comments!
I personally can't listen to Nirvana for more than
an hour at a time :) and I like the challenges and
mystery of the real world, so I don't see any real
reason to pursue Nirvana, nor Heaven, etc.
I suppose my genes are someone else reincarnated, as
my kids are me reincarnated (with other genes mixed
in, of course). Using "reincarnated" in a
non-Buddhist sense, though.
Jim
Dan Fake
Innumerable lives? Seems that's one of the concepts
I don't find that close to mine as I've never success-
fully grasped that. After all, if I had a previous life,
I find it difficult to conceive of its relevancy to this
life if there is no memory of it by me or anyone else.
In essence, how could that life be called me? What
would be the tie-in?
A clear example, I was circumcised and I have no
memory of that. From what I've read, that experi-
ence is horrific and knowing that the body upon
which that circumcision was performed was my
body, the same body I'm walking around with
today, now there's some relevancy and revulsion
on my part that folks 45 years ago hacked off
part of my body. But, a previous body? That I've
yet to reach a level of comprehension on and
claims by others fall into the area of "their claims"
which are non-evidential, merely claims.
However, of note, I'm one of the few disbelievers
who speaks openly of having hope for a contin-
ued pleasant existence (in some other dimension,
as yet undefined or specified and certainly not
"believed in", just hoped for) as I find it difficult
to say with absolute certainly that oblivion is the
deal (although I'm all-but convinced that oblivion
is our likely fate, I can't say that with certainty
unless I know a lot more about all that is than
I now know or comprehend).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, FREELOVER #1, who cares deeply about truth,
freedom, and maxing out this one and only experience we
all know and share on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://home.att.net/~danfake/freelover.htm
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://home.att.net/~danfake/origins.htm
Top Posts: http://home.att.net/~danfake/top_posts.htm
Books: http://home.att.net/~danfake/books_index.htm
Webpedia: http://home.att.net/~danfake/webpedia.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Jim
J Forbes
> > I wonder how one person can have innumerable lives?
> >
> > What is it that would remain from one life to the
> > next? Just curious...I don't know if you know, or
> > if you believe that such a thing is possible...but
> > it does seem to be a central theme of many religions
> > (some type of afterlife or reincarnation).
> However, of note, I'm one of the few disbelievers
> who speaks openly of having hope for a contin-
> ued pleasant existence (in some other dimension,
> as yet undefined or specified and certainly not
> "believed in", just hoped for) as I find it difficult
> to say with absolute certainly that oblivion is the
> deal (although I'm all-but convinced that oblivion
> is our likely fate, I can't say that with certainty
> unless I know a lot more about all that is than
> I now know or comprehend).
Dan--
I think the idea of an afterlife is so compelling
that people tend to throw reason out the window when
they come up with these wild things like
reincarnation and heaven etc.
I think I know enough about human nature and about
how my mind works (including the fact that my
conciousness is in my brain, and requires brain
cells living for my conciousness to exist) to
conclude that there is no way for there to be an
after life experience.
After I die, others may remember me, and if I make
my 15 minutes into a couple days of fame they might
remember me for a long time (very slim odds of
that!), but the memory of the dead in the minds of
the living is not the same as the dead themselves
still living.
Jim
Interesting Ian
The self.
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385 (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
Interesting Ian
| Dan Fake wrote:
| >
| > "J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3AF4F1F5...@yahoo.com...
|
| > > I wonder how one person can have innumerable lives?
| > >
| > > What is it that would remain from one life to the
| > > next? Just curious...I don't know if you know, or
| > > if you believe that such a thing is possible...but
| > > it does seem to be a central theme of many religions
| > > (some type of afterlife or reincarnation).
|
| > However, of note, I'm one of the few disbelievers
| > who speaks openly of having hope for a contin-
| > ued pleasant existence (in some other dimension,
| > as yet undefined or specified and certainly not
| > "believed in", just hoped for) as I find it difficult
| > to say with absolute certainly that oblivion is the
| > deal (although I'm all-but convinced that oblivion
| > is our likely fate, I can't say that with certainty
| > unless I know a lot more about all that is than
| > I now know or comprehend).
|
| Dan--
|
| I think the idea of an afterlife is so compelling
| that people tend to throw reason out the window when
| they come up with these wild things like
| reincarnation and heaven etc.
Unsubstantiated assertion. If it is in fact *unreasonable* to believe
in reincarnation, or more generally the afterlife, you need to give
some coherent and compelling reasons why this is so. In my experience
no detractor of reincarnation or the afterlife has ever achieved this
|
| I think I know enough about human nature and about
| how my mind works (including the fact that my
| conciousness is in my brain, and requires brain
| cells living for my conciousness to exist) to
| conclude that there is no way for there to be an
| after life experience.
How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be *within*
the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
consciousness to exist?
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3AF5DB6F...@yahoo.com...
> | I think the idea of an afterlife is so compelling
> | that people tend to throw reason out the window when
> | they come up with these wild things like
> | reincarnation and heaven etc.
>
> Unsubstantiated assertion. If it is in fact *unreasonable* to believe
> in reincarnation, or more generally the afterlife, you need to give
> some coherent and compelling reasons why this is so. In my experience
> no detractor of reincarnation or the afterlife has ever achieved this
It was prefaced with 'I think'. It is not incumbent on unbelievers to
present contradictory evidence, it is incumbent on those proposing
events and mechanisms to present evidence and argument to support them.
Can you provide evidence and argument in support of either an afterlife
in general or reincarnation in particular?
> | I think I know enough about human nature and about
> | how my mind works (including the fact that my
> | conciousness is in my brain, and requires brain
> | cells living for my conciousness to exist) to
> | conclude that there is no way for there to be an
> | after life experience.
>
> How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be *within*
> the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
> consciousness to exist?
Show me an acorporeal consciousness and I will agree with you, until
then you are arguing from nothing.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee
Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
Interesting Ian
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-35676...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
| In article <IFwJ6.8540$EI.16...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > "J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:3AF5DB6F...@yahoo.com...
|
| > | I think the idea of an afterlife is so compelling
| > | that people tend to throw reason out the window when
| > | they come up with these wild things like
| > | reincarnation and heaven etc.
| >
| > Unsubstantiated assertion. If it is in fact *unreasonable* to
believe
| > in reincarnation, or more generally the afterlife, you need to
give
| > some coherent and compelling reasons why this is so. In my
experience
| > no detractor of reincarnation or the afterlife has ever achieved
this
|
| It was prefaced with 'I think'. It is not incumbent on unbelievers
to
| present contradictory evidence,
That would depend what you're an unbeliever of. I am a "unbeliever"
of materialism/physicalism. Does that make my position the prima
facie more reasonable one? Of course not! One needs to produce
arguments in support of their position no matter what they believe in.
At the very least one has to explain why they believe that their
position is the prima facie more reasonable one. It will not do to
merely resort to claiming their position is more rational and their
opponents are irrational.
it is incumbent on those proposing
| events and mechanisms to present evidence and argument to support
them.
| Can you provide evidence and argument in support of either an
afterlife
| in general or reincarnation in particular?
Well yes I can; can you produce evidence suggesting that our existence
is terminated at the point of death? I've already explained why I do
not believe you can just assume that your particular beliefs do not
require any arguments on your part.
|
| > | I think I know enough about human nature and about
| > | how my mind works (including the fact that my
| > | conciousness is in my brain, and requires brain
| > | cells living for my conciousness to exist) to
| > | conclude that there is no way for there to be an
| > | after life experience.
| >
| > How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be
*within*
| > the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
| > consciousness to exist?
|
| Show me an acorporeal consciousness and I will agree with you, until
| then you are arguing from nothing.
You have not answered my questions. Before I can answer yours it will
be necessary for you to explain precisely what is meant by either an
acorporeal or a corporeal consciousness.
kames.smiths
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:0uwJ6.8485$EI.16...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> | What is it that would remain from one life to the
> | next?
>
> The self.
Sounds interesting, Ian. However, can you explain what you mean by "the
self". Is it some permanent and non-physical entity that somehow pulls
the strings from behind the scenes? Are you not persuaded by the
theorising of scientists such as Damasio and philosophers such as
Parfit?
Dave Smith
J Forbes
If you have faith that there is an afterlife, then I
cannot convince you otherwise...as it is one of
those unfalsifiable things (is that the correct
term? I'm not a philosopher....)
My experience shows me that my conciousness is
inside me, and that it is a function of my
thinking. I may be wrong, but as far as I know no
one has demonstrated human conciousness existing
outside of a body in a real and repeatable way. I
do not know exactly what consiousness is, but it
seems to be something that requires data processing
of some sort, and I am quite sure that my brain is
the central data processor in me, and is required
for me to have conciousness.
I am quite sure that I won't be able to think
anymore after my brain dies (complelely, I don't
mean a "temporary" death such as folks who claim to
have had near-death experiences).
Then again, if there were conciousness outside of
humans, we would most likely have no way to
communicate with it, and so it would be effectively
non-existent.
However, peolpe seem to be quite capable of
imagining all kinds of interesting things.
Separating what's real from what's imaginary is a
challenge. Given the proper philosophy, all things
can be real, or given a different philosophy, all
things can be imaginary. I think either extreme is
not viable...but defining exactly what is real and
what is imaginary is quite difficult.
> | I think I know enough about human nature and about
> | how my mind works (including the fact that my
> | conciousness is in my brain, and requires brain
> | cells living for my conciousness to exist) to
> | conclude that there is no way for there to be an
> | after life experience.
>
> How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be *within*
> the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
> consciousness to exist?
The brain provides the cognitive machinery that
seems to be required for my conciousness. My
particular conciousness seems to be images and
words, both of which I consider to be "thoughts",
and both of which seem to be comprised of
information. My brain is capable of storing such
information, in a physical way. I think that if the
information were to cease to exist, then my
conciousness would also cease to exist.
If someone would show me a conciousness that exists
without brain cells (or any other cognitive
machinery), then I may change my mind. Do you have
such a conciousness sitting around to demonstrate?
Jim
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-35676...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> | In article <IFwJ6.8540$EI.16...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> | "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> That would depend what you're an unbeliever of. I am a "unbeliever"
> of materialism/physicalism. Does that make my position the prima
> facie more reasonable one? Of course not! One needs to produce
> arguments in support of their position no matter what they believe in.
> At the very least one has to explain why they believe that their
> position is the prima facie more reasonable one. It will not do to
> merely resort to claiming their position is more rational and their
> opponents are irrational.
oh I see. So if you propose to believe in purple two headed, scaled
unicorns who secretely run the planet it is incumbent on me to produce
contrary evidence and reason in order not to reasonably disbelieve you?
pull the other one.
> | Can you provide evidence and argument in support of either an
> afterlife
> | in general or reincarnation in particular?
>
> Well yes I can; can you produce evidence suggesting that our existence
> is terminated at the point of death? I've already explained why I do
> not believe you can just assume that your particular beliefs do not
> require any arguments on your part.
Well, I'm waiting. You are the one proposing that life continues after
death, not me. Show me something I can measure and I will consider your
evidence, until then there is no evidence so I have no REASON to believe
otherwise.
> | > How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be
> *within*
> | > the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
> | > consciousness to exist?
> |
> | Show me an acorporeal consciousness and I will agree with you, until
> | then you are arguing from nothing.
>
> You have not answered my questions. Before I can answer yours it will
> be necessary for you to explain precisely what is meant by either an
> acorporeal or a corporeal consciousness.
You are the one proposing consciousness without brains, give up the
semantics and get a dictionary.
Interesting Ian
You can provide reasons here why it is not reasonable to believe in
such creatures, for example no one has ever seen any such creatures.
Note here that these creatures are the type of thing that *can* be
seen. Now in the context of consciousness which survives death, one
might presume this consciousness is the type of thing which *cannot*
be seen. Please note that people who subscribe to the survival
hypothesis will typically not subscribe to the materialist metaphysic.
Thus they would contend that consciousness, whether corporeal or
"acorporeal", can never be seen as it is not the sort of existent
which *can* be seen. Rather it can only be inferred. Normally it is
inferred from bodily behaviour. How would we infer its existence in
any afterlife realm?
Now, one argument you could utilize here is that the notion of the
non-physical is unintelligible. In other words you might wish to put
forward arguments favouring materialism/physicalism. This by
definition would rule out the idea that consciousness is non-physical
and hence would rule out any afterlife. Nevertheless you *do* need to
put forward arguments.
|
| > | Can you provide evidence and argument in support of either an
| > afterlife
| > | in general or reincarnation in particular?
| >
| > Well yes I can; can you produce evidence suggesting that our
existence
| > is terminated at the point of death? I've already explained why I
do
| > not believe you can just assume that your particular beliefs do
not
| > require any arguments on your part.
|
| Well, I'm waiting. You are the one proposing that life continues
after
| death, not me.
Well, you're proposing that consciousness terminates at the point of
death. In order for this to be a reasonable conclusion it seems that
you would either have to *argue* that consciousness is logically
identical with particular electrical and chemical activity in the
brain, or you would need to say that the brain "generates"
consciousness (by a causal process perhaps?). I think it is more
important to clear up this metaphysical issue before me pointing to
particular bits of evidence favouring the survival hypothesis.
Show me something I can measure and I will consider your
| evidence, until then there is no evidence so I have no REASON to
believe
| otherwise.
But here you are presupposing the correctness of the materialist
metaphysic which you have yet to argue for. One can only measure that
which is physical; I believe that consciousness is *not* physical, and
hence cannot be measured.
|
|
| > | > How can consciousness, which is ostensibly non-physical be
| > *within*
| > | > the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
| > | > consciousness to exist?
| > |
| > | Show me an acorporeal consciousness and I will agree with you,
until
| > | then you are arguing from nothing.
| >
| > You have not answered my questions. Before I can answer yours it
will
| > be necessary for you to explain precisely what is meant by either
an
| > acorporeal or a corporeal consciousness.
|
| You are the one proposing consciousness without brains, give up the
| semantics and get a dictionary.
A dictionary wouldn't help me. I would just understand "acorporeal"
as a unembodied consciousness. But you need to say what *you* mean.
Do you mean *physically* unembodied? But what does the word physical
mean in this context? Further elucidation please.
Interesting Ian
"kames.smiths" <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FcAJ6.7412$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:0uwJ6.8485$EI.16...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
| >
| > "J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:3AF4F1F5...@yahoo.com...
|
| > | What is it that would remain from one life to the
| > | next?
| >
| > The self.
|
| Sounds interesting, Ian. However, can you explain what you mean by
"the
| self". Is it some permanent and non-physical entity that somehow
pulls
| the strings from behind the scenes?
Behind the scenes? You mean behind the particular physical activity
of the brain? Difficult to define the self. However, I would divide
the world into experiencers and the experienced, or in other words
selves and the physical world. Experiencers cannot be *directly*
experienced, but rather inferred from the experienced ie bodily
behaviour.
Incidentally, I would draw a distinction between the mind and the
soul. States of minds are correlated with brain states. Thus in past
or future incarnations our personalities may appear to be quite
distinct from our personalities now. The soul I conceive as being
unchanging and permanent.
Are you not persuaded by the
| theorising of scientists such as Damasio and philosophers such as
| Parfit?
I don't know, I don't know what they said.
J Forbes
I concieve of the soul as being non-existent....if
you could define what the soul is, and perhaps
suggest how I might determine whether or not I have
one, it would be very helpful!
> Are you not persuaded by the
> | theorising of scientists such as Damasio and philosophers such as
> | Parfit?
>
> I don't know, I don't know what they said.
Seems we need to do some research :)
Jim
Peter Ashby
yourself this week if you are not going to back up your claims with
verifiable evidence there is no point in us discussing this any further.
I am not interested in going off and arguing arcane metaphysics when the
issues at hand are perfectly clear. Either provide evidence in favour of
an afterlife/reincarnation or shut up.
kames.smiths
> Incidentally, I would draw a distinction between the mind and the
> soul. States of minds are correlated with brain states. Thus in past
> or future incarnations our personalities may appear to be quite
> distinct from our personalities now. The soul I conceive as being
> unchanging and permanent.
So how do you define "soul" ? What does a soul do? Can it interact with
physical entities? How would you know whether there was such an entity?
How would you demonstrate that it is unchanging and permanent?
Dave Smith
TickleTeaze
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HVHI6.4963$kA2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Why would a disbeliever in gods and religions find
> a religious figure such as the Buddha to be of interest?
Christians who have lost faith in Jesus, Jews who are ready to break the
bonds that tie them to primitive tribal-cultism and atheists wandering
around like lost souls beating on Christians, would find the Buddha's
perspective calming and insightful, non-authoritarian and compatible with
modern psychology and science. ~TT~
Interesting Ian
"TickleTeaze" <ewa...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OI4oScW1AHA.302@cpmsnbbsa07...
Reincarnation may be argued not to be compatible with modern
psychology and science, at least not their metaphysical
presuppositions.
Interesting Ian
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:oXSJ6.11707$EI.24...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| > Incidentally, I would draw a distinction between the mind and the
| > soul. States of minds are correlated with brain states. Thus in
past
| > or future incarnations our personalities may appear to be quite
| > distinct from our personalities now. The soul I conceive as being
| > unchanging and permanent.
|
| So how do you define "soul" ? What does a soul do?
Are you showing a genuine interest here, or are you just trying to
knock the idea of a soul?
It's incredibly difficult to define what a soul is. After all it is
not something which can be defined ostensively. Anyway, here goes.
Our minds may constantly change throughout our lives but we feel we
are literally the same person. But everything physical about us has
changed. What then makes us the same person as when we were 5 years
old compared to 25 years old? I would say the soul is the essential
enduring self which is non-physical.
Can it interact with
| physical entities?
I would say the soul operates through the brain ending up with what we
call our minds. Other people who subscribe to the existence of a soul
may disagree.
How would you know whether there was such an entity?
By definition it is enough to know a soul exists if a) the
materialist metaphysic (including epiphenomenalism) is false and hence
that consciousness or the self is non-physical.
b) This non-physical consciousness or self survives the death of our
bodies.
This is essentially what I mean by a soul
| How would you demonstrate that it is unchanging and permanent?
Two points to be made here.
The concept of change is something which pertains to physical things.
It is not clear why that which is non-physical ie the soul should be
subject to such laws.
Also, if the soul constantly changed, and the soul is our essential
selves, this implies our essential selves are constantly changing.
This implies that my self of a second ago has ceased to be and my
current self has only existed for an infinitesimal proportion of a
second. Maybe this is the case but it is hugely counter-intuitional!
kames.smiths
>
> "kames.smiths" <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:iaUJ6.9526$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> | So how do you define "soul" ? What does a soul do?
>
> Are you showing a genuine interest here, or are you just trying to
> knock the idea of a soul?
Both.
> It's incredibly difficult to define what a soul is. After all it is
> not something which can be defined ostensively. Anyway, here goes.
> Our minds may constantly change throughout our lives but we feel we
> are literally the same person. But everything physical about us has
> changed. What then makes us the same person as when we were 5 years
> old compared to 25 years old? I would say the soul is the essential
> enduring self which is non-physical.
The authors I mentioned earlier in this conversation (Damasio and
Parfit) discuss why we have a sense of identity. Psychological
continuity depends considerably on memories, for example. People with
certain forms of brain damage lose their "autobiographical self". There
is overwhelming evidence that mental processes depend on physical
processes - a person can't see without eyes, etc. etc. Further, you
write as though change is an all or none affair - a person is either
the same self or a different self - but of course an organism can change
gradually over time. I would claim to be more like my self of ten years
ago than like my self of forty years ago, but not exactly the same as
either.
> | Can it interact withphysical entities?
>
> I would say the soul operates through the brain ending up with what we
> call our minds. Other people who subscribe to the existence of a soul
> may disagree.
This is all very mysterious. How could a non-physical entity operate
through the brain? Wouldn't some form of energy be required?
> | How would you know whether there was such an entity?
>
> By definition it is enough to know a soul exists if a) the
> materialist metaphysic (including epiphenomenalism) is false and hence
> that consciousness or the self is non-physical.
> b) This non-physical consciousness or self survives the death of our
> bodies.
>
> This is essentially what I mean by a soul
You seem to be equating consciousness with the self ? But our
experience suggests that consciousness is constantly changing and
disappears when we fall asleep, get knocked unconscious or suffer
certain types of brain damage.
> | How would you demonstrate that it is unchanging and permanent?
>
> Two points to be made here.
>
> The concept of change is something which pertains to physical things.
> It is not clear why that which is non-physical ie the soul should be
> subject to such laws.
>
> Also, if the soul constantly changed, and the soul is our essential
> selves, this implies our essential selves are constantly changing.
> This implies that my self of a second ago has ceased to be and my
> current self has only existed for an infinitesimal proportion of a
> second. Maybe this is the case but it is hugely counter-intuitional!
Again, you are writing as though change is an all or none affair. Why
can't we be organisms that change gradually throughout our lives? My
car gets older, gets its paint chipped, gets new parts, and so on, but,
because there is spatio-temporal continuity, I don't claim it is a
different car every few seconds.
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
What do you mean by your assertion that mental processes *depend* on
physical processes? There is a correlation certainly; but you seem to
suggest that there is some sort of causal? relationship here. You're
making an unjustified leap of logic. Essentially I believe you're
saying that the physical activity in the brain somehow mysteriously
generates consciousness. What evidence have you for this apart from
the correlation?
What is the nature of this relationship? While we are physically
embodied why cannot it be the case that our state of mind is effected
by particular brain states but without concluding that our minds are
*generated* by those brain states?
Moreover, your assertion that a person can't see, have memories etc if
the brain is damaged may only apply when that person is physically
embodied. Evidence now suggests for example that *blind* people who
have an out of body experience during a "near death experience", can
actually see, hear, have memories, even though they have been
diagnosed as being clinically dead. This is the case even for those
blind since birth! Professor Kenneth Ring has termed this
"mindsight".
Further, you
| write as though change is an all or none affair - a person is
either
| the same self or a different self - but of course an organism can
change
| gradually over time. I would claim to be more like my self of ten
years
| ago than like my self of forty years ago, but not exactly the same
as
| either.
Yes, I would see change as an all or nothing affair. If materialism
is correct your self from second to second may be incredibly similar,
but the crucial point is they are not the same, and it therefore seems
to me that you cannot *literally* be the very same person from second
to second. This is very complex and involved though. On a similar
line of thought, what if a completely identical physical replica was
built of you. Presumably you would not be conscious in that other
body but only in your original. But materialism states that you are
nothing over and above the physical constituents and organisation of
the physical matter of your body. Yet there are 2 *identical*
physical bodies but 2 selves. See any contradictions here?
|
| > | Can it interact withphysical entities?
| >
| > I would say the soul operates through the brain ending up with
what we
| > call our minds. Other people who subscribe to the existence of a
soul
| > may disagree.
|
| This is all very mysterious. How could a non-physical entity operate
| through the brain? Wouldn't some form of energy be required?
Well, life is mysterious. Whatever metaphysical position we adopt
whether it be materialism, substance dualism, or subjective idealism
is going to incorporate some, indeed a lot of mysterious elements.
Materialism is certainly no exception here!
|
| > | How would you know whether there was such an entity?
| >
| > By definition it is enough to know a soul exists if a) the
| > materialist metaphysic (including epiphenomenalism) is false and
hence
| > that consciousness or the self is non-physical.
| > b) This non-physical consciousness or self survives the death of
our
| > bodies.
| >
| > This is essentially what I mean by a soul
|
| You seem to be equating consciousness with the self ? But our
| experience suggests that consciousness is constantly changing and
| disappears when we fall asleep, get knocked unconscious or suffer
| certain types of brain damage.
Well, the same can be said about our minds. Is the self equivalent to
our minds or souls? If the self is equivalent to either our present
consciousness or our minds, we need to conclude that our selves are
literally perpetually changing. This is your problem not my problem
as I identify the essential self with the soul.
|
| > | How would you demonstrate that it is unchanging and permanent?
| >
| > Two points to be made here.
| >
| > The concept of change is something which pertains to physical
things.
| > It is not clear why that which is non-physical ie the soul should
be
| > subject to such laws.
| >
| > Also, if the soul constantly changed, and the soul is our
essential
| > selves, this implies our essential selves are constantly changing.
| > This implies that my self of a second ago has ceased to be and my
| > current self has only existed for an infinitesimal proportion of a
| > second. Maybe this is the case but it is hugely
counter-intuitional!
|
| Again, you are writing as though change is an all or none affair.
That's because I believe it is, at least in regards to the self : )
Why
| can't we be organisms that change gradually throughout our lives?
Well they can. The point is though that there is nothing to that
organism which doesn't change. After a given period of time there may
not be any similarity at all, either appearance or behaviour, between
the original organism (I put orgasm by mistake there first of all!
LOL) and that organism later in its life. Under materialism in what
sense can we say it's the same organism? What is the same? Precisely
nothing at all as far as I can see!
My
| car gets older, gets its paint chipped, gets new parts, and so on,
but,
| because there is spatio-temporal continuity, I don't claim it is a
| different car every few seconds.
Suppose that eventually the whole car gets changed. At the end the
car that you end up with will have nothing in common at all with the
original car. You would say its the same car, but that's just a term
of convenience. It wouldn't *really* be the same car would it? Come
now.
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385
Interesting Ian
| Look Interesting Ian or Mr Enigmatic or whatever you are calling
| yourself this week if you are not going to back up your claims with
| verifiable evidence there is no point in us discussing this any
further.
| I am not interested in going off and arguing arcane metaphysics when
the
| issues at hand are perfectly clear. Either provide evidence in
favour of
| an afterlife/reincarnation or shut up.
|
| Peter
:- ( :- ( :- ( But I *like* arguing about metaphysics!
Of course I could do this if you desire. You should bear in mind
though that the *persuasiveness* of any sort of evidence will depend
crucially on your metaphysical presuppositions.
To illustrate this imagine someone who maintained that they need no
evidence to believe in the afterlife and that, in any case, you do not
have any evidence to suppose people are terminated. Of course you
would be apt to say there *is* evidence that people are terminated, in
the sense that people you once knew are now lying decaying
underground. But of cause that is to presuppose that people are
nothing over and above their bodies, and the reason why this is
believed is your unexamined adherence to the materialist metaphysic.
But no matter. Let's take one bit of evidence at a time should we?
How persuasive do you find "near death experiences" in suggesting the
survival hypothesis?
TickleTeaze
> "kames.smiths" wrote:
> I personally can't listen to Nirvana for more than
> an hour at a time :) and I like the challenges and
> mystery of the real world, so I don't see any real
> reason to pursue Nirvana, nor Heaven, etc.
Yes, herein lies the dysfunctionality of all religions except Jewish
religion - that their focus is on supramundane states, rather than on
functional this-word activities and foci of [eat, survive, relate,
reproduce, family, tribe, feeling good, making the endorphins flow with
interesting and pleasurable activity].
Jewish religion is focused on the this-world functional activities and foci
of well-being, wealth, success, learning and power in this world for self,
family and tribe. ~TT~
TickleTeaze
> |
> | What is it that would remain from one life to the
> | next?
>
Yes, this a basic *assumption* in Buddhism - for which there is no
evidence - that a "stream of consciousness" or self (with the propensities
(Karma) toward wholesome or unwholesome activity one has acquired to date)
moves on to take rebirth in this or another world. ~TT~
TickleTeaze
>
> Unsubstantiated assertion. If it is in fact *unreasonable* to believe
> in reincarnation, or more generally the afterlife, you need to give
> some coherent and compelling reasons why this is so. In my experience
> no detractor of reincarnation or the afterlife has ever achieved this
>
> the brain? How do you know that brain cells are required for
> consciousness to exist?
>
Despite the fact that everything you say might well be true, 98.44% of us
Westerners, who are all consciously or unconsciously under the sway of
obsessed-with-evil, primitive-tribal, Old Testament mindsets, would, IMHO,
profit enormously from the precision-thinking, the clarity, the insight, the
humaneness and the compassion of Buddhism.
Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion - in fact may be classed as a
philosophy/psychology/world-view rather than a religion - and you may reject
any beliefs you choose to.
Buddhism is a fovorite with many Western intellectuals and scientists.
~TT~
TickleTeaze
> Can you provide evidence and argument in support of either an afterlife
> in general or reincarnation in particular?
This matter was investigated by an English scientist who became a Buddhist
monk ( or so I recall). He could no scientific evidence for the hypothesis
of reincarnation. I canot recall the name of the author nor the title of
his work. It was probably a glossy orange-coloured paperback from Wisdom
publications. ~TT~
Maimonides Jafar
>
> Well, I'm waiting. You are the one proposing that life continues after
> death, not me. Show me something I can measure and I will consider your
> evidence, until then there is no evidence so I have no REASON to believe
> otherwise.
Buddhism is for those seeking an egalitarian, non-Jewish/Christian stance
toward life that brings peace, insight, equanimity, and sense to life. And
it is only to be pursued if you feel your understanding of reality is not
quite working for you.
Buddhism is not meant to be jerked off over as in the Western theology,
atheology and philosophical traditions.
All systems are based on fundamental assumptions, unproven and unprovable -
even mathematics and geometry. ~TT~
Maimonides Jafar
> Reincarnation may be argued not to be compatible with modern
> psychology and science, at least not their metaphysical
> presuppositions. ~Interesting Ian~
I am not conversant with the metaphysical presuppositions of modern
psychology and science.
I myself am an agnostic with respect to reincarnation - but I have profited
enormously from Dharma (The Way Things are in this world), which is what the
Buddha is credited with having taught. The Buddha did not teach "Buddhism".
I credit Buddhism with saving my sanity during a critical stage of my life.
And of my Buddhist Teachers, my Teachers of Jewish extraction were among the
best. I am not a Buddhist.
Buddhism may have its unprovable axioms like Euclidean geometry does - and
none of them is likely to result in harm to others, to dissension, to
arrogance, to a sense of elitism and separatism, to a mind-set of
non-responsibility for the reality one co-creates with others, to
obsession-with-evil-in-others, to never-ending railing, ranting and beating
on others, to a tradition of a victim-mentality, revenge, retribution,
never-forgiving-and-never-forgetting, allegiance first and foremost to one's
sub-group, and other unwholesome primitive-tribal mind-sets and attitudes
associated with our Jewish/Christian Old Testament religio-cultural
ambience - which, unbeknownst to atheists, unconsciously runs their
behaviors as well. ~MJ~
Peter Walker
Interesting Ian <fa...@home.com> wrote:
>"J Forbes" <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3AF4F1F5...@yahoo.com...
>| I wonder how one person can have innumerable lives?
>|
>| What is it that would remain from one life to the
>| next?
>
>The self.
And the evidence that there is such a thing?
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> But no matter. Let's take one bit of evidence at a time should we?
> How persuasive do you find "near death experiences" in suggesting the
> survival hypothesis?
At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective and prone
both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything other
than curiosities. We have ample evidence of the many ways in which our
brains can get fooled (think Escher). We also know that both extreme
stress and low oxygen can lead to hallucination. Given this what
evidence other than subjective reporting do you have to suggest that NDE
is anything other than hallucination?
BTW I am not belittling the sincerity with which people who have
undergone NDE hold to their intepretation of their experiences. However
I am not about to base my world view on them.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> Moreover, your assertion that a person can't see, have memories etc if
> the brain is damaged may only apply when that person is physically
> embodied. Evidence now suggests for example that *blind* people who
> have an out of body experience during a "near death experience", can
> actually see, hear, have memories, even though they have been
> diagnosed as being clinically dead. This is the case even for those
> blind since birth! Professor Kenneth Ring has termed this
> "mindsight".
You are making the enormous assumption here that out of body experiences
are exactly that, rather than a subjective impression with no basis in
reality. In addition your faith in the ability of clinicians to diagnose
clinical death with 100% certainty astounds me. I have tought med
students and unless they undergo some major transformation infallibility
was not one of their traits. Diagnosis is an opinion, not a statement of
fact.
As to mindsight, I do this all the time. A blind person can still have a
fully functional visual cortex. If you hit a blind person on the back of
the head they will report seeing stars just like you and me.
Peter Walker
Ashby <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <QL_J6.11230$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> But no matter. Let's take one bit of evidence at a time should we?
>> How persuasive do you find "near death experiences" in suggesting the
>> survival hypothesis?
>
>At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective and prone
>both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything other
>than curiosities.
And in addition, they aren't what the name advertises: the brain is
still very much at all times alive, merely under extreme stress.
"Near death" is about as meaningful as "slightly pregnant".
Peter Ashby
wrote:
> And in addition, they aren't what the name advertises: the brain is
> still very much at all times alive, merely under extreme stress.
>
> "Near death" is about as meaningful as "slightly pregnant".
ROTFL! Thanks for that, I enjoyed it. And most apt too.
Interesting Ian
"Peter Walker" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:090520010752156624%p...@mac.com...
| In article <p.r.ashby-4C27B...@dux.dundee.ac.uk>, Peter
| Ashby <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote:
|
| >In article <QL_J6.11230$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| > "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
| >
| >> But no matter. Let's take one bit of evidence at a time should
we?
| >> How persuasive do you find "near death experiences" in suggesting
the
| >> survival hypothesis?
| >
| >At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective and
prone
| >both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything
other
| >than curiosities.
|
| And in addition, they aren't what the name advertises: the brain is
| still very much at all times alive, merely under extreme stress.
They most certainly *are* what the name advertises. Some people have
revived in the morgue after having an NDE.
Currently there is a 3 fold testing method used to establish death:
1) An EEG check for brain wave activity
2) Auditory-evoked procedures to measure brain-stem viability.
3) Documentation from other tests to show the absence of blood flow to
the brain.
But ..... people who meet the criteria of all 3 tests can still have a
NDE and returned to life.
|
| "Near death" is about as meaningful as "slightly pregnant".
False analogy. It is now acknowledged that death is a process, not a
definitive event.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> Currently there is a 3 fold testing method used to establish death:
>
> 1) An EEG check for brain wave activity
Quite easy to fail with significant activity.
> 2) Auditory-evoked procedures to measure brain-stem viability.
IOW do you get a jump in response to loud sounds. Anaesthetised people
do not respond to these procedures.
> 3) Documentation from other tests to show the absence of blood flow to
> the brain.
difficult to do absolutely since blood can enter the brain though both
the carotid arteries and the vertebral arteries.
> But ..... people who meet the criteria of all 3 tests can still have a
> NDE and returned to life.
1st note: 'passing' all three tests only increases the probability of
death, it does not absolutely confirm it.
2nd Note: Intermittent, weak heartbeat can be enough to maintain brain
function but be hard to detect. Severe overstimulation of the
parasympathetic system can produce these symptoms and protect the brain.
As you say, death is a process not an event. So until that process is
complete you cannot use any subjective reporting as evidence of an
afterlife by definition. If you are going to have an afterlife it has to
be just that, after life, not just before the end.
BTW check out http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/world.cfm?id=70710 for
evidence on your assertion that our sense of self is not biologically
encoded.
Interesting Ian
| In article <QL_J6.11230$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > But no matter. Let's take one bit of evidence at a time should
we?
| > How persuasive do you find "near death experiences" in suggesting
the
| > survival hypothesis?
|
| At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective
How could they not be subjective? We're talking about peoples
experiences here which are necessarily subjective.
and prone
| both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything
other
| than curiosities.
This applies to any experience. It gives zero evidence that what a
person experienced was not real. What we precisely experience is
inevitably influenced by prior expectations on our parts. Does that
imply that everything we ever experience is a hallucination because it
does not correspond precisely to a putative reality?
We have ample evidence of the many ways in which our
| brains can get fooled (think Escher). We also know that both extreme
| stress and low oxygen can lead to hallucination. Given this what
| evidence other than subjective reporting do you have to suggest that
NDE
| is anything other than hallucination?
Well, it *might* in an appropriate sense be a hallucination. However,
the cohesiveness and similarity of near death scenarios, along with
the rich and vivid details experienced, not to mention their
after-effects, strongly argue against this theory.
Besides, people who hallucinate, whilst taken to be true perceptions
at the time of the experience, are seen afterwards for what they
really are. People who undergo NDE's stoutly maintain their
experiences *were* real. The vast majority live their lives
afterwards - in one way or another - on the basis of this conviction.
Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination, but why
just not accept them for what they appear to be?
Time for me to present reasons why I believe that NDE's are the real
thing. Not today though, be patient!
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-4C27B...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> We have ample evidence of the many ways in which our
> | brains can get fooled (think Escher). We also know that both extreme
> | stress and low oxygen can lead to hallucination. Given this what
> | evidence other than subjective reporting do you have to suggest that
> NDE
> | is anything other than hallucination?
>
> Well, it *might* in an appropriate sense be a hallucination. However,
> the cohesiveness and similarity of near death scenarios, along with
> the rich and vivid details experienced, not to mention their
> after-effects, strongly argue against this theory.
The similarities are only true within similar cultural and religious
backgrounds. cf alien abduction and medieval ideas of incubi and
succubi. As to cohesiveness that is easily explained by common biology.
That is a far more parsimonious explanation than invoking an afterlife.
Besides you are dangerously close to a circular argument with this one.
> Besides, people who hallucinate, whilst taken to be true perceptions
> at the time of the experience, are seen afterwards for what they
> really are. People who undergo NDE's stoutly maintain their
> experiences *were* real. The vast majority live their lives
> afterwards - in one way or another - on the basis of this conviction.
> Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination, but why
> just not accept them for what they appear to be?
Why should I without independent evidence? Your bald assertions about
hallucinations are not true, particularly within a religious context. Do
xians see Paul/Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus as a
hallucination/temporal lobe epilepsy? no, they see it as a true
visitation from god. Why should I regard NDE's any differently?
> Time for me to present reasons why I believe that NDE's are the real
> thing. Not today though, be patient!
I will not be holding my breath.
Steve Marshall
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote
> At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective and prone
> both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything other
> than curiosities.
Well actually they have been explained by science and the experience has
been replicated. We now know the experience is being created by the brain,
just like experiences of being visited by a presence/ god.
What we perceive is not always a reality. Our brains are easily fooled by
optical illusions etc and we can experience hallucinations. Because you see
a pink elephant riding a bicycle it doesn't mean there is one there !
Steve M
Interesting Ian
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
news:989434127.844052@dionysos...
|
| "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote
|
| > At last, Near Death Experiences (NDE) are far too subjective and
prone
| > both to colour by culture and post interpretation to be anything
other
| > than curiosities.
|
| Well actually they have been explained by science
Well actually they haven't.
and the experience has
| been replicated.
In fact it has not, only partial aspects.
We now know the experience is being created by the brain,
| just like experiences of being visited by a presence/ god.
We know nothing of the sort. In the sense of their origin, we have no
evidence that *any* of our experiences are created by the brain,
nevermind the experiences in near death scenarios.
|
| What we perceive is not always a reality. Our brains are easily
fooled by
| optical illusions etc and we can experience hallucinations. Because
you see
| a pink elephant riding a bicycle it doesn't mean there is one there
!
And yet we don't even *see* a physical world and yet most people
presume there is one! If our senses are so unreliable one wonders why
we don't go around with our eyes shut and our ears stuffed with cotton
wool.
Dear me!
kames.smiths
A central Buddhist doctrine (anatta) denies that there is any such thing
as a soul or a permanent self. Rather, mental processes are thought to
be like a flame that continues burning. Interesting Ian might tell us
whether a flame changes or remains the same.
Dave Smith
kames.smiths
> Yes, herein lies the dysfunctionality of all religions except Jewish
> religion - that their focus is on supramundane states, rather than on
> functional this-word activities and foci of [eat, survive, relate,
> reproduce, family, tribe, feeling good, making the endorphins flow
with
> interesting and pleasurable activity].
I think a Buddhist would deny that nirvana is a supramundane state.
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
On the other hand he might not.
In all seriousness though, it depends on what you mean by "the same"
and "changes".
kames.smiths
> What do you mean by your assertion that mental processes *depend* on
> physical processes? There is a correlation certainly; but you seem to
> suggest that there is some sort of causal? relationship here. You're
> making an unjustified leap of logic. Essentially I believe you're
> saying that the physical activity in the brain somehow mysteriously
> generates consciousness. What evidence have you for this apart from
> the correlation?
But isn't a so-called causal relationship a form of correlation?
(Whenever A occurs, B then occurs; if A doesn't occur, then B doesn't
occur; therefore it seems that, directly or indirectly, B is caused by
A.)
> What is the nature of this relationship? While we are physically
> embodied why cannot it be the case that our state of mind is effected
> by particular brain states but without concluding that our minds are
> *generated* by those brain states?
But how, in your terms, can the non-physical be affected by the
physical? And if the physical can affect the non-physical, perhaps it
can generate it as well?
> Moreover, your assertion that a person can't see, have memories etc if
> the brain is damaged may only apply when that person is physically
> embodied. Evidence now suggests for example that *blind* people who
> have an out of body experience during a "near death experience", can
> actually see, hear, have memories, even though they have been
> diagnosed as being clinically dead. This is the case even for those
> blind since birth! Professor Kenneth Ring has termed this
> "mindsight".
This sounds interesting but would need thorough investigation by
disinterested scientists. Is Kenneth Ring impartial, do you suppose?
> Yes, I would see change as an all or nothing affair.
So if someone joins a tennis club, does it become a different tennis
club because its membership has changed?
> If materialism
> is correct your self from second to second may be incredibly similar,
> but the crucial point is they are not the same, and it therefore seems
> to me that you cannot *literally* be the very same person from second
> to second.
Exactly.
>This is very complex and involved though.
Perhaps not, if you relax your rigid concept of identity.
> On a similar
> line of thought, what if a completely identical physical replica was
> built of you.
Would it have the same spatio-temporal location as me and have the same
history?
> Presumably you would not be conscious in that other
> body but only in your original. But materialism states that you are
> nothing over and above the physical constituents and organisation of
> the physical matter of your body. Yet there are 2 *identical*
> physical bodies but 2 selves. See any contradictions here?
I think the physical replica of me would be conscious but would be
having different experiences from me, unless it had the same
spatio-temporal location and the same history as me.
>...... The point is though that there is nothing to that
> organism which doesn't change. After a given period of time there may
> not be any similarity at all, either appearance or behaviour, between
> the original organism (I put orgasm by mistake there first of all!
> LOL) and that organism later in its life. Under materialism in what
> sense can we say it's the same organism? What is the same? Precisely
> nothing at all as far as I can see!
What about the organism's memories, behaviours, concepts etc?
> Suppose that eventually the whole car gets changed. At the end the
> car that you end up with will have nothing in common at all with the
> original car. You would say its the same car, but that's just a term
> of convenience. It wouldn't *really* be the same car would it? Come
> now.
That's my point. For convenience, we say it's the same car, but we know
that it has changed to a greater or lesser extent over the years.
Similarly with people.
You seem to think people have a non-physical entity within them (a
self), but what does this self do? Does it just experience what's
happening to the physical body it happens to be 'inside', or does it
issue orders? Do you think animals besides humans have a self of this
kind?
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
| In article <XMbK6.721$577.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > Currently there is a 3 fold testing method used to establish
death:
| >
| > 1) An EEG check for brain wave activity
|
| Quite easy to fail with significant activity.
|
| > 2) Auditory-evoked procedures to measure brain-stem viability.
|
| IOW do you get a jump in response to loud sounds. Anaesthetised
people
| do not respond to these procedures.
|
| > 3) Documentation from other tests to show the absence of blood
flow to
| > the brain.
|
| difficult to do absolutely since blood can enter the brain though
both
| the carotid arteries and the vertebral arteries.
|
| > But ..... people who meet the criteria of all 3 tests can still
have a
| > NDE and returned to life.
|
| 1st note: 'passing' all three tests only increases the probability
of
| death, it does not absolutely confirm it.
Yes, obviously so as people patently do revive! LOL
Emmmm??
| 2nd Note: Intermittent, weak heartbeat can be enough to maintain
brain
| function but be hard to detect. Severe overstimulation of the
| parasympathetic system can produce these symptoms and protect the
brain.
Yes, the point being?
| As you say, death is a process not an event.
So why agree with the analogy of being slightly pregnant?
So until that process is
| complete you cannot use any subjective reporting as evidence of an
| afterlife by definition.
Huh? Surely you mean that does not *prove* the afterlife!
Clearly it gives *evidence*, albeit perhaps not of a scientific
nature.
And of course by saying *"by definition"* you are
employing an a priori dismissal of any possibility
of an afterlife, which is of course absurd.
If you are going to have an afterlife it has to
| be just that, after life, not just before the end.
Your insights astound.
I'm afraid you're going to have to do a
darn sight better than this Peter. Quite literally
I've scarcely begun to adumbrate all the reasons
why it is reasonable to subscribe to the survival
hypothesis.
Your arguments so far amount to no more
than saying it may be *possible* that NDE's
are some *unusual* form of hallucination.
Moreover, this of course leaves aside
the fact that you have lamentably failed to give any
metaphysical justification of your position; nevermind
the arguments (most of which I have yet to supply)
supporting the contention that NDE's are
what they appear to mean. And of course NDE's are only the
first of many *many* pieces of evidence suggestive
of the survival hypothesis!
Maimonides Jafar
"Peter Walker" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:090520010752156624%p...@mac.com...
> In article <p.r.ashby-4C27B...@dux.dundee.ac.uk>, >
> "Near death" is about as meaningful as "slightly pregnant".
It may mean that the brain has started the physiological process of shutting
down? MJ
Maimonides Jafar
> People who undergo NDE's stoutly maintain their
> experiences *were* real. The vast majority live their lives
> afterwards - in one way or another - on the basis of this conviction.
> Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination, but why
> just not accept them for what they appear to be? Interesting Ian
Whether the experiences are "real" or "hallucinations" is one matter. The
impact on the quality of life of those who have had an NDE (whether real or
a hallucination) is another matter. MJ
Maimonides Jafar
> Do
> xians see Paul/Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus as a
> hallucination/temporal lobe epilepsy? no, they see it as a true
> visitation from god. Peter Ashby
This conundrum is not resolvable if God has chosen to interact with the
world through ordinary physical/biological channels - and in the case of
Paul through an apparent epileptic fit. MJ
Maimonides Jafar
> I think a Buddhist would deny that nirvana is a supramundane state. Dave
Smith
I am not a Buddhist. This entire business of nirvana is quite speculative.
The Buddha's enlightenment is alleged to have been ultimate, in the sense
that he had severed all attachments and aversions and, at his death would
not take rebirth but disappear into the void - and still be around in some
undefinable sense.
As for me, association with Buddhism, Western psychology, evolutionary
biology/psychology and age have brought be to a state where I am not
confused or surprised about what's going on in people, life and human
interactions; people and groups are experienced by me as innocent and not
evil; I do not spin around in futile and vicious thought-cycles of
hesitation, doubt, anger, agitation and finger-pointing; and life is
non-problematic. I am quite content with this mundane micro-nirvana. MJ
Blade Runner
wrote:
>Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination, but why
>just not accept them for what they appear to be?
Occam.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Temporary sig
Peter Ashby
"Maimonides Jafar" <ewa...@email.msn.com> wrote:
This is theistic handwaving of the worst sort. I wish you theists would
make up your minds as to the nature of these gods of yours. And don't
tell me 'god moves in mysterious ways etc' that is just more handwaving.
Mechanisms, mechanisms, mechanisms. HOW do you propose this occurred?
and are then all epileptics visited/inflicted by god? if not by what
mechanism can we tell the natural from the visited epileptic? If you
want me to take your vague handwaving even slightly seriously you have
to come up with credible answers to these questions.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-E0547...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> So until that process is
> | complete you cannot use any subjective reporting as evidence of an
> | afterlife by definition.
>
> Huh? Surely you mean that does not *prove* the afterlife!
> Clearly it gives *evidence*, albeit perhaps not of a scientific
> nature.
If the *evidence* is not of a scientific nature of what sort of nature
is it? Do tell. If you had kept what I wrote intact the meaning would be
clear to you. Selective quoting will do that to you.
> And of course by saying *"by definition"* you are
> employing an a priori dismissal of any possibility
> of an afterlife, which is of course absurd.
No, I am dismissing the possibility than anyone who is not dead can give
reliable information on the likelihood or the nature of an afterlife.
NDE is not near enough, you need ADE and then we are getting into
mediums and ouja boards and I'm sure we don't want to go there.
> If you are going to have an afterlife it has to
> | be just that, after life, not just before the end.
>
>
> Your insights astound.
Taken out of context yes.
> I'm afraid you're going to have to do a
> darn sight better than this Peter. Quite literally
> I've scarcely begun to adumbrate all the reasons
> why it is reasonable to subscribe to the survival
> hypothesis.
You are so right, you have SCARCELY begun, so scarce is your beginning
it makes the Dodo look sprightly. Besides you do not give reasons to
support a hypothesis you present testable, refutable evidence. Then you
are doing science and remember that he who lives by the sword dies by
the sword.
> Your arguments so far amount to no more
> than saying it may be *possible* that NDE's
> are some *unusual* form of hallucination.
No I have outlined well defined mechanisms which make it much more
likely and plausible that hallucination is involved. I was invoking old
Bishop Occam's shaving implement, it is far better to cast your lot with
an explanation with a proven mechanism than a fantastic explanation with
no evidence of a scientific nature.
> Moreover, this of course leaves aside
> the fact that you have lamentably failed to give any
> metaphysical justification of your position; nevermind
> the arguments (most of which I have yet to supply)
> supporting the contention that NDE's are
> what they appear to mean. And of course NDE's are only the
> first of many *many* pieces of evidence suggestive
> of the survival hypothesis!
Yawn! You have lamentably failed to show why it is necessary for me to
do so. Your metaphysical position so far has consisted of sniping at
others. For fuck's sake mate, give up or shut up about it.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:989434127.844052@dionysos...
> We now know the experience is being created by the brain,
> | just like experiences of being visited by a presence/ god.
>
> We know nothing of the sort. In the sense of their origin, we have no
> evidence that *any* of our experiences are created by the brain,
> nevermind the experiences in near death scenarios.
Are you completely ignorant of Neuroscience Ian? Recent experiments (yes
I just might look up the reference) have demonstrated that stimulation
of particular parts of the brain result in the subject reporting the
feeling of someone else in the room, the presence of another they could
not see only feel. If you followed the link I posted yesterday you would
also know that there is evidence that our sense of self is biologically
encoded.
> |
> | What we perceive is not always a reality. Our brains are easily
> fooled by
> | optical illusions etc and we can experience hallucinations. Because
> you see
> | a pink elephant riding a bicycle it doesn't mean there is one there
> !
>
> And yet we don't even *see* a physical world and yet most people
> presume there is one! If our senses are so unreliable one wonders why
> we don't go around with our eyes shut and our ears stuffed with cotton
> wool.
Ok, I know I will regret this. What do we *see* then?
Interesting Ian
"Blade Runner" <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4odkft0o4aji7sm6l...@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 9 May 2001 17:05:45 +0200, "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination, but
why
| >just not accept them for what they appear to be?
|
| Occam.
Huh? Applying Occams razor means we *should* accept them for what
they are. Why accept convoluted explanations in terms of
hallucinations rather than accept them for what they appear to be?
Especially considering that if they are hallucinations, they are quite
unlike any other hallucinations.
Interesting Ian
| In article <sNgK6.1646$po.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > "Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
| > news:989434127.844052@dionysos...
|
| > We now know the experience is being created by the brain,
| > | just like experiences of being visited by a presence/ god.
| >
| > We know nothing of the sort. In the sense of their origin, we
have no
| > evidence that *any* of our experiences are created by the brain,
| > nevermind the experiences in near death scenarios.
|
| Are you completely ignorant of Neuroscience Ian? Recent experiments
(yes
| I just might look up the reference) have demonstrated that
stimulation
| of particular parts of the brain result in the subject reporting the
| feeling of someone else in the room, the presence of another they
could
| not see only feel. If you followed the link I posted yesterday you
would
| also know that there is evidence that our sense of self is
biologically
| encoded.
Everything you say here is irrelevant. You have yet to give any
evidence whatsoever that either NDE's, or consciousness in general is
generated by the brain rather than just acts as a "filter". I
followed that link. Interesting as it all was I fail to see how it
helps your case. Essentially all it demonstrates is that there is a
correlation between physical states of the brain and mental states.
But we already know that! You would have to have evidence that the
essential selves of these people have *literally* changed. An
interesting question would be to ask them this very question. I
rather suspect they would deny this and say that they just feel
differently. Hell, I might feel differently, wear clothes that I
wouldn't normally dare wear etc, after a few cans of lager. Seems
strange to suppose that this constitutes evidence against the survival
hypothesis though! LOL
Who are these people that people sense incidentally? Are they dead
people?
|
| > |
| > | What we perceive is not always a reality. Our brains are easily
| > fooled by
| > | optical illusions etc and we can experience hallucinations.
Because
| > you see
| > | a pink elephant riding a bicycle it doesn't mean there is one
there
| > !
| >
| > And yet we don't even *see* a physical world and yet most people
| > presume there is one! If our senses are so unreliable one wonders
why
| > we don't go around with our eyes shut and our ears stuffed with
cotton
| > wool.
|
| Ok, I know I will regret this. What do we *see* then?
It depends what you mean by "see". We see an external world, but we
do not see its physicality. All we are immediately aware of is our
own sensations, qualia as philosophers refer to them.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
wrong, because to reject hallucinations as an explanation requires you
to accept far more complex and unlikely consequences which very much
against Occam. I feel that the more we continue this discussion Ian the
more it becomes apparant that your grasp of the theory and practice of
science is not as firm as it could be.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
Hold on you are the one who used the term *see*, now you explain what
YOU meant by it. Of course if you didn't mean anything except 'I am
going to allude to some very subtle and arcane metaphysical quible here,
because it will make me look enigmatic and interesting' then there is
nothing interesting to discuss.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> Everything you say here is irrelevant. You have yet to give any
> evidence whatsoever that either NDE's, or consciousness in general is
> generated by the brain rather than just acts as a "filter".
I have given you lots of evidence, you simply don't see it as such which
speaks volumes. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you provide
the evidence in support of them. You have made much noise over being in
possesion of this evidence but have yet to produce any. So far we have
had NDE's with nothing to suggest that it is anytihing other than
subjective reporting of altered brain states under extreme stress. We
know that such things are possible they have been observed under
experimental conditions. Now you have to present evidence why you think
NDEs are something other, we are waiting.
Interesting Ian
| In article <zivK6.3824$577.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > Everything you say here is irrelevant. You have yet to give any
| > evidence whatsoever that either NDE's, or consciousness in general
is
| > generated by the brain rather than just acts as a "filter".
|
| I have given you lots of evidence,
In fact you haven't given any. All your "evidence" is circular in
that you are presupposing the correctness of the materialist
metaphysic. All you have done so far is point to correlations between
brain states and mind states, and then make an unjustified logical
leap and suppose that brain states *generate* mind states (i.e. you
just simply pre-suppose the correctness of materialism without
actually arguing for it). Where is your evidence?? Where are your
arguments?? I doubt if it is even intelligible in any case. How can
physical states cause? mind states when they are of wholly differing
ontological categories of being?
you simply don't see it as such which
| speaks volumes. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you
provide
| the evidence in support of them.
No, it is in fact you that is making extraordinary claims. You are
either saying
a) conscious states *simply are* particular physical states of the
brain
b) brain states and mind states are not logically identical, rather
brain states somehow or other generate mind states (ie
epiphenomenalism).
Now which one of these do you subscribe to? Both are extraordinary
claims albeit in slightly differing ways.
You have made much noise over being in
| possesion of this evidence but have yet to produce any.
I know, that's because you won't stop submitting posts making idiotic
points. I mean I suppose I could just ignore them if you like?
So far we have
| had NDE's with nothing to suggest that it is anytihing other than
| subjective reporting of altered brain states under extreme stress.
We
| know that such things are possible they have been observed under
| experimental conditions.
You keep presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.
The fact that certain types of mystical states can be achieved under
altered brain states is a irrelevancy under the metaphysic I subscribe
to. To be explicit, altered brain states do not generate or cause
these experiences, rather they simply allow/enable access to certain
mystical realms. You seem quite unable to understand this.
Appropriate testimony to the "brainwashing" engendered by the common
western metaphysic I feel.
Now you have to present evidence why you think
| NDEs are something other, we are waiting.
I might find enough time if you would stop replying to every single
message I compose (whether to you or others). And besides, it is
*you* that are asserting that NDE's are not what they appear to be.
Therefore the onus is on *you* to present evidence that NDE's are not
what they seem. So far you have lamentably failed in this task. Do
you have *any* other evidence apart from the so called "evidence"
concerning correlations between mind and brain states. I strongly
suspect not.
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> In fact you haven't given any. All your "evidence" is circular in
> that you are presupposing the correctness of the materialist
> metaphysic.
Hold on, you seem confused about the nature of questions being asked.
You are talking in terms of evidence and hypotheses, this is science.
Now you are talking metaphysics and arguments. Decide what you want to
discuss but dont' try jumping ship in the middle just when the going
gets hot and you hack it.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> No, it is in fact you that is making extraordinary claims. You are
> either saying
>
> a) conscious states *simply are* particular physical states of the
> brain
>
> b) brain states and mind states are not logically identical, rather
> brain states somehow or other generate mind states (ie
> epiphenomenalism).
>
> Now which one of these do you subscribe to? Both are extraordinary
> claims albeit in slightly differing ways.
I am not making any such claims, you are simply assuming it because you
can't separate your metaphysics from science. Besides the two 'options'
you give above are not the only two and I am not falling into that trap.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-1ACE4...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> Now you have to present evidence why you think
> | NDEs are something other, we are waiting.
>
> I might find enough time if you would stop replying to every single
> message I compose (whether to you or others). And besides, it is
> *you* that are asserting that NDE's are not what they appear to be.
> Therefore the onus is on *you* to present evidence that NDE's are not
> what they seem. So far you have lamentably failed in this task. Do
> you have *any* other evidence apart from the so called "evidence"
> concerning correlations between mind and brain states. I strongly
> suspect not.
Feeling the pressure are you Ian? Post your much vaunted evidence then
instead of pissing about.
Johnson & Persinger, 1994 Percept. Mot. Skills 79(1 pt1):351-4
Persinger & Makarec, 1992 Brain & Cognition 20(2):217-26
Interesting Ian
| In article <_xwK6.3626$po.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > In fact you haven't given any. All your "evidence" is circular in
| > that you are presupposing the correctness of the materialist
| > metaphysic.
|
| Hold on, you seem confused about the nature of questions being
asked.
| You are talking in terms of evidence and hypotheses, this is
science.
| Now you are talking metaphysics and arguments. Decide what you want
to
| discuss but dont' try jumping ship in the middle just when the going
| gets hot and you hack it.
|
You can't abstract metaphysics from science Peter. What constitutes
evidence, and what is a reasonable hypothesis, will be very much
influenced by the ones background metaphysical ideas about the nature
of reality.
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England)
Interesting Ian
| In article <_xwK6.3626$po.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > No, it is in fact you that is making extraordinary claims. You
are
| > either saying
| >
| > a) conscious states *simply are* particular physical states of the
| > brain
| >
| > b) brain states and mind states are not logically identical,
rather
| > brain states somehow or other generate mind states (ie
| > epiphenomenalism).
| >
| > Now which one of these do you subscribe to? Both are
extraordinary
| > claims albeit in slightly differing ways.
|
| I am not making any such claims, you are simply assuming it because
you
| can't separate your metaphysics from science. Besides the two
'options'
| you give above are not the only two and I am not falling into that
trap.
Ok, then tell me what you believe. What is the precise nature of the
relationship between mind and brain? What arguments do you have to
support this position? I await your answer with great interest.
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England)
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> Ok, then tell me what you believe. What is the precise nature of the
> relationship between mind and brain? What arguments do you have to
> support this position? I await your answer with great interest.
I don't know what the 'precise' nature of the relationship is. If I did
I would be a professor with a Nobel prize and I ain't. However there is
ample evidence to indicate that mind springs from brain. the best
evidence comes from studies on people with specific, defined brain
lesions who lose interesting parts of their consciousness. For
references on this topic try searching for Ramachandran VS on
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
You will get a lot of references and save me the hassle of sorting them
out and posting them. I am currently going through a selection of
references gained by searching for near AND death AND experience. Once
you sort through the stuff on managing hospices there is some
interesting science going on which does not point in your favour.
Failing that, any up to date neuroscience textbook will fill you in on
the evidence for mind and brain being one. Go and familiarise yourself
with the science and then come back to us with specific points. Until
then I have some real science to do.
Interesting Ian
| In article <5BxK6.3736$po.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > Ok, then tell me what you believe. What is the precise nature of
the
| > relationship between mind and brain? What arguments do you have
to
| > support this position? I await your answer with great interest.
|
| I don't know what the 'precise' nature of the relationship is.
Well, that's convenient. Thus as far as you're concerned the
relationship between mind and brain is wholly mysterious. What I
would like to know is how am I supposed to argue against your position
when you yourself do not know what your position is?! Dear me!
You're hopeless.
If I did
| I would be a professor with a Nobel prize and I ain't. However there
is
| ample evidence to indicate that mind springs from brain.
On the contrary, there is no evidence. It is just one hypothesis with
*very* questionable intelligibility.
the best
| evidence comes from studies on people with specific, defined brain
| lesions who lose interesting parts of their consciousness.
Again, this only demonstrates correlations. I knew you wouldn't be
able to come up with any evidence to support your position. Whatever
your position is that is, which you have admitted that even *you*
don't know! LOL!
For
| references on this topic try searching for Ramachandran VS on
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
| You will get a lot of references and save me the hassle of sorting
them
| out and posting them.
I'll have a look. Be very surprised if any of it has any remotest
relevance though.
I am currently going through a selection of
| references gained by searching for near AND death AND experience.
Once
| you sort through the stuff on managing hospices there is some
| interesting science going on which does not point in your favour.
Oh yes? What might this science be? What desperate hypotheses to
explain the NDE are they trying to conjure up now? Go on Peter, tell
me, I could do with a laugh!
|
| Failing that, any up to date neuroscience textbook will fill you in
on
| the evidence for mind and brain being one.
Quote some relevant paragraphs from one of them then and I'll tell you
what I think.
Go and familiarise yourself
| with the science and then come back to us with specific points.
Until
| then I have some real science to do.
You want me to go because you're losing the argument? :- )
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) ICQ 76975385
Interesting Ian
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:lh_J6.11098$7_1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| > What do you mean by your assertion that mental processes *depend*
on
| > physical processes? There is a correlation certainly; but you
seem to
| > suggest that there is some sort of causal? relationship here.
You're
| > making an unjustified leap of logic. Essentially I believe you're
| > saying that the physical activity in the brain somehow
mysteriously
| > generates consciousness. What evidence have you for this apart
from
| > the correlation?
|
| But isn't a so-called causal relationship a form of correlation?
| (Whenever A occurs, B then occurs; if A doesn't occur, then B
doesn't
| occur; therefore it seems that, directly or indirectly, B is caused
by
| A.)
It is true that we normally infer a causal relationship between 2
constantly conjoined events. But the key word here is normally. It
is possible that both A and B are independently caused by C. Or it
could be the case that although A occurring is essential before B
occurs, it
nevertheless is not a *sufficient* cause.
I'm getting the impression here though that neither you or Peter
Ashby
understand the hypothesis relating mind, brain, and soul that I've
been
trying to convey. I shall therefore reluctantly employ an analogy to
try and elucidate the model I am proposing. I say reluctantly because
inevitably people will start attacking the analogy rather the real
point I'm driving home. Inevitably it will be the case that the
analogy, like all other analogies, at some point breaks down.
Nevertheless it may be useful in terms of countering the idea that
correlations between mind and brain states *must* entail that mind
states originate from brain states.
If you have read all my posts in this thread you will realise that I
suggest that the state of ones mind might be a consequence of the
interface between soul and brain. I shall try to illustrate what I
mean by virtue
of a rough analogy. The quality of the picture displayed by a
television set is dependent on the state of its internal components.
Yet the picture does not originate from these components. The picture
originates from electromagnetic radiation. Altering the components,
or even smashing the television set up will not extinguish or alter
the electromagnetic radiation.
Bearing in mind this is only a loose analogy, then I propose the soul
may be analogical akin to the electromagnetic radiation, the state of
the brain analogically akin to the state of the TV's components, and
the mind at any time analogically akin to the quality of the picture
at any given time. We might call this the "TV set" hypothesis of the
brain.
Now the question is, are we *analogically* similar to this TV set or
does the brain in some mysterious unspecified manner *create*
consciousness? (which I suppose could be considered to be analogically
equivalent to a TV set with a video recorder built into it). Which is
the more reasonable hypothesis? Do both hypotheses make sense or is
one of them unintelligible? Which is the prima facie more reasonable
hypothesis? When we take into consideration phenomena such as "near
death experiences", does this tend to supply evidence for the brain is
like a TV set hypothesis? Is there any evidence supporting the
hypothesis that the brain generates consciousness, which cannot be
accommodated by the "TV set" hypothesis? Which hypothesis has greater
explanatory power? I would submit that the TV set hypothesis, for all
sorts of reasons, wins hands down.
Blade Runner
<p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>wrong, because to reject hallucinations as an explanation requires you
>to accept far more complex and unlikely consequences which very much
>against Occam. I feel that the more we continue this discussion Ian the
>more it becomes apparant that your grasp of the theory and practice of
>science is not as firm as it could be.
Quite. . I had indigestion today. Now was it the result of a
vengeful god punishing me for some lewd thoughts I was having this
morning or was it because of a rushed lunch?
kames.smiths
Yes, but if you advocate a more complicated explanation, I think you
should provide some evidence supporting it.
Yes, I am confused. I thought that to you a soul was a non-physical self
or some sort of transcendental ego, along the lines proposed by
Descartes or Kant. In your analogy, the soul has no individuality . Do
you think it can be 'picked up' by animals other than humans? It seems
a bit like what I would loosely call 'the external world', which
obviously the organism responds to and models. You theorise wildly about
a completely hypothetical entity, which you don't seem to be able to
define or to demonstrate - but thanks for responding to some of my
points.
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
By the soul I just mean the essential self which can hardly be
described as a completely hypothetical entity! We have a direct
unmediated knowledge of our own selves. What would be the point of
defining in words that which we have immediate experience of!? It
just that I think this self is *not* material. That's to confuse the
experiencer with the experienced. To reiterate, the soul is just
simply our immaterial self ie that which has a conscious life and has
experiences but which itself is not defined in terms of (sense)
experiences (i.e not material!).
BTW don't worry about the analogy. I was reluctant to use it because
people tend to take analogies too seriously. Inevitably they are not
a exact representation otherwise they wouldn't be an analogy!
I'm going to respond to the rest of your points but I thought I would
post in sizable chunks.
Steve Marshall
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
> Well actually they haven't.
Erm , yes they have. It's easy to ignore evidence isn't it though ? Science
relies on the experiment. It demands that it's claims can be proven to be
true by demonstration. Science can give good explanation of the events you
are talking about. You just use speculation.
> And yet we don't even *see* a physical world and yet most people
> presume there is one! If our senses are so unreliable one wonders why
> we don't go around with our eyes shut and our ears stuffed with cotton
> wool.
Are we talking about ordinary occurances ? Our brains and body can cope with
most ordinary occurances provided they are fit and healthy. Place our sences
in a situation they can't cope with and our sences are easily fooled.
People often smell something others can't detect, see stars adn so on.
Because we experience something it doesn't mean that that thing is real.
Steve M
Steve Marshall
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
> Ok, then tell me what you believe. What is the precise nature of the
> relationship between mind and brain? What arguments do you have to
> support this position? I await your answer with great interest.
Clearly the mind and brain are interlinked. You can bring about different
states of mind by interfering with the brain. There is no evidence to show
someone without a brain has any form of mind.
NDE only occurs where there is a brain.
Steve M
Interesting Ian
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
I'm sorry, you are in error. But if you think that NDE's can be
explained by science then go ahead give us the explanation.
>It's easy to ignore evidence isn't it though?
It certainly is. However, there is no evidence supporting the
contention that NDE's originate from the brain. It is true, to take
one example, that heaven-like near death experiences can be induced in
subjects by stimulating the Sylvan Fissure in the right temporal lobe.
However, such experiments failed to produce anything other than a
general series of image patterns. With cases of temporal lobe
seizure, centrifuge pilot training, and excessive stress, the same
result occurred. The otherworldly episodes people had in these
situations were generalised and lack the details, intensity, and
after-effects of genuine near death states. Besides which, the fact
that images can be induced does not demonstrate that these images
*originate* from the brain. Stimulating the brain may just simply
allow the mind to access other realms. It certainly needn't imply
those realms are not real!
Science
| relies on the experiment. It demands that it's claims can be proven
to be
| true by demonstration. Science can give good explanation of the
events you
| are talking about. You just use speculation.
No, I'm not using *any* speculation. You are just desperately trying
to find a materialist explanation for this phenomena. Give it up.
Your beliefs are absurd and of course science doesn't explain
anything. It is merely descriptive. In the materialist metaphysic
consciousness can only ever be tacked onto the world which essentially
means it is simply explained away.
|
| > And yet we don't even *see* a physical world and yet most people
| > presume there is one! If our senses are so unreliable one wonders
why
| > we don't go around with our eyes shut and our ears stuffed with
cotton
| > wool.
|
| Are we talking about ordinary occurrences ? Our brains and body can
cope with
| most ordinary occurrences provided they are fit and healthy. Place
our sences
| in a situation they can't cope with and our sences are easily
fooled.
| People often smell something others can't detect, see stars adn so
on.
| Because we experience something it doesn't mean that that thing is
real.
But, unless we have any evidence to the contrary, why should we not
suppose it is real? You have said absolutely nothing to suggest that
NDE's are not what they appear to be.
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385 (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
kames.smiths
> By the soul I just mean the essential self which can hardly be
> described as a completely hypothetical entity.
What would an inessential self be? To me, a self is either the organism,
or the 'image' the organism forms of itself (depending on context). The
organism is a bundle of interconnected processes that form a system.
> We have a direct
> unmediated knowledge of our own selves. What would be the point of
> defining in words that which we have immediate experience of!?
The organism isn't conscious of most of its own processes.
> It just that I think this self is *not* material.
My guess would be that some physical processes have a subjective as well
as an objective aspect - it feels like something to be those physical
processes.
>That's to confuse the
> experiencer with the experienced.
When the organism experiences itself, it is both the experiencer and the
experienced.
> To reiterate, the soul is just
> simply our immaterial self ie that which has a conscious life and has
> experiences but which itself is not defined in terms of (sense)
> experiences (i.e not material!).
Which I would still regard as a completely hypothetical entity.
I recommend to you Damasio's book 'The Feeling of What Happens'. It
discusses different levels of consciousness and different 'selves' from
a neuroscientific perspective.
Interesting Ian
"kames.smiths" <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a8kK6.2736$po.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
|
| > What is the nature of this relationship? While we are physically
| > embodied why cannot it be the case that our state of mind is
effected
| > by particular brain states but without concluding that our minds
are
| > *generated* by those brain states?
|
| But how, in your terms, can the non-physical be affected by the
| physical? And if the physical can affect the non-physical, perhaps
it
| can generate it as well?
Actually, I'm not a substance dualist. I believe that the physical
realm is a derivative of mind(s) (including God's Mind). Thus we not
talking about 2 differing ontological categories of being here, and
hence the problem is not what it might first appear.
|
| > Moreover, your assertion that a person can't see, have memories
etc if
| > the brain is damaged may only apply when that person is physically
| > embodied. Evidence now suggests for example that *blind* people
who
| > have an out of body experience during a "near death experience",
can
| > actually see, hear, have memories, even though they have been
| > diagnosed as being clinically dead. This is the case even for
those
| > blind since birth! Professor Kenneth Ring has termed this
| > "mindsight".
|
| This sounds interesting but would need thorough investigation by
| disinterested scientists.
Yes, a lot of investigation is required. In the particular case of
people who have been blind since birth I would suspect that the
evidence is not sufficiently comprehensive as of yet to come to any
definitive conclusions here. As for non-blind people who appear to
leave their bodies during an NDE, there is a formidable amount of
evidence suggesting that they can see during this state
(despite being apparently dead).
I can supply statistics if you like?
Is Kenneth Ring impartial, do you suppose?
I wouldn't suppose so. It's incredibly difficult for anyone, whether
for or against, to be completely impartial. We are only human beings!
|
| > Yes, I would see change as an all or nothing affair.
|
| So if someone joins a tennis club, does it become a different tennis
| club because its membership has changed?
Let's skip the semantic games. Under materialism the only criteria
you have for saying that one mind is the *very same* mind at a later
date is spatio-temporal continuity. This is hardly a satisfactory in
asserting that there is one and the same self here.
|
| > If materialism
| > is correct your self from second to second may be incredibly
similar,
| > but the crucial point is they are not the same, and it therefore
seems
| > to me that you cannot *literally* be the very same person from
second
| > to second.
|
| Exactly.
I don't really see how you can agree with this. It's incredibly
counter-intuitive.
|
| >This is very complex and involved though.
|
| Perhaps not, if you relax your rigid concept of identity.
|
| > On a similar
| > line of thought, what if a completely identical physical replica
was
| > built of you.
|
| Would it have the same spatio-temporal location as me and have the
same
| history?
Obviously not the same location. The same history as in identical
memories yes.
|
| > Presumably you would not be conscious in that other
| > body but only in your original. But materialism states that you
are
| > nothing over and above the physical constituents and organisation
of
| > the physical matter of your body. Yet there are 2 *identical*
| > physical bodies but 2 selves. See any contradictions here?
|
| I think the physical replica of me would be conscious but would be
| having different experiences from me, unless it had the same
| spatio-temporal location and the same history as me.
It would only start having differing experiences once it had been
created. At the moment of its creation however, it is in every way
identical to you. Yet there appears to be 2 selves. How is this
possible when materialism states that your self is the sum of the
physical constituents and their order within your body? There should
only be one self surely?
|
|
| >...... The point is though that there is nothing to that
| > organism which doesn't change. After a given period of time there
may
| > not be any similarity at all, either appearance or behaviour,
between
| > the original organism (I put orgasm by mistake there first of all!
| > LOL) and that organism later in its life. Under materialism in
what
| > sense can we say it's the same organism? What is the same?
Precisely
| > nothing at all as far as I can see!
|
| What about the organism's memories, behaviours, concepts etc?
Well, these all change as well. No doubt there are many things you
used to be able to remember but which you cannot remember now. Also
memories get distorted over time. Behaviours certainly change. The
organism may be utterly different in every way. How therefore can it
be the same organism?
|
| > Suppose that eventually the whole car gets changed. At the end
the
| > car that you end up with will have nothing in common at all with
the
| > original car. You would say its the same car, but that's just a
term
| > of convenience. It wouldn't *really* be the same car would it?
Come
| > now.
|
| That's my point. For convenience, we say it's the same car, but we
know
| that it has changed to a greater or lesser extent over the years.
| Similarly with people.
So people spontaneously are terminated and spring into being with
every arbitrary small period of time?
|
| You seem to think people have a non-physical entity within them (a
| self), but what does this self do? Does it just experience what's
| happening to the physical body it happens to be 'inside', or does it
| issue orders?
Well of course we have freewill. Nothing could be more manifestly
evident that consciousness per se can initiate bodily movements!
Do you think animals besides humans have a self of
this
| kind?
Yes, but I would hate to draw a line between those creatures which
have a self (soul), and those that don't.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-41477...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> | In article <_xwK6.3626$po.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> | "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> |
> | > In fact you haven't given any. All your "evidence" is circular in
> | > that you are presupposing the correctness of the materialist
> | > metaphysic.
> |
> | Hold on, you seem confused about the nature of questions being
> asked.
> | You are talking in terms of evidence and hypotheses, this is
> science.
> | Now you are talking metaphysics and arguments. Decide what you want
> to
> | discuss but dont' try jumping ship in the middle just when the going
> | gets hot and you hack it.
>
> You can't abstract metaphysics from science Peter. What constitutes
> evidence, and what is a reasonable hypothesis, will be very much
> influenced by the ones background metaphysical ideas about the nature
> of reality.
I have done the History and Philosophy of Science course thankyou. Ok
then sock it to me, deconstruct the scientific metaphysic for us. What
do you propose to be better evidence than scientific evidence?
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Peter Ashby" <p.r....@dundee.MAPS.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:p.r.ashby-8808D...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
>
> | > Ok, then tell me what you believe. What is the precise nature of
> the
> | > relationship between mind and brain? What arguments do you have
> to
> | > support this position? I await your answer with great interest.
> |
> | I don't know what the 'precise' nature of the relationship is.
>
> Well, that's convenient. Thus as far as you're concerned the
> relationship between mind and brain is wholly mysterious. What I
> would like to know is how am I supposed to argue against your position
> when you yourself do not know what your position is?! Dear me!
> You're hopeless.
Will you stop taking things out of context? Noone knows the 'precise'
nature. That does not mean we know nothing. If you took the time to
learn the state of modern Neuroscience you might discover just how much
we know and that your metaphysical ramblings are not consistent with
that knowledge.
> If I did
> | I would be a professor with a Nobel prize and I ain't. However there
> is
> | ample evidence to indicate that mind springs from brain.
>
> On the contrary, there is no evidence. It is just one hypothesis with
> *very* questionable intelligibility.
Oh so now you are arguing from increduility. You can't understand
something so you dismiss it out of hand, how very convenient for you.
> the best
> | evidence comes from studies on people with specific, defined brain
> | lesions who lose interesting parts of their consciousness.
>
> Again, this only demonstrates correlations. I knew you wouldn't be
> able to come up with any evidence to support your position. Whatever
> your position is that is, which you have admitted that even *you*
> don't know! LOL!
It is a standard technique of science to alter a system and from the
changes in the system deduce the function of that which is altered.
Studying patients with specific, defined lesions is the best we are
going to get in humans (ethically) and is giving great insights into
brain function which also correlate very well with studies such as
functional MRI.
> For
> | references on this topic try searching for Ramachandran VS on
> | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
> | You will get a lot of references and save me the hassle of sorting
> them
> | out and posting them.
>
> I'll have a look. Be very surprised if any of it has any remotest
> relevance though.
ROTFL! I point you towards the premier database of the scientific
literature in the field of biomedical science and you dismiss it with
that? I really don't think you are serious about debating this. If you
had any knowledge of the research you so glibly dismiss you will know
Ramachandran's name. If you have watched terrestrial television in the
last two years with any interest in these questions you will know his
name.
> I am currently going through a selection of
> | references gained by searching for near AND death AND experience.
> Once
> | you sort through the stuff on managing hospices there is some
> | interesting science going on which does not point in your favour.
>
> Oh yes? What might this science be? What desperate hypotheses to
> explain the NDE are they trying to conjure up now? Go on Peter, tell
> me, I could do with a laugh!
I have told you where to look and even how to look, so go look. What's
the matter? afraid you will find the work unintelligible?
> Go and familiarise yourself
> | with the science and then come back to us with specific points.
> Until
> | then I have some real science to do.
>
> You want me to go because you're losing the argument? :- )
No, I want you to familiarise yourself with what you are arguing
against. You are dismissing a vast body of verifiable, falsifiable
knowledge with no knowledge of it. when you have some concept of the
knowledge you wish to dismiss come back and I will happily discuss it
with you.
Interesting Ian
| In article <dPuK6.3694$577.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
| > "Blade Runner" <$black-dog$@hten.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:4odkft0o4aji7sm6l...@4ax.com...
| > | On Wed, 9 May 2001 17:05:45 +0200, "Interesting Ian"
<fa...@home.com>
| > | wrote:
| > |
| > | >Of course NDE's could be some sort of unusual hallucination,
but
| > why
| > | >just not accept them for what they appear to be?
| > |
| > | Occam.
| >
| > Huh? Applying Occams razor means we *should* accept them for what
| > they are. Why accept convoluted explanations in terms of
| > hallucinations rather than accept them for what they appear to be?
| > Especially considering that if they are hallucinations, they are
quite
| > unlike any other hallucinations.
|
| wrong, because to reject hallucinations as an explanation requires
you
| to accept far more complex and unlikely consequences which very much
| against Occam.
Yes, and your "explanations" for NDE's are complex and unlikely where
as mine are very simple and likely.
I feel that the more we continue this discussion Ian the
| more it becomes apparant that your grasp of the theory and practice
of
| science is not as firm as it could be.
Inextricably embedded in the foundations of the vast edifice of modern
science is an article of faith. According to that article of faith,
the physical world is the reality, the whole reality, and nothing but
the reality. What increasing numbers of researchers are realising is
that that article of faith is wrong. There is something else, besides
physical matter and energy. That is the big heresy, and it is a
heresy that is now openly challenging the 300 year old belief system
of the west.
What I'm talking about here is consciousness. Not understood in the
materialist sense as being somehow derived or being concomitant with
some physical reality, but as a fundamental irreducible reality in its
own right.
The rather silly standard position of the materialist/physicalist, is
that consciousness is no more than the processing of information in
the brain. Quite how the incessant traffic of electrical and chemical
signals running along the fibres of the brain cells constitutes the
rich texture of conscious experience is never explained. The
advocates of materialism/physicalism just wave their hands and say
that the brain is so enormously complex that we cannot yet understand
the precise mechanism whereby electrical pulses in nerve cells are
manifest as sensations, thoughts and emotions. Nevertheless, they
say, this must be so, because they hold the fundamental article of
faith that everything is physical. Yet there are no principled
reasons for supposing that mind will ultimately be reduced to the
physical system of the brain, nor any programme of research that we
have any reason to believe will be able to achieve that reduction of
mind to matter.
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) ICQ 76975385
(Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
J Forbes
> As for me, association with Buddhism, Western psychology, evolutionary
> biology/psychology and age have brought be to a state where I am not
> confused or surprised about what's going on in people, life and human
> interactions; people and groups are experienced by me as innocent and not
> evil; I do not spin around in futile and vicious thought-cycles of
> hesitation, doubt, anger, agitation and finger-pointing; and life is
> non-problematic. I am quite content with this mundane micro-nirvana. MJ
Sounds like you've found "the way" :)
I like it.
Jim
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> Inextricably embedded in the foundations of the vast edifice of modern
> science is an article of faith. According to that article of faith,
> the physical world is the reality, the whole reality, and nothing but
> the reality. What increasing numbers of researchers are realising is
> that that article of faith is wrong. There is something else, besides
> physical matter and energy. That is the big heresy, and it is a
> heresy that is now openly challenging the 300 year old belief system
> of the west.
Is this supposed to be some great new revelation or something? this is
simply harking back to discredited old concepts. your arguments are
little more than dusted off and dressed up vitalism. Next thing you will
be telling me about the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Until you
can demonstrate that which is outwith reality it is your position which
is of necessity an article of faith. It does not require faith to not
believe in something which lacks evidence.
> What I'm talking about here is consciousness. Not understood in the
> materialist sense as being somehow derived or being concomitant with
> some physical reality, but as a fundamental irreducible reality in its
> own right.
Prove it. Yours is a god of the gaps metaphysic. What will happen as
neuroscience converges on more and more coherent and consistent
explanations? Where will your god dreaming us all into consciousness be
then? Squeezed ever further into ever diminishing gaps in our knowledge.
That is all your much vaunted metaphysic is, a fable to paper over that
which is not known for certain. You ridiculed me when I said noone knew
the 'precise' basis of the relationship between brain and mind. It is
not a failure to acknowledge ignorance, it is a strength because it
identifies that which needs to be investigated. Your philososphy walls
off whole areas of investigation as inscrutable, untillegible or too
enigmatic and that is the cowards way out.
James A. Temple
Well, good grief! "Interesting Ian" ~ a new name for an old friend. Glad
to see a post from you on this little NG. From the "shellacing" you took
from the Humanists durin' your last sortee in these electronic confines, I
was afraid that you'd permanently saturate the place with your absence. I
hope you're doin' well.
> But if you think that NDE's can be explained by science then go ahead give
> us the explanation.
Heh, heh! That's a good one, Ian, ~ tryin' to get ol' Steve to prove or
disprove your point with science. Steve ain't old but he wasn't born last
night, either. It's up to you to prove your own point. But, you know that;
you've been so advised so many times by so many reasonable folks.
>...there is no evidence supporting the contention that NDE's originate from
the > brain.
So you say. Wish I was smart enough to know if such a statement is true.
Yet, I haven't seen any evidence from you provin' that NDE's originate from
any other source. Lay it out there for us, lad. Share with us the benefit
of your knowledge of metaphysics. Don't let us flounder around with only
the ignorance which common sense, reason, and experience has provided us.
> It is true, to take one example, that heaven-like near death experiences
can
> be induced in subjects by stimulating the Sylvan Fissure in the right
temporal
> lobe.
That's close enough for me. But I reckon the near-death-experience I
received when Sylvia Fisher's dad caught me stumulatin' her was about a
near-death as I've ever come.
> Your beliefs are absurd...
Yep. I agree. If ol' Steve had any "beliefs" they would be absurd. But,
from my experience in dealin' with him over some period of time now, the
rascal doesn't "believe" in anything! He insists upon bein' convinced by a
load of experimentation, rationalization, experience, education, and a
plethora of other "-tions". What's wrong with a guy like that? Doesn't
such a fellow realize how much he misses by not just acceptin' another guys
explanation without havin' to prove everything?
> ...and of course...
"...of course"? Has science become so untrustworthy that "mainstream"
society now accepts your declaration without variance? Are their not a few
folks left that have the misconception that science can explain things?
I'll ask around down at the ol' guitar store after lunch. I bet there's a
couple of the good ol' boys that still have some confidence in science ~
like that science involved in brewin' up a batch of homemade beer. Now,
there's science in action!
> ...science doesn't explain anything. It is merely descriptive.
Yeah, it is used to describe things. That's another way to explain stuff is
to described it. You've just created another "retarded bovine" ~ an
"oxymoron" ~ "non-explanatory science". You're a laugh-a-minute, my friend.
Though we never agree on anything, I certainly enjoy your posts.
> In the materialist metaphysic consciousness can only ever be tacked onto
> the world which essentially means it is simply explained away.
Ian, I'm too ignorant to understand what you're sayin' here. Kindly forgive
my lack of education an allow me to disagree with whatever you mean. It
makes me feel more certain of myself ~ disagreein' with things I don't
understand. Like your explanation of NDE's.
> But, unless we have any evidence to the contrary, why should we not
> suppose it is real?
I dunno. I see magic acts that look real enough. I don't have any evidence
that they are mere manipulations but I regard them as such anyway. Call me
crazy!
> You have said absolutely nothing to suggest that NDE's are not what they
> appear to be.
I agree, Ian. So far as I'm concened, ol' Steve has not contributed
anything that would convince me that NDE's are any thing more than they are
~ experiences! But a close encounter to "heaven" ~ NOT!!
> Interesting Ian (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
You simply must get over your timidity. Have a little confidence in
yourself. Give yourself a "handle" that promotes you as a person, as a
"thinker". Somethin' that strikes awe in the hearts of readers from their
first glance at your self-ordained title. Maybe "Ian-God". That's
impressive. Go to it son. You can do it. I must believe that; I've got no
proof of it.
ICQ 76975385
Just leave out the "C". That'll draw a second glance.
Love from Texas,
Jim Temple
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Interesting Ian
"James A. Temple" <bev...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3afc2...@news.binaries.net...
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:ydEK6.7254$577.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| Well, good grief! "Interesting Ian" ~ a new name for an old friend.
Glad
| to see a post from you on this little NG. From the "shellacing" you
took
| from the Humanists durin' your last sortee in these electronic
confines, I
| was afraid that you'd permanently saturate the place with your
absence. I
| hope you're doin' well.
Shellacing? You're talking about the *uk* humanists group? I have no
idea what the word means but I can assure you I made them all look
perfectly idiotic. Their hostility towards me was appropriate
testimony to their frustration in being inable to address my
arguments.
|
| > But if you think that NDE's can be explained by science then go
ahead give
| > us the explanation.
|
| Heh, heh! That's a good one, Ian, ~ tryin' to get ol' Steve to
prove or
| disprove your point with science. Steve ain't old but he wasn't
born last
| night, either. It's up to you to prove your own point. But, you
know that;
| you've been so advised so many times by so many reasonable folks.
No, Steve is saying that the NDE can be completely explained by
science. It is up to him to substantiate his claim.
|
| >...there is no evidence supporting the contention that NDE's
originate from
| the > brain.
|
| So you say. Wish I was smart enough to know if such a statement is
true.
| Yet, I haven't seen any evidence from you provin' that NDE's
originate from
| any other source. Lay it out there for us, lad. Share with us the
benefit
| of your knowledge of metaphysics. Don't let us flounder around with
only
| the ignorance which common sense, reason, and experience has
provided us.
I will provide the evidence in the fullness of time. I'm feeling
rather fatigued at the moment.
|
| > It is true, to take one example, that heaven-like near death
experiences
| can
| > be induced in subjects by stimulating the Sylvan Fissure in the
right
| temporal
| > lobe.
|
| That's close enough for me. But I reckon the near-death-experience
I
| received when Sylvia Fisher's dad caught me stumulatin' her was
about a
| near-death as I've ever come.
|
| > Your beliefs are absurd...
|
| Yep. I agree. If ol' Steve had any "beliefs" they would be absurd.
But,
| from my experience in dealin' with him over some period of time now,
the
| rascal doesn't "believe" in anything! He insists upon bein'
convinced by a
| load of experimentation, rationalization, experience, education, and
a
| plethora of other "-tions".
Hmmm, well I hope he's not too enamoured with science. It can be
somewhat limiting.
What's wrong with a guy like that? Doesn't
| such a fellow realize how much he misses by not just acceptin'
another guys
| explanation without havin' to prove everything?
|
| > ...and of course...
|
| "...of course"? Has science become so untrustworthy that
"mainstream"
| society now accepts your declaration without variance? Are their
not a few
| folks left that have the misconception that science can explain
things?
| I'll ask around down at the ol' guitar store after lunch. I bet
there's a
| couple of the good ol' boys that still have some confidence in
science ~
| like that science involved in brewin' up a batch of homemade beer.
Now,
| there's science in action!
|
| > ...science doesn't explain anything. It is merely descriptive.
|
| Yeah, it is used to describe things. That's another way to explain
stuff is
| to described it.
To "explain" seems to imply more than just "describe". But if by
"explain" scientists actually only mean "describe" then I'm perfectly
happy with that.
You've just created another "retarded bovine" ~ an
| "oxymoron" ~ "non-explanatory science". You're a laugh-a-minute, my
friend.
| Though we never agree on anything, I certainly enjoy your posts.
Science only "explains" when it smuggles in certain metaphysical
presumptions. These indeed are only presumptions as they are never
actually argued for. Science is contaminated with faith.
Got over your laughter yet?
|
| > In the materialist metaphysic consciousness can only ever be
tacked onto
| > the world which essentially means it is simply explained away.
|
| Ian, I'm too ignorant to understand what you're sayin' here. Kindly
forgive
| my lack of education an allow me to disagree with whatever you mean.
You'd be amazed how ofter people just autamatically disagree with
everything I say, even when they don't understand what I'm talking
about. In real life I mean. Used to think it was my tone of voice
and my body language and perhaps even my physical appearance :- o, but
it happens on Usenet as well! hmmmm
It
| makes me feel more certain of myself ~ disagreein' with things I
don't
| understand. Like your explanation of NDE's.
My explanation as in a contact with otherworldly realities? Of course
that not to say that the apparent character of these realms is not
formed to a certain extent by psychological expectations on our parts.
A bit like the "real" world in fact!
|
| > But, unless we have any evidence to the contrary, why should we
not
| > suppose it is real?
|
| I dunno. I see magic acts that look real enough. I don't have any
evidence
| that they are mere manipulations but I regard them as such anyway.
Call me
| crazy!
But you know they're magic acts and . . . oh never mind!
|
| > You have said absolutely nothing to suggest that NDE's are not
what they
| > appear to be.
|
| I agree, Ian. So far as I'm concened, ol' Steve has not contributed
| anything that would convince me that NDE's are any thing more than
they are
| ~ experiences! But a close encounter to "heaven" ~ NOT!!
You think near death experiences are any less real than everyday
experiences? Bit strange when those that undergo the near death
experience claim they felt *more* alive than they have ever done.
It's even more strange when we take into account that at this time
they ostensibly appear to be dead!!
|
| > Interesting Ian (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
|
| You simply must get over your timidity. Have a little confidence in
| yourself. Give yourself a "handle" that promotes you as a person,
as a
| "thinker". Somethin' that strikes awe in the hearts of readers from
their
| first glance at your self-ordained title. Maybe "Ian-God". That's
| impressive. Go to it son. You can do it. I must believe that;
I've got no
| proof of it.
I was thinking about "Intellectual Ian"
Would you have guessed it was me if I hadn't put my previous name in
brackets?
|
| ICQ 76975385
|
| Just leave out the "C". That'll draw a second glance.
|
| Love from Texas,
| Jim Temple
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) (Formerly Mr
Enigmatic)
Steve Marshall
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
> No, Steve is saying that the NDE can be completely explained by
> science. It is up to him to substantiate his claim.
Again you are wrong. Science doesn't not know exactly and completely what is
happeneing with NDE, but the recent experimentation has shown enough
evidence to give a rational explanation.
If this is all you can offer as reason for there being life after death then
I see why you're having so much trouble coming to terms with it. It is not
me that is desperate !
> Hmmm, well I hope he's not too enamoured with science. It can be
> somewhat limiting.
If you' read my previous posts you'd see that I am not at all enamoured by
it. The scientific world often doesn't act in a properly scientific manner.
Science isn't all we have to answer questions. Philosophy and reasoning come
in handy too. I find through reasoning that you don't get a mind without a
brain.
Steve M
kames.smiths
>
> "kames.smiths" <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:a8kK6.2736$po.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> realm is a derivative of mind(s) (including God's Mind).
And how are you going to test this theory? Is there any way of proving
it or disproving it? Supposing it were true, so what?
> | So if someone joins a tennis club, does it become a different tennis
> | club because its membership has changed?
>
> Let's skip the semantic games. Under materialism the only criteria
> you have for saying that one mind is the *very same* mind at a later
> date is spatio-temporal continuity. This is hardly a satisfactory in
> asserting that there is one and the same self here.
Perhaps you don't want to answer my question. I believe a person's mind
is constantly changing. It is you that wishes to claim that there is a
permanent 'self'.
> It [the replica] would only start having differing experiences once it
had been
> created. At the moment of its creation however, it is in every way
> identical to you. Yet there appears to be 2 selves. How is this
> possible when materialism states that your self is the sum of the
> physical constituents and their order within your body? There should
> only be one self surely?
Once the two organisms start having different experiences, they will
start having different minds, different self-concepts etc. Normally a
person has a unified sense of identity, but perhaps this breaks down in
cases of multiple personality.
> No doubt there are many things you
> used to be able to remember but which you cannot remember now. Also
> memories get distorted over time. Behaviours certainly change. The
> organism may be utterly different in every way. How therefore can it
> be the same organism?
You dichotomise ( the organism can only be the same or different)
whereas I apply a scale (the organism can be almost identical, very
similar, quite similar etc.). I believe an organism, an organism's
'sense of self' and an organism's 'autobiographical self' all change
over time; this seems to me to be blatantly obvious rather than
counter-intuitive.
> So people spontaneously are terminated and spring into being with
> every arbitrary small period of time?
You can never step in the same river twice, but it's inconvenient to
keep changing the river's name.
> Well of course we have freewill. Nothing could be more manifestly
> evident that consciousness per se can initiate bodily movements!
I don't like the term free will, since it is very difficult to define,
but don't let's get into that. Some time ago I read about some
experiments by Libet that seemed to indicate that consciousness may lag
behind the initiation of actions (for a discussion of these experiments,
see for example 'The User Illusion' by Tor Norretranders).
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
"Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
|
| > No, Steve is saying that the NDE can be completely explained by
| > science. It is up to him to substantiate his claim.
|
| Again you are wrong. Science doesn't not know exactly and completely
what is
| happeneing with NDE, but the recent experimentation has shown enough
| evidence to give a rational explanation.
Huh?? I'm bemused. What meaning would there be to an *irrational*
explanation? Anyway, I await with patience for you to substantiate
your claim. If there is any indication whatsoever that science
*might* be able to explain this phenomena then please enlighten me. I
suspect I will be disappointed.
| If this is all you can offer as reason for there being life after
death then
| I see why you're having so much trouble coming to terms with it. It
is not
| me that is desperate !
Dear me! There's so many reasons I scarcely know where to begin!
What about the incoherence of materialism for a kick off? What about
the contradiction between such a metaphysic and the implications of
the quantum revolution? What about the many desparate attempts
resulting in the myriad materialist models trying to reconcile body
and mind, all of which have proved to be unmitigated failures? What
about all direct evidence for a afterlife such as "death bed
apparitions", young children remembering previous lives, apparitions
of loved ones conveying reassurance etc etc etc. So far you have
failed to even give any reasons to suppose that NDE's are not what
they appear to be, never mind all other reasons to believe in survival
which I could go into.
|
| > Hmmm, well I hope he's not too enamoured with science. It can be
| > somewhat limiting.
| If you' read my previous posts you'd see that I am not at all
enamoured by
| it. The scientific world often doesn't act in a properly scientific
manner.
| Science isn't all we have to answer questions. Philosophy and
reasoning come
| in handy too. I find through reasoning that you don't get a mind
without a
| brain.
No , you find as an empirical matter of fact that you do not get minds
without brains being associated with them. You assume that these
brains, in an appropriate sense, generate these minds. That is your
irrational prejudice. It wouldn't be so bad if you could at least
render such a notion as intelligible; but you can't can you?
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) ICQ 76975385
(Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Steve Marshall" <48ka...@freNoSpaMeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:fwZK6.40098$aE1.2...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> |
> | "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
> |
> | > No, Steve is saying that the NDE can be completely explained by
> | > science. It is up to him to substantiate his claim.
> |
> | Again you are wrong. Science doesn't not know exactly and completely
> what is
> | happeneing with NDE, but the recent experimentation has shown enough
> | evidence to give a rational explanation.
>
> Huh?? I'm bemused. What meaning would there be to an *irrational*
> explanation?
>
expect from cults, religions, madmen, snake oil salesmen, politicians
and girlies at that time of the month.
--
"Death, like eating roast chicken or going to war, is an area in which
no absolutely kind or wholesome things happen." Derek Roskell BMJ
10/02/2001
Interesting Ian
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:zLCK6.6484$577.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| > By the soul I just mean the essential self which can hardly be
| > described as a completely hypothetical entity.
|
| What would an inessential self be?
Ones particular state of mind at any particular time.
To me, a self is either the organism,
| or the 'image' the organism forms of itself (depending on context).
The
| organism is a bundle of interconnected processes that form a system.
So you're saying the self is physical? Of course you need arguments
to support your contention. Arguing for the intelligible of such a
notion will suffice for the moment.
|
| > We have a direct
| > unmediated knowledge of our own selves. What would be the point
of
| > defining in words that which we have immediate experience of!?
|
| The organism isn't conscious of most of its own processes.
I'm not talking about physical processes. I'm talking about being
implicitly aware of our own consciousness.
|
| > It just that I think this self is *not* material.
|
| My guess would be that some physical processes have a subjective as
well
| as an objective aspect - it feels like something to be those
physical
| processes.
You guess? You guess?? This is of course the classic materialist
position. You need to advance some *arguments* which favour this
hypothesis, not just keep stating it!
|
| >That's to confuse the
| > experiencer with the experienced.
|
| When the organism experiences itself, it is both the experiencer and
the
| experienced.
I mean experienced as in experience through the *5 senses*. We cannot
see, hear, touch, taste, or smell consciousness or its attributes (eg
the feeling of hope), simply because that is to misunderstand what
consciousness or the self is. The self experiences (senses), it is
not itself understood as a experience.
|
| > To reiterate, the soul is just
| > simply our immaterial self i.e. that which has a conscious life
and has
| > experiences but which itself is not defined in terms of (sense)
| > experiences (i.e not material!).
|
| Which I would still regard as a completely hypothetical entity.
Well, I've explained why it isn't. Presumably our disagreement
revolves around whether our selves are material? Are emotions
feelings hope, despair, the richness of our mental lives material?
What is this materiality anyway? Are you saying that consciousness is
the processing of information perhaps?
I'm just saying that consciousness is what it appears to be i.e a
reality in its own right which is not the same as information or any
physical event. It is you that is proposing the *mind numbingly*
counter intuitive position that the richness of our mental lives is
nothing *but* an immense swirling sea of electrochemical signals. So
far neither you or anyone else have given any arguments supporting
this contention, apart from referring to neural correlates of
consciousness.
|
| I recommend to you Damasio's book 'The Feeling of What Happens'. It
| discusses different levels of consciousness and different 'selves'
from
| a neuroscientific perspective.
Great.
Interesting Ian
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:o7HK6.7859$577.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
| >
| > "kames.smiths" <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:a8kK6.2736$po.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
| >
| > Actually, I'm not a substance dualist. I believe that the
physical
| > realm is a derivative of mind(s) (including God's Mind).
|
| And how are you going to test this theory? Is there any way of
proving
| it or disproving it? Supposing it were true, so what?
It's a metaphysical position like materialism. It would be difficult
to test although quantum mechanics would strongly tend to imply the
metaphysic I believe in whilst it has effectively created insuperable
difficulties for the materialist metaphysic (hence the metaphysical
vacuum lying at the heart of modern physics). Indeed, come to think
of it, the materialists have hedged and fudged their position ever
since it was first fully articulated 350 years ago. Whatever happened
to the notion of material substance for example? LOL
If the metaphysic I subscribe to is true, then the aforementioned
"problem" that you mentioned is not in fact a problem.
|
| > | So if someone joins a tennis club, does it become a different
tennis
| > | club because its membership has changed?
| >
| > Let's skip the semantic games. Under materialism the only
criteria
| > you have for saying that one mind is the *very same* mind at a
later
| > date is spatio-temporal continuity. This is hardly a satisfactory
in
| > asserting that there is one and the same self here.
|
| Perhaps you don't want to answer my question. I believe a person's
mind
| is constantly changing. It is you that wishes to claim that there
is a
| permanent 'self'.
Of course a persons mind constantly changes. It is one thing to
acknowledge this, quite another to say that there is no permanent
self. The fact that on differing occasions our self feels differently
doesn't warrant your contention that the self has literally *changed*.
|
| > It [the replica] would only start having differing experiences
once it
| had been
| > created. At the moment of its creation however, it is in every
way
| > identical to you. Yet there appears to be 2 selves. How is this
| > possible when materialism states that your self is the sum of the
| > physical constituents and their order within your body? There
should
| > only be one self surely?
|
| Once the two organisms start having different experiences, they will
| start having different minds, different self-concepts etc. Normally
a
| person has a unified sense of identity, but perhaps this breaks down
in
| cases of multiple personality.
I'm talking about at_the_moment_of_creation_of_the_replica.
If there are 2 selves this seems to contradict materialism. Why
won't you address this difficulty?
|
| > No doubt there are many things you
| > used to be able to remember but which you cannot remember now.
Also
| > memories get distorted over time. Behaviours certainly change.
The
| > organism may be utterly different in every way. How therefore can
it
| > be the same organism?
|
| You dichotomise ( the organism can only be the same or different)
| whereas I apply a scale (the organism can be almost identical, very
| similar, quite similar etc.). I believe an organism, an organism's
| 'sense of self' and an organism's 'autobiographical self' all
change
| over time; this seems to me to be blatantly obvious rather than
| counter-intuitive.
But if a self changes over time what *commonality* does an earlier
self have with a later self?
How can we say a person early on in his life is the same person in his
twilight years?
None whatsoever under materialism it would seem. You have yet to
address *any*
of the inherent absurdities of materialism.
|
| > So people spontaneously are terminated and spring into being with
| > every arbitrary small period of time?
|
| You can never step in the same river twice, but it's inconvenient to
| keep changing the river's name.
Dear me! I want arguments from you not proverbs (or whatever they
are). If my future self is not *really* going to be me why should I
plan for the future?
|
| > Well of course we have freewill. Nothing could be more manifestly
| > evident that consciousness per se can initiate bodily movements!
|
| I don't like the term free will, since it is very difficult to
define,
| but don't let's get into that.
On the contrary, it's very easy to define. It simply means that my
mind or consciousness *per se* is able to initiate bodily movements.
Materialists need to deny free will. Everything that has ever
happened throughout human history would have occurred regardless of
whether anyone had ever been conscious according to the materialist!
All the feelings, emotions, yearnings and consequent decisions, that
anyone has ever experienced, have had no influence on the course of
human history! Do I need to say any more about the sheer *stupidity*
of the materialists position?
Some time ago I read about some
| experiments by Libet that seemed to indicate that consciousness may
lag
| behind the initiation of actions (for a discussion of these
experiments,
| see for example 'The User Illusion' by Tor Norretranders).
Yes, behind the initiation of most actions. So what? You
accidentally almost touch a hot iron and snatch your finger away
before it registers in your consciousness. We all know about this.
Most of the time our behaviour is on "autopilot" such as when we walk,
drive a car etc etc. When we talk about free will we do not mean that
everything we do we are immediately consciously making a decision.
Rather free will primarily refers to our ability to consciously
intervene where novel situations are encountered which can't be
handled by subconscious processes. The conclusion that Libet himself
came to is that consciousness can veto actions. This is enough to
rescue free will.
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385 (Stockton-on-Tees (near
Middlesbrough), England) (Formerly Mr Enigmatic).
Steve Marshall
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
> Huh?? I'm bemused. What meaning would there be to an *irrational*
> explanation? Anyway, I await with patience for you to substantiate
> your claim. If there is any indication whatsoever that science
> *might* be able to explain this phenomena then please enlighten me. I
> suspect I will be disappointed.
Details were given in the recent BBC series on the brain and you can find
more in the book of the series.
> Dear me! There's so many reasons I scarcely know where to begin!
> What about the incoherence of materialism for a kick off?
I wouldn't say it is incoherent. Just look at a computer, a mere lump of
metal and plastic. It's much more than that though isn't it. ?
>What about
> the contradiction between such a metaphysic and the implications of
> the quantum revolution?
You like the word 'metaphysic', don't you ? Things that work at quantum
level just don't apply elsewhere.
>What about the many desparate attempts
> resulting in the myriad materialist models trying to reconcile body
> and mind, all of which have proved to be unmitigated failures?
Huh ? Someone's got something wrong so you must be right ? Doesn't follow
I'm afraid.
> What
> about all direct evidence for a afterlife such as "death bed
> apparitions", young children remembering previous lives, apparitions
> of loved ones conveying reassurance etc etc etc.
That isn't 'direct evidence'.
> So far you have
> failed to even give any reasons to suppose that NDE's are not what
> they appear to be, never mind all other reasons to believe in survival
> which I could go into.
I've said that science can show the experience to be generated by the brain
under certain conditions.
What conclusions can be made when a cylinder on a table falls over ? You
awould speculate the events. Maybe someone pushed it. Maybe there was a
mechanism under the cylinder that forced it to fall. Maybe someone kicked
the table. From the evidence given you can not know what has occured other
than that the cylinder fell over.
> You assume that these
> brains, in an appropriate sense, generate these minds. That is your
> irrational prejudice.
Now there you go jumping to conclusions again, and again you are wrong.
Steve M
Frederick Trotteville
"Steve Marshall" <st...@marshallmcgurk.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:9dk6i6$k9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote
|
| > Huh?? I'm bemused. What meaning would there be to an
*irrational*
| > explanation? Anyway, I await with patience for you to
substantiate
| > your claim. If there is any indication whatsoever that science
| > *might* be able to explain this phenomena then please enlighten
me. I
| > suspect I will be disappointed.
| Details were given in the recent BBC series on the brain and you can
find
| more in the book of the series.
The secrets of the Universe are within *you*. Everything you'll ever
need to know is within you. Reading books and listening to experts is
a poor substitute for inner certainty. You can only ever hope they
are right. Throw off the shackles of the tyranny of authority and
listen to what your heart says.
Frederick Algernon Trotteville
kames.smiths
> So you're saying the self is physical? Of course you need arguments
> to support your contention. Arguing for the intelligible of such a
> notion will suffice for the moment.
I wouldn't want to be dogmatic here. I incline toward some sort of dual
aspect theory - at least some events or happenings have a subjective as
well as an objective aspect.
> I'm not talking about physical processes. I'm talking about being
> implicitly aware of our own consciousness.
But how do you know that being implicitly aware of your own
consciousness is not a physical process?
> You guess? You guess?? This is of course the classic materialist
> position. You need to advance some *arguments* which favour this
> hypothesis, not just keep stating it!
The arguments concern the very close correlations being discovered
between so-called physical and mental events. You wish to explain these
correlations by introducing wildly speculative entities, such as souls
and God, which you can't define or demonstrate.
> I mean experienced as in experience through the *5 senses*. We cannot
> see, hear, touch, taste, or smell consciousness or its attributes (eg
> the feeling of hope), simply because that is to misunderstand what
> consciousness or the self is. The self experiences (senses), it is
> not itself understood as a experience.
But I maintain that the feeling of being a self is an experience, and
that there is no noumenal self, transcendent ego, soul or what have you.
This seems to me to be the best working hypothesis and one that can be
examined scientifically (witness the work of Damasio). As far as I can
see your speculations lead nowhere.
> I'm just saying that consciousness is what it appears to be i.e a
> reality in its own right which is not the same as information or any
> physical event. It is you that is proposing the *mind numbingly*
> counter intuitive position that the richness of our mental lives is
> nothing *but* an immense swirling sea of electrochemical signals. So
> far neither you or anyone else have given any arguments supporting
> this contention, apart from referring to neural correlates of
> consciousness.
So precisely how do you explain the neural correlates of consciousness ?
Dave Smith
kames.smiths
> It's a metaphysical position like materialism.
It's just wild theorising about imaginary entities, in my view. But if
your position is correct, what are the implications?
> It would be difficult
> to test although quantum mechanics would strongly tend to imply the
> metaphysic I believe in whilst it has effectively created insuperable
> difficulties for the materialist metaphysic (hence the metaphysical
> vacuum lying at the heart of modern physics).
Go on, then, explain why quantum mechanics supports your position.
> Indeed, come to think
> of it, the materialists have hedged and fudged their position ever
> since it was first fully articulated 350 years ago. Whatever happened
> to the notion of material substance for example? LOL
I don't see myself as adopting a materialist philosophy and I wouldn't
wish to defend such a philosophy. (Incidentally, I have read that
materialism was adopted in the seventeenth century partly for
theological reasons - a passive, mechanical, material world was thought
to require a creator.)
> Of course a persons mind constantly changes. It is one thing to
> acknowledge this, quite another to say that there is no permanent
> self. The fact that on differing occasions our self feels differently
> doesn't warrant your contention that the self has literally *changed*.
In my view, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a permanent
self. All about me I see change, and why should I except myself from
this?
> I'm talking about at_the_moment_of_creation_of_the_replica.
> If there are 2 selves this seems to contradict materialism. Why
> won't you address this difficulty?
If it were possible for the original and the replica to be identical in
every way, including being placed in an identical environment, then why
shouldn't they have identical experiences?
> But if a self changes over time what *commonality* does an earlier
> self have with a later self?
That's an interesting empirical question. To what extent is the feeling
of psychological continuity justified?
> How can we say a person early on in his life is the same person in his
> twilight years?
We can say it, but to what extent is it true?
>You have yet to address *any*
> of the inherent absurdities of materialism.
As I have said, I don't particularly want to defend materialism.
However, can you be more specific?
> Dear me! I want arguments from you not proverbs (or whatever they
> are).
The remark about the river is attributed to Heraclitus - an early Greek
philosopher.
> If my future self is not *really* going to be me why should I
> plan for the future?
Presumably you mean why plan for my own future when it won't be me
experiencing it? I fall back on the argument that change is a matter of
degree. I anticipate that some aspects of the present me will survive
for a while and I want to do my best for them!
> On the contrary, it's very easy to define. It simply means that my
> mind or consciousness *per se* is able to initiate bodily movements.
> Materialists need to deny free will. Everything that has ever
> happened throughout human history would have occurred regardless of
> whether anyone had ever been conscious according to the materialist!
> All the feelings, emotions, yearnings and consequent decisions, that
> anyone has ever experienced, have had no influence on the course of
> human history! Do I need to say any more about the sheer *stupidity*
> of the materialists position?
Your materialist is something of a straw man, I think. A determinist
might argue that we live in a world of cause and effect. There are
always reasons why a person makes a decision, therefore that decision is
not an act of free will.
> When we talk about free will we do not mean that
> everything we do we are immediately consciously making a decision.
> Rather free will primarily refers to our ability to consciously
> intervene where novel situations are encountered which can't be
> handled by subconscious processes.
So our conscious thoughts partially determine the outcome. But what
determines our conscious thoughts?
>The conclusion that Libet himself
> came to is that consciousness can veto actions. This is enough to
> rescue free will.
But you were arguing that consciousness is able to initiate bodily
movements, not that it can veto them.
Dave Smith
Interesting Ian
|
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote in message
| news:rL9L6.12914$po.14...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
|
| > So you're saying the self is physical? Of course you need
arguments
| > to support your contention. Arguing for the intelligible of such
a
| > notion will suffice for the moment.
|
| I wouldn't want to be dogmatic here. I incline toward some sort of
dual
| aspect theory - at least some events or happenings have a subjective
as
| well as an objective aspect.
I had a quick look for some further information about "dual aspect
theory" and I came across this incredibly excellent web page which
examines the various defects of the monism positions including
materialism, idealism, neutral monism, double aspect (does it imply
panpsychism?) and how essentially none of them are satisfactory (He
regards dualism as just being magical). Read
http://www.otago.ac.nz/philosophy/dw/textfiles/metaphysical.txt
(if you're reading this Peter I recommend you have a look at the web
page as well as it covers a lot of our discussion).
I don't agree with his criticism of idealism though (I am a Berkelian
idealist).
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) ICQ 76975385
(Formerly Mr Enigmatic)
Steve Marshall
"Frederick Trotteville" <fr...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> The secrets of the Universe are within *you*. Everything you'll ever
> need to know is within you. Reading books and listening to experts is
> a poor substitute for inner certainty. You can only ever hope they
> are right. Throw off the shackles of the tyranny of authority and
> listen to what your heart says.
I did, and my heart told me there is no such thing as the afterlife, ghosts
or the soul.
My mind is my own, not someone elses !
Steve M
Interesting Ian
"Steve Marshall" <st...@marshallmcgurk.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
in message news:9dk6i6$k9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
|
| > Huh?? I'm bemused. What meaning would there be to an
*irrational*
| > explanation? Anyway, I await with patience for you to
substantiate
| > your claim. If there is any indication whatsoever that science
| > *might* be able to explain this phenomena then please enlighten
me. I
| > suspect I will be disappointed.
| Details were given in the recent BBC series on the brain and you can
find
| more in the book of the series.
I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. Please quote the pertinent
information.
| > Dear me! There's so many reasons I scarcely know where to begin!
| > What about the incoherence of materialism for a kick off?
| I wouldn't say it is incoherent. Just look at a computer, a mere
lump of
| metal and plastic. It's much more than that though isn't it. ?
Yeah, but irrelevant I'm afraid Steve. :- )
Please address the inherent absurdities of materialism.
| >What about
| > the contradiction between such a metaphysic and the implications
of
| > the quantum revolution?
| You like the word 'metaphysic', don't you ?
We *are* talking about the relationship between brain and mind
so yeah, metaphysics is pretty crucial! :- )
Things that work at quantum
| level just don't apply elsewhere.
Not true I'm afraid Steve. The quantum equations can be
applied to reality as a whole. Why should we suppose they
only have applicability to the *macroscopic* realm?
| >What about the many desparate attempts
| > resulting in the myriad materialist models trying to reconcile
body
| > and mind, all of which have proved to be unmitigated failures?
| Huh ? Someone's got something wrong so you must be right ? Doesn't
follow
| I'm afraid.
But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the default presumption
that materialism *must* be correct needs to be questioned.
| > What
| > about all direct evidence for a afterlife such as "death bed
| > apparitions", young children remembering previous lives,
apparitions
| > of loved ones conveying reassurance etc etc etc.
| That isn't 'direct evidence'.
Depends what you mean by "direct". The fact is
that it is evidence which needs to be addressed.
| > So far you have
| > failed to even give any reasons to suppose that NDE's are not what
| > they appear to be, never mind all other reasons to believe in
survival
| > which I could go into.
| I've said that science can show the experience to be generated by
the brain
| under certain conditions.
<SIGHS> Why do I have to keep repeating myself?? First thing
to say is that science in_principle_cannot_ show_that_such
_experiences_ are_ generated_by_the_brain! At the most it is
possible to demonstrate that experiences, which are a pale
reflection of NDE's, can be demonstrated. But of course
this leaves entirely open the question of whether the brain
*generates* these
experiences. It could of course be the case that appropriate
stimulation of the brain enables *access* to such realities. It
certainly
need not imply that such realities are not real.
| What conclusions can be made when a cylinder on a table falls over ?
You
| awould speculate the events. Maybe someone pushed it. Maybe there
was a
| mechanism under the cylinder that forced it to fall. Maybe someone
kicked
| the table. From the evidence given you can not know what has
occured other
| than that the cylinder fell over.
Yes, lets look at all possible explanations. No doubt it is possible
to simulate a taste of a banana by appropriate stimulation of the
brain. Because we can do this would that imply that every time we
taste what we believe to be a real banana, it is in fact not a real
banana?
Maybe it isn't a real banana, but unless we have any additional
information to lend support to our doubts, than surely we should
take our experiences at face value.
|
| > You assume that these
| > brains, in an appropriate sense, generate these minds. That is
your
| > irrational prejudice.
| Now there you go jumping to conclusions again, and again you are
wrong
If brains don't generate minds then tell me the nature
of the relationship..
Interesting Ian (Stockton-on-Tees, England) ICQ 76975385
(Formerly Mr Enigmatic).
Interesting Ian
| | level just don't apply elsewhere.
|
| Not true I'm afraid Steve. The quantum equations can be
| applied to reality as a whole. Why should we suppose they
| only have applicability to the *macroscopic* realm?
Ummmm, sorry about that. I did of course mean the *microscopic*
realm! LOL
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <st...@marshallmcgurk.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:9dk6i6$k9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> | Details were given in the recent BBC series on the brain and you can
> find
> | more in the book of the series.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. Please quote the pertinent
> information.
I already have, remember I pointed you at the PubMed database with the
information to search for Ramachandran VS. That will provide you about
two dozen appropriate and relevant references. But you would know that
if you had bothered to look instead of rubbishing it out of hand.
Interesting Ian
| In article <v6FL6.4477$tU6.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
| "Interesting Ian" <fa...@home.com> wrote:
|
wrote
| > in message news:9dk6i6$k9f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
can
| > find
| > | more in the book of the series.
| >
| > I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. Please quote the pertinent
| > information.
|
the
| information to search for Ramachandran VS. That will provide you
about
| two dozen appropriate and relevant references. But you would know
that
| if you had bothered to look instead of rubbishing it out of hand.
|
| Peter
|
phantom limbs and whatever. I want some actual *arguments*; either
your own or other peoples. Have a search on the web. Can't you find
anything? Do you want me to do a search?
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385 (Formerly Mr Enigmatic)