Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 440
  1. #221
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s odd that all the sources for OBE have been either pseudoscience blogs or articles pointing to scientific experiments that show that these experiences are delusions.
    I’m not sure what you’re referencing here, as I have not followed this entire thread. Nor did I make any arguments about OBEs in my previous post. As far as the image I posted as a sample graphic symbolizing an OBE, I was not referencing the article because I did not make any point about OBEs.

    Not sure where I said I would play pretend,
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post563935


    We should understand why people have delusions since this is the simpler explanation. Why should we ever take people at face value on these claims is baffling.
    First, I’m not sure what you are calling delusions, so please explain and or support.

    Second, because there are so many people around the world who have experienced some sort of mind body separation and continue to do so, no worries, science is not taking people's experience at face value. You might be happy to learn that OBEs, NDEs, reincarnation, altered states, etc., is an active area of academic scientific research, verification, confirmation and data analysis.

    You’re right. If we saw what was in the image you posted that changes things. A floating body, *fully clothed, with painted toenails* flying away like Superman would indeed change my perspective on things.

    I would still think that souls are bunk but maybe form a religion around humans being controlled by machines
    Could you explain this response. Not sure what you mean here.

    And since it is so incredibly rare despite people dying ALL the time and en masse without this phenomena I would conclude that it is a glitch
    How do you know with any level of certainty that what we are consciously aware of is not limited in scope? If someone is highly intuitive and knows and sees things that most people don’t see, why is that a glitch to a skeptic and not a point of investigative inquiry?

    I’d still think the idea of souls are bunk.
    That’s fine. However, I would submit for some skeptics that after observing such a phenonema, critical thinking using objective reasoning might give rise to this type of approach: “Let’s objectively investigate this phenomena since physicalism cannot account for the full spectrum of human experience.”
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #222
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Iím not sure what youíre referencing here, as I have not followed this entire thread. Nor did I make any arguments about OBEs in my previous post. As far as the image I posted as a sample graphic symbolizing an OBE, I was not referencing the article because I did not make any point about OBEs.
    I was pointing out that you are not the only person to point to a scientific article about OBEs and ignore the science.

    Thank you but also please read the whole paragraph and get back to me.



    First, Iím not sure what you are calling delusions, so please explain and or support.
    Per your own article, which bafflingly you didnít read. The brain can be fooled to move a person in a different location.


    Second, because there are so many people around the world who have experienced some sort of mind body separation and continue to do so, no worries, science is not taking people's experience at face value. You might be happy to learn that OBEs, NDEs, reincarnation, altered states, etc., is an active area of academic scientific research, verification, confirmation and data analysis.
    Please support that there are:

    A - ďso many peopleĒ
    B - ďaround the worldĒ
    C - ďis an active area of academic ...Ē

    Could you explain this response. Not sure what you mean here.
    Look at your own image. Do you see a clothed person floating above the other? Is that not odd to you?

    How do you know with any level of certainty that what we are consciously aware of is not limited in scope? If someone is highly intuitive and knows and sees things that most people donít see, why is that a glitch to a skeptic and not a point of investigative inquiry?
    I have no idea what you mean by ďhighly intuitiveĒ in the way you are using it? I take it as delusional but Iím sure thatís not what you mean.

    Iím sure people who see crazy things need to be examined and studied. Mental issues can sometimes cause hallucinations as can drugs. Are you sure these people, who incidentally you havenít proven to exist so please do so, arenít on drugs when they have these experiences?

    Thatís fine. However, I would submit for some skeptics that after observing such a phenonema, critical thinking using objective reasoning might give rise to this type of approach: ďLetís objectively investigate this phenomena since physicalism cannot account for the full spectrum of human experience.Ē
    Except that physicalism, if you read Micanís reference and even your own reference, *can* explain these phenomena. Certainly much better that the alternative has been able to do!

  3. #223
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I understand that "that which is not impossible is possible" is a truism. But that's not the truism which was offered here, which stated that all things are possible which are not proven impossible. That is clearly not a truism, since following that logic leads to concluding that impossible things are possible, as repeatedly explained. Try again.
    This is a very different argument than the one you made earlier. Is your argument now that the burden represented is too high? I can accept that qualification, that it isn't necessarily the case that one must definitively prove something to show it impossible, that a majority of the warrant would be all that is required.

    If the word is "demonstrated" or "shown" rather than proven (which is how I read what Mican was saying), does that alleviate that concern? It would certainly retain its truism status with that understanding.

    Your previous argument, and other arguments seem to revolve around burden ownership, not level, which has been addressed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    So please state what *you* mean by consciousness and by *it* leaving the body?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So you are maintaining that you don't understand the dictionary definition that you forwarded and need it explained to you?
    Since no one seems willing to provide definitions, I will in hope that it can move the discussion forward.

    Conciousness:
    the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself...
    the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../consciousness

    Leaving:
    to terminate association with : withdraw from
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leaving





    There seems to be some dispute on the status of some things in this tread. I want to offer a clear and definitive status as to them so that discussion can stop revolving around the same subjects ad naseum.

    1) NDE/OBE are possible - Supported. Mican's defense is a valid defense of their possibility. No counter argument has been leveled to question that support so it stands until someone offers a rebuttal.

    2) How the possibility of an NDE/OBE undermines the OP has not been established.

    3) I'm not undermining any of the discussion that occurred earlier in the thread vis a vis the OP or the concerns raised, but since no one seems to be pursuing those, I'm not commenting on them here.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #224
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If the word is "demonstrated" or "shown" rather than proven (which is how I read what Mican was saying), does that alleviate that concern? It would certainly retain its truism status with that understanding.
    You supported the "truism" by claiming it adheres to the logic that "all things are A which are ~(~A)", which is based on the law of excluded middle and that A/~A is a true dichotomy. I pointed out that the "truism" offered does not adhere to such logic, since "something is either X or proven to be not-X" is not a dichotomy. Changing "proven" to "demonstrated" or "shown" changes nothing - it's still not a valid dichotomy. Again, something which is not proven/demonstrated/shown to be not-X, could still be not-X, and therefore what has been offered as a "truism" is rejected.
    Last edited by futureboy; March 11th, 2019 at 08:48 AM.

  5. #225
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) NDE/OBE are possible - Supported. Mican's defense is a valid defense of their possibility. No counter argument has been leveled to question that support so it stands until someone offers a rebuttal.
    That is no longer the argument though - Mican is no longer talking about either NDEs or OBEs.

    That said, I donít see how anything can be said to be possible unless thereís an understanding as to what it is that is being described.

    3) I'm not undermining any of the discussion that occurred earlier in the thread vis a vis the OP or the concerns raised, but since no one seems to be pursuing those, I'm not commenting on them here.
    I donít think you offering definitions help - it is up to Mican to define and defend what it is being discussed. He already changed his general argument when I suggested that NDEs are a *perception* rather than an actual thing.

    Please advise on the matter since my position is that information is being deliberately withheld.

  6. #226
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    I typically don't address the debate itself but since this is a response to a moderator post, I think I should explain what I think is going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That is no longer the argument though - Mican is no longer talking about either NDEs or OBEs.
    Of course I am. The logic chain supports that both OBEs and NDEs are possible as they both fit the definition of consciousness leaving and returning to the body (since an NDE is an OBE and BOTH fit the definition of consciousness leaving and returning to the body).

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That said, I don’t see how anything can be said to be possible unless there’s an understanding as to what it is that is being described.
    And "Consciousness leaving and then returning to the body" is an adequate description of what an OBE is.

    Addresssing Squatch to make sure he knows what it going on. The issue is that Sharma claims that this definition is not good enough to give him an adequate understanding of what an OBE is to engage in the debate and I need to explain what "consciousness" and "leaving" mean. He forwarded a dictionary definition of "consciousness" earlier in the debate which I accepted and therefore can be used and there's no need for me to define consciousness.

    His response was to "withdraw" the definition and then say that now I have a burden to explain what the term means since he withdrew the definition that he himself provided earlier. Since one cannot withdraw an personal understanding of what something means (self-induced amnesia?), the withdrawal is almost certainly a tactic and makes it very clear that his "inability to understand" is a debate tactic as opposed to sincerely being unable to continue the debate because terms have not been adequately explained.

    But either way, if one does not choose to challenge my argument due as a tactic OR because they sincerely don't understand what is being said, the results are the same. They have no rebuttal and the argument stands. The notion that I need to explain what "consciousness leaving and returning to the body" means in order to support my argument is without merit. The concept has been explained well enough for debate purposes (as in any English-speaking layperson should know what it meant and be able to debate the issue without it being explained further).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t think you offering definitions help - it is up to Mican to define and defend what it is being discussed. He already changed his general argument when I suggested that NDEs are a *perception* rather than an actual thing.
    Completely incorrect.

    My argument did not change. I did switch out the acronym "OBE" with a specific description of what it meant but that does not qualify as a change in the argument. What happened is Sharma forwarded a different definition of the term OBE than the one that I had already forwarded and I rejected his alternative definition, therefore maintaining my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Please advise on the matter since my position is that information is being deliberately withheld.
    Sharma,

    I advice that you specific which information I am allegedly withholding. As far as I can tell, this information is:

    1. The definition of "Consciousness" - which you already provided a dictionary definition of but then "withdrew"
    2. The definition of "leaving".

    And the question is do I have ANY obligation to explain what these simple concepts mean in order to support my argument. And if I do, then of course Sharma is free to pull the same tactic for any other word that might be contained within my argument ("what do you mean by 'body' when you say consciousness is leaving the body?")

  7. #227
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I typically don't address the debate itself but since this is a response to a moderator post, I think I should explain what I think is going on.



    Of course I am. The logic chain supports that both OBEs and NDEs are possible as they both fit the definition of consciousness leaving and returning to the body (since an NDE is an OBE and BOTH fit the definition of consciousness leaving and returning to the body).
    The logic chain, as you well know, and have fully admitted supports ANYTHING! Therefore, it is moot and my goal is to hone in what you actually mean by your ever changing 'X' otherwise, your meaningless argument will be even more meaningless.

    And "Consciousness leaving and then returning to the body" is an adequate description of what an OBE is.

    Addresssing Squatch to make sure he knows what it going on. The issue is that Sharma claims that this definition is not good enough to give him an adequate understanding of what an OBE is to engage in the debate and I need to explain what "consciousness" and "leaving" mean. He forwarded a dictionary definition of "consciousness" earlier in the debate which I accepted and therefore can be used and there's no need for me to define consciousness.

    His response was to "withdraw" the definition and then say that now I have a burden to explain what the term means since he withdrew the definition that he himself provided earlier. Since one cannot withdraw an personal understanding of what something means (self-induced amnesia?), the withdrawal is almost certainly a tactic and makes it very clear that his "inability to understand" is a debate tactic as opposed to sincerely being unable to continue the debate because terms have not been adequately explained.

    But either way, if one does not choose to challenge my argument due as a tactic OR because they sincerely don't understand what is being said, the results are the same. They have no rebuttal and the argument stands. The notion that I need to explain what "consciousness leaving and returning to the body" means in order to support my argument is without merit. The concept has been explained well enough for debate purposes (as in any English-speaking layperson should know what it meant and be able to debate the issue without it being explained further).
    To Squatch:
    I withdrew because I realized that I was doing all the work to define what NDE then OBE and now "consciousness leaving body" means. It's clear when I come up with an inconvenient definition, e.g. the one that suggests that the experiences are an illusion it was just changed. Further, the debate has already fallen apart with the claim that all religions equate soul=consciousness so I didn't want to be placed in a position where my knowledge might unwittingly help - so therefore, M. must define the words he uses.

    Note that M has constantly been shifting the argument even as far as dropping the point that something was seen and/or heard. This happened soon after I started questioning how such a phenomena can occur without requisite organs. Regardless, what's good for the withdrawing goose, is also good for the gander.

    Another issue is that assumptions that M makes on what is supposedly "common knowledge" - firstly with the incorrect fact that all religions equate consciousness being souls, and then secondly, my definition of OBE, which included the possibility of these experiences being perceptions. So until these terms are defined by M himself, there is always the risk that the landscape will change again. After all, why should I be responsible for figuring out what is specifically understood by the terms of the debate, as they shift and change.

    Note the number of times that M has had to withdraw or retract points that were strongly held until they were found to be weak! Looks like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander at all.

    Completely incorrect.

    My argument did not change. I did switch out the acronym "OBE" with a specific description of what it meant but that does not qualify as a change in the argument. What happened is Sharma forwarded a different definition of the term OBE than the one that I had already forwarded and I rejected his alternative definition, therefore maintaining my argument.
    So it did change. thank you.


    Sharma,

    I advice that you specific which information I am allegedly withholding. As far as I can tell, this information is:

    1. The definition of "Consciousness" - which you already provided a dictionary definition of but then "withdrew"
    2. The definition of "leaving".

    And the question is do I have ANY obligation to explain what these simple concepts mean in order to support my argument. And if I do, then of course Sharma is free to pull the same tactic for any other word that might be contained within my argument ("what do you mean by 'body' when you say consciousness is leaving the body?")
    Well, I do intend to go into what you mean by consciousness and leaving - after all these are your claims. This isn't a 'tactic' but to establish what is in your mind when you make these claims: clearly you don't see it as a product of the brain, as your own sources suggest.

    So you need to detail what specific scenario you mean and what you are imagining is happening. That is the *least* you can do before declaring something is "possible". But we can't move forward until you forward what you actually mean by consciousness and what you mean by "leaving the body".

  8. #228
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The logic chain, as you well know, and have fully admitted supports ANYTHING! Therefore, it is moot and my goal is to hone in what you actually mean by your ever changing 'X' otherwise, your meaningless argument will be even more meaningless.
    The logic chain cannot be used to support that everything is possible.

    For example, it can't be used to support that the Earth is flat because it's been proven that the Earth is not flat.

    And whether the logic chain is ultimately meaningless or not is irrelevant to whether it supports its conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    To Squatch:
    I withdrew because I realized that I was doing all the work to define what NDE then OBE and now "consciousness leaving body" means.
    They all mean the approximately the same thing. NDEs are OBEs and they BOTH fit the definition of "consciousness leaving the body and returning".



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So it did change. thank you.
    No, it didn't. Switching out a word for the definition of that word is not a change. As an example, if I switched out "murder" with "unlawful killing", I haven't changed my argument. Same thing here.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, I do intend to go into what you mean by consciousness and leaving - after all these are your claims. This isn't a 'tactic' but to establish what is in your mind when you make these claims: clearly you don't see it as a product of the brain, as your own sources suggest.
    The ONLY thing that those were sources for was the RETRACTED claim that there are over 3000 claims of OBEs. And since that was retracted, they are not the source of any argument that I forwarded and to bring them up is to bring up an irrelevancy that has NOTHING to do with my actual argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you need to detail what specific scenario you mean and what you are imagining is happening. That is the *least* you can do before declaring something is "possible". But we can't move forward until you forward what you actually mean by consciousness and what you mean by "leaving the body".
    Yes, we can move forward. It's just that you CHOOSE not to move forward and offer a rebuttal until I do as you ask. Well, you asked and if it's not clear, your request is denied. And whether you CHOOSE to not offer a rebuttal or can't manage to offer a rebuttal, the results are the same.

    No rebuttal was offered to a support argument and therefore my argument stands until you do offer a rebuttal.
    Last edited by mican333; March 12th, 2019 at 05:33 AM.

  9. #229
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I was pointing out that you are not the only person to point to a scientific article about OBEs and ignore the science.
    I see, well, my first point to you had no intention of doing that but if you would like such an article here you go:

    Evidence for out-of-body experience as a “real” or veridical phenomenon
    https://www.iacworld.org/evidence-fo...al-phenomenon/

    Related to the OBE, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory Precognitive Remote Perception (PRP) studies in 1987 already contained 334 formal trials obtained by some 40 “percipients”, who generated written descriptions of an unknown geographical target where the “agent” was located before, during, or after the description. Then, they were to fill out a check sheet of questions for later analytical judging. Results have varied from “photographic precision,” to partial correspondence of environment and/or components, to completely inaccurate. Major geometrical distortions, differences in emphasis of parts of the scene, progression from accurate to inaccurate description or vice-versa are not uncommon. Brenda Dunne and Dr. Robert Jahn therefore created a more systematic quantitative assessment procedure. The one that combined effectiveness with simplicity the best was through a list of thirty statistically weighted, binary descriptor questions, preceeded by free response (notes, sketches).

    IAC has run the Image Target Project, an experiment that invited people from all over the world to drop by a locked room at IAC Florida in Miami with a computer monitor displaying a picture. The picture was randomly selected by a computer. A similar, ongoing experiment series by Wagner Alegretti and Nanci Trivellato, Projective Field, brings dozens of projectors together to a ballroom for a weekend of eight OBE attempts. After several editions, these experiments have captured relatively rare but uncanny OBE and remote viewing observations of photographic precision. A similar pilot study with physical objects and physiological monitoring at the University of S„o Paulo’s sleep laboratory with lucid projectors of the Center for Higher Studies of the Consciousness was recently televised on the high-profile national TV show Globo Reporter (“ProjeÁ„o Astral”). The highlights there were that one projector saw the right number of target objects and described some; and both projectors had an OBE where they assisted people who passed on in a flood before it hit the national news.

    More research is required and ongoing, especially on the near-death experience, which may be considered a type of OBE. IANDS has an informative page on important past studies, which represent a formidable set of additional evidence for the projection of the consciousness as a veridical phenomenon.



    Thank you but also please read the whole paragraph and get back to me.
    I did read it and I responded to: “The soul as a 'concept', as I've already stated, is not a problem: I don't mind playing pretend…”


    Per your own article, which bafflingly you didn’t read.
    Yes, I read it, but as I stated I did not use it to support any point I made. I just used the image because I liked it. However, since you seem to like this article and have called it out, let’s review it. This article is about experiments of being out-of-body via some virtual means. It’s an interesting study because it shows researchers what is happening in the brain during an OBE. Iinterestingly, the virtual OBE experience apparently has helped some people lose their fear of death, which I think is positive.

    With that said, there is a difference between the illusion of being somewhere else, and actually seeing real events happening in locations that your physical body has absolutely no access to.

    For example, the OBE experience during NDEs are also sometimes claimed to be a hallucination or an illusion.. But they are not. Here’s why:

    A hallucination, is a sensory perception that is experienced as real by the hallucinating person but that is not rooted in reality. Hallucinations are unique and personal images with emotive elements, auditory impressions (sounds or voices), sensations of taste or smell, or visual images. Unlike an NDE, they contain no universal elements. A hallucination can feature vivid images and moving figures and can evoke a range of emotions, of which fear is usually the dominant one. A number of areas of the brain display an increased activity during hallucinations. But reports of a positive transformation are rare after such an experience. Hallucinations tend to be associated with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and psychoses but also with migraines, (excessive) drug use, and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. By contrast, most people with an NDE are emotionally stable and did not use alcohol, medication, or drugs before their experience.

    A hallucination is an observation without a basis in reality. The fact that an out-of-body experience during an NDE involves verifiable perceptions means that an NDE is, by definition, not a hallucination. The possibility of meeting and communicating with deceased people, of whose death one could not have been aware, also argues against hallucination. And NDErs who once hallucinated as a side effect of medication say that the contents of a hallucination and a near-death experience are extremely different.
    Irreducible Mind.


    Please support that there are:
    A - “so many people”
    B - “around the world”
    C - “is an active area of academic ...”

    The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is a long-established and highly productive university-based research group, exclusively devoted to the investigation of phenomena that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms regarding the nature of the mind/brain relationship. The researchers at DOPS are particularly interested in studying phenomena related to consciousness clearly functioning beyond the confines of the physical body, as well as phenomena that are directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness.
    Through their careful study, the DOPS researchers objectively document and analyze the empirical data collected regarding human experiences suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. Rigorous evaluation of considerable empirical evidence collected over fifty years of research, suggests that consciousness may indeed survive bodily death and that mind and brain appear to be distinct and separable.
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/

    The following analysis is based primarily on listings in the Index, with the addition of the few major books that were not reported in the periodical cal literature. It excludes the numerous individual case studies of NDErs. Results indicate that in the first 30 years of modern NDE research, U.S. researchers had conducted the largest number of retrospective studies-at least 34 researchers or research teams conducting at least 42 studies-involving involving sample sizes ranging from four to over 300 NDErs, for a total of over 2,500 NDEr research participants. Of these, 19 studies addressed the experience itself, including its phenomenology/contents, incidence, and correlates; 8 addressed NDE aftereffects-how people had changed in the aftermaths of their NDEs; and 15 addressed both.

    Outside the United States, 11 researchers or research teams had conducted ducted at least 13 retrospective studies, most on Western continents of Europe and Australia, with a total sample of over 600 NDErs; 5 retrospective tive studies in non-Western countries of Asia, with a total sample of over 70 NDErs; and none in South America or Africa. Studies in both Western and non-Western cultures outside the United States addressed the experience, ence, its aftereffects, or both.

    At least 10 prospective North American and European researchers or research teams had published as many studies, involving a total of about 270 NDErs. Like retrospective studies, these prospective studies addressed the experience, its aftereffects, or both. As of 2005, prospective research outside these Western culture areas had yet to be published.

    Taken together, it is safe to say that between 1975 and 2005, at least 55 researchers or research teams in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia published at least 65 research studies involving nearly 3,500 NDErs, addressing ing the experience, its aftereffects, or both. It is primarily the results of these scholarly inquiries that authors reviewed in the chapters of this book.
    The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...investigation/

    Researchers at the University of Virginia, beginning with Ian Stevenson, have investigated children’s reports of memories of previous lives for the past fifty years, studying more than 2,500 cases from around the world.

    Common features in the cases include a child talking about a past life at a very early age, behaviors that appear connected to that life such as phobias related to the mode of death, and sometimes birthmarks or birth defects that correspond to wounds the previous person suffered.
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...revious-lives/


    Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: A large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...azucchi-CC.pdf

    Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality: A Brief History of the “Sursem” Project
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...ect_OTH-36.pdf

    Consciousness -- What Is It?
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...ss-JCosmol.pdf

    Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...oning-JNMD.pdf

    Many more academic papers available on the subject.

    Is There Life after Death? Fifty Years of Research at UVA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AtTM9hgCDw

    Look at your own image. Do you see a clothed person floating above the other? Is that not odd to you?
    Not sure what odd or what I think has to do with my question. You made this comment and I do not know what you mean: "I would still think that souls are bunk but maybe form a religion around humans being controlled by machines."

    I’m sure people who see crazy things need to be examined and studied. Mental issues can sometimes cause hallucinations as can drugs. Are you sure these people, who incidentally you haven’t proven to exist so please do so, aren’t on drugs when they have these experiences?
    I addressed the hallucination question above.

    Except that physicalism, …. and even your own reference, *can* explain these phenomena.
    If one takes an objective, reasonable approach and studies the full scope of academic and scholarly research on the mind/body problem (and there is much scientifically acquired data) over the last 40+ years, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the physicalist account of the mind appears to be approaching its limits and that a new model is needed.
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 11th, 2019 at 09:58 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #230
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You supported the "truism" by claiming it adheres to the logic that "all things are A which are ~(~A)", which is based on the law of excluded middle and that A/~A is a true dichotomy. I pointed out that the "truism" offered does not adhere to such logic, since "something is either X or proven to be not-X" is not a dichotomy. Changing "proven" to "demonstrated" or "shown" changes nothing - it's still not a valid dichotomy. Again, something which is not proven/demonstrated/shown to be not-X, could still be not-X, and therefore what has been offered as a "truism" is rejected.

    This, again, reverts back to a discussion of warrant rather than structure. The truism is not related to the warrant for holding A or ~A, but its structure which you correctly identify as the law of the excluded middle. The warrant discussion is on whether, absent external evidence, we accept coherence or non-coherence as a default position. There are multiple angles from which we could approach why coherence is the default presumption. Much like with whether we apprehend our senses, assuming incoherence is self-defeating to create an argument structure. There are certain basic assumptions we have to make to have a philosophic system such as meaning, rationality, and coherence. We assume coherence because no conversation is possible under the opposite. Or we could approach this from a principle of charity perspective. We assume coherence until shown otherwise because it is basic practice in all philosophy. It is how we allow for a discussion, by assuming the best possible construct of someone's argument rather than assuming their words are incoherent, or lack meaning. This is why we generally don't have a support requirement for every sentence of every post, because we presume that the sentences are using standard definitions (unless shown otherwise) and are coherently constructed (unless shown otherwise). Finally, we adopt coherence as a starting point because that is general consensus in philosophic circles, both from a coherence theory and a foundationalist theory of truth, basic assumptions that statements have meanings, and that meanings are coherent are starting assumptions for epistimic justification.

    It is also the reason I answered your question rather than simply responding with "I don't know what you mean by any of your sentences until you can show they are coherent."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That is no longer the argument though - Mican is no longer talking about either NDEs or OBEs.
    I am solely making a determination based on the claim that they are possible. To the extent he has made an additional claim, you are free to challenge him to support it or request adjudication of the claim with quoted text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That said, I donít see how anything can be said to be possible unless thereís an understanding as to what it is that is being described.

    In general I am very sympathetic to this argument. If this were perhaps a piece of jargon or technical language I think your argument would have more teeth. However, Mican has provided a definition for what he means and has already stated he is using common parlance definitions for all words. It should be relatively clear what is being described or how it would be incoherent (if it is so) given those definitions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    it is up to Mican to define and defend what it is being discussed.
    He did. He explicitely stated that he was using words in common usage, ie the common parlance definitions of those words. I was simply quoting what he was already referring to. What information, specifically, is being withheld?



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    His response was to "withdraw" the definition and then say that now I have a burden to explain what the term means since he withdrew the definition that he himself provided earlier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I withdrew because I realized that I was doing all the work to define what NDE then OBE and now "consciousness leaving body" means.


    I fully understand both points and positions. However, taken together this results in an impasse. There are two options. 1) Both debaters walk away since they are at an impasse. 2) Both debaters accept the definitions I offered in post 223 and then pursue further arguments. (Such as for Sharmak, how that definition might be incoherent or not in accord with known facts or for Mican, how that possibility undermines the OP).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #231
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This, again, reverts back to a discussion of warrant rather than structure. The truism is not related to the warrant for holding A or ~A, but its structure which you correctly identify as the law of the excluded middle. The warrant discussion is on whether, absent external evidence, we accept coherence or non-coherence as a default position. There are multiple angles from which we could approach why coherence is the default presumption. Much like with whether we apprehend our senses, assuming incoherence is self-defeating to create an argument structure. There are certain basic assumptions we have to make to have a philosophic system such as meaning, rationality, and coherence. We assume coherence because no conversation is possible under the opposite. Or we could approach this from a principle of charity perspective. We assume coherence until shown otherwise because it is basic practice in all philosophy. It is how we allow for a discussion, by assuming the best possible construct of someone's argument rather than assuming their words are incoherent, or lack meaning. This is why we generally don't have a support requirement for every sentence of every post, because we presume that the sentences are using standard definitions (unless shown otherwise) and are coherently constructed (unless shown otherwise). Finally, we adopt coherence as a starting point because that is general consensus in philosophic circles, both from a coherence theory and a foundationalist theory of truth, basic assumptions that statements have meanings, and that meanings are coherent are starting assumptions for epistimic justification.

    It is also the reason I answered your question rather than simply responding with "I don't know what you mean by any of your sentences until you can show they are coherent."
    None of this supports that the "truism" offered is actually a truism.

    When you said that I misunderstand what a truism is, you provided the following explanation in support of Mican's "truism":
    That all things are A (possible) which are ~(~A) (Not impossible) is a trusim by definition since the categories are MECE.

    I then pointed out that the "truism" doesn't adhere to the same structure, since it has "possible" and "not proven to be impossible" as the options, not "possible" and "impossible".
    This has not been addressed.

    Since the "truism" doesn't adhere to the MECE requirements (which you yourself provided as support for it being a valid truism), it is not accepted as a truism.
    Until support is provided which demonstrates that the options in Mican's "truism" are MECE (they're not), it remains refuted.
    Last edited by futureboy; March 12th, 2019 at 08:25 AM.

  12. #232
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I am solely making a determination based on the claim that they are possible. To the extent he has made an additional claim, you are free to challenge him to support it or request adjudication of the claim with quoted text.
    I'll await the result of FB's discussion with you. The "truism" feels very wrong on multiple fronts, in addition to what FB is pointing out and that it is shifting the burden on the opponent to prove the subject is impossible.

    In general I am very sympathetic to this argument. If this were perhaps a piece of jargon or technical language I think your argument would have more teeth. However, Mican has provided a definition for what he means and has already stated he is using common parlance definitions for all words. It should be relatively clear what is being described or how it would be incoherent (if it is so) given those definitions.
    Actually Mican has not provided a definition. Firstly, I did, which I withdrew and then secondly, you had to provide the definitions. So that is untrue on the facts of the case.

    He did. He explicitely stated that he was using words in common usage, ie the common parlance definitions of those words. I was simply quoting what he was already referring to. What information, specifically, is being withheld?
    He hasn't used any definitions thus far. Once he does then we will explore what those definitions really mean. We're currently at an impasse because he refuses to define anything that might (or rather, will) cause him to provide more information - this reticence is a strategy that he has stated multiple times.

    I fully understand both points and positions. However, taken together this results in an impasse. There are two options. 1) Both debaters walk away since they are at an impasse. 2) Both debaters accept the definitions I offered in post 223 and then pursue further arguments. (Such as for Sharmak, how that definition might be incoherent or not in accord with known facts or for Mican, how that possibility undermines the OP).
    I'm fine with 1 - there can be no debate if one side refuses to explore their ideas.

    2 - is not a good choice because you are reading Mican's mind in order to settle what you believe to be "common usage" and if it were so common then Mican should be able to provide those definitions. Factually, we already know Mican made an incorrect statement regarding what he believes to be common knowledge: for example, the incorrect declaration that "all religions equate consciousness to the soul". So due to to the fact that Mican's assumption that we're all on the page is an incorrect assumption, he needs to be explicit using definitions of his own choosing.

    Contrawise, if *I* offer a definition that helps me, then he will just shift again: just like he did when I offered that NDEs are perceptions. So basically, I end up doing the work whilst he shifts the definition. This shifting around and yanking positions (e.g. the agnostic position that he declared was withdrawn) means that there is a great deal of goal shifting going on already, so it doesn't benefit me to do the work to figure out precisely what he means. At this point, it is only due to my generosity that this debate, such as it is, is even continuing.

    And even if we get past this whole NDE thing, as you pointed out, the link back to consciousness is still unknown. And then if we resolve that, then we're back to the flawed idea that all religions think consciousness=soul. At which point, we're going to end up with a stack of contingent claims that only rely on things that *other people* need to prove false - so the position will be that Mican's position is a bunch of unproven claims, and only rest of what he believes to be 'skepticism'.

    Somehow, all this is supposed to go against my OP, which basically suggests that souls are a fantasy. Unfortunately, his stack of contingent skeptical claims is pretty much the same thing as the unproven wishes about the nature of the soul. So it's likely, assuming Mican survives the gauntlet of work ahead of him, and I can keep track of all the past and future retractions, he will end up losing anyway: by avoiding saying anything, he ends up proving my very point.

    I suggest to leave it at the current impasse, since FB is addressing the fundamental flaw of Mican's go to "argument" when he's backed into a corner. I would like to see that tactic forbidden one and for all.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 12th, 2019 at 03:49 PM.

  13. Likes futureboy liked this post
  14. #233
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I see, well, my first point to you had no intention of doing that but if you would like such an article here you go:

    Evidence for out-of-body experience as a ďrealĒ or veridical phenomenon
    https://www.iacworld.org/evidence-fo...al-phenomenon/
    Hmm, from the "International Academy of Consciousness". I think I'll pass.

    I did read it and I responded to: ďThe soul as a 'concept', as I've already stated, is not a problem: I don't mind playing pretendÖĒ
    I actually said "Also, the soul as a 'concept', as I've already stated, is not a problem: I don't mind playing pretend. I don't even mind pretending that the pretense is real (which frankly, I think is what most religious belief basically boils down to). However, if we drop all the pretense, and really try and figure out what the soul really is, I see very little that is even plausible, never mind being viable."

    The latter part basically saying pretending is a waste of time.


    Yes, I read it, but as I stated I did not use it to support any point I made. I just used the image because I liked it.
    Perhaps you should have paid attention to both. The image shows the soul wearing the same clothes as the person - do you really believe that happens?


    However, since you seem to like this article and have called it out, letís review it. This article is about experiments of being out-of-body via some virtual means. Itís an interesting study because it shows researchers what is happening in the brain during an OBE. Iinterestingly, the virtual OBE experience apparently has helped some people lose their fear of death, which I think is positive.
    The study shows that OBE likely happens in the brain *only* since the person's experience is similar: see, no souls needed and no actual 'OB' required!


    With that said, there is a difference between the illusion of being somewhere else, and actually seeing real events happening in locations that your physical body has absolutely no access to.

    For example, the OBE experience during NDEs are also sometimes claimed to be a hallucination or an illusion.. But they are not. Hereís why:
    A hallucination, is a sensory perception that is experienced as real by the hallucinating person but that is not rooted in reality. ...

    A hallucination is an observation without a basis in reality. The fact that an out-of-body experience during an NDE involves verifiable perceptions means that an NDE is, by definition, not a hallucination. The possibility of meeting and communicating with deceased people, of whose death one could not have been aware, also argues against hallucination. And NDErs who once hallucinated as a side effect of medication say that the contents of a hallucination and a near-death experience are extremely different.
    Irreducible Mind.
    " NDE involves verifiable perceptions means that an NDE" - what are these verifiable perceptions? And I won't take NDErs personal attestation on face value.


    A - ďso many peopleĒ
    B - ďaround the worldĒ
    C - ďis an active area of academic ...Ē
    The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) ..
    Umm. That's not even close - it's one team inside one organization. That said, I followed your references and I see that there's a lot of funding with little real results.


    Not sure what odd or what I think has to do with my question. You made this comment and I do not know what you mean: "I would still think that souls are bunk but maybe form a religion around humans being controlled by machines."
    Look back at your request to have me pretend that OBE happened - the picture you showed was of a "spirit" that was fully clothed" - do you not think that seems to be odd considering you're claiming people have seen these "spirits". Are they clothed too?

    If one takes an objective, reasonable approach and studies the full scope of academic and scholarly research on the mind/body problem (and there is much scientifically acquired data) over the last 40+ years, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the physicalist account of the mind appears to be approaching its limits and that a new model is needed.
    Not at all there are plenty of experiments showing the brain as a source for these experiences. Mican forwarded one, you forwarded another. I don't know what these other "models" are supposed to be, but given your sources, they're getting paid lots of to figure it out

  15. #234
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think I'll pass.
    That’s fine. That doesn’t change the results of the study.


    The latter part basically saying pretending is a waste of time.
    A little side story and motive for my question: Many years ago you and I were debating about the existence of God on this network. I asked you what criteria of evidence you would need to consider God as plausible. Among some of the things you stated was a personal observation of some phenomena (I don’t recall what it was) that you could see along with others. So, years later I was interested to see if that view might apply to a direct observation of seeing a spirit leave the body.

    Perhaps you should have paid attention to both. The image shows the soul wearing the same clothes as the person - do you really believe that happens?

    Look back at your request to have me pretend that OBE happened - the picture you showed was of a "spirit" that was fully clothed" - do you not think that seems to be odd considering you're claiming people have seen these "spirits". Are they clothed too?
    There are different types of OBEs. Some people do see themselves wearing clothes -- that's not uncommon. However, when a person has passed on, perhaps it might appear more ethereal to an observer—not sure. Finding such visuals is not easy.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	28605949-astral-projection.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	66.0 KB 
ID:	3808


    The study shows that OBE likely happens in the brain *only* since the person's experience is similar: see, no souls needed and no actual 'OB' required!

    What is being induced here is the "doppelganger" effect which is general misplacement of body image while the person stays body-oriented. The important point here is that what the person describes about those superficial images and feelings do not in any way match the depth of true near-death states, nor does the person exhibit any pattern of aftereffects. Doctors and scientists studying these experiences know that because so much data has been collected and analyzed.


    And I won't take NDErs personal attestation on face value.
    I’m not trying to convince you. But I confess I might be trying to encourage you to have an open mind about the concept.

    That said, I followed your references and I see that there's a lot of funding with little real results.
    There’s quite a bit of data available for someone who really wants to study and research what’s been published over the last 40+ years regarding this phenomena. If you’re interested, I can PM you several pages of links to more studies, publications and scholarly papers. I didn’t want to spam the thread.


    Not at all there are plenty of experiments showing the brain as a source for these experiences.
    I disagree. I think the issue is more about the data just doesn’t fit our current working model of materialistic brain science. I also think it hurts progress to refuse to even look at current findings, let alone to debate them. About 100 years ago science could not accept the mounting evidence that the mind could change the adult brain. It was very controversial and scientific and medical careers were threatened and destoryed over it. The old dogma was that the adult brain was considred unchangeable. The current science of neuroplasticity was called psuedoscience. Dr. Norman Doidge writes about the brain and this history in his book, "The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science."

    “The wish not to believe, can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.” (Stevenson)
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 12th, 2019 at 08:37 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  16. #235
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Thatís fine. That doesnít change the results of the study.




    A little side story and motive for my question: Many years ago you and I were debating about the existence of God on this network. I asked you what criteria of evidence you would need to consider God as plausible. Among some of the things you stated was a personal observation of some phenomena (I donít recall what it was) that you could see along with others. So, years later I was interested to see if that view might apply to a direct observation of seeing a spirit leave the body.
    As with all things, personal observation is the best way for me to determine the truth of something. I also know that my brain isnít perfect so even personal observation isnít 100% reliable so I would also trust mainstream science, which has produced peer reviewed results that are open and transparent. I do still distrust pseudoscience, religion and all things unproven.

    The fact is in the case of religion, we are finding corruption everywhere and hearing more and more about how religious organizations have been hiding sexual misconduct against children, whilst hypocritically railing against homosexuality. Pseudoscience continues to not make any impact on the real world, so their results must no currently mount to much: I see no need to pursue that line of research - it will be much like the flat earthers - a bunch of people deluded about something that they insist on being true but canít prove to anyone!

    So no real change there and no reason to change how I see the material word and disbelieve everything that is supernatural.

    There are different types of OBEs. Some people do see themselves wearing clothes -- that's not uncommon. However, when a person has passed on, perhaps it might appear more ethereal to an observerónot sure. Finding such visuals is not easy.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	28605949-astral-projection.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	66.0 KB 
ID:	3808
    Sigh - and thatís not odd to you at all? Do you not think that perhaps it is a delusion or a lie?

    Do you think other animals have souls? Or is it just humans? How about plants? Millions of those things are killed every day so has anyone seen souls floating out of those slaughtered animals?

    And given the number of massacres and mass killings, youíd think there would be many more reports of such events. And millions of people die daily so the lack of these events point towards these events having other other explanations.

    What is being induced here is the "doppelganger" effect which is general misplacement of body image while the person stays body-oriented. The important point here is that what the person describes about those superficial images and feelings do not in any way match the depth of true near-death states, nor does the person exhibit any pattern of aftereffects. Doctors and scientists studying these experiences know that because so much data has been collected and analyzed.
    Right - we already know proprioception can be played with so that makes the brain the likely source of the whole experience. Secondly, the other effects canít be reproduced because it will may mean killing the person: itís likely that brain death provides unique experiences that are hard to reproduce. There is no need to bring in other unproven ideas.

    Iím not trying to convince you. But I confess I might be trying to encourage you to have an open mind about the concept.
    Are you open to the earth being flat and that there is a grand conspiracy to hide it from us? If not, then some of the reasons why you disbelieve them will be the same reasons I disbelieve these events really happen.

    Thereís quite a bit of data available for someone who really wants to study and research whatís been published over the last 40+ years regarding this phenomena. If youíre interested, I can PM you several pages of links to more studies, publications and scholarly papers. I didnít want to spam the thread.
    Just skimming through the one organization you provide leaves me cold. Itís baffling that there are so many people working on this and producing no real results. I wonder where the money is coming from>?

    I disagree. I think the issue is more about the data just doesnít fit our current working model of materialistic brain science. I also think it hurts progress to refuse to even look at current findings, let alone to debate them. About 100 years ago science could not accept the mounting evidence that the mind could change the adult brain. It was very controversial and scientific and medical careers were threatened and destoryed over it. The old dogma was that the adult brain was considred unchangeable. The current science of neuroplasticity was called psuedoscience. Dr. Norman Doidge writes about the brain and this history in his book, "The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science."

    ďThe wish not to believe, can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.Ē (Stevenson)
    Specifically what ďdataĒ are you talking about? I donít think peopleís personal recollections really count. The data I see are actual brain experiments that reproduce some of the reports so is there really any reason to look for other explanations; particularly when those other avenues have been dead ends or at least not hit the mainstream?

    Susan Blackmoreís story is worth exploring: she had an OBE and that compelled her to understand it. She became a scientist and now studies these phenomena - she strongly believes that there is a material explanation to these experiences - see Micanís article.

    Itís compelling to thin that there is mystery and magic but surely in this modern age with access to knowledge, written in clear language, based on reproducible results, we can dispense with this stuff?
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 13th, 2019 at 04:11 AM.

  17. #236
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    As with all things, personal observation is the best way for me to determine the truth of something. I also know that my brain isn’t perfect so even personal observation isn’t 100% reliable so I would also trust mainstream science, which has produced peer reviewed results that are open and transparent.
    Yes, personal observation and direct experience of something outside our norm can be powerful. For some people it can be transformative. I have a high degree of respect for science also and we have family working within the fields. Scientism, on the other hand, restricts human inquiry.

    The fact is in the case of religion, we are finding corruption everywhere and hearing more and more about how religious organizations have been hiding sexual misconduct against children, whilst hypocritically railing against homosexuality.
    Not sure what this has to do with the soul.

    Pseudoscience continues to not make any impact on the real world, so their results must no currently mount to much: I see no need to pursue that line of research
    The line between science and pseudoscience is clear and important. However, bear in mind, that in some areas of science what is now an accepted field of science, decades ago was controversial and tagged as pseudoscience. Some examples are: hypnosis, acupuncture, meteorites, continental drift, neuroplasticity modern field of chemistry used to be pseudoscience alchemy

    Sigh - and that’s not odd to you at all? Do you not think that perhaps it is a delusion or a lie?
    Observing a spirit leave the body is not delusion to me. I actually view it as a natural process. The only reason it may seem delusion to some people is because it is not something our regular vision can observe. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur. Human vision is limited:

    The "Visible" Spectrum
    Probably the most well-known of human sensory limitations, the typical human eye is only capable of perceiving light at wavelengths between 390 and 750 nanometers. Of course, calling it the "visible" spectrum is a bit of a misnomer, as plenty of animals are capable of perceiving light with frequencies outside this relatively narrow band of electromagnetic radiation.
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/10-limits-to...ape-yo-5926643


    And given the number of massacres and mass killings, you’d think there would be many more reports of such events.
    Perhaps the filter theory applies to why we are conscious of so little.

    Right - we already know proprioception can be played with so that makes the brain the likely source of the whole experience.
    We are clueless of how consciousness can leave a coma toast body on a gurney table in a hospital room and when the person is resuscitated they are able to inform their doctor of detailed information they would have no way of knowing that they observed outside their body during their coma toast state.

    Are you open to the earth being flat and that there is a grand conspiracy to hide it from us? If not, then some of the reasons why you disbelieve them will be the same reasons I disbelieve these events really happen.
    Well, in this scenario that I asked you about, it sounds like you would not accept your direct personal experience and observation of observing a spirit leave a friend’s body even though your friends also observed it.

    When I observe something that is out of the norm that has a body of research, I tend to objectively inquire and investigate it and review the information, evidence this is available before rejecting it, accepting it or putting it on my “it’s possible” shelf.


    Just skimming through the one organization you provide
    University of Virginia


    Specifically what “data” are you talking about?
    1. The validation of detailed information from thousands of children with memories from a past life – 50-years worth.
    2. The after effects of NDE of people in their case studies.

    Susan Blackmore’s story is worth exploring: she had an OBE and that compelled her to understand it. She became a scientist and now studies these phenomena - she strongly believes that there is a material explanation to these experiences.
    Many of the doctors who have approached NDEs with the aim to undermine and debunk it have actually become great supporters and researchers in the field: Dr. Bruce Greyson, professor of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia and one of the most respected researchers in the field, said “Most near-death researchers did not go into their investigations with a belief in mind-body separation, but came to that hypothesis based on what their research found.”

    Some examples of this are:
    Dr. Pin Van Lommel, specializing in cardiologist was a stanch materialist and reductionist. His mantra use to be “That death is the end.” He became an NDE researcher after one of his patients had an NDE that compelled him to investigate the information his patient was able to relay to him while he was completely unconscious. He’s became the author of "Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of Near-Death Experience”

    Jeffrey Long, M.D., is a physician practicing the specialty of radiation oncology started his near-death experience research over a decade ago when he set up a Web site devoted to having people that have had these exceptional experiences fill out a questionnaire and then he would post their experience on the Web site, with their advanced permission, and share it with the world.

    After a decade or so of doing this, he realized he had such an extraordinary message that they were compelled to share with the world He became the author of “Evidence of the Afterlife, the Science of Near-Death Experiences.” This is a large scientific study of near-death experience.. It has over 1,300 near-death experiences case studies.

    Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist got involve in NDEs first to refute them, to prove that they could be explained naturalistically. It wasn’t until he’d researched for a year that he began to believe people truly left their bodies.

    It’s compelling to them that there is mystery and magic
    I don’t think these phenomena are magic. Just because we don’t understand how they can happen, or directly observe them, we can measure their effects which are informative in and of themselves. This tells us something worth investigating is going on.

    Today highly educated men and women with lab coats (scientists) work with invisible, nonmaterial stuff, we call electrons, all the time. All this nonmaterial stuff interacts with and provides the essential building blocks for what we call matter. Just because we can’t observe it or feel it or fully understand it, (though some people can feel it) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We know electrons exist, not because we can see them, but because we can and do observe their effects.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.Ē --"The Mental UniverseĒ | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #237
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Unanswered questions:

    Do animals and plants have souls?
    Are you a Flat Earther? What do you mean lower down that ďitís possibleĒ?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Yes, personal observation and direct experience of something outside our norm can be powerful. For some people it can be transformative. I have a high degree of respect for science also and we have family working within the fields. Scientism, on the other hand, restricts human inquiry.
    Yet when Susan Blackmore had the experience, she went towards a scientific understanding rather than a mysticism. One works, the other doesnít.

    Not sure what this has to do with the soul.
    Religions are the biggest peddlers of the idea and the ones who have most to gain from promoting it any playing on peoplesí fears. Itís the one thing they have over everyone.

    The line between science and pseudoscience is clear and important. However, bear in mind, that in some areas of science what is now an accepted field of science, decades ago was controversial and tagged as pseudoscience. Some examples are: hypnosis, acupuncture, meteorites, continental drift, neuroplasticity modern field of chemistry used to be pseudoscience alchemy
    Well, I think acupuncture has been proven to not work better than a placebo, along with homeopathy. I donít know about hypnosis but there are certainly people who subscribe to Franz Mesmerís idea of animal magnetism or past life regression. Iím not sure how meteorites or continental drift were ever ďpseudoscienceĒ or just science that hasnít been proven - you do understand the difference, right?

    What distinguishes science and pseudoscience isnít the *subject* but the methodology. You can still do science on crazy ideas, as Blackmore, has and come to provable and repeatable conclusions. Thatís good science. That youíre talking about acupuncture working in todayís day and age is astounding.


    Observing a spirit leave the body is not delusion to me. I actually view it as a natural process. The only reason it may seem delusion to some people is because it is not something our regular vision can observe. That doesnít mean it doesnít occur. Human vision is limited:
    Human vision is limited along a known ďvisibleĒ electromagnetic spectrum! And we already have detectors for the full spectrum - this will easy to detect. So either it has been done and proven to show nothing or it hasnít because (like flat-earthers) they donít want to be proven wrong.

    And you havenít answered the question as to whether animals or plants have ďsoulsĒ

    Perhaps the filter theory applies to why we are conscious of so little.
    I donít know what you really mean by that but this sounds suspiciously apologetic.

    So somehow the idea of the soul exists but nearly every, if not everyone, canít detect it. So on what basis can you say it exists?

    We are clueless of how consciousness can leave a coma toast body on a gurney table in a hospital room and when the person is resuscitated they are able to inform their doctor of detailed information they would have no way of knowing that they observed outside their body during their coma toast state.
    I dispute the ďno way of knowingĒ has been conclusively proven. And are you sure they didnít hear about something after the operation? Or told something? Or they lied? Or just made it up? Or pure coincidence?

    I see no need to explore other unproven ideas and justify them with apologetics. Itís backwards.

    Well, in this scenario that I asked you about, it sounds like you would not accept your direct personal experience and observation of observing a spirit leave a friendís body even though your friends also observed it.
    I would not accept that instantly the soul was the best explanation.

    1. The validation of detailed information from thousands of children with memories from a past life Ė 50-years worth.
    2. The after effects of NDE of people in their case studies.
    Data that has zero net effect on the real world? If these data were credible, I would expect it a matter of the greatest import and weíd put some serious money into it.

    Many of the doctors who have approached NDEs with the aim to undermine and debunk it have actually become great supporters and researchers in the field: Dr. Bruce Greyson, professor of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia and one of the most respected researchers in the field, said ďMost near-death researchers did not go into their investigations with a belief in mind-body separation, but came to that hypothesis based on what their research found.Ē
    Greyson doesnít have the best rationalwiki entries, which calls him a pseudoscientist peddling in already debunked theories. Just glancing through the skepticsí discussions of this scam artist, has him railed on for promoting bad ideas.
    Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bruce_Greyson
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:...new_info_found

    Dr. Pin Van Lommel,
    Scam artist, as detailed in his Wikipedia article that collects quotes about his work:

    Dutch physician and anesthesiologist G. M. Woerlee wrote a chapter by chapter examination of Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life. According to Woerlee the book is full of "tendentious and suggestive pseudoscientific nonsense", and the picture of the functioning of the body as proposed by Lommel is not consistent with medical knowledge. Woerlee concluded that the book is a "masterly example of how tendentious and suggestive interpretation of international scientific literature, vague presentation of basic medical facts, together with ignorance of some basic statistical principles leads to incorrect conclusions."
    Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_van_Lommel

    Jeffrey Long, M.D.,
    Peddling in religion and science. Apparently has proven god exists to the fanfare of no-one.

    Dr. Michael Sabom,
    Scam artist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sabom

    In this book, Sabom describes the Pam Reynolds case.[4] This work has been criticized that "experimenter bias, witness tampering (however unconscious), and false memories intruded into this best of all recorded cases (as)...painfully obvious."

    So I have to disbelieve that you have done any kind of critical research on this matter. If a quick google can unearth the lack of credibility these people have I think youíre in Flat Earth territory here where people start with the conclusion and try and fit theories to explain it even though actual science has proven otherwise.

    I donít think these phenomena are magic. Just because we donít understand how they can happen, or directly observe them, we can measure their effects which are informative in and of themselves. This tells us something worth investigating is going on.
    Sure, I donít mind investigating things - people are welcome to do whatever they can to understand the world as they see fit. I just think itís all a lot of bunk - you should watch the movie on Netflix about the flat earthers - these people are similar.

    Today highly educated men and women with lab coats (scientists) work with invisible, nonmaterial stuff, we call electrons, all the time. All this nonmaterial stuff interacts with and provides the essential building blocks for what we call matter. Just because we canít observe it or feel it or fully understand it, (though some people can feel it) doesnít mean it doesnít exist. We know electrons exist, not because we can see them, but because we can and do observe their effects.
    Electrons arenít invisible - theyíve been detected! Itís literally not non-material - what are you talking about? Thatís a terrible starting point to talk about the science: electrons at the end point of a series of *repeatable* observations.

    And what do you mean ďsome people can feel itĒ? Feel electrons? What does that even mean? People are made up of electrons!

    Souls are an offshoot idea of religions that have grown legs. OBE is certainly no proof souls exist anyway - it could just be the personís energy transferring into light and disappearing forever. So souls have nothing to do with OBEs and vice-versa.

    I donít even know why weíre talking about OBEs but all the evidence that everyone has presented doesnít convinces me it is happening all in the mind and that anyone that says otherwise are peddling in bad science and bad ideas.

    The last paragraph and your other apologetics and the scam artists being promoted here are troubling. It appears youíre conflating good science with bad science in order to give the bad science credibility. And youíre not critically examining the ideas behind the research, some of which appears to have already been debunked. In which case, just admit you donít believe in science or the scientific method and we can discuss woo.

    To be untransparent about your true motivations is just wasting time because weíre going to get to that point anyway.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 14th, 2019 at 04:08 AM.

  19. #238
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I then pointed out that the "truism" doesn't adhere to the same structure, since it has "possible" and "not proven to be impossible" as the options, not "possible" and "impossible".
    This has not been addressed.
    You are incorrect regarding my response. I noted that the status of something as "proven" was irrelevant to the nature of the truims. The status of the truism statement was undeniable. All things that are ~~A are A. Your argument then shifted to the warrant not for the statement as a truism, but for which position A or ~A should be adopted absent evidence. (Ie do we assume coherence unless shown other wise, or do we assume incoherence unless shown other wise). Sig is correct in the other thread that this is hard to do because we bring all kinds of baggage and other fundamental beliefs to a debate. That is the practical aspect of this question. The logic question, the question I was referring to in my last post, is which position holds more warrant absent any external evidence? That postion is the one of coherence. We assume coherence (all things being equal) to a statement just as we assume meaning to a word without us providing a definition for every word we use in a sentence.

    This is self evidently the case. You are assuming that principle in your own discussion here by assuming the coherence of your own statements. That is how basic and fundamental a principle this is.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I'll await the result of FB's discussion with you. The "truism" feels very wrong on multiple fronts, in addition to what FB is pointing out and that it is shifting the burden on the opponent to prove the subject is impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Future
    Until support is provided which demonstrates that the options in Mican's "truism" are MECE (they're not), it remains refuted.
    Gentlemen, I feel I need to clarify one point about what red text means. I get that you don't accept it either because I have not explained it well enough or because you refuse to accept it, but red text is not me entering the debate as another debater. This is me, as the moderator, making a formal ruling. It isn't "rebutted" or up for debate. This is a foundationally true prinicple within logic and philosophy. I get that you have questions, those are fine. But whether this is the established rule here (as it is in in every formal school of thought) is not up for discussion. If you have an issue with it being a rule, please open a thread in Ask the Staff.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Actually Mican has not provided a definition. Firstly, I did, which I withdrew and then secondly, you had to provide the definitions. So that is untrue on the facts of the case.
    This is incorrect. In post 173, Mican stated: "Consult a dictionary if you are unclear on what these words mean." Setting aside the snarkiness of the reply it is clear, as I stated earlier, that he is relying on the dictionary definition of these terms. I simply quoted the dictionary language in an attempt to move the discussion forward. Thus there is no impasse. You are free to now explore what he really means given the dictionary definition of the words and he is free to make an argument as to why the possibility of OBEs undermines the OP.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #239
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is incorrect. In post 173, Mican stated: "Consult a dictionary if you are unclear on what these words mean." Setting aside the snarkiness of the reply it is clear, as I stated earlier, that he is relying on the dictionary definition of these terms. I simply quoted the dictionary language in an attempt to move the discussion forward. Thus there is no impasse. You are free to now explore what he really means given the dictionary definition of the words and he is free to make an argument as to why the possibility of OBEs undermines the OP.
    Yet when I did provide a definition he moved goal posts and changed things. It isnít up to me to choose how he defines his own words and I canít be doing it for him because heíll just dodge and shift again. Iím not going to figure out his argument for him! And Iím not revealing my specific tactics either.

    Additionally, his assumption about what is commonly understood is not trusted given his previous incorrect statement on the matter of souls=consciousness. Itís clear to me his position doesnít rely on facts but a willful ignorance of even his own materials.

    So I have to disagree that there is no impasse. I disagree with your ruling but will abide by it; however, I still donít understand what phenomena he is trying to claim.

    Recall we went from floating bodies and that see and hear things to now just the ďconsciousness leaving the bodyĒ. To avoid further shifting, *he* needs to define what he means by consciousness and leaving/returning. Iím not quibbling about what he means by body but we have different ideas as to what the other terms mean.

    Itís not me causing the impasse, it is him.

  21. #240
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yet when I did provide a definition he moved goal posts and changed things.
    Support or Retract that claim.

    You asked me to define OBE and I did. Consciousness leaving the body and then returning. And at no point did I change that. So do not repeat the claim that I changed my argument unless you can show a change that I made.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It isn’t up to me to choose how he defines his own words and I can’t be doing it for him because he’ll just dodge and shift again.
    These aren't "my" words. These are words that have definitions that can be found in the dictionary. You provided a dictionary definition of "consciousness" and I accepted it and still do accept it. And EVERYONE knows what "leaving" means. It means to, well, leave the location where one was previously situated.

    If you want to refuse to address my logic chain until I provided definitions of words that everyone, including you, already knows, then go ahead and not respond. And if you don't respond, let alone challenge, my argument, then it stands.

    So it stands because you won't address it.

    So let's move on from there. There's plenty to debate beyond this.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Additionally, his assumption about what is commonly understood is not trusted given his previous incorrect statement on the matter of souls=consciousness. It’s clear to me his position doesn’t rely on facts but a willful ignorance of even his own materials.
    This is a classic ad hom fallacy.

    And again, if you want to use THIS as an excuse to not address my argument, then don't address it and let it stand.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Recall we went from floating bodies and that see and hear things to now just the “consciousness leaving the body”. To avoid further shifting, *he* needs to define what he means by consciousness and leaving/returning. I’m not quibbling about what he means by body but we have different ideas as to what the other terms mean.
    There is no shift. They are all the same thing.

    OBEs are consciousness leaving the body, having the experience of leaving the body (so they can see and hear), and then returning to the body.

    And what I'm specifically talking about is pretty based on an argument YOU made. You argued that consciousness exists only in the body and that is the only place that consciousness can have experiences. This exchange from post 89 sums it up.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post564134

    ME: What do you mean by "experiences"? Are you referring to memories of things that one experiences while alive? Are you referring to brain activity? Are you referring to the thing that makes one take action, thereby creating experiences that they have?

    YOU: Yes, all the above. Everything is in the brain / body.


    And I have supported that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the body since I supported that OBEs are possible. Again, your refusal to rebut it means it stands. But if we are at an impasse, then I will attack your argument a different way.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that consciousness/experience is only in the brain.

    So now we can drop the logic chain (although it is not retracted since it has not been rebutted) and move on to my challenge.
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 15th, 2019 at 06:01 AM. Reason: Removed section responding to deleted post.

 

 
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the 'soul' ? do you have one?
    By isaone in forum Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 08:07 AM
  2. Soul To Soul
    By Vivacious Brat in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 04:30 PM
  3. The Soul
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: July 15th, 2007, 11:21 PM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 09:31 AM
  5. What is a soul, and do we have one?
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: September 29th, 2004, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •