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 5 of 24 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 472
  1. #81
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Existence is on me but we have to discuss what it is that exists - this “essence”.
    It's a consciousness that animates the living body but still exists after the body dies.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    A configuration of atoms is absolutely immaterial. Or rather it’s both material and immaterial. It’s just like counting them - the idea of there being 10 atoms is immaterial. Right? Since counting is just an idea and doesn’t necessarily have to be physical to exist, right? It’s just an abstract concept.
    The idea of atoms is immaterial. Atoms themselves are not immaterial.

  2. #82
    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
    It's a consciousness that animates the living body but still exists after the body dies.
    But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain? How is it different from pain or any other aspect of our experience? And does that include memory?

    The idea of atoms is immaterial. Atoms themselves are not immaterial.
    Right, that's what I'm saying - the configuration of our atomic structure in the brain is immaterial. So there is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain the brain and therefore consciousness.

  3. #83
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain?
    If you are asserting that that is so, please support that assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    How is it different from pain or any other aspect of our experience? And does that include memory?
    Shifting the burden. If you want to argue that those things are no different than the soul, you will need to directly argue that instead of asking me to show how they are different.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Right, that's what I'm saying - the configuration of our atomic structure in the brain is immaterial. So there is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain the brain and therefore consciousness.
    IF you don't want to define a consciousness that animates the living body but still exists after the body dies as "supernatural", I won't argue that it is supernatural. I don't think the word "supernatural" really means anything in regards to these kinds of debates.

  4. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  5. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,215
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - the configuration of our atomic structure in the brain is immaterial.
    I am down with some of what you are saying, but this is a big ole no'er!

    By definition, if there is "atomic structure" the is material.

  6. #85
    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
    If you are asserting that that is so, please support that assertion.
    Do you mean you want me to support that the brain exists?


    Shifting the burden. If you want to argue that those things are no different than the soul, you will need to directly argue that instead of asking me to show how they are different.
    There is no difference and nothing to support. The only thing we know that exists is the brain so all experiences must end up there.


    IF you don't want to define a consciousness that animates the living body but still exists after the body dies as "supernatural", I won't argue that it is supernatural. I don't think the word "supernatural" really means anything in regards to these kinds of debates.
    Right, which is why I never refer to it. I don't need to because we have all the materials available to us to not require anything supernatural or immaterial. Occam's Razor suggests that we stick with what we currently have and see if it's sufficient to explain our world; and if it does, what need do we have to invoke anything else?

    ---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am down with some of what you are saying, but this is a big ole no'er!

    By definition, if there is "atomic structure" the is material.
    Agreed but the *configuration* of our neural net (made up of the material atoms) *could* be described as immaterial.

  7. #86
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Do you mean you want me to support that the brain exists?
    I mean if you are going to maintain that consciousness is nothing but a product of the brain, you will need to support that assertion.

    Otherwise the assertion fails for lack of support.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There is no difference and nothing to support.
    Support or retract that there is no difference.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The only thing we know that exists is the brain so all experiences must end up there.
    That's basically engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are saying that since we have no evidence of consciousness existing outside of the brain, consciousness does not exist outside of the brain. That is a logically flawed argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Right, which is why I never refer to it. I don't need to because we have all the materials available to us to not require anything supernatural or immaterial. Occam's Razor suggests that we stick with what we currently have and see if it's sufficient to explain our world; and if it does, what need do we have to invoke anything else?
    If you want to use that reasoning to not even consider the notion that consciousness does not continue after death, that's fine.

    But if you are going to argue that it doesn't, You will need to provide something other than a reason for why you don't think we should even consider it in the first place.

  8. #87
    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 mean if you are going to maintain that consciousness is nothing but a product of the brain, you will need to support that assertion.

    Otherwise the assertion fails for lack of support.
    All studies for consciousness is focused on the brain, which is the primary organ that provides and supplies all our experiences. I don't understand the need for additional support.

    Support or retract that there is no difference.
    They're all functions of our body and our brain.

    That's basically engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are saying that since we have no evidence of consciousness existing outside of the brain, consciousness does not exist outside of the brain. That is a logically flawed argument.
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that I KNOW that we have a brain and that all our experiences reside in there. We know this because from various brain studies that the brain is where everything happens If there is anyone that wants to purport anything else then the burden of proof is on them but I have no need to add additional ideas unless that burden is met.


    If you want to use that reasoning to not even consider the notion that consciousness does not continue after death, that's fine.

    But if you are going to argue that it doesn't, You will need to provide something other than a reason for why you don't think we should even consider it in the first place.
    Why would I need to consider anything beyond death if I KNOW that a non-functioning brain cannot experience anything? Are you seriously disagreeing with medical fact?


    Challenge to support a claim. Before we get too much further we haven't completed your support of "essence": Support or retract that consciousness is this "essence" - I think this is just idle speculation and ignores that a neuronal configuration is just as eternal and immaterial.

  9. #88
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    All studies for consciousness is focused on the brain, which is the primary organ that provides and supplies all our experiences.
    So studies have confirmed that the consciousness resides soley inside of the brain? I was under the impression that that has not been confirmed and it's still an open question.

    But if you are going to argue that science has answered this question, please provide support.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    They're all functions of our body and our brain
    Consciousness is? Please support..



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that I KNOW that we have a brain and that all our experiences reside in there.
    I don't see "experiences" in the definition of the soul you provided earlier. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "experiences reside in there". 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?

    Until I know what you mean, I can't accept this statement as accurate.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Why would I need to consider anything beyond death if I KNOW that a non-functioning brain cannot experience anything? Are you seriously disagreeing with medical fact?
    But do you know that consciousness cannot continue to experience anything after the brain dies?

    As an example, if we take the Near Death Experience at face value (and I'm not arguing that you should but just forwarding it as an example), when a person died on the operating table, the consciousness did leave the body and went somewhere else and had experiences without being inside a living brain. I'm not asking you to agree that this actually happened, but can you say for a fact that such a thing does not or can not happen? If so, please support.

  10. #89
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    ** Looks like you might have missed my earlier edit:

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that consciousness = soul. I donít see the connection other than itís conveniently something that traditionally seems vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So studies have confirmed that the consciousness resides sole inside of the brain? I was under the impression that that has not been confirmed and it's still an open question.

    But if you are going to argue that science has answered this question, please provide support.
    Science may not have answered the question conclusively but ALL serious research is looking at the brain.

    A article from last year is a typical one:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard...-consciousness

    Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness

    "For the first time, we have found a connection between the brainstem region involved in arousal and regions involved in awareness, two prerequisites for consciousness," said lead researcher Michael Fox from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre at Harvard Medical School back in 2016.

    As hard as I try to look, I donít think thereís any serious science going on anywhere else. Itís possible Iím wrong but Iíll go with Harvard.

    Consciousness is? Please support..
    It all takes part in the brain!



    I don't see "experiences" in the definition of the soul you provided earlier. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "experiences reside in there". 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?

    Until I know what you mean, I can't accept this statement as accurate.
    Yes, all the above. Everything is in the brain / body.



    But do you know that consciousness cannot continue to experience anything after the brain dies?
    Well, thereís no energy to power the brain and it probably begins to rot immediately so I donít see how else it can continue to function.

    And letís say we were able to pluck the brain out and power it in a vat, then technically, itís not dead.

    As an example, if we take the Near Death Experience at face value (and I'm not arguing that you should but just forwarding it as an example), when a person died on the operating table, the consciousness did leave the body and went somewhere else and had experiences without being inside a living brain. I'm not asking you to agree that this actually happened, but can you say for a fact that such a thing does not or can not happen? If so, please support.
    I donít take any hallucinogenic experience at face value: I donít need to because we know that the brain can invent all sorts of realistic experiences with drugs (LSD, shrooms, etc) and without, lucid dreaming for example. So thatís going to be the most obvious explanation without having to invoke anything supernatural.

    I mean NDE is obviously nonsensical: so somehow the brain configuration, with all the memories of the person along with the specific language skills and other experiences, and also somehow with the ability to ďseeĒ or ďhearĒ something will float away from the body and experience something and somehow float back and reconfigure the brain in order to report back the experience? And somehow this is all done without the traditionally pre-requisite organs in order to see or hear their supposed experience?

    I think we need to rule out outright lying or some other more likely experience before invoking anything else (whatever that may be)! Do you seriously not agree?

  11. #90
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,215
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Agreed but the *configuration* of our neural net (made up of the material atoms) *could* be described as immaterial.
    If the sum total of our material brain made an immaterial "consciousness" a reality, sure I suppose.
    Is there reason to think this is so....

  12. #91
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    ** Looks like you might have missed my earlier edit:

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that consciousness = soul. I donít see the connection other than itís conveniently something that traditionally seems vague.
    It is our consciousness that decides what actions we take in life. The OP's definition of soul includes:

    Provides the animating force behind a personís actions.

    So Consciousness provides the animating force behind a person's actions and therefore, by definition, is an aspect of the soul.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Science may not have answered the question conclusively but ALL serious research is looking at the brain.


    As hard as I try to look, I donít think thereís any serious science going on anywhere else. Itís possible Iím wrong but Iíll go with Harvard.
    And what's there falls far short of science saying that they have done the appropriate amount of research to answer the question and have determined that the consciousness resides soley in the brain. So science has not answered the question.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It all takes part in the brain!
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to support or retract that consciousness only takes part in the brain.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, thereís no energy to power the brain and it probably begins to rot immediately so I donít see how else it can continue to function.

    And letís say we were able to pluck the brain out and power it in a vat, then technically, itís not dead.
    I'm not talking about the brain. I'm talking about consciousness. Until you support that they are one and the same, you cannot use the two terms interchangeably.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I mean NDE is obviously nonsensical: so somehow the brain configuration, with all the memories of the person along with the specific language skills and other experiences, and also somehow with the ability to ďseeĒ or ďhearĒ something will float away from the body and experience something and somehow float back and reconfigure the brain in order to report back the experience? And somehow this is all done without the traditionally pre-requisite organs in order to see or hear their supposed experience?

    I think we need to rule out outright lying or some other experience before invoking anything else! Do you seriously not agree?
    I didn't address whether you should rule out lying or whatever. I asked you if you can support that such a thing cannot or does not happen. So can you?

    If not, then it's possible that such things can happen and therefore it's possible that consciences can experience things without being confined to the brain.

  13. #92
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If the sum total of our material brain made an immaterial "consciousness" a reality, sure I suppose.
    Is there reason to think this is so....
    Consciousness is as immaterial as pain or hunger or any physical manifestation. Why is it being singled out as some any more special than that?

    However, that said, itís possible that we are more than our actual brain - after all the brain is just the end of a whole nervous system of inputs from all over our body. Itís connected to our real world through our senses as well as every part of our body.

    Studies already show that what we take for consciousness already has activity in our brains before they surface to ďusĒ.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...ore-we-do/amp/

    Brain imaging spots our abstract choices before we do
    By Caroline Williams

    When it comes to making decisions, it seems that the conscious mind is the last to know.

    We already had evidence that it is possible to detect brain activity associated with movement before someone is aware of making a decision to move. Work presented this week at the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) conference in London not only extends it to abstract decisions, but suggests that it might even be possible to pre-emptively reverse a decision before a person realises theyíve made it.

    In 2011, Gabriel Kreiman of Harvard University measured the activity of individual neurons in 12 people with epilepsy, using electrodes already implanted into their brain to help identify the source of their seizures. The volunteers took part in the ďLibetĒ experiment, in which they press a button whenever they like and remember the position of a second hand on a clock at the moment of decision.

    Kreiman discovered that electrical activity in the supplementary motor area, involved in initiating movement, and in the anterior cingulate cortex, which controls attention and motivation, appeared up to 5 seconds before a volunteer was aware of deciding to press the button (Neuron, doi.org/btkcpz). This backed up earlier fMRI studies by John-Dylan Haynes of the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, Germany, that had traced the origins of decisions to the prefrontal cortex a whopping 10 seconds before awareness (Nature Neuroscience, doi.org/cs3rzv).
    So as we get closer and closer to understanding ourselves, there is no need to think of consciousness as anything other than a complex emergent property of a vast network of neurons.

    There is absolutely no reason other than wishful thinking to invoke anything else at this point no matter how good it makes us feel.

    ---------- Post added at 06:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It is our consciousness that decides what actions we take in life. The OP's definition of soul includes:

    Provides the animating force behind a personís actions.

    So Consciousness provides the animating force behind a person's actions and therefore, by definition, is an aspect of the soul.
    See my last response to Belthazor. Consciousness is the LAST part of what is happening in our brain - there is already a lot of activity that we are not conscious of that leads to conscious awareness and actions. So factually you are incorrect and this is old news so why are you making false claims?

    Also, I am NOT challenging you here on any other part of the definition other than ďessenceĒ and youíre continuing to fail to support what you even mean by that word. I can only conclude that it has no actual meaning to you and your position is nonsensical. Your every attempt to define it keeps referring to other parts of the definition so I suspect that you donít know what it is or unwilling to admit the term is the wishful thinking I have been saying all along.

    Challenge to support a claim.
    So I have to reissue the challenge for you to define what you mean by essence.

    And donít keep calling it consciousness without further support. I am challenging you below to make the link below so donít answer than here.



    And what's there falls far short of science saying that they have done the appropriate amount of research to answer the question and have determined that the consciousness resides soley in the brain. So science has not answered the question.
    I donít know what you mean by ďfar shortĒ. Please support or retract that claim and describe what you mean by something conclusive. And then also explain how the religious idea of the ďsoulĒ is ďcloserĒ to an explanation. You are making a positive claim via your agnostic position that science is further from the truth than religion so you have to support it.

    Also, I have to ask, have you *any* basic knowledge of the brain and neurons and the nervous system? Am I jumping ahead too much, too quickly? Here you are confusing the fact that science doesnít have the answer youíre looking for which therefore gives you carte blanche to dismiss all of the existing science. Itís like youíre unaware of the trajectory of research and that the alternatives you appear to be supporting have already been ruled out. I already had to go back to about knowledge from a decade ago! If this is the first time youíve tried to understand the brain then let me know! Youíre conflating the fact that our understanding of consciousness is incomplete and the fact that the brain is its source. This is incorrect and needs to be supported.




    I Challenge to support a claim. you to support or retract that consciousness only takes part in the brain.
    All manifestations of consciousness or conscious actions takes part in the brain. We have a lot of science that proves this.

    What we both know is that science is looking only in the brain so even though it may not answer the question, it has located its source. If youíre making claims it is NOT the brain the support it. If youíre making the claim that it is NOT CONCLUSIVE then also support the materials you have actually studied to show you have that knowledge to begin with. If youíre making the claim that it is ELSEWHERE then support that too.

    Challenge to support a claim. support your position that science isnít looking at the right place for consciousness. Your lazy armchair agnosticism doesnít really appear to be well informed to begin with so to overstate my claims is a little churlish and you need to explain your skepticism.



    I'm not talking about the brain. I'm talking about consciousness. Until you support that they are one and the same, you cannot use the two terms interchangeably.

    I donít use it interchangeably! Consciousness is the surfacing of brain activity; it is the RESULT of activity within the brain. It has already been demonstrated with many studies - this has to be common knowledge by now. And equally, you cannot continue to claim consciousness *is* the ďessenceĒ in the definition until you support it. Youíve gotten away with that far too long in this thread.

    Challenge to support a claim.support or retract that consciousness is the essence of the soul.


    I didn't address whether you should rule out lying or whatever. I asked you if you can support that such a thing cannot or does not happen. So can you?

    If not, then it's possible that such things can happen and therefore it's possible that consciences can experience things without being confined to the brain.
    I think I laid out how ridiculous the notion is and that it is more likely a lie or a hallucination than something to be taken on face value.
    And since you are making the claim that OOBE is *possibly* real you have to support why it must be so.

    Challenge to support a claim. it is insufficient to keep bringing up terms and ideas in your arguments without supporting reasons to do so. You have done this with what essence is, why youíre linking it to consciousness and now in bringing up nonsensical experiences. All you have are unsupported ideas whereas I have brought in science. You need to stop doing that so please support or retract why you need to bring in OOBE and why we should take it seriously.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 27th, 2019 at 05:53 AM.

  14. #93
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    All manifestations of consciousness or conscious actions takes part in the brain. We have a lot of science that proves this.
    This was not the claim challenged. Your claim was that conciousness solely resides in the brain. You made that claim beginning in post 82: "But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain?" and again in several later posts including 87.

    You were asked for support by Mican in several posts including 83 "If you are asserting that that is so, please support that assertion." And again in posts 86, 88, and formally in 91: "I Challenge to support a claim.. you to support or retract that consciousness only takes part in the brain."

    Your response in 92 attempts to shift the burden by adding your own challenge which wasn't made by Mican (that science isn't looking in the right place) and is thus rejected as a challenge. It also adds an additional claim "We have a lot of science that proves this" without any support. Finally, it adds no support for your claim that conciousness resides solely in the brain, substituting an unsupported strawman that scientists measure the brain as a way of studying conciousness. That strawman is not the same as the claim you made earlier and also was presented as a bare assertion fallacy.

    Thus you have not supported your initial claim or any of the claims you've added to it on this page. The following claims are adjudicated as retracted until support is offered:

    1) Conciousness resides solely in the brain.
    2) There is "a lot of science that proves this."
    3) Science examines only the brain for evidence of conciousness.

    Continued use of these claims absent support could be a rule infraction.
    "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.


  15. #94
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    See my last response to Belthazor. Consciousness is the LAST part of what is happening in our brain - there is already a lot of activity that we are not conscious of that leads to conscious awareness and actions. So factually you are incorrect and this is old news so why are you making false claims?
    Without a consciousness, we take no activity. So consciousness is indeed the animating force behind our actions.

    And besides that, EVERY description of a soul by those who believe in them equates it with a mind. For example, according the Christians, YOU will experience going to Heaven or Hell. That "you" that will allegedly experience those things pretty much qualifies as consciousness. If you don't think that consciousness is approximately the same as the soul, then you do not understand what the soul is and therefore have no basis to claim that it doesn't exist for one must know what "it" is before they can make a credible argument that "it" does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, I am NOT challenging you here on any other part of the definition other than “essence” and you’re continuing to fail to support what you even mean by that word. I can only conclude that it has no actual meaning to you and your position is nonsensical. Your every attempt to define it keeps referring to other parts of the definition so I suspect that you don’t know what it is or unwilling to admit the term is the wishful thinking I have been saying all along.
    You ceased questioning my defining of it back in in post #52. I take that as finding my explanation satisfactory enough to move on to being able to hold a coherent debate about it.

    And since you can ALWAYS say that I've not explained it well enough no matter how well I explain it, you have provided no rational bar for when it's explained well enough so at this point it is nothing more than your opinion that my description has not been satisfactory.

    So you don't think I've explained it well enough? Well, your opinion is noted. If you are going to argue that FOR A FACT, that I don't know what I'm talking about, please support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim.
    So I have to reissue the challenge for you to define what you mean by essence.
    That's not a valid challenge. A challenge is to get someone to support something that they actually claimed.

    Besides that, I have already defined what I mean by essence so I've already done it. If it's your opinion that my answer is not good enough for you, your opinion is noted.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t know what you mean by “far short”. Please support or retract that claim and describe what you mean by something conclusive.
    There is literally nothing in that article that says that they have conclusively determined that consciousness resides solely in the mind.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And then also explain how the religious idea of the “soul” is “closer” to an explanation.
    I've made no such claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You are making a positive claim via your agnostic position that science is further from the truth than religion so you have to support it.
    I have not made that claim. If you are going to say that I have, please show the direct quote where I said as much.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, I have to ask, have you *any* basic knowledge of the brain and neurons and the nervous system? Am I jumping ahead too much, too quickly? Here you are confusing the fact that science doesn’t have the answer you’re looking for which therefore gives you carte blanche to dismiss all of the existing science.
    I haven't dismissed one iota of science here. You just haven't provided any scientific proof that conclusively shows that consciousness resides exclusively in the brain.

    So I am dismissing a claim that has no scientific support on this thread. If such support exist elsewhere, it is your burden to present it if you are going to support your position.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s like you’re unaware of the trajectory of research and that the alternatives you appear to be supporting have already been ruled out.
    Support or retract that the alternatives have been ruled out. And please keep in mind that "haven't been looked into" is not the same thing as "ruled out".



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I already had to go back to about knowledge from a decade ago! If this is the first time you’ve tried to understand the brain then let me know! You’re conflating the fact that our understanding of consciousness is incomplete and the fact that the brain is its source. This is incorrect and needs to be supported.
    Support or retract that it's a fact that the brain is the source.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    All manifestations of consciousness or conscious actions takes part in the brain. We have a lot of science that proves this.
    Support or retract. Show me ANY of the science that proves that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What we both know is that science is looking only in the brain so even though it may not answer the question, it has located its source.
    Support or retract that assertion.

    By the logic you seem to be forwarding, if I look only at a cup of water for water, then we can conclude that the only location that water exists is in that cup.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you’re making claims it is NOT the brain the support it. If you’re making the claim that it is NOT CONCLUSIVE then also support the materials you have actually studied to show you have that knowledge to begin with. If you’re making the claim that it is ELSEWHERE then support that too.
    I am claiming that no evidence have been presented IN THIS DEBATE THREAD that conclusively shows that consciousness resides soley in the brain. And that is evidenced by the fact that the only scientific link that either of has forwarded in this thread does not make a conclusive statement to that effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. support your position that science isn’t looking at the right place for consciousness.
    I didn't make such a claim and therefore have no need to support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t use it interchangeably! Consciousness is the surfacing of brain activity; it is the RESULT of activity within the brain. It has already been demonstrated with many studies - this has to be common knowledge by now.
    Then you should be able to support that assertion with hard evidence. Show me one of those studies.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And equally, you cannot continue to claim consciousness *is* the “essence” in the definition until you support it. You’ve gotten away with that far too long in this thread.

    Challenge to support a claim.support or retract that consciousness is the essence of the soul.
    I didn't argue that it is for a fact. You asked me how I interpreted the definition you provided in the OP. So I'm telling you how I interpret what you said. If I got it wrong (as in you meant something else), then feel free to correct me and tell me what you meant.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think I laid out how ridiculous the notion is and that it is more likely a lie or a hallucination than something to be taken on face value.
    You said that that's what you think. You didn't give anything resembling support that it does not or can not happen. Just blowing a proverbial raspberry at a notion does not show that it's false or ridiculous or whatever.

    I mean I can pull the same tactic to show that lying and hallucinations are "ridiculous". So here we go.

    First off, there are MILLIONS of such experiences. In support:

    "13 million Americans, or 5 percent of the nation’s population, had experienced an NDE as of 1992, according to a 1992 Gallup poll cited by the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation."

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-co...rs_757401.html

    So as far as lying goes. Are you telling me that MILLIONS of people are telling approximately the same lie? Ridiculous!

    Hallucination. So SOMEHOW dying produces roughly the SAME KIND of hallucination in millions of people? Has there EVER been a study that shows that millions of people have the same hallucination? Ridiculous!

    So if we are going to use "appeal to ridicule" to dismiss a notion, we can use it to dismiss the alternative explanations just as well as the explanation that what people experienced actually happened. And btw, for a vast majority of experiences, the reason one experiences it is because it actually happened. For example, I'm guessing when your day ends and you think back on what you experienced, a vast majority of the experiences you remember actually happened.

    And I'm not seeking to support that NDEs are real. I'm just saying that while you are certainly free to not believe in them, you have made no real case for why one should believe that they are impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And since you are making the claim that OOBE is *possibly* real you have to support why it must be so.
    No problem. By the rules of logic, everything is possible except for that which is impossible. So until something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. it is insufficient to keep bringing up terms and ideas in your arguments without supporting reasons to do so. You have done this with what essence is, why you’re linking it to consciousness and now in bringing up nonsensical experiences. All you have are unsupported ideas whereas I have brought in science. You need to stop doing that so please support or retract why you need to bring in OOBE and why we should take it seriously.
    Straw man. I didn't claim that you should take OBE seriously. I'm forwarding it as a hypothetical example of consciousness having an experience without attachment to a physical mind and am not weighing in on how legitimate it is. Unless one can show that such a thing is impossible, it must be considered possible and therefore I have supported that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences without a brain.
    Last edited by mican333; February 27th, 2019 at 08:55 AM.

  16. #95
    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 was not the claim challenged. Your claim was that conciousness solely resides in the brain. You made that claim beginning in post 82: "But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain?" and again in several later posts including 87.

    You were asked for support by Mican in several posts including 83 "If you are asserting that that is so, please support that assertion." And again in posts 86, 88, and formally in 91: "I Challenge to support a claim.. you to support or retract that consciousness only takes part in the brain."

    Your response in 92 attempts to shift the burden by adding your own challenge which wasn't made by Mican (that science isn't looking in the right place) and is thus rejected as a challenge. It also adds an additional claim "We have a lot of science that proves this" without any support. Finally, it adds no support for your claim that conciousness resides solely in the brain, substituting an unsupported strawman that scientists measure the brain as a way of studying conciousness. That strawman is not the same as the claim you made earlier and also was presented as a bare assertion fallacy.

    Thus you have not supported your initial claim or any of the claims you've added to it on this page. The following claims are adjudicated as retracted until support is offered:

    1) Conciousness resides solely in the brain.
    2) There is "a lot of science that proves this."
    3) Science examines only the brain for evidence of conciousness.

    Continued use of these claims absent support could be a rule infraction.
    Continued discussions of consciousness shouldn't even be in this thread until Mican has supported that this is what "essence" is. That's definitely not my claim, nor even central to the OP. It was she that brought it up in the first place so my challenges should stand.

    ---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Without a consciousness, we take no activity. So consciousness is indeed the animating force behind our actions.
    That's obviously rubbish - people sleep walk without being conscious. Our bodies can totally survive without consciousness so this is false immediately!

    Besides, you're literally ignoring the evidence from science that shows it is not the animating force behind our actions - there is something deeper that's provably happening before we are conscious of it.

    And besides that, EVERY description of a soul by those who believe in them equates it with a mind. For example, according the Christians, YOU will experience going to Heaven or Hell. That "you" that will allegedly experience those things pretty much qualifies as consciousness. If you don't think that consciousness is approximately the same as the soul, then you do not understand what the soul is and therefore have no basis to claim that it doesn't exist for one must know what "it" is before they can make a credible argument that "it" does not exist.
    Not true!
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)
    Ātman, sometimes spelled without a diacritic as atman in scholarly literature,[11] means "real self" of the individual,[12][13] "innermost essence",[14] and soul.[12][15] Atman, in Hinduism, is considered as eternal, imperishable, beyond time, "not the same as body or mind or consciousness, but is something beyond which permeates all these".[16][17][18] Atman is a metaphysical and spiritual concept for the Hindus, often discussed in their scriptures with the concept of Brahman.[19][20][21]



    You ceased questioning my defining of it back in in post #52. I take that as finding my explanation satisfactory enough to move on to being able to hold a coherent debate about it.
    Um no, we went down a rabbit side-track about consciousness, which you still haven't supported is the "essence" that you purport to be agnostic to. And now you're making totally false claims as to how religions other than Christianity describe the soul! So really, until you really link consciousness to the soul, your purported final statement should just be withdrawn (again!)

    And since you can ALWAYS say that I've not explained it well enough no matter how well I explain it, you have provided no rational bar for when it's explained well enough so at this point it is nothing more than your opinion that my description has not been satisfactory.

    So you don't think I've explained it well enough? Well, your opinion is noted. If you are going to argue that FOR A FACT, that I don't know what I'm talking about, please support.
    I explained ALL the problems with ALL your prior responses since you were just taking different parts of the definition I put forward, which you also agree is the definition you are agnostic on. But you have not made a clear direct link between essence and consciousness. That you're making outlandish claims that "EVERY description of the soul" equates it to the mind, as well as your lack of general science knowledge makes me wonder if you're maintaining your agnostic position by not studying much!


    That's not a valid challenge. A challenge is to get someone to support something that they actually claimed.

    Besides that, I have already defined what I mean by essence so I've already done it. If it's your opinion that my answer is not good enough for you, your opinion is noted.
    Then your position of agnostism is just based on lack of knowledge!


    I'm skipping anything related to consciousness until you've supported that it is relevant to the discussion. This is a nonsensical rabbit hole that you clearly have no clue on either the religious side or the science side, so I'm not going to trap myself further into this until you can make it directly relevant.
    There is literally nothing in that article that says that they have conclusively determined that consciousness resides solely in the mind.
    I've made no such claim.
    I have not made that claim. If you are going to say that I have, please show the direct quote where I said as much.
    I haven't dismissed one iota of science here. You just haven't provided any scientific proof that conclusively shows that consciousness resides exclusively in the brain.
    So I am dismissing a claim that has no scientific support on this thread. If such support exist elsewhere, it is your burden to present it if you are going to support your position.
    Support or retract that the alternatives have been ruled out. And please keep in mind that "haven't been looked into" is not the same thing as "ruled out".
    Support or retract that it's a fact that the brain is the source.
    Support or retract. Show me ANY of the science that proves that.
    Support or retract that assertion.

    By the logic you seem to be forwarding, if I look only at a cup of water for water, then we can conclude that the only location that water exists is in that cup.
    I am claiming that no evidence have been presented IN THIS DEBATE THREAD that conclusively shows that consciousness resides soley in the brain. And that is evidenced by the fact that the only scientific link that either of has forwarded in this thread does not make a conclusive statement to that effect.
    I didn't make such a claim and therefore have no need to support it.
    Then you should be able to support that assertion with hard evidence. Show me one of those studies.


    I didn't argue that it is for a fact. You asked me how I interpreted the definition you provided in the OP. So I'm telling you how I interpret what you said. If I got it wrong (as in you meant something else), then feel free to correct me and tell me what you meant.
    Then let's drop the whole idea since you're just speculating. And incorrectly on every front at that1




    You said that that's what you think. You didn't give anything resembling support that it does not or can not happen. Just blowing a proverbial raspberry at a notion does not show that it's false or ridiculous or whatever.
    Well, if there's a flaw as to why my description is wrong then you need to point out what it is. It's clear that you have little idea about the brain and neurons, so it's possible I'm talking beyond you. If that is so, it is more honest to admit it rather than ignore everything I said and call it a raspberry!

    I mean I can pull the same tactic to show that lying and hallucinations are "ridiculous". So here we go.

    First off, there are MILLIONS of such experiences. In support:

    "13 million Americans, or 5 percent of the nation’s population, had experienced an NDE as of 1992, according to a 1992 Gallup poll cited by the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation."

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-co...rs_757401.html

    So as far as lying goes. Are you telling me that MILLIONS of people are telling approximately the same lie? Ridiculous!
    Uh, yeah, I'm going to take the word of a rag that describes itself as being "beyond science" - what trash. This is a paper that is described as one that publishes enough pseudoscience to be commented on!

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

    • Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right-Center Biased and High for factual reporting regarding USA news, however we rate them Mixed overall due to the publication of Pseudoscience. This source is also highly biased against communist news in regards to China
    So if you want to take this outside of the realm of science and provable facts then please declare it quickly. If you're going to be wrong about what other religions say about the soul, ignorant of the science, and ignoring (or not understanding) the mechanics of OOBE, then you tell me how you want to proceeed.


    Hallucination. So SOMEHOW dying produces roughly the SAME KIND of hallucination in millions of people? Has there EVER been a study that shows that millions of people have the same hallucination? Ridiculous!
    What are you talking about? There have been plenty of studies about hallucinations due to LSD and other drugs - it's clear that the brain can conjure up any kind of nonsense on a very consistent basis. Why would dying, which is clearly the result of a lack of oxygen, maybe the loss of brain function, or any other kind of activity we don't know yet. I still see no reason why you need to bring in the supernatural, particularly coming up with OOBE.

    So if we are going to use "appeal to ridicule" to dismiss a notion, we can use it to dismiss the alternative explanations just as well as the explanation that what people experienced actually happened. And btw, for a vast majority of experiences, the reason one experiences it is because it actually happened. For example, I'm guessing when your day ends and you think back on what you experienced, a vast majority of the experiences you remember actually happened.

    And I'm not seeking to support that NDEs are real. I'm just saying that while you are certainly free to not believe in them, you have made no real case for why one should believe that they are impossible.
    Well, there's a big difference between NDE, which basically doesn't really say anything other than that people experience things when near death. But you're describing OOBE - out of the body experiences, which is what one normally thinks of as an NDE.

    No problem. By the rules of logic, everything is possible except for that which is impossible. So until something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    I clearly explained why it is nonsensical and unless you can address my specific points as to why it's ridiculous then we need to drop this line of questioning.!


    Straw man. I didn't claim that you should take OBE seriously. I'm forwarding it as a hypothetical example of consciousness having an experience without attachment to a physical mind and am not weighing in on how legitimate it is. Unless one can show that such a thing is impossible, it must be considered possible and therefore I have supported that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences without a brain.
    Again, I clearly explained why it is nonsensical and unless you can address my specific points as to why it's ridiculous then we need to drop this line of questioning. And if it's hypothetical then let's dump it. It is enough that you don't appear to understand *basic* science that's at least a decade old, and you're supporting your positions with pseudo scientific articles - I don't see any need to continue this path unless it is really relevant.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 27th, 2019 at 06:57 PM.

  17. #96
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Besides, you're literally ignoring the evidence from science that shows it is not the animating force behind our actions - there is something deeper that's provably happening before we are conscious of it.
    You seem to be conflating "being conscious of" with "consciousness". A person with no consciousness but alive would be in a coma and not taking any action at all.

    But I just realized that what I said would happen if I started to explain the concept of the soul to you is what indeed has happened. You have shifted the burden to me. Instead of you supporting your claim that the concept of the soul is nonsensical, I see that now I'm defending my explanation of "consciousness" and "essence" and so on.

    So the burden shifting is over.

    If you are going to support that the concept of the soul is nonsensical, then please present an affirmative argument that supports that the concept is nonsensical. If you can't do it, then your argument fails.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then your position of agnostism is just based on lack of knowledge!
    Lack of evidence, yes. So what?

    If you have no evidence that X is true and you have no evidence that X is false, the only logical stance to take is that you can't say that it's true or false and if anyone is going to claim either, they will need to provide evidence before you will change your mind.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I'm skipping anything related to consciousness until you've supported that it is relevant to the discussion. This is a nonsensical rabbit hole that you clearly have no clue on either the religious side or the science side, so I'm not going to trap myself further into this until you can make it directly relevant.
    Whatever. It's your argument anyway. I'm perfectly happy to skip the entire argument regarding whether the concept of the soul makes sense.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then let's drop the whole idea since you're just speculating. And incorrectly on every front at that
    I disagree with your opinion on the matter. But dropping it is fine.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, if there's a flaw as to why my description is wrong then you need to point out what it is. It's clear that you have little idea about the brain and neurons, so it's possible I'm talking beyond you. If that is so, it is more honest to admit it rather than ignore everything I said and call it a raspberry!
    I think maybe it should occur to you that you might misunderstand what I'm saying at times and therefore your personal comments about my knowledge or what I'm doing is off-base. I should also point out that it's rude to make personal comments about your opponent. Please do better at debating in a civlil manner in the future.

    And no, I did ignore what you said. Nor do I disagree that you more or less accurately described what an NDE is. But THAT'S ALL YOU DID. You just described it and then blew the proverbial raspberry at it without stating what specifically is ridiculous about it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Uh, yeah, I'm going to take the word of a rag that describes itself as being "beyond science" - what trash. This is a paper that is described as one that publishes enough pseudoscience to be commented on!
    Fair enough. So how about The Atlantic, which shows that the numbers are in the thousands.

    Of those books, probably the single best overview is The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, an anthology published in 2009. As The Handbook outlines, by 2005 dozens of studies involving nearly 3,500 subjects who reported having had NDEs had become material for some 600 scholarly articles.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iences/386231/



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So if you want to take this outside of the realm of science and provable facts then please declare it quickly. If you're going to be wrong about what other religions say about the soul, ignorant of the science, and ignoring (or not understanding) the mechanics of OOBE, then you tell me how you want to proceeed.
    My ONLY point regarding this is that it's possible that it happens.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What are you talking about? There have been plenty of studies about hallucinations due to LSD and other drugs - it's clear that the brain can conjure up any kind of nonsense on a very consistent basis. Why would dying, which is clearly the result of a lack of oxygen, maybe the loss of brain function, or any other kind of activity we don't know yet. I still see no reason why you need to bring in the supernatural, particularly coming up with OOBE.
    That's not my point. I'm just showing that one can say "ridiculous" to any concept if they want to just appeal to ridicule.

    You used appeal to ridicule to disparage the notion of OBEs (which is a logical flaw) and I'm just showing that by using that same standard (just saying that you think it's ridiculous), one can shoot down all of the alternatives, like hallucinations.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I clearly explained why it is nonsensical and unless you can address my specific points as to why it's ridiculous then we need to drop this line of questioning.
    No, you did not explain why it's nonsensical nor supported that it's ridiculous. Here is what you said:

    "I mean NDE is obviously nonsensical: so somehow the brain configuration, with all the memories of the person along with the specific language skills and other experiences, and also somehow with the ability to “see” or “hear” something will float away from the body and experience something and somehow float back and reconfigure the brain in order to report back the experience? And somehow this is all done without the traditionally pre-requisite organs in order to see or hear their supposed experience?"

    Now whether such a thing happens or not, I found what you described as entirely coherent and therefore not nonsensical.

    And I see nothing in there that explains why any of it is ridiculous. I get that the tone with the question marks and such imply ridiculousness (sort of like "Are you expecting me to take any of this seriously?") so I agree that you are positing that it's all ridiculous but I see nothing the explains why any of it is ridiculous.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And if it's hypothetical then let's dump it. It is enough that you don't appear to understand *basic* science that's at least a decade old
    You can cut out that crap right now. Seriously. I have continuously challenged you to provide the science that supports your position and you have continuously failed to deliver. If anything it's clear that you don't understand the science well enough to realize that there is no science that backs up your position (or if there is, you can't find it).

    But such comments about either your or mine personal deficiencies is crap debating so stop it. It's rude to make personal comments about your opponent and to attempt to use alleged deficiencies of another person as part of an argument is to engage in the ad hom fallacy. ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't see any need to continue this path unless it is really relevant.
    Well, my point is that it's possible that NDEs happen and therefore it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the human body. And this position currently stands (since everything must be considered possible until it is shown to be impossible).

    And since you seem to have dropped many of your points from your last post, I'm not sure this particular point is relevant to anything that's currently going on. So if it's not important for your argument to rebut the notion that NDEs are possible, then by all means, drop this point.

  18. #97
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Warning: it may look in places that I am making personal attacks but that is NOT my intention. I am taking from your original cue regarding the debate tactics around shifting burden of proof and your stated goal not to provide information to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You seem to be conflating "being conscious of" with "consciousness". A person with no consciousness but alive would be in a coma and not taking any action at all.
    Wut? So when weíre asleep or in a coma, youíre saying we still have consciousness? Then what does the word ďunconsciousĒ mean to you then?

    But I just realized that what I said would happen if I started to explain the concept of the soul to you is what indeed has happened. You have shifted the burden to me. Instead of you supporting your claim that the concept of the soul is nonsensical, I see that now I'm defending my explanation of "consciousness" and "essence" and so on.
    Um, first of all, there is no way we can discuss anything unless we explain things to each other. I explained my points in the OP so there is no need to repeat them. If you have problems then ask away.

    Just because I donít buy what youíre saying it doesnít mean Iím shifting the debate; I am literally trying to understand what is going on in your head. Itís clear that you mean something completely different from me so how is it a problem that you have to think about your own positions for a change? Instead of passively debating, take some kind of position!

    And of course you have to defend the link with consciousness and essence if that is what you believe it to be. So are you formally backtracking and withdrawing that too! Seriously?

    So the burden shifting is over.

    If you are going to support that the concept of the soul is nonsensical, then please present an affirmative argument that supports that the concept is nonsensical. If you can't do it, then your argument fails.
    Wait, what about when you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, I did not say that I am agnostic. I said that I am taking the agnostic position in this debate regarding the soul. If I ever said that I personally was an agnostic, I retract that position immediately and therefore it is now indeed off-topic in regards to the debate. But again, I am taking the agnostic position in this debate.

    And to state it more clearly (and this IS my position)

    I hold that maybe it exists and maybe it does not exist.

    As far as what "it" is, it is specifically what you described in the OP.

    Which is:

    1. An immaterial ďessenceĒ
    2. Immortal
    3. Provides the animating force behind a personís actions.

    So I hold that maybe that exists and maybe it doesn't exist. As far as why I hold that position, it is because no one has presented any support that it does exist and no one has provided any support that it does not exist.

    So there is my agnostic position.

    If you want to try to use it to support that the soul, as described in those three points, does not exist, have at it.

    Are you now withdrawing that you said that?
    Are you also withdrawing that

    - soul=consciousness
    - that ALL religions thinks this is the case

    SUPPORT OR WITHDRAW the above

    Lack of evidence, yes. So what?

    If you have no evidence that X is true and you have no evidence that X is false, the only logical stance to take is that you can't say that it's true or false and if anyone is going to claim either, they will need to provide evidence before you will change your mind.
    Iím not talking about *evidence*, I donít even know what youíre talking about so asking for proof makes no sense at this point in time. I am talking about something more fundamental: Do you even understand the words you use? Or more to the point, the words *I* am using when pointing out your flaws?

    To me, and I repeat, your position of agnosticism doesnít appear to be based on equally evaluating the arguments of two positions but seemingly and perhaps even deliberately ignorant of both. In doing so you are doing everyone a serious disfavor and wasting time. You donít even bother to read my responses and seem to just block your brain out and carry on as if I said nothing.

    Even just now, you are asking me to ďsupport my affirmative positionĒ when my entire case is in the OP! Read that FIRST and THEN find areas that need clarification. Iím not a mind reader and Iím not going to repeat the OP! Honestly, your debate tactics are transparently lazy on every point!

    We cannot discuss anything if you do not understand words and if youíre not up to date with science or even fact-checking very basic things such as the point that EVERY religion equates soul to consciousness!

    Whatever. It's your argument anyway. I'm perfectly happy to skip the entire argument regarding whether the concept of the soul makes sense.
    Yes. We should skip any argument where you actually have to say something since that appears how you operate. When you are proven wrong you totally fold, and if thatís the case, then you need to concede.

    I disagree with your opinion on the matter. But dropping it is fine.
    You have literally failed to make any statement that is correct! I have shown you wrong on BOTH the science AND the religious side of things. I believe that you literally have no clue as to what youíre talking about.

    If you want to drop it fine! Then I donít actually think you have much left to say.


    I think maybe it should occur to you that you might misunderstand what I'm saying at times and therefore your personal comments about my knowledge or what I'm doing is off-base. I should also point out that it's rude to make personal comments about your opponent. Please do better at debating in a civlil manner in the future.
    It isnít rude at all to point out your lack of rigor or understanding since youíre the one that is literally ignoring entire paragraphs with nothing but calling my responses a ďraspberryĒ. That you decided to ignore my entire OP and come up with your ďessence = consciousnessĒ idea is a strategy YOU took upon yourself. That you fail to support it on every front, many times, is not only your own failure to support your position but worse, if weíre talking about being rude, you havenít bothered to understand MY position, nor respect the time I put into my responses. You have literally said NOTHING of real substance and you have FOLDED the moment you had to answer a simple question. Thatís on you!

    And no, I did ignore what you said. Nor do I disagree that you more or less accurately described what an NDE is. But THAT'S ALL YOU DID. You just described it and then blew the proverbial raspberry at it without stating what specifically is ridiculous about it.
    You need to go back and re-read what I described as to what has to take place for OOBE to happen. THEN you can blow whatever raspberry you like. Until then, you havenít come up with a single objection or shown any understanding as to what I said.



    Fair enough. So how about The Atlantic, which shows that the numbers are in the thousands.

    Of those books, probably the single best overview is The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, an anthology published in 2009. As The Handbook outlines, by 2005 dozens of studies involving nearly 3,500 subjects who reported having had NDEs had become material for some 600 scholarly articles.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iences/386231/
    So, we have:

    ďBut while Mariaís shoe certainly makes for a compelling story, itís thin on the evidential side. ď
    ďTo date, six studies have tried some form of this method, mostly on cardiac-arrest patients, and all have failed to find an ironclad case of veridical perception.Ē
    ďThe latest and largest such attempt was the so-called Aware study, led by Sam Parnia of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, published in Resuscitation last October. In it, 15 participating hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austria installed shelves bearing a variety of images in rooms where cardiac-arrest patients were likely to need reviving.

    The results of the Aware study immediately highlight the key problem with this kind of research: itís very hard to get enough data.Ē

    ďThe latest and largest such attempt was the so-called Aware study, led by Sam Parnia of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, published in Resuscitation last October. In it, 15 participating hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austria installed shelves bearing a variety of images in rooms where cardiac-arrest patients were likely to need reviving.

    The results of the Aware study immediately highlight the key problem with this kind of research: itís very hard to get enough data. ď

    ďBut what makes them scientists is that they know and maintain the distinction between scientific theories, which must be testable against observable evidence, and mysticism or speculation. So at the end of Hugenotís talk, I asked him to tell me how his theory is testable. He didnít answer the question at first, but eventually said that there are experiments that could be designed.

    Had he designed them?, I asked.

    ďNo, I havenít had the chance to do that yet.ĒĒ

    So basically NDE is a bunch of anecdotal, unproven bunch of crap. Also, itís unbelievable that the next journal you chose after being exposed as a peddler of pseudo science is a casual reading article. How about some actual science for a change!

    My ONLY point regarding this is that it's possible that it happens.
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness can leave the body, float around and SEE things WITHOUT EYES, and HEAR things WITHOUT EARS and somehow still float BACK and remember it?

    And donít trot out your nonsense that it must be possible until it has been proven impossible - thatís BS cannot stand any more since you use it to support any position: it is meaningless and puts the burden on me to disprove your positive claims.

    That's not my point. I'm just showing that one can say "ridiculous" to any concept if they want to just appeal to ridicule.

    You used appeal to ridicule to disparage the notion of OBEs (which is a logical flaw) and I'm just showing that by using that same standard (just saying that you think it's ridiculous), one can shoot down all of the alternatives, like hallucinations.
    No, I mean itís ridiculous because at every point you are using pseudo science, putting forward speculation with no evidence to support it, and even a whole article that is inconclusive about the whole issue on the positive side, and not even thinking through the consequences of what youíre saying.

    Everything that you have put forward about NDE is total nonsense. There is zero need, if you read your own article, to throw in ludicrous ideas of the soul or the supernatural.


    No, you did not explain why it's nonsensical nor supported that it's ridiculous. Here is what you said:

    "I mean NDE is obviously nonsensical: so somehow the brain configuration, with all the memories of the person along with the specific language skills and other experiences, and also somehow with the ability to ďseeĒ or ďhearĒ something will float away from the body and experience something and somehow float back and reconfigure the brain in order to report back the experience? And somehow this is all done without the traditionally pre-requisite organs in order to see or hear their supposed experience?"

    Now whether such a thing happens or not, I found what you described as entirely coherent and therefore not nonsensical.

    And I see nothing in there that explains why any of it is ridiculous. I get that the tone with the question marks and such imply ridiculousness (sort of like "Are you expecting me to take any of this seriously?") so I agree that you are positing that it's all ridiculous but I see nothing the explains why any of it is ridiculous.
    OK - what is the ďthingĒ that hears something? And when that thing hears it, where does it store those sounds and how does that thing even understand the words? And then how does that thing get the results of what was heard back into the original brain? Same with sight - what is it that ďseesĒ and what is it that maps the light patterns into the equivalent of the brain?

    Itís obvious itís nonsense because those things cannot happen because you need ears to hear and you eyes to see and you need a brain to interpret the input and remember it and then recall it later.

    So where can we find all that? Perhaps the ORIGINAL body? How about starting off with that idea first! Isnít it MORE LIKELY that the person is consciously or unconsciously receiving input and mistakenly remembering how they got their information? Why do you need literally float out of the body in order to explain it - youíve ďfallenĒ in your sleep right? Or floated in a dream, right? Canít that just happen in your own brain?

    There is absolutely NO NEED for take those experiences at face value. So yes, itís nonsense. Especially when you canít even explain or speculate how any of that can even happen!

    You can cut out that crap right now. Seriously. I have continuously challenged you to provide the science that supports your position and you have continuously failed to deliver. If anything it's clear that you don't understand the science well enough to realize that there is no science that backs up your position (or if there is, you can't find it).
    CONTINUOUSLY!? Seriously, for someone who peddles in pseudoscience, I have to beg to differ as to what you think purports as science. I also demonstrated to you a great deal of activity happens in the brain because we are consciously aware of our action, yet you continued to peddle essence=consciousness! Youíre just ignoring the science put in front of you.


    But such comments about either your or mine personal deficiencies is crap debating so stop it. It's rude to make personal comments about your opponent and to attempt to use alleged deficiencies of another person as part of an argument is to engage in the ad hom fallacy. ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON.
    Iím at the point where I *know* you donít know what youíre talking about and I want to cut to that point immediately. Itís not an attack on you personally but part of the argument that you are not demonstrating any understanding to what Iím saying. All you do is to ask for more proof without showing you read what I wrote. More tellingly, as soon as youíre shown to be wrong, you back track, withdraw statements when challenged and drop entire blocks of conversation.

    Those arenít techniques of people that understand things or want to learn - so if youíre *not* willing to debate then you need to concede. This is not attacking YOU but your terrible tactics where as soon as things get a little difficult and because you donít want to support even your own statements you try your hardest to say anything! And this isnít the first time Iíve seen this pattern but now I understand it I expose it so that you contribute substantively to the debate instead of running away all the time.

    So to repeat: I AM NOT ATTACKING *YOU*, I AM ATTACKING YOUR POOR DEBATING STRATEGY OF FOLDING ALL THE TIME, OFFERING FEW OF YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND FAILING TO SUPPORT THEM WHEN YOU DO.


    Well, my point is that it's possible that NDEs happen and therefore it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the human body. And this position currently stands (since everything must be considered possible until it is shown to be impossible).
    Youíve shown yourself that itís impossible. Firstly by quoting pseudo science and then presenting an article that literally has no conclusive proof of anything! You are taking the reports on face value and their claims as being true just because they say it is. Thatís not a neutral position - itís one of passively accepting anything anyone tells you!

    Itís actually worse because throughout the second article it showed that there is no evidence and likely that there never will be and that a it is better to understand what is going on in the brain FIRST. Did you literally miss the fact that you defeated yourself?

    And since you seem to have dropped many of your points from your last post, I'm not sure this particular point is relevant to anything that's currently going on. So if it's not important for your argument to rebut the notion that NDEs are possible, then by all means, drop this point.
    Lol - I donít need to drop it! *YOU* need to drop it since you brought it up. Since weíve already dropped consciousness and therefore consciousness=essence, itís no great loss to drop that too. But *YOU* need to do it; just as you did with LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE YOUíVE SAID!


    I think at this point, you literally would have withdrawn everything that you have said. Now, explain what do you mean by ď*essence*Ē so we can carry on.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 28th, 2019 at 05:51 AM.

  19. #98
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,746
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Continued discussions of consciousness shouldn't even be in this thread until Mican has supported that this is what "essence" is. That's definitely not my claim, nor even central to the OP. It was she that brought it up in the first place so my challenges should stand.

    This is a factually incorrect statement. Mican's first use of the term "essence" is in post 43 where he is quoting your OP. You were the first one to use the term essence, thus it is incumbant on you to provide a definition and support for that definition if asked. To my knowledge no one has challenged your on that premise yet. But to then shift the need to define a term that you used in your own OP to another debater is inappropriate. For that reason the challenges you offered are not warranted or appropriate and are thus withdrawn.

    If you feel that Mican has not supported a claim. Quote the claim with the appropriate Challenge to support a claim. tag. Bonus points if you explain why it is relevant or what is affected by his claim.





    Please note the purple, not red text here. I am not writting this as a staff member, but out of friendly advice. You keep using the phrase "you're ignoring all the science behind..." but not quoting any reputable scientific findings that would support that claim. Mican has been pretty generous in not formally challenging you for all of them. I would highly recommend that you at least make an attempt to link support when you use a phrase like this in the future to prevent having to go back and resupport it, possibly destracting from a point you are trying to make, later.
    "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. #99
    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 a factually incorrect statement. Mican's first use of the term "essence" is in post 43 where he is quoting your OP. You were the first one to use the term essence, thus it is incumbant on you to provide a definition and support for that definition if asked.

    I don’t disagree with that. The word essence is in my OP after all.

    To my knowledge no one has challenged your on that premise yet. But to then shift the need to define a term that you used in your own OP to another debater is inappropriate. For that reason the challenges you offered are not warranted or appropriate and are thus withdrawn.
    M is not defending the term essence; he is defending that it essence=consciousness. A point that I disagree with.



    If you feel that Mican has not supported a claim. Quote the claim with the appropriate Challenge to support a claim. tag. Bonus points if you explain why it is relevant or what is affected by his claim.
    Well, I fear that M is about to bail out of everything since I’ve demonstrated he is wrong on both the science and the religion!




    Please note the purple, not red text here. I am not writting this as a staff member, but out of friendly advice. You keep using the phrase "you're ignoring all the science behind..." but not quoting any reputable scientific findings that would support that claim.
    What are you talking about? I posted an article to demonstrate that there is brain activity before it reaches our consciousness, and therefore consciousness cannot be the source of our activity. And then I get pseudo science back. Seriously, if I’m not justified to use that phrase after that then when am I? And I absolutely do it alongside the paragraph. It’s never out of nowhere.


    Mican has been pretty generous in not formally challenging you for all of them. I would highly recommend that you at least make an attempt to link support when you use a phrase like this in the future to prevent having to go back and resupport it, possibly destracting from a point you are trying to make, later.
    Fair enough though. I will do a better job doing that.
    Last edited by Squatch347; February 28th, 2019 at 07:22 AM. Reason: fixing color tags.

  21. #100
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,684
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, first of all, there is no way we can discuss anything unless we explain things to each other. I explained my points in the OP so there is no need to repeat them. If you have problems then ask away.

    Just because I don’t buy what you’re saying it doesn’t mean I’m shifting the debate; I am literally trying to understand what is going on in your head. It’s clear that you mean something completely different from me so how is it a problem that you have to think about your own positions for a change? Instead of passively debating, take some kind of position!
    You first.

    Again, the original burden is on YOU.

    YOU are arguing that the concept of the soul doesn't make sense and yet you've taken no coherent position on what about it doesn't make sense. Asking me what I think it means is not taking your own position and therefore does not equate an assertive argument that it doesn't make sense

    So instead of me telling you what I think, you need to tell me what you think. I mean the OP's definition seemed pretty good to me and yet you are asking me what I think you were saying as if you don't know what you are saying. So I'm not withdrawing what I'm saying but I'm not going to continue explaining to you what I think this and that actually means.

    So let me put this issue in a formal challenge.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the concept of the soul, as described in the OP, makes no sense.

    If you decline this challenge, then this whole issue is dropped and then there is definitely no need for me to waste my time explaining this to you.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m not talking about *evidence*, I don’t even know what you’re talking about so asking for proof makes no sense at this point in time. I am talking about something more fundamental: Do you even understand the words you use? Or more to the point, the words *I* am using when pointing out your flaws?

    To me, and I repeat, your position of agnosticism doesn’t appear to be based on equally evaluating the two positions but seemingly and perhaps even deliberately ignorant of both. In doing so you are doing everyone a serious disfavor and wasting time. You don’t even bother to read my responses and seem to just block your brain out and carry on as if I said nothing.
    You seem to be conflating me not being convinced by your arguments with not reading them or ignoring them.

    You have been issued red letter warnings that you have failed to address any of my challenges to support that there is scientific evidence favoring your side of the debate. As far as I can tell, you have indeed offered nothing to support your side and if you are going to maintain that you've provided solid evidence, please support that assertion.

    So I am weighing the evidence equally. Zero equals zero. If there is some evidence that supports your side that I have missed, please present it. Otherwise your claim that I have ignored anything is hot air.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes. We should skip any argument where you actually have to say something since that appears how you operate.
    At this point I'm going to ignore any and all arguments that talk about me personally or what I'm doing. I can see nothing in these statements that resemble reality.

    Maybe it's because you are employing some kind "attack the other person" tactic when you clearly have no basis to support your argument? I don't know. I'm not going to venture to guess your motivations and since I do admit I'm fallible, I realize that perhaps I'm misinterpreting what's going on with you and therefore feel that it is inappropriate to state such things. Likewise you should realize that you are fallible and prone to misinterpret what's going on with me and therefore it's inappropriate to say those kinds of things.

    I'm not interested in hearing you complain and complain.

    If you want to attack my arguments, attack away. If you want to provide spammish assessments of my debating or me, you are wasting both of our times.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have literally failed to make any statement that is correct! I have shown you wrong on BOTH the science AND the religious side of things. I believe that you literally have no clue as to what you’re talking about.
    Well, I believe that I have utterly destroyed every single argument you ever made and you lack the intellectual capacity to form a coherent point.

    My above response is not being forwarded seriously but is pretty much an equal response to what you said, is just as supported, is a rude personal comment, and does not forward the debate one iota.

    Please cease making such comments. I don't care what you think. I care about what arguments you might present that forwards the debate.

    Likewise I'm not going to respond to ANY of your proceeding arguments that are in a similar vein. I'm only going to respond to arguments that make a point relevant to the debate.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You need to go back and re-read what I described as to what has to take place for OOBE to happen.
    I did. My response doesn't change. So to repeat:

    I do not disagree that you more or less accurately described what an NDE is. But THAT'S ALL YOU DID. You just described it and then blew the proverbial raspberry at it without stating what specifically is ridiculous about it.

    If you are going to maintain that your statement did specifically point out why it's ridiculous, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that statement. So no "go back and reread what I said". You now need to back up your claim or drop it.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So, we have:

    “But while Maria’s shoe certainly makes for a compelling story, it’s thin on the evidential side. “
    “To date, six studies have tried some form of this method, mostly on cardiac-arrest patients, and all have failed to find an ironclad case of veridical perception.”
    “The latest and largest such attempt was the so-called Aware study, led by Sam Parnia of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, published in Resuscitation last October. In it, 15 participating hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austria installed shelves bearing a variety of images in rooms where cardiac-arrest patients were likely to need reviving.

    The results of the Aware study immediately highlight the key problem with this kind of research: it’s very hard to get enough data.”

    “The latest and largest such attempt was the so-called Aware study, led by Sam Parnia of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, published in Resuscitation last October. In it, 15 participating hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austria installed shelves bearing a variety of images in rooms where cardiac-arrest patients were likely to need reviving.

    The results of the Aware study immediately highlight the key problem with this kind of research: it’s very hard to get enough data.“

    “The latest and largest such attempt was the so-called Aware study, led by Sam Parnia of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, published in Resuscitation last October. In it, 15 participating hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austria installed shelves bearing a variety of images in rooms where cardiac-arrest patients were likely to need reviving.

    The results of the Aware study immediately highlight the key problem with this kind of research: it’s very hard to get enough data. “

    “But what makes them scientists is that they know and maintain the distinction between scientific theories, which must be testable against observable evidence, and mysticism or speculation. So at the end of Hugenot’s talk, I asked him to tell me how his theory is testable. He didn’t answer the question at first, but eventually said that there are experiments that could be designed.

    Had he designed them?, I asked.

    “No, I haven’t had the chance to do that yet.””

    So basically NDE is a bunch of anecdotal, unproven bunch of crap.
    I was only using that article to support that there have been thousands of cases and not using the article to attempt to support that it actually happens.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness can leave the body, float around and SEE things WITHOUT EYES, and HEAR things WITHOUT EARS and somehow still float BACK and remember it?

    And don’t trot out your nonsense that it must be possible until it has been proven impossible - that’s BS cannot stand any more since you use it to support any position
    No, I can't use it to support any position. For example, I can't use it to support that the Earth is flat since we have very strong evidence that the Earth is round. I can't use it to support that the sun rises in the West. And I'm not even setting the bar of "possible" THAT high. Just provide some level of valid support that OBEs can't/don't happen and you will likely defeat the notion (obviously it has to be valid support).

    So until you do provide support that such things don't happen or can't happen, the default position is that such things are possible.

    So yes, until one shows evidence that supports X is impossible, it must be considered possible. That is a logical truism and therefore addresses your challenge.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, I mean it’s ridiculous because at every point you are using pseudo science, putting forward speculation with no evidence to support it, and even a whole article that is inconclusive about the whole issue on the positive side, and not even thinking through the consequences of what you’re saying.
    I agree that this makes the notion unsupported but it does not make it ridiculous. Or are you arguing that every concept that lacks support is ridiculous?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Everything that you have put forward about NDE is total nonsense and there is zero need, if you read your own article, to throw in ludicrous ideas of the soul or the supernatural.
    But then I never argued otherwise. I'm just arguing that it's possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK - what is the “thing” that hears something? And when that thing hears it, where does it store those sounds and how does that thing even understand the words? And then how does that thing get the results of what was heard back into the original brain? Same with sight - what is it that “sees” and what is it that maps the light patterns into the equivalent of the brain?

    It’s obvious it’s nonsense because those things cannot happen because you need ears to hear and you eyes to see and you need a brain to interpret the input and remember it and then recall it later.
    Support or retract this statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So where can we find all that? Perhaps the ORIGINAL body? How about starting off with that idea first! Isn’t it MORE LIKELY that the person is consciously or unconsciously receiving input and mistakenly remembering how they got their information? Why do you need literally float out of the body in order to explain it - you’ve “fallen” in your sleep right? Or floated in a dream, right? Can’t that just happen in your own brain?
    Well, I had a dream last night and you had a dream last night. What are the odds that they were the same dream? Very tiny.

    So can you explain why thousands of people have essentially the same dream in the same situation? I certainly don't discount a hypothesis that explains why this might happen but my point is not to weight competing hypothesis. My point is that one particular hypothesis is possible. That's it. Even if a competing hypothesis is more likely to be true, it does not change the fact that the NDE one is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There is absolutely NO NEED for take those experiences at face value. So yes, it’s nonsense. Especially when you can’t even explain or speculate how any of that can even happen!
    Since "nonsense" is not defined as "something that doesn't need to be taken at face value", I disagree that you have shown that it is nonsense

    And you have not supported that I can't explain or speculate how it happens so that comment fails for lack of support. BTW, I'm not offering to explain it all (to do so, I would first need to do more research on the issue which I'm not inclined to do right now). But if you are going to argue that if I tried, I would fail and therefore cannot do it, you do need to support that assertion.
    Last edited by mican333; February 28th, 2019 at 07:24 AM.

 

 
Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the 'soul' ? do you have one?
    By isaone in forum Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 09:07 AM
  2. Soul To Soul
    By Vivacious Brat in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 05:30 PM
  3. The Soul
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: July 16th, 2007, 12:21 AM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 10:31 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, 12:31 PM

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
  •