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 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 329
  1. #121
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    That's fair. Also, I know I'm veering us off-topic a little, but the same ol' nose-thumbing back and forth is so boring, you know?
    Glad to have it. It'd be nice if others were able to just converse, instead of nitpicking every little detail of every sentence typed by their opponent. Maybe certain people will learn something from your approach. I can only hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Anyway, concerning non-belief, what makes you suspect that those who are simply not equipped with that intuition will not be held responsible for that lack of belief (asked with a full appreciation of the fact you say that, ultimately, you don't know)?
    In at least one of the descriptions in the Bible regarding judgement day, I forget where it is or the exact language, it says (in my interpretation) that nonbelievers will be judged not on their nonbelief in Jesus as their savior, but on how well they followed the basic universal imperative of treating other people well. If you're actually interested, I could try to find it and go into more detail.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
    Likes eye4magic liked this post
  3. #122
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is absolutely an accepted scientific fact that the brain is where consciousness resides.
    No, not by far is this settled science and won't be for a while:

    Journal of Consciousness Studies (J CONSCIOUSNESS STUD)

    The field of consciousness studies is at a very early stage, characterized by crude theories, most of which are unlikely to stand the test of time. We prefer a broad, diverse and open conceptualization - including political consciousness, and ecological consciousness (for example in the sense of Bateson's ``ecology of mind''), but we do not wish to define for our authors exactly what any of these terms mean. We seek to provoke a spirited debate by actively seeking serious opposing views, for example from cognitive science, biology and philosophy. The Journal of Consciousness Studies covers this broad field by: Presenting serious peer-reviewed scientific and humanistic papers in non-technical language; Including philosophical critiques of contemporary research; Considering submissions from all disciplines and viewpoints; Encouraging a robust and lively debate on the full range of issues involved.
    https://www.researchgate.net/journal...usness_Studies
    _________________

    Chalmers divides the conundrum of consciousness into “easy” or “hard” problems in a paper published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 1995. The “easy” problems are phenomena that can be explained by either neural or computational mechanisms. For example, the difference between being awake and asleep is a phenomena that would be considered by Chalmers as an easy problem of consciousness, as it can be explained as a cognitive function. According to Chalmers, the "hard problem of consciousness" is the subjective nature of experience, which can neither be explained by neuroscience nor cognitive science…

    Consciousness remains a vague concept that has yet to be fully revealed. As scientists and researchers make progress in evidence-based studies of the biomechanics of the human brain, greater understanding of the “easy” problem may one day be achieved. As complex as the human mind, so is the nature of consciousness.

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”- Erwin Schrödinger, The Observer, 1931

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-consciousness
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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?
    Here you go, published in the Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal

    "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44- year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient’s prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man.”] Dr Pim van Lommel, Division of Cardiology,

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...he_Netherlands
    Then, if you’re really interested in more data to support what you seem to claim is unsupported, there is about 50 years of rigorously evaluated empirical evidence suggesting that consciousness survives death and that mind and brain are distinct and separable at the University of Virginia, Division of Perceptual Studies.
    https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/

    Of course, this isn’t proof of the soul, but it is empirical evidence suggesting a phenomena that science can’t yet explain: consciousness survives death and that mind and brain are distinct and separable. Just because of our current lack of understanding of how this can happen let alone how it works, doesn't mean it doesn't work. Thus, that's why science and medical research are continuing to research and study it.

    I might also note that this isn’t the first time science has dealt with not understanding how something works while having data/ evidence that a phenomena is taking place. And yes, it can take decades of debate and considering different interpretations of evidence, etc. But that’s what science is all about, discovery and making sense of evidence and data that doesn’t fit into current theories -- and then we create new theories.
    Last edited by eye4magic; February 28th, 2019 at 01:13 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  4. Likes Squatch347, mican333, evensaul liked this post
  5. #123
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    In at least one of the descriptions in the Bible regarding judgement day, I forget where it is or the exact language, it says (in my interpretation) that nonbelievers will be judged not on their nonbelief in Jesus as their savior, but on how well they followed the basic universal imperative of treating other people well. If you're actually interested, I could try to find it and go into more detail.
    That would be interesting to read. If I were a betting man, I'd guess that it something that's sometimes used in dealing with the difficulty of people who are ignorant of Christianity (sometimes called "The Problem of the Man on the Island" or something similar).

    In practical terms a person who is isolated from humanity and never hears the story of salvation - and who thus never has the chance to accept/reject it - is not far removed from someone who simply isn't equipped with the intuition to believe.

    This is where Pascal's Wager came from; he was trying to address this very issue: “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What then would you have me do?”

    Anyway, thanks for the answers.

  6. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  7. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Of course, this isn’t proof of the soul, but it is empirical evidence suggesting a phenomena that science can’t yet explain: consciousness survives death and that mind and brain are distinct and separable. Just because of our current lack of understanding of how this can happen let alone how it works, doesn't mean it doesn't work. Thus, that's why science and medical research are continuing to research and study it.
    My basic issue with your example is:

    the man in your story isn't dead so it's just a story of an unresponsive man that was still conscious to a degree.

    Again, I would submit a woman that is "almost pregnant" can not tell you what pregnancy is like.

  8. #125
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do not have to withdraw any of them.

    With the support or retract rule, one does not have to withdraw a comment but just not repeat it to abide by the rule.

    So at this point I choose to not repeat any of those statements and if I do repeat then, you may then challenge me to support or retract them.

    Likewise you have the option of just not repeating your argument that the concept of the soul does not make sense in the face of my challenge for you to support or retract it.
    So basically, you have no position to speak of! Therefore, you have self-selected out of the debate!
    Which, given how wrong you are on every turn here, may well be the best option for you at this point.


    Likewise you are currently abiding by the support or retract rule by not repeating the various claims that you were red-lettered about.
    I don’t need to. The consciousness nonsense was all your doing as you flailed madly between science and religion and getting both wrong.



    I have read the OP. And I have challenged you to support or retract your claim that the concept of the soul does not make sense.
    What do you mean by “concept of the soul”?

    And again, read the OP and point out flaws. I don’t know specifically what you’re having a problem with.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that I CLAIMED *IN THE OP* that the CONCEPT OF THE SOUL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.


    I currently have no intention of repeating those claims.
    Lol - you’re hilarious! You won’t even dare withdraw the claims now because you know how ridiculous you’d look!

    Wrong. Again, not repeating a claim qualifies as a retraction. There is nothing in the ODN rules that says that one must withdraw a claim if they choose to not support it.
    Even more lol - we now have to keep track of stuff you did retract AND keep track of stuff you didn’t but won’t repeat! Can you make it even more complicated?


    Support or retract that it's ridiculous that the OBE experience can hear just because I have have not specified how it hears.
    It’s ridiculous because you constantly make wild unsupported claims and forced to withdraw them or, a new tactics now, forced to not mention them again!


    I supported that there are at least 3000 cases of NDE with what constitutes valid support on ODN (linked article).
    No, you quoted pseudoscience based on unverified claims. I don’t think that constitutes as support.

    I have to formally challenge you now:
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that there are 3000 cases of NDE.

    I have supported that such incidents are possible with solid logic (possible unless impossible).
    Again, no, you’re burden shifting. If you claim something happened you need to prove it.

    I have not supported that NDEs actually happen but then I've never taken the position that they do. So I have supported that positions that I actually took.
    WTF! What are you talking about? You just said that there were 3000 cases of NDE ! How can you possibly now say you never took a position that they actually happened!


    Nope. I provided a supported argument and it stands until you offer an actual rebuttal instead of just making those unsupported assertions.
    I don’t know how you keep track of what you said, withdrew, won’t say again and where you are with the various claims or non claims.

    It’s funny seeing you squirm but really!



    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

    And again, don't repeat it until you provide support for it.
    I have no idea what you want here. Please specify exactly what assertion is needed to be supported.




    Shifting the burden. If you want to argue that it can't see or hear, please support that assertion. Asking me to support the opposite conclusion is shifting the burden.
    Your burden is to prove that something was heard or seen. If you don’t then you need to withdraw NDE or no longer mention it.




    This is all irrelevant to my argument. I am not arguing that one is more likely than the other. I am ONLY arguing that it's POSSIBLE the NDEs happen. An alternative explanation being more likely is irrelevant.
    Well, it’s also possible you may be right but I don’t see it for the forest of nonsense you keep spouting. Falling back on saying anything is possible unless proven impossible is your last refuge and it unfairly places the burden on your opponent so it is rejected.

    Stop dodging and put some thought into what you’re saying here.



    I mean what said about NDEs ("something that doesn't need to be taken at face value"") does not meet the definition of "nonsense".
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that NDEs does not meet the definition of nonsense.


    I am. Using my brain and knowledge, I have concluded that NDEs are possible. If you don't like my answer, then tell me why it's wrong. If you can't or won't do that, then my position stands.
    It is wrong because you only Quote pseudo science and the only other so-called proof equally destroys your case as being realistic. That you continue to say it is possible after your own article points to a better direction just shows that you likely haven’t read it. I suggest you do so at the earliest opportunity.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 28th, 2019 at 07:28 PM.

  9. #126
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    I see you still can't refrain from making arguments about me when you should be addressing my arguments. Since they generally don't forward the debate at all, I just chose to not respond to them. So I skipped several of your points that did not forward the debate and will do so in the future. Attack my arguments, not me.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So basically, you have no position to speak of! Therefore, you have self-selected out of the debate!
    My position is that you have not supported your claim that the soul does not exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What do you mean by “concept of the soul”?

    And again, read the OP and point out flaws. I don’t know specifically what you’re having a problem with.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that I CLAIMED *IN THE OP* that the CONCEPT OF THE SOUL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
    I didn't say that you said it in the OP. Just that you have argued, but not supported, that the concept of the soul does not make sense. You have said it in the thread.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s ridiculous because you constantly make wild unsupported claims and forced to withdraw them or, a new tactics now, forced to not mention them again!
    Even if that was true, which it is not, it does not show that the concept of NDEs are ridiculous. So I will consider the claim that they are ridiculous retracted.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you quoted pseudoscience based on unverified claims. I don’t think that constitutes as support.

    I have to formally challenge you now:
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that there are 3000 cases of NDE.
    "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/

    And note that this came from THE ATLANTIC, not some pseudoscience journal. That counts as support by ODN standards.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Again, no, you’re burden shifting. If you claim something happened you need to prove it.
    I didn't clam it happened. I claimed, and supported, that it's POSSIBLE such things have happened.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    WTF! What are you talking about? You just said that there were 3000 cases of NDE ! How can you possibly now say you never took a position that they actually happened!
    I was referring to reports of NDEs. I have not posited that any of the claims actually took place.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have no idea what you want here. Please specify exactly what assertion is needed to be supported.
    Support or retract that OBEs are nonsense.






    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your burden is to prove that something was heard or seen. If you don’t then you need to withdraw NDE or no longer mention it.
    I didn't claim that something was heard or seen so I have no burden to prove it.

    Since you did not support your claim that souls in NDE experiences cannot see or hear, I will consider that claim to be retracted.

    Do not repeat it again without supporting it.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, it’s also possible you may be right but I don’t see it for the forest of nonsense you keep spouting. Falling back on saying anything is possible unless proven impossible is your last refuge and it unfairly places the burden on your opponent so it is rejected.

    Stop dodging and put some thought into what you’re saying here.
    I'm sorry that me being correct that NDEs are possible upsets you so but it's actually an important point. It directly rebuts your earlier argument that consciousness requires a physical body to experience things. I've shown that that is not necessarily so.

    So unless you have an actual rebuttal, let's move on. Complaining about how I supported my argument gets us nowhere. I consider this point settled unless you have an actual rebuttal.







    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT or RETRACT that NDEs does not meet the definition of nonsense.
    Shifting the burden. You claimed that NDEs are nonsense and therefore you have the burden to support that before I have any burden to support the opposing conclusion.

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that NDEs are nonsense. You are not allowed to repeat that claim until you can provide support for it.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is wrong because you only Quote pseudo science and the only other so-called proof equally destroys your case as being realistic. That you continue to say it is possible after your own article points to a better direction just shows that you likely haven’t read it. I suggest you do so at the earliest opportunity.
    I did not use the article as support that it is possible. I used logic that has held up.

    Until something is shown to be impossible it must be considered possible. You have not refuted that logic but instead just complained about me using it. Complaints or no, the logic is solid.

  10. #127
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see you still can't refrain from making arguments about me when you should be addressing my arguments. Since they generally don't forward the debate at all, I just chose to not respond to them. So I skipped several of your points that did not forward the debate and will do so in the future. Attack my arguments, not me.
    I am attacking your debating techniques, not you personally! You were the first to use this as a debating strategy so faking offense is another obviously transparent strategy and will be ignored also.


    Sure go ahead and ignore them but I will list them at the top of every post so that you don’t engage in them:

    1. Retracting whole threads of discussions with do-over posts. This wastes time and breeds distrust in whether you are debating honestly.
    2. When proven to be true and challenged on statements, instead of fairly retracting, hone to the rules and declare that the statement will no longer be made.
    3. Repeating questions whilst ignoring the previous answers - this doesn’t move the debate forward since the opponent doesn’t know what the problems with were and doesn’t know how to respond. This produces circles of debate that go nowhere.
    4. This is a new one in the thread. Unilaterally consider points closed down, as if just declaring it makes it so! As funny as this is, since you’ve run out of your own things to retract, I don’t think that’s how retracting is supposed to work.
    5. The old “something is possible unless it has been proven impossible.” - the last disparate refuge of those that have nothing else to debate with. This is may be technically “logical” but it places the burden on the opponent to disprove a point.
    6. Raising topics that you have previously dropped. We stopped discussing consciousness but you’re now sneaking it back in via NDEs. Since you already know there are some moderator red-lines) is just pure dishonest trap-making.


    That you take it personally is a clear sign that you are taking this too seriously. How about taking a break? This was supposed to be a debate on religion not pseudoscience.

    If you have something to say, then say it! But if you’re just going to fold the instant you’re proven wrong, not admit you’re wrong but fall back on “rules” and constantly shifting the burden then I suggest you just give up. I’m sure you have a point but after three rounds and I still have no idea what your issues with the OP are AND we’re all the way into quoting pseudo-scientific blogs about unrelated topics, I’m beginning to figure you’re trolling.

    Sorry if your feelings are hurt. It’s not good to be proven wrong again and again but seriously, GIVE UP! You’re not raising the level of of debate here and just looking at the amount of energy you’re pouring into poor debating techniques rather than the substance of the topic, I have to say it’s kinda sad. Perhaps Apok should just shut down this place if this is how you’re treating “the forge of REASON”.

    My position is that you have not supported your claim that the soul does not exist.
    Um. Ok. And?




    I didn't say that you said it in the OP. Just that you have argued, but not supported, that the concept of the soul does not make sense. You have said it in the thread.
    You said it in the same paragraph! But nevertheless SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I said it!

    Are you now laying grammar traps?


    Even if that was true, which it is not, it does not show that the concept of NDEs are ridiculous. So I will consider the claim that they are ridiculous retracted.
    Consider all you want, I don’t believe that it has been done.




    "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/

    And note that this came from THE ATLANTIC, not some pseudoscience journal. That counts as support by ODN standards.
    Um, read your own article:
    By the third day of the conference, I was starting to despair of finding a voice of reason. Everyone seemed to be on a spectrum ranging from pseudoscience to full-blown mysticism, with a lot of sheer ignorance in the middle. That’s when I encountered Mitch Liester.
    Are you sure you’ve read your own article? This is Flat Earth nonsense.

    I didn't clam it happened. I claimed, and supported, that it's POSSIBLE such things have happened.
    You haven’t supported anything other than placing the burden of the negative proof on others. This is typical pseudoscience.




    I was referring to reports of NDEs. I have not posited that any of the claims actually took place.
    In that case why even bring it up! So argument boils down to:

    1. There are many reports of people reporting experiences
    2. Unless it can be absolutely disproven that those people’s claims are false then it must be possible they are true

    That train of logic provides cover for any kind of nonsense ranging from the execution of Jews and astrology. It barely passes for logic.





    Support or retract that OBEs are nonsense.
    Already did - stop asking the same question and respond directly to the points. I’m not going around in circles with you.






    I didn't claim that something was heard or seen so I have no burden to prove it.
    You claimed the experiences that people claimed are possible. So you need to explain why they are possible.

    Since you did not support your claim that souls in NDE experiences cannot see or hear, I will consider that claim to be retracted.
    Do not repeat it again without supporting it.
    Lol - another one-sided retraction! So since you’ve run out of YOUR OWN arguments to retract, you’re unilaterally retracting mine! Hiliarious!


    I'm sorry that me being correct that NDEs are possible upsets you so but it's actually an important point. It directly rebuts your earlier argument that consciousness requires a physical body to experience things. I've shown that that is not necessarily so.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that NDEs shows that consciousness doesn’t necessarily require a physical body.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the person is CONSCIOUS during an OOBE. Since “this directly rebuts” an earlier argument you need to PROVE that this is true.

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I said that consciousness REQUIRES a physical body. I believe I have said the exact opposite and read carefully.

    Also, we’re NOT discussing consciousness as it relates to the soul - you already dropped this point so WHY ARE YOU RAISING IT HERE OTHER THAN LAYING A TRAP?

    So unless you have an actual rebuttal, let's move on. Complaining about how I supported my argument gets us nowhere. I consider this point settled unless you have an actual rebuttal.
    Again, more unilateral declarations to avoid losing. Good technique. Bad execution, much like the rest of your dodging and weaving.

    Shifting the burden. You claimed that NDEs are nonsense and therefore you have the burden to support that before I have any burden to support the opposing conclusion.

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that NDEs are nonsense. You are not allowed to repeat that claim until you can provide support for it.
    SUPPORT or RETRACT that my previous statements are insufficient answers.

    I did not use the article as support that it is possible. I used logic that has held up.

    Until something is shown to be impossible it must be considered possible. You have not refuted that logic but instead just complained about me using it. Complaints or no, the logic is solid.
    That may be a “logical” statement but it is nothing more than saying “I am right until you have proven me wrong”. It’s a con of an argument and is summarily dismissed. If you are claiming something is POSSIBLE, you need to have more than that. So:

    SUPPORT or RETRACT out of the body experiences are POSSIBLE. Failure to do so will result in an infraction and I will pursue this to the fullest. You do this when you’re backed into a corner. It’s your safety debate tactic and I want it immediately stopped.

    And how can you be simultaneously claiming it is possible whilst earlier, you’re just saying that people are claiming it is possible! Contradictory much, or just trolling?

    If we’re debating a topic, then you need to do respond with facts about the topic, not ludicrous burden-shifting gotchas.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 1st, 2019 at 04:45 AM.

  11. #128
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I am attacking your debating techniques, not you personally!
    There is no effective difference. You are telling me that I am using poor debating techniques which is a comment on ME, not my arguments.

    And guess what? You are completely wrong on all counts. If I were to "return fine", I would say that your debate technique is to distract from the actual debate by intentionally misrepresenting the techniques that the other person uses in the debate when you can't actually hold up your end of the debate.

    Now, I'm not actually saying that. I might think you are doing it but I wouldn't bother saying it for these reasons

    1. It IS a personal attack. There is no effective difference between saying "you use that debate technique" and "You are the kind of poor debater who uses that debate technique"
    2. It in no way forwards the debate and therefore is spam
    3. Even if I'm convinced that that is what you doing, I realize that I am fallible and might be incorrect on my assessment of your debating techniques. I might be mistaken on the issue since I can't read your mind and therefore realize that any statement I could make would be unsupportable.
    4. For us to debate whether you are indeed using that technique would drag the debate seriously off-topic. For that reason, I choose to not address your false accusations about my debating.
    5. It has the potential to personally annoy you, especially if my assessments are incorrect. So that will increase the chances of the debate becoming more hostile in tone which would be detrimental to the debate
    6. When I feel that you are engaging in an error, it will be present in your argument so I can address your error by attacking your argument and there is no need to comment about how you debate.

    And here is my statement regarding your comments about my debating techniques.

    Af far as I can tell, you are 100 INCORRECT on your assessment. I have yet to see any comment that seems accurate. In particular instances, I KNOW you are incorrect because I know what i was trying to do and you said I was doing something else. I do allow that perhaps your misunderstanding is due to me not stating my argument clearly enough but regardless, the assumption you leapt to was clearly wrong.

    I have absolutely no intention of pointing out why you are incorrect on any specific reason for I am not moving the debate there.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um. Ok. And?
    So your statement that I have no position here is incorrect. I've informed you what my position is.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You said it in the same paragraph! But nevertheless SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I said it!
    Again, not repeating something counts as a retraction.

    I don't think I said you said that in the opening paragraph (but of course you did say it elsewhere) but if I ever did say, I have no intention of repeating it. So I've met the burden of support or retract.

    And since there is no effective difference debate-wise, in me saying you said in the OP or elsewhere (the point is that it's a position that you have taken), it doesn't matter if I said it in the OP or not. This just seems to be a game of "gotcha" - just trying to point out some irrelevant error that I might have made (and again, I don't think I even made it) even though it means nothing.

    "You said I said it in the OP and I didn't! Gotcha!"
    "Okay. so what?"
    "You made a mistake! HAHAHAHA!"
    "Uh, yeah. I made a minor mistake. So what?"
    "Well, gotcha!"
    "How does that mistake effect the actual content of the debate?"
    "uh"





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Are you sure you’ve read your own article? This is Flat Earth nonsense.
    The ONLY thing that i am forwarding from the article is that there have been over 3000 people have claimed to have experienced NDEs. THAT is supported.

    Talking about anything else that is in the article and pretending its relevant to the only point I have supported from the article are red herrings.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You haven’t supported anything other than placing the burden of the negative proof on others. This is typical pseudoscience.
    You keep complaining about the logic technique I've used but you have yet to even attempt to show that the logic is faulty.

    So until you actually rebut my argument that until something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible, that argument stands.

    Question to opponent. Do you challenge the logic of that argument. If so, please present an argument that shows that the logic is flawed. If not, then the argument does indeed stand.






    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    In that case why even bring it up! So argument boils down to:

    1. There are many reports of people reporting experiences
    2. Unless it can be absolutely disproven that those people’s claims are false then it must be possible they are true

    That train of logic provides cover for any kind of nonsense ranging from the execution of Jews and astrology. It barely passes for logic.
    Just because a logically valid notion can be used in a wide variety (practically endless) situations and show that virtually anything is possible does not refute its logic.

    And as far as why I'm using it, it's because it directly rebuts your earlier stated notion that a consciousness must be in a physical body to experience things is not necessarily true. It's possible that it can.

    As far as I can tell, you've complained plenty about me using this method to rebut your argument but have not pointed to it being incorrect.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Already did - stop asking the same question and respond directly to the points. I’m not going around in circles with you.
    As far as I know, you have not done it. But regardless, just saying "already did" is not support. If you have provided prior support, you can cut and paste it into your response to a support challenge. If you don't want to do that, fine. Then don't repeat the statement again for repeating a statement without supporting it after you have been challenged is a violation of ODN rules.

    So to make it clear.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that OBEs are nonsense.





    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You claimed the experiences that people claimed are possible. So you need to explain why they are possible.
    Because it's not been shown that they are not impossible (per an argument that has already been forwarded and never rebutted)



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Lol - another one-sided retraction! So since you’ve run out of YOUR OWN arguments to retract, you’re unilaterally retracting mine! Hiliarious!
    I didn't say it was retracted. I said I consider it retracted. If you aren't retracting it, then please support it. Like I've said, not repeating an argument IS retracting it.






    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that NDEs shows that consciousness doesn’t necessarily require a physical body.
    They are, by definition, the consciousness leaving the body. That can't happen if the consciousness requires a physical body to exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the person is CONSCIOUS during an OOBE. Since “this directly rebuts” an earlier argument you need to PROVE that this is true.
    If by "conscious" you mean "awake within one's own physical body", I never claimed that that happens and therefore have no need to support it. If you mean the disembodied consciousness is awake (as in aware of what's going on around it), that is by definition part of the OBE experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I said that consciousness REQUIRES a physical body. I believe I have said the exact opposite and read carefully.
    I won't say that you directly said those words but that is certainly a premise of your argument. For example this statement from you:

    "Why would I need to consider anything beyond death if I KNOW that a non-functioning brain cannot experience anything?"

    Only makes sense if it's an accepted premise that the consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies.

    So Question to opponent. To be clear, are you taking the position that consciousness cannot experience anything after the body dies. If so, then you are indeed taking the position that consciousness requires a physical body. If you aren't, then I will cease arguing for the opposite notion (that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the physical body).




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    SUPPORT or RETRACT that my previous statements are insufficient answers.
    I made no such claim (which should not be considered to be admission of the opposite notion). Maybe somewhere you made a really good argument and I just failed to recognize it for what it is. But that does not relevantly address my challenge so to repeat:

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that NDEs are nonsense.

    If you have a good argument to support it, bring it forward. If you have already made one that I didn't recognize as valid support, you can cut and paste it. If you do neither and don't repeat your argument again, it's retracted (and no, this is not me just saying you have retracted your argument -- it's the ACTuAL rules that not repeating an argument counts as a retraction). If you repeat the argument without supporting it, you are in violation of ODN rules.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That may be a “logical” statement but it is nothing more than saying “I am right until you have proven me wrong”. It’s a con of an argument and is summarily dismissed. If you are claiming something is POSSIBLE, you need to have more than that. So:

    SUPPORT or RETRACT out of the body experiences are POSSIBLE.
    I already have. But since I will properly obey a challenge, I will not leave it at that (like you did earlier) but re-state my argument.

    Logically, except for that which is shown to be impossible, everything must be considered possible. OBEs have not been shown to be impossible. Therefore they must be considered possible.

    That IS support.

    For all of the complaints you have made about that argument, you have NEVER argued that it is incorrect.

    And no, this argument does not say "I'm right until you prove me wrong". For example, I could not use that argument to say "NDEs are real and this argument is right until you show that it's wrong". So your complaint is incorrect and even if it were correct, it shows no logical flaw for which to defeat my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Failure to do so will result in an infraction and I will pursue this to the fullest. You do this when you’re backed into a corner. It’s your safety debate tactic and I want it immediately stopped.
    Okay, I guess I will respond to one of your complaint about my debating just to back up what I said above. This complaint of yours is clearly incorrect. I am not backed into a corner. I have made an argument THAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED IS LOGICALLY SOUND. So no, I'm not backed into a corner. in fact, I think you are backed into a corner and perhaps this complaining about my debate techniques is your reaction when you are backed into a corner. But then I can't read our mind and don't have the hubris to pretend that I know exactly what you are doing so I think it's ridiculous for me to make such a statement about you iand your debating in earnest. And likewise your comments about my debating seem pretty ridiculous on average. And if it were actually worth discussing and debating, then I might engage in such a discussion and challenge you on your incorrect assessments and such. But it's clearly not worth anyone's time and distracts from the debate (and perhaps that's your motivation for making these statements about by debating - but again, I have no way to really know so I won't make such a charge).

    So to clear. Such complaints are a complete waste of time. Your comments have so little credibility that I don't even consider them - I didn't even bother to read your list at the top of the thread will not do so in the future if they are re-posted In fact, I officially ask that you not re-post them in future threads and if you do, I will consider it harassment and report it as such. I've made it cleat that they will not be addressed and likely won't even be read so there can be no productive reason to post them again.

    So please cease with your assessments of my debating. It serves no valid purpose in the debate. It does not enlighten me to my errors so I may correct them in the future (since the claims have so little credibility that I would take them seriously). It does not take the debate in any valid direction. So the ONLY purpose they could possibly serve is that they give you some level of personal satisfaction to make them or are a technique of yours to win the debate (such as a distraction). Don't know and don't care.

    Again, they serve no valid purpose, are indeed bad form, and should cease.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And how can you be simultaneously claiming it is possible whilst earlier, you’re just saying that people are claiming it is possible! Contradictory much, or just trolling?
    What contradiction? It can BOTH be possible and have people claim its possible. Do you understand what contradiction is?
    Last edited by mican333; March 1st, 2019 at 08:47 AM.

  12. #129
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    First, a thread note. Comments about opponents in whatever form (arguments about style, intelligence, etc) will not be tolerated in any form. Any following comments about a debater rather than addressing a specific position will be deleted and infracted at my discretion.

    Ok, now to redirect the thread for those this relates to; here are the remaining positions that need to be supported no other claims are active from earlier than this post. And no challenges are standing unless referenced. If you feel I missed one, PM me with a link and the exact text and I will review. Note: I am on travel this week so it is wiser to move on than wait for me. I honestly tried to wade through the first pages, but rather than parsing out every little detail, I'm going to proactively cut all those earlier posts (minus the OP of course) and start with what seems to be outstanding beginning on page 5.

    Mican

    Sharmak has claimed in the thread that the "concept of the soul does not make sense." Challenge to support a claim.

    There are nearly 3000 OBE per year - Supported.

    Challenge to support a claim. NDEs show that consciousness doesn’t necessarily require a physical body. [Mican has offered an explanation, but not support that OBEs are a conciousness external to the body. It is possible the Atlantic article or the Lancet journal provide that support, but it has not been quoted in thread that I happened to see.


    Sharmak

    The OP, obviously, remains in effect (if there are points in it that have changed, please summarize them following this post). To whit:

    All definitions of soul point to something that is:

    1. An immaterial “essence”
    2. Immortal
    3. Provides the animating force behind a person’s actions.

    My argument is that souls do not exist because:

    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish). So therefore, I contend that a “soul” is basically a way for people to cope with death, the permanent destruction of a physical mind. The idea of the soul is compelling because it means that a loved one would really be in a better place, or an enemy in a worse one. But just because it is a appealing, that doesn’t make it actual.
    2. The idea of a soul being eternal brings many problems, not least of which, where do they come from and where do they go after death and how could there possibly be enough room for everyone, forever. Of course, each religion has various ways to resolve the issue, from reincarnation to a supposedly ever expanding heaven/hell or simply being absorbed back into some deity. But none of these solve the space issue or resources or how souls will interact with each other.
    3. It’s clear that we are the sum of our brains and our bodies. Attempts to ‘measure’ the weight of the soul at the time of death have usually failed at being convincing (see the 21gram experiment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment) and all the stories about out of the body experiences have been equally inconclusive. So there is no proof of anything other than the physical brain providing the animating force.


    No but OOBE is nonsense. Challenge to support a claim.

    "But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain?" Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #130
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sharmak has claimed in the thread that the "concept of the soul does not make sense."
    Copied from post 38

    "What I *have* done is to point out that the idea doesn't make sense - your own description of what you think the soul is literally has no meaning"

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post563994


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. NDEs show that consciousness doesn’t necessarily require a physical body. [Mican has offered an explanation, but not support that OBEs are a conciousness external to the body. It is possible the Atlantic article or the Lancet journal provide that support, but it has not been quoted in thread that I happened to see.
    OBEs are, by definition, consciousness leaving the body (people experience leaving their bodies) so that notion is supported so I believe I have supported that OBEs are a consciousness external to the body. Now, I have not supported that this ever actually happens but then I've never taken the position that they do so I have no burden to support that notion.

    I HAVE made the claim that OBEs/NDEs are possible which, if accepted, does support that consciousness does not necessarily require a physical body. To restate that support - Except for that which is shown to be impossible, everything must be considered possible. Therefore it is possible that OBEs actually happen and consciousness does sometimes leave the body.

    Not trying to argue with you of course but since you are adjudicating here, I thought I should make my position and my arguments clear. So I believe I have supported that:

    1. OBEs do entail the consciousness leaving the body (just as a definition and not a statement that such things actually occur).
    2. That it's possible that OBEs happen.

    Assuming you agree that I have met all of the challenges you've forwarded, would you please acknowledge or tell me where I fell short? Thanks.

  14. #131
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Copied from post 38

    "What I *have* done is to point out that the idea doesn't make sense - your own description of what you think the soul is literally has no meaning"

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post563994

    Supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    OBEs are, by definition, consciousness leaving the body (people experience leaving their bodies) so that notion is supported so I believe I have supported that OBEs are a consciousness external to the body.
    You've supported that the concept of OBEs are conciousness external to a physical body. So that the concept wouldn't be in accord with the concept that conciousness requires a physical body. However, this initial claim was in response to whether there were examples of such a thing existing. Simplying showing that the definition covers coinciousness sans a body wouldn't meet that intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I HAVE made the claim that OBEs/NDEs are possible which, if accepted, does support that consciousness does not necessarily require a physical body.

    Agreed.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #132
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You've supported that the concept of OBEs are conciousness external to a physical body. So that the concept wouldn't be in accord with the concept that conciousness requires a physical body. However, this initial claim was in response to whether there were examples of such a thing existing. Simplying showing that the definition covers coinciousness sans a body wouldn't meet that intent.
    I'm a little fuzzy on what you're saying but I think I can clear it up regardless.

    I have not taken the position that OBEs actually occur and do not hold that there are legitimate examples of them actually occurring.

    Does that address everything?
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 1st, 2019 at 10:31 AM. Reason: Tag fix

  16. #133
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm a little fuzzy on what you're saying but I think I can clear it up regardless.

    I have not taken the position that OBEs actually occur and do not hold that there are legitimate examples of them actually occurring.

    Does that address everything?
    That is a fair position to take, though at first blush it seems at odds with your position in post 88. I now read that post as simply being a hypothetical example of what could constitute a conciousness absent a physical body, not as a rebuttal of Sharmak's still open claim that there is no possible experience outside of a physical brain.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #134
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a fair position to take, though at first blush it seems at odds with your position in post 88. I now read that post as simply being a hypothetical example of what could constitute a conciousness absent a physical body, not as a rebuttal of Sharmak's still open claim that there is no possible experience outside of a physical brain.
    Yes. It's purely hypothetial.

    And I was introducing it as an example of something that possibly could happen and it being possible (and it's agreed that I have supported that it's possible) is the rebuttal to his claim that there is no possible experience outside of the physical brain.

    My claim is that there are possible experiences that a consciousness can have outside of the physical brain.

    So I think we're set, right? No need to respond if you agree.

  18. #135
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have not taken the position that OBEs actually occur and do not hold that there are legitimate examples of them actually occurring.
    That's all well and good, but for the record, there is some evidence that supports the phenomena:

    Evidence for out-of-body experience as a “real” or veridical phenomenon

    One of the first researchers to perform laboratorial experiments on the OBE was psychologist Dr. Charles Theodore Tart (1937 - ). In 1966, he invited a young projector to participate in a series of experiments in the sleep laboratory of the University of California - Davis. The historical projectiological experiments took four nights in which the projector - "Miss Z" - was to lay down and try to exit the physical body, while connected to a series of devices that measured her physiological conditions. The objective of the experiments was the identification of a quasi-randomly generated five-digit number, approximately 1.5 meters above her head (impossible to be physically observed).

    From Monday to Wednesday, the projector reported having seen the clock while floating out of body. At the times informed by her, the devices demonstrated unusual brain-wave patterns. An absence of rapid-eye movements (REM) was also observed. On Wednesday night, Miss Z identified the target number: 25132. The brain-wave pattern during conscious projection was different from the patterns during waking state, sleep and other altered states of consciousness (an expression proposed by Tart himself).

    Between 1965 and 1966, the same pioneer researcher studied Robert Allan Monroe in 8 occasions in the Electroencephalographical Laboratory of the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia. Equipment like EEG, ECG, and EOG was employed, much to the discomfort of the projector. Monroe was asked to read a 5-digit, quasi-random number on a shelf placed 2 meters above the floor.

    During the first seven nights, he was not successful. On the eight night, he had two brief lateral projections. On the first one he witnessed some strangers talking at an unknown place at a distance, fact which could not be confirmed. However, on the second occasion, Monroe correctly described, outside the room, the woman technician and a man, later identified as her husband.The ocular movements were slower than in regular sleep. The Stage I brain wave pattern, typical of natural sleep with dreams, was observed almost immediately after Monroe laid down – an extremely rare event, as this stage normally occurs after 80 to 90 minutes of sleep without dreams. The heart rate was between 65 and 75 beats per minute.

    A study by Janet Lee Mitchell (American Society for Psychical Research, ASPR) and Karlis Osis on the traveling clairvoyance of surrealist painter and writer Ingo Swann resulted in 8 of 8 correct target observations with 1 in 40,000 probability for a chance occurrence. When Swann reported his vision was outside of his body, there was loss of electrical activity and faster brain wave impulses in the visual areas in the occipital lobes. During this state, there was great drop in alpha activity in the right hemisphere than the left, which other organic functions remained normal.

    https://www.iacworld.org/evidence-fo...al-phenomenon/
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #136
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    That's all well and good, but for the record, there is some evidence that supports the phenomena:
    I'm not saying otherwise or that I could not support an argument that the phenomena is legitimate. It's just not important to the point I'm trying to make to support that notion nor is that really where I want to take the debate.

    People often say this snidely but I am saying this to you sincerely and respectfully - perhaps you should start your own thread on the issue of NDEs. It might be an interesting debate.

  20. #137
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not saying otherwise or that I could not support an argument that the phenomena is legitimate. It's just not important to the point I'm trying to make to support that notion nor is that really where I want to take the debate.

    People often say this snidely but I am saying this to you sincerely and respectfully - perhaps you should start your own thread on the issue of NDEs. It might be an interesting debate.
    Indeed, an interesting subject, I would participate

  21. #138
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, a thread note. Comments about opponents in whatever form (arguments about style, intelligence, etc) will not be tolerated in any form. Any following comments about a debater rather than addressing a specific position will be deleted and infracted at my discretion.
    This is fair though I continue to point out that it was not I that took the debate in that direction. Nevertheless, some people do take it personally when their *tactics* are exposed so I’m hoping that can still happen (though for the time being I won’t). I think debating about debating is a valid point - after all, that is what pointing out a fallacy is.

    Sharmak

    The OP, obviously, remains in effect (if there are points in it that have changed, please summarize them following this post).
    Yes, I don’t have anything to change in the OP.

    No but OOBE is nonsense. Challenge to support a claim.
    It’s possible I’m not understanding why I haven’t met this challenge yet, so I will summarize my position as to why OOBE is nonsense:

    1. OOBE claims describe experiencing sensory effects such as hearing doctors speak or seeing things from “above” alongside a floating experience.
    2. For an OOBE to happen we NEED the following:
    2.1. The person’s mind/consciousness to “leave” the body. Whoever is supporting such experiences need to explain what “leave” even means. And also to explain what “mind/consciousness” means.
    2.1. Said consciousness is supposed to have seen or heard something but how does that happen without organs or sensory mechanisms. Whoever is supporting such experiences need to explain how these senses happen and also why, since they also happen NEAR the original body why that isn’t Bette explanation!
    2.2. Once experienced, there has to be some recording has to be made and merged back into the actual brain to be recalled.
    3. All these experiences can be better explained and already have corollaries in dreams when we sleep so to invoke supernatural causes is wholly unnecessary.
    4. The first piece of “evidence” was from a pseudoscientific article and therefore can be summarily dismissed with prejudice.
    5. The second article from the Atlantic confirmed multiple times that there is NO evidence and NO support for such experiences and ends with Dr. Blackmore also pointing out that there are better material explanations.

    So OOBEs are basically pseudoscientific nonsense that are clearly better explained by the person actually having experienced or hallucinated the experience. We all fall and float during dreams, and hear and see things, so there is little reason to seek supernatural reasons along with supernatural sensory organs, supernatural minds and brains that somehow understand the exact language of the original host, and answer the question of how all this is merged back into the original body!

    On face value, it’s a lot of convoluted speculation when the answer is right there!


    "But what is consciousness but the physical manifestation of the body and brain?" Challenge to support a claim.
    I believe that all talk of consciousness was dropped - it wasn’t my tactical mistake to link consciousness with the soul in the first place. It also wasn’t my mistake to say that ALL religions think this. And the person that did agreed to drop all talk of consciousness, so this line of discussion irrelevant IMHO. Let me know if I’m wrong.

    ---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes. It's purely hypothetial.

    And I was introducing it as an example of something that possibly could happen and it being possible (and it's agreed that I have supported that it's possible) is the rebuttal to his claim that there is no possible experience outside of the physical brain.
    WAIT: WHERE HAVE YOU SUPPORTED THAT OOBEs are POSSIBLE? If you’re going to trot out that it’s possible until proven otherwise, then I ask that Squatch rule on whether this is shifting the burden on me to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE.

    My claim is that there are possible experiences that a consciousness can have outside of the physical brain.
    No. You cannot say that because:

    1. You haven’t explained what consciousness *IS*. Until you’ve done that you cannot say it occurs outside of the brain.
    2. In order to say that it is POSSIBLE, you still have to explain the mechanisms to have such experiences - and how this “floating consciousness” happens to have all the knowledge and also sensory organs of the original body. I don’t mean explain in detail but it appears you are appealing to the supernatural without explanation. Therefore you are also implying that the supernatural world is also possible and you will need to support that too.

    So I think we're set, right? No need to respond if you agree.
    I know you’re talking to Squatch but I disagree you have done any of this.

    You are going from some people claiming something happened using pseudo science and an article that points out there is no proof to now saying that said claims are possible. Those are two different claims you are simultaneously making in different points of the debate and conflating them as if they were the same point.

    You are claiming both that it is possible whilst simultaneously saying you’re not claiming it happened!
    Last edited by Squatch347; March 2nd, 2019 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Tag Fix

  22. #139
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    WAIT: WHERE HAVE YOU SUPPORTED THAT OOBEs are POSSIBLE? If you’re going to trot out that it’s possible until proven otherwise, then I ask that Squatch rule on whether this is shifting the burden on me to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE.
    Sure. PM him and point him to this response. It will be something that I have already said but now he can easily find it and judge for himself. I will lay it out in logic chain form this time.

    1. LOGICAL truism - except for that which is shown to be impossible, all forwarded notions must be considered possible
    2. So far, the notion of OBEs have not been shown to be impossible
    3. THEREFORE, OBEs must be considered possible.

    And I disagree that it's shifting the burden. Shifting the burden is typically saying "I argue that X is true. Now prove that it isn't". THAT is a logical fallacy because it's a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy. X can't be considered to be true because someone has failed to provide evidence that it's not.

    This does not apply to saying "X is possible" instead of "X is true". But anyway, if you don't want to address this point and have Squatch rule on it, we can let this point go until that happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. You cannot say that because:

    1. You haven’t explained what consciousness *IS*. Until you’ve done that you cannot say it occurs outside of the brain.
    Yes I can. I can say whatever I want here (beyond saying the kinds of things that violate ODN rules).

    If you are saying that the word has not been explained well enough for us to have a coherent debate on the topic, we've been having a coherent debate on whether consciousness leaves the body for quite a while so it obviously is understood well enough for that purpose.

    So your statement that I can't say something about consciousness until I explain what it is is without any identifiable merit.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    2. In order to say that it is POSSIBLE, you still have to explain the mechanisms to have such experiences - and how this “floating consciousness” happens to have all the knowledge and also sensory organs of the original body.
    No I don't. To support that it's POSSIBLE I just need to point that it's not shown to be impossible.

    And the notion that the disembodied consciousness needs sensory organs to hear is not an accepted premise nor is it supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You are going from some people claiming something happened using pseudo science and an article that points out there is no proof to now saying that said claims are possible. Those are two different claims you are simultaneously making in different points of the debate and conflating them as if they were the same point.
    Incorrect.

    Those are two separate points and I am not saying they are the same point. If you read it that way, then you are misinterpreting my argument. So to make it clear:

    1. I have supported that there are 3000+ cases where people claimed to have had NDEs.
    2. I have argued that it's possible that NDEs experiences actually happened.

    Those are two separate claims and likewise their correctness is not dependent on the other being correct. So now that I've directly said that they are different, it cannot be said that I am conflating the two.

    Maybe you are confused on what I mean by the 3000+ cases of NDEs. I am not saying that these people actually had NDEs. I'm just pointing out there are 3000 claims of them. Just like it's possible that at least one of them actually had an NDE, it's also possible that none of them did.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You are claiming both that it is possible whilst simultaneously saying you’re not claiming it happened!
    Because saying "It happened" is not the same thing as saying "it's possible".

    As an example, it's possible that I had a dream last night where I was the President but don't remember the dream (since dreams are often not remembered). But I do not claim that such a dream actually happened. So that demonstrates that I can say "it's possible" without saying "it happened".
    Last edited by mican333; March 2nd, 2019 at 06:33 AM.

  23. #140
    Registered User

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

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Sure. PM him and point him to this response. It will be something that I have already said but now he can easily find it and judge for himself. I will lay it out in logic chain form this time.

    1. LOGICAL truism - except for that which is shown to be impossible, all forwarded notions must be considered possible
    2. So far, the notion of OBEs have not been shown to be impossible
    3. THEREFORE, OBEs must be considered possible.

    And I disagree that it's shifting the burden. Shifting the burden is typically saying "I argue that X is true. Now prove that it isn't". THAT is a logical fallacy because it's a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy. X can't be considered to be true because someone has failed to provide evidence that it's not.

    This does not apply to saying "X is possible" instead of "X is true". But anyway, if you don't want to address this point and have Squatch rule on it, we can let this point go until that happens.
    However, this is one of those bottom of the barrel “arguments” that may be logically true but it wholly puts the burden on me to prove it impossible. Right? Since my position is disbelief, the onus has somehow transferred to me to demonstrate it is impossible. Meanwhile, you get to sidestep having to put any more thought into the matter even though you brought it up and I have asked you repeatedly to consider how sensory perceptions, that are *bodily* functions, are supposed to work without said body. So you somehow throw out garbage, ignore an honest discussion to consider how silly the idea is, and resort to stonewalling because, *and ONLY because*, you don’t want to answer questions about your future answers. At that point, you’re not holding a position, you are resisting having to put a substantive support of it.

    @squatch: THAT is what I am formally complaining about. The forge of reason should be a comparison of ideas and not dodging one’s responsibility to account for one’s ideas. The sad thing is that we haven’t even begun to discuss points in the OP yet. Even my discussion with eye was cut short when she realized her grammatical gotcha had no effect. Is that what this site has turned into?

    I disagree. I am speaking plain english here and am using the word "consciousness" in a manner where anyone who understands plain English should be able to understand what I mean. If you want to argue that you don't understand what this very common word means, that's not my problem. I suggest you consult a dictionary if you don't know what a word means.
    This is a debate where words matter and some words have different meanings, sometimes even contradictory. But since you have asked me to provide a working definition for the purpose of this debate, I will:


    Google: define consciousness

    con·scious·nessDictionary result for consciousness
    /ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/Submit
    Learn to pronounce
    noun
    the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
    "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
    So now explain how that can occur outside of the brain.

    Also, the last time you claimed that everybody thinks the same as you, I showed that you left out entire religions that think of the soul differently. So stop appealing to popularity to hide the fact that you have to support your own ideas.




    And if I were to agree that this is a valid reason to reject my argument, then I have essentially allowed you to say "I don't understand what you mean" no matter how clearly I've explained what I mean. I could write thousands of words explaining what I mean and you can STILL claim that I've not explained it well enough and reject my argument.
    Boo boo. You have to support what you’re talking about where there’s clear disagreement.


    So now, @squatch, we have a clear admission, and not for the first time, that mican is deliberately withholding information that he has to have in order to hold the position he is holding.


    No I don't. To support that it's POSSIBLE I just need to point that it's not shown to be impossible.
    And I continue to contend that whilst this is logically true, that is not what support means in the context of a debate where we are holding opposite sides. By your logic, anything is possible - it’s a blank check to put the onus on your opponent to do all the work. Work, which just above you refuse to do, just in case you’re asked to do even more work. This laziness isn’t a good strategy because it exposes a poorly held position.

    And if you don’t have a position. This debate needn’t get to this point - it is your reticence that is causing it. Just drop the debate and move on. You are literally contributing nothing and expecting me to do all the heavy lifting. If you don’t have a position you want to support retract it.


    And the notion that the disembodied consciousness needs sensory organs to hear is not an accepted premise nor is it supported.
    It is completely supported by evidence of a physical universe of information transfer between physical activities to sensory organs to a mind. Besides, since you haven’t explained what consciousness is, you cannot disembody it. And when you do, you still have to explain how physical sensory information is transferred to it. And then you have to explain how in the world, that this is a better explanation than the fact the patient is actually already in the room and can likely see and hear things!

    You have not added one iota of plausibility to this idea so I don’t accept that you have supported it is possible.

    Incorrect.

    Those are two separate points and I am not saying they are the same point. If you read it that way, then you are misinterpreting my argument. So to make it clear:

    1. I have supported that there are 3000+ cases where people claimed to have had NDEs.
    2. I have argued that it's possible that NDEs experiences actually happened.

    Those are two separate claims and likewise their correctness is not dependent on the other being correct. So now that I've directly said that they are different, it cannot be said that I am conflating the two.

    Maybe you are confused on what I mean by the 3000+ cases of NDEs. I am not saying that these people actually had NDEs. I'm just pointing out there are 3000 claims of them. Just like it's possible that at least one of them actually had an NDE, it's also possible that none of them did.
    On the first claim, you were spouting from a pseudoscientific blog and then an article that points out the implausibility of these claims. Yet you still walk away saying that is is still possible. I suggest you read your article and decide again where you lie: pseudoscience or actual science.


    Because saying "It happened" is not the same thing as saying "it's possible".

    As an example, it's possible that I had a dream last night where I was the President but don't remember the dream (since dreams are often not remembered). But I do not claim that such a dream actually happened. So that demonstrates that I can say "it's possible" without saying "it happened".
    Huh? So all you are saying is that it is *possible* that *people claim NDE* and not *NDE itself*? Are you f**king serious? That’s all you have? This is a joke.

    That’s *not* what you’re saying right? That NDEs are possible because it is possible people make the claim the experienced it? Or are you arguing that because it’s possible that people claim NDEs therefore disembodied consciousness? Either case are much weaker points than you’re appearing to claim, which I take that *NDEs are possible*

    In that case, @squatch, if we’re reduced to word games and ludicrous traps then then needs censuring.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 2nd, 2019 at 12:21 PM.

 

 
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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