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 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 448
  1. #261
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And we aren’t debating. We discussing how you want to play the next move.
    And saying that I want to play my next move is likewise a person comment.

    Beyond whatever rudeness is involved, personal comments don't forward the debate.

    My next play will reveal itself when I make it. Saying that I want to do this or that or that my strategy is this or that doesn't add anything.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m granting you a do-over. Neither of our arguments are in play. Correct?
    I don't consider it "granting a do over". I asked you what arguments of yours are still in play and you said the OPs original arguments are still in play. And I accept that so I will consider all other arguments of your to be out of play and just address the three arguments that were presented in the OP.

    So here is my response to the OPs arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

  2. #262
    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
    And saying that I want to play my next move is likewise a person comment.

    Beyond whatever rudeness is involved, personal comments don't forward the debate.

    My next play will reveal itself when I make it. Saying that I want to do this or that or that my strategy is this or that doesn't add anything.
    We're not currently debating though - we're meta-discussing what happened for us to get to the point where you have to withdraw your arguments and get a do-over.



    I don't consider it "granting a do over". I asked you what arguments of yours are still in play and you said the OPs original arguments are still in play. And I accept that so I will consider all other arguments of your to be out of play and just address the three arguments that were presented in the OP.
    It absolutely is a do-over:

    1. You have dropped all your arguments.
    2. You have finally realized that you were arguing against something that was no longer in play - even though it had been stated multiple times.
    3. We are starting from the OP from scratch: this is the textbook do-over.

    If you won't accept those simple facts, and pretend this is a win on your part then how do I know you won't keep doing this?

  3. #263
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Well, enough spammish arguing over the debate (like whether it really is a do-over) and let's get to debating the actual arguments that you said that you are still forwarding.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

  4. #264
    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
    Well, enough spammish arguing over the debate (like whether it really is a do-over) and let's get to debating the actual arguments that you said that you are still forwarding.
    Hold your horses. You don’t get to spend a week badly defending your “truism” from multiple fronts and then throw the towel in and claim any kind of win. I need you to concede that this is a do-over and we are starting from scratch beginning with the OP.

    What about all the futureboy arguments? What’s happened to that thread? Are you withdrawing from that too?

  5. #265
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Hold your horses. You don’t get to spend a week badly defending your “truism” from multiple fronts and then throw the towel in and claim any kind of win.
    Actually, I can claim a win regarding that. You withdrew the argument that it was rebutting. Whether you withdrew the argument early and I didn't realize it and kept arguing when I didn't need to makes no difference. Once you withdrew your argument, I effectively defeated the argument. You can't throw in the towel and then claim that I threw in the towel.

    And saying that I badly did anything is a personal comment. CUT IT OUT!

    And as we can see, these kinds of comments about the debate that was had and how I performed and what I think and blah blah blah doesn't add anything to the debate. In response I can either explain why you are wrong (which really is a waste of time) or just say "attack the argument, not the debater".

    Which will likely be my response if this kind of malarky continues. "


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I need you to concede that this is a do-over and we are starting from scratch beginning with the OP.
    The reason that I am only addressing the OPs arguments is because you directly said that those are the only arguments of yours that are in play. You withdrew everything that wasn't in the OP and therefore that's my only option if I'm going to address any arguments of yours.

    So if you want to admit that you dropped all of your arguments except for the ones that you made in the OP thus forcing me to address the OP if I'm going to challenge any of your arguments on the thread and call that a "do over", then fine - it's a do over.

    But no, we are not starting from scratch from the OP. You withdrew the argument that consciousness exists only in the brain deep into the debate and that effects my response to the OPs arguments. As you can see in my first response below.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    And btw, all of these rebuttals stand until you do counter them. So currently, not only have every argument of yours except for the three above have been removed from play, these three arguments are currently "defeated" since the rebuttals to them have not been addressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What about all the futureboy arguments? What’s happened to that thread? Are you withdrawing from that too?
    No. FB challenged the moderator's ruling regarding the validity of the truism in an Ask the Staff forum (btw, nothing wrong with that) so it's being discussed there.

  6. #266
    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
    Actually, I can claim a win regarding that. You withdrew the argument that it was rebutting. Whether you withdrew the argument early and I didn't realize it and kept arguing when I didn't need to makes no difference. Once you withdrew your argument, I effectively defeated the argument. You can't throw in the towel and then claim that I threw in the towel.
    Umm no, because you were arguing the same points after this was pointed out to you multiple times.

    And if there are still arguments in play then state them.



    Which will likely be my response if this kind of malarky continues. "
    No. This is procedural - I don’t know if there are any landlines unless everything is fully declared.

    For a start, do you still believe that “all religions equate consciousness with the soul”?


    The reason that I am only addressing the OPs arguments is because you directly said that those are the only arguments of yours that are in play. You withdrew everything that wasn't in the OP and therefore that's my only option if I'm going to address any arguments of yours.
    I only said that after you said you dropped your argument after realizing after week apparently. But since you didn’t withdraw everything, I have to withdraw my offer.


    But no, we are not starting from scratch from the OP. You withdrew the argument that consciousness exists only in the brain deep into the debate and that effects my response to the OPs arguments. As you can see in my first response below.
    Not quite, you began with the notion that all religions believe that soul=consciousness and then there was something about you being “agnostic”. I think the latter was dropped but not the former.

  7. #267
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    You asked what arguments of mine are still in play.

    The only arguments or mine that are still in play are the ones that rebut the arguments of yours that are still in play.

    And you have said that only the only arguments of yours that are still in play are the arguments that are in the OP. There are three of them. The rest of your argument, through one means or another, have been withdrawn. For the most part I consider those withdrawn arguments to be defeated so I do withdraw all of my rebuttals to them because I no longer need to forward an counter-argument once it has succeeded in defeating the argument that it's addressing. Now, if you want to consider the issue differently and not consider your arguments "defeated" or whatever, that's fine. The point is they are no longer in play and unless they are going to be re-introduced (and along with them my rebuttals will be put back into play), they are irrelevant to the debate.

    But to discuss arguments that are no longer part of the debate is a waste of time so I'm done hashing this issue out.

    So unless you state that there are other arguments of yours that are in play, there are only three arguments that you have presented and I have only three rebuttals in play as well and therefore any past argument that I may have made is irrelevant.

    So here are the three arguments of yours that are in play and the three rebuttals of mine that are in play.


    So I will present them again and hope that you will move the debate forward by getting back to debating whether the soul exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.


    --------------------------

    So if you have a response to my rebuttals to your three arguments that are still in play, then make your argument.

    If you have a different argument that you would like to bring into play (or back into play), go ahead.

    Otherwise, the only three arguments of yours that are currently in play have been rebutted and therefore you have no arguments that have stood (they were all removed from play or rebutted).

  8. #268
    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
    You asked what arguments of mine are still in play.

    The only arguments or mine that are still in play are the ones that rebut the arguments of yours that are still in play.

    And you have said that only the only arguments of yours that are still in play are the arguments that are in the OP. There are three of them. The rest of your argument, through one means or another, have been withdrawn. For the most part I consider those withdrawn arguments to be defeated so I do withdraw all of my rebuttals to them because I no longer need to forward an counter-argument once it has succeeded in defeating the argument that it's addressing. Now, if you want to consider the issue differently and not consider your arguments "defeated" or whatever, that's fine. The point is they are no longer in play and unless they are going to be re-introduced (and along with them my rebuttals will be put back into play), they are irrelevant to the debate.

    But to discuss arguments that are no longer part of the debate is a waste of time so I'm done hashing this issue out.

    So unless you state that there are other arguments of yours that are in play, there are only three arguments that you have presented and I have only three rebuttals in play as well and therefore any past argument that I may have made is irrelevant.

    So here are the three arguments of yours that are in play and the three rebuttals of mine that are in play.
    So you no longer believe that all religions equate consciousness with the soul?

  9. #269
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you no longer believe that all religions equate consciousness with the soul?
    That issue is currently irrelevant to the debate.

    Again, there are only three arguments of your "in play" and therefore there are only three arguments of mine in play and none of them are about what religions think about the soul.

    So here again are the three arguments along with their rebuttals.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

  10. #270
    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
    That issue is currently irrelevant to the debate.
    Nevertheless, is it withdrawn or not?

  11. #271
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nevertheless, is it withdrawn or not?
    It's not currently an argument that is being forwarded in the debate and therefore discussing it at all is spam. Since the rules say that one is not suppose to spam or respond to spam, there is nothing to discuss on this issue.

    What is relevant is that you have withdrawn all arguments except for three arguments.

    All of those three arguments have been rebutted (I'm not going to paste them in this thread - you can go back to my last six or so posts to see them).

    So if you are going to move the debate forward on the issue of whether the soul does not exist you must either.

    1. Address my rebuttals
    2. Present a different argument that, if true, supports your claim that the soul does not exist.

    If your next post does not move the debate forward and address the issue of whether the soul does not exist, then it's spam and may be reported as such.

  12. #272
    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 not currently an argument that is being forwarded in the debate and therefore discussing it at all is spam. Since the rules say that one is not suppose to spam or respond to spam, there is nothing to discuss on this issue.

    What is relevant is that you have withdrawn all arguments except for three arguments.

    All of those three arguments have been rebutted (I'm not going to paste them in this thread - you can go back to my last six or so posts to see them).

    So if you are going to move the debate forward on the issue of whether the soul does not exist you must either.

    1. Address my rebuttals
    2. Present a different argument that, if true, supports your claim that the soul does not exist.

    If your next post does not move the debate forward and address the issue of whether the soul does not exist, then it's spam and may be reported as such.
    It isn’t spam because it has already been stated and not retracted it. It is absolutely in play.

    It appears to form the basis of your NEW points that link back to this idea. I just don’t want to waste another week talking about consciousness and getting to the same point again.

  13. #273
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It isn’t spam because it has already been stated and not retracted it. It is absolutely in play.
    When you withdrew your arguments from play, then my rebuttals to those arguments were removed from play as well.

    The only arguments of yours that are in play are the three you provided in the OP and the only arguments of mine that are in play are my rebuttals to those three arguments.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.

    Or are you removing your withdrawal and again arguing that consciousness only resides in the physical brain?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It appears to form the basis of your NEW points that link back to this idea.
    It's not.

    my first rebuttal points out that you have withdrawn the claim in question
    My second rebuttal points out that not knowing how something happens does not support that it does not happen
    My third rebuttal points out that you are engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    There is nothing in my rebuttals that addresses what religions think. Therefore, this issue is irrelevant to the current debate. If it helpsl, I will state right now that I am currently taking no position regarding what religions think on any particular issue. When I feel that bringing what religions think becomes necessary to support an argument of mine, then I will make a claim to that effect but as of now, I officially have no position on what religions think about anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I just don’t want to waste another week talking about consciousness and getting to the same point again.
    And there's nothing in my rebuttals that engage in a semantic argument over the term consciousness either.

    And if you don't want to address my rebuttals, then don't. I'm fine letting my rebuttals stand
    If you don't want to forward a different argument than the ones in the OP, then don't.

    But if you aren't going to make some kind of argument that supports your claim that the soul does not exist, then you should cease posting. It's against the rules to make posts that do not forward the debate.

  14. #274
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It matters a great deal
    I think what matters on this board is to debate ideas not people or personality or what the person believes or doesn’t believe. ODN Rules “Try to remember that the best way to change someone else's position to yours, is to challenge the idea, not attack the poster”


    Using religion to explain reality.
    What/who is using religion to explain reality?

    Support.
    Many cultures have recognized some incorporeal principle of human life or existence corresponding to the soul, and many have attributed souls to all living things. There is evidence even among prehistoric peoples of a belief in an aspect distinct from the body and residing in it. Despite widespread and longstanding belief in the existence of a soul, however, different religions and philosophers have developed a variety of theories as to its nature, its relationship to the body, and its origin and mortality.

    Among ancient peoples, both the Egyptians and the Chinese conceived of a dual soul. The Egyptian ka (breath) survived death but remained near the body, while the spiritual ba proceeded to the region of the dead. The Chinese distinguished between a lower, sensitive soul, which disappears with death, and a rational principle, the hun, which survives the grave and is the object of ancestor worship.

    The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.

    Ancient Greek concepts of the soul varied considerably according to the particular era and philosophical school. The Epicureans considered the soul to be made up of atoms like the rest of the body. For the Platonists, the soul was an immaterial and incorporeal substance, akin to the gods yet part of the world of change and becoming. Aristotle’s conception of the soul was obscure, though he did state that it was a form inseparable from the body.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/sou...and-philosophy


    Nevertheless, this is a controversial ruling and still doesn't mean accupuncture works
    There are lots of things that are controversial in health care. For example when one drug works for some people but not for others or the side effects makes them sicker then the illness the drug was used for– that’s controversial; or when multiple different types of treatment plans don’t cure an simple non-life threatening illness and doctors can’t explain why the person is still stick – that’s controversial.

    As far as acupuncture, I’m glad we were able to inform you that some doctors do recommend this treatment to some of their patients for certain health issues because it works for many people. Yes, about 20 years ago in the US this practice was considered pseudo-socience.

    According to Lonnie Zeltzer, MD, the director of the pediatric pain program at the Mattel Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles and professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, people with chronic pain often experience a “snowball effect.” Meaning, the longer the pain persists, the harder it is to treat. That’s why she recommends acupuncture to most patients, among other methods. “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it has been found to increase levels of feel-good brain chemicals like serotonin and endorphins, and it may also deactivate parts of the brain involved with pain perception,” she says. Research published in the Journal of Pain backs this up. Researchers concluded that acupuncture effectively treats chronic pain. More specifically, the effects persist over time, and the benefits cannot be explained away solely by the placebo effect.

    https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/a...ne-treatments/


    your point that human visibility is limited is saying nothing: we already know it is. That's not to say that we have detectors for electromagnetic radiation and other phenomena. This has nothing to do with the brain if it is outside of human vision, as you say. And if human vision is limited, how is it that some people can see this and even then only once or rarely.
    It may have something to do with our level of awareness and the brains filtering system. I will let Neuroscientist, Professor, Majorie Wolllacott who is director of the Motor Control and Cognition Lab in the Institute for Neuroscience at the University of Oregon for more than three decades explain the brain filter idea I referred to earlier.

    The human brain has amazing capacities. It contains billions of neurons, allowing it to process vast quantities of information so that we can function effectively. But can we have too much information? Yes, and, in fact, filtering information is one of the brain’s most important functions. Brain filtering is an adaptive strategy and ensures that only the information relevant to our goals is allowed into our consciousness. This keeps us from being flooded with irrelevancies that might distract us.

    To introduce brain filtering to my neuroscience students, I show them a video of two teams throwing a ball back and forth, and instruct them to track how many times each team gets the ball. After the students give their answers, I ask if they noticed anything unusual during the video. Typically, they say no. I then tell them a man in a gorilla costume walked across the court during the play. When they watch the video again, they see the gorilla. This is a classical case of the brain filtering out information (the gorilla) irrelevant to the task (counting).

    Filtering of information through the attentional pathways of our brain was brought to wide acceptance in the 1950s through the work of psychologist Donald Broadbent. There is still debate regarding where in the brain this filtering takes place, but it is known that the two sides of the brain filter information differently. The left controls information important for language abilities and goal-directed actions. The right controls a broader visual-spatial attention that allows us to take in new experiences on the boundaries of our awareness.

    In her book, My Stroke of Insight, neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor describes changes in her attention following a stroke to the left side of her brain. Immediately after the stroke, she found it exhausting to focus on what someone was saying. Once she allowed herself to rest in the experience of her right brain, however, she was only aware of the present moment. She says: "In this altered state of being, my mind was no longer preoccupied with the billions of details that my brain routinely used to define and conduct my life.... As my consciousness slipped into a state of peaceful grace, I felt ethereal."

    Taylor says that the greatest benefit she received from the experience was an understanding that a “deep internal peace is accessible to anyone at any time.” Taylor’s experience is similar to that reported by many meditators and suggests that reducing the activity of attentional areas in the left side of the brain diminishes one filter on our awareness—and, thus, allows us to experience an expanded consciousness.

    Many people’s experiences of this wider awareness have been published over the years. During near-death experiences, for instance, subjects have described perceiving their awareness leave their body and observe details of the attempts being made to resuscitate them. People also report moments when they are aware of something happening to someone many miles away. When they come back to their normal consciousness, these people sometimes ask, “Was it real? Or was it a hallucination?” Is it possible that in these moments the normal filtering mechanisms of the brain are reduced and this reduction allows the experience of expanded consciousness? Perhaps the brain’s filtering mechanisms screen out more than just sensory information.



    Using already debunked theories!
    You may not like the evidence from the academic NDE/OBE, reincarnation research and authors on the subject, but that is somewhat irrelevant.


    What a load of BS.

    So let's throw him and everything he says in the dustbin.
    Fortunately, for the public at large, I think it’s fair to say skeptics and their websites don’t determine a doctor’s credibility.

    Why do I need to have an open mind
    Good question. Because it is part of the process of a critical thinking:


    A well cultivated critical thinker:

    • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
    • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
    • thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
    • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
    Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
    https://www.criticalthinking.org/pag...l-thinking/766

    That's a silly scenario - I'm unlikely to have such an experience
    Well it is and it isn’t because sometimes that type of question can make us think outside the confines of the brain, which you seem not you to value much nor seem interested in.

    A relevant point in the question I asked you that can’t be factored into our discussion is that many times such a direct experience, of let’s say someone observing a spirit rise from a body, or some other type of OBE, this can fundamentally change a person, regardless of their belief. That doesn’t always happen, but it has happened to people including skeptics who experience such types of events. NDEs changes people and their brain. Sometimes these changes are transformative.

    Yes - the data and findings are only taken seriously by other pseudo-scientists.
    Support that the research from the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia is only taken seriously by pseudo-scientists. [Hint: it's been published in Peer Review Journals]


    My support is that they are peddling rubbish per the sources I already quoted.
    I didn’t think you could support your claim using a reputable medical/ psychiatric organization website.

    You can take them as seriously as you want but I'm not.
    I understand. Fortunately, we have free will in such matters. The public has a choice also. Over the last few decades it’s interesting to note that there is a lot of interest in this type of research and NDE books that have been published (some of which have become New York Times Best Sellers– which makes sense, since it is the public who is having these types of experiences.


    Yes! And she changed her mind - that's her whole point - that she started in mysticism and came to the conclusion the brain is likely the source of all these experiences!
    She has an interesting story and so do other scientists and doctors who have experienced NDEs.

    I offered to read one convincing piece.
    One piece will not do much. Studying the context and broader scope of the work is where one begins to see patterns that show something very interesting is going on that can’t be reduced to the physical brain.

    Compelling only to those that already believe!
    Not so. I’ve pointed out a few NDE authors / doctors who were stanch non believers, materialists who were determined to expose it as bunk. But in order to expose something that is fraudulent, you have to study and investigate the data, which did they, and it changed their view point.

    And you gave me a bunch of pseudoscience and disreputable people and organizations!
    Repeating something doesn’t make it so. You have yet to post a reputable medical website the supports doctors who I cited who are NED authors are scam artists.

    Here's the thing - if it were convincing we wouldn't be having this discussion
    and I won't so easily find information that makes me suspect the people you've quoted.
    And that’s fine. I understand.

    Nevertheless, I think this type of research will most likely continue because the public wants to understand how such experiences, which continues to happen, can have such dramatic effects on someone’s life.

    What are you talking about?
    I will clarify the point I made about electrons later. I’m out of posting time.
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 18th, 2019 at 12:37 AM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. #275
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,718
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    2. The issue is that it is me doing to work to figure out what Miccan is actually saying.
    Well sometimes we all have to do the work of figuring out what someone else is saying. It is part of debating, to try to understand an opponent's argument and what it means. The question is whether it is an unreasonable hurdle to bear or whether this is a normal part of encountering a new concept. I'm pointing out that at this point, understanding what he is saying using standard definitions isn't an over the top task for someone. A conciousness leaving the body isn't a concept that is impossible to understand. Again, I'm not aruing the underlying mechanics or anything else, but the broad concept is certainly understandable. At least enough to move to another section of the debate.





    Current status of the debate between Sharmak and Mican:

    There are no standing points (either because they have been withdrawn or because they are moot) except the discussion of the three claims made in the OP. Mican has offered three rebuttals of those positions in post 273.

    These three claims and the responses appear to be the only particularly relevant section of the debate.
    "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.


  16. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  17. #276
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What/who is using religion to explain reality?

    Many cultures have recognized some incorporeal principle of human life ...
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/sou...and-philosophy
    So how is any of that explaining reality?

    There are lots of things that are controversial in health care. For example when one drug works for some people but not for others or the side effects makes them sicker then the illness the drug was used for– that’s controversial; or when multiple different types of treatment plans don’t cure an simple non-life threatening illness and doctors can’t explain why the person is still stick – that’s controversial.
    Meh, that's a weak argument - it's not controversial that not all medicines work for everyone. We just have to trust that our testing protocols are good before unleashing to the general public; and we hare quick in stopping bad medicine when something happens. None of that is controversial.

    As far as acupuncture, I’m glad we were able to inform you that some doctors do recommend this treatment to some of their patients for certain health issues because it works for many people. Yes, about 20 years ago in the US this practice was considered pseudo-socience.
    I think that's called the placebo effect.


    It may have something to do with our level of awareness and the brains filtering system. I will let Neuroscientist, Professor, Majorie Wolllacott who is director of the Motor Control and Cognition Lab in the Institute for Neuroscience at the University of Oregon for more than three decades explain the brain filter idea I referred to earlier.
    The human brain has amazing capacities. It contains billions of neurons, allowing it to process vast quantities of information so that we can function effectively. But can we have too much information? Yes, and, in fact, filtering information is one of the brain’s most important functions. Brain filtering is an adaptive strategy and ensures that only the information relevant to our goals is allowed into our consciousness. This keeps us from being flooded with irrelevancies that might distract us.
    Yes but we have technology to work around any kind of "filtering" - it's called video recording. What you're saying makes no sense as to why we can't see this via other means!

    You may not like the evidence from the academic NDE/OBE, reincarnation research and authors on the subject, but that is somewhat irrelevant.
    Not really - scientists that peddle in woo generally get ignored.

    Fortunately, for the public at large, I think it’s fair to say skeptics and their websites don’t determine a doctor’s credibility.
    Sure, but we're in a society where mind readers and clairvoyants somehow make money - I don't think that's says much about the public at large to determine the truth in anything.

    Good question. Because it is part of the process of a critical thinking:

    A well cultivated critical thinker:

    • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
    • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
    • thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
    • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
    Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
    https://www.criticalthinking.org/pag...l-thinking/766
    I think there is much better use of time to dismiss that which others you trust have already dismissed. After all, if any of these decades of so-called research produces anything we wouldn't be having the debate.


    Well it is and it isn’t because sometimes that type of question can make us think outside the confines of the brain, which you seem not you to value much nor seem interested in.
    We're more than our brain - we're our embodied brain living within a society of other brains interacting as meme-plexes competing for mind share. I value very much what happens beyond our personal selves - it just has to not sound like prehistoric nonsense.


    A relevant point in the question I asked you that can’t be factored into our discussion is that many times such a direct experience, of let’s say someone observing a spirit rise from a body, or some other type of OBE, this can fundamentally change a person, regardless of their belief. That doesn’t always happen, but it has happened to people including skeptics who experience such types of events. NDEs changes people and their brain. Sometimes these changes are transformative.
    I've had hallucinogenic experiences that have been very transformative - I don't need to appeal to the supernatural to make sense of it. I've had lucid dreams, floated, fallen and all sorts of physical effects and mental effects that last the day - I don't need the supernatural to explain it!


    Support that the research from the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia is only taken seriously by pseudo-scientists. [Hint: it's been published in Peer Review Journals]
    Well, they're either peer reviewed by other cranks or they had clear scientific resluts.

    I didn’t think you could support your claim using a reputable medical/ psychiatric organization website.
    If the belief in spirits was mainstream medicine then please show me!

    I understand. Fortunately, we have free will in such matters. The public has a choice also. Over the last few decades it’s interesting to note that there is a lot of interest in this type of research and NDE books that have been published (some of which have become New York Times Best Sellers– which makes sense, since it is the public who is having these types of experiences.
    well, people believe anything these days from the anti-vaxers to the obama-birthers and all other nonsense.


    She has an interesting story and so do other scientists and doctors who have experienced NDEs.
    particularly because she went towards the science to truly understand the phenomena.


    One piece will not do much. Studying the context and broader scope of the work is where one begins to see patterns that show something very interesting is going on that can’t be reduced to the physical brain.
    i guess i'll believe it when these studies pass the hurdle of real science.


    Not so. I’ve pointed out a few NDE authors / doctors who were stanch non believers, materialists who were determined to expose it as bunk. But in order to expose something that is fraudulent, you have to study and investigate the data, which did they, and it changed their view point.
    there are also stories of round-earthers who became flat-earthers and are still super convinced the earth is flat. come back when scientists convert en-masse on not some loser one-offs that found a new way to bilk gullible rich people to fund their nonsense.

    Repeating something doesn’t make it so. You have yet to post a reputable medical website the supports doctors who I cited who are NED authors are scam artists.
    * I * am calling them scam artists.


    And that’s fine. I understand.

    Nevertheless, I think this type of research will most likely continue because the public wants to understand how such experiences, which continues to happen, can have such dramatic effects on someone’s life.
    Good luck to them - it would be cool if spirits and souls and ghosts and all manner of magic truly existed.

    I will clarify the point I made about electrons later. I’m out of posting time.
    I will wait.

  18. #277
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So how is any of that explaining reality?
    Cultures throughout history through today who recognize the existence of the soul are not explaining reality. They simply recognize that there is something more then physical reality.

    We just have to trust that our testing protocols are good before unleashing to the general public; and we hare quick in stopping bad medicine when something happens. None of that is controversial.
    Opioids and the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Controversies, Current Status, and Future Directions
    Opioids have been regarded for millennia as among the most effective drugs for the treatment of pain. Their use in the management of acute severe pain and chronic pain related to advanced medical illness is considered the standard of care in most of the world. In contrast, the long-term administration of an opioid for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain continues to be controversial. Concerns related to effectiveness, safety, and abuse liability have evolved over decades, sometimes driving a more restrictive perspective and sometimes leading to a greater willingness to endorse this treatment. The past several decades in the United States have been characterized by attitudes that have shifted repeatedly in response to clinical and epidemiological observations, and events in the legal and regulatory communities.


    I think that's called the placebo effect.
    "Researchers concluded that acupuncture effectively treats chronic pain. More specifically, the effects persist over time, and the benefits cannot be explained away solely by the placebo effect".


    Yes but we have the technology to work around any kind of "filtering" - it's called video recording. What you're saying makes no sense as to why we can't see this via other means!
    See what through other means? Are you talking about why we can’t normally see souls leaving a body?

    Not really - scientists that peddle in woo generally get ignored.
    If they were really being ignored, millions of people around the world would not be purchasing and reading books on the subject.

    Sure, but we're in a society where mind readers and clairvoyants somehow make money - I don't think that's says much about the public at large to determine the truth in anything.
    Truth? humm…. You want to talk about truth? Ok, well let's start here: Science, as great and useful as it is, is not after truth.

    Science isn't everything – and it's not even after the truth
    "What they want are useful, comprehensible, workable theories of the world. Understanding trumps truth: scientists will generally settle for a less accurate model if it is more cognitively transparent. They don't strive to map models perfectly onto reality. This doesn't seem so controversial. Even Hawking agrees, indulging in a bit of philosophy himself when he states: "There is no model-independent test of reality."


    I think there is much better use of time to dismiss that which others you trust have already dismissed.
    Critical thinking is a choice.

    After all, if any of these decades of so-called research produces anything we wouldn't be having the debate.
    The research has produced something quite significant: the attention and interest of millions of people around the world. We are actually having this debate because the research has contributed toward making the concept part of our current society

    I value very much what happens beyond our personal selves - it just has to not sound like prehistoric nonsense.
    If it was indeed nonsense, I don’t think doctors, scientists and researchers would be researching it and I don’t think people around the world would be purchasing books on the subject.

    I've had hallucinogenic experiences that have been very transformative
    There are different types of personal transformations Some can completely change a person and some have other more subtle effects.

    As far as how you might respond to such an observation with regards to my questions, even after debating with you for a few pages here, and seeing that you seem to have a militant skeptic view, I still think it’s possible and that such an experience might change your perspective, not necessarily your belief… but you might go from being a hard skeptic to a healthy skeptic.


    If the belief in spirits was mainstream medicine then please show me!
    1. NDEs/OBEs are not about a belief in spirits.

    NDE: “The near-death experience is an intense awareness, sense, or experience of otherworldiness, whether pleasant or unpleasant, that happens to people who are at the edge of death. It is of such magnitude that most experiencers are deeply affected, many to the point of making significant changes in their lives because of what happened to them. Aftereffects often last lifelong and can intensify over time.”

    OBE: The experience of one's self, including mind and sensation, existing extracorporeally;
    reported as a near-death phenomenon.
    https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...dy+experiences

    2. As far as mainstream medicine, the concepts of OBEs/NDEs are in mainstream medicine Doctors and nurses often hear about this from their patients and have to deal with it. In fact, it’s now defined in medical dictionaries

    well, people believe anything these
    I think much of the public interest is based on people relating to the experience in the published research, or they know a family member or friend who has had a similar experience. Also, people are more open now to come out of the closet and talk about having such an experience without being bullied because it has become more mainstream.


    i guess i'll believe it when these studies pass the hurdle of real science.
    The study and research of consciousness is still in its early stages. Modern neuroscience appears to be neutral on the issue of whether the brain produces the mind or whether the brain acts as a receiver/transmitter for the mind. So we’ll have to see wait and how it plays out.

    * I * am calling them scam artists.
    Right …. I confess that I do find this attitude to be somewhat irrational. If a doctor is a scam artist, there is no reasonable, logical, anyway you try to connect the dots way that he will not lose his medical license, be called out by his professional field leadership, and continue to serve as:

    Professor of Psychiatric Medicine
    Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences
    A Former Director of Division of Perceptual Studies,
    Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences
    University of Virginia Health System

    Not to mention all the professional credentials of all doctors, scientists and researchers who you think are scam artists.

    Perhaps this type of reasoning might be possible on a different galaxy, but in our solar system, on this planet, at this time, I find this type of thinking to be irrational.

    My comment about electrons was to point out:

    1. Atoms …. electrons are invisible. In fact, “Atoms are not things. The electrons which form an atom’s shells are no longer things in the sense of classical physics, things which could be unambiguously described by concepts like location, velocity, energy, size. When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refer merely to possibilities, not to facts.” Physicist Werner Heisenberg
    2. The only way we know electrons exist is because we can observe their effects – not because we can see them.
    3. It seems unscientific to me to disregard the possibility of an independently functioning mind for the reason that we can’t observe it directly. If there is a sufficient amount of evidence of its effect, it would be reasonable and plausible to believe the mind can exist independent of the body, even though we can’t understand the process.


    Not understanding how something works, does not mean it can't or doesn’t work and/or exist.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #278
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Cultures throughout history through today who recognize the existence of the soul are not explaining reality. They simply recognize that there is something more then physical reality.
    Sure, it’s called making stuff up! That I agree with wholeheartedly!

    How is this controversial? The problem has been recognized and being dealt with.

    "Researchers concluded that acupuncture effectively treats chronic pain. More specifically, the effects persist over time, and the benefits cannot be explained away solely by the placebo effect".
    Broken link.

    See what through other means? Are you talking about why we can’t normally see souls leaving a body?
    I don’t think you’re paying much attention - we were discussing “filtering” and I pointed out that to defeat that we could have video recordings.

    If they were really being ignored, millions of people around the world would not be purchasing and reading books on the subject.
    I’m talking about being ignored by science obviously! What you’re talking about is in the territory of crystals and homeopathy and psychics and all that other nonsense.

    Truth? humm…. You want to talk about truth? Ok, well let's start here: Science, as great and useful as it is, is not after truth.
    It’s something that is better than making stuff up!

    Critical thinking is a choice.
    Right, in which case, why do people ignore the obviously baseless claims?


    The research has produced something quite significant: the attention and interest of millions of people around the world. We are actually having this debate because the research has contributed toward making the concept part of our current society
    Sure, we’re discussing this because Mican believes this is a “possibility” - but being able to fool people with pseudoscience is not hard in an uneducated world. Or even in an educated world!

    If it was indeed nonsense, I don’t think doctors, scientists and researchers would be researching it and I don’t think people around the world would be purchasing books on the subject.
    There are people paying money for clairvoyance, psychic calls and all sorts of other terrible things. I don’t think that’s the greatest measure of credibility - there are always fools with money.

    There are different types of personal transformations Some can completely change a person and some have other more subtle effects.

    As far as how you might respond to such an observation with regards to my questions, even after debating with you for a few pages here, and seeing that you seem to have a militant skeptic view, I still think it’s possible and that such an experience might change your perspective, not necessarily your belief… but you might go from being a hard skeptic to a healthy skeptic.
    “Militant” - lol. Yes, you are right, if I saw something that challenged my beliefs it will change me. But in these cases, I would distrust my own mind and brain because I’ve already had those crazy experiences.


    1. NDEs/OBEs are not about a belief in spirits.

    NDE: “The near-death experience is an intense awareness, sense, or experience of otherworldiness, whether pleasant or unpleasant, that happens to people who are at the edge of death. It is of such magnitude that most experiencers are deeply affected, many to the point of making significant changes in their lives because of what happened to them. Aftereffects often last lifelong and can intensify over time.”

    OBE: The experience of one's self, including mind and sensation, existing extracorporeally;
    reported as a near-death phenomenon.
    https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...dy+experiences

    2. As far as mainstream medicine, the concepts of OBEs/NDEs are in mainstream medicine Doctors and nurses often hear about this from their patients and have to deal with it. In fact, it’s now defined in medical dictionaries
    OK - I don’t disagree that people are having “experiences” - I am pointing out that the real scientists are looking at the brain as a source for these experiences.

    I think much of the public interest is based on people relating to the experience in the published research, or they know a family member or friend who has had a similar experience. Also, people are more open now to come out of the closet and talk about having such an experience without being bullied because it has become more mainstream.
    Well, now we have scientists like Blackmore who says that these are likely to be a delusion.

    The study and research of consciousness is still in its early stages. Modern neuroscience appears to be neutral on the issue of whether the brain produces the mind or whether the brain acts as a receiver/transmitter for the mind. So we’ll have to see wait and how it plays out.
    I don’t think it’s just the brain - it’s the whole body.

    Right …. I confess that I do find this attitude to be somewhat irrational. If a doctor is a scam artist, there is no reasonable, logical, anyway you try to connect the dots way that he will not lose his medical license, be called out by his professional field leadership, and continue to serve as:

    Professor of Psychiatric Medicine
    Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences
    A Former Director of Division of Perceptual Studies,
    Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences
    University of Virginia Health System

    Not to mention all the professional credentials of all doctors, scientists and researchers who you think are scam artists.

    Perhaps this type of reasoning might be possible on a different galaxy, but in our solar system, on this planet, at this time, I find this type of thinking to be irrational.
    Maybe they’re not practicing doctors. Or maybe they haven’t killed anyone. Or maybe, I will concede, they’re not deliberately fooling people but like a flat earther they are clearly cranks.


    My comment about electrons was to point out:

    1. Atoms …. electrons are invisible. In fact, “Atoms are not things. The electrons which form an atom’s shells are no longer things in the sense of classical physics, things which could be unambiguously described by concepts like location, velocity, energy, size. When we get down to the atomic level, the objective world in space and time no longer exists, and the mathematical symbols of theoretical physics refer merely to possibilities, not to facts.” Physicist Werner Heisenberg
    2. The only way we know electrons exist is because we can observe their effects – not because we can see them.
    3. It seems unscientific to me to disregard the possibility of an independently functioning mind for the reason that we can’t observe it directly. If there is a sufficient amount of evidence of its effect, it would be reasonable and plausible to believe the mind can exist independent of the body, even though we can’t understand the process.


    Not understanding how something works, does not mean it can't or doesn’t work and/or exist.
    Well, these are models of the universe, which get more and more refined. Obviously the world isn’t made up of actual balls. Nevertheless, you did make the claim that people could “feel” atoms - which appears to be a nonsensical claim!

  20. #279
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, it’s called making stuff up! That I agree with wholeheartedly!
    So now you know that:

    1. The concept of the soul has been around far longer than organized religion and
    2. Cultures throughout history through today who recognize the existence of the soul do not attempt to redefine physical reality.

    As far as making stuff up, not sure what you are claiming here, who’s making what up?


    How is this controversial? The problem has been recognized and being dealt with.
    Really? Well, one of our neighbors along with a lot of other people didn’t get the memo.

    Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, told The Washington Post this week that his agency will require drug companies to study whether opioids that are already on the market actually work for chronic pain. While these drugs often have been prescribed for patients with chronic pain, particularly in the past, there is controversy about how much good they do beyond the first few weeks after an injury.
    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-...-pain-fda.html


    Broken link.
    "Researchers concluded that acupuncture effectively treats chronic pain. More specifically, the effects persist over time, and the benefits cannot be explained away solely by the placebo effect".
    https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/a...ne-treatments/


    I don’t think you’re paying much attention - we were discussing “filtering” and I pointed out that to defeat that we could have video recordings.
    A video won’t hurt, but I don’t think that will solve the challenge we’re talking about. She just uses that as an example. The point Professor Wolllacott makes in what I quoted earlier is filtering out the internal chatter can possibly help us experience a wider awareness and “expanded consciousness” as she states. For example, in the case of Dr. Jill Bolte, that she cited in her article, Bolte’s left brain went off line during a stroke and as a neuroanatomist she was able to self examine her brain’s experience during the stroke, which is pretty amazing. What she experienced operating from only the right side of her brain, was a state of ecstatic peace and expanded consciousness. Does that mean if we are able to regularly stop the noise and constant chatter in our minds (filter), one could begin to observe/experience spiritual events in such a state? Possibly, it's an interesting idea.

    I’m talking about being ignored by science obviously!
    Science is a tool that deals with addressing empirical questions. Our current science is not designed to address ontological or teleological issues – that would include the meaning of the near-death experiences, ultimate reality, etc. With that said, there are some empirical questions about NDEs that can be explored by the scientific method. And this is the type of research that is going on.

    It’s something that is better than making stuff up!
    If something is being made up, support it.

    Right, in which case, why do people ignore the obviously baseless claims?
    ?

    Sure, we’re discussing this because Mican believes this is a “possibility”
    Actually, we’re discussing this point because you wanted me to support my comment that scientific research is being done on OBE/NDE and the body/mind issue, and your only response to that has basically been: "Those professional doctors and researchers are all scam artists" yet you can’t support your claim whatsoever using any type of professional medical website.

    So I’m going drop this point.

    There are people paying money for clairvoyance, psychic calls and all sorts of other terrible things.
    If you want to start a thread about clairvoyance and psychics, feel free. If I decide to join in, I promise I will not use any Jedi mind tricks.

    “Militant” - lol. Yes, you are right, if I saw something that challenged my beliefs it will change me. But in these cases, I would distrust my own mind and brain because I’ve already had those crazy experiences.
    I hope you don’t mind if I put on my philosopher hat just for a moment to address this point: There are no two experiences that are the same, similar maybe, but not the same. What we experienced a year ago in one event, will not produce the same experience in a similar event a year or two later. Everything changes—even militant attitudes.

    OK - I don’t disagree that people are having “experiences” - I am pointing out that the real scientists are looking at the brain as a source for these experiences.
    Modern real neuroscientists are trying to understand the bigger issue of the mind/brain connection and that investigation and research is in its early stages. But as I stated earlier, most modern neuroscientists, at this point, appear to be neutral on the issue of whether the brain produces the mind or whether the brain acts as a receiver/transmitter for the mind.

    Christof Koch, PhD and Chief Scientific Officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle,was a long and very determined physicalist neuroscientist, but he has abandoned any hope of explaining consciousness as a product of the brain process.



    On the basis of mind and brain as two semi-independent elements, one would still be forced to assume that the mind makes its impact upon the brain through the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must act upon it. The mind must also be acted upon by the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must remember by making use of the brain’s recording mechanisms. . . . And yet the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.

    I worked as a scientist trying to prove that the brain accounted for the mind and demonstrating as many brain-mechanisms as possible hoping to show how the brain did so. In presenting this monograph I do not begin with a conclusion and I do not end by making a final and unalterable one. Instead, I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man’s being consists of one fundamental element, and (b) that it consists of two. In the end I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. I conclude that it is easier to rationalize man’s being on the basis of two elements than on the basis of one. --Wilder Penfield, Mystery of the Mind
    https://press.princeton.edu/titles/751.html

    So, let's let science do what it does best follow the evidence.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  21. #280
    Registered User

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

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So now you know that:

    1. The concept of the soul has been around far longer than organized religion and
    2. Cultures throughout history through today who recognize the existence of the soul do not attempt to redefine physical reality.

    As far as making stuff up, not sure what you are claiming here, who’s making what up?
    Being around a long time just means that organized religions have co-opted the idea; just as Christianity co-opted other religions.

    Souls, per my op, are made up.

    Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, told The Washington Post this week that his agency will require drug companies to study whether opioids that are already on the market actually work for chronic pain. While these drugs often have been prescribed for patients with chronic pain, particularly in the past, there is controversy about how much good they do beyond the first few weeks after an injury.
    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-...-pain-fda.html
    You’re overly fixated on the word “controversy” and conflating trying to understand real-world practical effects with spiritualists using already debunked ideas.


    "Researchers concluded that acupuncture effectively treats chronic pain. More specifically, the effects persist over time, and the benefits cannot be explained away solely by the placebo effect".
    https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/a...ne-treatments/
    Can you not quote from the reader’s digest!


    A video won’t hurt, but I don’t think that will solve the challenge we’re talking about. She just uses that as an example. The point Professor Wolllacott makes in what I quoted earlier is filtering out the internal chatter can possibly help us experience a wider awareness and “expanded consciousness” as she states. For example, in the case of Dr. Jill Bolte, that she cited in her article, Bolte’s left brain went off line during a stroke and as a neuroanatomist she was able to self examine her brain’s experience during the stroke, which is pretty amazing. What she experienced operating from only the right side of her brain, was a state of ecstatic peace and expanded consciousness. Does that mean if we are able to regularly stop the noise and constant chatter in our minds (filter), one could begin to observe/experience spiritual events in such a state? Possibly, it's an interesting idea.
    Sure - the brain is an interesting organ and we know we can have amazing experiences with it: but those are material experiences and have material explanations - it may enhance the experience by adding magical thinking and woo but it’s not necessary.

    Science is a tool that deals with addressing empirical questions. Our current science is not designed to address ontological or teleological issues – that would include the meaning of the near-death experiences, ultimate reality, etc. With that said, there are some empirical questions about NDEs that can be explored by the scientific method. And this is the type of research that is going on.
    If you’re talking about “meaning” then yes, I’d say that we can invent whatever mechanisms we wish to create that. If you’re talking about religion or philosophy then I have no problems “researchIng” in those directions. But let’s not pretend that they have much credibility outside of their bubble.

    I hope you don’t mind if I put on my philosopher hat just for a moment to address this point: There are no two experiences that are the same, similar maybe, but not the same. What we experienced a year ago in one event, will not produce the same experience in a similar event a year or two later. Everything changes—even militant attitudes.
    True - but at the same time, imagining spiritual and supernatural worlds seems a little unnecessary.

    Modern real neuroscientists are trying to understand the bigger issue of the mind/brain connection and that investigation and research is in its early stages. But as I stated earlier, most modern neuroscientists, at this point, appear to be neutral on the issue of whether the brain produces the mind or whether the brain acts as a receiver/transmitter for the mind.


    Christof Koch, PhD and Chief Scientific Officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle,was a long and very determined physicalist neuroscientist, but he has abandoned any hope of explaining consciousness as a product of the brain process.
    I think a better way to put the separation is a that the conscious mind is a emergent property of all that goes on unconsciously within our brain and our whole body - it’s more than the brain but less than the supernatural .


    On the basis of mind and brain as two semi-independent elements, one would still be forced to assume that the mind makes its impact upon the brain through the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must act upon it. The mind must also be acted upon by the highest brain-mechanism. The mind must remember by making use of the brain’s recording mechanisms. . . . And yet the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.

    I worked as a scientist trying to prove that the brain accounted for the mind and demonstrating as many brain-mechanisms as possible hoping to show how the brain did so. In presenting this monograph I do not begin with a conclusion and I do not end by making a final and unalterable one. Instead, I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man’s being consists of one fundamental element, and (b) that it consists of two. In the end I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does. I conclude that it is easier to rationalize man’s being on the basis of two elements than on the basis of one. --Wilder Penfield, Mystery of the Mind
    https://press.princeton.edu/titles/751.html

    So, let's let science do what it does best follow the evidence.
    And how does that make the second element a magical thing? How does that lead us to spiritualism and the supernatural and woo?

 

 
Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 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
  •