what do you think?
Printable View
what do you think?
Perhaps the philosophy section is a better place to put this.
I personally would prefer to think that it can... but I am just too painfully aware that I/we humans don't know much. :P
We don't fully understand the brain. That said, my personal uninformed opinion (though who is informed on this question?) is that the mind is dependant on the brain. The brain constitutes everything we precieve. The neural connections allow thought, memory, so on. Does a braindead person have a mind in the sense that we know it? Doubtfully.
To take it to the next level-- spirituality. Perhaps the soul will carry on the mind, one made new. That is an entirely different discussion though. So to conclude, looking at just the physical world we humans know-- I do not think the mind can exist independent from the brain.
The mind is the conscious part of the brain. They are one.
Also, mind is just a human expression, you can't really locate the mind in a brain.
It would help to direct the flow of this discussion if you are more precise about how you define "mind". Memories and the like certainly are dependant on having a brain as evidenced by the effects of brain damage to them. The question of whether a hypothetical soul requires a brain makes for a more interesting debate though.
I'll answer you with a question: If I take away your brain, what do you think would happen?Quote:
can the mind exist independent from the brain?
You're thinking too literally. And I think Mes is right, this should probably belong in the Philosophy section.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If you mean mind as in qualia of mind or subjective mind, then I believe the following, assuming that causality exists (which I have heard it doesn't):
Mind and brain correlate, that is, their informational content is exactly identical but of a different nature, and neither of them could be said to have causal influence on the other. Instead, they correlate by some universal process that translates neuron-states into mind-states (and vice versa) for no reason.
However, the physical universe has causal influence on the brain. Causal influences on the mind cannot be said to exist because qualia cannot access themselves and thus cannot analyze their qualia-influences. Since the physical universe is causally closed, it shall be assumed that qualia have no causal influences on their own.
The illusion of free will is a result of several psychological factors which are (a) self-consciousness (as in the brain's capability to refer to itself in information processing processes), (b) emulating capabilities (imagination, memory etc.) and (c) reason.
Taking causality out of the calculation, I'd say that mind and matter are two sides of the same coin in that they correlate as described above. I would assume, without being able to prove this, that every set of connected neurons has a correlating set of qualia. I'm not entirely sure if something similar could be said about (a) cells that are not neurons, (b) one-cell organisms, (c) viruses and (d) dead matter.
I'm also arguing that the 'mind', as we perceive it, does not play a role in the evolutionary process and that it's just bad ass luck that we get a mind with our neurons, even though it doesn't have a point. Also, as I'm writing this, my brain, when using the word 'mind', thinks of a part of itself while in my subjective mind the term mind refers to my subjective mind itself rather than to the abstract concept that my brain uses. Did that make sense?
Furthermore I believe that it is impossible to investigate this problem on a scientific basis and that it is impossible to solve or even come close to a solution. I believe that the problem will not be solved as long as this universe with its current setup of mind/matter exists. And by 'solved' I mean solved in such a way that the solution can be put into words. I think the closest you can get is naming the subjective experience of solving the puzzle, a word that carries no meaning if you have not experienced it (look below for Zen).
The task of philosophy is to bring the mind/body problem into alignment with the natural sciences without explaining away human dignity or free will. I think that this is best done by looking at matter and mind as two sides of the same coin, as said above.
Another way to explain this is to assume a kind of substance that is totally different from mind and matter and that is a closed system. This substance would be the foundation to both mind and matter in that they are both equal representations (projections) of this substance into their respective dimensions. It would be the underlying principle of the universe, neither mind nor matter.
It could be argued that the process of spiritual enlightenment ('Satori' in Zen) enables both mind and matter to get in a state that is in total alignment with the guiding principles of this underlying substance. It would be for mind and matter to join in unity and for the mind to get access to this substance, to 'sneak a peak' on it. This alignment is given in at least all forms of dead matter, maybe even stupid animals. A stone is enlightened in that it does what it does. To become enlightened as a human being is to reacquire this type of alignment and to overcome the illusion of division of mind and matter. I have found that this analogy works decently to explain Zen. But I'm not the one to talk.
It really depends on what you define 'mind' as.
I don't think there's a mind without the brain\body. If you consider people's thoughts, actions, and emotions to be part of the mind, of what makes up in personality, that can be altered, for example, by a disease, surgery (lobotomies), or an accident (like Phineas Gage).
Well maybe the thread starter should elaborate a little then, because it seems so obvious :P...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut_Jeff777
Spartiate, this isn't about separating the brain from the body, it is about separating the brain from the conscious mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
OK then, let me rephrase... If I take away your brain, what would happen to your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by CymekSniper
I think it's possible. But look at The Matrix, the only way to get to mind (which controls everything you do) is trough the brain. Sticking that long metal stick in the back of your head.
Or even look at the computer. Is it really CPU thats makes it work, or the operating system, without the software (the mind), the hardware (the physical brain) is nothing. Even our mind exists outside already, look at what we're doing now, posting our thoughts into an interconnected network of information over cyberspace for "other minds" to read.
Iunno if this makes any sense but thats my view, if it makes sense.
Software can easily be transcribed on a medium and deposited in a new computer. A mind, however, may differ in that capacity, yet still be a computer. A mechanical computer, for example, may run a 'program' determined by its mechanical elements, but the program and the 'computer' cannot be separated. To describe the program, the entire computer must be described.
I do not think the mind can be separated from the brain, but I do believe that it may be possible to construct a computerized analogue to the brain, allow it to communicate with a person's brain, and end up with a computerized version of a person's mind. It wouldn't be the same, of course, but I think that is as close to separating the mind and the brain as possible.
Almost all religeons believe that the conscious mind can exist independantly from the body.
Really, the answer to your question depends on your definition of mind and your definition of brain. For me, "the Mind" is an amalgamation of all of a person's thoughts. A brain is anything that houses these thoughts. In that sense, a mind cannot operate without a brain. In the classical human brain sense however, your mind is currently outside of your brain, as your ideas exist in places that your brain does not. They exist in other people's brains, they exist on a hard drive, they exist on paper, etc. I don't believe that the mind is any sort of religious soul, but I do believe that your ideas hold some essential part of you when they leave your body and together they still make up your 'mind.' Does this mean that the collection-of-your-ideas-outside-your-body can be conscious and aware? I don't know the answer to that question.
Very interesting discussion especially from Korittke
im trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs.... :roll:
but i think it is possible if you view the brain like a television set. a machine that only puts the pictures together on the screen, but doesn’t actually create them from nothing. And the pictures (consciousness) are really being created somewhere else.
and just because the television set may be broken, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the pictures no longer exist. Just the apparatus no longer functions
PS: by Mind I meant clear lucid creative thought
Simple, Spartiate, it would cease to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
An interesting debate, and one that I've thought about quite a lot. Firstly let me say that I think that the mind (defined as mental cognition - any act of thinking) and the brain are one and the same - I am a materialist (or physicalist, same difference).
In reaching this conclusion, I am therefore rejecting the notion of a soul, all forms of dualism, and I also reject the notion of qualia. I really want to respond to Korritke's post (very interesting - great post!) but first I think I'll stake my claim for materialism.
Dualism (the notion of mind being seperate from the brain) is very inviting, and I used to subscribe to it, but I think it is ultimately flawed. Just about every contemporary philosopher rejects it, it's most famous proponent Descartes has been ruthlessly picked apart, and the whole fields of psychiatry, medicine, cognitive neuroscience depend on dualism being false.
There is a huge correlation between the mind and the brain, and whole fields of research are dedicated to this. For one to argue for the seperation of mind and brain, these issues emerge:
1. If the mind is not physical, what is it made of?
2. If the mind is not physical, how does it seemingly have a causal effect upon the physical?
3. If the mind is not physical, why do we end with our death? Why are we 'anchored' to our bodies? Could we not be capable of swapping minds with another's body? Could our minds not survive our physical death?
I think that the first point is the most damaging to Dualism (again, the theory that mind is not identical with matter.) If the mind is not physical, what can it be? The definition of 'physical' is all matter contained in the universe. If the mind is thought to be some form of 'energy' it would still be physical. To be a seperate substance to all known physical matter is indeed challenging, although this is mainly a question of semantics, and it does not exactly counteract the argument of mind being seperate to the brain.
The second point is very much related to the first. In dualism, if the mind is nonphysical, how can it have an effect upon physical matter? To have a causal effect on physical matter, it would have to be physical itself. In everyday life we see a huge correlation between the brain and the mind. Take alcohol for example - we drink a beer and the alcohol in our blood affects the synapses in our brain and results in us becoming intoxicated. Our mental cognition is hampered - our decision-making, reaction time etc. All these things are 'the mind' and they are seemingly affected in a causal way by a physical chemical process in the brain. But this is just one example - think of drinking coffee, taking an asprin for a headache, taking LSD or any such substance.
The third point is pretty much self-explanatory. If our mind is seperate from our matter - our bodies, our brains - then what anchors our minds to us? Would it not be possible for two people to 'swap' minds?
But Korittke makes a very different argument. I'll adress that in a second post for better clarity. It's probably going to be a rather long post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
im not exactly sure. it hasn’t been scientifically proven that consciousness is just a chemical reaction in the brain. and i think there is some good evidence that would suggest otherwise.
Then go forth and find me a conscious brain dead person...Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
the tempt was too greatQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
ive posted this many times, im sure people who have read my threads on the subject think i sound like an old broken record using this again :oops:
there are several cases like this. i like using this case the most because i think it comes closest to an actual scientific experiment. and i think it has a lot of significance.
so once again..
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book,
Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of a near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.
Sorry about the multiple post, but this one is dedicated solely to Korittke's intresting post.
Firstly, I reject the notion of qualia. I'll discuss that later.
I haven't studied casuality very much, but I have heard that someone (was it Kant?) provided a good argument against it. But casuality is a good working hypothesis, I guess. So I'll agree with assuming that casuality exists.Quote:
Mind and brain correlate, that is, their informational content is exactly identical but of a different nature, and neither of them could be said to have causal influence on the other. Instead, they correlate by some universal process that translates neuron-states into mind-states (and vice versa) for no reason.
However, the physical universe has causal influence on the brain. Causal influences on the mind cannot be said to exist because qualia cannot access themselves and thus cannot analyze their qualia-influences. Since the physical universe is causally closed, it shall be assumed that qualia have no causal influences on their own.
So in your argument above, you are arguing that the brain and the phenomenal mind (the mind as qualia) are related simply through correlation, but not causality? (I hope I'm understanding you right.)
I think that this argument is flawed. If we assume that changes in brain-state, as influenced by physical causality are then mirrored in the mind-state by the universal process, couldn't it then be said that the physical world does have a causal influence on the mind-state? Take the following situation for example:
1. An apple exists on the table in front of me. (physical state)
2. The light reflecting from the apple is detected by my retinae, which in turn send electrical signals to the visual cortex of my brain. (physical state affecting brain state causally)
3. My brain-state of 'seeing apple' is correlated by an informationally identical mind state as the result of the unknown universal process. For ease of discussion, I'll call the unknown universal process the Mirror-Process (I hope you don't disagree.)
So, to sum up what I think you're getting at, the physical state 'apple' causally produces the brain-state 'apple' which in turn produces the mental (qualia) state 'apple', but the mental state and the brain state are not causally linked. Is that right? It is simply a sort of 'mirror process' of correlation...
Why I think this is flawed is this:
If the mind state is informationally identical to the brain state, I assume that if we were to put a banana on the table, our mind state would change to 'banana'. I don't see how this is not a causal relationship, accepting that causality exists. By changing my brain state from 'apple' to 'banana', I am also changing my mind state from 'apple' to 'banana' in light of both states being informationally identical. I could not have the brain state 'apple' and the mind state 'banana'. This is causality - you stated that it occurred because of a 'universal process' - ie. there is some sort of mechanism that is making the mind state and the brain state correlate identically.
I find the idea of a correlation by an unknown process for no reason to be strange. I don't see why such an phenomena should be postulated. Furthermore, let's take a affectual example:
1. I have the mental state 'pick up apple.'
2. The 'mirror process' occurs (uknown universal process).
3. I have the brain state (informationally identical to the mental state) of 'pick up apple'
4. My brain sends the required electrical messages to my arm and, via a causal relation, I:
5. pick up the apple.
Now, there are a few objections to this. Firstly, the problem of causality, as I mentioned before: if I have the mind-state 'pick up apple' which is assumed to be a non-physical 'qualia' process, and I ultimately pick up the apple, which is a physical process, then aren't the two causally linked? This then produces the problem of how a nonphysical state can cause a physical state. I understand that your point is that the mental state and the brain state are not causally related but simply correlated in a mirror-like fashion, but that brings me to my next point. If the brain state and mental state are informationally identical and mirrored in a correlated way, then the brain state produces all that is required to pick up the apple: the brain state of 'pick up apple.' There is no need for a mental 'qualia' state at all - the brain could have done all the work by itself.
So, we have a dilemma. Either:
The brain-state is determined by the mental state, as in the case of picking up the apple. This would be a causal process.
Or,
The brain-state is not determined by the mental qualia state, simply being a mirrored correlate. There is then no need for a qualia state - the brain state can do all the work by itself.
This is really a question of which level of states we assume to be the originator of a 'decision-making process'. When I reach for the apple, does this originate at a qualia-level or a brain-level? If the former, then it can be called a 'causal process' and if the latter, there is no need for qualia at all.
From what you've said about qualia states being unable to access each other, I think you are implying the latter - that the qualia-mind level is a 'projection' if you will of what is going on in the brain level.
I think qualia and other such phenomenalistic notions of consciousness are philosophical illusions. I do think that consciousness can be fully explained through a reductive, scientific approach, whereby qualia are not present at all.
I assume that you've read Nagel's paper What is it like to be a bat? ? He argues that whatever attempts we have at scientifically and reductively explaining consciouness, we will never succeed because of the 'qualia' of what it is like to be a bat...
I disagree with this, and I've written a large essay on it just recently, but I guess I'll discuss it later, my eyes are about to fall out of my head :)
Hope I didn't misinterpret you! This should be a good debate!
Stop making so fucking huge posts, Roller.
Her brain can still function to a certain extent, and the NDE experience is just the physical responses from the brain. It is dead, and goes into a panick like mode, where it does all kinds of things, to stay alive. That atleast how I understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
that is a very rational and plausible theory. but i think there are two big things wrong with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
one problem....... three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function. But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests and she still had an NDE with a clear lucid thought process. so i think if it was a hallucination brought on by anoxia it would have shown up on the EEG and the doctors would have immediately identified it.
second problem is how she identified what was going on around her accurately during her time in stand still. during this surgery the front her head was concealed. so i think its impossible that she somehow drifted in for a split second and saw what was going on. she could describe what doctor was standing where, which instrument was being used and the exact words the doctors were exchanging. this was later verified. by definition, since it really happened, it cant be a hallucination
there are other parts to Pam’s NDE than just the OBE. She described the usual but beautiful stories of most NDE’ers. seeing people made out of light. Seeing dead loved ones and having a close conversation religious figures. But the scientists who study them focus most on the OBE because that is where is can be verified or debunked.
Thanks for reading :)
Disregarding her description of the procedure, since I haven't heard her description, its possible that what she thinks she remembers as happening while she was in the "brain dead" state actually happened before it. Many people have theorized that NDE's are caused by the brain's last rush for life, in which brain processes speed up and make the time elapsed seem much longer than real time. She may have felt like she was conscious long enough to last the entire procedure but it may have actually have all happened during her last few moments of brain activity before they put her into stand still.
Of course, this scenario would be disproven if she actually described something that was done while she was brain dead and couldn't have made up. Her descriptions of brain surgery would be suspect in my mind however without some very specific piece of information. I'm sure I could describe brain surgery close enough to sound like a lay person who had watched one even though I never have. Do you happen to have a link to her actual description of the procedure?
Edit: Nevermind, I just looked it up on my own. Without really knowing the exact situation I can't make a decision one way or the other. There are questions I would have to pose to people present in order to form any sort of opinion. Could she have seen the instruments before they put her out? Its all very thought provoking but without seeing something like this first hand its hard to believe. Especially since EEG's only scan the outer cortex of the brain and it is possible that there was still a glimmer of activity deep in the middle of the brain.
Without wanting to get off-subject here, there have been no scientifically proven OBE's - at least, not in the dualist form. Recently, scientists have been able to induce OBE's by things such as electrodes, and even simple camera-delay setups. OBE's are frequently known to occur during surgery and times of heavy stress to the brain.
Funny thing is... even if OBEs are proven to be real - it still does not prove the mind can function without the brain, because as far as we know, an OBE is the result of some special brain activity. It would prove the mind can function without the physical body... but I think we already knew that from dreams.
I think the mind can function without the brain - but as far as identity goes, I believe that would be lost.
I dont think so, a surgery room is a sterile environment. In an interview the doctors said they didnt take the instruments out of the packaging until the patient was under.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Possible, I think the case of Pam Reynolds is very interesting the further you dig into it. But I would feel very uncomfortable calling it proof. The actual NDE storyof Pam may offer a little more evidence. During the end of the surgery she did drift away for a minute. The doctors had to use the defibrillator to bring her back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
At this time pam describes she was standing over her body with her uncle. Her uncle was trying to convince her to just jump it. “Its just like jumping into a swimming pool” he said. She was very hesitate not wanting to jump in. She reports her uncle pushed her and she fell into her body. That is when they doctors brought her back.
At this point I think that this case should inspire further research. Like the new project in the UK being launched by Dr. Sam Parnia. But you make some good skeptical arguments which I respect
I have discussed this on another thread. and its not really recent, its been around for a while. A lot of skeptics use the Electrode experiment and REM intrusion as proof NDEs are nothing special. If you compare the cases as many researchers have. You find that there are many differences between normal NDEs and Artificial NDEs. Just a few for exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Roller
Artificial
Spontaneously reported viewing only part of body (legs and lower trunk)
Normal
Spontaneous report implied viewing the entire body
Artificial
Reported distortion of body image (legs became shorter; arm shorter)
Normal
No reported distortion of body image
thanks for reading :)
whatever happened to
?Quote:
I'm trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqariawhatever happened to
?....Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
well then this came up
how could i not mention NDEs after that question? the conversation just kinda took that turn :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I have theorized that most religious people are going to answer yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
The problem with your example is that she did not show consciousness while brain dead. She was conscious before and after and was able to describe what she percieved to happen while she was out but the woman we are talking about in terms of that which is represented by her physical manifestastion was not conscious while brain dead.
You appear to be talking very literally as if your sure it happened before or after the brain stopped. You can’t prove that just as I cant prove anything either. I think that there is some evidence to suggest that it happened during the operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
But this is beside the point. I didn’t bring up NDEs to PROVE to that person that the mind can exist independent from the body. I brought it up to give insight to what might be good evidence. Veridical Perception can get even more interesting when it happens miles away. And Veridical Perception gets still even more interesting when it happens to Blind Patients.
Are you sure this surgery ever took place? And is your source trustworthy? It sounds very doubtful, and if this actually happened, I'd go as far as saying, that the woman is lying, and the doctor is helping her in this act, in order to get attention. Not that the surgery didn't take place, but that all these things happened.
well, i dont hear this skeptical argument much. first of all these are respectable researchers. Dr sabom is a cardiologist he didn’t specialize in the brain but he has over twenty years of research in the field of NDEs. i really hope your not trying to say these researchers are not conducting a real scientific study, just because you disagree with the direction some of the evidence is pointingQuote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
is the women is lying? well, pam Reynolds now travels around (a devoted Christian) giving presentations at churches and hospitals and sells a book about her experience. but i dont think she really rakes in too much money. so i dont believe she is lying because of the veridical perception she described that was very accurate down to small details. a skeptic holds the position that it veridical perception might have happened either before or after she went into standstill. so either way she did experience something and believes it to be true.
and i really dont think the doctors who performed the operation are just going along with the story to get a reputation. do you really think that several surgeons would all form some conspiracy with a religious nutcase to make $10,000 in book sales?
in a survey by Dr. Bruce Greyson around 90% said they were now certain in life after death. There are thousands of stories of drug addicts turned teachers, Atheists becoming priests and mean and unpleasant people becoming the most friendly person on the block. Its very easy to see the huge psychological impact an NDE has on a person that lasts for the rest of their lives. it really is quite beautiful :)
Oops voted yes, i ment maybe because i don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
I read on this site somewhere there is a 2nd side to that story, the skeptics saying the machines were not working properly, if that's true then this story has no credibility IMO. As hard as it probably is i hope someone can make it passed the time and prove to everyone it's real, unless of course it's impossible because the body will be dead forever, then this will never end because it's an impossible task.
Nothings certain, it's online stuff you cannot prove watching unless you do some research, you just gotta believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Well trustworthy in a "i believe it, but you wont" kind of way because the whole believer/skeptic thing or one that puts facts on? several MD's get their stories posted at that websiteQuote:
And is your source trustworthy?
http://www.near-death.com/
Take it for what it's worth
Quote:
It sounds very doubtful, and if this actually happened, I'd go as far as saying, that the woman is lying, and the doctor is helping her in this act, in order to get attention. Not that the surgery didn't take place, but that all these things happened.
So will anything if it sounds too good to be true, but doesn't mean it's not true. You can tell me a true story that sounds too good to be true and i can doubt it all i want, doesn't mean it's not true.
i just disagree with one thing you said
i dont think you "just have to believe" the sugery took place. it took place. doctors were interviewed, hospitals were visited, medical logs were filled out and checked....it happened. out of all factors of NDEs people could argue im very surprised someone has argued the surgery never took place. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
yes there is a second side to every story. but people just seem to focus on the machines. Veridical perception keeps bouncing back. pam needed to be "dead" for the operation to succeed. and she described what the doctors were saying while she was supposed to be dead. im not a doctor i cant say anything about whether or not the machines were working correctly. but i know that it seems very strange that she could know all she knew at that time. its not proofQuote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
I stand by what i said, you cannot prove it happened just by watching it, you can prove it from research and finding out if it was real.
Your question is questionably phrased.
CAN the mind exist outside the brain? Sure, anything is possible, as far as we know. Is there reasonable evidence to believe that it does? Absolutely not. Occam's razor takes care of that.
I've read about some experiments that Stephen Thaler did on neural networks. He was able to create 'sensations' in the brain by killing 'neurons' in a neural network(which had no activity), which had clear association to data that had been fed into it beforehand. Perception, even in 'death'.
Does it assume too much when we determine a brain is "dead"? Lack of brain-wave activity, sure, but we don't know how the brain works yet. Some functions may not be attributed to waves of neurons firing, and instead would take place in the 'random' chatter of neurons. There is a distinct possibility that, while clinically dead, the brain possesses some of its powers of perception. Since the auditory nerves are still connected to it, there is a possibility that the signals are still interpreted by the brain on some level.
The simplest explanation may be that brain death is more difficult to determine than we think.
very interesting indeed. i guess we will just have to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
i just have to say that just because a "feeling" is experienced by stimulating part of the brain that doesn’t necessarily mean that all feelings are caused by the brain. parts of your brain are being stimulated right now as you read this. it doesn’t mean that these words are a hallucination produced by that part of the brain. it goes back to the television metaphor.
But I always thought NDEs were different from that explanation. In some cases of NDEs extra senses have been given to the patient that they didn’t have before. Some NDE patients who are deaf are able to Hear in and NDE and patients Blind from Birth are able to See during an NDE.
PS: i hate the simplest explanation thing, takes all the fun out of thinking what could be. i dont think DNA and Black holes were simple explanations. but of course this is only my personal opinion ;)
Sure, but just because I haven't seen a flying unicorn doesn't mean that they don't exist. Just because when I turn the wheel of my car right the car goes right doesn't mean that there isn't some giant child with a remote control actually making my car turn and I just happen to be turning the wheel at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Occam's razor. It is indeed possible that not all emotions and thoughts originate in the brain, but to say that this is a likely scenario is completely unfounded. You people are grasping at straws to explain your invisible non-physical things which somehow interface with our physical bodies without breaking the laws of physics in a non-deterministic fashion. Yeah.
Bullshit, there's no way of knowing what they really experienced. Perhaps they merely thought that they saw, but they really experienced something completely different. If they've been blind from birth, they can't know what it's like to see, and any reports of them seeing which are not confirmed by a third party are extremely questionable. Same for deaf people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Well, that's good to know.:)Quote:
I haven't seen a flying unicorn
Ill try to respond
I dont believe I ever said it was a likely scenario, if I did say that it was a mistake on my partQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
you people huh? ok, im unclear on exactly what group your categorizing me in. i would say its christian, so please since your uncomfortable with assumptions dont assume that im a Christian trying to find anything to rationalize my beliefs. Truth is I have just always found NDEs to be a fascinating topic. And admire the research done on the topic by the doctors who study them.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
uuhh, i dont like when people start off with a curse word. just makes me a little tense........anyways. I agree with you. There is no way in really knowing what they saw. That is why I try never to call it proof. The case of Viki Noratuk was interesting because she described which doctor were in the room. There are many variables that could come into play. But there is no doubt in her mind that this wasn’t real. Of course that doesn’t do anything for the researchers. I guess we will find out more when Dr Greysons Results from his new study are released. And when the new study in the UK by Dr. Parnia is completed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
My point is, anything is possible. Plausible? Not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
By 'you people', I am referring to anyone who believes that there is a non-physical component to human beings. Religion has nothing to do with it. My analogy with the car turning in response to the steering wheel expresses my frustration quite well. This conjecture is simply grasping at straws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Sometimes a curse word is the only one which really expresses your argument. I don't mean to offend, it's just a word. I'll call you a poopy-headed liar if you'd prefer :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
I, too, am fascinated by NDEs. However, I'm fairly sure that they're just vivid hallucinations caused by a brain in trauma. I could be wrong, of course, but I see no reason to assume otherwise unless something makes non-physical entities a more plausible explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Can someone kill me? i wanna have an NDE, i have never expierienced any of this stuff except sleep parylisis(sp?) once, and lately some crazy real like dreams.
NDE
OBE
STD
LD
WILD
etc
etc
etc
I'm boring.:(
Well what about
LSD
PCP
DMT?
These acronyms can make you feel like you are experiencing those other acronyms.
You use Occam's razor way too much, and in places that it doesn't really apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
Nah, i don't do drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I don't believe I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Look, we have a brain. Every emotion we feel, every physical action we perform, has a different signature in the brain which corresponds with it. Everyon'es brain works slightly differently, of course, but it is possible even now to tell what basic state of mind someone is in by observing neuronal activity.
Is it possible that the brain is not in charge of thought, and some non-physical entity is? Of course. But that is completely unnecessary. By Occam's razor, we already have a simple explanation which seems to work. Why invent something non-physical?
The best analogy I can come up with is the car one. Every time you turn the wheel of your car clockwise, your car turns right. Is it possible that someone is watching you, and every time you turn the wheel, they flip some switch on a remote control to make your car turn? Sure. But a much simpler explanation is that your car's steering wheel is mechanically responsible for the car's turning. There is no need for some invisible source to intervene.
over the last few days ive been thinking about it more than i usually do.:?Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
i have been trying to find some good stuff from the recent studies but my god its hard to find a neutral standpoint. most skeptic sites just want to destroy the notion of NDEs at all costs. And a lot of religious sites think a fly landing on the EEG is proof :roll:
but I’ve been reading a lot on the Dutch study. by Dr. van Lommel. it was completed in 2001 and was the largest research project to date. i believe another is being planned...but anyways. van lommel has doubts that NDEs are a hallucination. the study focused on patients of cardiac arrest. the researchers visited 10 hospitals and tracked 344 hand picked patients. most if not all of these patients had the perfect conditions to have an NDE but only 18% reported NDEs. so i think if these are hallucinations they are different and a bit more rare than normal hallucinations.
it was interesting to read the interviews of NDE patients as well. According to the researchers some NDE patients have had both a normal hallucination and an NDE and describe them as totally different. Its also possible to see when comparing hallucinations to NDEs the hallucinations tend to make little sense, are unstructured and create no after affects. people know that the normal hallucinations are just hallucinations. NDEs appear to deeply effect the patient and have a similar structure that can be seen in other NDEs from around the world. so this hints to me that these are probably not normal hallucinations but maybe complex chemical reactions that might be a bit more uncommon. perhaps the right temporal lobe produces this "structure".
any other ideas?
I think that most, if not all, of those characteristics imply that NDEs are simply very STRONG hallucinations - you could call them 'death hallucinations', if you wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
When your entire brain is re-tasked to creating a pleasant landscape, it will undoubtedly be 'different' from your run-of-the-mill hallucinations. This would only occur in very extreme cases, so the 18% seems reasonable. It would also make sense that NDEs would be widely similar, since the brain itself is widely similar among human beings.
I don't really see how that guy has doubts about NDEs being hallucinations.
so would you say they are different than the normal hallucinations of...say..dreams or drug induced. Of course normal hallucinations are easy to identify as hallucinations. NDEs would have to be a strong enough Hallucination to cause someone to change their life and structure it around their experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
im not really sure what you mean, my brain creates an entirely new landscape every night in my dreams. could you explain a little more?Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
again im not seeing the exact point. your brain and my brain are very similar in structure but that doesn’t mean you and I both dream the same scenarios each night.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
i dont know or understand all of the evidence he presents, he has been studying them for twenty or so years, so i dont think he is ignorant on the subject .but i would imagine interviewing thousands of people who present such moving stories would have a impact on anyone’s life. even if they haven’t had one themselvesQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
Some people change their lives around reading a book, or getting chills when some preacher reads a verse. People can be impressionable at times, especially when they're half-dead and then are given a second chance at life. The overall trauma of the experience is more likely to imprint itself on them then the NDE itself, but it certainly adds to the whole impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
When you dream, some parts of your brain are 'inactive', as far as we know. When you're dying, I would assume that your whole brain goes into overdrive and if you were to have a hallucination, it would be the result of all of your brain working feverishly. Of course, that's just conjecture, but the idea is that when under stress, hallucinations are bound to be more impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Dreams are based on your daily experiences and your inner thoughts. When your brain is dying, it would make sense to me that certain things would occur (maybe the center of your field of vision is perceived to be sending strong signals, resulting in a tunnel effect with a white light, etc.) People often act fairly similarly when in trauma, so maybe the same applies to the brain itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
As long as he doesn't let that influence his research. Touching stories which are completely believed by the tellers can still be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
true, but trauma? Are you saying that people are actually being changed by the shock of coming so close to death? Or because of the NDE itselfQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
from the patients that were observed. (Like Reynolds) the EEG was flat. Unfortunately, the EEG only measures the outer cortex so we cannot know for sure that the whole brain was inactive. We do know that in some cases the outer cortex was inactive. And accurate veridical perception suggests that the experience happened at that inactive time. But the 18% thing. 344 patients were tracked by the researchers . All went into cardiac arrest and were revived.i imagine cardiac arrest is extreamly stressful but 82% report no memory at all. if they were simply caused by the stress of dyeing I think a much larger percentage would have reported themQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
The center field of vision is a famous theory that is brought up a lot. And seems plausible. In the book “Mind sight” blind patients report the same tunnel of light. Like you said we cant know for sure what they really saw. But the book has the detailed accounts of 21 patients blind from birth. ive just always found it interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
.
You brought up a very interesting point. If anything I think this would say that we dont know enough about the brain to make a decision. But looking at the cases right now. An analysis from iands.org has studied the cases and identified 15 common elements reported.just to name a few...... almost all NDE patients said they felt an overwhelming sensation of love. many report all their dead relatives waiting to greet them. A lot report a door or line which if they cross they can never return. and high percentage of patients reported they talked with "beings made out of light" . its facinating really but I am a little skeptical that a brain under stress could produce very similar hallucinations in tens of thousands of people and have a specific order in which the events occurQuote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
Not to mention that when you die, your brain releases large amounts of DMT (Dimethyltryptamine), which is a potent psychadelic drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
Effects of DMT use include time dialation, euphoria, perception of visiting other worlds, and perception of being visited by other-worldly creatures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8
This is a good watch.
i think that is a very interesting theory. but i have a few objections to it i would like to point out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
in all the hospitals across the world. thousands of people die each day, and thousands are brought back as well. of all the people brought back from being flat lined a small but significant percentage report NDEs. DMT is produced by the brain. but if DMT was the main cause of the NDEs i think many more people would report them.
DMT is naturally produced in small amounts in the brains and other tissues of humans, and other mammals. the hallucinations can be rather strange. when testing the effects of DMT some patients reported contact with 'other beings', alien like, insectoid and reptilian in nature, in technological environments where the subjects were 'probed', 'tested' and sometimes even 'manipulated' by these 'beings'. the hallucinations although intense were very strange, random and didn’t follow any order.
okay, i didnt feel like reading all of this thread, but i wanted to contribute anyway. DMT is interesting, but i dont want to get on that right now. check this out, princeton did a study on inducing out of body experiences, and trying to get the perception of oneself out of the body.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss
that does provide some good evidence, but there are objections to that researchQuote:
Originally Posted by Tavasion
http://www.iands.org/research/import...the_brain.html
Yeah when you die you let out massive amount of DMT, and some people have the expierience, others don't. Everyone would expierience it if it was DMT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
from the patients that describe DMT hallucinations and any other artificial NDEs/OBEs say they are very strong hallucinations, but most say they are still identifiable as just a hallucination. meaning that the patients of the artificial NDEs produced little or not after effects because they know that they were not real. as is quite different of the Normal NDE cases. Maybe some unknown brain chemical is present in the natural NDEs but not in the artificial ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
I'm a little late to the party, but I figure it's better to reply to an existing thread than to make a new one and I'd like to chime in on this debate.
I don't think that our current explanation 'works' at all. It does adequately address some of the correlations between mind and brain, but it also dismisses a great deal of inconvenient observable evidence that throws the whole model into question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thegnome54
For example, in the case of dying people who have developed severe brain damage. Often, in the later stages of disease, these people can't even remember the names and faces of family members. In the hours approaching their death, sometimes these people will spontaneously become lucid and clear of thought. They will remember faces, names, and be able to speak clearly despite the fact that the brain damage supposedly responsible for their cognitive affliction is still very much there. This phenomenon is well known as "Terminal Lucidity".
Similarly there is a brain affliction known as hydrocephalus. In the most severe cases of hydrocephalus, a patient can be left with less than 5% of the brain mass of a normal person - and yet, even in these most severe cases there are patients who have above average IQs and seemingly no mental deficits.
The last one I'll bring up here is acquired savant syndrome - where brain damage actually results in radically increased mental abilities.
Those who believe consciousness to be a creation of the brain are left in an uncomfortable position by these kinds of mysteries. After all, if the brain produces consciousness why would brain damage result in radically increased mental abilities? Why are some people with severe brain tumors suddenly able to transcend their brain damage and remember people, faces, and hold a normal conversation as their death nears? How would people be able to live a normal life with a miniscule fraction of a normal brain?
My own view is that consciousness is an intrinsic irreducible part of the universe and that the brain behaves as a kind of filter for consciousness. Cyril Burt sums this up well:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roller
“The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual”
Not only does this view instantly solve all of these neurological mysteries, but it also does not conflict with neuroscience, because it does not deny the correlations observed surrounding the brain – it simply interprets them differently than materialists do.
For example, is the brain activity correlated with certain states of consciousness the measure of consciousness, or the measure of the brain responding to consciousness?
When you take a drug, is the effect on consciousness caused by the brain altering the way it produces consciousness or does the drug merely alter the brain's ability to regulate consciousness which consequently produces the change?
When you hit your head, does it cause a mechanical change in the brain which translates to consciousness, or does it cause a mechanical change in the brain which alters the way the brain regulates consciousness?
What would you consider scientifically proven? There are scientists who have done extensive work around the out of body experience who do claim dualist results - notably, Robert Monroe’s team as well as the Societies for Psychical Research.Quote:
Without wanting to get off-subject here, there have been no scientifically proven OBE's - at least, not in the dualist form.
But I’m going to go off on a limb here and assume what you mean is large, peer reviewed studies? If that is the case, then I would say the reason that OBEs have not been proven is because to my knowledge there have been no large peer reviewed teams studying the phenomenon with a goal of testing the validity of dualism.
While these may technically be OBEs by definition, they have little in common with a true OBE. Giving somebody a sense of being somewhere else is not the same thing as feeling yourself lift off your body, floating around, touching objects and feeling them, as well as feeling bizarre ‘new’ sensations.Quote:
Recently, scientists have been able to induce OBE's by things such as electrodes, and even simple camera-delay setups.
Why does it have to be ‘made’ of anything at all?Quote:
If the mind is not physical, what is it made of?
We don’t end with our death.Quote:
If the mind is not physical, why do we end with our death?
I don’t know why we are anchored here. From a philosophical standpoint this question could be viewed almost as saying, what is the purpose of life? Perhaps, we are not in this situation voluntarily. Perhaps we are here for a unique physical experience.Quote:
Why are we 'anchored' to our bodies? Could we not be capable of swapping minds with another's body?
I doubt people are capable of swapping bodies. If it is possible, few people know how to do it, and they’re not talking. Look at the OBE, or the NDE, there are seemingly endless stories you can read from people who claim to have experienced these things and virtually none that claim that body swapping is possible.
If it isn't made of anything, it contains nothing, it is nothing, it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RideTheWalrus
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...e-facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
So where's the flaw in my logic? What is there out there that is non-physical?
Could you provide an example of something that isn't made of anything?
dark matterQuote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
it doesn`t exist because most of it`s dimension are spread across in the "space"between the universes ... m-theory
it`s like wind blowing on water, the wind exists independent of water, it`s real, yet it still has an effect on it ... but a fish says close to the surface "wtf was that? there`s nothing ...riiiiiight???" :eek:
Dark matter is theoretical, but lets assume it does exist. It has to be something in order for it to exist. It isn't made of nothing, we just can't detect it with our technology. Dark Matter, implying it is a physical substance.
Your analogy shows this well, wind is made of air, yet the fish has no knowledge of air above water. But it is made of something. Just like how dark matter is real, it is physically there, yet we can't detect it.
Fo reals yo, what are you facepalming over? Even if it turns out I'm wrong it's clearly not something obvious.
If you have any other examples I'd love to hear them, I've asked this question a bunch of times and never gotten a single sensible answer.
This whole thread is about that very question. Is the mind purely physical, or is it not limited to the body?Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
When you state that if consciousness exists, it must be made of matter you're essentially starting with your conclusion. It's not logically proving a case, it's just stating your belief system.
Show me one thing that exists that isn't physical. How can something exist if it isn't made of anything? I'm tempted to repeat my first post.
Even if the mind is non-physical, it has to be made of something, some kind of non-physical substance.
Do ideas exist? Does math exist?
And I resent the idea that I am immaterial... :shadewink:
It could be argued that the sensation of pain is not physical but is caused by physical stimuli.
But then what is the sensation of pain. Neurons doing their thing. Physical.
Also, lol hpnfreak. It's funny to say that dark matter is non physical and then ascribe that to m-theory when nobody even knows what m-theory is yet or if it even exists. Also, it seems like the dark matter halo of the solar system has been measured is probably consists of WIMPs as has long been postulated. This is still a controversial result: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1002...s.2010.97.html
inb4 "string theory can account for that!"
You mentioned three possible challenges to our current explanation, and I will address them as best I can:Quote:
Originally Posted by RideTheWalrus
Terminal lucidity is indeed a mysterious thing. Little research has been done into the matter, most likely due to the obvious methodological difficulties involved. I did find one paper (Terminal lucidity in patients with chronic schizop... [J Nerv Ment Dis. 2009] - PubMed result) that attempted to glean some kind of quantifiable data from a survey of the literature. Considerable text from this paper can be found in a blog post here (Imminent Death and Spontaneous Return to Mental Awareness | Havealittletalk's Blog).
You're right that we can't explain it and that it seems very odd, given what we currently believe about diseases like Alzheimers. The truth is that we really don't know all that much about these diseases in the first place. It's entirely possible that they disable retrieval of memories rather than the memories themselves. In this case, like a deleted file, a trivial change in the brain might enable their return. Perhaps such a change occurs near death.We can both agree that it's a strange phenomenon, so the question boils down to this: does it make more sense to accept the leap of dualism (which is a massive assertion) in order to cling to our current understanding of Alzheimers, or to consider that we may misunderstand the disease? The former option is made even less attractive when you realize that dualism
does not explain terminal lucidity either - a mechanism for brain change near death is still needed to explain the change in 'filtering', as you would say. The nail in the coffin for me is that, as I mentioned, this phenomenon is by nature difficult to examine scientifically. We're left with a confusing phenomenon which we know little about that seems to challenge our notions of a disease we know little about. These are hardly the rock and hard place you would want to use to force us to accept a costly claim like dualism.
Hydrocephalus is also an interesting phenomenon, but I believe your facts are a bit off here. I believe you're referring to a specific case where a man was found to be leading a functional life with a severe case that left him with only a smallish portion of brain matter. You can see pictures of his brain in this article: Brain of a white-collar worker : The Lancet For fun and reference, here are some slices of my own brain: imgur: the simple image sharer
First I should point out that although the article does not specify what percent of his brain matter is left, it does look significantly more than 5%. Next, and most importantly, his IQ was 75. This is a barely functional level of intelligence, just above qualifying legally as mentally disabled. Thus this example in fact continues to support the correlation between 'mind' and brain. I don't believe any other cases of such severe Hydrocephalus have been found in adults.
As for acquired savantism, I found this article by Dr. Darold Treffert who appears to be an authority on the matter: Accidental Genius
He points out that most cases of this appear to follow damage to the left anterior temporal region. The prevailing theory is that this area is responsible for significant inhibition, and messing with it allows otherwise buried 'skills' to arise. Given how little we know about how the brain works, this seems a very reasonable hypothesis. Think about our attention system - we are able to recognize objects in busy settings because when we focus on them our brain inhibits processing of clutter and extraneous things around them in the visual field. Without this inhibition, we might be 'savants' of perception, percieving every single thing in the visual field all of the time. This ability would probably be accompanied by increased distractability and difficulty focusing. In many of these accidental savantism cases, the increase in artistic skill is accompanied by dementia or other important losses. It's difficult to say why the brain does what it does, but we can be fairly certain that it has evolved towards a local maximum of performance for human survival. If we posit that this local maximum includes having inhibited 'savant' functions, then the whole thing ceases to be an issue.
All of these phenomena may be cause for some relatively minor revisions of our current ideas about how the brain is probably related to consciousness, but none of them are anywhere near problematic enough to warrant discarding the notion of brain=mind. Even if they were, you would still need to come up with evidence that specifically supports your 'consciousness filtering' theory rather than simply providing problems with materialism.
My question is this: what would evidence for the existence of (anything) non-physical look like? What predictions does your consciousness-filtering theory make that clash with those of materialism?
Its a good point I tend to agree that mental states can be reduced to physical states in the brain. I guess the reason why I brought it up was because the other day I heard someone trying to refute identity materialism by arguing that pain is a result of c-fibers being stimulated in the brain and refuting that the sensation of pain is c-fibers being stimulated which I was defending.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I don’t think that consciousness necessarily has to be ‘made’ of anything at all. It may simply BE an intrinsic irreducible basic part of the universe in the same way that matter simply IS.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
What you’re doing is looking at consciousness in a material context. Ex: If it exists, it must be observable and measurable. I don’t necessarily think that must be the case, although I don’t discount the possibility.
If that is the case and consciousness is made of ‘something’, then I’ll readily admit I don’t know what consciousness IS, and I’m in good company, given the rest of the world doesn’t seem to know what it is IS either.
Mainstream materialism has not solved this either. It holds that consciousness ‘somehow’ arises as a byproduct of the combined processes of the brain. It’s essentially saying, we don’t know how consciousness comes to be, but it must be in there somewhere. It can’t define what consciousness IS either, nor can it tell you how insentient matter gains a sense of awareness. That's the hard problem.
How do you defend this position? Nothing we know about c-fibers suggests that their activation should 'be' a sensation. Are you positing that qualia is a property of matter somehow, or that it is an emergent property? The second seems more reasonable, but is not entirely the same as 'qualia IS neural activation patterns'.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Thanks for the reply thegnome54:
I'm aware that there is still much we don't know about the way Alzheimer's and Schizophrenia effect the brain, but these are not the only diseases that Terminal Lucidity has been reported in occurring. I recall one particular article that made it to Times Science Magazine called 'The Brain: The Power of Hope' where a man was in very advanced stages of brain cancer. Towards the end when doctors scanned his head, there was barely any brain left and he was exhibiting no expression or response to anything - he was vacant. Later, the man gained lucidity and clearly spoke to his loved ones, before passing away.
It's true that all we have are anecdotes on the subject of Terminal Lucidity at present, but there are many such anecdotes. In examples such as this, where a fraction of the brain remains, it does make a strong case when one can speak, think, and remember clearly with a fraction of their brain remaining.
(I'd link the article for you but I just signed up and can't post links for a week, but a quick google search should find it)
IMO, things like Terminal Lucidity are better explained by a 'filter' theory because under the filter theory memory and consciousness are inherently separate from the brain. The process of dying itself, at least, in some instances could reasonably account for the brain’s change in filtering ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
If you look at the same situation from a materialist standpoint, memories must inherently be stored in the brain and consciousness must arise from the brain, so, after catastrophic brain damage one would expect memories and consciousness to be damaged as well. Clear memory and cognitive function in such cases as patients near death is not what one would expect at all.
As for hydrocephalus, I'm aware of the article that you're talking about. It circulated the news, I think it was called "Tiny brain normal life" or something along those lines. I was not talking about that specific example, although it was impressive in itself. The article I was citing that made these claims was called "Where is consciousness? I've lost it!"
I'm going to borrow a quote from R. Craig Hogan here.Quote:
All of these phenomena may be cause for some relatively minor revisions of our current ideas about how the brain is probably related to consciousness, but none of them are anywhere near problematic enough to warrant discarding the notion of brain=mind. Even if they were, you would still need to come up with evidence that specifically supports your 'consciousness filtering' theory rather than simply providing problems with materialism.
"Our interpretation of reality must account for all the evidence. If we had all the evidence about our existence, including neurobiology, physics principles, the afterlife, and psychic activity on note cards and spread them out on a huge table, we would have to draw conclusions that accommodated as many note cards as possible. That is logical positivism and satisfies the requirement for an explanation that fits Occam's Razor and the rule of parsimony. That means the explanation or conclusion we derive should fit as many of the facts on the cards as possible. We won't call it "Truth" because Truth changes as humankind changes. However, the explanation is the best fit that accommodates the most facts known right now, and leaves the fewest anomalies.
If we have a small number of facts that our explanation can't explain, we may stay with the only conclusion we have that fits the facts in most note cards until we have more knowledge that enables us to fit the facts in the few that don't quite fit now. That conclusion we come to must be the simplest one that includes the most facts from among competing explanations."
I like the filter view because it does not have to discard near death experiences, out of body experiences, and other such subjective accounts.
It also solves a wide variety of neurological mysteries, and it does not clash with neuroscience. As far as I’m aware there are no findings in brain science that conflict with this view.
IMO, it better fits all of the evidence we have available.
When it comes to things that cannot be directly observed, the only evidence we can have are from the effects those things have on things that can be observed.Quote:
My question is this: what would evidence for the existence of (anything) non-physical look like?
I’ll use quantum physics as an example. The Higgs Boson, I believe, has never been directly observed. Its existence was theorized to as a missing link that several key theories required.
We are searching for the Higgs Boson by looking at observable particles as they collide with each other. While we can’t directly observe it, its existence will be proven or disproved based on what we can observe.
It would conflict with materialism in a number of ways. If somebody, for example, claimed to have experienced an OBE that they correlated with reality, it would not need to automatically discard their story as rubbish to survive as a model.Quote:
What predictions does your consciousness-filtering theory make that clash with those of materialism
It would not need to discard the subjective experiences of thousands of near death experiencers as fabrications of their brain.
Too often, I think, these things are not even given the time of day because they conflict with our current model.
I wonder
the main question in this thread really is "Do we have a soul and what happens to us after death? ... heaven, hell, reincarnation, nothing or something else ... can we save that like a computer program into a machine or another living thing with brains, like a clone of ours"
when we die, we will find it out, for sure, that`s we`ll know it 100%
so I have a better question:
Are you in a hurry?
I believe in cases of like Alzheimer, the memories inside the brain are not destroyed, only the ability to access them are. So the memories are still there. In cases where there is very slow degrading of the brain, like in the case of the small brain normal life thing, the brain has shown to be very adaptable, and what is remaining of the brain can continue on and make due. People who suffer brain damage are often able to retrain abilities using other parts of their brains, which may originally been used for something else. Also even if a a chunk of brain is destroyed it is possible that memories can still survive.
If you think about it there is really no difference between the parts of the brain that stores memories or 'filters' memories in that theory. If something happens in the brain prior to death that temporary restores the brain filtering abilities, there is no reason to believe that it would restore normal brain functions. In either case the same thing is basically happening. That theory doesn't explain the sudden restoring of filtering ability any more than the sudden restoring of memory. All your doing is adding another competent to how our bodies work, which doesn't effect anything.
So you guys are giving up? No one can show me a single example of a non-physical thing? If not, what leads you to believe that consciousness is such a thing? You're inventing a new category of things just so that you can entertain the idea that you will live on after death in some new shell. There is no shell.
If that is the case, that it is an intrinsic part of the universe, it is still made of something, the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RideTheWalrus
I am currently conscious of a delicious sandwich going down my esophagus. My consciousness of this sandwich is created by(made up of, same thing) a number of physical things. The sandwich, my body, my nerves in my digestive system, and the signals this creates in my brain.
Even if consciousness is some kind of mystical essence it is an essence, it is something. In order for something to be something there has to be something there god dammit! If it isn't made of anything then it is by definition nothing, it doesn't exist.
I've never said that it has to be observable or measurable, though I would hope you can observe you're own consciousness, it's quite an important skill. What I'm saying is that it has to be something or it is nothing. I'm pretty sure that isn't a false dichotomy, there isn't some third category. And if it is something we can only assume that it's made of energy like everything else*. It's physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by RideTheWalrus
Honestly I am not the best person to explain this. I admittedly don't know much about how the brain functions. But science does have a good idea of how this all works. Do you have any idea how a non-physical consciousness would function? Would you care to explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by RideTheWalrus
If you really don't know what consciousness is, then how are you supposed to have any clue if it's physical or not, or if it exists independently from the body. Reason from what you know. If you don't know how can you reason or experiment? How can you have any kind of a clue at all. If you don't know what it is, any theory you come up with is just you making stuff up because you want the world to be a certain way. Let go of self clinging and live life right now.
If you don't know what consciousness is, maybe you could google it or something, there's an assload of different definitions. But I'd assume that the reason why you don't know what it is is that you are assuming it's something that exists independent of other things rather than just a byproduct of things.
*disclaimer, I haven't been paying attention to or studying science much lately, maybe it's really strings or whatever the hell the latest theory is. Bottom line is that anything that is real can be considered physical. And at their basis, even imaginary things are physical, as are sensations and all forms of consciousness.
tooo much philosophy
waaaaaay to much, hurts my head to read it
so let`s simplify
some people use out of body experiences as a proof for this non-physical thing and there are some people on this site interested in such things along heling crystals and such ... so I got an idea
if any of you has an OBE next time, why don`t you try influencing something tangible with your astral body
like brake the window of the neighbour, whom you utterly dispise ... no, not with sticks and stones, with your astral body please :D
that would solve a couple of mysteries including the question posted here :D
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by hpnfreak
WARNING MORE PHILOSOPHY[IN THE PHILOSOPHY SUB_FORUM]
I've had OBEs. In retrospect the were probably just [lucid]dreams where I was in my house. They seemed incredibly real and I was convinced it was proof at the time. But I doubt it now, I'm not even sure they were true OBEs, which makes me wonder how many, if any really are.
But even if OBEs are real they most likely occur through some kind of physical means. I'd like to elaborate but I have to go.
The problem with hpnfreak's suggestion is that 'astral material' can't interact with regular 'non-astral' material. Unless it's making the body move of course ...
So yeah, no experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
momy says I`m special
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile..._4830107_n.jpg
It can be separate, but relies on the brain being there.
I guess an OBE is basically your mind existing away from your brain..? Or am I talking garbage here?
How do you folks suggesting that the mind can exist independently define mind? And what do you think it's made of?
Personally I think of mind as your stream of thoughts, whereas what you seem to be talking about would either be consciousness or self. If there was just a mind wandering around it would be nothing but thoughts. A mind can't see any more than an eye can think.
Well if we wanna get astral, OBEs aren't considered astral. They're considered etheric. But thats more info than necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
The etheric stuff that composes the OBE body is considered physical material that CAN interact with the physical material world. With exceptions. It's believed the etheric body is something in the electromagnetic range. They believe this for two reasons: people who testify to OBE claim when they come into contact with electrical appliances weird things happen. Just touching a radio can cause immense pain. Others feel this fuzzy static charge, sometimes repelling or attracting, when they come near a plugged in electrical appliance.
This is why ghost hunters carry with them EEG readers. They believe ghosts have the same type of electrical body as an OBEr, and this is why ghosts can "haunt" a place by screwing around with the lights and appliances.
I know that's not the best science if you even want to call it science. But when studying OBEs we do have to take OBE testimonies into account, and a lot of them do claim to electromagnetic weirdness. It's something to keep in mind.
Fair enough. Then somebody in an OBE should be able to do something to electronic devices on a regular basis. Can you OBE? Have you noticed anything that happens with regularity that could potentially be measured with an EEG?
No I've never had any experiences that I would call an OBE (maybe astral, but not OBE). But I think that would make for an interesting experiment based on the experiences of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned