I’m new but its nice to see a conversations about OBEs. I think out of body experiance might not be the right name for it, but its been used for so long that it’s easy for me to go: Oh one of those experiance. Just a matter of labeling. I think its interesting that people see it as a lucid dream, because it IS like dreaming in my experiance, but there are some difference from a lucid dream and an OBE. Just like there is a difference between a normal dream and a highly vivid dream.
I think where the problem for me is the idea that something: like the soul, mind, spirit is traped in your body and escapes from time to time. To me its more like a shift in conciousness, then an escape from the body.
You see the way I view it is that everything: OBEs, NDE, Life is a kind of dream. Our body is made from our minds, not our minds from our bodies, so when we dream, have OBEs, or die, we are just focusing our attension in another direction. Not that our bodies disappear, or that the physical body does not exisit in a physical world. If I could change the name I would say: Alternate State of Mind Experiance, but that sounds like a drug induced halucination. LOL Which I’m sure some of you must think I’m having.
Anyway that’s just my opinion based on some subjective thoughts and experiance, and my intutive feeling. More like faith then a well thought out argument or scientific fact.
That’s a classic argument from ignorance, if I’ve ever seen one.
There’s quite a bit wrong with what you said here. Allow me to paraphrase what you’ve written above:
Because there is evidence for consciousness, experienced during NDEs, while there is no brain activity, then consciousness exists without the body(NOTE: LOGICAL ERROR #1). Since everyone dies, and we’re aware of the phenomena of the NDE, then life after death follows logically(NOTE: LOGICAL ERROR #2).
#1: Consciousness during a lack of brain activity does NOT imply anything other than that the brain is not soley responsible for the phenomenon of consciousness!
#2: We can throw this out immediately, as it stands on a faulty foundation. However, for the sake of argument, I will illustrate using the language of logic(that are so thoroughly fluent in )why this doesn’t flow. Simply put, you’re saying this: A causes B. We don’t know what B means, but it must mean C. If you can’t understand your errors, then I can’t argue with you.
Actually, it’s the LAW that says they are dead. Legal guidelines on the definition of death were established for obvious reasons. Also, let it be noted that there was a time when you were considered dead when your heart stopped. Again, for legal reasons, and because we didn’t have the technology to monitor brain activity at the time.
No, of course we wouldn’t accept your theory of the string supported earth without evidence for it. I’m utterly surprised by this paragraph, as you make the same error as those that do believe the supported-by-strings theory.
What is everything subsequent? Do you mean our knowledge of consciousness as a function of the brain? If so, then there is LOADS of evidence for consciousness as a function of the brain. If you believe otherwise you are either uneducated in the area, unaware of the scientific process, or making some other error of judgement.
In case you don’t know how science works in the area of postulating and accepting theories and declaring facts, let me tell you.
A theory is born. This theory either comes about with some sort of logical basis or it doesn’t. E.g. “A dogs dew claw serves no purpose in its current state and is just a genetic remnant from its past ancestors” or “Alligators ruled the world in 1992.” Doesn’t matter what your theory is, they are both tested the same way, and that way is this: If you find evidence that fits your theory then it is considered true. Let’s take the 2nd theory. Obviously alligators did not rule the world in 1992, as we have records to prove that, in fact, HUMANS ruled the world in 1992. Now we alter our theory - "Humans ruled the world in 1992. " See where I’m going?
Theory: “Conscioussness exists soley as a function of the brain.” Evidence: To save some time here, let me just point out that it is accepted fact that conscioussness exists soley as a function of the brain or otherwise there would not be any arguments against this. Voila, theory accepted.
Theory: “Consciousness does NOT exist soley as a function of the brain.” Evidence: Nothing concrete at the time. Now, for science to work, this theory is considered FALSE until proven TRUE. Does this mean that consciousness is NOT necessarily a product of something other than the brain? No. It just means that you can’t say it is until you have proof.
ig·no·rance Audio pronunciation of “ignorance” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-ns)
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
How does my above statement interpret to ignorance rather than just opinion? Come on man, this is basic grammar.
What does it imply then? If X is NOT depdendent on Y, then Y can exist indendently from X. How is this faulty logic?
You’re playing simple semantics and haven’t bothered to show me how lack of Brain Acitivity and the existance of hyper-consciousness doens’t insinuate that the Brain is NOT needed to be conscious. You skimmed over the letter-analogy but haven’t explained your side. Quite illogical, I must say.
This person was dead for days, and to the point where he was in the MOURGE before ‘waking up.’ He had no Heart Activity, no Brain activity. Is this just the Law that put him there? Or is it safe to say he was Dead at some point in time?
There’s no evidence or proof to support that Consciousness comes from or is dependent on the Brain. In fact, as of late, there’s more to say it does not. So why should I accept it?
I see the Brain as merely a device, a filter, and imo it’s “dumb.” It does not produce Thought, but rather all Brain Acitivity we see is a RESULT of Thought. I’ve done extensive research into this area because I used to be Atheist and belived that the Brain was everything and Death of the Brain was simply non-existance. Over the years of study and later diving into Spirituality and Meditation (experience which I cannot convey to you unfortunately), I realized this is completely false and have changed my beliefs accordingly.
Yes, but it’s superfluous and off-topic. You still adhere to this ‘evidence’ idea but the very definition of ‘evidence’ is subjective. Explain this?
Precisely my point, Science is pompous and close-minded as you seem to be as well. What you declare as ‘lack of proof’ is simply Proof that is not understood or accepted by the Scientific community, not to mention destroys their Newtonian worldview so it’s disregarded and classified into “phenomenon” and “super-natural.” There’s endless amount of evidence, research and experiences that support Consciousness as being independent from the Brain but it’s criticized because it’s only Experience which can produce these results. Those who experience it are 100% convinced and nothing can tell them otherwise. If you’ve put any thought into Life or Existance, you’d understand that Experience is the only proof we have and since it’s entirely subjective, this is all I need to look past Science’s narrow and overly-skeptical view and realize they are simply trying to delay the inevitable: the collapse of the Scientific Community and the rebuild of a new, more open minded Era of Scientific Research.
So yes, IMO, I have definitive proof my Brain is nothing more than a limitation of my true abilities. Since that proof is a result of direct experience, nothing you can say will direct my mind towards another avenue, only experience. Maybe one day you’ll experience something that you can’t explain and realize that we can’t explain anything and thus realize my points.
Before I respond to your most recent post, Ego, I’d like to admit to a mistake I made in my previous post; when there is no evidence of something for either way, it is not considered false - it is just considered an unknown.
Interesting discussion, albeit a tad off-topic from the original purpose of the thread.
As far as I’m concerned, at this early stage in our ongoing endeavour of self-discovery, there’s simply not enough rational evidence one way or the other to prove or deny the existence of consciousness beyond physical brain activity. I don’t consider myself any kind of authority on which side outweighs the other, but I would like to point out what I believe is a common fallacy on the part of many NDE advocates: The idea that people are able to report visions or emotional experiences during a time of zero brain activity.
My question is, how could anybody (including the subject themselves) know for sure that the experience took place between the time of “death”, and that of recovery? I mean, obviously they wouldn’t have any sense of time lapse while their brain is essentially offline, so who’s to say that the entire thing didn’t occur in that fleeting moment of consciousness before the brain eventually shut down, or while it was waking back up?
I’m a firm believer that the mind is capable of distorting a person’s sense of time, to the point where they could subjectively experience what seems to be hours of clear vision in only a short time from the real world’s perspective. It just seems much more likely to me that the person waking from the NDE is, in fact, remembering a set of events that occurred in their mind during their last moment of consciousness, and not something that happened while they were “dead”. It’s as if this particular phenomanon is adopted so quickly by people who are trying to promote the existence of near-death experences, that everyone forgets to look at it from another angle - and maybe one that makes a lot more sense, when you consider the near total lack of alternative evidence to support the theory.
Anyway, this is just an idea that’s been with me for a while, and I’m certainly not trying to provide hard evidence that NDEs aren’t possible.
It implies that the brain is not soley responsible for consciousness, as I said…
You’re confusing what I wrote at the end of my post, the scientific community’s consensus, as what I said. A mistake I can understand and forgive.
This consensus speaks on evidence in support of consciousness as soley existing as a function of the brain. There is insufficient evidence to test whether consciousness exists as a function of other parts of the body, and therefore, there is no proof either way - it is neither true nor false. Hell, I DO think that consciousness exists not only in/because of the brain.
My “letter-analogy” stands, and I’m not sure you understood what my analogy was in reference to. For your sake, the analogy was in reference to #2, or:
Find me where it says he had no heart activity and no brain activity, then find me a site that has a shred of credibility.
There’s lots of evidence that consciousness comes from the brain. There is not more to say that it does not.
Produce said research. And I’m not disputing it, I’d really like to read it. I would, however, like to know what the point you are trying to make here is.
I’m sure this is hard for you to believe, but I too used to be an atheist and I now believe in a god and an afterlife due to my own personal experiences.
Is the pot calling the kettle black?
I’m not sure you know the definition of phenomenon. Allow me to educate you.
phe·nom·e·non ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-nm-nn, -nn)
n. pl. phe·nom·e·na (-n)
An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
You asked for that.
Now, what exactly destroys the scientific community’s “Newtonian worldview”? Consciousness existing outside of the brain? Life after death? If it’s either of those, I don’t believe it destroys anything.
Heh, I’d bet money that you are Christian. Nevermind that trivulum, though.
I’m fairly certain that there are ways to prove whether or not consciousness is a product of not just the brain, however this is just my opinion. In conflict with yours and maybe others, but none of us can say who is right or wrong on this point.
Amen, Brother Ego. I feel the same.
When I realize something that I can’t explain I will not then believe that we can’t explain anything. I already realize there is something that I can’t explain in my belief of a god and an afterlife. If I were to think that we can’t explain anything because of my unexplainable belief I would one dumb mofo…and a victim of The Logical Fallacy of Ignorance.
Interesting debate… and I am not going to keep quoting everyone’s arguments here, but I would like to point out a few things.
1.Ego Tripper - can’t see how you claim my statement was ‘negative’ when you followed it up with the exact same argument. My post that it was a ‘poor comment’ was referring to a comment made by a scientist - and to my surprise to make a comment so absolute in its certainty without out the conclusive evidence to back it up is unprofessional. Which leads to my next point…
The idea that science is closed minded is a whole lot of bla bla bla… it was the so called ‘close minded’ scientists that conducted this research - the conclusions made were wrong! Most scientists do not do their research for the love of it and money can persuade a lot of people, the research and the conclusions they publish. What may seem as close mindedness (not saying that it never happens), I believe is the community being objective to eliminate errors. Maybe if they were more objective all those centuries ago it be might more advanced. (but that’s another debate… blame it on religion!)
If science exhausts every possible avenue-that consciousness/the mind is linked to the brain and still can not find conclusive evidence - then they have also proven that it must exist independent of the brain. It all depends how you want to read the research. Right now they are looking at the brain because that is the most logical place to start… we have had religion explain our existence for centuries and that really hasn’t got the answers right either.
The concept that people find spirituality and say that ‘we are more than our physical selves’ (not quoting anyone here - just seen that said a lot on these forums) through the experience of drugs (natural and synthetic) would seem to me to add to the proof that this consciousness we wish to seek is linked to the brain. Drugs create these experiences by altering the brains chemistry! Other research into brain injuries and disease would also indicate that consciousness is a product of the brain. Until someone you know and love develops Alzheimer’s and claims they have never met you before - is that because their consciousness floating around in the ethers decides they don’t want to know you?
Athiest: great comment about the NDE occurring before the loss of consciousness…that point has never occurred to me before! It would seem to fit the profile of the name really NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE… that don’t call the died and came back to life experience do they? DCBLE… That is something that science could conduct future research on.
Stop nit picking everyone’s grammar/use of vocab on posts… no one is paying you to write this stuff and we should all be here in the best interests of trying to understand each other.And if you are being paid… wheres my cut?
I seemed to have conveyed myself incorrectly in this thread…my apologies. What I am attempting to express is the lack of skeptical arguments which I find limiting to a broader acceptance of all possibilities. Before Science really developed, people derived their information from beyond Physical because they knew there was more. I feel we’ve over-complicated this Existance by our desire to find out How but not regarding the Why. Science does not seek to answer the ‘big questions’ nor does it attempt to prove or disprove the Existance of an After-Life. It does not use Personal experience as ‘definitive proof’ for any Hypothesis because it cannot be replicated in a Laboratory. Science does not attempt to answer the Big Questions but rather everything that is Now and for us to observe directly. It is the How. It seeks to explain the world in a reductionistic fashion, in a way that the average person will understand. And there’s nothing wrong with this belief. Until it stops preaching the very core element of our Universe (post-Quantum Physics): change.
But what the Scientific Community has become is it’s own worst enemy. When Quantum Physics arrived, it was a shock and an almost proverbiable middle finger from Nature. It was not a Newtonian style Reality, based on solid tangible objects coming together. At the finest level, Material Reality seems to dissipate almost completely, and the space in-between our very constituents becomes 99% emtpy space. This includes the same matter which composes the Brain of which we supposedly produce Thought from.
Being a former Atheist, I never had a problem with Science (and no, I am far far far far far from Christian) because it made sense. Religion was this crazy idea that God sat back and whipped everything up with a swipe of his ‘hand.’ But I was just as ignorant of what Religion was and what Spirituality was. Yes, drugs played a part in my ‘awakening’ so to speak, but I find that of no bearing because it wasn’t until almost 2 years after did I really feel anything Spiritual. What started to change in me was from reading and taking some Philosophy and Astronomy in College (a beautifully opposing combo). Eventually, the one thing that really changed me Spiritually was Science itself. Before I saw endless chaos (yet obvious patterning) that just Is. Now I see Intelligent Design that just Is.
Perhaps my idea about this might better explain my other ideas.
The Brain is a device that is very similiar to a TV. Quantum Physics has (as of right now), reduced our Reality to Quantum Waves that due to the collapse of the wave-function (observation) become Physical Reality that is projected in our Brains as Physical Reality. We don’t know where exactly this takes place, but across chemical/electric reactions of the Brain which is receiving input from all our senses, it manifests our consciousness.
A TV recieves information waves traveling through the wires and also, through a series of chemical/electrical reactions, translates these Information Waves into a visual Picture. Now if you were to “tweak” the settings/hardware of this TV, the picture distorts.
Our Brain is much like a TV, receiving information from our various senses, and through chemical and electrical activity of our Neurons, translates this information to our Spirit/Mind/Higher Self. It is a Filter of information that is merely used to limit our perception so we accept this reality as what it is; real. Now if you ‘tweak’ the settings of the Brain, the picture distorts as well. Hallucinogenic Drugs are a great example of this. Dreams are another. Meditation/Astral Projections are the pinnacle of this. In all 3 cases, interestingly enough, the Brain’s activity is near indentical. Add in the experiences of an NDE or OBE, you have a general idea of what I think the Brain does.
You might have read about Cage, the man who had the Iron Rod go through the front-left of his Brain. Before the accident, he was a calm, collective and noble man, not to mention great with the ladies.
Post-Operation, he had turned into a menacing ***hole, a womanizer, always cursing, etc… I used to use this story as definitive proof that our personalities and Consciousness reside in the Brain. But across the years, I decided my new idea fits this story just as well. If you view the Brain as something the Mind needs to observe Physical Reality with, until it is freed by Death of the Body (voluntarily or not), it can only see what the Filter lets it. So if it damaged or tampered with (through the previous methods mentioned), the ‘picture’ distorts. This basically reduces everybody’s reality to Subjectiveness. And this does not fit the Scientific View.
And so we’ve arrived at a merger I believe. It seems Science cannot fully progress to explain the How without tip-toeing into Spirituality. Spirituality can’t deny the progress of Science and what’s it’s done for the Human Race (despite it’s negative uses being more exploited at the moment). The two are only opposable as your Thumb and Forefinger are. Together they can grasp much more.
So that’s my long winded explanation. I apologize if I came off too arrogant. I do not claim to have answers because I’m still trying to figure out what the question is.
P.S. I am non-denominational. I think labeling yourself as anything, Scientific or Religious, is not being aware enough of one’s ignorance to our World. In all truths, not one of us know anything. And the only thing we do know is that we know nothing. sigh
Many NDE’s can describe the entire operation from when the Anestethia kicked in and/or from the moment of the head trauma. Many others also describe being in places outside of the Room, including in other parts of the Earth (see link above). I see what you’re saying, but most describe the experience beginning exactly at the moment the brain “dies.” I believe I read an NDE where the individual actually saw himself ‘flatline.’
The question is not really even whether brain activity causes experiences but whether brain activity actually IS that experience. All you have to do is figure out for yourself that:
a piece of brain consisting of neurons and electrical activity etc
is not
the memory of your grandparents house
or even that
a piece of brain consisting of neurons and electrical activity etc
is not
the image of this screen you are observing right now
and tada, materialism is vanquished. Think about it now: the image of the monitor you see now is not inside your head! Brain activity and conscious experience are correlated but they are not the same thing and there is no way for materialism to even comprehend what consciousness is because the brain, and all other physical phemonena, are actually out there ‘in’ consciousness… The whole idea just comes crashing down.
It’s like… anything going on in the patients head is NOT actually their NDE. But the NDE is ‘real’, just ask the person who had it! While the materialist can question whether the brain was really ‘dead’ or not at the time, they are dodging the issue of just why and HOW a bunch of chemicals produce any kind of experience at all, never mind an experience of omniscience and divine bliss.
The issue of life after death and ‘valid’ OoBE’s etc is almost an afterthought to the main point, which is what your core metaphysical system is. Materialists, because of their system, cannot accept an afterlife under any condition while an idealist/spiritualist will just think “life after death? Sure, why not?”
PS If ANY physical event, including Alzheimer victim relative, personal suffering, plague, tsunami or Hitler “challenges your faith” then what you have isnt really ‘faith’ at all, just an imitation. In fact I wouldnt even call it faith… I mean what is it we’re supposed to have faith in? It is the materialist who uses their powers of faith to believe the brain is something it is not.
Ego Tripper - I have wanted to reply to your post earlier but have been busy at work (for once!!)
I like your concept of the brain as a filter to this higher consciousness. My only problem with it is that it can easily be adopted by either view - you just take away the higher consciousness part and explain our emotions and personalities as a result of learned experience that creates neuronal pathways… but tweaking the knobs of our consciousness…I like that!
Yeah I have studied Cage - and many others - too many to mention. I think I must have been the opposite of you - before I studied I would look at life in terms of spirituality and the like. But then I found so much evidence to the contrary it was quite disheartening and a total mind f**K!! (Ha!! Then I learnt about how all these ‘experiments’ can be rigged to produce the results you want!) At the end of it all I was left as a cynic!
Lebowsk1 - I think you have over simplified the argument here… and how do we just ‘figure out for your self’? You are referring to images and memories that can easily be ripped out of your head if I was to ram a knife into selected parts of brain and twist twist twist away! I would therefore come to the conclusion that a piece of brain consisting of neurons and electrical activity etc IS the perceived image of this fine computer screen. It’s not the computer screen but it is how my brain interprets the light frequencies received by eye and travels down to the primary visual cortex. Interference along any one of these paths to the final processed image will ultimately affect the quality of the image.
OK - good point - if they say it’s real then it must be real!!!
Science doesn’t look for the existence of an afterlife? There are scientists who do. I think the best science could do is find NO EVIDENCE of an afterlife… and people can make there own conclusions… but imagine if they proved there was no afterlife… this would rip apart the fabric of society… the amount of money at stake would be HUGH!! Crime would go way way up! Maybe someone doesn’t want science to prove the existence of an afterlife?!
The lord works in mysterious ways - right? What a bunch of arse!
The only thing that makes sense here is, “In fact I wouldn’t even call it faith…” and “…what is it we’re supposed to have faith in anyway?” - Do enlighten me… what do dualists (is that the right word??) believe the brain is? Don’t they have faith the brain is something too? … that word ‘faith’ makes me cringe…same with the word ‘hope’!
But this post is getting long winded and way off topic. I would like to have more OBE’s and lucid dreams (I think I will leave out the NDE’s for quite some time !!) experiences… how ever they are produced.
Thanks. But think though, what creates the Neuronal Pathways and what are they Pathways TO? Hmmm…
That is odd. It’s my reasoning is that until we know how the Brain works 10000%, we really can’t draw any definate conclusions about ANYTHING, that includes our very existance. Our dive into the study of how Life became and works has only shown us that we have no clue about anything.
Are you removing the Memory, or just the access to the Memory? Can you tell me where Memories from when I was 5 are stored?
Does that mean to say that the TV IS the Program? If I destroy the TV, does the show dissapear forever?
Think about this for a second. Your Body is desiged to pass information to higher levels. Atoms communicate to help a Cell to function. Cells communicate to help an Organ function. Organs communicate to help the Body function, etc… Is it illogical to think the Brain might function as the rest of the body does and simply passes this information off ‘something else’? Finally, as you said it, it reaches the Visual Cortex. But is the Visual Cortex really what is seeing? If this is the case, what about Dreams? And most importantly, NDE’s where the Visual Cortex is literally “turned off” (yet people report experiences that were more real than this life)?
When they ran an experiment, they asked someone to observe a cup on a desk and monitored the brain activity. When they asked the observer to close their eyes and picture it in their head, the same brain activity occured as if they were looking at the cup. The Brain knows no difference. This leads me to believe that the Brian is actually ‘dumb.’ It’s not the source of Intelligence, its merely at the whim of Intelligence (thought/mind) and thus can be ‘tricked.’ Could this be why we do not realize we’re dreaming?
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Experience IS the only Reality and Truth because that’s all you can use to learn your world. But the experience is subjective, I know. But that’s my point.
I agree. Science does not deal with anything beyond the Observable and that’s how it should remain. However, it should not ever seek to discredit what it cannot see or test.
Just curious, how do you positively prove a negative?
By the way, that makes me think of something. Are people only afraid of admitting the possible existance of an Afterlife because it means they must take responsibility for their actions? Aas you said, Crime would go way up because people would realize “Hey, I don’t have to worry about anybody but me!”
Thus, to desire to think there is no after-life is in a way, living out of fear.
For me, it was via a period of intense introspection.
Well, then you’ve commited a logical fallacy by confusing correlation with identical nature or causation. Its like me taking away the stomach of a fat person and saying “I took away his insecurity about his weight”. There may be a correlation between the stomach and the insecurity but they are not the same thing.
What you ripped out of my head was some brain, not a memory. I really do think it is that simple. For example: you stick that knife in my head and, as you laugh manically, spreading my brain around the room, I watch from by the ceiling as I have an NDE. There would be no way for you to know that was happening to me. Consider it sticking a knife in my leg instead, and me screaming and screaming but having an OoBE (‘real’ or ‘illusory’) and watching it all happen. You can’t see that OoBE, but its happening. You can stab things you can see but you can’t stab other consciousnesses.
You could stab my leg but you couldnt stab my ilusory/spirit body I inhabited after you did it.
Sure, no problem: there is a correlation. But as I said in my post, there is absolutely no way of theorising a mechanism that explains how the physical processes you mentioned above become the “final processed image”. It is a huge leap of faith, and I don’t want to get psychoanalytical on your ass (because I hate that) but think about why you hate the word “faith”.
Just going by what you wrote, you differentiate between the physical processes and the final processed image. They are not the same thing. I don’t have much more than that to say…
Ok, lets say you had an NDE. You wake up and say to the doctor “I saw a bright light and heard a choir of Hiphop angels and was greeted by JEBUS!”
The doctor replies “well… I’m afraid none of that happened. Your brain started to flatline and we resucitated you and gave you some ketamin for good measure”
My point is that both are ‘real’: you did have that experience, it HAPPENED. The reality of mental phenomenon must be accepted before you can even begin to debate the nature of that phenomenon.
Science can prove we are not confined to what we currently think of as our physical abilities and existence. Science and naturalism/materialism have become confused…
For example:
Hypnotise someone to “see through” a solid wall in a lab. Behind that wall an experimenter holds up cards with random number sequences on which neither the hypnotist, experimentee or experimenter have seen. The test is to see whether the hypnotised participant can read the cards seemingly ‘through’ the wall.
Is there anything un-scientific about this proceedure?
And anyway, anything that shakes up society in some way is welcome by me, whatever it is. I don’t think we’ll have to wait long for it though…
[quote]
Do enlighten me… what do dualists (is that the right word??) believe the brain is? Don’t they have faith the brain is something too?
[quote]
The brain is a physical ‘thing’ in the sense that it is temporary and of ‘empty’ nature (see Buddhism). The brain and body are part of the physical world and act as a mechanism that allows one portion of the physical world to perceive itself as different from the rest.
Consciousness, however, is not a ‘thing’, because it is unchanging: the nature of the ‘things’ within it (perceptions, emotions, qualia etc) change. Consciousness is not part of the physical world because the physical world (including the brain) is ‘within’ consciousness. Although this is misleading language, of course, because as a non-physical no-thing, consciousness has no ‘location’. Consciousness is what allows perception in the first place, and is a complete mystery.
So y’know, its about being humble and just marvelling at the amazing spectacle that we are involved in, while also being able to challenge ideas that claim to have a full understanding of said spectacle (dogmatic religion, materialism etc).
PS On first inspection my views would be ‘dualist’ but they arent really, because I believe the brain and experience ARE united at a deeper, fundamental level… in fact I think the only real conclusion that lies at the end of this train of thought is the realisation of the unity of ALL phenomena, but that’s another story…
This is a great way of explaining why capitalism is just a natural extension of materialism. Too many people try to tackle the problem at the political/financial level when to get to the root of it you have to get metaphysical.
In this argument there has to be a common ground. We either argue science against science, spirituality against spirituality, or science against spirituality. The use of personal theory or spirituality against scientific evidence is pointless; leave personal belief out when arguing against science, because your argument doesn’t hold any water. Science arguing against spirituality can be acceptable in situations where evidence disputes spiritual beliefs, however.
The existence and the adaptation of a physical brain and the belief that its purpose is merely that of a tuner seems slightly contradictory, to me, when the proposal that the brain is not at all necessary(by suggested NDE evidence) is included. Why would there be physicality if it was unnecessary? Why would damage to the structure cause loss of memory, again, if it was unnecessary? Those are rhetorical questions.
All evidence points to the brain as the creator, storage unit, and processor of memory. Also, all evidence points to the brain as having responsibility for the phenomenon of consciousness. There is, however, nothing to suggest otherwise.
Well, you said experiences were recounted from the onset of the anaesthesia - when you’re put under, you ain’t dead…
The testimonial proves NOTHING with concern to the matter of exactly when the memory of the NDE was formed. Just because someone saw the HRM flatline during their NDE doesn’t mean the experience happened after brain death.
)why this doesn’t flow. Simply put, you’re saying this: A causes B. We don’t know what B means, but it must mean C. If you can’t understand your errors, then I can’t argue with you.
Crime would go way way up! Maybe someone doesn’t want science to prove the existence of an afterlife?!
!!) experiences… how ever they are produced.