Great interview

[Qetuoadgjl]

I didn't say I did have a true NDE. I was nowhere near death. I simply don't know how close the experience is to actual death. I doubt it's anywhere near it.

We agree then. You haven't a clue.

 

[tyder001]

Not a one captn.

 

[tyder001]

If you had a brain tumor that changed both your ability to perceive the world correctly and your personality would you seek out the aid of a brain surgeon or someone else? I would seek the removal of the physical cause by a doctor.

Here is where I think the disconnect comes into play. I absolutely accept that medical science is wonderful and I absolutely would go to a doctor to have a tumor removed. As I said about the t.v. set it is a tool for perceiving reality. I have also looked at research by people like Bryan Josephson and Sir Rodger Penrose and Michael Grosso and Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Raiden and on and on and on. But, you seem to have no problem at all in discounting that type research. What you said about it changes in the chemical makeup having an effect on personality is not something I have ever denied. I remember thinking those thoughts as a 19 year old after smoking pot and drinking beer and even expressed it to preachers. I still maintain that the essential me is not a product of matter. I don't think something with no weight or height or depth comes from a bunch of chemicals interacting. Now, does it speed healing and blood and have effects on our moods? Of course it does. But, there are also studies that show meditation and prayer and even placebos to have an effect on the brain. I am not an airy fairy new age person. But, research by Ian Stevenson and others does point to a place of seperation at some point between the physical body and the consuisness of a person. Maybe there are more planes of existence and we actually are still embodied at the quantom level (pulled that right out of my ass) I just don't know. But, I can look at the "experts" you speak of and give them their due. But, my life experience (not a scripture or a divine revelation or voice from on high) tells me they are missing something. We can always point to my scientist can beat up your scientist. But, yeah I go to the doctor. I pray. I drive a car. I meditate. I use basic psychology in my job. I have sat with a friend or family member that has lost a loved on and simply "been there" and I think that is where God is. But, no it's not something I can prove with a test tube. But, the existence of psi on some level has been showed to be a fact over and over again. I set here and see idiots post propaganda and nastiness about other peoples faith. Present company excepted. I hear silly little things said about reality that there is no way a person can honestly say, because they don't know. I think about the quiet faith of a young mother that I knew of and how she was uplifted even at the death of a child. I think about the minister that sat with my family and just allowed the questions. I think about the church I just called today that said "Yes, we will feed that family, do they need any clothes?" I think about a gay friend of mine that talked about how she listened to a man the other day talk about his youth. How she prayed for strength to withstand the ignorance of others and not hate. So, no Rick I am not very hopeful that there is a cyborg that will be a perfect copy of me (I know you don't believe that either) I agree with you that such a "being" would be copy and not the real me. But, we differ on what produces consciuness and what it means to live and die.

 

[tyder001]

I also found this to be very interesting and it touches some on what we are discussing.
Paranormalia: Atheists and Neuroscience

 

[Kim323]

Great post above, Steve. Very heartfelt.

I enjoyed the post on the link you provided. The comments after it are very interesting, too. In fact, the whole site looks like something worth exploring further, and I will. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

Until such a time as I see some theory of the soul that explains how all it all works I'll have to pass on giving any serious consideration. Until someone can explain what a soul is and how it all works I'm left without anything to know, understand, or believe about the subject. Your response had everything but the kitchen sink it yet I don't see anything that directly addresses the what and how of it. This isn't about feelings or impression but rather practical reality. You have already said a great deal when you said you would go to a doctor rather than someone else to have your brain tumor removed. You acknowledge on some level the reality of the necessity of a healthy physical body to support the mind and practical science as opposed to supersitition as the key to that. The rest is just a mind game in my opinion.

 

[Kim323]

Hi, Rick. First of all, and Steve will correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see Steve necessarily trying in his post above to prove empirically the existence of the soul. He is relating personal experiences, feelings, intuitions, feelings of compassion and wonderment, of the courage of particular people in the face of adversity, and so on, to tell us he intuits something apart from the purely physical processes (the neurochemistry you like to, accurately so, call it) that comprise him, Steve, and other humans. I don't think those experiences can be discounted, and history is full of people having experiences that are hard put to discount. William James's Varieties of Religious Experience describe in detail these things. And I'm not stretching and attributing a purely religious motive to Steve's accounts, as he himself makes clear.

Rick, there's no way empirically to answer questions of such specificity that you raise. In a way, they are unfair, because you're moving the argument (in the philosophical sense) to your territory and saying, well, practically, empirically, prove it to me, and furthermore tell me exactly how it works, what constitutes it, and where it resides. I'm paraphrasing you, but that's what I hear.

But those questions do not by any means disprove the existence of the soul, or maybe we should call it mind to bring it more into the scientific realm. And mind, even leading researchers into consciousness will say, does exist, ephemeral as it may SEEM to be, and yes, of course, it results partially from the neurons firing, but I know I can, in my own mind, FEEL its separateness, its very ephemeral and even nebulous-SEEMING existence, apart from physical processes.

Simplistically put, how do you quantify a thought, an idea, that light bulb that goes on, the feeling itself? Well, some may say, it's a brain WAVE, or it's just a brain squirt of neuronal firings, but, no, it's a freestanding entity that exists as something else after it is created by the biological processes, it exists in and of itself. Now, to extrapolate this to soul per se, I don't think is such a stretch.

In consciousness research, nearly all scientists studying it bring up what they call the "mind-body problem." And that's exactly what they call it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. After the neurons fire, the idea, the ephemeral thought, the feeling, the brainstorm, EXISTS BY ITSELF, apart from what created it. After all, TIME HAS ELAPSED, past the point of the neuronal firings, and in TIME AND SPACE, the thought, the idea, the feeling lingers, and you CAN stop it for a bit to look at it, it now has AN EXISTENCE ALL ITS OWN.

Anyway, philosophers from Plato to Bertrand Russell have debated the existence of the soul, and it still continues.

I think scientists AND philosophers AND theologians have pondered this subject. And they are not mutually exclusive people or fields by any means. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

It is meaningless then to search for ethereal explanations when we can demonstrate in very practical and meaningful ways the direct relationship between the state of the physical being and the mental one. The solution with the less assumptions is always the safer bet. Every life saving or life quality enhancing breakthrough that has ever occurred has been based on that principle, that the physical body dictates the experience of the mind. Every medicine you take and every surgical procedure you have endured is based on those principles. I have seen no evidence to the contrary that I find convincing.

All philosophical musing aside, when the rubber meets the road I am willing to bet both you guys haul it into the medical doctor relying on hard scientific fact to diagnose and treat you rather than going to someone with vague and indefinite notions about ethereal matters about how to keep the essential you intact and functioning.

 

[Kim323]

Hey, Rick. But Jeffrey Schwartz, a psychiatrist and professor at UCLA, has done extensive work on obsessive compulsive disorder, specializes in it. I remember back in the nineties reading his book Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive Compulsive Behavior. And this was no mere self help book. I read it just for the pure interest, and, yes, I'll admit it, I have suffered a bit from this since boyhood. Not that it made me dysfunctional (though some here may disagree, as I'm sure you will, Rick). It wasn't washing my hands or ritualistic stuff like that, just I thought too much as a kid, and still do. Anyway, Dr. Schwartz, an M.D. and professor of psychiatry, has really studied this, and he has made a real case for the "mind down" perspective on human consciousness, that the MIND can affect the BRAIN, not the other way around exclusively. I've found an article that I'm trying to link to, but I have a question into Gene on how to deal with this incredibly long url. I know, simple for most of you, but I'm still a computer neophyte. As long as I can email and order books online I'm happy. Kim

 

[Goggs Mackay]

It is very strange I admit, that there are many people who completely see the world as outlined by Trained above. The mind and 'I' being created from the physical body. I agree with every reason that shows this to be the case.
The only place where I differ is that a few experiences have led me to believe that there are in fact ways to access either another 'I' (person's mind) or some collective version of the same. Or indeed, some other type of 'reality'. It is of course extremely subjective and I am aware that the feeling that I could not create all that is itself a creation of mine!

So every weird circumstance that has made me question reality and my own mind's abilities can be explained by my mind tricking itself that these things are from the outside. I get that. I may indeed be fooling myself but for some reason I strongly, strongly feel I was accessing some 'other' thing that was not of my creation. All that might prove is RV or telepathy or something else. It may prove only what Rick has said. Nobody really knows but I do consider that I tend to see things from a scientific, logical point of view - I don't tend to be very spiritual or religious but even taking all that into account - I have to say that I am pretty convinced there are ways to access something not of my mind's creation and yes, that access is facilitated by my own mind - which of course allows for it to be solely my mind's creation!!

It goes round and round and really there is no absolute proof either way although we only so far have proof of these things being the mind's creation. All we have for the other point of view are people's accounts of these strange happenings.

The one aspect that has left me thinking it isn't just all my mind is that I can believe I can create any world in my head in perfect 3-D and technicolour with surround sound etc. Yes, that's fine I can do that. What I don't think I can do is write the script of some of this stuff. It seems way beyond my creative capabilities - but I may just be doing myself a grave disservice!

 

[trainedobserver]

...has really studied this, and he has made a real case for the "mind down" perspective on human consciousness, that the MIND can affect the BRAIN, not the other way around exclusively.

It is no mystery that use causes physical connections to be made in the brain. Brain injury and physical therapy causes the brain to reconfigure itself to overcome the limitations of damaged areas. There is a mind/brain feedback loop if you will that has been recognized for some time. It is utilized every day all over the country in clinics and hospitals, but now where will you find patients thinking themselves out of debilitating brain injuries.

 

[trainedobserver]

The one aspect that has left me thinking it isn't just all my mind is that I can believe I can create any world in my head in perfect 3-D and technicolour with surround sound etc. Yes, that's fine I can do that. What I don't think I can do is write the script of some of this stuff. It seems way beyond my creative capabilities - but I may just be doing myself a grave disservice!

You have to remember Goggs, that the bit you think of as you is only a small portion of what is going on in your brain/mind. You are watching the movie, think of all the production effort that goes into that finished product you are completely unconscious of. It's like you have a entire production studio with all the services running in your head and you never get to see the rushes, only the finished product. Think about what gets left on the editing floor. Sometimes there might be glitch (or a chemical over-ride in your case) and you see some of that footage and it seems totally alien and out of context because it is, it was meant to be left out by design. Our awareness is like a little raft floating in the sea of a human organism teaming with activity we can't see thinking "we" are setting our course when in reality the "rudder" is being controlled from beneath the water. How is that for mixing metaphors?

 

[tyder001]

It is no mystery that use causes physical connections to be made in the brain.

Nobody here is arguing that. I certainly have never said I don't go to the doctor. I said (and the link I provided is fascinating and the discussion after well worth having) There is no Known correlation that shows that the brain creates anything. Right now it could be that it does and it could be that it's a receiver. Honestly, as I said before, I had this argument when I was a 19 year old kid. But, the fact remains that I have had experiences that cannot be explained by the "theory" that Rick puts out there. There are only two explanations logically speaking. 1. That there is a way to express reality apart from the chemical firing of a mass of matter.
2. I'm lying. But, even then there are other researchers and experience that has to be accounted for. So, for me (I know I'm not lying) I can never see the world again the way Rick sees it. Once you have seen the white crow then all the experts telling you it can't exist no longer cause you to worry about it. I may not (as of yet) be able to explain it. But, that is part of the journey for me. Discovering it. Actually, I'm to polite for my own good at times. Because honestly some of the stuff I hear about "processes" and "fact" and other stuff just often doesn't make sense. But, I'm not out to convert anybody and truth doesn't require an up and down vote or the winning of a debate.

 

[tyder001]

sometimes there might be glitch (or a chemical over-ride in your case) and you see some of that footage and it seems totally alien and out of context because it is, it was meant to be left out by design. Our awareness is like a little raft floating in the sea of a human organism teaming with activity we can't see thinking "we" are setting our course when in reality the "rudder" is being controlled from beneath the water. How is that for mixing metaphors?

That makes no sense at all to me. OMG, I've actually said something that I have often thought.

 

[Kim323]

Rick, here's that article. And don't be misled by the source of the article. Apologists are advocates of a position, of course, but I did like this article. Hope the url works this time I try it.

A Rational Argument for the Soul

Kim

 

[Kim323]

It worked! Keep in mind that Jeffrey Schwartz is not particularly religious, as it says in the essay.

And the mind down perspective is explained better in the article than I did it in my next to last post above. Kim

 

[tyder001]

Very good article Kim. I think that there are honestly logical reasons for rejecting the notion that we are meatbots.

 

[trainedobserver]

There is no Known correlation that shows that the brain creates anything.

That is absolutely incorrect and we can prove that rather quickly by removing the brain from any test animal you'd care to. All behavior and activity will cease. You make vague references to experiences that somehow negate long established principles and findings used everyday by medical professionals. The brain is a receiver? I have heard this repeatedly over the years from various people. It seems to be driven more by wishful thinking than anything else since everything can be demonstrated to operate quite differently. The brain responds to stimuli and reacts accordingly. It is just about that simple.

The metaphor was meant to illustrate that we are for the most part unconscious beings with our consciousness neither the center nor the director that it casually appears to be. It is a mirror in which other things are reflected and not the things themselves.

 

[tyder001]

removing the brain from any test animal you'd care to. All behavior and activity will cease.

Sigh, and that's the point dude. You don't think far outside the box do ya?

 

[trainedobserver]

Very good article Kim. I think that there are honestly logical reasons for rejecting the notion that we are meatbots.

Maybe you can expand on what you mean by "meatbot". I don't have a clear understanding of the term or it's relevance to the conversation.