Freethought & Rationalism Archive

10-15-2002, 05:48 PM

"No and thanks, what I was trying to do was connect a sense of self to the mind and body, and was asking what of "me" survives if those two don't?"

My reply : Still not very clear since the question sounded some much like my own statement.

In general Buddhism term, that "me" which survived with try and find another body (usually those of a newborn within the womb) and strive to continue to exists.

Clutch · 10-15-2002, 06:14 PM

Quote:

a Flatliner (term used by medical personals to describe people who is put in state of brain dead - mostly for hours during operations)

Gosh, now I'm especially glad that I don't read the medical personals.

Anyhoo. That you would present this set of claims about the relation between the mind and the brain without knowing the difference between a movement disorder like Parkinson's, and a disease of dementia like Alzheimer's, says everything about your approach: 99% true faith, .8% urban legend, .2% typing effort.

Why not learn something first?

Autonemesis · 10-15-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:
In general Buddhism term, that "me" which survived with try and find another body (usually those of a newborn within the womb) and strive to continue to exists.

If I grant for the sake of argument that this is descriptive of reality, why should I, in this life, care what happens to it after I die? It seems to me that I won't be any the wiser. I'll be dead. Whatever it is that you're describing as soul that goes on to "find another body" doesn't resemble what I conceive myself to be. So I'm hard-pressed to get excited about surviving for eternity, even if I were to agree that this theology describes the actual circumstances of human existence.

Liquidrage · 10-15-2002, 06:19 PM

Your case is not what I would call scientific. It is filled with your own personal quantum leaps.

You have made a claim that because some people have had a shut down of the brain and that they experienced *something* that there is a soul. But in each case it is easier to explain their experience as produced by the brain itself then of a soul.

Your evidence is no more evidence for a soul then it is for aliens with little devices that create memories. You are familiar with a concept of soul, with what properties you believe a soul should have. And you have plugged in what you believe a soul should be into a place where you believe it fits. This is not scientific. You start with your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you there. Much like ID, the evidence does not point your conclusion. Your conclusion finds the evidence (suspect or not).

If this soul is timeless, doesn't die et al, why then does the person need to come back for their to be evidence of it? After all, you're claiming that this soul interacts with the body, stores memories on it's own and can put those memories back into the brain after a NDE.

Here's my analogy
Motherboard with RAM = SOYO Dragon + 1024 Megs of DDR PC2100

Hard disk (separate entity from motherboard) = 2x 40 GIG Segate Barrcuda with 2MB buffers ATA 100 @7200 RPM in RAID 0

Electricity = 420 WATT power supply

Heat Fan = on CPU, on GPU, 2 x case, 1 exhust and 1 on power supply.

I can make an analogy comparing horses to a coffee cup, doesn't mean it's a good analogy though.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

10-15-2002, 06:39 PM

"Your case is not what I would call scientific. It is filled with your own personal quantum leaps."

My reply : Show me where do I contradict myself by providing explaination without some sort of working model. I choose Machines such as computers and robotic because that is the most closest we get to another "human" as we can get at present time.

"You have made a claim that because some people have had a shut down of the brain and that they experienced *something* that there is a soul. But in each case it is easier to explain their experience as produced by the brain itself then of a soul."

My reply : That is true. You are welcomed to try and explain why a brain-dead person as in a Flatliner cases could still produce sensations and remember them later CLEARLY.

"Your evidence is no more evidence for a soul then it is for aliens with little devices that create memories. You are familiar with a concept of soul, with what properties you believe a soul should have. And you have plugged in what you believe a soul should be into a place where you believe it fits. This is not scientific. You start with your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you there. Much like ID, the evidence does not point your conclusion. Your conclusion finds the evidence (suspect or not)."

My reply : Little green men? Is there any prove there even exist of little green men? Your assumption is more fictional than my appraoch.

"If this soul is timeless, doesn't die et al, why then does the person need to come back for their to be evidence of it? After all, you're claiming that this soul interacts with the body, stores memories on it's own and can put those memories back into the brain after a NDE. "

My reply : Well, I could say that their body still has a hold on the Mind and doesn't allow it to die. It's attachment to the world is too great for it to die. This is just my assumption to answer your question only.

Philosoft · 10-15-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

"Seraphim, a few questions,
What, if any, functions does the soul/mind provide that the brain cannot? Conversely, is there anything that the brain can do that the mind cannot? "

Seraphim : In Buddhism and Hindusm, Mind-Body is ONE way symbiotic relationship. The body needs a mind since it is beneficial to have a questioning mind - questioning why this is like this and that (which supposed to be why humanity strive to this level of development in such a short time),

Ok, now what is the nature of this "questioning" that it can't be done by the brain?

Quote:

the mind doesn't need the brain to strive since it is independant.

Ok, so what's the purpose of the brain if it can't, by definition, add functionality to the mind?

Quote:

"If the soul can provide the functionality of consciousness and sentience after brain death, what is the purpose of the cerebral cortex? Sensory and motor duties could be handled by a much less complex brain. "
By Philosoft

My reply : If computer can stored information in longer and much safer condition than RAM could (where the information is erased when power stops flowing) then why don't the developers stop making RAMs?

The simple explanation is RAM is much faster than mass storage (hard drive).

Quote:

The brain and cerebal cortex to me is like a RAM - limited use, as long as there is power.

Use? What use? You just said above there is nothing the mind lacks that the brain can provide. Is the brain of use to the mind or isn't it?

Liquidrage · 10-15-2002, 06:52 PM

Show me where do I contradict myself by providing explaination without some sort of working model. I choose Machines such as computers and robotic because that is the most closest we get to another "human" as we can get at present time.

You do not need to contradict yourself.
My shirt is blue. Therefor, souls don't exist. Show me the contradiction. My claim was not that you contradicted yourself but that you did not provide evidence for your case. You supplied evidence for NDE's occuring. Your conclusion is soley your own.

That is true. You are welcomed to try and explain why a brain-dead person as in a Flatliner cases could still produce sensations and remember them later CLEARLY.

I have no need to explain how people can remember things CLEARLY because you have not shown that NDE's remeber CLEARLY. Not only is your sample size incredibly small, there is nothing extreme shown in the examples.
How about you start testing NDE's. Go to hospitals, and while people are near death with no brain activity you can use a true random number generator to produce a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000. Then write it down on a card in large letters and enter the room with a person that is recieving no external stimuli and is near death. If the person comes back and had a NDE they should be able to tell you the number on the card. Do this enough to get a good sample and compare to results to people guessing without having a NDE. Then come share the results.

Little green men? Is there any prove there even exist of little green men? Your assumption is more fictional than my appraoch.

Woah nelly. Aren you not trying to prove a soul exists? You can't start by assuming a soul. Your proof for the soul comes from it fitting the evidence, remember? My little green men with memory control devices fit the evidence too.
To start, neither should exist, we need to prove them. And my little green men explain NDE's just as well as your soul theory. They both fit the evidence. Why is your soul a better explaination?

Well, I could say that their body still has a hold on the Mind and doesn't allow it to die. It's attachment to the world is too great for it to die. This is just my assumption to answer your question only.

Fair enough. No evidence for it and you admit your assumption.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Goliath · 10-15-2002, 07:04 PM

Seraphim, you've responded to everyone that has posted in this thread except for me. Please respond. Your "argument" depends on it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Liquidrage · 10-15-2002, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
Seraphim, you've responded to everyone that has posted in this thread except for me. Please respond. Your "argument" depends on it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Oh please, you're just going to scare him away. Every thesist that comes here gets bombarded by ii regulars trying to win the right to shove their intelligence down someone elses throat. Just accept the luck of the draw

Jobar · 10-15-2002, 07:41 PM

Seraphim, I'm a fine one to talk considering the number of posts I've made in this forum concerning pantheism- but really, I think this belongs in our Non-Abrahamic Religions forum. EoG is normally used to address the existence of Christian, Judaic, or Islamic concepts of God- and you are specifically attempting a justification from the Buddhist (Mahayana) standpoint. If you disagree, feel free to e-mail me or send me a private message.

And I have to say that you have not done anything to tell us what a soul is. NDEs can be precisely simulated with drugs (notably ketamine) and are what one might expect from an oxygen-starved brain spiralling into unconsciousness.

10-15-2002, 06:19 PM	#24
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Your case is not what I would call scientific. It is filled with your own personal quantum leaps. You have made a claim that because some people have had a shut down of the brain and that they experienced something that there is a soul. But in each case it is easier to explain their experience as produced by the brain itself then of a soul. Your evidence is no more evidence for a soul then it is for aliens with little devices that create memories. You are familiar with a concept of soul, with what properties you believe a soul should have. And you have plugged in what you believe a soul should be into a place where you believe it fits. This is not scientific. You start with your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you there. Much like ID, the evidence does not point your conclusion. Your conclusion finds the evidence (suspect or not). If this soul is timeless, doesn't die et al, why then does the person need to come back for their to be evidence of it? After all, you're claiming that this soul interacts with the body, stores memories on it's own and can put those memories back into the brain after a NDE. Here's my analogy Motherboard with RAM = SOYO Dragon + 1024 Megs of DDR PC2100 Hard disk (separate entity from motherboard) = 2x 40 GIG Segate Barrcuda with 2MB buffers ATA 100 @7200 RPM in RAID 0 Electricity = 420 WATT power supply Heat Fan = on CPU, on GPU, 2 x case, 1 exhust and 1 on power supply. I can make an analogy comparing horses to a coffee cup, doesn't mean it's a good analogy though. [ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

10-15-2002, 06:52 PM	#27
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Show me where do I contradict myself by providing explaination without some sort of working model. I choose Machines such as computers and robotic because that is the most closest we get to another "human" as we can get at present time. You do not need to contradict yourself. My shirt is blue. Therefor, souls don't exist. Show me the contradiction. My claim was not that you contradicted yourself but that you did not provide evidence for your case. You supplied evidence for NDE's occuring. Your conclusion is soley your own. That is true. You are welcomed to try and explain why a brain-dead person as in a Flatliner cases could still produce sensations and remember them later CLEARLY. I have no need to explain how people can remember things CLEARLY because you have not shown that NDE's remeber CLEARLY. Not only is your sample size incredibly small, there is nothing extreme shown in the examples. How about you start testing NDE's. Go to hospitals, and while people are near death with no brain activity you can use a true random number generator to produce a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000. Then write it down on a card in large letters and enter the room with a person that is recieving no external stimuli and is near death. If the person comes back and had a NDE they should be able to tell you the number on the card. Do this enough to get a good sample and compare to results to people guessing without having a NDE. Then come share the results. Little green men? Is there any prove there even exist of little green men? Your assumption is more fictional than my appraoch. Woah nelly. Aren you not trying to prove a soul exists? You can't start by assuming a soul. Your proof for the soul comes from it fitting the evidence, remember? My little green men with memory control devices fit the evidence too. To start, neither should exist, we need to prove them. And my little green men explain NDE's just as well as your soul theory. They both fit the evidence. Why is your soul a better explaination? Well, I could say that their body still has a hold on the Mind and doesn't allow it to die. It's attachment to the world is too great for it to die. This is just my assumption to answer your question only. Fair enough. No evidence for it and you admit your assumption. [ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2002, 05:48 PM	#21
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"No and thanks, what I was trying to do was connect a sense of self to the mind and body, and was asking what of "me" survives if those two don't?" My reply : Still not very clear since the question sounded some much like my own statement. In general Buddhism term, that "me" which survived with try and find another body (usually those of a newborn within the womb) and strive to continue to exists.

10-15-2002, 06:39 PM	#25
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Your case is not what I would call scientific. It is filled with your own personal quantum leaps." My reply : Show me where do I contradict myself by providing explaination without some sort of working model. I choose Machines such as computers and robotic because that is the most closest we get to another "human" as we can get at present time. "You have made a claim that because some people have had a shut down of the brain and that they experienced something that there is a soul. But in each case it is easier to explain their experience as produced by the brain itself then of a soul." My reply : That is true. You are welcomed to try and explain why a brain-dead person as in a Flatliner cases could still produce sensations and remember them later CLEARLY. "Your evidence is no more evidence for a soul then it is for aliens with little devices that create memories. You are familiar with a concept of soul, with what properties you believe a soul should have. And you have plugged in what you believe a soul should be into a place where you believe it fits. This is not scientific. You start with your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you there. Much like ID, the evidence does not point your conclusion. Your conclusion finds the evidence (suspect or not)." My reply : Little green men? Is there any prove there even exist of little green men? Your assumption is more fictional than my appraoch. "If this soul is timeless, doesn't die et al, why then does the person need to come back for their to be evidence of it? After all, you're claiming that this soul interacts with the body, stores memories on it's own and can put those memories back into the brain after a NDE. " My reply : Well, I could say that their body still has a hold on the Mind and doesn't allow it to die. It's attachment to the world is too great for it to die. This is just my assumption to answer your question only.

10-15-2002, 07:04 PM	#28
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Seraphim, you've responded to everyone that has posted in this thread except for me. Please respond. Your "argument" depends on it. Sincerely, Goliath

10-15-2002, 07:41 PM	#30
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Seraphim, I'm a fine one to talk considering the number of posts I've made in this forum concerning pantheism- but really, I think this belongs in our Non-Abrahamic Religions forum. EoG is normally used to address the existence of Christian, Judaic, or Islamic concepts of God- and you are specifically attempting a justification from the Buddhist (Mahayana) standpoint. If you disagree, feel free to e-mail me or send me a private message. And I have to say that you have not done anything to tell us what a soul is. NDEs can be precisely simulated with drugs (notably ketamine) and are what one might expect from an oxygen-starved brain spiralling into unconsciousness.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.