|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
 Posted - 04/17/2004 : 08:30:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Many of the rest of us have heard such reports, as well, and so far, they've all come down to a question of what the word "exactly" means. For example, one woman knew there would be a drill used during her surgery, and after she was revived, reported that she heard the sound of drilling. Go figure.
Pam Reynolds was not aware of the instruments they would use during her operation.
However, there was not only hearing but also seeing during her NDE, so what about that then?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Do brain-dead people have souls any longer? Or have they already departed for realms beyond?
There is evidence that suggests that there is still a conscious person/spirit, albeit "locked-in".
quote:
Dr Mabuse.
... the mind is a manifestation of the brain. I've seen first hand that a physically altered brain results in an alteration of the mind.
No serious dualist denies the possibility of an impact on the mind by the brain. But that doesn't mean the mind or soul would have to be physical itself.
The argument that mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating. For if we accept that particular objection (that mystical experiences are reducible to electrochemical events in the brain), exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever - including all experiences that underly neuroscience and all knowledge we have about the operations of the brain and the rest of the physical universe. Furthermore, even if specific neuronal behaviors are implicated in the kind or quality or content of any or all mystical experiences (or, again, ANY experience), that still leaves unaccounted the very fact of experience itself. How did that occur? How is it possible that brains have experiences? An evolutionary complexity theory that relies on the idea of "emergence" to account for how experience (consciousness or mind) arises from wholly non-experiential, mindless matter fails to account for the undeniable fact of experience/consciousness.
So we are left with a profound mystery: How is it possible that consciousness exists in an otherwise physical universe? |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
| Edited by - Phantom on 07/16/2004 06:59:45 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2004 : 16:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
Pam Reynolds was not aware of the instruments they would use during her operation.
If they didn't tell her they would drill through her skull, the doctors were guilty of negligence. A patient cannot give informed consent for surgery without being told what will happen. Not necessarily in detail, but how else would one expose the dura without saw or drill?quote:
However, there was not only hearing but also seeing during her NDE, so what about that then?
How about you answer the questions and points that were raised over a year ago in response to your assertions about NDEs? You can find them by following this link.quote:
There are many cases in which the medical staff are convinced that their patient perceived things during a flat EEG. We have no reason to doubt their judgment in this.
No, doctors are people, just like the rest of us, and not infallible. The reason to doubt their judgement is that it borders upon fanaticism in many cases, including claims that these people are "persecuted" for their beliefs.quote:
The only reason we could have is that we would want to remain skeptical at all costs, which is irrational in my view.
No, we remain skeptical because the claims have not yet been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, because there is no non-material theory with which these experiences might be explained, and no non-material mechanism found through which these experiences might happen.quote:
The argument that mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating. For if we accept that particular objection (that mystical experiences are reducible to electrochemical events in the brain), exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever - including all experiences that underly neuroscience and all knowledge we have about the operations of the brain and the rest of the physical universe.
Yes. Why do you consider this to be a problem? Examples of people with severe perceptual problems abound. They have a disease called schizophrenia. Problems very similar to that disease can be induced in healthy people through the use of drugs.quote:
Furthermore, even if specific neuronal behaviors are implicated in the kind or quality or content of any or all mystical experiences (or, again, ANY experience), that still leaves unaccounted the very fact of experience itself. How did that occur? How is it possible that brains have experiences? An evolutionary complexity theory that relies on the idea of "emergence" to account for how experience (consciousness or mind) arises from wholly non-experiential, mindless matter fails to account for the undeniable fact of experience/consciousness.
Just because a particular question has not yet been answered in detail by scientists does not mean that it will never be answered, and so it is not a justification for jumping to unsupported metaphysical conclusions.quote:
So we are left with a profound mystery: How is it possible that consciousness exists in an otherwise physical universe?
It's only "profound" if you first assume that consciousness cannot possibly be an aspect of an otherwise physical brain. I make no such assumption, and see no need to do so. You, on the other hand, do feel such a need, but I do not understand why. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 05:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Phantom wrote:quote:
Pam Reynolds was not aware of the instruments they would use during her operation.
If they didn't tell her they would drill through her skull, the doctors were guilty of negligence.
I don't accept that point. Knowing that your skull will be opened is not the same as knowing what instuments will be used. To my knowledge a surgeon is not obliged to explain the instrument/s used for a particular procedure unless the patient requests to know.
See papers by Titus Rivas to see that skeptics simply endorse an irrational ontology.
http://www.emergentmind.org/rivas-vandongen.htm
http://members.lycos.nl/Kritisch/limitedefficacy.html
|
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 05:40:49 [Permalink]
|
Phantom wrote:quote:
I don't accept that point. Knowing that your skull will be opened is not the same as knowing what instuments will be used. To my knowledge a surgeon is not obliged to explain the instrument/s used for a particular procedure unless the patient requests to know.
Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of that paragraph. She had, in my estimation, a 50-50 chance at "identifying" the right instrument through guessing. The idea that any tool might have been used (like a chisel, icepick, or claw hammer) would be tantamount to calling Reynolds an idiot.quote:
See papers by Titus Rivas to see that skeptics simply endorse an irrational ontology.
As defined by the authors,...epiphenomenalism is a dualist physicalist position... As I also reject both dualism and physicalism, I don't know why you would expect me to embrace epiphenomenalism.
You should argue against what is actually written in these threads, rather than argue against a position which doesn't appear to be held by anyone here. And you should definitely avoid attributing such positions to skeptics as a whole, as it makes clear that you have no intention of entering a real discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 14:09:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
The argument that mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating.
Really? You know, just the other week I saw a scientific program on TV where a team of scientists managed to produce mystical experiences just by changing the magnetic fields in the frontal lobes of the brain. They had a bunch of computer-controlled electromagnets retrofitted into a helmet, and studies concluded that
it could produce mystical experiences.
Some hallucinogenic substances are also know to produce mystical experiences.
quote:
For if we accept that particular objection (that mystical experiences are reducible to electrochemical events in the brain), exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever - including all experiences that underly neuroscience and all knowledge we have about the operations of the brain and the rest of the physical universe.
So what? Are you afraid of the implications of such a conclusion?
Edited some spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/18/2004 14:15:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 19:18:19 [Permalink]
|
Found this while looking for more info on Reynolds:Finally: In the interest of truth, let the skeptics present their biological proof, or forever cease calling Near Death Experiences some sort of biological misfire. I personally don't expect this proof to be forthcoming. Ironically, scientific advances in the field of medicine have proven the theories of evolution false. Yeah, that serves the interests of truth, alllllrighty!
The real truth, of course, is that few skeptics would definitively state that NDEs all represent some sort of "biological misfire." We can't state much about them, due to lack of hard evidence, except to remark that they bear many similarities to known biological misfirings. The above author is probably directing those comments towards cynics (but used the word 'skeptics' through an altogether too-common mistake), which are an entirely different set of people (mostly). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2004 : 07:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Some hallucinogenic substances are also know to produce mystical experiences.
I'll vouch for that.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2004 : 07:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Man is only one entity - body. Mind is an illusion, spirit merely a hope. If you physically alter a portion of your brain, assuming it doesn't kill you, you run a good chance of altering your mind as well. That's because they are one in the same.
BTW - this is my first ever post in this forum. 
What udder balderdash.
Your contention that the "mind" is little more than the various (electro-)chemical imbalances in the brain is TRULY a philosophy dredged out of the "dark ages" --- a time in which all non-physical truths were squished out of existence.
And this gem on your very first post, chalboobi. Quite a feat. 
(Perhaps, though, I should read what was written between this, your first posting, and your most recent posting.) |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2004 : 07:28:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Man is only one entity - body.
<snip>
If you physically alter a portion of your brain, assuming it doesn't kill you, you run a good chance of altering your mind as well. That's because they are one in the same.
BTW - this is my first ever post in this forum.
Welcome!
I agree with your statement that the mind is a manifestation of the brain. I've seen first hand that a physically altered brain results in an alteration of the mind. In several instances, but different situations. I see no other alternative conclusion from the evidense that makes as much sense. (Emphasis added)
As I've written ad nausium, Dr. Mab, I disagree with your assessment and believe that the "mind" lies in 3 of the 6 dimensions (perpedicular?? to the 3 physical dimensions which house the brain and the rest of the body).
However, Dr. Mabuse were I, in fact, to agree with your comment (--set off in bold and red above--), I would contend that the "mind" is not "...a manifestation of the brain" but that "...the mind is a manifestation of the liver". I truly believe that the brain is little more than a wad of modernistic crap --- and a very dangerous wad at that.
The Liver is, IMO, the dominent organ of almost all organic life here on Earth and, so, if any organ is to be associated with something as important as a "mind", then it must be the Liver. 
My opinion, anyway --- were I to believe your contention; which I don't.  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2004 : 22:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dave W.
Do brain-dead people have souls any longer? Or have they already departed for realms beyond?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is evidence that suggests that there is still a conscious person/spirit, albeit "locked-in".
Err.... What evidence? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Phantom
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2004 : 03:22:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Err.... What evidence?
Unfortunately I cannot recall the specifi edition but it was reported in New Scientist Magazine. www.newscientist.com |
"You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same." |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2004 : 07:53:02 [Permalink]
|
comporg wrote
quote:
As I've written ad nausium, Dr. Mab, I disagree with your assessment and believe that the "mind" lies in 3 of the 6 dimensions (perpedicular?? to the 3 physical dimensions which house the brain and the rest of the body).
That is nice that you believe this. You can believe whatever you want. I choose to accept what can be proven or at least what is in the realm of the scientifically possible.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2004 : 13:44:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
scientifically possible
I have to take exception the the use of those two words together. Perhaps what you mean to say is "theoretically possible" instead? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2004 : 19:47:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scientifically possible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to take exception the the use of those two words together. Perhaps what you mean to say is "theoretically possible" instead?
Ok, that was poorly written. What I should have said was "I accept what can be proven or at least what is in the realm of possiblity based on accepted physical laws".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 11:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Edited by - Phantom on 07/16/2004 06:59:45
I find it interesting that you edited the first post on page 10, deleted these sentences:There are many cases in which the medical staff are convinced that their patient perceived things during a flat EEG. We have no reason to doubt their judgment in this. The only reason we could have is that we would want to remain skeptical at all costs, which is irrational in my view. And made no other comment, or noted your deletion, especially after those sentences has already been quoted by me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
