Atheism

[ToadBrother]

Atheist are either arrogant and overly proud psudeo intellectuals OR just people to stupid to imagine the big picture...AND they are so limited in their perception they can not get a grasp on what endlessness or eternity is - they pigeon hole human existance and try to explain things away--- by saying - there is no design and it's just a huge accident - AND they know better than the rest who foolishly believe maybe there is intelligent life in the universe - Maybe there is a force and mind called God?

Or maybe you're just a lunatic a--hole who is incapable or unwilling to look at opposing positions.

The only fool here is you. You can't formulate two sentences together that make anything approaching sense. You demonstrate a combination of incurable stupidity, pathological incoherence and a general incapacity to even want to understand anything.

What does "life in the Universe" even mean here, in the context of atheism? I don't know too many atheists out there who deny that there is life elsewhere out there. This isn't about life, it's about you twisting, either out of intense stupidity or equally intense dishonesty, the concept of atheism.

Grow up, you maniac.

[WIP]

Why do you say every belief, perception and experience is possibly a delusion? Take it to it's conclusion and assume it is all a delusion. Where does that leave you now?

It leaves me in the same position as you, and everyone else in the world who has to understand how the outside world and the people around us function by interpreting the maps made of sensory data in the visual cortex, auditory cortex, make perceptual maps of the outside world, and the parietal lobes interpret most of the information from the nervous system to give us our sense of touch. All of these perceptual maps created to help us navigate around the world we live in are subject to illusion and hallucination -- our brains have to make assumptions about the world based on past experience and predict how future events will unfold. If I let go of a ball, I'm going to expect it to fall to the floor because that's what has happened in every past similar test of the force of gravity. With this information, we construct a worldview of the outside world. That personal theory about the world should be as accurate as we can best determine from the information we have, but the first step to being a realist is to accept the fact that we cannot determine truth that is totally free of internal bias.

This might also be a good place to take note of the fact that the process we use to determine what is truth cannot be purely rational because the path to truth is led by our feelings of certainty, which is not a conscious function, but a sensation that gives us a feeling of knowing and can be generated even when no learning has taken place. This sensation can be generated through mental exercises like meditation, or even by drugs. Try finding anything useful in the mystical experiences that are described by a drug addict. It's more likely that all mystical truth is not a great insight into the universal mind etc. but a physical process of hitting that reward button that gives us our feelings of certainty. People often feel like they know things even when they haven't really learned anything to begin with.

Here's a good reference for how the feeling of certainty is created and applied: http://www.salon.com/mwt/mind_reader/2008/...inty/index.html

My personal bias against supernaturalism is based on past experiences when I discovered nothing of substance to support the belief. I want something more than a wish, to be the basis of holding any belief. So along with my skepticism of phenomena that have to violate laws of nature to exist, I am aware of the natural human bias to view all events as having intentional causes. Every improbable event that occurs seems to get most people jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional.

This was a useful mode of thinking in primitive times when every rustling in the brush had to be assumed to be a predator or an enemy, but this assumption of intentionality led to beliefs that storms and natural disasters were caused events also -- then we got gods and goddesses to appease -- and the rest is history! But now it would be a good time to start growing up and begin to separate real dangers to our common survival from religious superstitions that see demonic conspiracies in every feeble international attempt to deal with environmental problems and the dangers that nuclear weapons pose to life on earth.

Let me just ask you one question. Why do you need another person or thing or scientific experiment to prove you, yourself are a delusion and the only thing that matters is matter?

I never declared myself to be a physicalist, which is the type of materialism you are describing above, that declares that the only forces active in this world are the ones that have already been discovered. The open definition of naturalism does not rule out the existence of a presently undiscovered force that could for example: make large scale evolutionary change, violate the laws of nature and create miracles, or be the undiscovered force behind all psychic phenomena. What I would demand is that these "supernatural" phenomena be testable by the application of scientific evaluation, since every claimed supernatural phenomena is supposed to have natural effects: the god-of-the-gaps that some creationists claim is behind evolution, is supposed to have real effects on our natural world since it is claimed that this force created the first living organisms and sped along evolution. That should be testable by other methods than declaring that it cannot occur naturally. Likewise, intercessory prayer would be having physical effects if it existed; so those prayers should be answered with evidence that healing actually occurred and can be verified by medical staff. The fact that prayer has failed the test and only works in occasional annecdotal stories leads to the conclusion that any healing occurred for purely natural reasons.

So, I'll be willing to accept the existence of gods, psychics, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences etc. just as soon as they past the tests and can support the claims that they are making. Until then.............

Using the material universe to prove their is nothing outside(metaphorically speaking) of the material universe is similar to knocking on wood to prove only that there is not nothing there with something that may not be there in the first place.

I have reasons to believe that there is a universe, that I live on a planet containing almost 7 billion other people, gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, that matter is composed of bundles of potential energy called atoms; but I have no good reasons to believe that there are forces or phenomena outside of the natural world that violate natural laws, just because a lot of people believe it.

[Pliny]

It leaves me in the same position as you, and everyone else in the world who has to understand how the outside world and the people around us function by interpreting the maps made of sensory data in the visual cortex, auditory cortex, make perceptual maps of the outside world, and the parietal lobes interpret most of the information from the nervous system to give us our sense of touch. All of these perceptual maps created to help us navigate around the world we live in are subject to illusion and hallucination -- our brains have to make assumptions about the world based on past experience and predict how future events will unfold. If I let go of a ball, I'm going to expect it to fall to the floor because that's what has happened in every past similar test of the force of gravity. With this information, we construct a worldview of the outside world. That personal theory about the world should be as accurate as we can best determine from the information we have, but the first step to being a realist is to accept the fact that we cannot determine truth that is totally free of internal bias.

"We cannot determine truth that is totally free of internal bias". Is that true? Or is it biased? Obviously biased if it is true and obviously untrue if it is biased. Would it be a first for the human race if a truth were determined totally free of internal bias? Or has some scientist already done that? Impossible if scientists are realists because the first step to being a realist is to accept the fact that "we" (I take it that means everyone) cannot determine truth that is totally free of internal bias, and from my understanding scientists are realists.

Just wondering about that "we". Do you mean when your neurons and synapses are snapping and popping "you" are getting information. When your visual cortex is pointing in a certain direction you see things? And through these perceptics is how "we" all get "our" information? So are "we" a different bunch of neurons and chemicals from the neurons and chemicals that are giving us this information? Are "we" the discretionary and dictatorial electro-chemical impulses? If so is there different electro-chemical neurons that then direct those ones and does that just continue on a big never-ending chain or could it possibly end somewhere? May I suggest perhaps, it ends where the information is first evaluated and perhaps it is you doing that evaluating?

You see, since you have no concept of anything beyond the physical (at least no one has proven that to you) if you were something other than the material, you could not know you existed since no concept of you exists, even in the "supernatural" sense the description of a soul or spirit is vague and is best understood to believers as a personal experience. instead of proving you exist you want someone else to prove it so you will know. You can't define yourself when you don't believe you exist and no one can prove it to you except yourself.

Your problem (which I understand you don't have), as I see it, is that you will only accept another person's "truth" that has been determined by a set of criteria devised by other people and even those truths cannot be certain, since it merely a function of a reward button. You yourself do not conceive that you could contribute to the fact you exist. You must realize that the fact you exist is a certainty and you needn't look elsewhere but to yourself for confirmation of that fact. What "you" are has been determined by a set of defined criteria devised by other people which you have accepted as your criteria. Your contribution - zip! You only agree to accept a fact based upon accepted criteria. Once accepted no more "Eurekas" for you. Only, "Really? Wow! That's so cool!"

People that belong to organized religions have the same problem. They argue with "facts" established by another and proofs determined by a set by criteria devised by other people. Their contribution - zip! They only agree and once they do no more Eurekas for them. Only, "Really? Wow! That's so cool!"

The people that established the criteria were probably leaders in their communities at the time, today, scientists are those people. It's how we know things are true. Because other people in big groups said so. And you are nothing unless you believe in the parameters of their criteria.

This might also be a good place to take note of the fact that the process we use to determine what is truth cannot be purely rational because the path to truth is led by our feelings of certainty, which is not a conscious function, but a sensation that gives us a feeling of knowing and can be generated even when no learning has taken place.

Are you certain?

This sensation can be generated through mental exercises like meditation, or even by drugs. Try finding anything useful in the mystical experiences that are described by a drug addict. It's more likely that all mystical truth is not a great insight into the universal mind etc. but a physical process of hitting that reward button that gives us our feelings of certainty. People often feel like they know things even when they haven't really learned anything to begin with.

Sounds like you have hit the reward button quite often. Just another way of saying you sound "certain" of what you say. Could it be, since you are a people, "you often feel like you know things even when you haven't really learned anything to begin with."

So, I'll be willing to accept the existence of gods, psychics, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences etc. just as soon as they past the tests and can support the claims that they are making. Until then.............

So you are not an atheist but an agnostic? Aw-w-w...I thought you were an athiest. Back to square one.

I have reasons to believe that there is a universe, that I live on a planet containing almost 7 billion other people, gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, that matter is composed of bundles of potential energy called atoms; but I have no good reasons to believe that there are forces or phenomena outside of the natural world that violate natural laws, just because a lot of people believe it.

You are the only thing that violates natural laws. It's too bad you only "have reasons to believe" you are there and may or may not be just a delusion but for the fact that some electro-chemical impulses are kind of hinting at the fact they are not you and you are not them.

Somehow you can interpret the information they get to you. Amazing! Almost "supernatural"!

[Oleg Bach]

"I am the truth (reality) the light and the way" - to para phrase Christ the great teacher of logic. True religion is not worship - it is on going learning and exceptance of what is real (true). Institutionalization creates a balance - and there is nothing in eternity that is balanced - if there was balance all would come to a stand still - and oblivion would take place. Aheists are those that want the answer and want it instantly - so they settle immediately for the most simplistic conclution to the great search - they stop looking and stop thinking......the achieve balance and a type of foolish security . Aheism is the lazy mans religion.

[cybercoma]

"I am the truth (reality) the light and the way" - to para phrase Christ the great teacher of logic. True religion is not worship - it is on going learning and exceptance of what is real (true). Institutionalization creates a balance - and there is nothing in eternity that is balanced - if there was balance all would come to a stand still - and oblivion would take place. Aheists are those that want the answer and want it instantly - so they settle immediately for the most simplistic conclution to the great search - they stop looking and stop thinking......the achieve balance and a type of foolish security . Aheism is the lazy mans religion.

every last bit of this post is incorrect.

[WIP]

"We cannot determine truth that is totally free of internal bias". Is that true? Or is it biased? Obviously biased if it is true and obviously untrue if it is biased. Would it be a first for the human race if a truth were determined totally free of internal bias?

Okay! Knock it off! I don't know whether you are trying to be cute, or just trying to sound clever; but I've given you my reasons -- such as perceptual weaknesses and their subsequent effects on cognitive maps we create to describe the outside world and our own internal sense of self -- as to why I feel our information-gathering system doesn't make absolute truth a possibility. If you have a counter-argument, let's hear it. How do you propose a truth to be determined totally free of internal bias? Besides the problems of perceptual and cognitive bias, there is also the problem of how we incorporate past memories to evaluate new facts or ideas. We evaluate new evidence partly on the basis of how it fits in with the worldview we have developed. Our memories that we base this personal philosophy on, are rated in significance according to the emotional significance attached to them. Brain function is simply not a perfect system, so it cannot be used to provide a perfect understanding or perfect knowledge.

Our feelings of certainty and knowing are mental sensations that occur at an unconscious level. That's why we can feel we know something without actually demonstrating that we possess the information. The basic tip-of-the-tongue sensation, gives you a feeling of knowing without being able to demonstrate having the knowledge to justify it. So, you start scanning through your mental rolodex of names and information, trying to retrieve the needed fact, to justify the sensation of knowing: "i know it, but I just can't think of it."

Just wondering about that "we". Do you mean when your neurons and synapses are snapping and popping "you" are getting information. When your visual cortex is pointing in a certain direction you see things? And through these perceptics is how "we" all get "our" information? So are "we" a different bunch of neurons and chemicals from the neurons and chemicals that are giving us this information?

You are making a big, unfounded assumption in your description of "we" or "I" being something separate from the complex physical function of neurons interacting. We do not have anything to base our sense of ego on, except for the feeling of having one, unified mind. And studies done over the years on split-brain patients, indicates that we have at least two separate minds, if not more, since the left and right hemispheres of the cerebral cortex act independently of each other, after the nerve bundle connecting them (Corpus Collosum) is cut.

Are "we" the discretionary and dictatorial electro-chemical impulses? If so is there different electro-chemical neurons that then direct those ones and does that just continue on a big never-ending chain or could it possibly end somewhere? May I suggest perhaps, it ends where the information is first evaluated and perhaps it is you doing that evaluating?

Suggest away! But one thing we do know about brain function, based on comparisons of brain scanning with conscious thinking, is that there is no Cartesian theatre in the brain where a persistent self exists. Instead, the lack of a central control area, as evidenced by brain-scanning data shows that apparent unity is just a collection of ever-changing experiences tied together by such relationships as a physical body and memory

You see, since you have no concept of anything beyond the physical (at least no one has proven that to you) if you were something other than the material, you could not know you existed since no concept of you exists, even in the "supernatural" sense the description of a soul or spirit is vague and is best understood to believers as a personal experience. instead of proving you exist you want someone else to prove it so you will know. You can't define yourself when you don't believe you exist and no one can prove it to you except yourself.

Again, you offer no reasons why I should share your concept of something beyond the physical. This is a circular argument: if you believe, then you will have your proof! And I believe I exist -- I just recognize that my existence in this world is based on a lifetime of past experiences that could possibly, if unlikely, be an illusion. There is always that remote possibility of being wired up to that supercomputer that they had in the Matrix. If you were connected to a system that could provide realistic, simulated sensory data, how would you tell the difference between life in the real world between life in the Matrix Universe?

Your problem (which I understand you don't have), as I see it, is that you will only accept another person's "truth" that has been determined by a set of criteria devised by other people and even those truths cannot be certain, since it merely a function of a reward button. You yourself do not conceive that you could contribute to the fact you exist.

Nonsense! What I cannot be absolutely certain of (and you neither) is that my experiences are real, or I am a "brain in a vat" that is receiving false sensory information that seems real. The Matrix movies are based on that thought problem.

Sounds like you have hit the reward button quite often. Just another way of saying you sound "certain" of what you say. Could it be, since you are a people, "you often feel like you know things even when you haven't really learned anything to begin with."

Who knows! But I already said many times that certain facts should be placed on a scale from probable to improbable. Speaking of which, why should I believe in the improbable, especially when it comes with no evidence offered to prove its existence?

So you are not an atheist but an agnostic? Aw-w-w...I thought you were an athiest. Back to square one.

Misapplication of terms! Atheism is based on lack of belief, agnosticism is based on lack of knowledge. I don't have good reasons why I should believe in gods and supernatural worlds, so that makes me an atheist.

You are the only thing that violates natural laws. It's too bad you only "have reasons to believe" you are there and may or may not be just a delusion but for the fact that some electro-chemical impulses are kind of hinting at the fact they are not you and you are not them.

And how am I violating natural laws? Once again you are referring to the self as being something separate or disembodied. Our sense of conscious self is generated by those "electro-chemical impulses."

[Pliny]

Misapplication of terms! Atheism is based on lack of belief, agnosticism is based on lack of knowledge. I don't have good reasons why I should believe in gods and supernatural worlds, so that makes me an atheist.

You seem to have some beliefs - everything may be a delusion, our concept of self is generated by processes of the brain - these are not truths yet are they? And I don't think you claim you know everything there is to know yet or do you?.

And how am I violating natural laws? Once again you are referring to the self as being something separate or disembodied. Our sense of conscious self is generated by those "electro-chemical impulses."

Life animates matter. Matter does not animate matter. Nor does matter generate life or a "sense of a conscious self". There is an unknown element that animates matter. You have concluded in your beliefs, and they can only be termed beliefs - by your own reasoning, that matter must animate matter. Attempting to use matter to discover the existence or measure the physical aspects of something that is not physical is not a possibility. You will never discover anything but matter and energy and space if you insist upon using only matter and energy and space to determine it's existence. You say it could all be a delusion but there can be no electro-chemical process to create a delusion if the electro-chemical process must also be a delusion.

Face the facts, no one has discovered what you or I are yet. So you are presently comprised of nothing that has been discovered regarding the make up of the material universe. Believing you are a product of electro-chemical or you are an electro-chemical process yourself is a belief. If you wish to maintain that "belief" then you have ended your search and finally become something. One with the universe.

If you were really true to the scientific method you would call life an X factor or nothing or a something or an unknown and never be so arrogant as to state that this unknown is matter based upon the fact that matter (for some unknown reason. Duh!) cannot detect anything beyond matter. Some people call your chemical process that generates a concept of self, a soul or spirit or astral body, also assigning it some physical properties, just as you do. I think it is a mistake to do that as well. But the belief you are a brain or a concept dreamt up by some chemical process, or as others believe, a soul, is just that - a belief. That you are convinced of your belief makes it no more valid than any other belief.

I haven't determined I am something yet. As far as the physical universe goes from what I know, I am nothing, I have always been nothing and I believe I always will be nothing. That leaves it just about open to accepting any proof that we are something, if it should ever occur. And all you, or anyone else with a belief, is trying to do is prove you are something. Just being is not enough, I guess. When it comes to the physical universe you have to be something. When you are finally something then you can "West In Peace".

Edited April 19, 2009 by Pliny

[WIP]

You seem to have some beliefs - everything may be a delusion, our concept of self is generated by processes of the brain - these are not truths yet are they? And I don't think you claim you know everything there is to know yet or do you?.

And again, determining "truth" is a verification process that ranges from highly unlikely to highly plausible and dependable information. Since you share the same cognitive limitations posed by brain function that I and everyone else has to deal with, how do you make the breakthrough to certainty? Especially considering the other problem that the feeling of certainty is generated at an unconscious level that we do not have conscious access to. In all honesty, no truth can be determined as absolute fact, except by people who cannot or will not accept their own cognitive limitations. Every "truth" that is placed out here in the objective world of shared experiences has to given a grade as to its reliability. Some "truths" may be considered to be considered to be reliable enough to become part of our common wisdom, while others are so improbable that only a few people on the fringe will find them convincing.

Life animates matter. Matter does not animate matter. Nor does matter generate life or a "sense of a conscious self". There is an unknown element that animates matter

.

What you are describing here is vitalism; a discredited theory of living biological processes that was abandoned a century ago as new knowledge became available about biochemistry and genetics. There is no need (or evidence) for a life force to be animating living creatures, and if you are proposing such a force, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate its existence.

You have concluded in your beliefs, and they can only be termed beliefs - by your own reasoning, that matter must animate matter. Attempting to use matter to discover the existence or measure the physical aspects of something that is not physical is not a possibility. You will never discover anything but matter and energy and space if you insist upon using only matter and energy and space to determine it's existence. You say it could all be a delusion but there can be no electro-chemical process to create a delusion if the electro-chemical process must also be a delusion.

I said before that I am not insisting on physicalism, but if there are other, undiscovered forces, I want to see some evidence to support them before I start believing in them.

If you were really true to the scientific method you would call life an X factor or nothing or a something or an unknown and never be so arrogant as to state that this unknown is matter based upon the fact that matter (for some unknown reason. Duh!) cannot detect anything beyond matter.

Which I have not done. What I reject is the notion that is referred to by philosophers as "substance dualism," that we have a non-physical spirit inside us that is the source of our sense of self. Critics of materialistic theories of consciousness usually insist that physical processes cannot provide a personal sense of existing, or being alive -- David Chalmers created the Philosopher's Zombie paradox to explain the problem, arguing that a sufficiently complex machine could simulate being a conscious person that would be convincing to others, without having any sense of personal awareness or conscious experience. Chalmers argues that physical processes cannot explain the personal subjective sense of awareness called Qualia, and claims there is an explanatory gap that cannot be bridged by reductionism, functionalism, emergence, or other materialist explanations of consciousness. He calls it the Hard Problem of consciousness, but many materialists such as Daniel Dennett, believe that the "hard problem" is not a barrier to materialism, but instead will be resolved by the steady increase in knowledge about brain function, just as so called irreducible complexities in evolution have been explained by new information.

Even if Chalmers is correct, he is not arguing for a spirit world or souls or supernatural forces. Chalmers's dualism is usually referred to a Property Dualism, since he believes that the particles that make up our universe have conscious properties as well as their physical properties. Property dualism would propose that an atom is too simple or basic to have conscious self awareness, and a complex system, such as the human brain, is still necessary to create a higher order of consciousness. Right now, there is not enough evidence to narrow down these theories of consciousness; it could be property dualism or one of the materialist theories of mind -- but which ever one is right, they still fit with a naturalistic description of our world.

[Pliny]

And again, determining "truth" is a verification process that ranges from highly unlikely to highly plausible and dependable information. Since you share the same cognitive limitations posed by brain function that I and everyone else has to deal with, how do you make the breakthrough to certainty? Especially considering the other problem that the feeling of certainty is generated at an unconscious level that we do not have conscious access to. In all honesty, no truth can be determined as absolute fact, except by people who cannot or will not accept their own cognitive limitations. Every "truth" that is placed out here in the objective world of shared experiences has to given a grade as to its reliability. Some "truths" may be considered to be considered to be reliable enough to become part of our common wisdom, while others are so improbable that only a few people on the fringe will find them convincing.

How do you make the breakthrough to certainty? A very interesting question but understandable coming form your point of view. Since in your view truths are entirely dependent upon external events and electro-chemical processes are attributed to be the arbiter of truth based upon a verification process of unlikely to plausible then certainty is indeed an impossibility. I can deduce from what you say that certainty escapes you and if you think it doesn't then I can only say you are trying to convince me I can have no certainty. Especially since you and I share the same cognitive limitations posed by brain function. Atheism does in my understanding convey a "certainty" even though Atheism is itself defined as a "belief", and that belief is there is no such thing as God. So you have basically argued that certainty is impossible, and the corollary to that is Atheism can then only be a belief and all of existence is simply a belief.

Why do Athiests seem so certain in their conviction, WIP? Is it dependent upon the amount of times they ask for proof and when nothing is forthcoming the verification process scale moves further toward highly plausible?

You know, thinking that truth is contained in an electro-chemical process of determination is to me beyond the pale. Can you think of anything that doesn't seem to be comprised of matter? Didn't think so.

What you are describing here is vitalism; a discredited theory of living biological processes that was abandoned a century ago as new knowledge became available about biochemistry and genetics. There is no need (or evidence) for a life force to be animating living creatures, and if you are proposing such a force, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate its existence.

The only objective proof is subject to your determination and since you only have probabilities and beliefs without certainty it is an impossibility. The Athiests favorite trap. I would have to argue with Athiests that do have certainties - you know what though, I have an idea there are none.

Which I have not done. What I reject is the notion that is referred to by philosophers as "substance dualism," that we have a non-physical spirit inside us that is the source of our sense of self. Critics of materialistic theories of consciousness usually insist that physical processes cannot provide a personal sense of existing, or being alive -- David Chalmers created the Philosopher's Zombie paradox to explain the problem, arguing that a sufficiently complex machine could simulate being a conscious person that would be convincing to others, without having any sense of personal awareness or conscious experience.

Entirely possible, perhaps. Although the machine could simulate being a conscious person that would be convincing to other, without having any sense of personal awareness or conscious experience, Chalmers conveniently forgets, the machine must be built by a conscious person. It requires a prime mover. Could a machine build a conscious person?

Chalmers argues that physical processes cannot explain the personal subjective sense of awareness called Qualia, and claims there is an explanatory gap that cannot be bridged by reductionism, functionalism, emergence, or other materialist explanations of consciousness. He calls it the Hard Problem of consciousness, but many materialists such as Daniel Dennett, believe that the "hard problem" is not a barrier to materialism, but instead will be resolved by the steady increase in knowledge about brain function, just as so called irreducible complexities in evolution have been explained by new information.

Even if Chalmers is correct, he is not arguing for a spirit world or souls or supernatural forces. Chalmers's dualism is usually referred to a Property Dualism, since he believes that the particles that make up our universe have conscious properties as well as their physical properties. Property dualism would propose that an atom is too simple or basic to have conscious self awareness, and a complex system, such as the human brain, is still necessary to create a higher order of consciousness. Right now, there is not enough evidence to narrow down these theories of consciousness; it could be property dualism or one of the materialist theories of mind -- but which ever one is right, they still fit with a naturalistic description of our world.

You assume one is right then. Are you certain no others could be right?

Good night!

[WIP]

How do you make the breakthrough to certainty?

Simple! Certainty is an impossibility!

I've gone over this a number of times already, but in brief, our physical hardwiring does not make us capable of arriving at absolute certainty. We should try to make sure our beliefs are as accurate as possible, and be willing to make adjustments when necessary; but we don't arrive at certainty and more than the scientific method leads to absolute truth. Like the quest for knowledge, it never reaches a final goal.

A very interesting question but understandable coming form your point of view. Since in your view truths are entirely dependent upon external events and electro-chemical processes are attributed to be the arbiter of truth based upon a verification process of unlikely to plausible then certainty is indeed an impossibility.

You're really hung up on how neurons function, aren't you? There's nothing we can do about the fact that there are physical constraints on our abilities to understand both ourselves, and the world around us. That's just the way it is!

I can deduce from what you say that certainty escapes you and if you think it doesn't then I can only say you are trying to convince me I can have no certainty

.

Instead of going over that point, over and over again, how about if you tell me how you are able to go beyond your physical cognitive constraints and determine absolutes like truth and certainty.

Especially since you and I share the same cognitive limitations posed by brain function. Atheism does in my understanding convey a "certainty" even though Atheism is itself defined as a "belief", and that belief is there is no such thing as God. So you have basically argued that certainty is impossible, and the corollary to that is Atheism can then only be a belief and all of existence is simply a belief.

I don't know if you've thought about this before, but if you're a Christian, your own religion says that you cannot have absolute certainty, and that's why you have to depend on faith. Many theologians have echoed the point made by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians, that Christians should not depend on reason like the Greeks, but must rely on faith that they are on the right path.

Why do Athiests seem so certain in their conviction, WIP? Is it dependent upon the amount of times they ask for proof and when nothing is forthcoming the verification process scale moves further toward highly plausible?

I can't speak for all atheists you understand. My views certainly would not fit Marxism or Objectivism, which each claim to have determined some sort of absolute truths and values.

The only objective proof is subject to your determination and since you only have probabilities and beliefs without certainty it is an impossibility. The Athiests favorite trap. I would have to argue with Athiests that do have certainties - you know what though, I have an idea there are none.

If you're talking about humanists, what we consider objective values are shared, common values that are agreed upon by some form of consensus. Aside from that, we don't accept any sort of divine knowledge that is revealed to us. And I guess that's where you would need faith; because divine revelation could be scrambled and misconstrued by the limitations of brain function we've discussed already.

Entirely possible, perhaps. Although the machine could simulate being a conscious person that would be convincing to other, without having any sense of personal awareness or conscious experience, Chalmers conveniently forgets, the machine must be built by a conscious person. It requires a prime mover. Could a machine build a conscious person?

Chalmers offers this example as a thought problem, not an engineering concept. The zombie is sophisticated enough to fool others, so how does an outsider know that the zombie is a conscious individual, or is instead an automaton?

The debate between property dualists like Chalmers and the various materialists like Dennet, John Searle, and Paul & Patricia Churchland, argue that the "hard problem" of consciousness can be resolved through incremental increase in understanding of how the brain creates mental imagery.

You assume one is right then. Are you certain no others could be right?

Who knows!

[Pliny]

Simple! Certainty is an impossibility!

I've gone over this a number of times already, but in brief, our physical hardwiring does not make us capable of arriving at absolute certainty. We should try to make sure our beliefs are as accurate as possible, and be willing to make adjustments when necessary; but we don't arrive at certainty and more than the scientific method leads to absolute truth. Like the quest for knowledge, it never reaches a final goal.

Are you certain that certainty is an impossibility? The physical universe being an illusion cannot contain absolute certainty - unless you are the creator of the illusion absolute certainty is, I agree, not possible. Did you ever create an illusion? And perhaps there is a universe where absolutes exist.

You're really hung up on how neurons function, aren't you?

Science is and that is a curiosity.

There's nothing we can do about the fact that there are physical constraints on our abilities to understand both ourselves, and the world around us. That's just the way it is!

Are you absolutely certain.

.

Instead of going over that point, over and over again, how about if you tell me how you are able to go beyond your physical cognitive constraints and determine absolutes like truth and certainty.

It isn't something that an electro-chemical process could do. You have to have some kind of epiphany that you are not matter. You, however must remain matter based upon your criteria of logic. Since you cannot find anything that would be you outside of matter you must assume you are matter. Only logical, after all.

In order to understand you would have to first be nothing and not something. And I understand, being nothing is beyond your physical cognitive constraints because then you would be dead - the only possible place where nothing could exist. Only logical. I understand.

Once you have become nothing then you can determine absolute truth and certainty. And the first one is that - you are. Your body has to die before you can figure that one out if you follow the logic of science.

I don't know if you've thought about this before, but if you're a Christian, your own religion says that you cannot have absolute certainty, and that's why you have to depend on faith. Many theologians have echoed the point made by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians, that Christians should not depend on reason like the Greeks, but must rely on faith that they are on the right path.

I would be more Buddhist than Christian so I haven't thought about it.

I can't speak for all atheists you understand. My views certainly would not fit Marxism or Objectivism, which each claim to have determined some sort of absolute truths and values.

Yeah. that's impossible.

If you're talking about humanists, what we consider objective values are shared, common values that are agreed upon by some form of consensus. Aside from that, we don't accept any sort of divine knowledge that is revealed to us. And I guess that's where you would need faith; because divine revelation could be scrambled and misconstrued by the limitations of brain function we've discussed already.

Yeah that's what I think. Divine revelation is scrambled and misconstrued by the limitations of brain function.

Chalmers offers this example as a thought problem, not an engineering concept. The zombie is sophisticated enough to fool others, so how does an outsider know that the zombie is a conscious individual, or is instead an automaton?

Since it is an engineering impossibility the point is mute. If it is just presented as a thought problem you are only looking for a difference in the engineering. If the conscious person couldn't make the distinction it wouldn't matter.

The debate between property dualists like Chalmers and the various materialists like Dennet, John Searle, and Paul & Patricia Churchland, argue that the "hard problem" of consciousness can be resolved through incremental increase in understanding of how the brain creates mental imagery.

Could the premise be wrong - that the brain creates mental imagery.

[WIP]

Are you certain that certainty is an impossibility?

I am not talking about whether objective certainty exists out there. My point is that limitations of brain function make it impossible to determine absolute certainty. We interpret information about the world that we receive through vision -- just google the term "change blindness" to see how just one aspect of how the simple act of looking out at the world is skewed by the fact that the visual cortices in the brain are hardwired to focus on moving objects. This, and other predispositions are part of the magician's toolbox of techniques that can be used to create illusions.

Looking inward, our brain generates the illusion of one continuous mind or self. Everyone assumes that the internal perceptions of schizophrenics are flawed, because of the delusions they believe are real, but does the rational person have a perfectly reliable sense of self? We know this sense of unified mind is an illusion generated by the brain, likely for functional reasons, because of discoveries in neuroscience such as the previously mentioned experiments on split-brain patients that find the left and right hemispheres each have a separate consciousness, and when the corpus collosum nerve bundle that normally enables shared information is severed, the subject will be unable to coordinate information, and each hemisphere will function independently as if the person now has two minds instead of one. Even at the basic level, each neuron acts independently, deciding which information should be passed on through the synapses to other neurons, and which bits of information to ignore.

The overall picture is that our sense of mind that interprets what and who we are, and the sense of the world around us, is produced by a physical system that cannot provide a perfect understanding of either; so certainty may be possible, but we have no way of reaching that goal because of our own physical cognitive limitations.

It isn't something that an electro-chemical process could do. You have to have some kind of epiphany that you are not matter. You, however must remain matter based upon your criteria of logic. Since you cannot find anything that would be you outside of matter you must assume you are matter. Only logical, after all.

I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone who claims to derive understanding through mystical insight - and I have practiced meditation on and off for the last 25 years, so I know what it feels like, at least at the basic beginner's level - your mystical insight has to be interpreted by the function of your brain; how do you know you have perceived a real awareness, and not just experienced one of the many delusions that can occur when normal brain function is altered through meditation. For example: well practiced meditators, such as Buddhist monks, exhibit a sharp decline in activity in the Parietal lobes of the Cortex -- an area of the brain that generates body maps needed for us to identify our location in space and time, and where our bodies leave off and the rest of the world begins. When the Parietal lobes severely reduce function while other areas are active, a materialist interpretation of the feeling of Oneness would be that a conscious person has lost the ability to mark time, and have a sense of where they are in time and space. The brain's G.P.S. system has been shut down, so is the sense of becoming one with the Universe, a real experience or an illusion created by a loss of sensory information? It may feel real! But does the belief it is a real experience make it real?

Once you have become nothing then you can determine absolute truth and certainty. And the first one is that - you are. Your body has to die before you can figure that one out if you follow the logic of science.

And I would insist that when the body dies, whatever sense of consciousness is available would not contain any sense of personality that we have now. Our memories, emotions, thoughts are produced by the complex function of the brain, and once it dies, so does the mind that it generates.

Since it is an engineering impossibility the point is mute. If it is just presented as a thought problem you are only looking for a difference in the engineering. If the conscious person couldn't make the distinction it wouldn't matter.

Chalmer's point is that we have no way to determine if anyone else has a sense of conscious self. He maintains that the sense of personal self must at some point depend on a capacity for consciousness must be part of the makeup of atoms or particles that make up the universe.

Could the premise be wrong - that the brain creates mental imagery.

If it's wrong, somebody needs to explain the mind/body problem that has torpedoed every dualist theory of non-physical mind. Way back in the time of Plato, he was confronted with this problem when a student asked: 'does my soul also get drunk when I have drank too much wine?'

[Oleg Bach]

To choose to believe or not believe is foolish - the question is open for enternity.

[bush_cheney2004]

To choose to believe or not believe is foolish - the question is open for enternity.

Not really...the question will be moot in about 4 billion years.

Don't forget your marshmallows!

[Pliny]

I am not talking about whether objective certainty exists out there. My point is that limitations of brain function make it impossible to determine absolute certainty. We interpret information about the world that we receive through vision -- just google the term "change blindness" to see how just one aspect of how the simple act of looking out at the world is skewed by the fact that the visual cortices in the brain are hardwired to focus on moving objects. This, and other predispositions are part of the magician's toolbox of techniques that can be used to create illusions.

The simple act of looking out at the world is skewed...skewed to what? If it is determined to be skewed then we should be able to determine how it is skewed and make the necessary adjustment to produce an actuality. Saying it is skewed means it is understood to be skewed. Actually, every observation would be slightly different if only from the fact no one person is occupying the same space as anyone else.

One thing that is puzzling to me about the electro-chemical explanation of animation is there are limited numbers of reactions that could occur with the same chemical processes. There is obviously a different point of view for each individual each skewed to their interpretation and their interpretation is skewed according to their education and experience. How does an electro-chemical reaction produce such a multitude of different interpretations?

What of the mental imagery you mention. How is that skewed when there is no visual cortices involved?

Looking inward, our brain generates the illusion of one continuous mind or self. Everyone assumes that the internal perceptions of schizophrenics are flawed, because of the delusions they believe are real, but does the rational person have a perfectly reliable sense of self? We know this sense of unified mind is an illusion generated by the brain, likely for functional reasons, because of discoveries in neuroscience such as the previously mentioned experiments on split-brain patients that find the left and right hemispheres each have a separate consciousness, and when the corpus collosum nerve bundle that normally enables shared information is severed, the subject will be unable to coordinate information, and each hemisphere will function independently as if the person now has two minds instead of one. Even at the basic level, each neuron acts independently, deciding which information should be passed on through the synapses to other neurons, and which bits of information to ignore.

Once again, a neuron is composed of material, how does a neuron act independently from other neurons comprised of the same physical properties when we know that the combination of two electro-chemical reactions in the same quantities and of the same physical properties produces the same result everytime. Different results are not possible.

The overall picture is that our sense of mind that interprets what and who we are, and the sense of the world around us, is produced by a physical system that cannot provide a perfect understanding of either; so certainty may be possible, but we have no way of reaching that goal because of our own physical cognitive limitations.

Are they physical cognitive limitations or are they just limitations of the actual scientific theory of animation itself?

I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone who claims to derive understanding through mystical insight - and I have practiced meditation on and off for the last 25 years, so I know what it feels like, at least at the basic beginner's level - your mystical insight has to be interpreted by the function of your brain; how do you know you have perceived a real awareness, and not just experienced one of the many delusions that can occur when normal brain function is altered through meditation. For example: well practiced meditators, such as Buddhist monks, exhibit a sharp decline in activity in the Parietal lobes of the Cortex -- an area of the brain that generates body maps needed for us to identify our location in space and time, and where our bodies leave off and the rest of the world begins. When the Parietal lobes severely reduce function while other areas are active, a materialist interpretation of the feeling of Oneness would be that a conscious person has lost the ability to mark time, and have a sense of where they are in time and space. The brain's G.P.S. system has been shut down, so is the sense of becoming one with the Universe, a real experience or an illusion created by a loss of sensory information? It may feel real! But does the belief it is a real experience make it real?

If one has a feeling of oneness he is still conscious of his separateness. It is only a state one finds himself in and he knows he is not what he feels "one" with.

Generally, there is a consciousness of self in any state. Call that consciousness, "self" or the "spirit" or "soul" or "personality" or just an awareness of being aware, whatever you want. You can even assign it properties if you want and say that it only exists because of electro-chemical processes. You can lose your G.P.S. system and forget where you are or where your body ends and the world begins. It remains that consciousness is still there that is separate from all else. If you believe that consciousness ends with the end of electro-chemical processes it is only a conclusion that you have arrived at through education and experience and I would suggest mostly education in your case because you depend upon others for your information, and certainty is not something that is possible so the weight of concensus rules.

And I would insist that when the body dies, whatever sense of consciousness is available would not contain any sense of personality that we have now. Our memories, emotions, thoughts are produced by the complex function of the brain, and once it dies, so does the mind that it generates.

Yes, of course. The only logical conclusion that could be made based on the agreed upon information.

The only difference between your certainty and another's certainty is their experience and education. You may think that science has provided you with an advantage in determining reality and giving you certainty but you negate your experience entirely by fitting it into a frame of reference that you feel explains it all. There is not much difference in believing in a religion that explains it all. Even the refusal to accept other explanationso of anomalies in existence is common.

If you insist upon the conclusion our thoughts emotions and memories are produced by the complex function of the brain and once it dies so does the mind that generates it, I can understand that. Being that certainty is not possible, which you have agreed upon, I leave myself open to other possiblities and actually have just as much certainty that you are wrong as you have that you are right.

It may be that the world was created 6 thousand years ago as some Christians believe and all other things that point to it existing for millions of years prior was created at the same time and we are in a matrix like existence.

It still doesn't change the fact that I am aware that I am separate from either reality. I am not and never will be one with the universe.

Chalmer's point is that we have no way to determine if anyone else has a sense of conscious self. He maintains that the sense of personal self must at some point depend on a capacity for consciousness must be part of the makeup of atoms or particles that make up the universe.

It doesn't matter if anyone else has a sense of conscious self. You have a sense of conscious self. Chalmers claims he has a sense of conscious self and wonders if anyone else does, Why? If no one else does is anything changed? It means you are alone and your consciousness creates the whole illusion of reality. If there are other consciousnesses then do they create the whole illusion of reality. Is there a consciousness that creates all other consciousnesses and what would be the difference between the creator and the created?

If it's wrong, somebody needs to explain the mind/body problem that has torpedoed every dualist theory of non-physical mind. Way back in the time of Plato, he was confronted with this problem when a student asked: 'does my soul also get drunk when I have drank too much wine?'

The soul isn't the experience it is only the awareness of the experience.

I don't want to pretend that I have any more understanding of life than you I just see it differently.

[WIP]

The simple act of looking out at the world is skewed...skewed to what? If it is determined to be skewed then we should be able to determine how it is skewed and make the necessary adjustment to produce an actuality. Saying it is skewed means it is understood to be skewed. Actually, every observation would be slightly different if only from the fact no one person is occupying the same space as anyone else.

At some point, mystical obscurantism becomes nonsense. I am not talking about perspective or subjective awareness -- the simple fact is that the machine that processes sensory information about the world for us does not give us perfect representations of the outside world to even have the potential of absolute certainty. The visual processing centers in our brain try to produce maps of the outside world that will be useful for our funtion, and as mentioned previously, interpretation of this information makes us subject to illusions and misperceptions. Certainty is an abstract concept, not part of the way we interpret and process information in real life.

One thing that is puzzling to me about the electro-chemical explanation of animation is there are limited numbers of reactions that could occur with the same chemical processes.

Tell me, how limited are those reactions? Neurons are not computer gates with simple on/off switches. Neuroscientists studying the brain are still trying to determine the range of possibilities a single neuron is capable of: link

link

What of the mental imagery you mention. How is that skewed when there is no visual cortices involved?

?????????????????????? People who are blind from birth do not "see" anything, and the visual processing centers of the brain interpret auditory and touch sense information instead. A person who is blind from birth does not have visual dreams; their mental imagery does not include visual information, since they have no memories of any experiences with the sense of vision.

Once again, a neuron is composed of material, how does a neuron act independently from other neurons comprised of the same physical properties when we know that the combination of two electro-chemical reactions in the same quantities and of the same physical properties produces the same result everytime. Different results are not possible.

Same as above! The neuron is not a simple gate switch, and not all neurons are the same. Our capacity for learning new skills and empathy for understanding others is dependent on special group of neurons called "mirror" neurons in the brain, which respond in the same way when they see an action performed, as when they are used to perform an action.

Are they physical cognitive limitations or are they just limitations of the actual scientific theory of animation itself?

There are if the mind is a manifestation of brain function. If the mind is the product of a separate source, let's hear it! And an explanation for the mind/body connection needs to be included in any dualistic theory of mind.

Generally, there is a consciousness of self in any state. Call that consciousness, "self" or the "spirit" or "soul" or "personality" or just an awareness of being aware, whatever you want. You can even assign it properties if you want and say that it only exists because of electro-chemical processes. You can lose your G.P.S. system and forget where you are or where your body ends and the world begins. It remains that consciousness is still there that is separate from all else. If you believe that consciousness ends with the end of electro-chemical processes it is only a conclusion that you have arrived at through education and experience and I would suggest mostly education in your case because you depend upon others for your information, and certainty is not something that is possible so the weight of concensus rules.

If you insist upon the conclusion our thoughts emotions and memories are produced by the complex function of the brain and once it dies so does the mind that generates it, I can understand that. Being that certainty is not possible, which you have agreed upon, I leave myself open to other possiblities and actually have just as much certainty that you are wrong as you have that you are right.

Where is this consciousness in a comatose patient, or someone suffering from alzheimers, who's personality is slowly disappearing? If brain damage can cause someone to lapse into a coma or lose their memories, personality and act like an automaton, where is there consciousness? And if brain damage can destroy the mind, why should we expect the mind to exist after the brain is dead?

It may be that the world was created 6 thousand years ago as some Christians believe and all other things that point to it existing for millions of years prior was created at the same time and we are in a matrix like existence.

What are the odds of that theory being correct in light of the avalanche of evidence against a young earth and a young universe?

[DarkAngel_]

Ok, WIP you have an advanced debate here, same with pliny.

if i may, a point made was very much subject in a disorder called 'derealization' in psychology. i suffer from it and it is not well studied... but i know allot around it, Derealization is a subjective experience of unreality, like a dream or foggishness of the outside world. though often thought and questioned as being 'in-senq' with depersonalization, often it is only the ladder. i quote from wikipedia "The main reason for this is nosological, because these symptoms often co-occur, but there is another reason of great philosophical importance, namely, that the phenomenological experience of self, others, and world is one continuous whole."

my point? saying self, others, and world are not one, and not interpreting self, others, and world as one, (by a skewed perception.) are two separate statements. the soul as defined (thoughts and personality) living on as a stable packet of information is universally false 'if' you state it is still alive... (because it is one whole, in flux.) this is other-worldlyness and as an aesthetic view can only be taken as a belief. but the soul as this information only being changed and altered? that is more believable but is still just as aesthetic and made as a belief. so what is a soul? first one must backtrack to a more simple philosophical look at the actions of survival made by man compared to the meaning, as a means to survival it is a paper saint! great for those who believe it but in terms of existentialism it is futile. (as most atheists are existentialists) so to terminate the more nihilistic view of atheism that most try to point out, atheism calls this 'mind.' the soul is a well definable feature for open discussions and reassurance of our own survival. i see this as pointless, the

'i am the only me.' statement gives the presents of now an encumbering and often sobering hint to those who believe in the soul as defined. our brains are made up of many folds and holds chemical energy as well as electro-chemical energy that is dispersed at death... does it prove we go to any other world as in heaven or nirvana? or is it a change in form. strangely i think we are all a part of the same thing, a universe of space-time, all matter, energy, momentum, physical laws, and constants that govern them. no debate. so the appeal of the other choices are less... poetic, i find the thought of a christian soul being too small a thing to ones self, soul as defined is true unless religiously due to energy/matter laws of relativity, constants and causality.

(due to the energy/matter still being Intra-universal, though theories of Inter-universal transportation of energy/matter are still in study and research today.)

What are the odds of that theory being correct in light of the avalanche of evidence against a young earth and a young universe?

look at the WMAP image from NASA, it shows a big bang and look... a beginning hints toward many things, science is into disproving piece by piece... or i am at least.

as for the young earth thing? intelligent design is corrective but so is Darwinism, but is that god?... i like to think not, the universe being intelligent is a no brainer but it being a deity or entity? naaa, but i bet its confusing as hell and we might as well call it god... but as a strong atheist i'd not dare, it is not as simple as a god or a collection of ideals made by a human interpretation of simple arithmetic or bureaucratical orthodoxy. by definition it is an enigma. if so then it is infinitely so and constantly in a flux, that of which forebodes a completely unknowable complexity to it's matrix or whatever otherwise makes up its complexities.

as a basic look i think its easier to see it as a collective organization, but thinking about the way i see it has no meaning of words i can put together without it sounding like pure belief.

last point: no god as worshiped by its people exists as a deity of universal control (again as defined)

but a people as the mass have a control that defines them as a demi-god, but only that mass of people.

example: 100m people worship 'Ophella' and are 3 countries, 26m people worship 'Dectror' and are one. two of the 3 countries openly have insulted those who worship 'Dectror'. in essense 'Ophella' insulted 'Dectror' so he went to war with 'Ophella.'

in short if those worshipers insulted are more likely to turn to violence, then they have a violent god. personality of it's people reflect there god.

please disagree freely

Edited April 24, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[scorpio]

And I would insist that when the body dies, whatever sense of consciousness is available would not contain any sense of personality that we have now. Our memories, emotions, thoughts are produced by the complex function of the brain, and once it dies, so does the mind that it generates.

I could believe this except for the documented cases of NDE (near death experience) where some individuals were brain dead, and when revived could correctly identify people and conversations in the operating room.

link

link2

[WIP]

Derealization is a subjective experience of unreality, like a dream or foggishness of the outside world. though often thought and questioned as being 'in-senq' with depersonalization, often it is only the ladder. i quote from wikipedia "The main reason for this is nosological, because these symptoms often co-occur, but there is another reason of great philosophical importance, namely, that the phenomenological experience of self, others, and world is one continuous whole."

Sorry to hear about your troubles with this disorder, but mental disorders in general, are much more common than was known years ago before new findings from psychology and neuroscience became available. Today, I would have been diagnosed as ADHD with a mild form of dyslexia. Forty years ago, my difficulty in school was written off as laziness and lack of desire to pay attention in class.

But, in all cases of mental disorders, very physical correlations can be made with brain function. There are no mental phenomena discovered that do not show distinctive patterns in brain activity. I noticed that one of the links I checked on derealization, says that both derealization and depersonalization are dissociative disorders that have a strong connection to anxiety disorder and in both cases the Amydala region of the brain, responsible for producing most of the neurochemicals that elicit emotional responses, seem to be producing an over-abundance of anxiety-related hormones. http://www.panic-anxiety.com/depersonaliza...-derealization/

My takeaway is that a person's sense of self cannot reach outside of the physical aspects of brain function, and disorders such as these, demonstrate that our sense of self, others and the world around us is a manifestation of physical brain function, not something from a separate source. For the last 20 years, since Benjamin Libet made the shocking discovery that we are not consciously aware of our own decisions before deliberate brain activity patterns have already established a course of action, there has been one study after another confirming that our conscious awareness is not the source of our decision-making, but the point at which the brain has made us aware at a conscious level of that choice. A study done a year ago at the Max Planck Institute showed that brain wave patterns can be identified up to 7 seconds before more complicated decision making than was done in the Libet experiments. There is another more recent study confirming these findings, but I forget the source; anyway, my point is that if our conscious decision-making process is a matter of being informed of a decision, rather than making the decision, how much stock can we place into subjective theories of mind and consciousness that are popular in new age and Buddhist philosophy?

[DarkAngel_]

I could believe this except for the documented cases of NDE (near death experience) where some individuals were brain dead, and when revived could correctly identify people and conversations in the operating room.

link

link2

well this phenomena has been linked to DMT a chemical in the brain that helps induce vivid dreams.

near death and real death both have a chemical difference, though NDE as studied has been show to be extra visual and extraordinarily vivid.

[WIP]

I could believe this except for the documented cases of NDE (near death experience) where some individuals were brain dead, and when revived could correctly identify people and conversations in the operating room.

link

link2

I used to believe in life after death stories because many people have them and believe that they are real. I worked for a guy 30 years ago who reported an out-of-body-experience while having heart surgery. He believed it was real, and that belief seemed to be beneficial to him, since he stopped acting like a hypochondriac - running to his doctor or the hospital every time he had an ache or pain; the NDE seemed to give him peace of mind that was missing previously.

That said, I am inclined to believe now that his experience was a fantasy. Research done in the last few years has even identified the region of the brain (right angular gyrus) that is responsible for our basic sense of embodiment -- without it, we can feel like we are floating anywhere that is within our field of vision -- and that is one of the troubling features of this being a real experience: if it's real, why do people reporting OOBE's just float up to the ceiling? Why don't they float out of the hospital, and off into space....explore other planets etc. People researching OOBE's a hundred years ago, like one Sylvan Muldoon, reported that his subjects reported seeing a "silver" umbilical cord tying their souls to their bodies; why is this astral umbilical cord no longer a feature of OOBE's today?

As for the links: 2nd one first -- this Titus Rivas doesn't include any biographical information on his Yahoo page for some reason. He claims to have degrees in philosophy and psychology, but his bio page is all about his work in parapsychology. It doesn't say anywhere that he has expertise in neuroscience, which should be a qualification for making an assessment about whether lack of EEG measurements indicate brain death and the experiences reported qualifying as from a source outside the brain.

Leaving aside the fact that he, like no one else who believes in souls that are separate from the body, doesn't provide any theory of agency as to what a "soul" is and how it is animated to continue functioning, and how the soul interacts with physical bodies -- like everyone else I read who is a substance dualist, he doesn't offer up a theory of mind/body interaction. In fairness, no philosopher seems to have bothered taking an honest stab at it since Rene Descartes proposed that the Pineal Gland was the interface between the brain and the soul 300 years ago.....anyway, since Rivas does not have technical expertise in neurology to give an informed opinion as to whether lack of EEG readings indicate brain death - which he bases his followup conclusions on, I'll turn to someone who does: my favourite go-to-guy in neuroscience of late is Stephen Novella, who writes the popular Neurologica Blog and hosts the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast:

Also, keep in mind that EEGs are not routinely performed during CPR. It would not be feasible to place EEG electrodes on the scalp during CPR. Therefore we only see the EEG during CPR when the EEG was already in place. I am personally aware of only one case in which this occurred - the patient’s heart stopped while being EEG monitored (and it was not detected for some time, so there was no CPR). Brain waves rapidly decrease but do not instantly disappear when the heart stops. They maintain a low level of function.

In fact, there are reported cases of using bispectral index (a form of EEG that is used to monitor level of consciousness during anesthesia) to monitor the response of brain function to CPR. Effective CPR was able to maintain brain activity as measured by bispectral index - therefore the evidence suggests that CPR is capable of maintaining measurable brain function.

Generally speaking, if someone survives CPR and later recovers consciousness then it could not have proceeded for very long - 30-60 minutes at most. During this time brain activity will not have completely vanished.

So the first premise of Dr. Egnor’s anecdotal claim is not true - that there is demonstrably no brain activity during mental activity. The second premise is also not true - that the memories later reported of a near-death experience occurred during CPR, or during the time of minimal brain activity.

If someone has a sufficiently prolonged CPR that their brain activity is diminished, then it also must be true that their brain will take time to recover - hours to days. It is not like in the movies where someone comes back from cardiac arrest, their eyes flutter open and they are completely conscious. Rather, CPR survivors will slowly regain brain function and will be delirious for an extended period of time.

During this time of delirium they are forming confused memories, and have very poor time sense. It is simply not possible from any documented case to time any memory later reported by a CPR survivor to the time of their CPR - the time when their brain activity was most decreased.

Therefore, Dr. Egnor’s two necessary premises for his point - that there is no brain activity, and there is mental activity during this time - have not been established. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=481#more-481

As a cardiologist, Dr. Michael Sabom may be able to give an informed perspective, but I'm out of time right now; I'll have to do a followup tomorrow about his claims.

[DarkAngel_]

first off bravo! i love the book 'Brain Rule's' by John J. Medina because most of his work is relavent here. as well i have learned to coupe with derealization but thanks for the concern. and i am glad you point out what you did.

But, in all cases of mental disorders, very physical correlations can be made with brain function. There are no mental phenomena discovered that do not show distinctive patterns in brain activity.

but neurons are being effected differently by perception and the following chemical correspondence's and interactions, changing ones disposition to any number of untold actions. though still apparent when mapped by a computer that copies the neural 'imprint' of that activity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would dictate that we cannot know something like position and momentum of an electron at the same time. only a likely area of position (usually found in QED) hence those distinctive patterns have a predisposed pattern that can be predicted but not known precisely. my point was the brain interpretation is very reflective on experience and what is 'taken in,' chemical balances change accordingly. it is not unlikely that a repeated action against a chemical process will imbalance it, or change it completely. so that gives light to my next point:

My takeaway is that a person's sense of self cannot reach outside of the physical aspects of brain function, and disorders such as these, demonstrate that our sense of self, others and the world around us is a manifestation of physical brain function, not something from a separate source.

we reflect much of those senses, and can see that reality as a whole does have a separation of perceived things inside brain function, reality is not just those functions. giving rise to separation of our sense of self, others, and the world is philosophical hearsay! but on the other hand our chemical understanding and physical understanding of universal processes opens the debate that 'soul' has to do with all, so is in a way real. it may be a invalid point but anything based on packets of stable information has to have form.

how much stock can we place into subjective theories of mind and consciousness that are popular in new age and Buddhist philosophy?

not much, it is just an exploration of depth not science of the 'soul.' the study of science and social sciences as well as philosophy only includes what is understandable, so the atheistic view is preferred by my personally, cause meditative arts and 'none otherworldlyness' don't contradict one another. still though there is practicality, these things are separate from the original point, if you get what i mean.

[Pliny]

Research done in the last few years has even identified the region of the brain (right angular gyrus) that is responsible for our basic sense of embodiment -- without it, we can feel like we are floating anywhere that is within our field of vision --

If anything the "theoretical" explanation of the brain giving us a feeling "like we are floating anywhere that is within our field of vision" does not explain why normal perceptic channels and physical makeup are not necessary to viewing if they are indeed the sole means of viewing. How can they be bypassed if indeed the electro-chemical reaction in the brain is a necessary process to perception?

The theory that life can be explained by the activities of the brain is quite flawed. The theory the brain is a switchboard for operating a body is a far superior theory, in my estimation, and explains any experience that an individual may experience not requiring the perceptic channels of the body, which life consciousness whatever it is, could bypass and apparently does.

The one point missing in the electro-chemical neuron brain process theory is the lack of individual input of information. There is actually a rejection of personal experience. This is a depersonalization. Almost as though the individual has been overwhelmed and replaced by an external authority where personal experience must align with the theory. There must be an explanation for all phenomena and if there isn't, the perception must be that Science will perhaps answer the question at a later time.

I realize we decide our most probable explanation of existence or of anything with the theory that has the most practical application and/or explains the majority of observed phenomena in the experience of the individual. All things that fall outside our most cherished beliefs and does not align with our accepted theory are not given any consideration.

As a recent example I might sight the discovery of the heliobactar pylori strain of bacteria. It fell outside the medical establishments realm of understanding at the time of it's discovery and was thus ignored. It took ten years to prove that it deserved any credible investigation. I suppose it was mainly because it violated the accepted certainty already established by authority.

If it were discovered that there were phenomena occurring outside the physical universe and proven by science to exist and was the source of the essence of life. It would not be accepted with open arms. The disappearance of whole areas of science would occur, mostly in the study of psychiatry and psychology. You can understand the resistance that would occur. A person builds his world around what he has determined is most certainly true as a premise to what life is, and all life's experiences are aligned with these determinations. Destroying the foundation that his beliefs are based upon would create a collapse of his "reality". He would have to start over and realign all his data to the newly found proofs or reject them and continue to prop up his "world".

Most religions and even science replace the will of the individual and place responsibility in something else other than the individual for his life. The sensibilities of the individual are overridden and replaced by authority and the prevailing theory. So you discount and minimize even your own experiences making them fit or ignoring them.

If you want to reach the highest level of certainty that can be attained you as an individual must see the truths in all theories. Some people believe in Christianity and some in Islam. Why - their individuality is overridden mostly by authority and what was presented and accepted as fact at the time now is based almost entirely in authority and because the scientific model is to them no better an explanation of their life experience than the authority of a God or son or prophet of God they maintain their view. The atheist has his sensibilities overridden by authority as well. All is presented as proven fact when in reality it is as much theory as that presented by Creationists, Christians, Muslims, etc.

Here I will offend the sensibilities of the authorities that present information to WIP and Dark angel. Both will not accept what I say because the truth as presented to them without bias and with the general agreement of the scientific community overrides and replaces their individuality. They perceive things as only scientifically proven or not proven. All things not proven must be proven to them. They cannot prove anything themselves with any certainty. The fact they can perceive, with their senses, a table does not prove a table is there and that argument could be made. Subjectively it makes little difference if they have a certainty that the table is there. They could ask themselves, is the table not there. Of this they have less certainty so it is more likely the table is there. Their perceptions prove nothing to them subjectively and of course perceptions are distorted anyway. Objectively, it takes a general agreement to arrive at any certainty.

Nosology is a term that basically means there is no current physiological explanation that explains things like depersonalization or derealization and there are many behaviors one can exhibit, or experiences one can have that are classified as "mental illnesses" that have absolutely no physiological markers that would indicate their existence. The brains or complete physical body of such individuals are no different than what is considered normal. "Chemical imbalances" are oft touted to the public as the reason for odd behavior but no tests are given that determine chemical imbalances so how that is true is unknown. Authority is the overriding principle here. The individual is negated and told it is something biological when in fact it is not. Not having data to the contrary the individual must accept it. Science prevails. As a matter of fact, until the person is damaged with "treatment" from some of the drugs he is perfectly normal physiologically, neurologically and biologically.

Individuals are individuals and their experiences are their experiences. Having someone override their ability to experience or tell them what they are experiencing does nothing for the individual and his ability to live his life.

Earlier I said I am nothing, I always have been nothing and I probably will remain nothing. Science has proven to you, you are nothing, you always have been nothing and will always be nothing as well. I mean it in the context of you and I are not material things. They mean it in the context that you are a material thing.

[DarkAngel_]

Here I will offend the sensibilities of the authorities that present information to WIP and Dark angel. Both will not accept what I say because the truth as presented to them without bias and with the general agreement of the scientific community overrides and replaces their individuality.

offend? no it's practically imposable... i never disagreed though. you do raise a good point that is awesomely brutal and honest of that 'original' non-modification of your so called over written authority. we are all idiots for thinking so strictly but i LOVE putting out thought and theories and such to take up my time... you see though it may not matter i am a strict atheist but i am an existentialist (not nihilisticly mind you either,) and the bias you mention just is not there! but i appreciate your honest claim to my offence, if only my mom was as outrageous. your point is so, jagged yet stuck outside a free floating theoretical thought i can't help but elaborate on some part of my previous points: you see i am a physics buff, i love science, and in the field of philosophy and art is the understanding that what can be explained is perpetual in nature as well relative... with terms and definitions accompanied that set up a large look into areas of science none would otherwise look at. QED is one, it explores a wave function duality that is awesome and 'string like' in origin (see string theory) yet how can it be stated these have no effect on reality if you can state our perceived reality has no effect on any in-large function, even in quanta which is proven! you see nor fate or coincidence exist, they are about apart of the same thing: a set of absolute randomness that perpetuates a pattern to infinity. we are something and that purpose may not be god given but in my eye's is a bridge to a complexity that even now is in study... the M-theory and such makes it beautiful. no western or other religion is correct it is just plain, so without any more waste of time the application of human experience is relative to true observable effects and even in cosmology this truth is unmistakable... though you do have a keen knowledge of those stubborn who question nothing but what facts are found, proven, on explainable. psychology would agree with your side in measure.

oh well though, they stop us from getting cocky. disagree freely please. this is getting fun!

[Oleg Bach]

I hope that those atheists that mean well know that they are in part responsible for the on going geneocide of Christians - all over the world..the people that granted you the freedom not to believe are being slowly destroyed - time for atheists to protect Christians..most who carry the faith do not know they are Christians - but they carry the kind and evolved values that created free and good civil society - save the ones that brought you into being - that allowed atheism - once the Christians are destroyed the atheists will be next.