I wonder how these conversations would go.
“I disagree with your claim because it is not based on any supported data and your knowledge of the fundamentals on the subject seem completely lacking. But I respect your right to make incorrect claims that lead to unsubstantiated conclusions.”
It’s more like, “While you have the right to be wrong, I have the right to tell you you are wrong and explain the reason(s) why.”
I see that, but there’s a way to communicate errors in the basics without mocking and disdain. I get the notion that the responses were influenced by the poster’s basic disdain for anything that smacks of religion and religious belief.
I’ve come to see all belief systems as essentially the same type of function within the human being. We are made up of intellect amd emotion and are affected by culture and enviornment. Some lean more towrd emotion , others more toward intellect, and that’s neither right or wrong.
certainly facts are important. I agree with Sam Harris that religious beliefs have so much influence and real world repercussions that they deserve to be challenged and specific beliefs fly in the face of established facts. Still, some beliefs are harmless speculation and challenging them needn’t be so imperative or aggressive.
and while we’re at it , since the stated goal of SDMB is fighting ignorance , doesn’t that carry some responsibility of learning how to communicate effectively so that ignorance is fought rather than just mocked?
I can go into some justification about the nature of this board, and this forum specifically, and the number of times we’ve encountered these nebulous claims, etc… But that would just add up to, “I’m sorry you are offended. Don’t be so sensitive. In the future bring evidence, and pie.”
However, I agree. There is room for improvement here.
Bull. The only room for improvement is pie a la mode.
I don’t have the answers, but I have been multitasking and using a lot of Miller time reading neurobiology papers.
While I can’t speak for Schwartz, I have managed to put together some pieces and an overall picture is beginning to emerge.
At birth, the brain is barely functional beyond basic survival mode; it takes some months for cognitive and sensory functions to develop. Similarly, it takes some months for self awareness and sentience to appear.
The fact that the brain is plastic and sensory functions can be transferred to other areas of the brain, suggests that the brain (above autonomic stem functions) is a homogenous mass with no location particular functionality; as noted, functionality and specialization is introduced and developed over a period of time after birth.
The fact that in most people these functionalities are found in more or less the same areas suggests that the brain is subject to organization by a template function, and specialized functionality is introduced in accordance with this template.
But the evidence that the brain can transfer functionality from one area to another demonstrates that this template is not rigid, and can be modified to respond to circumstances.
The fact that several people have been observed to function normally while possessing minimal brain mass, suggests that a large proportion of the brain mass is redundant, and is therefore available for backup functionality.
The operation of specialized functionality in the brain, such as sight and hearing requires a high level of data processing, and would incorporate numerous highly specialized and complex algorithms, all operating in an orchestrated and coherent manner.
The processed data then is passed on to a higher brain function where it is manifest as conscious thought and response.
It is evident that the development of these processing and response routines does not occur as a spontaneous result of random chemical and physical processes. They are introduced into the specified locations in the brain as complete packages; and then integrated into and co-ordinated with other cognitive functions. The development of these subroutines had to have occurred independently of the brain, and introduced after the physical development of the brain mass.
While it is evident that the initial programming occurs in the first couple of months of life, it is also evident that this functionality can be re-introduced into undamaged areas of the brain in response to trauma having rendered the original non functional.
Similarly, logically consistent with this scenario, when the operating system is installed, and the functional subroutines are operating properly, then consciousness is introduced last.
This raises the questions: where was this programming developed; where is the programming for these functions stored; and how is it introduced into the brain? The obvious analogy us that the brain has an operating system, and each of the specialist functionalities are subroutines of this operating system.
However, this raises the obvious questions: where was the operating system developed; where in the brain is it located; where is consciousness located? To date, no answers are forthcoming from neuroscience or biology. However, those scientists studying the near death experience do provide some clues.
During the course of a near death experience, the consciousness (let’s call it “the soul”) is said to leave the “dead” body, and wander around its environs. During this excursion, the soul can see and hear its environment, and actively engage in thinking about its predicament. Clearly, the body with all its sensory inputs are not necessary for the function of the soul.
The NDE suggests that the soul/consciousness is an entity separate and distinct from the body, and can exist without a body. Similarly, as noted above, the arguments suggest that the body’s operating system is an item separate from both the body and the soul.
So, what is the function of the body?
Assuming the premise that the process of development is: body born, operating system installed, functionalities installed, soul installed. The soul, at the point of its introduction, would be “a clean slate”. The experiences of life, as acted out through the body, would provide the development of the soul into a real personality.
This is consistent with the near death experience in which the participant’s reports reflect their chronological age and life experience.
In that “the soul” exists somewhere, the logical questions to ask are: where does it come from; what physical form does it take; and where does it go? Beats me.
Agreed. I also think there comes a time when an atmosphere of mockery can become disrespect for the individual.
How we communiate is important as well as what we communicate. I think that directly relates to fighting ignorence.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the SDMB because of it’s guidelines. I’ve learned a lot here, talking to folks whom I don’t agree with. I agree that "I have a right to my opinion’ in the sense that all opinions are equal, is a false meme that needs to be shown as false. I just think it was fairly obvious from JustSue’s posts that she wasn’t trying to convince anyone or prove anything and perhaps a little more patient coaching and explaining was ca;;edfor rather than mockery, that’s all. And, as I suggested, the thread may have belinged in IMHO , and that’s the place for believers to discuss their beliefs.
What claim? I never saw a claim that reincarnation was factual’ There’s no need to make entertaining speculation into a science forum.
How about a simple, “You do realize this is unsubstantiated speculation, right?” or
“Actually, that’s not exactly how that works”
It’s really not that big a deal. I just thought a newcommer who was looking for some idle chat on a subject she was interested in got piled on a bit in GD. I do think that in the spirit of fighting ignorence, how we communicate matters almost as much as what we communicate.
That’s fine, but your long post did not seem to address my question, which was how in the world the fact of neuroplasticity is evidence of a non-material consciousness. That link is asserted by Scwartz, and you said something similar, and I simply don’t get how neuroplasticity implies something non-physical. That was the question.
Uh, no, the development of the brain is not the result of randomness. It’s the result of a complex sequence of gene activation building new tissues.
Well, it’s “said to” leave the body by people who misunderstand the science. Yes, if there were good evidence that people actually left their bodies, that would indeed indicate that there is a “soul” separate from the body. However, there’s not good evidence - all we have are some crappy anecdotes. Plus, we have actual science that explains why people may have these sensations when in fact they’re not traveling outside their body.
I’ve had that sensation myself - when I was a kid, a couple of times I had a high fever from a strep infection, and had the feeling that I was floating around the room (and getting very small was well). But I realize that these sensations were due to my brain not functioning properly due to the fever. What actual science has showed us is that the brain has an area that constructs your brain’s understanding of its location and orientation. We can do things that cause this to malfunction, and in that case, people report sensations of floating outside their bodies. My sensation of floating can be explained by this part of my brain not doing its job properly.
So I’d appreciate it if you could explain what you meant about the neuroplasticity question.
No, it doesn’t. It suggests the brain can make adaptations - sometimes radical ones - if necessary. You are excluding the middle and overgeneralizing based on unusual cases. A few instances of people who can function with minimal brain mass don’t show that bulk of the brain is redundant. And from what I remember, people with these kinds of conditions tend to have lower-than-average intelligence. I posted one example. While there are examples of neuroplasticity in some people and big recoveries in some cases, there is also a great deal of evidence connecting brain injuries to changes in personality and impairment in physical function.
Why would you assume it’s stored anywhere?
No, they do not. Not if you’ve actually read anything about NDEs and considered it critically, anyway.
In addition, there is plenty of evidence against remote viewing – people can’t see anything they would not normally be able to when they are “outside” their body – that’s been thoroughly tested.
My philosophical take on it is that being involves information transfer. If no information either goes to you or from you when you are supposedly “outside” your body, you may as well never have been outside your body at all.
Is it possible to transfer information from a dead and locked-up disc drive without reviving said drive first? If not, does the information just float around looking for another hard drive to inhabit?
There are a whole string of issues that are raised by the interchanges relating to my recent posts; I probably could write a PhD thesis in response. Interestingly enough, you could do the same as I have done: Google the subject then follow your nose.
But to respond to a few of the points raised:
Neuroplasticity: there are some six billion living humans on earth today. On the macro level, each of their brains are more or less the same. On the microscopic level, and deeper, each brain is structurally unique. Yet each of them is functionally identical, ie: they all see, hear and feel in the same way.
In other words, each of these unique brains has been programmed to produce an identical result. Furthermore, the processing centers of these functionalities are initially located in more or less the same area in each brain. However, in case of trauma, these functionalities can be moved to other areas of the brain.
This mobility suggests that the functionality is separate and distinct from the brain.
Given the complexity of the programming required for this functionality, it is obvious that it had to be created somewhere other than the brain. The logical extrapolation of this is that the functional development occurs elsewhere, and then is imbedded into the fully formed brain.
You say that this functionality is the result of “a complex sequence of gene activation building new tissues”. OK, for the sake of argument, I give you that.
Now explain to me exactly how this has occurred. Six billion times, and counting.
Regarding the near death experience: there is sufficient accumulated evidence from credible sources that is consistent and coherent that it can be taken as a point of departure for further argument. Google the subject, and follow your nose; particularly to UVA.
Regarding the requirement for brain mass:
Regarding the disk drive analogy: if it is subject to continuous backup, and the backup is stored “in the cloud”, then yes. Just reinstall the data into a new hard drive. Or re-incarnate.
No. If you make the claim, you provide the cite. Give us your best one.
Sure, try this one: Near Death Experience Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
When we die as I see it we are like any living thing the lived and died. Our atoms etc. go back to where they were. We don’t worry about where an animal or plant goes that once was alive, then died. The saying at many funerals I have gone to, the clergy man says," Remember man you are but dust, and to dust thou shall remain"
The second sentence:
Really?
So our memory is stored in a state or or condition? That’s like saying computer memory can be stored in it’s “On”.
Third sentence:
Wow! That’s quite a revelation…if he had provided a footnote or gave us some names or something to back up this up.
Next sentence:
Except for the fact that nothing that could possibly act as any sort of receiver has ever been found in the brain.
Next sentence:
Another claim where a cite or a footnote or something substantial would pretty much be required in a real scientific offering.
His page is filled with “facts” not in evidence. Can you possibly give us a cite that is better than this color and flash filled trash?
I’m not sure that you get the point here.
What we have here is a reporting of data collected by a group of scientists operating on the fringes of science, with minimal funding and support.
Accordingly, it is not surprising that the “quality” of their results is not of Nobel Prize standard.
The significant issue is that their work has produced material of interest, which is consistent with observations, and seeks to explain those observations.
What we are seeing is “work in progress”; the results may be right or wrong. That is what we call research, and is consistent with all areas of science.
If we were to throw a billion or two dollars at the issues, I am pretty sure that thousands of scientists would be tripping over each other to study these phenomena, and we would get results of the standard you require.
In the meantime, we have to make do with the offerings filtering in from the fringes.
Strangely, when the result is not only wrong but fraudulent, you just advocate for more research and more money. 
Do you really want to take this discussion down the path of widespread fraud and misconduct in mainstream science?
Try this for openers: A Barrage Of Legal Threats Shuts Down Whistleblower Site, Science Fraud