Czarcasm: Well, yes. If you read the threads above, that is exactly what some people are claiming. My questions are simply requests that they show me how this is happening. Show me and I can go back to enjoying Miller time the way it was meant to be.
Marley23: You claim that one post has answered my questions. I don’t see it; which one?
CurtC: Your analogy is right on point. The computer hardware is useless without the application software. So where did the software come from, and how was it installed?
To restate the issues:
On the one hand there is an increasingly large and growing body of knowledge which is detailing the biochemical processes occurring both in the brain and the body.
On the other, there is absolutely no evidence that any of these biochemical processes do anything other than sustain the mobile lump of meat.
Current scientific knowledge knows absolutely nothing about: how living entities are animated; how command and control of biological processes are effected; how consciousness arises; where consciousness is stored.
The scientific literature is full of attempts to explain these things, but they are pure speculation. They have minimal basis in science, and as such are of no more value than the speculations of the woo whackos.
For those that dispute my assertions, I have asked: “show me”.
So, rather than repeat my question, I refer to my previous posts. Show me.
Everything you’ve said surrounding this - ‘science knows nothing about where consciousness comes from’ and ‘because science doesn’t have the answer, all speculation is equally valid’ and ‘scientists don’t know any more than wackos and homeless people’ - was garbage argument of the worst kind. It was a desperate false equivalence, and of course it failed to disguise the fact that scientists studying consciousness can explain the source of consciousness based on what they do know better than you can explain the source of the soul or whatever consciousness is supposed to come from and reside if it’s not the brain. There’s no reason to think some extra-physical source is required. Poorly-documented NDEs don’t show that and neither does your misinterpretation of people with minimal brain function.
This is the best you can do? And you wonder why I despair of the future of science!
So, these scientists that are studying consciousness: have they come up with a mechanism that explains consciousness; or are they assuming a mechanism, and then basing their speculations on that assumption?
If you read the literature, you will find that it is the latter.
I doubt that, I once had to be ressusitated and saw nothing, I think it is the person’s own mind, nothing to do with an after life. I do think it is more like a dream. Many years ago when I had my one child I thought I was near death I did see a light and heard the doctor say I had a girl, but the doctor said I was not any where near death, and I was in a twilite sleep so could have heard him talking to the nurses, and the light above me in the operating room could have cause my seeing light. When my heart stopped during the test when I had to be ressusitated I heard nor saw anything.
No one has yet answered my question as to where life goes,if life and what some call souls is just life, no soul, any more than a chicken or any animal. Death is when life leaves the body.Even the same could be said of a plant.
Unfortunately, phrases like this one give an opening for woo thinking, i.e. “If life leaves the body, it must go somewhere”. I prefer “Death is when life stops.”
How does it help them regain their will to live by telling them there is a next life and it will be better? I don’t see any religious people in any hurry to get to the next one.
b) Future of science, based on past performance, seems quite bright. In fact, it’s the only thing that’s dragging humanity out of ignorance, despite all the kicking and screaming.
c) There is no shame in saying, “We don’t yet have all the answers, but we’ll keep looking”. It shows humility. Saying science has failed because it doesn’t have all the answers and offering an explanation for which there is no evidence is opportunistic and arrogant.
What credible scientific journal would dare state, imply, suggest consciousness as an independent existence outside of the brain? Various parts of the brain can be damaged or even removed, and consciousness often is still possible. Remove the heart or various other organs and have the person hooked up on a machine, and they will still be capable of having consciousness if they survive the ordeal. Same true for the removal of any or all limbs. But remove the entire brain, and see what happens to your consciousness. Nobody needs to understand how consciousness works to realize it is coming from the brain.
I would not start by filling their head with fantasies.
You are determined to convince people that you have knowledge and insight for which there is no evidence. Perhaps it’s not the communication that’s failing, but the message.
I agree. That bit about ‘peering over the side’ was a joke. Like I said, you don’t have to almost die to have an NDE- and you’re right that not everybody who almost dies reports this kind of experience. It has nothing to do with souls, the afterlife, or anything of the type.
Uh… ok.
You didn’t say anything about people who have lost the will to live. And if someone were suffering those kinds of problems I would listen to them and encourage them to seek help. I wouldn’t pester them with fairy tales.
The mind or consciousness is the repository of clusters of thought which are belief systems. The spirit, soul, mind, consciousness, are words used to describe the individual which is you or me or billions of others. You are your consciousness unless you can come up with a more reasonable answer. Where your consciousness goes you go. The body is only a set of clothes, a space suit that allows you to visit this physical world for a while. You are not your body, nor your beliefs, these can be changed at will, but you or your consciousness (mind) can not be changed at will. You will always be you. Have you never wonder why you are uniquely you. Now if you would go deeper into yourself you would discover the wonders of the universe.
Best not to help others until you can help yourself.
Useless empty wishful thinking. You have absolutely nothing to back any of this up. If you did, you would have already wheeled it out for us to see long time ago.
I’m glad that you think the computer analogy was apt. However, your question about where the software came from is a different subject altogether. Regardless of where it came from, those scientists of 200 years ago who are examining the notebook computers have all that they need for determining that the computers’ operations come from physical processes inside the box.
Again, some guy who comes along to them and claims that the computers’ operations are coming from some unseen and unspecified place outside the computer boxes, is speaking from ignorance. The scientists, even though they don’t understand the complexity of it yet, have seen enough to reach the conclusion that the physical processes in the boxes are responsible for the computing, and it’s not just as valid to say that it’s magic.
Most of computer activity today does come from an unknown location. The Internet, mainframes, etc. So much of the computers activity does not originate within the computer. Then there is the television that relies on distant programs and such. The brain does rely on consciousness which is non-local and shown to be so by research.
“The brain does rely on consciousness which is non-local and shown to be so by research.” Cite for this research, please. No links to anecdotes or speeches.