Well of course not. The mind is a function of the entire brain, not just a certain region.
Consider a computer program. You have lots of different functions that you call to do different tasks, but the program itself is the combination of all the code, not one particular function.
The phrase “greater than the sum of its parts” comes to mind.
This has certainly been a very interesting debate. I am amazed at the patience shown by Apos, blowero, Joe Random and others. I would never have such endurance because going round and round makes me so dizzy.
Don’t these sorts of arguments always go this way? Everyone gets on well and good until, eventually, the theists tire out, get cranky, then take their metaphysical ball and go home.
Are there instances on the SDMB where god or soul-believers have managed to keep up a logical argument (using objective reality)? If so, can anyone give me a link? How did the argument end?
I know that this is a bit of a hijack, but I am just curious.
And kudos again to the forces of rationality for not losing your cool (so far).
I assume you are teasing me by taking my flippant use of Bill Clinton’s “meaning of is” quote and turning it into a philosophical point. And I agree with that Nin quote. However, I don’t think it means what you think it does. It says we don’t see things the way they are. In other words, our personal experiences are not equivalent to objective reality. So the quote really supports what has been my position all along.
**Blowero I wish that I could say that I have enjoyed your contribution vis a vis my position, unfortunately it seems to be almost exclusively rhetorical, and based primarily on unwarranted assumptions and broad assertions wihtout any partiular logical basis.
I will give you all the encouragement and kudos you deserve for what you are doing right, and that is eliminating ignorance on the part of those who believe there is any great scientific merit in the soul concept. It’s a thankless job and one that is errily similar to banging ones head against a brick wall. Except that it really doedn’t feel good when you stop because you know damn well you haven’t eliminate don bit of ignorance.
It’s a crappy job, and I for one am glad that you’re doing it so that I don’t need to.
But it would behoove you to realise that science does not have the answer to everything, nor should it be applied to all areas of knowledge.
That’s a bit of a strange request isn’t it. The implication being that someone needs to utilise objective reality to support the existence of something as subjective as a belief in the soul.
Are there instances on the SDMB where god or soul-deniers have managed to keep up a logical argument and been willing to accept subjective reality rather than simply assertin that ‘all reality is objective’/'all knowledge is factual/all truth can be proven by science etc.?
Shoot, I was going to use this one
in support of my position - if you can’t logically take things apart to find the “soul” and a location for spirituality, perhaps that’s because those phenomena/entities exist as a result of the synergy of elements and thus are not elements themselves.
And how interesting your different read on the Nin quote, blowero. I think it substantiates my assertion - that pretty much all “knowledge” is at base “belief”.
I accept and respect the group’s empirical views and the way you apply logic to them - matters of object reality are often best understood in that manner, we need reason in this world, and I’d want you on my side in a debate over them. But for something that’s based on a personal sense of reality…
There are two pieces of rank ignorance, though, that are still being bandied about - one, the notion that all spirituality involves “indoctrination and mindlessness” (that wasn’t the second word used but I can’t find the dang phrase right now, too much text to wade thru!). Many, but not all, religions and practitioners function that way; and spirituality can certainly be experienced outside of a religion through a personal journey. For cripes sake, meditation doesn’t involve any sort of text and is a personal experience of the mind and soul itself - try that one sometime, if you don’t want someone telling you what to think. Or don’t.
And the second piece of ignorance is the notion that scientists are on this perfect quest for objective knowledge where all that is stated is truly factual (or quickly corrected by peers if it’s not the case). Horse hockeys. Go work with scientists for a while, doing real research, and you’ll see its practice is just as much a function of their individual personalities, fears and ambitions as is the practice of any other discipline.
There are some big names in various fields who are so well-respected based on previous work and reputation that, as my Hubby says, they could now publish their grocery list & no one would dispute it. And it’s a documented fact that papers from universities in other countries are not received with the same consideration as papers from big name schools - even when the scientist who wrote the paper graduated from the big name school before returning to his home country! Peer review of papers is not done on a double-blind; the person doing the reviewing knows who wrote the paper.
I’ve also enjoyed the way blake managed to use your methodology within itself - made perfect sense to me.
I hope I’m not too late… But I want to add something.
How many times during the day do you go around thinking “I am me, I am Mr. Johnson and I am driving this car right now.”
You don’t, now do you.
This conception that there is self-awareness seems weird to me.
Most of the day, I would think the brain is just doing it’s normal things. Going to the store, driving the car, talking to people etc.
During many of these moments, I think the brain forgets exactly who it is, for it to remember that it is the brain it is(for example “Adam Johnson”) it needs a reminder… something that makes it think about itself.
My point is, the brain is nothing but a big lump of memories and sense perception tools.
Other times your brain is just accessing old memories and habits, and the difference between “being there” and 'being yourself" is non-existant.
In a computer program calls to certain tasks lie in different areas of the program. The call to open a file may be the first thing in a program and close file may be the last. I don’t think your analysis works very well. Just show me the memory cells in the brain and I will go away. Study the NDE.
Love
Leroy
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/neuro/journal/v5/n1/full/nn0102-8.html
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20020523/memory.html
I must note the classic argument from ignorance- “Since you don’t know “X”, that means that what I say about “X” is true.”
See ya
Blake:
ANY response to you would HAVE to be rhetorical, because rhetoric is all you have brought to this debate. You chose to ignore the substance of the discussion in favor of petty sniping, and then you have the gonads to accuse other people of doing so? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy defending my position against snipers, to a certain point, but I just don’t have the kind of time to continue to wade through all that garbage. And please don’t mistake the fact that everyone got tired of your nonsense and stopped responding to you, with you winning the argument. Personally, I don’t think you would know logic if it bit you in the ass.
I can’t think of any other way to interpret it, without ignoring the actual words. It says we SEE things as we are. It does not say things ARE as we are.
I have tried meditation. I just don’t confuse it with objective reality. I do it to change ME, not to change the universe.
I doubt that. Be honest - Blake’s semantic bickering and disingenous arguments can’t possibly make sense to anyone (and this time I AM using the word “anyone”;)). I think you were just tickled that someone else took up your side of the debate.
**
Okay, first of all I did not go to the Lancet site because I try not to register anywhere I don’t have to anymore and when I emcountered this particular “evidence” you are refering to(the Netherlands/Dr. Pim “study”) it was detailed somewhere else(may have been an entirely different article but the information and NDE proponent spin should be the same).
The only sort of “claim” i made was in refernce to the fact that recent research into neuroscuience points to non-mystical explanations for these “mystical experiences”.I will go dig up some example links for you as time permits.
The rest of what I wrote in response to you was simply pointing out te flaws in the NDE’ers reasoning.For example where they read that a patient awakens and asks for his teeth adn make the gigantic leap to assuming he had an OBE!
**
No… truth seldom “wins” in these matters.Most people in the US still believe JFK was the victim of a massive conspiracy, regardless of what the evidence actually says.Many believe that parapsychology is actual science and that a large pleisaurus has survived extinction and is living off of plankton in Loch Ness.Many if not most believe that people like John Edward are speaking with their deceased loved ones when all he is doing are simple stage magician’s tricks(cold reading).
Truth is more often than not a casualty in these debates.Believers will believe what they will becuase we are pattern-seeking animals who latch onto and exaggerate the impotance of anecdotes adn what not that seem to support our presuppositions and we ignore evidence which contradicts what we would like to believe.We connect the dots even when there are no dots to connect.
**
I am not concerned about the outcome.I AM concerned about my species and our lack of critical thinking ability.Critical thinking may well save us from some disaster one day for all we know and if we are ever to circumvent the problems of overpopulation, pollution, etc. it will be because of scientific methodology being rigorously applied…not because of quasi-zen, new-age, spiritual mumbo-jumbo that is forever adhered to but never substantiated.
Rationality
GodlessSkeptic
**
Newberg is one of your own.He believes in all of this spiritual/soul/NDE stuff and seemed quite distraught when he made his initial discovery in the first chapter of his book Why God Won’t Go Away and spent the remaining chapters doing damage control and gushing theological.Science lead him one place and “spirituallity” bailed him out so to speak.
We have known for over two thousand years that a blow to the head will affect one’s thinking whereas blows to other body parts do not(as Hereclitus observed and my friend Charles Fiterman at the B-net boards often points out).The mind is a function of the physical brain and the soul/spirit is a fictional construct.
**
There is no such experience in reality.We have an objective reality which we all share and we can learn all kinds of stuff about this reality by observing and experimenting.We also have subjective notions about reality which are NOT based on observation or experiement, but instead are based on delusion, pattern-seeking(the human belief mechanism) and emotional needs or desires.These subjective notions are NOT reality…at least until such time as they are rationally justified via objective experience.
**
EXACTLY!If mind were a function of an independent “soul” then drugs would have no effect on us.Trancendent experiences are hallucinations, delusions and tall tales.
Also, it may or may not trouble you to know this but there is nothing new or particularly insightful at your site.I have seen this all before at a hundred other NDE/OBE/spiritual-new age sites.
**
Observation and experiment confirms just that…that we ARE just so many pounds of meat and that we think with a piece of meat and not a piece of magic.
A woman in Texas recently “experienced” the voice of God telling her to stone her children to death.She KNOWS that Yahweh exists and stands firm behind his commandment that unruly children be stoned to death.
Your experience is just another in a long line of self-decpetions and delusions.
blowero I can but repeat. You have based your entire position on sweeping rhetroical statements and an unjustified assumtpion that evryone must utilise science in a debate on the existence of the soul.
When I pointed this out you squirmed away from your position (oh, I only meant MY dog).
You seem to suffer from a rigidity of thinking and a a rather amusingly naive and immature belief that science can and must be used to ascertain the tuth of every proposition every question.
Despite the compelling logical style of the ad hominen assertion that I wouldn’t know logic if it bit me on the ass, you have conceded every point I wished you to and you have not demonstrated any logical flaws in my argument. You have also weaseled away from your blanket assertions that that you have proven belief in a soul to be nonsense and that such belief makes no sense to anyone That is all that I intended to achieve and I have done so.
That’s nice junior.Now you go outside and play “king of the world” with the other kids…the big people are talking right now.
And again I say, thank you for your valuable and highly articulate reply.:rolleyes:
Blake-- the problem is YOU have driven this discussion down, down, down to the point where even the most patient and rational dopers are reduced to saying, essentially, f*** you!
I think I hear God calling you (or is it John Edwards??)
This I took to heart and I’m feeling a bit guilty for not mentioning I was going out of town prior to visiting two of our little granddaughters. I’ve missed alot of discussion! I don’t have more than a couple of comments I’d like to make.
(1) For the individual who pointed out the title of the thread, you are correct and I was wrong to assert the usual hijack I see happening in most threads, on spirituality. For that I apologise. My point certainly could be applied to Polycarp’s current thread. A classic example can be found there.
(2) Blake, I have thoroughly enjoyed your end of this discussion. I wish I had your ability to debate on this level.
And just one more comment upon seeing I Love Me, Vol. I’s latest post upon preview.
Well, you just blew that for yourself, didn’t you? :smack:
Edlyn–
I never said that I was a force of rationality or that I wouldn’t lose MY cool.
Hear that? I think it’s the sound of Blake losing all credibility.
You again have provided no cites for your opinions. I can not believe you have researched any on this subject, for instance, the way drugs and other conditions as well as injuries to the brain are covered in my site and in scientific research such as I provided. The Pam Reynolds surgery is probably the best documented of all NDEs and you pass it off. I’m sorry, but I see no credibility to your posts and no evidence to back up your claims. My NDE had nothing to do with visions or hallucinations. These have been ruled out by serious researchers. I can’t reply to your posts unless you show some real material or evidence as I did.
Love
Leroy