No, you are simply adding extra variables. And this one falls prey to the casper problem. How can this undetectable something manage to influence the material? If it can influence the material, presumably we should be able to detect it, but we can’t. Then, of course, there is the problem that you are postulating an invisible entity merely to preserve uncertainty, when there is a perfectly reasonable theory that explains all the data already present.
It is not a foolish statement at all. Mind is a phenomenon of the activity of the neurons. When they stop getting fed by the body, they die. The electrical potentials dissolve into heat. That which was the mind disappears.
No. All I am saying is that from a materialistic viewpoint, there is nothing to support the idea of a life after death. All evidence points to a cessation to existence.
If you want to postulate insubstantial energy (musn’t be EM then), fairies, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or all powerful universal computers at some future Omega Point who will resurrect us, that’s your business. I’m merely pointing out that the statement you made that there is as much evidence one way as the other is patently false.
Well, no. Not really. At its most fundamental level, avalon, we cannot ever know anything.
So I believe that my cup will fall.
I further believe that the consciousness we call “mind” is a function of electrochemical processes in my brain. When the impulses stop, the mind ends.
Do I know this? Duh.
While I agree with most of the OP–that death is unknowable until it is experienced (and IMO unknowable even then, since it’s the end of being able to know anything at all), I do not feel that “those who steadfastly adhere to the notion that nothingness succeeds one’s final breath have no more corroborating evidence than the Christian.” That’s simply not true–we have much more evidence. Kyberneticist offered some. Not enough to convince people, certainly, but evidence nonetheless. Just because we haven’t experienced something does not mean there can be no evidence for it.
At its most basic, a damaged brain consistently equals a damaged mind. And that’s more evidence that supports a consciousness that can survive its body.
As in friendly ghost or Wienberger? I admit I am not familiar with this.
quote:
~~~How can this undetectable something manage to influence the material? If it can influence the material, presumably we should be able to detect it, but we can't.
So what you are saying is that if we can't detect it is doesn't exist. Then do you postulate that electicity did not exist before a few hundred years ago? Or that atoms still don't exist, since (as I am sure you know from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) we can never detect them, only INFER them (which is what I am doing with the concept of mind)
quote:
~~~Then, of course, there is the problem that you are postulating an invisible entity merely to preserve uncertainty, when there is a perfectly reasonable theory that explains all the data already present.
No there isn't. Not a scientist in the world (or well, not most at least, never generalize!) would make this claim. The biological positivism you are espousing has been largely rejected in the scientific realm. It simply doesn't explain much of anything in fact.
quote:
~~~It is not a foolish statement at all. Mind is a phenomenon of the activity of the neurons. When they stop getting fed by the body, they die. The electrical potentials dissolve into heat. That which was the mind disappears
I shouldn't have said foolish. But I still don't think this is factual. Decay causes heat, but the electrical charge just becomes salt again.
quote:
~~~All evidence points to a cessation to existence
Really? Actually I don't think there is ANY evidence to support this view. Again most scientists would not support you here.
quote:
~~~If you want to postulate insubstantial energy (musn't be EM then), fairies, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or all powerful universal computers at some future Omega Point who will resurrect us, that's your business. I'm merely pointing out that the statement you made that there is as much evidence one way as the other is patently false.
The whole point was that it wasn't EM. :) But we have no basis for inferring little pink unicorns (though I have seen them after a night of margaritas) or the other things you mention. There is a wide body of literature in holistic medicine, psychology, sociology and even biology from which we can infer the existence of mind and consciousness. Seems like you are choosing to ignore this body of evidence.
Wow, all those scanning electron pictures I’ve seen of atoms must be complete bunk.
What I’m saying is that the entity you are proposing exists on a scale sufficient to influence things we can readily detect. Now, why can’t we detect this influence occurring, or the entity itself? If your ghost is causing neurons to fire, why does the whole system seem so annoyingly self-sustaining?
Alright. I’m game. What data concerning the nature of the mind and brain does my (gleaned from books like Mind’s I and Consciousness Explained) view fail to explain?
sigh
The electrical potentials are indeed made up of ions. The energy across the membrane this potential constitutes, when the potential is lost, turns into heat. You are nitpicking over my extremely generalized description of the process. This is rapidly becoming less then entertaining.
Since all we currently know of the human mind and body clearly falls apart in the grave, therefore all evidence points to that cessation, barring the intervention of a Deity or invisible ether or somesuch. Please list these scientists from your appeal to invisible authority. Also why the evidence points the other way.
Tell you what, dig me up some references from this enormous body of evidence. Just a couple of them which give evidence for a non-material source for the consciousness. Please do not resort to NDEs or other annecdotal evidence.
And while we’re at it, an attempt at a description of this energy, and its source and form would be appreciated. I’m sure you’re not basing these statements merely on your own hopes.
Again, I don’t particularly care what you believe in, but the statement that there is as much evidence one way or another is plain wrong.
Wow, all those scanning electron pictures I’ve seen of atoms must be complete bunk.
What I’m saying is that the entity you are proposing exists on a scale sufficient to influence things we can readily detect. Now, why can’t we detect this influence occurring, or the entity itself? If your ghost is causing neurons to fire, why does the whole system seem so annoyingly self-sustaining?
Alright. I’m game. What data concerning the nature of the mind and brain does my (gleaned from books like Mind’s I and Consciousness Explained) view fail to explain?
sigh
The electrical potentials are indeed made up of ions. The energy across the membrane this potential constitutes, when the potential is lost, turns into heat. You are nitpicking over my extremely generalized description of the process. This is rapidly becoming less then entertaining.
Since all we currently know of the human mind and body clearly falls apart in the grave, therefore all evidence points to that cessation, barring the intervention of a Deity or invisible ether or somesuch. Please list these scientists from your appeal to invisible authority. Also why the evidence points the other way.
Tell you what, dig me up some references from this enormous body of evidence. Just a couple of them which give evidence for a non-material source for the consciousness. Please do not resort to NDEs or other annecdotal evidence.
And while we’re at it, an attempt at a description of this energy, and its source and form would be appreciated. I’m sure you’re not basing these statements merely on your own hopes.
Again, I don’t particularly care what you believe in, but the statement that there is as much evidence one way or another is plain wrong.
Lol...so an ELECTRON microscope bounced ELECTRONS off of ATOMS and got a picture? I admit I am not all that familiar with the electron microscope literature (???). But I think I am familiar with the films you are referring too (trails of light more or less) which if I recollect were just energy trails from which it was INFERRED was the action of atoms. No actual atoms were actually viewed in the process (I sound like a disclaimer for the society for the ethical treatment of atoms...no actual atoms were hurt in the process of making this film)
quote:
~~~What I'm saying is that the entity you are proposing exists on a scale sufficient to influence things we can readily detect
You can say this, but you would be wrong. Again you presume that modern science is capable of detecting/explaining everything. This is fairly unimaginative (no offense implied, for you are not the only one I've ever heard say such a thing) which I think few scientists would agree with (hey we'd all be out of jobs)
quote:
~~~If your ghost
What ghost? Who mentioned a ghost? Kindly remain within the epistemological framework, whether ghosts exist is subject for a different thread. It seems you may be resorting to "infantalism" as a defense, which is kinda cheap.
quote:
~~~If your ghost is causing neurons to fire, why does the whole system seem so annoyingly self-sustaining?
Dang Casper again. Would it not be self-sustaining as well if there was a mind active? I'm not sure I get this point at all. Please explain.
quote:
~~~What data concerning the nature of the mind and brain does my
Ummm...pretty much all of it. All we have are some descriptive studies and I quote from Hagan (2000)...I do believe you wanted references..."Much of this research is limited by small samples, methodological problems, is overreliant on pathological samples, and employs poor sampling procedures" We have no idea of the mechanism of brain-mind interpenetration (I love that term) or now neurons firing and consciousness coexist. This is what makes psychology fascinating. Even Carl Sagan (who subscribes to biological positivism, though is my hero nonetheless) admits this. Also check out Dossey (1993, 1995), O'Connor (1995), Ornish, (1995), etc. for some discussions on the minds ability to act upon and change the body. Or you could just read some Bandura (1977) or flip through almost any intro to psychology book to point you in some good directions. I also suggest you look on PsycheINFO and Medline for some more in depth discussions on the topic.
quote:
~~~This is rapidly becoming less then entertaining
Sorry for nitpicking, if that is indeed what I have done. I was kinda approaching this as a "friendly" debate, so I am not sure why you are getting annoyed.
quote:
~~~Since all we currently know of the human mind and body clearly falls apart in the grave, therefore all evidence points to that cessation,
Again you are stating philosophy and wrapping it up like it were scientific fact. Stop that! >:( Seriously though, there is no particular evidence this is true...or that this is false, please refer back to my original point.
quote:
~~~Please list these scientists from your appeal to invisible authority
If you read through some back issues of American Psychology, Science, Nature, or New England Journal of Medicine I am sure you will find some articles on both sides of the issues. Some scientists are biological positivists like you, some are clearly on the side of an afterlife, and some (which I side with) simply say that such questions are unanswerable by science, and that we don't know. I mentioned a few off the top of my head above, otherwise I recommend finding a journal special issue which deals with the topic. That should provide plenty of references.
quote:
~~~Please do not resort to NDEs or other annecdotal evidence.
Wasn't gonna, that's actually in another post. I am not big on NDEs myself, though I am consistent in that it may turn out there IS something to them. You never know. :)
Do you get a theme yet to any of my posts? You never know, you might. You just never know.
quote:
~~~And while we're at it, an attempt at a description of this energy, and its source and form would be appreciated. I'm sure you're not basing these statements merely on your own hopes.
Again you are trying to loop me into contradicting yourself. What would be the point of me telling you that science does not have the answer to this question, merely for me to posit an alternative (and also quite possibly wrong) theory? You are expecting me to have an alternate explanation which is not consistent with my whole point that (drum roll) we don't know the answer to these questions.
quote:
~~~Again, I don't particularly care what you believe in, but the statement that there is as much evidence one way or another is plain wrong.
Gee, really? I never thought of that. <sigh>
LOL…that last wasn’t meant as harsly as I fear it may sound. I hafta remember to reread my posts.
As a side note, I suspect when you say you want references that what you are saying is, “Have Stephen Hawking come to my place, stand with prejudice from his chair and proclaim in full voice, imitating the voice of Bob Denver that there is a God, God is a big blue poodle, and he has the math to prove it.” Betcha you’d complain he forgot to carry a 2 somewhere in there.
I think you’re thinkin’ of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which describes the conservation of energy. Turns out we’ve since discovered that Energy is NOT conserved, but the sum of mass AND energy is. (This fact only becomes measurable when dealing with objects moving with near-light-speed, or “relativistic”, velocities.)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that, within a closed system, the total entropy can never decrease (but it can increase). The 2nd Law actually receives a lot more press than the 1st Law does.
