# Lekatt's Thread: The \*only\* place to find out about Lekatt's beliefs! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273 "2010-04-07T14:05:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/241 "2010-04-12T20:39:34Z")
**Monty** said: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I quote from my site because that is where I have stored the material I present to the public. > > I seriously doubt that’s the reason. It seems to me that the reason you post links to that blog is that’s where you’ve conveniently added the stuff that fits your agenda. Those two are not mutually exclusive. He posts links to his site because that is where he has collected the material that supports his position, which he collected because it fits his agenda. **Muffin** said: > [@](#): > > (Based on your – lekatt’s – subjective NDE experiences and how you have coped with them by building a structure that melds nondenominational Christianity with atomos/atomics, it wouldn’t surprise me you were an American teenager in the 50s, but that’s just a guess on my part.) That was a solid guess. From lekatt’s bio: > [@](#): > > Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA on September 14, 1937. Graduated from High School in 1955 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/242 "2010-04-12T20:40:25Z")
Edit timed me out: Oh, my other link on the [brain structure](http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm) was broken due to bad coding. This stuff directly contradicts your assumptions on your site: “The director controls the body through the brain. The director receives signals from the brain. These signals originate in the five senses of the body as well as the network of nerves…The director “programs” these areas for receiving and sending, so appropriate actions may be taken in response to the incoming signals. The director (conscious “I”) uses the tools of thought to do this programming.” Well, no, the ‘director’ doesn’t. They are set up that way by nature (there’s also a lot more than 5 ‘senses’). "In the rearmost portion of each frontal lobe is a motor area (4), which helps control voluntary movement. A nearby place on the left frontal lobe called Broca’s area (5) allows thoughts to be transformed into words. When you enjoy a good meal—the taste, aroma, and texture of the food—two sections behind the frontal lobes called the parietal lobes (6) are at work. The forward parts of these lobes, just behind the motor areas, are the primary sensory areas (7). These areas receive information about temperature, taste, touch, and movement from the rest of the body. Reading and arithmetic are also functions in the repertoire of each parietal lobe. As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness." Where’s the ‘director’ in all this? The brain does not need one. All internal. Occam’s razor shaves away this unfounded hypothesis about transmitting directors and such like. The brain is a fascinating and complex organ. You do it a disservice when you suggest it can’t maintain ‘us’ by itself. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/243 "2010-04-12T22:23:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please provide a direct link to one scientific study that shows that the consciousness can and does live after the death of the brain and body. In Lekattopia, scientific research consists of gathering anecdotes that support your belief system. He will never accept the standards you impose for scientific study. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/244 "2010-04-12T23:18:02Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Edit timed me out: > > Oh, my other link on the [brain structure](http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm) was broken due to bad coding. > This stuff directly contradicts your assumptions on your site: > “The director controls the body through the brain. The director receives signals from the brain. These signals originate in the five senses of the body as well as the network of nerves…The director “programs” these areas for receiving and sending, so appropriate actions may be taken in response to the incoming signals. The director (conscious “I”) uses the tools of thought to do this programming.” > > Well, no, the ‘director’ doesn’t. They are set up that way by nature (there’s also a lot more than 5 ‘senses’). > "In the rearmost portion of each frontal lobe is a motor area (4), which helps control voluntary movement. A nearby place on the left frontal lobe called Broca’s area (5) allows thoughts to be transformed into words. > > When you enjoy a good meal—the taste, aroma, and texture of the food—two sections behind the frontal lobes called the parietal lobes (6) are at work. The forward parts of these lobes, just behind the motor areas, are the primary sensory areas (7). These areas receive information about temperature, taste, touch, and movement from the rest of the body. Reading and arithmetic are also functions in the repertoire of each parietal lobe. > > As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness." > > Where’s the ‘director’ in all this? The brain does not need one. All internal. Occam’s razor shaves away this unfounded hypothesis about transmitting directors and such like. The brain is a fascinating and complex organ. You do it a disservice when you suggest it can’t maintain ‘us’ by itself. The real question is does the brain produce consciousness and therefor consciousness would die with the brain, or is consciousness a separate entity that does not die with the death of the brain. This is the final question that takes priority over all other questions. So in the Magic Brain article are several links to research that show good evidence that the consciousness is separate from the brain and will live after the brain. This research came into being over more than thirty years and has been done by qualified researchers at qualified universities and published in scientific journals. I say the research is solid. So if you would be so kind as to read some of the research so we can discuss it. Now there are many clues to a non-local consciousness. My brother had a stroke which left him unable to talk. All he can say is OK,OK, in answer to everything. But at night when he sleeps he can talk normal, his wife can even hold conversations with him. On the Dr. Grayson video he reports patients with severe mental illness in their dying moments become clear and lucid. These events would not happen if the consciousness was part of the brain. I will enclose a link to his video. [http://www.aleroy.com/blog/2009/04/583/](http://www.aleroy.com/blog/2009/04/583/) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/245 "2010-04-12T23:33:40Z")
Wow, the thread continues apace in my abscence. Nonetheless I seek to reply: > [@lekatt](#): > > Thought I might try to show the differences between computer software and consciousness. If we say that consciousness is somewhat like computer software, we must remember software needs an author. So the magic you don’t want creeps back in. Then there is the problem of emotions, which computer software lacks. Software doesn’t necessarily need an author - the fact that we create it without waiting for it to evolve doesn’t mean it _couldn’t_ evolve, given the tons of time the human brain definitely had. (Though I don’t recall - do you believe in evolution?) And how do _you_ know software lacks emotions? The software I write wants things all the time. Really hard, in fact - it will sit there all day waiting for you to satisfy it’s desire for input. Sure, that’s not a very sophisticated emotional model, but I already said that our minds and computer programs are similar in the broad concepts but differ vastly in the details and complexity. > [@lekatt](#): > > So if it could be shown that consciousness operates independently of the brain and body would that mean there is magic or spiritual elements to consciousness? Nope - you could be a bioorganic robot created by the government and remote-controlled by a large secret computer a hundred miles underground. Though you’re not - the existence of beer definitively proves that the human mind is located in the brain, and lubricatable by the lubrication thereof. Also, what is “magic” or “spiritual”? If by that you mean “doesn’t need to have the minimum complexity or storage capacity to store and process my thoughts and memories”, then _hell_ no, there aren’t “magic” or “spiritual” things running your mind. Putting aside whether you believe in beer, if you have a mind _anywhere_ be it in your brain or in a server farm in heaven, your mind still has to work somehow - with sufficient processes and accessible storage mechansims with which to support your thought processes and memory. And no, just saying ‘I’ve got a lot of CUs that meet in committee once a week and can never agree on anything and yet somehow I think. Maybe. I just don’t know much about what I’m talking about,’ isn’t going cut it. I require a _functional model_ - or something with at least the possibility of being one. > [@lekatt](#): > > We are all taught to believe what we believe by parents and peers. These beliefs are reinforce by either religion or science. Why do we hold these beliefs sacred and refuse to at least examine other avenues of knowledge. Our consciousness expands with learning new ideas, gaining new knowledge, but not by repeating the same beliefs over and over again. So says the guy who’s been repeating the same line about NDEs for _how_ many years? On the other hand, if some God or spiritual guide were to start talking to me telepathically, I’d be happy to at least engage in conversation, assuming it wasn’t doing a perfect imitation of random gibber or my own imagination. But I have no intention of going and getting in a potentially fatal accident to try and get an actual NDE - the failure rate is too high, plus the medical costs would kill me. Now, I _have_ done as much as I can to replicate the steps you took to get the OBE you keep calling a NDE for some reason - in fact I’ve been taking naps more and more nowadays. However, there has still been no contact, despite increasingly frequent attempts. (I’m getting older and tireder.) Perhaps my spirit guide is dead? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/246 "2010-04-12T23:49:21Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The real question is does the brain produce consciousness and therefor consciousness would die with the brain, or is consciousness a separate entity that does not die with the death of the brain. This is the final question that takes priority over all other questions. So in the Magic Brain article are several links to research that show good evidence that the consciousness is separate from the brain and will live after the brain. This research came into being over more than thirty years and has been done by qualified researchers at qualified universities and published in scientific journals. I say the research is solid. So if you would be so kind as to read some of the research so we can discuss it. > > Now there are many clues to a non-local consciousness. My brother had a stroke which left him unable to talk. All he can say is OK,OK, in answer to everything. But at night when he sleeps he can talk normal, his wife can even hold conversations with him. On the Dr. Grayson video he reports patients with severe mental illness in their dying moments become clear and lucid. These events would not happen if the consciousness was part of the brain. I will enclose a link to his video. > > [http://www.aleroy.com/blog/2009/04/583/](http://www.aleroy.com/blog/2009/04/583/) In that case let us discuss this conciousness that is not part of the brain, and square it off with what we know. Let’s just take a few aspects. Start off with memory. We knows, as far as we are able to, that short and long-term memory have physical components in the brain itself. For short term memory, we know that the [prefrontal cortex](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/a/a_07/a_07_cr/a_07_cr_tra/a_07_cr_tra.html) is essential “One thing is certain: the prefrontal cortex plays a fundamental role in working memory. It enables people to keep information available that they need for their current reasoning processes. For this purpose, the prefrontal cortex must cooperate with other parts of the cortex from which it extracts information for brief periods. For this information to eventually pass into longer-term memory, the limbic system probably has to be brought into play.” Ditto long-term memory: "Recent research has provided a complex, highly intricate picture of memory functions and their loci in the brain. The hippocampus, the temporal lobes, and the structures of the limbic system that are connected to them are essential for the consolidation of long-term memory. The hippocampus facilitates associations among various parts of the cortex, for example, between a tune that you heard at a dinner party and the faces of the other guests who were at the table. However, all other things being equal, such associations would naturally fade over time, so that your mind did not become cluttered with useless memories. What might cause such associations to be strengthened and eventually etched into long-term memory very often depends on “limbic” factors, such as how interested you were in the occasion, or what emotional charge it may have had for you, or how gratifying you found its content." This isn’t some ineffable mystic storage device. We can actually see the brain at work in regards to memory using MRIs - [this](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_07/i_07_cr/i_07_cr_tra/i_07_cr_tra_1a-copy.jpg) is an MRI of an individual recalling a face. More details can be read [here](http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/8/48), including the conclusion that: “These results support the notion that working memory and attention are organised in partly overlapping neural circuits. In contrast to previous reports in the visual or auditory domain, this study emphasises the involvement of the anterior insula in vibrotactile working memory and selective attention.” Now let’s take another basic brain function - language. We understand language, written and spoken, through [Wernicke’s area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area) and [Broca’s area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area). Again, this is not ineffable magic storage stuff, we can research it now: “Research using Transcranial magnetic stimulation suggests that the area corresponding to the Wernicke’s area in the non-dominant cerebral hemisphere has a role in processing and resolution of subordinate meanings of ambiguous words—such as (‘‘river’’) when given the ambiguous word (‘‘bank’’). In contrast, the Wernicke’s area in the dominant hemisphere processes dominant word meanings (‘‘teller’’ given ‘‘bank’’).[7]” (from the wiki on Wernicke’s area). Furthermore, damaging these areas (in which we have found no ‘transceiver’ type function at all) results in [aphasia](http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la4.shtml). “The difficulties experienced by Broca’s aphasics reveal that Broca’s area is central to correct processing and production of grammatical information.” Next, let’s consider one more very basic thing, emotion. Again, the physical structure of the brain is crucial. In terms of [blood flow](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2635269.stm), for instance: "They have found that the left side of the brain alone appears to take responsibility for decoding the literal meaning of emotional messages. But it seems that the brain’s right hemisphere plays a role in assessing the tone in which the message is delivered - a concept known technically as prosody. The findings are based on measuring how fast blood flows to the tissues of the brain. A greater velocity implies more activity in that area of the brain because brain cells, when active, require an increased supply of oxygen and glucose, both of which are carried in the blood. A team from Ghent University in Belgium used a technique called transcranial doppler ultrasonography to measure blood flow velocity in the brain’s left and right middle cerebral arteries. " Again, this isn’t coming from out in space. We can actually [see](http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/brain%20pix.htm) this stuff going on in the appropriate regions of the brain using PET scans and EEGs. So that’s three very basic things that, without a physical brain, we’d lose straight away. Without memory, language and emotion just how ‘concious’ is the ‘director’? Well, without memory - either long term or short term, or the ability to even form memories, kiss goodbye to your learned traits - memory and personality are definitely [linked](http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/837.php) (which is why [Alzhiemers](http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/etrinh.html) is such a bitch). So to is language and personality - [switching them](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14202-how-switching-language-can-change-your-personality.html) can have changes. Completely wiping it out, who knows - you’d essentially be an infant unable to communicate anything with any effectiveness. Losing emotion, any semblance of it, would render you no longer ‘you’ in any meaningful sense. No happiness, sadness, nothing - the structures to form these emotions are gone. Can’t start a car if it has no engine. And this isn’t even getting into sensory perception, which we know has definite links to the physical brain matter - “As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness.” [http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain\_basics/know\_your\_brain.htm](http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm) So, your ‘director’ is a blind, deaf, dumb, emotionless nonentity incapable of remembering anything whatsoever or forming new memories, and could not express itself even if it could. And this is just considering the obvious brain functions. How is this better than just being dead, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/247 "2010-04-13T00:13:46Z")
One more point, then I think I’ll bow out. I’ve seen this pointed out before, but I think it was in the Pit thread, so I’ll bring it up here for perusal. > [@](#): > > People with high levels of carbon dioxide in their bloodstream were more likely to experience the visions, they found. > > Previous research suggests that very high levels of the gas can trigger hallucinations in some people. > > Many people who have had the experience say that they saw bright lights, a tunnel, or even deceased loved ones beckoning them. > > Dr Zalika Klemenc-Ketis, from the University of Maribor, in Slovenia, who led the study, said: “Several theories explaining the mechanisms of near death experiences exist. > > “We found that in those patients who experienced the phenomenon, blood carbon dioxide levels were significantly higher than in those who did not”. > > "Some earlier studies also showed that inhaled carbon dioxide, used as a psychotherapeutic agent, could cause near death- like experiences.” [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7563220/Near-death-experiences-trick-of-the-mind-caused-by-high-levels-of-CO2-in-the-blood.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7563220/Near-death-experiences-trick-of-the-mind-caused-by-high-levels-of-CO2-in-the-blood.html) > [@](#): > > Dr. Steven Novella, an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine and president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, doesn’t agree that this is a scientifically important or compelling question. > Related > Study: Brains Function in Clinically Dead > > “The mainstream scientific community is pretty well-established that the mind is a manifestation of the brain,” he told [ABCNews.com](http://ABCNews.com). “There is not mental phenomenon apart from brain function.” > > "That NDEs [near-death experiences] occur is not controversial – many people report remembering experiences around the time of cardiac arrest from which they were revived. … The question is not whether or not people have such experiences – the question is how to interpret them. > … > Additionally, he said, what’s most compelling from a neuroscientist’s point of view is that scientists can induce out-of-body experiences. > > “If we can make these experiences happen by doing something to the brain, that’s pretty solid evidence that those experiences are happening in the brain,” he said. > **[Scientists Study Out-of-Body Experiences](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5921098&page=3)** > > Twenty-five hospitals in the U.S. and U.K. will take part in the world's largest study on near-death experiences. This one is particularly relevant, as the lass has a similar view to you: > [@](#): > > “Yes it was brain chemistry that might have fine tuned my ability to pick up this,” said Whitfield, 67, an author and therapist in private practice in Atlanta, Ga. “I think the brain is like the radio, and what [science is] explaining is the hardware of the radio, but what we can’t explain is the broadcast.” > … > The study, published in the journal Critical Care, surveyed 52 people in local hospitals who were revived from clinical death. Eleven people or 21 percent of the group, remembered experiences commonly reported in nearly all near-death experience descriptions. The survivor’s religious beliefs, age or sex weren’t statistically significant influences on whether they had a near-death experience or not. > > But the higher the carbon dioxide level, the more likely the person was to report a near-death experience. > **[Science or Supernatural? Near Death Experiences Explained](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/study-links-carbon-dioxide-death-experiences/story?id=10324769)** > > A small study of cardiac arrest survivors shows a physical link between carbon dioxide levels in the blood and the likelihood that someone will wake up remembering floating above their body and moving towards a peaceful light. Here’s a link to one of the studies: > [@](#): > > Conclusions > As much as one fifth of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients report NDEs during > cardiac arrest. Higher initial petCO2 and higher arterial blood pCO2 proved to be > important in the provoking of NDEs. Higher serum levels of K might also be > important. Since these associations have not been reported before, our study adds new and important information to the field of NDEs phenomena. > > Key messages > • The incidence of NDEs in out-of-patients cardiac arrest survivors is 21.2%. > • NDE occur more often in patients with higher petCO2 and pCO2. > • Higher serum levels of K correlate with higher score on Greyson’s NDE scale. > • NDEs occur more often in patients with previous NDEs. [http://www.ukdistribute.com/links/1270548145320-The\_effect\_of\_carbon\_dioxide\_on\_near-death\_experiences\_in\_out-of-hospital\_cardiac\_arrest\_survivors.pdf](http://www.ukdistribute.com/links/1270548145320-The_effect_of_carbon_dioxide_on_near-death_experiences_in_out-of-hospital_cardiac_arrest_survivors.pdf) Are you not concerned that you may be vastly over-exaggerating the importance of these events, attaching baseless conclusions to a phenomenon which, granted we don’t fully understand, but which may in the end turn out to be nothing more that the interaction of chemicals (as the human body is anyway)? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/248 "2010-04-13T00:59:27Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > What I find more condescending is your insistence that we have nothing to learn from the study of such “anecdotes”. If you are so sure of your beliefs, and that this subject is so unworthy of attention, what are you even doing in this thread? You are certainly not going to change **lekatt’s** mind I have no claim that we can “learn nothing” from recording anecdotal evidence about NDEs. I think that collecting such reminiscences is a necessary prerequisite for attempting to discover just exactly what they are. Please do not project your opinions onto me. However, **lekatt** has spent several years claiming that such inquiries are “evidence” for actual NDEs in exactly thr manner that HE perceives them. Not one study to which he has ever referred has done any such thing and he persistently refuses to examine the facts of the matter. Calling attention to that lapse is not condescending; it is merely keeping the thread focussed on the issue. I have no intention of attempting to change lekatt’s views. They are cast in the concrete of his emotional needs and multiple threads over multiple years have demonstrated that fact conclusively. My comments are for the peanut gallery. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/249 "2010-04-13T01:25:21Z")
I don’t think there is anything I could say that **Mr. Kobayashi** hasn’t said much more eloquently and informatively. (Well done, sir.) But I did want to clear up this bit of misinformation. > [@lekatt](#): > > First you say you can’t find any studies, then you say these studies have not produced any valid evidence. Actually, no. I never said I couldn’t find any studies. I said I couldn’t find any evidence. I didn’t ask for studies; I asked for evidence. Studies are not equivalent to evidence, and specifically not when they don’t draw the conclusions you claim they do. > [@](#): > > So you did find the studies and the research, you just don’t agree with it. It’s OK, if you don’t agree with it, that doesn’t make it invalid. It’s not that I don’t agree with them. It’s that they do not provide evidence of what you claim: that consciousness exists separate and independently of the brain. > [@](#): > > These studies have been conducted for over 30 years now, and each year the more research is being done. I think it is rather easy to show the validity of the studies, after all, what else could be the conclusion. When someone who is clinically dead can accurately describle what happened while he was clinically dead after he came back to life. Pretty simple conclusion. I’ll tell you what the conclusion is. That people who suffer from brain trauma (i.e., lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients) during a serious medical event (i.e., cardiac arrest) \*sometimes \*experience NDEs. There’s what your studies have found. Period. End of story. > [@](#): > > Please show me the scientifically determinable and testable research of awareness (consciousness) you are talking about so I can know also. As noted, **Mr. Kobayashi** just did a bang-up job doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/250 "2010-04-13T01:53:16Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > One more point, then I think I’ll bow out. I’ve seen this pointed out before, but I think it was in the Pit thread, so I’ll bring it up here for perusal. > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7563220/Near-death-experiences-trick-of-the-mind-caused-by-high-levels-of-CO2-in-the-blood.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7563220/Near-death-experiences-trick-of-the-mind-caused-by-high-levels-of-CO2-in-the-blood.html) > [Scientists Study Out-of-Body Experiences - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5921098&page=3) > > This one is particularly relevant, as the lass has a similar view to you: > > [Science or Supernatural? Near Death Experiences Explained - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/study-links-carbon-dioxide-death-experiences/story?id=10324769) > > Here’s a link to one of the studies: > > [http://www.ukdistribute.com/links/1270548145320-The\_effect\_of\_carbon\_dioxide\_on\_near-death\_experiences\_in\_out-of-hospital\_cardiac\_arrest\_survivors.pdf](http://www.ukdistribute.com/links/1270548145320-The_effect_of_carbon_dioxide_on_near-death_experiences_in_out-of-hospital_cardiac_arrest_survivors.pdf) > > Are you not concerned that you may be vastly over-exaggerating the importance of these events, attaching baseless conclusions to a phenomenon which, granted we don’t fully understand, but which may in the end turn out to be nothing more that the interaction of chemicals (as the human body is anyway)? I am aware of all the material you have presented, but it doesn’t apply to near death experiences which happen during the clinical death of the experiencer. The research is solid on this. I am sure it will take awhile to be assimulated into the field. The reason I am so sure is I have experienced it personally. Chemicals have nothing to do with the experience. Please read the experiences and the links I asked. All the researchers began as skeptics and became convinced by the research. I believe any one who is honest with the reseach will come to the same conclusion. We are spiritual. There is solid evidence. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/251 "2010-04-13T01:55:33Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > I don’t think there is anything I could say that **Mr. Kobayashi** hasn’t said much more eloquently and informatively. (Well done, sir.) > > But I did want to clear up this bit of misinformation. > Actually, no. I never said I couldn’t find any studies. I said I couldn’t find any evidence. I didn’t ask for studies; I asked for evidence. Studies are not equivalent to evidence, and specifically not when they don’t draw the conclusions you claim they do. > It’s not that I don’t agree with them. It’s that they do not provide evidence of what you claim: that consciousness exists separate and independently of the brain. > I’ll tell you what the conclusion is. That people who suffer from brain trauma (i.e., lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients) during a serious medical event (i.e., cardiac arrest) \*sometimes \*experience NDEs. There’s what your studies have found. Period. End of story. > As noted, **Mr. Kobayashi** just did a bang-up job doing just that. I think all he showed my was some opinions of researchers that have not studied near death experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/252 "2010-04-13T01:56:15Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The reason I am so sure is I have experienced it personally. Actually, what you had was an OBE. You see, to have an NDE, you first must be ND, o.k.? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/253 "2010-04-13T02:02:23Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > In that case let us discuss this conciousness that is not part of the brain, and square it off with what we know. > > Let’s just take a few aspects. Start off with memory. We knows, as far as we are able to, that short and long-term memory have physical components in the brain itself. For short term memory, we know that the [prefrontal cortex](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/a/a_07/a_07_cr/a_07_cr_tra/a_07_cr_tra.html) is essential > > “One thing is certain: the prefrontal cortex plays a fundamental role in working memory. It enables people to keep information available that they need for their current reasoning processes. For this purpose, the prefrontal cortex must cooperate with other parts of the cortex from which it extracts information for brief periods. For this information to eventually pass into longer-term memory, the limbic system probably has to be brought into play.” > > Ditto long-term memory: > "Recent research has provided a complex, highly intricate picture of memory functions and their loci in the brain. The hippocampus, the temporal lobes, and the structures of the limbic system that are connected to them are essential for the consolidation of long-term memory. > > The hippocampus facilitates associations among various parts of the cortex, for example, between a tune that you heard at a dinner party and the faces of the other guests who were at the table. However, all other things being equal, such associations would naturally fade over time, so that your mind did not become cluttered with useless memories. What might cause such associations to be strengthened and eventually etched into long-term memory very often depends on “limbic” factors, such as how interested you were in the occasion, or what emotional charge it may have had for you, or how gratifying you found its content." > > This isn’t some ineffable mystic storage device. We can actually see the brain at work in regards to memory using MRIs - [this](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_07/i_07_cr/i_07_cr_tra/i_07_cr_tra_1a-copy.jpg) is an MRI of an individual recalling a face. More details can be read [here](http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/8/48), including the conclusion that: > “These results support the notion that working memory and attention are organised in partly overlapping neural circuits. In contrast to previous reports in the visual or auditory domain, this study emphasises the involvement of the anterior insula in vibrotactile working memory and selective attention.” > > Now let’s take another basic brain function - language. We understand language, written and spoken, through [Wernicke’s area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area) and [Broca’s area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area). Again, this is not ineffable magic storage stuff, we can research it now: > “Research using Transcranial magnetic stimulation suggests that the area corresponding to the Wernicke’s area in the non-dominant cerebral hemisphere has a role in processing and resolution of subordinate meanings of ambiguous words—such as (‘‘river’’) when given the ambiguous word (‘‘bank’’). In contrast, the Wernicke’s area in the dominant hemisphere processes dominant word meanings (‘‘teller’’ given ‘‘bank’’).[7]” > (from the wiki on Wernicke’s area). > > Furthermore, damaging these areas (in which we have found no ‘transceiver’ type function at all) results in [aphasia](http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la4.shtml). > “The difficulties experienced by Broca’s aphasics reveal that Broca’s area is central to correct processing and production of grammatical information.” > > Next, let’s consider one more very basic thing, emotion. Again, the physical structure of the brain is crucial. In terms of [blood flow](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2635269.stm), for instance: > "They have found that the left side of the brain alone appears to take responsibility for decoding the literal meaning of emotional messages. > > But it seems that the brain’s right hemisphere plays a role in assessing the tone in which the message is delivered - a concept known technically as prosody. > > The findings are based on measuring how fast blood flows to the tissues of the brain. > > A greater velocity implies more activity in that area of the brain because brain cells, when active, require an increased supply of oxygen and glucose, both of which are carried in the blood. > > A team from Ghent University in Belgium used a technique called transcranial doppler ultrasonography to measure blood flow velocity in the brain’s left and right middle cerebral arteries. " > > Again, this isn’t coming from out in space. We can actually [see](http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/brain%20pix.htm) this stuff going on in the appropriate regions of the brain using PET scans and EEGs. > > So that’s three very basic things that, without a physical brain, we’d lose straight away. Without memory, language and emotion just how ‘concious’ is the ‘director’? Well, without memory - either long term or short term, or the ability to even form memories, kiss goodbye to your learned traits - memory and personality are definitely [linked](http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/837.php) (which is why [Alzhiemers](http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/etrinh.html) is such a bitch). So to is language and personality - [switching them](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14202-how-switching-language-can-change-your-personality.html) can have changes. Completely wiping it out, who knows - you’d essentially be an infant unable to communicate anything with any effectiveness. Losing emotion, any semblance of it, would render you no longer ‘you’ in any meaningful sense. No happiness, sadness, nothing - the structures to form these emotions are gone. Can’t start a car if it has no engine. > > And this isn’t even getting into sensory perception, which we know has definite links to the physical brain matter - > “As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness.” > [http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain\_basics/know\_your\_brain.htm](http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm) > > So, your ‘director’ is a blind, deaf, dumb, emotionless nonentity incapable of remembering anything whatsoever or forming new memories, and could not express itself even if it could. And this is just considering the obvious brain functions. > > How is this better than just being dead, exactly? Not sure what you are saying. Can you show physical memory in the brain? How much space does it take up? Questions that have never been answered before maybe you can answer them now. Brain mapping is not very accurate. Different brains have different locations. As for the “Director” that would be the real you. I think you are doing alright and have none of problems you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/254 "2010-04-13T02:06:45Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am aware of all the material you have presented, but it doesn’t apply to near death experiences which happen during the clinical death of the experiencer. The research is solid on this. I am sure it will take awhile to be assimulated into the field. The reason I am so sure is I have experienced it personally. Chemicals have nothing to do with the experience. Please read the experiences and the links I asked. Your blog seems to discuss NDE as experienced by the people in the study. From the second link: > [@](#): > > Later, doctors told him that his heart ceased functioning for 2½ to four minutes. But during the time doctors declared him clinically dead, Chapman said he felt as if he wasn’t even in the hospital. > > “I know when my heart stopped there was a consciousness that continued from being in the ER,” Chapman, 59, said. “Everything went silent. When I opened my eyes, I was standing on the edge of a valley, with the sun shining and the breeze on my face.” This seems to be pretty similar in function, if not form, to your claims of conciousness continuing despite clinical death. This is very salient stuff as it deals precisely with your claim of a conciousness outside of the mind. If it turns out, as seems to be suggested by recent research, that this sensation is merely a product of CO2 interacting with the brain then your claim is moot. > [@](#): > > All the researchers began as skeptics and became convinced by the research. I believe any one who is honest with the reseach will come to the same conclusion. We are spiritual. There is solid evidence. Research has been done and it refutes your claim that ‘all’ researchers into this phenomenon began as skeptics then saw the light - unless you’re talking about whether the phenomenon actually exists or not. If you’re referring to being convinced that the reason is a conciousness outside the body, this is absolutely not the case, as shown by the work done by Slovakian researchers. We are chemical. There is solid evidence for that. > [@lekatt](#): > > I think all he showed my was some opinions of researchers that have not studied near death experiences. I think **Brown Eyed Girl** (thanks for the big-up, by the way, appreciated) was referring to my post regard different parts of the brain, the research that has been done which allows us to physically see their workings and understand the mechanisms behind such processes as memory, language, emotion and sensory perception. We have a good understanding of how our brain, on its own with no outside influence, creates and regulates these essential processes, and how if the mechanisms are damaged the process suffers. The process is directly linked to the mechanism - the former cannot physically exist without the latter. In death (or other cases like TBI) these mechanisms are destroyed. How does the process carry on? Once you’re rotting in the ground or turned into ash these mechanisms are forever lost, meaning that any sort of linked-up conciousness would be without memory, language, emotion or sensory input. Like I said; trying to start a car without an engine, it’s just not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/255 "2010-04-13T02:08:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think all he showed my was some opinions of researchers that have not studied near death experiences. I guess that’s that, then. As has already been noted by **tomndebb** , this ship has sailed. There’s nothing to learn here. For us, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/256 "2010-04-13T02:13:51Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Not sure what you are saying. Can you show physical memory in the brain? How much space does it take up? Questions that have never been answered before maybe you can answer them now. Brain mapping is not very accurate. Different brains have different locations. As for the “Director” that would be the real you. I think you are doing alright and have none of problems you mention. I’m doing alright because all these processes are functioning, due to mechanisms in my head. You can show physical memory in the brain - in my quoted text you can see how MRIs highlight a part of the brain being used when an individual remembers a face. I’m just an uninformed layman in terms of neurology, but there’s [lots of stuff](http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=+memory+brain&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on) out there which discusses what we know about how memory in the brain is formed, stored and retrieved (largely thanks to [this little box of tricks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus). Neurons and the limbic system are also vital for the process: "Memory is the umbrella rubric under which each of these diverse phenomena can be classified. What unites them under the term ‘memory’ is that all involve the neural representation of information to which a person was previously exposed and which can be reactivated for use in the present " > **[PEP | Browse | Read - Memory: Brain Systems That Link Past, Present And Future](https://pep-web.org/browse/document/IJP.078.1223A)** > > A Psychoanalytic Library at your fingertips After death (or even before, in some cases) all this wonderful machinery of the mind is destroyed utterly. How can this separate conciousness have access to these brain functions when the actual mechanism behind them is gone forever? Going back to the car analogy, it’s like saying that a car could still drive with no wheels, that it could still change gear with no gearbox. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/257 "2010-04-13T02:28:58Z")
I realise I failed to answer your question about memory. While this is more GQ territory and I am a rank amateur, there are resources out there explaining this stuff and how it is all linked into that amazing organ nestled in our cranium. [This](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=00UOAAAAQAAJ&dq=brain+memory+capacity&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=vNTDS-ntF4-i0gSIvvGUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=brain%20memory%20capacity&f=false) book is an in depth look into ‘working memory’ and the capacity of the brain - it is a finite space, after all, and cannot hold infinite information. In layman’s terms there are attempts to equivocate the brain’s capacity with that of a computer. It doesn’t really work as the two aren’t directly compatible, but [here’s](http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html) an attempt at it. [Here’s](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20775068/) a news story discussing the direct link between memory capacity and our neurons, or more specifically the connections between them. > [@](#): > > Neurons produce electrical signals that travel through each cell’s 10,000-or-so “cables” of nerve tissue, each connected to another neuron to form a “network” of communicating cells. Latham explained, however, that neurons often produce random, meaningless signals that create noise in neuron-to-neuron speech. > > “Thankfully, the vast amount of noise averages out so our brain can do something useful,” Latham said, such as interpret the signals carrying the memory of where you last placed your car keys. > > Neuroscientists think that neurons organize themselves into distinct networks, and that the strength of each synapse, or neuron-to-neuron connection, is what helps form a memory. To realistically simulate such networks, Latham and his colleagues used advanced computer models of brain activity. > > The team found that as neurons’ connection strength increased, so did the strength of the noisy signals. > > “You can have as many neurons as you want in a network, but as memories are added and the connections get stronger, the noise gets so amplified that a network can only store about 500 memories,” he said. Add any more memories, Latham suspects, and the noise would drown them all out. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/258 "2010-04-13T02:45:44Z")
If nothing else, this thread has turned into a fascinating overview of the brain. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/259 "2010-04-13T03:35:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My comments are for the peanut gallery. Thanks, **tomndebb** 🙂 > [@begbert2](#): > > Let’s be succinct here - I’m a materialist. I don’t believe in “consciousness particles”, only the usual known physical and energy particles. (I also see **LOTS** of methodological problems with **lekatt** ’s consciousness particles - if you have a hundred billion of them in your brain or pencil, how does that add up to _one_ mind? By _committee debate_? :dubious::dubious::smack:). Sorry it took me so long to respond. Busy. Ok. I’m a materialist too. But I think I am a different sort of materialist. For instance, sometimes I wonder if the phenomenon of mind or identity can be explained through a material theory that includes [panpsychism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism): > [@](#): > > Panpsychism, in philosophy, is either the view that all parts of matter involve mind, or the more holistic view that the whole Universe is an organism that possesses a mind (see pandeism and panentheism). It is thus a stronger and more ambitious view than animism or hylozoism, which holds only that all things are alive. This is not to say that panpsychism believes that all matter is alive or even conscious but rather that the constituent parts of matter are composed of some form of mind and are sentient. > > Panpsychism claims that everything is sentient and that there are either many separate minds, or one single mind that unites everything that is. The concept of the unconscious, made popular by the psychoanalysts, made possible a variant of panpsychism that denies consciousness from some entities while still asserting the ubiquity of mind. > > Panexperientialism, as espoused by Alfred North Whitehead, is a less bold variation, which credits all entities with phenomenal consciousness but not with cognition, and therefore not necessarily with fully-fledged minds. > > Panprotoexperientialism is a more cautious variation still, which credits all entities with non-physical properties that are precursors to phenomenal consciousness (or phenomenal consciousness in a latent, undeveloped form) but not with cognition itself, or with conscious awareness. > [@](#): > > So anyway - if there are no consciousness particles, then your brain must logically be an organic computer. And there’s no reason we couldn’t build something just like it - or simulate it. Seriously - the ability to do so is a _logical necessity_, presuming the ability to completely map the particles of the brain, which is merely an implementation detail. Well… I am inclined to think that the state of ‘being’ is inextricably bound with the state of living. I doubt a computer can ever be conscious because it will never be alive. Think you can build a living computer? Go ahead, and post your results 😉 > [@](#): > > So, I don’t deny human identity - I deny the _magic super-specialness_ of human identity. I don’t believe in magic per se. Super specialness? Well, you almost sound like you’re taking it for granted. > [@](#): > > What’s with the anti-machine bigotry there, in your ETA? But thanks for putting it there; it exemplifies my whole point. > > What’s the difference between your mind and a dog’s mind? It’s just a matter of complexity, right? The further you climb down the evolutionary ladder the simpler the minds get until the housefly is just a wind-up toy. I think we can agree that there is not a sharp difference in the _hardware_ (as in, the brain matter/structure) when you cross the line into self-awareness. > > My current theory is that there’s not a sharp difference in the ‘software’, either; your brain patterns are pretty similar to the next critter down, with the difference in consciousness being a gradual increase in complexity rather than a ‘suddenly popped into existince with chimps’ kind of thing. Anti-machine bigotry? Oh brother :rolleyes: I described machines as contrived channels. Cameras cast light on film through lenses. Electronics pass electrons through wires. While these inventions truly are pretty neato in their own right, compared to a complex organism they seem really chintzy. Think again about electronics. Nerds come up with a theory of electricity and apply it with unholy fervor to 2-dimensional circuit boards. Yes, it can do a lot of math, but binary math is all that it does. Even if it is simulating a peer-reviewed schematic of the mechanism of human self-awareness, it would yet be a simulation, no more alive than a reflection in a mirror. But organisms have their channels too. For a pre-microscope analysis of this, (and keep in mind I am only broadcasting what was said, not vouching for its veracity) consider the concept of [Nadis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadi_(yoga)): > [@](#): > > Nāḍi (the Sanskrit for “tube, pipe”) are the channels through which, in traditional Indian medicine and spiritual science, the energies of the subtle body are said to flow. They connect at special points of intensity called chakras. Nadis seem to correspond to the meridians of traditional Chinese medicine. > [@](#): > > Amongst these ducts or nadis, three are of the utmost importance: the Medullar Sushumna, which interpenetrates the cerebrospinal axis from the perineum to the juncture of the lamboid and sagittal suture of the cranium, the lunar Serpentine Ida of the left side, of a pale color, negative polarity; the solar Serpentine Pingala of the right side, red color, positive polarity.[4] Those are the main nadis, but in some tantric texts more than 72,000 nadis are cited [5]. > [@](#): > > sometimes the three nadis are related and named as alchemical sulphur and alchemical mercury [8][9] > > ``` > "In the East, the symbol of the two serpents twisting on the rod corresponds to the two currents Pingala and Ida which coil around the Merudanda: the first is red, hot and dry, likened to the Sun and the Alchemic Sulphur; the second, Ida, is cold and wet, like the Alchemic Mercury and is correlated with the Moon for its silver pallor." [10] > > ``` I’ll leave it to you to read the rest if you want. Compare a pre-modern examination of the human body to a modern circuit board. The circuit board really is advanced it its way, but it is also obviously massively redundant and an ‘exploitation’ of just a few principles. A somewhat ignorant examination of a complex organism displays much more subtlety and original detail. > [@](#): > > As a computer programmer, I’m aware that most of the computer programs you run function like a simple consciousness. They don’t just run through a bunch of steps and then stop; they hang around waiting for input and reacting to it. Sometimes their reactions themselves include long calculation processes that react to data as it comes in and produce intermediate data before they end - or sometimes they never end. With my understanding of how they work I can see no difference in _kind_ between them and the human consciousness. There is a huge difference in _complexity_, but it’s roughly the same species of thing. Obviously I disagree. The computer reflects mind like a face in a (rilly rilly complex!) mirror, while a being IS a mind. > [@](#): > > Add to this, this is the only coherent explanation of consciousness I’ve _ever_ heard, _including_ the spiritual ones. Seriously, consciousness particles? How are they supposed to work in concert? Souls? Positing a soul doesn’t explain how the soul _functions_ - it just displaces the problem to someplace we can’t examine the hardware, which doesn’t change the fact that our souls demonstrably have complexity which requires interacting parts _within_ the soul. I refuse to accept “magic” as an unvarnished explanation for demontrable and consistent complexity - if it’s magic then the magic has rules, the rules can be simulated, and the entire thing can be replicated in a computer _anyway_. **Necessarily**. As I said, I don’t believe in magic either. That’s why I like you, **begbert2**. Awwww > [@](#): > > Anyway, the complete lack of alternate functional explanations leaves me no choice to but to accept my current theory until I hear a better one. Fortunately for me, my current theory seems to explain things pretty well as it is. Despite the regrettable fact that it doesn’t allow me to pretend at human unique magic specialness over machines. I don’t think I can produce a truly comprehensive theory for you, but I would like you to 1. compare the quaternary nature of DNA to the binary nature of computing. 2. Compare the physical reality of a living being to the confines of a circuit. 3. Compare in-time subjective experience to any series of calculations, of any length. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273/260 "2010-04-13T03:43:38Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > We are spiritual. There is solid evidence. And by ‘evidence’, you mean lots of anecdotes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lekatts-thread-the-only-place-to-find-out-about-lekatts-beliefs/535273.md?page=14)