[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
Yeah, I know that arguments by analogy aren’t always the best, but sometimes they can touch on something more familiar - and therefore transcend some of the barriers to understanding.
I know, here, it’s a losing fight. Either way, while I believe logic leads to truth more oft than anything else, I find that emotion and intuition is usually what guides our judgments… ergo… I argue differently.
I know you’ve carried a large bit of building the case in this thread (and the other). I’ve rather enjoyed what you’ve had to say - and thank you for what you’ve had to say. I don’t know that you’ve said anything I disagree with yet.
(I feel lazy, but I only have so much free time (kids) and you’re doing a better job than I could.)
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I didn’t mean to criticize at all; I happen to like the occasional argument by analogy myself! (Like the car thing in that other thread, for an example.) I was actually just trying to drag the ‘meteorology’ thing back in line with what I thought you meant with it, rather than having it spiral out of control into a debate about the possibility of predicting the future, of all things.
And thanks for the compliments! I’m not any sort of expert in this, but I’m a sucker for an ineteresting debate, even against an unpersuadable opponent. It gives me a chance to work out my mental muscles!
[QUOTE=lekatt]
OK, let’s assure that smaller, simpler, and invisible electons in your brain form a pattern that leads to who you are, that it creates the “I” that is you. We would expect that when the brain dies the “I” would die with it. Also we would expect the creation of the “I” by these means to be without any knowledge or history save that learned since the creation.
The problem is that this “model” does not work when the realities of life and consciousness are compared to it. Millions of people have out-of-body experiences daily. The first thing they notice is a separation of their consciousness and their bodies. They know they can live without their brain or body. There is so much written material about this phenomenon that it can’t be ignored. Scientists have researched it and found evidence of its reality. No one has ever convinced an experiencer they were hallucinating that I know about. Then there are children, and some mentally retarded that can do things like play the piano without having any lessons. There are people with part of their brain missing who do just fine.
So the scientific model of consciousness doesn’t work, but the spiritual model of consciousness does work.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, we’re entertaining for the moment the notion that our minds our caused by natural means, specifically our brains. (Why do I suddenly feel like cheering?)
You seem to be presenting three specific things as counterarguments: OBEs, extremely clever people, and people who function despite damage to the brain.
-
OBEs. These have been covered extensively for you approximately seventy billion times, on this message board alone. Suffice to say yet another review of the subject in this thread will accomplish nothing; your mind is set on this issue, and I am entirely unconvinced that OBEs are not products of the imagination. I am also not interested in discussing it here - review other threads if your memory is fuzzy about the arguments typically presented.
-
You have referenced children and retarded people who taught themselves to play the piano without taking any lessons. Now, I was never into piano, but I did teach myself to draw things quite realistically by the age of five, without lessons. And you know what? It wasn’t because the knowledge just leapt into my brain, of how to draw things. I learned like everyone else, starting with stick figures and working my way up; I just was a little faster at it. So, your piano players may be special and worthy of note, but they’re certainly not an example of prescient foreknowledge or whatever. It’s just that they were a little more clever than usual, in this one skill, is all.
-
As for people carrying on despite damage to the brain. Well, first off, I think we can agree that this is a relatively rare occurence. The average person who takes a bullet or piece of rebar to the head simply dies. So, most of the time, trauma does have an effect. (Also interesting are the times that the damage occurs and the person lives but the person loses mental functions. This immidiately argues that the brain is directly causative of mental functions.)
But, as for the cases where people take damage to the head with no noticeable effect at all (if such people exist): To refer back to our favorite imperfect analogy, the computer: take a gun and just shoot that computer of yours. Still here? Probably not. If you are, it’s because the bullet didn’t take out anyhing critically important to computer function. You might have lost your printer or speakers or something, but your computer is still ‘alive’. And, you might not have lost any functionality at all, if you managed not to hit anything important.
Now, obviously, the brain doesn’t really run exactly like a computer. (Less metal, for one thing, and rather more juicy organic fluids than the average PC.) So, maybe it has some redundancy built in, and perhaps a system for internally repairing or routing around damage that typical PCs lack. I dunno, I’m no brain surgeon. Regardless, such systems aren’t so effective that they entirely protect the brain from the effect of bullets and rebar; in most cases we see exactly the same effect that you get if you shoot your PC. Well, with less metal and more fluid splatter, that is.