Karma

[Jack Knave]

We have, I think, all the genome of the Neanderthals. We have bones of them and their tools, the caves where they lived and other artefacts. But all this is just correlative. We can not say for certain look this is what a Neanderthal was like, what it was like to be one. To live and exist as one. There is a gap that can't be bridged.

So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.

[torridon]

So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.

Neural correlates could be just correlation, not causation then.  Is this correlation just a coincidence then ?

[Sebastian Toe]

Not one you would understand.

How would you know that until you try?

[Alan Burns]

I think you have got that the wrong way round. 

It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation.  Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law. 

It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.

Science may be good at discovering how things work, but it does not help to show what (or who) made things to work as they do. 

And you really are talking yourself out of existence, just being part of the continuum of material reactions in this universe.  But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?

[SweetPea]

But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?

Yes..... and your perception is different to my perception, is different to the next-door neighbour's perception..

[SusanDoris]

We have, I think, all the genome of the Neanderthals. We have bones of them and their tools, the caves where they lived and other artefacts. But all this is just correlative. We can not say for certain look this is what a Neanderthal was like, what it was like to be one. To live and exist as one. There is a gap that can't be bridged.

So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.

What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.

But all of that is hope, faith and most inexcusably........scientism.

[torridon]

Science may be good at discovering how things work, but it does not help to show what (or who) made things to work as they do.

The notion that there must be a 'somebody' or 'someone' who grandly architected the rules of our perceived reality does not really make any sense  to me. This idea just looks like one of the oldest of our cognitive biases, agent detection, and it renders null all of our attempts to discover how things work if it cannot investigate the provenance of this supposed grand architect or architects.

And you really are talking yourself out of existence, just being part of the continuum of material reactions in this universe.  But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?

Each point in spacetime has its own unique perspective, clearly that follows from simple geometry and it seems to be in part the function of brains to procure and synthesise an enhanced subjective awareness for the bounded region of which it is part.  As to whether there is some grand architect in some higher realm that 'loves' such things, well, there has to be some justification for such thinking, and I don't see any; to my pov all that just resembles a psychological construct that is appealing in various ways.  My preference is to try to understand things without fear or favour, that means recognising our biases for what they are.

[Alan Burns]

My preference is to try to understand things without fear or favour, that means recognising our biases for what they are.

And in doing so, let slip the greatest gift?

Light allows us to perceive things which would otherwise be hidden.  Try being open to spiritual enlightenment:

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
John 8:12

[torridon]

And in doing so, let slip the greatest gift?

Maybe the desire to think clearly and without bias is also a gift, to put in your reference frame.  In a god given world, where else would this desire come from ?

[wigginhall]

What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.

I'm not all that sure about this gap in any case.   The physicist Max Tegmark has a well-known saying that subjective experience may be what information being processed, feels like.   What's wrong with that? 

As yet,  we can't prove this directly, but there is so much indirect evidence, e.g. from brain damage.   People with dementia seem to suffer not only behaviourial problems, e.g. getting lost, but also mental disruption.   Not just losing memory, but being unable to process stuff and think normally. 

There is also research now using in vivo neuroimaging, which seems to point towards the linkage of brain events and subjective experiences.   

It seems that the immaterialists are defending a shrinking gap!

[Alan Burns]

I'm not all that sure about this gap in any case.   The physicist Max Tegmark has a well-known saying that subjective experience may be what information being processed, feels like.   What's wrong with that? 

As yet,  we can't prove this directly, but there is so much indirect evidence, e.g. from brain damage.   People with dementia seem to suffer not only behaviourial problems, e.g. getting lost, but also mental disruption.   Not just losing memory, but being unable to process stuff and think normally. 

There is also research now using in vivo neuroimaging, which seems to point towards the linkage of brain events and subjective experiences.   

It seems that the immaterialists are defending a shrinking gap!

Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside.  If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way.  The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul.  The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.

[wigginhall]

Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside.  If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way.  The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul.  The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.

Well, of course, there is no evidence against the soul, that is what 'unfalsifiable' means.

If you see film of in vivo neuroimaging, and see the brain light up in certain areas, as certain thoughts and feelings are produced, it looks like more than a correlation to me. 

The other interesting area of research concerns electrical stimulation, usually by means of electrodes.  This research is in its infancy,  but some results seem to show that experiences can be induced in this way.   

[Sriram]

And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! 

[Enki]

Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside.  If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way.  The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul.  The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.

And yet it seems you are incapable of producing any evidence whatsoever that a human(or, indeed, any other) soul exists. Simply saying that you can't prove it doesn't exist is no argument at all.

As I said in post 892:

negative proof: I have a belief which I can't back up with any evidence or answer awkward questions about but which you can't prove is wrong. So therefore it must be right.

Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?

It's no good simply asserting things. This might satisfy you, but it is very unlikely to convince those who are sceptical.

[wigginhall]

It's like the dragon in the garage.  You can't prove that there isn't one, especially as it's invisible,  (example from Carl Sagan).  Of course, in the original example, the dragon is gradually exonerated from normal evidential stuff, of if you like, the goal-posts keep on being moved.   Sound familiar?

[wigginhall]

And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! 

Well, I have chatted to various corpses, but they were strangely reticent.   Maybe it's my approach, next time, I'll offer them a drink.

[Sriram]

And yet it seems you are incapable of producing any evidence whatsoever that a human(or, indeed, any other) soul exists. Simply saying that you can't prove it doesn't exist is no argument at all.

As I said in post 892:

Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?

It's no good simply asserting things. This might satisfy you, but it is very unlikely to convince those who are sceptical.

It is not necessary to know all these details just to know that such a thing as soul/spirit exists. Do scientists know all these details about Dark Matter or Dark Energy? 

As you say...it is very unlikely to convince those who are skeptical.  It is a mindset problem.

[torridon]

And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! 

Correct.

I had a drink the other night and I felt a bit funny too.

[Sriram]

Well, I have chatted to various corpses, but they were strangely reticent.   Maybe it's my approach, next time, I'll offer them a drink.

Being flippant doesn't address the issue.

[Sriram]

Correct.

I had a drink the other night and I felt a bit funny too.

Likewise to you too Torridon!

[torridon]

Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside.  If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way.  The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul.  The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.

The idea of the soul remains unfalsifiable because it's supporters fail to offer any detail that could be tested.  For it to be taken seriously, there would need to be detail on what it consists of, how and when it becomes associated with a body and by what mechanism it interacts with matter. Lacking any such detail, it is just an idea, floating in space, with no justification.

[Sriram]

The idea of the soul remains unfalsifiable because it's supporters fail to offer any detail that could be tested.  For it to be taken seriously, there would need to be detail on what it consists of, how and when it becomes associated with a body and by what mechanism it interacts with matter. Lacking any such detail, it is just an idea, floating in space, with no justification.

But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details.  What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated  with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth. 

To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.

[Walter]

But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details.  What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated  with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth. 

To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.

this is just sloppy outrageous ,childish thinking that requires no intellectual interaction . At least from me.
Never mind Santa is on his way . millions believe but even more know the truth .  

[torridon]

But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details.  What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated  with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth. 

To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.

No it's not likewise.  There is indirect hard evidence for some undiscovered phenomena that we provisionally label DE and DM.  There is nonesuch for spirits/souls, all they are is a fanciful unfalsifiable interpretation.  At best, all you have is anecdotal claims of patients experiencing curious cerebral episodes and that is easily explainable as aberrant phenomenology of mind.