Death

[Stranger]

When doctors have, case after case, confirmed that the patient was dead in terms of all medical parameters....and the patients state that they were nevertheless alive and conscious, why should anyone doubt it?

For the reasons already given that you've ignored.

It may not be a scientifically proven conclusion, but we don't always wait for scientifically proven conclusions do we?

There is no such animal as "scientifically proven", there is only conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and evidence that supports or falsifies them.

The idea of an afterlife is lacking even a coherent scientific conjecture, let alone the hint of a smidgen of actual evidence.

We need not accept an after-life as an established fact just as we still don't accept parallel universes as an established fact....but it is definitely a possibility given the evidence.

There is no evidence of an afterlife.

The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields.

So there are stories about it - in what way is that of any relevance?

So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.

In fiction.

NDE's are evidence of just that.

No they are not, for all the reasons given that you've ignored.

[Sebastian Toe]

So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.

Hearing and seeing using what to hear and see with, exactly?

[ippy]

The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields. So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.

NDE's are evidence of just that. That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.

Where you say:

"The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields".

Yes you're right but that doesn't make that statement true, if it were true you should be able to show how this is so.

Regards ippy

[ekim]

Where you say:

"The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields".

Yes you're right but that doesn't make that statement true, if it were true you should be able to show how this is so.

Regards ippy

Probably an impossibility to demonstrate this as an objective truth, which is why most 'spiritual' practices are dedicated to revealing it as an inner 'state' of being.  If you want to know, then it becomes a do it yourself job otherwise it will remain as an idea, belief or disbelief.

[ippy]

Probably an impossibility to demonstrate this as an objective truth, which is why most 'spiritual' practices are dedicated to revealing it as an inner 'state' of being.  If you want to know, then it becomes a do it yourself job otherwise it will remain as an idea, belief or disbelief.

Which is about my indication conveyed in the post of mine you seem to be replying to?

Regards ippy

[torridon]

The idea that Consciousness is independent of the body is a well established idea is religious and spiritual fields. So, hearing and seeing while being outside the body is nothing new.

NDE's are evidence of just that. That science could take its time to establish this as fact...is neither here nor there.

Doesn't make sense though.  Hearing and seeing outside the body makes no sense.  Hearing and seeing are activities that living bodies with brains do.  If consciousness can happen independently of mind and body to procure the characteristic experiences of minds and bodies then that would render brains redundant.  If brains were redundant they would not have evolved and would not have been conserved.  Hearing and seeing are characteristic bodily functions.  Sound is not something that is out there, it is a very particular form of experience created by brains.  You need a brain to experience sound.

[Sriram]

Doesn't make sense though.  Hearing and seeing outside the body makes no sense.  Hearing and seeing are activities that living bodies with brains do.  If consciousness can happen independently of mind and body to procure the characteristic experiences of minds and bodies then that would render brains redundant.  If brains were redundant they would not have evolved and would not have been conserved.  Hearing and seeing are characteristic bodily functions.  Sound is not something that is out there, it is a very particular form of experience created by brains.  You need a brain to experience sound.

If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist?  How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?

Th point is that they can!

Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see.  These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.

[Sebastian Toe]

If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist?  How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?

Th point is that they can!

Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see.  These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.

Microphones and cameras are physical means to capture light and sound. What are the equivalents in "conciousness"?

[Stranger]

Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see.  These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.

What's the point of us having ears and eyes, then?

[torridon]

If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist?  How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?

Th point is that they can!

Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see.  These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.

I can talk to my voice activated Echo and it 'understands' and responds appropriately.  That doesn't mean that it is having conscious auditory experience though.  My car can 'see' obstacles through its parking sensors, but that doesn't mean that it is having conscious visual experience though. The very best of our AI falls way way short of that currently.  So it is a misleading comparison to liken camera technology etc to visual experience and then claim that seeing can happen without the complex perceptual systems that brains have evolved.  Vision is the product of a complex visual system.  The things we see do not have visual properties, the sense of inner vision is all created by subliminal processes of mind.  There is no way some disembodied structureless consciousness is going to have the elaborate processing complexity required to create vision. Even if that were feasible then it would render the perceptual systems in our brains redundant.  Why bother with 500 million years of evolution if your consciousness can see just like that, by itself.  Makes zero sense.

[Maeght]

If AI and robotics have shown us anything,...it is that our faculties can be duplicated in many ways. Robots can hear and see through microphones and cameras...does that mean that the biological mechanisms of hearing and seeing cannot exist?  How can hearing and seeing exist if microphones and cameras don't exist?

Th point is that they can!

Our ears and eyes are not the only way to hear or see.  These and other faculties are basic faculties that are a part of Consciousness.

How do we see without eyes?

[Sriram]

I can talk to my voice activated Echo and it 'understands' and responds appropriately.  That doesn't mean that it is having conscious auditory experience though.  My car can 'see' obstacles through its parking sensors, but that doesn't mean that it is having conscious visual experience though. The very best of our AI falls way way short of that currently.  So it is a misleading comparison to liken camera technology etc to visual experience and then claim that seeing can happen without the complex perceptual systems that brains have evolved.  Vision is the product of a complex visual system.  The things we see do not have visual properties, the sense of inner vision is all created by subliminal processes of mind.  There is no way some disembodied structureless consciousness is going to have the elaborate processing complexity required to create vision. Even if that were feasible then it would render the perceptual systems in our brains redundant.  Why bother with 500 million years of evolution if your consciousness can see just like that, by itself.  Makes zero sense.

The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.

The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.

The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit.  It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.   

If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.

[Maeght]

The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.

The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.

The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit.  It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.   

If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.

Brain activity, such as dreams, memories etc are not the same thing as the sense of sight which requires eyes. If you want to use a wider definition of seeing to cover such things then this needs to be clear and understood.

[torridon]

The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.

The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.

The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit.  It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.   

If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.

The idea makes no sense and is not true to the evidence though.  The sight we have and the hearing we have is neurological activity, the claim of a disembodied consciousness having sight and hearing implies that disembodied consciousness is having neurological activity exactly the same as happens in a brain.  How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.

How can a self Suffer from the illusion that it exists?

[torridon]

How can a self Suffer from the illusion that it exists?

All experience is construction of mind and that includes our sense of self; the founding principle underlying constructions of mind is 'whatever keeps us alive', not epistemic truth or revelation of fundamental objective reality.

[SusanDoris]

The idea makes no sense and is not true to the evidence though.  The sight we have and the hearing we have is neurological activity, the claim of a disembodied consciousness having sight and hearing implies that disembodied consciousness is having neurological activity exactly the same as happens in a brain.  How can anything mirror brain function without having a brain ? If that were possible then we wouldn't need brains. This idea is jaw droppingly bizarre, typical of the logical absurdities people get into by trying to shoehorn spurious concepts like 'souls' into the frame.

I really don't know how people can live their daily lives with these daft ideas, and then to keep putting them into print ... ... well, the mind boggles.

[Stranger]

The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.

The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on.

If the soul can do all this stuff, what are brains, eyes, and ears for?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All experience is construction of mind and that includes our sense of self; the founding principle underlying constructions of mind is 'whatever keeps us alive', not epistemic truth or revelation of fundamental objective reality.

No all survival functions could be and some here suggest are carried out by preconscious elements in the brain.
There is no need for consciousness for survival and you have effectively listed functions that have no survival value not least the sense of self which you seem desperate to want to dismiss as trivial anyway.

[torridon]

No all survival functions could be and some here suggest are carried out by preconscious elements in the brain.
There is no need for consciousness for survival and you have effectively listed functions that have no survival value not least the sense of self which you seem desperate to want to dismiss as trivial anyway.

Presumably consciousness and a sense of self are conserved because they do have survival value.  An individual suffering from Cotard's is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against an individual with a normal healthy functioning sense of self.  Likewise with various forms of dementia in which the person inside is eroded.  If you don't see the survival value of a sense of self, just look to the various pathologies that affect it - that would be our normal state if we hadn't evolved a strong sense of self.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I knew someone who woke up having forgotten who she was.   Anyone doubting the requirement for a sense of self should have watched the desperate efforts of her family to get medical help - which they did, and she recovered..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably consciousness and a sense of self are conserved because they do have survival value.  An individual suffering from Cotard's is going to be at a competitive disadvantage against an individual with a normal healthy functioning sense of self.  Likewise with various forms of dementia in which the person inside is eroded.  If you don't see the survival value of a sense of self, just look to the various pathologies that affect it - that would be our normal state if we hadn't evolved a strong sense of self.

Your opening word makes your theory mere presumption.
Cotards where there is confusion over self does not sound like absence of self. Neither does erosion of self......how can you erode an illusion..............cotards, the delusion of the illusion.

How is A Cotards sufferer at a competitive disadvantage anyway.

You are left with believing that all survival functions are preconscious and that consciousness has survival function

[ippy]

The point is not 'how' Consciousness can see or hear. The point is that it can. 'How' is something that is beyond us.

The whole idea of a soul is that it is conscious and has all faculties like memory, sight, hearing, movement and so on. Born blind people have had NDE's and have been able to see like normal people.

The soul IS what we are. The human body is only an extension or projected (and severely limited) form of the soul/spirit.  It is like a space suit or a diving suit which we use to get into another medium that is normally inaccessible to us.   

If you have seen the movie 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea.

I couldn't help noticing this part of your post where you referred to the Avatar film as follows:

"If you have seen the film 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea".

Of course Sriram, now go back into your darkened room see nurse and make sure she is giving you the correct tablets and whatever you do don't worry.

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

I couldn't help noticing this part of your post where you referred to the Avatar film as follows:

"If you have seen the film 'Avatar', Cameron brings out how even if the avatar (projected part) dies the original person can continue to live with all faculties. That is the idea".

Of course Sriram, now go back into your darkened room see nurse and make sure she is giving you the correct tablets and whatever you do don't worry.

Regards ippy

Ok...

But if you have seen the movie, the hero does live on even when his 'avatar' (the Navi) dies.  Cameron has understood the idea of an avatar correctly. So, what exactly is your point on that, besides considering the idea as bizarre, I mean?! 

Many of our Hindu heroes are avatars of God....in more or less the same way as in the film. God is said to have come down in human form.  In fact, all humans are also believed to be little avatars of God, in the sense that He exists in all of us at a deeper level.

You disagree?!!!

[torridon]

Your opening word makes your theory mere presumption.
Cotards where there is confusion over self does not sound like absence of self. Neither does erosion of self......how can you erode an illusion..............cotards, the delusion of the illusion.

How is A Cotards sufferer at a competitive disadvantage anyway.

You are left with believing that all survival functions are preconscious and that consciousness has survival function

Clearly Cotard's sufferers are disadvantaged by their condition; how else would this condition have come to our attention but for the fact that such people have presented to their GP seeking help.