₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho4:
Of course.


The person that is deprived of something that can't be retrieved doesn't forget but the person that deprives does.


A proof that the world is in shambles.

Nobody has deprived you of anything
It is your attitude that has deorived you of what you deserve .

Change your attitude and what you deserve will come to you without fighting for it.

If you don't learn from your mistakes and move on with your life, but to dwell on the past , you will remain where you are. You will remain where your attention is focused. That's a fact.

I will not give you shishi. Focus your attention on your life and make plans that will bring you success . Thats how you can move ahead and not by coming to nairaland to cry wolf all the time for help no one here is ready to render you, since most people here can already see through you.

Good luck

HellVictorinho4:
State where you exist before reincarnation after dying so that I will write a letter seeking its dwellers to settle our case

I don't have any case with you to settle. You should focus your attention on your own on life. It is your responsibility and not mine. I don't owe you anything, so stop mentioning me..

LordReed:
Those children who spent formative years in habitats other than human show deep psychological effects that are either hard to undo or even currently impossible to undo. If according to the current understanding of child development the brains neuroplasticity in young children is harder to undo when they are past certain ages then the phenomenon is well explained. However if the idea that there is some external thing producing the mind then simple exposure to new information should just cause a change since the only thing evolving is this external bit.

This is not the reason I brought that in. It was to show that ones environment shapens their personality. The reality of your bodily environment you entered at birth, is why you have grown up to believe you're the same as the body. Your body is not the real you. It is an illusion, and we know that illusion can influence what we think of ourselves..

The only thing you think is evolving is what you can see; the external part. If theres anything evovling separately with it which you cant see , you won't know. You can't know what others know that you don't know.

Why do you imagine dreams are not the brain functioning normally? Why are the brain patterns of sleeping people a pattern that can consistently be tracked? If dreams are external to the brain why are they showing as a pattern in the brain?

You have now turned to strawman me? Where did I say dreams are not the brains functioning normally? Without brains how do you know you have had a dream. I never mentioned that dreams are external to brains. How can that be?
The reason I brought dreams was to answer the question I raised in my first presentation, that there are alternative sources that one can use to peer further into reality to see things as they are when scientific instrumentation fails.. In the link I shared were inventions gotten through dreams.

You can also employ the dreamn method if you know how to go about it, but it must be something you're familiar with and working on. That's what leads to quicker results

LordReed:
Evidence required.

What kind of evidence ? Specify it. I already mentioned the kind of evidence I would be providing.

LordReed:
No. I have concluded that no sufficient has been presented so I cannot acknowledge its existence. People who believe they are aware of this pressure have the onus to present sufficient evidence. If it is being described as something else then why do you just point to the thing it is been already described as?

Pressure may not be the proper word. Thoughts triggers brain response if not hypnotism won't work Another person can send thoughts to your brain to control your body to act on such thoughts. I have demonstrated this myself. But I have avoided doing it again since it is not respecting another person individual space. I have a childhood friend who was very good at that ,but we have lost contact so dont know where he is now to
confirm if he is still doing it. Even you ,yourself can do it once you learn how it's done.

Again it's all about the evidence. You cannot find a person with an affected brain that doesn't have an affected mind. This is why medicines work.

. You don't have all the information. There are individuals with brain defects without behavior impairment and vice versa. There's an index case of an American whose brain scan result is published on the net. You can search for that.

What was the disclaimer?

It's more of a warning. People act on what they think of themselves. So if you're not sure ,don't make people to accept a sense of self that is not true which may distort how they should normally view themselves.
Here is it


Recently, a leading neuroscientist noted in Nature:

“The general public might think that this goal has already been achieved; when they read that a behavior is associated with some part of the brain, they take that statement as an explanation. But most neuroscientists would agree that, with a few notable exceptions, the relationship between neural circuits and behavior has yet to be established.“

Has such an experiment been rigorously conducted then rejected? Find me such a study if you can.

I sent one already on reincarnation, but obviously didn't read it ,since you have not commented on the article but to refer me to a skeptical website which doesn't directly address anything. I want to read your own thoughts and not the thoughts of others who are trying to come up with conjecture to explain away what the have not directly experienced themselves.

There are several problems with these reincarnation stories. One, the sample size is too small. You cannot reliable test somethings with certain small sample sizes. Two, some of those involved are unreliable. Not because they are lying but because there isn't adequate documentation of the events so recollection gets jumbled. Read here for more on that: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4612

And are you aware that neuroscience is also hammered with the same problem of small sample sizes?

Because some reincarnation stories are unrealible,, then the realible ones should be discounted? There's enough documentation, but you're just echoing the thoughts of the skeptical website, obviously controlled by atheists who are trying to explain away something which threatens their world view.

Dr Tucker's mentor , Ian stevenson,had garnered enough documentation before he died . Tucker has worked on that and has also provided his on own documentation on the cases he has worked on . All of these were revealed in the link I shared with you.

Your skeptical website deliberately avoided mentioning Dr Tucker an the work of his mentor for obvious reason. They don't want you to see the information which renders their explanation invalid, but instead were filling your mind with other reincarnation stories which were obviously fraud from the word go to discredit the documentated one that has been verified. The behavior of the writer on that skeptical website is not different from certain religious leaders who try to keep the faithful in line once an information comes out that threatens the lies they have
been feeding their ignorant members. I expect you not to fall for that kind of thing.

So ,please go back, read the article and also search for Dr Tucker, and Jan Stevenson works on the net and do your own independent assessment.

I describe as nebulous anything that cannot be adequately described which is the position most dualists find themselves.

I am not a dualist . The word is a negative reference for those believed to hold views about the self that are not logical or scientifically explained. If scientists were to discover that consciousness has not emerged from matter would they accept to be called dualist? Not of course. I know what I know

We aren't. Which is why we keep searching. It is folk who claim to have answers they cannot support with evidence we can ignore.

Yes we aren't. But at least I have tried to come with with an explanation and not inundating you with quotes from religious books.

Produce the evidence and we will come to terms with it. It's that simple.

I have tried to do that. I already mentioned that I have logical evidence not scientific. The re are truths that are self evident which doesn't need scientific evidence.

Of course they are slow to respond. If you took everything hook, line and sinker all the time you'll leave yourself open to scammers. And science has had its share of scammers as I assume you know.

They won't ever respond for some because of the limitations of the scientific method. For instance, scientists can't process reincarnation data .The scientific method is not suited for that at the moment.

Current mind theories makes us understand that consciousness can't exist independent of the physical body, so how, for instance, do they start considering reincarnation? That is the problem.

Again a strawman. I didn't say it was close to animal or human consciousness, I said they would have their own form of consciousness.

Everything shouldn't be strawman. Explain how this form of consciousness would operate different from that of humans, if not , you're still guilty

I don't think scientists dismiss it because it is a religious idea. I think they dismiss it because there is no where to start a reasonable investigation from. Many of the so called paranormal practitioners turn out to be frauds. Even clinical analysis of some supposedly paranormal powers turned out to be no better than chance.

Scientists are unable to investigate paranormal claims. That's it.
Nearly all ,if not ,all of those who have come out to display anything are frauds. Those who can do such display would never ever engage in such open display as it is against the ethics which guides their practice.



Ok.

The sports betting thing? I thought you wanted to illustrate something LoLz.

LordReed:
I didn't even quote him for you to say I misquoted him. It seems you didn't read the article yourself.

He said: Astrocytes, not neurons, are the cells that determine blood flow by having feet on each vessel and opening and closing them to provide local neurons with blood (see post on astrocytes).

By the time the blood flow is measured in the region of the 80,000 neurons, signaling in milliseconds has occurred in large circuits around the entire brain, none of which is picked up at all. There is no way, really, to say that the mental event is correlated with this voxel (blood flow in the region of 80,000 neurons), instead of one of the thousands of small events that cannot be measured. Also, it is not known how the astrocytes changing blood flow really reflects the action of neurons.

Meaning fMRI is not measuring the activity of neurons. My point was if fMRI is not measuring the activity of neurons then he should be able to explain why the fMRI scans can predict political affiliation. I never mentioned anything about reading minds or thoughts so I dunno where you got that from.

His argument is that brain scanners can't show thoughts ,and not that they can't read any other thing. I agree with him. If brain scanners Can't show thoughts, how then do you conclude that they have emerged from brain, matter, and not elsewhere.

The wetness of water which you have used before as comparison can be scientifically explained . We can see how the molecules of water has combined to emerged it. This you can't do for mind

LoLz! You are so invested in strawmanning what I say. Nowhere did I say the article concluded that brain scans make neuroscientists know individual subjective experiences. Kindly reread what I wrote and respond only to what I wrote and stop strawmanning it.

What I wrote again: No single part of the brain is responsible for the mind.

Which was an answer to the question: what part of the brain is responsible for the human subjective experience. I referred you to 2 articles, one on political leanings and the other on the nature of consciousness. It was the one on the nature of consciousness that I was referring to in my response. A quote from the article: Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, resulting from the communication of information across all its regions [b]and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas that control for qualities like attention, hearing, or mem

But the article on scientists being able to predict anything is misleading. It is just confirming ideology after the fact.

Before you start accusing me of avoiding anything, show me where you previously asked me this question.

Nevertheless here is my answer: Mind is the sum total of all thoughts both conscious and unconscious as well the processes that give rise to thoughts and the information required for thoughts to be processed.

Where has thoughts that form mind come from ?
What is brain? Please define it.

You are the one who has been declaring what neuroscientists position is.

It is one thing to mention their conclusions from how I understand it and another thing to talk confidently as if I am a neuroscientist.

LordReed:
Lemme illustrate. The sun was discovered to be a fusion reaction in the 1930s, it would have been silly to say that before that discovery people experiencing the heat of the sun should not confidently conclude that the sun is hot because they didn't know how the sun functioned. Similarly the conclusions we can see stemming from the results we have now about the mind can be confidently stated based on the preponderance of evidence. What is not in evidence is what cannot be confidently stated and one such thing is that mind has an external source to the body and brain.

You're unwilling to see things from my own position . If you have done so ,by now you would have understood what I have been trying to establish; that there are truths about the world we live in, which others know so well, but which those in the main body of science are ignorant of, and even if they know it, or it is reveal to them, they won't acknowledge it immediately because of the way they are trained to think

I will give you an instance in history . When the Wright brothers were experimenting with their Craft, the aeroplane, and succeeded in test running it for the first time, scientists in the main body of science immediately came out to discredit it.They said it happened by chance due to strong wind .

On what grounds were they dismissing it? It was based on the scientific theory as at that time , that "nothing heavier than air can float
on it" This was accepted as "fact" in physics during that peroid. But the wright brothers knew more than the scientists as they later proved it.

Added to this , was the arrogant attitude of scientists, especially those in the main body of science ,that no one else , apart from them can understand and apply the scientific method to discover and establish truths in our world. This attitude has not changed .It's even worse now with the cancel culture thats common everywhere..

And it will surprise you that further successes by the Wright brothers still did not convince scientists, with eminent scientists granting interviews on national TV and elsewhere, to debunk the invention as not scientifically possible, thereby ending up "hypnotising" the general American public scientifically .


So by the time the wright brothers stablised their invention, and were flying everywhere, the "hypnotized" Americans did not take notice and see the evidence, with some of them concluding that what they saw flying over them ,was a balloon that was painted to look like metal.

One can only imagine what would have happened if it was now that, according to TenQ, scientists in the main body of sciences are operating like cultist. They certainly would have raised an uproar to get them arrested for trying to endanger public safety with the "nonsense" that is not scientifically possible. Some persons have argued that the cult like behavior of scientists in the main body of sciences, is why we have had not much progressed beyond, cars, airplanes phones, computers and the rest ,which were inventions from Long time ago.

So my point is this, dont think that non scientists can't know better than trained scientists. They certainly can ,but may not come up with scientific explanation for what they know. Sometimes ,when the come up with evidence, it is often ignored as such evidence would have threatened other theories scientists are currently working with. That's is it.

The best they can come up with is logical explanation which doesn't require scientific backing all the time. You should judge what such person have to say based on the correctness of their logic and not ask for scientific evidence

That's is why it doesn't make sense to demand from religious people evidence for their belief, which is faith based, that only requires common sense and logic to debunk

Yes ,because of this, I can confidently state what I know as fact ,especially if I have had a direct experience of what I am talking about, while you , on the other hand,, might just be stating what you know based on what you have read from conclusions made by neuroscientist, without any experience of your own to confirm it.

That is why I going to ask you to do this, use your own self as demonstration that what you have accepted from neuroscience is true and not because they are experts nd you think they can't go wrong.

Hopefully you won't simply state it, you'll present the evidence along with it.

I believe I have in a way answered this. I am not a trained scientists, so I am not in a position to give you scientific evidence, but logical evidence which you should accept from me. I don't expect you not to know what is acceptable as evidence in the sciences ,and also ,those qualified to give it. Even scientists themselves have had their evidence ignored or rejected not minding the strength of such evidence.

This is not an appropriate analogy. What is more analogous is if any of the critical parts of you phone get destroyed or taken out, your phone ceases to function. But unlike phones not everything in the human body can be resuscitated or replaced, especially the critical ones like the neurons in our brains which when they deteriorate, never get replaced and leads to all sorts of problems later in life.

You should have looked at the sense of it and not whether it is appropriate or not. My point was this, if the body is damaged beyond repair, consciousness can no longer express itself through it, and then vacates it . But for you , you cant observe consciousness to know what has happened to it after the body is damaged , hence you have concluded it expired with the body. You're unwilling to for once see it from my position, and that's exactly the problem.. You want me to consider it from your viewpoint at all times, which I have done severally, while you on your part is religiously sticking to your own.

I'd like you to find one example where any of the the systems I mentioned have catastrophically failed as in completely gone and the person came back without that functioning organ.

Providing such example can't convince you since you already made you mind on what to accept. However, there's something close I can present. Some persons have had severe brain damage and went into coma. During that state it was observed that their brains was disconnected from their bodies which made it impossible for them act on any instructions passed through the device their care givers using to communicate with them; They received the message ,but were unable to make their bodies move using their brains .

What this has proven, even though scientists have interpreted it differently, is that the brain is a device consciousness uses to control the body to manifest its intentions objectively, and not that brains is what has emerged consciousness.( You have argued before that the wetness of water can't be separated from the water it emerged from) If the brain and body is completely damaged ,then, consciousness detaches itself from it as we have seen in those who went into coma. Except you can scientifically explain how consciousness has emerge from matter, then you can't dispute my position that consciousness detaches from the body when the body system which keeps it on collapses.

Wait for the evidence.

please define the kind of evidence or modify the ,word, evidence.

Because that is what the evidence suggests and no contrary evidence for an "elsewhere" has been given. Unless you have it up your sleeve.

Suggests, meaning evidence is subjected to interpretation. Scientists have in the past interpreted evidence wrongly and they still do.

The confidence is pretty high at this point given the preponderance of evidence while at best there is very little support of an "external" source for the mind. And I am being generous.

You not being generous Reed, . let me tease you now . You may have been scientifically hypnotized and don't even know it, and now speaking from that state.

LoLz. Nothing irrational about what has been discovered so far. The evidence is stark. Meanwhile we are yet to see any evidence of nebulous spirits, souls or whatever else you'll like to call it.

I have not dwell on spirits or soul. Those terms and what they reference may be something religious people have misinterpreted. I said we are a product of pure energy, and this is not far from the truth. The argument is ,if this energy has emerged separately. So focus on me and not what others are saying.

No. The fMRI is not scanning thoughts so it doesn't fit with your analogy. What the scans revealed are brain patterns that so closely correlated with certain ideologies it became relatively easy to reliably predict what those ideologies are before they were known. This is not mind reading or thought scanning.

Read your article again.



Waiting.[/quote]

LordReed:
This is not the current position of neuroscience. This is the position of a single neuroscientist and while that doesn't invalidate his concerns it puts him at odds with the evidence on ground, to which the appropriate response in science is to do a study that supports your own claims to compare evidence. The other study I point you to showed that political leanings can be reliably predicted by fMRI scans so if someone says fMRI is not scanning neurons then he has to go do a study to explain why fMRI scans can provide the basis for such reliable predictions for example. .

You said it's not the current position , then tell us the current one. But remember you, yourself ,are not a neuroscientist, so whatever you state should find support in what is currently known in neuroscience.
The article is not the singular opinion of neuroscientist,but represents the general opinion of most neuroscientist, with the exception of a view. Apart from the authors own opinion, supported by what is currently know in that field,there were citations and statements from others which he referenced. It appears you didn't take your time to read. He explained that brain scanners can at this time read blood flow in a region of neurons and other brain activity, but doesn't read thoughts or mind. But you have misquoted him.

Secondly he says no single region of the brain can explain the human subjective experience, the other study I pointed you to answers this. .

You're again guilty here of not reading very well the article you referenced
The brain scanners only fairly revealed "brain signatures" which correlates with the subjective experience, but failed to let us see what subjective experience has led to their production, hence the researchers highlighted this problem below

“What we don’t know is whether that brain signature is there because of the ideology that people choose or whether people’s ideology is caused by the signatures we found,” he said.

“It also could be a combination of both, but our study does not have the data to address this question.”

Again, the title of the article is misleading. It is bait to draw traffic to the website the columnist is writing for.
The headline and the opening statements of the article, creates the false impression that neuroscientist can now predict peoples ideology position ,without knowing before hand if they hold such position. But this is not true.

All the participants in the research already answered a questionnaire detailing their ideology position. Armed with this information, the researchers then looked for brain "signatures" which they believe correlates with it.
So it wasn't a prediction, since it was after the fact.

This is from the article

. "They found correlations between the scan results and the participants’ reports of their ideology on a six-point scale from “very liberal” to “very conservative.”

They were just confirming the participants reports of their ideology in a questionnaire already given to them. So don't be misled that neuroscientist can now directly know individuals subjective experience just be mere "brain signatures" alone

No single part of the brain is responsible for the mind. It bares repeating that the current conclusion is that the mind is an outcroping of many systems not just a singular part of one.

You're still avoiding the question, what is mind?
Both of us are not neuroscientist, and so shouldn't try to speak on their behalf . We can only state the fact as we know and understand it. That's all

If anyone is still expecting science to discover a singular kernel where the mind resides I think they are going to be disappointed.

What do you know about the human mind to know they won't discover it someday? I ask again what is mind?

Wonderz1:
back to the reincarnation topic how can one remember his or her past life? Cause it is somewgat unfair for someone to receive punishment for a crime or sin he cant remember.

Just focus on this life and do your best to succeed in it.

If you somehow get to remember your past life, how do you validate the information?

You're not receiving any punishment for a crime you committed in any previous life Any body who makes you feel so is only trying to postulate you to accept something that would set confusion in your mind.

Focus on this life and try to make the best out of it. You're in a better position to answer the questions you're asking. Just believe in yourself.

Wonderz1:
Happy sunday nairalanders, pls i would love to have a clear understanding about reincarnation. I am open to any kind of views on this (any religion). Pls I just want to be enligthened more

Follow the link below to read the interview of a top scientist in America, Dr Tucker, who has done extensive research on reincarnation stories from different parts of the world.

He has provided compelling proof that reincarnation is a fact of life and not just based on religious beliefs.

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation

budaatum:
"They" Triple? Do you listen to them like you'd listen to a pastor perhaps, and unquestionably believe whatever they say? Even scientists don't unquestionably believe what other scientists say!

I have carried my inside around with me since the day I was born and I can't say I know so much about my inside, but I do know that my brain is just a part of my body and if you remove my brain from my body neither could exist alone, and neither would you look at any one part of buda and claim that is buda. I hope.

Nothing wrong in listening to other people's opinion. It is what we make of what we have listened to that matters.

When those children at a very age, found themselves amongst those animals, they immediately adopted the perspective of the animals around, and then got "hypnotized into thinking they were the same as the animals who have now taken the place of their human parents. By the time some of these children were discovered and rescued from the animals that adopted them, it was observed they have lost most of their cognitive ability which makes them function as normal humans. They were now behaving exactly like the animals that adopted them. It is almost the same for we humans after occupying our physical shell which has tricked us into believing we are one with it or we are the same as the body.

https://www.treehugger.com/children-who-were-raised-by-animals-4869172 link for children raised by animals


But not everyone at birth is hypnotized or don't know they have occupied a body. Some persons. still retain a full awareness of their true selves, and also where they just came from prior to the time they entered their bodies . From this group, we have some children who usually shock us with stories of their previous life

When I was teaching in a private school, one of my students, a girl of about 10, who just enrolled, and immediately got attached to me, blurted out of no where one day, while the two of us were alone in a classroom waiting for other students to come for the normal after-school lessons, that she knew me as a child in her previous life, and went on to provide further details to confirm she was not joking. I was unable respond, and didn't know what to make of it all at that time.



There are stories all over the net of children able to remember their previous life. Most scientists. dont know what to make of it. However, some scientist working independently have been able to garner enough evidence which those in the main body of science have consistently ignored in support reincarnation as a fact of life..

The re recent cases of reincarnation stories investigated and confirmed as true, with verifiable proofs , by prominent scientist

A link to read about latest reincarnation stories investigated by a top psychiatric, Dr Tucker. Please read and let me know what you think

https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation


Remembering who you are, means you're now fully awaken to your true self and can consciously operate from that state. Before then ,you are living life unconsciously, with your brain and body dictating your life for you.

3. When science fails,there are alternative methods of knowing or coming up with truths in our world Prominent scientists in the past and till now, have used those methods consciously to get ideas and inspiration for their inventions and scientific theories, but these days no one wants to openly discusses such methods for fear of ridicule .


I will discuss one of these methods.; Dreams.

Some of the great inventions we now enjoy in our world today, whether in the sciences, the arts or any other field of human endeavor, were gotten through dreams.

If you think they happened through mere chance or coincidences, then, I am afraid, you very naive and not too well informed. There are definite practices you can engage in to get information directly from your dreams . Infact, current dream research in the sciences has proven this to be true.

However it is not as straight forward as I have explained it. You will need to learn how to interpret for yourself the symbols in your dreams, and this may take time. The symbols in your dreams are unique to you . Know one else can correctly interpret your dreams for . However, some dreams can reveal truths without any symbols; You have a direct perception of things in your dreams.

Ignorant people are quick to conclude that ",oh, dreams are just your brain processing thoughts in your head as you sleep, and don't mean anything." blah blah blah .

Yes ,there are meaningless dreams, but not all. You need to learn to shift the grains from the shaft to understand your dreams. It can be done. Dreams also, are a means of having experiences in other dimension of reality while your body is at rest.

Below is a link that discusses inventions gotten through dreams.

https://www.bedguru.co.uk/9-inventions-inspired-by-dreams


So ,to understand who you're truly are , different from what your ego self makes you think, and where your. consciousness has emerged from ,dreams can be a reliable source , better than any outside source, either in the sciences or in philosophy.

HellVictorinho4:
Intelligent design .... there's nothing intelligent about planet Earth allowing your presence at all... budaatum will add to the misdemeanor.., to hell with your Nairaland account and that of budaatum at least!

It depends from which perspective you're viewing things from

budaatum:
Neuroscientist probably know more when it comes to mind and consciousness than just about any field out there, and this is due to their use of science and it's methods, and however you wish to look at it, we humans have come a very long way from when the mind and consciousness were things only women have and which made them converse with a supposed serpent.

The problem starts when you read what they say as if it were gospel that you must believe instead of using your senses to understand what is presented to you.

Note that different neuroscientist are presenting different views here. The scientific method would be used by we humans to sift out the wheat from the chaff in the end, just as pre-corpernicus and pre-gallileo was sifted out by the use of the senses, and as the gods are being sifted out by the use of the senses.

But our brains and the overall human body is just an extension of who we are inside.

They know so much about the outside but not much of the inside.

Most of the things I will explain here has been stripped of the usual spirituality attached to it elsewhere.

So ,instead of the word, spirit or soul, terms like energy or true self (core consciousness) is used instead. There are all the same, but different ways of naming the same thing.

1.Our material bodies, a product of biology, is formed in our mother's womb; its not what we are.. Our true selves which exist as a force field of energy has occupied the material body at birth, after it has evolved to a point where it's now capable of generating conscious independent thoughts that can be expressed through a physical body.

This energy that we are, is sourced from the purest form of energy that is responsible for the "creation" of our world and its content. This pure energy is present in all thingnd It's not a blind arbitrary force. It has intelligence , and the evidence of this, is seen in the intelligent design of our world.

In some groups, this purest form of energy that we're drawn from, is often refer to as spirit due to the unique features it possesses, and the peculiar characteristics it displays at different levels of manifestation. Others have personified this energy as God .

Before we begin to occupy human bodies, we have been evolving as energy from the mineral state , where we were unconscoius ,to the animal state. ,where we acted mostly with insincts, and finally the human state where we are now fully conscious, with the ability to generate independent thoughts which finds material expression through a modulating brain that has the capacity to trigger our bodies to act on such thoughts.

We exist within our bodies as a force field of aware energy. . We are not "floathing" inside our bodies as this energy that we are , is present in every single cell in order to enliven our bodies.. Those gifted with the special ability to "see" what others can't, are able to picture our true selves as a globe of brilliant white light within us.They are not hallucinating because what they see can be validated.



Those who have had out of body experience or near death experience usually report seeing themselves surrounded by a brilliant white light or they are the light itself. Pure energy can either manifest as light or sound..


However, those out of body experiences are not properly understood by religious people who have misinterpreted it, and have been using it as a validation for their religious beliefs. Individual scientists who have also tried to explain it, don't understand it very well , and have hastily labeled it as hallucination caused by the brain.

The re are two kinds if OBE; one ,hallucinatory and the other, not, but the two has been conflated as one both by religious people and scientists who experience and investigate it.



In the final part, I will tthrow more light on OBE to clear the misconception surrounding it.

2. We are not conscious of who we are as energy because at birth when we occupied our physical bodies crreated in our mothers womb , we automatically took on the perspective of the human body, and then sort of got hypnotized into thinking we are a body and not different from it.

It is difficult to see any separateness anymore, as we have gotten so attached to the body we occupy that we now feel what it feels through the brains attached to it.

Cases of children who unfortunately found themselves growing up amongst animals and ended up behaving like the animals that adopted them are a good parallel to help us understand better what I am trying to explain

@Lordreed

Please.go through the link below and find the current position of neuroscientist when it comes to mind and consciousness.

A lot of disclaimer was issued to warn the public not to accept as conclusive some of the claims being spread on the net by a few dissenting neuroscientist.
https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-limits-of-current-neuroscience

LordReed:
This seems like a contradiction in terms. How can something be exerting pressure on the brain and not be measurable? This is one of the fundamental problems with proposing some nebulous "realm" that is claimed to be immeasurable but yet exerts influence physically. If something is exerting pressure then that pressure can be observed and measured. You cannot simultaneously be claiming something is immeasurable and at the same time is exerting pressure.

When you're not aware of what is exerting pressure, how can you measure it? That is what you have not considered. You already concluded such a thing doesn't exist when you dont know the exact nature of what you're dismissing.

Supposing it exist, but mistaken for something else?

The lack of proper description of the exact nature of what dualist hold as true is why scientists dismiss those ideas ,and not that some of these things are not true. I will attempt to give a clear description in my later presentation.

Yes the operation of the brain is surmised to be the basis of mind, no brain no mind.

Not completely true. Majority of neuroscientist are yet to be certain about this. At least I did some readings myself to understand their position better. I will share with you a link which contains a disclaimer, warning the public not to accept as settled the issue of mind or consciousness.
Most of the things I have written here finds support amongst neuroscientist, meaning that, some of my claims are not just my conclusion alone.

It is supported by science, as can be seen here:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region/

By the time I share those links, you will understand my position better. Some of the links you shared which I have read contains highlights of the limitations of such studies to make one know that you should not take such studies as conclusive, but you seem to ignore those each time to focus on the positive aspects of the research.
The last one you shared contained an important disclaimer which you seem to have missed. The introductory part of the article is misleading as it doesn't match with what was later explained

This would be very easy to test, I dunno why you say it is not open to measurement. If these proficient people can be put under rigorous testing conditions and have their skill fully demonstrated, I don't see how it is a bad thing or unachievable for that matter. Put a giant cardboard sheet with random information that cannot be guessed in a room beside where this proficient person is without them seeing it visibly, then ask them to go look at it with their separated consciousness or mind. Simple, straightforward.

I know what has inspired the above comment. But just know that such demonstration will not move scientist in the main body of science to to investigate anything , since they wouldn't be able to immediately explain it to fit in with the theory of mind they're currently working it.

For instance ,there have been credible scientist who can't afford to soil their reputation, investigating
some reincarnation stories to confirm them as true, with verifiable proofs in support, yet those in the main body of science have refused to consider and investigate further.
If they won't listen to their peers is it a non scientist they are going to listen to?

Wrong. It is founded on the paradigm that the only thing that can be reliably studied is either the universe or that which affects the universe. Any nebulous "realms" or phenomenon cannot be reliably studied since most times you can't even define this nebulous "realm" or phenomenon.

There's nothing nebulous about any realm that exist. It is because science at the moment can't reliably investigate it ,hence they are consider as such.

How are we certain that there are no aspects of our universe that operates differently?

I am not here referring to imaginative heaven or hell created by religion, but aspects of our reality that scientist are yet to come to terms with

This is acting as if any conclusions reached are set in stone. If a scientist makes a faulty observation or conclusion, the practice is robust enough to scrap the faulty bits and have a do over. Which is why Einstein's theories can supercede Newton's.

Not all the time . Most times they are too slow to respond to new evidence, and at other times ,consistently ignore an evidence proving something to be true.

LoLz. Was this an attempt to strawman what I said? If it is you would do well to go over what I actually wrote. No machine will ever develop human consciousness simply because it is not human. It may develop a form of machine consciousness just as much as animals have their own form of consciousness. You admit that animals do have a form of consciousness so why would it be difficult for you to conceive that machines would develop their own form of consciousness?

You still ended up reaffirming the same thing. Animals and machines are two unlike objects
Before you can confidently believe machines can develop some sort of consciousness closer to animals or humans you must be certain of how consciousness as emerged elsewhere.
So far, scientist are not certain about that.

Maybe. However the advances that have been made in understanding consciousness and mind have been quite useful even though the knowledge is far from complete. This is the advantage science provides, reproducible results.

I like this . The problem dualist face in explaining their view point clearly to others, is that most of them are not able to explain the exact nature of what is soul and how it relates with the brain and the other parts of the body.

If there are asked to
give an explanation , the next thing, is to quote religious text that doesn't make any sense.

I belong to a school of thought that believes science is in better position to come up with more rational explanation once it can understand better any phenomena it is investigating . If science one day realizes that such a thing as soul exist , it won't certainly not name it soul ,but give it another name.

The reason I believe those in the main body of science ignore some of this concepts, is they think it has to do with religious nonsense or beliefs. Investigating it, would mean wasting time to confirm God or the spiritual realm exist. But they are mistaken.
Some of these concepts were hijacked by some religious groups and deliberately misconstrued for recruiting new members ,with threats of their soul ending up in hell or reincarnating endlessly if the refuse to join them.

The concept of soul is not even a Christian idea. It was hijacked from early Greek philosophers by some early church leaders who then introduced it into Christianity.
The earliest Jewish writers never believed in the concept of soul that goes on to live after the death of the physical body. This is the reason you won't find any mention of a soul going to hell after death in the old testament.

It is only in the new testament that one finds a soul that can go to heaven or hell . But of course we all know how the new testament came about ,so it is not surprising to find such ideas placed in it.

Can you give an example of the kind of people you are referring to?

The later part of my presentation will mention that

How did the below image appeared on my post

[quote author=LordReed post=113401818]Hello to you too.



The interesting thing about facts are they are accessible to all so it will be interesting to see what facts you present.

Facts are facts they don't need a qualifiers like scientific or otherwise, as long as we are dealing with facts we should be on an even keel.[quote]I have qualified it because there are logical truths ,not requiring scientific explanation for it to be accepted as such



Sure, let's ruminate on ideas by all means.



[quote]Because it cannot yet be studied directly.[quote]Good We agree on this
[quote]I don't know what you mean by is not answered by science. If you mean scientists have not studied all there is to know about consciousness then yes there is more we don't than we do but it doesn't take away from what we do know. And that which we do know can be confidently stated.

To come up with this presentation, I researched articles written by neuroscientist who never forget that it is not easy to define what mind or consciousness is because inspite of what they have come up with, little is still known about how the human brain works. So if you only know little about how something works, how can be certain of what you have found out. You just might seeing the effect of something whose cause is unknown.

The qualifier you use here of true for the source of consciousness is a leading one. It appears as though you already have a conclusion in mind and because science doesn't point to that "true source" you readily dismiss what it does point to. And it points to consciousness arising from the functions of the brain and body. The interacting systems that make consciousness possible are well known. You have your circulatory system, you have your nervous system, you have your endocrine system, combined these are the systems that support consciousness in the human being. Take away any one of these and the human being looses consciousness.

Yes ,I actually have what I regard as a source of consciousness, but that will be revealed in the next presentation.
From a scientific point of view it is correct to say that once you take away any of the system that support life, then consciousness seize to exist, but I will interpret this as consciousness detaching itself from the body it occupied once those system which ties it to the body stop working.
For instance, if I am on a call with you and the battery of my phone suddenly goes flat, I will lose connection with my phone (my body) and no longer able to communicate with you through the phone. This will not mean that consciousness using the phone has expired. Once I charge my phone battery, I "regain consciousness" and continue the call.
There's a parallel to the above analogy which scientists have witnessed at different times and are unable to explain. Someone is certified clinically dead, meaning that consciousness has expired. Then unexpectedly consciousness is regained the individual returns back to life. If it's true that the deactivation of any of the systems which support life leads to the cessation of consciousness, how can it be explained those who have defied this?
The usual conjecture from neuroscientist is that there might be some brain activities still going on ,even though the brain has been certified dead, that has reviled consciousness.
The exact brain activity is never disclosed. When they try to mention what they think is responsible, they can't actually explain how it has led to consciousness coming back.

What much need result? The so called true source of consciousness?

Yes

No scientist will claim they have a "comprehensive understanding" of the mind. What they will acknowledge is that their observations so far have provided a working knowledge of consciousness and the mind with many more mysteries to solve. This is evident in the application of many techniques employed in treating mental illness and other frailties of the mind.

I never said they will claim, but I expect they should at some point

Your analogy misses the point. A person who has the stats of the match doesn't need to know all the nitty gritty of what happened on the field in other to appreciate the nature of the result. Some even use these stats to predict the outcomes of future matches quite well.

Then why the claim that consciousness has emerged from matter if you can't see "inside" to know exactly how it has happen. It could have emerged from elsewhere.

This is well appreciated in science which is why no scientist can claim comprehensive knowledge of the mind.

Then we should not take with certainty that mind is not separate from brains

Science as practiced today cannot investigate that which cannot measured, it is an inherent limitation. If there is some nebulous "realm" that science cannot reach then it can't provide any answers there.

That is why it is a psychological fact that once an individual is in the dark about something, the normal tendency is to come up with a sorts of irrational explanations which doest fits the fact about he or she is in the dark about.

There isn't such a scanner so how can we arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have made up a scenario and concluded that the scenario is true without any real world analog?

But the link you shared demonstrates such a scanner exist which can help scientist know an individual's Political affiliation . But however what I wrote was meant to be an hypothetical situation. That is, if it were possible to have such a brain scanner, not mind scanner, you can't know the exact thoughts that has led to the behavior.

I will Post the other parts of my presentation which answers the questions I already raised.

LordReed:
In summary, consciousness is what evolved into mind and animals have not yet achieved that evolution? Is their consciousness independent? And which is the one that is independent in humans, consciousness or mind?

My later presentation would throw further light on the questions you have asked.

But in the main time, I already explained that mind represent our human personalities .

Mind is how consciousness has chosen to express itself through the body it occupies.

Mind can change if thoughts which makes up mind is deprogrammed or replace with new ones.

However not everyone has created their minds themselves. It is made for them by others. Religious fundamentalist falls under the class of people.

So the normal situation should be individual consciousness expressed through individual or independent mind. But some people have individual consciousness controlled by a group or mass mind which they have no control over.

Do animals have individual minds?

If they have, the evidence doesn't support it as they don't ,except in rare cases, display individual character traits.

budaatum:
You've noticed my red herring definition of science. I'm glad. Note I neither said "trained scientist" nor "expert in the sciences". I red herringed scientist Jesus too.

We humans have no other tools than our senses with which to receive data about the world, and our minds are what we use to make sense of the data that we receive, so I can't think of any other way to learn about the world than to use one's senses to receive data and interpret it with one's mind is my point, and a'scientist' red herringed by me as one who has gone through the rigorous training to use one's senses properly, should be more competent at least in their specific sphere of inquiry at so doing. I mean, see as you disqualified lay person me, lol.

Yes, my "brain can throw illusions at you, and deceive you into making wrong judgements", a fallibility I already admitted to, but the rigour of experimentation learned by a 'scientist' would make one ask and knock and seek so one can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I am not trying to "distract and confuse" you. I'm engaging with your intelligent mind.

Please cut the crap buda . Your not a scientist in any way, whether trained or not.

My first presentation which has led to this, was not to lecture the public on what it means to be a scientist or what the scientific method means

I only tried to highlight the limitations of the scientific method to support my argument that there are things in life science will never make us know or understand.

Anyone who has taken their time to read the other parts of what I wrote, would have understood that by mentioning science and the scientific method, I was talking of how it is understood by expert scientists, and not your subjective understanding of it which you brought in to make me look stupid; that I don't know the meaning of science and the scientific method, and that you, a non scientist, know it more than me ,so you want to lecture me.

This is exactly what you're doing and I believe others following would have noticed it too.

So ,please cut the crap, and state the facts as you know and understand it concerning my main presentation just like Lordreed and others have done

If you have nothing to say no problem. I already mentioned in my introduction that I am not forcing anything on any one. You're free to reject and accept whatever I have posted.

You're also free to announce your subjective definition of science to the world, but to force it on me without highlighting the standard definition to show the difference, means you consider me a stupid person who doesn't know the difference.

@Lordreed, I have seen all your replies. I will respond tomorrow as I am very tired now after today's hectic time in the office.

budaatum:
First, we are discussing complex things, so however clear you attempt to be will likely hit against my own fallibility. Accept my apologies. I am honoured that you try to make yourself clear.


The method of using the senses properly might have been constructed and taught and rigorously trained, triple, but the sense (the eye, for instance, and its ability to be used to see) itself is not a human construct, and it is the use of the senses that they have rigorously trained under this method so they can use it properly. The tautology is intended.

The methodology is a "human construct" that evolved out of the ignorant misuse of the human senses into what it has become today and which we can witness by the numerous human achievements, and destructions I dare add, that are before us.


No one is claiming that the scientific method, which is purely a method of using one's human senses, is perfect. Afterall if my eye itself is dim, no amount of method can make me see clearly. However, that same scientific method is what would make me consider the dimness of my eye and find a way to overcome my deficiency of "don't know everything about the world we live" and continuously test my interpretations. The intention after all is to learn about the world, which I would not be doing if I already knew everything about the world. Perhaps I should first use my senses to realise that I should show some humility because I don't know everything about my own little village, not to talk of my state or my country, and the world is big!


I do not understand what you've said there. Who is arriving at what conclusion, triple, and what content is being "interpreted by our senses", and what other method or tool would you like to be used, and what the heck is it that "we believe it to be so"?

Personally, I can't see how I can come to a conclusion about the road I am about to cross if I do not interpret its content with my own senses, despite my limitations, because of the scientific method with which I have experimented to determine the best and safest way to cross roads. And I do not merely believe it to be so, for experience as perceived by my very own senses have shown me that it is so such that I can safely say I know how to cross roads safely, despite the limitations of my senses and my ability to use them, I dare add.

I am afraid you have brought in a red herring to distract and confuse me.

I just woke from it now .Your subjective definition of science and what means to be a trained scientist is what has brought us here.

Using one's sense of judgement alone (your definition of what it means be a trained scientist) to make sense of the impression coming through your five physical senses ( sense of smell, taste and so on) ,which is actually what I was referring to will not make you an expert in the sciences.

Your brain can throw illusions at you, and deceive you into making wrong judgements.

I understand from a lay man point of view , we all can be scientists, but those in the main body of the sciences see it differently.

So, my buda, you're not a scientists just because you can make use of your sense of judgement to interpret the world around you.

My argument is not focused on what it means to be a scientist

budaatum:
You've assumed far too much, triple, but the above is one I can't help pointing out.

First, science not a human construct. It is simply the use of the senses that you already have, and the scientific method is the precise method of using one's senses.

Second, science does not have this assumed "paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration". Science has been applied to the unobservable too, or it would not be considering the mind it can not see, nor would the use of science have been able to be used to discover many things that are unobservable like relativity and evolution which are not so easily observed, or big bangs or black holes or neutrons and electrons and minds and consciousness, which science has the most to say about than any other investigative method which would also have to include the scientific method to be credible.

Science has been determined by the results produced in its exercise to be the best way to use one's senses, and as a method of discovery of the unknown has far exceeded any other method (belief, making up crap in one's head) that has ever been invented. But yes, we are not perfect human beings, and may not perfectly use our senses, hence must we constantly be perfecting ourselves by scientific learning to better use our senses.

As for the product of our minds, by thy fruits shall one know them, for a bad tree does not produce good fruit, and fruits one can clearly see unless one is blind.

I've added the words of a Scientist below so you may not so easily see my fruits (as in, understand what I mean) unless you apply science (your senses, and most especially, your mind). As a clue, the eye and it's ability to be used to see was the first sense humans were aware of, and the quote is from a book that teaches it's use.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

The scientific method of inquiry,not just using one's senses alone to know things, is what I called a human construct. It was developed by humans. Those who practice science as a discipline are giving rigorous training under this method so they can use it to properly make observation and conduct experiments to confirm what is observed.

The scientific method can't be perfect because as humans we dont know everything about the world we live in to be able to come up with a perfect method to interpret it.

How do we arrive at the conclusion that our world( also the extended universe) and it's contents is only interpreted by our senses which are limited, and the scientific method which trained scientist admit are not also perfect, if not that we believe it to be so ?

LordReed:
Question: do you think animals have minds independent of their bodies?

The other parts of my presentation not posted yet, already answered your question.

But since that has not come, I will answer you for now.



The terms, consciousness and mind are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, but they do not actually refer to the same thing.

Consciousness is the entity that inhabits the body at birth to enliven it. It is our true selves which exist as a force field of energy .It is often refer to as soul in religion and in other groups.

while mind is formed from the combination of thoughts this entity, consciousness, generates from the impression received through the brain, and also from the thoughts of others it has received.

Mind once formed, determines or shapens our human personality, the ego self, that we think we are.

Our personalities can change if we generate new thoughts to form a new mind, while the consciousness, our true selves, that forms mind remains what it is. We can become whatever we think different from what our current mind dictates for our brains.


Animals, just like humans also have consciousness. However, the animal consciousness has not evolved to a point where it can generate independent thoughts to form minds ,hence they are ruled mainly by instincts imbedded in their bodies which exert influence on their brains to control behavior. The inability to generate independent thoughts is why animals don't behave individually. They act almost the same, except they are conditioned to behave differently.

So do animals have minds independent of their bodies? I believe my explanation has provided the answer.

continuation

In the final part of my presentation, I would explain clearly what actually happenedd to Phineas Gage after he had that unfortunate incident . The case has been wrongly misconstrued to support the claim that mind is not separate from brain.






Now, to the most important questions.

1, If our consciousness or mind has not emerged from matter or biological processes from where has it emerged from. And what is the exact nature of consciousness or who we are.

2, If we are not the same as the bodies we occupy, and are somehow separate from it, why are we not conscious of this fact.

. 3. if science that is in batter position to know, is unable to answer the question of mind or consciousness ,how did some of us get to know what we know and be certain about it?

Answers in the nextt part.

Continuation,
The inability to observe and test thoughts which exist as thoughtforms; energized thoughts , not directly associated with any particle of matter , is why scientists are blind to the true cause of the placebo effect , as they can't at this time observe firsthand how thoughtforms exert pressure on brains to trigger the placebo response


Brain scanners do not show thoughts which form mind, the best they do is to show blood flow in a region of neurons when we , the owner of brains, are thinking. This, together with other brain activities observed ( neural correlates ) is then interpreted as evidence that matter is the source of mind or consciousness.

The claim that mind or consciousness, is an emergent property of matter or biological processes, is not supported by science The claim is only made on the assumption that electrical charges in our brains, and other factors not yet known, has made it possible for mind to emerge "magically" There's no rational explanation for how this has happened.

We can't see our we are separate from our bodies because most of us have never had any conscious experience of their consciousness operating any where else apart from the bodies they have occupied. But it's possible to separate one's consciousness from the body., while at the same time, still retaining a full awareness of our body

It can be done. In fact, we all do so unconsciously every night when we go to sleep in an experience we have come to describe as dreaming. Some persons who are. proficient at it, can have their consciousness present anywhere outside their bodies whenever they choose to.


There are certain phenomena science won't be able to explain. I am not anti science .I rely a lot on the sciences to understand my outer body and the world around me.

The world we live is not exactly what we think it is or may not be what we think it is., and we are also not what we think we are The methodology of science, which is a human construct , and not perfect, is founded on a paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration.

The problem with this, is that, if there's a phenomenon whose cause is unknown, or can't be fully observed, we only proceed to work with what is in front of us, which may be effect , that we have mistaken for cause, thereby drawing a wrong
conclusion from what we are only able to observe.


Most people who rely completely on the sciences to interpret the world around them are not even aware of its limitations. The ones who pretend that they do, usually betray themselves with comments like , " oh one day science will be able to manufacture a machine that will eventually develop human consciousness with the capacity to think and experience live exactly like humans" .

The only time the mystery of consciousness would be resolved, would be when science is able to come up with a device to make it possible to observe clearly all that happens subjectively within the human being and also outside of it.

Before I end this part, I would like to respond to the index case of a certain Phineas Gage brought in by someone here to argue against the idea that mind is separate from brains.


My response will be a question to answer back.


If mind is not separate from brains, how can it be explained, the cases of people with distorted personalities, but whose brains are not damaged or defective in any way. Also ,how can it be explained cases of people with brain defects that should normally result in behavior impairment that did not turn out as expected; their personalities remained intact. Neuroscientist in their studies to understand mind, have been observing those kind of cases in different people.

. It is obvious the person who brought in the Gage case to support is argument has not done enough research.

Hello, everyone, deepsight, Lordreed, budaatum, TenQ and others

My apologies for not responding the next day as promised. I have been engaged in a lot of activities which made it practically impossible to really settle and pen down anything.

I don't pretend to know it all . Of course no one knows it all. I will be stating the "facts" as I know and understand it.

And because it will be a long read, I have decided to divide it into two or three parts. The first is background information and random responses to comments made by others here, while the final part, will contain definitions and explanations for the concept of the "true self" I subscribe to , with evidence not scientific evidence, to identify this self , its emergence, and its relationship with the body it occupies.

However, before I proceed, I would like to issue an important disclaimer; that whatever opinions or statements of "facts" that I am going to make is at the discretion of the reader to accept or reject. It would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on others that may result in mental confusion or a distortion of one's personal reality.


In any case, I do believe that my thoughts on the subject matter in this thread would be enough to stimulate further thinking .


Why is consciousness or mind still a mystery?

Contrary to what has been confidently asserted here and believed by some persons elsewhere, consciousness or what is mind is still not answered by science.They may be far from answering it at the moment.

Neuroscientists have not arrived at any definite conclusion as to the true source of the human consciousness. It's still a mystery to them. They are loath to answer directly the question of what is Consciousness or mind because at the moment, its difficult to localised our subjective experiences to any part of the brain .

All attempts to do so, using observable brain activities or results from modern brain scanners has not produced the much needed result ,other than an impproved undestanding of how the visible brain works in relation to the other parts of the human body. This is very good and helpful for us at this time.

However, insisting that an investigation of the observable activities of the human brain, which are believed to correspond with inner states of consciousness, is enough for a comprehensive understanding of mind or who we truly are, is almost the same as someone who would insist that viewing from their device the life stats of an ongoing football match, without watching the game directly, is enough to know what is actually happening inside the football pitch.

Live football stats for instance, without watching the game directly ,will show a goal has been scored, but will not let you see the exact ball movements made by the players that has led to the goal.

There's much more going on within our inner world, subjectively, that we ourselves are unaware of, ,not to talk of an outsider who doesn't have any means to directly access it.

Whatever we say and do proceeds from thoughts that we, the owners of brain( the being within) generate from immpression. received through it. However, thoughts which forms mind is not directly observable nor testable by any known scientific instrumentation, except by alternative methods which are not too "popular" and available to those in the main body of the sciences. except individually

So it's difficult , for, instance, to really determine if someone is acting out genuine thoughts or simply faking it. We are all guilty of this at certain times, but some persons have mastered the art of deception so well that even if it were possible to attach a mini brain scanner to their brains to monitor its activity it can't be seen they're living a double live, as the results from the scanner will read the same as that of someone behaving sincerely.

killyaselfie:
There that they go with the condescension. “Calm down”. Just present your so called soul or whatever you call it and save the sermonizing.

No. It is not condescending. You need to calm down since I already promised tomorrow. Jam the "road" typing this.

I want to respond to everything here that I have not had the opportunity to respond to. That is it. Cheers

killyaselfie:
Science isn’t in search of “the essence of our being”. There is success already in the field of neurology and the role of the brain in personhood has already been established.

You have nothing to say that can move the needle of this discussion other than proving the existence of whatever you call soul.

If you think Deepsight’s postulations are brilliant, there is nothing that you can come up it that will be convincing.

Just calm down. Your response shows you don't have a single clue about what I want to say later.

It is not what you think. The word soul doesn't fully describe it. The use of that word is what is triggering your response. So I understand..

And anyway I am not responding just because of you alone and so whatever you think at this point can't stop me.

In order to have a balanced judgement on anything one needs to listen to both sides of the "story" even when the other side is nonsense to you..

killyaselfie:
What is a soul?
The anecdote is to show the mind is generated by “chemicals and neurons” despite the protestations of the religious. This isn’t about if Gage saw himself as a “soul” but how damage to his brain caused damage to his mind. It shows that the functions that they claim the thing they call soul performs are really performed by the brain and it doesn’t need a soul to explain the functioning.

You claim religious conception of soul is bladderdash. You are not going to provide anything but subjective and unfounded statements so what makes you think your conception of soul isn’t claptrap?

I mean, the fact that’s there is no universal definition of this undetectable soul that isn’t needed for anything except to terrorize the gullible, indicates that it is a ruse.

The only time a soul is useful is when the leaders of religion are trying to terrify their sheep with supernatural punishment.

I will respond tomorrow. Don't conclude yet .

Whether you agree or not, science is also, even though indirectly, still in search of the true essence of our being. And once it succeeds in that regard, you don't expect it would be labeled soul.It certainly would be called something else.

Don't jump the gun yet.

DeepSight:
Its not a very useful point to quibble about as no serious discussant would ever deny the fact that the brain plays a significant role in the deployment of the being. That damage to the brain could significantly alter the experience and interaction of a being is a given, so much so that it is almost pedantic to raise it.



Sorry oh, I have no evidence to offer - certainly not of the E = MC² variety and I made that clear from the get go.

Oh. You should have allowed him to answer himself.

You answering for him ,I am afraid may have defeated the purpose of raising those points.

Don't forget he has held on to a different position other than yours and the copied piece was meant to solidify his position. So why answer for him?

killyaselfie:
*copied from a website.
The second problem for dualists is the problem of deep personality changes following brain injury. If the mind and brain are separate, the mind is the seat of consciousness (and presumably personality) and the mind communicates with the brain only to pull the puppet’s strings, why would a brain injury alter who a person is? The classic case is that of Phineas Gage. In 1848, Gage was blasting rock to build a rail line when a charge prematurely exploded, sending the tamping rod he was using through his frontal lobe. Amazingly, he was conscious following the accident, but some time later, physician Dr. John Martyn Harlow wrote

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was ‘no longer Gage.’

I have been following the conversation but not been able to comment due to some pressing engagements that has left me with not enough time to respond the way I would want to.

Still much busy . But I would hurriedly respond to the above.

Before anyone starts running away with the inferences drawn from what happened to Gage, the following should be considered;

Was Gage ,before that unfortunate incident , aware of himself as soul occupying a physical body?

If he was ,is there any evidence that he has been functioning from the position where he sees himself as a soul occupying a physical body or a mind having a brain that helps him to process thoughts?


The answers to the above would help determine accurately what may have led to the personality changes observed.

While I await the answers, I would like to mention that the concept of soul propagated by certain religious groups, Christianity especially, is not what I subscribe to .

That one is based on a literary interpretation of the genesis account. It is misleading.

No God breathed into man to make him a living soul. That never happened.

Soul is not created nor can it be destroyed in hell after judgement if it fails to surrender it's life to someone.

Those statements are religious bladderdash.

By tomorrow or after then, I would share my full thoughts on the discussion.

I thought we would have moved past this point as I expected deepsight to have by now provided something as evidence to back all his brilliant postulations.

I also remember Lordreed asking for something like a demonstration and the benefits that can come from this knowledge of knowing oneself as soul. Nothing has been given since that time till now.