Do split brain patients and twins conjoined at the brain prove consciousness is a robust emergent phenomenon suggesting there is no soul or do they su...

Do split brain patients and twins conjoined at the brain prove consciousness is a robust emergent phenomenon suggesting there is no soul or do they suggest that the soul is the transcendent agent allowing for multiple minds to experience the same consciouseness? Honestly, I'm about to lose my shit going down the rabbit holes of consciousness, quantum mechanics and intuitive faith.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    People are afraid to admit that consciousness is just an emergent phenomenon, because they believe that by doing this it somehow cheapens the human experience, which is honestly just your shitty opinion and something you have to chose to believe.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they believe that by doing this it somehow cheapens the human experience
      No, the reason I hold on to dualism is because I'm scared of not living forever
      thinking that consciousness is special, lets me believe in a life after death without feeling silly

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because I'm scared of not living forever
        But why? Living forever actually sounds far scarier

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps there is life after death but you can't be 100% sure, can you?
        But it is possible to psychologically accept permanent death and just be okay with it. Work on that instead. Buddhism provides a good framework (you don't have to believe in reincarnation but you probably do have to meditate)

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have any proof that what you call a "soul" exists?

        You don't live forever, I'm telling you straight up. Time to grow up and get over it. Enjoy the time you have.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sure, after all the blob os water and proteins that you call your body has to be string together by something

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't live forever
          Do you have any proof of this claim?
          >Do you have any proof that what you call a "soul" exists?
          Read this thread

          Additional proof that all Humans have their own individual souls is that there are multiple cases of children who can accurately remember their previous lives, and there are people who have experienced Near Death Experiences (NDE) where they saw people they knew who had just died when in reality no one had informed them of their death, or people seeing distant dead family members that they never knew existed in NDEs, or people who got NDEs and saw and accurately described the actions of doctors around them while they were completely unconscious.

          There has been more than 50 years of serious study of reincarnation and NDE.

          >"Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "

          ?si=euAGMCmIvKx4iYi3 [Open]

          Not that poster you replied to, There have been multiple reports of people who have had out of body experiences during NDEs when their brains are unconscious yet they still see their bodies lying unconscious and the people around them.

          >For the second patient, however, it was possible to verify the accuracy of the experience and to show that awareness occurred paradoxically some minutes after the heart stopped, at a time when "the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric (i.e. without any discernible electric activity)." The experience was not compatible with an illusion, imaginary event or hallucination since visual (other than of ceiling shelves' images) and auditory awareness could be corroborated

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

          See [...]

          There are many confirmed reports of people who have had NDE accurately describing their surroundings which they saw while they were unconscious.

          One patient who had an NDE asked his doctor when he regained consciousness why the doctor had tucked his hands underneath his elbows and flapped his arms like a chicken, the doctor had kept his hands that had gloves on under his armpits to prevent them accidentally rouching surrounding people and he used his elbows to point at his team of doctors as he was giving them instructions on how to resucciate the patient.

          Another example is a patient who had an NDE and saw his nurse who had befriended over his time in the hospital and who had gone on a holiday a few days prayer standing in a pasture, the nurse told the patient to tell her father that she was sorry that she crashed her new car that her father had gifted her, when the patient gained consciousness he had asked surrounding nurses about the nurse who he had befriended and they told him that she had died in a car crash just hours prior to him having an NDE.

          Watch this video to learn more about NDE: https://youtu.be/5KhtRnbl8ZE?si=6KESA0HrzItgrWM3

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >proof
            I'm starting to hate the word 'proof' (if it isn't used in, like, mathematics)
            I got evidence that the mind is dependent on the brain
            Real good evidence that when your brain dies, your mind dies.
            I DO NOT understand why you would believe anything else.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, Then what's is the content? You tell me, I got no clue.

            I'll try to illustrate why am vexed by the topic;
            How could we go about figuring out if we live in a world where the mind is caused by the soul, or in a world were the mind is caused by the brain?

            I think these two world look the same. There's nothing we could observe that would be incompatible with a soul.
            And that's the problem. No content.

            >I'm starting to hate the word 'proof
            You're being irrational. The word 'proof' has meaning outside of math as well.
            >I got evidence that the mind is dependent on the brain
            >How could we go about figuring out if we live in a world where the mind is caused by the soul, or in a world were the mind is caused by the brain?
            I've posted evidence of reincarnation and Near Death Experiences in this thread.
            >Real good evidence that when your brain dies, your mind dies.
            How do you know this? Can you even detect a mind? Can you measure a mind? Can you determine whether a mind is alive or dead?
            >I think these two world look the same. There's nothing we could observe that would be incompatible with a soul.
            And that's the problem. No content.
            At one point you write as if you're neutral or "agnostic" about this topic, but then in another point you firmly deny that the soul exists because of your materialist beliefs. You lean on denying that the soul exists simply because that is the belief which is simplest for you to understand.

            1/2

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't need proof that something doesn't exist, I don't know why you mongoloids continue repeating this ad nauseum as some sort of epic "gotcha". You're the one claiming something exists, so you have to prove that it does. If you can't do that, I win the argument by default. Otherwise anyone can claim anything and we're all forced to believe you "just because". Doesn't work that way, mong.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That might actually hurt you more than help, you are living in fear of death and not enjoying the time you have as well as focusing on the wrong things because you care more about preparing for the afterlife than living your life now.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Over the expanse of eternity, the chances that you won't be rolled up by the arbitrary forces that drew your consciousness the first time are virtually impossible unless there's a defined end-state to reality, which is about as probable as God.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    So, basically, having multiple personalities proves that there ain't no magical soul calling the shots. Our brain makes us conscious by processing info and sensing stuff around us.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous
  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Individual personality and memories stemming from flesh are a mask worn by the pure awareness that is the soul. That awareness is a law of reality and won't stop just because the body returned to the soil it came from, but everything that made you "you" will be lost.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you saying panpsychism?

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is fricking bizarre.
    >Hogan twins share a brain and see out of each other’s eyes
    >The twins say they know one another’s thoughts without having to speak. “Talking in our heads” is how they describe it.

    https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-hogan-twins-share-a-brain-and-see-out-of-each-others-eyes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >share a brain
      >still have to different conscious experiences, even if they have a sort of psychic connection

      Doesn't it prove the exact opposite, that a brain itself is not the be-all-end-all of consciousness? If that was the case, shouldn't two people sharing a brain be just one consciousness?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Doesn't it prove the exact opposite, that a brain itself is not the be-all-end-all of consciousness?
        Why would it? To me it shows two conscious beings can be connected to each other

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The brain has a complex structure, it's not one mushy blob.
        The Hogan twins share some parts of it but not others. Looks like the part that produces verbal thought is shared to some extent, but the part that is responsible for consciousness is not.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The brain has a complex structure, it's not one mushy blob.
        The Hogan twins share some parts of it but not others. Looks like the part that produces verbal thought is shared to some extent, but the part that is responsible for consciousness is not.

        >The brain has a complex structure, it's not one mushy blob. The Hogan twins share some parts of it but not others.

        Sure, but it's already a common knowledge that the brains' physical properties alter some properties of conscious experience. Hell, you don't even need to get into neurology, ancient people knew that consumig some physical substances can alter your conscious experience.

        The question is not this but wether subjectivity itself (qualia) exists independently of the brain. If it does than qualia interacts with the outside world through the braine as a medium. It seems like the two twins have to separate qualias for example and what they describe does not contradict the idea of that being more than a product of the brain.

        Besides, people would need to demostrate how a brain produces qualia, which would require demonstrating that someone else besides myself has qualia and is not a p-zombie, which is literally impossible.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Hell, (rest of statement)
          your posting style is recognizable and I dislike it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well, that doesn't prove anything.
      There are long time stories of telepathy and stuff like this.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Souls don't exist. You need the proper equipment to maintain consciousness. The real question is what, or who contributes to consciousness. Is it an unspooling of endless causality that echoes the first stirring of life? Is it the decisions of a whole lineage of men? Or is there SOMETHING dwelling in your flesh which has a role of its own to play?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      its an emergent phenomenon, your entire body is covered in billions of neurons all firing at billions of times a second. Consciousness is just the sum of all these inputs we take from the real world, which is why its so complex, and why there's no easy way to make sense of it. There's no singular "consciousness equation"

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the easy way would be to say "you are your body"
        but twin studies indicate causality is durable on a higher level. It's impossible to know "your"self without knowing your ancestors

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is a property of the future reflecting a shadow in to the past of 3d existence. Talk about either souls or computer-brains are pointless equally.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's complicated. Just keep thinking.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Additional proof that all Humans have their own individual souls is that there are multiple cases of children who can accurately remember their previous lives, and there are people who have experienced Near Death Experiences (NDE) where they saw people they knew who had just died when in reality no one had informed them of their death, or people seeing distant dead family members that they never knew existed in NDEs, or people who got NDEs and saw and accurately described the actions of doctors around them while they were completely unconscious.

    There has been more than 50 years of serious study of reincarnation and NDE.

    >"Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "

    ?si=euAGMCmIvKx4iYi3 [Open]

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Additional proof that all Humans have their own individual souls is that there are multiple cases of children who can accurately remember their previous lives
      less typey, more thinky next time

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your smug reply isn't the own you think it is. The same Human soul can reincarnate into a different newly conceived Human zygote after the death of the previous life.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >all humans have their own individual souls
          >The same Human soul can reincarnate into a different newly conceived Human zygote

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're still not making a coherent point.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does each individual human body have a soul, or does each soul potentially have many bodies?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Human body is the vessel for the Human soul, some people are in their first lives where their souls are in their first bodies, other people are in their second lives where their same soul from their previous life inhabits a second body.

            any cases of them making breakthroughs in linguistics or ancient history with that knowledge? Sounds interesting.

            >any cases of them making breakthroughs in linguistics or ancient history with that knowledge? Sounds interesting
            Not that I know of.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            not really individuality then. More like an obscure epic lasting centuries. We should obsess over historic archetypes and discover the fate contributed by our previous selves.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >more humans (and animals) than before
            So when exactly do these new souls come into existence?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      any cases of them making breakthroughs in linguistics or ancient history with that knowledge? Sounds interesting.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It raises questions about whether multiple people could have the same soul at once. A communal soul makes more sense, the transfer needs a substrate. Our descent from other lifeforms also takes on greater importance: while some human souls would've existed since ancient times, others would likely derive from freshly killed animals.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would it? Conjoined twins still have 2 different brains even if they are overlapping. It doesnt require all that much brain cells for consciousness to be there as proven by guys living normal lives with just heads full of fluid

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Extreme cases of hydrocaphely proves we don't need a brain to live.

    Scientists research man missing 90% of his brain who leads a normal life
    >SUSAN BONNER: It is such a stunning case. I'm wondering, what kind of a larger lesson it offers about our brains?

    >AXEL CLEEREMANS: One of the lessons is that plasticity is probably more pervasive than we thought it was … It is truly incredible that the brain can continue to function, more or less, within the normal range — with probably many fewer neurons than in a typical brain.

    >[There's a] second lesson perhaps, if you're interested in consciousness — that is the manner in which the biological activity of the brain produces awareness ... One idea that I'm defending is the idea that awareness depends on the brain's ability to learn.

    >SB: So, does that mean then that there is not one region of the brain responsible for consciousness?

    >AC: Precisely. These cases are definitely a challenge for any theory of consciousness that depends on very specific neuro-anatomical assumptions.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yup, you're a fine example of that.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nice ad hominem, but your materialistic explanation of consciousness still got trashed by this brainless man lol.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're leaving out key points. The guy's complications developed over the course of three decades and he's borderline moronic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not that poster you replied to, There have been multiple reports of people who have had out of body experiences during NDEs when their brains are unconscious yet they still see their bodies lying unconscious and the people around them.

            >For the second patient, however, it was possible to verify the accuracy of the experience and to show that awareness occurred paradoxically some minutes after the heart stopped, at a time when "the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric (i.e. without any discernible electric activity)." The experience was not compatible with an illusion, imaginary event or hallucination since visual (other than of ceiling shelves' images) and auditory awareness could be corroborated

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're avoiding the key issue that a man missing 90% of his brain including the prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex that are supposedly reponsible for consciousness is... still conscious.

            >he's borderline moronic.
            He is a fully functioning member of society with a white collar job. Nobody would've noticed anything amiss about him if he didn't do a CT scan.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're missing the fact that the Brian is incredibly adaptive in terms of structures. Once again, this man's current condition developed over the course of three decades.
            And he's 75IQ, the cutoff for mental moronation is 70.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How am I moving the goalposts? I've been repeating the same thing over and over in different ways waiting for you to get it, moron.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not even that same guy you were originally talking to. But changing your argument and acting like its implied by, or is a rephrasing of your previous argument is literally what moving the goalposts is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm yet another guy.
            What did you take the argument to be? How was it changed?

            Or are you just telling us the definition of 'moving the goalpost'.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then the prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex are not responsible for consciousness. This guy thinks it's the brain stem.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >His condition developed over 3 decades and now he is moronic
            >actually he holds down a job and is perfectly functional

            You're missing the fact that the Brian is incredibly adaptive in terms of structures. Once again, this man's current condition developed over the course of three decades.
            And he's 75IQ, the cutoff for mental moronation is 70.

            >well brain is le plastic!

            I'm not even defending the other guy and for all I know, this story is a bunch of bullshit, but this is clearly moving the goalposts.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meant for

            I'm yet another guy.
            What did you take the argument to be? How was it changed?

            Or are you just telling us the definition of 'moving the goalpost'.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's even supposed to be the argument here (the one being moved)?
            This is just providing additional relevant information

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gish galloping as arguments are defeated is essentially goalpost relocation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Original anon here.
            I said that he's borderline moronic - and he is, he's literally 75 IQ and the cutoff for mental moronation is 70 IQ. Him being able to hold a job as some sort of civil servant shows that the job is suitable for people who are borderline moronic.
            The fact that his condition developed over the course of 30 years is extremely relevant because, whether you like it or not, the brain indeed repurposes tissue over time in case of injury.
            As you can see, I never moved any goalposts.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Gish galloping
            >Moving the goalpost
            How is providing additional relevant information about the man any of these things?
            You guys are so fricking weird

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're avoiding the key issue that a man missing 90% of his brain including the prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex that are supposedly reponsible for consciousness is... still conscious.

      >he's borderline moronic.
      He is a fully functioning member of society with a white collar job. Nobody would've noticed anything amiss about him if he didn't do a CT scan.

      This is a literal lie. It's just not true.

      The guy is not missing 90% of his brain. His brain is smaller than a regular brain, but it's not 90% smaller.
      I've been calling this out for years. But spooksters keep spreading the same garbage out-of-date 7 years ago rumours.
      Seriously, where do you get this from? It's so careless.

      Some people just don't seem to care, as long the "information" supports the views they'd like to be evidenced/true. See this so much with these kind of topics.
      With NDEs too, the studies and articles out there are trash. (because very few people in academia treats it seriously)

      This should be a huge red flag to you. Run a great risk of setting yourself up with a whole lot of false beliefs, with this shit-tier selectively sceptical epistemology.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >With NDEs too, the studies and articles out there are trash.
        Have you actually looked at the evidence of NDEs?
        >(because very few people in academia treats it seriously)
        That's not true. There are many well respected and intelligent psychiatrists working in many universities who research NDEs and publish work on NDE.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Near-Death_Studies

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Obviously I grant that NDEs are thing, I just DON'T* think that they are evidence for a life after death (I don't understand how they can be, even in principle)

          What you mean when you use NDEs as evidence for "supernatural" stuff?
          I don't think there's anything supernatural going on if people have weird memories after having brain trauma.
          Especially not if they are from a culture that have been psychologically primed to have certain expectations of what an NDE is gonna be like, bright light in the end of the tunnel, floating around like a disembodied ghost looking down at yourself, etc.

          It's the anecdotes of people having seen the colour of the surgeon's shoes while being under anaesthesia, or telling a story about a serial number written on top of a lamp while floating around as a ghost -> This is what I call garbage as evidence for such controversial topics

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Especially not if they are from a culture that have been psychologically primed to have certain expectations of what an NDE is gonna be like
            NDEs have been reported in hundreds of different cultures. Many people who have NDE are hesitant to tell other people about that experience because they are afraid what they might think of them.

            >This is what I call garbage as evidence for such controversial topics
            Why do you dismiss such reports, when there are thousands of such reports that have been independently verified? You're not apporaching this topic with an open mind, you're allowing your prejudice from previous false claims to influence your judgement of these accurate claims of NDE.

            I recommend you watch this presentation on NDE by a psychiatrist:

            ?si=6KESA0HrzItgrWM3

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >NDEs have been reported in hundreds of different cultures
            Yeah, sure. I think NDEs are caused by human biology. I think the false memory formation is in part formed by psychological expectation.
            It's not like Australian aborigines make reports of meeting St. Peter at the pearly gates, is my point.

            It's like how people who take LSD give very similar reports of their trips. Feeling a loss of self, hallucinations, etc
            But, if you tell them a story about LSD causing people to see robot space elves, a lot of people will report to have hallucinated robot space elves.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Have you actually looked at the evidence of NDEs?

          I looked into Dr. Gary Habermas' (Christian apologizing university doctor, not real doctor) case report of a woman telling a story about having seen a serial-number on top of a lamp, and having overheard the surgeons talk to each other
          while she was supposed to be under anaesthesia, and have her heart stopped while receiving brain surgery (she had a device on her head, measuring low brain activity)

          This stuff happened 7 years before he got hold of her, plenty of time for a false memory to form, but it assumes she's reporting everything accurately/truthfully.
          The woman told a nurse to check if the number on the lamp was the ones in her NDE/dream, nurse looked at the lamp and wrote them down on a note, then handed the note to the woman.
          Women goes like; "Oh those totally were the numbers I dreamt about, wow..." (my theory is that this is were the false memory is in the making, that she did NOT dream those exact numbers)
          Timeline of the surgery got a bunch of stuff wrong, this happening in impossible orders, hasn't had her skull sawed open yet by the time she overheard stuff. Case report inaccurate/sloppy.
          It's SOOO easy to "explain away" this entire thing on naturalism, nothing spooky going on.
          What a waste of time.

          Habermas keeps embellishing the story himself, being academically irresponsible, the number on the lamp keeps getting longer.
          It should be embarrassing, but apologizers are shameless.

          TLDR: People telling stories of stories they've heard from people who don't really remmeber what happened

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And so you just assume because one purported case of NDE was fraudlent that all cases of NDE are fraudlent? If you got scammed by one shopkeeper would you assume that all shopkeepers are scammers? I guarantee you that I am giving you evidence of NDE which if it doesn't convince you will at least make you consider your previous beliefs about their validity. Just watch this video: https://youtu.be/5KhtRnbl8ZE?si=6KESA0HrzItgrWM3

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't just assume that ALL are fraudulent
            You asked if I had looked into the evidence, and I told you about me looking in to the evidence

            How many NDEs do I have look into before I'm allowed to be sceptical? (/get convicted that they are real)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do Christcucks always lie? Isn't it literally one of muh ten commandments?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's okay, if it's for a holy reason it's fine. This sky man unironically created pedophilia, so the logic follows just fine.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Great statement. Present evidence to prove it.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why? Is it gonna spooksters in this thread stop believing in made-up bullshit?
          Nothing hinges on this, people will keep using 90% brainguy as evidence for whatever they want

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're avoiding the key issue that a man missing 90% of his brain including the prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex that are supposedly reponsible for consciousness is... still conscious.

      >he's borderline moronic.
      He is a fully functioning member of society with a white collar job. Nobody would've noticed anything amiss about him if he didn't do a CT scan.

      Adding to this

      If the mind is caused by the soul and the brain is like a radio receiver.
      Would we expect that a guy who is missing 90% of his soul-receiver, to still be able to receive soul-signals? (I genuinely got no clue. I got no intuitions about this, it just sounds silly to me.)
      What I want is to ask yourself is: "Does this evidence even support my position? Is it predicted by my theory?"

      If the brain isn't really that important for cognition, and the soul is doing the heavy lifting. Would we expect the guy to be low IQ and have trouble walking?
      For this to be evidence, you just have to keep answering "yes" to everything.
      Can you understand why it sound ad hoc to me?

      Soul-theory just happen to "predict" whatever data we come to find, unfortunately it never can predict anything in advance

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    None of those people can ever spot what's written on cards that would be visible to someone having an out of body experience. Weird, huh?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      See

      Not that poster you replied to, There have been multiple reports of people who have had out of body experiences during NDEs when their brains are unconscious yet they still see their bodies lying unconscious and the people around them.

      >For the second patient, however, it was possible to verify the accuracy of the experience and to show that awareness occurred paradoxically some minutes after the heart stopped, at a time when "the brain ordinarily stops functioning and cortical activity becomes isoelectric (i.e. without any discernible electric activity)." The experience was not compatible with an illusion, imaginary event or hallucination since visual (other than of ceiling shelves' images) and auditory awareness could be corroborated

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

      There are many confirmed reports of people who have had NDE accurately describing their surroundings which they saw while they were unconscious.

      One patient who had an NDE asked his doctor when he regained consciousness why the doctor had tucked his hands underneath his elbows and flapped his arms like a chicken, the doctor had kept his hands that had gloves on under his armpits to prevent them accidentally rouching surrounding people and he used his elbows to point at his team of doctors as he was giving them instructions on how to resucciate the patient.

      Another example is a patient who had an NDE and saw his nurse who had befriended over his time in the hospital and who had gone on a holiday a few days prayer standing in a pasture, the nurse told the patient to tell her father that she was sorry that she crashed her new car that her father had gifted her, when the patient gained consciousness he had asked surrounding nurses about the nurse who he had befriended and they told him that she had died in a car crash just hours prior to him having an NDE.

      Watch this video to learn more about NDE: https://youtu.be/5KhtRnbl8ZE?si=6KESA0HrzItgrWM3

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        *why the doctor had tucked his hands underneath his elbows

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are many reports of people experiencing ghosts, aliens, demons, God, and fairies too. Yet not once has anyone in human history ever provided any warrantied testimony of these experiences where the highest level of due diligence is required: in a court of law.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    So you cannot separate concious thought from a soul, who is an essence encompasing who you are instead of what you think you are

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look, you can't falsify "souls" or reincarnation, or any of it. Stuff is unfalsifiable.
    Souls are compatible with literally anything we could learn about reality. If we learn something that seems unexpected on the soul-theory, you can just amend it, make it even more ad hoc
    This has been going on for hundreds of years. Phineas Gage? Guess the brain is like a radio (however that's supposed to work)

    These are garbage theories, with no content to them, doesn't yield predictions

    Can't answer simple questions like: How does a soul see without eyes? lol
    no model, no nothing

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >These are garbage theories, with no content to them
      Why do you say that?
      >doesn't yield predictions
      Does the truth that Columbus discovered North America and South America yield predictions to you? Does the truth that America landed on the moon in 1969 yield predictions to you? You make no attempt to even find the truth about important subjects because the nature of the subjects doesn't suit your fancy.

      >no model, no nothing
      How does that invalidate the theory? There is no axiom of truth that allows you to discard as false the theories that don't fit any models you like.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, Then what's is the content? You tell me, I got no clue.

        I'll try to illustrate why am vexed by the topic;
        How could we go about figuring out if we live in a world where the mind is caused by the soul, or in a world were the mind is caused by the brain?

        I think these two world look the same. There's nothing we could observe that would be incompatible with a soul.
        And that's the problem. No content.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How could we go about figuring out if we live in a world where the mind is caused by the soul, or in a world were the mind is caused by the brain?
          If the mind was caused by the brain, then that would make minds material, and so anything generated by minds would also be material, such as ideas. If ideas are material, then all of my ideas and all of your ideas are completely different and separate from each other, just as the neurons in my brain and the neurons in your brain are different and distinctly separate. But then how are we communicating if we our ideas are completely separate and different? How can you even understand what I'm writing unless we both share common convential ideas about the meanings attached to words in the English language? If Ideas were material, then how am I communicating, and thus exchanging ideas with you, when we are hundreds or even thousands of miles apart with no physical way for the supposedly material ideas to exit my mind and enter your mind?

          The claim that minds are material makes no sense to me. Minds and ideas must be both immaterial and real, and so minds are not caused by the material brain, even though the minds of living people are connected to their brains. And of course, minds not being caused by brain means that it is wrong to assume that minds die when brains die.

          And as for evidence that minds do survive the death of the material brains, see the evidence of reincarnation and Near Death Experiences I've posted in this thread.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But then how are we communicating
            By being trained in the use of English language and computers.

            You seriously think nominalists never thought about this stuff? "Ohh gee, guess there must be astral objects, cuz I can talk? Never consider that"
            Nominalism is rich and well-founded philosophical tradition with a bunch of literature behind it.

            >the evidence of reincarnation and Near Death Experiences
            It's garbage, IMO. I once spent some time looking into it, huge waste of time. Stories of people telling stories.
            If you got something in specific that you want to talk about, or some newer evidence that seems REALY good to you, I'll look at it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By being trained in the use of English language and computers
            How were you trained in English? How did your English teacher physically transfer their supposedly material ideas from their supposedly material mind into your supposedly material mind? Furthermore, if Ideas were material, then we could only understand each other if we both recieved material ideas from the same English teacher, because the supposedly material ideas in another English teacher would be different from the supposedly material ideas in your English teacher.
            >Nominalism is rich and well-founded philosophical tradition with a bunch of literature behind it.
            Nominalism is wrong. Nominalism cannot even describe what universals such as numbers are. What is the number 5? The number 5 is not a material object which exists in reality, yet you and I can think of the number 5 and know properties about the number 5 such that it is composed of the numbers 2 and 3.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, a nominalist denies that there's such a thing as thing as an 5 in the sense you're asking. You figured us out.
            Do you ever read stuff that disagrees with you views?

            You seriously think people can't be trained in the use of language unless they got magic floaty pointers that points at the shape of a word in the astral plane?
            I think they can.

            >if Ideas were material, then we could only understand each other if we both recieved material ideas from the same English teacher
            Stuff like this? So silly. I don't know how to deal with it.
            Do I just make an assertion? That it's totally cool on materialism for people to have different English teachers, you can still communicate successfully
            Read Wittgenstein, or something. I got no clue how to untangle your bullshit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Stuff like this? So silly. I don't know how to deal with it
            > I got no clue how to untangle your bullshit.
            Then how do you know I'm wrong? You're irrationally rejecting any arguments that disagree with your materialist views.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just asserted it, right? It's not like you provided me with reasons to believe it. Why should anyone believe this stuff in the first place?
            It's so much work for me to start giving you reasons NOT to believe it. I don't know were to begin!
            You probably wouldn't grant my premises, as they hinge on other fundamental views we disagree about, so we would have to get into that. Even if it's my view that is under scrutiny.

            1 think to keep in mind, which I think is fair.
            When you are criticising materialism, you need to grant materialism for the sake of argument. You're doing an internal critique of materialism.
            It's silly to start asking questions about stuff that does not exist on materialism.
            Like, you ask questions that suppose extreme realism in regards to numbers and intelligibility. These questions do not make sense to ask a materialist, it's not a thing on materialism.

            If you want to argue for why you think extreme realism is true, you can do that. But that's gonna be a separate thing, from you. Not questions to ask me.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    We don't know and we won't know until we understand the brain better or learn how to research souls (if they exist). I'm leaning toward the idea that we are software running on an always-adapting hardware. So your existence is still physical but not in the way you think.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your existence is physical. Your consciousness is physical. If I smack your head with a hammer, you will become moronic, you'll become a totally different person. If I smack it again, you'll die. The brains will spill out of your head and your body will start to decay. I won't see a soul float up into the air with the exact configuration you had when I killed you, like a save file. This idea is fricking moronic and was invented by illiterate cave men. That mush in your cranium is you, and it can be altered. It exists because you eat food and it's converted into energy that supplies your brain. That's literally it. I'm sorry if this upsets you but it is reality, and it's provable. There is no evidence for a soul and there most likely never will be, it's something people came up with because they were afraid of dying or losing loved ones. Which is sad, I wish there were souls, really I do. I don't like the idea of never seeing my grandparents again, that hurts a lot. But it is reality, and you need to get over it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Consciousness is just what witnesses. It isn't the mind. Nothing can stop it because it is a pure vision, implying it cannot be acted upon. Don't mix it with personnality.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The concept of the soul is a delusion. All the available evidence suggests that the emergent phenomenon of consciousness is an epiphenomenal aspect of the brain, which means that it is an emergent property.
    In other words, the soul is a mentalist illusion, and the brain is a complex neural architecture that produces consciousness as an emergent outcome. The twin and split-brain patients demonstrate that consciousness exists in the brain, not in some mystical realm.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    A copy of you is not you. Why are atheist "transhumanists" so moronic? I don't care if Roko's basilisk tortures a copy of me for eternity, I mean I care morally speaking, but I will be some dusty bones in a graveyard so I basically won't care.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's why Bones hated using the transporter

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Apparently it doesn't rip every particle apart, it moves you through the warp intact.

        You don't have to pretend that theists are somehow better, yet fear being tormented by Satan.

        You have free will, you can turn away from God if you wish, but if you do so you will be with Satan who also rebelled against God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You don't have to pretend that theists are somehow better, yet fear being tormented by Satan.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tormented by God*

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't in a similar sense that the you of 15 seconds ago isn't you, just a question of local vs nonlocal memory. Right? Wrong?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Partly correct. Your brain needs time to work, therefore your consciousness exists during a period of time, though probably no longer than a fraction of a second. However I persist with the idea I am a being that exists through long periods of time out of principle so that I do not turn into a hedonistic coomer that only lives for the moment.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's the you that that your and I is connected to though? To me Deepak Chopra etc and I think maybe Schopenhauer make a lot of sense there. We don't really exist in the sense we evolved to think we do. That we are either souls or even the usual replacement which is individual 1 vs 0 discrete consciousnesses. That we don't directly experience a copy's or another person's experience isn't evidence for anything other than bounding parameters natural selection stumbled into. We're all a bunch of processes processing similarly and don't exist in the same sense that we do exist, which is don't don't exist know what I'm saying. Make sense? Schizo? Not schizo?

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't even need that. Consider cases of TBI where someone has a completely different personality afterwards

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not exactly the same thing. The issue is multiple minds sharing a consciousness. With Phineas Gage its still just one mind.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, OP. These mental and laboratory experiments only prove that consciousness doesn't exist. We have a wrong view of reality. And no, I won't credit science. The work of science in this field is absolutely ridiculous.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >consciousness doesn't exist
      Maybe not for you, NPCigger

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

        "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

        "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

        "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

        "Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

        "Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

        "Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

          "So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

          "Any kind of feeling whatever...

          "Any kind of perception whatever...

          "Any kind of determination whatever...

          "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

          "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

          "When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

          That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

          Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Twins, who came from the same egg, are literally the same person. They are clones.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    All consciousness share the same soul in some philosophic teachings. In Ancient Greece they even believed plants could share a soul.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *