Forget religion for a moment and ask yourself this question.

[Bruce Wayne]

BLRR.

Oh boy...
You let me down here, you know. The moreso since I didn't want this thread to degenerate from the sharing of views to a discussion based on arrogance.

Bruce,
That death means the end? Well, frankly, no. That is what death means.

Even though I think even this sentence is wrong, that was not the first sentence, it was:

Death is the end of life so by definition there cannot be anything after the end, and in that sense your question does not make sense.

Your first claim is that death is the end of life. I don't wanna disagree here.
Your second claim is that life and existence equal the biological process. This is something you cannot prove. I don't care to prove the contrary either.
Your third claim is that since the biological process is ended there is no existence. This is depending upon your second claim.
Your forth claim is that death is the end of existence. Again I refer you to the second clain.
Your fifth claim is that the question doesn´t make sense. That is based on the forth, since the forth is not proven. The fith is wrong. The question makes sense.

Are you talking here about memory?

No, the biological body.

The definition is perfectly fine. The real issue here is that you want to define death to mean something entirely different. Perhaps you should have begun with how you perceive death or how you want it defined.

No, a definition is not necessarily fine if you say it is. Exactly the act that I didn't explain how I view death is what validates the question. Since I left that open; many people could fill in their definition and answer the question. So the question is valide. And so there were many answers.

You sound like the people who defined the atom as the basic particle that could never be split any further. Well we have split it and are still splitting. You are on very dangerous ground when you try to state that science can NEVER do something when the history of science shows that science is continually discovering things once thought impossible.

Oh, mon ami. Read on and you will find the answer to these allegations. And by the way, you sound like the example you gave, limiting LIFE to the factors you can encompass and admit, to your limited level of understanding.

I also have the impression that you see the brain as some infinite mystical black box beyond the comprehension of the human mind, but really the brain is a finite mesh of cells that connect together in a fairly simple manner but which create a complex network. The best parallel is with the internet. If you think of each neuron as a simple computer which communicates with other computers then you can see how the internet is very similar. Now does anyone fully understand the internet? It is now quite complex but we know how it works and to a large extent we know how the brain works but we haven’t yet deciphered a great deal of the complex network. I don’t see any real obstacles to what is essentially a reverse engineering project that is going to take some time.

Exactly. You have an impression, no more.

We certainly know enough t be able to connect a video camera to the visual cortex at the back of the brain and allow the blind to see, although the images are fuzzy, it shows we are making significant progress.

That is not impressive. That only takes imitating the imput from the eye and correcting for the loss of data that ensues from the organic barriers. That is not the same as understanding the mind itself.

What reason do you have to suggest that the brain will always be beyond our comprehension?

Funny how you guys keep playing these little games. Katazia, listen up! I did not say we will never understand it! You are trying to divert the course of the discussion. Are you afraid it is not going your way??

Or that others have the same irrational perception as you that the END doesn’t mean the end.

(Ir)rationality is a word overused lately. It is used by those deserving and those pretending.

But of course I know what you mean, and the phrase ‘after death’ is common place, but my point here is that it doesn’t make sense regardless of how many use the phrase. If somehow “you” don’t die when your body dies, then you are not dead.

Let's take your own assumption. Death is the cessation of the biological process. That means that if there is more than the biological process, which you can't possibly know for sure, then your conclusion is false since the body is gone but the essence/spirit/soul/rest is left. Note here that philosophers, most prominately aristotle, have, and since millennia, found the survival of the soul an established idea. The discussion was rather between those that said the body survivies too (religious) and those that said only the soul survives (religious and non-religious).

The only way you can survive dying is not to die. And after-death means there was no death.

If I survive death according to this sentence than that means I have not died. And that means I did not survive death. That means your statement is absurd.

Kat

Peace be upon you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Katazia. Here is some reading material.

On the Soul.
by Aristotle.

the link : http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html

I will read it too.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Leaving religion out of the matter, I'm not sure.

Simply stated. It is when the people around us bury us.

 

[Enigma'07]

What about people that get buried alive?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They die too.

 

[Q25]

Katazia. Here is some reading material.

On the Soul.
by Aristotle.

the link : http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html

I will read it too.

Peace be upon you.

and heres something from www.atheists.org on the souls idea and how it began
SPIRIT, SOUL, AND MIND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Frank R. Zindler
The Probing Mind, February 1985

Whenever I peruse a dictionary, I am struck by the amazing number of words which refer to nothing at all in the real world. Many of the words are obviously fabulous: leprechaun, unicorn, gremlin, Philosopher's Stone, Zeus, elf, Fountain of Youth, ghost, etc. Others, though referring equally to non-existent things, are less obviously fabulous: The Mean Sun, The Average Citizen, vital force, spirit, soul, and - in at least some of its accepted meanings - mind.


Why the human species has invented so many words which refer to nothing in reality is a most interesting question for scientific investigation, and probably would require a complete book to elucidate properly. In this article I shall only attempt to deal with a few such words, specifically, the words spirit, soul, and mind.



It is a striking fact that nearly all languages of the world, extinct as well as extant, have — or have had — words which could be rendered as 'spirit' or 'soul' in English, At first glance, it would seem that this is a good argument in favor of the real existence of souls and spirits. For, would it not be improbable that so many different peoples and languages could be mistaken? If many different unrelated languages have independently invented words for soul, is that not a good reason to believe they did so because there really is such a thing?

I think not. The first clue to the solution of this puzzle comes from etymology, the study of word origins.

While the origin of the English word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a word which meant 'breath' or 'wind' or 'air', or something like that. The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root!

Moreover, if we check in the Greek and Hebrew bibles to see which words are translated as 'soul', etc., in the King James Version, we will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind'. For example, the Hebrew word neshamah (literally meaning 'breath') is twice rendered as 'spirit', once as 'soul'. The Hebrew-Aramaic word ruach (lit., 'wind') is rendered 240 times as 'spirit', six times as 'mind.' The word nephesh (lit., 'breath') is rendered 'soul' 428 times) 'mind' 15 times, 'ghost' twice, and 'life' 119 times. Turning to the Greek Bible, we find pneuma (lit., 'breath') rendered as 'ghost' 91 times (including the rendering 'Holy Ghost'), 292 times as 'spirit'. The reader will recognize the same root in the word pneumonia, a word referring to a disease of the organs of breath. And finally, in this somewhat pedantic parade of words, we may note the important word psyche. As expected, its literal meaning is 'breath.' As we might have guessed, it is rendered as 'soul' 58 times, 'mind' three times, and life' 40 times.

The fact that nearly all words now meaning 'soul', 'spirit', 'life', etc., trace their origins to words meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me to conclude that the derived meanings were an outgrowth of the inability of primitive people to solve a basic biological puzzle, namely, what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?

To the ancient authors of the Bible — men who still thought they were living on a flat earth beneath a solid sky (firmament) — the solution seemed deceptively simple: living things breathe, dead things do not. At first, only animals (from Latin anima, meaning 'breath' or 'breeze' originally) were considered fully alive. The case of plants was viewed with confusion for a long time. Some authorities considered them live, others did not. The ancients did not realize that 'souls' were really only a gaseous mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, contaminated with varying amounts of water vapor, carbon dioxide, noble gases, and — depending upon what one ate and whether or not one brushed after every meal — varying amounts of aromatic substances!

In the Genesis Creation Myth, the animating power of breath is clearly depicted. God, after having molded Adam from the dust, has to breathe into him the breath of life in order for him to become a living soul. Breath is life.

The manner in which breath became equated with life is not difficult to discern. A person newly dead, say, of a heart attack, anatomically is not much different from what he was like before he died. He still has five fingers per hand, a tongue in his mouth, a brain in his head, and a heart in his breast. The ancients, unconscious of the microcosmic fever of chemical marriages and divorces that we call metabolism, could see only one obvious difference: the lack of breath of the dead.

When a man expired (lit., 'breathed out'), his spirit (lit., 'breath') left his body, and he died. When a man sneezed, his spirit was forcefully ejected from his body, and one had to say "God bless you" or make a magical gesture, such as the sign of the cross, very quickly, before evil spirits could come to take over the momentarily spiritually vacant carcass. Demonic "possession" was the result, quite simply, of inhaling one or more of the evil breaths thought to hover in the air around us. For early Christians, the Devil's breath was everywhere.

Of course, not all possession was necessarily evil. People could become "inspired" - that is, the breath of a god could take over their bodies to deliver words of wisdom or apocalyptic admonitions. Indeed, the origin of the Christian church itself was thought to have originated in an act of mass possession by the Holy Ghost ("Holy Breath" in the Greek text!). In Acts 4:31 we read that when the Apostles and others "had ended their prayer, the building where they were assembled rocked, and all were filled with the Holy Spirit [breath] and spoke the word of God with boldness." (Given the close association of words with breath - thought to be life itself — is it any wonder that religions of all kinds have always focused on the magical significance of words?)

Lest anyone still think the link between breath and the foundations of Christianity be doubtful, attention is drawn to the tale running through John 20:22. Jesus has come back to visit the Disciples to tell them that he is sending them out to forgive or not forgive the sins of the world. "Then he [Jesus] breathed on them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit!' " Right from the beginning, Christianity was based upon warm breath — which in time became hot air.

Modern biologists, unlike the ancient makers of myths, know that all the phenomena of living systems can be reduced to physical and chemical terms. They have no evidence of any 'vital force' or mystical spirit — and no need to seek for such. They recognize the fully alive body and the newly dead body to be but two arbitrary points along a continuum of decreasing organization.

So much for spirit, soul, and ghost. Originally denoting breath or wind, they are words which have acquired a host of mystical connotations as prescientific people attempted to account for the difference between life and death. But what of the word mind? Does it refer to anything real? Or is it, too, a fabulous entity?

Unlike the analysis of spirit and soul, the analysis of mind is not at all simple. This is so largely through the grammatical accident that in all the European languages, ancient as well as modern, the word mind is a noun.

We tend to think of nouns as substantive: table, chair, and plumb-bob are all nouns, and all are substantial. There are many words, however, which though grammatically nouns, are not at all substantial. Words like beauty, truth, and velocity would be examples. Unfortunately, our thinking tends to be hedged around by the grammar and hidden assumptions of the language with which we think. And so it happens again and again that abstract nouns come to be thought of as representing things just as substantial as those represented by common nouns. And thus we have the basic confusion necessary to found philosophical systems such as Plato's — whose perfect triangularity exists in triangle-heaven, and so on.

Because mind was a noun, it was conceived to be a thing. Because it was thought to be a thing, it was thought to have existence apart from the brain. Because it has independent existence, it was thought capable of survival after the death of the body. And millions thought that to be good reason to invest millions in that greatest of all businesses, religion

Neurobiological studies show all these ideas to be quite worthless. Mind is a process, a dynamic relation, and not a thing. If we change the processes of the brain, we change the mind. The psychedelic drugs have taught us that fact, if nothing else. The history of western philosophy and religion, as well as science, would have been quite different if the word mind had developed as a verb instead of as a noun.

To wonder where the mind goes after the brain decays is as silly as asking where the 70-miles-per-hour have gone after a speeding auto has crashed into a tree. Just as the relative motion of an auto can be altered only within certain limits and still represent the process called "speeding," so too we can alter the functioning of the brain only so much before the process called "mind" or "thinking" becomes altered out of existence.

Now that scientists recognize mind as a process rather than a thing, they are making rapid advances in understanding the specific brain dynamics that correspond to the various subjective states collectively known as mind. Certain drugs are known, for example, that affect certain neural paths and centers in the brain to produce the psychic state known as euphoria. Others affect other circuits and produce depression or sleep. We can implant electrodes in the brain and cause the subject to "hear" bells and symphonies that aren't "there" at all. We can be made to "see" figures and lights without using our eyes at all, by stimulating the visual cortex at the back of the brain. We can cause to appear the emotions of rage, sexuality, sorrow, religious awe, etc., by altering the dynamic functions of the brain in appropriate ways. We are beginning to understand how neural circuits compete with each other to give us the illusion of "free will." Indeed, we are on the verge of being able to write equations relating the physicochemical states of the nervous system with the subjective, mental states described by psychologists and other mystics. In short, we are learning to study subjective states
end.

oh yeah the death, it is the END, enjoy life! :m:

 

[Neildo]

Why the human species has invented so many words which refer to nothing in reality is a most interesting question for scientific investigation, and probably would require a complete book to elucidate properly

Uh, kind of like dark matter, theories on black holes, the "what causes" an action such as gravity, and numerous other scientific words and theories. Why are they there? To fill in the gap of the unknown until that gap is better understood so the theories around it are proven correct or incorrect. Why the person has to even ask that shows they lack basic understanding even if that person may be some hotshot, specialized-in-just-one-area scientist. That person must not know what "theory", "hypothetical", "theorietical" or other such terms mean. :eyeroll:

I think not. The first clue to the solution of this puzzle comes from etymology, the study of word origins.

While the origin of the English word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a word which meant 'breath' or 'wind' or 'air', or something like that. The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root!

Heh, kinda funny. For wanting to study the origins of a word, this person doesn't seem to want to dig far enough to the root of a word. The idea and word of "soul" and "spirit" weren't invented by the Bible or by the Latin tongue. Everything this person says here only deals with the Bible, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and all that. It's funny how Hinduism and Indians always get forgotten and everything starts with the Greeks and such. This person is making the same mistake as all of those in the past thought that the sun revolved around them. Sorry, but everything didn't begin with you you you, heh. Don't ignore the past.

Modern biologists, unlike the ancient makers of myths, know that all the phenomena of living systems can be reduced to physical and chemical terms.

And once again, this person is limiting the view of everything. Physical and chermical terms isn't the begining nor the end of creation. This person isn't thinking far enough. Since something makes up those physical and chemicals, it can go even further. And since things make up the things that make up that, it goes on and on and on.

Just like with our bodies, when we die, only our formed physical nature is gone, but not us as a whole. What happens to all the little molucules that make us up when we die? Once they scatter and we lose our form, we then become one with the whole which makes up everything until we once again condense and form ourselves into another object. This is why everything is relative and infinite. It's an endless cycle. We are all One. This is why I believe in reincarnation and the same with Buddhism and the like where that tree over there could be your uncle, that frog over there your sister, etc.

All life is is a coming together of certain molucules to form whatever it may be, a tree, water, a person, etc. Now why do they do that? Why do they choose to form a certain form and when? We have no idea. This is why God is around us and inside all of us. We're all One and everything is relative.

Now the thing I find the most amusing is for those that say life is the complete end, why do they bother to even live life if it doesn't matter? And why do they fear death? Why do you care if the world ends? What consequences do you have to deal with? It's not as if you're going to go to Hell or be reincarnated to live in the crappy world that you helped create due to giving up. Go ahead and come up with any excuse you want, but deep down inside everyone knows and believes the same thing or else you wouldn't be here now.. it's all just a matter of being considered a bullshitter or not. Prove me wrong and disappear, those with no beliefs or anything to fear.

- N

* I kind of had a good point to make this all come together better, but I went on a rant so I kind of forgot the more important things I was going to say, heh.

 

[§outh§tar]

They die too.

How did you know?

 

[Katazia]

Bruce,

Your second claim is that life and existence equal the biological process. This is something you cannot prove.

Where did I make this claim? I listed some basic observations and asked a set of questions challenging you to show that there could be anything other than a physical reality.

You’ve answered no questions and have not offered any credible support for even the possibility that a person could continue to exist in some form beyond the point where their body dies.

No, a definition is not necessarily fine if you say it is.

The definition of death is not dependent on what I say though. Webster makes it very clear as well as every dictionary that I consulted. I see no reason to question the definition.

I did not say we will never understand it! You are trying to divert the course of the discussion. Are you afraid it is not going your way??

You said –

”our natural knowledge does not come near claiming to ever be able to understand the brain's functioning.”

Once the confusing negative clauses are converted, this statement appears to say “we will never understand”. I’m not trying to divert anything just trying to interpret a confusing sentence.

(Ir)rationality is a word overused lately. It is used by those deserving and those pretending.

It is common because we are in a religion forum and entirely appropriate to the subject material, i.e. gods and spirits etc, where there are no facts needed for rational arguments.

Let's take your own assumption. Death is the cessation of the biological process.

But I have not said that, that is your statement. I used the dictionary definition that says that death is the end of life. The thrust of my argument was questioning the suggestion that there could be some form of immaterial spirit that could survive bodily death.

If you think a soul/spirit might exist why not try to support that claim?

Note here that philosophers, most prominately aristotle, have, and since millennia, found the survival of the soul an established idea.

Agreed, but then it is only recently that people have realized the earth isn’t flat. If you want to argue that truth is determined by the length of time the idea is believed then you must conclude that indeed the earth is flat.

Aristotle’s idea of soul was based on complete ignorance of modern science and especially neuroscience, and certainly he had no knowledge of cell biology. Most of what Aristotle attributes to soul we now know is generated by the brain. In his ignorance of the brain he reasoned that what we now know as brain functions (e.g. thoughts and emotions) were somehow separate from the physical body and hence could survive physical death. We now know much more and no longer have any credible reason to suspect a separate immaterial soul.

Kat

 

[Neildo]

We now know much more and no longer have any credible reason to suspect a separate immaterial soul.

Why is that? No matter how much we learn about our body, that still does not answer the question of what happens after death. How has science disproved anything in regards to there might being an afterlife? It's like gravity, we know HOW it works (sorta) but we don't know WHY laws works as they do. We don't know why things do the things they do, just that they do.

Anything resembling an afterlife, reincarnation, emptiness, being one with the universe or whatever happens when we die, those are all things that will never be answerable because they go beyond our physical understanding. We can only understand if we have our brain and the like, but if that's gone when we die, heh, there's not much we can do to learn about it. It's just one of the numerous unanswerable questions we're left with to only ponder about.

Until the day that one can look into the mind of another person and look at all their past memories and what they're thinking, maybe then we'll get a little bit closer to knowing about any afterlife and well, since reading the brains of people is a wee bit far off, we'll just have to wait. And since that ability is so far off, that makes it even harder to be able to prove or disprove what happens when we die. As hard as reading brains may be, that's a much easier task than trying to see what happens when one dies, if anything does.

I just don't see how there isn't some sort of reincarnation when we die. I don't believe in a heaven or anything like that, but something has to happen with the make-up of our body. I think of it more along the lines of our billions and billions of molucles getting recycled back into the universe. A little go this way, a little go that way, until BAM, they hit other molucles and interact with one another until it forms something. Some of my old self is now oxygen, some of my old self is part of a rock, some of my old self is fungus on some cow dung, some of my old self is molded with other particles and turns into a plant, and if I'm real lucky again, some of my old self seeps into the skin of someone by fusion from the sun and I work my way down into someone's nutsack and turn into a sperm to get reborn (lol) or they eat me while I'm a plant and I get absorbed into them that way, heh.

Now all that can be simple science (if we ever find out it works that way) and that would be the explination as to what someone's "soul" is. A soul was just a temporary word to fit a theory until it was proven correct or incorrect.

I'm fascinated by quatum physics. I wanna know how tiny our atoms and such can get. This makes up this but what makes up what makes up that? Maybe that's when we'll find out that we're one with everything rather than just think on it. Something's gotta happen with what makes up our body because a brain, heart, and all that shouldn't be required to keep those little atoms alive. I don't see our brains or hearts keeping the molucles around us in the air alive. So what happens to them once they release themselves from our physical body and fade away? Are they dead too which makes us completely gone? Electricity surges through us while we're alive, where does that juice go? Electricity is everywhere so does it just disappear and turn invisible with the rest of the electricity around us? All sorts of fun questions for us to find out in the future.

So answer me some of those questions and a bit more and MAYBE then can you say that when we die, we're completely dead. Because right now, what we know doesn't prove jack squat. We have answers but to all the wrong questions.

- N

 

[everneo]

Aristotle’s idea of soul was based on complete ignorance of modern science and especially neuroscience, and certainly he had no knowledge of cell biology. Most of what Aristotle attributes to soul we now know is generated by the brain. In his ignorance of the brain he reasoned that what we now know as brain functions (e.g. thoughts and emotions) were somehow separate from the physical body and hence could survive physical death. We now know much more and no longer have any credible reason to suspect a separate immaterial soul.

The senses could be stimulated with signals, for instance, you can see moon's landscape even when in reality you stare at a blank wall. For that matter, any sensory signal could be fed to your brain bypassing the respective sensory organs. Sitting in a futuristic lab you could enjoy a party of music, dance, lights, drinks ;

OR

fighting in a battle field among explosions, smoke, pain. All are signals generated externally independant of reality. There then suddenly a rifle bullet could pass through your brain and you fall dead on the field, again as per the signals your real brain recieve. At this stage the input of the external signals stop and you are allowed regain the control, realizing that you are safe in a cool lab. But you are still alive and shaking in the lab by the shocking experience. Now which is your brain ? the one smashed by the bullet or the real one you still have intact ?


In this case, let us think of the system that feeds the stimulatory signals covers every aspect of the input and processing in respect of the brain and has a complete control of your real brain for the allotted time.

Brain is not necessarily to be connected with reality. It could be fooled with external stimulatory signals and coul be controled. I am not telling assertively that a smart system is fooling us now with its grand illusionary setup but just stating that brain could not be everything as we tend to believe.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What do you expect after death?

No expectations.

How do you think you will you experience death?

My conciousness will cease.

 

[Halcyon]

Why is that?

Consiousness is widely accepted to be a biological function,a product of the brain, with no ability to exist independantly. With functions of consciousness including awareness, problem solving and memory unable to exist outside the environment of the brain, what purpose would there be left for a soul? Even if awareness were possible as a function outside the brain, we are only aware of our environment through stimuli processed through biological channels. A deaf person is consious, but they're still deaf. There's no observing the environment, no intrinsic interpretaion of outside stimuli wihtout the body, without the brain. What would a soul be able to do? It can't think, observe, remember. It would be unaware, unfeeling.

No matter how much we learn about our body, that still does not answer the question of what happens after death.

Yes it does. We know very well what happens to the body after death.

How has science disproved anything in regards to there might being an afterlife?

How has anybody ever proved anything in regards to there being an afterlife? Burden of proof anyone? Science has contributed more to the debate than any side. It has shown that there is absolutely no observable function of a living system that continues to operate after the system ceases to operate.

It's like gravity, we know HOW it works (sorta) but we don't know WHY laws works as they do.

C'mon now, think about that. We can observe gravity, that's how we know it works. You can't say anything similar regarding an afterlife. We know no such thing.

Anything resembling an afterlife, reincarnation, emptiness, being one with the universe or whatever happens when we die, those are all things that will never be answerable because they go beyond our physical understanding.

Nobody can ever say that because nobody knows.
Somebody may come up with a way tomorrow to observe a previously unkown aspect of the universe may end up proving the existance of some universal consciousness, whatever. Who knows? Not you, not me, so we can't make that judgement.

Until the day that one can look into the mind of another person and look at all their past memories and what they're thinking, maybe then we'll get a little bit closer to knowing about any afterlife and well, since reading the brains of people is a wee bit far off, we'll just have to wait. And since that ability is so far off, that makes it even harder to be able to prove or disprove what happens when we die.

Really. Not as far off as you may think. Memories and experiences are neuronal paths, observable patterns of electrical activity. We know where they are, we know how to identify which ones do what. By trial and error you could eventually make a person, remember or experience anything you want by direct electrical stimulation to the neuronal pathways.

I just don't see how there isn't some sort of reincarnation when we die. I don't believe in a heaven or anything like that, but something has to happen with the make-up of our body. I think of it more along the lines of our billions and billions of molucles getting recycled back into the universe. A little go this way, a little go that way, until BAM, they hit other molucles and interact with one another until it forms something. Some of my old self is now oxygen, some of my old self is part of a rock, some of my old self is fungus on some cow dung, some of my old self is molded with other particles and turns into a plant, and if I'm real lucky again, some of my old self seeps into the skin of someone by fusion from the sun and I work my way down into someone's nutsack and turn into a sperm to get reborn (lol) or they eat me while I'm a plant and I get absorbed into them that way, heh.

Energy can never be created or destroyed..... Your energy will enjoy a new existance in some other form after you die, but not in the form of a biological matrix of patterned electrical activity. I will just, move on.

Because right now, what we know doesn't prove jack squat.

What we know or what you know?

 

[Halcyon]

I'd also like to say that thanks to Katazia I found it very difficult to find anything to contribute to this thread. Her posts sum up very, very accurately any argument I would have liked to make on this subject. Nice.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Consiousness is widely accepted to be a biological function,a product of the brain, with no ability to exist independantly. With functions of consciousness including awareness, problem solving and memory unable to exist outside the environment of the brain, what purpose would there be left for a soul? Even if awareness were possible as a function outside the brain, we are only aware of our environment through stimuli processed through biological channels. A deaf person is consious, but they're still deaf. There's no observing the environment, no intrinsic interpretaion of outside stimuli wihtout the body, without the brain. What would a soul be able to do? It can't think, observe, remember. It would be unaware, unfeeling.

Brilliant! And more importantly... very true.

 

[Katazia]

Halcyon,

You do yourself an injustice, I found your post refreshing and helpful. But thanks for your comments concerning my own observations.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Everneo,

The senses could be stimulated with signals, for instance, you can see moon's landscape even when in reality you stare at a blank wall. For that matter, any sensory signal could be fed to your brain bypassing the respective sensory organs.

That is what sensory organs do already – they take external signals and feed them directly to the brain for interpretation. The sensory organs themselves have no intelligent or interpretative abilities of their own. I fully expect that in the future we will be able to adapt our bodies to include more advanced versions of our sensory organs, e.g. direct brain implants.

Sitting in a futuristic lab you could enjoy a party of music, dance, lights, drinks ; fighting in a battle field among explosions, smoke, pain. All are signals generated externally independant of reality. There then suddenly a rifle bullet could pass through your brain and you fall dead on the field, again as per the signals your real brain recieve. At this stage the input of the external signals stop and you are allowed regain the control, realizing that you are safe in a cool lab. But you are still alive and shaking in the lab by the shocking experience. Now which is your brain ? the one smashed by the bullet or the real one you still have intact ?

There is still only one brain. If you were able to disconnect the human sensory organs completely and make direct brain connections to those centers in the brain responsible for those functions, and then you were to feed realistic signals from some type of external computer, then I would agree you would have no way to tell whether what you were experiencing was real or not. Except that if you volunteered for the experience then you would know not to believe what was about to happen. Also, the sensation of the bullet would only be that, a sensation, and wouldn’t be real (no actual damage would occur). That I felt was a serious flaw in the matrix concept, but essential for their fantasy. While this could be a fabulous experience it is still only a virtual reality and not a true reality.

Brain is not necessarily to be connected with reality. It could be fooled with external stimulatory signals and coul be controled.

But not if you have a prior frame of reference, i.e. that you know that you are playing a game. To be fooled effectively you would need to remove/suppress that part of memory that knows you are playing a game. In the matrix this was achieved since the humans brains were connected at birth.

I am not telling assertively that a smart system is fooling us now with its grand illusionary setup but just stating that brain could not be everything as we tend to believe.

I don’t doubt that the brain can be fairly easily fooled. There is plenty of evidence from those with mental-illness where many cannot tell the difference between their imaginary worlds and the real world.

Kat

 

[the preacher]

How did you know?

because everybody die's, you frigging moron.

and in answer to the original thread.
absolutely nothing.

 

[everneo]

Katazia,

There is still only one brain. If you were able to disconnect the human sensory organs completely and make direct brain connections to those centers in the brain responsible for those functions, and then you were to feed realistic signals from some type of external computer, then I would agree you would have no way to tell whether what you were experiencing was real or not.

Exactly. There is only one that is true. If the realistic signals comply with a set of rules, as the rules of nature as in our material world, you have no way to ascertain that it is not true. The reality you 'believe reasonably' is not your reality but the one generated by the system that supplies the signals.

Except that if you volunteered for the experience then you would know not to believe what was about to happen.

Would volunteering alone would help ? You can volunteer to take drugs, knowing well that you would be under illusions, but once you are inside the illusionary world you are helpless.

Also, the sensation of the bullet would only be that, a sensation, and wouldn’t be real (no actual damage would occur). That I felt was a serious flaw in the matrix concept, but essential for their fantasy. While this could be a fabulous experience it is still only a virtual reality and not a true reality.

Right on. Generally that sensation, however realistic it be, would not damage the 'real' brain as such even if you count the type of pressure & trauma the 'real' brain has to undergo.

As for the matrix concept, it is partially borrowed from eastern concept "illusion" aka "Maya" that forms the core basis of hindu vedanta and buddhism to some extent. The difference between "Matrix" idea and the "Maya - the illusion" is :

In matrix, there is a material reality and a virtual reality.

In Maya, the eastern concept, there is a real entity undergoing the illusionary matrial world (Maya) experience ; that entity is called "Atman" or bound soul. Realization of the truth( Moksha / Nirvana ), the liberation, is the aim of life.

But not if you have a prior frame of reference, i.e. that you know that you are playing a game.

Amazing, you are telling in other words what the sufis, hindu vedantics, buddhist masters are telling : "Once you realize your true self/being, you are liberated from the yoke of illusions".

To be fooled effectively you would need to remove/suppress that part of memory that knows you are playing a game. In the matrix this was achieved since the humans brains were connected at birth.

That is right. Suppose you are playing a realistic VR game, say Tom & Jerry, and you play jerry. What would be your reaction when you see angry Tom ? Would you remind yourself that you are Kat and stand by boldly ? or start running ? If you stay there then the game is over, Tom kills (if he is allowed !) Jerry (you in VR) ! But nothing happens to Kat. Is there any way to prove solidly that jerry is in fact Kat, inside the game-world ? Simple answer is, there is no provision in the game-world for that.

Now, a parallel could be drawn - The body dies in our material world, the soul (the real self) survives outside the illusion called our material world.
Sufi, Hindu vedanta and certain Buddhist schools talk of the liberated (from the illusions) soul/experiencing-entity is the only true being. For them, Heaven & Hell too are illusions of opposite extremes. No wonder, the Abrahmic religions, firmly based on creation theory, would call the equating of liberated soul with the only true being (God, as is called by them) a heresy or sin.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

because everybody die's, you frigging moron.

Southstar was kidding..

:m: