“Descartes’ mind-body problem” makes nonsense of materialism

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 12, 2019

Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the sense that materialists must talk nonsense to explain it away:

Our mind-body problem is not just a difficulty about how the mind and body are related and how they affect one another. It is also a difficulty about how they can be related and how they can affect one another. Their characteristic properties are very different, like oil and water, which simply won’t mix, given what they are. There is a very common view which states that the French philosopher René Descartes discovered, or invented, this problem in the 17th century…
What is characteristic of a mind, Descartes claims, is that it is conscious, not that it has shape or consists of physical matter. Unlike the brain, which has physical characteristics and occupies space, it does not seem to make sense to attach spatial descriptions to it. In short, our bodies are certainly in space, and our minds are not, in the very straightforward sense that the assignation of linear dimensions and locations to them or to their contents and activities is unintelligible. That this straightforward test of physicality has survived all the philosophical changes of opinion since Descartes, almost unscathed, is remarkable…
What happens, if anything, for example, when we decide to do even such a simple thing as to lift up a cup and take a sip of coffee? The arm moves, but it is difficult to see how the thought or desire could make that happen. It is as though a ghost were to try to lift up a coffee cup. Its ghostly arm would, one supposes, simply pass through the cup without affecting it and without being able to cause it or the physical arm to go up in the air.
Jonathan Westphal, “Descartes and the Discovery of the Mind-Body Problem” at Aeon

We all experience this. But the mind-body “problem” is the nonsense materialists are led into in order to make the obvious meaning of the experience of an immaterial mind disappear in a dense weed jungle of verbiage.

How they have tried to address the dilemma: Why some scientists believe the universe is conscious. They’re not mystics. But materialism is not giving good answers so they are looking around. These prominent thinkers are driven to panpsychism because materialism about the mind doesn’t really work. So if panpsychism ends up seeming absurd, dualism—there really is an immaterial world—is also worth considering.

Why some scientists think science is an illusion. It’s a useful illusion, they say, but our brains are not really wired to know the facts. The great triumph of the theory of evolution was to show that humans are just animals in nature—clever, yes, but clever animals. Or so we are told. But wait!

Panpsychism: You are conscious but so is your coffee mug

and

How can consciousness be a material thing? Well, as the materialist philosopher himself will explain, he must see it that way.)

Comments

Quantum Receiver? Give me a break !Pater Kimbridge_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

@Asauber You can already see that chain links are separate. Just because they are topologically intertwined does not mean they are a single object. We know how chains are made, and they start off as separate links. At no point in a person's life do you perceive their mind in a different location from their brain.Pater Kimbridge_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

As well, evidence that quantum mechanisms are at play on the macro level of the human body itself is also revealed in the following article where it is found that a subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs.
Do Perceptions Happen in Your Brain? - Michael Egnor - December 1, 2015 Excerpt: The sensory experiments of Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist at U.C. San Francisco in the mid 20th century, demonstrated that a subject perceives a sensory stimulus on the skin at the moment the skin is touched, before the stimulus reaches the brain and before full deliberative consciousness occurs. Libet was flabbergasted by this result,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/do_perceptions101261.html
As Libet himself remarked, "In spite of the delay for a sensory experience, subjectively there appears to be no delay."
Reflections on the interaction of the mind and brain - Benjamin Libet - 2006 Excerpt: "In spite of the delay for a sensory experience, subjectively there appears to be no delay." - Benjamin_Libet https://web.archive.org/web/20110718052421/http://www.telefonica.net/web2/lupelandia/piramidescerebro/Libet.pdf
Libet, since he had no idea at the time he was conducting his experiments that quantum effects are ubiquitous within molecular biology, erroneously thought that 'backwards in time' causation must be the answer for instantaneous sensory experience. And he even admitted that "no neural mechanism that could be viewed as directly mediating or accounting for the subjective sensory referrals backward in time".
Subjective backward referral or "antedating" of sensory experience Libet's early theory, resting on study of stimuli and sensation,[17] was found bizarre by some commentators, including Patricia Churchland,[18] due to the apparent idea of backward causation. Libet[19] argued that data suggested that we retrospectively "antedate" the beginning of a sensation to the moment of the primary neuronal response. People interpreted Libet's work on stimulus and sensation in a number of different ways. John Eccles[20] presented Libet's work as suggesting a backward step in time made by a non-physical mind. Edoardo Bisiach (1988)[21] described Eccles as tendentious, but commented: This is indeed the conclusion that the authors (Libet, et al.) themselves seem to be willing to force upon the reader. [...] They dispute an alternative explanation, suggested by Mackay in a discussion with Libet (1979, p. 219)[17] to the effect that 'the subjective referral backwards in time may be due to an illusory judgment made by the subject when he reports the timings', and more significant, Libet, et al. (1979, p. 220)[17] hint at 'serious though not insurmountable difficulties' for the identity theory (of mind and matter) caused by their data. Libet later concluded[22] that there appeared to be no neural mechanism that could be viewed as directly mediating or accounting for the subjective sensory referrals backward in time [emphasis Libet's]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Subjective_backward_referral_or_%22antedating%22_of_sensory_experience
Yet, quantum effects that instantaneously traverse the entire material body to the immaterial mind of a person, (if it is even possible to localize the immaterial mind of a subject strictly to the brain), provides a ready explanation for why there is no delay in a subjects sensory experience. Apparently Libet, although he was a dualist himself, was, never-the-less, led astray by his materialistic presuppositions that held that it always took time for a signal to traverse a distance across the material body. In summation, Quantum coherence/entanglement across the entire material body answers the question that was asked at the beginning of this post, i.e. ""the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?" The answer to that question is that quantum coherence/entanglement across the entirety of the human body is the reason "why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death." As Christians have been saying for thousands of years, a 'soul' is what holds the body together for precisely a lifetime. Advances in Quantum Mechanics, that demonstrate 'instantaneous' quantum effects on the macro level of the human body, now validates that ancient 'common sense' observation from the Christian. Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Further notes on the physical reality of the soul: As was previously mentioned in posts 2 and 3, we now have empirical evidence that Quantum coherence/entanglement is ubiquitous throughout molecular biology. As the paper on quantum criticality mentioned, "Quantum criticality (now found) in a wide range of important biomolecules
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
As was also mentioned in posts 2 and 3, quantum coherence/entanglement requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence. As well, the fact that quantum information is physically conserved, i.e. quantum information cannot be created nor destroyed, was also mentioned in posts 2 and 3. And as was also pointed out towards the end of post 3, the 'pleasant implication' of these facts is that we now have very strong physical evidence directly implying that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. What was not touched upon in post 3 was that we now also have empirical evidence for quantum effects playing out on the macro level of our material bodies. Before we touch upon that, it is first important to note that Darwinian materialists have no clue why our material bodies, conservatively estimated to contain at least a billion trillion molecules, should remain unified as single entity for precisely a lifetime. As Stephen Talbott succinctly puts it, "the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
The Christian Theist, of course, has a ready answer for the question of "What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? ". The answer, of course, being that it is the soul that holds that power off "precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer".
James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
And, as was already mention, besides having empirical evidence that quantum coherence/entanglement is ubiquitous in all the important biomolecules of life, we now also have empirical evidence for quantum effects playing out on the macro level of our material bodies as well. One line of evidence that quantum effects are at play of the macro level of our material bodies is that the brain exhibits 'instantaneous synchronization' between remote cerebral cortical areas.
The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain - Dec. 17, 2010 Excerpt: It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,, ,,, It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/ ,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays - 2008 Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,, Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/
Another line of evidence that quantum effects are at play of the macro level of our material bodies is that the human eye can detect a single photon. As the following researcher commented, "Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,, it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance. “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise? http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html
In fact, because of the ability of the human eye to detect a single photon, researchers in quantum mechanics are now devising experiments to test the theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, by using human subjects, instead of using mechanical detectors, to make 'observations':
The Human Eye Could Help Test Quantum Mechanics Experiments to confirm we can see single photons offer new ways to probe our understanding of quantum reality By Anil Ananthaswamy on July 10, 2018 Excerpt: Even as he verifies the human eye’s ability to detect single photons, Kwiat, an experimental quantum physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, and his colleagues are setting their sights higher: to use human vision to probe the very foundations of quantum mechanics, according to a paper they submitted to the preprint server arXiv on June 21. Rather than simply sending single photons toward a volunteer’s eye through either the left or the right fiber, the idea is to send photons in a quantum superposition of effectively traversing both fibers at once. Will humans see any difference? According to standard quantum mechanics, they will not—but such a test has never been done. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/ Quantum Mechanics and Human Perception Excerpt: Making quantum effects available to direct human perception addresses fundamental questions about how strange quantum rules produce the familiar world around us. We may be able to investigate whether a human observer perceives a difference between a photon in a statistical mixture of two polarization states, and one that is in a quantum superposition of two polarizations. Eventually we might even be able to demonstrate quantum non-locality in a Bell test with human observers instead of single-photon detectors. http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/
bornagain77_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

OLV@28 I'm curious. How are the various brain studies such as the two you cite supposed to prove that the mind is generated by the brain like bile is generated by the liver? From the abstract and introduction of the first paper you linked:
We conclude that temporal dynamics of neural mechanisms for motor control can be studied noninvasively in humans using high-density EEG and that directional sensitivity of motor and non-motor processing is not limited within the sensorimotor areas but extends to the whole brain areas. .............................. Control of voluntary movements involves a series of computations including coordinate transformation and motor planning, execution, and evaluation.
There is a lot of experimental data like this. How is this supposed to show that human consciousness, the human mind, is generated by the physical brain? This sort of data is merely of correlations experimentally found between voluntary movements and EEGs of certain brain areas - correlations, not evidence of causation. In the receiver/transmitter theory of mind rough analogy of the TV set, this is like saying that the fact that in order to physically display the picture and produce the audio sounds of the program the EM waves carrying the TV program data have to be processed by complicated detection, demodulation, filtering and digital processing modules in the TV set, proves that the displayed TV show was produced by the TV set. And remember the Wilder Penfield brain stimulation studies cited by Dr. Egnor that showed that no electrical stimulations of the brain could control the psyche - but they could do things like cause movements. All in accordance with the interactive dualism theory of mind. And simply consider (if you are willing) the NDE and reincarnation empirical data. If you deny the validity of this data please furnish detailed justification of this position.doubter_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge August 13, 2019 at 9:01 am @AaronS1978 It’s not an opinion, that when two things cannot be separated, that they are likely to be just one thing. It’s logic. It’s more likely that one of those things is just a property of the other. And that the people who think they see two things are just confused. And here’s why what you just said it’s an opinion I’m simply going to take what you just said reverse that and aim it at you and your perspective, People that don’t see the difference well they’re just confusedAaronS1978_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

"It’s not an opinion, that when two things cannot be separated, that they are likely to be just one thing." Pater Kimbridge, How likely are two chain links "one thing"? They could be totally different in shape, size, material. The thing that holds them together is their design. Methinks you are misusing 'likely'. Andrewasauber_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

The confusion is with those who think that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes.ET_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

@AaronS1978 It's not an opinion, that when two things cannot be separated, that they are likely to be just one thing. It's logic. It's more likely that one of those things is just a property of the other. And that the people who think they see two things are just confused.Pater Kimbridge_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

There is more evidence for ghosts then there is for a materialistic origin of life and organisms with brains.ET_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

AS78, looks like 7.7 billion SOULS aboard spaceship earth (hint, hint) right now. KFkairosfocus_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

BB & PK et al: Again, this is one core point from Reppert that you have never cogently answered:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Minds and computational substrates are categorically different. KFkairosfocus_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Dynamics of directional tuning and reference frames in humans: A high-density EEG study Electrophysiological Brain Connectivity: Theory and ImplementationOLV_{August 13, 2019
August
08
Aug
13
13
2019
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

I would, but I also don’t see how the piano, the pianist and the music being played or all one of the same, They are all required to make music exist I think my correlation better suits consciousness and the brain then Clark Kent and Superman Clark Kent is just a dude with superpowers dressed up as another dude with the same superpowers I don’t see your correlation actually paralleling with the mind brain problem, Your correlation is more you trying to create a narrative that better suits your personal persuasion then it is that of proof that the mind and the brain or one in the same. This was my problem with your original statement saying a truthful statement which is there are 7.2 billion brains in this world and then you jumping straight to the conclusion the mind and the brain are the same. That’s why I brought up the TV sets and TV shows there is a lot of TV sets out in this world, still doesn’t mean the TV shows that are televised on them are one in the same There are a lot of brains out in this world, more than 7.2 billion, Including animals, But that does not mean that the mind and the brain are one in the same, they do show attributes that seem different I could argue that Iron Man and Tony Stark are one in the same but they aren’t it is the combination of the suit and Tony Stark that makes Iron Man. I can kill Tony Stark And the Iron Man suit will not work (well that depends the original wouldnt) I can get rid of the Iron Man suit and Tony Stark won’t have any of his superpowers This almost sounds like it’s a matter of opinion between you and I, and I honestly don’t agree with your opinion. You obviously don’t agree with mine but I do know I am right that you cannot parallel the mind to the brain because everybody with a brain has a mind and therefore the mind has to be physical There is so much we do not know about the mind to make that assumption, and much like my analogy of the pianist, the piano, and the music all three are not one in the same but the two of them combined make something beautiful, they are together but they are separate And this is simply an example stating that just because you have a bunch of pianos or a bunch of brains, that doesn’t mean that you’re going to produce a mind without the consciousness much like you’re not going to produce music without the pianistAaronS1978_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

@AaronS1978 If you know Clark Kent and Superman are good friends, but you never see them both in the same room, don't you get suspicious?Pater Kimbridge_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

August 12, 2019 at 2:03 pm Pater Kimbridge August 12, 2019 at 11:59 am @AaronS1978 The fact that you can play the shows separate from any particular TV set is the evidence that they are separate things. Obviously somebody didn’t get what I was saying Saying that there is a lot of the same thing that’s correlated with it, is not proof of concept that they are one in the same. The brain being a quantum receiver for the consciousness would also explain much of what we see I apologize for the last post, I was using talk to text while driving, which I shouldn’t do anyways, and I honestly deserve how stupid my last post sounded I have re-posted this with the corrections, and this is why AI stinksAaronS1978_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Right. Brother Brain cannot be concerned with posts that expose him as an ignorant troll. Those posts best be ignored. But short posts full of nonsense are OK as long as its Brian's type of nonsense. Thumbs highET_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Hazel
Good succinct post, Bob.
As all posts worth reading are. With the exception of ET’s.Brother Brian_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge August 12, 2019 at 11:59 am @AaronS1978 The fact that you can play the shows separate from any particular TV set is the evidence that they are separate things. Obviously somebody didn’t get what I was saying Saying that there is a lot of the same thing that’s Correlated with it I’d not proof of concept that they are one in the same. The being a quantum receiver for the consciousness would also explain much of what we seeAaronS1978_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

The only problem I see is that some people do not stick to definitions. Science is defined as anything that can be measured, and spirit is defined as anything that can not be measured. Some people ignore those definitions and make pronouncements about spirit based on their training in science. That is a silly thing to do.SmartAZ_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

(Eben Alexander) - A (Harvard) neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011 Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my (Near Death) experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/
further to Dr. Egnor's quote,, "The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc" The following NDEer witnessed her mother smoke for the first time while in the emergency waiting room which was down the hall from the emergency room
Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcHWz6UMZ8
In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, recounts two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and told him things that they could not have possibly known if they were 'attached' to their brain.
Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08
Dr. Sam Parnia, perhaps the most skeptical NDE researcher, now considers NDEs to be authentic after a "man described everything that had happened in the room, "
Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - October 7, 2014 Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events. One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html Consciousness After Death: Strange Tales From the Frontiers of Resuscitation Medicine By Brandon Keim - 04.24.13 Excerpt: Parnia:,, Not just my study, but four others, all demonstrated the same thing: People have memories and recollections. Combined with anecdotal reports from all over the world, from people who see things accurately and remember them, it suggests this needs to be studied in more detail.,,, The point that goes against the experiences happening afterwards, or before the brain shut down, is that many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation. That is not compatible with (having no) brain activity. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/consciousness-after-death/all/
Then there was the famous 'blue tennis shoe', seen by the NDEer as she 'floated' above the hospital, which was found on the ledge of a 3rd floor hospital window by a nurse after the NDEer told the nurse about the blue shoe on the ledge.:
Kim Clark Finds the Tennis Shoe and Proves Near Death Experiences Are Real https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPXK2Ls-xzQ
These are not just a few isolated cases either
"A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Another piece of evidence that argues very strongly against any type of materialistic explanation for Near death Experiences is what is termed 'Shared Death Experience'. A 'Shared Death Experience' is an experience in which a loved one, though not terminally ill, is caught up into part of the Near Death Experience as the loved one passes on:
Dr. Raymond Moody on Shared Death Experiences - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ihzzYjqeE
bornagain77_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge@17 Like I said, just wasting time. This large body of evidence shows that the mind is not one and the same as the data processing of brain neurons and synapses, or an illusory epiphenomenon of that, or any of the other materialist neuroscience "explanations" of human consciousness.doubter_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge:
Assuming ET was actually serious, vague sounds and apparitions in a haunted house are not evidence of a mind.
Yes, I am very serious. And there is more than vague sounds and apparitions. You can choose to ignore the evidence. I understand why people do. But that isn't going to make it all go away.ET_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

@Doubter None of that shows that the mind is separate from, or departed from, the brain at any time.Pater Kimbridge_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge@10 To avoid what is undoubtedly just wasting more time, I'll just borrow BA77's quote from Michael Egnor at 11:
...about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.
I would add that this extraordinary "realer than real" clarity of consciousness occurs while the brain is only weakly functioning, or entirely nonfunctional, as in cardiac arrest cases.doubter_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

@AaronS1978 The fact that you can play the shows separate from any particular TV set is the evidence that they are separate things. Assuming ET was actually serious, vague sounds and apparitions in a haunted house are not evidence of a mind. The only minds present belong to walking, talking humans who are letting their pareidolia get out of control.Pater Kimbridge_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

There billions of TV sets through out the entire world too, this is NOT evidence that the TV generates the shows on it.AaronS1978_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge:
Can anyone show me a mind that is NOT associated with a physical brain?
It has been done. And you can easily validate the findings. You just have to travel to some of the top rated haunted places and see for yourself.ET_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Bob O'H- Of course dualism a non-issue for materialists. The big issue for materialists is the existence of life, brains and minds. We know enough about those three to discount any materialistic explanation- minds from the mindless via blind, mindless and purposeless processes is about as absurd of a claim as there can be. You have to be desperate to consider such a thing. Very desperate.ET_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Doubter, there is a blatant hypocrisy in Darwinian materialists not accepting the ample and robust evidence from NDEs. They demand evidence that consciousness can exist apart from the brain, and then when we point to the vast body of evidence supporting the validity of NDEs they resolutely refuse to accept it. Yet, on the other hand, they wholeheartedly believe Darwinian evolution to be true even though they have ZERO substantiating evidence that unguided processes can create gene/proteins, molecular machines, functional information etc.. etc.. (and much evidence indicating that material processes cannot generate functional information as such)
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
i.e. And as was touched upon in post 2, we have far more observational evidence for the reality of souls than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information. Moreover, the transcendent nature of 'immaterial' information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature as well as the physical reality of the soul. Further notes: In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. Simply put, they did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real”
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
A few 'more real than real' quotes:
A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173 “I was in the spiritual dimension. And this spiritual dimension, this spiritual world, that’s the real world. And this spiritual man that I was seeing and perceiving, that was the real me. And I instantly knew it. The colors are brighter. The thoughts are more intense. The feelings have greater depth. They’re more real. In the spirit world instantly I knew that this is the real world.,,,” – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://youtu.be/voak1RM-pXo?t=1655
bornagain77_{August 12, 2019
August
08
Aug
12
12
2019
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply