Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Man raised back to life in Jesus' name
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 219 of 300 (277070)
01-08-2006 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Ben!
01-08-2006 12:49 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
My simple answer is that I think this phenomenon is worthy of further investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Ben!, posted 01-08-2006 12:49 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Ben!, posted 01-08-2006 11:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 229 of 300 (277108)
01-08-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by nator
01-08-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
Soul: a human consciousness that can exist independantly of its own brain.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 10:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by nator, posted 01-08-2006 9:33 AM nator has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 234 of 300 (277164)
01-08-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nwr
01-08-2006 10:39 AM


Re: Mind and matter
nwr writes:
I would look to neuroscientists, rather than neurosurgeons.
How this...
nwr writes:
My own view is that you cannot confine consciousness to be due to the brain. I believe it takes a whole person, and a brain by itself (say a brain in a vat) is not sufficient.
I basically agree.
nwr writes:
I'm not sure what conclusions you are drawing from that. The brain is complex, and the way behavior is generated and controlled is complex. I don't see this as giving any evidence against materialism.
What it suggests is that the mind is something which can work independently from the brain itself. In other words, the basic observation is that people are quite aware of the fact that they are not "willingly" doing the actions that these electrical signals are producing in them. In fact, they can (and have) resisted these impusles using their own consciousness working independently of their own brain synapses.
If one wants to suggest that naturalistic causality is responsible for this, it seems as if they are going against the available data in order to reinforce a conclusion that they already had to begin with.
The researchers I've quoted were actively searching for purely naturalistic causalities within the brain to conclude to the brain itself is the sum total of a person's consciousness. Contrary to what they were expecting to find, however, they found convincing data which appeared to contradict their own assumptions in regards to the "seat of consciousness".
In their own examples they arrive at conclusions based on the tests they performed -- and concluded the opposite of what they thought was initially going on.
nwr writes:
Some people have jumped to conclusions as a result of studies of timing differences. But I think those conclusions are premature.
Maybe so. But, then again, maybe not. The data susggests that a person's consciousness is something which can work independently of the brain itself. If, on the chance, there is found to be memories and thoughts within other parts of the body outside the brain -- something which more readilly appears to be the seat of one's consciousness -- it must be stressed that this is exactly what was not predicted by purely natural causalities.
nwr writes:
You can see eye movement, even when the eye is closed. In sleep labs, they can use instrumentation to measure more precisely.
That's exactly what I said. The point is that nobody knew for sure what was going on until they woke them up and asked them.
nwr writes:
That's roughly the view of Cartesian dualism. It's a philosophical position. I don't know of any credible neuro-scientist who believes it.
It seems as though Julia Mossbridge might be working on it.
Here's her CV for your perusal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nwr, posted 01-08-2006 10:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 01-08-2006 1:25 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 235 of 300 (277165)
01-08-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by crashfrog
01-08-2006 12:48 PM


Re: Ghost limbs
I don't need an excuse.
But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2006 12:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2006 1:01 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 242 of 300 (277175)
01-08-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Ben!
01-08-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
Ben writes:
Hi Mr. Ex,
I'm always glad to get constructive, head-on responses. That's why we're here, right? To discuss what we know, ask questions, etc. When people face issues head-on, I feel the opportunity to learn and to be understood. It's a good feeling.
Understanding each other is good.
Ben writes:
I would say it a little differently, but I think you've got it. I haven't seen evidence that forces any view of the mind as being anything more than due to 'matter that has attained a certain degree of organization.' I am certainly open to examining new evidence, or re-examining old evidence.
Has anyone been able to produce intelligence via computer networking on the level seen within humans?
If what you say is true, it seems as though one could simply increases the level of calculations in order to arrive at a virtual intelligence rivaling that of human intelligence.
Ben writes:
This can be explained physically by saying that motor function is localized in the brain, and that when motion is detected without internal stimulation, that it is interpreted as "not me doing it." This itself doesn't mean there's no physical instantiation of "will to move".
But it does seem to indicate it.
In other words, one has to invoke a theoretical premise in order to explain away the fact that one's consciousness can act independantly of the brain's funtions.
I'm not saying that we know everything concering the brain's functions. I'm sure there will be many more amazing discoveries over the next century. However, what's being sought after by invoking this premise notwed above is an explanation as to why our consciousness is not what it quite plainly appears to be -- something which can act independently of our brain.
I'll read more of this information later on tonight (I've got to pick up my youngest from a birthday party at the YMCA). However, it seems as if the information you've supplied will be interesting reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Ben!, posted 01-08-2006 11:29 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Ben!, posted 01-08-2006 1:28 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 243 of 300 (277176)
01-08-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by crashfrog
01-08-2006 1:01 PM


Re: Ghost limbs
How about you answer my question?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?
I'll check to see if you answered this later on tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2006 1:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2006 1:50 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 255 of 300 (277335)
01-08-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by crashfrog
01-08-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Can anyone define a miracle for me? Anyone?
No. Quite the opposite.
I'm suggesting a theory that human souls might be detectable with the hypothesis that they produce a Casimir effect. In other words, I'm suggesting a theory that human souls can produce a 'vacuumn tension' effect. I also think that this hypothetical soul effect will someday be linked with a human consciousness that can exist independantly of its own brain.
Edit: clarified some points.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 10:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2006 1:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 1:20 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 257 of 300 (277349)
01-08-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by macaroniandcheese
01-08-2006 12:38 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
Sorry about any misunderstanding. It just seems to me that if its real then its real -- real no matter how far beyond our reach or understanding it might be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2006 12:38 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 258 of 300 (277350)
01-08-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by AdminPD
01-08-2006 2:36 PM


Re: Yellow Alert - No Advancement
My apologies in advance since this is most likely not the proper place to address this issue. I clicked on the link "General discussion of moderation procedures" and found it closed.
Is it possible to open a new one so I can discuss this "caution" I received further? Or, could this message be moved to a more appropriate area where we can discuss this further?
It's my own observation that I am really trying hard to discuss ideas with others here in this thread and consider their ideas with respect. Examples where mutual understandings are trying to be attained, in my opinion, include discussions with Ben and schrafinator within this very thread.
It's also my observation, on the other hand, that crashfrog has a tendency to get personal with other posters' here at EvC. Here's some beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread:
crashfrog writes:
In addition to what? A nursing student's list of anecdotes? There's no indication in any of these stories that the recipients weren't told about their donors. A girl completing phrases of songs she's never heard before? I doubt a 16-year-old teenager is capable of writing anything but the most banal, predictable songs in the first place. I regularly am able to accurately predict the ending of movies I've never seen before. Am I a sorcerer? Or just somebody familiar enough with basic movie plotting to pick up on the forshadowing?
Seriously, I'd recommend a little less credulousness on your part.
In response to this, I replied:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
How old are you crashfrog?
I asked this question because the flippant nature of his post seemed rather juvenile.
To this, crashfrog replied:
crashfrog writes:
Old enough to know better. What's your excuse?
Since I felt that I had explained myself clearly, I retorted:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I don't need an excuse.
But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?
To this crashfrog replied:
crashfrog writes:
To completely avoid my questions with an ad hominem attack against my age? You're damn right you need an excuse.
How about you answer my questions? How about you address my point?
With this I replied (once again):
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
How about you answer my question?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?
I'll check to see if you answered this later on tonight.
To this, crashfrog answered:
crashfrog writes:
Your question doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appear to be on topic.
In fact it doesn't appear to be anything but a dodge. How about you answer my questions now? Or is nonsense the best you're capable of?
After this, of course, was the caution (yellow alert) from message 249 (which I am seeking more clarification about now).
I'll also note some more beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread.
For example, here's an entire section of text where we were replying back and forth:
crashfrog writes:
What makes you think you get to ask one question and not the other? I mean, that seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask about souls - where the fuck do they come from? How does a gamete know when to generate a soul? Or do all gametes have mini-souls? Where in the cell is this soul stored?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Here's a better question: Who cares?
I was responding to sidelined's question:
sidelined writes:
These wave like properties are also detectable. Are you aware of any studies that have detected such?
I answered his question as best as I could. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.
If you want to find out how sex produces souls, maybe you should go watch a porn movie and take notes. Or, better yet, spend time with your S.O. and find out for yourself.
You do have an S.O., correct?
I'll note that my own retort here was a very strong suggestion via his own sexual analogies that he stop trying to derail the topic into boundaries beyond what is currently being discussed.
We are trying to discuss exactly what the soul is in scientific terms and give a proper definition of it in theoretical terms. If we can't even agree with this part, then what good is it to jump ahead of the game invoke the ideas of how sex produces souls in the first place?
It seems to me that one ends up derailing the original thought with bizarre questions that are so right out in left field that one can scarcely believe what they've read as a response.
In fact, this is exactly what happened.
Observe:
crashfrog writes:
I've had sex with my wife a number of times, and other women before that, but never once have I been a part of an act of sex that created some kind of standing-wave time-portal to the initial conditions of the Big Bang. (No pun intended.) You'd think something like that occuring in my partner's vagina would be something she would notice. Like, you'd think it would be a burning sensation, considering that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were ALMOST INFINITE HEAT!
I'll note that there's enough raw material within this one message noted above to keep one laughing for the next month. But, in all seriousness, how exactly does one respond to questions and/or statements like this?
Furthermore, how exactly do statements like this enhance EvC's dedication to "helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue"?
Again, my apologies in advance since this is most likely not the proper place to address this issue. I clicked on the link "General discussion of moderation procedures" and found it closed.
Is it possible to open a new one so I can discuss this "caution" I received further? Or, could this message be moved to a more appropriate area where we can discuss this further?
Thank you for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by AdminPD, posted 01-08-2006 2:36 PM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by AdminNWR, posted 01-08-2006 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 1:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 261 of 300 (277361)
01-08-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by sidelined
01-08-2006 11:17 PM


Re: Ghost limbs
If it's real then it's real. Even in the case where something normally exists outside the the laws we are familiar with -- if it is real then it is real.
Consider the multiple universe theories going about. In theory normally they exist outside our universe. But, under certain conditions, they can apparently affect the outcome of other universes -- including perhaps our own.
Here's an intersting discussion related to this very idea.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 11:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:17 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:57 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 263 of 300 (277370)
01-09-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
12-27-2005 2:56 AM


Re: Absolute claims
Actually, I saw it as a statement of belief too.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-09-2006 12:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2005 2:56 AM Modulous has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 264 of 300 (277372)
01-09-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by sidelined
01-08-2006 11:57 PM


Re: Ghost limbs
M Theory
and...
The Official String Theory Web Site
It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:57 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:12 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 267 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:20 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 266 of 300 (277376)
01-09-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by sidelined
01-09-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:12 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:29 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 269 of 300 (277396)
01-09-2006 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
01-08-2006 1:25 PM


Re: Mind and matter
nwr writes:
I disagree with that.
A few years ago, while driving, I was applying the breaks. The car was pretty slow. It should have stopped within another six inches. It didn't. It lurched into the car in front, causing significant damage to both.
Did my car have a mind independent of its physical components? No, it was just that somebody crashed into the rear of my car, and the force of the collision overrode what would normally have been able to control it.
It is the same with the experiments you are describing. Electrical signals were injected, and these directly stimulated motor neurons, causing the movement. The injected signals overrode the volitional control signals from other parts of the brain. I really don't think there is any mystery here.
First of all, the car does have a mind independant of its physical components.
You.
The car would be more like your brain & body -- which executes/performs the commands which come from the consciousness. The car left to itself would do nothing without a driver running it.
You, as the driver of the car, are actually more like the consciousness which embodies the car itself (and enables or directs the car as per your instructions). If you get out of the car and walk away, the car's consciousness is working independantly of its own brain & body.
Finally, the car that rear-ended your car could be considered the eletrical impulse -- so we are in agreement here because the effect does indeed overide the consciousness in either case.
But the assumption that the impulse overode the "volitional control" part of the brain is what I question.
What is the "volitional control" part of the brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 01-08-2006 1:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by nwr, posted 01-09-2006 1:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 272 of 300 (277406)
01-09-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by sidelined
01-09-2006 12:29 AM


Re: Ghost limbs
If our universe indeed emerged from another universe, then something was happening before the Big Bang.
Even if time-space breaks down at the singularity level -- and even if the hypothetical universe from which some speculate our own universe emerged from had different laws governing time-space -- something was still happening before our universe came about.
Many people say that the singularity is the point from which time began. But others suggest that the singularity is the point from which an infinite time broke through and created our universe. A leek from another universe for example.
In other words, the Big Bang could be a decelleration from infinite time-space. The singualrity wouldn't necessarily mark where time began -- because time already was before this time. Rather the singularity would simply be a marker from which our universe defines it's own time-space geometry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:29 AM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024