Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my goal is to increase understanding
increase clarity
find common ground
use common language
identify how a word or phrase is being used
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Do our minds survive the death of our brains?
Yes.
the essence of you that is inside your physical body survives the death of the physical body and the death of the physical brain. the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body, the essence of you exists inside your physical body while you are alive and "uses the physical brain", and the essence of you exits the physical body at "death"
Given your goals, I suggest being careful to distinguish between making a claim, and defending a claim. Answering "yes" is simply asserting a claim. Given that other people answer "no" the dialogue has to move to the realm of evidence and logical argumentation. I'm mostly agnostic on this. I suspect that the answer is most likely "yes" but my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours (if, in fact, you have reasons other than faith in the claim made in ancient manuscripts).
Your say: "the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body." That is a very common religious claim, but it is also a philosophically bold and contentious claim that requires considerable discussion if you want to increase clarity, find common ground, etc. If everyday folks were not preconditioned to believe in this sort of thing by generations of religious dogma, this claim would not seem like "common sense" at all. Again, I personally think there is a sense in which you might be right but - again - my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours. For example, I do not believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body."
Given your goals, I suggest being careful to distinguish between making a claim, and defending a claim. Answering "yes" is simply asserting a claim. Given that other people answer "no" the dialogue has to move tothe realm of evidence and logical argumentation. I personally suspect (like you) that the answer is "yes" but my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours (if, in fact, you have reasons other than faith in the claim made in ancient manuscripts).
Your say: "the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body." That is a very common religious claim, but it is also a philosophically bold and contentious claim that requires considerable discussion if you want to increase clarity, find common ground, etc. If everyday folks were not preconditioned to believe in this sort of thing by generations of religious dogma, this claim would not seem like "common sense" at all. Again, I personally think there is a sense in which you might be right but - again - my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours. For example, I do not believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body."
you asked a question, I answered it "yes."
it's called "answering a question" that was "asked in a conversation."
i don't "have to" do anything in this dialogue, in our conversation.
is that a set of "dogma" you ascribe to when you authoritatively state "the dialogue has to move to the realm of evidence and logical argumentation"
i don't follow that creed or tenet of belief or set of rules you hold
i am simply answering questions that are asked, and offering my understanding about how it works.
i don't "defend" because this isn't an "attack" or a "debate" or a "courtroom" or a "lawsuit" or an "argument" or a "pissing contest using evidence and logical argumentation"
piss·ing con·test
noun, slang
"a contest or rivalry in which the main concern of the parties involved is the conspicuous demonstration of superiority."
I am simply participating in a discussion, and only in the portions that I find interesting or relevant
to you the idea you asked about is considered "weird, bold, contentious," that is your reality, and i believe you and understand thoroughly how and why that is.
i am pointing out however that idea is basic and understood as common sense and common knowledge by many wisdom traditions and many peoples.
"wisdom tradition" is not the same as "religion." there may be some overlap but they are not the same.
my observation is you have some emotional charge and difficulty and resistance around what you label and view as "dogma" "religious claim" "everyday folks" "ancient" "faith claim" and that you consider them inferior and repugnant at some level and they are beneath you. And that even if you and I may agree on something you certainly want to distance yourself from "people like me" who believe "things like that" and conspicuously point out that "your reasons are very different" than "those people." That is my view and observation and impression and perception.
you don't have a clue what my reasons for believing anything are, so I am pointing out to you the inaccuracy of your superficial and shallow assessment of "my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 11:51 AM..
I was never raised in a religious home and I think that has a lot to do with my not being religious. I went through a phase in my teen years and early adult years when I was some what religious and went to church. However, as I matured the thought of there being one supreme being in charge of everything seemed at best to be a man made fantasy to cope with the fact that there is nothing past our immediate existence. How can you have a conscious thought once your brain dies? It's like a computer with a dead battery and no electricity. Then I started to wonder which religion was the original religion and which God was the right God. Every religion thinks there's is the right way and the only way. Isn't Hinduism the oldest religion in the world? Yes. Why do they have so many Gods if there is but one? Why aren't we all Hindu's? Maybe because religion is a regional thing? If it's a regional thing then isn't it man made? There are no fact based answers in religion. It's a faith based, which goes against my scientific way of thinking. I like facts and bottom lines, not fantasy.
Some feel a strong need to believe in religion, and that's fine. Whatever works for you. I went to the Hindu temple with some Indian friends. The priest came in all of his traditional garb and performed a fire ritual and blessing for our friends anniversary. It was very dramatic, until the plate was passed for donations. Some things never change.
God, my son will provide all Things in abundance. except it seems, money. For me that shifts it from the realm of the spiritual pursuit to the entertainment business. And, as such, it should kick in its' taxes.
piss·ing con·test
noun, slang
"a contest or rivalry in which the main concern of the parties involved is the conspicuous demonstration of superiority."
Perhaps this helps illuminate a major difference between our participation in these forums. What you perceive as a "pissing contest" is what I perceive as an attempt to understand other points of view as a way of learning new ideas and, perhaps, modifying/deepening my own views in light of insights that I might have otherwise missed. My goal in posting my views is to see if I can learn anything useful from the responses of other people. Strength is built primarily by meeting resistance/challenge and responding to it. For me, simple assertions don't give me much to work with. Assertions are all over the place - a kind of "constant buzzing" that rarely provides much entertainment or mental nutrition (for me - although it seems entertaining for others). The reasons why people believe this or that are of more interest to me. Also, in the marketplace of ideas some friendly, constructive "competitive pissing" provides "tests" whereby innovation can occur and the best ideas can rise stand out an be recognized.
...I do not believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body."
Ok let's go back to your previous question and explore it further "does the mind survive the death of the brain"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...Do our minds survive the death of our brains? There is no guarantee that common sense concepts will be sufficient to answer this. There is a great deal that we do not yet know about physical reality. Still, all said and done, I don't think my dual-aspect view is contrary to common sense. The "weirdness" of the idea stems mostly from unnoticed and unjustified assumptions. Once we understand the unjustified nature of these assumptions, the idea is not quite so weird.
your dual-aspect view makes perfect sense
non-physical essence of you (such as "mind"), inhabiting and using and independent of physical body of you (such as "brain")
There is a great deal people have forgotten about the non-physical portion of reality. A dual-aspect view is basic common sense. The "weirdness" of the idea stems mostly from unjustified assumptions that "the physical brain produces the mind" rather than the "non physical mind inhabits and uses the brain." Once we understand and remove these superficial unjustified assumptions, the idea is not quite so weird.
i first read "death of the brain" as in someone dying, so I addressed what happens to the mind at the death of the body
then you said you don't believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body"
so what are some other scenarios.
are you talking about "death of the brain" as in coma, brain damage, traumatic injury?
what scenarios do you have in mind when you ask "does the mind survive the death of the brain"
if someone is brain dead (coma, trauma, head injury, brain damage) their mind is yes still intact. They may not be able to talk or remember or speak or access their memories and knowledge but their mind is entirely intact. the essence of you is always intact 100% and that includes your mind with all its thinking and perceptions and memories and information and knowledge and observations.
what is "lost" or "damaged" is since the physical body is damaged in some way (trauma, head injury, coma, brain damage) the physical body can not access or express what is in the mind.
that is the distinction that is made. What are some ways you envision or wonder about how it might possibly work? share your exploration of "what about this" and the "what ifs" that is what brainstorming is all about, fertile exchange of ideas.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 01:44 PM..
...Your say: "the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body." That is a very common religious claim, but it is also a philosophically bold and contentious claim that requires considerable discussion if you want to increase clarity, find common ground, etc. If everyday folks were not preconditioned to believe in this sort of thing by generations of religious dogma, this claim would not seem like "common sense" at all. Again, I personally think there is a sense in which you might be right but - again - my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours. For example, I do not believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body."
regarding "the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body"
i don't consider that a religious claim at all.
it is basic and common sense to reincarnation.
but I don't think of reincarnation as religious. Reincarnation is not associated with any religion or set of religions. to me it simply describes and names a purely mechanical process.
it is a basic part of so many cultures and traditions and peoples and civilizations across the globe, reincarnation is simply a generic process, from very ancient all the way up to today in modern times, where it is now addressed in counseling, therapy, bodywork, health and wellness, and medical research. I first heard of it when I was getting one of my health care licenses during study of kinesiology, which addressed cellular memory, stored trauma in connective tissue, and myofascial release. At that time I was age 34, and had no religious upbringing or education. It would be 14 years later at age 48 before I ever set foot in a "house of worship" and began learning about "religion."
personal information about me provided because you expressed an interest in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Perhaps this helps illuminate a major difference between our participation in these forums. What you perceive as a "pissing contest" is what I perceive as an attempt to understand other points of view as a way of learning new ideas and, perhaps, modifying/deepening my own views in light of insights that I might have otherwise missed. My goal in posting my views is to see if I can learn anything useful from the responses of other people. Strength is built primarily by meeting resistance/challenge and responding to it. For me, simple assertions don't give me much to work with. Assertions are all over the place - a kind of "constant buzzing" that rarely provides much entertainment or mental nutrition (for me - although it seems entertaining for others). The reasons why people believe this or that are of more interest to me. Also, in the marketplace of ideas some friendly, constructive "competitive pissing" provides "tests" whereby innovation can occur and the best ideas can rise stand out an be recognized.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 05:01 PM..
Given your goals, I suggest being careful to distinguish between making a claim, and defending a claim. Answering "yes" is simply asserting a claim. Given that other people answer "no" the dialogue has to move to the realm of evidence and logical argumentation. I'm mostly agnostic on this. I suspect that the answer is most likely "yes" but my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours (if, in fact, you have reasons other than faith in the claim made in ancient manuscripts).
Your say: "the essence of you existed before it entered your physical body." That is a very common religious claim, but it is also a philosophically bold and contentious claim that requires considerable discussion if you want to increase clarity, find common ground, etc. If everyday folks were not preconditioned to believe in this sort of thing by generations of religious dogma, this claim would not seem like "common sense" at all. Again, I personally think there is a sense in which you might be right but - again - my reasons for believing this are radically different than yours. For example, I do not believe that the "essence of you exits the physical body."
yup, same here.
I lump it in "we are the universe having a human experience". Its not us, but we most certainly are it. Kinda, that is.
scientific research on reincarnation from a medical, scientific view (= secular, modern medicine; not religious or ancient history)
Dr. Tucker, is a psychiatrist (=medical doctor) and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neuro-behavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. His main research interests are children who claim to remember previous lives, and natal and prenatal memories. He is the author of the book "Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives" (2008), which presents an overview of over four decades of reincarnation research; another book "Return to Life Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives" (2015)
"Well, I think it's very difficult to just map these cases onto a materialist understanding of reality. I mean, if physical matter, if the physical world is all there is, then I don't know how you can accept these cases and believe in them. But I think there are good reasons to think that consciousness can be considered a separate entity from physical reality. And in fact, some leading scientists in the past, like Max Planck, who's the father of quantum theory, said that he viewed consciousness as fundamental and that matter was derived from it. So in that case, it would mean that consciousness would not necessarily be dependent on a physical brain in order to survive, and could continue after the physical brain and after the body dies. In these cases, it seems - at least, on the face of it - that a consciousness has then become attached to a new brain, and has shown up as past life memories."
"Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another. He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, the self may not be merely a by-product of the brain, but rather a separate entity that impinges on matter. Tucker argues that viewing the self as a fundamental, non-material part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the brain. "
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-03-2017 at 06:06 PM..
Trans whatever happened to Nozz? This discussion on reincarnation and research is so him, it is totally his bailiwick
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
