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.
Your soul does not need a physical brain to think or physical eyes to see or physical body to feel.
This is sort of begging the question, isn't it? What evidence do you have that a soul does not need a physical brain to think, or eyes to see? It certainly does while you are alive, and the mechanism by which the eyes turn electromagnetic waves into sight, for example, are well understood. What mechanisms does the soul use?
If you answer is simply to refer to religious text or an internal feeling, I'll have to respectfully disagree. My friend Mystic and I are using only logic and evidence from the scientific body of knowledge to prove our claims.
What evidence do you have that a soul does not need a physical brain to think, or eyes to see? It certainly does while you are alive, and the mechanism by which the eyes turn electromagnetic waves into sight, for example, are well understood. What mechanisms does the soul use?
.
Because many people experience interactions with souls not in bodies. And many people experience leaving their body and are able to describe where they went and what they saw.
It seems to me if a person seeks to learn more and understand more about these experiences they listen to those that have had them, rather than out of hand dismiss them as "brain playng tricks on them."
It is like asking for something and then pushing it away at the same time
There are whole areas of knowledge, experience, and understanding that science does not address. We are meant to learn and develop and become proficient in these additional areas also.
Also a person does not have to understand how something works for it to be valid. I don't have to know how a jet works yet I am still able to use it to get me to the other side of the world. It would be very funny for someone to tell me since you can't explain how the jet works I don't believe any of your stories about your trip to the Ukraine and what you claim you saw. Your brain is playing tricks on you.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-25-2016 at 10:49 PM..
You refuse to acknowledge that what our brain produces is a sentient Being that only uses the brain to grow and develop itself. The brain processes are NOT the source of sapience. there is no residue of our thoughts that exists when the processes shut down. The brain is the vehicle that enables the existence of the sentient Being that uses it. That sentient Being is only connected with this sub-light level of existence through the brain, but it resides in the unified field that establishes our reality, NOT in our body. It is the sentient Being that is actually doing the thinking, NOT us. We are the "experiencers" of the "delayed playback" of its growth and development reflected in our fleeting thoughts. It already exists and thinks on it own. We merely experience it after-the-fact and believe WE are doing it. Death simply disconnects it from this sub-light level of being.We know that our conscious awareness is NOT the author of our thoughts, feelings and responses because they occur after any actual decisions are made. This evidences the delayed playback nature of our experiences. That means that the actual sentient decider is some "composite of the entire brain activity" that comprises it. That means that the state representing that composite can NOT reside IN the brain, because the composite must represent the "entire state of the brain" that is to be summarized in the composite. This summary composite state cannot, therefore, be IN the brain without corrupting the very "state of the entire brain" that needs to be represented. This is why I place the locus of this composite we experience as our Self within a neural resonant field in the unified field that establishes our reality. That makes this sentient Being separate from our body and brain despite its inescapable connection to the brain processes that produce it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Perhaps, but we know that a physical mechanism is still required to have those thoughts and to make use of those thoughts. Consciousness thought, whatever it is, is useless without a brain. You are claiming that ongoing conscious thought does not require a brain, which is a bigger claim than just that a brain isn't sufficient to explain all of consciousness.
<Snip>
I realize I divided that up into three parts, but in essence my response was the same each time. Which, to summarize is: Even if everything you said were true, it would still not explain why a physical mechanism was not required to carry on the on-going work of sapience. You are simply explaining why consciousness does not reside in the brain, and perhaps that not all of consciousness can be explained by activity in the brain. But you haven't provided evidence that the brain isn't necessary to support the on-going work of consciousness.
I understand, Box. I will address your summary since it is all the same issue. You seem to be missing the point that what is being produced is a "living Being" at a separate level of existence than our sub-light physical level. It just manifests to us by creating thoughts and feelings, but it is NOT just thoughts and feelings. It uses our physical body and natural animal drives to nourish its development. It is alive and developing through the nourishment of the drives from our sub-light physical animal body producing EM-like (decidedly NOT physical) composite thoughts and feelings. It is a symbiosis like a pregnant mother and child.
It is the author of our thoughts and feelings, not us. Our sub-light physical being simply experiences the playback of its growth and development AS IF we are the ones doing the thinking. We are used to thinking that WE in our sub-light living physical bodies are the "living Being," and this is completely understandable. But we are simply the physical "Mother" of the "living spiritual conscious Being" developing in the "womb" of our brain. We do not question how a physical baby remains alive when separated from its mother. Why would you question how our spiritual one remains alive after separation from our physical body?
your logic seems to be that those are the only limited options available:
prove it (such as through science)
if you can't prove it, it is not true
therefore it is imaginary
Actually in the posts you dodged and ignored I gave a more indepth summary than your straw man. The issue for you is that not ONLY is your narrative entirely unsubstantiated.... as you summarize above.... but it ALSO goes against the evidence we DO have.
So it is not just "You have 0% evidence for your narrative therefore it must be imaginary" but more like "We have a lot of evidence and OF that evidence 0% of it fails to support your narrative and 100% goes against it. Therefore it appears your narrative is imaginary / made up".
See the difference? It is not small. It is not subtle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
That is flawed logic because there are other additional options available including: personal experience reliable sources relating their personal experience
Hah so desperate are you to invent substantiation that you essentially list the same thing twice. Funny.
But that said, how have you established this alleged "reliability". It appears on first glance that a "reliable" source gains that accreditation merely by being in agreement with your narrative.
In fact back here in reality, outside your narrative, when we put any kind of controls on testimony to assist in verifying it..... we find nothing to verify it at all. Ask Sam Parnia for example who has a host of failures in his attempts to verify his belief in things like NDE and OBE and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Lots of things are true that can't be proven to anyone else other than what the person knows, feels, experiences.
So? Even if we grant that as a truth, and I do not, so what? Just because "Lots of things are true that we can not find evidence for" that does not lend credibility to any random unsubstantiated thing you point a finger at. You are essentially trying to gain credibility by proxy. A form of "Well one unsubstantiated thing turned out later to be true..... therefore this thing I just made up should be considered credible".
Nu-uh, it does not work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the soul has no physical form, it puts on the body and takes it off, just like you put on a coat and take it off.
How are you defining "soul" and what evidence have you got the thing you defined actually exists? Or will it be more of this "I just know" nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the body can't move by itself.
Even amoeba move around all by themselves. So it is not clear what you think you are claiming here at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
However the soul is not physical and continues to exist.
Citations needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The soul that is you continues to exist outside the body, just as you existed before you entered the body.
Citations needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
You may put on many bodies over centuries of time (reincarnation) but the soul that is you is the same.
There has been absolutely no evidence at all supporting the claims of reincarnation. Ask Fleet, he should know, he attempted to substantiate it once before on the philosophy forum and came up with less than nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The guy on the operating table is unconscious. He has been shot. They are performing surgery to try and save his life. Some days later he regains consciousness. He describes in minute detail the surgery, who was in the operating room, how many people and what they were wearing and what they looked like, and where they were in the room, and what they said and conversation they had, the instruments and equipment that were used and step by step what he observed watching the whole thing.
Firstly such events have not really happened or been verified to have happened as readily as you appear to imagine. And quite often it is purely poor interviewing techniques that make people think it has happened.
However even then there is no reason to assume anything strange is at play here. There is no biological or neurological reason that someone who is unconscious can not still lay down memories of his or her surroundings. The patient may be unconscious, but the ears and eyes are still receiving inputs, those inputs are still sent to the brain, and parts of the brain still process them.
Even then there are been reports of various levels of consciousness and awareness by people we assumed to be unconscious or even sedated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Did he see any of what was going on with his physical eyeballs? No he did not.
Again citations needed. You simply do not know this to be true, and have offered no basis to claim it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The medical staff were fascinated with this of course. He described it from the vantage point of where was seeing it which was up near the ceiling.
Many studies have been done to check if people reporting being "near the ceiling" actually were. And those studies have come up with ZERO verification for it. Go ask Sam Parnia, he led one of the many failures in this regard, and since he is heavily biased TOWARDS a positive result, you could not even accuse him of failing to verify it due to anti supernatural scientific biases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
That is an example of a portion of the soul leaving the body and seeing what is going on.
Except no, there is no reason to think that is what it is AT ALL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
This happens every night when you sleep. A portion of your soul leaves the body.
The Bible, my religion and those who have had NDEs.
But NDE is not evidence of the kinds of things you pretend it is evidence for. It is ONLY evidence that people NEAR DEATH (see the clue is in the name, they did not die) can have experiences. Nothing more than that.
And there is not one aspect of NDE that can not be replicated or explored with non-dying related techniques. We can do it with magnets, drugs, electrical stimulation of the brain, centrifugal forces, meditation, and more.
You can even have a minor out of body experience right now, within 5 minutes, using little more than a soft brush, a cloth, and an extra hand (someone elses, or one from a mannequin or some such). I could show you how to stimulate and experience it with little more than 5 minutes effort.
You can even have a minor out of body experience right now, within 5 minutes, using little more than a soft brush, a cloth, and an extra hand (someone elses, or one from a mannequin or some such). I could show you how to stimulate and experience it with little more than 5 minutes effort.
I want to learn this technique. Can you please show me how?
But it works on a larger scale too, for example if you have someone rubbing you from behind and someone doing it to someone else in front of you. And you will start feeling the sensation in the person in front of you.
Because many people experience interactions with souls not in bodies. And many people experience leaving their body and are able to describe where they went and what they saw.
It seems to me if a person seeks to learn more and understand more about these experiences they listen to those that have had them, rather than out of hand dismiss them as "brain playng tricks on them."
It is like asking for something and then pushing it away at the same time
There are whole areas of knowledge, experience, and understanding that science does not address. We are meant to learn and develop and become proficient in these additional areas also.
Also a person does not have to understand how something works for it to be valid. I don't have to know how a jet works yet I am still able to use it to get me to the other side of the world. It would be very funny for someone to tell me since you can't explain how the jet works I don't believe any of your stories about your trip to the Ukraine and what you claim you saw. Your brain is playing tricks on you.
The claims of out-of-body experiences are unprovable and are wildly contradictory to the large body of knowledge we have about the way the world works.
On the other hand we have fairly concrete evidence that the mind plays tricks on you, and that people desire to believe they can live on after death. It just seems more reasonable to me to accept these tales as a persons mind playing tricks on them.
I don't think we should automatically believe every wild and unsupported claim someone makes, especially when there is a reasonable alternative explaination that is consistent with the laws of science that we know.
I understand, Box. I will address your summary since it is all the same issue. You seem to be missing the point that what is being produced is a "living Being" at a separate level of existence than our sub-light physical level. It just manifests to us by creating thoughts and feelings, but it is NOT just thoughts and feelings. It uses our physical body and natural animal drives to nourish its development. It is alive and developing through the nourishment of the drives from our sub-light physical animal body producing EM-like (decidedly NOT physical) composite thoughts and feelings. It is a symbiosis like a pregnant mother and child.
It is the author of our thoughts and feelings, not us. Our sub-light physical being simply experiences the playback of its growth and development AS IF we are the ones doing the thinking. We are used to thinking that WE in our sub-light living physical bodies are the "living Being," and this is completely understandable. But we are simply the physical "Mother" of the "living spiritual conscious Being" developing in the "womb" of our brain. We do not question how a physical baby remains alive when separated from its mother. Why would you question how our spiritual one remains alive after separation from our physical body?
A baby remains alive after it leaves the womb because it has developed it's own physical mechanisms to keep itself alive. You haven't provided any evidence that is the case with your theory yet. Even if everything you have stated so far were true, there is no evidence to suggest that whatever is created could live and have sentience independent of the brain.
(I'm not asking about a theory here, I'm asking for evidence that whatever is created by the brain is able to live a separate and sapient life after the death of the brain.)
Because even if it were true that the mind exists at a level that is different than the brain, that doesn't mean that it is an independent entity from the brain. It, and whatever else that is created, may forever be dependent on the brain to create sentience.
I understand, Box. I will address your summary since it is all the same issue. You seem to be missing the point that what is being produced is a "living Being" at a separate level of existence than our sub-light physical level. It just manifests to us by creating thoughts and feelings, but it is NOT just thoughts and feelings. It uses our physical body and natural animal drives to nourish its development. It is alive and developing through the nourishment of the drives from our sub-light physical animal body producing EM-like (decidedly NOT physical) composite thoughts and feelings. It is a symbiosis like a pregnant mother and child.
It is the author of our thoughts and feelings, not us. Our sub-light physical being simply experiences the playback of its growth and development AS IF we are the ones doing the thinking. We are used to thinking that WE in our sub-light living physical bodies are the "living Being," and this is completely understandable. But we are simply the physical "Mother" of the "living spiritual conscious Being" developing in the "womb" of our brain. We do not question how a physical baby remains alive when separated from its mother. Why would you question how our spiritual one remains alive after separation from our physical body?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
A baby remains alive after it leaves the womb because it has developed it's own physical mechanisms to keep itself alive. You haven't provided any evidence that is the case with your theory yet. Even if everything you have stated so far were true, there is no evidence to suggest that whatever is created could live and have sentience independent of the brain.
The physical baby needs it own physical processes because it is physical. A purely EM-like Being (Spiritual) would only need EM-like spiritual processes to maintain its existence because it is spiritual. The evidence that it could have sentience independent of the brain resides in the fact that the sentience is NOT a part of the brain. Our failure to locate this composite anywhere IN the brain means it is more than the sum of its parts, so to speak. The Box entity I am conversing with is NOT mere neural activity in the physical brain that produces it. It is a composite LIVING Being that arises from the activity in the brain, is identifiable and interacts with reality as this identifiable composite because it is alive in that new form separate from any physical constraints.
Quote:
(I'm not asking about a theory here, I'm asking for evidence that whatever is created by the brain is able to live a separate and sapient life after the death of the brain.)
Then we cannot resolve it, Box. I do not have anything that you would consider evidence of it, though I have enough to satisfy me. At this stage of our knowledge and understanding, plausible theories are all we have. The plausible is usually easy to see, but some people are so rigid in their materialism that they refuse to credit even plausible hypotheses as plausible. We exist in a sub-light state of being. How on earth do we interact with Beings that exist in an essentially EM-like state? It is like trying to interact with the flames of a fire as a composite entity. If the conscious being we experience as thoughts after-the-fact were measurable, as most EM energy is, that would be something. But, like the dark energy and matter, it is NOT.
Quote:
Because even if it were true that the mind exists at a level that is different than the brain, that doesn't mean that it is an independent entity from the brain. It, and whatever else that is created, may forever be dependent on the brain to create sentience.
I disagree. Just because a baby is dependent upon the mother until it develops sufficiently to exist as a separate physical being that does not condemn it to a forever attachment to the mother. It eventually develops the requisite ability to function on its own.
I see no reason why a Being developing at an EM-like level could not develop sufficiently to exist as a separate Being from the sub-light mother that produces it. The key element is life, Box. It is alive, not inanimate matter or processes.
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.
