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.
The brain is responsible for consciousness, so when it dies so goes consciousness. Over. Finite. The person no longer exists. I understand that the only "proof" believers can come up with are these near death experiences. But they mean nothing to me, because in all cases their brains were still alive and the explanation is they were just dreaming or hallucinating. Just because the heart stops beating for a time does not mean the brain has died - when the brain dies, it's dead - there's no coming back from that, thus the term NEAR death experience.
My question is how can someone take such an illogical idea that someone who's brain has died that this person still lives on? To me this is the biggest fairy tale ever told.
The brain is responsible for consciousness, so when it dies so goes consciousness. Over. Finite. The person no longer exists. I understand that the only "proof" believers can come up with are these near death experiences. But they mean nothing to me, because in all cases their brains were still alive and the explanation is they were just dreaming or hallucinating. Just because the heart stops beating for a time does not mean the brain has died - when the brain dies, it's dead - there's no coming back from that, thus the term NEAR death experience.
My question is how can someone take such an illogical idea that someone who's brain has died that this person still lives on? To me this is the biggest fairy tale ever told.
"The brain is responsible for consciousness"
nope.
consciousness inhabits the physical body and uses it for a time.
and then takes it off.
like you put on a coat, and wear it for a time, then you take it off.
no one says the coat is alive. it is you inside the coat making it move.
same with consciousness. inhabiting the body for a time, then taking it off.
the illogical claim is to say the coat is responsible for life.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-29-2019 at 11:21 AM..
The brain is responsible for consciousness, so when it dies so goes consciousness. Over. Finite. The person no longer exists. I understand that the only "proof" believers can come up with are these near death experiences. But they mean nothing to me, because in all cases their brains were still alive and the explanation is they were just dreaming or hallucinating. Just because the heart stops beating for a time does not mean the brain has died - when the brain dies, it's dead - there's no coming back from that, thus the term NEAR death experience.
My question is how can someone take such an illogical idea that someone who's brain has died that this person still lives on? To me this is the biggest fairy tale ever told.
The idea is predicted on the notion of the spirit body or the soul, which is perceived as a separate entity from the physical body. There is a long history of this duality. Lots of argumentation and schisms. I'm not scholarly in this area.
I had a weird experience that supports the possibility. I'll go off line and try to narrate it. BBL.
Okay: When I was in grad school I took a nap in the afternoon, laying in bed next to a window. No drugs or alcohol in play. In the state between waking and sleeping I became aware that a sort of non-physical body was attempting to rise at an angle from my feet, with an attachment at my head. The attachment at my head remained stable, but I was awake enough to even play with the phenomena, making my feet go up and down several times, before I chose to wake up.
Weird. Either an unusual dream, or evidence of a spirit body.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 12-29-2019 at 11:39 AM..
nope.
consciousness inhabits the physical body and uses it for a time.
and then takes it off.
like you put on a coat, and wear it for a time, then you take it off.
no one says the coat is alive. it is you inside the coat making it move.
same with consciousness. inhabiting the body for a time, then taking it off.
the illogical claim is to say the coat is responsible for life.
Everything you just wrote is completely and utterly ridiculous. Your brain is the only thing separating you from a fully conscious being and a dead piece of meat (with the exception cases where machines keep the heart beating), and I'm not going to try to respond to such a fantastical and scientifically baseless statement.
Wrong premise leading to wrong conclusions.
Brain is only physically manifesting processes, going on in mental and psychic human atmospheres.
Unfortunately, modern "science" presents it otherwise, resulting in such misconception.
Out of curiosity, OP, you may want to look up cases when very large parts of brain, entire hemisphere including, are missing and yet, people do fine.
All of those cases can be explained scientifically. The parts of the brain that were damaged were not responsible for the abilities left to the person. If this is the best you have to argue that the brain is not responsible for consciousness you are going to have to try much harder.
Your question touches on the mind/body duality which I believe has a long history in human thought and literature. I have no idea if my weird experience means anything, but at the very least it indicates why humans have thought that this duality exists.
If it was a real event, which I'm not prepared to say, it changes everything. But there are probably alternative explanations.
The brain is responsible for consciousness, so when it dies so goes consciousness. Over. Finite. The person no longer exists. I understand that the only "proof" believers can come up with are these near death experiences. But they mean nothing to me, because in all cases their brains were still alive and the explanation is they were just dreaming or hallucinating. Just because the heart stops beating for a time does not mean the brain has died - when the brain dies, it's dead - there's no coming back from that, thus the term NEAR death experience.
My question is how can someone take such an illogical idea that someone who's brain has died that this person still lives on? To me this is the biggest fairy tale ever told.
The reason is implicatory denial.
Basically, if we accept that there is a difference between a person - as defined by one's thoughts/experiences/ideas/beliefs/emotions/memories - and that person's body, and we accept that one of those can cease to exist while the other can live on (it's always the personality dying and the body living; the other way obviously doesn't work because the body can live without a personality but the personality needs the body as a life-support system), then some perceive that it opens a can of ethical worms.
Rather than deal with the contents of that can, they just deny it is even possible to open the can.
Why not post it in philosophy forum where this belongs?
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.
