[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
[quote]waelkd wrote:
Only 2 places on the face of earth makes a man believe, Rough sea’s and Fields of battle, any of you out there, whether your an existentialist an atheist or simply run through this world like a car with no brakes would never understand .
I bet my life that if any of you guys, and i mean anyone get a muzzle pointed at him and shots taken at him would refer back to god by his prayers to keep him alive and in one piece.
Don’t take things for granted.[/quote]
Yep, the old adage of “There are no atheists in foxholes” does hold up.
However, they are all around us where life is cushy and soft.
And life is made cushy and soft by men in foxholes.[/quote]
You both insult a great number of people who indeed WERE atheist in fox holes. Perhaps you should both take a moment away from patting yourselves on the back to reflect on the men and women in those fox holes who’s convictions and beliefs were strong enough to stand up even in times of great crisis.
[/quote]
It’s not about “insulting” anyone, Jose Thin-skin. Get a fucking grip.[/quote]
But that’s exactly what it was. Get off the fucking high horse.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I am curious to know if any of you who are summarily discounting Alexander’s experience have read his book? [/quote]
I have not. Although I’m not really sure what else there is to get out of it unless he is holding back tons of evidence for his claims, which he does not give the impression of in the article.
As far as the Newsweek article states, his entire premise is that “my brain was ‘off,’ therefore it really happened” - He repeats this no less than 4 times in the short Newsweek article and gives no impression that he has further evidence that is to be had in the book.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I am curious to know if any of you who are summarily discounting Alexander’s experience have read his book? [/quote]I don’t need to read his book. The one paragraph I quoted tells me that of all the possibilities to account for whatever that was, the real biblical heaven is not one of them.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Pat, if you have 10 minutes I encourage you to read Sam Harris’ take on the matter. He is able to state with much more clarity the ideas I am trying to express. It’s worth the read if you are curious, which you appear to genuinely be.
[/quote]
You’ve already made or repeated these points. But you and he avoid the obvious questions that arise from the counter points you/ he made:
This wasn’t a scientific account.
What evidence is there that brains in various states of decline or healing can or do produce various states of “hyper-consciousness” or at least an extremely profound delusion? But you and he made that claim with one problem, you don’t show any evidence that this sort of occurrence is common or even possible in various states of brain activity in brains that are ill and then recovering. I am not talking about hallucinations, those are all to common. I am talking about a state of super-consciousness, such as being claimed, that can still be believed by the experiencer after he/ she is well as a experience more real than reality itself.
I would really like this answer before any more counter claims that this guy did not experience what he said he did. This is the third time I am bring up this point. Since we’re being all scientifical, where the hell is the evidence for the counter claims?
Did Sam Harris study Dr. Alexander’s case specifically.
Perhaps, I would like to here the Dr’s counter claims. It seems to me he was just explaining the situation in layman’s terms.
Who studied his case to determine what he went through? After all we’re not discussing cases in general, just his.
Really? You don’t think a neurosurgeon studies brains? How the hell does one become a neurosurgeon, then? We had/ have a family friend who is actually a neurosurgeon. The study brains a lot, they have to keep up with all the latest research and current studies. This is all still very much in it’s infancy, it’s the least understood organ in the body.
Aside from that neurosurgeons actually cut backs way more than brains, but that’s an aside. The point of him being a neurosurgeon gives him some credibility when it comes to understanding the brain and therefore, would be able to discern an experience of the brain vs. something outside the body. If he were a garbage man, nobody would pay attention.
Please address the questions about brain states and hyper, or super consciousness occuring in the brain of those with diminished abilities to have any sort of consciousness. If you’re going to say that this occurred purely in the brain, show some evidence that it’s even possible in the states this guy was in.
Then I would like to see some evidence that consciousness is produced and not sensed by the brain. The brain is a sensory organ, it can produce nothing on it’s own.
What evidence is there that brains in various states of decline or healing can or do produce various states of “hyper-consciousness” or at least an extremely profound delusion? But you and he made that claim with one problem, you don’t show any evidence that this sort of occurrence is common or even possible in various states of brain activity in brains that are ill and then recovering. I am not talking about hallucinations, those are all to common. I am talking about a state of super-consciousness, such as being claimed, that can still be believed by the experiencer after he/ she is well as a experience more real than reality itself.
I would really like this answer before any more counter claims that this guy did not experience what he said he did. This is the third time I am bring up this point. Since we’re being all scientifical, where the hell is the evidence for the counter claims?
[/quote]
As far as evidence for the brain producing extremely profound delusions while in a a decreased state, There are multiple accounts of people in coma’s who have these very kinds of experiences(a quick Google search will yield plenty). They are VERY similar to the doctors story and include things like flying around, having powers, being out of the body, connected with the universe, etc… Some people describe it as being very similar to a Lucid Dream.
I think what you and I differ on is the interpretation of these stories.
People on hallucinogens make very similar claims, what is your interpretation of their experiences? Are they genuinely experiencing the things they describe after they come down, or have they tricked their brain into thinking those things exist?
I’m not sure how science would determine what “hyper consciousness” is to any concrete degree, and it seems the definition you are using is that people have experiences they describe as “more real than real.” Given the nature of the experience it is impossible to receive feedback during the time it is happening because the body is unable to communicate, which makes it impossible to study using the tools we have available to us at this time.
[quote]
Then I would like to see some evidence that consciousness is produced and not sensed by the brain. The brain is a sensory organ, it can produce nothing on it’s own.[/quote]
When you talk about an IDEA you will never be able to prove anything about it being linked to a physical body. I will say that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no account of consciousness happening outside of a brain. And furthermore, consciousness is easily and predictably altered by altering the brain. The evidence for this is overwhelming.
Damaging part of the brain will damage the amount of consciousness someone has(you might say the ability to display that consciousness), and is largely predictable based on the area of damage. One could interpret this as damaging “the computer” but leaving “the user” intact, but I personally think Occam’s Razor takes care of that supposition.
If the brain is simply a sense organ and is tying your “self” to these mortal coils… Why not end it all and set yourself free?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s an interesting coincidence that I read this thread from my mother’s hospice care hospital room. She’s on oxygen and morphine. Breathing, but can’t be woken up. Where is she?, I wondered before I pulled up my laptop. Nurse thinks she’s got less than 48 hours. Did she meet previously deceased family members yet? Or is she just floating up at the ceiling and looking down on me, as some might suggest? Wherever she is, it’s gotta be better than where I am right now – which is hell on earth. A few days ago, I asked her to come visit us, when she crosses over, whenever that may be. Her simple answer – ‘Of course’.[/quote]
I’m really sorry to hear that. Those are not easy times. I hope you stay this positive about it and that you do indeed get the chance to see her again.[/quote]
Thanks. She’s gone now and I was with her during her last breath. She certainly didn’t express any kind of ‘I see Jesus’ or ‘Here’s Aunt Mary’ type of sentiments. But I definitely expect her to ‘visit’ in some fashion. Heck, I think my dog came back to me for a few nights after passing, my brother came to me in a vivid dream to show off and revel in his new place, and I got a flat tire and had to pull off the highway in the exact spot that a friend died in a crash a few weeks earlier.
Does my human brain make this shit up soley to bring me pause and comfort? That’s entirely possible – especially regarding my prior dog and the pleasing dream about my departed brother. Those could certainly be self-made constructs and don’t scientifically prove anything. But getting a flat and finding myself standing on the side of the road in the exact location of my friends fatal car accident is much more curious since it seems that other, outside forced were at work. Spirit or conscienceness does not need the brain to exist. To me it’s not a question of ‘if’, but of ‘where and how’.
What evidence is there that brains in various states of decline or healing can or do produce various states of “hyper-consciousness” or at least an extremely profound delusion? But you and he made that claim with one problem, you don’t show any evidence that this sort of occurrence is common or even possible in various states of brain activity in brains that are ill and then recovering. I am not talking about hallucinations, those are all to common. I am talking about a state of super-consciousness, such as being claimed, that can still be believed by the experiencer after he/ she is well as a experience more real than reality itself.
I would really like this answer before any more counter claims that this guy did not experience what he said he did. This is the third time I am bring up this point. Since we’re being all scientifical, where the hell is the evidence for the counter claims?
[/quote]
As far as evidence for the brain producing extremely profound delusions while in a a decreased state, There are multiple accounts of people in coma’s who have these very kinds of experiences(a quick Google search will yield plenty). They are VERY similar to the doctors story and include things like flying around, having powers, being out of the body, connected with the universe, etc… Some people describe it as being very similar to a Lucid Dream.
[/quote]
That I realize and was painstakingly trying to avoid this because lucid dreams, or profound delusions are not really what the author was talking about. I don’t think you can equate the two. Because usually the post delusional experience lends to the person experiencing it to realize that it wasn’t real and that’s not what’s being claimed. Further, despite our intrinsic beliefs of things, we don’t actually know whether what he experienced is real without experiencing it ourselves. We have to then decide whether this person or others are credible enough to believe and then really ask ourselves, “What if he is right?”
I have a great perspective on this having taken them many times myself, and in profound quantity. I never once, even while being under the influence felt as though my experiences we more real or profound. What they do essentially is change perspective. Now changing perspective is a profound experience in itself because it allows you to experience the normal every day things in life in a completely different way. But it wasn’t a consciousness shift, or any type of profound delusion, or and experience more real than reality itself. It’s normal life experienced differently and mixed with huge giggle fits.
There is a ‘wow’ factor with hallucinagins, but it’s nothing like the author expressed.
And I agree. Consciousness itself is not well understood and we can only perceive something has it if it is able to express that fact to us. Otherwise we don’t know.
[quote]
I think your talking more about perception rather than consciousness. Consciousness is also perceived, not created. And if you look at the evidence your are talking about, what the science is really doing is assessing various ‘awareness’ measurables. They talk about things like visual consciousness, auditory and so on, but like I stated before, for science to be able to measure something, it has to have a clear definition of what it’s measuring. What we are able to measure is some affects of consciousness, but not consciousness itself. The problem is similar to the problem of morality. We have a sense of what ‘it’ is and we know it when we see it based on feedback, but we don’t know what the actual ‘it’ is.
This is where science and philosophy collide and the lingo can become a mess. Epistemology clearly demonstrates that the brain cannot create anything. We can only know things through our initial hardwiring, by that I mean our natural animal instincts, the information we receive, and what we do with the information we receive. This is easy enough to prove, all you have to do is come up with an original thought. And by original I mean completely not based on anything you knew previously and merely mixing it up, I mean something that has never been thought of before.
We assemble thoughts, we don’t really create any.
I would call that awareness. And sure we can short circuit our awareness, but that’s part and not all of consciousness. And true, you only know based on feedback.
[quote]
If the brain is simply a sense organ and is tying your “self” to these mortal coils… Why not end it all and set yourself free?[/quote]
Well, if I could check out and comeback and let you know I would. But I have work to do here and life is plenty short, so I will be free from my flesh prison soon enough, as will you.
I have a question and I really want KingKai and Tirib to answer. There are biblical references to the dead being conscious in either torment or paradise, awaiting to be reunited with their bodies on judgment day. Then there are other passages stating that the dead are unconscious/asleep awaiting to be woken on the day of judgment. The latter makes the most sense to however what do you guys have to say about this?
Pat, thanks for your time and input. Your last message made it clear we actually are in agreement on many point (as is usually the case when these conversations get long), but I think we have a fundamental difference in some of our ideas which cannot be proven and are left open to individual interpretation. I’m not sure how many dead horses we want to try and beat in this thread, so I’m inclined to say “thanks” and call it a day.
Again though, thanks for the conversation. It was interesting, brought up some new ideas for me, and gave me some ideas to chew on heading into my future.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Pat, thanks for your time and input. Your last message made it clear we actually are in agreement on many point (as is usually the case when these conversations get long), but I think we have a fundamental difference in some of our ideas which cannot be proven and are left open to individual interpretation. I’m not sure how many dead horses we want to try and beat in this thread, so I’m inclined to say “thanks” and call it a day.
Again though, thanks for the conversation. It was interesting, brought up some new ideas for me, and gave me some ideas to chew on heading into my future.[/quote]
Fair enough, I appreciate being able to have a reasonable discussion with somebody who thinks differently than I. It sure beats name-calling attacks so many of the conversations devolve into. Certainly we don’t have to agree to be decent to each other and it’s always a good learning experience. I am sure we will cross on other topics and look forward to having future reasoned discussions about differences of opinions. Have a good one.