Science Saved My Soul

[Minor Axis]

by the very definition of death, you won't find out anything

You are so sure of yourself.

 

[Tim]

You are so sure of yourself.

What you know, feel, experience and your consciousnesses is nothing more than electrical activity in your brain. When that electrical activity ceases to exist, so do you.

When you blow out a flame, do you believe that it lives on somewhere else? No, it just goes out. Nothing magical about it.
But just because you are scared of dying, it doesn't mean you can just make up an afterlife to make yourself feel better.

 

[Minor Axis]

What you know, feel, experience and your consciousnesses is nothing more than electrical activity in your brain. When that electrical activity ceases to exist, so do you.

When you blow out a flame, do you believe that it lives on somewhere else? No, it just goes out. Nothing magical about it.
But just because you are scared of dying, it doesn't mean you can just make up an afterlife to make yourself feel better.

Did you read the Doc's articles? He disputes this. Yes, it is not proof, but unless you mind is completely closed off to possibilities, it is intriguing. And regardless, I am not scared of dying and you don't need to imply this as a means of negating the premise these articles are proposing.

But I was. My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function—were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness.” The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact. That’s why, just as I now no longer doubt the existence of the world of expanded consciousness that NDE subjects, mystics, meditators, and countless other people have described for centuries, I also feel that my experience adds something new to those stories. It supplies a definitive new form of evidence that consciousness can exist beyond the body.

This not-quite-true story is that the brain produces consciousness. Most scientists accept this as dogma. I certainly did, and it’s why so many scientists still refuse to even consider that I really and truly experienced what I say I did. But we in fact have no real proof of this at all, other than our general distrust of anything we can’t put our hands on. But there are many established scientific facts that we haven’t placed our hands on either. No one has ever seen an electron, or touched the force of gravity. The fact is, most doctors, and most scientists today, are confusing the fact that consciousness and brain activity are related (which they certainly are) with the opinion that the brain actually produces that consciousness.

Many scientists who study consciousness would agree with me that, in fact, the hard problem of consciousness is probably the one question facing modern science that is arguably forever beyond our knowing, at least in terms of a physicalist model of how the brain might create consciousness. In fact, they would agree that the problem is so profound that we don’t even know how to phrase a scientific question addressing it. But if we must decide which produces which, modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.

 

[Tim]

What you fail to realize is that experiences like the good doctor describe are nothing more than activity in the brain. How is this any different that believing in dreams because you experienced it?

There has never been a case of someone dying with zero brain activity and coming back. As long as you have brain activity you are still alive, period.

The very thought of a soul and/or an afterlife was derived through ignorance of what happens when we die. It was a way for our developing species to cope with the loss of a loved one. And this coping was very important once we became self aware. But just because this concept is ingrained in our consciousness it doesn't mean there is any validity to the concept.

Myths and folklore like this have been shown through science to be false and when they are, people stop using them. The difference here is that no one can prove the existence of a soul, so the myth continues. But that doesn't make it anymore valid than any other myth/folklore passed down from our primitive ancestors.

 

[Minor Axis]

Tim, what he experienced was a vivid occurrence that took place over a period of time when the centers of his brain were inactive. And he distinguishes between that period and when he was waking up. Yes it is his unverifiable view and there is no proof. I presented these article for those who want to consider other possibilities than the Atheist view which apparently insists that the brain creates consciousness, when scientists are starting to wonder about this.

Here is another outstanding article on the subject: Does Our Brain Really Create Consciousness?
The author: Peter Russell went from being a strict atheist and scientist to discovering a profound personal synthesis of the mystical and the scientific. That transition is the basis of this book.

Western science has had remarkable success in explaining the functioning of the material world, but when it comes to the inner world of the mind, it has very little to say. And when it comes to consciousness itself, science falls curiously silent. There is nothing in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other science that can account for our having an interior world. In a strange way, scientists would be much happier if minds did not exist. Yet without minds there would be no science.
This ever-present paradox may be pushing Western science into what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift--a fundamental change in worldview.

When the anomaly can no longer be ignored, the common reaction is to attempt to explain it within the current paradigm. Some believe that a deeper understanding of brain chemistry will provide the answers; perhaps consciousness resides in the action of neuropeptides. Others look to quantum physics; the minute microtubules found inside nerve cells could create quantum effects that might somehow contribute to consciousness. Some explore computing theory and believe that consciousness emerges from the complexity of the brain's processing. Others find sources of hope in chaos theory.
Yet whatever ideas are put forward, one thorny question remains: How can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise from something as unconscious as matter?
If the anomaly persists, despite all attempts to explain it, then maybe the fundamental assumptions of the prevailing worldview need to be questioned. This is what Copernicus did when confronted with the perplexing motion of the planets. He challenged the geocentric worldview, showing that if the sun, not the earth, was at the center, then the movements of the planets began to make sense. But people don't easily let go of cherished assumptions. Even when, 70 years later, the discoveries of Galileo and Kepler confirmed Copernicus's proposal, the establishment was loath to accept the new model. Only when Newton formulated his laws of motion, providing a mathematical explanation of the planets' paths, did the new paradigm start gaining wider acceptance.

Tim is this you?

This proposal is so contrary to the current paradigm, that die-hard materialists easily ridicule and dismiss it. But we should not forget the bishops of Galileo's time who refused to look through his telescope because they knew his discovery was impossible.

 

[Catavenger]

lots of people here know it all, what a shit Forum, to bad I donated 40 bucks to it.

 

[Tim]

First and foremost I don't ridicule and dismiss such things.

I am not closed minded to the idea but nothing has even come close to showing that there might be an afterlife, spirit world or a consciousness that transcends our bodies.

This doctor talks about prolonged experiences that happened while certain sections of his brain were inactive... but how does he know this? There is no sense of time in your subconscious. Just think about dreams for a moment. Hours and days worth of time in your dreams take place in minutes of real time. So what he interpreted as consciousness during periods where his brain was inactive most likely happened once his brain became functional again. How could he possibly know?
And I'm sure this was a very profound event in his life, just as waking during a dream and KNOWING the experience was real, at least until you logically realize that it WAS just a dream.

The human mind is a truly amazing thing. Everything and I mean everything we experience is processed in our minds. Our minds can create any reality it wishes and you would never know any better.

 

[Tim]

lots of people here know it all, what a shit Forum, to bad I donated 40 bucks to it.

What makes you think you are right in your beliefs and others who oppose are wrong?

If you don't like opposing views to your twisted world view, then only surround yourself with like minded individuals. And for the love of god stay off the internet because you will face people from all over the globe who disagree with your small minded views

 

[Catavenger]

I never said I was "right" I just said that it seems like many others here are very closed minded.

 

[Minor Axis]

What makes you think you are right in your beliefs and others who oppose are wrong?

If you don't like opposing views to your twisted world view, then only surround yourself with like minded individuals. And for the love of god stay off the internet because you will face people from all over the globe who disagree with your small minded views

The difference between you and me is that when I put something like these articles up, your natural tendency is to call it BS. You have demonstrated it. Instead of saying "I don't think so" or "I doubt it" you illustrate an assurance of your views by your exclamation. In contrast, I don't call BS on the Atheist view, as we really don't know with any assurance. But the line of research this article points to has got to be intriguing to anyone with an open mind. Did you read the last article I linked to? Written by a former Atheist... I just downloaded his book.

 

[Tim]

The difference between you and me is that when I put something like these articles up, your natural tendency is to call it BS. You have demonstrated it. Instead of saying "I don't think so" or "I doubt it" you illustrate an assurance of your views by your exclamation. In contrast, I don't call BS on the Atheist view, as we really don't know with any assurance. But the line of research this article points to has got to be intriguing to anyone with an open mind. Did you read the last article I linked to? Written by a former Atheist... I just downloaded his book.

Yes i read it and it's more of the same. Just because science can't explain why and what consciousness is or why we even have one does not mean I will look to the super natural for the answers. I'm perfectly fine with not knowing why or how we have a conscious.
But look at this from my perspective. Yes, we do not know why we have a conscious or how it was formed. I'm okay with that. But to turn to the supernatural for an explanation is not even a choice for me since it means I have to turn to myth and folklore to explain what we currently do not understand.
What makes more sense to you? That our consciousness is just a product of the mind and we just aren't able to understand those processes or that there are forces out there that create souls and places them into bodies as their born. To even venture down that path is to dismiss all common sense.

1. Number of souls vs number of people throughout the years
2. Where did these souls come from
3. People believe in souls because they can't understand why we have consciousness yet trying to understand where these souls came from create even more problems. Just keep it simple and say we don't understand.
4. All of these theories about afterlife and souls can be traced back to our primitive view of the world.
5. Look at the beliefs the world had about afterlife 2000 years ago, now 1000, and today. The views change as our understanding changes. So why box yourself in with myths that were created by our ancestors?

I will not be swayed by a few scientists who have had revelations and changed from atheist to whatever. The fact that they were "scientists" or "doctors" does not give them any more credibility over the next flawed man. I would rather stick to what makes sense to me logically and will change my views based on new information gathered.

I am not stagnant in my views or beliefs, I just haven't seen anything to even remotely sway me to the supernatural.
Hell, I don't even believe in ghosts but would love to see some proof of them. But i won't hold my breath.

 

[The Man]

Not that I agree...but you do have a legitimate argument.
Thing tim is ...the better a post ..the more apt it is to be ignored or just a small snip responded to.
I will say this without turning this into a snipping match...you have the best argument I have seen on the topic.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yes i read it and it's more of the same. Just because science can't explain why and what consciousness is or why we even have one does not mean I will look to the super natural for the answers. I'm perfectly fine with not knowing why or how we have a conscious.
But look at this from my perspective. Yes, we do not know why we have a conscious or how it was formed. I'm okay with that. But to turn to the supernatural for an explanation is not even a choice for me since it means I have to turn to myth and folklore to explain what we currently do not understand.
What makes more sense to you? That our consciousness is just a product of the mind and we just aren't able to understand those processes or that there are forces out there that create souls and places them into bodies as their born. To even venture down that path is to dismiss all common sense.

1. Number of souls vs number of people throughout the years
2. Where did these souls come from
3. People believe in souls because they can't understand why we have consciousness yet trying to understand where these souls came from create even more problems. Just keep it simple and say we don't understand.
4. All of these theories about afterlife and souls can be traced back to our primitive view of the world.
5. Look at the beliefs the world had about afterlife 2000 years ago, now 1000, and today. The views change as our understanding changes. So why box yourself in with myths that were created by our ancestors?

I will not be swayed by a few scientists who have had revelations and changed from atheist to whatever. The fact that they were "scientists" or "doctors" does not give them any more credibility over the next flawed man. I would rather stick to what makes sense to me logically and will change my views based on new information gathered.

I am not stagnant in my views or beliefs, I just haven't seen anything to even remotely sway me to the supernatural.
Hell, I don't even believe in ghosts but would love to see some proof of them. But i won't hold my breath.

The thing is, neither of the two authors opinions rely on "supernatural" to make their theories work. Both are seeking a scientific basis for their views. Because it can't currently be proven through science, you are calling it supernatural and it reveals your bias on the subject. Because something currently resides in the realm of supernatural, it should be dismissed and apparently, not even considered. Project yourself back to Galileo's time and pretend you are one of the flat Earth folks who were sure we sit at the center of God's universe.

The first author refers to an experience he had when the part of his brain that creates consciousness/dreaming was shut down. According to the article this was not speculation. And he confirms that accepted scientific dogma is that the brain creates consciousness and that he has many critics who dismiss it, and he himself would not have believed it, if he had not experienced it. His thesis is that consciousness coexists with the brain, but is not created by the brain. It is not proven and unfortunately it drags all of this souls/heaven crap into the equation.

The second author refers to neuropeptides, quantum physics, microtubules found inside nerve cells, brain's processing, and chaos theory as focuses of research regarding the origin of consciousness. These are hardly supernatural. Boxing yourself into current understandings of the origins of consciousness, appears to lock you into a belief that the only possible motivation for this research are peoples' fear of death. As previously stated, the first guy clearly states prior to his experience, he was grounded in science and he would have been critical of anyone who told him of such an experience as he had.

Regarding souls, this is an unsubstantiated premise. But for arguments sake if you accept the concept of a soul, then is it really much of a stumbling block to argue where could they possibly come from and how many are there? If there are souls, the numbers could be large, they could exist in another space, dimension/plane and be cycling back through Earth or other physical locations within our universe/dimension. Although it lacks any scientific proof, my understanding is that people frequently refer to previous lives under hypnosis.

No, none of this is a basis to believe, just to consider. It is fine to stick with what you can logically understand/prove, but these guys are doing exactly what you want, seeking proof of their theories, but you are poo-pooing them for talking about such ridiculousness.

 

[Tim]

The difference between you and I, is that you want to find things that fit your beliefs so it can reinforce them, while I am open to any and all information.
You failed to get my previous point that you cannot use someones experience no matter how convinced they are that it's true. Your brain can create any reality it wants and although it is absolute truth to the person experiencing it, it doesn't make it true.
The schizophrenic absolutely hear voices in his head and it's as true to him as any reality.

Nothing in either of these two stories have anything new in them. They resonate with you because it fits your beliefs, it's what you want to hear.

 

[Minor Axis]

Nothing in either of these two stories have anything new in them.

Maybe I am uninformed. This kind of thinking, researching the origins of consciousness seems very new to me and it is counter to established beliefs. Most interesting is that it is not by theists trying to prove God and Heaven.

They resonate with you because it fits your beliefs, it's what you want to hear.

I agree. And you discount it because it does not fit your view.

 

[Tim]

The thing is, neither of the two authors opinions rely on "supernatural" to make their theories work. Both are seeking a scientific basis for their views. Because it can't currently be proven through science, you are calling it supernatural and it reveals your bias on the subject. Because something currently resides in the realm of supernatural, it should be dismissed and apparently, not even considered. Project yourself back to Galileo's time and pretend you are one of the flat Earth folks who were sure we sit at the center of God's universe.

They absolutely rely on the supernatural. Where do you think these concepts come from?

Because it can't currently be proven through science, you are calling it supernatural and it reveals your bias on the subject.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether science can prove it or not. Where do you think the concept of our souls comes from? It only comes from myth and folklore, ie the supernatural.

How is this discussion any different than that of flying dragons? 2000 years ago dragons were as real to people as any other animal. It all started out of human ignorance, myths and stories passed down from future generations. If we were having a discussion about the existence of dragons 2000 years ago and you decide to throw out the argument that because I can't explain it with science that I'm showing my bias... what you fail to realize is that you belief started out on a false premise. It started out as stories to explain something that couldn't be explained and passed down generation after generation. Just because the stories are wide spread it doesn't mean they have ANY truth in them. So you go ahead and believe in dragons. I would rather start from reality and work from there while you start your search based on stories...

 

[Minor Axis]

Tim, lets make this easy. You are right, no reason to investigate, nor consider the possibility.

They absolutely rely on the supernatural. Where do you think these concepts come from? It only comes from myth and folklore, ie the supernatural.

You discount the mention of quantum mechanics and chaos theory as some ruse to hide the supernatural desires of the authors. I repeat, the first guy does not even mention supernatural. He tells his story and states he is researching what happened. Immediately you draw the conclusion that it was his delusion and obviously he must believe in the supernatural. You are welcome to your opinion. While I have no reason to believe him, I also have no reason to automatically discount the story as fiction. As you pointed out and I acknowledged, I am open to such ideas. You are not and want to hear nothing of any research that has not reached the level of being proved.

How is this discussion any different than that of flying dragons? 2000 years ago dragons were as real to people as any other animal. It all started out of human ignorance, myths and stories passed down from future generations. If we were having a discussion about the existence of dragons 2000 years ago and you decide to throw out the argument that because I can't explain it with science that I'm showing my bias... what you fail to realize is that you belief started out on a false premise. It started out as stories to explain something that couldn't be explained and passed down generation after generation. Just because the stories are wide spread it doesn't mean they have ANY truth in them. So you go ahead and believe in dragons. I would rather start from reality and work from there while you start your search based on stories...

Myths and fairy tales are well established. In the case of dragons, my understanding is that finding some rather large bones in the ground may have helped the belief. People see things flying in the sky at high speeds and make (what we would consider to be impossible) 90° turns, see UFOs. People experience a sum of events referred to as hauntings and believe they experience ghosts. All of these things have a basis. If it is just old wives tales, there really is no basis, other than the stories themselves. The first author makes no claim other than to present what he experienced, draws a conclusion, and vows to research it.

Unfortunately most of these stories are presented through the media and consumers have no real assurance stories are presented accurately or they have been altered for entertainment value. I've mentioned Ghost Hunters. We watch it every Wed night. Although I could be wrong, what I see on the screen appears to be authentic and believable. Sure, it could be fake. In fact another show, that came out of England, "Most Haunted" I believe was faked. They were having things thrown at them and one person had a tendency to be possessed practically every show. It is now off the air.