@scented nectar, thanks for the link

(May 25, 2010 at 8:32 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: @scented nectar, thanks for the link

You're welcome. Someone at another forum posted it last year, I think. Can't remember which forum, but the link was a keeper for sure, and went into my favourites.

Good choice to split the topic. I apologize in advance for the wall of text. I'll try and segment it.
Thanks for the link SN good read.

First let's determine what we're talking about. The secular phrase body, mind and soul is misleading. When I, as a Christian, am talking about soul I am typically reffering to the mind. They mind is a mental constuct composed of all of the inputs/ stimuli around us and in us. It is the definition of self reffered to usually. When I talk about spirit, I'm talking about the Holy Spirit which is an incorporeal entity some Christians use to communicate better with God as both a translator, instigator and receiver. The Brain is the physical construct of cells and neurons that create the mass between some people's ears. For the purpose of this conversation we're talking about the soul or the identity of "I" or the mind.


Ok, I'll work on 5 for a start, I only have a little time tonight.

premise 1- "a relationship between our 'material' brain and our thought processes has been demonstrated. You ask for references; I raise you the split brain experiments: "

point-Completly agree the the brain is segented into smaller processing centers that can act independant of each other. Theese processing centers can be manipulated physically, thus demonstrating our mind can be manipulated on a physical level. Completly agree

Premise 2- "the mind should not be dependent on the configuration of the brain that houses it. In short, there should be aspects of the mind that owe nothing to the physical functioning of the brain. "
Counter-Why are they mutually exclusive? It doesn't follow. In the instances I read (at least half) and my personal experiences with amnesia, the person still had a self-identity or multiple self-identities. I don't think the I can be absent from the definition of self-aware. As long as we are aware of ourselves as different than what we percieve outside of us I can't see when the I would go away.

Premise 3- "there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain"
Counter- He defeated this himself by the next sentence. "we know precisely which brain regions control many fundamental aspects of human consciousness". IT's an asolutest statement that begs the question. We don't know everyhing about the brain therefore we don't know all aspects of the mind to come to said conclusion.

Premise 4- "After all, if there is an immortal soul, why would it be subordinate to flawed biology? If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual's free choice. This is consistent with the idea of consciousness arising from a spiritual soul not subject to the weaknesses of the physical body. "
Counter-He's assuming that the immortal trait in the soul is some grandeous thing preventing it from the effects upon it. The soul is just another way of calling the human self-identity, whether it exists beyond death or not is the question we're discussing. There have been cases of people coming out of a vegatative state, deep coma and even brain death and having perfectly normal lives, with their identiy intact. That in itself proved that the termination of brain function does not kill the identity of self, as in "my name is" or "I want/need...". Why should it be a temproary state and not eternal? The rest of the quote is just his personal bias and emotive language.

Premise 5- "Without memory, a person's identity is irrevocably altered. The effects of this condition are consistent with the materialist prediction that the mind is unified with the brain, but seem considerably more difficult to reconcile with dualism. "
Counter- Emphatically wrong. There are plenty of other cases, but I'll use my own personal case as an example. I was diagnosed with temporary anterograde amnesia following a car accident I was in. My father arrived on the scene shortly after it happened and he recounted my words . I would repeat phrases like "What happened? and "I hope he's ok, can I check on him" which is perfectly in line with my personality and shows I have a distinct identity. I repeated this phrase for as long as I was conscious. That 24 hour block of memory is blank in my mind. I have reconstructed the events logically, but it's devoid of the depth of experience needed to relate it as an experience.Ok, so you're going to say "well you still had access to your distant memories". OK I can see that, let's take my grantmother. She had Alzheimer's disease and suffered a fall that left her completely devoid of any memory near the end of her life. She didn't recognize anyone or know where she was or why she was there or events in her life. She would still ask the orderly with a "hey you, could I get a soda" which clearly defines an identy (edited for clarity).

I got a late start and that's all I have time for now, discuss.

(May 25, 2010 at 3:52 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote: Here's a page with a lot of brain disorder examples and how they relate to supernatural claims, especially the soul, http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html .

Just read through this completely - I can only recommend reading this to anyone! It's great!
It is only the small part about free will, where I disagree (it's also not scientific but pure speculation, which is OK). In my opinion, "free will" is only a concept of humanity, that makes it easier to abolish and persecute behavior counterproductive to the survival of our species - I think this is what is finally given in the text, but what comes before that is simply unnecessary (and also not correct, IMO).

1- i think we really need agree on a useful definition for identity.

2- I think 'it' rests solely in the material. I know you believe that our memory, thoughts, mental processes, whatever may become separate from our nervous system and we disagree here. Could you make your question clearer for me please, or try to explain its meaning or where you are going with this question.

1-

4- i'll be checking out your source but superficially I see a source that profits from providing a confirmation bias.

---

your source for someone who was accused of 'brain death' who came back alive and was not misdiagnosed seems to be more of an example of 'the out of body experience' than an example of a 'dead person' coming back to life. I find the procedure performed by Dr. Michael Sabom as your example of 'brain death' to be contradictory since doctors, according to your source, consider the procedure "allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success."

"his operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. "

again i see this as an exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that if you drain all the blood out of your head, you will suffer significant brain damage.

finally if you click at the link they provide to the standstill procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest, you aren't directed to a reputable scientific or medical source; instead you're directed to another dramatized story about the procedure written in the New York Times in 1990. This doesn't look good for your source's credibility at all... sorry