continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[tackattack]

---

1-Well if there's no circulation and you wait for actual brain damage to occur from starvation, and expect any of the 609 to recover, that's crazy. If waiting for the brain to turn to a puddle of ooze is your criteria for actual death then there's not much room for recovery. I'm not trying to prove people can come back from the dead like zombies; I just think there is support that when the brain is inable to function it something is still functioning, I was talking about what your reasonable standards would be to establish total death and what sample size would be necessary. Let's keep this point about evidentiar standards for simplicities sake.
2- will resolve the definition first, I didn't forget it
3-
a) not if by you you mean the physical sense of yourself and your actions alone in a predominantly physical universe
b) Why doesn't it work? It fits the definition. It is not damaged by material events, any more than the tape in the camera man's tape is damaged by filming somone getting killed. Could you please elaborate a little more on "just an avatar of me" and what you mean by " (and vice versa) ". As far as it's worth to you that's I suppose that could be valid based on your elaboration of the above.
c) You're presuming the soul is meant to intervene when by my definition it's meant to inform. That's something else entirely. I don't know if God has to allow pyscopaths to be born and/or created by circumstance. Wouldn't that interfere with causality and free will? I know in the example we're using someone with no free will, but that's the exception, not the rule. Practically, death is necessary. Opportunity to do good or evil, hardships and triumphs are tools for growth and understanding. I would be negligent if it serves no purpose and is not a direct consequence of free will.

1) I think neurologists would disagree with you. There is no evidence of a soul and that it survives death, experts in this field are agreed and the evidence from neurology is clear. Everything in science is tentative and there are cases that warrant investigation, but these should not be over-attributed. There are junkies who have seen the astral plane, cider drinkers who have seen aliens and salty old sea dogs who swear blind they've seen the craken. They all merit some investigation but as an inductive argument to support your case; I can only say for me they lack force.
3)
a) This seems to run counter to xtian teaching? Thou shalt not kill seems very clear to me and thus I have an issue with your definition at least insofar as I understand xtianity
b) I think your definition is thus far consistent however. For me the film crew analogy has 2 problems: firstly a film crew is material with the ability to interact in the material world; secondly it is a passive presence. If having a soul was important it would be an active presence (ie we couldn't live or exist without one). I agree, if there was an immaterial soul it could not be damaged by physical events. Thus if a soul is truly us (back to a definition) it cannot explain how our personalities become altered as a result of trauma. An avatar being a proxy for a not the real thing, ie the person is not the soul and the soul is not the person.
c) No i'm not presuming that. I'm saying that if pyschopaths are born/made it probably wasn't their fault. They have limited control or even no control over their urges. Their material or immaterial selves or both could be damaged. Why does a god allow this? Seemingly he has robbed them of free will (esp to do good), and whilst they may be exceptions, only a capricious and not an all loving or very very very etc benevolent entity would allow them to suffer. What does he do with them/their souls on judgement day. The simplest answer for me is that souls/god etc do not exist.

---

1- I asked you for your criteria on evidentiary standards . You gave me research that concluded that we need to work on a definition of brain death. You can reassert all you like, but you haven't yet defined, for you, at what point the brain is "off" and unable to process, record or rationalize.
1a- As for some of my arguement Dr. van Lommel published a study. that tested 344 patients who had undergone 509 successful resuscitations. 18% reported NDE. They did a 2 and 8 year follow up. If it was brain anoxia as has been suggested there would be a much higher frequency. If it was them "making shit up" then they wouldn't have had the ability to recall the exacting details of the false memory nearly what they did at the 2 or 8 year mark. There was no difference between those who were afraid and reported an NDE as opposed to those who were afraid and did not report an NDE, so it's not an emotional response. He did note that it had similarities between induced states (ie. electical stimulation of the temporal lobe, etc.) but that there was a statistical signifigance with the detail, and sequence of NDE'rs during the life review, and simulated results were far more disjointed, less detailed.
That's just one study there have been others where blind people (born blind) have actually seen and it's objectively verifiable. How is that possible without input to the brain from something other than the eyes to record your enviornment?
excerpt

"The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation,
which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.
And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE."

3a)What you're thinking of would be traditional judaic teaching of the mosaic law. Christian teaching come from Christ to which the sum of his teaching could be termed as taking the letter of the law of condemnation and giving us a better understanding of it's spiritual impact/meaning. A specific example of this would be Jesus saying

---

In Matthew 5:21-22 "21 "You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder , and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. 22 But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment...."

---

It is clearly Christian doctrine and causes no incconsitencies with the definition provided.
3b)Obviously I'm not going to give you a supranatural metaphor, as you're arguing from the side of physicalism, so the fact it's a matieral analogy is moot. I agree with your assesment of it being passive. That was the intent and my view on a soul and just because you assert that it's importance in this realm would be dependant on it active participation doesn't make it valid. If the purpose for a soul is an archive of true thoughts, perceptions, actions and motives it would then by definition be passive and only hold signifance when being reviewed.
3b sub) I wanted to divide this because this is really 2 points. I never claimed a soul is us. I claimed it is a reflection of our true selves. Let's use brain damage as an example. Let's say you grew up normal and tomorrow got a nail stuck in your brain. It altered some memories and your personality and you now have no impulse control. Who is more you, the person you were raised as and were before the accident or the person who couldn't control himself and killed a person? Could the rationalizations inside the consciousness be aware that they have limited control over impulses and thus regret the results of that impulse while at the same time being frustrated at not being able to control it?The soul is aware of both the physical condition and the reasoning behind it. Sometimes a personality change can be transparent to the sufferer, and they typically have psychotic breaks or temporary amnesia and don't remember those instances. That doesn't stop the subconscious from recording it, nor would it precent the soul from recording it. You're going to have to explain the "person is not the soul and soul is not the person" thing a bit more before I follow it.
3c)Ok, my bad, I misread your intent then. I agree the psychopath born or made by accident have little culpability for their condition and limited responsibility for their actions in a moral sense (the public would still be protected in a secular court system). And on to the PoE. Moral evil (ie. psychopaths, nazis, rapists, etc.)is a necessity for moral good. Without the ability to distinguish from the wholeness of an objective good and an alternate there wouldbe no free will. It would be like putting everyone on one half of a tennis court and saying this is all there is; while everything on that side is all considered good, while not allowing acces to the other side of the tennis court where evil exists to be known. A limited sense of prefference could feasibly developed, but no abject morality. The currect state of development of morality would indicate that contrast is necessary.
I also never stated the God is an all loving God. His love is available to all who can and do accept it. if the ability to discern right from wrong were impared it would objectively to society would seem God doesn't love them, while by the current definition of a soul I have proposed , they are not condemned for it because the soul has a perspective on the intent (or lack thereof in this case)

As a side note applying occam's razor to this would be your pervue and it would definately be simpler to assume that no God/ soul exists. However the interaction between natural and supra natural is a complex problem and I feel it requires an equally strong and complex solution. In shot I see the materialist standpoint as 1+1=2 which is in it's simplicity true. The 1 would represent materialism. I however see it as 1x+1x=2x where x would be the supranatural. It is simpler to take the materialist approach but I feel it is in denial of a variable that can be experienced and is useful.

I hope I was clearer than I sounded on this and on a personal note.. I'm not attempting or intending for anything to devolve into a santaclaus. I've suspended judgement and am open to being persuaded either way in this discussion.