Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

Incidentally, the reverse theory, that consciousness can exist absent a brain, would also be ridiculed, unless you can provide any evidence of it. You've made, or at least alluded to, this claim; care to take us through your reasoning for thinking so? Given that, as you say, a number of the functions of the mind/brain are still beyond science, how would you go about proving that one can exist without the other?

Also, for something you claim is beyond reason, science sure has learned a lot about concepts like love and the brain states that evoke such feelings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

I wouldn't be so quick to declare what is and isn't within the purview of science; history has a habit of proving people who talk like that wrong.

I concur absolutely that making the sweeping statement of: "consciousness can exist absent a brain" would also be ridiculed also. I think reasonable speculation without the need for firm conclusions is the key for topics of this level of complexity.

I spend of lot of time researching topics that are often refuted by mainstream science. For instance, parapsychology (psychokinesis, ESP, remote viewing and astral projection) are considered to be clandestine, and are very well hidden from the general public. There exists in the public domain official U.S. (and former Soviet Union) declassified documents that infer this is an area of great interest and research to the military.

Militarys also invest heavily in "batbombs". There's nothing clandestine in that research anymore -nor is there anything clandestine in the fact that both sides abandoned the research because it was fruitless-producing no results (research initially engaged in, mind you, because both sides mistakenly thought that the other side might be developing pixie-dust based weapons).

I have also viewed peer reviewed academic literature on the subject of the brain being a receiver of consciousness. There are also the obvious anecdotal testimonies of people who claim to have experienced NDEs and OBEs et cetera. I also watched a documentary in which an MD from United States stated that a blind patient had an OBE and could see her unconscious body being operated on, and confirmed this by identifying medical aparatus, for example. Obviously, none of this is "proof" as it is only in mathematics that something can truly be "proved", but there is some intriguing evidence in what I have described.

I don't see any intriguing evidence for disembodied consciousness in any of that, though I see intriguing evidence for a whole host of other shit-granted.

Indeed, in nuclear medicine an electron microscope can be utilised to analyse the synapses of individual neurons, in which the neurotransmitter system resides; correlations can be studied. In essence, however, all this really shows is that certain neurotransmitter systems (involving dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine and oxytocin) are somehow involved in this process of experiencing love. Again, this is an example of extreme material reductionism and makes no account for the actual subjective "experience" of love. In my view neural correlations and reductionist mathematical models are the closest science will ever come to explaining what love and consciousness really are. Again, I quote from Aristotle: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". The holistic experience of love, which can include "how it works" in a material sense (the biological basis of such), is a much richer way of perceiving love than reductionist rationalism can provide.

Reductionism actually helps to further enhance my personal experience of love (and detracts from it in no way). In this comment I see that you are comfortable with the notion that at least some portions f the experience we call love can be quantified and shown to occur in a very material sense - why this isn't enough for you, and why you feel comfortable invoking un-evidenced unknown-unknowns to explain whatever remains unknown is a mystery to me(just how is that supposed to work?). The whole being greater than the sum of the parts does not rely on anything immaterial, nor does subjective experience - countless examples can be given that require very little in the way of deep philosophical consideration. A combustion chamber, drive shaft, and wheel - on their own...amount to very little-together they do work. Your subjective experience is to be expected, you aren't using someone else's senses to experience are you? They aren't trapped in your head and you are incapable of transporting yourself to theirs..correct?