belief in an afterlife

[lightgigantic]

LG,

That doesn't help or explain why you use the terms in the conetxt of this thread.

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a modern behavioral approach to language and cognition. From an RFT perspective, there exist three senses of self that are directly knowable by humans: the conceptualized self, self as an ongoing process of verbal knowing, and self as context. Loss of sense of self may be understood as a crisis of the conceptualized self. Treatment involves guiding the survivor both to adjust to post-injury changes in functioning and to develop a new self-concept.

What do you think is the difference between the underlined sense of self and the sense of self in bold?

 

[SkinWalker]

Relational Frame Theory is a buzz-word used in recent psychopathology and linguistics studies and originates from Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche (2001). The basic gist is that humans develop the ability to relate events mutually and in combination, without being limited by their form, allowing function to be relative. A classic example is that a child initially values coinage by luster or size, irrespective of a coin's face value: a shiny penny can be worth more than a dull quater; a nickel more than a dime. As the child learns to relate the form with the actual value, she understands their individual values as they relate to their form, relating this value to the specific object. This is applying a relational framework.

What LG is doing is quote-mining real terms from various sources and applying them haphazardly in nonsensical fashion to make himself appear knowledgeable in a pseudo-intellectual discourse common to postmodernist intellectual impostures. RFT has nothing to do with the topic at hand, nor does the scholarly article that LG quoted. He's simply making appeals to authority while using double-speak to further the argument.

The motivation is what we're left to wonder about. What does LG get for his troubles here? Obviously it isn't the satisfaction of converting followers to his "faith" since there doesn't appear to be one defined. Intellectual discourse isn't the goal, since he's using double-speak and postmodernist nonsense. I find it a head-scratcher.

One thing is for certain, it would be easier for LG to just use the Postmodern Text Generator. Everytime you click the link, it produces a new, nonsensical paper worthy of publication and award by any "serious" postmodern journal of pseuodintellectual thought. It would make Sokal proud.


Reference:

Hayes S. C., Barnes-Holmes D., Roche B. (Eds.) (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press

 

[Cris]

LG,

Nothing more than what it says - the world that grants phenomena

And what does that mean?

“ Is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural? ”

There is a reason to suspect that reductionism does not accommodate everything that is natural

That isn’t what I asked. I didn’t ask about method but about actuality. I repeat - is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural?

“ “ “ Can you demonstrate anything that indicates that a soul might exist? ”

certainly not by your "naturalistic worldview", since it excludes such rudimentary articles like the mind ”

So what is your demonstration?

Can you demonstrate a soul by any method? ”

Certainly - but as long as you are depnedant on reductionism for your world view it cannot be demonstrated

So what is the nature of your demonstration?

the faith that is required to go from a body of evidence to a surety is called inductive reasoning

No it isn’t. Faith in the context we are using in religion is blind faith – conviction of a certainty in the absence of evidence. Inductive reasoning uses significant evidence usually of a statistical nature to reason that because an event has happened many times before or that there is significant precedent then there is a high probability that it will occur again. E.g. I don’t know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but since it has risen every day for billions of years I strongly suspect it will rise again tomorrow. Or I have faith in my doctor because of his proven reputation. This latter example is where the term faith is used in one of its alternative definitions and which is often incorrectly interchanged by theists when they are really referring to blind faith.

- if you didn't have faith inductive reasoning would never be able to deliver a result

You have no idea what you are talking about.

notice the bold

You missed the point.

well given the nature of phenomena (like the mind) its diffiuclt to understand how reductionism can lay claim to defining the complete phenomenal world

Are you claiming that the mind is evidence of the supernatural?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ Nothing more than what it says - the world that grants phenomena ”

And what does that mean?

whatever results (phenomena) turns up in existence, when taken altogether, gives you the phenomenal world

“ “ Is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural? ”

There is a reason to suspect that reductionism does not accommodate everything that is natural ”

That isn’t what I asked. I didn’t ask about method but about actuality. I repeat - is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural?

If you think the words "actuality" and "reductionism" are interchangable you are mistaken.
If you want to examine what is "actual" it requires an examination of the processes enlisted to come to that - for instance what is actual to a high school drop out regarding electrons is not "actual"

“ “ “ “ Can you demonstrate anything that indicates that a soul might exist? ”

certainly not by your "naturalistic worldview", since it excludes such rudimentary articles like the mind ” ”

So what is your demonstration?

The symptoms of life in general, and more sepcifically the same sense of "self" throught the changes of the body from birth to death

“ the faith that is required to go from a body of evidence to a surety is called inductive reasoning ”

No it isn’t. Faith in the context we are using in religion is blind faith – conviction of a certainty in the absence of evidence. Inductive reasoning uses significant evidence usually of a statistical nature to reason that because an event has happened many times before or that there is significant precedent then there is a high probability that it will occur again. E.g. I don’t know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but since it has risen every day for billions of years I strongly suspect it will rise again tomorrow. Or I have faith in my doctor because of his proven reputation. This latter example is where the term faith is used in one of its alternative definitions and which is often incorrectly interchanged by theists when they are really referring to blind faith.

On the contrary there are descriptions of faith in scripture that align exactly with that analogy.

As for inductive knowledge without faith, what would distinguish between two people looking at the same evidence yet both disagreeing except faith - for instance if 10 000 dogs are inspected and they all have fleas and one person advocates "all dogs have fleas" and the other person says "No, (maybe you have fleas and just passed them on to all the dogs you inspecete)" - wouldn't these two conflicting conclusions based on the same evidence be arrived at through faith? (Its certainly not evidence because the evidence is the same)

“ - if you didn't have faith inductive reasoning would never be able to deliver a result ”

You have no idea what you are talking about.

without faith you would just have 10 000 dogs with fleas were inspected and the conclusion is that 10 000 dogs have fleas

“ notice the bold ”

You missed the point.

Theory = evidence?

“ well given the nature of phenomena (like the mind) its diffiuclt to understand how reductionism can lay claim to defining the complete phenomenal world ”

Are you claiming that the mind is evidence of the supernatural?

The mind is evidence of the short coming of reductionism

 

[Cris]

LG,

whatever results (phenomena) turns up in existence, when taken altogether, gives you the phenomenal world

Wouldn’t the phrase “phenomenal universe” make more sense, and better still how about just “phenomena”. Why use unnecessary confusing statements?

… is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural?

So what is your demonstration? ”

The symptoms of life in general, and more sepcifically the same sense of "self" throught the changes of the body from birth to death

Why suspect these things as non-natural as opposed to natural but not fully understood?

On the contrary there are descriptions of faith in scripture that align exactly with that analogy.

Yes indeed, scriptures are the primary culprits of these mistakes, no wonder so many people who read them are confused.

As for inductive knowledge without faith, what would distinguish between two people looking at the same evidence yet both disagreeing except faith - for instance if 10 000 dogs are inspected and they all have fleas and one person advocates "all dogs have fleas" and the other person says "No, (maybe you have fleas and just passed them on to all the dogs you inspecete)" - wouldn't these two conflicting conclusions based on the same evidence be arrived at through faith? (Its certainly not evidence because the evidence is the same)

Both would be incorrect if they asserted their conclusions as absolute truth. The first is a simple logic error; it isn’t that “all dogs have fleas” but that “all the dogs that were inspected have fleas”. Nothing more can be legitimately said about other dogs except that in light of the inspection it appears that there is a strong probability that other dogs might well have fleas, and that might well be the correct conclusion. The proposition that the inspection was faulty and that fleas were spread simply means the procedure is at fault (no guarantee of non-contamination) and hence no conclusion is possible.

Another example: I drive to work every day and have been doing so for decades, and each time I arrive safely. It seems there is a strong inductive argument that I might well continue to arrive safely on subsequent trips. But inductive arguments are not guarantees since there is always a probability, albeit in a strong inductive argument, very small, that one day I might have an accident.

Evidence alone is only part of inductive conclusions; the rest requires appropriate application of logic. The important thing you need to understand is that with religion there is no opportunity to form inductive conclusions. With induction we can speak of the strength of the conclusion, i.e. that it tends to support a particular view. E.g. If I had an accident in traffic say every 5th day we would have to conclude that an assertion that I will arrive safely every day in the future is considerably weak. In the case of religion where there is no precedent, no evidence, no foundation, any assertions made are 100% weak, i.e. they have zero credibility. And that is the nature of religious faith.

You missed the point. ”

Theory = evidence?

No you missed the point. The term theoretically here is to allude to the impractically of removing all body parts and just leaving the brain. For example if you lose a leg you would still be you. If you lost both legs and both arms, you would still be you. If it was possible through say high technology to continue removing body parts and just leave the brain intact, it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that you would continue to remain you. The conclusion is that the self and the brain are inextricably linked. Now if we start to damage or alter the brain then we immediately see effects on what can be termed “you”. E.g. loss of memory, ability to reason, ability to think, loss of identity, etc. It does not take much of a stretch of reason to see that the brain and self are directly correlated to the extent that they appear one and the same thing.

Are you claiming that the mind is evidence of the supernatural? ”

The mind is evidence of the short coming of reductionism

I really don’t care about your issues concerning reductionism. Choose another method that suits you that allows you to demonstrate that the supernatural exists, and where the conclusion is logically sound.

Do you indeed want to conclude that the mind has a supernatural component and if so how would you prove that?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ whatever results (phenomena) turns up in existence, when taken altogether, gives you the phenomenal world ”

Wouldn’t the phrase “phenomenal universe” make more sense, and better still how about just “phenomena”. Why use unnecessary confusing statements?

Ok - we will call it the phenomenal universe

“ … is there any reason to suspect there is anything non-natural?

So what is your demonstration? ”

The symptoms of life in general, and more sepcifically the same sense of "self" throught the changes of the body from birth to death ”

Why suspect these things as non-natural as opposed to natural but not fully understood?

what do you mean by non-natural? I mean that these things are carried out by something that is not dull lifeless matter - after all there are many things in the phenomenal universe that bear practically the same chemical composition as a living person (just like say a dead person) yet do not display the symptoms of life.

“ On the contrary there are descriptions of faith in scripture that align exactly with that analogy. ”

Yes indeed, scriptures are the primary culprits of these mistakes, no wonder so many people who read them are confused.

Its not clear what the mistake is - the statements advocate that one place faith in spiritual processes much like one places faith in a doctor.

eg -

NoI 7: The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root.

SB 4.30.38: Dear Lord, by virtue of a moment's association with Lord Śiva, who is very dear to You and who is Your most intimate friend, we were fortunate to attain You. You are the most expert physician, capable of treating the incurable disease of material existence. On account of our great fortune, we have been able to take shelter at Your lotus feet.

SB 6.1.8: Therefore, before one's next death comes, as long as one's body is strong enough, one should quickly adopt the process of atonement according to śāstra; otherwise one's time will be lost, and the reactions of his sins will increase. As an expert physician diagnoses and treats a disease according to its gravity, one should undergo atonement according to the severity of one's sins.

SB 6.1.12: My dear King, if a diseased person eats the pure, uncontaminated food prescribed by a physician, he is gradually cured, and the infection of disease can no longer touch him. Similarly, if one follows the regulative principles of knowledge, he gradually progresses toward liberation from material contamination.

You are staunch on your claim ...

Or I have faith in my doctor because of his proven reputation. This latter example is where the term faith is used in one of its alternative definitions and which is often incorrectly interchanged by theists when they are really referring to blind faith.


.... because you are apparently not familiar with scripture - the analogy between a physician and their medical applications is used extensively in scripture (I can provide another 20 or so quotes if you want) to indicate faith in a process - You don't really achieve anything by saying "scriptures are the culprits" becaus e that is obviously what people approach when determining the practical application of theistic principles

“ As for inductive knowledge without faith, what would distinguish between two people looking at the same evidence yet both disagreeing except faith - for instance if 10 000 dogs are inspected and they all have fleas and one person advocates "all dogs have fleas" and the other person says "No, (maybe you have fleas and just passed them on to all the dogs you inspecete)" - wouldn't these two conflicting conclusions based on the same evidence be arrived at through faith? (Its certainly not evidence because the evidence is the same) ”

Both would be incorrect if they asserted their conclusions as absolute truth.

Obviously you cannot make an absolute claim via inductive knowledge

what we were talking about is whether faith is intrinsic to arriving at a conclusion via inductive knowledge
(whether one claims that conclusion is an absolute is a seperate matter)

Another example: I drive to work every day and have been doing so for decades, and each time I arrive safely. It seems there is a strong inductive argument that I might well continue to arrive safely on subsequent trips. But inductive arguments are not guarantees since there is always a probability, albeit in a strong inductive argument, very small, that one day I might have an accident.

This also innvolves faith - if faith wasn't innvolved in arriving at conclusions via inductive knowledge, everyone would come to the same conclusion from the same body of evidence or experience- obviously this is not the case

Evidence alone is only part of inductive conclusions; the rest requires appropriate application of logic. The important thing you need to understand is that with religion there is no opportunity to form inductive conclusions.

In the perfectional stage you are right, but traversing the path to perfection, which is generaly what theistic life in the material world is all about, innvolves many inductive reasonings.

With induction we can speak of the strength of the conclusion, i.e. that it tends to support a particular view. E.g. If I had an accident in traffic say every 5th day we would have to conclude that an assertion that I will arrive safely every day in the future is considerably weak. In the case of religion where there is no precedent, no evidence, no foundation, any assertions made are 100% weak, i.e. they have zero credibility. And that is the nature of religious faith.

The endeavour to become familiar with normative practices is full of inductive reasonings

eg

BG 2.59: The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

suppose that after reading this someone experiences that by developing some actual spontaneous enjoyment in theistic practices enables them to have a strengthened ability to refrain from sinful life.

By inductive reasoning they have just developed a means to surmount sin

“ You missed the point. ”

Theory = evidence? ”

No you missed the point. The term theoretically here is to allude to the impractically of removing all body parts and just leaving the brain. For example if you lose a leg you would still be you. If you lost both legs and both arms, you would still be you. If it was possible through say high technology to continue removing body parts and just leave the brain intact, it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that you would continue to remain you. The conclusion is that the self and the brain are inextricably linked.[/QUOTE]

The first part in bold is theory - the second part in bold is evidence (which zips along with lightning speed to the third part in bold stating the conclusion)

Theory = evidence?

. Now if we start to damage or alter the brain then we immediately see effects on what can be termed “you”. E.g. loss of memory, ability to reason, ability to think, loss of identity, etc.

But that is the conceptualized you - Like to take the descartes "I think therefore I am" - regardless of whatever one's powers of thinking and reasoning may be, as long as one is thinking and reasoning, one "is". If it wasn't the case they would be dead

It does not take much of a stretch of reason to see that the brain and self are directly correlated to the extent that they appear one and the same thing.

All the evidence that stands at the moment is that there are different parts of the brain and different chemical pathways that affect concepts of self (memory, co-ordination, emmotions etc) - the actual potency "to think" (which lands one in the "I am") has not been located in the brain - just like the power for a car to go is apparently situated in the engine - but actually the power for a car to go is situated with a person with the ignition key.

“ Are you claiming that the mind is evidence of the supernatural? ”

The mind is evidence of the short coming of reductionism ”

I really don’t care about your issues concerning reductionism.

Its not my issue - regardless of what I think or do not think, there is no evidence that the mind exists by reductionist paradigms

Choose another method that suits you that allows you to demonstrate that the supernatural exists, and where the conclusion is logically sound.

If by "logically sound" you mean adhere to reductionist paradigms we will have difficulties

Do you indeed want to conclude that the mind has a supernatural component and if so how would you prove that?

The mind is actually described as subtle gross matter - in other words it could be conceivable that reductionists could locate the physicality of the mind (but given the nature of their operations, research and paradigms they work through it is unlikely)

 

[Cris]

Cris

what do you mean by non-natural?

Supernatural as assumed by every religion.

Its not clear what the mistake is - the statements advocate that one place faith in spiritual processes much like one places faith in a doctor.

When anything claims that trust in a proven medical process (inductive reasoning) is the same as faith in a god then that is the mistake.

Obviously you cannot make an absolute claim via inductive knowledge

That is correct.

This also innvolves faith - if faith wasn't innvolved in arriving at conclusions via inductive knowledge, everyone would come to the same conclusion from the same body of evidence or experience- obviously this is not the case

No, you haven’t understood yet. And I’m not motivated to explain any further.

By inductive reasoning they have just developed a means to surmount sin

Bizarre!!

.. Like to take the descartes "I think therefore I am" - regardless of whatever one's powers of thinking and reasoning may be, as long as one is thinking and reasoning, one "is". If it wasn't the case they would be dead.

OK.

All the evidence that stands at the moment is that there are different parts of the brain and different chemical pathways that affect concepts of self (memory, co-ordination, emmotions etc) –

Almost, but those are not concepts they are real. And all those properties are essential for self. Without memory there is no identity, without the ability to think there is no way to say “I think therefore I am”, etc.

the actual potency "to think" (which lands one in the "I am") has not been located in the brain

That doesn’t matter. What we do know is that when the brain is damaged in certain ways that ability is lost. The extent and location of damage affects every aspect of personality and ability to reason, to think, and to experience emotions. I don’t need to know exactly the algorithms in the brain to know that the brain is responsible for all the properties that are needed for self. Please also keep in mind the perspective of the massive power of the brain; in computer terms it is similar to some 15,000 high end computers functioning as a massively parallel processing system. Given that and the endless clinical knowledge that shows direct correlation with abilities of self why is there any possible reason to suspect that the brain and self is not the same thing?

- just like the power for a car to go is apparently situated in the engine - but actually the power for a car to go is situated with a person with the ignition key.

Until we add computer automation and then the car will be able to think for itself, much like the new robot vacuum cleaners. I think your analogy doesn’t work very well here.

If by "logically sound" you mean adhere to reductionist paradigms we will have difficulties

I mean no such thing. You have no choice but to offer a logical solution if you expect to be believed since the alternative is to be illogical. Logic is simply a disciplined form of thought that can be applied to every aspect of life, and has been proven to show the difference between truth and fallacy.

The mind is actually described as subtle gross matter - in other words it could be conceivable that reductionists could locate the physicality of the mind (but given the nature of their operations, research and paradigms they work through it is unlikely)

Irrelevant to the question which you are still very transparently avoiding. Do you have the slightest piece or scrap of evidence to indicate that the mind/self/consciousness might have a non-natural/supernatural/immaterial/spiritual or whatever component? Or will you simply admit you have nothing to support the concept of a soul and therefore nothing that will support the afterlife concept? That is not to say it doesn't exist but that there is no reason to say it does.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ what do you mean by non-natural? ”

Supernatural as assumed by every religion.

When newton first proposed the law of gravity it was considered to be supernatural because it could not be accommodated by existing axioms

“ Its not clear what the mistake is - the statements advocate that one place faith in spiritual processes much like one places faith in a doctor. ”

When anything claims that trust in a proven medical process (inductive reasoning) is the same as faith in a god then that is the mistake.

Not really - in both cases it is the person who takes the process that perceives the benefit, not the person who does not take the process

“ This also innvolves faith - if faith wasn't innvolved in arriving at conclusions via inductive knowledge, everyone would come to the same conclusion from the same body of evidence or experience- obviously this is not the case ”

No, you haven’t understood yet. And I’m not motivated to explain any further.

So you expect me to accept your argument on faith?

“ .. Like to take the descartes "I think therefore I am" - regardless of whatever one's powers of thinking and reasoning may be, as long as one is thinking and reasoning, one "is". If it wasn't the case they would be dead. ”

OK.


“ All the evidence that stands at the moment is that there are different parts of the brain and different chemical pathways that affect concepts of self (memory, co-ordination, emmotions etc) – ”

Almost, but those are not concepts they are real. And all those properties are essential for self. Without memory there is no identity, without the ability to think there is no way to say “I think therefore I am”, etc.

I never said they were not real - I said they were details of selfhood, or the state of thinking or feeling with a sense of "I" - while part s of the brain associated with memory have been mapped, there is no part for the sense of "I". Rather it is not the "I" that is contingent on the memory, motoring etc, but the opposite way around - memory only functions if there is an "I" to say/feel "I remember" - even without memory a person can feel confused or scared

“ the actual potency "to think" (which lands one in the "I am") has not been located in the brain ”

That doesn’t matter. What we do know is that when the brain is damaged in certain ways that ability is lost.

The details (conceptualized self) are lost but the essence of self hood (self as context) is not lost

The extent and location of damage affects every aspect of personality and ability to reason, to think, and to experience emotions.

personality = conceptualized self
thinking/feeling/willing (even dysfunctional thinking/feeling/willing) = self as context

I don’t need to know exactly the algorithms in the brain to know that the brain is responsible for all the properties that are needed for self. Please also keep in mind the perspective of the massive power of the brain; in computer terms it is similar to some 15,000 high end computers functioning as a massively parallel processing system. Given that and the endless clinical knowledge that shows direct correlation with abilities of self why is there any possible reason to suspect that the brain and self is not the same thing?

no comparison
even 15 million computers can't establish a sense of "I"

“ - just like the power for a car to go is apparently situated in the engine - but actually the power for a car to go is situated with a person with the ignition key. ”

Until we add computer automation and then the car will be able to think for itself, much like the new robot vacuum cleaners. I think your analogy doesn’t work very well here.

No

You have merely just added another handle to the analogy - now instead of a person with a key being responsible for the car moving, you have a person designing/establishing the computer being responsible for the car moving - in case you haven't noticed that one of the reasons the IT industry is lucrative(or rather "was lucrative" until the job market was saturated with computer engineers) is because all computers need constant debugging - and even if by some engineering miracle a computer could be manufactured that wouldn't require constant human baby sitting, it would still be an inert expansion of the intelligence of its creator anyway

“ If by "logically sound" you mean adhere to reductionist paradigms we will have difficulties ”

I mean no such thing. You have no choice but to offer a logical solution if you expect to be believed since the alternative is to be illogical. Logic is simply a disciplined form of thought that can be applied to every aspect of life, and has been proven to show the difference between truth and fallacy.

if you want to claim that the reductionist model is comprehensive then you are being illogical

“ The mind is actually described as subtle gross matter - in other words it could be conceivable that reductionists could locate the physicality of the mind (but given the nature of their operations, research and paradigms they work through it is unlikely) ”

Irrelevant to the question which you are still very transparently avoiding. Do you have the slightest piece or scrap of evidence to indicate that the mind/self/consciousness might have a non-natural/supernatural/immaterial/spiritual or whatever component? Or will you simply admit you have nothing to support the concept of a soul and therefore nothing that will support the afterlife concept? That is not to say it doesn't exist but that there is no reason to say it does.

even a child can tell the difference between a dead body and a living one, yet according to reductionist paradigms there is no difference (since both are composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds)

 

[Cris]

LG,

So in all of that you have still managed to completely avoid answering the question related to the topic.

Do you have the slightest piece or scrap of evidence to indicate that the mind/self/consciousness might have a non-natural/supernatural/immaterial/spiritual or whatever component? Or will you simply admit you have nothing to support the concept of a soul and therefore nothing that will support the afterlife concept?

 

[SkinWalker]

Uh-oh... be prepared for another post that quotes some passage of Bhagavad-gita that begins with "O greatest of all personalities, O supreme form..." or some double speak that makes about as much sense as this:

Duis ultrices nonummy urna. Pellentesque facilisis. Quisque ultricies sagittis ipsum. Vestibulum sit amet eros. Donec a ipsum. Quisque at ligula. Etiam eget tortor sed pede porttitor venenatis. Proin sed nunc. Integer leo orci, mattis vel, auctor non, suscipit eget, lacus. Donec volutpat, augue aliquet hendrerit mattis, mi eros luctus nisi, in laoreet purus elit in ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In odio felis, rutrum eget, luctus eu, fermentum et, eros. Ut non arcu eget felis sagittis adipiscing. Vestibulum fermentum eros dignissim eros. Sed vulputate. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

So in all of that you have still managed to completely avoid answering the question related to the topic.

Do you have the slightest piece or scrap of evidence to indicate that the mind/self/consciousness might have a non-natural/supernatural/immaterial/spiritual or whatever component? Or will you simply admit you have nothing to support the concept of a soul and therefore nothing that will support the afterlife concept?

Well there was the issue of the dead body and how it doesn't display phenomena anything like an alive one (such as the ability for the living body to actually grow and change in to something completely different), despite being composed of identical organic and inorganic compounds.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

A dead body no longer has an active energy source, a live one has. Much like when a computer is turned off and when it is turned on. In both examples identical matter is involved.

Why would any of that indicate the existence of anything supernatural?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

A dead body no longer has an active energy source, a live one has. Much like when a computer is turned off and when it is turned on. In both examples identical matter is involved.

Why would any of that indicate the existence of anything supernatural?

But what is the source of that energy?

It certainly doesn't appear by reductionist examination (since a dead body and a living body are composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds)

 

[Cris]

LG,

But what is the source of that energy?

Glucose and oxygen primarily that are pumped by the heart through a conduit system to all parts of the body. Generally when the heart stops then the energy source soon dissipates and the body ceases to be animated.

It certainly doesn't appear by reductionist examination (since a dead body and a living body are composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds)

Even if you were correct I recommend you stop using reductionist examples and stay with mainstream science instead that apparently doesn’t have such limitations.

Do you in anyway understand the difference between an electrical wire that has current flowing through it and one that does not. In this case the same matter is in use but the effects of an active current, as I hope you are aware are very different to one that is absent.

Pretty much the same analogy relates to a live person and a dead person. In a live person the brain has flowing current and energized cells (have a flow of glucose and oxygen). This is what enables you to remain alive. Stop the flow of energy and the electrons stop flowing and the brain begins to decay and the active neural networks that constitute “you” simply decay to nothing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ But what is the source of that energy? ”

Glucose and oxygen primarily that are pumped by the heart through a conduit system to all parts of the body. Generally when the heart stops then the energy source soon dissipates and the body ceases to be animated.

To show that the heart is the source of all energy you haveto determine why the heart stops (there's plenty of glucose and oxeygyn even in the body of a dead person)

“ It certainly doesn't appear by reductionist examination (since a dead body and a living body are composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds) ”

Even if you were correct I recommend you stop using reductionist examples and stay with mainstream science instead that apparently doesn’t have such limitations.

In case you haven't noticed, reductionist thought is the field that has made the progress inthe past 50 years, which explains why persons such as yourself tend to advocate it

Do you in anyway understand the difference between an electrical wire that has current flowing through it and one that does not. In this case the same matter is in use but the effects of an active current, as I hope you are aware are very different to one that is absent.

Precisely - the electrical wire is hooked up to a source (which an examination easily reveals)

Pretty much the same analogy relates to a live person and a dead person. In a live person the brain has flowing current and energized cells (have a flow of glucose and oxygen).

But the glucose and oxegyn are not the source, because even a dead person has these compounds

This is what enables you to remain alive. Stop the flow of energy and the electrons stop flowing and the brain begins to decay and the active neural networks that constitute “you” simply decay to nothing.

If you want to put forward that glucose and oxegyn are the source of energy you have to explain why a person can die in the presence of it (since to use your analogy of th electrical wire, the wire displays electricity as long as it is in touch with the source of power)

 

[Cris]

LG,

In answer to your questions.

Oxygen and glucose are the fuel. The heart is merely a pump. Once the fuel reaches its target cells it is consumed by mitochondria as part of metabolism which enables cells to continue their animated functions. If the heart stops then the fuel is no longer distributed to the cells and as soon as any remaining fuel in the cells is exhausted the cells shutdown and cease their activity. Note that death is not instantaneous. Any fuel remaining in the body was either because it was in transit, or insufficient for the cells to maintain their integrity.

I've significantly simplified the above description of how cells stay alive but if you were to take a high school class in Biology 101 for example you'd learn a lot more. Here is a Wikipedia reference for you to study as a start to your education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_metabolism

Precisely - the electrical wire is hooked up to a source (which an examination easily reveals)

You mean a generator that consumes fuel, much like mitochondria in organic tissue.

Your obsession with claimed limitations with reductionism is an irrelevant attempt at misdirection to the topic. I’ll ignore future references.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

In answer to your questions.

Oxygen and glucose are the fuel. The heart is merely a pump. Once the fuel reaches its target cells it is consumed by mitochondria as part of metabolism which enables cells to continue their animated functions. If the heart stops then the fuel is no longer distributed to the cells and as soon as any remaining fuel in the cells is exhausted the cells shutdown and cease their activity. Note that death is not instantaneous. Any fuel remaining in the body was either because it was in transit, or insufficient for the cells to maintain their integrity.

You mean a generator that consumes fuel, much like mitochondria in organic tissue.

Your obsession with claimed limitations with reductionism is an irrelevant attempt at misdirection to the topic. I’ll ignore future references.

You didn't address why the heart would stop, especially since everything required to keep going is present - instead you focused on the secondary causes of energy transformation, which doesn't really address the issue of what is the source of energy, anymore than analyzing a transformer tells us anything about the goings on in the dynamo

 

[Cris]

Lg,

You didn't address why the heart would stop, especially since everything required to keep going is present -

It becomes damaged. Not sure why you couldn't figure that for yourself.

 

[Cris]

LG,

you focused on the secondary causes of energy transformation, which doesn't really address the issue of what is the source of energy, anymore than analyzing a transformer tells us anything about the goings on in the dynamo

Ultimately the source of energy for anything on this planet is the sun. In the narrower sense you need to study how chemical compounds are transformed into the energy needed by biology, and for that you need to study how metabolism operates. The Wikipedia reference I added to my post should help you with that.

But here it is again for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_metabolism

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Ultimately the source of energy for anything on this planet is the sun. In the narrower sense you need to study how chemical compounds are transformed into the energy needed by biology, and for that you need to study how metabolism operates. The Wikipedia reference I added to my post should help you with that.

But here it is again for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_metabolism

Now you are avoiding the issue not by alluding to the microscopic but the macroscopic - people still die in the presence of the sun, just like people still die in the presence of oxegyn and glucose.

so to get back to your analogy of the electrical wire, its not clear how the sun is the source because people lose their livliness even in the presence of the sun, unlike an electrical wire which doesn't lose its livliness in the presence of electricity