(2023-06-30, 10:48 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I liked this post of yours because I find there is too much credulity on this forum and we need skeptics like you to bring these things up, but your last statement is still unqualified. As well as that, Christianity speaks of a physical resurrection, so survival does not depend upon a seperate "soul."
I go to that post and I find a like! I can hold my head up high today! Somebody likes something I wrote here.
(2023-06-30, 10:42 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Another New-ager. What on earth has this got to do with science and demonstrable reality?
I think Sci answered. But I am curious as to what your precise definition of what a "new ager" is, if you were interested in spelling it out.
(2023-06-30, 10:33 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]does nothing to overthrow all of neuroscience, which finds that the mind is dependent on the brain, and hence is unlikely to survive death.
It says no such thing. It simply observes certain correlations and, again, only those it CAN observe presently.
This is dogma Merle; plain and simple.
EDIT: I see Brian already made a similar observation. Still, I'll leave mine here as I find this to be THE singular barrier to this being anything close to a productive conversation.
(2023-06-30, 02:04 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]It says no such thing. It simply observes certain correlations and, again, only those it CAN observe presently.
This is dogma Merle; plain and simple.
Before my grandmother had a stroke, she would interact with people and remember it. After her stroke, she would interact with people, and not remember it happened. If the mind is dependent on the brain, this is easy to explain. If the mind is not dependent on the brain, can you explain why this happens?
(2023-06-30, 02:04 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]It says no such thing. It simply observes certain correlations and, again, only those it CAN observe presently.
This is dogma Merle; plain and simple.
EDIT: I see Brian already made a similar observation. Still, I'll leave mine here as I find this to be THE singular barrier to this being anything close to a productive conversation.
Yes, certainly, correlation is not causation. However, the actual mechanism of the memory impairment can be interpreted via the filter/transceiver theories as indeed due to the brain damage, but where this is because the spirit is very intricately intertwined with the neuronal microstructure of the brain which it utilizes to manifest in the physical. Consciousness and memory are therefore functionally impaired by the physical neuronal brain damage, but in a model where the mind is not equal to the brain. When the spirit finally disentangles itself from the brain structure, mind, consciousness and memory are no longer impaired. Regarding memory, this explanation of course also requires that human memory data not be exclusively stored in the brain, but either solely in the spirit/spiritual realm, or in both places.
This is not meant to insult Merle at all but that's a very clear explanation nbtruthman and I'm puzzled if Merle doesn't see that as answering his post just previous.
(2023-06-30, 08:06 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Before my grandmother had a stroke, she would interact with people and remember it. After her stroke, she would interact with people, and not remember it happened. If the mind is dependent on the brain, this is easy to explain. If the mind is not dependent on the brain, can you explain why this happens?
See my previous post, #574.
(2023-06-30, 10:48 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I liked this post of yours because I find there is too much credulity on this forum and we need skeptics like you to bring these things up, but your last statement is still unqualified. As well as that, Christianity speaks of a physical resurrection, so survival does not depend upon a seperate "soul."
I'm curious. If there is no separate soul, then how are the mind and personality and memories preserved during the tens or hundreds or thousands of years between physical death of a person and the Resurrection?
(2023-06-30, 10:33 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]So I find this study interesting, but the small observed affect does nothing to overthrow all of neuroscience, which finds that the mind is dependent on the brain, and hence is unlikely to survive death.
Very well, Merle. Your points about the mediumship studies are a significant improvement from your previous posts.
I concede to your criticisms as they are well founded. I'll try to contact the authors in order to seek some further clarification.
