Essentia Science of Consciousness Panel

I think we do get into discussions that can be heated, but given we've all known each other for awhile it just doesn't seem necessary to bring it up [all the time]. At least to me.

I probably have one of the more mildly "cynical" views for a proponent, as I'm not a Gnostic who thinks this reality is a Prison made by spirits but I also don't think this world is a school or that there is some definitive plan to existence.

I suspect there are places of sorts in the afterlife that differ wildly, and who goes where is possibly at least somewhat "random" - a term that gets tricky because I think all causation is mental causation. I think it's also entirely plausible that spirits can easily masquerade as "gods" - assuming they aren't outright fictional - but also that something genuinely Divine can manifest itself through different faiths.

To me this is the only way to reconcile the varied afterlife reports, not to mention the varied reports of undead or dead people seen in the company of Fairies and Aliens. Of course at least some of this stuff is fiction, hallucination, or whatever you want to call it but I suspect at least some of it is real.

I have no wish to put down other peoples views but I don't feel fee to discuss certain things because of other people's sense of certainty about what the evidence suggests and the way they instantly dismiss evidence to the contrary.  If we could stick objectively looking at the evidence instead of bringing beliefs into it we could easily find common ground and have interesting discussions, otherwise I could just dismiss much of what appears on this forum solely on Biblical grounds.  I said when I first joined Skeptiko that I had no wish to be preachy concerning my faith but because of so much anti-christianity, I ended up engaging in christian apologetics.  There might not be any obvious reason why a mental realm doesn't exist but there is no obvious reason why it should either.  It just depends upon which evidence one prefers to give credence to.  As long as we use maybe a lot instead of certainties, I have no objection to anybody's views as long as they are equally respectful of mine.

Some people think I have a sense of certainty, Brian, I don't know if you were 'referring' to me or not, it doesn't matter if you were, I don't mind at all. If you were, I would like to clarify that I am only persuaded that consciousness is separable from the brain, by the evidence alone, which is very good.  

And your faith is perfectly acceptable (and just as reasonable a position as someone who has none)  but I'm not sure what the Bible (though a fascinating series of books) has to do with shaping your beliefs, evidentially, that is.

I'm not supporting any particular view here. However, the main interest of this forum is in the science and research in various topics. This is an ever-changing field, as fresh research and new evidence comes to light. It isn't in any way fixed. Of course as individuals we all have our own preferred point of view.

Not causing offence and respecting one another is one thing. However it isn't really possible to have a serious discussion without from time to time questioning everything. That does include religious belief which is also open to question. I don't think there's any way round that.

However I do think we can all coexist. There is a saying, 'There is more than one path up the mountain'. Something I've learned from my own experience is that sometimes mutually exclusive views can both be right. Perhaps we've all experienced the break up of a married couple where we are a friend to both parties. I've found myself acting as a sounding board or even a shoulder to cry on for both sides in such a situation. So even though I recognise that each view is valid and correct, there is not going to be any way to reconcile the two partners who are each on their own path. I've experienced that from the inside too, where I've been one half of such a situation, and for a while was convinced that I was right and the other wrong, eventually, though there was no reconciliation and we went our separate ways, I understood that the other person's perspective was right too, and they were justified in considering me to be in the wrong. That did not mean my own position was invalid, I still considered myself to have been correct as well.

This is the world we live in. Because we don't have perfect communication, we always have a limited fragment of the picture. It is unrealistic to proceed on the basis that there is only one truth. The phrase "we can't all be right" is sometimes used. I learned, through hard and painful personal experience that there are times when everyone is indeed right.

I know what you're getting at there, Typoz but I still think some questions have a certain (right/correct) answer and I think some people appear not to know what it is...or should I say they don't want to know what it is.

Steve Taylor (@7.37) mentions veridical NDE's (understandably) as great examples of consciousness without a brain (basically).

Then Heleen Slagter (@8.00) states ...but we don't know when (specifically) the experience (observation of events) took place.
But we absolutely do know when the observation of events took place so why is she saying that.  I think it demonstrates the effectiveness of misinformation.

I know what you're getting at there, Typoz but I still think some questions have a certain (right/correct) answer and I think some people appear not to know what it is...or should I say they don't want to know what it is.

I sometimes wonder if I should just return to my Christian faith (though I think that my 'faith' back then was definitely enhanced by the number of girls about my age who were singing in the choir or otherwise involved with the church), but seriously, I'd have to ask myself which faith? Even if I stayed within Christianity I'd have a whole range of faiths to choose from, and some of them have terrible histories. Plus, NDE's don't seem to reveal an orthodox Christian God, but I do agree that they provide reasonably solid support for a God of some sort.

Maybe it would help if our profiles contain a field in which people can put their faith or lack of faith - maybe a whole paragraph about their current views - so that we would stop dodging about the subject.

I sometimes wonder if I should just return to my Christian faith (though I think that my 'faith' back then was definitely enhanced by the number of girls about my age who were singing in the choir or otherwise involved with the church), but seriously, I'd have to ask myself which faith? Even if I stayed within Christianity I'd have a whole range of faiths to choose from, and some of them have terrible histories. Plus, NDE's don't seem to reveal an orthodox Christian God, but I do agree that they provide reasonably solid support for a God of some sort.

Maybe it would help if our profiles contain a field in which people can put their faith or lack of faith - maybe a whole paragraph about their current views - so that we would stop dodging about the subject.

I don't think you're actually asking me, you're 'chewing the fat', so to speak. I'll bite nevertheless.

David said >" I sometimes wonder if I should just return to my Christian faith" 

Do you ? Why ? Nothing wrong with returning or not returning. I'm not sure what difference it makes. Having faith in itself is entirely understandable (so is having no faith to be fair), just a result of surmising that there must/should be/or isn't some reason for existence.  It tends to make people live and feel better (on balance) but I'm not sure one could say that it's a necessity, as what is, is, whether or not we have faith, like it, or not.
 
I think that Christian principles are important but I'm certainly not religious. I think religion in itself is illogical and rather absurd, although I wouldn't try to persuade others of that, lots of things are absurd, life is absurd, I'm absurd.     

David said >"Even if I stayed within Christianity I'd have a whole range of faiths to choose from"

No, it's the same faith, just different interpretations. "Do as you would be done by" should (technically) get you through the gates, David, don't you worry.  

David said >"NDE's don't seem to reveal an orthodox Christian God, but I do agree that they provide reasonably solid support for a God of some sort"

I don't know what "God" means and because of the incomprehensible size of the universe(s), I don't like to think about it too deeply, as it's enough to drive one to insanity. I think there is an intelligence behind the universe that is likely amenable to human comprehension whilst at the same time being so far beyond it (our comprehension) it's rather pointless speculating. But I'm not suggesting one shouldn't do it. Do it, but it won't help much.

I think the fact (and it is a fact beyond reasonable doubt) that the mind/consciousness continues on, tells us all we need to know for now. The rest or some of it, I hope to learn or re-learn (if I've forgotten it somewhere back in time) 

David said >"Maybe it would help if our profiles contain a field in which people can put their faith or lack of faith - maybe a whole paragraph about their current views - so that we would stop dodging about the subject.

No, I don't think it would. And I don't think anyone is really bothered about my beliefs/faith/opinion and why should they be.

I know what you're getting at there, Typoz but I still think some questions have a certain (right/correct) answer and I think some people appear not to know what it is...or should I say they don't want to know what it is.

It's difficult Tim, I was trying to find some common ground in areas of difference. It is so difficult to have these exchanges online. On the one hand we may have a lot of detail and lengthy explanations. On the other, we lose that sense of a human connection.

It reminds me of a time when I was stopped by two Mormons on the street. We had a warm and fruitful conversation, though I made it clear several times that we saw the world differently. But it was the things where we overlapped and found something to share which made it a good encounter.

I think we do get into discussions that can be heated, but given we've all known each other for awhile it just doesn't seem necessary to bring it up [all the time]. At least to me.

I probably have one of the more mildly "cynical" views for a proponent,

To me this is the only way to reconcile the varied afterlife reports, not to mention the varied reports of undead or dead people seen in the company of Fairies and Aliens. Of course at least some of this stuff is fiction, hallucination, or whatever you want to call it but I suspect at least some of it is real.

Some cynicism is very healthy and leads to being able to laugh at oneself.  

Paying homage to Ray Moody, the general public may see reports of spirits and gremlins as "nonsense".  But the inability to have a context and accessible meaning -- doesn't mean that decoding actions can't reveal patterns leading to meanings.  Forest spirits are nonsense.  In the last 100k years of human evolution those whose woodland and streamside existence was primary, their environment presented patterns and signals we may no longer place them in context.

Think Mayan graphics - nonsense pictures until a long focused process cracked them open.  Today's physics, in particular, talks of decoding the "messages" in the data.  The key is the informational event of understanding.  Once it is understood that there is a meaning to be found and semiosis to decode those meanings -- nature takes its course in discovery.

It's difficult Tim, I was trying to find some common ground in areas of difference. It is so difficult to have these exchanges online. On the one hand we may have a lot of detail and lengthy explanations. On the other, we lose that sense of a human connection.

It reminds me of a time when I was stopped by two Mormons on the street. We had a warm and fruitful conversation, though I made it clear several times that we saw the world differently. But it was the things where we overlapped and found something to share which made it a good encounter.

Understood of course, Typoz,  you are always very diplomatic. Personally, I feel that sometimes people's sensitivities need to be challenged. If their faith is as precious as a Ming vase to them, then don't bring it to the table.

Understood of course, Typoz,  you are always very diplomatic. Personally, I feel that sometimes people's sensitivities need to be challenged. If their faith is as precious as a Ming vase to them, then don't bring it to the table.

Not always so diplomatic. I recall a time when I met some sort of religious person on the street, he went away thinking I was the work of the devil.  I have mellowed a lot over the years.