Death Is Not Final - The Debate

[changed]

... while we understand comparatively little about how consciousness is brought about by the brain we know enough to say that it is brought about by the brain (backed up by experiences where brain damage results in changed personality, electromagnetic stimulation results in people experiencing out-of-body perception, etc.). ...

I could damage a radio so that it no longer gets FM (only gets AM) and then claim that the FM station was being generated within that particular part of the radio - this would be a false conclusion....  I believe the same to be true of the brain, different parts of the brain receive and transmit different signals, but the signal comes from our spirit, not from the brain itself.

Edited May 12, 2014 by changed

[mfbukowski]

I could damage a radio so that it no longer gets FM (only gets AM) and then claim that the FM station was being generated within that particular part of the radio - this would be a false conclusion....  I believe the same to be true of the brain, different parts of the brain receive and transmit different signals, but the signal comes from our spirit, not from the brain itself.

I don't disagree with this explanation, and it might very well be right.

 

I would just say that since we can't tell what comes from the brain and what comes from somewhere else, it makes no practical difference to worry or talk about it.

 

We have these experiences, and know that when we have them, they are as "real" as anything we can know.  No, others cannot verify them, but that is not important.  Others can't even verify that we have a pain in our toe or that we are hungry, and of course we know that those experiences are "real"

 

What is important is that we have these experiences, and they can change our lives in a real way- completely revolutionizing the way we see the world.

 

That is good enough for me!  If it can change our lives, how can anyone say it is not "real"?

[changed]

The point is, to argue that consciousness is brought about by the brain is making the very blatant mistake of equating correlation with causation... did no one call them on this in the debate?  if not, that is pretty sad...

[mfbukowski]

The point is, to argue that consciousness is brought about by the brain is making the very blatant mistake of equating correlation with causation... did no one call them on this in the debate?  if not, that is pretty sad...

That's another point, and a good one.  Chicken or egg?

 

And then there's Hume's argument on causation.  Causes cannot be clearly defined.  What was the cause of any particular person's birth?  The sperm and egg, or the YSA activity, or Joseph Smith's vision, which caused the church which caused the YSA which caused........ etc.

[changed]

That's another point, and a good one.  Chicken or egg?

[Gray]

My point is the epistemological problem created by using ANY experience as "evidence" of any "reality" outside the experience itself.

 

All there is, is human experience, and reports of human experience.

 

Good old Rorty, p 5 Contingency Irony and Solidarity

 

In these situations there is no difference between knowing what is "out there" and what is not, so it is pointless to try to make the distinction.

 

Human mental states are the only reality humans can know, because knowledge itself is a mental state, poorly expressed in language.

 

I'm not sure this really speaks to my point, which is your brain probably can't accurately remember something it never experienced. The memories themselves are real, the experiences are important, but since the brain itself does not travel to the spirit world, memories from NDE experiences are likely not indicative of "real" experiences (real in this context meaning a literal meeting with God or angels or deceased relatives), but are likely generated by trauma rather than an actual journey. The memories themselves are probably the only experience - ie hallucinations or dreams. Maybe a minor distinction in some sense but an important one in the context of this subject. I don't think those who argue for the validity of NDEs think the distinction is pointless

 

Does that change anything from the perspective of all we can know is human experience? Probably not. 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure this really speaks to my point, which is your brain probably can't accurately remember something it never experienced. The memories themselves are real, the experiences are important, but since the brain itself does not travel to the spirit world, memories from NDE experiences are likely not indicative of "real" experiences (real in this context meaning a literal meeting with God or angels or deceased relatives), but are likely generated by trauma rather than an actual journey. The memories themselves are probably the only experience - ie hallucinations or dreams. Maybe a minor distinction in some sense but an important one in the context of this subject. I don't think those who argue for the validity of NDEs think the distinction is pointless

 

Does that change anything from the perspective of all we can know is human experience? Probably not. 

I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get.  The point is that hallucinations are as real as anything else, it's just that acting on them does not get good results.  The only way we know what is "out there" is by the results of action.  Jump off a building because you think you can fly does not get good results.

 

Have an nde and you have peace for a lifetime- that is a good result.  That is what testimony is, an epiphany which brings peace.

 

You are still differentiating between experience and reality, and I am saying you cannot do that because the only reality which is knowable is experience.

 

Yes we make mistakes, but all we know is whether or not our decisions give us good results or bad.

 

There is no way of knowing "if the brain really travels to the spirit world" or not unless you assume a difference between experience and reality, which is an untenable position

 

There is no difference knowable between "literally" meeting an angel or not.  All there is is the experience.

Edited May 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is a distinction absolutely necessary for everyone to understand regarding experience and any religious experience in particular.  If it is real to you it is as real as it can get, so stop worrying about it. 

 

Peace.

[mfbukowski]

 

Does that change anything from the perspective of all we can know is human experience? Probably not. 

No it doesn't.

Edited May 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I think at some time we will see that all this relies somehow on what we would now call "electro-magnetic fields" which interact in ways far beyond our present understanding.

 

I have come to see humans as fields- in the way we influence each other, and interact on a socio-cultural basis as well as in some sense physically as well.

 

We see someone we are uncomfortable with, or on the other side, that we love, and it seems like that field just pops right out at us and communicates across the gap between us.

 

I remember standing in a crowd at a parade with my adult kids, waiting for my wife to return.  She was walking with a huge crowd nearly a full city block away, and I picked her out of the crowd, but my kids could not see her.  She also saw me, in a similar crowd, and we waved.  No one else could see her until she waved, but I saw her as soon as she turned the corner and came into view.

 

That is all explainable on many levels- yes I am conditioned to her walk and the way she moves, her hair and all that.  But it was a "reaching out" sensation where we were in instant communication- as if a part of me was reaching out to a part of her, almost as if we shared the same nervous system.  I have had other experiences where I knew when others were in distress and needed to be called, or some other action needed to be taken.

 

And yes, I have had some training in neuropsychology- I took several classes in physiological psychology in college- it was my minor for my BA.

 

I believe that is a "real" phenomenon, but I have no clue how to explain it. 

 

The philosopher Thomas Nagel has written extensively on this problem, and he is an atheist.

But he said this:

Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

 

Descriptions of human experience cannot be contained within a physical explanation- THAT is what he is saying.  Saying "I love you" is not a statement about hormones or brain activity, it is about human experience.

 

Statements about human experience can never be made logically equivalent to statements about chemical activity.  Statements about human experience are first-person statements- they are reports of personal subjective experience.

 

Statements about chemicals are third person statements- they are statements about objective data which can in principle be verified by anyone.

 

No one can ever see anything from our individual subjective perspectives- the contents of our experiences are conditioned by every event in our lives, and no one has the same events and experiences.

 

"I love you" can never in principle be reduced to a statement about electro-chemical interactions, so those two statements can never be made equivalent.

 

So something is always lost in the physical description- lost in the translation, if you will.  The two sets of statements have nothing to do with each other, it is like talking about, as I sometimes say, impressionist painting and baseball.   Statements about baseball have nothing to do with impressionist painting. 

 

Statements about electrochemical activity have nothing to do with what it is like to be human.

 

So for me, there is nothing to be debated.  Thinking that there is, is a logical confusion.

 

 

Exactly. Even for non-believers, the way they generally view their children is imbued with meaning and value far beyond seeing them as a mere collection of molecules.

 

Science may have progressed a long ways in some respects, but it has advanced little if at all in defining "life."  And, if scientist can't definitively define "life," then why should we expect that they are capable of authoritatively determining if there is or isn't an "after-life"?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get.  The point is that hallucinations are as real as anything else, it's just that acting on them does not get good results.  The only way we know what is "out there" is by the results of action.  Jump off a building because you think you can fly does not get good results.

 

Have an nde and you have peace for a lifetime- that is a good result.  That is what testimony is, an epiphany which brings peace.

 

You are still differentiating between experience and reality, and I am saying you cannot do that because the only reality which is knowable is experience.

 

Yes we make mistakes, but all we know is whether or not our decisions give us good results or bad.

 

There is no way of knowing "if the brain really travels to the spirit world" or not unless you assume a difference between experience and reality, which is an untenable position

 

There is no difference knowable between "literally" meeting an angel or not.  All there is is the experience.

 

The only thing I might personally quality in what you said, is that from my personal experience, the nature of the experiences of hallucination or dreams, themselves, irrespective of results, is discernibly different from awake experiences, just as the nature of certain awake spiritual experiences are discernibly different from awake physical experiences (including emotions) and hallucinations and dreams. For the most part, I can tell when I am dreaming vs when I am awake, just as I can tell when I am experiencing the spirit vs when I am not. But, that may just be me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Gray]

I am not sure why this is so hard for people to get.  The point is that hallucinations are as real as anything else, it's just that acting on them does not get good results.  The only way we know what is "out there" is by the results of action.  Jump off a building because you think you can fly does not get good results.

 

Have an nde and you have peace for a lifetime- that is a good result.  That is what testimony is, an epiphany which brings peace.

 

You are still differentiating between experience and reality, and I am saying you cannot do that because the only reality which is knowable is experience.

 

Yes we make mistakes, but all we know is whether or not our decisions give us good results or bad.

 

There is no way of knowing "if the brain really travels to the spirit world" or not unless you assume a difference between experience and reality, which is an untenable position

 

There is no difference knowable between "literally" meeting an angel or not.  All there is is the experience.

 

I think there is a difference between external and internal reality, even if in the long run they amount to the same thing from the point of view of the person experiencing it. My subjective internal experience tells me there is a difference between objective, external experience and subjective, internal experience. That works for me (and has worked for 36 years), so that's what I'm going with.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

The only thing I might personally quality in what you said, is that from my personal experience, the nature of the experiences of hallucination or dreams, themselves, irrespective of results, is discernibly different from awake experiences, just as the nature of certain awake spiritual experiences are discernibly different from awake physical experiences (including emotions) and hallucinations and dreams. For the most part, I can tell when I am dreaming vs when I am awake, just as I can tell when I am experiencing the spirit vs when I am not. But, that may just be me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Oh yes I totally agree.  I should have mentioned that but I was typing on a tiny device so I made it short.

 

But in certain cases, like say mirages in the desert, sometimes one would swear that there really IS water over there, but of course on the way to find it, one would discover that they were mistaken.

 

I am not proud to say that I once, before I was a member, and way back in the 60's had an experience where I experienced hallucinations, and I immediately went to bed and pulled the covers over my head and just watched the show.  I knew exactly what was happening, and kept telling myself that it would stop in a few hours.  Never again.  I hated it.  Live and learn.  It was frightening mostly because I was worried that it might not stop, and indeed for some of my friends, their breaks with reality were long lasting, and in some cases permanent due to stupid things they did under the influence.

 

I learned my lesson, thank God.

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. Even for non-believers, the way they generally view their children is imbued with meaning and value far beyond seeing them as a mere collection of molecules.

 

That's a great example I will have to steal in one of these discussions! 

 

And of course the way I experience my own children is vastly different from the way I experience other children.  It is as if the "field" of what I define as "me" extends to my loved ones, so that a loss of one of those I hold dear can feel as if one has lost a part of one's own body.

 

To classify such realities as "just emotion" reduced to chemical reactions, is to miss what makes life worth living in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

I think there is a difference between external and internal reality, even if in the long run they amount to the same thing from the point of view of the person experiencing it. My subjective internal experience tells me there is a difference between objective, external experience and subjective, internal experience. That works for me (and has worked for 36 years), so that's what I'm going with.

Once again I guess I need to quote Rorty.  I think this says it as simply as it can be said, and is absolutely irrefutable.  Yes, that is an absolute and I regard it as irrefutable as "A=A".  It is a tautology and it drives me nuts that people do not understand it.

 

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.  To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

 

I never meant to imply that I did not believe that the world was "out there", the issue is strictly what we can know and say about that fact.

 

Honestly, though some might think so, I am not ready for the looney bin yet.  I am in no way a solipsist.

 

But it is pointless to try to talk about any reality beyond human experience.  It is impossible to make sense while trying. 

 

The belief that it IS possible is the source of every silly thing one sees on these boards, and so I find it incredibly important to keep trying to point it out.  It is somewhat of a crusade, I am the first to admit.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure this really speaks to my point, which is your brain probably can't accurately remember something it never experienced. The memories themselves are real, the experiences are important, but since the brain itself does not travel to the spirit world, memories from NDE experiences are likely not indicative of "real" experiences (real in this context meaning a literal meeting with God or angels or deceased relatives), but are likely generated by trauma rather than an actual journey. The memories themselves are probably the only experience - ie hallucinations or dreams. Maybe a minor distinction in some sense but an important one in the context of this subject. I don't think those who argue for the validity of NDEs think the distinction is pointless

 

Does that change anything from the perspective of all we can know is human experience? Probably not. 

I hope you don't mind me returning to this post and taking it apart for a bit, just to show my point.  To be quite honest, I really like your posts and I think we are very close in agreeing on almost everything, and you are one of about three or four on this board I would even post with about this point, because I know the exercise, if you don't mind, will help me explain it further to others, perhaps.

 

I'm not sure this really speaks to my point, which is your brain probably can't accurately remember something it never experienced

I would remove the "probably" entirely, and ask respectfully what the point is of even saying this?  To me it is obviously true that memories can only be of experiences.  I would include that there is indisputably much we do not know about memory or how it works.  Clearly also to be LDS, one must believe that memories can somehow continue beyond death.  Do we agree on that?

The memories themselves are real, the experiences are important, but since the brain itself does not travel to the spirit world, memories from NDE experiences are likely not indicative of "real" experiences (real in this context meaning a literal meeting with God or angels or deceased relatives), but are likely generated by trauma rather than an actual journey.

I have no understanding of what you mean by "real" in these contexts.  What constitutes a "real memory"?  How does one know if a memory is "real" or not?

 

I would just say there are memories.  Perhaps upon reflection, or discussion with others who viewed the events, one might conclude that the memory disagreed with others and was therefore mistaken.  Or one might find that the memories of the others were mistaken.  But what constitutes a "real memory"?

 

How would one know that the "brain does not travel to the spirit world"?  Perhaps the spirit world is a dimensional thing, which one may "visit" bodily.  That is of course a metaphysical model which cannot be verified nor falsified, yet nevertheless may be a model which could in principle at some future date become a scientific fact.  At any rate, such a belief is a way of making such things more believable for those who need that.  I think many on this board would find that sort of argument convincing, and therefore faith promoting.

 

And of course, how does one define a "real" experience, if one cannot reference a world beyond experience itself in doing so?  One can of course say that hallucinations and dreams are not the same as the experience of what is "real"- surely that is true.  But we are talking about something BEYOND experiences that we regard as "true". 

 

Surely you know that you are "really" sitting in front of some sort of screen reading this. That is indisputable to all reading this.  But that is an experience generated, we say, by a human brain.  How can you get outside of that to "know" there is something OUTSIDE of the human experience you are having right now at this very instant??  You can't!

 

The experience does not "correspond" to anything outside of the experience itself.  It is what it is.  The experience IS what is real as far as we can know.  Period, end of story!  So what is a "real" experience distinguished from an "unreal" experience??

 

If an angel, say, appeared to you right now, and it was just as "real" as the computer screen in front of you, would that make the angel "unreal"?  How could one know that?

 

And what of the presumption that such events are "likely generated by trauma"?  If I just got struck over the head and saw an angel, perhaps I would agree.  If I had just ingested LSD and saw an angel, I might also agree that the angel was not "real".  If I saw an angel and then woke up, I would describe it as a "dream".

 

So if I was reading this in the hospital and saw an angel as real as the computer screen, why would one conclude that one experience was "real" and the other "generated by trauma"?  If I went into the woods to pray and saw two angels above my head, would that be "real" or generated by trauma?

How does one tell the difference without begging the question of what is "real"?

 

The memories themselves are probably the only experience - ie hallucinations or dreams. Maybe a minor distinction in some sense but an important one in the context of this subject. I don't think those who argue for the validity of NDEs think the distinction is pointless

Remember that first thing you said, that I said was too obvious even mention?

your brain probably can't accurately remember something it never experienced

 

How does that square with "The memories are probably the only experience-ie hallucinations or dreams"?

 

If your brain cannot "accurately" remember something it never experienced, how can a memory be the only experience, if it never happened?

 

I am confused!

 

Again, I am not being critical- just trying to understand your position and how you make it all consistent.  It seems inconsistent to me.  And the reason I think it is inconsistent is clinging to the idea that some experiences are "real" while others are not.

 

I think which is which is undefinable.  We may know what "seems real" to us- I am not going to argue that.  Yes, and we may be mistaken about what is "real". 

 

My point is that one cannot define clearly the difference between what "seems real" and what is "in fact real" in subjective experience, and in religious experience, that is all that counts.  And of course that applies exactly to NDE's- that is what it is all about.

[mfbukowski]

Transmission vs. generation.  Our brains transmit, they do not generate.  

Disagree. 

[changed]

 

Disagree. 

 

Before you said you agreed with me?  Generate/Transmit was just a restatement of the radio example - you know, the point that radios transmit, rather than generate, a signal...  

 - correlation vs. causation?  that someone' personality can change if the brain is changed (correlation) does not equate to someone's personality being created by the brain....

you know,the old joke - 
.... a scientists cuts of the legs of a grasshopper, and then yells at it to jump.  The grasshopper does not jump, and the scientist concluded it's ears were in it's feet...

 

 

 

 I could damage a radio so that it no longer gets FM (only gets AM) and then claim that the FM station was being generated within that particular part of the radio - this would be a false conclusion....  I believe the same to be true of the brain, different parts of the brain receive and transmit different signals, but the signal comes from our spirit, not from the brain itself.

I don't disagree with this explanation, and it might very well be right.

 

I would just say that since we can't tell what comes from the brain and what comes from somewhere else, it makes no practical difference to worry or talk about it.

It does make a practical difference - it makes all the difference.  If our conscience is merely a product of our brain, if our brain generates (rather than transmits) our character/personality/conscience then life is not eternal, and thoughts and actions are caused by nothing more than  "an upset stomach, a crumb of moldy cheese, an underdone turnip" as scrooge would say.  Either

a)  intelligence is eternal and un created - giving rise to free will (no outside cause to trace it all back to)
b) intelligence is mortal, created by moldy cheese, and we have no free will, no spirit, no eternal life.

Edited May 13, 2014 by changed

[wenglund]

How would one know that the "brain does not travel to the spirit world"?  Perhaps the spirit world is a dimensional thing, which one may "visit" bodily.  That is of course a metaphysical model which cannot be verified nor falsified, yet nevertheless may be a model which could in principle at some future date become a scientific fact.  At any rate, such a belief is a way of making such things more believable for those who need that.  I think many on this board would find that sort of argument convincing, and therefore faith promoting.

 

To me, if humans have the capacity to be shown the future by God, then why can't they also be capable of seeing the past? And, what are "memories" but calling up the past?

 

Besides, as I understand things, experiences of the past aren't just stored within the connected synapse of the mind or as bubble memory on a thumb drive, but are also written on the fleshy tablets of our hearts and throughout our souls. What we experience changes us in body and spirit, leaving marks of time.

 

For example, as I look down at my right arm while typing, I see a two-inch scar that has been with me for about 50 years, and it tells its own tale of things I did as a child, not unlike with the giant scars of the Grand Canyon that speak volumes of by-gone years. 

 

In short, memories are stored in a number of places besides the mind, some of which we may not be fully or partially aware.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 13, 2014 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

 

 

 

Before you said you agreed with me?  Generate/Transmit was just a restatement of the radio example - you know, the point that radios transmit, rather than generate, a signal...  

 - correlation vs. causation?  that someone' personality can change if the brain is changed (correlation) does not equate to someone's personality being created by the brain....

you know,the old joke - 

.... a scientists cuts of the legs of a grasshopper, and then yells at it to jump.  The grasshopper does not jump, and the scientist concluded it's ears were in it's feet...

 

It does make a practical difference - it makes all the difference.  If our conscience is merely a product of our brain, if our brain generates (rather than transmits) our character/personality/conscience then life is not eternal, and thoughts and actions are caused by nothing more than  "an upset stomach, a crumb of moldy cheese, an underdone turnip" as scrooge would say.  Either

a)  intelligence is eternal and un created - giving rise to free will (no outside cause to trace it all back to)

b) intelligence is mortal, created by moldy cheese, and we have no free will, no spirit, no eternal life.

 

I was agreeing with the point, not the explanation.  It's matter all the way down, whatever you want to call it.  If you want to make it dualistic, I have problems with that.  Science may one day want to call it all some kind of energy field- as all things arguably are anyway.

 

I wasn't agreeing with the transmit/generate dichotomy.  Intelligence organizes reality and it's probably all some sort of energy field, using a non-scientific pseudo-scientific explanation.  I am a ham radio operator and radios definitely create signals by modulating energy, or organizing it.  It probably all works that way, by analogy.

 

Yes, matter/energy is eternal and uncreated and yes we- humans, Gods, and other beings able to do so- modulate it with our spirit/brains/intelligence thereby creating what we know as "reality" after we organize it.  That is a metaphysical statement and is unverifiable.

 

The rest is semantics, and distinctions which I think just confuse the mind.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

[mfbukowski]

To me, if humans have the capacity to be shown the future by God, then why can't they also be capable of seeing the past? And, what are "memories" but calling up the past?

 

Besides, as I understand things, experiences of the past aren't just stored within the connected synapse of the mind or as bubble memory on a thumb drive, but are also written on the fleshy tablets of our hearts and throughout our souls. What we experience changes us in body and spirit, leaving marks of time.

 

For example, as I look down at my right arm while typing, I see a two-inch scar that has been with me for about 50 years, and it tells its own tale of things I did as a child, not unlike with the giant scars of the Grand Canyon that speak volumes of by-gone years. 

 

In short, memories are stored in a number of places besides the mind, some of which we may not be fully or partially aware.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Beautiful! 

 

And since last year my fleshy tablet has some of those other kinds of scars as well.  Definitely a life-changer! 

[mfbukowski]

My point is that one cannot define clearly the difference between what "seems real" and what is "in fact real" in subjective experience, and in religious experience, that is all that counts.  And of course that applies exactly to NDE's- that is what it is all about.

"It seems to me that my toe hurts, but in reality it does not"

 

Does that even make sense?

 

If someone loses a leg and has "phantom pain" does that make the pain "not real"?   If doctors cannot diagnose the source of pain, is it "False" that the person is in pain?

 

This is the essence of the entire question as far as I am concerned and it applies as well to NDE's as it does to pain.  THAT is my point.  In subjective experience, if it is real to you it is as real as anything gets.

[Gray]

mfbukowski: I'll have to take some time to carefully read your responses before responding in kind (more than I have at the moment). Thanks!