We Actually Do Know that Literal “Spirits” Aren’t Real

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That is most definitely not the dark ages. You've fallen for protestant revisionist history

If there was a dark age, it would be from the fall of the Roman Empire until Charlemagne.

You can't look at the culture of the Middle Ages and call it dark. There were amazing things going on in architecture, music, poetry, philosophy, theology, etc.

Well I stand corrected.  ☺️

[Teancum]

On 5/6/2024 at 1:53 PM, teddyaware said:

Until a believing member of the restored church of Christ comes to the realization that those who are devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost are totally unable to fathom and appreciate the things of God, this kind of useless, unproductive so-called “dialogue’ will continue to needlessly occupy too much of a believer’s precious time on earth, in what amounts to a rhetorical hamster wheel that goes to nowhere. It’s like trying to convince someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder to learn how to develop empathy and compassion. — it’s not going to happen. It’s only God who has any hope of waking such people up from the sleep of death,  and in most cases that isn’t going to happen until they are thrust into the spirit prison at death. It’s only when they realize there actually is life after death that they may eventually learn to be humble enough to realize they need to come unto Christ in faith and repentance or they will be lost in misery forever. I learned some time ago to stop beating my head against the wall on this site, which is why my participation here has been reduced by 95%. 

Well aren't just so ever so special now. 🙄

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

You're missing the point of @mfbukowski comment (an all too common occurrence when reading a Wittgensteinian critique.

There is "reality" as described by science, and there is "reality" as it is experienced. They are two different things and part of different language games. The former involves the material science, the latter involves human experience. Apologists and critics alike constantly confuse the two, and they act as if you can describe a bowl of cereal by reading the list of ingredients on the cardboard cereal box.

I will never understand why they cannot "get" it.  Agreeing or disagreeing is fine but not UNDERSTANDING is something else. 

[The Nehor]

The term “Dark Age” appears to have been coined by a 14th century Italian guy and mostly referred to about Fall of western Roman empire to about 1000 CE. He was complaining about the lack of surviving literature from the period so it was a complaint about the age being ‘dark’ because he couldn’t find a lot of writing about it. This was generalized by later writers as a general decline of civilization which is mostly a myth. Basically people looking back on good old Rome as the golden era. In some ways it was good. In others not so much.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well aren't just so ever so special now. 🙄

Not special, but just someone who’s learned through experience that attempting to “dialogue” with pathologically obsessed enemies of the restored gospel is a colossal waste of time and a fool’s errand.

[BlueDreams]

@Analytics

I’m going to see if I can sneak some time to mention my overarching thoughts. I should note, I am not a scientist. So, I definitely can’t talk about the underpinnings of what a physicist says as that’s by no means my background. I think part of my hesitation in entering is that in all the examples you give I have a knowledge-base deficit without much desire to buff up on certain subjects. So since people have talked a good amount about the physics part, I’m going to avoid that since it’s the knowledge base I feel least qualified to talk about. I do have an interest in biology, and neuroscience. So Imma focus on these aspects. Besides, my biggest concerns are the underpinning assumptions. Starting with your Intro.

First with the use of “proof”…this is a seriously lofty claim that science in general hedges carefully around. Though I didn’t study a science, I studied a “Soft science” and the wording used when doing research or papers have left me always leave space for an exception. It’s such a big phenomenon that climate scientists started to discuss how they talk to a lay people about climate change to reduce that constant underpinning for cautious language for something that isn’t in the scientific uncertainty category any longer and is currently happening all around us. “Spirits,” Souls, or something less esoteric sounding like “consciousness” is not one of those absolutes we’ve nailed down via scientific inquiry.

For example you give a broad assertions about NDE’s…that’s not actually true. This is something I’m interested in…and have read several books that focused on more the research or medical orientations around NDE’s. This is not a closed field, no one is fully certain what’s happening (though there’s certainly theories/hypotheses). This study also has some stigma in scientific circles which reduces funding and understanding for this area (though it’s an opening field for exploration) Two books that I’ve read in the past are called “After” by Bruce Greyson and “Proof of Heaven” by Eben Alexander. Greyson’s book gives a synthesis of what occurs and is common themes in NDE’s, including the initial account that shook him when he met a patient who had an NDE and described exactly what he did and wore - down to a stain on his tie – in vivid detail while unconscious. That’s not an “illusion” that can easily be explained away. The other was from a neurosurgeon who had an NDE when he had a serious case of meningitis. The last part of the brain dissected the common science based explanations for what he experienced and why it doesn’t work for his circumstance. I also listened to a more brief explaination of what happened during NDE’s from a more materialist orientation….and it was surprisingly underwhelming and holey.

Second there are many “best of books” The books you’re quoting sound like they absolutely fit in that category. But they come from a very specific mindset with underlying assumptions. That’s a problem. I’m currently doing a deeper dive of spiritual/religious beliefs. If I chose the “best of books” from solely a latter-day saint perspective, which I’ve done and valued…but I would get a very narrow pool to dive in. If I did that from solely a judeo-christian tradition, I’d still be limited and would swim within the parameters and assumption based on the bible and common interpretations/traditions based on it (Which I’ve also done and value). I’m currently taking a broader approach with a wider circle of “best books” Seeking out the best information from practice from world religions and exploring the spiritual values and truths emphasized differently. This again gives me something different. There are “best books” that conflict with the assumptions found in the books you’ve given. That needs to be taken into consideration too if one’s to have a broader understanding.

There’s evidence that points to the idea that we might be missing something, scientifically, when thinking of what makes us, us. But whether it’s engaged with and how is often based on the presuppositions moving into this. My brother did study physic in college. He’s currently agnostic-ish (pretty sure). He tends to lean more toward a higher power but still doubting around exams and stressful situations . But either way, it’s been interesting to see how he engages with experiences I’ve had. Some that are weirdly specific. It either kinda just slides away into non-important for his life and life-view or is casually joked about. It’s not really deeply engaged beyond respectfully listening at times. That orientation doesn’t warrant to much beyond what he already deems important. Which means when a question, query, or study would be postulated by someone like him, the bias would be towards questions that ignore these experiences or frame them within their own assumptive terms and methods for study. That’s a problem for “proof.” Kinda a similar problem when you get companies funding research into their products. If you prime the pump, you’ll get closer to what you want or expect to here and will more readily dismiss what you don’t.

 

On to part 2

Quote

Something like 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. If, say, homo erectus had a homo-erectus spirit, what happened when homo erectus went extinct? Was that timed to transpire when the limited supply of homo erectus spirits was exhausted?

How one might answer this would vary from person to person and religious tradition to religious tradition. Even in the assumption of the quote you give around judeo-christian belief about souled animals….is not correct.  When I google “do animals have souls” I find about 3-5 different answers from JUST a judeo-christian perspective. This ranges from “we dunno, the bible doesn’t say much about this” to “yes, but” responses to “definitely not, but they have consciousness.” This is a common problem when I see atheist/agnostic/secular oriented scientist books discussing religious beliefs: what they depict is usually oversimplified and thus becomes a bit of a strawman. Again, a problem…because its coming from an extremely limited pool to draw from.

I as a latter-day saint am happily comfortable saying “I dunno” to your questions on this. I feel religiously validated in that “I dunno” based on how I view and engage with my religious practice and beliefs. I know other faiths could probably happily extract an answer based on their beliefs that gave a more fleshed out explanation. Those that have reincarnation as a belief would probably shrug and go, the spirit will just reside in a different from. It’s no more homo erectus than you are the clothes you’re currently wearing. Which means the the assumptive “proof” falls pretty flat.

I also find it weird for a biologist to say that biology proves no one has a soul. I’ve never seen a study trying to suss out the soulness of an animal. Heck, I’ve seen research that hesitates to name behaviors similar in us found in other animals as “happy” or “sad” or “grief” etc…because it can anthropomorphize a different species. The line of thought goes, it may look similar but we don’t have a means to prove that these animal experiences happiness or sadness or grief or anger. It’s impossible to fully study. If something so simple is impossible to fully assess with certainty, then I have no clue how biology could tackle that  soul as a whole and which belief system is closest to “getting it right” or if none of them do.

When you brought up part 3 I remembered an old book I read from my college days that I really liked. It was called “Aping Mankind” by Raymond Tallis. He has background in neuroscience, particularly in terms of practical application as a former medical doctor and later professor. His book ripped through the common assumptions, ideological underpinnings, and research flaws found in neuroscience and evolutionary theories to explain human consciousness, behavior, and culture. There’s massive limitations that effect what questions can currently be answered. I quite literally dusted off my old copy and started looking for some tidbits tied to what you mentioned. I found 3 main themes in one section tied to neuroscientific studies using fMRI machines in particular. This included oversimplified definitions/stimuli to make assumption about large and complex human constructs, indirect measures of brain activity being the core manner to do said research, and that the wide variations in results of even simple things like motor function was often lost when averaging results. He gave many different examples and in-depth examples of this. For example he described a paper that noted that physical and social pains seem to “light up” the same area of the brain that then concluded that this shows that in social creatures “the need for solidarity is served by making social exclusion painful and this requirement is met by employing circuitry that has already developed to register physical pain” he notes that a more plausible interpretation is that “the failure to demonstrate fundamental differences between stubbing your tow” and “blackballed by a club…is a measure of the limitation of fMRI scanning and, indeed, other modes of brain scanning.”  He also would later go into conceptual limitations and absurdities.

I would note for myself, a common conceptual concern I had in all your posts is what are the definitions and parameters for the terms you're using. What is free will? Are we talking the freedom to choose completely independently or one of mor ground choice, set in a context of social, biological, and environmental contexts, or something else? What is consciousness? Is it just the capacity to engage with certain stimuli or prompts, is it the sense of self? What is consciousness in comparison to the soul/spirit? What is the soul/spirit? Is there a universal definition of that (no, no there is definitely not) and if not who’s definition do we use?

How one might answer this means that there may be 1000’s of different ways one might engage with research structuring, questions, and other preparations to decides how and what to study in neuroscience…and since scientific study tends to be reductive (as in reducing wholes to parts and variables to control/manipulate), these concepts may lose functional meaning as you try to find ways to easily quantify them. That’s a big problem in my book. As an example as to how big, based on my own experiences, biases, and professional focus…I don’t even know if I really agree with your first sentence in part 3!

Quote

Part of being human is the feeling and perception that while you have a body, there is a more fundamental part of you that is distinct from your body that is the thinking, feeling, self-aware entity that drives the body. 

Particularly this part in bold. My problem with it is that I don’t know if I believe it consistently “drives the body” I mentioned in a post to teancum that I work with pretty fractured people where my job feels like I’m trying to put humpty back together again. Quite often their bodies are driven by parts that aren’t what I’d consider that fundamental aspect of a person, distinctive from your body. If anything they were run by very earth bound survival mechanisms and lessons that are triggered by external stimuli. I have to work to help peel those back eough to find that core self in a large ball of reactionary responses and then help that core self “drive” them more than their instincts. So for me I know very well that other things can drive the body and do in many many people. I don’t see the spirit necessarily fully in charge of the body. Even in my spiritual beliefs, I see this time as more a time to learn “self-mastery” Or in other words to learn how to have that core Self practice mastery over the elements that make this physical temporal self.  It has that opportunity by being embodies/endowed this new estate of existence. To intertwine the eternal in an instinct driven and temporal bound sphere.

I have no clue how I’d design a study to explore my belief within scientific inquiry. Because that’s not what scientific inquiry is there for. It’s not focused on esoteric explorations, but rather materialist oriented ventures. 

 

So this is why your proofs don’t really do much to prove it for me. It’s not that the information you’ve given isn’t interesting. It is. I mulled if over for a couple days. But interesting is not sufficient to warrant describing this as proof for me.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 8, 2024 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

@Analytics

I’m going to see if I can sneak some time to mention my overarching thoughts. I should note, I am not a scientist. So, I definitely can’t talk about the underpinnings of what a physicist says as that’s by no means my background. I think part of my hesitation in entering is that in all the examples you give I have a knowledge-base deficit without much desire to buff up on certain subjects. So since people have talked a good amount about the physics part, I’m going to avoid that since it’s the knowledge base I feel least qualified to talk about. I do have an interest in biology, and neuroscience. So Imma focus on these aspects. Besides, my biggest concerns are the underpinning assumptions. Starting with your Intro.

First with the use of “proof”…this is a seriously lofty claim that science in general hedges carefully around. Though I didn’t study a science, I studied a “Soft science” and the wording used when doing research or papers have left me always leave space for an exception. It’s such a big phenomenon that climate scientists started to discuss how they talk to a lay people about climate change to reduce that constant underpinning for cautious language for something that isn’t in the scientific uncertainty category any longer and is currently happening all around us. “Spirits,” Souls, or something less esoteric sounding like “consciousness” is not one of those absolutes we’ve nailed down via scientific inquiry.

For example you give a broad assertions about NDE’s…that’s not actually true. This is something I’m interested in…and have read several books that focused on more the research or medical orientations around NDE’s. This is not a closed field, no one is fully certain what’s happening (though there’s certainly theories/hypotheses). This study also has some stigma in scientific circles which reduces funding and understanding for this area (though it’s an opening field for exploration) Two books that I’ve read in the past are called “After” by Bruce Greyson and “Proof of Heaven” by Eben Alexander. Greyson’s book gives a synthesis of what occurs and is common themes in NDE’s, including the initial account that shook him when he met a patient who had an NDE and described exactly what he did and wore - down to a stain on his tie – in vivid detail while unconscious. That’s not an “illusion” that can easily be explained away. The other was from a neurosurgeon who had an NDE when he had a serious case of meningitis. The last part of the brain dissected the common science based explanations for what he experienced and why it doesn’t work for his circumstance. I also listened to a more brief explaination of what happened during NDE’s from a more materialist orientation….and it was surprisingly underwhelming and holey.

Second there are many “best of books” The books you’re quoting sound like they absolutely fit in that category. But they come from a very specific mindset with underlying assumptions. That’s a problem. I’m currently doing a deeper dive of spiritual/religious beliefs. If I chose the “best of books” from solely a latter-day saint perspective, which I’ve done and valued…but I would get a very narrow pool to dive in. If I did that from solely a judeo-christian tradition, I’d still be limited and would swim within the parameters and assumption based on the bible and common interpretations/traditions based on it (Which I’ve also done and value). I’m currently taking a broader approach with a wider circle of “best books” Seeking out the best information from practice from world religions and exploring the spiritual values and truths emphasized differently. This again gives me something different. There are “best books” that conflict with the assumptions found in the books you’ve given. That needs to be taken into consideration too if one’s to have a broader understanding.

There’s evidence that points to the idea that we might be missing something, scientifically, when thinking of what makes us, us. But whether it’s engaged with and how is often based on the presuppositions moving into this. My brother did study physic in college. He’s currently agnostic-ish (pretty sure). He tends to lean more toward a higher power but still doubting around exams and stressful situations . But either way, it’s been interesting to see how he engages with experiences I’ve had. Some that are weirdly specific. It either kinda just slides away into non-important for his life and life-view or is casually joked about. It’s not really deeply engaged beyond respectfully listening at times. That orientation doesn’t warrant to much beyond what he already deems important. Which means when a question, query, or study would be postulated by someone like him, the bias would be towards questions that ignore these experiences or frame them within their own assumptive terms and methods for study. That’s a problem for “proof.” Kinda a similar problem when you get companies funding research into their products. If you prime the pump, you’ll get closer to what you want or expect to here and will more readily dismiss what you don’t.

 

On to part 2

How one might answer this would vary from person to person and religious tradition to religious tradition. Even in the assumption of the quote you give around judeo-christian belief about souled animals….is not correct.  When I google “do animals have souls” I find about 3-5 different answers from JUST a judeo-christian perspective. This ranges from “we dunno, the bible doesn’t say much about this” to “yes, but” responses to “definitely not, but they have consciousness.” This is a common problem when I see atheist/agnostic/secular oriented scientist books discussing religious beliefs: what they depict is usually oversimplified and thus becomes a bit of a strawman. Again, a problem…because its coming from an extremely limited pool to draw from.

I as a latter-day saint am happily comfortable saying “I dunno” to your questions on this. I feel religiously validated in that “I dunno” based on how I view and engage with my religious practice and beliefs. I know other faiths could probably happily extract an answer based on their beliefs that gave a more fleshed out explanation. Those that have reincarnation as a belief would probably shrug and go, the spirit will just reside in a different from. It’s no more homo erectus than you are the clothes you’re currently wearing. Which means the the assumptive “proof” falls pretty flat.

I also find it weird for a biologist to say that biology proves no one has a soul. I’ve never seen a study trying to suss out the soulness of an animal. Heck, I’ve seen research that hesitates to name behaviors similar in us found in other animals as “happy” or “sad” or “grief” etc…because it can anthropomorphize a different species. The line of thought goes, it may look similar but we don’t have a means to prove that these animal experiences happiness or sadness or grief or anger. It’s impossible to fully study. If something so simple is impossible to fully assess with certainty, then I have no clue how biology could tackle that  soul as a whole and which belief system is closest to “getting it right” or if none of them do.

When you brought up part 3 I remembered an old book I read from my college days that I really liked. It was called “Aping Mankind” by Raymond Tallis. He has background in neuroscience, particularly in terms of practical application as a former medical doctor and later professor. His book ripped through the common assumptions, ideological underpinnings, and research flaws found in neuroscience and evolutionary theories to explain human consciousness, behavior, and culture. There’s massive limitations that effect what questions can currently be answered. I quite literally dusted off my old copy and started looking for some tidbits tied to what you mentioned. I found 3 main themes in one section tied to neuroscientific studies using fMRI machines in particular. This included oversimplified definitions/stimuli to make assumption about large and complex human constructs, indirect measures of brain activity being the core manner to do said research, and that the wide variations in results of even simple things like motor function was often lost when averaging results. He gave many different examples and in-depth examples of this. For example he described a paper that noted that physical and social pains seem to “light up” the same area of the brain that then concluded that this shows that in social creatures “the need for solidarity is served by making social exclusion painful and this requirement is met by employing circuitry that has already developed to register physical pain” he notes that a more plausible interpretation is that “the failure to demonstrate fundamental differences between stubbing your tow” and “blackballed by a club…is a measure of the limitation of fMRI scanning and, indeed, other modes of brain scanning.”  He also would later go into conceptual limitations and absurdities.

I would note for myself, a common conceptual concern I had in all your posts is what are the definitions and parameters for the terms you're using. What is free will? Are we talking the freedom to choose completely independently or one of mor ground choice, set in a context of social, biological, and environmental contexts, or something else? What is consciousness? Is it just the capacity to engage with certain stimuli or prompts, is it the sense of self? What is consciousness in comparison to the soul/spirit? What is the soul/spirit? Is there a universal definition of that (no, no there is definitely not) and if not who’s definition do we use?

How one might answer this means that there may be 1000’s of different ways one might engage with research structuring, questions, and other preparations to decides how and what to study in neuroscience…and since scientific study tends to be reductive (as in reducing wholes to parts and variables to control/manipulate), these concepts may lose functional meaning as you try to find ways to easily quantify them. That’s a big problem in my book. As an example as to how big, based on my own experiences, biases, and professional focus…I don’t even know if I really agree with your first sentence in part 3!

Particularly this part in bold. My problem with it is that I don’t know if I believe it consistently “drives the body” I mentioned in a post to teancum that I work with pretty fractured people where my job feels like I’m trying to put humpty back together again. Quite often their bodies are driven by parts that aren’t what I’d consider that fundamental aspect of a person, distinctive from your body. If anything they were run by very earth bound survival mechanisms and lessons that are triggered by external stimuli. I have to work to help peel those back eough to find that core self in a large ball of reactionary responses and then help that core self “drive” them more than their instincts. So for me I know very well that other things can drive the body and do in many many people. I don’t see the spirit necessarily fully in charge of the body. Even in my spiritual beliefs, I see this time as more a time to learn “self-mastery” Or in other words to learn how to have that core Self practice mastery over the elements that make this physical temporal self.  It has that opportunity by being embodies/endowed this new estate of existence. To intertwine the eternal in an instinct driven and temporal bound sphere.

I have no clue how I’d design a study to explore my belief within scientific inquiry. Because that’s not what scientific inquiry is there for. It’s not focused on esoteric explorations, but rather materialist oriented ventures. 

 

So this is why your proofs don’t really do much to prove it for me. It’s not that the information you’ve given isn’t interesting. It is. I mulled if over for a couple days. But interesting is not sufficient to warrant describing this as proof for me.

 

With luv,

BD

A couple of things come to mind:

Regarding the idea that a spirit drives the body, I thought this speech contained a particularly interesting turn of phrase: "...we are destined to reunite with our spirit through resurrection..."  https://marriott.byu.edu/magazine/feature/how-will-you-carry-his-name This speaker evidently perceives herself as a biological entity which can operate independently of a spirit, "separably" connected as well as "inseparably connected" (D&C 93: 33). This suggests the "connected" part means "by covenant" and not necessarily universally requisite components of a living thing (the body-spirit duality comes by way of our choice of paradigms). This connection allows for degrees and kinds of connectedness, so that any form of life, whenever or however it arises, might partially or fully attain the full covenant taught by Christ. She sees her resurrected body, fully functional, reuniting with her spirit, and not vice-versa as we commonly discuss it. The rest of the article gets into the "Who" is involved in this connection by way of the name in which it is made.

OK, that might be one thing, but given the number paradigms out there, let's call it two!

Edited May 8, 2024 by CV75

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not special, but just someone who’s learned through experience that attempting to “dialogue” with pathologically obsessed enemies of the restored gospel is a colossal waste of time and a fool’s errand.

No. You act like you are special.  You are arrogant and self righteous and your posts typically are full of hubris.  I could say the same as you. Your hyper fanatical faith makes you impossible to dialogue as well.  You remind me of much of what is bad about religion.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not special, but just someone who’s learned through experience that attempting to “dialogue” with pathologically obsessed enemies of the restored gospel is a colossal waste of time and a fool’s errand.

By the way is your scorn an indignation leveled at the other critics of Mormonism that are of another faith?  Are they bereft of the "sprit" as well and "pathologically obsessed enemies" of the "woe is me persecuted" Mormonism  you seem obsessed with?

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I will never understand why they cannot "get" it.  Agreeing or disagreeing is fine but not UNDERSTANDING is something else. 

Platonism is too engrained into Western thought, particularly theology. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Platonism is too engrained into Western thought, particularly theology. 

It's incredible to me.  I have been searching for the right way to cut through all that in a simple way- I thought the Rorty quotes would do it, but no.  Tried category errors, but no. Personal stories, but no.   Liar's paradox, which can only be solved by moving into a "meta-narrative" position, - a higher level of abstraction-but no.

And here we are - actually in the 21st century - discussing if angels are "real" without any definition of what the word "real" even means,  OR what the meaning of "angel" is. 

Is it correct usage to hug your child and say "Oh, you sweet little angel!"??

They need to start teaching Late Wittgenstein in kindergarten! Then we could be the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Wittgensteinians", since saints and angels no longer exist. 

OR

Let's try the Liar's Paradox one more time.

Why this is relevant:  To solve this paradox, one must take the language "up" a level of abstraction, and talk about the SENTENCE "this is false" itself and find the flaw in logic it presents,

This is exactly what needs to be done with the sentence "Angels are not real" and see what sense or nonsense that discussion brings to the question.  THIS is what Late Wittgenstein does with all language in general.  He is looking at the LANGUAGE which confuses our logic.

This kind of procedure is what we LDS folks need to be able to understand in regard to our supposedly non-existent "theology"

 

And so we can conclude that the proposition "Angels are not real"  is simply nonsense. 

We need some definitions of what angels are or are not, AND what "real" means in all its usages.

In a friendly way, of course!

We are analyzing pixels and missing the picture.

 

Edited May 8, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way is your scorn an indignation leveled at the other critics of Mormonism that are of another faith?  Are they bereft of the "sprit" as well and "pathologically obsessed enemies" of the "woe is me persecuted" Mormonism  you seem obsessed with?

Yes, agreed that his comment was way off base.   So much for any kind of "missionary spirit" anywhere in the statements quoted.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

So this is why your proofs don’t really do much to prove it for me. It’s not that the information you’ve given isn’t interesting. It is. I mulled if over for a couple days. But interesting is not sufficient to warrant describing this as proof for me.

This post says SO much more - that it deserves much more than just pushing  the "like" button.   

Brilliant- thanks!

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's incredible to me.  I have been searching for the right way to cut through all that in a simple way- I thought the Rorty quotes would do it, but no.  Tried category errors, but no. Personal stories, but no. 

Ha. I've gotten used to making comments that just leave most everyone with a blank look on their faces, and the one other Wittgensteinian in the room pointing at me and saying, "Yes!"

I don't know if there is any hope, but I can at least hold onto memories of DZ Phillips arguing with Alvin Plantinga and Stephen Davis and know that I'm not alone.

Edited May 8, 2024 by the narrator

[manol]

My day job is in a field where physical science and human perceptions are intertwined.  The perceptions can be studied under controlled conditions, and correlations can be made to physical-world measurements.  Biases must be controlled for in the perceptual studies. 

 

On 5/3/2024 at 8:07 AM, Analytics said:

By reading “the best of books”, I’ve found that multiple fields of science all converge on this idea: we are purely biological beings, and there isn’t and can’t be a ghost in the machine.

Did your "best books" genuinely include both sides of the NDE story?  Biases can "gate-keep" what evidence we allow to be considered.  If you haven't read at least one book by Raymond Moody, Melvin Morse, Bruce Grayson, Jeffrey Long, Kenneth Ring, or Pim van Lommel, then you probably haven't gotten an adequate representation of both sides of the NDE story.

Here's a six-minute clip of Dr. Bruce Greyson as an introduction to "the other side of the story"; please at least watch the first 3 1/2 minutes:

There are many other such videos on YouTube, along with many more first-hand NDE accounts, as well as videos disputing the reality of NDEs, if you don't feel like taking the deeper dive into a book.

 

On 5/3/2024 at 8:07 AM, Analytics said:

when people have an experience of floating outside of their bodies in NDEs and the like, these experiences are illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain.

Dr. Greyson's patient accurately describing events she could not possibly have witnessed from where her body was at the time defies dismissal as mere "illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain."  Likewise the experience of the poster in this thread who accurately observed cars in a parking lot from a perspective which would not have been possible from where his physical body was. 

 

On 5/3/2024 at 8:07 AM, Analytics said:

I did want to know the truth.

It only took one twelve-second flight for mankind to shift its paradigm about human flight from "impossible" (based on then-known science and well-reasoned arguments) to "reality" (based on experience).  Regardless of how well-reasoned the physical-science-based arguments may be that "NDEs are illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain", it only takes one reliably-documented and inexplicable NDE to make the case that current physical science does not have all of the answers on this subject.  And there are many, many more than one. 

 

Edited May 9, 2024 by manol

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

Ha. I've gotten used to making comments that just leave most everyone with a blank look on their faces, and the one other Wittgensteinian in the room pointing at me and saying, "Yes!"

WHAT?  There are MORE of us out there? 

Obviously there are thanks to Claremont, and all the phenomenologists.

WE must now RISE UP!  Our time is NOW!!

Oh wait.  I was thinking of my old buddy Angela Davis.   Oh my, those news videos of UCLA must be causing flashbacks.....  I slept in quite a few buildings in the old days....

I still wish Heraclitus won out over Plato.  All this ... stuff...would have been resolved 2500 years ago

Reality is the Stream of Consciousness!   

Edited May 9, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

My day job is in a field where physical science and human perceptions are intertwined.  The perceptions can be studied under controlled conditions, and correlations can be made to physical-world measurements.  Biases must be controlled for in the perceptual studies. 

 

Did your "best books" genuinely include both sides of the NDE story?  Biases can "gate-keep" what evidence we allow to be considered.  If you haven't read at least one book by Raymond Moody, Melvin Morse, Bruce Grayson, Jeffrey Long, Kenneth Ring, or Pim van Lommel, then you probably haven't gotten an adequate representation of both sides of the NDE story.

Here's a six-minute clip of Dr. Bruce Greyson as an introduction to "the other side of the story"; please at least watch the first 3 1/2 minutes:

There are many other such videos on YouTube, along with many more first-hand NDE accounts, as well as videos disputing the reality of NDEs, if you don't feel like taking the deeper dive into a book.

 

Dr. Greyson's patient accurately describing events she could not possibly have witnessed from where her body was at the time defies dismissal as mere "illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain."  Likewise the experience of the poster in this thread who accurately observed cars in a parking lot from a perspective which would not have been possible from where his physical body was. 

 

It only took one twelve-second flight for mankind to shift its paradigm about human flight from "impossible" (based on then-known science and well-reasoned arguments) to "reality" (based on experience).  Regardless of how well-reasoned the physical-science-based arguments may be that "NDEs are illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain", it only takes one reliably-documented and inexplicable NDE to make the case that current physical science does not have all of the answers on this subject.  And there are many, many more than one. 

 

Yet again what is an "illusion" if we cannot define "reality"?

Drives me crazy.  

But now I have to know what your daily ball and chain is!!

[manol]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But now I have to know what your daily ball and chain is!!

I tried sending you a message, as I'd rather not post it here.  Got an error message saying that you can't receive messages. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

what is an "illusion"

 

[halconero]

On 5/7/2024 at 10:19 PM, MiserereNobis said:

That is most definitely not the dark ages. You've fallen for protestant revisionist history

If there was a dark age, it would be from the fall of the Roman Empire until Charlemagne.

You can't look at the culture of the Middle Ages and call it dark. There were amazing things going on in architecture, music, poetry, philosophy, theology, etc.

I think this is broadly correct, but it very much depends on how you measure 'dark'. If you go by architecture, philosophy/theology, and the arts, there's a decent case to make for Charlemagne.

I personally like the Mediterranean shipwreck measure, along with things like lead seals and silver-smithing in glaciers. By those standards, there was a pretty major collapse in the West. No argument from me that a recovery began with Charlemagne, but it didn't reach the heights of Imperial Rome for a centuries afterwards.

[the narrator]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was thinking of my old buddy Angela Davis.

Wut?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Wut?

Well I was joking, but I have mentioned it here before - I was in the Philosophy Action Committee which tried to influence the UCLA Philosophy Department to hire her as a prof. who was working on her PhD down in San Diego studying with MARCUSE.   We wanted to make philosophy more "relevant" of course because that was the rhetoric 

 Of course that name was in neon lights for a young and stupid, confused Commie philosophy activist wanna-be like me 

But we actually did get her to come to UCLA and I was one of about 25 of students in her Dialectical Materialism class,  and I visited with her in her office when I had questions about Hegel and how he influenced Marx with his ideas on history.   So yes, I knew her and had several conversations with her.  The "buddy" part was a joke.

But oddly those conversations, years later, oddly seemed to apply to... wait for it....   Joseph Smith, who was in many ways a dialectical materialist at heart.  It was almost as if he was a student of Hegel mixed with Marx. 

Opposition in all things- proving things by discussing their "contraries",  yet history will end in a predictable way in a Utopia.   All is matter, even spirit is matter "more refined".    So in that soup of ideas,  Marx and Smith would agree on many things.  Not God!

But I got better. 

 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, manol said:

I tried sending you a message, as I'd rather not post it here.  Got an error message saying that you can't receive messages. 

oops. probably full. I will see if I can fix it.

[Teancum]

On 5/7/2024 at 1:58 PM, smac97 said:

Ah.  I love the smell of Appeal to Authority in the morning.

Can you please help me out. Why is referring to experts on certain subjects an appeal to authority and as such, a logical weakness.  Don't you post all sorts of stuff from all sorts of experts on all sorts of things in order to make your point?  Is it an appeal to authority when you do that?  This is an honest question and I trying to understand.  Thank you

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you please help me out. Why is referring to experts on certain subjects an appeal to authority and as such, a logical weakness.  Don't you post all sorts of stuff from all sorts of experts on all sorts of things in order to make your point?  Is it an appeal to authority when you do that?  This is an honest question and I trying to understand.  Thank you

All lawyers DO is appeal to authority! 👍🏼

Edited May 9, 2024 by mfbukowski