16 years old

[Malone]

Look, sorry about your mother and all that, but the thrust of your posts eludes me. From what I can gather you appear to be on a search to support the idea that perhaps consciousness exists in another dimension and survives the death of the body. That's the bottom line here.

You accuse me of not furnishing evidence, but given that I'm not stating anything particularly controversial in the idea that consciousness is a function of the brain and it ends when the body dies (ie conventional scientific opinion), the burden of proof is upon you. So far I haven't seen you provide any.

And the whole 'yours is a religion'. I mean, please, don't patronise me. Nothing I'm saying requires any leap of faith to believe. It's involves nothing dissonant with what we observe. Trying to reduce everyone's statements to being just opinions and then floating your own speculations as if they were somehow more valid than anyone else's is an illegitimate manoeuvre.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

From what I can gather you appear to be on a search to support the idea that perhaps consciousness exists in another dimension and survives the death of the body. That's the bottom line here.

This scientist

Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness - YouTube

seems to defend your viewpoint. He says that consciousness is located in the brainstem or it is a part of the brainstem (the red part he says by showing us a drawing). I understand that he is not going to show us proof, since he is giving us a lecture only of what his studies showed him to be true. What I'm saying is that by showing me an area that is related to conscious process doesn't explain what it is. I buy razors at Walmart, but this doesn't explain what razors are, or how is it that Walmart "creates" razors. We are absolutely sure that without brains we wouldn't be able to perceive consciousness. But one thing is to show which areas are responsible of conscious processes, which area in Walmart has razors, and another different thing is to say how this neural network located in the brainstem "creates" perception. A camera can explain how a picture is taken, but not how I "individually" perceive this picture as blue, red, etc, as colors.

Since my mother had part of her brainstem gone, so my question is: was she still with me? It is not that she committed suicide and I'm looking for her soul in Heaven. She was alive but was she still my mother? I asked her private questions, which she answered right. But are we our memories? I also tested her logical thinking, showing her different arrows pointing right, left, up down, and I noticed that she still had it intact. So, are we logical thinking? Perhaps not, because individuals with low IQ are still conscious. She still liked her favorite music, and things like that. So, even with the read area in the brainstem damaged she was still what she was before the stroke. Therefore, when I see these scientists talking about consciousness like if they were talking about potatoes, I cannot but wonder.

This doesn't mean that I'm looking for spiritual consciousness (soul). It means that when you are facing the dilemma of doctors wanting to disconnect your own mother (not an abstract computational network) from a respirator, letting her die, because "THEIR" science states (with no proof) that she is dead already (her consciousness is dead although she breathes), but your eyes you see otherwise, you have to make a decision in your life. I don't think we are computational networks. This doesn't explain perception. This lady is similarly facing the same problem, but in her case her kid died.

[Malone]

I understand that he is not going to show us proof, since he is giving us a lecture only of what his studies showed him to be true.

I think this sentence sums up my main difficulty with your approach: you appear to have impossible standards for proof. The scientist is not telling us anything true, he is only relaying 'what his studies showed him to be true'. If you're going to operate like that, you need to furnish a theory of proof and tell us exactly what your criteria of truth are and provide examples of when they've been met. Otherwise, it's just going to be endless speculation that goes nowhere.

I buy razors at Walmart, but this doesn't explain what razors are, or how is it that Walmart "creates" razors.

Is it really such a mystery?:-) Is it bafflingly puzzling? Is there any way we could get to the heart of such a riddle?

In the case of your mother, I assume you would concede that your mother's consciousness only existed and could only exist in whatever form for as long as her heart pumped blood into her brain? The matter of personal identity and the issue of continuity through conscious existence doesn't in the slightest way suggest there exists the possibility of disembodied consciousness.

[Russell Nash]

Malone, I'll get back to your comments later today.

In the meantime, have a look at this guy, Dr. Eben Alexander. His resume is this long Dr. Eben Alexanders Biography I think yours is not that long, right? He is a neurosurgeon. Read what this article says:

Eben Alexander, Harvard Neurosurgeon, Describes Heaven After Near-Death Experience (VIDEO)

"A successful neurosurgeon, who has taught at Harvard Medical School and other universities, spent his life dismissing claims of heavenly out-of-body experiences and refuting such talk with scientific logic, until he himself had a near-death experience."

So, according to you, Is he an idiot? How come, Isn't he a neurosurgeon? Doesn't he know anything about the "vast weight of proof" that Malone's scientists have provided till now (that Russell Nash an others try to ignore so naively)?

Although, I do not believe what this SCIENTIST (because he is a SCIENTIST, right?) says, I respect his viewpoint, and try to reach a common understanding. Is he trying to sell me a book only? Did he have a unique experience? ...?

[Malone]

Again, I am tempted to say 'so what'? The nature of Alexander's experience would be contested and disputed by innumerable other people.

You seem to think that merely presenting divergent opinions from the mainstream somehow disproves the mainstream, but it doesn't unless there's a significant quantity of meaningful divergence that can be backed up with evidence whose value all are prepared to attest to.

Again, it comes back to the fact that you appear to possess no criteria for truth-attribution. 'Anything could be true, so I don't have to believe anything if I don't want to' seems to be your standard take.

Could you tell me something about the nature of existence that you feel is incontrovertibly true and on what grounds you have for thinking so? I think it would help clarify matters.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

Again, I am tempted to say 'so what'? The nature of Alexander's experience would be contested and disputed by innumerable other people.

The same can be said about your viewpoint. There is no "vast weight of evidence", and your viewpoint can be contested and disputed by innumerable other people.

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

You seem to think that merely presenting divergent opinions from the mainstream somehow disproves the mainstream...

Divergent scientific opinions enrich our knowledge, if we are in search of knowledge. If we already grabbed one viewpoint and pretend that this is all that we are supposed to know, why would be discussing: perhaps to impose our ideas on others?

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

Anything could be true, so I don't have to believe anything.

No, you are wrong. You don't understand what scientific proof is. We can be certain that our planet rotates and moves around a star, but we cannot prove your claims. So, not anything can be true, but what you claim without presenting any proof cannot be imposed on others merely because it fits your conception of what the world is.

By the way, how can a computational neural network explain "jemeinigkeit"?

[Malone]

Divergent scientific opinions enrich our knowledge, if we are in search of knowledge.

A person reporting an NDE experience and a vision of heaven doesn't constitute a scientific opinion. It's a personal, subjective experience that isn't open to any standard process of scientific verification. It's pretty clear that your intellect is in thrall to wishful thinking and that this debate is pointless.

By the way, how can a computational neural network explain "jemeinigkeit"?

Being-toward-Death is simply a consciousness that knows by observing other creatures that it's mortal and will die. Nothing particularly mysterious.

And why not have said 'Heidegger's concept of the awareness of mortality'? Is this some sad attempt to show off?

[The Silent One]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

TSO, What are those arguments but more singular perspectives and observations from them? That describes every argument, position and approach. This whole 'that's just your opinion' just leads nowhere. Is science just a 'singular perspective'? If I say the sun is made of blue cheese, does that mean the sun is made of blue cheese? Is it really so bizzare to look at life on this planet, see the incalculable undeserved suffering going on every second, ask what it's all in aid of, and finding no good answer suggest the whole thing should be phased out? Human life is nothing but unsatisfiable need. A need which there is no necessity to create.

To the first point, I disagree because there is a difference between a statement of fact and a judgement relative to that fact. "Gravity holds us to this planet" is not the same kind of statement as "living is a horrible thing," which is in turn not the same as "life is meaningless."

Of course, part of the reason that I do not take to the idea of assigning meaning to broader concepts of reality is because I do not feel it useful. While questions of whether or not life as a collective experience is more negative than positive are relevant to day-to-day life in some respects, greater meaning is not. Personal meaning is, but I feel that to be an individual issue rather than a matter for broad pontification.

As for your question: No, I do not think that it is unreasonable to feel that way assuming that one comes to that conclusion thoughtfully. To the contrary, I find myself defending pessimistic positions from those who do not understand them or automatically deem them "immature" far more often than I should care to do because I respect and understand them even if I do not hold them.

Please realise that I am not trying to invalidate your position or patronise you simply because I disagree with you. I simply did not—rather, do not—understand why the issue of meaning is important here, in this debate. The initial question seemed more about consciousness than anything else, and the change of direction (not yours alone, but also Russell's) into that realm... vexed me, I guess.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

By the way, how can a computational neural network explain "jemeinigkeit"? Being-toward-Death is simply a consciousness that knows by observing other creatures that it's mortal and will die. Nothing particularly mysterious. And why not have said 'Heidegger's concept of the awareness of mortality'? Is this some sad attempt to show off?

What show off...? jemeinigkeit is translated as mineness in English (cadacualtez in Spanish). Take into account Tatiana and Krista Hogan. Two girls with their heads joined from birth, that seem to share memories. Let's apply jemeinigkeit to this case: both are "computational networks" (your conclusion) but Tatiana is Tatiana and Krista is not Tatiana, each one of them is different: example, one likes ketchup; the other one, no. So why is a computational network creating the illusiuon of Tatian on one side and not the illusion of Krista?What makes a compuational network different from the other? What Malone's illusion is created by your brain and not by mine? That's jemeinigkeit. How is a computational network generating personal pe4rceptions, that in one brain are Tatiana's and just beside are Krista's? A network can't explain that.

Regarding the other issues, I came to the conclusion that I don't discuss religion anymore. It's pointless, and what you have Malone is a religion. It is impossible to discuss with someone who already have a viewpoint (with no proof) and doesn't want to hear anything that is not his viewpoint. So, believe what you want to believe, since you don't accept any other viewpoint.

[Malone]

A network can't explain that.

Yet again, the assumption that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. Research into the brain and cognition is a continuous, accumulative process. You seem to be of the opinion that because we don't have instant answers available we're drifting in a total fog.

What Malone's illusion is created by your brain and not by mine?

Again, like all philosophical idealists who thinks consciousness is an illusion you make the error of mentioning the brain. From your perspective, the brain is but an object of your perception, is it not? An object in your visual field of consciousness, an 'illusion' as illusory as anything else. So you admit the brain is real, but not your consciousness of the brain. Strange that.


What you have Malone is a religion. It is impossible to discuss with someone who already have a viewpoint (with no proof) and doesn't want to hear anything that is not his viewpoint.

Again, the religion nonsense. A religion is a set of beliefs about the nature of reality that has no empirical data to support it. My position on consciousness is that it's a function of the brain that ends when the body ceases to live. Exactly what is 'religious' about that? Explain how that is so outlandish and so in conflict what we observe?

It's pretty clear, my friend, that with your talk of consciousness existing in another dimension, the 'purposes' of evolution and so on it's you who's searching for religion, not me.

TSO, you wrote:

I simply did not—rather, do not—understand why the issue of meaning is important here, in this debate.

It's due to the fact that RN begun this debate seeking an explanation of a bereaved mother's grief and started talking about the existence of consciousness in other dimensions. I pointed out that this quest is motivated by an ethical judgement that suffering needs to be 'redeemed', 'overcome' etc. The basic idea is that it's suffering that sets people off looking for evidence that consciousness possesses an existence independent of our physical existence, ie we seek to attribute a 'meaning' to suffering instead of being able to accept it as a sad and unfortunate fact of our existence.