"Conciousness: Not What You See"

[RoyalWing]

Hello, I received this in an email message, and I thought some one might like it? I liked it. It's very long, but please read it if you want.

[quote]Consciousness: Not What You See

A study has proven that a large amount of people who technically died but were soon resuscitated, had vivid “dreamsâ€

[Mr. SmartyPants]

dude... thats crazy insane awesome!

[c-girl]

That is amazing!! >O.O< I love learning about this type of stuff!

[Raiden no Kishi]

BOOYAH! Take that, atheism!

Rai

[Felix]

Nice! That's really interesting! I've really pondered stuff like this alot so it's great to learn more about that kind of thing!! ^^

[Technomancer]

I'd take any sort of unsolicited emails with more than a grain of salt, especially ones relying on uncited studies. Be careful of believing something merely because you want it to be true.

[Felix]

I'd take any sort of unsolicited emails with more than a grain of salt, especially ones relying on uncited studies. Be careful of believing something merely because you want it to be true.

Yeah. I never said it was true. I merely thought it was an interesting concept.

[Technomancer]

Yes there are some interesting ideas in the letter, if they're true. The internet though is in general a pretty poor place to do research because there's rarely any real control or mechanism for fact checking. Anyone can put up a website or send of emails. I actually used to dock marks from students who handed in papers that relied on internet sources for just this reason. Simply looking at the letter's first sentence indicates the problem "A study has proven...". What study and conducted by whom? Where was it published, and why haven't the results been ballyhooed by the media, neurobiologists, etc. You have to critically evaluate such statements on the basis of knowing what makes for a reliable source.

If you want to learn about the workings of the brain, there are far better sources than random emails.

[K. Ayato]

I'm a psychology major, and that account goes right into what I believe as a Christian, 'cause science can and does prove that a Creator--hence God--exists, although some things can't be proven using the scientific method. With those, it all boils down to faith.

[RoyalWing]

I agree with what you said, Technomancer. I know we can't believe many things on the internet, and especially when I got this mail, I thought "where did all the details went?"

I'm not sure about the rest, but I believe the things about "clinically dead". I read a book about that offers alot of "proof", the doctor who wrote the book was known to relatives' friends and I discussed with them too.(this was a long time ago... )

The part about the marriage is what was the most "funny" to me.

Does any one else have any more opinions?

[Fsiphskilm]

One doesn't have

[Spiritsword]

RoyalWing, was the book you read "Beyond Death's Door"? I've read that one and it was quite interesting. It offers some evidence based on accounts of those who have been clinically dead and had experiences of awareness. The book actually helped me a bit with my fear (mentioned in another thread) of nonexistence after death, but it still leaves questions. People talk about seeing the room or a shoe on the roof while clinically dead, how are they seeing it when their visual system is dead in their body? If a soul exists after death, would it really perceive time, or sensory input (qualities of one's physiological interaction with a physical universe) if not bound by physical constraints? Other questions spring to mind too.

Ultimately, I think mobilesuitpilot put it best:

It all boils down to faith.

And existence after death is still one of the greatest areas of difficulty for me in my faith, because it's one of the most difficult to support with evidence--it relies on a higher level of faith than most other areas.

But an interesting topic, thanks for starting it RoyalWing.

[Nate]

Albert Einstein, though he was not a believer (as far as my knowledge), said that there must be some sort of afterlife due to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

That made a lot of sense to me.

[Kura Ookami]

There's alot of evidence for Gods existance, but no proof. Just look at the chances of humans living anywhere in the universe. The chances are very slim like one in a million maybe one in a billion. That's just the chances of humans existing by random chance. Does this prove God created us? Nope. There is still that one in a billion chance that we were an accident that just happened randomly. The weight of the evidence all points to God's existance, but is there irrefutable proof? I'd argue that there isn't.

Mobilesuitpilot said it best

[qoute=mobilesuitpilot]It all boils down to faith.[/Quote]

Existance after death is a tough one to really believe in because there is less evidence to support it as spiritsword said.

[Technomancer]

For me, the body/soul problem is fascinating one, which at the moment has no satisfactory resolution. I've been involved with neural networks research for some time, and have lately been getting more into the biological aspect in some depth, so the problem has a certain amount of immediacy to me.

As a theological question, it's one that needs persuing, although speculations about the nature of the mind must be rested on a firm footing. We cannot, for example, divorce the material aspect of our beings from our spiritual aspect. The mechanisms of memory and learning are known to be physical in nature, as is much of what makes us 'us'. For example, damage to certain parts of the brain may result in dramatic personality changes, as will the use of certain drugs. Loss of cognitive ability as a result of brain damage is also well known, and the type of loss depends on what part of the brain is affected.

At the same time, more and more of what we know of brain function can be discussed in computational terms. From the behaviour of single cells to emergent phenomena such as depth perception and auditoy segregation, we are able to see the power of the brain as a computational unit. This doesn't mean that everything is expressible in such terms of course. Aside from the theologians, some famous scientists like Roger Penrose argue that conciousness is fundamentally non-computational in nature. Penrose's theories are controversial, but have been given serious consideration in scientific circles.

[RoyalWing]

RoyalWing, was the book you read "Beyond Death's Door"? I've read that one and it was quite interesting. It offers some evidence based on accounts of those who have been clinically dead and had experiences of awareness.

Yes, it was! I liked how it was a doctor, and he made studies of this. I still have the book, somewhere.

I emailed the person who wrote that mail and asked them where they received this information. I hope they reply (they should, because know I them in person... )

Me too, I was worried about this subject. It was the first thing I was worried about. Some one told me : "What is the purpose of living if it's just going to stop and do nothing?" So, I thought that was a good point.

Euh, well, I hope your are all enjoying this subject...

[Fsiphskilm]

I'd rather