Souls and Neuroscience

[humble_catholic]

Is dualism philosophically coherent? What are its limits? What evidence supports it?

In the habermas video he talks specifically about people that were brain dead and being able to view things outside their field of physical sense perception that even if they were awake they wouldnt be able to do. Like a Person that was brain dead for a while in a hospital room describing exactly what their family was doing and then the doctor getting independent verification of it. This blows the atheist’s materialistic-naturalistic view right out of the water. Its no wonder many atheist sites talk about NDE’s as hallucinations because it would really cause them to think twice about their worldviews. If you believe that we have an immaterial soul, then stuff like this is exactly what you would expect to see in at least some near death experiences.

Habermas has ammassed many years of research into this field.

 

[greylorn]

…If you believe that we have an immaterial soul, then stuff like this is exactly what you would expect to see in at least some near death experiences.

Actually, that is not true. The soul is defined by the Church (last I heard, anyway) as a spirit, a non-physical entity or principle of life. This definition leaves the soul lacking any of the physical properties necessary to detect physical events (conversations) and material objects.

Such a weak definition also leaves the soul incapable of interacting with the physical human brain.

Conclusion: if you actually believe in the soul, it is time to find an understanding of its properties which first make sense in the context of current physics, next in the context of neuroscience.

If this is done competently, it will provide useful insights into some of the properties of mind which currently mystify neuroscientists.

 

[greylorn]

Actually theatheist, if you watch the Habermas video you will see that there have been numerous documented near death experiences that clearly point to some kind of dualism. This is one of the best videos on near death experiences because Habermas has spent so much time documenting the near death experinces that can be verified by the things said by the people experiencing the NDE’s. These are not stories passed around and changed over time but things that were documented by the doctors and their assistants themselves as soon as the person came to, just to make sure that they get the original fresh story as it comes out. It really made me say wow and I do not say wow that often.

If your asking whether they can be repeated in a lab, the answer is no, since it is a philosophical assumption that only something that can be repeated over and over in a lab is the only way to get at the truth, but these documented cases clearly point to naturalism-materialism being the odd man out as far as NDE’s showing their is more out there then just the brain. Maybe this is why over 75% of doctors either believe in God or an afterlife, and I would say that they clearly have a higher then average IQ. I would say they are privy to experiences that very few get to see working in a lab.

No number of reported NDE experiences or other paranormal phenomena will address TheAtheist’s comments. Perhaps if you seriously peruse his comments you will see that he was not calling for more experiments or for repeatable lab-quality experiments.

Experiments serve two distinct functions in science. The first is to disclose phenomena which are worthy of a theoretical explanation or model. NDE’s and other psi phenomena have been doing that for well over a century.

The second function of an experiment is to verify or disprove any theoretical explanation of an interesting phenomena.

TheAtheist first points out the absence of a suitable theoretical explanation, then notes that none of the glut of largely unsuitable “explanations” can be verified or disproved.

For example, there is no aspect of any soul-concept taught by any religion or described in any dictionary which can be experimentally verified. IMO religions want it that way, so they can hide from serious inquiry about other aspects of their theologies.

 

[humble_catholic]

Greylorn, habermas is a Christian so I think if any Christian denomination was against inquiry into the soul habermas would have been chastised for doing this. What we do have now is powerfully evidence against most atheists world view of naturalism-materialism,and what Christian church says that physical events can’t be obseved by the immaterial soul?

Another problem here is scientism. To think that every event can be repeatable or verified in a laboratory is a very narrow minded view when searching for the truth. The inescapable truth is that there appears some very powerfully evidence for the afterlife.

That to anyone being objective deals a very deadl blow to most atheists naturalism world view. The fact that doctors are now keeping records of things most people have known throughout the centuries is no surprise to many theologians. The big problem is for people that ascribe to the notion of scientism. Maybe these people need to open up to new ways of looking at things instead of trying to make the catholic church seem narrow minded when in fact it is the people hat made these judgements that are narrow minded themselves.

 

[humble_catholic]

This is a very inaccurate portrayal of the Chruch’s teaching on the soul. Animal souls are mortal, in contrast to human souls which are immortal. Please read this for a better understanding “soul”: newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Nice find David, looks like I have some reading to do

 

[tonyrey]

Is dualism philosophically coherent? What are its limits? What evidence supports it?

Theism is the simplest, most coherent and most adequate form of monism because it does not exclude the contingent reality of both mind and matter, for which we have abundant evidence in our own experience and the success of science.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, habermas is a Christian so I think if any Christian denomination was against inquiry into the soul habermas would have been chastised for doing this. What we do have now is powerfully evidence against most atheists world view of naturalism-materialism,and what Christian church says that physical events can’t be obseved by the immaterial soul?

Another problem here is scientism. To think that every event can be repeatable or verified in a laboratory is a very narrow minded view when searching for the truth. The inescapable truth is that there appears some very powerfully evidence for the afterlife.

That to anyone being objective deals a very deadl blow to most atheists naturalism world view. The fact that doctors are now keeping records of things most people have known throughout the centuries is no surprise to many theologians. The big problem is for people that ascribe to the notion of scientism. Maybe these people need to open up to new ways of looking at things instead of trying to make the catholic church seem narrow minded when in fact it is the people hat made these judgements that are narrow minded themselves.

You appear to have missed the point, so I’ll try a different approach.

It appears that you are knowledgeable about NDEs and accepting of them, as am I. Perhaps you accept the reality of other psychic phenomena, many of which have been scientifically verified to exist. So do I. I’ve experienced most psi phenomena and experimented informally in areas ranging from the sensitivity of plants to human thoughts, general telepathy, telekinesis, and precognition. I’ve personally trained two mediums in the art of safe trance channeling. Although my background is physics, astronomy, and biochemistry, I believe in the continuity of human consciousness after death. This is helpful to the occasional past life regression I perform for friends.

Now you speak about narrow minded people making judgments. Consider this one:

After considerable study of several branches of science, and a variety of religions, I concluded that in matters concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, and the nature, origin, and ultimate purpose of mankind, science and religion are both seriously wrong.

Are you sufficiently open minded to consider that possibility, or are your religious beliefs absolutely correct?

 

[Pieman333272]

You appear to have missed the point, so I’ll try a different approach.

It appears that you are knowledgeable about NDEs and accepting of them, as am I. Perhaps you accept the reality of other psychic phenomena, many of which have been scientifically verified to exist. So do I. I’ve experienced most psi phenomena and experimented informally in areas ranging from the sensitivity of plants to human thoughts, general telepathy, telekinesis, and precognition. I’ve personally trained two mediums in the art of safe trance channeling. Although my background is physics, astronomy, and biochemistry, I believe in the continuity of human consciousness after death. This is helpful to the occasional past life regression I perform for friends.

Now you speak about narrow minded people making judgments. Consider this one:

After considerable study of several branches of science, and a variety of religions, I concluded that in matters concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, and the nature, origin, and ultimate purpose of mankind, science and religion are both seriously wrong.

Are you sufficiently open minded to consider that possibility, or are your religious beliefs absolutely correct?

Wow! You’re the 3rd person this week I’ve seen talk about stuff like this! I am open minded to consider that my beliefs may be wrong, but I, in all honesty doubt it, in spite of reading lots of opposition. As for your other parapsychotic happenings, those are very interesting. I actually am very cynical that things such as these, especially NDE’s, are contradictory to the Church or Christianity. The only exception is past-life memories, in my view, but having read books about them I’m skeptic of those, due to certain… discrepancies… in all (yes, all) of the people who claim to remember these’s cases and circumstances. I choose to accept dualism but think that almost any philosophical view involving continuation of human consciousness and/or the supernatural/immaterial’s existence plausible. The only one I can say I’ve completely closed my mind to is materialism.

Yeah, I know you weren’t talking to me, but I figured I’d say that anyway.

 

[runningdude]

You appear to have missed the point, so I’ll try a different approach.

It appears that you are knowledgeable about NDEs and accepting of them, as am I. Perhaps you accept the reality of other psychic phenomena, many of which have been scientifically verified to exist. So do I. I’ve experienced most psi phenomena and experimented informally in areas ranging from the sensitivity of plants to human thoughts, general telepathy, telekinesis, and precognition. I’ve personally trained two mediums in the art of safe trance channeling. Although my background is physics, astronomy, and biochemistry, I believe in the continuity of human consciousness after death. This is helpful to the occasional past life regression I perform for friends.

Now you speak about narrow minded people making judgments. Consider this one:

After considerable study of several branches of science, and a variety of religions, I concluded that in matters concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, and the nature, origin, and ultimate purpose of mankind, science and religion are both seriously wrong.

Are you sufficiently open minded to consider that possibility, or are your religious beliefs absolutely correct?

Catholicism requires that you trust your “religious” beliefs, even with doubts. Anything less is to worship something less than the one true God.

Is this being closed minded. No. One has to be open minded to allow the Holy Spirit to draw you to the Church, but once the Holy Spirit has done so, being continuing to be “open minded” means that the only correct answer is to remain Catholic! If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then we believe that all intellectually honest doubts and discussions ultimately lead back to the Church Jesus Christ founded!

Ultimately, because I have accepted the Catholic Church, I have to simply disregard any notion of past lives or reincarnation. We are taught as Catholics that we are endowed with a unique, immaterial human soul at conception. We are taught that our bodies will die once, and will be resurrected once, just as Jesus Christ died and resurrected two thousand years ago.

All souls are uniquely created. Even Jesus Christ, who’s divinity has existed for all eternity, was endowed by the Holy Spirit with a unique human soul at the moment of incarnation in Mary’s womb. Jesus was incarnated human once. He was resurrected, but not reincarnated. He was the same person before and after his death. As a Catholic, I believe this to be an historical fact. I don’t hold the idea of reincarnation in hostility, but merely hold it to have been disproven by historical fact!

I’m not being closed minded here. Given the facts I know, and the truth’s revealed to me (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM - nothing secret here ), I have debated and deliberated with myself, and come to the conclusion that Catholicism is the only Church that makes sense!

…

You mentioned that you’ve investigated numerous religions, and concluded that their ultimate purpose is wrong. I have to agree with you, sort of . Religion is a human construct. Every religion founded by man IS INFACT WRONG. I cannot fault you for concluding as such.

However, Catholicism isn’t founded by man! It was started at the beginning of time, when God the Father formed a covenant with the first humans. This covenant was renewed repeatedly throughout history with the Jewish people, ultimately being fulfilled with Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary, spreading the possibility of salvation to all of humanity via the institutional Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[5tunate]

After considerable study of several branches of science, and a variety of religions, I concluded that in matters concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, and the nature, origin, and ultimate purpose of mankind, science and religion are both seriously wrong.

I don’t know if we might agree as to particulars, but this is the sanest and imho most accurate position I’ve seen in my newness to these threads.

 

[greylorn]

Wow! You’re the 3rd person this week I’ve seen talk about stuff like this! I am open minded to consider that my beliefs may be wrong, but I, in all honesty doubt it, in spite of reading lots of opposition. As for your other parapsychotic happenings, those are very interesting. I actually am very cynical that things such as these, especially NDE’s, are contradictory to the Church or Christianity. The only exception is past-life memories, in my view, but having read books about them I’m skeptic of those, due to certain… discrepancies… in all (yes, all) of the people who claim to remember these’s cases and circumstances. I choose to accept dualism but think that almost any philosophical view involving continuation of human consciousness and/or the supernatural/immaterial’s existence plausible. The only one I can say I’ve completely closed my mind to is materialism.

Yeah, I know you weren’t talking to me, but I figured I’d say that anyway.

You’re welcome to join the conversation. The more, the merrier, or sometimes the messier. However I dislike your use of the pejorative term “parapsychotic”. Although it is an imaginatively inventive word, I found it personally insulting. You’re not a nitwit, so you don’t need to do that kind of thing.

I am personally highly skeptical of past-life memories. My first experience was when, as a participant in a self-hypnosis course group which I was annoyed with, I used telepathy in a group past-life regression to guide the entire rest of the group into memories which I was inventing for them on the spot. Upon exiting trance, they were astounded that they’d all been pirates on the same ship, dying together (when I ran their frigate into a reef).

This taught me to be wary of any regression work done by anyone else. Given the consistency of results obtained by the writers of some books, I’m inclined to believe that many people are conducting regressions and unconsciously (or consciously) determining the outcome. My acceptance of the phenomenon comes from my personal experience, and from common, verified, tales of reincarnation by children in Hindu and Buddhist cultures, where the phenomenon is culturally acceptable.

You might want to review your repertoire of dualistic belief systems and filter out those which have a poor relationship to logic and fact. Of course that may leave you throwing out all of them, which is always a great, neutral starting point for rethinking anything.

I don’t find psi phenomena to be contrary to real Catholic teachings either. Christ makes extensive use of it— zapping fig trees, repairing ocular nerves, restarting hearts, and my favorite, turning water into wine. These days any nit can spray 2-5-T on a tree. Surgeons can sometimes restore sight. ER docs jump start hearts a thousand times a day. But that water into wine trick is a real challenge. I’ve been practicing it for decades, but so far have only managed to turn wine into water— and not very tasty water at that. But it’s a start, and I’ll keep trying until I figure it out.

Anyway, Christ did not imply that humans could not, or should not attempt to duplicate His performances. They were so far beyond the understanding of His contemporaries that the issue simply did not arise. However, I’ve found that Christians in general are afraid of psychic abilities, and many associate them with satanistic practices.

Here’s a non-psychic prediction: You have a curious mind. You will continue to use it. To guide you in suitable directions, your guardian angel will arrange to have you experience for yourself those things which you deny can genuinely happen to and within others. Only if your “soul” component of mind is open, of course. Enjoy!

 

[Pieman333272]

You’re welcome to join the conversation. The more, the merrier, or sometimes the messier. However I dislike your use of the pejorative term “parapsychotic”. Although it is an imaginatively inventive word, I found it personally insulting. You’re not a nitwit, so you don’t need to do that kind of thing.

I am personally highly skeptical of past-life memories. My first experience was when, as a participant in a self-hypnosis course group which I was annoyed with, I used telepathy in a group past-life regression to guide the entire rest of the group into memories which I was inventing for them on the spot. Upon exiting trance, they were astounded that they’d all been pirates on the same ship, dying together (when I ran their frigate into a reef).

This taught me to be wary of any regression work done by anyone else. Given the consistency of results obtained by the writers of some books, I’m inclined to believe that many people are conducting regressions and unconsciously (or consciously) determining the outcome. My acceptance of the phenomenon comes from my personal experience, and from common, verified, tales of reincarnation by children in Hindu and Buddhist cultures, where the phenomenon is culturally acceptable.

You might want to review your repertoire of dualistic belief systems and filter out those which have a poor relationship to logic and fact. Of course that may leave you throwing out all of them, which is always a great, neutral starting point for rethinking anything.

I don’t find psi phenomena to be contrary to real Catholic teachings either. Christ makes extensive use of it— zapping fig trees, repairing ocular nerves, restarting hearts, and my favorite, turning water into wine. These days any nit can spray 2-5-T on a tree. Surgeons can sometimes restore sight. ER docs jump start hearts a thousand times a day. But that water into wine trick is a real challenge. I’ve been practicing it for decades, but so far have only managed to turn wine into water— and not very tasty water at that. But it’s a start, and I’ll keep trying until I figure it out.

Anyway, Christ did not imply that humans could not, or should not attempt to duplicate His performances. They were so far beyond the understanding of His contemporaries that the issue simply did not arise. However, I’ve found that Christians in general are afraid of psychic abilities, and many associate them with satanistic practices.

Here’s a non-psychic prediction: You have a curious mind. You will continue to use it. To guide you in suitable directions, your guardian angel will arrange to have you experience for yourself those things which you deny can genuinely happen to and within others. Only if your “soul” component of mind is open, of course. Enjoy!

Woah! Seriously, I’m sorry, I didn’t know “parapsychotic” would be taken with offence! I incorrectly believed it was an appropriate term to use to describe PSI and the like! Truly, I’m sorry. Anyway, I have to agree with your views on repeating miracles - they have been done before, just ask somebody healed by prayer! He actually promised that we could do what he could through his power! I’m not afraid of psychic abilities, due to the fact most are either discredited or proven/plausible but not contradictory to Catholic theology. Like I said, though I subscribe to dualism myself, I believe ANY supernatural/immaterial philosophical view holds ground (especially considering many, nay, all, are coherent with Catholic theology to an extent).

I find your tales of past-life regression interesting. I’m not trying to wane your views on this, but did you know most Eastern Buddhist and Hindu Mystics/Monks/theologians deny past life regression as proof of their beliefs? It’s mostly viewed as significant in the Westernized versions of said religions. The reasons the Easterners deny it is actually one of the main reasons I do. I also find it odd that most of the researchers of such phenomena today are neither Buddhist or Hindu but either atheists, the “Spiritual, not religious” type, or New Agers? I just find that an interesting statistical discrepancy. Again, I’m not trying to change your views, but this is what I’ve read when I looked at the issue a while ago.

 

[greylorn]

Woah! Seriously, I’m sorry, I didn’t know “parapsychotic” would be taken with offence! I incorrectly believed it was an appropriate term to use to describe PSI and the like! Truly, I’m sorry. Anyway, I have to agree with your views on repeating miracles - they have been done before, just ask somebody healed by prayer! He actually promised that we could do what he could through his power! I’m not afraid of psychic abilities, due to the fact most are either discredited or proven/plausible but not contradictory to Catholic theology. Like I said, though I subscribe to dualism myself, I believe ANY supernatural/immaterial philosophical view holds ground (especially considering many, nay, all, are coherent with Catholic theology to an extent).

I find your tales of past-life regression interesting. I’m not trying to wane your views on this, but did you know most Eastern Buddhist and Hindu Mystics/Monks/theologians deny past life regression as proof of their beliefs? It’s mostly viewed as significant in the Westernized versions of said religions. The reasons the Easterners deny it is actually one of the main reasons I do. I also find it odd that most of the researchers of such phenomena today are neither Buddhist or Hindu but either atheists, the “Spiritual, not religious” type, or New Agers? I just find that an interesting statistical discrepancy. Again, I’m not trying to change your views, but this is what I’ve read when I looked at the issue a while ago.

Apology accepted, with thanks. Should you want to get more information on the quality and integrity of psi research, there are many books available, most of them geared to the 10th grade level. I can recommend Dean Radin’s “The Conscious Universe,” to someone like yourself who wants honest information at a high level, but isn’t ready for hard core scientific journals. Although Radin’s big degree is in psychology, his earlier credentials include physics, and he writes well.

I did not know that Buddhist/Hindu theologians declined to use regression as proof of their beliefs, but they operate as I’d expect, because they don’t need regression material as proof. They have plenty of evidence appearing naturally within their cultures, because they accept reincarnation as part of how things happen.

I’ve not studied Hinduism in quite a while and hope never to have to do so, but classical Buddhism has a more interesting explanation for the origin of the soul and its potentially perpetual cycles of reincarnation. Their “epiphenomenon” belief is actually the only explanation for the origin of the soul offered by any currently popular belief system which makes motivational sense.

Likewise, I don’t find it odd that Buddhist and Hindu types are not engaged in theological research. Their belief systems offer little in objective terms upon which research might profitably focus. They are mystical people, and they like it that way.

There are only two objects of research, whether theoretical or applied. The first is to invent and verify theories capable of explaining some phenomenon which is not already well-explained. This requires curiosity, and, because most everyone has a belief or opinion about which theology is correct (his own), there’s not much curiosity about beliefs— except from people who have seen the flaws in existing systems and abandoned them (atheists) or those who fled into the land of wu-wu metaphysics (new-agers).

I’m an exception. When I found that Catholicism and physics were not compatible, personal psychic experiences of a very casual sort stalled my departure into atheism long enough to devise Plan B, which has morphed into Plan C thanks to the discovery of dark energy.

What you interpret as a statistical discrepancy is as predictable and obvious as the conclusion that most of the human beings who choose not to bear children are women. Or that freeloaders on the welfare system and union members and college students will vote for democrats and socialists.

No one who is satisfied with his beliefs will research them. Some of those who are not satisfied, will. This applies to all subjects, such as evolution theory and the interpretation of quantum phenomena in physics.

 

[Pieman333272]

Apology accepted, with thanks. Should you want to get more information on the quality and integrity of psi research, there are many books available, most of them geared to the 10th grade level. I can recommend Dean Radin’s “The Conscious Universe,” to someone like yourself who wants honest information at a high level, but isn’t ready for hard core scientific journals. Although Radin’s big degree is in psychology, his earlier credentials include physics, and he writes well.

I had a look at the book. I might buy it. I’ve read some parapsychology works and find it incredibly interesting but chose to stop after I realized 90% of what was on the market was either discredited, anti-religion or New Age. But this book seems legit and scientific, so I may check it out when I’m finished with some scholarly works I’m reading on Jesus’ Resurrection.

I did not know that Buddhist/Hindu theologians declined to use regression as proof of their beliefs, but they operate as I’d expect, because they don’t need regression material as proof. They have plenty of evidence appearing naturally within their cultures, because they accept reincarnation as part of how things happen.

They DO have good metaphysical arguments for reincarnation, I believe, and many also suggest they increase evidence, it’s just common amongst them to deny Past-Life Regression as said evidence. That being said, I’ve studied their evidence and wouldn’t say it’s been proven to be part of nature. Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge the plausibility of reincarnation, but I also acknowledge the philosophical objections for it and the ones for the “heaven/hell/purgation” afterlife system I subscribe to, as well as the evidence against that, in turn.

I’ve not studied Hinduism in quite a while and hope never to have to do so, but classical Buddhism has a more interesting explanation for the origin of the soul and its potentially perpetual cycles of reincarnation. Their “epiphenomenon” belief is actually the only explanation for the origin of the soul offered by any currently popular belief system which makes motivational sense.

I’ve brushed on it but haven’t gone in depth on it. Could you fill me in on their view on the soul’s origins?

Likewise, I don’t find it odd that Buddhist and Hindu types are not engaged in theological research. Their belief systems offer little in objective terms upon which research might profitably focus. They are mystical people, and they like it that way.

Most Eastern Religions don’t practice theology, replacing it with mysticism and prayer as its forms of religious study. That being said, there IS Eastern Theology, but its in a minority in each respective culture.

There are only two objects of research, whether theoretical or applied. The first is to invent and verify theories capable of explaining some phenomenon which is not already well-explained. This requires curiosity, and, because most everyone has a belief or opinion about which theology is correct (his own), there’s not much curiosity about beliefs— except from people who have seen the flaws in existing systems and abandoned them (atheists) or those who fled into the land of wu-wu metaphysics (new-agers).

Don’t forget comparative religion, where you take them all, shuffle them up, give yourself a handful of them, and decide how they all point to the **same **truth! I have, in recent times, been toying with the semi-heretical “all Gods are one God” idea in my brain.

I’m an exception. When I found that Catholicism and physics were not compatible, personal psychic experiences of a very casual sort stalled my departure into atheism long enough to devise Plan B, which has morphed into Plan C thanks to the discovery of dark energy.

Physics as in the hard science or the phenomenon? If the former, I’m personally seeing more and more compatibility between Catholicism and physics.

What you interpret as a statistical discrepancy is as predictable and obvious as the conclusion that most of the human beings who choose not to bear children are women. Or that freeloaders on the welfare system and union members and college students will vote for democrats and socialists.

Like I said, it’s just an observation I made. Not evidence, not an objection, just an observation. Those are good ones too.

No one who is satisfied with his beliefs will research them. Some of those who are not satisfied, will. This applies to all subjects, such as evolution theory and the interpretation of quantum phenomena in physics.

I’m satisfied with **my **beliefs (planning on entering the seminary post-college) and I still study them. And others. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe not. I’ll just see someday (I actually do have specific scientific, historical and philosophical reasons for being Catholic over Buddhist or Daoist or Hindu, but they’re off-topic and unnecessary here).

Sorry for the obnoxious way of replying, I sort of was in a rush with this.

 

[Gloria1]

Science knows nothing about the human soul. Science deals with the material part of the human person (the body) but the human soul is not material. Neuroscientists know how the brain works but they know nothing about the human mind because the human mind like the human soul is not material (not matter).

 

[greylorn]

Science knows nothing about the human soul. Science deals with the material part of the human person (the body) but the human soul is not material. Neuroscientists know how the brain works but they know nothing about the human mind because the human mind like the human soul is not material (not matter).

This post contains, IMO, not a single correct statement. It exhibits a non-scientist’s opinions about science. Real scientists do not restrict their studies to the material component of anything they study, be it a human body or an extra-solar planet. Neuroscientists, despite decades of research, have no clue as to how the brain works.

They have no more idea as to what the human mind is, or is not, than do you. Since you do not know what it is, how can you know what it is not?

 

[greylorn]

Sorry for the obnoxious way of replying, I sort of was in a rush with this.

Your reply style is not obnoxious, but makes it difficult to continue the conversation. (Try replying to your own post and you’ll see what I mean.)

Given the extra difficulty and late hour I’ll address only your question about the classical Buddhist (i.e. original theory) understanding of soul.

The Buddha was an atheist. He saw the universe as an uncaused phenomenon, and would have been delighted with Darwinism. However, personal experience compelled his belief in the existence of a conscious entity independent of the human brain-body system.

He concluded that as life forms evolved, on their own, from primitive to complex, they produced human beings. Our brains are so complex that in the normal course of life they create the soul, an energy pattern which mirrors the activity of the brain, and which takes on a life of its own strong enough to survive the body’s demise.

In other words, the brain creates the soul.

Problem is, the soul is not a natural part of the universe and does not belong here. There is no place for it except another body, so after its original body’s death it finds the nearest and takes up residence, starting a cycle of death and rebirth.

Because the soul does not belong here it will never be happy, and this is the cause of all unhappiness. The soul’s only escape from the cycle of rebirth, misery, and death is to acquire a sufficiently high level of consciousness and knowledge that upon death of its last body, the soul will self-terminate, returning to “nirvana.” The word nirvana is a synonym for nothingness, not for heaven.

 

[Pieman333272]

I got the chance to fix it! Here goes:

Apology accepted, with thanks. Should you want to get more information on the quality and integrity of psi research, there are many books available, most of them geared to the 10th grade level. I can recommend Dean Radin’s “The Conscious Universe,” to someone like yourself who wants honest information at a high level, but isn’t ready for hard core scientific journals. Although Radin’s big degree is in psychology, his earlier credentials include physics, and he writes well.

I had a look at the book. I might buy it. I’ve read some parapsychology works and find it incredibly interesting but chose to stop after I realized 90% of what was on the market was either discredited, anti-religion or New Age. But this book seems legit and scientific, so I may check it out when I’m finished with some scholarly works I’m reading on Jesus’ Resurrection.

I did not know that Buddhist/Hindu theologians declined to use regression as proof of their beliefs, but they operate as I’d expect, because they don’t need regression material as proof. They have plenty of evidence appearing naturally within their cultures, because they accept reincarnation as part of how things happen.

They DO have good metaphysical arguments for reincarnation, I believe, and many also suggest they increase evidence, it’s just common amongst them to deny Past-Life Regression as said evidence. That being said, I’ve studied their evidence and wouldn’t say it’s been proven to be part of nature. Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge the plausibility of reincarnation, but I also acknowledge the philosophical objections for it and the ones for the “heaven/hell/purgation” afterlife system I subscribe to, as well as the evidence against that, in turn.

I’ve not studied Hinduism in quite a while and hope never to have to do so, but classical Buddhism has a more interesting explanation for the origin of the soul and its potentially perpetual cycles of reincarnation. Their “epiphenomenon” belief is actually the only explanation for the origin of the soul offered by any currently popular belief system which makes motivational sense.

I’ve brushed on it but haven’t gone in depth on it. Could you fill me in on their view on the soul’s origins?

Likewise, I don’t find it odd that Buddhist and Hindu types are not engaged in theological research. Their belief systems offer little in objective terms upon which research might profitably focus. They are mystical people, and they like it that way.

Most Eastern Religions don’t practice theology, replacing it with mysticism and prayer as its forms of religious study. That being said, there IS Eastern Theology, but its in a minority in each respective culture.

There are only two objects of research, whether theoretical or applied. The first is to invent and verify theories capable of explaining some phenomenon which is not already well-explained. This requires curiosity, and, because most everyone has a belief or opinion about which theology is correct (his own), there’s not much curiosity about beliefs— except from people who have seen the flaws in existing systems and abandoned them (atheists) or those who fled into the land of wu-wu metaphysics (new-agers).

Don’t forget comparative religion, where you take them all, shuffle them up, give yourself a handful of them, and decide how they all point to the same truth! I have, in recent times, been toying with the semi-heretical “all Gods are one God” idea in my brain.

I’m an exception. When I found that Catholicism and physics were not compatible, personal psychic experiences of a very casual sort stalled my departure into atheism long enough to devise Plan B, which has morphed into Plan C thanks to the discovery of dark energy.

Physics as in the hard science or the phenomenon? If the former, I’m personally seeing more and more compatibility between Catholicism and physics.

What you interpret as a statistical discrepancy is as predictable and obvious as the conclusion that most of the human beings who choose not to bear children are women. Or that freeloaders on the welfare system and union members and college students will vote for democrats and socialists.

Like I said, it’s just an observation I made. Not evidence, not an objection, just an observation. Those are good ones too.

No one who is satisfied with his beliefs will research them. Some of those who are not satisfied, will. This applies to all subjects, such as evolution theory and the interpretation of quantum phenomena in physics.

I’m satisfied with my beliefs (planning on entering the seminary post-college) and I still study them. And others. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe not. I’ll just see someday (I actually do have specific scientific, historical and philosophical reasons for being Catholic over Buddhist or Daoist or Hindu, but they’re off-topic and unnecessary here IMHO).

I’ll reply to your other post next.

 

[Pieman333272]

Your reply style is not obnoxious, but makes it difficult to continue the conversation. (Try replying to your own post and you’ll see what I mean.)

Given the extra difficulty and late hour I’ll address only your question about the classical Buddhist (i.e. original theory) understanding of soul.

The Buddha was an atheist. He saw the universe as an uncaused phenomenon, and would have been delighted with Darwinism. However, personal experience compelled his belief in the existence of a conscious entity independent of the human brain-body system.

He concluded that as life forms evolved, on their own, from primitive to complex, they produced human beings. Our brains are so complex that in the normal course of life they create the soul, an energy pattern which mirrors the activity of the brain, and which takes on a life of its own strong enough to survive the body’s demise.

In other words, the brain creates the soul.

Problem is, the soul is not a natural part of the universe and does not belong here. There is no place for it except another body, so after its original body’s death it finds the nearest and takes up residence, starting a cycle of death and rebirth.

Because the soul does not belong here it will never be happy, and this is the cause of all unhappiness. The soul’s only escape from the cycle of rebirth, misery, and death is to acquire a sufficiently high level of consciousness and knowledge that upon death of its last body, the soul will self-terminate, returning to “nirvana.” The word nirvana is a synonym for nothingness, not for heaven.

I know about nirvana, I remember learning about that in my World History class. Buddha’s ideas are fascinating on the origin of the soul, though I don’t agree with them (for now), and actually seem to make sense. If I remember correctly, a number of cultures hold the idea that it is possible for material to create immaterial things. But how does his idea hold up with the ideas of karma and your next life being affected by your acts, which I think he believed, if your soul only heads for the nearest, rather than the best matching, host? (If I got Buddhist views on karma/sin wrong, feel free to correct me)

EDIT: Theoretically, until one form of non-materialism is proven (i.e. dualism, monism, nondualist souls/immaterial things, etc.) or one afterlife is proven, don’t all soul origin theories hold the same ground? That’s my metaphysical view on it, obviously you may or may not agree. Note I don’t think the soul cannot be scientifically studied as a user above claimed.

 

[greylorn]

…But how does [Buddha’s] idea hold up with the ideas of karma and your next life being affected by your acts, which I think he believed, if your soul only heads for the nearest, rather than the best matching, host? (If I got Buddhist views on karma/sin wrong, feel free to correct me)

The Buddhist view of the soul’s origin makes sense only in the context of Buddhist belief about the origin of the universe. Someone who believes in both the Big Bang and the soul has no better option. However, I regard Big Bang theory as a nonsensical astrophysical ruse to insure that the rubes keep funding expensive astronomical research, and in that respect I recommend it highly.

Any Buddhist can adopt any belief from any other religion whatsoever. Most seem to adopt a subset of Buddhism which suits them personally. So, I’m certain that your views on Buddhist versions of karma are both right and wrong depending upon who reviews them.

I will address your question about karma in the context of my own non-Buddhist theories, although the Buddhist guru master up the road, upon finally understanding them after a night of group meditation in his hot tub, assisted by Cuban cigars and Portuguese port, declared that they were right out of Buddhist teachings.

You mistakenly assume that the human brain does what various scientific researchers claim it does, which is to determine the entire process of thought and action in man. This is a mistake. The brain does not do these things, and accounts only for mundane and repetitive information processing. As a first approximation, it makes no difference which brain a soul hops back into because compared to the potential of soul, all brains are stupid.

If a young and therefore stupid soul jumps into a stupid brain, they’ll get along fine. If it hops into a brain with the potential to solve esoteric topology problems, that will be a waste of a good brain. If an older and wiser soul jumps into a smart brain, the combination might do something useful, and the soul will end up the better for it. If the soul installs itself into an average brain, no matter. It can teach the brain what it needs to know. If it finds itself in a really stupid brain, in its greater wisdom it might serve the planet by taking that opportunity to halt the propagation of defective genes.

Whatever, the combinations and options are infinite.

As for karma, it has nothing to do with brain. Only the soul can incur it, so whatever karma one acquires will travel along with the soul.

EDIT: Theoretically, until one form of non-materialism is proven (i.e. dualism, monism, nondualist souls/immaterial things, etc.) or one afterlife is proven, don’t all soul origin theories hold the same ground? That’s my metaphysical view on it, obviously you may or may not agree. Note I don’t think the soul cannot be scientifically studied as a user above claimed.

I disagree with your position. Thank you for giving me permission to do so, but I never need it. I recommend you adopt the same prerogative.

You have your head screwed on in fair alignment, but others seem to have snuck in a few nails and bolts when you weren’t looking. Here’s my Stanley nail remover for the day.

All ideas are not created equal. (Nor are men, for that matter.) Most ideas about the nature and origin of the soul are designed for emotional rather than logical appeal. Some are logical, others are not.

For example, Buddha’s epiphenomenon concept is brilliant, and perfectly logical— but only in the context of a belief that the universe in general is not created. I find plenty of evidence that the universe must have been the product of mind, therefore cannot adopt Buddha’s premise or his consequential conclusion.

You probably know much more about the opinions of various belief systems than I, so you will know that the differences between various monotheistic religions lies in one or both of two areas:

1. God’s reason for creating the soul.
2. God’s expectations for the soul.

Many atheists are critical thinkers who, like myself, cannot accept the currently available answers to Q1. Had the Church come up with an answer to this essential question which included rational motivations for the soul’s creation, I would still be a member, working and teaching within its organizational structure, rather than an outsider trying to change the belief systems of the world alone.

As you learn, you will learn that “proof” is not what it is cracked up to be. There is not much that even the finest scientists can actually prove with absolute certainty. Ideas rest upon ideas, which rest upon ideas, ad infinitum. For example, if the velocity of light in a vacuum is a variable rather than a constant, physics immediately takes one big step back into the 19th century. If the First Law of Thermodynamics is ever violated, we step back to the 18th century.

Good ideas are founded upon other good ideas and constructed with logic. Only then are they worth proving.

IMO all religious ideas about the nature of the soul, its cause, and its purpose are non-logical. By my standards that makes them wrong. So in that sense, that all such ideas are wrong, you are correct. However, some are more wrong than others. But it is not possible to find an idea that works within a pile of bad ideas, so there’s no point in sorting through the pile to find the best of the bad unless someone produces a TV show called, “The Apprentice Philosopher.”

All that said, I believe that “soul” exists, although I define it differently than you.