What make us who we are?

[sandwiches]

If anyone disagrees with me, especially if you think this is not the Biblically accurate interpretation, feel free to tell me why.

Is there any way to demonstrate or verify this idea?

 

[GrayAngel]

Hold on. I think I messed up a quote box somewhere.

...Nope. It's just being weird.

Removing the youtube from the quote seems to have fixed it.

Just want to let you know, it is not my intention to make you feel this way. I think many here(myself included) just like to get down to the nitty gritty details of belief, evidence, and logical lines of reasoning. I have disagreements with other atheists and agnostics all the time.

Okay, okay. I'll try not to be so sensitive (and ignore everything 3sigma says).

Part of the mind-body experiments are trying to decipher whether human consciousness emerges as a result of physical processes in the brain in complex beings, or the brain acts like a receiver of consciousness from outside the body. The latter concept has interesting similarities with the religious concept of soul or spirit, though I do not attribute such a possibility to any diety or anything supernatural. I just call it unknown science.

In the study I gave a link to, it explains one of the biggest areas of focus have to do with "Near Death Experiences." Thought that might interest you.
Here is a BBC documentary regarding the same type of studies being done regarding near death experiences:

That's interesting. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say the brain could be the receiver rather than the producer of thought. Although, this probably would have been a decent way to summarize the way I used to think about human thinking.

I watched the first part, but I'll have to watch the rest sometime.

Personally, I don't believe in near death experiences. I'm of the opinion that the brain, for whatever reason, begins to function differently after the rest of the body dies, causing people to experience these strange sensations.

Of course, I'm no expert, and none of this is provable. But I've heard multiple accounts of near death experiences, and each one is inconsistent with one another.

People of all religions experience things consistent with their own beliefs. It's not any single religion that reports having near death experiences where they visited their own version of Heaven.

Even taking Christian accounts alone, they seem to contradict each other. How can their experiences be real, if they're not all experiencing the same Heaven?

I'm not sure if this documentary covers this, but some people report not so pleasant experiences of what they believe to be Hell. These definitely do not fall under the NDE criteria, but I wonder about them. Some people chose to become Christians because of what they report to be a Hellish kind of NDE, so I doubt they're completely making up their stories.

You are acting like you have a persecution complex. It is not mocking you to point this out. And I was just cracking a joke to lighten the mood. It wasn't mocking you, or intended as a personal attack.

I think you'll find that humor is often a means for expressing ideas and objections, and there's no need to take everything so personally. We have no reason to dislike you. You raise good philosophical questions. If you would just relax, you'll enjoy this forum.

Actually, at first I was just pointing out the fact that only one Christian besides myself has posted in this posted in this forum. Everyone else seems to be against me.

This is okay, as long the group as a whole is interested in hearing my opinions, rather than just trying to change my mind. I'll just have to ignore those few individuals who are not worth the effort.

You're taking a static "snapshot in time" approach to personhood. I don't. To understand me, you'll have to see the issue from a different paradigm.

I don't believe that "all you are is your body", because to imagine a body is to imagine a snapshot in time. It's like imagining a statue. What you are, IMV, is dynamic pattern of change, and especially psychological change. You aren't your "body", but rather the functioning of your body over time.

So, when I consider a "me" or a "you", I see patterns over stretches of time, not snapshots at instances of time. No one can function as a human being in a static instant. Our existence -- our functioning -- as human beings is always about patterns of change over time. Consider that we are Promethean beings in that we act according to goals that we project even across a lifetime.

See? This is the snapshot paradigm. You are comparing "slices" of time to each other. This is precisely what I do not do.

To me, there is no person at snapshot A or the later snapshot B. Personhood exists from A------>B.

And consider that, as human beings, those "snapshots" are related to one another through causality. We have biological and psychological potentials that we actualize over time. This type of functioning is what it is to be human -- to be persons -- not those snapshots.

Okay. I think I understand your point of view.

According to the ancient Egyptians. I was speaking for them, because you were trying to judge them from a modern perspective. It's best to see their beliefs from their own perspective, so that you can keep context.

Okay then. But are these beliefs still reasonable today, taking into account our current biological knowledge? Can someone still argue for them?

Not to me. Is sunlight immaterial? No, it exists physically. So does the ka.

I see. So the ka is made up of physical energies, but they just aren't able to be experienced through the senses?

I still have to wonder what they'd need from water and food. They seem to be claiming that these invisible people need some other invisible energy source which attaches itself, for whatever reason, to the same things they consumed during their lifetime.

It seems unusual and strange to me, but that might just be because of my upbringing.

It´s not so much that I disagree principally and apodictically - it´s more like I see no reason to assume there´s such a "continuous person", except of course that for various reasons we would like it to be there.
From my perspective, defining that which I have no reason to assume is there by just postulating it to be there and giving it a name is not a valid option, philosophically.

To give you a better idea where I am coming from:
All we observe in this universe is a persistent rearrangement, constant change. For simplicity´s sake and for practical purposes we divide that which is into separate distincts "objects". The common view is that we indentify objects; my view is that our mind creates them at will and according to our situational needs. Not that there´s anything wrong with that...

I think it get it.

I have thought it kind of strange, though convenient, that our minds just automatically know the beginning and ends of certain objects. It's really bizarre, but wonderful, programming. I can't even begin to understand how it works.

I don´t think this is a field where anything can be proven or disproven.
At best, we can offer each other what we feel is a coherent interpretation of "reality".
In my understanding, you asked your questions because you felt there were some unsolved problems left with your way of looking at it. So I am offering you alternative views.

We seem to agree at this point. There really is no way to say for certain which view is "most reasonable." All we can do is consider the countless possibilities.

Is there any way to demonstrate or verify this idea?

I think quatona put it quite nicely. There is no way to prove or disprove any of these ideas.

You see, science is limited to the senses. We can only study what we can see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. We have some instruments which enhance our abilities to sense some things (such as with the x-ray, or microscope), but some things just cannot be experienced in these ways.

The question of what makes us who we are, or even the definition of "me," is up for debate. We cannot apply this question to science.

 

[jonmichael818]

I watched the first part, but I'll have to watch the rest sometime.

Personally, I don't believe in near death experiences. I'm of the opinion that the brain, for whatever reason, begins to function differently after the rest of the body dies, causing people to experience these strange sensations.

Yes, many neurologists say that when a person dies it is not instant. Meaning that one moment the person is alive and the next dead, rather death is a gradual process.(of course this process may be slower or more rapid depending on the circumstamce) During this process experts say that what people are experiencing during NDE's, are hallucinations and that the feeling of great peace and joy is due to a rush of endorphins.

Of course, I'm no expert, and none of this is provable. But I've heard multiple accounts of near death experiences, and each one is inconsistent with one another.

People of all religions experience things consistent with their own beliefs. It's not any single religion that reports having near death experiences where they visited their own version of Heaven.

Even taking Christian accounts alone, they seem to contradict each other. How can their experiences be real, if they're not all experiencing the same Heaven?

I agree there seems to be a lot of inconsistancy. This is why some of the reports of NDE's are of particular interest. Some reports have to do with patients seeing things(in the operating room) and hearing things(in the OR) that they should not have been able to see or hear, because they were clinically dead at the time these things were said or were in the room. I mean clinically dead and no brain activity.

Part of how the research teams are experimenting with this to avoid those inconsistancies are:

During the AWARE study, physicians will use the latest technologies to study the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest. At the same time, they will also be testing the validity of out of body experiences and claims of being able to see and hear during cardiac arrest through the use of randomly generated hidden images that are not visible unless viewed from specific vantage points above.-The Aware Study

I personally do not know what to think about this subject just yet. I suspect it may just have something to do with the brain physiologically.
Of course it would be very interesting if they found that consciousness survives physical death.
I bet ghost enthusiasts would jump all over that.

 

[sandwiches]

I think quatona put it quite nicely. There is no way to prove or disprove any of these ideas.

You see, science is limited to the senses. We can only study what we can see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. We have some instruments which enhance our abilities to sense some things (such as with the x-ray, or microscope), but some things just cannot be experienced in these ways.

The question of what makes us who we are, or even the definition of "me," is up for debate. We cannot apply this question to science.

So, you don't believe that souls or spirits have any effect on reality, then. How do they differ from that which isn't real if they have no effect on what exists?

 

[quatona]

I think quatona put it quite nicely. There is no way to prove or disprove any of these ideas.

You see, science is limited to the senses. We can only study what we can see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. We have some instruments which enhance our abilities to sense some things (such as with the x-ray, or microscope), but some things just cannot be experienced in these ways.

The question of what makes us who we are, or even the definition of "me," is up for debate. We cannot apply this question to science.

Just because you mentioned me: I would like to give a caveat just so I´m not misunderstood:
I think the "existence of an I/me/self" itself is already just an unscientific assumption.
Personally, I don´t see much use in supporting such an assumption by further (and even more dubious) assumptions such as "souls" or "spirits". When layers upon layers of such wild assumptions are required to make an original assumption plausible I´d rather plead to let go of the original assumption.
I guess parsimony is my friend here.

 

[GrayAngel]

So, you don't believe that souls or spirits have any effect on reality, then. How do they differ from that which isn't real if they have no effect on what exists?

First, my opinion of the soul is that it is the things we experience because of the brain. Personality is not something you can touch or measure, but it is a real phenomenon that is completely dependent on the physical body.

As for the spirit, my view of the spirit is that it does not need a physical body to exist. Rather, the spirit is something separate from the rest of the world. It doesn't have a shape of consistency, it just is.

When we are alive, the spirit does not control the body, as some say the ghost does. But the spirit experiences the world through the soul and the body. The spirit is the life inside an otherwise empty shell.

Some people might call it the consciousness, but we are not always conscious when we're alive. Consciousness is another brain activity, so I would put that under the soul as well. But there's something more than that.

Is it possible that a robot could be made aware of its surroundings, and still be an empty shell? Can't it gather up information about the world and react to it, and still there would be no one inside the metal actually experiencing these things?

Sometimes I have these strange experiences, and this question takes over my mind. I'm not just conscious of the world, I'm experiencing it. I'm more than just an empty body gathering information.

Do spirits act on the world? I believe so. God Himself is a spirit, and so are angels and demons. However, we cannot exactly put God in a testing tube. So while these spirits may very well affect the physical world around us, we cannot measure them.

Seems from the way you use the words "real" and "reality" that you think only the physical world is real. But do we know this is the case? If what the Bible says is true, than the reverse might be more accurate, and the physical world would be just a passing dream, leading into a more permanent reality.

 

[sandwiches]

First, my opinion of the soul is that it is the things we experience because of the brain. Personality is not something you can touch or measure, but it is a real phenomenon that is completely dependent on the physical body.

As for the spirit, my view of the spirit is that it does not need a physical body to exist. Rather, the spirit is something separate from the rest of the world. It doesn't have a shape of consistency, it just is.

When we are alive, the spirit does not control the body, as some say the ghost does. But the spirit experiences the world through the soul and the body. The spirit is the life inside an otherwise empty shell.

Some people might call it the consciousness, but we are not always conscious when we're alive. Consciousness is another brain activity, so I would put that under the soul as well. But there's something more than that.

Is it possible that a robot could be made aware of its surroundings, and still be an empty shell? Can't it gather up information about the world and react to it, and still there would be no one inside the metal actually experiencing these things?

Sometimes I have these strange experiences, and this question takes over my mind. I'm not just conscious of the world, I'm experiencing it. I'm more than just an empty body gathering information.

Do spirits act on the world? I believe so. God Himself is a spirit, and so are angels and demons. However, we cannot exactly put God in a testing tube. So while these spirits may very well affect the physical world around us, we cannot measure them.

Seems from the way you use the words "real" and "reality" that you think only the physical world is real. But do we know this is the case? If what the Bible says is true, than the reverse might be more accurate, and the physical world would be just a passing dream, leading into a more permanent reality.

Two things:
1) If spirits or souls have an effect on reality, then this can be measured, tested, and verified. Maybe not with our current knowledge but it would be theoretically possible.

2) Whatever exists, regardless of whether it's here in this universe or in some afterlife, is real. Now, why do you believe there's more than what can be perceived?