What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

[Davian]

5% of a normal brain is not significant, at least to me. I understand that you do not accept that as proof, but I do.

You said, "I believe in the existence of conscious observers which are not human", followed by "I do not believe that the consciousness is a product of the brain" then you cite an article about a human with a brain as "supportive".

I didn't say anything about death. I was merely pointing out that consciousness is linked with many NDEs associated with no brain activity.

Or, brain activity below the threshold of current technology. Or, brain activity that occurs prior to or following the period of unconsciousness.

Well, your original question was "what theory" - my theory is based on Buddhist beliefs.

That is not a theory, that is an assumption. A presupposition.

The brain is merely the mind's interface with the five physical senses.

[pedant] From wiki: "Humans have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized. While the ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by the traditional senses exists, including temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood), only a small number of these can safely be classified as separate senses in and of themselves. What constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a sense is."
[/pedant]

The consciousness is a completely separate thing, and controls the mind.

Even if you could in some way demonstrate this, we would still be left with what you said earlier: "I believe in the existence of conscious observers which are not human".

Are these non-human "conscious observers" walking around with 5% of what we think of as a brain?

 

[ananda]

Your opinion is noted.

I will rely on the experts in the field though, to give the most valid observation (based on their knowledge) of the brain and lack of oxygen.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psy...gen-deprivation-in-near-death-experiences.htm

Their opinions are noted.

 

[ananda]

Even if you could in some way demonstrate this, we would still be left with what you said earlier: "I believe in the existence of conscious observers which are not human". Are these non-human "conscious observers" walking around with 5% of what we think of as a brain?

I don't believe they have a physical brain at all, but that is what my religious tradition teaches.

 

[Davian]

I don't know if they had no brain activity, I believe reports that many of these people experiencing NDE events did not have such activity.

Brains are localized to the body, yet many people have experienced events outside of the body (including myself). This tells me that the brain is not the consciousness.

By what methodology did you verify that your experience was actual, and not an illusion?

 

[bhsmte]

Their opinions are noted.

Yes, I have noted their "expert" opinions as well.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't believe they have a physical brain at all, but that is what my religious tradition teaches.

The brain is quite capable of producing all sorts of whacky perceptions that are not reality and this is fact.

 

[Davian]

I don't believe they have a physical brain at all,

Then your references to OOBEs, NDEs, and brain plasticity are pointless - they have consciousness involving brains, like waterfalls require water. If you want a "waterfall without the water", you need to come up with a new name for it.

but that is what my religious tradition teaches.

That's nice.

 

[ananda]

By what methodology did you verify that your experience was actual, and not an illusion?

Comparison of visions with the actual physical object(s).

 

[Davian]

Comparison of visions with the actual physical object(s).

By what methodology did you verify that your experience was actual, and not an illusion? Have you published?

 

[bhsmte]

Comparison of visions with the actual physical object(s).

Would this mean, if I had a vivid dream, that I was driving a shinny new Corvette and the image in my dream matched exactly with what the Corvette looks like, this would mean my dream was reality?

 

[ananda]

By what methodology did you verify that your experience was actual, and not an illusion? Have you published?

Would this mean, if I had a vivid dream, that I was driving a shinny new Corvette and the image in my dream matched exactly with what the Corvette looks like, this would mean my dream was reality?

No. It was a conscious, non-bodily observation of previously-unknown physical object(s) distant from my physical location.

 

[bhsmte]

No. It was a conscious, non-bodily observation of previously-unknown physical object(s) distant from my physical location.

What was conscious and how do you know it was conscious?

 

[ananda]

What was conscious and how do you know it was conscious?

I say "conscious" in the sense that I was awake and aware, not sleeping, and intently focused.

 

[Davian]

I say "conscious" in the sense that I was awake and aware, not sleeping, and intently focused.

Or, you imagined it to be. A more parsimonious explanation.

 

[1213]

Why love, and not compassion, or peace, etc.?

Love is the greatest, because it leads to peace and compassion.

 

[muichimotsu]

Ananda, is it not possible you're making a special plea for arhats (sp?) in regards to their supposed ability to see things without any filters rather than any strict evidence that supports this for a general observer? Your intent isn't bad, it's more that the end result is answering a mystery with a mystery, which is intellectually lazy.

 

[ananda]

Love is the greatest, because it leads to peace and compassion.

Does love lead to peace, if love can be lost?

 

[ananda]

Ananda, is it not possible you're making a special plea for arhats (sp?) in regards to their supposed ability to see things without any filters rather than any strict evidence that supports this for a general observer? Your intent isn't bad, it's more that the end result is answering a mystery with a mystery, which is intellectually lazy.

The only direct evidence I have for arahants (Pali spelling) is the testimony of the Tipitaka which has the Buddha and his foremost arahant disciples declaring it to be so.

 

[muichimotsu]

Then you admit it's purely based on the text and not any falsifiable or remotely testable evidence outside of it? At least you're brutally honest, I suppose.

 

[ananda]

Then you admit it's purely based on the text and not any falsifiable or remotely testable evidence outside of it? At least you're brutally honest, I suppose.

Yes, my belief is purely based on the text. I believe it is testable, but only by the individual by becoming an arahant.

However, with that said, I believe it is logical (to me, at least) ... since the path to becoming an arahant involves discarding of various interpretive functions along the way, the ultimate goal would end in the discarding of all personal interpretations/filters.