Do you really think that the most complex reality we know in nature, the human brain, is just a "receptor" of a "soul"?
Ah, so you think that the brain is too complex an organ and a mere "receptor" is too simple a mechanism?
Soul or not, I think you should pay attention to Kurt Gödel who says:
"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable.
Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical."
Even Darwin doubted that human reason could be trusted if it had evolved from blind forces and unconscious matter; in this he was agreeing with Descartes and Gödel.
Each of us has about 100 billion neurons. Each one "has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about [...] 1 quadrillion [synapses]. This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from [...] 100 to 500 trillion." (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Connectivity).
I conclude along with Hammeroff that feelings came before the brain; this is a powerful argument supporting the idea that the brain does not generate consciousness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.htmlWill you address these four empirical observations which lead Hammeroff and myself to conclude that feelings came before the brain?
Hammeroff has proposed his theory of quantum consciousness; this will help science to explain NDEs like the AWARE study; there is plenty of supporting evidence:
Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs.
You claim being a quick learner. Doesn't your intuition tell you are wrong? Something so complex that we still can't understand has to be more than a simple "receptor".
I must inform you that you present two related arguments from ignorance:
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).
I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.
The brain consumes 20% of our energy. What an evolutionary waste if that was its only function.
You are making presumptions about the origin of the brain, but I am trying to discuss the hard evidence that has been presented.
You are assuming as the truth that neurons can have no activity whatsoever after 40 seconds. That can't be considered as absolutely settled.
You present another argument from ignorance:
"In cases of cardiac arrest, it is possible that brain activity can occur more than 2 minutes after cardiac arrest because you (qwik2learn) cannot prove that all brain activity ceases after 40 seconds of anoxia."
You are misinformed: The 40 second rule for brain activity (and consciousness) is a fact of human physiology with a sound basis in neurophysiology. According to today's science, the issue is actually settled:
0) The intricate relationship between the brain and its higher functions is
never more apparent than when the brain becomes dysfunctional. How can a physicalist explain a higher-functioning mind when the underlying brain is dysfunctional and offline? This point alone stretches credulity to the breaking point and introduces far too much complexity to make physicalism a viable theory.
1) Brain activity that is associated with consciousness is
a whole-brain phenomena, higher brain function can always be detected by the EEG, and since the EEG is the summation of the spikes of individual neurons, it stands to reason that a global brain phenomena (consciousness) would always result in a positive measurement of brain activity. The link between neural activity, brain activity, and the brain's higher functions is very well established, for example "
ongoing [brain] activity fluctuations ... constitute an essential property of the neural architecture underlying cognition", so a global shutdown of neural activity would cause a disruption in the EEG and total loss of consciousness with no restoration of higher function until the global shutdown is reversed. Cognition, like perception and awareness, is always observed to be a global phenomena, and such a phenomena cannot be expected during a global shutdown.
2) it is easy to tell the difference between consciousness, coma, sleep, death/near-death, and etc. on the EEG. The function of EEG is perfectly clear: it records brain activity. Understanding the vegetative state presents a challenge for science, but the relationship between brain activity and higher brain functions like awareness is VERY well-established.
3) The higher neurons in the rostral brain
are programmed for ischemic vulnerability when all neurons
should be as resilient as possible, indicating that robust spreading depolarization is not simply a pathology but is rather an active shutdown process that evolved in response to reduced blood flow caused by head trauma. Since lower neurons are not as vulnerable, it is obvious that the higher functions (like awareness) are programmed to shut down first and remain shut down until the anoxic depolarization is reversed.
4) Depolarization of neurons is a well-understood concept in biophysics; to block anoxic depolarization requires a concentrated cocktail of ion-gated and ligand-gated channel antagonists that electrically silences the tissue. Otherwise, the anoxic depolarization takes place within the expected timeframe, first with the higher neurons, the depolarization that takes place under the normal rules of biophysics at the cellular level will quickly shut down the brain and only a reversal of the global anoxic depolarization can bring back the global phenomena of consciousness.
Therefore,
The burden of proof is on you, the physicalist (Trading), to provide evidence that a patient could plausibly attest to conscious experience during a time when there is no blood flow, no brain activity on the EEG, and already 2 minutes after onset of cardiac arrest. You cannot use ignorance of biophysical mechanisms as an excuse for lacking a plausible explanation because this phenomena is
by no means supported by even the most rudimentary biophysical neuroscience. In other words, the physicalist always holds to the idea "no brain activity = no brain function"; it is the bedrock of neuroscience and I would like to see even ONE neuroscientist who would disagree with that assessment.
Nothing about the brain can considered as closed. It's non sense to base on your "evidence" any conclusion about a "soul".
You are rejecting the evidence and instead putting forth arguments from ignorance.
Any evidence considered as that by real science says we are purely physical. The rest is wishing thinking.
This case was observed and it was not the first case of its kind; since it was observed by multiple credible witnesses, I believe it is you who is wishfully thinking.
You qualify as hard evidence a few individual cases? Come one, you would have to do much better than that.
If you would read the near-death evidence page, you would see that related phenomena is very common in all peoples. I also recommend the
eminent researchers link and other pages found on the spiritual development website. Many various phenomena unite in establishing the truth that awareness does not perish upon death.
For example: "According to recent studies, only about 10% of people are conscious shortly before their death. Of this group, 50% to 67% have DBVs."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a45Moreover, you are repeating your arguments. I already answered them.
You did not answer them with any evidence that meets your burden of proof. See above the four/five observations made by me and four more observations made by Hammeroff. I have not heard any straightforward rebuttal to the three claims of Dr. Parnia from this study. All that you have said to me is "you cannot know for sure that the brain is not generating the awareness even though it is shut down", but to conclude the opposite (that the brain
could generate awareness
even if it is "
turned off") is very absurd, it is obviously not the simpler explanation.
Your arguments appear to be based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Pseudo-skeptical arguments are being made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are being made without any scientific evidence.
You have a conception of science that has nothing to do with the consensual one, with proven results.
The results of this case study are not considered to be proven? Then which claims are in doubt? Do you doubt the medical staff as credible witnesses? Do you doubt that the brain ceases its higher functions after (less than) 40 seconds of cardiac arrest? Do you doubt that the patient had recollections that were consistent with the verified events described by the medical staff? Which of these claims are in doubt and why?
1) "In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat.
2) “This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn't resume again until the heart has been restarted.
3) “Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events."
