Author Topic: Why won't God heal amputees? Because he can make you win at life without it.  (Read 14430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Just a quick devils advocate...

Let me preface this by saying that I do not buy any of the super-conscious stuff, but as an answer to the whole brain damage and personality impairment thing; if the brain is just a processor for these "bits" of the super-conscious and that processor were damaged it would seem reasonable that the end product would still not function correctly. For an analogy, if you damage a component on your CPU, it might still function, just slowly, or even be buggy beyond functional use, but the input remains the same. I type the word "Car" on the keyboard but the output on the screen is "&d2x.0", due to the damaged processor. Whether it is the processor itself (brain emergent conscious) that types the word "Car", or an external input (super-conscious) typing the word "Car", the output is corrupted by the damaged processor either way, and the end result is "&d2x.0" where "Car" should be.

Basically, I just don't think the brain damage argument works in this case, because regardless of which side is correct in all of this, damage to the brain should yield the same result.
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2526
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Just a quick devils advocate...

Let me preface this by saying that I do not buy any of the super-conscious stuff, but as an answer to the whole brain damage and personality impairment thing; if the brain is just a processor for these "bits" of the super-conscious and that processor were damaged it would seem reasonable that the end product would still not function correctly. For an analogy, if you damage a component on your CPU, it might still function, just slowly, or even be buggy beyond functional use, but the input remains the same. I type the word "Car" on the keyboard but the output on the screen is "&d2x.0", due to the damaged processor. Whether it is the processor itself (brain emergent conscious) that types the word "Car", or an external input (super-conscious) typing the word "Car", the output is corrupted by the damaged processor either way, and the end result is "&d2x.0" where "Car" should be.

Basically, I just don't think the brain damage argument works in this case, because regardless of which side is correct in all of this, damage to the brain should yield the same result.

Interesting, but I think there is a way out. Whatever the cause, damage a drug or whatever, we alter the mind /consciousness of a person. Now we have here 2 possibilities i.e.

1. The consciousness, being an emergent property of the brain is changed by the damage to the brain.

2. The consciousness, a separate spirit body, fail to be able to communicate properly with the brain that is damaged

To these possibilities I think -

a. As regards 2. the consciousness should remain the same to the person. That person may have problems using the body to tell us about things but damaging the brain would not impinge on the conscious feelings of the person concerned.

b. In any event, 2. includes something for which there is entirely no evidence and, apparently no way of acquiring any, so Occam wields his razor... and the separate consciousness gets eliminated.

how about that?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
  • Darwins +43/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Quote
As for attributing musical genius to merely practice, i can't agree with that at all. That comment doesn't even come close to explaining children prodigies that basically pick up an instrument and begin playing at the ages of 2 or 3. A few searches on google should give you enough to think about.

I think musical aptitude is a tough sell for dualism or something outside the brain that controls that part of an individual. First of all I won't take anything away from the kid. His ability to have "perfect pitch" at the age of two is impressive alone (if he did have that). I would imagine that he stumbled his way through a rendition of happy birthday learning his way as he pecked keys. That being said I would also imagine he was the only one in the room with perfect pitch and coming close to the right pitch or even the right key wouldn’t have the same effect as nailing down the melody. What I am trying to say is that in a room full of people that don’t have the ability to pick musical notes out of the air by ear how would they know if he was in key and had the right pitch? That would still be an impressive act for a two year old however and I would consider him a musical prodigy/genius.
The article states that Marc Yu took lessons soon after that. So his current works are a result of learning from an instructor about melody, harmony, and all the other mysteries of musical theory that the not so trained musician just doesn’t get.
I always have felt that anyone with the desire can not only learn to play an instrument but play it well. Or perhaps in this kids case with the proper motivation from his parents. I wouldn’t expect a two year old to just up and study for himself/herself but this one individual took lessons.
I fail to see the significance of the claim of Mark Yu other than he is a genius who has put a lot of time and effort into the piano.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Indeed!

I have no problem with that except a slight quibble with item (a) in that why would you assume that damage to the receiver would not impair the conscious feelings of the person involved?

Again to use an analogy, this time in the form of a radio receiver; if you damage the ability of a radio to receive it's source signal it will absolutely impair functional abilities, especially if the source signal contains control commands. If all or part of signal is not being received, or if what is being received is not being filtered properly then the control commands would not work. Thus, resulting in an end product that does not function correctly.

The only point I wanted to make is that the damaged brain argument is invalid because either way damaging the brain should result in altered performance. The fact that brain damage changes a person is irrelevant because in either model one would expect damage to the organ in question to cause dysfunction. 

I don't  really want to press this point as though I am trying to support Acturbo's assertions, I simply want to eliminate a faulty line of logic in this given debate because it does not follow.
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Xero-Kill, in your analogy, consciousness is the radio broadcaster, and the broadcaster should not be affected by someone's faulty radio.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2526
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Xero-Kill, in your analogy, consciousness is the radio broadcaster, and the broadcaster should not be affected by someone's faulty radio.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. An external consciousness ought to be affected by brain injury or even an anaesthetic. If these things affect consciousness it seems to me that the brain is producing it.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
1. I believe that the brain manages the physical body, that's it. The mind or consciousness gives marching orders to the brain. I do not buy that the brain created consciousness/mind.

Well, you may not buy it, but you are also probably not really qualified to reject it either.  So many people "don't buy" a lot of things without any basis. 

For example, I am a mechanical engineer.  I have been trained in Newtonian mechanics to the point that I would be considered an expert.  There are experts with a better understanding than I, but I know more about it than at least 90% of the population.  I was explaining some matter of mechanics to Screwtape Sr.  When I got done all he said was, "I don't believe that."  His own son, literally an expert in a field of science that is so useful we have used it for 330 years,  in which Sr has no training whatsoever.  And he takes his own (frankly) ignorant opinion over mine. 

If you take a dualistic approach, as so many people do, and think the "mind gives marching orders to the brain", then you have a lot to explain.  There are experiments that can be done.  I would start by asking you, what would prove your hypothesis to be conclusively wrong?  If the answer is "nothing", well, what is left for us to discuss?

2. Consider that we have EKG machines that detect the instant absence of electromagnetic activity in the body/heart.

Electrical, not EM.  And the EKG is for the heart.  EEG is for the brain.[1] The electrical impusles do not appear out of nowhere, as it would appear if it came from a nonphysical source like a spirit. They come from cells in the body.[2]  It is possible to know the magnitude of the electrical charge (voltage) and the quantity of it (amperage) through physical chemistry.  For example, we know that when you use copper and nickle as your materials in a battery, the voltage will ALWAYS be 1.5v.  So, if the elements in the cells which create a charge are known - and they are - we can very easily predict what the energy output should be.  If this is less than what is measured, then either we figured wrong or there is an additional source of energy.  So far, there is no indication there is an external source of energy.

other references:
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential
notice that none of these links have any need to suggest an external source of energy.

Flat lining is the indicator that energy/consciousness (something) has left your body.

Incorrect. It is an indicator that the chemical reactions that produce electricity have ceased.

As for attributing musical genius to merely practice, i can't agree with that at all.

I have to concede, you are right, I overstated my case.  It is not only practice.  There are aspects of music which appear to be inborn such as perfect pitch and memory.  However, none of those are skills and need not be explained by an external mind. That is like saying my 20/10 vision means the mind must be separate from the body. No.  I happened to be born with slightly better lenses in my eyes.  Similarly, some people are born with perfect pitch.  I am not one of those fortunate people.


As for "musical practice", consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Yu

from your link:
Quote
Marc heard the children in attendance singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb", at which point the three-year-old went over to the nearby piano and played the song back, never having played with piano before.  By his mother's persuasions he began undertaking formal lessons later that year.

bold mine.  Tthis is not a very detailed or complete account.  But if he was born with perfect pitch (like good eyesight) it is not surprising.  For one, he played a childrens' song, not Bach.  For two, the piano is a very simple instrument to play - you push a button.  It is not as if he played it on the bagpipes.

Marc Yu started to play at a very early age but required lessons and practice to be a virtuoso.  And being Asian, it is not surprising either.  Asian parents tend to be tyrants fanatical when it comes to developing musical aptitude in their children.

As for the math genius, here's just one to consider:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html

from your link:
Quote
The boy wonder, who taught himself calculus, algebra, geometry and trigonometry in a week, is now tutoring fellow college classmates after hours.

bold mine.  Autodidact.  His aptitude is certainly on the extreme end of the spectrum, but he still had to learn it.  No need for duality here. 


We as humans often unknowingly feel defensive about our beliefs.  If we believe a thing and someone tells us it is untrue, our reaction is frequently to fight against that suggestion.  You have offered some defenses of your belief reactively.  But it is also clear you know very little about the subject.  You should acknowledge to yourself, if not to me, that wide gaps in your knowledge in critical areas around this belief of yours.   You should understand that your opinion on the matter is probably not well rooted in fact.

There is also an idea with which you might want to acquaint yourself.  It is called the Litany of Tarski.  The original form went like this:
Quote
If the box contains a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond;
If the box does not contain a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box does not contain a diamond;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

You can substitute any fact in there.  Try this one:
If duality is true,
I desire to believe that duality is true;
If duality is not true,
I desire to believe that duality is not true;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

The point of it is to make sure you believe what is true and to make sure you do not fall in love with your beliefs.  Look up my posts on beliefs paying rent.


 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography
 2. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/human-body-make-electricity.htm
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/07/how-the-human-body-generates-electricity/
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Xero-Kill, in your analogy, consciousness is the radio broadcaster, and the broadcaster should not be affected by someone's faulty radio.

I am not saying it is, I am saying the receiver is damaged and is not interpreting the broadcast correctly. If, for example, I use a remote control to fly an airplane and the airplane's receiver is damaged so that when it receives the radio signal to bank left it instead turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes. There was nothing wrong with the broadcast signal, it sent the appropriate signal to the receiver but the damaged receiver malfunctioned and caused a correct signal to be interpreted incorrectly.

Now if that same airplane can fly itself because it is its own conscious self, and it also has a damaged brain and it sends a signal to its control surfaces to bank left but instead it turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes; what is the difference? The result is the same. The brain was damaged, and the end product failed to function as advertised.

All I am saying is that whether the brain is its own emergent property or a property of some other source that uses the brain as a receiver/processor, damage to the brain would result in improper functioning. So the fact that changes to the brain produces changes in the person are irrelevant because the same would be true in either case.
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2102
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
I am not saying it is, I am saying the receiver is damaged and is not interpreting the broadcast correctly. If, for example, I use a remote control to fly an airplane and the airplane's receiver is damaged so that when it receives the radio signal to bank left it instead turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes. There was nothing wrong with the broadcast signal, it sent the appropriate signal to the receiver but the damaged receiver malfunctioned and caused a correct signal to be interpreted incorrectly.

Now if that same airplane can fly itself because it is its own conscious self, and it also has a damaged brain and it sends a signal to its control surfaces to bank left but instead it turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes; what is the difference? The result is the same. The brain was damaged, and the end product failed to function as advertised.

All I am saying is that whether the brain is its own emergent property or a property of some other source that uses the brain as a receiver/processor, damage to the brain would result in improper functioning. So the fact that changes to the brain produces changes in the person are irrelevant because the same would be true in either case.

Except that, in either case, the brain is a necessary component to what we call 'the consciousness of the person'.

You are correct - the 'brain trauma changing personality' argument is not a strong argument for the absence of a disembodied 'thingie' that is a part of a mind of a person.  It is a strong argument against the concept that the brain's only function is management of the physical body and is not a fundamental part of the mind.  Whether or not the brain originates the mind is inconsequential to acturbo's proposition that a person's mind and consciousness is sufficiently disembodied as to be able to be transfered between different physical lives.

In order to support the notion that the brain is neither a sufficient nor necessary component of what we identify as 'the mind of the person', the fact that changes to the person's personality - to what we can reasonably observe and associate with the person's mind - can and do occur as a result of physical trauma does need to be addressed.  An in order to support the notion that reincarnation is a remote possibility, it needs to be shown that the brain is neither sufficient nor necessary for the mind.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2526
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
I am not saying it is, I am saying the receiver is damaged and is not interpreting the broadcast correctly. If, for example, I use a remote control to fly an airplane and the airplane's receiver is damaged so that when it receives the radio signal to bank left it instead turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes. There was nothing wrong with the broadcast signal, it sent the appropriate signal to the receiver but the damaged receiver malfunctioned and caused a correct signal to be interpreted incorrectly.

Now if that same airplane can fly itself because it is its own conscious self, and it also has a damaged brain and it sends a signal to its control surfaces to bank left but instead it turns its nose to the ground and promptly crashes; what is the difference? The result is the same. The brain was damaged, and the end product failed to function as advertised.

All I am saying is that whether the brain is its own emergent property or a property of some other source that uses the brain as a receiver/processor, damage to the brain would result in improper functioning. So the fact that changes to the brain produces changes in the person are irrelevant because the same would be true in either case.

Except that, in either case, the brain is a necessary component to what we call 'the consciousness of the person'.

You are correct - the 'brain trauma changing personality' argument is not a strong argument for the absence of a disembodied 'thingie' that is a part of a mind of a person.  It is a strong argument against the concept that the brain's only function is management of the physical body and is not a fundamental part of the mind.  Whether or not the brain originates the mind is inconsequential to acturbo's proposition that a person's mind and consciousness is sufficiently disembodied as to be able to be transfered between different physical lives.

In order to support the notion that the brain is neither a sufficient nor necessary component of what we identify as 'the mind of the person', the fact that changes to the person's personality - to what we can reasonably observe and associate with the person's mind - can and do occur as a result of physical trauma does need to be addressed.  An in order to support the notion that reincarnation is a remote possibility, it needs to be shown that the brain is neither sufficient nor necessary for the mind.

It would be handy, too, to be shown that the 'thingie' actually exists as it seems to be a nebulous undetectable object and it is not clear how it might manage to hold the memories need to make a person a person.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Quote
As for attributing musical genius to merely practice, i can't agree with that at all. That comment doesn't even come close to explaining children prodigies that basically pick up an instrument and begin playing at the ages of 2 or 3. A few searches on google should give you enough to think about.

I think musical aptitude is a tough sell for dualism or something outside the brain that controls that part of an individual. First of all I won't take anything away from the kid. His ability to have "perfect pitch" at the age of two is impressive alone (if he did have that). I would imagine that he stumbled his way through a rendition of happy birthday learning his way as he pecked keys. That being said I would also imagine he was the only one in the room with perfect pitch and coming close to the right pitch or even the right key wouldn’t have the same effect as nailing down the melody. What I am trying to say is that in a room full of people that don’t have the ability to pick musical notes out of the air by ear how would they know if he was in key and had the right pitch? That would still be an impressive act for a two year old however and I would consider him a musical prodigy/genius.
The article states that Marc Yu took lessons soon after that. So his current works are a result of learning from an instructor about melody, harmony, and all the other mysteries of musical theory that the not so trained musician just doesn’t get.
I always have felt that anyone with the desire can not only learn to play an instrument but play it well. Or perhaps in this kids case with the proper motivation from his parents. I wouldn’t expect a two year old to just up and study for himself/herself but this one individual took lessons.
I fail to see the significance of the claim of Mark Yu other than he is a genius who has put a lot of time and effort into the piano.

Just a quick comment on "perfect pitch" ... that's not quite my point. I asked people to consider how the heck  does a child (3-7 year old) play and compose complicated pieces of music. This is way beyond someone just having a good voice or being a quick learner with lots of practice. I offered a simple example of a young kid, Marc Yu, because he's what came up easily enough on Google, but we can find many more cases with varying degrees of talent/weirdness, all leaving us to wonder how this can be possible. The ultimate point i'm trying to make is, that this "talent" existed already as part of a previous experience and has now simply manifested itself again.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Just a quick devils advocate...

Let me preface this by saying that I do not buy any of the super-conscious stuff, but as an answer to the whole brain damage and personality impairment thing; if the brain is just a processor for these "bits" of the super-conscious and that processor were damaged it would seem reasonable that the end product would still not function correctly. For an analogy, if you damage a component on your CPU, it might still function, just slowly, or even be buggy beyond functional use, but the input remains the same. I type the word "Car" on the keyboard but the output on the screen is "&d2x.0", due to the damaged processor. Whether it is the processor itself (brain emergent conscious) that types the word "Car", or an external input (super-conscious) typing the word "Car", the output is corrupted by the damaged processor either way, and the end result is "&d2x.0" where "Car" should be.

Basically, I just don't think the brain damage argument works in this case, because regardless of which side is correct in all of this, damage to the brain should yield the same result.

Interesting, but I think there is a way out. Whatever the cause, damage a drug or whatever, we alter the mind /consciousness of a person. Now we have here 2 possibilities i.e.

1. The consciousness, being an emergent property of the brain is changed by the damage to the brain.

2. The consciousness, a separate spirit body, fail to be able to communicate properly with the brain that is damaged

To these possibilities I think -

a. As regards 2. the consciousness should remain the same to the person. That person may have problems using the body to tell us about things but damaging the brain would not impinge on the conscious feelings of the person concerned.

b. In any event, 2. includes something for which there is entirely no evidence and, apparently no way of acquiring any, so Occam wields his razor... and the separate consciousness gets eliminated.

how about that?

I agree with everything, except for b. I would offer to call it "inconclusive" vs "eliminated".

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
So you agree that since physical damage or drugs can affect our internal sensation of consciousness, it's implausible that the consciousness originates elsewhere and is unaffected by the brain?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2526
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Just a quick devils advocate...

Let me preface this by saying that I do not buy any of the super-conscious stuff, but as an answer to the whole brain damage and personality impairment thing; if the brain is just a processor for these "bits" of the super-conscious and that processor were damaged it would seem reasonable that the end product would still not function correctly. For an analogy, if you damage a component on your CPU, it might still function, just slowly, or even be buggy beyond functional use, but the input remains the same. I type the word "Car" on the keyboard but the output on the screen is "&d2x.0", due to the damaged processor. Whether it is the processor itself (brain emergent conscious) that types the word "Car", or an external input (super-conscious) typing the word "Car", the output is corrupted by the damaged processor either way, and the end result is "&d2x.0" where "Car" should be.

Basically, I just don't think the brain damage argument works in this case, because regardless of which side is correct in all of this, damage to the brain should yield the same result.

Interesting, but I think there is a way out. Whatever the cause, damage a drug or whatever, we alter the mind /consciousness of a person. Now we have here 2 possibilities i.e.

1. The consciousness, being an emergent property of the brain is changed by the damage to the brain.

2. The consciousness, a separate spirit body, fail to be able to communicate properly with the brain that is damaged

To these possibilities I think -

a. As regards 2. the consciousness should remain the same to the person. That person may have problems using the body to tell us about things but damaging the brain would not impinge on the conscious feelings of the person concerned.

b. In any event, 2. includes something for which there is entirely no evidence and, apparently no way of acquiring any, so Occam wields his razor... and the separate consciousness gets eliminated.

how about that?

I agree with everything, except for b. I would offer to call it "inconclusive" vs "eliminated".

Great! then offer some reason why an external source we can't detect might be right.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

b. In any event, 2. includes something for which there is entirely no evidence and, apparently no way of acquiring any, so Occam wields his razor... and the separate consciousness gets eliminated.

how about that?

I agree with everything, except for b. I would offer to call it "inconclusive" vs "eliminated".

Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor, and why it is useful?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
It would be handy, too, to be shown that the 'thingie' actually exists as it seems to be a nebulous undetectable object and it is not clear how it might manage to hold the memories need to make a person a person.

Which is precisely what I wanted to avoid when I made my post and why I included the preface. I was taking all of the woo and nonsense aside and simply pointing out that brain damage is a flimsy argument, because damage in either scenario could feasibly be played out as we observe. This is pure theory and conjecture based solely on the limited information that we have pulled out of Acturbo.

I sincerely hope you guys can see the point I was driving at without the need to pick every nit and then corner me into defending his entire proposition. I will concede on this however because I really don't want to defend this point any further.
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
It would be handy, too, to be shown that the 'thingie' actually exists as it seems to be a nebulous undetectable object and it is not clear how it might manage to hold the memories need to make a person a person.

Which is precisely what I wanted to avoid when I made my post and why I included the preface. I was taking all of the woo and nonsense aside and simply pointing out that brain damage is a flimsy argument, because damage in either scenario could feasibly be played out as we observe. This is pure theory and conjecture based solely on the limited information that we have pulled out of Acturbo.

I sincerely hope you guys can see the point I was driving at without the need to pick every nit and then corner me into defending his entire proposition. I will concede on this however because I really don't want to defend this point any further.

While I disagree with your assertion that it makes the brain damage a weak argument, it certainly did slow me down and made me think.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member

b. In any event, 2. includes something for which there is entirely no evidence and, apparently no way of acquiring any, so Occam wields his razor... and the separate consciousness gets eliminated.

how about that?

I agree with everything, except for b. I would offer to call it "inconclusive" vs "eliminated".

Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor, and why it is useful?

I am. Maybe i should have added option "c." to your post instead of correcting option "b.".

This is the 3rd or 4th post that has tried to dismiss reincarnation because of a lack of evidence, the wrong type of evidence, the evidence provided doesn't meet some level of rigor required to accept it etc. What i suggest to people taking this stance, there are enough droplets of evidence to prevent it from being ruled out. There are some posts directed at me to provide evidence. It's not my job to do that ... i've already dropped a couple names, if you're interested in you can research it. I also already posted a link and have received exactly zero comments on it. Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?


Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
There are some posts directed at me to provide evidence. It's not my job to do that

If you want your notion to be taken any more seriously than the moon is made of green cheese, yes it is.
If you do not, then, no, it isn't your job.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2207
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?

How would one go about debunking this claim? Or verifying it, for that matter? How is it falsifiable?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
The more interconnected and exposed everyone is to different ideas etc, the harder it is going to be to prove this past lives, separate souls business from personal testimony. It is easy to google up info on ancient civilizations or other cultures. And there have always been people who are naturally really good at music or math or languages. That is not like already having the info beforehand. They still have to go to school or take lessons to put the actual info into their brains.

What you would need for evidence of past lives or used souls is someone with inborn knowledge, not just the aptitude to gain the knowledge from elsewhere. That is, a kid who can write out the periodic table and explain what it means, create and explain calculus problems, read sheet music and play it on any instrument, perform Balinese traditional dance and explain the mythology, or speak ancient Aramaic fluently without ever having studied the subjects.

Or someone with specific knowledge so obscure and detailed that it would be hard to even document how the person could have known it. Like, a child born to a devoutly Christian family in rural Arkansas who, at age 5, begins reciting passages of the sacred text of Zoroastrianism. (In fluent Persian.) Or an illiterate child in a slum in Mexico City who recites lines of 12th century Mongolian poetry that has never been translated into Spanish. (In 12th century Mongolian.)

That kind of thing would make worldwide news, and would be easy for experts in the field to corroborate. We would all know about it and past lives would be a scientifically valid concept. Since nothing like that has made the news and been checked out and found to be true, we can assume it has never happened.

Another problem is that there are 7 billion people on the planet right now, and billions more have lived and died since humans appeared on earth. If, as seems to be the case, there is an endless amount of "soul material" out there to pop into new people, why you would ever need to recycle a soul at all? And, if for some impossibly cosmic reason you do have to recycle souls over and over, or fragment them into more bits or whatever, for all eternity, the evidence should be overwhelming.

Wouldn't we all have hundreds of past lives to remember? We should all be prodigies in everything because we would all have been here before, numerous times. We should not be plodding along, learning the same stuff over and over again, doing normal things, waiting to get old, repeating the same boring experiences. Whatta yawn.

Instead of wasting time on the internet why aren't we all out doing extreme sports or using dangerous drugs?  Why don't we die fast, get out of the way of the new souls and move on to the next life. [1]

So far, all we have is unlikely anecdotes passed on by charlatans who know better, by otherwise intelligent people who should know better (that would be you, acturbo) and by gullible people who just believe impossible stuff.
 1. Actually, I think we would just be sleeping a lot more. Eternity seems like a real long slog.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
There are some posts directed at me to provide evidence. It's not my job to do that

If you want your notion to be taken any more seriously than the moon is made of green cheese, yes it is.
If you do not, then, no, it isn't your job.

Actually, no, its not my job. I'm here voluntarily as are you. I post my comments as you do yours -- read or ignore at will. Is it your job to convince me of anything? No. However, if you're smart enough, you might be able to post information in such a way that will win me over to invest my time to investigate it further. I see a couple of people up here that have earned my attention and i will follow up on their posts because they have taken some time to comment thoughtfully. Wanna get snarky or talk about a moon made out of green cheese? You can certainly do that, but as for me, this post is as much as i'll offer you.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?

How would one go about debunking this claim? Or verifying it, for that matter? How is it falsifiable?

Falsifiable, like, can Dr. Michael Newton tell if someone is experiencing a real past life memory from someone making sh!t up as they go along?  &)

I tried to find any scientific validation of this guy's "work", and it only consists of popular articles and books about hypnosis. He has no documentation to present, or even transcripts of sessions that could be reviewed by other researchers.

He might be a con artist who just made all this up to sell books, ie a sociopath who can lie with no sign of doing it. Or he may sincerely believe that he is tapping into past lives. 

Either way, his "research" is suspect because he does not use controls or have his stuff checked out for, well, for anything factual. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
There are some posts directed at me to provide evidence. It's not my job to do that

If you want your notion to be taken any more seriously than the moon is made of green cheese, yes it is.
If you do not, then, no, it isn't your job.

Actually, no, its not my job. I'm here voluntarily as are you. I post my comments as you do yours -- read or ignore at will. Is it your job to convince me of anything? No. However, if you're smart enough, you might be able to post information in such a way that will win me over to invest my time to investigate it further. I see a couple of people up here that have earned my attention and i will follow up on their posts because they have taken some time to comment thoughtfully. Wanna get snarky or talk about a moon made out of green cheese? You can certainly do that, but as for me, this post is as much as i'll offer you.


Okay: Reincarnation has the same truth value as the moon is made of green cheese.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Again, i will submit Dr. Michael Newton's work into Past Life Regression as evidence that reincarnation deserves investigation. He's documented 6,000 cases over 50 years (i believe). I'm sure someone has thoroughly debunked his work, right?

How would one go about debunking this claim? Or verifying it, for that matter? How is it falsifiable?

A few posts ago, i offered the same information. Someone followed up by calling it "all bunk". There wasn't the slightest attempt to review and maybe post back what they found about Dr. Newton's work. Nope, just "its all bunk". That's why i reposted with the idea that maybe an attempt at debunking would be a more appropriate angle instead of just reviewing.

And note that this is part of the bigger topic of accepting testimony as evidence for reincarnation. According to someone else's  post, professional testimony isn't good enough.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2102
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Another problem is that there are 7 billion people on the planet right now, and billions more have lived and died since humans appeared on earth. If, as seems to be the case, there is an endless amount of "soul material" out there to pop into new people, why you would ever need to recycle a soul at all? And, if for some impossibly cosmic reason you do have to recycle souls over and over, or fragment them into more bits or whatever, for all eternity, the evidence should be overwhelming.
This brings up a interesting tangent.

Is there some reason for the whole 'locality' of reincarnation?  As in, why no recollection of past alien lives?

Are souls (or minds) limited to the speed of light?  Do minds have mass?  What is the method of propulsion?

My guess though...someone is making the assumption that humanity is the only soul/mind-having entity in the entire expanse of the universe.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Another problem is that there are 7 billion people on the planet right now, and billions more have lived and died since humans appeared on earth. If, as seems to be the case, there is an endless amount of "soul material" out there to pop into new people, why you would ever need to recycle a soul at all? And, if for some impossibly cosmic reason you do have to recycle souls over and over, or fragment them into more bits or whatever, for all eternity, the evidence should be overwhelming.
This brings up a interesting tangent.

Is there some reason for the whole 'locality' of reincarnation?  As in, why no recollection of past alien lives?

Are souls (or minds) limited to the speed of light?  Do minds have mass?  What is the method of propulsion?

My guess though...someone is making the assumption that humanity is the only soul/mind-having entity in the entire expanse of the universe.

IMO, i suspect we are stuck here in the Earth locality for as long as it serves our purpose of evolving. I suspect we have, and will, incarnate elsewhere and in other forms as our soul/consciousness is ready to take that on. 

As for souls being limited to the speed of light, i would say "it depends", if they are, then:
a) do souls/consciousness exist in this dimension or some other dimension
b) if they exist in some other dimension, we don't know how fast light travels in said other dimension (does it travel faster or slower there?)

I don't know about mass.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
  • Darwins +43/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Quote
Just a quick comment on "perfect pitch" ... that's not quite my point. I asked people to consider how the heck  does a child (3-7 year old) play and compose complicated pieces of music.
The same way any other musician does practice and lessons/education as the article you posted suggested. And I fully acknowledge happy birthday as a complicated composition. It's as challenging as twinkle, twinkle, little star... get it? eh? (they are the same song :P)

Quote
This is way beyond someone just having a good voice or being a quick learner with lots of practice.
Kind of like how Tiger Woods is a crazy good golf player right?

Quote
The ultimate point i'm trying to make is, that this "talent" existed already as part of a previous experience and has now simply manifested itself again.
Wait... what?
So... Of all possible answers available from practice, to talent and skill, dumb luck, or even the blessing of a god you decide that it is a past life experience/something learned in the womb/I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds nutty.

Offline acturbo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +2/-2
  • WWGHA Member
Quote
Just a quick comment on "perfect pitch" ... that's not quite my point. I asked people to consider how the heck  does a child (3-7 year old) play and compose complicated pieces of music.
The same way any other musician does practice and lessons/education as the article you posted suggested. And I fully acknowledge happy birthday as a complicated composition. It's as challenging as twinkle, twinkle, little star... get it? eh? (they are the same song :P)

Quote
This is way beyond someone just having a good voice or being a quick learner with lots of practice.
Kind of like how Tiger Woods is a crazy good golf player right?

Quote
The ultimate point i'm trying to make is, that this "talent" existed already as part of a previous experience and has now simply manifested itself again.
Wait... what?
So... Of all possible answers available from practice, to talent and skill, dumb luck, or even the blessing of a god you decide that it is a past life experience/something learned in the womb/I have no idea what you are talking about but it sounds nutty.

You may want to read the past 2 pages of posts.