new study on nde's says they are real

[B. W.]

What is being used here by Morny and Audie is called a form of Association fallacy

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association and based on appealing to logic fallacies on an emotional and/or quasi intellectual level. (Cited and adjusted from Wikipedia Definition)

It would be up to Audie and Monry to prove that the marine ragworm and earthworm genius are morally superior creatures or not. The brains of these animals are vastly different than a human beings brain. Worms do what worms do and their brain reflect that in what they do.

Human beings are the highest order of intelligence on this planet as they were designed by God to be. Liberal progressive thought which influences atheism, teaches that human beings are no better than a chimp, and equal to all animals and have no significance other than being destroyers of the planet unless saved by their god - the state.

So this begs the questions - are human beings the highest form of intelligence on this planet or not? Our human design is to exercise dominion, tend, protect, keep, by use of reason the world around us. The animal world is more robotic in their respective nature and only do what they do best in a living manner to help the earth function in biological life. We human beings actually take care of things and animals, and life on this planet which indicates that we are capable of something called governance. The animal kingdom does not have this kind of governing capability. While true that Gorillas and Chimps have a form of governing but this governance is not world wide and does not involve taking care of the earth as human beings do and have done. They have not yet built a plane or gone to the moon, but still reside in environments as they always have.

It is true, we human beings stupidly abuse this governance which indicates we fell away from God's original design to work alongside him in this governance of the earth. Human beings are far different than any animal on the planet, therefore pure logic indicates that human consciousness is far different and superior to any and all animal forms of consciousness. Now, it comes back to this, Atheism, instructs that humanity is nothing as only nothing absolutely certain in this relativistic world. All is just an accident. Human beings are worth no more than a worm.

So Morny and Audie are defending and extolling the devaluing of Human Life based upon forms of Nihilism. There is no virtue or superiority that Nihilism can produce because, all is vanity of vanities! Atheist defend Nothingness with a vengeance. They extol Nothingness as superior while teaching that Humankind is not superior but rather animalistic in nature – no different than a worm.

Remember historical facts, atheist countries have killed exponentially far more human beings than all the wars of religions combined. Now on a side note, Islam has killed more than all other religions combined too. Both Islam and Atheism devalues human life.

What is difficult to understand is why atheist tout the benefits of nothingness as a superior way to live when human beings, in their eyes are not superior at all? Nothing only serves to justify the surrender ourselves to the morality of State, or King, or Emperor, or Ruling Elites to make a utopia that has no real value at all. Think about it …

Who are then are the real true sycophants?
-
-
-

[Byblos]

It is clear that the human brain shows properties that go beyond it's[sic] physical capacities ( which are basically the same as all other animals).

Does the "which" clause modify "physical capacities"? If so, what do you mean by "physical capacities"? (for clarity, give examples)

And what do you mean by "properties"? (for clarity, give examples)

The problem of mind/body disconnect is an age-old problem, ever since the abandonment of classical philosophy (particularly hylomorphism) and at least since Descartes made a mess of it. To ignore such a problem or to claim it doesn't exist is at least ignorant and at most extremely disingenuous.

On methodological naturalism there is a canyon-sized gap between the body and the mind for it cannot explain the concept of "aboutness" (I believe this is what PaulS was referring to repeatedly). On MN what is the explanation for the ability of molecules (in whatever form) to "think about" other molecules? Anyone who thinks that's a trivial matter needs to reexamine their entire worldview.

[B. W.]

Just because worms and all animals have brains and have form of consciousnesses does not mean it is the form of conscious experience human's have. Such notions come under the guise of Anthropomorphism, even consigning it - whatever form - to "think about" other molecules is anthropomorphic too.

I have not yet seen chimps doing research into human behavior in a chimp Jane Goodall fashion:

However there is Lancelot Link- Secret Chimp... It was on TV and must be so!

[Morny]

It is clear that the human brain shows properties that go beyond it's[sic] physical capacities ( which are basically the same as all other animals).

Does the "which" clause modify "physical capacities"? If so, what do you mean by "physical capacities"? (for clarity, give examples)

And what do you mean by "properties"? (for clarity, give examples)

I doubt that PaulS could do it justice [...]

PaulS should be able simply and clearly state his claim. I'm not asking for a philosophical tome. After repeated unanswered straightforward questions, Audie and I still don't understand his claim.

I am gonna say something and it might come off the wrong way but I don't know how else to say it:
That you don't understand is the problem, but it isn't MY problem.
Honestly, if you don't understand what I am saying there is nothing I can do, I can't explain it any simpler...

I'm asking you to clarify, not simplify. A few words should suffice.

What "properties" of the human brain? And what goes beyond "physical capacities"? (Something outside of known physics?)

[Morny]

I believe this is what PaulS was referring to repeatedly.

You "believe"? Did you ask for clarification to be sure? Did he respond? Or seem annoyed?

[Byblos]

I believe this is what PaulS was referring to repeatedly.

You "believe"? Did you ask for clarification to be sure? Did he respond? Or seem annoyed?

Do you have anything of substance to add to the topic or are you just looking to be argumentative?

[PaulSacramento]

I'm asking you to clarify, not simplify. A few words should suffice.

What "properties" of the human brain? And what goes beyond "physical capacities"? (Something outside of known physics?)

The human brain as certain materialistic properties, that is a given ( shape, size, etc)
Its has certain properties that can be quantified and measured and located ( ability to retain information, adrenaline, senses, etc)
None of those know properties account for what we are doing right now - debating abstract ideas for example.
None of those known properties account for things that have no bearing on day-today survial, things like philsophy for example.
I mean, when was the last time two apes got together and discussed NDE? or a group of worms got together and listened to another worm discuss quantum mechanics?

[Morny]

Do you have anything of substance to add to the topic or are you just looking to be argumentative?

No, I'm not being argumentative. The core of the matter seems to be:

The human brain obviously has both:
1. Clearly demonstratable functionality unique to humans, e.g., self-awareness, empathy.
2. A supernatural mechanism, i.e., outside of science, implementing that functionality.

Do you agree? Or no?

[Morny]

The human brain as certain materialistic properties, that is a given ( shape, size, etc)
Its has certain properties that can be quantified and measured and located ( ability to retain information, adrenaline, senses, etc)

OK. Not sure why you just don't simply say that the relevant "property" is that the human brain has a massively sophisticated neural net. The central question is: what are the limits of that net?

None of those know properties account for what we are doing right now - debating abstract ideas for example.
None of those known properties account for things that have no bearing on day-today survial, things like philsophy for example.

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

Your incredulousness seems to be a personal reaction: "I cannot imagine how a neural net could ever contemplate philosophy, so therefore God must be in there somewhere helping me debate the meaning of life." (Of course, I don't know for sure, because you still haven't answered bullet #2 in my immediately previous post.)

Believe it or not, I don't even have a big problem with such a "God-helps-you-think" position. What I have a problem with is your use of the words "obvious" and "clear" to characterize your position. I.e., the scientists and others (read me) who disagree, either cannot understand what is "obvious/clear", or at best, are deluding themselves.

I mean, when was the last time two apes got together and discussed NDE? or a group of worms got together and listened to another worm discuss quantum mechanics?

Really?! A strawman? A worm with only a 300 neuron net can learn! Add some impressive input devices and what remarkable things do you think 5 billion neurons can do? A chimp has maybe that many brain neurons. You have maybe 3 times that. But God has to help you think, but not the chimp?

[RickD]

Aren't we talking about the human mind, not brain? Isn't it from the mind that these things originate?

[PaulSacramento]

Aren't we talking about the human mind, not brain? Isn't it from the mind that these things originate?

Now, now Rick, don't you know that the mind is just a materialistic property of the brain?

[PaulSacramento]

The human brain as certain materialistic properties, that is a given ( shape, size, etc)
Its has certain properties that can be quantified and measured and located ( ability to retain information, adrenaline, senses, etc)

OK. Not sure why you just don't simply say that the relevant "property" is that the human brain has a massively sophisticated neural net. The central question is: what are the limits of that net?

None of those know properties account for what we are doing right now - debating abstract ideas for example.
None of those known properties account for things that have no bearing on day-today survial, things like philsophy for example.

The dominant paradigm in neuroscience is that consciousness and reasoning are the result of that neural net.

Your incredulousness seems to be a personal reaction: "I cannot imagine how a neural net could ever contemplate philosophy, so therefore God must be in there somewhere helping me debate the meaning of life." (Of course, I don't know for sure, because you still haven't answered bullet #2 in my immediately previous post.)

Believe it or not, I don't even have a big problem with such a "God-helps-you-think" position. What I have a problem with is your use of the words "obvious" and "clear" to characterize your position. I.e., the scientists and others (read me) who disagree, either cannot understand what is "obvious/clear", or at best, are deluding themselves.

I mean, when was the last time two apes got together and discussed NDE? or a group of worms got together and listened to another worm discuss quantum mechanics?

Really?! A strawman? A worm with only a 300 neuron net can learn! Add some impressive input devices and what remarkable things do you think 5 billion neurons can do? A chimp has maybe that many brain neurons. You have maybe 3 times that. But God has to help you think, but not the chimp?

*facepalm*

Fine.

[bippy123]

Aren't we talking about the human mind, not brain? Isn't it from the mind that these things originate?

This is exactly what nde research studies are starting to show Rick. And the veridical Nde's just blow away all material explanations of what is happening , and the peak in Darien Nde's are even worse for the skeptics .

Neurons just don't travel into the afterlife and conversation with people there that just died who nobody even knew had died.

Why isn't this stiff being allowed to be taught in university campuses ?
Be usse hardcore materialists who still are holding onto ancient neuro scientific beliefs refuse to follow the evidence honestly to wherever it leads them.

[B. W.]

Aren't we talking about the human mind, not brain? Isn't it from the mind that these things originate?

This is exactly what nde research studies are starting to show Rick. And the veridical Nde's just blow away all material explanations of what is happening , and the peak in Darien Nde's are even worse for the skeptics .

Neurons just don't travel into the afterlife and conversation with people there that just died who nobody even knew had died.

Why isn't this stiff being allowed to be taught in university campuses ?

Be usse hardcore materialists who still are holding onto ancient neuro scientific beliefs refuse to follow the evidence honestly to wherever it leads them.

Bip - it is obvious why such things are not taught in universities or even in public school systems, it means, there is something larger than human beings out there - called God who indeed created and designed. With that, the slide into ever increasing forms of depravity under the disguise of diversity to destroy existing common sense morality revealed by God, for the mere pleasure to be one's own god would be proved error/dysfunctional/sin. Even their temporary god status will fade into oblivion does not deter these folks nor will the fact that they are defending nothingness for the sake to prove their godlike temporary intellect supreme for mere selfish controlling pride reasons alone.

In other words, to recognize that we human beings do exist after we die in a spiritual state would mean accountability for one's actions which will be judged as well. This is a NO-CAN-DO for these folks which launch their faith to support their religion of self as the measure of all things however temporary before the slide into oblivion.

As stated before, these folks defend NOTHING... as some sort of relativistic absolute...
-
-
-
PS - on an aside note that old TV show - Lancelot Link Secret Chimp - was a funny show for kids of my era. However, it taught evolution, etc and etc, the band Evolution Revolution is an example. It's silliness along with the the school system caused me to slide in atheism. Praise the Lord he saved me by his great grace and Jesus desires the same for Audie and Morny too. Makes me wonder how much cartoons like Captain Planet and even Hello Kitty influenced these two???

[1over137]

I watched Dr. Quinn as a child. The best series ever.