Evidence for God from Science

Brain functionality in species from worms to humans forms a progression. Why give human brains special non-physical status?

The answer is, scientifically speaking ( ie: direct observation), quite obvious.

Philip wrote:

Audie: Of course; it might show a flaw in this whole program.

And also a universe MIGHT create and THEN organize itself with stupendous design and functionality - or NOT! Those in fanatasyland can continue to nurture their what "MIGHT" be possible in a science fiction writer's universe - but not so successfully in the one WE live in.

WHO is way off topic?

The idea was proposed that the "mind", however defined, can detach entirely from the body and go about independently, then return to the brain, which acts merely as a receiver.

However expressed, maybe someone can say it better, that seems to be the idea.

Animals also have brains, some of which are structurally very similar to ours, and have the same neuromuscular functions. Animals, such as dogs, certainly appear to have dreams. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2001/dreaming

I was curious what thoughts there might be about whether animal brains are purely physical, or like human brains, are just receivers.

Whichever way that is, it seems very relevant and important to what the actual human condition is.

Research is very customarily and legitimately carried out on animals, there is much to be learned that way. A simpler version if such there is, may be easier to understand.

If all that is desired here is "amen" and "verily", then maybe the words "science" and "evidence' should be deleted from the name of this site.

AND BTW

I said nothing about what animals experience, that is just yet another of the things made up and presented as if I had said or implied them.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Brain functionality in species from worms to humans forms a progression. Why give human brains special non-physical status?

The answer is, scientifically speaking ( ie: direct observation), quite obvious.

Ok..prease exprain?

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

The problem here morny is that this is where the real science is starting to point to. Materialistic explanations just don't fit in with what nde research is showing and if you think nde research is pseudoscience then you obviously haven't studied nde research at all.
Doctor parnia's aware study was peer reviewed and published in a secular uk medical journal .
Calling it pseudo science doesn't magically make it so no matter how many times u and Audie repeat this to yourselves .

This is precisely why a highly credentialed expert in neuroscience like doctor patricia churchland got trounced and embarressed in the skeptiko interview .she couldn't find one nde researcher that agreed with her "brain equals mind" faith based beliefs to agree with her . She acted like an ignorant spoiled brat and hanged up the phone on him when it was time to explain her beliefs by the scientific evidence alone .

Morny if you would like to have a go at it I'm all ears . You can start with finding me one nde researcher that has done peer studies in the nde arena that agrees with a brain based explanation for Nde's .

I'm not asking you to find a half a dozen like atheist/materialists ask me for every time . Just one will do.

What the evidence is showing is that materialism is the odd man out. If materialism is the odd man , what is left afterwords is explaining these experiences from a non material perspective. Suddenly the non material explanation starts to make sense and the atheist/materialist explanation sounds ridiculous .

If a man has a veridical nde during a period of a non functional brain, clearly the brain is not creating this experience .
What we are left with is grappling for a non material explanation or theory for all this .

I never said I had all the answers here morny , but we theists have a better explanation then the atheist/materialist does , and this is why the brain being the reciever makes very plausible sense . Is it 100% scientific proof ? Absolutely not? Is it a much better logical and scientific explanation then atheist/materialist can come up with ?
Absolutely 100%

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

What we have now is called induction to the best explanation . If you call inductive science pseudoscience then you must also throw out evolution as a scientific theory because it is littered with inductive science . Virtually none of the major claims of evolution can be proven in a laboratory setting and repeated , yet I have never seen a complaint from you about this morny ?

Are you now calling the theory of evolution pseudoscience

Audie: or like human brains, are just receivers.

OK, Min, I'll bite: what does "just receivers" mean?

From a Christian point of view, human beings are physical/spiritual beings; animals are purely physical beings.

But IF an actual experience is had during a NDE, in which all brain functionality, heartbeat, blood pressure, etc. is ZIP on the screen, this means that the experience was entirely independent of the physical. It also begs the question of where the MEMORY of the experience came from, how was it transmitted and received into the subsequently functioning brain in the person that returns from what appeared to be certain death? As God can operate independently of the physical and biological laws and mechanisms He normally allows during our lifetimes, and as human beings are physical ones with a spirit within, who's to say that the NDE wasn't an entirely spiritual experience in which the memory of the experience (whether real, imagined or deceptively so) was supernaturally put back in the subsequently functioning brain. The big question is how was the memory retained in a brain that wasn't functioning at the time of the NDEXPERIENCE.

I like the idea of testing the NDE experience with a dog... the only one I can think of who is rational and communicative enough to express (post experience) the inner most NDE had, is Mr. Peabody. Not to mention.. he already has a WABAC machine that is very possibly a forerunner in NDE experience on it's own. just sayin...

Philip wrote:Audie: or like human brains, are just receivers.

OK, Min, I'll bite: what does "just receivers" mean?

.

What? Bite who?

How would I know? Did you think that snippet you excised
represents my opinion? I think mind outside body / brain as receiver is somewhere between highly speculative
and complete woo woo.

Worth serious research, maybe. Only reasonable possibility? Hardly.

What? Bite who?

How would I know? Did you think that snippet you excised
represents my opinion?

Audie, are you not familiar with that phrase? And I just wanted clarification on what you meant by the outtake portion. Please quit thinking everyone is always trying to misrepresent your opinion - that's really getting to be an old tactic. And it's one that is often unnecessary if you will just simply correct or clarify when you think someone has misunderstood you or has deliberately misrepresented what you've said. For the most part, there's little reason to get so oversensitive. That target you constantly seem to see on your back is mostly of your own psychological making. Lighten up a bit, ok?

bippy123 wrote:

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

The problem here morny is that this is where the real science is starting to point to. Materialistic explanations just don't fit in with what nde research is showing and if you think nde research is pseudoscience then you obviously haven't studied nde research at all.
Doctor parnia's aware study was peer reviewed and published in a secular uk medical journal .

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

The problem here morny is that this is where the real science is starting to point to. Materialistic explanations just don't fit in with what nde research is showing and if you think nde research is pseudoscience then you obviously haven't studied nde research at all.
Doctor parnia's aware study was peer reviewed and published in a secular uk medical journal .

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Extraordinary" is a rather subjective label.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

I don't see any inconsistency between having both a soul and a purely physical brain. But presenting pseudoscience as evidence that the soul has physical effects is something even Christians should be highly wary of, e.g., St. Augustine of Hippo's warnings from 15 centuries ago.

The problem here morny is that this is where the real science is starting to point to. Materialistic explanations just don't fit in with what nde research is showing and if you think nde research is pseudoscience then you obviously haven't studied nde research at all.
Doctor parnia's aware study was peer reviewed and published in a secular uk medical journal .

Succinctly state Dr. Parnia's claim.
Where is his raw data and protocols?
Who replicated his results?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Extraordinary" is a rather subjective label.

Demonstration of an out-of-body experience would be by far the biggest scientific discovery in history. So I'm kind of going to have to insist on extraordinary evidence. As should everyone.

Philip wrote:

What? Bite who?

How would I know? Did you think that snippet you excised
represents my opinion?

Audie, are you not familiar with that phrase? And I just wanted clarification on what you meant by the outtake portion. Please quit thinking everyone is always trying to misrepresent your opinion - that's really getting to be an old tactic. And it's one that is often unnecessary if you will just simply correct or clarify when you think someone has misunderstood you or has deliberately misrepresented what you've said. For the most part, there's little reason to get so oversensitive. That target you constantly seem to see on your back is mostly of your own psychological making. Lighten up a bit, ok?

Why yes, I am familiar with the idiom. As an ESL student, I've made a point of knowing idioms.

Its about being lured, baited, into taking some action, or asking some question.

I might ask, "guess what my boyfriend said", there is no way you could guess (as in what I might mean by receiver) so you are lured, tempted into asking.

No bait involved. You simply misunderstood; since you are saying you asked for clarification, you didnt really read what I'd said. I correctly figured you thought
that this snippet.. animal brains are purely physical, or like human brains, are just receivers.
meant I think the brain is a receiver. I dont.

Here it is in context, making it plain its not my idea.

The idea was proposed that the "mind", however defined, can detach entirely from the body and go about independently, then return to the brain, which acts merely as a receiver.

However expressed, maybe someone can say it better, that seems to be the idea.
See how I am asking for someone to think of a way to express it?

Animals also have brains, some of which are structurally very similar to ours, and have the same neuromuscular functions. Animals, such as dogs, certainly appear to have dreams. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2001/dreaming

I was curious what thoughts there might be about whether animal brains are purely physical, or like human brains, are just receivers.

You did misrepresent it, you did get it wrong. Kind of like this..I said nothing about what animals experience, that is just yet another of the things made up and presented as if I had said or implied them.

I dont think you do it deliberately. If you have some preferred manner in which I point out that you are misrepresenting my words, say what it is, and I will adapt myself. But dont try to give me this... Please quit thinking everyone is always trying to misrepresent your opinion - that's really getting to be an old tactic

Its not a tactic, Im not thinking that everyone is always, and the old is you or others doing it.

Now, quite overreacting and playing remote psychoanalyst.

Proof of NDE and disproof of ToE would be quite the rivals for greatest discovery of all time.

For one, a carved human footprint in Cretaceous limestone is enough.

For the other, anecdotes will do.

Honestly, people in America!