Psychology Today article.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2012, 01:58 AM
Psychology Today article.
Here is a great article from PT for christians and atheists to debate. They make great points about no afterlife.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...-afterlife
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 02:33 AM
 
RE: Psychology Today article.
I am writing a book as we speak tentatively called, "Believing in God and the Immortal Soul," so I could go on a bit about this topic, but I'd like to take just one part of this blog article to task. Steve Stewart-Williams writes:

Neuroscientists have shown that when you look at something - when you have a conscious visual experience - certain parts of your brain become more active. If you then close your eyes and merely imagine the same visual scene, the same parts of your brain again become active. If you electrically stimulate the visual areas of the brain, this produces conscious visual experiences. Stimulating other sensory areas produces other sensory experiences.

This is a common argument against the soul, but it means nothing. Of course there has to be a functioning brain in order for the non-material soul to interact with the material world. Of course, the brain activates upon stimulation. Information goes from the brain to the soul; control goes from the soul to the brain (except in the case of reflex). When a person dies and their brain doesn't work anymore, there will be, must be, no more evidence of the soul.

No matter how much of the brain you destroy, you never destroy the elements of consciousness: will and self-awareness. That is, until you destroy enough to produce a vegetative state or death. Memory is a longer topic. Consider the fact that when you're typing away, you're not aware of the memory you have as to where the individual keys are; you just know where they are. That's how the soul uses memory. The soul exists in eternity, so what we experience as a memory in time, the soul simply experiences as knowledge.

But I love the fact that Stewart-Williams has so much education and still makes a statement like this showing almost zero insight into the human condition:

We do not mourn the fact that our loved ones did not exist before they were born, so why do we mourn their non-existence after they die?
Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 03:18 AM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 02:33 AM)He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named Wrote:  Of course there has to be a functioning brain in order for the non-material soul to interact with the material world. Of course, the brain activates upon stimulation. Information goes from the brain to the soul; control goes from the soul to the brain (except in the case of reflex). When a person dies and their brain doesn't work anymore, there will be, must be, no more evidence of the soul.

As someone who believes in the conservation of energy, this is perplexing. What is the mechanism by which information is transferred from brain to soul?

Why a brain in particular, rather than any complex, interconnected system?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 03:29 AM
RE: Psychology Today article.
Egor:

Would you mind defining what you mean by "soul"? What exactly happens to it after I die?

If it is something immaterial, that cannot be measured by reality, how can you know it is there?

How can it retain our memories and personality, as those things are related directly to the brain. A small trauma to our brain can cause memory loss and dramatic shift in personality.
So even if the brain dies and the soul lives on, what about the soul makes it me?

How is it different from just saying the atoms that make up me continue to be part of the earth and sky, until the end of the universe.

"But the point is, find somebody to love. Everything else is overrated." - HouseofCantor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 03:40 AM
 
RE: Psychology Today article.
I'm not hijacking this post. I just wanted to comment on the article.
Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 03:45 AM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 03:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  I'm not hijacking this post. I just wanted to comment on the article.

Ok sorry about that. I didn't mean to get confrontational. I have many conversations with believers about the soul and the immaterial; I find it interesting.
But you are right, it's off topic here.

"But the point is, find somebody to love. Everything else is overrated." - HouseofCantor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2012, 07:59 AM
RE: Psychology Today article.
Great article.

Hitchens said it best and I paraphrase, The parties going on without you and it's time for you to leave.

I believe this is the hardest part of dying. What will you miss after you are dead? Everything that happens in humans events. That really sucks.

An consider all the time and effeort you put into developing your essense as a human being. All done.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
25-02-2012, 12:49 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
Vladimir Nabokov ‘our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness'.

What a great line.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Karl's post
25-02-2012, 01:17 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
I find at least curious the kind of predisposition an atheist must have towards life, we assume there's nothing on the other side (I say assume because there's no possible definite proof), and this gives us only two choices to guide our life with, either we fall into a lifetime of orgiastic indifference or we live and work to improve or at least maintain a future we know we won't be able to know it exist, not to say enjoy.
So our options are to simply die or to live for others, I find it strangely religious, the amount of humility and generosity required to live all our lives for others to enjoy and just getting a small bit for ourselves is kind of a noble approach that inspires me a lot of respect Big Grin

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
25-02-2012, 01:33 PM
RE: Psychology Today article.
(25-02-2012 02:33 AM)Egor Wrote:  Neuroscientists have shown that when you look at something - when you have a conscious visual experience - certain parts of your brain become more active. If you then close your eyes and merely imagine the same visual scene, the same parts of your brain again become active. If you electrically stimulate the visual areas of the brain, this produces conscious visual experiences. Stimulating other sensory areas produces other sensory experiences.

This is a common argument against the soul, but it means nothing.

It means that the moral law of the universe is conserve entropy and simulation is the key to the future. Wink

Soul? That's what you listen to in Nawlins. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: