The implausibility of brainless minds

[Copernicus]

Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains. What one thinks of as the "soul" or "spirit" is a thinking being that can operate independently of a body. Nevertheless, the evidence continues to mount that there is absolutely no mental activity that occurs independently of brain activity. It does not contradict the idea of dualism to say that minds are dependent on brains for their existence, but it does contradict the idea that a mind can survive brain-death.

In the last few decades, scientists have been able to explore the tight connection between thought and brain activity through the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. MRI merely shows where blood concentrates in the brain when mental activity is taking place, and scientists can actually take videos of dynamic activity in the brain during specifically targeted thinking patterns. Scientists have now, for the first time, correlated dreams with volitional behavior. While this kind of experimental evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mental activity depends on brain activity, it does seem to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains. What one thinks of as the "soul" or "spirit" is a thinking being that can operate independently of a body. Nevertheless, the evidence continues to mount that there is absolutely no mental activity that occurs independently of brain activity. It does not contradict the idea of dualism to say that minds are dependent on brains for their existence, but it does contradict the idea that a mind can survive brain-death.

Most religions depend on the belief that this thing called soul or spirit is not a material thing and therefore cannot be compared with anything material. The laws governing Spirit are entirely different to the laws governing Matter.

By this token, one cannot conclude anything about the nature of soul/spirit based on material laws.

On the other hand, there are religious ideas (such as within Hinduism) that beneath the material layer there is a subtle layer and beneath the subtle there is a spiritual. The soul/spirit, which is life-force and consciousness, exists always in a body/form with what would include the subtle or spiritual equivalent of a 'brain'.

What scientists need to do is conclude, without a doubt, that the subtle or spiritual layers do not exist, but this is as impossible as proving that God does not exist.

[outhouse]

The laws governing Spirit are entirely different to the laws governing Matter

says who?

one cannot conclude anything about the nature of soul/spirit based on material laws.

or non material laws

but this is as impossible as proving that God does not exist.

but I can make a court case and win that all gods were created by man, as they always have been. Its why the deities reflect the people, not the other way around.

What scientists need to do is conclude, without a doubt, that the subtle or spiritual layers do not exist

science doesnt deal with imagination or test for it.

science would not be needed but a good historian will tell you exactly how the concept of a soul was created by men and like deities all have a different definition based on their local mythology.




with that said you have a valid point, I just dont think you have a real leg to stand on.


Once the computer is shut off, the show is over. But its just my opinion

[Me Myself]

I am not telling you that I can prove afterlife or that you should believe in it. It mkay do you no favour or wrong to do so anyways, so I don´t care that much.

It is accurate to say though, that you can´t prove that the brain is not just a material manifestation of a spiritual reality.

Even if you say that by influencing the brain or body you influence emotions, etc, well that shows there is a obvious conection between body and soul/spirit/call-it-how-you-like.

So anything you say can be "imagined" wrong in some way. This makes the implausibilty relative enough to say: implausible for scientific notion....yet.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

Most religions depend on the belief that this thing called soul or spirit is not a material thing and therefore cannot be compared with anything material. The laws governing Spirit are entirely different to the laws governing Matter.

Madhuri, how are you in a position to know about the "laws governing Spirit" any more than I am? Scientists can study the "laws governing Matter", but which humans are more qualified than others to study the "laws governing Spirit"? If the source of your knowledge is "intuition" or "revelation", then I can only reply that those sources of knowledge are notoriously unreliable.

Originally Posted by Madhuri

By this token, one cannot conclude anything about the nature of soul/spirit based on material laws.

But what are the "spiritual laws", and how do you know what they are?

Originally Posted by Madhuri

On the other hand, there are religious ideas (such as within Hinduism) that beneath the material layer there is a subtle layer and beneath the subtle there is a spiritual. The soul/spirit, which is life-force and consciousness, exists always in a body/form with what would include the subtle or spiritual equivalent of a 'brain'.

Whatever your religious doctrines preach, there is still the question of how you or your religious sources could be in a position to know more about those things than anyone else. The thing about scientists is that they do not claim to be in a special position to know things about material "laws". Everything they do must be testable and observable by everyone else.

Originally Posted by Madhuri

What scientists need to do is conclude, without a doubt, that the subtle or spiritual layers do not exist, but this is as impossible as proving that God does not exist.

I don't think that you are in a position to dictate what scientists or anyone else must conclude. Scientists do not make any claims about aspects of reality that are untestable or unverifiable. The question is: Why do you?

[Me Myself]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

I don't think that you are in a position to dictate what scientists or anyone else must conclude. Scientists do not make any claims about aspects of reality that are untestable or unverifiable. The question is: Why do you?

The real question is what makes you feel you don´t?

Ever wondered why you believe this reality of yours is real andnot a dream? Cause you can´t prove material reality without ciclical thinking or faith.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Me Myself

It is accurate to say though, that you can´t prove that the brain is not just a material manifestation of a spiritual reality.

Nor can you. Is that what you claim?

Originally Posted by Me Myself

Even if you say that by influencing the brain or body you influence emotions, etc, well that shows there is a obvious conection between body and soul/spirit/call-it-how-you-like.

I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that emotions are caused by brain activity. When the brain ceases to function, there is nothing to cause the emotions. This is fairly easy to prove, since we know that drugs affect moods and emotions. Alcohol certainly affects judgement, and we humans have been observing its effects since at least the beginning of recorded history and very likely well before that. Indeed, we have observed the effect of brain injuries on mental activity and behavior since the beginning, so why do we deny the obvious?

Originally Posted by Me Myself

So anything you say can be "imagined" wrong in some way. This makes the implausibilty relative enough to say: implausible for scientific notion....yet.

Yet what? Science is all about what is plausible, not just what is imaginable.

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Me Myself

The real question is what makes you feel you don´t?

The lack of any credible evidence that there is a spiritual plane of existence or that brainless thinking beings exist. This is not about what is imaginable, but what is plausible.

Originally Posted by Me Myself

Ever wondered why you believe this reality of yours is real andnot a dream? Cause you can´t prove material reality without ciclical thinking or faith.

If you wish to believe that, I will not stand in your way. I do caution you that it can be very painful if you try to act on the assumption that your experiences of reality are unreal.

[Me Myself]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

The lack of any credible evidence that there is a spiritual plane of existence or that brainless thinking beings exist. This is not about what is imaginable, but what is plausible.

You misunderstand, my question is what makes yu think you don´t act on faith? You have faith in the existence of the material world.

I don´t know about you, but I´ve felt pleasure, pain, perfumes, tastes and all kinds of all kinds in my dreams. There is nothing that casn prove you that the material world is real. It is a believe that works for you for now. This can change, but to say it definetely is, is working on faith.

[Me Myself]

Originally Posted by Copernicus

Yet what? Science is all about what is plausible, not just what is imaginable.

Nonsense. Science can start with imagination and it has. People didn´t "know" how to fly nor it was "obvious" that is was posible. Two brothers said it was posible because they could imagine it, and with work they did it real for all of us.