World would be worse off without faith...

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

but your being doesn't. you are you. nothing will change that. you may change your way of thinking; where you live; your medical condition; anything and everything; but you will always be [your name]. no matter what bloody happens in your life; you will always be you.

you are not your name. it is just a label to distinguish you from the billions of others you share your existence with.
i think perhaps onelongsong because, and pardon me for being blunt, that you are damaged that your soul found another place to reside within your body. who's to say that everybody's soul lives within the same place.

Collin

angelica wrote:

Do you see the difference between a chemical being responsible for the emotion of love, and between you feeling love for a beautiful woman? Do you see a difference between the chemical and the whole experience of love being acted out in 3-d?

Yes, I can.

Can you tell me where the quotation marks go on the quote, please?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but that [you] is just a word to describe my current state of being. My state of being changes, and therefor the "you" or "me" of 5 years ago is not the "you" or "me" of now. It is neither mentally or physically the same.

We're talking about the essence of you that has remained the same, though. What is it, every seven years all of our cells have completely died off and new ones took their place. What essence or pattern of energy keeps it all together?

Also, I can hypnotize you and take you back to your 6th birthday and ask you to count each stair you climb that day, and you retain that. You still have all those experiences of 'you' inside you. While hypnotizing you, I can get you to stop in the memory in your mind, and talk to me about it as you see it occuring.

Jeanie

Collin wrote:

In all these cases you still have a functioning brain, so you are still a person. It might not be functioning as it was supposed to, but it's still there and functioning.

Well actually no Collin. Parts of it may not be functioning. It may still be there but parts of it may be completely static.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

Yes, but they are still in there Ahnimus. Regardless of the changes.
Still feel, still think, still "being" or "soul" regardless of whether they can communicate with the rest of us in a way that is understood or not.

Actually that's not true.

I keep trying to inform people of Christof Koch and Francis Crick's work, because they spend 30 years understanding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).

Crick and Koch found that damaging specific parts of the brain actually terminates the individuals ability to experience consciously, which is what you are referring to.

Example, the visual system. Damaging the retina, occipital lobe, visual cortex, V1, V2, and VnV5 regions will not affect a person's ability to consciously visualize objects. It will only affect their ability to interpret photons from the external environment. However, damaging a specific group of neurons in the frontal lobe will terminate a person's ability to both see and visualize consciously. At that point, the individual has no conscious experience of vision, or visual imagination. That part of their "soul" is gone.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

Well actually no Collin. Parts of it may not be functioning. It may still be there but parts of it may be completely static.

brain damage: still a functioning brain

Down's syndrome: brain is definitely functioning

Alzheimer's: brain is still functioning

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually that's not true.

I keep trying to inform people of Christof Koch and Francis Crick's work, because they spend 30 years understanding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).

Crick and Koch found that damaging specific parts of the brain actually terminates the individuals ability to experience consciously, which is what you are referring to.

Example, the visual system. Damaging the retina, occipital lobe, visual cortex, V1, V2, and VnV5 regions will not affect a person's ability to consciously visualize objects. It will only affect their ability to interpret photons from the external environment. However, damaging a specific group of neurons in the frontal lobe will terminate a person's ability to both see and visualize consciously. At that point, the individual has no conscious experience of vision, or visual imagination. That part of their "soul" is gone.

You know what mate? While I repectfully understand that you have a point of view on this which may very well be completely correct, right now as usual, you speak too much and my mind just shuts down. As it has right now.
So I'm gonna leave it at this, if you understand a human as the sum of all parts and an appendage of the brain only, that's fine with me. And if you want to believe or have faith in science and reason absolutely, that's cool with me too. But I will blindly or fanatically follow no thing or way of thinking. And I believe in a soul. And I can't see either of us changing our point of view. Can you? So I'll add this. I consider you my friend and I am always happy to hear what you have to say. But now you've hurt my head so I'm leaving this well alone. And I promise to keep your soul safe.

Jeanie

Collin wrote:

brain damage: still a functioning brain

Down's syndrome: brain is definitely functioning

Alzheimer's: brain is still functioning

The parts that are damaged do not function.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

A human can operate with a brain the size of a pea, with complications.

I want you to provide evidence of a human operating with absolutely no brain. I want to see that their brain is non-existent. Not just relatively.

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

Two young children with hydrocephalus referred to Lorber presented with normal mental development for their age. In both children, there was no evidence of a cerebral cortex. One of the children died at age 3 months, the second at 12 months. He was still following a normal development profile with the exception of the apparent lack of cerebral tissue shown by repeated medical testing. An account of the children was published in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology.

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

You know what mate? While I repectfully understand that you have a point of view on this which may very well be completely correct, right now as usual, you speak too much and my mind just shuts down. As it has right now.
So I'm gonna leave it at this, if you understand a human as the sum of all parts and an appendage of the brain only, that's fine with me. And if you want to believe or have faith in science and reason absolutely, that's cool with me too. But I will blindly or fanatically follow no thing or way of thinking. And I believe in a soul. And I can't see either of us changing our point of view. Can you? So I'll add this. I consider you my friend and I am always happy to hear what you have to say. But now you've hurt my head so I'm leaving this well alone. And I promise to keep your soul safe.

Yea... ok Jeanie. I respect you too, but that was such a contradiction.

angelica

Collin wrote:

Yes, I can.

Can you see how the concept or your personal experience of love is beyond being only the chemical? It's in a full loving experience, for example. That experience, at least to me, is so beyond the chemical. It's something that we can't put our finger on. Do you see yourself in the same way? Do you see that you far more than all of your parts added up?

You said:

Oddly enough I agree with what C.S. Lewis said:

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

I am my brain.

Did CS Lewis say all of this, or part of it?

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea... ok Jeanie. I respect you too, but that was such a contradiction.

Blame it on my brain damage! Or maybe it's just coz I'm a girl!

Who knows? Isn't it human nature to be contradictory?

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

Two young children with hydrocephalus referred to Lorber presented with normal mental development for their age. In both children, there was no evidence of a cerebral cortex. One of the children died at age 3 months, the second at 12 months. He was still following a normal development profile with the exception of the apparent lack of cerebral tissue shown by repeated medical testing. An account of the children was published in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology.

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

As I said, a person can function with a brain the size of a pea. This article says "Virtually no brain" which is not "No brain". It actually states "CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness" so that is a brain.

onelongsong

catefrances wrote:

you are not your name. it is just a label to distinguish you from the billions of others you share your existence with.
i think perhaps onelongsong because, and pardon me for being blunt, that you are damaged that your soul found another place to reside within your body. who's to say that everybody's soul lives within the same place.

and by admitting the soul has movement; you've proved my point.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

As I said, a person can function with a brain the size of a pea. This article says "Virtually no brain" which is not "No brain". It actually states "CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness" so that is a brain.

read the rest of the site.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

read the rest of the site.

OK....

You've reached the homepage of Cody Hatch (often known as Dakota Hatch). Are you looking for my university website?

Who am I?
I'm a 22-year-old university student (resume, photo). My special interests are computer programming, economics (particularly as it impacts on society), and international relations. My hobbies are mainly playing computer games and reading books, both sci-fi/fantasy and non-fiction. By way of example, recent books that I have enjoyed include David Weber's Honor Harrington series, and William Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic, a great study of the politics of France between the fall of Napoleon III and the end of World War II.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

read the rest of the site.

Funny that the name Andrew Vandal doesn't appear in any scientific journals. In-fact it only appears on that site you linked and some discussion forums.

Try getting some real credible evidence dude.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

and by admitting the soul has movement; you've proved my point.

glad i could be of service. though i never said anything to the contrary.

could you clarify what that point was please.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Funny that the name Andrew Vandal doesn't appear in any scientific journals. In-fact it only appears on that site you linked and some discussion forums.

Try getting some real credible evidence dude.

there's more sites. just don't have time to find them.
and i suggest you get more credable evidence too. the rantings of a madman doesn't cut it with me either.

one last comment.
my grandmother died of melenoma. at the end the lesions were so bad they told us our grandmother was gone. it was only a body there.
just before she died she opened her eyes and with clarity spoke to everyone. she knew names and remembered things she couldn't just months earlier.
i've heard of other cases where this happens too.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

OK....

You've reached the homepage of Cody Hatch (often known as Dakota Hatch). Are you looking for my university website?

Who am I?
I'm a 22-year-old university student (resume, photo). My special interests are computer programming, economics (particularly as it impacts on society), and international relations. My hobbies are mainly playing computer games and reading books, both sci-fi/fantasy and non-fiction. By way of example, recent books that I have enjoyed include David Weber's Honor Harrington series, and William Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic, a great study of the politics of France between the fall of Napoleon III and the end of World War II.

wrong site. i don't know what happened but i'm out the door.
later