evidence for the soul

[woodwater]

Hi Rudolf Smit,one of the debunkers of astrology, has found evidence that there is life after death or at least that the soul survives a few days after death. He says not all his colleagues agree,but tio him the evidence is overwhelming.

Paulo:)

[WildCat]

It's true. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hi Rudolf Smit,one of the debunkers of astrology, has found evidence that there is life after death or at least that the soul survives a few days after death. He says not all his colleagues agree,but tio him the evidence is overwhelming.

Paulo:)

Evidence?

[JM85]

just a few days?

[woodwater]

well,thers no way to know if the soul or consciousness survives for a long time. I think thats beyhound the reach of science:)

[sat556]

Ok. So where's the info?

[Oolon Colluphid]

well,thers no way to know if the soul or consciousness survives for a long time. I think thats beyhound the reach of science:)

I think it's beyond the reach of credibility!

How long does Windows keep working after you switch off your computer? It's the same thing. The computer can still run without an OS (granted, you wont be able to do much with it, but that only serves to strengthen the analogy!), but the OS cannot run without a functioning computer.

[woodwater]

Ok. So where's the info?

hi

you can go to www.nderf.org or contact rudolf
on rudolf.h.smit@hccnet.nl

paulo:)

[woodwater]

I think it's beyond the reach of credibility!

How long does Windows keep working after you switch off your computer? It's the same thing. The computer can still run without an OS (granted, you wont be able to do much with it, but that only serves to strengthen the analogy!), but the OS cannot run without a functioning computer.


good point. I hope you are wrong.:(

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Could you give us a link to the evidence, please?

~~ Paul

[sat556]

hi

you can go to www.nderf.org or contact rudolf
on rudolf.h.smit@hccnet.nl

paulo:)

Thanks. Which bit do I want? It looks like a huge site. All I can see are experiences. I managed to stay on even after seeing the name Zammit...
Sorry if I'm missing the flaming obvious :boggled:

[woodwater]

Thanks. Which bit do I want? It looks like a huge site. All I can see are experiences. I managed to stay on even after seeing the name Zammit...
Sorry if I'm missing the flaming obvious :boggled:

i would start with the article on the right about consciousness. Very enlightening;)

[woodwater]

Could you give us a link to the evidence, please?

~~ Paul

rudolf told me but he probably cant show the evidence online. But he directed me to that site. Ask him anyway

[woodwater]

i would start with the article on the right about consciousness. Very enlightening;)

«about the continuity of our consciousness» thats the article:)

[Suezoled]

On a slight tangent:

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

Criticism on Michael Shermer's article in Skeptic magazine a couple years ago on Near Death Experiences.
The author of the criticism is Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiology specialist.
And yet, one study and conlusion Pim van Lommel and his crew came to, (reference page http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html)
was that anoxia could not account for the NDE experience on a scientific level, simply because:
This study casts doubt on that theory, in the words of its chief investigator, cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, "Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE. All patients had a cardiac arrest, and were clinically dead with unconsciousness resulting from insufficient blood supply to the brain. In those circumstances, the EEG (a measure of brain electrical activity) becomes flat, and if CPR is not started within 5-10 minutes, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die. According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE...

and
The scientists were surprised that the NDErs recalled their experience with the same degree of detail when interviewed again several years later.

Kaaay... if I remember right, the approximate incidence of NDE were about 17%, and not all people would have an NDE...

On the other hand,
Dr. van Lommel and his colleagues conducted the entire study without special funding; they volunteered their own time and engaged the volunteer efforts of many IANDS members in Holland (whose group is called Merkawah.

In'it dat niiiice?

Back on the topic: how is it that there is evidence for the soul when the assertion is that the soul sticks around for a few days? Isn't that more of an assumption that there is one, and then looking for it? How do they know about this? I'm so confusicated.

[Azrael 5]

Whats with the Amy Wilson smiley whenever a silly woo posts?
Its true ;)

[woodwater]

read also «what is death»

[strathmeyer]

Hi Rudolf Smit,one of the debunkers of astrology, has found evidence that there is life after death or at least that the soul survives a few days after death. He says not all his colleagues agree,but tio him the evidence is overwhelming.

This is completely rediculous. Whatever scientist involved in this are frauds. All experiments in medical situations have shown that the soul dies before the body. Patients hooked up to complex body measuring machinery in hospitals and study situations are shown to lose their sould days before their actual death. The body cannot live without the soul.

It's true.

[Suezoled]

«about the continuity of our consciousness» thats the article:)

as per that article:

7. QUANTUM MECHANICS AND THE BRAIN
Quantum physics cannot explain the essence of consciousness or the secret of life, but in my concept it is helpful for understanding the transition between the fields of consciousness in the phase-space (to be compared with the probability fields as we know from quantum mechanics) and the body-linked waking consciousness in the real-space, because these are the two complementary aspects of consciousness.41 Our whole and undivided consciousness with declarative memories finds its origin in, and is stored in this phase-space, and the cortex only serves as a relay station for parts of our consciousness and parts of our memories to be received into our waking consciousness. In this concept consciousness is not physically rooted. This could be compared with the internet, which does not originate from the computer itself, but is only received by it.


AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Carry on.

[valis]

This reminds me of the Philip K. Dick novel UBIK. It was based on the idea that peoples soul had a fixed half life so you could talk to them after they were dead but only for a fixed amount of time. So say a business exec dies the company would keep him on ice but would agonize for some time before asking for important advice lest they use up what was left of him premeturly.

http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_ubik.html

It's true!

[woodwater]

On a slight tangent:

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

Criticism on Michael Shermer's article in Skeptic magazine a couple years ago on Near Death Experiences.
The author of the criticism is Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiology specialist.
And yet, one study and conlusion Pim van Lommel and his crew came to, (reference page http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html)
was that anoxia could not account for the NDE experience on a scientific level, simply because:

and


Kaaay... if I remember right, the approximate incidence of NDE were about 17%, and not all people would have an NDE...

On the other hand,


In'it dat niiiice?

Back on the topic: how is it that there is evidence for the soul when the assertion is that the soul sticks around for a few days? Isn't that more of an assumption that there is one, and then looking for it? How do they know about this? I'm so confusicated.

what rudolf said was that there is strong evidence of life after death or at least that consciousness survives for a while after death:)

[Suezoled]

what rudolf said was that there is strong evidence of life after death or at least that consciousness survives for a while after death:)

That is actually pretty creepy and gross. I mean, imagine if you've been shot and killed, and then you're laying around dead, but then you're aware you're dead, and can't do a dang when you're just laying there dead while small chidren come by and pee on you.

[sat556]

rudolf told me but he probably cant show the evidence online. But he directed me to that site. Ask him anyway

So what do YOU think about it?

I find this all very odd you posting about something that it appears you don't know anything about (him directing you to a site makes me think that), and how are we supposed to respond to it if there isn't anything for us to reference?

I'm happy to try it blind though:

a. The tests are flawed.
b. The evidence consists totally of anecdotes.
c. The experiences are all too subjective to count.

Maybe I'm just a hardened pessimist.

[woodwater]

This is completely rediculous. Whatever scientist involved in this are frauds. All experiments in medical situations have shown that the soul dies before the body. Patients hooked up to complex body measuring machinery in hospitals and study situations are shown to lose their sould days before their actual death. The body cannot live without the soul.

It's true.
what? how do they know the soul dies? can they see it?this is ridiculous:mad:

[woodwater]

as per that article:




AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Carry on.

what do you mean aaagh:confused:

[eri]

Suezoled was obviously experiencing the same anguish at reading the article that I experienced. That blatent misprepresentation of quantum mechanics was painful and made me dumber. Which means I can no longer do my homework. Thanks a lot.

For the uninitiated: phase space usually refers to velocity space rather than position space. Imagine plotting the trajectory of a particle as a function of it's velocity instead of it's position. Note how it has nothing to do with consciousness.

[trvlr2]

Woodwater- excerpt from your source the reply to Shermer:

Most body cells, and especially all neurons, show an electrical potential across cell membranes, formed by the presence of a metabolic Na/K pump. Transportation of information along neurons happens by means of action potentials, differences in membrane potential caused by synaptic depolarisation (excitatory) and hyperpolarisation (inhibitory). The sum total of changes along neurons causes transient electric fields, and therefore also transient magnetic fields, along the synchronously activated dendrites. Not the number of neurons, the precise shape of the dendrites (dendritic tree), nor the accurate position of synapses, neither the firing of individual neurons is crucial, but the derivative, the fleeting electric and/or magnetic fields generated along the dendrites. These should be shaped as optimally as possible into short-lasting meaningful patterns, constantly changing in four-dimensional shape and intensity (self-organization), and constantly mutually interacting between all neurons. This process can be considered as a biological quantum coherence phenomenon.

Wait a minute .The guy admits he is supposing where the mind is. And then,read the last sentence!
AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!

[trvlr2]

Drat! Eri- Ya beat this unwashed ta th' punch!!

[eri]

Nah, your post had actual sources in it. You win.

[woodwater]

Nah, your post had actual sources in it. You win.

i wonder what you guys believe? Is there anything youre not skeptical anbout? Air is invisible. Do you believe in air?

[De_Bunk]

Maybe 'Psy Kick' has the answers....:D

DB

[eri]

Of course I believe in air. There's lots of evidence for air. First and foremost, my body is actively getting oxygen from SOMEWHERE. Doesn't matter if I can't see it.

But I approach everything skeptically, or at least, I try to. Which is why I like people to cite their sources and explain their research. When I pick up a scientific paper, I don't just accept their results - I want to see how they got them and why they think they are justified in their conclusions. Unless of course I don't understand what they did, and I have to rely on people more educated in that field to make that assumption for me. Which is why journals have a peer-reviewed process.

Don't tell me you're actually Sylvia Browne, woodwater (who I recently heard on Larry King professing: 'you can't prove air!')!

[woodwater]

Of course I believe in air. There's lots of evidence for air. First and foremost, my body is actively getting oxygen from SOMEWHERE. Doesn't matter if I can't see it.

But I approach everything skeptically, or at least, I try to. Which is why I like people to cite their sources and explain their research. When I pick up a scientific paper, I don't just accept their results - I want to see how they got them and why they think they are justified in their conclusions. Unless of course I don't understand what they did, and I have to rely on people more educated in that field to make that assumption for me. Which is why journals have a peer-reviewed process.

Don't tell me you're actually Sylvia Browne, woodwater (who I recently heard on Larry King professing: 'you can't prove air!')!

no, im a male of the opposite contradictory sex:)

[De_Bunk]

What a crock of Shiiiite...

DB


PS...Leave me for a bit.....Im watching 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer'

[trvlr2]

It is Not about winning. Just read the psychobabble..Oh , you did. sorry.
While I was out wondering, I ran across the fact that people ,about 15% of them, upon awakening, report dreams. A fair match to the frequency noted in WW's source.
http://www.tryskelion.com/dreamfaq.htm

Some of these dreams may be very lucid. Perhaps this NDE is just the "awakening " dream.:rolleyes:

[JM85]

rudolf told me but he probably cant show the evidence online. But he directed me to that site. Ask him anyway

well..that's helpful. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Whats with the Amy Wilson smiley whenever a silly woo posts?
Its true ;)
The Man Show did that years before Amy Wilson came around.

It's true. :)

[Suezoled]

Of course I believe in air. There's lots of evidence for air. First and foremost, my body is actively getting oxygen from SOMEWHERE. Doesn't matter if I can't see it.

But I approach everything skeptically, or at least, I try to. Which is why I like people to cite their sources and explain their research. When I pick up a scientific paper, I don't just accept their results - I want to see how they got them and why they think they are justified in their conclusions. Unless of course I don't understand what they did, and I have to rely on people more educated in that field to make that assumption for me. Which is why journals have a peer-reviewed process.



[not serious]
You believe in AIR? Haha! You silly fool! You can't see air, so you can't prove it exists! It's not as as if, you know, you can MEASURE it or account for stuff like volume and mass of air... haha! You're just as deluded as all those other silly people who believe in things like "viruses" and "the digestive system"![/not serious]

[Still not serious] I'm going to go back to worrying about small children peeing on me if I were shot dead and was still conscious for a few days after it. Especially if it's, you know, about 90 degrees F and my body is starting to bloat up from cellular death, whilst flies crawl around to deposit eggs up my butt or something, and in not long after there will be maggots feasting on my flesh from within, and desperate terriers will be taking bites out of me and rolling around on my putrid flesh. Yeah...still being conscious would suck. [/still not serious]

[not serious at all] Hey, if there were still consciousness after death, would the consciousness be splintered if, say, someone donated their organs and the heart went to one place, the corneas to another, the skin to another, etc etc....? Would that person be aware of the half-dozen places their body parts would go to? [/this whole post is blatently not serious]

Oh dear oh dear...

[JP1283]

Speaking of NDE's, my cousin (who claims she died on the operating table for a few minutes after a serious car accident) says that she was taken up into a place of clouds and this bright, golden "all-loving, all-forgiving light." The rest of her family is skeptical, though, as this supposed death is, to my knowledge, not listed in her medical records.

I also know someone whose husband was in an accident and had a NDE in the ambulance. He said that he came up out of his body and could hear the people in the front of the ambulance talking about him, and that all he felt was peace. The funny thing is, he was (and still is) atheist. I have read of other reports of people having NDE's in hospitals, where they float up and hear the conversations of nurses and doctors on other floors of the hospital, and then when they awaken they are able to recount everything they said.

[Kochanski]

How can this guy say "the soul" survives when I don't believe anyone has actually identified the place in our bodies that "the soul" exists? All the things they can see in our bodies, all the information we have about what various parts of the body do and no one has identified "the soul".

Find me a diagram somewhere (ahem, clarification, somewhere reliable, not some woo nonsense book) that identifies "the soul" and I will start to pay some attention to this nonsense.

[Orphia Nay]

Suezoled - I loved your last post - it was very funny!!

Personally, I've had a number of "is that all there is, is that all there is?" moments, and am looking forward to a bit of undisturbed rest - well not that I'll be 'there' to enjoy it, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a bit miffed, to put it nicely, if I was 'there'.

JP1283 - the feeling of being disassociated with your body, or 'peace', while battling pain is not at all related to religious belief.

Kochanski, perhaps you, like me, would like to see a scientific definition of the soul, let alone evidence.

[Belz...]

what? how do they know the soul dies? can they see it?this is ridiculous:mad:

What is this "soul" of which you speak ?

[Mojo]

what? how do they know the soul dies? can they see it?this is ridiculous:mad:What? How does Smit know the soul survives for a few days after death? Can he see it? This is ridiculous! ;)

[woodwater]

as per that article:




AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Carry on.

van lommels argument using quantum physics may not be well chosen because thers a lot of speculation involved.
but thats not the point. we are still a long distance away from explaining what NDE is.But that there is an NDE and that something of consciousness continues after physical death, that is something hard to question.whay hard nosecd skeptics say is irrelevant.

[woodwater]

Suezoled was obviously experiencing the same anguish at reading the article that I experienced. That blatent misprepresentation of quantum mechanics was painful and made me dumber. Which means I can no longer do my homework. Thanks a lot.

For the uninitiated: phase space usually refers to velocity space rather than position space. Imagine plotting the trajectory of a particle as a function of it's velocity instead of it's position. Note how it has nothing to do with consciousness.

it is different. The analogy of a brain with a TV set is better.
the TV may be switched off but the signal containing the ral progamme is still there.:)

[sat556]

whay hard nosecd skeptics say is irrelevant.

And that comment is relevant how? It sounds to me as if the guy is attempting to make people ignore sceptics. Why might that be? Because he doesn't want them to THINK. They might find out something that mean they'll stop believing in what he tells them. You must see that. It's an oft used woo tactic: to question your belief is wrong.
Are you not a sceptic woodwater?

[Jimbo07]

good point. I hope you are wrong.:(

Why is that?

[woodwater]

And that comment is relevant how? It sounds to me as if the guy is attempting to make people ignore sceptics. Why might that be? Because he doesn't want them to THINK. They might find out something that mean they'll stop believing in what he tells them. You must see that. It's an oft used woo tactic: to question your belief is wrong.
Are you not a sceptic woodwater?

well he is one of the skeptics who put down astrolgy in www.astrology-and-science.com
why would he suddenly become a woo?
Im skeptic to a reasonable point. Lets say im careful.:)

[Zep]

van lommels argument using quantum physics may not be well chosen because thers a lot of speculation involved.
but thats not the point. we are still a long distance away from explaining what NDE is.But that there is an NDE and that something of consciousness continues after physical death, that is something hard to question.whay hard nosecd skeptics say is irrelevant.How does anyone actually measure this phenomenon of conciouslnessafter death? How can you say FOR SURE that it actually does happen? What EVIDENCE can you provide for it? I'm sure if it were true then anyone could do it, so please tell us: What are you measuring? And with what instruments?

Incidentally, Von Lommel's use "quantum physics" indicates he has no real understanding of it at all. And he associates with Victor Zammit who is a well-known looney here. So you should be very hesitant about using him as a reference in future. In short, you should pick your heroes a LOT better, okay?

[Zep]

it is different. The analogy of a brain with a TV set is better.
the TV may be switched off but the signal containing the ral progamme is still there.:)You're not very good at this "building an argument" thing, are you! :D But let's try with your own stuff...

TV sets simply pick up and display TV signals that are being sent out from a transmitter. They use electricity to do this function. If the TV is switched off, the electricity stops, so the TV no longer does what it does. There is no signal still inside the TV - it is lost and gone the moment the electricity went away. The TV is now just a big hunk of metal essentially, much the same as a kitchen sink, or a car. The signal you are thinking of will only stop if the transmitter turns off, but that is nothing to do with the TV receiver.






Jumping Jeebus - Woodwater must be all of 5 years old!

[Kochanski]

it is different. The analogy of a brain with a TV set is better.
the TV may be switched off but the signal containing the ral progamme is still there.:)

TV analogy is quite incorrect. We know where tv signal comes from when it comes to tv.

So where is this signal coming from? Can you tell me? Can anyone identify where it comes from? Cause if not, then it ain't there honey.

[Suezoled]

TV analogy is quite incorrect. We know where tv signal comes from when it comes to tv.

So where is this signal coming from? Can you tell me? Can anyone identify where it comes from? Cause if not, then it ain't there honey.


Quantum Psychics, silly! *falls over twitching*

[Flange Desire]

....But that there is an NDE and that something of consciousness continues after physical death, that is something hard to question....

Key point here is that it is a NEAR death experience.
It is not a death experience.
There is no brain function when one is dead, so there is no conciousness.

I suppose if any memories actually encompass a period of time during which
the brain was actually flatline (and I am not sure that this has actually been reported), then those memories would be fabricated just like any other memory, ie, would be just a best-fit interpretation of the events experienced.

There is no need to invent a 'soul' to explain any of this.
Nor is there any need to invent an 'afterlife' either.
Such inventions are for those who fear the finality of death.

ps, Zammit is IMHO an absolute crank and rabid loon.

[SphereGuy]

Such inventions are for those who fear the finality of death.

That's been in my sig line since I've joined!

[articulett]

There is no evidence for any consciousness outside of a brain. Consciousness is a brain process like walking is a process of legs. Yes, the "soul" is a fun idea--it's a nice illusion--like a flat earth--and it's the hook that religions use to plant the notion in your head that "faith leads to truth" (the big lie)--making people vulnerable to channelers, new age pablum, and religious tripe ad nauseaum.

Yuck. Post when you have some real evidence, Woodwater.

[LotusMegami]

It doesn't matter if you want it to be true. Don't let your desires interfere with rational thought.

Would somebody please tell me what a "soul" is? And how you can stop it from leaving the body, as that could save a lot of lives: if the body can't live without the soul, keeping the soul attached would be a major medical concern.

[Belz...]

we are still a long distance away from explaining what NDE is.

Are we ?

But that there is an NDE and that something of consciousness continues after physical death,

How so ? Seeing the cultural differences in NDErs of different countries, the evidence seems to indicate that it's just hallucinations. And, as someone's pointed out, those who have NDEs aren't dead. People who simply die and are revived don't have NDEs.

that is something hard to question.

No. Not unless you use it as your premise.

whay hard nosecd skeptics say is irrelevant.

"What people who disagree with me say is irrelevant."

well he is one of the skeptics who put down astrolgy in www.astrology-and-science.com
why would he suddenly become a woo?

Because some people are skeptical of SOME things but not of others. Most Christians are skeptical of Islam.

[aggle-rithm]

it is different. The analogy of a brain with a TV set is better.
the TV may be switched off but the signal containing the ral progamme is still there.:)

Once again, the TV analogy rears its ugly head... :(

[aggle-rithm]

How can this guy say "the soul" survives when I don't believe anyone has actually identified the place in our bodies that "the soul" exists? All the things they can see in our bodies, all the information we have about what various parts of the body do and no one has identified "the soul".




I've heard it's in the solar plexus.

[aggle-rithm]

Such inventions are for those who fear the finality of death.



It may not always be fear. It could simply be an inability to conceptualize the universe from the viewpoint of nothingness. Consciousness is all we know, so it's difficult to imagine it not being there. Everything we try to imagine, we imagine from the viewpoint of consciousness. So, when we imagine what it's like to be dead, we imagine that we are EXPERIENCING being dead, and are therefore still alive.

Some of the early concepts of life after death (such as in Greek mythology) were not pretty. Non-existence would be preferable to what they believed awaited us in Hades.

[woodwater]

You're not very good at this "building an argument" thing, are you! :D But let's try with your own stuff...

TV sets simply pick up and display TV signals that are being sent out from a transmitter. They use electricity to do this function. If the TV is switched off, the electricity stops, so the TV no longer does what it does. There is no signal still inside the TV - it is lost and gone the moment the electricity went away. The TV is now just a big hunk of metal essentially, much the same as a kitchen sink, or a car. The signal you are thinking of will only stop if the transmitter turns off, but that is nothing to do with the TV receiver.


both arguments are from rudolf smit not me. I dont have your scientific knowledge. i can only post what i read or am told. I dont agree with rudolf that you are die hard skeptics because you have good points. But ill keep posting different views.;) until i reach someconclusion anyways
no why is this saying that my post is too short. this computer ois crazy.
bla bla bla baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:boxedi n:

may god it is too short still
blablabla

paulo



Jumping Jeebus - Woodwater must be all of 5 years old!


hello

[juryjone]

it is different. The analogy of a brain with a TV set is better.
the TV may be switched off but the signal containing the ral progamme is still there.:)
Once again, the TV analogy rears its ugly head... :(

Yeah, I guess this is what Ian would sound like if he were even less lucid.

[Belz...]

Once again, the TV analogy rears its ugly head... :(

Yeah. When is somebody going to use the motor-gasoline analogy instead ?

[Bronze Dog]

Catching up from my weekend filled with unconsciousness and a stuffy nose.

Found the "You can't prove air" thing funny once again. Science deals with all sorts of invisible things: Air, most of the electromagnetic spectrum, black holes, dark matter, atoms, you name it. Invisibility doesn't render something immune to science: Just the opposite: Invisibility makes scientific methods more necessary to learn about it. It's not a free pass.

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah. When is somebody going to use the motor-gasoline analogy instead ?

In the future, they will use the "3D Las-O-Tube" analogy.

Seriously, though, the TV analogy might work if both the transmitter and receiver are in the same small space, there is only one receiver for each transmitter, and when one goes out of commision, the other does too.

[Jimbo07]

Why does the software analogy work, but the TV analogy doesn't?

Software is a transmitter and TV is a receiver, so are we saying that consciousness is a transmitter, or a receiver?

Frankly, I think all technological analogies, for both sides, should be trashed, unless you're willing to accept what technology has to say about the world. All technologies are wrought physical effects on a physical world obeying (at least local) physical principles. If the medium is the message, then there is nothing un-physical. :eye-poppi

[Cetecea]

snip~
But that there is an NDE and that something of consciousness continues after physical death, that is something hard to question~snip


Ian?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Considering that NDE's can be recreated in lab condotions with living volunteers that are nowhere near death, I would posit that NDE's are not proof of anything. There was a BullSh!t episode that covered this.

[Belz...]

Software is a transmitter and TV is a receiver, so are we saying that consciousness is a transmitter, or a receiver?

Neither.

[Jimbo07]

Neither.

Okay let me rephrase.

Are the people who are intent on making a technological analogy saying that the brain is either a transmitter or receiver (or the transmission medium :boggled: ) of the consciousness?

[Belz...]

Okay let me rephrase.

Are the people who are intent on making a technological analogy saying that the brain is either a transmitter or receiver (or the transmission medium :boggled: ) of the consciousness?

I suppose they mean "receiver". Otherwise the TV analogy doesn't make sense.