I very much doubt that you have a soul. — Noah Te Stroete

Because they don't exist.

I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. — Noah Te Stroete

:snicker:

Well, or fantasizing, basically. I like doing that, too, but I don't take it to be something other than fantasizing. — Terrapin Station

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences. I’m sorry you don’t pay attention to yours, or you dismiss them as “unscientific.”

Because they don't exist. — S

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy. Only atheists are so fundamentalist.

I meant with respect to the first part: "I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist."

Why would you think that I "don't pay attention to subjective experiences."

I wouldn't dismiss anything extant as "unscientific."

That would be, well, unscientific, right?

Not that I "worship the sciences." Again, you haven't been paying much attention to my posts over the years if you think that. I don't even accept what seem to be standard scientific notions of space, time, etc.

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy. — Noah Te Stroete

We just call that the ability to empathize. No need to make up nonsense like a "soul" for it.

We just call that the ability to empathize. No need to make up nonsense like a "soul" for it. — Terrapin Station

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist.

don't even accept what seem to be standard notions of space, time, etc. — Terrapin Station

I don’t know how to communicate with you.

Showing empathy would just be evidence that I have the ability to understand the emotions and experiences of others. No need for religious Mumbo-Jumbo.

Showing empathy would just be evidence that I have the ability to understand the emotions and experiences of others. — S

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that.

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not true. There's a difference between understanding the emotions of others, and choosing to act with disregard for them.

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist. — Noah Te Stroete

If you're saying that souls are fictional, that's fine. You're not thinking that I'd disagree with that, are you?

I don’t know how to communicate with you. — Noah Te Stroete

Hmm, okay.

That's not true. There's a difference between understanding the emotions of others, and choosing to disregard them. — S

That’s also called psychopathy.

If you're saying that souls are fictional, that's fine. You're not thinking that I'd disagree with that, are you? — Terrapin Station

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically. Whether or not there is something actual that a soul is I am agnostic.

I don’t know how to communicate with you.
— Noah Te Stroete

Hmm, okay. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you could try speaking in tongues. He's a religious fanatic, so it might just work. I've seen it before. What you do is you make loud, frenzied gibberish noises and behave kind of like you're having a seizure. Maybe fall to the ground. Then afterwards, your cancer is cured.

Oh yeah, by the way, you have cancer.

If you need a shoulder to cry on, look elsewhere, because I'm a psychopath, apparently.

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically. — Noah Te Stroete

You're saying that you use "soul" metaphorically? For the metaphor, you're non-literally talking about what in terms of what?

What a battle!

Consciousness/qualia is of the brain as a process therein because
1. It reflects what the brain has just come up with from its analysis.
2. It can go away in a faint, with a blow to the head, anesthesia, or get foggy from drugs.

You're saying that you use "soul" metaphorically? For the metaphor, you're non-literally talking about what in terms of what? — Terrapin Station

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S.

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S. — Noah Te Stroete

That's what it stands for.

Consciousness/qualia is of the brain as a process therein because
1. It reflects what the brain has just come up with from its analysis.
2. It can go away in a faint, with a blow to the head, anesthesia, or get foggy from drugs. — PoeticUniverse

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity.

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences. — Noah Te Stroete

How very... convenient. Kind of like, "I can do a backflip", "Go on then", "I can't do it whilst you're watching".

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity. — Noah Te Stroete

How would there be a first-person account of a near-death experience without perceivable brain activity?

The person would have to have perceivable brain activity right before they were declared dead medically, right?

And then when they are medically brought back to life, they'd have to have perceivable brain activity again. After that is when they'd report the near-death experience.

It's not like they'd be able to report the near-death experience they're having while they're medically dead, while they have no perceivable brain activity.

How very... convenient. Kind of like, "I can do a backflip", "Go on then", "I can't do it whilst you're watching". — S

That’s dumb. Back flips are perceivable to others. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

It's not like they'd be able to report the near-death experience they're having while they're medically dead, while they have no perceivable brain activity. — Terrapin Station

Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports.

What's dumb is failing to grasp the point. There's a million more analogies that I could come up with. The point is that what you're saying is indistinguishable from bullshit, so it counts for nothing.

The point is that what you're saying is indistinguishable from bullshit, so it counts for nothing. — S

So says the psychopath. Maybe souls are literal and you really don’t have one? I’m not sure now.

Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports. — Noah Te Stroete

Why would we believe that the mental activity in question isn't from the perceivable brain activity, though?

In other words, the person medically dies at 4:20. Then they're brought back at 4:24, whereupon they once again have perceivable brain activity. At 4:26, they report their NDE. Why would we conclude that the NDE didn't occur somewhere between 4:24 and 4:26?

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity. — Noah Te Stroete

It's still happening in them.

NDE tunnels of light and such can be explained by neurology, and OBE’s by a condition called sleep paralysis. They can also be induced, resulting in full blown episodes. Neither, then, are proof of a beyond, but of an altered brain state.

It is also the case that people of different religions see different religious figures during NDE’s, an indication that the phenomenon occurs within the mind, not without.

OBE’s are easily induced by drugs. The fact that there are receptor sites in the brain for such artificially produced chemicals means that there are naturally produced chemical in the brain that, under certain circumstances (the stress of an trauma or an accident, for example), can induce any or all of the experiences typically associated with an NDE or OBE. They are then nothing more than wild trips induced by the trauma of almost dying. Lack of oxygen also produces increased activity though disinhibition—mental modes that give rise to consciousness.

What about the experience of a tunnel in an NDE? Well, the visual cortex is on the back of the brain where information from the retina is processed. Lack of oxygen, plus drugs generated, can interfere with the normal rate of firing by nerve cells in this area. When this occurs ‘stripes’ of neuronal activity move across the visual cortex, which is interpreted by the brain as concentric rings or spirals. These spirals may be ‘seen’ as a tunnel.

We normally only see clearly only at about the size of a deck of cards held at arm’s length (Try looking just a little away and the clarity goes way down)—this is the center of the tunnel which is caused by neuronal stripes. I am not really dying to go down the tunnel…

In other words, the person medically dies at 4:20. Then they're brought back at 4:24, whereupon they once again have perceivable brain activity. At 4:26, they report their NDE. Why would we conclude that the NDE didn't occur somewhere between 4:24 and 4:26? — Terrapin Station

That’s your interpretation. You’re discounting the person’s perceived experience because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived model.

No, the first-person "reports" are just what they say after the event, which could be entirely fabricated or otherwise mistaken, with no possible way of checking, so it counts for nothing.

That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. Like I said to TS, it fits your model but it isn’t conclusive.