Comments

  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    One can claim the only destruction which occurred was not that bad, of course. — Ciceronianus
    :gasp:
  • Critical Race Theory, Whiteness, and Liberalism
    ... I'd like to introduce you to the human race. — James Riley

    :point: :rofl: Good point, sir. Good point.
  • Critical Race Theory, Whiteness, and Liberalism
    ...rather nebulous concepts... — Apollodorus
    :up: :100:

    Here, with CRT, we have a sociological discussion. The role of the philosopher in this is not necessarily to evaluate the legal or sociological merits of the subject (although he certain may do that), but rather to evaluate the validity of the conceptual premises and the thinking involved. With this in mind, the first duty of the philosopher is to call attention to the fact that the concept of human race is a fallacy, an arbitrarily derived fiction having no biological basis. Those who subscribe to this concept seek, in a triumph of clumsy artifice, to artificially impose distinctions, 'shoehorning' members of the human species, which naturally present as a spectrum...a seamless continuum of physical types across the globe, into one or another of several "racial" catecories. Calling attention to this obvious category mistake is the initial task of the philosopher in any discussion involving the concept of human "race".
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    ...if I have to say something, morality isn't about Id, Ego, or Super Ego; it's something beyond all three and thus, to reiterate, neither of these 3 parts of our personality can get a handle on what morality is... — TheMadFool

    Yes, I absolutely agree. I did not mean to suggest that these aspects of the mind produce morality, or that ethics depends thereupon. I only I donate that it is the "higher mind" from which the individual sense of ethical behavior, subsequent to moral instruction of course, proceeds, and that the wanton violation of that sense weakens it, and strengthens the primal mind in comparison.

    This is my offer of a psychologically-based justification for ethical behavior, but amounts to nothing more than that.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    secular ethics, all things considered, is a much better deal than religious ethics. The matter of factual correctness of religions is then moot, pointless. — TheMadFool

    Religion, though, serves other purposes than provision of a moral code...communal purposes, ritual purposes, ontological purposes...

    Morality is, at the end of the day, transcendence of the self and that's why, my hunch is, it's so hard to grasp... — TheMadFool

    On that we can agree. Which aspect of my psychologically based take on ethics do you disfavor?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    ↪TheMadFool
    :up: The fact that we are indeed able to concieve of wrong and right provides all the justification for moral behavior necessary. A true justification, ungrounded in superstition, for acting morally is that every time a person violates his own moral understanding, and we have all done so at one time or another, he makes subsequent violations easier to rationalize. That is to say, every time we give free reign to our Id, we weaken the ability of our Superego to influence our behavior, corrupting ourselves even further. To repair the psychological damage done to ourselves thusly is extremely difficult. In part, the (false) promise of an easy "new beginning", a clean psychological slate, is part of the promise and attraction of Christianity to many. In reality, repairing the damage we do to ourselves by acting immorally is much more difficult than Christan churches posit. The avoidance of such self corruption seems justification enough to strive to behave morally.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    But there are other animals who adopt the offspring of other animals, including the offspring of other species. Should we say that those animals have a superego? — baker

    No. That is evolutionary behavior, naturally selected for behavior, which is probably reinforced by learning/imitation, not behavior based upon reason and the type of abstract thinking that it takes to concieve of morality. That same animal species...the Bonobo is it?...would not be capable of regret for having committed an act which we humans would call "immoral". As far as we know, we are the only species to ever have been capable of that type of thought, and so to be viewed as having a "Superego", which is what makes us so unique, so (dare I say?) special.

    Freud's tripartate model is exactly that, a theoretical model, but like the theory of gravitation, it explains the intended phenomena and it has held under scrutiny. My personal opinion is that it is brilliant, and one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century, a century chock-full of theorization, as it helps us to understand that most mysterious of things...ourselves, and so fulfill the old Delphic challenge: "gnothi seauton" ("know thyself").

    To reiterate the thrust of my argument, though: despite the evolution of our human brains, and our resultant development of the ability to think abstractly and idealistically, the same instincts that are within the infanticidal lion, those which urge him to his acts of infanticide, remain within a part of our human mind within all of us, kept in check only by our ability to concieve of right and wrong. The evolution of the Superego did not remove the Id. If we choose to deny that savage, primal part of ourselves, then we inhibit our ability to ever come to know ourselves fully...to see completely the creature that we are.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    So our core nature is to kill, rape, and pillage? — baker

    Murdering raping and pillaging are rather hyperbolic examples of it, but yes, our core nature directs us to: (a) survive, (b) attain a position of social dominance, and (c) procreate well (better than others of our species group), in that order of priority. Every Biologist who has studied social mammals will see this nearly as clearly in homo sapiens as in any other social mammal. The sociobiological literature is full of this characteristically manmalian behavior. The innate desire/instinct to socially dominate is why men get into "bar fights" for percieved slights, why every man wants to be the CEO and otherwise be in command, why men strive after wealth in excess of their contemporaries, why they spend hours each week in the gym getting "jacked" (a visible sign of physical dominance), why they generally want to be with the most attractive woman in public, why they subconsciously posture and pose in social situations, why they all want the arbitrary "group" (whether their ethnicity, their 'race', their religion...) which they view as their own to be predominant, and yes, why they rape and kill. It explains much of human behavior.

    If this is our core nature, then why take issue with killing, raping, and pillaging, whether it be done in the name of religion or not? — baker

    Because our core nature, the equivalent of Freud's "Id", our emotionally driven instinctive selves, is not the sum total of our nature. There is also the "Superego", the rational and idealistic aspect of our minds, with which the Id does constant battle, to varying degrees of success among differing people, to form the Ego, the objective personality. This Superego is the result of the continued evolution of our brains. Lions do not possess a Superego, and so they cannot view as immoral that a new pride Alpha will immediately engage in an orgy of infanticide to eliminate the previous Alpha's Gene's from the group, and more quickly bring the lionesses to estrus. Humans, though, do have the car to see immorality in this.

    Whatever else can be said of the man, and he had his theoretical faults and inconsistencies, Freud's model of the mind, along with Jung's concept of psychological archetypes, appears to myself absolutely key in understanding why we humans behave as we do. We must encourage people to allow their rational and idealistic selves to hold sway over the primal, emotional aspect of their minds.
  • Do you dislike it when people purposely step on bugs?
    Do I dislike it when people purposely step on bugs? My answer is "that depends on the bug". My opinion regarding this is based upon a principle: that we should focus on encouraging the diversity of life, the diversity of species, rather than life itself, life for it's own sake. Of course, others, famously such as Albert Schweitzer, would have disagreed with me, citing a need to reverence life itself, but I can live with their disagreement. If a species is common and unthreatened, such as the common black ant, then go on, boy, step away, especially if the bug threatens destructiveness.. If, however, the "bug" in question is of a threatened or rarer species, such as a praying mantis or, increasingly, the European honey bee, then one should try to preserve the life.

    Now, please don't ask me how this rationale extends to the species homo sapiens, which presently so grossly overpopulates the earth...
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    But of course this is in the end irrelevant. That the discussion falls back on the character of the writer and not to the case presented is itself telling. For the facts are there. — Banno

    :up:
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Gibbon was a Roman Catholic convert. If anything he is at pains to be even-handed . Any anti-religious bias is in the eye of the religious, in their need for comfortable lies. — Banno

    Gibbon was a Roman Catholic for exactly a year and a half, after which a threatened disinheritance caused his immediate recapitulation back into Anglicanism (which, after all, differs from Catholicism only by a presently defunct monarchial politics). This, of course, evidences a quite laissez faire approach to faith in general. Many historians have noted that Gibbon's general tone, even if his factual recording was true, displayed a certain bias against religion throughout the D&F. Certainly, they are not all Christian apologists. Perhaps his father's having bullied him back into the Church of England contributed to this tone of Gibbon in the work...who knows?

    Notice here the pile-on of apologists? — Banno

    Oho, please don't take me for a Christian apologist, as I am quite firm in my atheism, and if anything, am more critical of Christianity than Gibbon ever was. I hope I was not included in your estimation.

    What if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct? It isn't; no need for the "what if..." — Banno

    But, it should be the goal of a religion to avoid being preposterous, as all theistic (of both mono- and poly- types) religions obviously are. We humans must be able to devise a religion which renders purpose to life, provides meaningful ritual, and incorporates a moral code, yet does not stand in obvious violation of reality, or of human nature.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    while Capitol Police officers were killed in the building,
    — Michael Zwingli
    This never happened. Why did you write it?     — tim wood

    One Capitol Police officer was killed, and apparently four other people. The officer died the following day after, from injuries sustained while being beaten during the rampage. The foolwing article elucidates:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html
    From the article:
    "After serving in the Air National Guard and dreaming of becoming a police officer, Brian D. Sicknick joined the Capitol Police force in 2008. He died the day after he was overpowered and beaten by rioters from the mob at the Capitol."

    I had thought, before checking in response to your post, Tim, that two officers had been killed, but one is bad enough, in my view.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Marx ideology with its wrongs (and they are many) moved humanity one step forward especially on human rights. The things that some communists did by "translating" Marx wasn't Marx 's fault. — dimosthenis9

    Marxism was good as an indicator of injustice. In some parts of the world, it was needed, just as trade unions were needed in the early industrialized West, England and America, where little children once worked their fingers to the bone for 14, 16 hours a day, six days a week, in mills and factories. But, too much Marxism proved as bad as too much unionism, with it's unreasonable demands, which deeply hurt alot of industry in the U.S. and was the destruction of Detriot, once a great city. When it's fat, middle aged men with a decent wage and a 40 hour work week making the demands, rather than the parents of starving overworked children, you know you have a problem. The fault is that once they gain a bit of power, human beings don't know when to say "okay, enough. If I want any more, I should do what I must to advance within the social system, and not use the politics of power to coerce it."
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Even Trump, who was the president for 4 years, failed to use his powers to crush the enemy. — stoicHoneyBadger

    Trump was ineffective because he is such an asshole, in terms of personality, which alienated many, and because lacks the intelligence to employ political finesse in the attainment of political goals. Under our Constitution, the President must convince the populace of the best way forward for the country. He has no constitutional authority to "strongarm" the population, quite appropriately. The Republican party has become just as bad as the Democratic, now. As the Democrats have been co-opted by progressivism, the Republicans, once "traditional conservatives" in the George Will mode, have been co-opted by populism, and a vaguely heightened form of nationalism (not nearly fascist yet). There has been a steady movement towards the political poles. The situation does not provide a good aspect on either side, for a Libertarian such as myself.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    And I can not understand why Americans ( republicans ) don't want to really fight Marxists, instead they just play on the defense, arguing for freedom of speech ( even for Marxists ) and basically let's all be friends attitude. — stoicHoneyBadger

    Believe me, the battle, which is being called here in the States "the culture war", is raging, albeit at a low level of intensity. This country has never been so politically divided. When I was coming up, most Americans could have never imagined a mob invading the Capitol Building with members of Congress inside...terrified in their chamber while Capitol Police officers were killed in the building, but (it stretches my credulity to recognize it) it sure did happen recently. Americans were once quite uniformly patriotic, putting the country before the faction, but apparently no longer. All of this is the result of the progressive faction of the Democratic Party getting enough people "on the dole", receiving government benefits of one kind or another, and registered to vote, that they have become a permanent force in our electoral politics.

    I should avoid these political discussions, they get me too ramped up...
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    And say goodbye to private business! — Wheatley

    Oh, we'll still have private business, alright...in order that the state may take all the profits as tax revenues available for "redistribution". Remember AOC's stated hope: tax the wealthy at upwards of 70% of their income?

    See here, a member of Congress behaving like some sophomoric high school debutante: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aoc-dress-designer-owes-taxes-b1922909.html
    ...from which exhebition I am led to believe that the idea of "gravitas" being appropriate for a civic leader is dead, and gone from American society. In any case, AOC reinforces her stated goal by this display.

    What we will lack is the "profit motive", unless business owners, corporate executives, and investors can become increasingly creative in their "offshore" activities.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    "progressive liberals"
    — Michael Zwingli
    They're all Marxists??     — Wheatley
    Actually, they are not marxists, but functionally the same as pertains to the inevitable results of their exertions: the state as intermediary of all function and arbiter of all decision-making. The state as "the great father"...everybody's "daddy". This will happen over my dead body, or in my absence, should I choose to emigrate rather than fight what could only be a losing battle. Unfortunately, it seems to be the natural tendency in a nation which employs democracy, the "tyrrany of the vulgus", as a mode of determining political power.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    I would have to ask them in person. — Wheatley
    [...]
    Marxists. — Wheatley

    AKA "progressive liberals".
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    And more should not be expected from humans than from some animals? — baker

    It should, but we err if we deny our core nature
  • You are not your body!
    What premise exactly? — Alkis Piskas

    I had though that you premised the statement that "you are not your body" upon the "you" representing the subjective self, but apparently I was wrong. You will have to inform me of what said "you" represents within that statement, which is why I asked above:

    So, when you state that "a man is not his body", you are defining "a man" in the objective sense...as a real object in physical reality? If not, then how so? — Michael Zwingli
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    that Christianity was largely responsible for the destruction of classical literature, and culture generally, is that presented by Gibbon — Banno

    Gibbon's work is a hallmark, required reading for the classicist, but one must be mindful of Gibbon's anti-religion bias, which has bled into the D&F.

    I more generally see a violent human nature evident throughout history, not specifically related to any religion, but to power and politics, with religion being one method used to control. — Hanover

    I think you see well. This violent nature, however, appears rather uncalculated, but rather instinctual. It is, again I say, the old "libido dominari", which evolutionarily developed as an integral part of all mammalian species. This is the reason behind why a male lion who has just killed or defeated the "alpha", and so become leader of the pride, will immediately engage in the macabre activity of seeking out and killing all of the previous alpha's Cubs, in order that the lionesses will more quickly come into estrus, allowing him to breed them. This instinct's sole end is to have the highest status possible within the social group, and to ensure genetic dominance.
  • You are not your body!
    . I would agree unequivocally, if you’d left off the “which I am”. Whatever “I” am, “I am” not an objective homo sapien. — Mww

    :up: strike "which I am", and add "which represents my physical reality".
  • You are not your body!
    Wouldn’t it be the more consistent to say we have no objective evidence for any part of the human being other than the body? — Mww

    Yes...objective evidence...nice catch!

    It is true there is no other empirical, re: objective, evidence of the human being other than the body, but the whole of the human being may not be found in the body alone. — Mww

    I think that this reflects the distinction that I draw between the objective homo sapiens which I am, and the subjective "I".
  • You are not your body!
    What evidence? — Thunderballs

    Scientific evidence. What I meant by including that clause in my post, is that we have no evidence for any part of the human being other than the body (the"soul", for instance).
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    There is a famous joke about two men, Goldberg and Schwartz, who are walking to synagogue.

    Say, Ennui, I just realized that Schwartz and I are "kindred spirits" of a type. I will be going with a friend later this morning to his church. I don't particularly like his church (ugh..."Evangelical Christian", meaning the service amounts to a particularly loud, particularly inane rock concert with a bit of vague sermonizing attached, all of it appealing to the emotions rather than the intellect), which doesn't offer any of the values which I find rewarding in a religious experience...such as "significant ritual" (as is represented for me by the Catholic mass). Even so, I, the "atheos ex catholicum", do find some value in going there, for while Schwartz goes to synagogue to talk to Goldberg, I go to my friend's church to look at the girls! :up:

    I am thankful to Schwartz for seeming to validate my behavior, which occasionally serves to fill the weekly Sunday morning "dead spot" in the calendar. I personally have found, curiously, that when one has been raised to perform a religious ritual, such as is represented by churchgoing on Sunday mornings, it becomes difficult to enjoy other activities during that weekly time period, even if you no longer adhere to the religion in question. It is as if that time slot should be reserved for a certain type of activity, and to do something else seems a bit out of place. This means that for myself, Sunday mornings have long been a type of "dead spot" in the week, with me often unsure of what to do. Don't know if anybody else has experienced that phenomenon. Regarding the girlwatching, you are invited anytime...I'll provide the earplugs, and an affidavit verifying your non-participation. :wink:
  • You are not your body!
    So the real you is the brain and body combined? Even including the outside physical world? — Thunderballs

    The brain is part of, a component of, the body, just like a nose or any other body part. Based upon all the evidence that we have, the objective human being is simply that body existing as an object within objective reality, which I usually like to call "the universe", even though the term "objective reality" also comprises (infinite?) space, and whatever may exist within space, which is as yet impossible for us to discern, outside of our universe...perhaps other distant "universes" (which would make our "universe" but one element of a "multiverse").
  • You are not your body!
    Do you consider the brain as part of you. Or do you possess it? — Thunderballs

    Hmmm... I would say that the brain is part of the "real me", of my objective self, but something that is had by my subjective self, the subjective "I".

    You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I"
    — Michael Zwingli
    No, I am certainly not. I have not used the terms "self" or "I" in my thesis except to quote people's reactions like "Ah, the 'I', the 'self' is an illusion ...". In fact, I don't only ignore the terms "self" and "I" but I feel that they are responsible for the whole confusion created about the nature of a human being!)     — Alkis Piskas

    Ah, I see. It seems that I was misapprehended in my understanding of your premise. So, when you state that "a man is not his body", you are defining "a man" in the objective sense...as a real object in physical reality? If not, then how so?
  • You are not your body!
    ↪Thunderballs
    yes, this is it!
  • You are not your body!
    That's exactly who I am(except for my central neres, which are inside me)! The DNA though determines only proteins. Nothing more and nothing less. — Thunderballs

    Yes, but the subjectively reckoned "you", the "I" from your own perspective, is much more than just your body. It is the "I" which results from the constant battle between the primitive "Id" and the idealized "Superego", occurring within the continuously changing context of a feedback loop involving all of your life's experiences. That's a mouthful, is it not!? This is the "you" which, indeed, is not your body, but is so much more...
  • You are not your body!
    The first, and very obvious question is, "If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on?" You can't be a body and have a body at the same time, can you?

    So, a second question follows as a consequence, "If you have a body, then what are YOU?"     — Alkis Piskas

    You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I". The other self is the self of objective reality: a bunch of atoms and molecules forming tissues of various types an in a particular pattern as determined by one's DNA code.

    Pick up a copy of cognitive scientist Doug Hofstadter's (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" fame) book, "I am a Strange Loop". Read it, ignoring all he has to say about "souledness", "levels of souledness", and morality, and you will have a fair picture of how the subjective "I", which is analogous to Freud's "Ego", develops, which is, basically, by means of continuous reanalysis of the self concept pursuant to the urgings of a continuous feedback loop of perceptions regarding interactions with objects (including other people) in the world. Professor Hofstadter has the cog sci stuff right, in my opinion (and as you would expect), but I think he gets a bit lost in trying to integrate his concepts of morality and correct behavior into his work.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    ↪Thunderballs
    well, I rather think my consciousness is shaped by my being American, as well as by other things, more than it is by my ancestry, but yes, I do have Schwizerdutsch (in Standard German Schweizerdeutsch) ancestry on my paternal side, and Italian on the maternal. You might be familiar with the sixteenth century (?) Protestant "reformer" with the same surname as myself, Ulrich Zwingli. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, though, at the stern insistence of my mother's family. I suppose that old Ulrich would be horrified to discover that his latter day namesake had become an atheist.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Don't yòu think it's the other way round? — Thunderballs

    Haha, perhaps you are right...that would appear to be true! Thanks for the thought check! Even so, the physical mechanisms causing the thoughts and emotions remain the same, in my view.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    What about you feeling, percept, your emotions, thoughts, ideas, dreams. You are aware of all. How can this be if all matter were just matter? Devoid of content? — Thunderballs

    All reason and emotion are the product of the intellectual and affective dimensions of my mind, respectively, and so all the product of bioelectrical and biochemical processes within my animate body, primarily my brain. By means of my sensory organs, I am able to discern and so become subjectively aware of the various aspects of objective reality, including objects both animate and inanimate. By the activity of my nervous system, I can then think thoughts about these awarenesses, and feel emotions in response to them.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    If panpsychism is real, and I can't see why it's not, then consciousness is eternal. Even death is a kind of consciousness. — Thunderballs

    I admit to being highly influenced by logical positivism, but even if I weren't, I think that I would have tremendous difficulty with the panpsychic suggestion. I simply see no evidence for an "anima mundi", and this lack of evidence is why I think we should all be sceptical...why we should consider pansychism not to be real. Panpsychism did not arise out of observation. Rather, it was begotten by earlier animistic and pantheistic belief systems (the idea that there is a "spirit" or a "god" within everything), themselves born simply of superstition, and which themselves could not be sustained within the context of ancient cultural development. As a result, panpsychism developed and was maintained within our cultures without there ever being any evidence therefore. I have ever been impressed that Bertrand Russell seemed to subscribe to a sort of panpsychicm, he who refused a belief in deity for lack of evidence.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    In thinking about this thread this morning, I came to realize that the title thereof does not actually reflect the main question and thrust of the thread, which involves whether so-called "near death experiences" can evidence consiousness surviving, "living beyond", bodily death. They (quite obviously) cannot. My somewhat spare logical arguments for both that question and the question suggested by the thread title follow.

    As pertains s to the question "can consciousness survive the body?", the argument is as follows:

    (A) Consciousness only exists when there is an object to experience it, a "conscious host";
    (B) said object, in the instant case the human body, must be alive in order to experience consciousness, an thereby be a "conscious host";
    (C) therefore, consciousness can neither exist apart from nor "live beyond", which is to say "survive" the death of, the human body.

    As pertains to the question "can the occurrence of near death experiences evidence consciousness suviving bodily death?", apparently the true thrust of this thread, the argument is as follows:

    (A) An event can only evidence consciousness surviving the body if death of the body attends said event;
    (B) "near death experiences" do not involve death of the body;
    (C) therefore, "near death experiences" can not evidence consciousness surviving the death of the body.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    I'm not too keen on using the word soul in reference to NDEs. I prefer consciousness, but I know what you mean. I'm not religious, so I prefer not to use that word. — Sam26

    I am not convinced that you fully understand my meaning. Please indulge me while I explicate my assertion that no, consciousness indeed cannot survive the body, given the parameters which you have indicated for the discussion.

    The abstract noun "consciousness" refers not to any object or thing, but rather to a condition or set of circumstances experienced by some object. Since the experiential condition described by "consciousness" is that of awareness of the outer world, which is to say, of a subjective reality, the object experiencing consciousness is a living being possessed of a mind, which mind is composed of intellectual and affective dimensions; the object in question is a rational and emotional living being. The important thing to keep in mind regarding this, is that "consciousness" is not a thing which can exist independently of an object

    In the case of a near death experience, the rational/emotional living being in question can but be either the physical person in distress, or some incorporeal aspect of that person which is able to live and experience consciousness independently of that physical person, i.e. the "soul", or whatever else you want to call it (ghost, spirit, astral body, dadada...) That is, the only alternative to the corporeal person (the man) experiencing consciousness, is the incorporeal person (the man's soul, ghost, etc.) experiencing consciousness. You have stated, however, that you do not want to consider the concept of the human soul, or whatever else I might wish to call the incorporeal aspect of the human person, within this discussion. The soul is thusly removed from consideration. This leaves us only with the living, corporeal, physical person to experience consciousness.

    This is where the argument fails.The wording of your original question is, "can concsiousness survive the body?" Since English "survive" is composed of Latin "super" (above, over, beyond) + "vivere" (to live), and so "to survive" means "to live beyond". This renders your original question, "can consciousness live beyond the body?" With your restriction of the living physical person as the only object which can experience the condition of awareness called "consciousness" in your model, the answer must be that with the death of the physical body, consciousness is annihilated. In the case of a "near death experience", consciousness has not "survived" (lived beyond) the body, because the body has never died.

    This would appear to be the end of the discussion, as all available options have been considered, unless I have misunderstood your thesis.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    ↪Ciceronianus
    he is absolutely the master of Latin prose. When I call his prose "labyrinthine", I mean that it is complicated, and one must be fully conversant in Latin to read Cicero without difficulty. One usually starts reading with Caesar, proceeds through Livy and Seneca to Tacitus, and only attempts Cicero after those become relatively easy. He was considered a great writer and orator even by the Greeks, who after Sulla had little love for Latin. As a writer, he is certainly one of the most sophisticated prosaists of all time, in any language.
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    Actually the awareness of those who have an NDE is not dreamlike. In fact, most of them say that it's more real than what they normally experience. It's a heightened awareness. — Sam26

    I don't mean to imply that this phenomenon is a dream as we have in sleep, but rather a dreamlike experience or another phenomenon akin to a dream...in the same genus as a dream, but of a different species. The sense of heightened awareness is probably attributable to the adrenaline which is certainly flooding the subject's circulatory system, in any case.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Thank you, Ciceronianus. I will revisit Seneca in English, and will look for copies of M. Aurelius and the others.

    Cicero was sympathetic to Stoicism and his De Natura Deorum describes the Stoic and other conceptions of God. — Ciceronianus

    Haha, I never got far enough along in Latin to bother with man's labyrinthine prose! English translation, though...
  • Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
    I'm not too keen on using the word soul in reference to NDEs. I prefer consciousness, but I know what you mean. I'm not religious, so I prefer not to use that word. — Sam26

    This would seem to simplify the matter exponentially...sorry for reading into your thesis. If there is no incorporeal part in play, then it must be that the subject retained a level of consciousness. Because the subject of a NDE never died, he or she retained a minimized level of consciousness, which allowed him or her to percieve dialogue and other sounds as they experienced a dream like state in which they "hovered" over the scene, and incorporate these perceptions mentally into a unified whole. Make sense?
Home » Michael Zwingli

Michael Zwingli

Start FollowingSend a Message