|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2001 : 04:36:47
|
This is something I just heard from the newest "Art Bell" show: that scientists in Denmark are supposed to have found (to use Art's word: "proof" that people have a soul).
He went on to say that it's pretty strong languange for the scientists to say.
He gave as his source the newest issure of "The Lancet" medical journal. I went to their website and found the article in question. It mentions studies done on NDE's in Dutch hospitals.
I skimmed through it, and I did not find the statement about "proof" that Art had said the doctors made. Maybe I missed it? :)
For those who are interested, here's the link: http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol358/iss9298/full/llan.358.9298.talking_points.18797.4
The aforementioned article has some links itself, here's one of them: http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol358/iss9298/full/llan.358.9298.original_research.18751.1
Here is an excerpt from that link:
"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never
proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be
discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the
moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat
EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within
about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described
veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31
NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and
the mind-brain relation.
Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness
(transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from
the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31
Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence
and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE,
such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and
background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework
for these experiences."
![]()
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2001 : 09:55:25 [Permalink]
|
The problem with this research is that there's never any effort to uncover a mechanism. The researchers seem to be content to say the effects appear 'paranormal' and leave it at that. The problem I have with this is that the conclusions seem so outrageously counterintuitive and illogical that it begs for a working definition of exactly what these guys keep looking for. The very notion of a soul, with ascribed capabilities similar to the known functions of the brain raises more questions than it answers.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2001 : 13:04:05 [Permalink]
|
I'm reminded of a true story that always pops into my head when I hear anyone talking about the existence of souls:
A guy gets a metal bar or rod through his skull as a result of an accident, but it doesn't kill him. He went from being a really nice, normal guy, to a horrible mean bastard, because a part of his brain was destroyed. If a person is defined by an insubstantial soul, how was this person affected in this way?
Ahhh, linkage! Phineas P. Gage, in 1848... http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/C/CNS.html
Relevant part: quote:
In 1848, an accidental explosion drove a metal bar completely through the frontal lobes of Phineas P. Gage. Not only did he survive the accident, he never even lost consciousness or any of the clearly-defined functions of the brain. However, over the ensuing years, he underwent a marked change in personality. Formerly described as a reasonable, sober,conscientious person, he became - in the words of those observing him - "thoughtless, irresponsible, fitful, obstinate, and profane". In short, his personality had changed, but his vision, hearing, other sensations, speech, and body coordination were unimpaired. (Similar personality changes have since been often observed in people with injuries to their prefrontal cortex.)
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 12/18/2001 13:05:06
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 12/18/2001 13:07:34 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2001 : 20:24:43 [Permalink]
|
Ah, yes, Phineas Gage. Good call, TD. This guy's story is a staple of modern psychological instruction.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2001 : 21:34:39 [Permalink]
|
Here is an interesting idea regarding the problem that exists with a consciousness existing after the body has died.
"When an old man dies, what kind of consciousness is supposed to survive? Is it his consciousness as it was just before death, which may perhaps have become imbecile? Or is it the consciousness of his mature middle age? Or is it the infant mind that he had when he was a baby? The point of these questions is not that we do not know the answers... The point is that all possible answers are equally senseless... [W]ill the old man who dies suddenly revert to his middle years after death? And will the infant who dies suddenly become mature?" (From Keith Augustine - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html )
This brings up interesting questions for those that believe in reincarnation, heaven and hell, out-of-body-experiances, etc. What happens to the consciousness of an embryo? How can there really be a consciousness for something that has had no life experiences, no memories, and has had no use of the 5 senses? Isn't that what makes a person? How about the consciousness of a retarded man that can't even read or write? Would he all of a sudden gain knowledge he never had before; if so, would it still then be "him"?
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." [Carl Sagan] |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2001 : 08:29:15 [Permalink]
|
The comforting thing about belief in a soul is that the believer can impart any characteristics to that soul that he or she wishes -- since there's no evidence to the contrary.
One can easily imagine that the soul of a senile old man reverts to his prime; that the soul of a dead child retains its charming innocence and unquestioning love; that Phineas Gage returned to his pre-injury personality for his sojourn in paradise.
After all, don't the John Edwards of the world keep assuring us that all is well with our dead relatives? None of them ever seems to end up in hell, either...
In a way, I feel sad that I can't share the confidence of the believers. Eternal bliss seems pretty attractive to me, too. I know it hurts my parents to know that I don't share their faith. Yet to act as if I did would be hypocritical.
I think Joseph Heller got it right in "Catch-22": man is meat.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2001 : 00:21:25 [Permalink]
|
Conceptually I find the idea of an immortal soul too confounding to credit. As Tokyodreamer noted, damage to the brain can damage the 'self'--the combination of personality and memory which defines a person--and therefore the physical seat of the self is the brain. When the brain dies and rots, what mechanism could possibly preserve the self? As noted by Donnie B. and dimossi, the self is a dynamic thing dependent on perception, memory, and personality, so at what point in the development of the self can we say that the 'soul' is now fully developed, or that it is senescent? If "I think, therefore I am" is an accurate statement, then the self cannot be timeless because thought itself is a time-dependent activity. So if at death the self moves outside time, to the timeless place where some say God exists, then I should imagine it would be unable to think. Can we say that a self could even exist without thought?
Given the conceptual difficulties, how did the very common and widespread concept of a spirit life after death get started? My crackpot guess is that it stems in part from a kind of mental illusion--you cannot imagine, say, how your home city might look 200 years after your death unless you imagine yourself (in some sense) viewing the city. Perhaps a consciousness cannot truly imagine a Universe in which it does not exist, if only at an unconscious (!) level. And an immortal soul would be very comforting when confronting one's own death as well as the death of one's loved ones. Wrap the soul concept in a super-powerful meme like religion, with its law-giving, societally cohesive, warrior-evangelical, and other functions, and you have one hell of a behavioral juggernaut.
Blab, blab, yadda, yadda, yadda. If anyone knows of research along these lines, shout; I'm sure it's well-trodden ground.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 12/20/2001 00:33:24 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
