Page 4 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

KristaMeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 926
Location: Hick town near Harrisburg?Pa

20 Oct 2007, 3:15 pm

LePetitPrince wrote:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/10/30/doesTheSoulOrSpiritReallyExistAFollowup.html

this is a nice part :

Quote:
We know from empirical data that physical damage to the brain sometimes permanently damages a part of a person's memory. Sometimes, also, various abilites and talents are lost. When the physical brain is damaged, through accidents, disease or use of restricted substances, the personality and memory is directly affected. Sometimes scientists can learn a lot by observing which parts of the brain is damaged, and what effects this have on the patient, thus making meaningful conclusions about how the brain operates.

Now, if we really have a soul, which somehow retains all (or most of) this information independent from the physical brain, why does physical damage to the brain have this effect? Furthermore, as a person dies, more and more of the brain is destroyed, and the personality disappears along with it. This is a tragic spectacle to experience for anyone who has seen a loved one die a slow death. We see no evidence that there is a soul who keeps the mind alive through the decay and eventual destruction of the brain.

Why, then, should we believe that when the brain is totally destroyed, the personality, memories and abilities suddenly reappears in a non-physical form? Is the soul a metaphysical backup of our physical brain that is somehow liberated, tranformed to spirit form (whatever that is) and can live on?


Please see "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot


_________________
Push the envelope, watch it bend.


Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

20 Oct 2007, 10:26 pm

MrMark wrote:
Angelus-Mortis wrote:
The hypothesis, is, of course, only the beginning of the scientific method, and not all of it.


I thought observation and data collection were the beginning of the scientific method.
No, the beginning of the scientific method is wanting to know something, for good or for ill, and being willing to pursue it in a disciplined fashion.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Oct 2007, 2:53 am

Or perhaps discovering that what you think you know no longer fits the observations.



Angelus-Mortis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 438
Location: Canada, Toronto

21 Oct 2007, 3:07 am

And the hypothesis is the way in which you state how you show what you want to know.


_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html

Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.

Ignorationi est non medicina.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Oct 2007, 3:11 am

And perhaps there is no hypothesis for a long time and nature remains full of possibilities for open nature is the mother of science.