The non-thinking that is Religion.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by LesMts

This is something I've always wondered. What about things like Alzheimer's in which little protein plaques interrupt the normal physical functioning of the brain? What about brain damage?

I think this represents a big problem for people that believe in the soul.

Either the soul has a physical manifestation, and some kind of physical interface with the brain, and one would have to ask why it can't be found in the human brain. If such a thing existed, it should be pretty feasible to find it, even given our relatively limited knowledge of the brain. Looking at the brain, it should be possible to find some kind of brain-soul interface structure.

Or it doesn't have a physical manifestation, and people with Alzheimers/people who take acid/people who have had massive brain damage and come out with a completely different personality are just making up their symptoms for a laugh, because whatever happens to their brain couldn't have any effect on their non-physical soul.

There's also the problem that the existence of an immortal soul, independent of the human body, would be a pretty massive hole in the laws of thermodynamics, the one of physics that we've found to be really solid. Unless the answer to that is that the soul doesn't need any kind of power source because its just magic.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I think this represents a big problem for people that believe in the soul.

Either the soul has a physical manifestation, and some kind of physical interface with the brain, and one would have to ask why it can't be found in the human brain. If such a thing existed, it should be pretty feasible to find it, even given our relatively limited knowledge of the brain. Looking at the brain, it should be possible to find some kind of brain-soul interface structure.

Or it doesn't have a physical manifestation, and people with Alzheimers/people who take acid/people who have had massive brain damage and come out with a completely different personality are just making up their symptoms for a laugh, because whatever happens to their brain couldn't have any effect on their non-physical soul.

There's also the problem that the existence of an immortal soul, independent of the human body, would be a pretty massive hole in the laws of thermodynamics, the one of physics that we've found to be really solid. Unless the answer to that is that the soul doesn't need any kind of power source because its just magic.

No, not being able to find the physical seat of consciousness does not give me a problem at all. Science is always moving onwards, for instance, it was not so long ago that memory cells were discovered in the human heart, so we are still learning about organs we took for granted we knew everything about.
I think that is the main point in this thread. We don't know it all, and are constantly being surprised at the discoveries made. We still don't know what the majority of the brain does.

As far as I'm aware, the laws of thermodynamics are not entirely compatible with quantum physics theories yet, so I don't see how the existence of a human consciousness independent of the body can be discounted by thermodynamics.

As for the NDE report. Someone said it's not based on scientific experiment, only reports from people who have experienced it or the staff caring for them. I don't see how anyone could conduct experiments on humans having near-death experiences, not unless they induce death in a controlled environment. I think the last person known to attempt such immoral experiments on humans was Hitler.

No-one needs to accept being called derogatory names for believing in something as yet unproven by scientific method. Many things shape our beliefs, and I for one don't need to justify my own personal thoughts to someone calling me stupid for my own beliefs.
^^ that's not aimed at you Bryan, I just quoted your last post to start my reply.

It's actions, not thoughts or beliefs that actually matter in life.
To judge an entire person and their life on one small part of their belief system is daft. I think it's what people do and how they treat others that matters only.

[RiseAgainst]

What about when what they do and how they treat others is as a result of what they believe in?

for example, hardline christians persecuting homosexuals for example?

also id im sure Hitler wasnt the last person to induce death for experiments, see Sadam Hussain and his ruling party for a much more recent example. Also Nazi Scientists did create things such as the jet engine, and developed new warfare techniques (blitzkreig) but that doesnt excuse them for the crimes they did commit. (sorry was about to go way off topic there into an anti-nazi rant)

I thought about 85% of the brain's functionality had been proven by scientific experimentation? i maybe wrong because the program i watched on it was quite a while ago so perhaps take this last paragraph with a pinch of salt.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

What about when what they do and how they treat others is as a result of what they believe in?

for example, hardline christians persecuting homosexuals for example?

also id im sure Hitler wasnt the last person to induce death for experiments, see Sadam Hussain and his ruling party for a much more recent example. Also Nazi Scientists did create things such as the jet engine, and developed new warfare techniques (blitzkreig) but that doesnt excuse them for the crimes they did commit. (sorry was about to go way off topic there into an anti-nazi rant)

I thought about 85% of the brain's functionality had been proven by scientific experimentation? i maybe wrong because the program i watched on it was quite a while ago so perhaps take this last paragraph with a pinch of salt.

Then they take the consequences. I'm not excusing people's behaviour in any way with that statement, as all behaviour has consequences. If someone preaches against gays because of their beliefs then I would find that offensive. But it's their actions (including what they say to others), not thoughts that make them offensive.
If I preached against gays for having a belief in a consciousness not connected to the physical body, then you would have every right to fire into me for it.

If Hussein did those kind of experiments that the nazis did, then I take back my view that Hitler was the last.

My understanding was that the majority of the brain was largely a mystery and no concrete scientific data was available for explaining what that majority of the brain actually does, but the last time I studied brain physiology was at uni, so add some salt from me.

I think maybe what we can take from this, is that some areas of the brain are still unexplained for their function by science?

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

it was not so long ago that memory cells were discovered in the human heart

This sounds like either a very large misunderstanding or utter nonsense.
Do you have a source for this? What on Earth is a "memory cell"?

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

As for the NDE report. Someone said it's not based on scientific experiment, only reports from people who have experienced it or the staff caring for them. I don't see how anyone could conduct experiments on humans having near-death experiences, not unless they induce death in a controlled environment. I think the last person known to attempt such immoral experiments on humans was Hitler.

Just because we can't think of a better way to do the study doesn't make the "personal report" method any less shite. It's still a crap, notoriously useless way to go about collecting evidence.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by LesMts

This sounds like either a very large misunderstanding or utter nonsense.
Do you have a source for this? What on Earth is a "memory cell"?

Ok. It was a programme about heart transplants on one of the discovery channels. I am not going into details for you as I'm sick of your dismissive attitude.
NEURONS THEN.
Find out about it yourself if you can be bothered.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Ok. It was a programme about heart transplants on one of the discovery channels. I am not going into details for you as I'm sick of your dismissive attitude.
NEURONS THEN.
Find out about it yourself if you can be bothered.

I'm not being dismissive at all! Sorry if it's coming across that way but I'm just asking for clarification.
You keep making assertions, all I'm doing is saying "well, I don't think that's quite right" and asking you to back it up. At which point you get all pissed off.

Saying that a neuron is a memory cell is like saying a muscle cell is a javelin throwing cell. Large networks of neurons acting together in a specific way in the brain are used to store memories (in a process we don't quite fully understand).
There are loads of neurones in the heart, as there are everywhere in your body. The closest I could find to there being "memory" cells in the heart is that there are certain cells which can adapt to very recent electrical activity and change their behaviour accordingly. This is called "memory" as an analogy but it is not in any way the same thing as a conscious working memory any more than, say, an alarm clock is.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by LesMts

I'm not being dismissive at all! Sorry if it's coming across that way but I'm just asking for clarification.
You keep making assertions, all I'm doing is saying "well, I don't think that's quite right" and asking you to back it up. At which point you get all pissed off.

Saying that a neuron is a memory cell is like saying a muscle cell is a javelin throwing cell. Large networks of neurons acting together in a specific way in the brain are used to store memories (in a process we don't quite fully understand).
There are loads of neurones in the heart, as there are everywhere in your body. The closest I could find to there being "memory" cells in the heart is that there are certain cells which can adapt to very recent electrical activity and change their behaviour accordingly. This is called "memory" as an analogy but it is not in any way the same thing as a conscious working memory any more than, say, an alarm clock is.

Saying something could be utter nonsense is quite different to "not sure that's quite right", that's why you seem dismissive.
I will not waste my time searching for an internet link. The programme was about people having heart transplants, and then getting flashes of the memories from the person whose heart it was (confirmed by relatives/friends). There is an area of the heart associated with these memories, so the programme said.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Saying something could be utter nonsense is quite different to "not sure that's quite right", that's why you seem dismissive.
I will not waste my time searching for an internet link. The programme was about people having heart transplants, and then getting flashes of the memories from the person whose heart it was (confirmed by relatives/friends). There is an area of the heart associated with these memories, so the programme said.

I said it could be utter nonsense or it could be a misunderstanding. What's dismissive about that?

What this programme was talking about, I imagine, is the phenomenon of "cellular memory". This is the idea that individual cells have an active, conscious memory (it's often used to explain things life past-life regression and other similar wacky woo new age things). This has never been demonstrated under proper conditions, there is no known mechanism by which it even could work, and it's completely unaccepted by mainstream biology. In other words it occupies the same scientific territory as astrology, ghosts, telekinesis, fairies and magic spells.
This isn't being dismissive, I'm just saying that this sounds like what the programme was on about and an then talking about where that currently sits with scientists.

[LesMts]

Here, I found a wee wiki article on cellular memory which does a better job of being dismissive than me.

Cellular memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that the main study supporting cellular memory was published "without peer review, sources or evidence".