Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

@hue-man,

A SKEPTIC'S NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE -- NOT SO MYSTICAL

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

A SKEPTIC'S NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE -- NOT SO MYSTICAL

hue-man,

I agree that the near death experience is questionable, for it speaks of after death experience when there indeed has been no death. The topic of this thread though is, does consciousness arise out of language, which seems rather obvious to me that it does not, language only conditions consciousness. So the much more interesting topic is what is consciousness and how does in arise, the mystical to me is simply the intriguing yet unknown. So we are not all drifting far from the shore of reason.

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

hue man

Quote:

Near death experiences are understood to be a result of brain activity at the point of death. Most people, however, do not have near death experiences. The vast majority of people report death or unconsciousness to be exactly what you think it would be - nothing. Also, the people who report to have NDE don't actually die. These brain activities happen before you die.

Read my post post about Pam Reynolds please, this is not some silly concocted story it is factual , national geographic had a program on this lady and all the doctors were interviewed and simply could not explain how she knew exactly what they were doing when she had no brain function and her heart was stopped for over an hour.

She was cooled down lower than the death barrier, her ears were plugged up and a buzzing sound put into both ears.

She was deader than some corpse.

And I also had a profound near death experience, zero heart or brain function and yet like her I had non brain extremely heightened senses i call it mind sight etc

Of course I respect your skepticism , but would you not like to know for sure, you will live after death maybe forever?

This forum is not about empirical science and philosophy must move into mystic realms at times

I am fairy knowledgable in physics and science and logic breaks down epecially in the quantum world .

2 Replies

@boagie,

Dawkins views require the physicality of material in order to evade the need to define spirit.

However you may be right that there could be intersections involved. i am not familiar enough with all of that theory.

My thinking consider the inner spirit as much a part of the person as the body it uses. many will see the spirit as mystical or unscientific because there is no physical essence to it. However the spirit of a human isa more vital component of that person than even the body they are using.

this is why invalids are still able to continue living. Their spirit is unaffected by the physical impediment. And yet many would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a spirit or inner self.

Of course they do so using their own inner self to come to that conclusion in the first place.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

hue man

Read my post post about Pam Reynolds please, this is not some silly concocted story it is factual , national geographic had a program on this lady and all the doctors were interviewed and simply could not explain how she knew exactly what they were doing when she had no brain function and her heart was stopped for over an hour.

She was cooled down lower than the death barrier, her ears were plugged up and a buzzing sound put into both ears.

She was deader than some corpse.

And I also had a profound near death experience, zero heart or brain function and yet like her I had non brain extremely heightened senses i call it mind sight etc

Of course I respect your skepticism , but would you not like to know for sure, you will live after death maybe forever?

This forum is not about empirical science and philosophy must move into mystic realms at times

I am fairy knowledgable in physics and science and logic breaks down epecially in the quantum world .

I'll look into the Pam Reynolds story, but I'm sure that there is another side to the story, as there always is. As far as life after death is concerned, that would be great, but I have no reason to believe in it as of yet, other than wishful thinking and the fear of death, which are never my reasons for believing in anything.

I wouldn't say that philosophy must move into the mystical realm of thinking, but it certainly must move into the metaphysical realm of thinking at times.

I would love to know if there was a life after death, but I'm sorry to say that I have no reason to believe that there is. Whether you use logic, reason, or science, everything implies that there is no life after death. At this point, the chances of there being a life after death are incredibly small.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

hue man

Read my post post about Pam Reynolds please, this is not some silly concocted story it is factual , national geographic had a program on this lady and all the doctors were interviewed and simply could not explain how she knew exactly what they were doing when she had no brain function and her heart was stopped for over an hour.

She was cooled down lower than the death barrier, her ears were plugged up and a buzzing sound put into both ears.

She was deader than some corpse.

And I also had a profound near death experience, zero heart or brain function and yet like her I had non brain extremely heightened senses i call it mind sight etc

Of course I respect your skepticism , but would you not like to know for sure, you will live after death maybe forever?

This forum is not about empirical science and philosophy must move into mystic realms at times

I am fairy knowledgable in physics and science and logic breaks down epecially in the quantum world .

OK, I looked into the Pam Reynolds story a little bit, and here is the other side of the story:

Pam Reynolds' NDE is sometimes seen as evidence of the survival hypothesis. Critics have brought forward several points which attempt to refute this interpretation:

When Reynolds heard someone say her veins were too small, medical personnel were apparently still connecting her to the heart-lung machine. At this point she was merely under general anesthesia (which can quite often fail to render a patient completely unconscious as well as causing dysphoric effects including confusion about ones position in their body).[1] This appears to show that her supposed Near "Death" Experience began hours before she even "died," and indeed if the second part of the operation had been called off for some reason, many of the supposed "death" experiences would have happened even though all she was subjected to were anesthetic drugs.[2]
EEG monitoring is not 100% reliable. Sometimes the brain has activity that is not registered by the equipment.
Ear plugs do not block all external sounds. People with ear plugs may still be able to hear sounds in their environment.[3]
She may have had the claimed experiences before or after the standstill, when she was merely under general anesthesia and the brain was still active.[4]
Proponents have generally misrepresented the amount of time which Reynolds was flatlined[5]: the actual surgical timeline suggests that her brain stem activity was fully flatlined for a period of only five to six minutes at most[6], and there is no evidence that she retained memories or experiences during this particular period, as opposed to the rest of the several-hours long surgery. Her experiences before and after the standstill could have felt coherent regardless: loss of consciousness would not necessarily have interrupted the hallucinations. Most people do not experience or remember "gaps" between being awake, dreams, and awaking again.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

Hueman,

You have your percentages a little confused I think.

The chances of there being life after death are exactly the same as there being life in the first place.

When we are talking about mysteries you cannot simply sort out the ones you want to believe and the ones you do not.

A mystery is a mystery, you are right about the not knowing. But you know no more aboput the origin of life than you do about the afterlife. So when you speak of chances and odds, why do yopu suppose the odds are against afterlife?

Have you been able to solve the mystery of life and creation? Because if you haven't, than the odds are exactly the same.

I would say IMHO, that there is far more crdibility to there being an afterlife than there is in there being no afterlife, simply because we know that there is life.

The simple fact that because we know that life exists in you right now, that you are alive, means that whatever brought you to life coul;d most definitley happen again. Whatver force gave you the life you have now, which you cannot deny has happened, can possibly happen again and again, and could easily have happened in the past.

This is simple logic! What can happen now, could happen again and could have happened before.

So there is actually more of a chance that there is afterlife than there not being any.

I think the real question here is what preconditioning has brought you to deny the possibility? Is it possible that somewhere in your thinking is some reason that you choose to ignore what is easily possible? Sometimes we have subconscious conditioning that causes us to feel certain ways when we are not evcen really sure why we do.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

You say you arrive at this belief that there is an after life through your process of logic? I am out here! Laughing

2 Replies

@boagie,

Well, I guess we all have to be out somewhere!

This means we will never know what you would have to say to defend what you believe.

I am not sure if I can live with that mystery!

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

You say you arrive at this belief that there is an after life through your process of logic? I am out here!

I think the argument can be summarised as follows:

At one time I was not alive, but now I am. And if that can happen once, it can happen again. The fact that I am now living proves that non-living is not necessarily permanent. An after-life is logically possible because this life is a kind of after-life.

I have often thought along similar lines myself. I think it is quite a powerful metaphysical argument, although I am not claiming it is flawless.

2 Replies

@ACB,

Only something proven to be wrong is flawed my friend.

Until someone can prove that there is no afterlife, its possibility cannot be considered flawed.

And until someone can prove the origin of creation and life, they cannot deny the possibility of afterlife. Both have the same odds of possibility when both remain mysteries.

As you well spoke, if there can be life, than there can be afterlife.

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

I think the argument can be summarised as follows:

At one time I was not alive, but now I am. And if that can happen once, it can happen again. The fact that I am now living proves that non-living is not necessarily permanent. An after-life is logically possible because this life is a kind of after-life.

I have often thought along similar lines myself. I think it is quite a powerful metaphysical argument, although I am not claiming it is flawless.

ACB,

Through I am no expert in formal logic, the inferance here I think is that there is such a thing as out of body existence, a spirit life that perhaps rides upon the aether awaiting rebirth. I have always found recarnation difficult to believe. If one wish to consider, the relative immortality of the genes passed on from one generation to the next, throwing off old bodies to live within the new generated bodies of the young, this is life after death. The genes relative to the individual have relative immortality, if there were any tangiable proof of life without a body, then I urge those in possession of such knowledge to present it, otherwise it just seems a silly venture. PS: A lie is not flawed, it maybe quite near perfect, defined as a lie. A fantasy is not flawed, as a fantasy.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Attempting to discover the truth behind life's most fundamental mysteries could only be considered a silly venture by one who has no desire to discover what possibilities exist around him.

You must open your mind to gather knowledge, and only after you have discerned it should you judge it.

To judge something before you have even considered it seems to me to be more of a silly venture.

Sincerely,
Pathfinder

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Attempting to discover the truth behind life's most fundamental mysteries could only be considered a silly venture by one who has no desire to discover what possibilities exist around him.

You must open your mind to gather knowledge, and only after you have discerned it should you judge it.

To judge something before you have even considered it seems to me to be more of a silly venture.

Sincerely,
Pathfinder

Pathfinder, Smile

Provide me with something reasonable to consider, what physcial indication to you have that might convince you that there is a life without a body, where do you see this in the real world. I think you need to get a grip. I do not believe in shapeshifters or litttle people either, a closed mind is a terriable thing to experience---pray for me!!

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

Attempting to discover the truth behind life's most fundamental mysteries could only be considered a silly venture by one who has no desire to discover what possibilities exist around him.

You must open your mind to gather knowledge, and only after you have discerned it should you judge it.

To judge something before you have even considered it seems to me to be more of a silly venture.

Sincerely,
Pathfinder

Really, is this your stance? Then why are you so adamant in believing that there is intelligent design, a spiritual nature to our consciousness? Hell, you have a whole blog about it - that doesn't speak open-mind to me, it speaks "I've established this, and now all explanations concerning my establishment will be considered". If you're so adamant in living a philosophy of consistent contemplation, why have you stopped here?

Have you seen all of the neurological explanations concerning consciousness? Have you opened your mind to all of that? Have you also opened your mind to all the future scientific discoveries we're in the process of making, and most likely will make? None of these sit well with you at all because you want to believe in an "inner self" and "after life". Where's the consideration?

1 Reply

@boagie,

I have no reason to pray my friend, noone seems to be listening.

the life that you now carry within you is the evidence that proves that there must be some place where it came from before it got to you.

Where do you suppose that life came from? Did it appear in your cellular structure from out of thin air? And you would call someone else's thoughts absurd? You seem to believe that life come from thin air.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

I have no reason to pray my friend, noone seems to be listening.

the life that you now carry within you is the evidence that proves that there must be some place where it came from before it got to you.

Where do you suppose that life came from? Did it appear in your cellular structure from out of thin air? And you would call someone else's thoughts absurd? You seem to believe that life come from thin air.

I'm not saying your thoughts are absurd, I'm merely stating that life is not necessarily evidence of anything. You must remember that humans are the ones that apply meaning, apply purpose. There could be absolutely no objective purpose at all; every consciousness views through it's own subjective lens. Life could have appeared out of thin air, and there are many psuedo-scientific theories that demonstrate how. No, this doesn't mean they correct, that's not what I'm saying, but if you truly are one of consistent consideration, you will consider these. If you'd like, I could show you some (like I said earlier, if you want me to dig up any information about what I speak, I'm more than happy).

Why does it not sit well with you that life could have just appeared out of thin air by chance?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zeth,

You have made an assumption about me that is inaccurate based upon an ignorance of who I am or what I believe. Is this how you make all your conclusions?

I am here to learn and am open minded about all things. I will consdier everything as long as it bears a certain amount of credibility.

I am aware of many of the scientific theories and I am also aware that most science is a continuous effort always seeking for that one experiment that proves its analysis wrong. That is pure science and also the root of my philosophy.

How does the size of my blog give you reason to doubt my open mindedness? Does the fact that I have thought much about what I believe and have written much about it mean that I have become rooted in stagnancy? Not at all! It simply means that I discuss it and think about it alot. Hense, a large blog.

Are you aware of the new science surrounding the ability to manipulate objects by thought process alone? Are you open to considering what that science implies?

Sincerely,
Pathfinder
Natural Logic

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

You have made an assumption about me that is inaccurate based upon an ignorance of who I am or what I believe. Is this how you make all your conclusions?

Which assumption do you feel I've made, Pathfinder?

Quote:

I am here to learn and am open minded about all things. I will consdier everything as long as it bears a certain amount of credibility.

Where's the credibility in believing that there is an "inner self" and "after life"? And I'm not saying this sarcastically: As boagie asked, please provide some reasonable explanation.

Quote:

How does the size of my blog give you reason to doubt my open mindedness?

This is part of the opening of your blog:
"The followers of this logic recognize the intelligent design of creation..."

This makes two assumptions:
1.) That existence was "created"
2.) That there is intelligent design within existence

I'm just merely asking to consider that neither of those points are correct.

Quote:

Does the fact that I have thought much about what I believe and have written much about it mean that I have become rooted in stagnancy? Not at all! It simply means that I discuss it and think about it alot. Hense, a large blog.

Stop taking offense. I was merely pointing out that an open-mind encompasses everything, even those things that place us out of our comfort zones. We must release all beliefs, all notions, and all logical thinking to discover. I'm not saying I haven't been victim of belief from time to time. No one is greater than any other, and we all are prone to making mistakes. I'm no better and never will be.

Quote:

Are you aware of the new science surrounding the ability to manipulate objects by thought process alone? Are you open to considering what that science implies?

I've heard of it, but if you have any good articles concerning it, I'd be very interested in learning.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder, Smile

"The life that you now carry within you is the evidence that proves that there must be some place where it came from before it got to you."

Yes your quite right, you have your being in this world, and this world has its being in the cosmos, do yeh think that might be the source? Have you ever develved into evolutionary biology? Does the hamberger that I enjoyed tonight have life after death? Life lives upon life in this world, what makes you think all that life has life after death, or is it just human life that has life after death. You need to boost your intellectual integrity a little or you will become a born again Christian.

0 Replies

Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know