h a l f b a k e r yTip your server.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Pictures of brain scans taken while people are meditating show a gradual loss of activity around the lobes that are thought responsible for one's sense of self ('I'). The meditators report a feeling of oneness with the universe as their trance deepens and the activity in those areas decreases. This
made me wonder if we might have stumbled on an alternate theory of reincarnation.
The theory as it stands now says we come back to this life after living a previous life. Some evidence of this is provided by children recalling events in past lives that are too detailed to be explained away as the result of an over-active imagination. What if the memories aren't their's though? What if their minds are in a natural state of oneness until they've had enough experiences to develop a sense of self? The spirits of the departed might be able to take advantage of that state of mind to convey their own memories through children. In a sense, it would be a form of channeling. This assumes a couple of things of course. First, that our souls live on after we die, and second, that the souls remain aware of their own identity while they exist on the continuum of existence experienced as 'oneness'. As for why they'd bother expressing their memories through children - they might be doing it in an effort to prove to those they loved who are still alive that there is life after death in an effort to comfort them. I know I'd do it if given the chance.
Some science for those who haven't kept up with the research
http://www.nidsci.o..._consciousness.html
There's a lot more out there from legitimate sources. [longshot9999, Jul 09 2005]
Anecdotal evidence
http://www.abcnewss...02&category_code=30
[longshot9999, Jul 09 2005]
A little more backup from the science cops
http://www.mikepett...ml/dutch_study.html
[longshot9999, Jul 09 2005]
Soul Man
http://www.snopes.c...gion/soulweight.asp
Claim: A physician once placed dying patients upon a scale in order to measure the weight of the human soul. Status: True. [baconbrain, Jul 12 2005]
Here's hoping I don't ever possess one of these...
http://motortrend.c...12_0503_fs_tribeca/
B9 Tribeca. The name alone sounds like a disease. [RayfordSteele, Jul 15 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I could be wrong but this will probably be deleted as a theory even though it is in the religion category. It could easily be changed to an invention though by proposing that suppression of activity in certain lobes of the brain could lead to verifiable collective consciousness studies, or out of body experiences. |
|
| |
(+) For sticking your neck on the line. |
|
| |
2 fries - It's interesting that you brought up the subject of out of body experiences. These experiences have been reliably reproduced in several experiments recently, most notably with air force pilots who were subjected to increasing levels of G force until they blacked out. Roughly 40 % of the 500 pilots tested reported out-of-body experiences. There was a direct link between the amount of time they were unconsciousness and whether or not they reported an OBE. Unfortunately everyone's just assumed these are hallucinations. If I had my way I'd repeat the experiments with a random message placed in the same room but at an angle the pilot couldn't possibly see. If they regained consciousness and could repeat the message then we'd know these aren't hallucinations. Massachusetts General Hospital tried a similar experiment for 6 months but they relied on the luck of the draw that one of the patients on the operating table would have an OBE (they couldn't reliably produce one). Ketamine and other dissociative drugs might also make good candidates for testing whether these experiences are real or not. I'll see if I can find a link to an article with the latest research. |
|
| |
//Unfortunately everyone's just
assumed these are hallucinations.// If
people with access to aeroplanes and
bombs assumed otherwise, I'd ask for
some of my taxes to be refunded. |
|
| |
Excellent. I am fascinated by OBE's, lucid dreaming, and a whole bunch of other un-testable phenomenon. In my humble opinion, un-testable doesn't necessarily mean not possible. |
|
| |
Good luck with that [Basepair]. |
|
| |
[2-fries] Most of them are eminently
and simply testable. The problem is
that people who believe in them
generally haven't a clue how to test
them to an acceptable standard, and
people who could test them rigorously
generally don't see the point - there are
an infinite number of things you could
test if you want to get
mystical.
I think that the
mind-sets which are needed to believe
in this stuff, and the mind-sets that you
need in order to be willing to test it
objectively, are largely mutually
exclusive. If the universe is set up in
such a way as to allow for souls,
reincarnation and out-of-body stuff,
then what on earth is the point of trying
to apply a scientifically rigorous
approach? |
|
| |
Basepair - I don't think the two mindsets are mutually exclusive. If you're running a scientific test for one condition you're likely to be highly focused on checking the results for that condition (especially if that's what the grant money's for). I'm sure the doctors running the tests at Mass General were perfectly capable of performing scientifically rigorous tests. They merely lacked a repeatable catalyst for their experiment. The air force experiments had such a catalyst but they were testing for something else (in this case, how many G's pilots could safely withstand without blacking out for more than a few critical seconds). |
|
| |
//If the universe is set up in such a way as to allow for souls, reincarnation and out-of-body stuff, then what on earth is the point of trying to apply a scientifically rigorous approach?// |
|
| |
The point of applying a scientifically rigorous approach would be to discover the scientific facts behind these areas (if they exist). Being an agnostic myself, I neither believe nor disbelieve in such things. I'd be willing to contribute to the tests though, if for no other reason than just plain old curiousity. |
|
| |
Theory? Calling this a theory gives it much more credit than it deserves. A theory is formulated AFTER testing and research shows evidence of a pattern. Hypothesis would be much better, but still too scientific. Call it a hope, and stop pretending there is any scientific basis for this fuzzy wishing. Do it if you want to, believe in it if you must, but don't leech on science until you have done something scientific. |
|
| |
I thought it said Benign Opossums |
|
| |
baconbrain - All of us lack the time to read everything. Keeping that in mind I thought you might have missed the abstract in the link above. |
|
| |
This theory is as reasonable as the theory that people recall prior lives that they have lived. I do not exactly understand how the brain activity preface fits in. If that were true, then 1 year olds would have brain scans similar to yoga masters. |
|
| |
I will give this a +, because it reminded me of one of my all time favorite episodes of Star Trek Next Generation - the one where Picard is hit by a beam and made to remember a past life on a planet long gone as though he had lived it himself. |
|
| |
Thank you for the links. I do lack time and stomach to read them all, but noticed two things very quickly. |
|
| |
Interviewing people who could have been brain-damaged was called a study, which seems another misuse of a scientific term. |
|
| |
Most reported results could be explained by a sort of reverse deja vu: revi vu, let's call it. A newly revived person tries to make sense out of the gap in his world, and a semi-damaged brain fills in the blanks. |
|
| |
Add what you start with, which is the different functioning of various parts of the brain, and the possibility arises that, say, an auditory area continued to function after consciousness ceased, then dumped the raw data into a recovering mind, and the patient put it together into accounts of being aware of the doctor's voice. |
|
| |
The brain and the human body are far more amazing than we can really realize from inside. There is no need and no place for souls, reincarnation and metaphysics in science until and if they earn a place. |
|
| |
That people want to be a part of the science community they claim to dislike is an amusement to me. |
|
| |
//The point of applying a scientifically
rigorous approach would be to discover
the scientific facts behind these areas (if
they exist).//
Well, I know I didn't
explain myself very well or make a good
case. Let me clarify if I
can.
Anyone who is a
'scientist' (in the sense of a 'regular'
scientist, whatever that is) is likely to
believe in the validity of the scientific
method, and to have some confidence
in basic physical laws.
Now,
as soon as you start talking about
'souls', 'reincarnation', 'telepathy' and
all that stuff, you are explicitly and
immediately dismissing almost *every*
basic physical law: thermodynamics,
relativity, mass-energy conservation,
causality - they all have to be 'wrong' in
order for this metaphysical stuff to
work. So, it's not surprising that people
who would be accepted 'scientists' in
the conventional sense don't bother
with this stuff - it has already been
rigorously disproven by their (my)
criteria.
There is a 'niche
market' amongst scientists in
debunking this stuff, and whenever
these phenomena have been tested to
the same rigorous standards that any
other astonishing theory has to be
tested ("extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence"), the
phenomena have been found simply not
to exist. And, of course, anyone who
wants to believe in them is free to
dismiss these tests as 'flawed' and carry
on believing (which is what they
generally do). Most scientists,
therefore, just don't see the point in
this stuff. If they want real excitement
and real rewards, they will generally go
looking for stuff which is unexpected
and interesting but real.
To
summarize (sorry for the length of wind
in this anno) - if you invoke something
which dismisses just about every law of
physics, you can't really whinge at the
'boring conventional scientists' for not
bothering with it. If they want
excitement and some chance of an
astounding new discovery, they will
generally either go for something which
takes existing established theory to a
new and deeper level (Newton >
Einstein; or classical physics > quantum
mechanics; or continuous systems >
chaos theory), or they will look at
something which is on the edge of
possibility and stands a chance of
overturning some small part of
conventional physics (the revival of the
cosmological constant; or the wrong-
but-just-possible cold fusion). We just
have better things to do than chase
souls. |
|
| |
Very well put, Basepair. I agree heartily. |
|
| |
//We just have better things to do than chase souls.// Not sure if I agree with that, but it's definitely my quote of the week. |
|
| |
We don't chase souls, we are souls. Say that to yourself--are souls. Say it louder--Are Souls! Shout it out--ARE SOULS! |
|
| |
We don't chase souls, we exist as souls. Say that to youself--as souls. Say it louder--As Souls! Shout it out--AS SOULS! |
|
| |
//as soon as you start talking about 'souls', 'reincarnation', 'telepathy' and all that stuff, you are explicitly and immediately dismissing almost *every* basic physical law: thermodynamics, relativity, mass-energy conservation, causality - they all have to be 'wrong' in order for this metaphysical stuff to work// |
|
| |
Not sure I agree with the conclusion that they all have to be 'wrong in order for this metaphysical stuff to work' (if for no other reason than that there are no facts presented to support it). Several physical laws are 'wrong' at the quantum level, or at least not defined accurately enough to account for the results we've observed (i.e. things don't behave the way they should according to the standard models). It's possible that physical laws are state-of-matter-specific (or if someone wants to take a little more outlandish point of view - localized plane of existence rules of thumb). |
|
| |
If I had to step away from my agnosticism for a minute and state at least one thing I believe, I'd say I believe we really don't know all of the physical laws that exist yet, and that the ones we do know might have outliers attached to them that are very real but rarely seen. I've never claimed to be a scientist though so this belief might just be hogwash dressed up in fancy words. |
|
| |
By the way, if Jutta wants me to delete this idea then I'll be happy to do it. I make it a policy never to argue with her. |
|
| |
Unless you contest the mfd or re-word the idea to fit within the guidelines, Jutta may not even have to see it for it to expire leaving behind only the soul of an interesting discussion. |
|
| |
//I'd say I believe we really don't know
all of the physical laws that exist yet// I
agree utterly, and scientists who really
want to do something useful very often
try to address this problem. They've
not done too badly.
However,
in the end, there is only so much
patience in the universe. Science has
come up with a system that allows it to
make some slow progress, and we've
been doing our best with what we've
got. For the last X-hundred years,
people have been coming along saying
'all your stuff is wrong but we want to
join your club and get our phenomenon
approved by you'. Science initially takes
a look (because *every* scientist worth
talking to would really love to find
something revolutionary, in fact), and
tries to pick holes in it. Often they pick
and pick, and eventually it turns out
that conventional wisdom was wrong,
and science has to change,
which is good. But time and time again,
the same crackpot ideas come around,
and time and time again the evidence is
shoddy and insubstantial from the
outset.
So, in the end, we just
don't see the point in going over it all
again. BUT - what we DO do is to say
"Listen, guys, science is not a secret and
anyone is welcome to join. Here are the
criteria for proof, this is the way you
can eliminate fraud and noise, and this
is what you need to do to convince us.
Now, go away and come back to us
later, if you like, when you have
something we can look
at."
Why do people who
believe in this stuff expect 'scientists' to
do the research for them, and then
whinge when we find nothing and give
up? Why don't the para-fanatatics just
learn a few simple rules and do the
science for themselves? We're busy. |
|
| |
Basepair - Point taken. I was just trying to arouse the curiousity of any scientists who had a bit of spare time on their hands and were inclined to spend it taking a shot at something they might not have run across before. |
|
| |
Well, fair enough. But I don't think
you'll get many takers :-) |
|
| |
//trying to arouse the curiousity of any scientists who had a bit of spare time on their hands and were inclined to spend it taking a shot at something they might not have run across before.// |
|
| |
The scientists I know are already curious about nearly everything, and have certainly run across many things like this before. Basepair, if I may say so, is a sterling example. |
|
| |
baconbrain - I suppose their time would be better spent reconciling the fact that Einstein's equations allow for the existence of white holes which, if found, would violate the second law of thermodynamics. To each his own I guess. |
|
| |
Ha ha. Check it. Information is conserved. Right? So, where do your memories go? Where does the information contained therein your subjective experience go? And don't say, its all dendrite extensions, yada yada, because I don't experience dendrite extensions. I'm talking about something else. |
|
| |
Yo, and there is some cool stuff that happens out there. Perhaps, upon reaching certian states of mind, your brain effectivly coheres those molecules that may be entangled with another's mind through whatever length of evolutionary processes is required to trace the origins of said entangled molecules and coherence allows you to partially delve into anothers brain state. |
|
| |
Or, Perhaps your brain just reaches states that resemble reality perfectly without any connection. Its all roll of the dice. Shea right. Roll of the dice my ass, you believe that, your just scared of the big bad wolf. |
|
| |
Astronomers can seem like gods to tribesmen when they predict the eclipse. Silly tribesmen. |
|
| |
If someone could read your mind, wouldn't you consider them something a little godly? |
|
| |
At some point, right between grabbing the torches and pitchforks and building the pyre. |
|
| |
If there was empirical evidence for this then it would be an accepted part of the body of scientifically provable evidence we hold and espouse. |
|
| |
Mumbo-jumbo is mumbo-jumbo, irrespective of how many ways you dress it up. |
|
| |
Which is probably about the amount of gas dissolved in the bloodstream and contained in the lungs. |
|
| |
//Scientists who have studied the subject of spirituality and death say that people who die actually reduce in weight// {pave] It was one guy whose scientific method was questionable - google "21 grams" or look at snopes. |
|
| |
See link "Soul Man" for Snopes article. |
|
| |
//Information is conserved. Right?// Wrong. Information is lost, screwed up, made up, blurred, hidden, forgotten and misunderstood. Our best effort at information management, our very best, is what we use in scientific work. It isn't perfect, but it's a long way from believing in something just because our grandmothers did. |
|
| |
Now, bathe that in the water in which you boil your potatoes, and see me in the morning. |
|
| |
DING! Next patient, please! |
|
| |
Okay, let's see, how to turn this into an invention.... |
|
| |
1. Create a database of brain scans using children who
seem to be recalling previous lives (either their own
or others). Throw out the outliers and determine the
standard model of brain activity in these cases. |
|
| |
2. Enroll people who are adept at mediation in a long-
term study aimed at teaching them to simulate the
standard model by giving them cues while using
fMRI to watch their brain activity. |
|
| |
3. Once they reach a state where they can pick up the
same kind of memories the children report, have
them troll through whatever memories are out there
for the memory a pirate who's hidden some treasue
that's never been found. |
|
| |
4. Use that memory to go find the treasure and dig it
up. |
|
| |
There you have it. The invention is a gold-hunting memory machine. |
|
| |
If the soul was composed of information why would anyone assume it weighed anything? If you got a load of those fridge-magnet-letter things and made a word it would weigh the same as if they were totally jumbled up, even though the first arrangement contained more information than the second. |
|
| |
Although actually now I think about it maybe it doesn't, it is just one of the infinite random arrangements that mean something to us. |
|
| |
//Although actually now I think about it
maybe it doesn't, it is just one of the
infinite random arrangements that
mean something to us.//
Good
point. And the same basic principal
applies to hokey ideas like souls and
pixies and alien pyramid builders: the
infinity of loopy ideas (maybe aliens are
replacing our teaspoons with simulacra;
maybe a god made all the dinosaur
bones for fun; maybe my dog is the
reincarnation of Elvis's cat), will always
be larger than the inifinity of non-loopy
ideas. Hence, loopy ideas will always
outnumber non-loopy ideas, just as
there are more integers than primes, or
more ways to be dead than there are
ways to be alive. |
|
| |
They used to burn witches, and now they lock up schizos. Truthfully, I'm waiting for witches to come back in style. |
|
| |
I think these days the witches try to
take a few people with them when they
go.
|
|
| |
Continuum of life, reincarnation, channeling, possession ... seems to remove the limit on how long one can stay pissed. |
|
| |
Something can only contain information if it is being observed by something that can apply a concept to the arrangement of what they are looking at / perceiving, surely. A graph of x^2 contains information for whatever range of x to us, but to a caveman it would contain no information at all. I don't know what this means for this idea but I am sure it is profound. |
|
| |
Also with that Occam's Razor theory, isn't it much simpler to think that people die and stop existing rather than their undetectable soul being channelled into a new being? |
|
| |
I just thought it was funny that Basepair, after excessively anno-ing on the HB, says "I'm busy". |
|
| |
In my experience, to the extent that someone loses their sense of self, they can be made to believe anything. "Removal of the self" is the first step in nearly every indoctrination, as it removes all critical thought. Be very suspicious of it. |
|
| |
Maybe this 'removal of self' or having new perceptions allows you to see the arrangements that you previously didn't think meant anything to you? Sort of like you saw it, but didn't know what it meant. Like teaching the caveman algebra lol. |
|
| |
//Removal of the self// Interesting thought that it's the first step in indoctrination. Good one, Sophocles. |
|
| |
I find it amusing that some Bhuddists are seeking the 'Removal of the self' from the wheel of life, while the Christians that I grew up with are determined to keep the self through all eternity. |
|
| |
// just thought it was funny that
Basepair, after excessively anno-ing on
the HB, says "I'm busy".
// Well, there's busy and there's busy.
Frontiers are bloody heavy to be
pushing back all day, and a man needs
a rest now and again. I wonder also
why we are always pushing these
frontiers back. Doesn't that imply that
we are on the wrong side of them? |
|
| |
As far as science coming to terms with a bland, determinate existance, and finding a few cool things along the way goes, I think its a great thing. But, I do feel the tides may change a bit before its all over. |
|
| |
[Bp], yes, but the only way to get on the other side of a frontier is necessarily to move it. That is, frontiers are, by definition, uninhabited on one side. |
|
| |
Quite, but should we not be pushing
them forward? |
|
| |
I don't know...Frontiers, also by definition, can only be pushed in one direction, right? Hell, I'm confuzzed. |
|
| |
This is a great discussion. And the thing really is... we don't know anything. Nothing. Every little thing we think we know is 1/Foreverth of everything there is to know. |
|
| |
But, ergo, our knowledge since the
dawn of consciousness has increased by
a factor of [1/foreverth]/0 , which is
infinity (or possibly zero).
Regarding the direction of
frontier-pushing, surely we are in the
territory of some-knowledge, and
pushing the frontier ahead of us to
increase the territory we know about?
So we ought to be pushing these
frontiers forward, I think. |
|
| |
Almost all religious doctrine emphasises conformity and abrogation of "self". Maybe that's why I'm so implacably opposed to religion and practise of religion. I've never thought of it in those terms. |
|
| |
Certainly, a steady rise in the culture of self appears to be responsible for an equally steady decline in obeisance of all forms of religion. |
|
| |
Okay, cool, so we've increased our knowledge by an infinitesimal infinity. Right on. |
|
| |
I definitely agree that we are meant to push boundaries. We are also meant to work inside the ones that we have, so A+ to science on those counts. There is still too much "this is how it is" going on in science, though. It's a shame cause scientists are so smart otherwise. |
|
| |
[UnaBubba] I agree with you about religion... it really rankles me. But personal faiths I cannot argue with. |
|
| |
//There is still too much "this is how it
is" going on in science, though.//
Well, there is some. But
most of the time the "this is how it is"
comes from (a) not-very-successful
scientists who feel vulnerable, (b)
scientists whose commercial
involvement with a topic outweighs
their scientific judgement or (c)
spokespeople who are speaking for the
shy, retiring scientists. Not saying that
scientists are perfect, just that the ones
who make the most noise are probably
not the ones who I'd consider 'real'
scientists.
Of course, if you
want unshakeable self-confidence and a
truly blinkered conviction that "this is
how it is", you have to turn to religion. |
|
| |
I read some of that first link on a science of consciousness, and have this thought on measuring consciousness: If you have any old meter connected to my brain, and it reads 3, the only way to know if it is right is to ask me. So I look at the meter, and I have to agree that at that moment, my consciousness is 3. |
|
| |
Long absence... Science seems a bit religious to me at times... but we all have our foibles. (I like rice waaay too much.) |
|
| |
Time to start your own religion, [Aegd]. |
|
| |
You have:
50% of the world's population already hooked.
Allegories of "seed", "growth" and "miracle" already in place.
The "Golden Grain" being polished white for the faithful.
Rice crackers, for communion.
Transformation by trial (hot water)
etc. |
|
| |
Sects for the brown and yellow... apologia over cooking methods. Prophets dreaming that it's okay to put gravy on it.... I'm not L Ron Hubbard here... these people are impossible! |
|
| |
And your "white" rice purity comment [UnaBubba] ... strikes me as a bit ricist. |
|
| |