Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

We don't know enough about the brain to state with certainty that certain people, or certain conditions make it impossible to gather and process some informatuion while supposedly unconscious under anaesthetic.
Snippets of conversation and everyday knowledge could give enough information.

21 gramme experiment? Oh please!
Try reading a book called "Weighing the Soul" by Len Fisher.
The loss can be attributed to the body dehydrating after death (IIRC - it's a while since I read it), and dogs NOT losing was actually sloppy methodology...
That's been thoroughly explained, ages ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, they can RECOUNT exactly what was happening. No "snippets" of conversation are going to do anything of the sort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Their state of mind precludes any other explanation. It's the most obvious cause. Also DMT produced in the pineal gland tends to produce illusions that are interpreted religiously. This can be tested by introducing DMT in a controlled setting and recording the results, and they resemble near death experiences rather profoundly. I'm not saying there is definitely no soul, but it's not likely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The information processing capabilities of the brain are phenomenal.
A few snippets of conversation, maybe some visual imagery and logic and everyday knowledge give enough to go on.
How rigorously were there stories vetted?

Just as an example my ex-wife was a (gullible) fan of Doris Stokes ( a famous medium who "received messages from dead people") and we sat through several TV shows about her.
Until one show had James Randi as well, and he spoke to a woman who'd had "messages" "passed on" to her through Stokes.
Randi asked the woman to be honest and say how many attempts Stokes had had before getting her dead husband's name correct.
The women admitted "maybe three, but it definitely was my husband".
Randi played the video back and Stokes had taken over FORTY attempts at names until someone in the audience had stood up and said they had a dead relative by that name...

People WANT to believe and don't question too closely if there's a chance their beliefs will be corroborated.

 

Spidergoat, how can you determine what is "likely" if there is a soul?


It's quite obvious there IS a soul. NDE's pretty much prove it.

 

No, NDEs are still a pretty much non-understood phenomenon, so they can't prove anything.
Until we know exactly what an NDE is then we can't say one way or the other what they mean.
(Or alternatively, should it be proven that the soul exists then NDEs may be understood better).

 

The mind is not reliable. First hand anecdotal evidence is not reliable. NDE's only prove that a dream like state can happen, most likely to sheild the conscious mind from what's happening.

A soul is extraneous. The hypothesis of a soul is not necessary to explain anything. The brain functions to give us consciousness. We know because when the brain is damaged, we lose consciousness and personality. That is the modern equivalent of the primitive hypothesis of a soul. It is as outdated as the miasma theory of disease.

 

I think the soul exists, because of the existence of the self, and that means the brain is only the method of perception.

 

The brain produces the sense of self, that is the most likely explanation. Creatures with smaller brains tend not to have that sense. You could just as well say we move because of angels, and muscles are just the method of interpreting the angel's wishes for movement.

 

Go read some anecdotes; they aren't in a "dream state", they are in a CLEAR state of mind CLEARLY AND CONSCIOUSLY looking down on themselves, AND CAN SEE a LIGHT

Necessary? What's with "necessary"? We don't find answers based on whim, we find them for what they are.

The brain gives us cognition. CONSCIOUSNESS is a far different story, and that doesn't at all disprove the idea of a soul, which is that consciousness lives on AFTER death

 

Or...we actually have souls. Why are you so reluctant to believe that?

 

Not being able to disprove something is no reason to believe it. I cannot disprove the proverbial teapot.

A soul is an amorphous undefined thing. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It's also unnecessary.

 

The teapot has no reasoning behind it; the soul does. That there might be some part of our body that survives, or transcends, death

Again, "unnecessary" isn't SCIENCE! It's about finding the answer that is there, NOT the answer you want. So necessities don't play a role. Gravity isn't NECESSARY, but it's there

I never said it was scientific, but if there is an afterlife, there HAS to be a soul

 

There isn't an afterlife. Dead is dead. The soul is a religious concept designed out of fear of death. It's a fraudulent con game that makes churches rich and people dumb.

 

That's not reasoning it's wishful thinking.

Um, I think he means unnecessary hypothesis.

IF there's an afterlife.

 

How do you know there isn't an afterlife? It's not all religious; what about quantum immortality?

What IS dumb is your assertion, without any sort of logic or evidence, that you know exactly what happens after death.

 

I don't know, and neither do you. From all outward observation, the thing that lifelong provided conscious awareness rots into dirt. That's what appears to happen and there is no evidence otherwise.

 

There is no evidence FOR THAT either! We don't understand if consciousness even comes from the brain to assert that it dies when the brain dies.

Again, look up quantum immortality

 

We have to teach what we know, not what we can speculate about. We do know the brain produces the subjective experience of consciousness, we just don't know exactly how. Yet.

 

No, we don't know. And regardless, again, QUANTUM IMMORTALITY suggests that even if consciousness is due to the brain, it CAN NOT die.

And also, even if consciousness dies when the brain dies, that SUPPORTS the idea of reincarnation.