The human mind is not limited by the brain and can even exist outside of it - Page 4

roselily · #46 Jul 17, '11, 5:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy

A woman in my city underwent drastic surgery. The neurosurgeon and his team reduced her temp to near freezing. They emptied her body of blood. She was flatlined completely -- no brain activity, no heart function -- she was, by every medical definition, "dead." Following a very delicate and difficult brain surgery, the processes were reversed and she was restored to life -- heart pumping, brain waves seen on the monitors, etc. In recovery, she reported to the neurosurgeon what she had experienced -- she watched the operation, heard the conversation and was able to repeat it, went on a journey. Obviously, her "mind" -- her "ultimate reality." her "self" -- what would be the correct term? -- functioned apart from her body. The physician said the medical profession needs a new definition of "dead."

I saw this on a TV report of Near Death Experiences.

Jim Dandy

But I thought it was her soul-spirit functioned apart from her body, and we have mind, body and soul. That when body or brain die, the mind will die also, and soul and spirit is something else, and that it will come out of body.

James1215 · #47 Jul 17, '11, 5:28 pm

Tlimon,

I reckon that the perception or identification of beauty is still materially caused (sounds horrible, doesn't it?). But would it be possible to regard two materially identical roses as of differing beauty?

Anyhow, I see what you mean with widening where the mind is conceptually situated. It seems very convincing! I think that while we're social animals and therefore bound to be influenced by others' hormones, there could be meaningful boundaries set up in relation to whose body the hormones are serving. The human and animal are entwined at the moment the human is detected by the animal, but the arousal of the one biological system would have purposes specific to that system. The purpose may be to excite fear in the animal, so in effect to create what would be a 'conflict of interests' if we were all regarded as one entwined mind. Plus the fact that the human may be oblivious to this one-way connection.

**GEddie** · #48 Jul 17, '11, 5:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by roselily

But I thought it was her soul-spirit functioned apart from her body, and we have mind, body and soul. That when body or brain die, the mind will die also, and soul and spirit is something else, and that it will come out of body.

No, your mind is a "part" (or function) of your soul. When you are dead, your mind will stay with your soul, but since a human mind needs a human head to live in, you will go into abeyance, until you receive a pneumatikon soma.

ICXC NIKA!

warpspeedpetey · #49 Jul 17, '11, 5:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by James1215

Woah yes, I need to add a comment on this.

'James had raised an argument from quantum indeterminacy from something he had read. Dennett I think he said'

Yes I have read Dennett's Freedom Evolves.....

You raised quantum indeterminacy and Dennett post #12-15. I know what we are talking about, its a very common idea, that's why I had an immediate reason to reject it in post #13. I very rarely hear a new argument anymore.

roselily · #50 Jul 17, '11, 6:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEddie

No, your mind is a "part" (or function) of your soul. When you are dead, your mind will stay with your soul, but since a human mind needs a human head to live in, you will go into abeyance, until you receive a pneumatikon soma.

ICXC NIKA!

Your mind is not part of your soul. We have mind(heart), body and soul.
I mean that since you can see two side of it: Religion and Science, then you can consider it, that soul is something else, chemical can change your mind; and it can not change your soul.

tlimon · #51 Jul 17, '11, 6:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by James1215

I reckon that the perception or identification of beauty is still materially caused (sounds horrible, doesn't it?). But would it be possible to regard two materially identical roses as of differing beauty?

I doesn't sound horrible. Material causation is beyond the point. I have always thought so. Pointing out that a series of biological reactions makes it so that I perceive a rose as beautiful is a simple truism. The material universe serves a function for my spirituality like my spoon serves a function for eating peas off my dinner plate.

Catholicism does not contradict the material and neither do I. Explainations originating from material(ism) will always be insufficient. The quote I offered up is a pretty decent paragraph long summation of my belief.

There is a beauty that exists beyond what is materially determined. A bloated corpse that washed up on the banks of a river is not lacking in beauty merely because it smells bad and looks atrocious.

This very conversation is a perfect example where the sidewalk ends as far as apologetics goes.

And for conflicts of interest.... Well, I can imagine having conflicts of interest within our own "self containted system" - self mutilators come to mind.

James1215 · #52 Jul 18, '11, 6:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by James1215

Yes I have read Dennett's Freedom Evolves, but I would be terribly misrepresenting him to say that he argues from quantum indeterminacy to free will. He argues that it is not randomness, chance or escape from causality which provides for free will but inclusion within causality.

As to familiar Dennett arguments, they're not easy to be familiar with - his work is spread over decades and this book alone crams a lot in. I would definitely recommend it!

Newbie2 · #53 Jul 18, '11, 3:50 pm

Depends on whether or not you've seen "Ghost in the Shell" or the "Matrix" movies.

**GEddie** · #54 May 17, '12, 5:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by roselily

Your mind is not part of your soul. We have mind(heart), body and soul.
I mean that since you can see two side of it: Religion and Science, then you can consider it, that soul is something else, chemical can change your mind; and it can not change your soul.

The soul has no "parts", but it produces your mind. However, a human head is needed for the soul to do so. Change the head's operating conditions and you change the mind.

Until the psychological revolution ca. 100 years ago, it was generally assumed that our mental operations began in our soul (although the head needed to be working). That is in fact why we still say psychology (study of psyche, soul), rather than noology (study of nous, mind).

If your mind does not survive death there can be no "you" to experience a next life. Losing consciousness and your human body, your mind and memories are all that can be recovered from your being.

ICXC NIKA

roselily · #55 May 17, '12, 10:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEddie

The soul has no "parts", but it produces your mind. However, a human head is needed for the soul to do so. Change the head's operating conditions and you change the mind.

Until the psychological revolution ca. 100 years ago, it was generally assumed that our mental operations began in our soul (although the head needed to be working). That is in fact why we still say psychology (study of psyche, soul), rather than noology (study of nous, mind).

If your mind does not survive death there can be no "you" to experience a next life. Losing consciousness and your human body, your mind and memories are all that can be recovered from your being.

ICXC NIKA

I do not know it, but one day we will sure know this, that, and many things.

May God bless dear GEddie and all dear brothers sisters.

levinas12 · #56 May 21, '12, 12:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEddie

No, your mind is a "part" (or function) of your soul. When you are dead, your mind will stay with your soul, but since a human mind needs a human head to live in, you will go into abeyance, until you receive a pneumatikon soma.

Do you mean by "pneumatikon soma" the resurrected body?

If so, I'm not sure my "mind" goes into abeyance immediately after death but before the resurrection of the body.

At the moment when I die, God will supernaturally maintain me as a person (in the absence of my body).

I will continue to be aware of myself and others until I receive my body back at the general resurrection at the end of time.

Of course, "person" and "body" are naturally inseparable, because "person" is the expression of the "body".

Maintenance of the person after death is "not natural". It requires an explicit supernatural intervention.

Just like the resurrection of the body is "not natural" and requires an explicit supernatural intervention.

roselily · #57 Jun 17, '12, 4:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by roselily

Your mind is not part of your soul. We have mind(heart), body and soul.
I mean that since you can see two side of it: Religion and Science, then you can consider it, that soul is something else, chemical can change your mind; and it can not change your soul.

I see soul; I knew that soul is live in the heart.

**GEddie** · #58 Jun 17, '12, 4:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by roselily

I see soul; I knew that soul is live in the heart.

I don't agree. Folks who get heart transplants don't change their soul.

ICXC NIKA

roselily · #59 Jun 17, '12, 10:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEddie

I don't agree. Folks who get heart transplants don't change their soul.

ICXC NIKA

I mean figuratively not Literally, GEddie, and soul is not a matter or substance that soul not depent on any body part.- I have seen my soul clearly in my heart,-soul can live anywhere in body or nowhere that soul is not substance.

Can you see your soul, dear GEddie and all dear brothers sisters?