Why Your Brain Wants to Believe in Ghosts and the Supernatural

[preacherman76]

Maybe a better comparison would be a smart computer in a car, or a phone, or whatever. Like a brain, it learns habits constantly reprograming itself to serve the user better. Adapts to new conditions ect. Very similar to ever evolving neural connections. Without a person, or in this case a soul, its worthless. 

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nope.

That's dualism. Which had to be shown to exist before it can be a medium for afterlife survival. 

Duality is well disproven. And we have actually filmed a memory being chemically stored. 

Dualism is a long failed idea. And different to the afterlife. The superstition of ghosts does not rely on dualism.

Are we going to do the chakra thing again where I teach you your own woo? 

For me materialism is the failed road for explaining consciousness and fields of types of paranormal events.

[papageorge1]

8 hours ago, the13bats said:

Mental is part of the mind the brain and the brain doesnt leave the body when we die it decomposes and becomes worm fodder.

 

We agree the brain doesn’t leave the body when we die. I’m saying the controller of the body and brain steps out of the body. That controller is subtler than the physical body and is called the astral and mental bodies.

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Unless of course a brain, and body, are like driving a car. Sure its far less complicated, but I think it's possible a comparison could be made. While driving, the car exorcises your will. Goes faster when you step on the gas, slows down when you press the brake. It is an extension of the driver. Its what the car was designed to do. Any number of things could go wrong with the mechanics, and it would no longer function properly. When we step out of the car though, we are not any less, or more, than when we got in it. Maybe the same applies.   

That's not how your brain works.

It is the sum of your experiences. It's not some ready to go consciousness waiting to experience a new life. That actually makes zero sense. Your just putting the cart before the horse and assuming things will work out. 

Basically you too have resorted to dualism. It's a failed idea. Failed a long time ago actually. I'm not sure why people still think it could be valid.

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Maybe a better comparison would be a smart computer in a car, or a phone, or whatever. Like a brain, it learns habits constantly reprograming itself to serve the user better. Adapts to new conditions ect. Very similar to ever evolving neural connections. Without a person, or in this case a soul, its worthless. 

You're explaining it basically but not getting it 

Your mind learns. That's how neural connections are formed. And it's why as your brain develops that it ends up with more white matter after starting out as primarily grey matter.

That white matter is an illustration of the learning process you are talking about. It's the map of neural connections that are the result of the sum of your life experiences. That's what has to be maintained at death. All the connections crested by the sum of your life experiences.

I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. The brain isn't the mystery you seem to think it is. 

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

We agree the brain doesn’t leave the body when we die. I’m saying the controller of the body and brain steps out of the body. That controller is subtler than the physical body and is called the astral and mental bodies.

If the brain leaves the body one is dead. Over and out. 

The controller is the neural connection network. Its not a seperate thing. It is created as we develop. As I have explained, that is why white matter becomes dominant as our brain develops. We can watch that very development. It's well understood and works like the illustration I provided. All that information must maintain coherence regardless if the medium holding that inform intact was physical or the proposed non physical.

This is what you seem to be refusing to understand. That the information we have gathered has to maintain its structure.

The brain shows us development. We know it stores memories, they aren't transmitted someplace. It is in the brain stored chemically. That information must remain intact.

That's what cannot happen. The information cannot remain coherent. And that's why death is 100% final. What is essentially you is lost to decomposition.

It's 100% definitely not a seperate thing. It is the sum of one's experience. It's not a mystery these days. It was 100years ago. 

You know nobody can accurately describe the non physical. Even the concept is shaky. 

And ..... You're still talking about dualism. Not life after death.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

For me materialism is the failed road for explaining consciousness and fields of types of paranormal events.

The problem being that you dismiss it without understanding it.

You're beliefs are based in personal preferences. Absolutely nothing to do with factual information about how things really work.

You have wasted a lifetime on studying woo. Had you put that effort into a genuine academic pursuits you would be far more knowledgeable these days. As it is, your just another old story teller. Sorry if that offends but that is exactly what is happening here. Your ideas are beyond silly and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for some of the horrid charlatans you have supported publically. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Maybe a better comparison would be a smart computer in a car, or a phone, or whatever. Like a brain, it learns habits constantly reprograming itself to serve the user better. Adapts to new conditions ect. Very similar to ever evolving neural connections. Without a person, or in this case a soul, its worthless. 

Instead of grasping at straws and making stuff up, why don't you simply read up on how the brain works?

It's not secret information or anything.

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If the brain leaves the body one is dead. Over and out. 

The controller is the neural connection network. Its not a seperate thing. It is created as we develop. As I have explained, that is why white matter becomes dominant as our brain develops. We can watch that very development. It's well understood and works like the illustration I provided. All that information must maintain coherence regardless if the medium holding that inform intact was physical or the proposed non physical.

This is what you seem to be refusing to understand. That the information we have gathered has to maintain its structure.

The brain shows us development. We know it stores memories, they aren't transmitted someplace. It is in the brain stored chemically. That information must remain intact.

That's what cannot happen. The information cannot remain coherent. And that's why death is 100% final. What is essentially you is lost to decomposition.

It's 100% definitely not a seperate thing. It is the sum of one's experience. It's not a mystery these days. It was 100years ago. 

You know nobody can accurately describe the non physical. Even the concept is shaky. 

And ..... You're still talking about dualism. Not life after death.

Well, Psyche I think we are back to repeating ourselves. You give the materialist philosophy and say there is no doubt about. I know of a tom of different psychic and paranormal phenomena that just will not fit into a materialist framework. As you presented that video above, I'll present a paper from Jeffrey Mishlove presented a variety of different phenomena not explainable in a materialist paradigm:

The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The problem being that you dismiss it without understanding it.

Nobody knows everything BUT I know that the afterlife evidence I presented above contradicts the fundamental basis of materialism.

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, Psyche I think we are back to repeating ourselves. You give the materialist philosophy and say there is no doubt about. I know of a tom of different psychic and paranormal phenomena that just will not fit into a materialist framework. As you presented that video above, I'll present a paper from Jeffrey Mishlove presented a variety of different phenomena not explainable in a materialist paradigm:

The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death

Don't send me dumbass links like that please. I am more than aware that uniformed people exist who make stuff up. The sillier they are, and the more ridiculous the claim, has shown to be directly proportional to your support for a subject. The more unlikely, the more offensive, will get more support for you. I'm am debating you. Not every kook on the planet. Especially a TV kook show host. Fair go, that's offensive. Some manners please. 

I don't think we are back anywhere. You are offering a diversion because I've fulfilled your requirement and now the flaw in your argument is becoming more obvious. Structure must be maintained. Physical or not.

I think your backing up into a corner and throwing links to distract the discussion.

Clearly you are in over your head and don't know what you are talking about. 

[psyche101]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Nobody knows everything BUT I know that the afterlife evidence I presented above contradicts the fundamental basis of materialism.

Material structure can theoretically be replaced with non material. As long as the information in your brain remains intact. You are the sum of your experiences.

That's where your ideas fall apart and you resort to banging on about dualism. It's a seperate issue and where you put the cart before the horse. 

Offering links to other uniformed people who also don't understand anything about the brain does not support your view.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Don't send me dumbass links like that please. I am more than aware that uniformed people exist who make stuff up. The sillier they are, and the more ridiculous the claim, has shown to be directly proportional to your support for a subject. The more unlikely, the more offensive, will get more support for you. I'm am debating you. Not every kook on the planet. Especially a TV kook show host. Fair go, that's offensive. Some manners please. 

I don't think we are back anywhere. You are offering a diversion because I've fulfilled your requirement and now the flaw in your argument is becoming more obvious. Structure must be maintained. Physical or not.

I think your backing up into a corner and throwing links to distract the discussion.

Clearly you are in over your head and don't know what you are talking about. 

You're appearing like a sad case. Just having a fit against any evidence against your position. That is not intellectual but a psychological pathology.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Material structure can theoretically be replaced with non material. As long as the information in your brain remains intact. You are the sum of your experiences.

That's where your ideas fall apart and you resort to banging on about dualism. It's a seperate issue and where you put the cart before the horse. 

Offering links to other uniformed people who also don't understand anything about the brain does not support your view.

I offered a link to this very informed and well-respected PhD who studied tons of real-world cases of afterlife communication. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by papageorge1

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You're appearing like a sad case. Just having a fit against any evidence against your position. That is not intellectual but a psychological pathology.

No, I'm asking you for actual information. Not opinions. 

You are diverting to avoid that you are resorting to dualism because real world knowledge causes severe problems regarding afterlife myths. 

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I offered a link to this very informed and well-respected PhD who studied tons of real-world cases of afterlife communication. 

Not well respected outside of paranormal studies. Hasn't practised in his actual field since the eighties.

You always omit that stuff in your character references. 

I'm not asking for anecdotes. They don't apply. What I'm asking is how you think neural networks are maintained at the point of death. What information are you saying proposes that such is actually possible?

Keep on the subject please. No more diversions thanks. 

[papageorge1]

44 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 What I'm asking is how you think neural networks are maintained at the point of death. What information are you saying proposes that such is actually possible?

In my alternative philosophy if you would listen, mental activity occurs in the mental plane of nature in the mental body. Through sympathetic vibrations thought waves are produced in the brain. So the question of preserving neuron connections isn’t relevant.
 

The astral and mental bodies separate from the physical body at death and continue as before without the clunky overcoat as reported in Near Death Experiences.

I’ve explained this many times but hopefully there’s new readers out there so I’m not wasting my time again:

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You're explaining it basically but not getting it 

Your mind learns. That's how neural connections are formed. And it's why as your brain develops that it ends up with more white matter after starting out as primarily grey matter.

That white matter is an illustration of the learning process you are talking about. It's the map of neural connections that are the result of the sum of your life experiences. That's what has to be maintained at death. All the connections crested by the sum of your life experiences.

I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. The brain isn't the mystery you seem to think it is. 

It isn’t hard to understand at all. I just disagree that it’s a fact that this equals consciousness. I don’t understand why you are upset. I was just trying to make the conversation interesting 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Instead of grasping at straws and making stuff up, why don't you simply read up on how the brain works?

It's not secret information or anything.

How is it grasping at straws? You just said my example was comparable. I’m just taking it a step further. A smart computer isn’t worth anything without a outside source, a internet if you will. 
 

Perhaps the brain is just that, a super computer. Adaptable to environment. But still just a computer. Maybe it needs to be plugged in so to speak. 

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In my alternative philosophy if you would listen, mental activity occurs in the mental plane of nature in the mental body. Through sympathetic vibrations thought waves are produced in the brain. So the question of preserving neuron connections isn’t relevant.

Yes it is.

The connections don't have to be physical but for one to remain mentally intact after death, those connections must be maintained.

Mental plane, astral plane, it doesn't matter what name you make up for this force, but it must exist for life to continue after death. 

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The astral and mental bodies separate from the physical body at death and continue as before without the clunky overcoat as reported in Near Death Experiences.

But the brain network must be maintained.

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I’ve explained this many times but hopefully there’s new readers out there so I’m not wasting my time again:

No you haven't. You post anecdotes and jump way past the basic requirement for life after death in that your neural network must remain intact for that to be possible. Your beliefs and beliefs of others do not say how the mind can stay intact without the brain. Your explanation seems to be "stuff happens". 

[psyche101]

11 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

It isn’t hard to understand at all. I just disagree that it’s a fact that this equals consciousness. I don’t understand why you are upset. I was just trying to make the conversation interesting 

Why do you think I am upset? That's also just a diversion. All I said is I can't understand why such a simple question seems so difficult to understand.

Seems to me the obvious answer is that it had stumped you.

If you want to make the discussion interesting tell me how you are not the sum of your experiences. And how that is not essentially "you" because that is what is required for your take on dualism.

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

How is it grasping at straws?

Because you keep reverting to dualism to explain life after death. It doesn't work. Not to mention that it's a failed theory. 

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

You just said my example was comparable. I’m just taking it a step further. A smart computer isn’t worth anything without a outside source, a internet if you will. 

It is fine without the internet. Spreadsheets still work. Databases still collate, books can be written on them 

Your mind is more like a stand alone computer before the internet. They did exist in large numbers for any application.

Because they are the sum of their experience. They work with what had been input.

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Perhaps the brain is just that, a super computer. Adaptable to environment. But still just a computer. Maybe it needs to be plugged in so to speak. 

No, there's no need for a LAN. It is like a super computer. They are usually built for a specific task and often don't actually rely on the internet at all.

That's what the brain does. Adapt. It responds to the environment. Hot, cold, danger etc. It learns what these thing mean to your existence.

Every experience, every decision, every emotion, every interaction is what makes you you. Not some god computer with those experiences already loaded. 

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

It isn’t hard to understand at all. I just disagree that it’s a fact that this equals consciousness. I don’t understand why you are upset. I was just trying to make the conversation interesting 

How do you think consciousness comes to be? Why do you think we have different personalities? What do you think it's function is?

Edited March 24, 2022 by psyche101

[preacherman76]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Why do you think I am upset? That's also just a diversion. All I said is I can't understand why such a simple question seems so difficult to understand.

what did I say that would lead you to believe I didn’t understand what you were saying? You even agreed my example was comparable. Then you accused me of strawman. I wasn’t at all. I’m not trying to win a debate here. 

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Seems to me the obvious answer is that it had stumped you.

On the contrary, these conversations don’t stump me, they stimulate me. I think they are fascinating. You will notice I never once said you were wrong about any of it. 

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If you want to make the discussion interesting tell me how you are not the sum of your experiences. And how that is not essentially "you" because that is what is required for your take on dualism.

That is a great question psyche. I don’t really think either of us are qualified to answer it. We both stand on the shoulders of men far more intelligent then us to rely on exploring these possibilities. 
 

When I really think about it though, I still don’t see why it’s different than a computer. It’s value as well is the sum of its experience. What it’s learned, how it’s adapted. It still needs an outside connection to be relevant at all. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

You're appearing like a sad case. Just having a fit against any evidence against your position. That is not intellectual but a psychological pathology.

Reducing yourself to ad Homs doesn't help your case.

I'm showing your position to be deeply flawed. It's why you cannot answer any questions and keep trying to divert the discussion. 

Get a grip and try and answer the questions. 

Can't can you? 

[preacherman76]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

How do you think consciousness comes to be? Why do you think we have different personalities? What do you think it's function is?

That’s the mystery. If I could answer all that I probably wouldn’t be here talking with you Sir.