What Happens to Our Energy When We Die?

35 Comment(s)

1. Andie | Oct 29, 2007 | Reply

   Come over to my site and get your award. I start each morning going through my favorite blogs and you’re on the list!

2. NJDrummer | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply

   Hello all. I am the friend of PHAT Mommy who had the conversation with her regarding where “energy” goes when you die. She explained the law of conservation of matter very precisely, and I agree that’s what happens to our body when we die. The energy of consciousness (using the examples of memories and self-awareness, etc) that we also discussed more appropirately falls into the realm of the energy I was speaking of. For those of you who will maintain that the “soul” exists, this would also fall into that category. I believe I’ve heard it refered to as dualism. In short, one can (possibly, I always add a caviat) maintain that the mind and the brain are acually different entities. Surely one can maintain that the body and soul are different entities. What is the mind? What does it do? Where does the memory of your name actually reside in your brain…or is it in your mind… that your brain also has access to? Does it have to be confied to be brain? Do other cells have a “semi-consciousness” when they automatically perform operations required for maintaing homeostasis without obeying commands of the brain? All of this requires energy. So specifically (or collectively) where does the energy of the mind go when you die? If there is another life force such as a soul, and presuming there is no heaven or hell…what happens to it when you die? Do animals eat it? Is it just absorbed by the earth? Does it float into space and become part of a “universal collective consciousness?” Good questions all…what say you?

3. Carrie | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply

   I am typically a very “scientific” person - in other words, I’ll take Darwin over Adam and Eve any day of the week. However, I have had a number of experiences that have me convinced that there is something beyond this life. While this sounds absolutely crazy, I will state without a doubt that my last house was still occupied (ie. haunted) by the man who owned it before I did. I thought I was nuts, until my now husband moved in there with me, and, after several months, oh so carefully asked me if I had encountered “anything strange” in the house. We compared notes - lights that went on by themselves, closed doors that opened by themselves, footsteps across the upstairs floor, voices when the house was silent, etc… I found out when I went to sell the house that the previous owner (his name was Fred) had died in the house. The reason I found that out was because the closing had to be postponed - because my title to the property was showing that FRED had a LIFE INTEREST in the house. There was absolutely no explanation for my title not being clean - I wouldn’t have been able to buy the house from Fred’s widow in the first place, had the title not been completely cleared at the time of that sale. Also, I can say without any doubt that I have been “guided” on many occasions by something that is beyond myself. I can still vividly recall an encounter with my great-grandmother (I was very close to her) after she died - I was only 9 years old at the time, and 30 years later I can remember what she was wearing, where we were, and what she said to me - and the assurance after that “meeting” that she was OK and I would see her again. What all of this is, I don’t know - be it “God”, or “Jesus”, or “spirits of the afterlife”, or none of those things - I have not defined it in any way. I am content with the fact that I am only human, and there are realms of possibilities beyond my knowledge, or even my imagination. I am not living my life “looking for signs”, I am just remaining open-minded.

4. lance | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply

   I’d suggest that saying “I am typically a very ’scientific’ person” is like saying “I am typically a law-abiding person”. You don’t get credit for the murders you didn’t commit if you indulge in a little robbery now and then, nor is your acceptance of gravitational laws impressive if you allow some aspects of your life to be guided by anecdotally supported “feelings”.

   NJ, when you say “Surely one can maintain that the body and soul [or brain and mind, as you state earlier] are different entities”, I’d ask “Can one maintain it in any way supported by public observation?” Brain and mind are two ways of looking at the same thing, but there is no latter without the former.

5. NJDrummer | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply

   Lance,

   The brain is made up of cells which can be quantitatively measured. Thoughts are not made up of cells. No scientist can currently say where a single thought (or an extremely indepth analysis made of many thoughts) actually comes from. Do they come from the brain? Sure, the brain’s neurons fire, but does that make a thought? Many would argue..no. Can you “publicly observe” a thought? Perhaps the result or expression of a thought, but not a thought. Is that to say that thoughts don’t happen because they’re not “publicly observed?” I’m sure I know some people I would maintain to not have thoughts, but that’s a different story. Neurologists work on the brain, psychologists and philosophers work on the mind. Science is currently not in unison with their feelings on this issue. To put it another way…Let’s say I could transport you (Star-Trek style). I could transform your brain to atoms and then back again. I’m not so sure it will work the same for thoughts. Thoughts, perception, consciousness, subconsciousness, etc are not made of atoms. There is definately something going on there. It is perhaps true that the brain suports the mind or that the mind is a function of (in some way) the brain. It is more of a leap to claim they are the same. Again, science has not determined that after many years of study.

   To make another analogy…no scientist can tell you much about the big bang. They can’t say exactly when it banged, what banged or what caused it to bang. We cannot measure it or quantify it, but know that it happened. Quantum mechanics of subatomic particles and much of present day physics is based on what we cannot see or sometimes even measure. In fact, uncertainty is a major principle in cutting edge science.

6. Trixie | Nov 1, 2007 | Reply

   NJ, contrary to your claim, I think most (or more likely all) neuroscientists would agree that thoughts “come from” the brain. Just as they would agree that internal experiences such as hunger and pain “come from” the brain. There is no evidence of thoughts (or pain or hunger) without a brain, and we can trigger internal experiences of thought, pain, thirst, hunger, etc. by electrically or chemically stimulating the brain. Sure, what we mean when we talk of the experience of “pain” is not precisely the same thing as the firing of pain receptors (we’re describing the internal experience caused by such firings), but there’s no evidence that the energy involved in experiencing pain is any more than the energy involved in firing those receptors. You speak of the “energy of consciousness” as if you knew it to be energy separate from (or in addition to) the energy of brain activity. On what grounds do you make this assumption? And if you believe this “energy” is somehow different from the energy we can identify “publicly”, why do you assume it holds to the same laws of conservation as observable, measurable energy? I don’t think the physicists who discovered the law of conservation of energy ever claimed it applied to mystical, fantastical, or undetectable “energies” or any internal experience that anyone chose to label as an “energy”. Maybe this mysterious “energy” of which you speak does simply disappear when the brain dies.

   In common parlance, we typically do mean different things by the terms “mind” and “brain”. “Mind” generally refers to our internal thoughts and experiences and “brain” to the physical organ located in our skulls. But there is no experience of mind without a brain. When the brain dies, so do consciousness and thoughts, along with other internal experiences such as pain, thirst, and hunger.

7. NJDrummer | Nov 1, 2007 | Reply

   Trixie,
   I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and I do not know of one single neurologist who states that they know where thought comes from. If you know of any, please forward me an article or link so I can add that information to my research. Additionally, there is a huge difference between a perception given by the brain based on internal or external stimuli and a thought. If I sever a nerve pathway to the brain where a pain signal is then not transmitted, there is no perception of pain by the brain and no “feeling” by the body. To you point stating “there is no evidence of thoughts (or pain or hunger) without a brain” I would add that currently there is no “life” as we know it without a brain.

   I appreciate your quesiton regarding my “assumption” on the energy of consciousness. I would gladly refer to you to the works of George Trumbell Ladd, namely his book entitled “Elements of Physiological Psychology.” I would also refer you to any number of physics and scientific forums such as physorg. Based on my research, I disagree that this energy of consciousness is “undetectable” as you stated. As far any this energy of consciousness adhering to the laws of conservation of energy…energy is energy. It doesn’t matter if its source is from light, heat, electromagnetism, ultraviolet, xrays or any other type of energy you care to mention. Certainly, we have found NO energy no matter the source that does not obey this fumdamental law of physics. As for internal processes of the body that someone would label “requiring energy” as you put it, there are only a few I’m aware of that do not require energy of some kind. They include: diffusion of molecules, osmosis of water and select carrier and transport protien mechanisms within cells. All others require energy of some kind. Lastly, as for your assertion that energy simply “disappears” when you die..I once again refer you to the laws of physics that state that that just cannot and does not happen. Remember, when you’re asleep, you’re not conscious, but you’re not dead either. What interested me initially in responding to this blog is that the conversation did NOT revolve around what is used in common parlance as you mentioned, but rather, explores much deeper one of the most fundamental questions we as a species can have….”What happens to your energy when you die.”

   That being said, I begrudge no one of their opinion and seek to change no ones mind (there’s that word again!) It is however, intersting discussion and I encourage all to conduct their own research and develop their own conclusions.

8. lance | Nov 2, 2007 | Reply

   I’d just like to point out two things that NJ is doing. First, there’s the technique of trading in ambiguity. When Shannon says that upon death, energy dissipates through the typical means (worms et al.), NJ says No, it’s not _that_ sort of energy, but when asked why the conservation principle applies to “consciousness energy”, NJ returns to it being a legitimate, detectable energy, behaving like the other energies we know and love. And he insists it’s detectable, and I wholeheartedly agree!, although I’d love to know if it was detected somewhere else besides a brain. An elbow, perhaps? Or a toaster?

   The other is technique he’s employing is what I’d call an intellectual rope-a-dope, asking trixie to provide cites for what is common knowledge, which could be a worthwhile endeavor if NJ showed any evidence that those cites would prove convincing to him. Lacking that, it’s just a technique to exhaust an interlocutor. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why someone suffering from, say, dementia, psychosis, depression, or other thought-related disorder would pursue a course of treatment designed to affect the chemistry of the brain, instead of the kidneys or the colon.

   These are the techniques (along with the classic “uncertainty is a key part of science”) of someone not using the tools of logic and reason to develop and test a theory, but to _insulate_ their pet theory from scrutiny. If anyone out there finds NJ’s line partially convincing, I request that you explain what it is that’s convincing about it, and I’d be happy to follow up. However, I suspect that the wish that there’s something to look forward to after death is the only thing that motivates anybody to put any stock in a theory like dualism. Just the standard fear of mortality stripped of religious raiment and dressed up like science.

9. lance | Nov 2, 2007 | Reply

   Oh, and because it’s too funny to not point out, after posting the above comment, I went to Yahoo and what do I see? The featured news story “Is There A Cure For Fear?” alongside a graphic of, you guessed it, a picture of the brain ! If it’s not there anymore, the linked story is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_sc/facing_our_fears

10. NJDrummer | Nov 2, 2007 | Reply

    Lance,

    I got an email of your last post, but I don’t see it here on the website. Anyway…when Shannon gave the example of worms eating your body, that is an example of the law of conservation of MATTER not ENERGY. As for conscious energy, I’m not saying that the brain is not involved AT ALL in providing an experience of consciousness, but don’t get confused w/ the brain responding to sense organ stimuli and presenting “decoded” information with conscious energy. For example, the brain interprets data from the optic nerve, decodes it into neurons, flips is right-side up and presents you with a close representation of the data that it was given. However, you are the one who decides what it is that you see. All the other sense organs work the same. This firing of axons is not the energy I’m speaking of but is also obviously detectable. Similarly however, there are thought to be large groups of “unspecified neurons” distributed in the brain which do not function as others do. These are thought to interact with the mind to provide consciousness.

    Separately…I take exception to some of the accusations you have made about me.

    This topic touches (in part) on aspects of existence and consciousness that have only recently been explored scientifically (other aspects of this topic have been studied for decades, including quantum physics). Because of this, there is a built-in level of ambiguity. Don’t however assert that I (or anyone speaking about this) is being purposefully ambiguous.

    I also take exception to you thinking it is inappropriate for me to ask Trixie or yourself to provide cites of where you get information. You say this is common knowledge? Hardly. I however was asked to provide information on my cites so Trixie could understand where I come up w/ my “assumptions.” So is it fair for me to do the same? I think so.

    Lastly, I take great exception to your statement that I do not use logic to support my thoughts. I do not (always) develop my opinions from what you call common knowledge…especially something that requires as much thought as this topic. I think that is a perfect example of someone not using logic and rather depending on what may be incorrect information. Apparently, this has been quite a topic for you and the circle/family you are in as you have amassed all of this “common knowledge.”

    Since for me it is not so common, I rely on people I consider to be much more educated than myself who I think are qualified to comment on such things to help me form my opinions. These people include but are not limited to:

    Nobel Prize winner and physicist - David Gross
    Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (Oxford University)
    Sue Greenfield - Professor of pharmacology (Oxford University)
    Brian Greene - world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner and author
    Michio Kaku - world famous physicist, author, professor of theoretical physics (City of NY University)

    Are you contending that these people, who have achieved so much, have done so without employing logic and scientific methods??? Perhaps you just do not believe in science? If so, that is fine. Just let me know so I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

    I look forward to hearing from you (and others) again. I would also urge more people to conduct their own research and form their own conclusions more often. You might be surprised how often you then disagree with what you once thought was “common knowledge.”

    Scientific discovery is not static. What we thought we knew, we sometimes no longer believe based on new information (such as knowing earthquakes do not happen because we’ve angered the god of the earth). Until a couple decades ago all scientists were sure that the atom was the smallest piece of matter in the universe. We now know this is not true. I guess some people are unwilling to modify their perceptions based on new information or are incapable of taking emerging information and extrapolating it to a LOGICAL conclusion.

    Once again I think it’s worth stating that I NEVER try to change someones opinion about any topic. However, if my opinion is in contrast with theirs, I vehemently try to understand and accept that there may be another valid opinion out there that I just don’t happen to subscribe to (as long as the other opinion is supported by something other than what is deemed as “common knowledge”)…and would also ask the same of them. Since I do not know if a conversaiton of this magnitude can ever achieve such an end in this particular forum, this may be my last post on the topic.

11. Trixie | Nov 2, 2007 | Reply

    NJ, I think you misunderstood my position on this topic. And given your response to my comment, I’m not sure I understand yours either. You seem to be pulling a bait and switch. I never claimed that the “energy of consciousness” was undetectable (to be clear: I’d claim any energy involved in producing consciousness and thought is precisely the same energy of brain activity), though I think for your theory to remain internally consistent, you’d have to make this claim. In response to Shannon’s assertion that when we die, our bodily energy transfers to insects, bacteria, and the earth, you argued that the “energy of consciousness” fell into a “realm of energy” somehow distinct from the energy of matter. Now in response to me, you claim it is the same sort of energy, fully detectable, measurable, and most certainly always conserved. So please provide evidence of its measurement, distinct from the measurement of brain energy. How have you detected and measured this “conscious energy” apart from the activity of a brain?

    The question relevant to our disagreement here is not whether thought processes require energy or whether all energy is conserved (we both seem to agree on these points), but whether our experience of consciousness and thought is driven by energy independent of the energy of our brain’s activity. So far you’ve provided no evidence for your claim that it does. In fact, you’ve apparently agreed with me that there is no evidence of thought without brain activity. So do you have evidence that “conscious energy” exists apart from brain activity or not?

    I think you took Lance’s comment about “common knowledge” too personally. I’m sure if you wanted to research scientific documents from the time when scientists routinely drilled holes in people’s skulls to let out the spirits they believed were responsible for psychiatric disorders, and followed advances in cognitive neuroscience forward to present day, you would encounter the foundations of the arguments that brain structures produce thought. For modern cognitive neuroscientists, however, that brains are responsible for thought production is one of the most basic and universally accepted assumptions. The cognitive neuroscience lab I work in, for example, studies language. With our research subjects, we’ve conducted behavioral observations and standardized tests, recorded evoked response potentials (EEGs, brain wave readings), and taken MRI readings of brain activity. I think our assumption should be clear to anyone — we’re looking at brain activity, not measuring electrical activity in the heart, or imaging the colon, or looking at patterns in the iris of the eye, or searching to measure auras of conscious “energies” to gather information about how people learn and use language. Nor are we studying trees, flowers, or simple animals without organized brains. We’ve faced many critiques of our research over the years, but never has a reviewer challenged our decision to focus our study of cognitive activity exclusively on the brain. Neuroscientist Mark Gluck, whose lab is down the hall, studies learning and memory. He’s looking exclusively at brains too. Actually, every neuroscientist in my building (whether they study cognitive or molecular neuroscience, humans or rats) is looking at brains. Sure, I’ll grant you that scientists don’t yet know the specific chemical/electrical composition of any individual thought (though interestingly, we do know that certain kinds of thoughts (e.g., aggressive, religious) can be triggered by stimulating certain areas of the brain in certain ways), but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a modern cognitive neuroscientist who wouldn’t admit that her research is based on the fundamental and general assumption that thoughts “come from” the brain. There is no cognitive neuroscientist looking elsewhere for answers to questions about cognition. Ask a non-psychotic fifth grader where his thoughts come from, and he’ll likely answer “my brain” as well. I think it’s reasonable to assert that such a statement is basic, common knowledge.

12. lance | Nov 7, 2007 | Reply

    Took a screengrab of something I thought might be relevant, I dunno…

    http://www.twoknowitalls.com/wordpress/misc/yahoograb.jpg

    

13. NJDrummer | Nov 8, 2007 | Reply

    Wow, I’ve been so busy lately I haven’t had time for any fun such as this…though I feel compelled to respond to Trixie’s last post.

    Once again I’ve been accused of pulling a “bait and switch” and I’m not sure why. I think I’ve been consistent in projecting my views on this topic. Before I begin let me apologize for not giving this response the attention it deserves, as my time lately is very limited.

    It pleases me to know that you work at a cognitive neuroscience lab and confuses me at the same time. Based on your previous positions, I would have thought perhaps a behavioral psychologist? I have taken at least 5 psychology courses in my life as well as several philosophy courses. Presuming that you have a degree in psychology (I presume you’d have to) you have taken even more than that. Presumably you would already be aware of these various viewpoints and equally aware of the evidence that supports them.

    I’m going to try and address your main points one by one (albeit I acknowledge that I am not giving the in-depth responses I believe the questions call for).

    First, I disagree that I would have to concede that the energy of mind is the same as brain activity for my statement to remain consistent. Also, hopefully for the last time, I cannot stress how important it is to understand that there is a difference between the conservation of energy and the conservation of matter. Although these laws of physics are similar, they address COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sources to be conserved. I’m not sure why you’re still confused as to how Shannon’s claim (correctly by the way) that the matter that in our bodies is conserved in the form of acting as nutrients for the Earth as well as various animal/plant life is not the same as the conservation of energy.

    Additionally, you have said that I’ve agreed with you regarding the lack of evidence of “thought” without brain activity. Actually what I said was, “It is perhaps true that the brain supports the mind or that the mind is a function of (in some way) the brain. It is more of a leap to claim they are the same.” I will explain further later in this post what I meant by that.

    Next, you ask once again for proof of measurement of this energy and asked if I have measured it. The answer is, yes… I have. I do not think it is unreasonable for you to ask and perhaps I have not explained it as clearly as you require. I’ll try in a different way.

    Measuring the energy of consciousness or the “force of consciousness” is not unlike measuring other forces which exist in nature. I’m going to mention sevaral…one of which I’m sure you know of.

    The first force is called “dark energy.” The “Big Bang” is a topic which has garnered attention from virtually all physicists in our attempt to understand how the universe was created and operates. This has nothing to do with theories of creationism or any other theories involving intelligent design or a “God” character. Virtually the entire community of physicists all agree (if not all, but I leave some room just in case) that the energy produced in the “Big Bang” was not enough to cause the phenomenon which is occurring in the universe today. Namely, that the universe and all matter in it (that we can detect) is expanding faster and faster, all at vectors away from each other. If you look at a map of the universe, 75% is made of up of dark energy. By the way, we cannot directly measure dark energy, we can only observe the effect it has on things we can observe and measure. Of the remaining 25%, 20% or so is made up of dark matter. Dark matter (outside this particular topic because it is actually matter and not energy) is also an immeasurable quantity. Why then to I mention it? Simply because like dark energy, we cannot measure it directly, but only the effect it has on what we can measure…such as “known matter.” (Known matter by the way comprises less than 5% of the universe.) The bottom line is…there is more gravity in the universe than matter we can measure to create such gravity.

    This brings me to my next point and the more common one that I presume everyone is already familiar with…gravity. I don’t know anyone who will deny the existence of gravity. However, gravity, as an entity or force unto itself, cannot be directly measured. We can only measure the effect that gravity has on another object (one that we can measure.) In case this seems confusing or contrary to your logic, the equation for calculating the “force or energy of attraction due to gravity” is:

    F = G [(m1)(m2)/d2)

    In this formula, F = the force of gravity; G = a universal proportional constant (somewhere around 6.7 x 10-11 kg m3/s2); m1 = the mass of object 1; m2 = the mass of object 2; and d2 = the distance between the centers of gravity between the two objects. Therefore, gravity cannot be directly measured; we can only measure the effects of gravity on other objects. I would certainly encourage you (and all) do to their own research on this matter. However, I would ask that scientific sources (not wikipedia) be used as research tools.

    In the same way, we cannot directly measure the energy of the mind (or energy of consciousness) we can only measure the effects it has on something we can measure… namely, the brain. Considering that the foremost acclaimed researchers in the world have used this technique regarding dark matter, dark energy, gravity and other forces at work in the universe, I consider this method valid for scientific exploration. Who am I (or anyone) to say that we know better than these researchers??? Again, I don’t consider any of this “common knowledge” and rely on people who I consider to be more educated than myself on the issue to provide the framework for my thoughts on the matter. It is in this way that I can say…Yes; I have measured the activity and therefore energy of the mind by how it interacts with my brain. If “I” decide to lift my arm, my mind communicates that information to my brain (no stimulus such as heat or pain is causing me to make that decision). Then…yes…it is the mechanism(s) of the brain which actually allow me to lift my arm. My implication is that self-reliance, well-being, and free-will, a sense of morality, the process of decision making, and more all fall into the same category. How about some more evidence you say? Surely I say.
    One experiment that I know of (sorry I didn’t have time to dig up more, but this is a pretty good one) was conducted by Jeffrey Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz is one of the leading research professors of neuropsychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, the Director of the Westwood Institute for Anxiety Disorders, a M.D. and an author. Mr. Schwartz continued the groundwork laid by his colleague Benjamin Libet (Nobel Prize winner, research psychologist at the University of California, and acclaimed author – check out his books entitled “Neurophysiology of Consciousness” and “the Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will”) by studying and treating OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) patients. For those of you who don’t know, symptoms of OCD typically include intrusive thoughts (the obsessive part) that cause intense urges to perform ritualistic behaviors (the compulsive part). Notably, these intrusive thoughts arise without the “I-function” and the ritualistic behaviors take over a person with an absence of “self.” That is, patients typically describe episodes of OCD as if they were describing the activities of a third party. In neurological terms, brain scan technologies have demonstrated that episodes of OCD reflect a biochemical imbalance that becomes locked between the orbital frontal cortex, anterior cingulate gyrus and caudate nucleus (i.e., “the worry circuit”). This pattern of repetitive biochemical firing triggers an overwhelming sense that something is wrong, followed by compulsive attempts to make it right. To help OCD patients take control of their disorder, Schwartz used mindfulness meditation (by the way, I’m not a “meditation guy.” I can manipulate my brain in my current conscious state and so can many others) and its technique of actively noting perceptions as they arise in the mind. By objectively noting their symptoms without emotionally reacting to their symptoms, OCD patients could recognize their disorder as just that: a manifestation of faulty wiring in the brain rather than something irresistible and normative. Schwartz’s groundbreaking treatment not only demonstrated that thought can affect brain matter, but that eventually the wiring of the brain would change over time and that less mental force would be required to keep the biochemical imbalance from ricocheting around “the worry circuit.” Indeed, Schwartz’s research has implications for other unwanted behaviors such as smoking, alcoholism and overeating.
    In order to further his research, Schwartz teamed up with physicist Henry Stapp. Mr. Stapp is employed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is a preeminent scholar of quantum mechanics. Together, they were able to use quantum physics to argue that consciousness and volition play a crucial role in shaping phenomena, including the activity of the brain (i.e., mind=behavior). That is, quantum mechanics shifts the primary question of physics from asking, “What exists?” to asking, “What is our knowledge of what exists.” This work also lends itself to discussions regarding self-reliance, well-being, and free-will, a sense of morality, the process of decision making, and more. After re-examining the brainwaves of those in the experiment, Schwartz was able to produce “normal” brain scans. His experiment proved that the mind could alter the electrochemical makeup of the brain. The wiring of the brain actually changed over time.
    To your next point regarding information available regarding the advancement of the field of cognitive neuroscience…I am of course familiar with many of them. I also acknowledge that there are people (such as Lance and yourself) that adhere to the belief that the mind and brain are one in the same. Once again, EEG’s and MRI’s are measuring what is able to be measured, brain activity, and not mind activity. Naturally you will say that “if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist.” Once again however, I refer you to the other forces in nature (that most will agree “exist”) that cannot be directly measured. Also, to say that certain impulses can be triggered (such as anger or touching the “God zone” – I forgot what this area is actually called) can be done manually via electrical or chemical stimulation…I would say…so? They are artificially created and operate outside the body’s internal mechanisms to accomplish the same, i.e., the mind and brain. We can also create “artificial gravity” by spinning an object at “x” speed so that an individual “experiences” gravity in the form of centripetal force. That doesn’t mean its gravity…just a human-made replication of the effects of gravity. I would contend that is the same as artificial stimulation of the brain.
    Based on this evidence, I continue to challenge your (and Lance’s) assertion that such information is “common knowledge.” Obviously, there are other explanations. I, however, am able to concede that there are other possible explanations for such phenomena (energy of consciousness), are you able to do the same?
    Remember, scientific method and experimentation cannot prove any theory correct; they can only prove it incorrect or lend supporting evidence that it is correct. As a research psychologist in any field, hopefully you will be able to admit that no one or no experiment has proven that the mind as separate entity from the brain does not exist.
    Finally, I did some probing to see if I could find any atheists which share this view. I’m not sure of your personal beliefs in this area (nor Lance’s), but I wanted to see if I could find ANYONE who specifically despised the idea that an omnipotent being created everything. Although I was brought up in a Christian household, personally, I do not believe that believing in the mind obligates me to believe in the soul or in any such omnipotent being. In fact, the more “educated” I’ve become, the more I tend to doubt such beliefs (just wanted you to know that I am not “religiously motivated.)

    In fact, I found one. (Honestly, I stopped looking after this one, certainly there could be more and certainly other atheists do not share this view). His name is Thomas Ash. Mr. Ash is a graduate student at the University of Oxford studying philosophy. He obtained his BA in philosophy at Cambridge (certainly not a stupid fellow, nor did he attend what would be labeled “right-wing” or “bible-thumping” institutions). He was the president of the University Atheist and Agnostic Society at Cambridge as well. Currently, he is the webmaster of 2 atheistic websites – “Big Issue Ground” and “Atheist Ground.”
    During all of his studies and research, and given his “non-theistic” beliefs, Mr. Ash has concluded:
    “Consciousness is by definition a private experience; accessible only to the person it belongs to, unlike other physical phenomena. This is what takes it outside the realm of science and the scientific method and into the realm of philosophy, though neuroscience can still make valuable contributions. Were it not for the problem of our ability to think about consciousness, epiphenomenalism would be the most obvious explanation. But that problem scuppers it, and suggests that there is some more significant reality to mental events than that of merely a projected image. Given our lack of understanding as to just what that nature is, and the scientific method’s inability to tackle the question, it’s best to admit that the question of how the mind and the brain are related remains something of a mystery.”
    Now then, all of this being said (including more that hasn’t been said…again sorry, I’m just very short on time and did not give this response the attention it deserves), and given the “scientific, objective thinker” you must be given your current position, I can only hope that you agree (at a minimum) that the jury is still out on this topic and that there are other (at a minimum) “seemingly viable” alternatives to your incredibly steadfast position. Given the credentials of those I’ve mentioned, both in this and in previous responses, I can’t imagine we’re all crazy.
    Hmmmm….I wonder if that is in the mind (out of your mind) or in the brain?
    Having responded to your previous post, I realize how hard it is to discuss something like this on the web. There is just too much information to deliver. Once again, I encourage all who read this to conduct their own research and formulate their own opinions on the matter. If someone says something that “sounds good,” please take the time to verify some facts on both sides of the issue and make your own objective decision rather than “fall in step” with a particular viewpoint or worldview.

    I hope this response has been helpful to anyone still grappling with this or any other controversial issue.

14. Trixie | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

    NJ, the question (and explanation) posed by Shannon at the start of this thread is far simpler than you seem to recognize. Conservation of matter and energy are not “completely different” as you claim, which is why modern science no longer identifies separate laws of conservation for them. Since Einstein’s discovery that E=mc^2, there’s just one law: the law of conservation of mass-energy (which I’ve also seen written as the “conservation of matter and energy”). Matter and energy are not distinct; they are the same basic stuff packaged in different forms. Conversions of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. The energy associated with our bodies is chemical energy (as also in our food, batteries, and gasoline) and that energy transforms when the matter with which it’s associated transforms. There’s as much mystery about what happens to “our energy” when our bodies die as there is about what happens to gasoline’s energy when we burn it, or a carrot’s energy when we digest it, or a mouse’s energy when it decomposes.

    Burn, digest, or decompose our bodies and you’ll transform not only our matter (which was once organized to create, among other things, muscles, bones, brains, and our internal experiences such as hunger, pain, and consciousness), but also our energy — from chemical energy to other forms of energy such as heat, light, or to chemical energy stored in somebody else’s body, such as the insects and bacteria to which Shannon alluded. So upon death, as Shannon already explained, the matter and energy associated with our bodies transform into other forms of matter and energy, ones that are no longer organized in a way that create muscles, bones, brains, and internal experiences of hunger, pain, and consciousness. There is no “mystery of the missing energy” to solve here, though you seem bent on creating one.

    Dark energy and dark matter are postulations devised by physicists who discovered that when dealing with very large bodies (like galaxies and universes), they couldn’t crunch the numbers predicted by general relativity (and to be fair, there are some physicists who believe that the correct solution to this problem is more likely to be a modification of general relativity when applied to very large bodies rather than an acceptance of as-yet undetected “dark energy & matter”). Regardless, these physicists are starting out with observations and measurements of cosmic bodies and are trying to devise a solution to an apparent contradiction. The jury is still out. But nobody has “measured” dark energy; nobody has even detected it. They’ve merely calculated how much of it would have to exist in order for their equation to balance.

    Your theorizing “conscious energy” is not analogous to this approach. There is no apparent contradiction in need of explanation, no specific known energy equation for running a human consciousness that you can’t balance upon measuring the energy consumed by our brains. Your internal experience of “selfhood” cannot masquerade as a valid “measurement” of some otherwise undetected external energy acting upon your brain. No more than your internal experience of hunger or blueness (which one could argue aren’t precisely the same phenomena as your nervous system’s responses to an empty stomach or to light with a wavelength of 475 nm hitting your eye, but which are different ways of looking at precisely these responses) can be said to be a measurement of some external “hunger energy” or “blueness energy” acting upon (or interacting with) your brain to create your internal experiences. There’s no reason to postulate “conscious energy” apart from the energy within a brain. As far as all our evidence suggests (including the research you cite which apparently has helped to pinpoint the specific brain regions involved in creating the internal experience of self), consciousness and “selfness” are the internal experiences that arise from specific metabolic processes in the brain (which are powered by the energy we get from our food), just as hunger and blueness are the internal experiences that arise from other specific brain processes powered by such energy. Mess with these brain processes or regions (or transform the matter and energy associated with your brain), and your mind will be altered or in extreme cases will cease to be.

    As Lance wrote before, “mind” and “brain” are just two ways of looking at the same thing. As there is no evidence of mind, — no experience of consciousness — without a complex, working brain, there is no reason to hypothesize that something other than brain processes power the internal experience of mind and self. You’ve provided no compelling evidence that this thing you call “conscious energy” exists and (in contrast to the physicists who posit the existence of “dark energy”) no compelling reason why anyone would even need to posit its existence. Nice as cognitive behavior therapy is, its success is not evidence for the existence of brain-independent “conscious energy”. That certain areas of the incredibly complex and inter-woven human brain can be prompted with instruction and exercised with practice to effect change in parts of itself is hardly startling and in need of an explanation that includes energy sources external to the human body.

    And sure, I’ll agree that “no experiment has proven that the mind as separate entity from the brain does not exist”.  Nor has any study proven that Santa Claus, unicorns, genies, or gremlins do not exist.  So I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s rational for me to grant your non-negated theory the same cognitive status I grant each of these non-negated theories. I consider your claim, along with any of the other infinite non-negated claims that have been or could be made, all equally “viable” in the court of rational inquiry.

15. NJDrummer | Dec 12, 2007 | Reply

    Trixie, (and all)

    I think I’ve said before that this is not the best medium to discuss such in-depth, multi-disciplinary topics. There is just far too much information that needs to be delivered. As such, this will most likely be my last post on this topic.

    Just for clarification purposes, the conservation of matter and energy are two separate laws and are taught separately in physics classes. I have access to a college level honors physics textbook published in 2006, and it also lists these topics separately. To be fair however, I too have seen these theories combined (on the Internet) into one title such as “mass-energy.”

    While I could continue to debate the intricacies of the complexity alluded to in this seemingly simple equation, this is not the place to do so. That being said however, two examples leap to mind. Light (photons) are massless and travel at the speed of light (obviously) and therefore fall outside Einstein’s famous equation. So do all forms of energy that are massless or any “object/particle” that travels at (or greater than) the speed of light. During the early inflationary stages of the big bang, matter did travel faster than the speed of light, electrons (under certain circumstances) can travel faster than the speed of light as well. Tachyons (which are theorized but not yet realized) travel faster than light and therefore travel backward in time (time of course does not really exist). Going the other way in the equation – if you take an object (or atom) and freeze it to absolute zero (which hasn’t been done yet, but we’ve gotten to less than one degree away), all radiant energy will be removed from said matter. Only potential energy and the “energy of being” (required for matter to exist as matter) will remain. Chemical reactions will also cease. What will not happen is that said matter will not dematerialize. Therefore, I can envision that someday matter will exist without energy – this is how future discoveries about the atom and subatomic particles will occur and this also would fall outside Einstein’s equation.

    That being said, these are moot (and very nuanced) points. The energy of consciousness that I maintain may exist is a massless energy…not like the brain. I have said before that the mind is not matter, but only energy and that like gravity, its energy cannot be measured directly. I believe it to be located in the head because it must interact with the brain but does it need to be there? I don’t know – and neither does anyone else.

    I’m going to leave dark matter/energy alone because I don’t think you understand it and it is outside the scope of the topic anyway. It was only used as an example of scientifically exploring an unknown quantity.

    As far as there being “no apparent contradiction in need of explanation” regarding the energy of consciousness…certainly there is. People and science has been perplexed by mind/brain duality (or singularity) for a very long time, and the debate continues. Obviously, there is a contradiction there, at least as far as science is concerned.

    For any hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. Considering that no one has ascertained where a single thought comes from (as you have admitted), although a theory exists stating that it must emanate directly from the brain, this theory is considered falsifiable. In other words, it is possible that it does not happen this way. All of science seems to acknowledge this and I’m not sure why you cannot.

    Once again you have said that there is no evidence of the mind without the brain. Once again therefore I will submit that vision, hunger, “blueness,” sound, or even existence itself does not exist because there is no evidence of any of these without the brain either. If a tree falls in the woods and one does not have a brain…does it make a sound? Hmmm…..

    In the past you have stated that stimulation of the brain cause thoughts of aggression, hunger, etc. I must correct you. Feelings of aggression, etc have been experienced, not thoughts.

    Finally, you have said that I’ve provided “no compelling evidence that the mind as a separate entity from the brain exists.” Additionally, Lance once questioned if I would accept any evidence supplied that does not support my “pet theory.”

    In answer to this, I make these closing statements. I…unlike some…gladly consider all evidence in order to make what I believe are valid determinations. Naturally, if you refute all evidence as being evidence, you’re not really doing science…right?

    However, I do not believe that I’ve been provided with any. So far, all the “evidence” you’ve provided me is:

    1. It is common knowledge
    2. Scientists (some) are currently looking at the brain for these answers (and have been for many decades now)
    3. No evidence of the mind exists without a brain

    I leave it to other readers to determine if this qualifies as evidence or not. I’ve already made my conclusion regarding this.

    As for no compelling reason why someone would posit this position? I would say for the advancement of human knowledge, science and in seeking truth. If we did not do this on a regular basis everyone would still think the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe. Everyone would still think that the atom is the smallest particle of matter. Everyone would think it is impossible to fly or travel to the moon. I’m glad for humankind that scientists before us did not accept the status quo or “common knowledge” of their time and used reason and vigorous scientific experimentation or observation to advance what we now call science or facts.

    Remember everyone; something is only impossible until it happens. There have been countless times in the past where that very thing did indeed happen.

    I would love to see some other bloggers comment on this discussion…I’ll probably check back from time to time.

    Regards,
    NJDrummer

16. Trixie | Dec 12, 2007 | Reply

    NJ, you continue to misrepresent my positions, so I suspect you simply misunderstand them. First to clarify a main point you’ve misunderstood: I haven’t claimed that one’s experience of mind does not exist, only that it’s the same thing as the brain. So your attempt to discredit my position by making a parallel argument regarding the “existence” of vision, hunger, blueness, etc. is not valid. My claim is that all available evidence leads to the conclusion that consciousness (as well as all the other internal experiences you mention) is merely a different way of looking at processes of a brain. They all exist, but there’s no evidence that any of them exist apart from a brain.

    As for science and evidence: first, I’ve never suggested that the hypothesis that brain and mind are the same (or, more specifically, that thoughts come from the brain) isn’t falsifiable. You simply haven’t falsified it (nor has anyone else). Second, I’m not the one claiming the existence of something for which I can provide no sensory evidence; you are. The onus of proof is on you, not me. I’m riding on a very well-supported (non-falsified) null hypothesis, while you’re grasping for any signs that your alternate hypothesis is true and are coming up empty again and again. All the evidence reason requires to refute your claim is nicely summed up in what you’ve deemed #3 of my argument (i.e., that no evidence of mind exists without a brain). This is a valid and complete refutation of your hypothesis. It is you who require more evidence in order to support your claim that conscious energy exists apart from a brain. If this principle of the scientific method is not obvious to you when applied to your own theory, consider another alternate hypothesis that I presume you have rejected: Santa Claus magically stops time each Christmas at midnight and travels around the world on a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer to deliver presents to children across the globe. What evidence can you provide me that this hypothesis is not true? Do you have any more evidence than I’ve provided that there is no such thing as brain-independent consciousness? All you can say in defense of your conclusion that Santa does not exist is that there’s no evidence that Santa exists. And in the court of scientific inquiry, that’s reason enough to reject the Santa hypothesis.

    Good science is not done willy-nilly. Postulating an idea you happen to like (but for which you have no evidence) and then claiming it’s a scientifically valid position because science hasn’t disproved it is not an approach compatible with rational inquiry. This is the stuff of faith and religion, not science, and such an approach is not responsible for scientific advancement. Those who discovered that the Earth is spherical and that the atom is not the smallest particle of matter did so by starting with observations, not wishes. You seem to have missed my point about your hypothesis lacking a foundation in an “apparent contradiction in need of explanation”. I was alluding to an apparent contradiction in evidence (i.e., scientific observations), not about a conflict of opinion. People disagree about all sorts of things… usually it simply turns out that some are wrong and some are right. Disagreements (even among scientists) about what’s true don’t constitute a reason for postulating alternate hypotheses. Observations do, and you have offered no compelling observations that would suggest a reason to postulate the existence of brain-independent conscious energy. You simply seem to like the idea and want to believe it. By clinging to your chosen theory in the absence of evidence for it, you are no more truth-seeking than is a child who clings to a belief in Santa, imagining all the ways in which Santa’s magic *might* work and demanding that somebody prove it couldn’t be, while all the time closing his mind to the dearth of evidence for any such magic.

17. Shannon | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply

    I apologize for putting this post out and then disappearing from the conversation. Honestly, the “academic” quality of this discussion has inhibited me from commenting. Now I do have a question.

    Trixie writes, “Those who discovered that the Earth is spherical and that the atom is not the smallest particle of matter did so by starting with observations, not wishes.” But today aren’t there “observations” of metaphysical activity? Aren’t there MANY people who claim they are psychic, or have had experiences with ghosts, gods, forces of nature, etc? In fact, there are so many people who have had these “observations” that universities have programs that study psychic behavior, near-death experiences and the like. Since I know Trixie personally, I know that she will dismiss this as anecdotal. But how is this different than any “anecdotal observation” experienced in the past that has led to major scientific discovery?

    I realize this is getting a bit off topic from the mind/brain/energy concept, but in simple terms it comes down to the same thing - is there more to life than just the years we live on this Earth?

18. NJDrummer | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply

    Trixie,

    I understand your position perfectly.

    What part of the brain is responsibile for self-awareness and consciousness? Which part is responsible for one’s sense of morality? After all…if the brain is solely responsible for these things, shouldn’t we be able to say “look, there it is.” As for “sensory evidence”…are you saying that all that is to be “sensed” can be done with our sensory organs? I hope not…but you are entitled to your opinion. The fact is that what we see, hear and ultimately experience as sensory input from the environment is a mere fraction of what is truly out there. It is just how we have evolved. Additionally, our brain has adapted itself to interpret these inputs to provide a “meaningful abstraction” of our surrounding so that we may try to comprehend it. You keep referencing external stimuli (or internal stimuli such as hunger with a physical component) and refuse to acknowledge that internal experiences such as thought (not perception) and a sense of existence or self may be due to something other than the brain. Once again, science has studied this very thing for decades and has not formed a final conclusion yet. Why is it that you have then? As for evidence I’ve provided…I have. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I’ve even referenced scientific studies, nobel prize winners, printed works, etc. The bottom line is that you have already decided that no evidence will be satisfactory for you, even though science has not been able to make a clear determination. It is your wish that your view be upheld because it makes sense to you and yet you cannot produce any evidence to support it. It is not solely up to me to provide evidence to my logic. Are you above such a process? If science exists to prove your point why can you not provide any?

    As for your comment on “good science”…I will once again reference quantum physics. I know this not a topic that you are very familiar with yet you dismiss it as though you were an expert with some knowledge that all other quantum physicists seem to have absurdly overlooked. By the way…quantum physics has absolutely nothing to do with faith or religion. Do I really need to address Santa Claus? How about this…the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas combined with differing time zones and the ability to travel at speeds approaching the speed of light? That is not to say I believe in Santa Claus, but I thought it would be fun to debate your absurd mocking of any hypothesis that threatens your “committment to a particular reality.”

    What observation did someone make about the atom to postulate that it wasn’t the smallest particle that was indivisible? Wasn’t it a scientific fact that it was? Why would anyone ever contradict a scientific fact?

    My conclusion is that if someone were to isolate the energy of consciousness and “prove” that it existed apart from the measureable chemical energy of the brain, you would call it witchcraft or liken it to “intellectual double-speak.” I also find it interesting that you have lached onto particular points that I’ve made that you feel you have a “cohesive” argument against, while you dismiss factual evidence I’ve presented altogether by not responding to it (because there isn’t one…without sounding ridiculous) or just simply not accept it as evidence. How convenient.

    I’m very happy that persons such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and (your favorite) Einstein and Hawking did not cave in when people, even the whole of the then established scientific community, dismissed their proposals as lunacy, heracy, and unscientific. Many of their “observations” were considered made up, not scientific or just missing. Some of their theories were not based on observations, but speculation based on available data. Some of them were only proven decades (or longer) later, and then supplanted by more comprehensive theories. (By the way…that is also a form of proposing a scientific hypothesis) I am not the only person who believes this, I merely have adapted my thinking to available evidence that you cannot accept. I consider myself in great company. Again, this is how science has progressed for millennia. I will not apologize that it does not meet your particular “standard of proof” in order to be considered possible.

19. NJDrummer | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply

    Regarding PHATMommy’s post regarding ghosts:

    It is true that most evidence has been anecdotal, however, other evidence exists as well. Investigations have recorded unexplained hot/cold spots (sometimes in the shape of a ball and sometimes humanoid in nature) using thermal imaging. DVR’s have recorded movement of “dark masses” or shadows that the naked eye did not see. Electromagnetic frequency detectors have recorded unexplained significant fluctuations in areas where ghosts were reported to have been seen. Digital audio tapes have recorded nosies and voices that were not heard by investigators while investigating. It seems as though something that is “not there” is able to cause physical changes in the environment. Of course many thousands of people over the past 2 centuries have had personal experiences along these lines as well. If these physical changes were not measured, one could say that all of those people have shared a common delusion. Since the investigators (in many cases) are skeptics intent on finding natural causes for reported phenomena, they have no personal interest in validating a report. I guess we’re left with delusional hardware, or there is some validity (even if it’s one) to these reports. Intersting point PHATMommy…
    NJDrummer

20. Trixie | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply

21. Robin Sampson | Dec 20, 2007 | Reply

    Your spirit goes to heaven or hell. There are no other choices.

22. Elvie | Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    I now live in the bible belt, but grew up in the northeast. I am often frightened by the religious dogma that the majority of people here base their lives on. How refreshing to see that there are people(and homeschooling people!) who do not center everything around a purported god. I have several homeschooling friends and am considering homeschooling myself. One problem we have found is that the overwhelming amount of curricula has a religious bend to it.

    God….Religion all made up by us humans as a coping mechanism. Sorry if this offends some, but do some research and the evidence if pretty conclusive.

    Life after death….or just dead, this is a debatable topic and the lively discourse on this blog and been most engaging. This is a topic my husband and I sometimes end up all hours of the night arguing, he being a more spiritual person and I more scientific minded.
    That said sometimes I do wonder if maybe the two can be interwoven together. It’s a nice thought to think that we get to maintain some form of energy, consious or unconsious after death. I think we are probably just coddling our hopeful little brains….but hey I am open to the thought (and hopeful myself) that after death a new experience begins. At this point in time I don’t think either theory can be proved or disproved though. So for now, I’m still more agreeable with Trixie’s train of thought, but I sure do like the idea of the whole we are one with the universe kit and kaboodle.

    For me the main question I wrestle with is what to teach my daughter. She is rapidly approaching the age of five and will soon be exposed to god, religion, and spirituality. Being a person who holds no strong beliefs myself I often wonder what I am supposed to tell her. Because of work schedules it is most likely that she will go to school probably til third grade, or maybe even longer. She is going to be in school with deeply religious teachers and students(I am an elementary education major, and the other students in my classes are total bible freaks…so this is not just a projetion). I don’t want her to be ostracized because of a lack of firm beliefs in the Christian institution. What do you tell your kid when it comes to this kind of stuff?

23. NJDrummer | Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    Elvie:

    I agree…the jury is still out in this issue (a point I’ve been trying to convey). I do not yet have any children, but I’m an elmentary education major as well. I’d guess the best course of action would be to explain that there is more than one view on the topic, arm yoru child with the ammo of information, and let them grow up to form their own conclusion. Hopefully science will advance to the point where we will have more answers than questions regarding this matter.

    Regards,
    NJDrummer

24. matty | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply

    this message is for elvie..you really want to know what to tell your 5 yr old daughter? tell her theres a god so she can go to the gates biotchh unlike her atheist mother. god and religion are made up to make humans feel good? wow…you have to believe in a creator… unless you created the world in that case i commend you

25. NJDrummer | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply

    This is a topic with far-reaching implications and overtones which range from religious to scientific and many nuances in between. I wonder where any phrase with the word “biotchh” falls within that spectrum.

    Wow…enough said.

26. Gor | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    In response to Robin Sampson.

    The reason I have come to this site is honestly, I googled “quantum physics What happens when we die”. I have grown up in “Trinity based Churches” all my life, up to now. I have experienced Catholic, Baptist, Pentacostal, and numerous “Non-denominational” bible based Churches. Also studying the different “interpretations” of the bible, ie King James, New King James, New International Version, New American Standard, etc. I am now opening my mind to research the scientific side to come to a more concrete, educated, decision on my belief to coincide with my faith. I have experienced many great experiences as a Christian to say, personally, it was a great way to grow up. Now that I am a medical professional, I cannot ignore the fact that a lot of the “Church’s” teachings are based on what a “person” has written down claiming their “prophecies from God” of what God purpose for us as humanity.

    As a fellow Christian, assuming that is what you are claiming to be, your statement “Your spirit goes to heaven or hell. There are no other choices”, without explanation, whether it be biblical or scientific is close minded and embarrasing. To refute the obviously, fantastic, educated minds in this blog with an uneducated statement like that, is insulting and ignorant. It just proves to me that my feelings to research this area are more validated now.

    I will admit my education is not even remotely close to the ones in this blog, which is why I have come to the realization that I need to keep learning. My conclusions, up to this point, is that the problem with “Society” around the world, not just our small peice of Western Civilization, is based on governed “laws” (Society created laws, not scientific)and media, created by “Man”, in an attempt to control our every action. I have personally asked God to direct me to the truth of our existance so that I may understand exactly what that is without a “person” telling me flat out what to believe.

    To all of you in this blog, with the limited education I do have, the only statement that I have really appreciated up to this point is by NJDrummer in the following…

    “If someone says something that “sounds good,” please take the time to verify some facts on both sides of the issue and make your own objective decision rather than “fall in step” with a particular viewpoint or worldview.”

    I hope we can all agree with this point.

    Thank you, to all of you whom have dedicated their lives to education and research. Without people like you we would all still be drooling, mindless, beings, walking through life in oblivion.

    Gor

27. Gor | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    One more thing to NJDrummer.

    Nice response to “matty”. LOL!

    I have no idea who you are, nor do I necessarily agree with a lot of your statements, but I believe sitting down, and having a conversation with you, would be most educational and entertaining.

    Gor

28. Gor | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply

    Elvie,

    Well said. I am in a similar situation as you. I have no intention of home schooling, but my daughter is now 5 and I have a lot of the same questions.

    Gor

29. NJDrummer | May 3, 2008 | Reply

    Gor: I’m sure sitting down for a conversation would not be possible. However, whether you agree with my opinions or not is irrelavent. You are conducting your own research (hopefully using qualified resources and persons) and are developing your own opinion. No one can ask for more than that. As you continue your research ask yourself: “What types of molecules are thoughts made of?” Can anyone write the chemical formula for a thought? I can save you some research…no. The brain has been studies since we knew humans had a brain. Does anyone know where a thought comes from? No. As for physics, chemistry, quantum physics or biology…if you’d like to have any “discussion”…post your comments here and I’ll try to respond when I have time.
    NJDrummer

30. lance | May 3, 2008 | Reply

    What types of molecules are thought made of? The molecules that comprise neurons and neurotransmitters. The chemical formula for a thought? That’s sort of like asking for the chemical formula for a seed germinating. It’s a biological system in action, not the sort of thing you write a chemical formula for. But if hard pressed, you could describe using chemistry the multiple reactions chained together for neurotransmission. If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes. But if you’re again trying to insist that they’re literally separate, then I ask again show me evidence of thought existing where those the conditions for neurotransmission don’t exist.

    Just because it’s amazing doesn’t mean it’s mysterious, and just because it’s not mysterious doesn’t mean it’s not amazing.

31. NJDrummer | May 4, 2008 | Reply

    Lance:

    So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules??? Neurotransmitters are the vehicles for impulses of the brain. Although they may “carry” thought (remember I said MAY; more precicely information) from one part of the brain to another neurotransmitters are not thoughts. Similarly, gravity waves “carry” or transmit gravity, they are not however gravity.
    NJDrummer

32. lance | May 4, 2008 | Reply

    I had just said:

    “If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes.”

    And you followed that with:

    “So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules???”

    I think that exchange speaks volumes.

    Consider this. “Red” isn’t a thing made of molecules. But “red” _is_ the name we give to the internal experience of interactions between types of molecules (ones that reflect light of a certain wavelengths and ones organized into an eye-brain system). You can discuss “red” as not being the same as its physical substrata, but without them, there is no “red”. “Red” can be considered separately, but cannot _exist_ separately. Same with any other noun denoting a process or product consciousness. Some people wish it were otherwise, and I wish I had a million dollars.

33. NJDrummer | May 4, 2008 | Reply

    Lance,

    You’re right…our previous exchange does speak volumes. As for your current post regarding perception of color: that is not a good analogy. Basically what you’re saying is that if there is no mechanism for perception of color, then color does not exist. True. Same as the old “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” No, it doesn’t. Does that also mean if there were no life on this planet, Earth would not exist? That depends on your philosophical beliefs (and possibly your belief of intelligent life on other planets)However, the brain’s perception of outside stimulus through a sense organ is not the same as an internal thought that requires no external stimulus at all. In fact, deaf, blind children can learn to understand what “red” or “blue” is even though they’ve never seen it.
    NJDrummer

34. lance | May 4, 2008 | Reply

    No, that wasn’t the point of my analogy, and the so-called “tree falling in the forest” conundrum is only a conundrum because of ambiguity on the non-technical definitions of sound. The existence of earth is no more dependent upon our perception of it than the emission of red wavelengths from red objects are dependent upon non-colorblind animals looking at them. But _our perception_ of it _is_ dependent upon the existence of us as perceivers.

    My point with the analogy was that conscious processes require, at least according to ALL evidence, a particular type of functioning biology. True enough that perceptions and thoughts are not the same (which is why we use different words for them), but they do not differ in their dependence on an biological substratum, which is the issue in question.

    Much like a colorblind person being taught of the existence of the distinction between red and green, or much like you or me being taught about ultraviolet wavelengths, we can understand them from a third person perspective. But lacking the correct perceptual apparatus wired into our own brains, we will never perceive them. The conscious experience is independent upon the correctly functioning biological component, although the ultraviolet wavelengths themselves are not.

    You die, brain stops working, no more thoughts, no more perceptions, no more _you_, world keeps chugging along. That’s the simplest interpretation of all available evidence, and so obvious.

35. lance | May 5, 2008 | Reply

    Whoops! At the end of the third paragraph I typed “experience is independent upon” where I intended “experience is dependent upon”.

Post a Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Enable CommentLuv which will look for your latest blog post and link to it here. Please be patient while we find it for you.

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail