If its undetectable, its no wonder the search failed. Why the brain does what it does is still largely a mystery to science.
But you've already admitted that it is detectable by physical means, because it "interacts with" a physical brain. Science can therefore study that interaction, if it takes place, because it has access to physical brains. It is a well-known property of nonexistent things that they are undetectable, so that is a hypothesis worthy of consideration.
The subtle bodies influence and control the physical brain so I am postulating the connection youre asking for...
Indeed. I am not questioning that you are postulating it. The question at hand is whether your postulate is reasonable.
As I explained in previous post we are composed of five sheaths, the outermost one being the gross physical body. Each sheath from there operates at successively higher vibratory rates. These vibrations transmit downwards and upwards through the sheaths...
First question: what makes you think this? A lot of sutras that someone composed in ancient times? How would that person come to know any of this? Second question: what makes you think that these "sheaths" are undetectable, given that we have clear access to one--the body--which "resonates" with the others? That is exactly the kind of thing that the scientific method is designed to investigate. The failure to find those other "sheaths" does not mean that they don't exist, but we do know we will fail to find them if they don't exist. So the burden of proof is on those who assert that they do exist. What evidence of their existence can you provide?
So the physical brain operates in vibrational harmony with the sheaths above. So, youre asking why this is not detectable at the physical level...
I just want to be crystal clear on this point. No. I'm not. You have already admitted that the physical brain "operates in vibrational harmony" with the sheaths above, so we should be able to see the "vibrations" in the physical brain. They are physical, but nobody can detect them. So why is that?
The answer is because physical scientists perceive it as normal physical brain activity.
OK. Let's go with that kind of logic: "Mommy! Mommy! There's a monster in my closet!" "No, dear. There's just a coat in your closet." "Mommy, you just perceive it as a coat! It's really a monster!" Of course, she really regretted her words when the coat devoured her child that night.
But it is these higher sheaths that determine why we have the thoughts we have. Without this higher activity we be in a comatose state. I found this one quick discussion on the internet:
3. Manomaya kosha
The third layer takes us into the deep recesses of the mind, emotions and nervous system. While modern science has developed an acute understanding of the inner working of the brain, the mind, motivations and emotions still retain a mysterious quality. The manomaya kosha makes up the control panel for the emotional and physical body, sending messages through your brain synapses and the central nervous system. Its this layer where you move from physical feeling and rhythm to emotional feeling.
George, you can find a lot of such discussions on the internet. Why do you simply accept them uncritically? Scientists say stuff all the time that is wrong. The thing is, you can always test their claims for validity. How do you test this kind of claim?
As you said above to me Nonsense.
You judged one of the grand debates of mankind over, and not surprisingly settled in your favor.
Sorry, but I'm going to repeat myself. Nonsense. You have nothing to offer us other than your own personal credulity. Why should we accept that? What drives you to believe it?
I noted the fundamental errors of the OPs points in one of the earliest posts on this thread.
I don't believe that. Can you cite the post where you did that? I've read every post you've made in this thread, and none of them have exposed "fundamental errors" in the OP's points. That's not to say that you didn't say things that you erroneously thought exposed those errors, but they are only errors to those who jump to the same conclusions that you have, based on information that you have decided to accept (apparently) uncritically.
How far the brain and the soul can be considered separate is something I honestly can't answer. Furthermore I've yet to settle on any particular definition of "soul" and so I can't say whether I do or don't believe in one. The soul and what becomes of it after death is a subject so nebulous I don't think any of us can honestly discuss it with any real degree of certainty.
Fair enough. You say here that we can't discuss an undefined concept, and I agree with you.
This, incidentally is why I don't necessarily buy into the argument that when the brain dies, you're gone. It strikes me as being presumptuous in the extreme. It's basically akin to saying "We've worked it out now. You can all go home." Plenty of people have shown that attitude in the past and plenty of them have later been proved wrong.
This is a good point. However, you have yet to address the points raised in the OP. What is it that you expect to remain after brain death? We can easily see a correlation between brain activity and every mental function. We can even take pictures of brain activity that correlate with specific thoughts. So why should we believe that such thoughts can occur independently of brain activity? Logically, they can, but the empirical evidence suggests it is unlikely. So, what remains after brain death? Memory? Emotion? Moods? Calculations? All correlate with easily-detected brain activity.
Here's my take on it: Life is chaotic, complicated, unjust and mysterious. Why expect death to be any easier to figure out?
Because we can observe how changes to the brain affect mental behavior. Therein lies the problem for those who would assume that mental activity continues after brain death.
