Mind is more than the brain

[Nicholas]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

Why does there need to be a separation between the three?

They all work together. The ghost works with the machine. The expression and interaction between the machine and ghost is our soul. So you cant have a mind without a brain ("behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules") and you cant have a soul without the mind.

Unless the daughter had no brain whatsoever, the human body has ways to compensate for the lost. It also depends on what part of the brain was missing. She wasnt brain dead, so the part of the brain that helps us learn, think, and act was still present. The mind just had to find alternative ways of adjusting that its peer can do because all the resources available to it.

As for the soul, thats strictly mind.

What can be beyond the mind when our nature and being are defined by it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

One thing is clear the mind is still brain dependent. You have to have something there, that's just the bottom line.

I still entertain the idea of the brain possibly being a receiver as opposed to a transmitter but as far as science can tell the receiver end is the more unlikely.

It still doesn't stop me from time to time thinking maybe the brain is sort of like electrons going through light bulbs in an electrical system with the knowledge that I'm using an inorganic example to explain a biological system.

I'm more likely to think it's perhaps a universal potential that requires a connection in order to make organisms work the way they do.

One thing I'm fairly convinced of is there's no transient soul or anything like that given that life seems to operate on "rails" by way of transference. Like using a candle to light a candle. Blowing out a flame and then using a match to light the candle.

 

[Reaper]

*Animist grumbling*

 

[David T]

*Animist grumbling*

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

I would bring up the sea anemone in this discussion but that would be kind of premature of me by a couple hundred years. After all we only figured out native Americans were actually human in the 20th century. These things take time.

 

[ChristineM]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

The article uses science to make some guesses, jumps and gaps sound more convincing.

 

[sun rise]

The article is not a scientific one. It reads like an amazing discovery but there's no real evidence to back it up. The publisher is a Christian group promoting a point of view.

I do believe that the mind is not limited to the brain, but pieces like this are unhelpful because there's no science in it.

If it's more than pure propaganda, I'd welcome to reference to a scientific paper. I doubt I'll see one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would bring up the sea anemone in this discussion but that would be kind of premature of me by a couple hundred years. After all we only figured out native Americans were actually human in the 20th century. These things take time.

View attachment 23005

The sea cucumber too.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The article uses science to make some guesses, jumps and gaps sound more convincing.

And does it badly...and in some cases makes quite incorrect statements.

I much prefer science that sticks to the scientific method, rather than making grand leaps of supposition in support of a cherished cause.

 

[George-ananda]

I like the article. I particularly liked this quote:

during the scientific Enlightenment, it became fashionable to limit inquiry about the world to physical substances: to study the machine and ignore the ghost. Matter was tractable, and we studied it to obsession. The ghost was ignored, and then denied. This was what the logic of materialism demanded.

 

[godnotgod]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

I think it is a pity that we feel it necessary to have to provide such evidence to support the spiritual experience. It just goes to show that, in spite of our great abundance of factual knowledge, most of us are still in the dark regarding our essential natures. Emphasis in the modern world on the authority of the intellect to tell us what the true nature of reality is, is misplaced, creating an imbalance in the human psyche, resulting in anxiety, stress, and a great deal of unnecessary suffering.

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage; when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man"
Forgotten source, but that is unimportant

 

[Mock Turtle]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

All this shows for me is that the brain tries to do the best it can with all that is available, even where what is left is drastically different from a normal brain. There are many instances of such adaptability occurring and where the brain rewires to cope for damage or other such things. Not an explanation for there being a soul at all, and the term could be replaced by 'personality' in most cases.

 

[ERLOS]

The brain is a super trooper great computer. But: no computer, no Internet reception?

 

[David T]

The sea cucumber too.

And starfish.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The fact my own computer breaks, does not mean the internet ceases to exist?

Won't do you much good without a computer. If nobody had any computers anymore, yeah. It's pretty safe to say the internet would cease to exist.

 

[ERLOS]

Won't do you much good without a computer. If nobody had any computers anymore, yeah. It's pretty safe to say the internet would cease to exist.

I erased that post because I thought the idea had been discussed. Sorry. But what I mean is, the internet is a reservoir of information that needs a receiver.

ERLOS said: ↑
The fact my own computer breaks, does not mean the internet ceases to exist?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I erased that post because I thought the idea had been discussed. Sorry. But what I mean is, the internet is a reservoir of information that needs a receiver.

ERLOS said: ↑
The fact my own computer breaks, does not mean the internet ceases to exist?

I see. I just see things more as being random potential rather than predetermined/compiled algorithms.

Otherwise I would think people would be able to find "store houses" of information out there. A bit like the idea behind the Akashic Field surrounded by pseudoscience and conjecture.

 

[ERLOS]

I see. I just see things more as being random potential rather than predetermined/compiled algorithms.

Otherwise I would think people would be able to find "store houses" of information out there. A bit like the idea behind the Akashic Field surrounded by pseudoscience and conjecture.

Carl Jung's universal subconscious mind. Plato's archetypal 'horseness'. Yes, the akashic field where every event is said to be recorded, accessible to the trained seer. But also just common intuition, prophetic dreams, deja vu, etc.

These unexplained things will be poo-pood by many here. But they do happen. There is much unexplained stuff.

I just see things more as being random potential rather than predetermined/compiled algorithms.

Yes

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I like the article. I particularly liked this quote:

during the scientific Enlightenment, it became fashionable to limit inquiry about the world to physical substances: to study the machine and ignore the ghost. Matter was tractable, and we studied it to obsession. The ghost was ignored, and then denied. This was what the logic of materialism demanded.

So...the "ghost" was intractable...meaning you could suppose its existence, but in no way demonstrate it.

Is that enough, do you really think, to move from "suppose" to "assert" its existence? And having done so, does it allow you to say anything whatsoever about what it is, how it works, how it comes to be, or anything else at all about it?. And if so....what?

 

[godnotgod]

The brain is a super trooper great computer. But: no computer, no Internet reception?

Ah, but the signal is still present, brain or no brain. Consciousness is non-local, contrary to both popular and scientific opinion.