• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the soul is not dependent on brain activity

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I also believe consciousness survies death. My reading into various deathbed phenomena has given me sufficient grounds to maintain hope that consciousness continues after the demise of the physical body. Everyone knows about NDEs, but there are also many reports of terminal lucidity and veridical deathbed visions. Not to mention phenomena such as OBEs, apparitions, past life memories and so on.

People who insist that physical death extinguishes consciousness are pushing a dogma. I do not claim to know with certainty that an afterlife definitely exists, but I think looking into these phenomena gives us real hope that there may indeed be something there.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity. I believe your soul is the real you.
We know that consciousness is dependent on brain activity in the same way that we know that the coldness in a refrigerator is dependent on its material source.
Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal
The concept of the soul is the result of subtraction - a living body minus a dead body equals one soul.

When we see a candle burn then extinguish, we don't imagine that a flame entered it and then departed it. But when somebody dies, some imagine that an animating spirit has departed rather than being a product generated by a candle while it burns.

People like to think that might be the case with the flame of life if not a candle flame, because it offers hope of immortality for consciousness. A problem with that idea is that it has been coopted by the Abrahamic religions. In the hands of a priesthood, this immortal soul has become the hostage of a god that will decide its fate according to rules you have been "commanded" to follow.

The soul is a fiction. The word refers to the cumulative manifestations and mannerisms of an individual during life generated by the body and brain as the laws of physics orchestrate the dance of particles acceding to the pushes and pulls the four forces generate that we call life, mind, and soul/spirit.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I also believe consciousness survies death. My reading into various deathbed phenomena has given me sufficient grounds to maintain hope that consciousness continues after the demise of the physical body. Everyone knows about NDEs, but there are also many reports of terminal lucidity and veridical deathbed visions. Not to mention phenomena such as OBEs, apparitions, past life memories and so on.

People who insist that physical death extinguishes consciousness are pushing a dogma. I do not claim to know with certainty that an afterlife definitely exists, but I think looking into these phenomena gives us real hope that there may indeed be something there.
Pushing a dogma?

Claim your evidence promote your
religion as you wish.
Others are aware as perhaps you
should be, that in tarring others with your
own brush you put the lie to your claims.
As in that you just say things

"Real" hope? In anecdotes and wishful thinking.

Show us someone who " insisits" ( claims to know)
what follows death is ...nothing.

I will give you a billion and more who claim to know
its eternal life.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
We know that consciousness is dependent on brain activity just as the coldness in my refrigerator is dependent on its material source
Do we? Can you take us through the process in which consciousness arises from the brain (or any other physical process)? Where in the brain is consciousness located?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can you take us through the process in which consciousness arises from the brain
No. Do I need to in order to conclude that consciousness is dependent on the brain? I don't know how matter generates a gravitational field, either, but I know that the field is generated by and thus dependent on matter.
Where in the brain is consciousness located?
I don't know. Descartes suggested the pineal. Again, is that relevant? When brains lose power, they lose consciousness just as a refrigerator that loses power loses coldness. That's what is meant by dependency.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Pushing a dogma?
Yes. Materialist atheism is belief system like any other. Many preach it with the same degree of dogmatism as the 'religious' people they often decry.

Claim your evidence promote your
religion as you wish.
Others are aware as perhaps you
should be, that in tarring others with your
own brush you put the lie to your claims.
As in that you just say things
My post promotes no particular religion. It makes no definite claims about what specifically happens after death. It states only that I think there is good reason to hold to a tentative belief in the survival of consciousness after death. That you take such exception to my statement about materialist dogmatism says far more about you than it does about me.

"Real" hope? In anecdotes and wishful thinking.
You could (in a spirit of open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity) explore the phenomena I have mentioned. You could open yourself up to the possibility that reality may not be what you think it is. You may come to a different conclusion than I have, but to simply accuse me of wishful thinking is hardly fair. You know nothing about me or my philosophical/spiritual journey.

Show us someone who " insisits" ( claims to know)
what follows death is ...nothing.
There are people in this very thread claiming such certainty.

I will give you a billion and more who claim to know
its eternal life.
And if what I suspect is the case is indeed the case, you and many others will be shocked the day you learn that those billions were right.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
No. Do I need to in order to conclude that consciousness is dependent on the brain?
In order to counter a claim that it is not, I think you do. That's not to say the initial claim shouldn't be accompanied by evidence of process as well.

There is simply no point in discussing what consciousness is dependent upon or if it is dependent on anything at all without understanding the process. Otherwise, it's just a case of, "No it isn't"..."Yes it is"..."No it isn't"..."Yes it is."
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?
Even software needs the platform of the hardware to function. The soul, memory, identity and personality as i understand it would be dependent on God to place it in a new body in the next life when overtaken by death in this life. There is no consciousness of being for the salvaged during the "sleep of death".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'd say consciousness is dependent on brain activity in general, and certain outside factors can affect it (illnesses, brain damage, etc).

As to whether there's a soul, I feel it's a question that for myself, I can only speculate on through philosophy.
A person can believe whatever they want. What matters is if they can show that what they believe is correct. How are you going to support your claims?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
A person can believe whatever they want. What matters is if they can show that what they believe is correct. How are you going to support your claims?

I'm a little confused, here. I was on the side that consciousness is dependent on brain activity. All I have to say to prove my claims, is to say "look to science". And I even provided an example in my post about how illnesses and brain damage can seem to affect consciousness.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes. Materialist atheism is belief system like any other. Many preach it with the same degree of dogmatism as the 'religious' people they often decry.


My post promotes no particular religion. It makes no definite claims about what specifically happens after death. It states only that I think there is good reason to hold to a tentative belief in the survival of consciousness after death. That you take such exception to my statement about materialist dogmatism says far more about you than me.


You could (in a spirit of open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity) explore the phenomena I have mentioned. You could open yourself to the possibility that reality may not be what you think it is. You may come to a different conclusion than I have but to simply accuse me of wishful thinking is hardly fair. You know nothing about me or my philosophical/spiritual journey.


There are people in this very thread claiming such certainty.


And if what I suspect is the case is indeed the case, you and many others will be shocked the day you learn that those billions were right.
There may be "materialists atheist preachers"
such as you suggest.

Notice btw your cute little tu quoque?

And your absurd fallacy of gross overgeneralizing
is only highlighted by your mentioning such.

And that your own thinking is so dogmatic that this
theoretical aberration is all there is.

There is nothing "dogmatic" in having a functioning
woowoo deterctor. The religious tend to have faulty ones.

Though I'd guess that educated Christians who are not
invested in self deception will also be very skeptical
of the outlandish claims of the outta- body claimants.

Your finding "good reason" is exactly wishful thinking.

And of course the woo woo fans accuse those who dont buy into their chosen ( flying saucers, astrology, whatever)
of not being open minded.

What a jumble.

Oh, almost forget. What if your so called research actually
proved there is this soul ?
What does that do to faith?


But the last but, the "wait and see Ii was right
all along. " so lame.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm a little confused, here. I was on the side that consciousness is dependent on brain activity. All I have to say to prove my claims, is to say "look to science". And I even provided an example in my post about how illnesses and brain damage can seem to affect consciousness.
Yes, one can show how physically altering the brain alters the person. There is no test for a soul that I know of.

I am not dismissing the soul out of hand. I am not accepting the existence of one either. My post was telling the OP that the burden of proof was upon him.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is simply no point in discussing what consciousness is dependent upon or if it is dependent on anything at all without understanding the process.
I don't agree.

I bought an interesting piece of dynamic art several years ago - a circular piece with a continuously evolving lightning storm (plasma) in it looking something like this:

1693054518792.png


Starting a few months ago, I noticed that late at night, it was barely flickering - perhaps once every four to five seconds and then out again. I also noticed that it became more active with sound. If I made a soft sound, it would fire for as long as the sound persisted. The TV made it more active. This device has no dedicated microphone yet was very sound sensitive. It behaved like a microphone. I knew of no mechanism for this phenomenon, but I knew that the intensity of the display was dependent on the ambient sound level. Was this not worth discussing?

Also, should I doubt that the visual was dependent on the audio? There was a clear cause-effect relationship despite the absence of a known mechanism. I don't mean that a physicist couldn't answer what the mechanism was, just that *I* didn't know it and didn't need to know it to find the phenomenon a cause for wonderment and worthy of my consideration and now discussion.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
There is no soul. It's a farce in light that each and every organism is just a composition of atoms.

It is a far way from noting that every organism’s body is composed of matter to concluding that it is nothing but atoms. Science in the hands of its fans often gets misused. In the same way the part of your post I quoted consists of letters but is not therefore devoid of meaning .. and a body composed of matter may yet also give rise to what is known as a soul. What is it you think a soul is that it cannot possibly be compatible with a material body?

In many cases, the sciences are completely garbage at addressing existential questions of life and living - the bread and butter of metaphysical topics like the soul.

Whenever someone starts by assuming that every question must be approachable by the methods of science it is time to put your precious things out of reach until the impetuous have moved on.

Shakespeare, much literature but all poetry will not be safe. Psychology may not be thrown out by the hooligans but it will be dumbed down into what can be measured. Religion will be vilified without an honest effort to define its terms, insisting that those who use them do so .. except on the terms dictated by science.

It is amazing how badly something as useful as science can be misused in the wrong hands. The worst Christian apologists I meet use proof texting to support their own biases. Sometimes it seems the angry atheists who finally leave their fundamentalist religion adopt science as the new ‘scriptural’ basis for proving the rightness of their own biases.
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Yes, one can show how physically altering the brain alters the person. There is no test for a soul that I know of.

I am not dismissing the soul out of hand. I am not accepting the existence of one either. My post was telling the OP that the burden of proof was upon him.

Understandable.

To clarify - I wasn't trying to broadly define or prove the soul, but rather to explore its possible meanings. I think the concept of soul can be useful in philosophical discussions, much like using a term like "heart" to describe things can be, but I don't necessarily agree with the theistic views on it.

I was expressing my opinion on the value of talking about "soul" in a philosophical sense and when I talk about philosophy, not endorsing any specific doctrine or belief.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I see. I'm sorry to hear about that.

I won't keep secrets, and would say that I'm a bit of a difficult person, myself... I'm Gender Fluid, which can mean different things -
I guess I'm gender rigid. But it occurred to me a good name for a beer is Gender Fluid.
but in my case, is a bit like non-binary (even in physical appearance, as of late). And I can be just a touch high maintenance.
I think can happen without intention.
As for relationships, I'm single, I was in a crazy relationship a few months ago. Guy reminded me of Winnie the Pooh. He was good to me, but a little bit vanilla, and would kind of go back and forth of being highly interested in me, to being hardly interested at all. In other words, "hot and cold".
That's not good. There's a lot of compromise in relationships and I think there's a sorting out of priorities as time goes on.
I'd say those are all good questions. Sometimes, I'll entertain ideas philosophically even if I don't think they're plausible. I feel it makes good practice of the mind, much like doing a crossword puzzle.
I agree as long as the mind can stay rooted in what is demonstrably real versus our temptation for illusion and absorbtion in symbolism.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't agree.

I bought an interesting piece of dynamic art several years ago - a circular piece with a continuously evolving lightning storm (plasma) in it looking something like this:

View attachment 81312

Starting a few months ago, I noticed that late at night, it was barely flickering - perhaps once every four to five seconds and then out again. I also noticed that it became more active with sound. If I made a soft sound, it would fire for as long as the sound persisted. The TV made it more active. This device has no dedicated microphone yet was very sound sensitive. It behaved like a microphone. I knew of no mechanism for this phenomenon, but I knew that the intensity of the display was dependent on the ambient sound level. Was this not worth discussing?
Not the same as what we are discussing here, unless you are somehow suggesting the plasma's existence depended on the art and could not exist separately from it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Understandable.

To clarify - I wasn't trying to broadly define or prove the soul, but rather to explore its possible meanings. I think the concept of soul can be useful in philosophical discussions, much like using a term like "heart" to describe things can be, but I don't necessarily agree with the theistic views on it.

I was expressing my opinion on the value of talking about "soul" in a philosophical sense and when I talk about philosophy, not endorsing any specific doctrine or belief.
I agree pretty much with @F1fan on soul.

 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I agree pretty much with @F1fan on soul.

Many years ago a buddy of mine and me were at a bookstore and they had a whole table with books new age books that deal with the soul in some way. Chicken Soup for the Soul, The Seat of the Soul, etc. Must have been about 20 titles in stacks. So as we are leaving my buddy points to the table and he had gotten several copies of a James Brown biography and included it on the table. It was so funny I lost it.
 

chinu

chinu
I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?
Who's thought ? Soul ?or Brain ? or Mind ?
What do you think ? and made you think ? :)
 
Top