Originally posted by Soulman
No one said that the normal biological functions of the brain are not necessary for the expression of a healthy sense of self. I am assuming that all parts of the brain are there for a reason. I am also assuming that some concept of self existed prior to the brain injury. This is the self we are discussing, not a lobotomized vegetable.
I don't know if you understood what I was saying. Your concept of the self (and correct me if I am not describing what you believe) is that there is a non-material source for our self -- a spirit or soul, which inhabits our body, and merely interfaces with our biology through the brain. Is that accurate? Perhaps you can correct me.
My concept of self is that it is (1) Determined partly by genetically inherited traits -- genes that control hundreds of factors about your personality are inhereted from your parents, (2) Determined partly by your social experiences as you grow and live life, (3) partially determined by your health and by lifestyle factors, and (4) is constantly changing and evolving as your brain's neurons form new connections and store memories
I base my idea of self on what science has discovered and verified. I base it on scientific journals and college courses I have taken.
By contrast, you base your notion of self on traditional religious and philosophical models that are not cannot even be demonstrated.
No one’s disputing how the brain works, or that neurons don’t exist.
I haven't accused you of saying those things.
You’re arguing with a conclusion as your starting point. You’re saying, this is how the brain works, therefore God (or in this case a personalized soul) is not necessary to the brain, or as an explanation of self or anything else.
Actually, I did not come to my conclusion as a starting point. I USED TO BELIEVE in tings like spirits, souls, and stuff. As I became more educated, went to college, and studied various sciences, I was forced to accept certain conclusions. I also had some friends who had to deal with mental illness, and whose treatments I had the opportunity to observe. The effects of various therapies and drugs on their personalities had only one logical conclusion -- that your "self" is easily altered by chemicals and dietary input. Also interesting is the dramatic changes in personality that peopl with non-mental illnesses like diabetes have when their blood sugar goes up and down. Too much sugar or too little sugar in the blood can make some people act totally insane and incoherent. All of this knowledge forces me to conclude that the "self" HAS TO BE controlled and influenced by the physical factors of your brain and body, and therefore, the product of your brain's activity. (now I know this seems too brief, but I'm tryng to be oncise to save space)
The idea that a spirit or soul is a vital part of anything (1) Has yet to be substantiated, (2) Is not a proven fact, (3) has no basis in scientific fact, and (4) Doesn't help fill any gaps in knowledge. as such, we go back to Ockham's razor.
You cannot prove that God hasn’t created the brain, or that our sense of self ends at biological death.
Yes, but you cannot prove that God created the brain, or that our sense of sel continues after death. All of the best scientific research we have available suggests what I have been saying. We do not have a single shred of evidence that your self continues after death, except in the form of anecdotes and folk tales. That's not scientific evidence.
You can’t prove it, so there’s no logical reason why you should “believe” it.
I can't prove a lot of things that I believe. For example, I cannot prove that the sun is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth. I cannot prove that Julius Caesar was a real man. I cannot prove that I love my parents. I cannot prove what the speed of light is.
What I can do is SEARCH FOR ANSWERS to these questions, and read how other people have determined them. I can then read magazines, books, newspapers, and inquire how other people came to their conclusions, and why it is logical for me to accept these facts. For example, I never took the time to triangulate the position of the sun in the sky on the winter and summer solstice from 2 distant locations, then use a mathematical formula called triangulation to calculate what the distance of the sun should be, but lots of other people did, and they documented it. In fact, we have even more modern ways to triangulate the distance of the sun now. I may not be able to prove that Julius Caesar was a real person, but I can read multiple histories of the Roman Empire from various authors, go to museums to see ancient manuscripts, compare notes, look at ancient Roman coinage with his picture on it, see a statue of his likeness, and such, or just read what all the experts have found.
I can either go out and spend all of my time figuring out everything for myself, OR I can take experts' opinions to fill in the gaps, and not bother to question everything unless I find a discrepency. If every scientist had to start from scratch and learn everything that we know for themselves, we would never have any new knowledge.
You can’t SEE it, so you don’t believe it, because you are a philosophical materialist, not because God or soul-self are not theoretical possibilities, but because you’ve already made up your mind that they don’t exist. That is the fanatical element of your position.
What you call "fanatic", I call "a reasonable position to have, considering the evidence I have found."
As I said -- I did not come to my conclusions first, then look for scientific evidence to back it up. I studied science and history, and GRADUALLY came to my conclusions, over a process that took many years.
