Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate [View all]dmallind
(10,437 posts)3. So it's just a coincidence that brains do rot and that all consciousness 100% correlates with brains
in an unrotted state? I know the "other ways of knowing" fans try to postulate some kind of non-neurological consciousness but it has a)never been demonstrated b) flies in the face of everything we do know about brain function and c) ignores the data that all fully functional human brains have a consciousness and no human consciousness has been demonstrated in a dead human brain. That's a mighty tough coincidence to overcome if you want to posit a post mortem human consciousness, corporeal or ethereal, that survives a rotted brain surely?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Are you telling me that brains decomposing, or "rotting," after death isn't backed up by science?
eqfan592
Apr 2012
#2
So it's just a coincidence that brains do rot and that all consciousness 100% correlates with brains
dmallind
Apr 2012
#3
This from the one who practically worships Sheldrake's work, and dismisses criticisms made of him?
darkstar3
Apr 2012
#10
So that wasn't you on DU2 continually talking about consciousness as an "epiphenomenon"
darkstar3
Apr 2012
#12
I think, therefore people piss me off. It's a close enough definition to work with.
darkstar3
Apr 2012
#15
Ultimately an absurd debate. If one believes in god, then one believes in a being that...
Moonwalk
Apr 2012
#4
Science alway admits to "not knowing" what it doesn't know. It's religion that refuses to admit...
Moonwalk
Apr 2012
#17
Imagine my remorse at losing your respect. Allow me to try and win it back....
Moonwalk
Apr 2012
#20
if you could only say, "some religionists say," we could have a conversation.
Thats my opinion
Apr 2012
#28
I didn't say "religionists." I said "religion" and I didn't say "atheists." I said science....
Moonwalk
Apr 2012
#49
I never said anything about God being a "super human magician." That was your statement
darkstar3
Apr 2012
#57
You know, the more I read your response to my post, the more absurd it becomes! I mean really....
Moonwalk
Apr 2012
#52
George Pell was Bishop of Melbourne when i taught at the Melbourn University of Divinity.
Thats my opinion
Apr 2012
#18