XPost: alt.paranormal.reincarnation   
   From: duke_of_diddly@hotmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:04:28 -0400, Ether  wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:26:57 -0400, Ukes    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:29:41 GMT, "Steve S."    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>If "soul" = "consciousness", then we lose our soul every night when we are   
   >>>unconscious. That's not it--soul must be something more basic than   
   >>>consciousness.   
   >>>   
   >>>Steve S.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>I think you're oversimplifying sleep.   
   >>   
   >>Scientists who are attempting to find the neurobiological basis for   
   >>what they call self-consciousness do so, in part, by comparing how the   
   >>brain funtions in the two states when we have self-consciousness   
   >>(self-awareness) - which is when we are awake and when we experience   
   >>dreaming sleep - with the one state in which we do not experience   
   >>self-consciousness - which is dreamless sleep. Based on the research   
   >>of neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinas and others, there is a hypothesis   
   >>that self-consciousness is related to brain waves that are coupled   
   >>between "oscillators" in the thalmus of our brains (the intralaminar   
   >>nuclei and another "family" that connects neurons in the thalamic   
   >>nuclei).. During wakefullness & dreaming sleep, these "oscillators"   
   >>are coupled, but during dreamless sleep, they become decoupled.   
   >>   
   >>What do folks think their "souls" are, and where are those "souls"   
   >>while we're in dreamless sleep?   
   >>   
   >>Jerry   
   >   
   >In metaphysics, it's theorized that everything proceeds from pure,   
   >clear consciousness.  Buddhists call it the pure light, void, or   
   >emptiness because it is beyond anything and all things that could be   
   >used to describe it.  It approaches non-duality in which no   
   >comparisons can be made.  It is all One.  It is awareness that   
   >transcends thought or "mind" as we commonly know it.  Our "waking"   
   >consciousness is actually the lower levels of consciousness and   
   >dreamless sleep is a time we refresh at higher levels.  But the higher   
   >we go in consciousness, the closer to emptiness or the void we become.   
   >   
   >There seems to be some relationship between brain waves and levels of   
   >consciousness.  Higher levels of consciousness are experienced when   
   >brain wave frequency is low, delta wave and below.   
   >   
   >These scientists attempting to find consciousness in biology appear to   
   >be determined to find a solution that fits a materialistic,   
   >mechanistic view.  But the relationship between consciousness and the   
   >state of matter, as reveled by quantum theory, contradict the   
   >materialistic, mechanistic view.  Brain waves seem more to be a effect   
   >of consciousness rather than the cause.  Much as vibrating air is the   
   >effect of music, but not music itself.  Of course, in a closed loop   
   >system, it can be hard to tell the cause from the effect.  But I think   
   >there is a vast amount of experiential evidence that supports the more   
   >metaphysic view(s) of consciousness.   
   >   
   >Many other scientists are starting to investigate alternative models   
   >and are finding much data that does not fit a biological origin of   
   >consciousness theories.  Most to these new theories (holographic,   
   >quantum, etc...) describe consciousness as being manifest as patterns   
   >of energy, but arising from some unknown higher level.  With all the   
   >"unknown" dimensions described by string or M theory, it just may fit   
   >this model.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   Traditionally, scientists have not been involved in searching for a   
   physical process in the brain that causes consciousness and they have   
   left questions concerning consciousness largely to philosophers (who   
   describe this area of inquiry "mind/body"). Sir Francis Crick, who has   
   in recent years searched for a neurobiological basis for   
   self-consciousness, however, has noted that philosophy doesn't have a   
   particularly good track record in explaining natural and biological   
   phenomena.   
      
   It seems that all of our mental experiences are dependent on physical   
   processes in our brains, and that our   
   self-consciousness/self-identity/mind/soul (whatever one wants to call   
   it) is dependent on neurobiological processes in our brain too. Does   
   this mean that our "souls" are caused soley by "materialistic"   
   factors? Maybe, but maybe not. Everything we see on a TV when we watch   
   a TV broadcast can be explained by electrical  processes within the TV   
   set, but what goes on within those TV sets doesn't  explain the signal   
   that is being broadcast. Maybe our "souls" need a functioning brain to   
   be appreciated in our dimension, just like a TV broadcast signal that   
   exists independently of the TV set, needs a TV set to be percieved.   
      
   Jerry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)