tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post8917338136495409449..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Dead as a Doornail: Souls, Brains, and SurvivalMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5513396818326508902011-09-08T13:09:03.743-07:002011-09-08T13:09:03.743-07:00I was trawling the internet to see if I could get ...I was trawling the internet to see if I could get a glimpse of some prelminary versions / chapters of the book to which you are apparently a contributor. The small snippet on this blog together with your discussion with (devil's advocate?), Paul Rinzler, was interesting but all too short. <br /><br /><br />The approach of saying that inconsistencies in the physical evidence will prove William James transmission theory of mind will certainly be lauded as valid by those who believe in the literal reality of near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. To these people, these experiences are this inexplicable inconsistency, and proof of this alternative transmission theory of William James. <br /><br /><br />I await any further discussions with interest.Gerald Woerleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15206081741730668440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14451493850902960722011-08-03T00:22:58.426-07:002011-08-03T00:22:58.426-07:00Here is a good start to the Pam Reynold's case...Here is a good start to the Pam Reynold's case then and NDEs in general- <br /><br />http://www.iands.org/old_site/nde_index/ndes/key_facts_about_near-death_experiences_3.html<br /><br />You can also read my discussion with Dr Woerlee on this case. I will be blunt Dr Woerlee is one of the few people who remotely attempts to explain the case with the dying brain. Keith Augustine has conceded he cannot explain this case and I have seem him quibble at break neck speed before.<br /><br />For a more in depth discussion on this case you can read the following:<br /><br />Light and Death by Michael Sabom<br /><br />Journal of Near Death Studies Volume 25, Number, Summer of 2007<br /><br />I can give you more sources if you so wish.<br /><br />I am seriously going to recommend you research this case before you comment more on it. It is not anecdotal at all. We know who the surgeon is, he has been interviewed many times, we have all the medical records. Until recently we could interview Pam Reynold's too. ( she died recently)<br /><br />You misunderstand the issue of hearing while unconscious. First Pam was under general anesthesia. Secondly she had earplugs in her ear constantly beeping at 98 decibels in order to monitor her brain activity. 98 decibels is the equivalent of a subway train 200 feet away from a person. <br /><br />Here is Sabom's description<br /><br />"The BAEP's (brain-stem auditory evoked potentials) are recorded by far-field techniques following broad-band click stimuli (100 usec rectangular pulse monophasic square waves) delivered via molded ear speakers (Fig. 2). Clicks of alternating polarity are used at stimulus levels of 90 to 100 dB (sound pressure level) at rates of 11 to 33/sec. The contralateral ear is masked to prevent bone-conducted acoustic crossover.<br /><br />Here is a brief description of it<br /><br />"Further, Steven Cordova, Neuroscience Manager at the Barrow Neurological Institute, who was the intraoperative technologist responsible for inserting small molded speakers into Robert Spetzler's patients in the early 1990s when Reynolds's surgery was performed, told me that after these speakers were molded into each external auditory canal, they were further affixed with 'mounds of tape and gauze to seal securely the ear piece into the ear canal' (S. C. Cordova, personal communication, October, 10, 2006). This 'tape and gauze' would 'cover the whole ear pinnae' making it extremely unlikely that Reynolds could have physically overheard operating room conversation one hour and twenty five minutes after anesthesia had been induced (p. 259).".<br /><br />Here own surgeon, Dr Spetzler says hearing should have been impossible during the surgery. As the man is a brain surgeon I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt with this issue . <br /><br />Lorber's explanation is obviously wrong for the following reason.<br /><br />Mathematically at a minimum a 95% brain loss must reduce neuron cells by at least 50 percent. Neuron cells are identified by production theory as making consciousness, therefore if production theory is to have any meaning we would expect a reduction in consciousness and ability by at least 50%. However as Lorber documented we have over 100 individuals known to have normal IQs who for all purpose brainless. While I cannot explain the data, it is quite obvious something else besides the brain is causing consciousness in those individuals. So for them production theory must be false. If a theory cannot count for all the facts, then the theory must be false.<br /><br />NDEs are hard to fit into the production theory because she should not happen at all when a brain is barely conscious ( and certainly barely conscious is being charitable, these people appear to be quite dead most of the times). Production theory would suggest when you remove all or almost of the traits necessary for consciousness consciousness would end, not become super consciousness as reported by NDers. Again, if a theory cannot count for all the facts, then the theory must be false.Kristoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16868744299989172597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25546803503171616782011-08-02T23:40:10.638-07:002011-08-02T23:40:10.638-07:00Notice that Lorber does not agree with the conclus...Notice that Lorber does not agree with the conclusion you guys are drawing. He thinks that it is the remaining functioning brain tissue that is responsible for the patient's capacities. He does not infer that minds don't need brain: The scans of the functioning brain tissue are unclear--"I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 or 150 grams, but it's clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms," asserts Lorber, "and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrocephalus." . . . "there must be a tremendous amount of redundancy or spare capacity in the brain. . . "<br /><br />As for hearing things when you are unconscious, phenomena like blindsight have made it quite clear that our brains detect lots of sensory input that does not make it to the conscious awareness level. <br /><br />You guys need to get clear on the different indicators of death and what can be inferred about them. <br /><br />Cardio pulmonary death occurs when no heart beat or respiration are detectable. But no detectable heartbeat does not equal no heartbeat, as many mistakes in the hospital have shown. Dreaming, hallucinations, and lots of other experiences that the fabrications of brain function can happen during CP death. Neural cells continue to metabolize and function with oxygen in the system. <br /><br />Brain death is declared with no reflex responses, no breathing, and no detectable brain stem activity. But same problem: failure to detect brain activity with crude, macro EEGs does not equal no brain activity. There are billions of cells in the brain and their electrical/chemical activities are far below the level that an EEG can detect. <br /><br />McCormick Death: the point at which all metabolic activity in all neural cells ceases. <br /><br />Some sort of controlled and confirmed evidence of subjective, conscious experience during a period of McCormick death would be valuable evidence for mind independence from brains. We don't have any evidence like that because brains don't recover from that. <br /><br />I haven't read the Pam Reynolds case, but I'm skeptical. Anecdotal reports from patients, doctors, and nurses are very often exaggerated, details are rearranged, there are embellishments, and so on. I can give you all an extensive bibliography on the double-blind, peer reviewed research about the unreliability of human memory if you want.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2985055503983653812011-08-02T21:41:45.860-07:002011-08-02T21:41:45.860-07:00Matt no has proven that the brain produces the min...Matt no has proven that the brain produces the mind, at best we have proven that the mind and the brain interact. That is all the data shows period. I will challenge you for one observation that cannot also be used by the transmission theory. Many a lab rat and lizard has had large parts of it's brains removed in an attempt the isolate the part of the brain which stores memory. It has not been found.<br /><br />However, I do 100% think cases from the Lorber study do falsify the production view. If missing 95% of the brain is not enough to falsify the view that the mind is produced by the brain then what is enough to falsify it?<br /><br />If someone holds to the production view after acknowledging the Lorber study then they are engaging in a faith based enterprise. It is absurd to believe the brain produces consciousness when we have 100s of literally brainless people with normal minds. If not, why not?<br /><br />So yes I think things such as NDEs, and the Lorber study effectively disprove the production view of consciousness.Kristoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16868744299989172597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83171458664722239882011-08-02T21:28:50.408-07:002011-08-02T21:28:50.408-07:00This is from the Lorber Study- http://www.rifters....This is from the Lorber Study- http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Science_No-Brain.pdf<br /><br />Lorber divides the subjects into four categories: those with minimally enlarged ventricles; those whose ventricles fill 50 to 70 percent of the cranium; those in which the ventricles fill between 70 and 90 percent of the intracranial space; and the<br />most severe group, in which ventricle expansion fills 95 percent of the cranium.<br /><br />Many of the individuals in this last group, which forms just less than 10 percent of the total sample, are severely disabled, but half of them have IQ's greater<br />than 100. This group provides some of the most dramatic examples of apparently normal function against all odds.<br /><br />So Matt is mistaken about his claim no one missing 95% of his brain has a normal IQ.<br /><br />Of course with NDEs we have the famous case of Pam Reynolds who was flatlined , and she heard and described the details of her surgery correctly. This is pretty impressive considered she was unconscious, under general anesthesia, had earplugs in her ear beeping at a constant 98 decibels and her eyes were tapped shut. Do not forget to mention she was flatlined.<br /><br />Dr Woerlee tried to make some feeble objections to this case, but I crushed him in November- <br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/3fslyn6Kristoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16868744299989172597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68660254047730494292011-08-02T21:18:01.400-07:002011-08-02T21:18:01.400-07:00Hi MickeyD. Thanks for thinking about this questi...Hi MickeyD. Thanks for thinking about this question with me so closely. Let me take a different approach because I don't think you really believe the claim you are making and I don't think you really think that the evidence you are citing supports it either. Here's the test. Your claim appears to be that brains are not necessary or needed for thinking or having a mind. So go to your local neurology department and tell them that you'd like to have your brain removed. Show them the evidence you are showing me, and tell them that this evidence clearly shows that brains are unnecessary for thinking. Just look at this guy in the study--he's getting by just fine without 90% of his. Tell them you'd like to drop the weight, or you'd like to keep your keys or wallet up there, or something. If this evidence is compelling evidence for your thesis, then just like your appendix is unnecessary and your tonsils, there should be no harm done by getting it removed, right? Do you think they will be convinced? Do you even think that Penny Sartori, or van Lommels, or John Lorber would agree that this is the implied conclusion? Maybe Dr. Lorber would be willing to perform the elective surgery on you, right? <br /><br />Now, seriously, do you think that brains are not required for mental functions? Do you really think that the cases you are citing are compelling enough counter evidence to the mountains of evidence that clearly and directly tie mental function to specific neural structure function?Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22407829129232168572011-08-02T17:27:08.309-07:002011-08-02T17:27:08.309-07:00oooops, that should be 1500g.oooops, that should be 1500g.MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75546274049923339962011-08-02T17:25:18.679-07:002011-08-02T17:25:18.679-07:00Thanks again:
Okay here goes:
"Now how do we ...Thanks again:<br />Okay here goes:<br />"Now how do we establish that the experience they are describing occurred between 10:00 and 10:05? Did he check his angel watch and it read 10:03 when he was floating?" I'm not sure about Angels but there are veridical accounts in which events are known to have occurred at a time when the person was flatlining and later corroborated. Pim van Lommels prospective 2001 study in the Lancet and more recently Penny Sartori from Southampton hospital in the UK. Additionally there are several well attested cases such as the "Dentures case" that show numerous recalled events during flat EEG. <br /><br />" I don't see a "95% of brain missing with no compromise in function" claim here." Lorber's own estimate is between 50 - 150g for the most extreme cases. This is 90% to 97% of missing brain matter (1500kg).MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69121666640069189462011-08-02T16:39:18.559-07:002011-08-02T16:39:18.559-07:00Thanks MickeyD. I don't think you're unde...Thanks MickeyD. I don't think you're understanding my point in 1. Suppose that someone has a flat EEG from 10:00 to 10:05. Then they are revived and come back to consciousness at, say, 11:30. Then they report, "I had a feeling of floating up a tunnel, I saw God, or. . . " or whatever. Now how do we establish that the experience they are describing occurred between 10:00 and 10:05? Did he check his angel watch and it read 10:03 when he was floating? Why trust his assertion? He doesn't know when he was flatlining. Why not think it was produced during the recovery period from 10:05 to 11:30? Why not think that hedging, fabrication, exaggeration, revisions, editing, and a lack of double blind testing led to a mistake? I can cite hundreds of cases where that's what happened? We can't just assume that if someone says they had an experience that it must have happened during the flat line period. In fact, we have a mountain of evidence that suggests that not when it happened.<br />On 2. I don't know the details of this case, but anecdotal reports from enthusiastic patients or paranormal enthusiast doctors are a non-starter. Show me a double blind, peer reviewed study with some semblance of scientific scrutiny and skepticism applied to it and I'll listen. <br />On 3, I don't see a "95% of brain missing with no compromise in function" claim here. And same as for 2. Instead of breathless anecdotes, let's see a real peer reviewed study or a serious critical analysis. The capacity of the human mind for self-deception for the things we want to believe is staggering, and many a doctor and scientist has fallen under the hypnotic spell of the pseudo science and paranormalism. Then when someone sober looks at it, the so called evidence--the hundreds or thousands of cases--evaporate.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10214056547295970822011-08-02T15:46:16.911-07:002011-08-02T15:46:16.911-07:00Hi Matt, my Ph.D is in chemical engineering, so I ...Hi Matt, my Ph.D is in chemical engineering, so I will bow to your expertise in this area, however for point 1: I know of several well attested cases of veridical OBE reports under a flat EEG (for example Pam Reynolds, a famous case from the early nineties).<br />Point 2: Agreed an EEG is a macro measurement, and we don't know about deep brain activity in flatline cases, but it is hard to imagine coherent well structured lucid experiences emerging from people with severely compromised neurological function as the result of anoxia. <br />Point 3: see here: an article published in Science :<br />http://www.ecognosis.org/show_news.php?n=7410MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82782376017004016912011-08-02T13:42:23.708-07:002011-08-02T13:42:23.708-07:00Thanks MickeyD. Three comments. 1. We don't h...Thanks MickeyD. Three comments. 1. We don't have evidence of people having experiences during the flatlined period. We might have some cases of someone claiming to have had the experience after they have recovered. But that's not sufficient to show that that's when it happened. 2. A flat EEG is not an indicator of no brain activity. It's an indicator that some very macro measurements don't detect anything. We'd need proof of experience during a period of complete cessation of all brain activity. But no one has ever come back from that. 3. You're just misinformed here. There are no "high functioning" humans with 95 percent of their brains gone. There are some in vegetative states with the majority gone perhaps.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47720057894599348972011-08-02T09:58:44.636-07:002011-08-02T09:58:44.636-07:00First of all, great article Matt. You make the poi...First of all, great article Matt. You make the point on the strength and persistence of the brain / mind correlation. There are, however, instances when this relationship falters. Firstly, there are lucid, well constructed NDE accounts during periods of flatline EEG's, in which it is difficult to imagine a materialist explanation. Also, there are several hundred cases of average to high functioning individuals with up to 95% of their cerebrums missing, as a result of hydroencephaly. Obviously there is high dependence of mind on brain, but there are enough examples that indicate an extra cerebral source to mind.MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22992128520299266352011-08-01T18:57:24.530-07:002011-08-01T18:57:24.530-07:00"Damaging a part of the brain destroys a part..."Damaging a part of the brain destroys a part of our thoughts, eliminates a cognitive ability, or alters some personal or emotional capacity. Restoring the electrical, chemical functions of the brain renews the mental function". <br /><br />This does indeed present powerful evidence to suggest consciousness is somehow wholly a product of the brain. However to claim that this demonstrates that the self simply <b><i>cannot</i></b> therefore survive the death of the brain, is a step too far.<br /><br />There's the inevitable question begging going on here as those who are sympathetic towards some type of materialist metaphysic insist that the self (or strictly speaking the sense of self, since the materialist cannot believe in the existence of a proper substantial self) is simply the <i><b>sum</b></i> of various cognitive abilties, emotions, interests, memories etc.<br /><br />No these do not survive. They largely don't survive from childhood to adulthood either.<br /><br />But I don't want to reinvent the wheel here. I explain all in my essay at the following link:<br />http://existenceandreality.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Another thing to bear in mind is that whilst the self operates through the brain, then a brain which is functionally impaired will result in impaired mental states. But after death the self doesn't operate through the brain so <i><b>cannot</b></i> be subject to any impairment. So it doesn't seem the author of this blog fully understands the filter hypothesis of the brain here.<br /><br />Nevertheless, to reiterate my point, I do agree that mind/brain correlations in and of themselves provide powerful evidence that consciousness is ontologically dependent on the brain.<br /><br />However, at the end of the day, I think this evidence has to be outweighed by other considerations eg the fact we would have to relinquish the common-sense notion of the self which is more counter-intuitive than anything could possibly be (see my essay). Also there is a huge amount of evidence which points to survival.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16545705991492282302011-07-31T16:07:02.541-07:002011-07-31T16:07:02.541-07:00Haven't you all heard? We are but holographic ...Haven't you all heard? We are but holographic projections of ourselves. Our entire perception of reality maybe nothing be an conversion of a 2D existence to a 3D perception through quantum entanglement. A atheist myself, I don't feel that the non-existence of God denies the existence of the soul. Could it not be argued that the soul is nothing more than the accumulation of orderly information that decays to chaos upon death. We are but machines to convert matter from one form to another just like the sun or plants. We are all chaos - eventually.heckraiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01460307599810514385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3747374703471549012011-07-29T13:40:44.552-07:002011-07-29T13:40:44.552-07:00I'm seriously concerned about why you are so p...I'm seriously concerned about why you are so passionate about trying to prove there is no soul. I almost sense a morbid sense of fatalism in your post as though it is your sincerest wish that is in fact no soul or afterlife to speak of. Perhaps you are comforted by the notion that you won't have live with yourself once you pass on? Perhaps your Religious upbringing has left you Jaded and defensive towards all things spiritual, when in fact the true enemy was the dogmatic and narrow minded fool who wishes to quantify the divine. Perhaps Scientific Atheist are much the same: Trying to Quantify the Universe to some measurable unit. Sounds to me as though you must have a real problem with control. Unfortunately for you, the universe is far more complex and mysterious than any system of quantification can give you. As for perception, we are constantly evolving our various views and ideas. Science is a good tool to help give our minds context and indeed reveal certain general truths, however making your Science into a religion is an exercise in futility the likes of which places you in the same category as the religious persecutors you so bitterly hate. Until you can explain how Quantum Entanglement operates and its underlying mechanism, please spare us your biased and naive ramblings as to the existence of the soul, consciousness and the underlying mechanisms of existence. CheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83052679563636565782011-07-27T09:52:23.081-07:002011-07-27T09:52:23.081-07:00Thanks FAC. These sorts of alleged "proofs&q...Thanks FAC. These sorts of alleged "proofs" of the immaterial soul are common. The problem is that no advocate of the autonomous mind these has managed to get one of these "serious pieces of research" published in an legitimate, peer-reviewed journal in neuroscience, psychology, or philosophy that I know of. Until that happens, there is too much higher quality empirical research and philosophy for us to be studying.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74362096266315117792011-07-27T07:33:16.281-07:002011-07-27T07:33:16.281-07:00I would direct readers of this article to read the...I would direct readers of this article to read the book "Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century". <br /><br />From Amazon.com's Product Description, "Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates_empirically_that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind."FACoolBreezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886170435393036507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53129665760181524602011-07-25T11:09:00.838-07:002011-07-25T11:09:00.838-07:00Matt,
Thank you for the thought-provoking post. ...Matt,<br /><br />Thank you for the thought-provoking post. A few comments:<br /><br />Firstly, concerning your premise #1, "Human cognitive abilities, memories, personalities, thoughts, emotions, conscious awareness, and self-awareness (in short, the features we attribute to the personal soul) are dependent upon the brain to occur/exist." I would extend this premise statement to include "in the physical world" as all of your supporting evidence relates to the mind and its intersection with our present physical reality.<br />This may not have final bearing on the state of one's mind without a physical connection or outside of a physical reality.<br /><br />Secondly, there are numerous documented cases of non-physical connections as it relates to the mind in this physical reality.<br /><br />Thirdly, there are also numerous documented, clinical cases where functions of the mind existed without a functioning brain being present. <br /><br />A thorough discussion/proof would have to take these cases into account as well. <br /><br />Kind regards.Darren C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00420603828251707968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36968075272935466012011-07-19T17:21:51.485-07:002011-07-19T17:21:51.485-07:00Compelling?Compelling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-19923207885049867512011-07-19T17:15:11.524-07:002011-07-19T17:15:11.524-07:00To fix an apparent contradiction in my earlier pos...To fix an apparent contradiction in my earlier posts, the only reason I am seeking help is because my friends want me to. But I do not think it will do any good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69875537042713417722011-07-19T16:57:58.455-07:002011-07-19T16:57:58.455-07:00I am not the same person now. While I still care f...I am not the same person now. While I still care for my friends, they find my lack of self preservation disturbing. I have come to accept that there is a part of me that has died. I have no illusions concerning the non-existence of a soul now. That is the only part of my experience that I am thankful for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16774762693269626472011-07-19T16:54:54.720-07:002011-07-19T16:54:54.720-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75382548786724726492011-07-19T16:45:22.375-07:002011-07-19T16:45:22.375-07:00"the entire personality may change."
Ye..."the entire personality may change."<br /><br />Yes. I am a different person since being mis-diagnosed and prescribed abilify. I am crueler, much like Phineas Gage after his head injury. I wish this were not so. I have aspergers, and it was mistaken for schizophrenia; we are already biologically predisposed to lacking empathy. I am not happy about this. I am currently doing what I can to repair the damage, and have for years. I do not think much of my safety as a side-effect of the brain damage. This was not the case before I was forced to take a mood stabilizer; horrifyingly--as I suffered brain damage--I told a number of doctors that I was experiencing hallucinations and loss of motor control, and was instructed each time to remain on the drugs without them checking the side-effects, which dictate immediate cessation if hallucinations are experienced. Each told me that I was imagining things, but did nothing more. I've spent the past few years undergoing physical therapy to re-learn how to hold objects and not twitch or run into walls. I suffered from tardive dyskenesia and have since recovered. Thankfully I do not have the desire to act hatefully toward my friends. I believe this is because my emotional attachments were strong enough to survive the chemicals--much like hearing a loved one while in a coma can bring a person to consciousness. However, I do not much go into public anymore because I cannot tolerate rudeness whatsoever. While I am just as good at philosophy and have re-gained my co-ordination I now crave conflict rather than avoid it. This disturbs me. Usually people back down, but, for example, I hit a cop that pulled his weapon on me, and assaulted a sherrif while in jail for assaulting the lead singer of OPM for being a pederast. They dropped the charges each time, but I was not concerned for my life. Instead, my focus was to make them suffer. I am not bothered by this, which is why I am seeking psychological assistance. I should not enjoy the suffering of others. The brain is extremely delicate, and should not be subjected to diagnostic rubrics. Only an expert should identify and treat disorders, not interns with a vested interest in having a clean professional record.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84763635705246953062011-07-14T12:26:04.209-07:002011-07-14T12:26:04.209-07:00Matt: Also, your analogy is extremely weak, if not...Matt: <i>Also, your analogy is extremely weak, if not blatantly inconsistent. Radio waves are detectable, minds are not. Radio waves interact with the physical universe (electro-magnetic), minds are not.</i><br /><br />That is not a tenable hypothesis. The body & brain are part of the physical universe, so this alleged radio-mind interacts with the physical universe.Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71622526542835248582011-07-11T09:50:54.333-07:002011-07-11T09:50:54.333-07:00Actually, Eric's response brings up a larger i...Actually, Eric's response brings up a larger issue of how unconsciousness could be integrated into the radio analogy.<br /><br />The radio analogy might be defeated just on that. I'll do some nosing around and if I come up with anything, I'll be back.Paul Rinzlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784526285150115571noreply@blogger.com