"Anatomy of the Soul?"

#1
Has anyone here read, or heard of, the book "Anatomy of the Soul: Mind, God, and the Afterlife" by neuroscientist Stephen Goldberg? I recently came across the title, author name, and this description:

Is there a Soul that persists after death? Anatomy of the Soul: Mind, God, and the Afterlife presents a new approach to the subject, based on an in-depth analysis of how the mind arises from the brain. While the mind is integrally associated with the brain, Dr. Goldberg, a neuroscientist who has taught the subject of neuroanatomy for 25 years explains that there is an aspect of Mind that may continue despite the loss of the brain. The theory clarifies numerous issues within the field of consciousness study and provides insights into the nature of quantum physics, free will, God, and the question of immortality of the mind.
Unfortunately, that's about all I can find on the book. There are no detailed reviews, preview chapters, or helpful insights into the contents of the book, or Goldberg's ideas in general. All I could find was a mention that the book contains a transcript of a Deepak Chopra/Michael Shermer debate, and that Shermer lent a brief blurb to the book jacket.

So...anyone read this thing?

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Soul-Mind-God-Afterlife/dp/0940780852
 
#3
Is there a Soul that persists after death? Anatomy of the Soul: Mind, God, and the Afterlife presents a new approach to the subject, based on an in-depth analysis of how the mind arises from the brain. While the mind is integrally associated with the brain, Dr. Goldberg, a neuroscientist who has taught the subject of neuroanatomy for 25 years explains that there is an aspect of Mind that may continue despite the loss of the brain. The theory clarifies numerous issues within the field of consciousness study and provides insights into the nature of quantum physics, free will, God, and the question of immortality of the mind.
How the mind arises from the brain ??? : that's a typical materialistic act of faith , no scientific theory= bullshit= not worth reading= a waste of time, even though it claims that there is an aspect of mind that may continue despite the loss of the brain....= a paradox.
 
Last edited:
#5
How the mind arises from the brain ??? : that's a typical materialistic act of faith , no scientific theory= bullshit= not worth reading= a waste of time, even though it claims that there is an aspect of mind that may continue despite the loss of the brain....= a paradox.
Breathe. I understand that it's frustrating, but breathe. ;)
 
#6
How the mind arises from the brain ??? : that's a typical materialistic act of faith , no scientific theory= bullshit= not worth reading= a waste of time, even though it claims that there is an aspect of mind that may continue despite the loss of the brain....= a paradox.
There is not contradictory to assert that the mind arises from the brain and assert that the mind can continue after brain destruction. But I did not know that book.
 
#7
There is not contradictory to assert that the mind arises from the brain and assert that the mind can continue after brain destruction. But I did not know that book.
How can that happen when the brain "producer " of consciousness dies , Einstein ???
If the brain is a "producer " of consciousness , then the latter dies with it,unless some aspects of consciousness are not "produced " by the brain , but then , in this case , one has to say : "Some aspects of consciousness arise from the brain and some not " , instead of saying : " The mind arises from the brain , but some aspects of the mind may continue after death ..." .

Get it ?

P.S.: There is absolutely no way on earth, in heaven or hell , that the qualitative subjective personal qualia or conscious experiences that are also a matter of taste , memory , morality and ethics , aesthetics, ...can arise from the mindless quantitative impersonal biology or from biological evolution, let alone that biology or neurophysiology can "produce " any aspect of consciousness for that matter : correlation between consciousness and its neuronal correlates does not imply causation :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Even Penrose did admit that consciousness cannot be computational : otherwise, how can you or rather how can your physical mindless impersonal quantitative ...brain quantify or compute the qualitative personal subjective consciousness.?, no way .
 
#8
The soul has no anatomy ,not even in the metaphorical sense , by the way , no structure , no form , no weight , no volume, no length, no space , no time or space-time....

The soul is not a thing or a static entity either , it is a dynamic process....that's both non-physical and non-local, and hence it is irreducible to matter and cannot be confined neither within the brain nor anywhere else for that matter .............let alone that it can be a "property " of matter , "produced" by biology or neurophysiology , or emerge from biological evolution...

The soul permeates the body within and without , in every atom, molecule , organ ...

The soul is placeless, timeless, formless .............and immortal eternal.

That's why the soul takes off to another destination beyond this world when the body dies ,and then one would become fully conscious and awake alive , since the physical body and the physical world just limit or filter the expression of the soul.

When one dies thus , one becomes fully aware/conscious, fully alive ,so we are just asleep in life , death will wakes all up , soon enough.

On the other hand , one can become relatively fully awake and fully conscious/aware through attaining higher forms of consciousness that correspond to higher forms of reality by letting go of the false and illusory ego/mind that just limits and reduces the scope of the expression of the soul.

One has to die before death thus , if one wants to experience or have a glimpse of the ultimate nature of reality in this life before death.

Why remain asleep in life thus , why wait for death , while one can experience or have a glimpse of the ultimate nature of reality that's both within and without NOW in this life : the divine within , heaven within, Home within to which we long to return.

Our suffering in life comes from our separation from Home thus that's both within and without, beyond space and time.

Die NOW then before death to experience the real and eternal life NOW before death.

Why wait for death?

One does not become less by dying thus ...

Death is more , not less, not the end , just the "beginning" of the real eternal life.

In short or as a famous mystic said :

"Live in this world as if you had never set foot in here before , and in the next as if you had never left it ."
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

#9
How can that happen when the brain "producer " of consciousness dies , Einstein ???
If the brain is a "producer " of consciousness , then the latter dies with it,unless some aspects of consciousness are not "produced " by the brain , but then , in this case , one has to say : "Some aspects of consciousness arise from the brain and some not " , instead of saying : " The mind arises from the brain , but some aspects of the mind may continue after death ..." .

Get it ?
Tell me, were you produced by your parents? And if so, does it mean you'll die when they do?
 
#17
How can that happen when the brain "producer " of consciousness dies , Einstein ???
The children somehow emerge from their parents, but they continue after their parents are not present, for example. So, punctual dependence but independence after a while.

Chris stepped forward.
 
Last edited:
#18
The children somehow emerge from their parents, but they continue after their parents are not present, for example. So, punctual dependence but independence after a while.

Chris stepped forward.
Prior note :

Let's say , for the sake of discussion, that the mind does either arise from the physical brain , is identical with the brain or that it does emerge from the brain , ok ?

Then, the mind cannot but die with the brain as a result,since the mind cannot exist without the brain , in this case at least.

Having said that :

That was a stupid and an inaccurate "analogy or comparison", once again.
It takes 2 different parents, a male and a female ,unless one is Jesus, to 'make " a kid : we have 3 different "players " here, while consciousness and its physical brain are just 2 different and yet inseparable processes ( mind and matter are no substances as substance dualism claims they are : they are processes in fact.) .
When one claims thus that consciousness does arise from the brain, or does emerge from the alleged evolutionary complexity of the human brain= emergent property theory (Biological evolution can never account for consciousness by the way , let alone that consciousness can ever emerge from it , and hence even the theory of evolution must be reexamined as to include consciousness in it which is irreducible to matter or to biology= consciousness can never be a biological process thus.), or that consciousness is identical with the brain (materialist identity theory that's more of an act of faith than a scientific theory as pioneer neuroscientist Benjamin Libet explained, together with the most prominent neuroscientists ever such as Roger Sperry, such as Nobel prize winner John Eccles , such as Wilder Penfield....not to mention philosophers such as Karl Popper , Thomas Nagel and many others, today and yesterday : both lists are long.) ...when one claims the above thus , one either does equate the brain with consciousness as 1 and the same process , or considers consciousness as being just a property of matter or that of the brain = property dualism.



To claim the above thus is to either say that consciousness = the brain = 1 , or that consciousness as an alleged "property" of matter "emerges " from the brain exactly like electromagnetism ( The so-called consciousess as integrated information theory or consciousness as a property of matter theory do claim by the way that consciousness does arise or emerge from the fundamental physical fields such as electromagnetism lol : check out whether or not your tv set , radio device , mobile phone, microwave, fridge ....are conscious then . lol ) ,and hence that cannot be compared to "the parents and their kids analogy or comparison".

P.S.: Consciousness cannot but be a separate non-local and non-physical process that's irreducible to matter or to biology , that can never arise from the latter or from the biological evolution, let alone that consciousness can emerge from biology (emergent property theory ), since consciousness is no biological process .See above.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

#19
When one claims thus that consciousness does arise from the brain, or does emerge from the alleged evolutionary complexity of the human brain= emergent property theory (Biological evolution can never account for consciousness by the way , let alone that consciousness can ever emerge from it , and hence even the theory of evolution must be reexamined as to include consciousness in it which is irreducible to matter or to biology= consciousness can never be a biological process thus.), or that consciousness is identical with the brain (materialist identity theory that's more of an act of faith than a scientific theory as pioneer neuroscientist Benjamin Libet explained, together with the most prominent neuroscientists ever such as Roger Sperry, such as Nobel prize winner John Eccles , such as Wilder Penfield....not to mention philosophers such as Karl Popper , Thomas Nagel and many others, today and yesterday : both lists are long.) ...
I think the end of that sentence got lost. :(
 
Top