A Question for Christians
 

Through a medical marvel brain transplants have become possible. During the process the brain retains 100% of it's capacity and loses no memory or intelligence whatsoever. So with the exception of having to re-condition itself to its new body, the brain funtions exactly as it did before the transplant.

Suppose we take George's brain and put it in Harry's body; and Harry's brain and put it in George's body.

Questions:

1. Which one is now Harry and which one is George?

2. In which body does George's soul reside?

3. If the body that had Harry's brain before the transplant now commits a mortal sin, who's going to hell? Harry or George? (please specify which one is which).

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Ne feceris ut rideam.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Can you link me to a Latin dictionary please? (or translate)

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you link me to a Latin dictionary please? (or translate)

[/ QUOTE ]


"Don't make me laugh."

edit: http://miljokes.com/lqote.html

Just in Case...
 

...You're being sarcastic, I think they are legitimate questions. In order for Christianity to be true there must be a soul, right? I'm trying to find out where the soul exists.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Pretty sneaky to insult someone in another language [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But as I said in an above post, I think the questions are legit. I'm trying to find out where the soul is.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Interesting question.

Here's an analogy that's helped me understandit:

The soul is like a radio broadcast.

The brain is the radio. Just as a broadcast animates a radio, so too the soul animates the brain. Seeing as your brain is an essential component to your consciousness, I venture the soul would change bodies.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

I like your analogy. So if George's brain is put in Harry's body and now Harry's body commits a mortal sin, then George's soul goes to hell, right? But...

What if Harry was baptized as a baby and George wasn't? Does this count against Harry (who is in George's body)? Would he have to be baptized again? Or does that get too ridiculous?

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Daddy, don't play "who's on first" with scoffers.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Good luck, Lestat.
My experience is that xtrians will discuss the specifics or implications of their beliefs only in vague terms if at all. I can understand why, but it always seems strange from a rational viewpoint how they're not interested in, "Well, if I believe X then in situation Y, this must be going on."

In the few months I've been here there's been several cases where they just disappear after stating "I'm going to show from a factual basis...yadada". Then they run into questions that show the naked emporer and 'poof' they don't even finish the conversation.

I suspect it's because most non-theists had to do some hard thinking in order to leave their usually xtrian indoctrination so they've probed more of the obscure corners and of course they have nothing to fear losing by honestly tackling the tougher questions.
any thoughts while you wait for some comments, luckyme

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question.

Here's an analogy that's helped me understandit:

The soul is like a radio broadcast.

The brain is the radio. Just as a broadcast animates a radio, so too the soul animates the brain. Seeing as your brain is an essential component to your consciousness, I venture the soul would change bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the analogy.

I think that the idea of a soul is useful if the brain is understood as a nebulous, foggy processing device that makes decisions that are seemingly unpredictable. However, when you examine the smaller, more comprehensible components of the brain, the idea of a soul seems unnecessary.

I decide that I want to go get a sandwich. Hunger signals connect to neurons in one part of the brain which activate food-related activities, which connect to the frontal cortex which decides where to go (the dominant signal amongst the activities provoked wins, as is the modern understanding), which connects to the memory of getting your shoes, coat and wallet and go to the car, etc.

The individual nuerons are like tiny little wires filled with different chemicals. The transmission of the chemicals operates in a straightforward, predictable fashion. However, we have so many of these messages going off at once, and we completely lack the technology to observe them all and integrate them in a manner useful enough to predict the behavior.

Neurons, as we know them, behave more digitally than analogically (that is, they send out yes/no signals rather than gradient signals...but because many neurons are involved in each action, the number of neurons' signals determines the intensity).


So here's the thing: the soul, if it exists, must assert an influence over the observable nuerotransmission in each neuron. And if its influence is observable, it must behave in a manner that would contradict an otherwise mundane, causal explanation. If nueron n fires just because neuron n-1 fired, just because n-2 fired, just because n-3 fired, etc, there is no reason for a soul to exist; neurons are simply governed by cause and effect.

But if neuron n doesn't fire, despite getting firing input from n-1, then we've got something.

I only have a BA in psych and I can't argue this on a level much deeper than this, but I think those principles are pretty straightforward. And to be fair, science still has an awful lot to learn about the brain and human behavior [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sneaky to insult someone in another language [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But as I said in an above post, I think the questions are legit. I'm trying to find out where the soul is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to find a physical location for something that doesn't exist in the physical world isn't the best way to spend one's time.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]

So here's the thing: the soul, if it exists, must assert an influence over the observable nuerotransmission in each neuron. And if its influence is observable, it must behave in a manner that would contradict an otherwise mundane, causal explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the soul have shaped the neural network in the first place?

I don't subscribe to any of this though.. note I'm far from Christian

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Of course the souls switch. This is a ridiculous question.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the souls switch. This is a ridiculous question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call your bluff here David [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way the question is not so ridiculous if you look at more of the implications.

Is the soul fitted to the brain or vice-versa. The brain lives in symbiotic relationship with rest of the body, the boundary is by convention and not exactly defined. What happen when a piece of the brain is removed. The brain evolves ie there are physiological changes over time, is the soul evolving as well and in concert? Is schizoprenia a disease of the soul, or of the brains? Is Alhzeimer affecting the soul or the soul affecting the brain brain in that case. If there is no relationship between the brain and the soul from those physiological viewpoints, at what point is the connection made, how is it ended, what are the neccesary and sufficient causes, for that connection?

Nah, I call your bluff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the souls switch. This is a ridiculous question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Christians also placed some significance on "flesh and blood". [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Daddy, don't play "who's on first" with scoffers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone interested in learning about the soul is a scoffer?

Re: A Question for Christians
 

Ridiculous questions don't indicate a sincere desire to learn, but to start a debate about improbable hypothetical situations and "details". Subtle forms of scoffing are still scoffing. And David pointed out that there is an obvious logical answer.

If you are sincere, then google for Aquinas+soul+summa or soul+catechism+catholic for the catholic beliefs, and the appropriate terms for those of various other denominations.

But if these other guys want to let you jack them off, that's up to them.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

I think you're very right. I was raised Catholic and yes... I had to ask myself what I felt were some very tough questions. Perhaps more difficult was accepting the answers I inevitably came up with.

I do admire people like NotReady, BluffThis, BigDaddyO, RJT, etc., who seem quite willing to stay on message and don't run away. I just wish I understood the rationale they use.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the soul have shaped the neural network in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetics?

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think you're very right. I was raised Catholic and yes... I had to ask myself what I felt were some very tough questions. Perhaps more difficult was accepting the answers I inevitably came up with.
I do admire people like NotReady, BluffThis, BigDaddyO, RJT, etc., who seem quite willing to stay on message and don't run away. I just wish I understood the rationale they use.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you read through the treads on this forum you'll find lots of evidence that it the "asking myself some tough questions" is the part most xtrians haven't done. I'm not claiming their conclusion would be anything like mine, I'm always surprised that it's obvious they haven't 'been there' before. Here's an example from the recent "Athiests; a question. " thread. Two statements by the same poster just a couple posts apart -
[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's my view too by the way--that once I'm dead I no longer exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now, even if there is some way to reconcile those statements, then the klutziness of the expression would indicate this is new territory at anything but periscope depth.
Or look at Bluffthis' reaction to this common type of philosophical question. (and it can't be discounted as impossible in the future, which a 18th century ducker could hide behind).Bluffthis-
[ QUOTE ]
(A) Ridiculous questions don't indicate a sincere desire to learn, but to start a debate about improbable hypothetical situations and "details"..... (B) And David pointed out that there is an obvious logical answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
If somebody asks me a question with an obvious logical answer, I'd usually give it and if asked for the logic I'd say "cheeesh, if ..." in some mildly condescending tone.
But apparently this particular obvious logical answer requires I research back a few centuries to when the brain was used for cooling blood -
[ QUOTE ]
If you are sincere, then google for Aquinas+soul+summa or soul+catechism+catholic for the catholic beliefs,

[/ QUOTE ]
Like you, I appreciate Bigdaddyo's stab at it but does his reply sound like he's went into this area in depth at some time.. "where is the soul, how is it attached to me, is it me, does it make the decisions or do I, if it does then what am I, if it doesn't then what role does it play, why does it matter what happens to the body upon death if the soul has left, has it left, does it leave immediately"
"how come Casper can put his hand through the wall yet pick up the phone".
I don't buy Bluffthis's "obvious logical answer" statement. I find these areas tough at best and very difficult to harness in a total logical framework. luckyme

Re: Just in Case...
 

A related question to Christians is what, exactly, is the mental manifestation of my "soul" in the afterlife? For example, if I die completely senile from Alzheimer's at 90 years old and go to heaven, will I (or my "soul") also be senile in the afterlife? If not, at which "point" from my mortal life will my cognitive function be restored? As I was at age 21? Age 40? From my perspective, that has changed significantly over my lifetime so far.

How about those who die as newborn babies, or even before? In what sense do such souls experience an afterlife?

I suspect the answer from Christians is that our souls are cognizant in the afterlife in a way we cannot understand as living beings. However, that means the Christian (and others) beliefs once again collapse into a muck of unintelligibility upon close examination.

Re: Just in Case...
 

[ QUOTE ]
In what sense do such souls experience an afterlife?


[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you read the Bible if you really care for the answer to that question, rather than having it spoonfed to you over an internet forum.

Though, as any intelligent person can surmise, answers to such questions clearly do not exist outside of one man's interpretation of the Bible (which clearly does not automatically equal another man's interpretation)

Re: Just in Case...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you read the Bible if you really care for the answer to that question, rather than having it spoonfed to you over an internet forum.
Though, as any intelligent person can surmise, answers to such questions clearly do not exist outside of one man's interpretation of the Bible (which clearly does not automatically equal another man's interpretation)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's 2-way comments like these that baffle me. I ask my neighbour george, "What's your opinion of X". He says, "Go read the bible. Mind you, It won't give you my opinion. and everybody may well have a different opinion"
I take it that bible will therefore give me my opinion ( which is one of my basic claims about religion - we bring our morals and prejudices to it, and either find one that supports them, or interpret one in a way that does.)

Re: A Question for Christians
 

To an atheist (and anyone who has the inclination to contemplate), these questions are anything but ridiculous. I think it's as Luckme suggests: It is ridiculous to YOU, because you refuse to think about anything outside your given beliefs.

If the answer is so easy, why didn't you answer? Why are Christians against cremation? If the soul is not indigenous to the flesh then why is the body and blood of Christ so symbolic?

Also, this is not something improbable. Scientists have learned that the brain does not age as fast as the rest of the body. The brains is capable of functioning for many years longer than our bodies. So who's to say that this won't one day be possible?

Re: Just in Case...
 

I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
lots of stuff insinuating that christians don't think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the most likely reason that someone like BLUFFThis avoided the whole "debate" is because Lestat's intention was transparent. Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder. If you follow Lestat's later posting you can see this exact thing happens, as he begins to introduce things like physiological connections, etc.

This is not an "honest question" or even seeking to debate -- it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent". This is why it is pointless to "debate" or attempt to answer Lestat's "question"; because it isn't really a question but rather a poorly disguised trap. Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it."? I think it is pretty obvious that the answer is "Hell NO!".

Re: A Question for Christians
 

When a fart leaves my butt does it continue to be MY fart?

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
To an atheist (and anyone who has the inclination to contemplate), these questions are anything but ridiculous. I think it's as Luckme suggests: It is ridiculous to YOU, because you refuse to think about anything outside your given beliefs.

If the answer is so easy, why didn't you answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my reply to someone else above; and I think I was pretty dead on, as you have proven even more with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are Christians against cremation?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with the soul. The body is a creation of God, and those things that God creates should not be defiled or destroyed. This is the same reason that Sloth and Gluttony are sins, as well as why addiction is viewed as undesirable.

Also, not all Christian religions are against cremation. You did of course in your contemplative brilliance realize that "Christian" doesn't really narrow things down right? You really can't intelligently group Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, Episcapalians, Adventists, Born-again, etc as one set of beliefs. Sure they share a core, but there are significant differences ( Mormons really being very different ).

Also, the Catholic church via the Pope lifted the ban on cremation in 1963 -- so you're contemplated arguement is just over 42 years out of date.

[ QUOTE ]

If the soul is not indigenous to the flesh then why is the body and blood of Christ so symbolic?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the first gifting of the Christ's body and blood occured while he was still alive, at the "last supper". Also, within more "Christian" teachings Christ was not human -- so attempting to apply any symbolism regarding his body and blood to those of a mortal, is perhaps misleading.

Also, you asked elsewhere
[ QUOTE ]

I like your analogy. So if George's brain is put in Harry's body and now Harry's body commits a mortal sin, then George's soul goes to hell, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

I will attempt to answer this once you explain to me how the body commits a mortal sin w/o the involvement of the brain.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of stuff insinuating that christians don't think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the most likely reason that someone like BLUFFThis avoided the whole "debate" is because Lestat's intention was transparent. Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder. If you follow Lestat's later posting you can see this exact thing happens, as he begins to introduce things like physiological connections, etc.

This is not an "honest question" or even seeking to debate -- it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent". This is why it is pointless to "debate" or attempt to answer Lestat's "question"; because it isn't really a question but rather a poorly disguised trap. Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it."? I think it is pretty obvious that the answer is "Hell NO!".

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to join in our discussions more often. This was an excellent reply and indeed the reason I don't keep threads going to amuse such posters. And like you said, they keep pretending not to understand while adding more and more minute questions about an already ridiculous premise.

While taking positions to their logical extremes is a valid method to expose the full implications of various arguements, these types of far out hypothetical questions only have the intentions you gave.

A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same. If they wish to honestly know more about buddhism, then they can read the sutras and writings of buddhists through the ages. Same with science or any other topic.

We got a whole squad of these guys infesting this forum and they keep making new accounts when people finally realize they are being toyed with and stop responding.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree and disagree. The best way to find out about another persons views is to not constrict their ability to describe them by setting up a bunch of perhaps irrelevant preconditions. You state a general condition and let them add the lines that fit how they see it. Successful negotiatiing often works along those lines also.
If you lay out a detailed scenario, you're almost for sure going to put in stipulations that make it impossible for the other guy to answer ( have you stopped beating your wife).
Yes, there will be followup 'details' on both sides, that's the point of the general question on a philosophy forum, "I think X because of ABC".
I WANT people to find sloppy thinking or overlooked facts in stances I've arrived at, it's one reason I post on here and the crew seems to heave-to pretty well. No, it doesn't mean I'm going to become a Moonie, or that NR will take up Zen. The hope is that all parties will come away with a better grasp of their view and a better understanding/appreciation for the other guys.
I don't understand the 'fear' part.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree and disagree. The best way to find out about another persons views is to not constrict their ability to describe them by setting up a bunch of perhaps irrelevant preconditions. You state a general condition and let them add the lines that fit how they see it. Successful negotiatiing often works along those lines also.
If you lay out a detailed scenario, you're almost for sure going to put in stipulations that make it impossible for the other guy to answer ( have you stopped beating your wife).
Yes, there will be followup 'details' on both sides, that's the point of the general question on a philosophy forum, "I think X because of ABC".
I WANT people to find sloppy thinking or overlooked facts in stances I've arrived at, it's one reason I post on here and the crew seems to heave-to pretty well. No, it doesn't mean I'm going to become a Moonie, or that NR will take up Zen. The hope is that all parties will come away with a better grasp of their view and a better understanding/appreciation for the other guys.
I don't understand the 'fear' part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the rest of Lestat's posts and you will see that his mindset is so totally different from yours. You are saying you are interested in hearing others views to expand your knowledge; he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
While taking positions to their logical extremes is a valid method to expose the full implications of various arguements, these types of far out hypothetical questions only have the intentions you gave.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, what useful thought could come out of "hmmm..what would be happening if I rode a beam of light." Pumping your intuition with simplified starting points is one of secrets of flushing out good and new understanding of concepts that are hard to articulate.
Archimedes - "I could move the world" scenario.
Descartes Demon.
Philosophy is full of visualization tools and hypothetical scenarios.

[ QUOTE ]
A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same. If they wish to honestly know more about buddhism, then they can read the sutras and writings of buddhists through the ages.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what exactly (oops..details, details sorry)..Roughly are you hoping to acheive when you ask somebody "why do YOU think X, or How does Y appear from your view". Does a reply "read Sartre" add anything. How could Sartre know what Hortense is thinking and why? [ QUOTE ]
A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same.

[/ QUOTE ] Bluffthis, that's my point. Why if I can understand your views or xtrianities views on anything by doing what you suggest does there seem to be 300 versions of what that view is? When I read the bible and did my catechism I didn't end up with NRs views, your views, Peter666's views... why? if it's all attainable the way you suggest.
I like my explaination better. People interpret their religious viewpoint based on a variety of needs that they bring to the table ( else you'd be right and I'd find your view when I read bible) so any person you are discussing a moral or general religion influenced area with needs to be asked for their spin on it. "I" won't find your views in the bible any more than you'll find mine in Sartre et al.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

<font color="blue"> Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it." </font>

Wow! Where did I ever get the reputation of being so hard core and immovable? On the contrary, I consider myself among the more permissable and softer toned non-believers here. I entertain anyone's opinions, which is exactly what I was trying to do here.

Will I be convinced otherwise? Not likely, but I'm genuinely interested in other people's opinions and rationale. And if someone ever did provide a logical argument contrary to my beliefs I would consider them. This is more than can be said for people like BluffThis.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

<font color="blue">he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are. </font>

Would love to play some poker with you, cuz your read on me couldn't be more wrong. I might not be as eloquent as Luckyme, but the reasons he gave are EXACTLY why I made the post.

I want to hear YOUR thoughts about my questions, because if you say something coherent that disagrees with what I've come to believe, it makes me question how I arrived at where I am. If you say something coherent that I still can refute, then it helps me consumate my beliefs better.

Did you see my reply to BigDaddyO? I said I liked his analogy, but I pointed out that I still had some problems with it.

What about my response to bluebassman? I indicated where I thought he was wrong and even went so far as to give what I thought would be a rational explaination from a BELIEVER'S side! I don't know where you're coming up with my trying to trap people. That's not what this is about.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

I didn't quote your whole posting....

One answer is: that an attempt to support a position under fire requires significant effort, anticipation, and thought; and I would say that this level of effort is truly well beyond that supported by an Internet forum.

Pointing others to volumes of information already formulated, thought about, edited, etc over many years is a useful thing for helping someone else find information. Why is a reference to reading 500 pages of Aquinas seen as a cop-out? It takes 500 pages to explain, or even more.

The process of tearing something down is in relation, extremely easy. You need only take one point or aspect and rip at it w/o the need to support but only the need to cast doubt.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

I can tell you I won't be starting a new account any time soon, and I think it's sad that you're unwilling to discuss your beliefs and how you arrived at them on a philosophy forum.

"Read the bible" is a copout. I might tell you to read Dawkins.

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying you are interested in hearing others views to expand your knowledge; he is interested in trapping someone and showing how stupid they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I may be if I fell for his trap :-)
If somebody poses a question poorly ( or even trickily) and I get 'trapped' by answering it by not seeing the box I've put myself in, that's a valuable learning experience. I'll have learned something about the implication of certain phrases or the sloppiness of my thinking or ...
Even if somebody had crappy motives - and I don't think wanting to show up my sloppy thinking is a bad thing ... since it's one of my goals. with ego problems ( Lestat..I'm not referring to you in any of this, just to the general fear)
One of my best lessons in clarifying issues came when I was 'set-up' on stage in a public debate on constitutional issues years ago. I learned to be sure I agreed that the question was framed in a way I could answer.
I just fail to see anything trappy in the hypothetical posed and I think hypotheticals are necessary in many areas of discussion.
Years ago I was laughed at for asking about taking a monkey cell and tinkering with it and implanting it in a human..what would the baby be? Turns out, just like lestats, it has some relevance in moral decisions of today.
I tell people on boards I sit on to stay home if they're going to agree with me. I was quoted in the a newspaper saying "your job is to disagree, do it!" You ideas best friends are people that disagree with them. I think we should look stupid about once a week just to remind us that we really are. luckyme

Re: A Question for Christians
 

[ QUOTE ]

We got a whole squad of these guys infesting this forum and they keep making new accounts when people finally realize they are being toyed with and stop responding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do find it funny that you think this is happening. A squad? How many people have done this in your estimation?

Re: Just in Case...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose?

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question asks what, precisely, is meant by the verb "to experience" in the afterlife, not how do we sense external stimuli. My experience, i.e. my consciousness, is a direct result of the neural firings in my brain. Since those firings cease upon death, I don't know in what way I can continue to "experience" anything which is not a result of that neural activity.

Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.