DWQA Questions › Tag: non-believersFilter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnansweredSort byViewsAnswersVotesThe assertions Creator is being asked to address in this episode come from the volume, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case Against Life After Death. The author, Matt McCormick, wrote, “The physical structures of the brain are causally responsible for consciousness and its capacities. A neuroscientist examining scans of a stroke victim’s brain can now predict, sometimes with remarkable accuracy (down to the millimeter), exactly what sorts of cognitive, conceptual, emotional, or psychological problems that the patient will experience as a result of his or her brain damage. The connection is too great, too pervasive, too immediate, and too strong to be ignored. The physical foundations of mental functions shows that the alleged separation of mind from brain posited by the dualistic survival hypothesis … will not occur.” What can Creator tell us about this skeptic’s conclusion?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs237 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote this in his contribution to the collection titled Dead as a Doornail: “While most of us would acknowledge some connection between mental function and the brain, we may have failed to see just how deep the connection runs. Even the most abstract mental faculties—and the most specific features and contents of our private mental states—can be mapped directly onto brain functions. … People who suffer from Anton-Babinski syndrome are cortically blind, but they don’t believe they’re blind or consciously blind. They will adamantly insist they can see even in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, dismissing their inability to perform visual tasks by confabulating explanations for their poor performance. … The syndrome results from a specific sort of damage to the occipital lobe of the brain.” Is this wholly a result of brain damage, as the skeptics assert, or is this a clue about the underlying origins and actions of consciousness? What can Creator tell us?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs243 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Capgras syndrome results from lesions in the occipital, temporal, and frontal lobes of the brain. Afflicted patients have the powerful sense that someone they know, particularly a loved one, has been replaced by an imposter. Vilayanur Ramachandran postulates that the problem arises from a failure of the temporal regions responsible for face recognition to communicate with the limbic system regions responsible for emotional responses.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs239 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Cotard’s syndrome, or the delusional belief that you are dead, that you don’t exist, or that you have lost your organs or blood, results from damage to the channels of interaction between the fusiform face area and the limbic system.” What can Creator tell us about this? Are the researchers over-attributing causality to the brain damage alone? Would the same symptoms and delusions inevitably result in any person that suffered similar brain damage?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs215 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Research shows remarkable relationships between brain tumors and brain chemistry, on the one hand, and bizarre thoughts or behaviors, on the other. In one patient the onset of hypersexuality, obsession with pornography, and pedophilia paralleled the growth of a tumor in his right orbitofrontal lobe. When the tumor was removed, his urges lapsed. When the tumor grew back, his pedophilia returned.” What can Creator tell us about this tumor-to-behavior relationship?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs244 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Patients with no history of gambling find themselves overwhelmed with the urge to gamble when their dosages (of Parkinson’s drug pramipexole) cross a particular threshold, sometimes leading them to gamble away their life savings. But when the dosage is reduced, the urge vanishes.” Can Creator tell us what is REALLY going on here?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs230 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Even something as common as the effects of a cup of espresso show that those elements of consciousness alleged to survive biological death depend directly upon the brain.” This seems like missing the forest for the trees. Stimulus effects are conditions that arouse the “decision-maker” within, but they do not decide for her or him! Otherwise, it would be impossible to resist ANYTHING. And life calls for a great deal of discerning resistance! Is it safe to say that DECISION is a spiritual function, not a biological function? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs217 views0 answers0 votesMatt McCormick wrote, “Even rats are responsive to the pain of others, refusing to eat when their eating inflicts electric shocks on other rats.” He used this to argue that even morality is a product of evolution. What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs257 views0 answers0 votesAtheist evolutionists have a tendency to showcase theory as fact. Matt McCormick wrote, “(Experts)… have now converged on the view that evolution favored hyperactive agency detection devices (HADD). The basic idea is there is survival benefit to detecting or attributing agency or intentionality to many things in our environment. ‘It is better to mistake a boulder for a bear, than a bear for a boulder.’ Mistaking too many things as conscious agents is a helpful error since detecting too few of them can be deadly.” McCormick speculates that this is why we are so quick to believe in brainless consciousness. We can’t help it. McCormick writes, “The prevailing view is that seeing manifestations of God’s conscious will, desires, and goals in the world is a byproduct of HADD.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs242 views0 answers0 votesThe secular headwinds are strong, and appear to be growing stronger. Can Creator share with us how Empowered Prayer and the Lightworker Healing Protocol can turn this trend around, in time to save humanity from the encroaching darkness?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs274 views0 answers0 votesHow were the rules of engagement satisfied in the intervention described above? When a departed loved one is credited with a miraculous intervention, it begs the question, “Why doesn’t this happen to save everyone from accidents?”ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs212 views0 answers0 votesDuring a reading with a famous medium (Caputo, Season 13, Episode 3), the client was told about their recently passed son, who was heavy into sports, “He’s playing soccer, he’s playing football, he’s playing lacrosse. ‘I’m playing every sport I can – because I can.’ Everything and anything that he wanted to do in the physical world, he’s doing on the other side.” It seems hard to believe that soccer in heaven can impart the same overall experience that it does in the physical, because of the limitations of the physical, which we are reportedly free of in the light. Playing soccer in the physical world carries the risk of injury, along with facing aggressive, sometimes cheating opponents, etc. And if light beings can see the future, what’s the point of holding a contest? What can Creator tell us?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs274 views0 answers0 votesCan Creator give us a quick summation of the primary differences between a medium and someone who fantasizes readily, or is even delusional?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs248 views0 answers0 votesIn group readings, up to several thousand people are present, and the mediums claim they do not participate in any choice about what spirit comes through. How is it determined which spirit gets the channel? Is this all determined by the higher selves of all the participants? Is the most urgent need among the many participants usually addressed?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs231 views0 answers0 votesIn a large group reading, a famous medium walked up to a participant, pulled a bag of M&M’s out of the man’s shirt pocket, and helped herself to a few. She claimed she was told by the man’s departed son that his father didn’t believe in mediums. She even licked one and put it in the man’s mouth because his son used to do that. If the man was a genuine skeptic, then why was this dramatic display of the paranormal allowed under the rules of engagement? Was the fact that all who chose to be there, and even later watch the episode on video, were by their very presence and willful observation, allowing for a paranormal miracle to be on display? Will true skeptics simply dismiss it as a pre-arranged fraudulent stunt?ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • Limiting Beliefs232 views0 answers0 votes
Nicola