https://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield/

"His surgical specialty was the mapping of seizure foci in the brain of awake (locally anesthetized) patients, using the patient’s experience and response to precise brain stimulation to locate and safely excise discrete regions of the cortex that were causing seizures. Penfield revolutionized neurosurgery (every day in the operating room I use instruments he designed) and he revolutionized our understanding of brain function and its relation to the mind.

"Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.

***

Penfield quote: "There is no area of gray matter, as far as my experience goes, in which local epileptic discharge brings to pass what could be called “mindaction”… there is no valid evidence that either epileptic discharge or electrical stimulation can activate the mind… If one stops to consider it, this is an arresting fact. The record of consciousness can be set in motion, complicated though it is, by the electrode or by epileptic discharge. An illusion of interpretation can be produced in the same way. But none of the actions we attribute to the mind has been initiated by electrode stimulation or epileptic discharge. If there were a mechanism in the brain that could do what the mind does, one might expect that the mechanism would betray its presence in a convincing manner by some better evidence of epileptic or electrode activations."

"Penfield noted that intellectual function — abstract thought — could only be switched off by brain stimulation or a seizure, but it could never be switched on in like manner. The brain was necessary for abstract thought, normally, but it was not sufficient for it. Abstract thought was something other than merely a process of the brain.

***

"Seizures always involve either complete unconsciousness or specific activation of a non-abstract neurological function — flashes of light, smells, jerking of muscles, specific memories, strong emotions — but seizures never evoke discrete abstract thought. This is odd, given that the bulk of brain tissue from which seizures arise is classified as association areas that are thought to sub-serve abstract thought. Why don’t epilepsy patients have “calculus seizures” or “moral ethics” seizures, in which they involuntarily take second derivatives or contemplate mercy? The answer is obvious — the brain does not generate abstract thought. The brain is normally necessary for abstract thought, but not sufficient for it.

"Furthermore, Penfield noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done to them, but not by them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person” perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. There was always a “mind” that was independent of cortical stimulation:

Penfield quote: "The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action. It is noteworthy that two streams of consciousness are flowing, the one driven by input from the environment, the other by an electrode delivering sixty pulses per second to the cortex. The fact that there should be no confusion in the conscious state suggests that, although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not."

"Penfield finished his career as a passionate dualist. His materialist naiveté did not survive his actual scientific work and his experiences as a clinical neurosurgeon. My own experience as a neurosurgeon has led me to the same conclusion.

" Remarkably, scholastic philosophers who worked in the Aristotelian tradition presaged Penfield’s observations centuries ago. In the classical Aristotelian-Thomist understanding, the mind is several powers of the soul, which is the subsistent form of the body. “Subsistent” means that the soul informs the body, so to speak, as any form is composed to matter, but that it can exist independently of matter. The reason it can exist independently of matter is that the intellectual powers of the soul — the ability to contemplate universals and engage in abstract thought — is necessarily an immaterial power. Universals — concepts that are not particular things — by their nature cannot be in particular things, and thus cannot be in matter, even in brain matter."

"Thus, the mind, as Penfield understood, can be influenced by matter, but is, in its abstract functions, not generated by matter."

Comment: this is the best evidence of dualism I've ever seen. Based on the experiences of two neurosurgeons, I don't think it can be refuted.


> Tony:No and No. Soul, in Hebrew, literally meant the composite life form. Hence the reason it says both humans and animals ARE souls, not that they HAVE souls. It also states humans and animals both have the same fate when they die. So unless you think all dogs(and all other creatures) go to heaven, it follows that people do not either. They share the same fate. Death and decomposition. The soul dies. There is no immortal soul.-Thank you. In Reform Judaism, what I was taught was that we were living souls and we should trust in God to take care of us after death. An afterlife was implied. No heaven or hell. And yes I know that I am a living soul, and my soul is not the same as my dog's soul. They are different.


> > Tony:First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed?
> 
>David: I consider my physical body a vessel for my soul/consciousness. Angels have a soul/consciousness but no vessel? I've tried to follow the discussion. but it is confusing. In your way of thinking, are there souls in heaven at the present time? Do they represent folks who were alive on Earth?-No and No. Soul, in Hebrew, literally meant the composite life form. Hence the reason it says both humans and animals ARE souls, not that they HAVE souls. It also states humans and animals both have the same fate when they die. So unless you think all dogs(and all other creatures) go to heaven, it follows that people do not either. They share the same fate. Death and decomposition. The soul dies. There is no immortal soul. -Let me try to clarify by asking a few simple question? Do humans and animals have the same form? Are they both conscious? -Angels HAVE a form, a vessel, but like animals, their form is different from humans. If their vessel is destroyed, they die. Yes, Angels can die. If their spiritual body is destroyed, they die. If they alter their form to a physical human form, and the physical body is destroyed, they die.


> Tony:First, the analogy I made was meant for humans. Yet, it is just as applicable to spirit creatures. At least according to the bible, Angels (spirit creatures) are similar to humans in almost every respect, except for the nature of the composition of their bodies. They are conscious, have emotions, work, are creative, feel lust, envy, jealousy, even pride. When Christ was resurrected to a spiritual form, he was no longer dead. He was every bit as alive as you or I, and in fact more so in some ways. The major difference was the form of life. When he was dead, he was dead. They still follow the same basic principles that we do. They are comprised of information, energy, some form of body, and presumably, some analog to the brain. This is all very well documented throughout the bible. Angels that grew lustful and came down to earth; Jacob wrestled with an angel; and angels(demons) will be killed according to the book of Revelations. If spirit creatures were dead, how could they be killed?-I consider my physical body a vessel for my soul/consciousness. Angels have a soul/consciousness but no vessel? I've tried to follow the discussion. but it is confusing. In your way of thinking, are there souls in heaven at the present time? Do they represent folks who were alive on Earth?

DHW: you have said that when people die, their unconscious spirit returns to God, but the information that constitutes their identity (which must include consciousness) is contained in a back-up which will not be activated until the Resurrection. -This is your first misunderstanding. Information, even memories, memories of previous thoughts, feelings, opinions, loves, heartaches... these things are not conscious. They are information which consciousness acts upon. Much like the words in a book, which do not 'come alive' until there is a reader there to read them. -
>DHW:This appears to contradict the experiences of NDE-ers who claim to have met the conscious spirits of dead people in precisely the way you have described - seeing spiritually and mentally. You say this is the work of Satan, deliberately deceiving the patients, because the dead remain dead. -Two separate points here. Let's not confuse them. -Point 1: The dead remain dead. They are conscious of nothing. 
Point 2: Satan is the father of the lie. The great deceiver. Rev 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Notice that it called demons "angels", because that is what they are. Just angels on the wrong side of the fight.)-->DHW:I have cited several instances in the Bible in which similar encounters take place, including that between the dead Jesus and his disciples. In the current case, you emphasized that “the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.” I mistakenly (my apologies) took this to mean that what you called the vision was an illusion, just as you claim NDE-ers have been hoodwinked by Satan. That's why I said it seemed pretty pointless. However, it is clear from your post that the communication made in these biblical “visions” is real. Peter, John and James did see Christ talking to Elijah and Moses, but not in the flesh. -Point1: Mark 12:27 "He (YHWH) is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken."
Point2: Elijah and Moses were not there in the flesh, that is correct. It was a vision.-
>>DHW: 1) Did Christ really talk to the conscious spirits of Moses and Elijah or not?-1) No, it was a vision, as per the clarification given by Christ himself. ->DHW: 2) Did the conscious spirit of Christ really chat with his disciples three days after his death or not?
2) Christ was resurrected. Romans 6:9 ->DHW: 3) To return to our starting point: why do you assume that the same kind of encounter is a Satan-inspired illusion when it occurs in NDEs, even though it has been pointed out to you that the patients often believe themselves to be closer to the God you yourself believe in?
3) People believe a great many things, my friend, but let me answer your question with a question. With so many beliefs that are diametrically opposed, how many can be true? Lies are designed to satisfy the emotions. They are feel goods. They are easy to believe because we WANT to believe them. It feels GOOD to think that your loved ones are waiting for you just after death. It feels GOOD to think that, with the right formula, you can talk to someone that you dearly miss. It feels GOOD to think that you can do whatever you want in this life with no consequence. -It is harder to accept that we are accountable. It is harder to accept responsibility. It is hard to accept that right now, a love one is dead because we long so much for life. We are not meant to die, and we rail against it with every fiber of our beings until we are so tired, so beaten, and so warn out that it seems like a welcome relief from the pain. -People want to believe what is soon, certain, and positive. Immediately going to heaven or becoming a spirit upon death. Immediate and eternal punishment for those that wronged us. Immediate freedom from pain, death, sickness. The truth is less palatable. When you die, you die. If/When you are resurrected, your perfection is not immediate, and your survival not guaranteed indefinitely. You will be tested again, and by your own actions your fate is decided. That is not what people WANT to believe, so they choose not to.-I will die. Personally, I do not feel I deserve any reward, resurrection, or any kindness or mercy at all. I've not been a good person in many ways, not matter how I tried. I hope for these things, and I have faith in God's love and mercy, but no expectation of it. I see the truth as beautiful. People getting a chance and succeeding or failing based purely on their own choice, made with full knowledge and eyes wide open.

TONY: I did some research on Matthew 17. While I commend you on pointing out something that doesn't make sense, as I have often said, you need to read a bit more. There are actually 3 accounts of this event, one in Mathew, Mark, and Luke. All three are substantially identical, but as is typical in the gospels, each add details or commentary that the others did not. Or, put a different way, they are all different perspectives on the same event. 
> Christ himself answers your question in Matthew 17:9. As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” So what they saw was a vision, more along the lines of the visual prophecies described elsewhere throughout the bible. In fact, the bible actually confirms this by saying "Peter, not realizing what he was saying.." offered hospitality. In short, the vision was so vivid Peter didn't realize it was not real.
> 
>DHW: Not only different perspectives on the same event, but also different implications: Luke 9, 30ff: “...two men were conversing with him, who were Moses and Elijah. These appeared with glory and began talking about his departure that he was destined to fulfil at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep; but when they got fully awake they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. And as these were being separated from him, Peter...not realizing what he was saying...” 
> The emphasis on their being fully awake does not suggest an illusion, and there was no point in Peter offering them hospitality if they were going away. Apparently, they “did not report to anyone in those days any of the things they saw.” Not the things they thought they saw but didn't. Are you saying that Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah about his forthcoming death was an attempt by Satan to turn him and the disciples away from God? Seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? And of course, one has to ask how the heck Luke knew all this.-I can't help but think that sometimes you are deliberately misunderstanding what I have said, not to mention what was written. (Or are you simply playing devil's advocate?) "Visions", what you might consider a waking dreamlike form of communication, was used throughout the bible, and was apparently common enough at one point that the bible writers felt that their absence was worth noting. (1 Samuel 3:1, Psalm 89:19, Numbers 12:6, the entire book of Revelations, and more) Vision, DHW, not illusion, not a lie, not the dead come back to life for tea and a chat. The Greek word that Christ used to describe the event was "horama" which literally means:-Cognate: 3705 hórama (a neuter noun derived from 3708 /horá?, "to see, spiritual and mentally") - a vision (spiritual seeing), focusing on the impact it has on the one beholding the vision (spiritual seeing). See 3708 (hora?).


> dhw: Yes, meaning depends on context, but the conventional punctuation makes perfect sense if the context is the common belief in the survival of consciousness after death, regardless of the Hebrew/Greek idiom. .... One was translated from Aramaic (Jesus's own language?)-How do we know the Greek version of the Hebrew was correct? Aramaic was Jesus' language. The SJV has many errors as an example. Of course, I rely on current Hebrew scholars. 
> 
> dhw: I have never claimed to be open-minded about EVERYTHING. I have strong opinions about many things. But two of the subjects I am open-minded about are NDEs and the existence of God.-I thought so!

DHW: I just happen to have a JW translation which contains precisely the adjustment you quoted to Luke 23,43. But of course I have no idea how many modern translations you have, or how reliable any of them are.-There is, believe it or not, a lot of debate over that. But here are the facts:-

• The punctuation did not exist in original Greek, and therefore you have to go by context.

• "I say to you today.." Was a Hebrew/Greek idiom to indicate the special importance of what was being said. 

• When taken in context, and put against the back drop of the other events happening immediately before, and immediately after, this statement, the placement of the comma after the word today is the only place it logically makes sense. 

• Of the oldest known manuscripts of this verse that contain ANY form of punctuation, the dot (similar to a comma) is placed AFTER the word today. 


-Feel free to look all that up and correct me if you see that I am mistaken. - 
> Dhw: Matthew 17, 1-5 has Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah (who turns out to have returned unrecognized as John the Baptist). In 1 Samuel, 28, Saul commands a medium to contact Samuel, which she does, and Samuel speaks to Saul. In Revelations, the souls of those slain for their beliefs call out to God to avenge them. 
> 
>DHW: That is not the point. You have claimed, in relation to NDEs, that patients have been deceived by Satan, because the Bible tells us that the spirit remains unconscious until God inserts a memory stick into the resurrected body. In all the above examples, the spirits of the encountered dead people are clearly conscious. -I will have to do more research and get back to you. You have picked 3 different scenarios here. The first, Saul, falls under what I was saying about Satan misleading people. The last, Revelations, is allegorical. One regarding Christ and Elijah, I need to do more research on. -
>Tony: However, that was not my point. To answer you question directly, it honestly doesn't matter which translation you use. If you study the bible, and allow the context of the bible to inform you views as opposed to other doctrines and traditions, then you can still arrive at the truth. ->DHW: One man's “doctrines and traditions” are another man's truth. You are now implying that the millions of monotheists who disagree with you on the individual subjects we have discussed have not studied the bible and its many different contexts. Let me add that I frequently correspond with authors, and have myself corresponded with translators of my own texts, because we are all fallible. Modern translators cannot even correspond with their authors, and there is no reason to suppose that the ancients were any less fallible than the moderns. Nobody knows the “truth”.-DHW, surely even YOU would agree that when an addition/change can clearly be PROVEN to come from an outside source, with clear, substantiated documentation backing that up, that change is an adulteration of the original document. Numerous additions and changes that were made under the Roman Empires influence, for political reasons, are well documented and can/have been corrected in more recent translations by referencing texts that predate them. -->DHW:..As I understand you, there are now two forms of spirit: one unconscious - the spirit of life - and one containing all the information that gives the person his/her identity. But you say Christ's resurrection was as a spirit: i.e. a combination of the life spirit and the conscious-identity spirit...Are the accounts of Christ's reappearance as a conscious spirit therefore the work of Satan?-Perhaps to avoid future confusion we can refer to the unconscious 'spirit' as what it is, pure information, and reserve the word 'spirit' for the conscious creatures that live in that other plane of existence.-No, he was not. Neither were the angels that appeared throughout the bible. Angel/Demon are just labels to two sides of a conflict, much like Theist and Atheist. Theist and Atheist are both human, just on different sides of a conflict. Angels and Demons are both spirit creatures, just on different sides of a conflict. What the NDE's see are rightfully called 'Spirits". The question is not whether or not they see spirits, but whether or not the spirits they see are who they believe they see. -It is also worth noting that Satan was considered beautiful, and was obviously in some position of authority before he turned against God out of jealousy.-
>DHW: I am. I have said that I don't understand them, but you claim that the NDE-ers have been deceived, and so I am challenging your assumptions. Similarly, I am open-minded about the existence of God, and so I argue against theism and against atheism (depending on the view that is being put to me). An open mind challenges the assumptions of closed minds.-Yes, but an open mind actually has to be open, not simply an argumentative closed mind. Challenging beliefs is all well and good, and something that all of us on here do on a regular basis. If we were all honest, though, all of us have a closed mind to some extent or another. We have all closed off certain parts of our thinking to other beliefs that are opposite to ours. For example, my mind is closed to the possibility of evolution by random chance. I may be open to other alternatives, but that one is scratched off my list permanently for the sheer ludicrousness of it.

DHW: ...You have now attributed near-death experience of a conscious spirit to the work of Satan, and have offered biblical quotes in support of your argument. Among the quotes was Psalm 146, which appeared to contradict your belief in a memory stick containing all the information of the dead person. -Not just NDE's. All instances of communication with dead spirits. -
>DHW: I also quoted the Bible as regards Jesus's neighbour on the cross, and it was you who quibbled over the comma and now refuse to tell me if this “crystal clear” version of God's word is the work of Satan. -You, as someone who has done translation work (unless I am mistaken) certainly know the difference a comma, or lack of one, can make. When translating, you have to take the context into account as well. Yes, as you said, the 'selection committees', particularly the council of Nicea and those that closely followed did influence things, as both politics and church doctrine did later. Within 2 centuries after Christ's death, the 'church' had become a political creature, and its various councils and decisions were made as much, if not more, based off of worldly political concerns than anything scriptural. This is a well known and documented fact, it is also the reason I do not trust some of the earlier translations of the Bibles which were influenced by church doctrine which was in turn influenced by politics. Translations since the dead sea scrolls were found are much more accurate. -
>DWH: I cited the not insignificant example of Jesus, who apparently died but appeared as himself to the disciples. You have never responded to this. -
Christ was DEAD for three days prior to his resurrection to a spiritual form. While he was dead, he was not aware of anything. When he was resurrected, he did indeed inhabit a spiritual form. He was also the first person to ascend to heaven. (John 3:13) If all the dead go to heaven or hell, then that scripture would be a lie.-->DHW: If I draw your attention to biblical passages or events or interpretations that appear to contradict your very specific beliefs, bearing in mind your claim that every word is inspired by God, I don't know why this should be a sign of dishonesty on my part...You cannot take the Bible “as a whole” when you are dealing with individual issues. The Bible contains many statements about these issues, and if you maintain they are all the absolute truth, either you can sort out the discrepancies, or there has to be a flaw in your beliefs.-
Actually you can take the bible as a whole, even on specific issues, and it is the fact that people have NOT been doing this that causes so many problems. If you were to read a news paper and a fable one after the other, you would not say that the moral of the fable was any less potent because it wasn't couched in the context of a 100% literal news story. Yet, when you go quoting the bible, you often do just that. You take was is explicitly stated as a parable (fiction meant to teach a lesson) and try to read it like a news article. When taken as a whole, cross-referencing, and looking at the principles, those so-called discrepancies disappear.-
And sometimes I don't answer you because my time to research something thoroughly is very limited at the moment.


> dhw: You cannot take the Bible “as a whole” when you are dealing with individual issues. The Bible contains many statements about these issues, and if you maintain they are all the absolute truth, either you can sort out the discrepancies, or there has to be a flaw in your beliefs.-The different scholars of Bible writings have different opinions about sources of the material. How many authors wrote Genesis? More than one. If humans do the writing then there are errors in concepts and interpretation. There were human committees for both testaments to decide what is included and what is not. Not included means not inspired accurately by God? I'll stick to using science.