Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lack of precision in thinking can be quite misleading, Box. A lack of a functioning brain merely prevents experiencing consciousness in a physical body. What we DO know about our consciousness is that what we experience is a "delayed replay" of the consciousness that we actually produce. IOW, we do not directly experience our own consciousness in real time. At best, we can declare that any "replay" is ended with the death of the body and brain.
The entity that is actually doing the thinking and feeling exists at a different level of being than we do. We just experience its creation after-the-fact giving us the impression that we are doing the thinking and feeling.
Again, death eliminates our ability to experience conscious thoughts at this level of being. It does nothing to the entity that has already been made conscious and thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Even if the above were true, you are making the case that the brain isn't sufficient to create thought. But do you doubt that a brain is necessary to create conscious thought?
Because that is the question here - "is creating new human thoughts contingent on a functioning brain?"
We know that brain damage effects sapience. Memories, inner dialogue, attitude, emotion, etc. Each of those can be destroyed by destroying a corresponding area of the brain. That suggest that a functioning brain is a necessary, even if not sufficient, for consciousness.
And because death destroys all of those parts of the brain, none of those function should be able survive the death of the brain.
Of course, the brain is necessary to create more of the consciousness that comprises the growing and developing entity we refer to as our Self. But we have little to go on regarding what such an entity IS or what it is capable of, except for our subjective sense of Self. We will not know until our brain's delayed link with it is terminated and we directly experience our Self at its actual level of being. We exist in a sub-light level of existence. Our real Self exists within an existential level equivalent with what we call the EM spectrum, though we cannot seem to measure it any more than we can measure dark energy.
No, ignorance is not a reason for believing a thing to be true when there is, in fact, no evidence that such thing is true.
Admitting we don't know everything about life and the universe is a very good reason for having certain beliefs and faith.
Quote:
Lacking evidence, 'beliefs and faith' are indeed nothing more than wishful thinking.
"We don't know everything" does not equate to "so what I want to be true must be true."
[Some] Ignorant people once believed that the stars were pasted in place above the Earth, and rotated around it. They had 'faith' that this was so. But it was not, and no amount of wishful thinking, or faith, or belief, will make it so.
You are free to believe or not believe whatever you want. As am I. But who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
So your evidence for your nonsense is.... your lack of evidence for your nonsense?
Sure, we do not know everything. But that should make you MORE hesitant to simply make rubbish up, not more willing to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
We certainly don't know what happens after we die and we don't even know everything about life.
Nobody here is saying we "know" what happens after we die, except Tzaphkiel that is who is giving some highly detailed narratives about what she imagines happens.
But the fact is we do know a lot of things. And NONE of what we know even SUGGESTS there is an after life. And EVERYTHING we know suggests otherwise.
So stop dealing with "know" and start dealing with what the current actual data set does (and does not) actually say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Therefore there is "absolutely" a reason to believe in an afterlife. Or you can choose to not believe. It's up to you.
Belief may be a choice for you, that does not mean it is for everyone. And no there is no reason to believe in an after life. All you have said above is you can not prove there is not one. That is not valid grounds for believing there is one. Especially given the MULTITUDES of other things you do NOT believe, but can also not prove do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Also, for some, it's not nonsense or wishful thinking. It is beliefs and faith. Some have it and some don't.
Some hear voices in their heads and some dont. Some people think airplane trails are mind controlling chemicals and some dont. Some people think our political and educational elite are lizard like aliens wearing human suits.
The "Some do some dont" narrative really does not get you far here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
A very illogical post.
That was his point exactly. It was an illogical post. But it used the EXACT same rationale that you offer us. So by acknowledging the lack of any logic in his post, you are inferring the lack of any in your own. Which is, at least, progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Admitting we don't know everything about life and the universe is a very good reason for having certain beliefs and faith.
Except no it is not. Admitting your knowledge is limited is not just cause to simply make stuff up to fill the gaps. All you are doing is admitting that you do not like gaps, so you would rather fill them with nonsense, than simply admit of our human ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
You are free to believe or not believe whatever you want. As am I. But who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
Substantiation is. None of which you have. And all of which goes the OPPOSITE way to what you claim is true. Someone earlier suggested the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I reject that premise (and the motive for which it was offered). A better (though similarly simplistic) definition of insanity would be to notice all the evidence points at "X", and then decide "Y" must be true instead.
Again: 100% of the evidence we have relating to human consciousness points against an after life. 0% of the evidence points towards one. Yet you chose the latter anyway, and then deny it is anything but wishful thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Reasonable inferences can be drawn from what we do know.
Yes, they can. And the fact is that while our knowledge of human senteince and consciousness is incomplete, it is not an empty void. We know PLENTY about it, and it's workings.
And guess what theists and afterlifeists? 100% of what we know links consciousness entirely to a working brain. 0% of what we do know suggests ANY kind of possible disconnect between them.
So yes, lets draw inferences from what we know. 100% of what we know suggests no after life, 0% of what we know suggests an after life. They should draw inferences from THAT while they are at it.
Admitting we don't know everything about life and the universe is a very good reason for having certain beliefs and faith.
You are free to believe or not believe whatever you want. As am I. But who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
we are, together, using what we see around us. We are not free to "make-up" anything we want. We are free to use every observation to draw conclusions. We are not free to ignore observation to support personal agendas. Thats statement is true for atheist and theist. we atheist do it too, I had mordrant tell me not to say something, although true, because theist can use it. That is just as much bs as dude rising.
We try and focus on what we do have and draw conclusions. I feel that focusing on what we do not know leads to unknown answers.
for example.
nobody knows so who is to say so I believe "insert conclusion".
or
We have never seen anybody come back so I believe "insert conclusion".
They are not equal. they are no where near equal enough to make both conclusions strong enough to be two reasonable conclusions.
Of course, the brain is necessary to create more of the consciousness that comprises the growing and developing entity we refer to as our Self. But we have little to go on regarding what such an entity IS or what it is capable of, except for our subjective sense of Self. We will not know until our brain's delayed link with it is terminated and we directly experience our Self at its actual level of being. We exist in a sub-light level of existence. Our real Self exists within an existential level equivalent with what we call the EM spectrum, though we cannot seem to measure it any more than we can measure dark energy.
antenna in an em field. maybe. Thats oks for now. But maybe the radio is complex enough to be working using the pieces of the universe such that the the "antenna" and the "transmitter" are the same "thing". Much like the "killer" of cells is itself a "cell" in one human body.
like dark matter. we do see bark matters its interactions, but we don't know what it is. So calling it a WIMP is ok, as long as both parties understand the observations. Pushing it off as WIMPS only is not intellectually honest. Pushing off the "personal emotional meaning" as unimportant for everybody is more stupid and down right dishonest (like all religion).
we see electrons changing energy levels and molecules changing "state and shape" during "thinking".
so what is the conclusion using what we do know?
remember, we have far more observations for the brain than we do for dark matter. the conclusions about both are not on equal terms. no where near it.
Of course, the brain is necessary to create more of the consciousness that comprises the growing and developing entity we refer to as our Self. But we have little to go on regarding what such an entity IS or what it is capable of, except for our subjective sense of Self. We will not know until our brain's delayed link with it is terminated and we directly experience our Self at its actual level of being. We exist in a sub-light level of existence. Our real Self exists within an existential level equivalent with what we call the EM spectrum, though we cannot seem to measure it any more than we can measure dark energy.
Do you have any reason to believe the "self" can survive and be conscious without a brain?
From my beliefs, the more than one-hundred thousand millions humans who have already crossed over (the soul doesn't die; only the body does) are in the afterlife, in another dimension which is why we can't see them.
May I ask what this belief of yours is based on? Is there any way to prove that this is true and is not just something imaginary?
Of course, the brain is necessary to create more of the consciousness that comprises the growing and developing entity we refer to as our Self. But we have little to go on regarding what such an entity IS or what it is capable of, except for our subjective sense of Self. We will not know until our brain's delayed link with it is terminated and we directly experience our Self at its actual level of being. We exist in a sub-light level of existence. Our real Self exists within an existential level equivalent with what we call the EM spectrum, though we cannot seem to measure it any more than we can measure dark energy.
You are sliding an unproven assumption in here. You are presuming the existence of a Self independent of a brain, and your implication is that existed prior to the brain. In essence, the self is attracted to a brain, which then amplifies it.
But you still haven't proven the independent existence of a self.
Wouldn't Ockham's Razor favor consciousness being derived solely from the physical? Sure, maybe consciousness lags our physical experience, and maybe (probably) free will and individual identity are complete illusions. The logical conclusion then is that when the physical dies, the illusion of self does do as well.
I am going to address this EM-like vanity you have once more. You keep using this term, along with dark matter, to give your thoughts some sort of pseudo-scientific validity. But at the same time you admit that we cannot detect or measure your EM-like state in any way. That being the case, why should we think that it exists at all? Or that it has any of the characteristics of EM radiation?
At the basis of everything, you are still proposing something that you have no evidence for; being augmented by the physical, which you have no evidence for; then surviving the physical, which you have no evidence for; acting like something else, which you have no evidence for.
May I ask what this belief of yours is based on? Is there any way to prove that this is true and is not just something imaginary?
your logic seems to be that those are the only limited options available:
prove it (such as through science)
if you can't prove it, it is not true
therefore it is imaginary
That is flawed logic because there are other additional options available including:
personal experience
reliable sources relating their personal experience
intuitive knowing and understanding
Lots of things are true that can't be proven to anyone else other than what the person knows, feels, experiences. Such as being in love, such as what a person finds inspiring, such as what is compelling, such as what you dreamed last night, such as your favorite food, such as who you trust or not. The list goes on and on. Those are true. Those are real. Those are not imaginary. And they can not be proven to anyone else. Or verified by anyone else. And yet you know them to be true for you in your life experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
