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.
How do you decide for yourself what is true for you?
(examples)
what is inspiring
what is compelling
what is your favorite food or music
what did you dream last night
who you trust or not
On what basis for yourself do you make decisions in determining what is true for you?
All of these things but the last are states of being. You don't decide what is inspiring or compelling - things inspire or compel you without making any decisions.
I decide who I trust based on past conduct, among other things.
That's a little bit like saying your video game will keep playing even after you smash your XBOX.
Energy isn't sapient outside of some physical mechanism coordinating it. So even if the energy was forever, it wouldn't be in a state that produced conscious thought.
All of these things but the last are states of being. You don't decide what is inspiring or compelling - things inspire or compel you without making any decisions.
I decide who I trust based on past conduct, among other things.
How do you know or identify when you are inspired or when you are compelled? How do you know your favorite food or music? How do you know what you really dreamed last night versus what someone says you just made up?
What I am getting at is, does someone tell you what those are? And If not, or how do you recognize the truth of each of those within yourself?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-27-2016 at 10:34 PM..
How do you know or identify when you are inspired or when you are compelled?
Inspired is somewhat of a vague term, but if you mean "something that gives me new ideas", I know I am inspired by the presence of new ideas whenever that thing is around.
I know I am compelled to do something when I do it because a forceful reason is presented to me to do so. It may be a gun to my head, for example. I'm not trying to dodge your questions, but I don't really know what you are getting at.
The physical baby needs it own physical processes because it is physical. A purely EM-like Being (Spiritual) would only need EM-like spiritual processes to maintain its existence because it is spiritual. The evidence that it could have sentience independent of the brain resides in the fact that the sentience is NOT a part of the brain. Our failure to locate this composite anywhere IN the brain means it is more than the sum of its parts, so to speak. The Box entity I am conversing with is NOT mere neural activity in the physical brain that produces it. It is a composite LIVING Being that arises from the activity in the brain, is identifiable and interacts with reality as this identifiable composite because it is alive in that new form separate from any physical constraints.
Then we cannot resolve it, Box. I do not have anything that you would consider evidence of it, though I have enough to satisfy me. At this stage of our knowledge and understanding, plausible theories are all we have. The plausible is usually easy to see, but some people are so rigid in their materialism that they refuse to credit even plausible hypotheses as plausible. We exist in a sub-light state of being. How on earth do we interact with Beings that exist in an essentially EM-like state? It is like trying to interact with the flames of a fire as a composite entity. If the conscious being we experience as thoughts after-the-fact were measurable, as most EM energy is, that would be something. But, like the dark energy and matter, it is NOT.
I disagree. Just because a baby is dependent upon the mother until it develops sufficiently to exist as a separate physical being that does not condemn it to a forever attachment to the mother. It eventually develops the requisite ability to function on its own.
I see no reason why a Being developing at an EM-like level could not develop sufficiently to exist as a separate Being from the sub-light mother that produces it. The key element is life, Box. It is alive, not inanimate matter or processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I agree this is the end of the trail.
There really isn't anything that I would consider evidence to suggest that sapience continues to exist after the death of the brain.
There is a theory that you consider plausible, but I'm afraid I only consider it possible - and even then unlikely.
I understand, Box. You do not think your Self is a living Being comprised of thoughts. You are wedded to your body as the living being. No problemo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
That's a little bit like saying your video game will keep playing even after you smash your XBOX.
Energy isn't sapient outside of some physical mechanism coordinating it. So even if the energy was forever, it wouldn't be in a state that produced conscious thought.
(And really, energy changes forms, so..)
You continue to ignore the difference between energy that is ALIVE and energy that is not, Box. They are really NOT the same.
I understand, Box. You do not think your Self is a living Being comprised of thoughts. You are wedded to your body as the living being. No problemo.
You continue to ignore the difference between energy that is ALIVE and energy that is not, Box. They are really NOT the same.
"Live" energy?
If the energy in my xbox is dead energy, what would be some examples of "live" energy I would be familiar with?
Is that a term of art, or is "live energy" a thing?
I understand, Box. You do not think your Self is a living Being comprised of thoughts. You are wedded to your body as the living being. No problemo.
You continue to ignore the difference between energy that is ALIVE and energy that is not, Box. They are really NOT the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
"Live" energy?
If the energy in my xbox is dead energy, what would be some examples of "live" energy I would be familiar with?
Is that a term of art, or is "live energy" a thing?
Everything that exists is some manifestation of the unified field that establishes our reality. Some of those energy manifestations are alive and some are dead. The energy in a rock or uranium is dead. The energy in living beings is alive. We do not know what causes the difference, but there IS a difference even though they are all manifestations of the same unified field. You seem to think they are comparable, but they are NOT.
Everything that exists is some manifestation of the unified field that establishes our reality. Some of those energy manifestations are alive and some are dead. The energy in a rock or uranium is dead. The energy in living beings is alive. We do not know what causes the difference, but there IS a difference even though they are all manifestations of the same unified field. You seem to think they are comparable, but they are NOT.
Is the energy in my xbox live energy or dead energy? Is the electrochemical energy in my synapses live or dead? ... and why?
How do you decide for yourself what is true for you?
Already answered in post #246. Your constant MO of dodging the content of my post now has you going around asking things already addressed.
Further you are listing things that are subjective, and aside from the existence of subjectivity there is nothing else that requires substantiation.
Will you be answering the rest of the content of my posts that you have dodged and ignored any time soon?
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.
