What is your view on the afterlife? (America, Muslims, ghost)
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.
Animals have emotions like love, hate, sorrow, pain.
They can reason. They can play. They can solve problems. They can trust, or mistrust.
The difference between us and "animals" is the level of awareness. Anyone who's had a dog knows this.
My dog, right now is running back and forth across the yard as fast as he can, the wind in his face and the grass between his toys. You can't tell me he doesn't feel joy.
He cries when my kids leave for school. You can't tell me doesn't feel sorrow.
And at night, when he sleeps at my feet, he dreams.
So either animals have souls too, or none of us do.
Very true. I tried to rep you for this, but couldn't. "The difference between us and "animals" is the level of awareness" - I couldn't have said it better myself.
In my culture, we believe that animals have spirits just like humans.
What total horse dung. Just because Astrophysicists are the only ones operating on a scale sufficient to detect the impact of these two dark forms of energy/matter . . . you want to completely ignore this 95+% of our reality to maintain your myopic views and restrict them to the 4+%???? The famous ostrich maneuver in spades. You can ignore 95+% of reality and claim it is irrelevant to everything . . . but you cannot maintain that it is scientific nor rational. Using your myopic views to reject as non-existent (or we just don't know so we will ignore) those things you dislike or refuse to consider . . . is pure arrogance . . . not to mention close-minded. The trivial 95+% of reality . . . riiight!! Just because the galactic scale is necessary to DETECT the effects is no basis for asserting that they have NONE anywhere else. Clearly they dominate the universe . . . to suggest that such a dominant presence has no effect is ludicrous on its face. (Astrologers have asserted effects for millennia and been scoffed at for not having any possible scientifically credible source of them, btw).
You are the one affirming the consequent. You have your conclusion. God's universal consciousness. You have zero evidence to back that up. So you latch onto cosmological unknowns, like dark energy--a purely hypothetical "gap filler" to explain a single unknown--and use it to support your conclusion.
Moderator cut: copyright
Try something new Mystic.
Quote:
We have no clue what our composite "Self" is actually comprised of because we can only "measure" those things we can detect as inputs to it . . . not the actual composite product after it has been propagated into the universe.
The "self" is not a tangible object. It's a word. It's a thought--a direct product of the reaction of electrical signals in our brain. "Self" is just a word that describes the placement of the body in the physical world.
Quote:
This has been shown to be an outright lie. We know more about what it is NOT than your myopic and puerile assertion about luminescence. Pathetic fail. So says the man who ignores the evidence of 95+% of the universe that "we're not quite sure what it is" (or what it can do) because we know nothing about it . . . and then charges that there is zero evidence. Then he assures us it can have no effect on the brain (this stuff we know nothing about or what it can do).
Other theories of non-baryonic matter that could be Dark Matter? Neutrinos, which have zero impact on elementary matter. Or, hypothetical particles like Axion's, which haven't even been shown to exist, but yet if they do, have no charge and would have zero impact on elementary matter.
Quote:
Are you following your asinine assertions, Konraden because they are not making you look too good. All we know is that the brain is required to produce consciousness (in-process state) . . . we have no reason to believe it is necessary to maintain it after it has already been produced (Spirit state). All of our evidence comes from the production side . . . not the product side . . . because the product (Spirit) is not "measurable' (like dark energy and dark matter).
Now ask yourself, is it really just a coincidence that there are two forms of "unmeasurable" substance comprising 95+% of our universe, and two forms of "unmeasurable" consciousness (Spirit) energy (thoughts and feelings)? Is it really just coincidence that one of these "unmeasurable" substances is responsible for expanding the universe and the other is responsible for the formation and maintenance of galaxies (pools of fire) . . . and that the predicted fates of our consciousness (Spirit) is to join God (the expanding universe) or become part of a pool of fire (galaxy)?
You're using the God of the Gaps fallacy again, Mystic? I busted you for using this a couple months ago. Not knowing something is not evidence for the existence of something else which has zero evidence.
You have failed time and time again to come up with a coherent explanation of consciousness outside the brain.
Quote:
How can you continue to maintain the low probability (4+%) position on after life and deny the high probability one (95+%) that coincides with the available evidence of the composition of our universe?
Because that 90% is hypothetical, much it having no impact on ordinary matter or no relation to the human scale.
Yet, as we see, you don't care. You need something--anything--to latch onto to make your half-baked Mysticism work. Your God needs evidence, and god dammit, you'll find it, won't you.
You are the one affirming the consequent. You have your conclusion. God's universal consciousness. You have zero evidence to back that up. So you latch onto cosmological unknowns, like dark energy--a purely hypothetical "gap filler" to explain a single unknown--and use it to support your conclusion.
Try something new Mystic.
The "self" is not a tangible object. It's a word. It's a thought--a direct product of the reaction of electrical signals in our brain. "Self" is just a word that describes the placement of the body in the physical world.
Other theories of non-baryonic matter that could be Dark Matter? Neutrinos, which have zero impact on elementary matter. Or, hypothetical particles like Axion's, which haven't even been shown to exist, but yet if they do, have no charge and would have zero impact on elementary matter.
You're using the God of the Gaps fallacy again, Mystic? I busted you for using this a couple months ago. Not knowing something is not evidence for the existence of something else which has zero evidence.
You have failed time and time again to come up with a coherent explanation of consciousness outside the brain.
Because that 90% is hypothetical, much it having no impact on ordinary matter or no relation to the human scale.
Yet, as we see, you don't care. You need something--anything--to latch onto to make your half-baked Mysticism work. Your God needs evidence, and god dammit, you'll find it, won't you.
Too bad you failed to see the great truth in what Mystic wrote...I hope you gain enlightenment in the future.
The difference between us and "animals" is the level of awareness. Anyone who's had a dog knows this.
What about those who own elephants?
Quote:
Elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror, joining only humans, apes and dolphins as animals that possess this kind of self-awareness, researchers now report.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,742 posts, read 23,795,420 times
Reputation: 14625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You have nothing to support your arguments of paranormal events and dualism. How do I know this? Because you continually attack me instead of my arguments--or posting your own. I'm not fighting, I'm waiting for you to pony up.
OK, I've had paranormal discussion with departed loved ones. I sense them through syncronities, which in your mind you would say coincedences. We both have two different sets of values and beliefs. Now I would love to continue this discussion, but you have no room to deny my experiences and I don't need validation to know it's real. So if you consider that and please be rational knowing that we can agree to disagree instead of saying I'm wrong. You learn more by listening than talking. Mystic Phd has made a strong case. I've even considered some of your content, but the way you go about it makes it not worth anyones time. So if you are willing to have a civil discussion, then I will discuss this more. I have had discussion with many athiests where I can meet them 1/2 way,if you are willing to do the same then it's on. I'm going to have dinner now.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 05-19-2010 at 06:25 PM..
OK, I've had paranormal discussion with departed loved ones. I sense them through syncronities, which in your mind you would say coincedences. We both have two different sets of values and beliefs. Now I would love to continue this discussion, but you have no room to deny my experiences and I don't need validation to know it's real. So if you consider that and please be rational knowing that we can agree to disagree instead of saying I'm wrong.
It's called anecdotal evidence which is a poor measure of objective reality--it isn't evidence.
I could come up with a range of alternative explanations with more information, but you undoubtedly wouldn't care to hear them. Supernaturalists are funny that way.
Quote:
You learn more by listening than talking. Mystic Phd has made a strong case. I've even considered some of your content, but the way you go about it makes it not worth anyones time. So if you are willing to have a civil discussion, then I will discuss this more. I have had discussion with many athiests were I can meet them 1/2 way,if you are willing to do the same then it's on. I'm going to have dinner now.
Mystic doesn't have a case, and I am not the one with three (or is that four) straight posts of nothing but ad hominem attacks without any address of the actual argument.
I'm Christian and I believe in life afterdeath. The only thing I can't seem to conceptualize is the idea of forever and eternity. I mean, I really just can't think of it. What does one do 'forever'? I truly believe in it but it's something I cannot imagine. In our human-ness, we can think of (and experience) and beginning and an end. So the idea of forever...is just beyond anything I can try to imagine.
You are the one affirming the consequent. You have your conclusion. God's universal consciousness. You have zero evidence to back that up. So you latch onto cosmological unknowns, like dark energy--a purely hypothetical "gap filler" to explain a single unknown--and use it to support your conclusion.
You keep playing the one-note song called reductionist materialism and exhibit no interest in or philosophical capacity to learn any other tune . . . let alone know of the existence of any others. I have encountered this phenomenon many, many times in my career. The major clue is the aversion to the very concept embodied in my synthesis. The aversion is so strong it will not even allow the contemplation of concepts on the leading edge of human thought. We used to call such hide-bound concrete thinkers "troglodytes." We would actively steer them away from pursuit of PhD's and toward more practitioner-oriented educational opportunities. They can be very successful practitioners but make very poor PhD candidates.
Some abstract ideas or modes of thought are pure anathema to Trogs . . . blocking any and all capacity for entertaining legitimate theoretical foundations a priori. The reverse of your model of the theist, Konraden: Idea -> no such thing or not useful -> abort consideration, period. Any and all subsequent encounters are treated identically. which makes this comment of yours ever more ironic, Konraden: "Try something new Mystic." . . . Taking your own advice might be enlightening for you.
Quote:
The "self" is not a tangible object. It's a word. It's a thought--a direct product of the reaction of electrical signals in our brain. "Self" is just a word that describes the placement of the body in the physical world.
You insist on word games to avoid confronting reality head-on . . . either YOU exist or YOU don't. YOU are the observer and director of all your thoughts and actions.THAT is your "Self" . . . whatever you want to call it and whatever characteristics it exhibits at any given time under any given conditions. It is NOT resident in any physical matter . . . it is a pure energy form in the universe at large in the universal field that establishes our reality. It is BOTH produced AND accessed by brain activity (transceiver).
Quote:
You're using the God of the Gaps fallacy again, Mystic? I busted you for using this a couple months ago. Not knowing something is not evidence for the existence of something else which has zero evidence.
Your favorite Gaps fallacy nonsense does NOT apply to hypotheses based on known phenomena . . . only to proofs. Science would not be able to function if every hypothesis promulgated was rejected out of hand because it addressed what we did not know. THAT is what hypotheses are FOR!! Your vacuous zero evidence crap is nothing more than a tedious annoyance similarly disqualified by your dismissal of 95+% of reality as having no role in anything but what it was DETECTED by. I repeat . . . "You can ignore 95+% of reality and claim it is irrelevant to everything . . . but you cannot maintain that it is scientific nor rational." You certainly cannot cry zero evidence.
Quote:
You have failed time and time again to come up with a coherent explanation of consciousness outside the brain.
How could you possibly know . . . you have never even tried to understand my synthesis . . . or you could not make this statement with a straight face. Man up and say you don't understand it, Konraden . . . but give up this absurd denial of the existence of my explanations.
Quote:
Because that 90% is hypothetical, much it having no impact on ordinary matter or no relation to the human scale.
It is 95+% and restating your rejection of the importance of so ubiquitous and prevalent a part of the universe as "having no impact" is ludicrous.
Quote:
Yet, as we see, you don't care. You need something--anything--to latch onto to make your half-baked Mysticism work. Your God needs evidence, and god dammit, you'll find it, won't you.
Yet as we see . . you don't bother to read or try to understand anything . . . like Gplex you just reject, reject, reject a priori . . to protect your reductionist materialism from any conceivable alternatives. Your view cannot tolerate any evidence . . . and God dammit you won't see any, will you.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-19-2010 at 07:48 PM..
I sincerely hope there is some sort of afterlife. I for one do not remember any existence leading up to being born, and memory, experience, and a sense of existence builds slowly as you age into youth and adulthood, and can (but not always) start to fade if you live to an olde enough age.
Also, when you sleep you are in a non to semi-conscious state. There is no memory of much or all of this time when you awake. There are times of dreams in certain cycles of REM sleep, but most people remember only dream experience of a semi-conscious or "half awake" period of sleep, and unless you write dream memories down shortly after waking the can fade pretty fast.
Are death and the "soul" different from the non or semi-conscious states of the living? Does an inner "essence" or "core" depart your body upon death to continue to another plane of existence and/or consciousness? And, if so, does it carry the experience and memory of your worldly existence with it?
I pray that there is, and hope we experience our loved ones in some form or another after departing our worldy existence...
You keep playing the one-note song called reductionist materialism and exhibit no interest in or philosophical capacity to learn any other tune . . . let alone know of the existence of any others. I have encountered this phenomenon many, many times in my career. The major clue is the aversion to the very concept embodied in my synthesis. The aversion is so strong it will not even allow the contemplation of concepts on the leading edge of human thought. We used to call such hide-bound concrete thinkers "troglodytes." We would actively steer them away from pursuit of PhD's and toward more practitioner-oriented educational opportunities. They can be very successful practitioners but make very poor PhD candidates.
Some abstract ideas or modes of thought are pure anathema to Trogs . . . blocking any and all capacity for entertaining legitimate theoretical foundations a priori. The reverse of your model of the theist, Konraden: Idea -> no such thing or not useful -> abort consideration, period. Any and all subsequent encounters are treated identically. which makes this comment of yours ever more ironic, Konraden: "Try something new Mystic." . . . Taking your own advice might be enlightening for you. You insist on word games to avoid confronting reality head-on . . . either YOU exist or YOU don't. YOU are the observer and director of all your thoughts and actions.THAT is your "Self" . . . whatever you want to call it and whatever characteristics it exhibits at any given time under any given conditions. It is NOT resident in any physical matter . . . it is a pure energy form in the universe at large in the universal field that establishes our reality. It is BOTH produced AND accessed by brain activity (transceiver).
Your favorite Gaps fallacy nonsense does NOT apply to hypotheses based on known phenomena . . . only to proofs. Science would not be able to function if every hypothesis promulgated was rejected out of hand because it addressed what we did not know. THAT is what hypotheses are FOR!! Your vacuous zero evidence crap is nothing more than a tedious annoyance similarly disqualified by your dismissal of 95+% of reality as having no role in anything but what it was DETECTED by. I repeat . . . "You can ignore 95+% of reality and claim it is irrelevant to everything . . . but you cannot maintain that it is scientific nor rational." You certainly cannot cry zero evidence. How could you possibly know . . . you have never even tried to understand my synthesis . . . or you could not make this statement with a straight face. Man up and say you don't understand it, Konraden . . . but give up this absurd denial of the existence of my explanations.It is 95+% and restating your rejection of the importance of so ubiquitous and prevalent a part of the universe as "having no impact" is ludicrous.Yet as we see . . you don't bother to read or try to understand anything . . . like Gplex you just reject, reject, reject a priori . . to protect your reductionist materialism from any conceivable alternatives. Your view cannot tolerate any evidence . . . and God dammit you won't see any, will you.
Moderator cut: attack
I entreat you: Post more of your Synthesis...especially relative to the portion that addresses---
There are two forms of "unmeasurable" substance comprising 95+% of our universe, and two forms of "unmeasurable" consciousness (Spirit) energy (thoughts and feelings).
One of these "unmeasurable" substances is responsible for expanding the universe and the other is responsible for the formation and maintenance of galaxies (pools of fire) . . . the predicted fates of our consciousness (Spirit) is to join God (the expanding universe) or become part of a pool of fire (galaxy).
I just got an incredible vibe editing it from your original post questions to statements.
Start a new thread...use a different portion of the forum...anything...but please...expand on that.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 05-20-2010 at 06:38 AM..
Reason: Attacks on other posters only gets deleted
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.
Just because the galactic scale is necessary to DETECT the effects is no basis for asserting that they have NONE anywhere else. Clearly they dominate the universe . . . to suggest that such a dominant presence has no effect is ludicrous on its face. (Astrologers have asserted effects for millennia and been scoffed at for not having any possible scientifically credible source of them, btw).
