Hi

[trdsf]

Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about? (1)
Can you? (2)
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about? (3)

Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.

• You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1.  What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
• Non sequitur.  Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3.  They are unrelated statements
• In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.

1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.

Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.

2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.

There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.

Them's the rules?
What?

Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.

If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.

[Arik]

Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.

• You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1.  What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
• Non sequitur.  Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3.  They are unrelated statements
• In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.

You turn something very very simple into something very very complicate, intellectual and philosophical that is not really needed in  this case.
The point was all about providing evidence about something that is not physical.
Atheists expect to see physical evidence of something that is not physical which obviously is not possible and my simple example explained how this doesn't make sense.

Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.

That is a lot of garbage Mister.
Although is true that the consciousness is dependent on the brain to function as long as we are alive that doesn't mean that the consciousness is created or is a product of the brain.
There is no evidence of whatsoever that this is the case.
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.

There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.

Oh, well then it means that all the people that in the last seven thousand years or so practice intuitional science were a bunch of idiots.
How can you dismiss something that you never practice?
Here we go back to my previous point in which it is impossible to give evidence about something personal such as love.
Everybody knows that it exist but at the same time it is personal between two entity and not transferable.

Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.

Oh, well there is a little big problem with materialists because for them only matter exist.
But the consciousness is not made of matter.
Nobody can touch, smell, see, or taste it and this consciousness keep on living even when body cells die.
That should indicate that matter is not all it exist and that consciousness is superior to matter.

If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.

The fact that consciousness is not made of matter is not only my belief.
Even a demented idiot knows that consciousness is not made of matter.



[/list]

[Arik]

Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)

The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge.  Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.

Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person considering that you know everything about something that you never practiced.
Congratulation Hydra.

[Hydra009]

Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person

Only in comparison.

[Baruch]

There were philosophers who thought that thought was a very fine powder or gaseous substance.  Early materialism.  This is before modern physics and chemistry created ... physicalism.  When we say materialism today, we mean physicalism, not that primitive materialism of Democritus.

With physicalism, even though light is a quantum mechanical mess ... it can be counted as physical, even if not material.  It is the prime example of something physical, that is non-material, that can interact with something that is both physical and material.  And that is exactly where quantum mechanics steps in, because that interaction in detail, is non-classical.

[aitm]

time to be bored elsewhere.....chow!

[trdsf]

Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.

Despite the fact that you actually did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.

It's real simple.  If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence.  "I think it's that way" is not evidence.  "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence.  "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence.  I repeat, them's the rules.  You do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.

So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.

[Arik]

Despite the fact that you actually did make this statement, I find it difficult to believe one human being is capable of that spectacular a degree of hypocrisy.

It's real simple.  If you have evidence for your proposition, you need to provide it, and "it isn't currently explained" is not evidence.  "I think it's that way" is not evidence.  "You materialists just can't understand" is not evidence.  "I have a magical understanding" is not evidence.  I repeat, them's the rules.  You do not get to make up your own rules of evidence.

So far, the only evidence I can glean from your posts is that yoga has made you limber enough to stick your head up your own ass.

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.

[Hydra009]

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Ah, ex atheists agreed with you.  Well, why didn't you say so?!  That makes your argument a lot stronger.  Did the whole hospital clap, too?

I'm a bit religiously challenged (and therefore unable to easily follow such transcendent, sciency thinking) so you're going to have to walk me through it.

P1:  Some people almost die and some of them say they had out-of-body experiences.
P2:  ???
Conclusion:  consciousness is eternal (therefore?)

[trdsf]

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.

You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on.  Your current dosage isn't working.

NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage.  No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.

Established?  Let's see your peer-reviewed papers.  Let's see the reproducible data.  Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.

[Baruch]

Thousand of NDEs already established that consciousness never die.
Even strong ex atheists that had one of this experience agree with me.

Evidence is there Mister.
Real people, real death as established by real doctors in real hospital with real witnesses.
You just can not deny anymore.

There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism.  It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself.  This is where some people here are coming from.  So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them.  This is the internalization of nihilism.

[Arik]

You need to either halve, or double, whatever medication you're on.  Your current dosage isn't working.

NDEs are the misfirings of a brain in trauma either from oxygen starvation or gross physical damage.  No need to call magic in to "explain" anything.

Established?  Let's see your peer-reviewed papers.  Let's see the reproducible data.  Until you can provide those, evidence is most emphatically NOT there.

Brain in trauma?

Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.

If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.

A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.

This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.

Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.

[Arik]

There was a school of psychology called Behaviorism.  It taught that it was irrelevant if people had emotions or thoughts ... because these can't be objectively observed and quantified by people outside of yourself.  This is where some people here are coming from.  So introspection as a method is completely irrelevant to them.  This is the internalization of nihilism.

I suppose it takes time to work out how the system works.
Most probably in some past lives I also was very stubborn but as the old granny said..........IS NEVER TOO LATE BOY.

[trdsf]

Brain in trauma?

Don't be ridiculous Mister.
After 10 or so second that the heart stop there is no more blood-oxigen going through the brain and that is called death.
Brain in trauma is something different and in most cases is caused when the head suddenly and violently hits an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue in those cases the blood still go through to a certain extent.

If you would have read some of the reason why many people end up in the emergency room (ER), or casualty department where they went through their NDE you would know that there were a lot of different reasons and accidents other than head injuries that would cause a brain trauma.

A brain trauma doesn't produce a real NDE.
NDEs are not hallucinations that can experienced during a brain trauma.

This only show how fast you are in coming up with comments that are void of any evidence in order to justify your failings.

Swearing and calling me with names doesn't reinforce your arguments either.
A poor arguments stay poor no matter what.

Well, all the observations, data and evidence are on my side.  I'm not "coming up with comments", that's your tactic, and this is just more cowardice and dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.

PROVIDE YOUR DATA.

If you can't do that, you don't have evidence.  Period.

[Baruch]

You (a person) are conscious.  You don't know what that means.  If you were a nihilist you would deny that it has any meaning.  Nihilism bad.

People ascribe meaning to things.  Occasionally they agree partially on what that meaning is, if it is an external event in particular, or because they have a disconnected yet shared experience (they both went fishing with their father, but they didn't have the same father).  Their feelings about going fishing, as opposed to the external facts of going fishing, might be something they share or they may have opposite reactions (like vs dislike).

Each individual ascribes their own meaning, which may or may not be the same as the shared meaning.  They might only dreamt or imagined that they had gone fishing, after having read about it once.  Such day dreaming (and night dreaming) is common enough.

When will we all have the exact same feelings, thoughts and expressions?  Aka Objectivity?  When there is only one person on Earth, the last one.  This is why uniformity of opinion is hard to achieve, it requires maximal extermination (Hell is other people).  Of course this doesn't solve all epistemological problems ... that last person may have had a varying view of a particular experience, over time, and might remember that is the case.

We are all witnesses to our own experiences, and shared witnesses to anything we have directly or indirectly shared.  That is the evidence.  Outside of human observation and experiment, evidence doesn't exist that matters at all.  Solipsism is the flip side of nihilism.