News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

How many GODS do you have?

Started by Arik, May 08, 2019, 08:42:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2019, 09:57:14 PM
You are merely ASSERTING that consciousness is an entity at all, let alone an abstract one. Consciousness is a process, because a consciousness that does not engage in cognition is not a consciousness, but unconsciousness. By analogy, the running of a car cannot exist without a car, yet it is as much an "abstract entity" as consciousness.
Most people aren't very intelligent, and that's the difference. I've been telling you for about THREE POSTS now that I do not accept your assertion that consciousness is an abstract entity or thing. It doesn't matter how much you repeat that ASSERTION, until you get around to proving that consciousness IS an entity, I and neuroscience in general still have good reason to think that the consciousness is what the brain does. And what the brain does is absolutely the perview of neuroscience.

It doesn't matter if you say neurologists don't study consciousness. They absolutely do.
Once again, I do no submit to your ASSERTION that consciousness is like the driver of a brain car. If you've seen Bay's Transformers, think Barricade â€" the Decepticon police cruiser. The "driver" you see "operating" Barricade is not the driver, but a hologram projected by Barricade to help in its disguise. Barricade is moving himself.

Consciousness is similar. Consciousness is not in any way analogous to the driver of the car, but more analogous to Barricade's driver hologram: the "driver" appears to be in control, but it's actually the car in control of the "driver." The consciousness appears to be in control of the brain, but the brain is fully in control and projecting the illusion of a consciousness as a controlling entity.
We are not in court. I'll call you whatever I want. Someone who cannot understand simple english has no right to tell me that anything I've said doesn't "make sense."
I don't care about your definition. You cannot prove that your consciousness "went anywhere," any more than my consciousness "goes anywhere" when I dream of Narnia.
There is no "to some, to others" nonsense. They are different types of death that someone can go through. Clinical death (heart stopping) is more properly called cardiac arrest, and it is recoverable. There's a distinct correleation between the brain dying and the person never recovering consciousness.
Too bad. People who verifiably go through NDEs always have quite intact brains. People whose brains are verifiably destroyed, don't have any verifiable NDE experiences.
No, YOU fail. When these people wake up and convey their experiences, are their brains silent and dead? No? Then their episode was obviously reversible. Remember that the ten minutes cited here is an empirical observation. It's the point where you start seeing progressive brain damage when you restore blood flow and revive the person. As the apoxia continues, the brain will deteriorate to the point where you can restore blood flow but the patient never exhibits brain function. THAT's brain death. If he's restored from apoxia and recovers some function, he's not brain dead, by definition.

So, you have not established that a brain is ever "totally lifeless." Dormant and in extremis? Yes. Dead? By definition, no.

Furthermore, even if you restore blood flow, it can take hours, even days, to regain consciousness. This is where you get NDEs lasting well over 10 minutes. Blood flow is restored, but the patient doesn't regain consciousness immediately like turning on a light. The brain is definitely working, albeit in a disorganized way, and only when that organizaion is restored is consciousness restored along with it.

So, no, you have not demonstrated that NDEs are anything other than what I say they are.
Again, mere assertion. These same people tend to have access to what happened during their episode by ordinary means. People talk. The hospital ER is not a controlled environment where you can FORCE people not to gab about the episode. In fact, talking to a comatose patient is encouraged not only under the theory that the best treatment for a disabled brain is stimulation, but also good therapy for friends and family.

This is definitely a channel by which a patient can assimilate information without woo, in addition to people gabbing after the patient has regained consciousness. The flow of information to the patient is not under any sort of control, and uncontrolled conditions make for poor data. Too poor to support an extraordinary claim like OOB experiences.

That's why you use the playing cards.

It's a piece of completely irrelevant information that is placed exactly where NDEs are reported to float above to give them the best chance of being seen if they were actually there. And, of course, they never seem to see it, even to wonder why the heck it's there. Not one of them wakes up to ask, "Incidently, can anyone tell me why there's a jack of spades up on that top shelf?"
Again, poor controls make for poor data. The controls on these cases are exceedingly poor and highly anecdotal. That's why we performed the test. The test imposed controls on a particular piece of information that only an OOBer would have access to. Yet, they fail on this very simple test. Are NDEs so incurious that not one of them wonders why the heck there was a playing card on a shelf? Tosh.

Like every other form of paranormal, it fails under a simple test with modest controls. This is the track record of every other discarded hypothesis. I would be inconsistent to not dismiss this phenomenon that runs away from verification as I did every other.
Stop appealing to preserving my pweschous fwee will. We mere humans try to pursuade each other all the time, in exactly the way we're doing with each other now. Yet nobody thinks that we're undermining each other's free will. To think that a God couldn't contain himself in this manner is simply ridiculous.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is not under the perview of neuroscience; that it's not what the brain does, the same way Barricade presents the illusion of a car with a driver even though it's only the Decepticon.

Ponder that.


You have not. You don't give ANY evidence at all that you have a genuine consciousness rather than a sham one. All you have done is asserted that you do. Sorry, a preprogrammed automaton can do that.
Wouldn't God have an interest in using NDEs to try to prove both the supernatural and himself? Establishing that a channel of communication can be relied upon is step one of communication. A God that doesn't understand this... is dumb.
You have yet to prove that there is a God to experience.
A God should be perfectly capable of showing that there is something beyond the material to be considered in a complete wordview. So far, all the evidence has been found wanting. That's not our fault. A world with supernatural content that presents itself to every reliable means of verification as only material is indistinguishable from one that is only material, and a supernatural so unwilling to present itself to verification is also one that is irrelevant. Material concerns makes itself felt in every aspect in our lives. Immaterial ones, not so much.
There is no evolutionary advantage to a consciousness that is permanent after death. It doesn't help the differential survival of an organism's genes. Evolution has no handle on making a consciousness permanet and able to survive death.
Again, consider Barricade. Once more, you have yet to establish that consciousness is a separate thing from the brain. You need ot do that before your driver and car example will have any force.
Of course a logical ignoramous like you would consider it meaningless.
Do you need to be fed all the time, twenty-four/seven? I hope this answer is no.
I know how entropy works, and it doesn't work this way. Entropy takes time to increase, and therefore it can take some time to reach equilibrium and heat death. Your proof is invalid.
Just because you think that the differences are astronomic doesn't mean that they are. They are in fact quite similar in one respect that is very important: they all contain unverifiable tripe.
Then your God is dumb. I can think of a dozen different ways right off the bat for hiding evidence that Jesus performed miracles, so I'm smarter than your God.
Like most of your tripe, mere assertion.
You did not answer in any satisfactory way.
Evolution is purely a process founded in materialistic physics. There is no other evolution than physical. To assert that consciousness was evolved is to admit that consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not woo.
Yes, and I will go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus Christ. /sarcasm You have a hard time not making your spiel sound like a con. Either do better in making it sound actually intellectually respectable, or give up.
It's happened to me. I snipped into my left hand with a pair of scissors one time, and I didn't feel pain as such. It was a deep snip, too, into the subcutaneous. I washed it out and wrapped it well, and only then did the pain start. So don't tell me what I can and can't do.
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Sal1981

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.

But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.

If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.


I'd  also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.

Hakurei Reimu

Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.

Quote from: Arik on June 16, 2019, 07:51:12 AM
I will shut up but at least let me laugh when you say that............There is no other evolution than physical............
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.

See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.

As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.

And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.

Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.

The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.

But you'll do what you'll do.

------

Now, Mr. Absolute...

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.

All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

#408
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 16, 2019, 08:44:53 PM
That ... isn't quite what Hakurei is saying.

But anyways, even if we'd to entertain your interpretation, this is easy to show that we're bound by a physical reality (whatever that reality might be) by probing it.

If physical reality was merely an illusion generated by consciousness, then we should be able to affect reality with our consciousness alone. No amount of wishing things to become true is a good testament that this is indeed a reality that shapes us, than we shaping it. The first thing that springs to mind is how this proposed illusion is able to directly alter our perception when it damages the seat of our mind, the brain. If reality was just an illusion, this would not be possible, because consciousness somehow should be generating it.


I'd  also argue that consciousness without a physical reality makes just as much sense as a wave without space to propagate in. We need a materia for our consciousness to manifest in. No amount of dualism is gonna escape that.

Our interpretation of reality, our sense of reality is an illusion generated by consciousness.  Assuming there is a reality (implies objectivity outside of humanity) and that there is a consciousness (again, this usually implies something objective/subjective not delusion).

The usual Enlightenment interpretation going back to Condillac etc ... "Étienne Bonnot de Condillac was a French philosopher and epistemologist, who studied in such areas as psychology and the philosophy of the mind."  Is there is an objective physical reality, that by physical processes our sense organs more or less provide an impression of this objective physical reality (we are excluding delusions etc).  What has developed in psychology over the last 200 years, is that our experience of our external senses is not free of intermediation (see gestalt).  There is a whole bunch of processing in the eye, in the optic nerve, and in the portion of the brain for reconstructing a virtual world experience, that we naively take for what is real.  And on top of that there is all sorts of cognitive processing ... "is that a cat or a dog?".

The normal POV, by ordinary people, is a naive realism.  We are not usually aware of all this physics and physiology and psychology that goes on between whatever is happening on my computer CRT, and what I am actually experiencing as I type this.  No primitive life form (humans for example) could survive without naive realism.  If you are a cave man, and a cheetah is about to eat you, you need to think ... "run" ... though of course given a cheetah you are too late and will be eaten.  And running just attracts a predatory response.  Only modern geeks would sit there contemplating their navel, and trying to decide the mysteries of metaphysics.  This is a good thing, it means that when we return to a "state of nature" all the eggheads get eaten first ;-)

In philosophy, this is called the "qualia" problem.  What is actually out there?  Versus all this poorly understood processing that we know, scientifically, happens, just to get a fight/flight response.  There was a good short story sci-fi once, about a virtual reality machine.  A man's family wandered into a 3d simulation of the Serengti (hence my example).  But they didn't return.  So the problem was, if there is no separation between subjective/objective experience, had his family fallen prey to predators or not?  What would happen if you simply turned off the machine.  Hence the thought experiment we are talking about.  IMHO, a virtual reality and ordinary reality are different.  If you turned off the machine (holodesk) his family would still be there, though perhaps worse for wear, because having not eating, drank etc in ordinary reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

#409
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Interesting, in order to refute Arik you suggest that consciousness is an illusion generated by the material world.  Yet I can just as easily believe that the material world is an illusion generated by consciousness.  This actually makes more sense to me.  Can you prove otherwise?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:38:02 PM
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...

Too much paranoia.  He seems immediately a different personality to me.  But some people have multiple-personality syndrome.  In fact, you can view humanity as a multiple-personality syndrome of the human archetype ;-)

Absolute Agent isn't a yogi.  Not clear yet what kind of Muslim he is.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.
When you specifically described biological evolution, yes, it's fucking physical.

See, when you describe things and assert things that we know aren't true with the absolute certainty as you have done, nobody's going to believe you. You didn't even think to fact-check the strength of bone and concrete to make sure you weren't talking out your ass when you asserted that bone was softer therefore it would break against concrete. Meanwhile, actual mechanical engineers, who know a thing or two about how things break, have done biomechanical studies on the physics of breaking blocks, and have calculated that it's not actually out of the realm of possibility for the human body with no woo involved.

As to your insipid car analogy, it fails because the driver has a verifiable physical reality beyond the car. When the driver steps out of the car, you can see him, hear him, smell him, touch him and taste him... though very few will let you get that far. Not so with consciousness. Not only does when consciousness "detach," there's no verifiable object that leaves, when it comes back, there is no reliable indication that it actually went anywhere. Again, NDE OOB experiences happen under very uncontrolled conditions (and it would be unethical to induce one purposefully) and as such cannot be taken except with a huge grain of salt. We also have a huge literature concerning false memories. Humans just aren't reliable observers.

And remember, you described consciousness as an abstract entity; it's silly to think that reasoning that applies to physical entities like human drivers will carry over to abstract entities.

Without a verifiable separate existence, consciousness and the brain has a closer match to the hologram driver and the Decepticon Barricade than they do with an ordinary human driver and car.

The way to get back into our good graces is to stop asserting and start supporting. We do not agree to your assertions about the nature of consciousness. You have been told multiple times that your assertions are not shared, and all argumentation using disputed assertions are DOA. You need to start supporting those assertions. When you're told a line of evidence isn't good enough, you need to find better evidence, not repeat the same evidence over and over again as if repetition makes it true. Even saying that you're sorry for being a butthead will go a long way to mending fences.

But you'll do what you'll do.

------

Now, Mr. Absolute...
Yeah. Like Sal said, to me the illusion of consciousness is not that it's not there in reality, but rather that it appears to be a thing when it is not. Consciousness is a process, and displays all of the signs of being a process. Change and assimilation of new information and experiences is what defines a person being conscious. Administering drugs and sustaining injuries that changes how the brain works changes how the consciousness behaves and what its capabilities are. When the brain ceases to function, consciousness disappears and does not return until brain function is restored. From this and other evidence, we conclude that consciousness is what the brain does. But of course, it's absurd to consider a process without something that the process is operating on. Hence, reality is real.

All my statements have to be evaluated on the basis that consciousness is a process and not an entity. No argument based on consciousness's being an entity will work unless and until you disabuse me of that notion.
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.  For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).  We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?

Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.  Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.

Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:38:02 PM
Hello Aki...err...Absolute Agent, who has valiantly tasked our Hakurei with proving that the universe isn't some sort of dream (gee, I sure hope that's falsifiable!) with the supporting evidence that it just makes more sense to you (argument from personal credulity?  Regardless, that's hella convincing).  You have an oddly similar debating style as Arik here, how fortunate that you joined up as soon as he (allegedly) departed.  Very interesting...
And Hello to you.  How cheering it is to know you view my arrival as fortunate and my arguments as convincing.  Hakurei, if anyone, would be capable of this feat.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 12:42:10 AM
Very well. Evaluating your argument that consciousness is a process, not an entity, I find it manifestly contradictory.  For the very nature of consciousness is to be an entity.  For instance, I am one entity, and you are one entity (not any other entity).  We are manifestly defined by our consciousness, since if it were not the case, how would we otherwise recognize each other as individual entities, having names, attributes and individual sovereignty, capable of interacting through the electronic medium independent of any perceptive interchange between our material biological manifestations?

Furthermore, while you acknowledge that consciousness is real, you claim it is not a "thing", presumably meaning a material object, by virtue of the fact that it is a process.  Somewhat like the software on a computer had no material frame but consists of a particular organization of codes and procedures that operate the physical machine.  Although the software resides on the computer it is not the computer; although the software is transmuted by physical media such as CD's, flash drives and disks, it is not those physical media in which it is transported.  Yet, without software a computer would be a mere pile of metal and plastic, the media mere chunks of dead meaningless matter.  The immaterial software makes them what they are; it defines them.

Which then is more real dear Hakurei? Are not all "things" defined by a particular process, without which they are meaningless, and in very truth, lose their "thing-ness", their ability to be identified and distinguished as such?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

About Hakurei ... you have to break it up, refute or agree point by point, sometimes letter by letter ;-)

And then he will explain how every point where you differ from him ... is wrong ;-)

Materialists don't think in terms of entities.  There are just atoms, moving randomly about.  It is an arbitrary choice to divide one set of atoms from another, to divide me from the keyboard I am typing from.  There is no difference between a rock and a person ... because life and consciousness as commonly understood by the great unwashed, is naive.  And to avoid Hylozoism and Panpsychism ... (everything is alive and conscious) there can be nothing that is alive or conscious in conventional terms.  This is why robots and AIs are so popular with these people.  They see no essential difference between a biological system and a mechanical or computer system.  We have seen this particular rhetoric many times before, when this particular psychopathology first occurred in Greece primarily (and also in India about the same time).  It was never popular until modern European science happened in the 1600s.  At that point it became much more plausible.  With modern astronomy, it was no longer plausible that the Moon causes lunacy.  They were no longer seen as just a bunch of Oxford dons drunk in their cups.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Arik

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 16, 2019, 09:03:00 PM
Since you're not actually banned yet and there is still the possibility that you might read this, I'll respond even though I expect no reply.


Ok. then.

Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Baruch

Quote from: Arik on June 17, 2019, 04:04:56 AM

Ok. then.

Any suggestion?
Shell I continue the way I use to do, shell I wait until aitm decide something or shell I get lost?

Welcome back.  Hakurei is a challenge.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Arik

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 05:30:00 AM
Bringing forward from another string ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Zr7eaE9AUtg

Thats fits here ...


Here is the story of a neurosurgeon who had an NDE and is not a skeptic anymore.
(long story however 1:38:57 min)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5J91hE
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Arik

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:11:34 AM
Welcome back.

While waiting for aitm to decide something I keep on posting.
If God want me dead (in this forum) then let us die.  :smiley:


QuoteHakurei is a challenge.


Our friend Haku fool himself thinking that he (she?) got some strong argument in order to knockdown my points but he doesn't.

I give you just one example.
He kept on saying that the brain during an NDE is still able to put together that experience on the ground that the brain cells are not dead yet and therefore is some sort of hallucination rather than a real experience with God.
The reality is that once the heart stop sending blood-oxygen into the brain the brain cells die within 3 minutes and in very rare case within ten minutes.
Now considering that most of the NDEs last over ten minutes is quite impossible for the brain to put together an NDE that is why it is the consciousness that is able to experience that NDE.
Now our friend Haku find more and more excuses and that I consider dishonesty so to me what Haku do is not a challenge but a folly to prevent defeat.
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

josephpalazzo

Wake up people. Arik is a troll. And now he's being followed by another troll Absolute_Agent.

Coincidence???