Originally posted by ShakyamunisonOK, I’m confused by that 😕
Because time is an illusion. The past, present and future exist now. I am the incarnation of my entity, and my entity lives many lives all at once.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonIf the self is lost then how can you remember things like memories, professions and so on?
It doesn't work that way. The self is lost when you die.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, I’m confused by that 😕 If the self is lost then how can you remember things like memories, professions and so on?
You can't remember thing about the self because physical memory cannot be transferred from person to person. However, your entity has it's own memory, and every life adds to this memory. You can tap into your entities memory because you are a part of your entity.
How can a person change their genes once they have grown been born? If a person invents a new skill, how can this person pass that skill down to their child; but it happens...?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Science and the public. Don't lie I know the truth. 😖hifty:
True. I find it hard not to.
Originally posted by debbiejo
He posted my bag head..cry
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, i meant no new scientific explanation for the PHENOMENON IN QUESTION.
OMG. If those sciences don’t show how our understanding of the human brain has been revolutionized by modern science, further explaining the phenomenon in question, I don’t know if you’re qualified enough to be speaking on this matter.
I suppose the wheel really didn’t change transportation either?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the experiment in question tells us that the two hemispheres can chare information and refrain from becoming individual entities{which in all physical likelyhood they should} even when they are completely disconnected from each other and have their own phenomenology /memory and perception seperate physically fromt each others.
This relates to nothing.
You claimed that:“a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem”
You have provided no evidence that supports your conclusion. You have attempted evidence by presenting some of the most crude experiments in physiology and ignored the past 60 years of science. That is backward.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
your dismissing things without even looking them up. i thinkthat is close minded.
Why look up known fact? Close mindedness is ignoring research that is actually pertinent to the question at hand.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i just said, physics as it stands cant explain it. and a purely MASS/MATTER based interacting system of bodies can not account for such phenomenon. similar to how matter based physics could not account for the double slit diffraction experimets which roved quantum theory. {and no, purely coincidential quantum phenomenon can not explain the collective results and random tendencies in the things i described either}. be my guest and look it up if u think im lying. i dont think im uninformed on the subject, but again, ur welcome to prove me wrong.
First off, why the hell is physics trying to explain this? This is a biochemical problem. Surely with your epic grasp of the situation, you’d understand that.
You have pulled an irrational solution to a biological problem out of thin air. That is the issue here.
And, if anyone came to me and said “I don’t think there has been any advancement in the understanding of the human brain since lobotomies were preformed on seizure patients in the 1800's,” I’d certainly consider them uninformed.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1)
Instead of engaging in the normal crap that you leak all over the forum...
Here are my criticisms. Explain them or shut up.
Originally posted by Alliance
1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."(Why is it that your person inhabits your energy and atoms? You're saying that we are simply these two things combined. I'm saying that we are more than the sum of our parts and do not exist within or are defined by energy and matter.)
2. You have yet to show why the person is contained in their magical 'energy of their mind" and "atoms of the body" throughout their life and not after their death.
(Why is it only after we die we live on, as opposed to continuously "living on throughout our lives? You say when we die, energy dissipates and decomposes. I'm saying this is a continuous process that happens throughout or life and that drawing a distinction at death is ridiculous.
3. How you distinguish one person from another.
(why is it that the slice of turkey I just ate part of me and not part of the turkey. When i sh*t it out tomorrow, is it me? or is it the turkey? or is it what the turkey ate? There is no logical way to compartmentalize an open system. You're saying that at one point, something that has long existed becomes you, but somehow stays you. I'm saying that you are defined as an entity, not as the parts of that entity.
Originally posted by Alliance
1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."
You didn't read my last quote. That's a misinterpretation on your part. The energy of the mind is the same energy in the body, just a different form.
Originally posted by Alliance
(Why is it that your person inhabits your energy and atoms? You're saying that we are simply these two things combined. I'm saying that we are more than the sum of our parts and do not exist within or are defined by energy and matter.)
I beleive the self is temporary. I don't beleive the self, or identity, we inhabit now continues after death. It only continues in memory.
It seems you do beleive in the self, or atleast an "eternal/definite" self, and that's okay. That's your beleif and you are right to it.
But, I on the other hand, beleive All Life is One- the way all your cells belong to your body, is the way we all belong to this Earth. Ofcourse it's not that simple, but that's the best metaphor I can come up with.
Originally posted by Alliance
2. You have yet to show why the person is contained in their magical 'energy of their mind" and "atoms of the body" throughout their life and not after their death.
The "magical energy of the mind" is a misintepretation on your part. The energy that our bodies and minds consist of, continues to exist, regardless of the end of the self.
Until we can prove the existance of a soul, I am not convinced that we have a definate identity which endures beyond death.
I beleive the identity is temporary, a temporary state like all things.
The Earth and Sun had a beginning, and will have an end, same with us. However, that doesn't mean we stop existing. We change, and no longer exist as what we are now.
The matter and energy that the Earth and Sun consist of will not simply delete from existance, all of that will go on to create more planets, stars, etc.
Likewise, what we consist of now, continues forward to create other life and/or non-life.
I kind of see it this way:
The only Eternal is Change. This process continues through a cycle of temporary states. Life is no exception. I don't beleive the self is a true reality for several reasons:
1) Why do I not remember existance before I was born ?
2) If I have a soul, or central self, then what about animals ? Do they have souls_? If so, where do they end up after they die ? If not, why not ?
3) We cannot be completely separate from all else, when we are all interdependent. Everything is connected, whether in a major or minute way.
Now...I find it interesting that you beleive the Self to be more than just the combination of matter/energy/conciousness elements.
I would like to know what you beleive the Self is, and why. I promise I will not simply bash your beleif, like you do me.
Originally posted by Alliance
(Why is it only after we die we live on, as opposed to continuously "living on throughout our lives? You say when we die, energy dissipates and decomposes. I'm saying this is a continuous process that happens throughout or life and that drawing a distinction at death is ridiculous.
I know that. But you misunderstand me.
To me, Death is NOT the OPPOSITE of Life. Death is a Part of Life.
The Opposite of Death is Birth
Birth and Death are both repeated routines of Life. However, they both belong to the phenomena of Life.
I see Life/Death like being awake and being asleep. Every day we have two phases of conciousness: Being awake, and being asleep. In neither phase are we destroyed, we exist either way.
Life is being awake, Death is being asleep. Death is not destruction.
The element of Self makes this difficult, because the "self" needs somewhere to go.
I beleive in Reincarnation, but in a different way. I existed as other life forms before. When I die, I will exist as multiple life forms, not just another person with another lesson to learn.
Part of me will disintegrate and become plant life. Another part of me will be eaten and become animal. Another part will mix with the death remnants of another to become another human.
I think that's beautiful. I would rather think of myself as one with all others, and not separate. In this way, I kind of have to respect others, because they are not separate from me, in fact, they are me.
This personal conclusion I got from mixes of Buddhism, Wicca, and Franciscan Christianity.
Hey, If I'm wrong, that's okay !
I would love to know that I will still exist as who I am now in another life, but I don't buy that just yet. The former makes more sense to me.
Originally posted by Alliance
3. How you distinguish one person from another.
That's a Key Question.
I beleive our minds are what give us the sense of Identity, what differentiates me from you, and etc. If we were like plant life, we would only have a body, not a mind, and neither of us would be aware that we are separate things. We would just be alive.
Like I said before, I beleive the Self is temporary. The Identity I have today (let's just say Mr. Urizen) will only exist in this lifetime, and he will not exist as Mr. Urizen after his death.
He will exist as other things, but he will still exist nonetheless.
Besides....the Self whether temporary or not, is not static. We are Every changing. You know that !
I am NOT the SAME person I was ten years ago, or even five years ago. Hell even two years agom I was very different. Does that mean my past selves are dead ?
No.
I just changed. I continue existing in different forms. New cells, new aspects of personality, new etc. Just growing from what existed last.
I don't think Death is that much different from aging itself. I don't see death as the end of my existance, just as a doorway into another life.
Originally posted by Alliance
(why is it that the slice of turkey I just ate part of me and not part of the turkey. When i sh*t it out tomorrow, is it me? or is it the turkey? or is it what the turkey ate? There is no logical way to compartmentalize an open system. You're saying that at one point, something that has long existed becomes you, but somehow stays you. I'm saying that you are defined as an entity, not as the parts of that entity.
This is a very smart argument.
And I actually agree. Like I said before, the self is temporary. The Turkey you eat becomes your muscle for a time being. The other part of that turkey you shit out no longer is linked to you.
If you lose weight, the turkey that made your muscle will no longer be part of you.
I do not beleive the body and mind are closed systems, in fact, I beleive they are entirely open, ever receptive, ever changing.
We exist through Change, not in static ranks.
i am an atheist. couple reasons for that. this may sound selfish but i dont care.
1 god stopped "appearing"
2 for all humans worship they go unrewarded, harm and death still apply to EVERYONE
3 god was an idea created because of natural disasters. how else could you explain earth quakes volcano's tornados etc.
4 for all his infinite compassion, he has shown nothing but indifference tords humans. if he hated evil he would destroy the devil(if he even exists)
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I [b]know
there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.
It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference. [/B]
How can you search for emerical evidence for something you cannot even define?
Again with the linear thinking.
There are things which our mind cannot comprehend at any rate, and perhaps creation of universe and afterlife are one of those things. It is false to assume that if we have not comprehended something by now, it is simply non existent.
Your Atheist belief exists only in relation to religion. The God you reject is that which Abrahamic religion created, and the afterlife you reject is that which was created by existing religions today (most notably Judaism and Christianity).
Without those religions, the idea of God you understand does not exist. That does not mean that 'it' as a phenomenon does not exist at all, nor that the afterlife whatever that may be, does not exist either.
You can claim Judeo Christian afterlife does not exist, but you have limited your understanding of afterlife to marely what Judeo-Christian theology says.
This in turns does not bring us close to any kind of truth whatsoever.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessWhat an odd bunch of nonsense to type up.
How can you search for emerical evidence for something you cannot even define?Again with the linear thinking.
There are things which our mind cannot comprehend at any rate, and perhaps creation of universe and afterlife are one of those things. It is false to assume that if we have not comprehended something by now, it is simply non existent.
Your Atheist belief exists only in relation to religion. The God you reject is that which Abrahamic religion created, and the afterlife you reject is that which was created by existing religions today (most notably Judaism and Christianity).
Without those religions, the idea of God you understand does not exist. That does not mean that 'it' as a phenomenon does not exist at all, nor that the afterlife whatever that may be, does not exist either.
You can claim Judeo Christian afterlife does not exist, but you have limited your understanding of afterlife to marely what Judeo-Christian theology says.
This in turns does not bring us close to any kind of truth whatsoever.
Originally posted by Alliance]
True. I find it hard not to.I simply quoted your post.
OMG. If those sciences don’t show how our understanding of the human brain has been revolutionized by modern science, further explaining the phenomenon in question, I don’t know if you’re qualified enough to be speaking on this matter.
I suppose the wheel really didn’t change transportation either?
This relates to nothing.
You claimed that:“a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem”
You have provided no evidence that supports your conclusion. You have attempted evidence by presenting some of the most crude experiments in physiology and ignored the past 60 years of science. That is backward.
Why look up known fact? Close mindedness is ignoring research that is actually pertinent to the question at hand.
First off, why the hell is physics trying to explain this? This is a biochemical problem. Surely with your epic grasp of the situation, you’d understand that.
You have pulled an irrational solution to a biological problem out of thin air. That is the issue here.
And, if anyone came to me and said “I don’t think there has been any advancement in the understanding of the human brain since lobotomies were preformed on seizure patients in the 1800's,” I’d certainly consider them uninformed.
sighhhhhh. ur not getting what im saying at ALL. forget you personal biases against me for a second. forget that you think i do not know about new developments. forget that you think this has nothing to do with physics.
just TRY and explain to me in your own words how ANY of the "newer" research you have pointed towards can in ANY way account for the phenomenon of information transfer across two physically disconnected brain hemispheres. consider me an ignorant bufoon on need of education.
how this relates to my previous threory of the currently understood physically confined brain being unable to be truly self aware. for one it points towards a brain OUTSIDE the completely physically accepted model{call it mysticism of just science which isnt understood yet} which CAN account for TRUE elf awareness. duh.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well for one, because there is no "it" beyond our definitions.
Either it fits or it doesn't. So that was one of her more stupid points.
Well yeah....but what I thought she was saying is that sometimes athiests have limited defintions of "it" because they define "it" in relation to religon. So for example god doesnt or the afterlife doesnt exist because it cant exist they way it has been described in the bible. Thats what I thiought she was saying and I dont see why thats nonsense.....
Originally posted by AlfheimYeah, that is fact. Though, I don't see nothing wrong with that.
Well yeah....but what I thought she was saying is that sometimes athiests have limited defintions of "it" because they define "it" in relation to religon. So for example god doesnt or the afterlife doesnt exist because it cant exist they way it has been described in the bible. Thats what I thiought she was saying and I dont see why thats nonsense.....
Originally posted by AlfheimAfterlife is not defined by Religion. I find it okay, when atheists believe themselves opposed to the definitions of God we have (through Religion, mostly). That they can't define themselves by some odd definition that we don't know but that could exist in one way or another, is what I find rather trivial. So, I found her post odd.
You mean you dont have a problem with the afterlife being defined in relation to religon?