(October 24, 2013 at 7:43 am)enrico Wrote: Consciousness is not physical therefore can not be studied by physical science.

Prove it.

(And no, NDEs do not prove it. It's not clear what NDEs are or what causes them, and until it is, they are not proof. Until you can provide evidence as to what they actually are, they are not themselves evidence for anything else. If NDEs and 'auras' are all you have for proof, then you have no proof.)

(October 24, 2013 at 7:43 am)enrico Wrote: Consciousness is not physical therefore can not be studied by physical science.

There are THOUSANDS of scientific papers that are about consciousness- both in terms of being awake and in terms of being sentient. It is studied by scientists all the time. The fact is that you have read none of these papers and so have no idea what scientists know and don't know about it.

Why in hell can't these folks learn to read journal papers before they start yapping about what science can and cannot do?

(October 24, 2013 at 10:16 am)Zazzy Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 7:43 am)enrico Wrote: Consciousness is not physical therefore can not be studied by physical science.

There are THOUSANDS of scientific papers that are about consciousness- both in terms of being awake and in terms of being sentient. It is studied by scientists all the time. The fact is that you have read none of these papers and so have no idea what scientists know and don't know about it.
Why in hell can't these folks learn to read journal papers before they start yapping about what science can and cannot do?

I guess you and the other guys never try to understand what the word PHYSICAL means.
After years and years of studying everything else you miss this important meaning.
How sad.
Well, as old granny sad.............it is never too late.
But do not despair, even those scientists that as you say try to understand something about consciousness can not see the difference between the physical aspect and the consciousness aspect.
They masturbate their minds in the hope that consciousness can be grasp by physical science.
Theory and practical reality are two different things.
Theory means very little but reality acquired through practice is everything.
Real love is only acquired through practice not by theory that is why physical science is unable to enter the kingdom of consciousness.

---

(October 24, 2013 at 9:27 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 24, 2013 at 9:16 am)enrico Wrote: Stop there boy.
When you are not sure you should not back up such an assertion.
End of story.
You can eventually say that you think or you guess and that is all you can say.

It's called being intellectually honest, you buffoon. Total certainty is a near impossibility, because we don't know everything yet. I don't get why you're bitching about this anyway, since if you actually had any evidence to show for your position, this honesty on my part would be your opening to convince me that you're right.

Oh, but you don't have any evidence, hmm?

Quote:Have you ever seen a driver stuck inside a car or glue to the seat for ever?

That's begging the question: the only way that comparison even functions is if you're already assuming that consciousness isn't tied to the body to begin with, which is something you've given us zero reason to accept.

Quote:Sorry boy but again i am not the one who said that we are finite without bring any evidence to back it up so is you that got to bring the evidence.
And i mean real evidence not the usual hot air.

No, but you are the one who said that we're infinite without providing any evidence. The difference between our positions is that I actually can provide data that points to my position being true, and I did that in my first post to you.

How about you cut the superiority complex and come to the table with something real, enrico? Why in hell should we just accept what you're saying, just because you have the temerity to say it?

I already explain the point but you keep on evading to answer.
I said that i follow your same policy.
When someone say that God exist you guys say that without evidence is all bullshit so when you guys say that we are finite i do require you to back your statement with evidence.
So far no evidence has been come so i have to come to the conclusion that your statement is all bullshit.
Is this clear or i will have to write in a different language that you may understand better?

So all those scientist have it wrong. Enrico is the only one to have figured it out.
Can someone please provide a link about the subject. Maybe a peer reviewed paper or something, not that he would understand it

(October 25, 2013 at 10:23 am)enrico Wrote: I already explain the point but you keep on evading to answer.
I said that i follow your same policy.
When someone say that God exist you guys say that without evidence is all bullshit so when you guys say that we are finite i do require you to back your statement with evidence.

And my evidence is the entirety of the findings of mainstream medicine and neuroscience. What have you got?

Quote:So far no evidence has been come so i have to come to the conclusion that your statement is all bullshit.
Is this clear or i will have to write in a different language that you may understand better?

So, you don't actually have any evidence at all, then?

(October 25, 2013 at 10:46 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, you don't actually have any evidence at all, then?

That would be a safe assumption I think

Esq, the findings of neuroscience must be interpretated. The framework for that is a philosophical question.

(October 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Esq, the findings of neuroscience must be interpretated. The framework for that is a philosophical question.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Care to expound a bit?

(October 25, 2013 at 3:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Esq, the findings of neuroscience must be interpretated. The framework for that is a philosophical question.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Care to expound a bit?

He wants the findings to mean more than they do.

(October 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 3:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Care to expound a bit?

He wants the findings to mean more than they do.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, and hoping.