You really don't get it enrico, do you? The scientific consensus is that we are finite because that is where all the evidence points to. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we are anything more than finite beings. If you want evidence, 5 minutes on google will get you there. We are not going to present you with every piece of evidence there is. We aren't even supposed to present evidence to you, you are meant to be presenting evidence to us. You are claiming we are not finite beings, this goes against what scientists think therefore it is your job to prove you are right.

(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?

Just a bit. Quantifiable and third-party observable changes in the brain have a causal relationship with qualitative first-person experiences. We all agree on that. The character of that causal relationship remains an open question. You assume that the brain states generate mental properties. That may not be the case. Brain states could instead facilitate mental properties. For example, when you turn on a radio and hear music, the radio does not create the music. When you change stations, you have changed the state of the radio so as to receive something external to itself. Music is not an emergent property of radios.

---

(October 26, 2013 at 11:56 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Eegs and MRI demonstrate that aptly. People I have died hook into both so we could observe the process well. We also can measure what is going on in a persons brain using both and through the Montreal procedure we have mapped most of the limbic system and proven that electric stimulation is what produces thoughts and sensations.

See my reply above. You have already assumed that the electrical stimulation produces thoughts and sensations. Causal relation, yes. But that's not the whole story.

---

(October 26, 2013 at 11:24 am)DLJ Wrote: Neuroscience is to Neurosurgery as Engineering Science is to Mechanics.

Philosophy of Mind is to neuroscience and mathematics is to physics.

(October 26, 2013 at 11:56 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Eegs and MRI demonstrate that aptly. People I have died hook into both so we could observe the process well. We also can measure what is going on in a persons brain using both and through the Montreal procedure we have mapped most of the limbic system and proven that electric stimulation is what produces thoughts and sensations.

Wrong again.
We are talking about consciousness not brain activity which i can agree with you to a certain extend.
There is evidence that consciousness can be separated from the body when the body is dead or is in a coma or other states of non response.
People under these states have seen their bodies lying down while they (their consciousness) go up above the body.
From there they have seen what was inside other rooms which they never been there.
After going back (their consciousness) into their previous body they explained what was inside other rooms to people who were present in the hospital.
After checking in the rooms that the NDE experiencer described they found the things that he saw when he was not in his body.
One more example.
One Nde saw a nurse dropping a baby on the ground and the baby fractured some bones.
The nurse did not tell anything to anyone for fear to get into trouble and nobody could understand why the baby was crying so loud.
When the NDE came back into his body explained what happened so the doctors could fix the baby fracture.
Now if you are right about your so called evidence how would you explain all this?
Can your stimuli create a situation in which the mind can see through the wall?
Of course no, that is why your evidence is the usual bullshit.

(October 27, 2013 at 8:51 am)enrico Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 11:56 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Eegs and MRI demonstrate that aptly. People I have died hook into both so we could observe the process well. We also can measure what is going on in a persons brain using both and through the Montreal procedure we have mapped most of the limbic system and proven that electric stimulation is what produces thoughts and sensations.

Wrong again.
We are talking about consciousness not brain activity which i can agree with you to a certain extend.
There is evidence that consciousness can be separated from the body when the body is dead or is in a coma or other states of non response.
People under these states have seen their bodies lying down while they (their consciousness) go up above the body.
From there they have seen what was inside other rooms which they never been there.
After going back (their consciousness) into their previous body they explained what was inside other rooms to people who were present in the hospital.
After checking in the rooms that the NDE experiencer described they found the things that he saw when he was not in his body.
One more example.
One Nde saw a nurse dropping a baby on the ground and the baby fractured some bones.
The nurse did not tell anything to anyone for fear to get into trouble and nobody could understand why the baby was crying so loud.
When the NDE came back into his body explained what happened so the doctors could fix the baby fracture.
Now if you are right about your so called evidence how would you explain all this?
Can your stimuli create a situation in which the mind can see through the wall?
Of course no, that is why your evidence is the usual bullshit.

You're hilarious, enrico. You spew a bunch of shit about NDEs, without any evidence or citations, and then call actual science bullshit?

Your lack of intellectual honesty is sad.

(October 26, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Rationalman Wrote: You really don't get it enrico, do you? The scientific consensus is that we are finite because that is where all the evidence points to. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we are anything more than finite beings. If you want evidence, 5 minutes on google will get you there. We are not going to present you with every piece of evidence there is. We aren't even supposed to present evidence to you, you are meant to be presenting evidence to us. You are claiming we are not finite beings, this goes against what scientists think therefore it is your job to prove you are right.

Sorry but you can't have your way.
You guys put a rule into place.
This rule state that when you come up with a so called truth you must give evidence that this truth is real truth.
You say that when people say that God exist they must give evidence otherwise is all bullshit.
You guys came up with the story that we are finite without give any evidence of whatsoever so i do expect that you give evidence before i have to prove the contrary.

One more thing about your name.
Rational means striving toward the progress and here i am talking about real progress or the progress that belong to you for ever not the one that you may gain one day and loose the next day like everything related to this physical arena.
Considering that you haven't shown any of this i would say that you choose the wrong name.

(October 27, 2013 at 9:12 am)enrico Wrote: You guys came up with the story that we are finite without give any evidence.

The fact that our bodies begin dying the moment we are born proves that we are finite. If we were infinite, our bodies would be immortal.

(October 27, 2013 at 9:10 am)Chas Wrote: You're hilarious, enrico. You spew a bunch of shit about NDEs, without any evidence or citations, and then call actual science bullshit? Your lack of intellectual honesty is sad.

I already made a reference about the book that describe these experiences and the book is called..... http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Near-Deat...1571745475
This book is a collection of not few experiences but thousand of it.
If you haven't seen my reference in previous post it is quite understandable considering the quantity of post in this forum but what is not understandable is your haste into declare somebody guilty before the due judgement so now is me that judge you.
I give you 2- (out of 10) and no kudos.

---

(October 27, 2013 at 9:19 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(October 27, 2013 at 9:12 am)enrico Wrote: You guys came up with the story that we are finite without give any evidence.

The fact that our bodies begin dying the moment we are born proves that we are finite. If we were infinite, our bodies would be immortal.

The fact that the car (body) begin to dying the moment that she born proves that she is finite.
Opshhh, you forgot to take the driver into consideration.
Does he die when the car die?
Sorry pal but you got an other 2- as your Chas mate and no kudos of course.

(October 26, 2013 at 4:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Just a bit. Quantifiable and third-party observable changes in the brain have a causal relationship with qualitative first-person experiences. We all agree on that. The character of that causal relationship remains an open question. You assume that the brain states generate mental properties. That may not be the case. Brain states could instead facilitate mental properties. For example, when you turn on a radio and hear music, the radio does not create the music. When you change stations, you have changed the state of the radio so as to receive something external to itself. Music is not an emergent property of radios.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I still can't bridge the gap to making that a philosophical question: you can't really demonstrate physical phenomena through philosophy alone, after all.

You're right that we can't demonstrate that the brain isn't some form of channeler for consciousness, but then, I'm willing to tentatively accept a causal relationship rather than throw that away due to an inability to disprove a contradicting hypothesis. My mind remains open to the possibility, but when a guy like enrico states that something is the case based on nothing more than his own refusal to bring evidence... well, that gets me interested in an argument.

(October 26, 2013 at 11:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: The true victory against enrico is when you put him on ignore and are free of his arrogant drivel, folks.

Good one.
So far you guys had a field day dealing with religious people and their dogmas (false truth) so when enrico show up you found the life a lot lot harder considering that you too float in an ocean of dogmas.
That's life Esq.
Or you keep your easy life dealing with religious dogmas and you learn absolutely nothing or you decide to deal with reality and you can have the chance to lift up your consciousness.
Too hard and you prefer to float in the ocean of your dogmas?
Up to you, it is your life.

(October 27, 2013 at 9:27 am)enrico Wrote: Opshhh, you forgot to take the driver into consideration.

No, I did not. Our consciousness dies along with our bodies.