What is logic?

[Little Rik]

When the logic is so so simple you find very very hard to understand.  
That is a problem with all intellectuals.  

They just can not cope with simple things.
Intellectuals like a jungle of ideas so they can get lost in there.
They like getting lost.  

In fact their brains is a jungle of madness.  

So you're an anti-intellectual in addition to all your other failings.  Sour grapes I'd say.

Only someone who knows or pretend to know the truth can judge and because you did judge these people you put yourself in a position to know, that is why i did asked you such a thing.

Well if it's so simple, then you should have no trouble explaining it to us.  Sarkar starts out by explaining that material things cannot deliver permanent satisfaction because they're finite, that you need the infinite, i.e. Brahma, to provide permanent satisfaction.  He then makes a lot of assertions about atman and the nature of mind, and concludes by saying that the foregoing proves the existence of Brahma, i.e. the infinite.  This is nothing less than a proof that permanent satisfaction is possible.

We're in luck, that's exactly what this thread is about! If you could prove that permanent satisfaction is possible, i.e. that Brahma exists, you'd be way ahead in proving the importance of all the rest of the stuff you talk about.   So I suggest you prove to us that it is possible, using Sarkar's essay as a guide.  If you can't do that, then you're full of shit and you know nothing about Brahma or permanent peace of mind.

So get to proving it!  Enough trash talk, let's see some action!

Correct.
Enough trash talk so now you start engaging in practice because the practice is the only way to experience the permanent peace of mind.

I can not pass to you the progress I did achieved so far so you can not know what it is all about but even if I could I would not.
Why?
Because you got to get up your shiny backside from the lazy chair and start doing your own hard work like everybody else.  

I do charity to those in need but I will not give anything to fools that  will waste what is given to them.

(color mine)

---

So what is this "Intuitional Science"? Because to me it only sounds like a bunch of made up assertions. But bear with me for a second.
If something you say is true, you should be able to make predictions based on it, right?
Then, by testing these predictions, you would be able to ascertain the validity of your statement.

Didn't I already explained this point with the iceberg example?
We see the part above the water but we can not see the part below.
Intuitional science is about bringing the part of our consciousness that is below our awareness above.
Above where?
Within our perception so the unconscious mind become conscious mind.
It involve a lot of hard work by practicing yoga.
How do you give validity that this it is true and it works?
Simple. By practicing you get results and these results are the evidence but you can also see the evidence by comparing someone health and spiritual strength.

So, returning to your argument, if you say that the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness, what should happen - according to your "Intuitional Science" - if the pineal gland were to be removed or damaged?

This is a very interesting question but the answer is very very simple.
If the pineal gland is removed the person may or may not survive.
These days in most cases people survive thanks to clever surgeries.
Consciousness will be affected badly however but she will not go away.
Consciousness only go away or separate from the body when the person die physically speaking.
It will still stay in that part of the brain where the pineal gland was but because the support of the pineal gland is gone the consciousness will not be able to perform like before.

First of all, about 50% of the subjects who report NDEs are not clinically dead - in fact, they aren't even close to dying.

That is not true.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will find that people really die physically speaking.

Second of all, it is not at all clear *when* an NDE actually happens! And you cannot rule out the (very mundane, and boring, I get it) possibility that it happens right before the "flat EEG" (if that even happens) or during the patient's recovery from it.

Wrong again Luc.
If you read the NDEs experiences you will see that most people die all of a sudden many times due to serious accidents.
In these cases the EEG get flat immediately and before that these people where fully conscious.

Besides, many typical features of NDEs (such as seeing light, being at peace and feeling clear of mind) can actually be attributed to malfunctions in specific areas of the brain such as the locus coeruleus or more generally to hypoxia. And all of this is the results of validated observations and studies, not just guesswork and pats on the back (as this is how you seem to think the scientific community works.

So... No. NDEs do not prove that consciousness exists independently from the brain. Try again.

Wrong again Luc.
When you have a malfunction in the brain you can not build up a clear, sharp and vivid experience.

NOTA BENE: I'm not saying that it's impossible for consciousness to exist separately from the brain! All I'm saying is that the evidence you are bringing up is not valid and can be explained by a simpler (in the sense that it does not require to define a whole separate new section of reality) materialistic model! Again, if you don't understand something I've said here, PM me and I'll try to be clearer.

Bring it on Luc.
Bring on your evidence if you can.  

And as you can see, it's not like neuroscientists are puzzled and stuck in a problem they can't solve - they are working all these issues out! There are problems, sure, but after all it can be said that they are really doing great considering the complexity of the issues at stake!

Good on them Luc.
Neuroscience is quite good but not good enough to understand how the consciousness works.