A Non-Violent Solution?

[genkaus]

No one ever said it was.

You did. And are saying it again.

You clearly aren't even remotely paying attention. All you're doing it blowing empty hot-air into the wind. I had already made it perfectly clear that you can't even demand that the spacetime fabric we experience in our macro lives holds in the quantum world. The very concept of space and time as we know them may totally break down. So to even continue to use the term spacetime at that level is a total misunderstanding on your part.

See, you are saying that spacetime cannot be applicable in any form at that level. Ergo, no consciousness.

In fact, why do you think that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are completely incompatible on that scale?

Neither the scientific nor the philosophical communities would support your asinine claim of holding an absolute proof that no possible concept of spirit can possibly exist.

This is entirely your own personal opinion and persona agenda. And you're not convincing anyone.

Well, at least you certainly aren't convincing me, if you're convinced anyone else that's a terrible shame that they fell for your personal nonsense.

You clearly aren't even comprehending our modern picture of the world.

Apparently you'll living in a retro-classical mindset of a Newtonian clockwork universe with a Spinozaian God.

You're trying to maintain Einstein's God who does not place dice.

Neil's Borh already told Einstein not to tell God what to do. Yet, you're still trying to demand such classical absoluteness. As it turns out Neil's borh was right. The theorems of John Stewart Bell, brought the question into the realm of science and science showed that Borh was right and Einstein was wrong.

The classical picture is forever dead, and can never be revived. Yet for your so-called 'proof' to hold you would need a Newtonian universe that rules out any other possible structures beyond that classical picture.

You're just not keeping up with the modern knowledge of reality.

Irrelevant babbling ignored since none of the arguments even remotely address possibility of consciousness at quantum level.

Well, either you are a total ignoramus yourself, or again you're just not paying attention.

Unlike you, I don't skip over arguments, I read an consider them all. Your problem is not that I don't pay attention, its that I pay too much. And because of that, I can pick out exactly what errors you make and attempt to hide by using walls upon walls of text.

There is nothing in my picture of spirituality that is dependent upon an absence of knowledge.

Nothing in the picture. Your entire picture is built upon absence of knowledge. Your very first argument was that since there is no knowledge on the subject, it is okay to come up with a picture from imagination.

My entire philosophical picture is based entirely on the modern knowledge.

I search in vain within your quotations by scientists for the word "spirit" or "consciousness".

Moreover, you clearly can't comprehend the simplest thing.

I'm not stating that spirit "must exist".

On the contrary all I'm stating is that it can't be ruled out.

How is re-stating the subject of the discussion of any help?

That has been my only position at any point in our conversations, and it's been your passionate position that every imaginable concept of spirit has been firmly and undeniably "ruled-out", and you claim to have "proof" of this.

No, not all. Just the concept you have imagined - that of a spirit as an essential component of reality.

You have chosen to take the impossible and absurd position.

You're claim could never stand.

To begin with, you can't claim to know the true nature of reality well enough to even make such an outrageous statement to begin with. No respectable scientist would even pretend to have such knowledge.

So your position is "just because no one else would say it"...

Secondly, you're presuming to be able to rule out any and all spiritual proposals.

No. Just yours.

Again, that's just a totally naive and absurd claim on your part.

Not nearly as absurd as your contention.

All you're doing is looking at the human ape-like brain that exists in macro spacetime and assuming that consciousness equates to spirit.

Changing the definition of spirit now, are we? We should add "moving the goalposts" to your long list of fallacies.

Then you are demanding that since a human's ape-like brain is dependent upon the fabric of spactime as we know it, this means that any, and all, concepts of a spiritual consciousness can therefore be ruled out completely.

I've given you the opportunity to come up with a concept of consciousness that is independent of phenomenology and you have been unable to do so. Whenever faced with the question you immediately retreat. And then go back to saying the same thing.

That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life, and it would indeed be laughed out of any symposium on physics or philosophy.

Your hypothesis wouldn't even be let in.

In fact, conversing with you is a total waste of time.

Agreed. Your time is better spent suing your parents for giving birth to you.

Clearly you've deluded yourself into believing that you can rule out things on a whim just by making utterly stupid demands like you do.

Clearly, you are delusional.

If you can't see the problem with that, there truly is no reason to waste time conversing with you anymore.

If you still can't see the irrationality of your hypothesis, then I'll keep showing it to you whenever it is presented.

Go ahead and believe that you can make outrageous conclusions to rule out possible realities.

No, I can only rule out impossible realities, like the one you are suggesting.

But know, that you haven't even remotely come close to convincing me to buy into your grossly limited and archaic views. You missed your time. You're arguments might have held a little bit of clout back in the days of Newton and Spinoza. But in light of the knowledge of modern physics your stance is a complete joke. It has no merit at all.

You are a complete joke. Your time passed in 1000 BCE. And while your views might have been accepted in ancient India, in a period of gross ignorance, today they would be laughed at by any halfway rational human being. Your pathetic attempts to disguise it as "science" are laughably obvious inspite of your attempts to hide it in walls upon walls of text. And the long (and probably still incomplete) list of logical fallacies you use to support your arguments goes something like this

Argumentum ad ignoratiam.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Argumentum verbosium.
Argumentum ad nauseam.
Equivocation
Fallacy of division.
Moving the goalposts.
Appeal to motive.

and the final one -
Pathetic fallacy (this one's central to your entire view - and its like it has been named just for your sake).