(February 2, 2015 at 8:25 am)Alex K Wrote:quantum entanglement "seems" to be a violation of special relativity. that must mean special relativity is actually wrong. have you abandoned special relativity yet? if not, good... you see what I'm saying. by your logic we don't need any further evidence to show relativity was violated.(February 2, 2015 at 7:41 am)Rational AKD Wrote: way to claim it is gone without evidence..Really? Reminds me of the Nessie believer in that movie, who tells the skeptics "I say: show me the non-evidence!"
(February 2, 2015 at 8:25 am)Alex K Wrote: The sensation you identify with the word consciousness is gone when you are unconscious.then you don't have any sensation when you are asleep AKA unconscious... are dreams sensations? if yes then you just proved yourself wrong...
(February 2, 2015 at 8:25 am)Alex K Wrote: You want to special plead "consciousness" into existence by default by extending the meaning of the word as you need it, at the same time shifting the burden of proof in an absolutely ridiculous fashion.the words are descriptive of what we observe and we can't observe someone else's mental states. that is not redefining, extending, or anything it is fact. prove me wrong. can we observe someone else's mental states?
(February 2, 2015 at 8:25 am)Alex K Wrote: If you claim to have an invisible dragon in your garage, you have to give evidence, not the other way around.the difference is the existence of mind is self substantiating. invisible dragons aren't...
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo