(June 6, 2015 at 7:51 am)Little Rik Wrote: Good, let us see these testable claims and let us see where is the evidence that the consciousness mind die when the body die.Let's try something: I'll explain it again, and you pretend that I'm talking very slowly, okay? You are asking the impossible. There is no way to disprove that the mind does anything except die upon the death of the body. But since we DO know that the mind is a function of the brain, it is reasonable to conclude this. In other words, it is YOUR claim that must be proven, and you have admitted that no one can prove it. So you have no standing for your claims. None. I at least can point to knowledge and understanding and make a logical inference. You simply make something up and demand that it be disproved. Your claims are meaningless. And outside of religious belief, you wouldn't pretend that such claims are anything but ridiculous.
Little Rik Wrote:That is bizarre.You keep asking two different questions, and seem unable to keep up with the discussion. And that IS bizarre.
You guys keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain but when i ask for solid evidence it is you guys that come up with no evidence.
So who is boring?
1- The mind is a function of the brain, as has been discussed here for a few pages. Aside from concepts that should be pretty obvious (the way we can use drugs to affect the mind by altering brain chemistry; the way we can alter the mind by affecting the physical structure of the brain) I have referred to books on research that show how different parts of the brain affect specific functions of the mind. So yes, I have provided evidence. More than enough to support the claim I have made. You reject this out of hand by introducing a completely different claim and pretending that it's the same thing (while producing no evidence of your own, I might add). It's not the same thing.
2- The idea that the mind survives the death of the brain is not reasonable to hold based on the above facts. But it cannot be definitively disproved, in the same way that the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns cannot be disproved. Nor can it be proved, as you have admitted. To believe in the concept of the mind that you describe is to accept any belief that we wish to be true regardless of what reality tells us. Your support for your claims so far is to make bad analogies and back them with further claims that you don't bother to support, while insisting that we prove a negative claim even as you admit that you cannot prove the positive claim.
You constantly accuse us of having no evidence against something that you have no evidence FOR. Either you are simply unable to grasp the two separate points being made, or you are deliberately trying to conflate the two. The first implies that you are ignorant or confused. The latter implies that you're being disingenuous in order to avoid having to face the issue honestly. Neither is my problem, aside from the boredom I mentioned before.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould