Your lack of imagination is your defeat

[Joods]

It's not really fair on us, because whatever we say, he can just call us dumb and declare victory.

All the more reason to ignore his rambling non-sense.

[Whateverist]

But what if he just goes on being wrong on the internet?!?! Aren't we honor bound to bracket each new set of ramblings with disclaimers for the unwary public? Not to mention .. look there he goes again!

[robvalue]

I think all the emojis are his own form of disclaimer that he's just messing with us.

[Esquilax]

I'm just gonna throw this out there: if you're reduced to "you just won't imagine I'm right!" then you don't have much of a position.

[Angrboda]

Everybody is judged individually.  That other people speak crap doesn't lend any credence to your crap.  You're just making more excuses as to why you don't provide evidence.


What 'makes sense' to you doesn't make sense to the Christian.  What makes sense to the Christian doesn't make sense to the Tibetan Buddhist.  And around it goes.  Because 'makes sense' is a worthless standard which only endorses meaningless bias and unfounded beliefs.  That's why evidence is important.  It separates the wheat from the chaff.  You without any evidence are the chaff.  You should be discarded.  What 'makes sense' is as flexible as the imagination of the thinker.  There are hundreds of strands within Hinduism, all of which 'make sense' to their advocates.  That doesn't in the least incline us to believe they are true.  In the absence of evidence, the reasonable person withholds belief and remains agnostic about whatever theory or hypothesis is presented.  You'll note that consciousness being a product of the brain 'makes sense' to a lot of people.  On top of that, despite your complaining otherwise, there is evidence that the proposition is true.  Much more evidence than a handful of NDEs.  That it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.  Your free to remain agnostic on the question.  But jumping to another worldview without any evidence is simply irrational.


Again you simply lie about things.  I've already provided evidence for the proposition that consciousness is a product of the brain which supports the idea that death is the end.  But this is irrelevant.  Here you are back at your tricks.  Making bare assertions about what is and is not.  Finding fault in the other person's belief but not providing evidence for the things you believe like karma and microvita and reincarnation.  This is nothing more than sleight of hand--you keep our attention focused on this so that we don't notice how little evidence for your own beliefs has been provided.  It's nothing but a cheap trick.

'Atheists in general' are divided about what exactly consciousness is.  They all have their individual views about what 'makes sense' and their ideas are no less sensible than yours.  Christians have ideas that make sense too.  As do Buddhists.  The wise course is to remain independent of those views which do not provide evidence for their views.  The handful of veridical NDEs are hard to explain and provide some meager support for the notion that consciousness is independent of the brain.  But that evidence is slight, and ambiguous--there are many views of consciousness that work with it that aren't your views.  Meanwhile, there is voluminous evidence from biology and medicine that the brain is directly involved in producing the mind.  (And none for the idea that automobiles have mind.)  Again, the question is the balance of evidence.  In that, your handful of unexplained NDEs don't count for much.

I would post the evidence again, but we know that is a distraction from you presenting any for your view.

Yog.  


I am late for work so in these few minutes I only will answer few of your objections.

1) Let us talk about what make sense.
You mention religions.
See the Hindus.
They say that the cow is holy on the basis that give a lot of milk.
Buffaloes give more milk than cows and yet they are not holy.
Here is where the sense goes terribly wrong.

Now take the muslims.
They say that animals must be killed facing the Mecca.
They reckon is good for the animal.
Now you tell me how can be good for the poor beast whether is killed facing the Mecca or no.

You see yog how the sense is wrong?

All people need in order to find out what is wrong or right is a little bit of intuition.
Nothing more, nothing special.

Bullshit. You didn't get your beliefs from a little bit of intuition but from Sarkar and tradition. You have your rationalizations, they have theirs. From my perspective your beliefs don't pass the make sense test either. So again your 'makes sense' standard is inadequate for telling true from false.

Atheists are in the same terrible corral of dogma.  

They reckon that something abstract as the consciousness die when the body die.
Even science tell us that is impossible to destroy energy but energy and consciousness
are the two sides of the same sheet so how can the consciousness die then?  

More Ananda Marga bullshit. Some atheists believe that consciousness is made up of a certain structured body of matter and energy called the brain. When the cells of the brain die, they lose that structure, thus ending consciousness. It makes perfect sense despite your naive objections and assertions. Energy and consciousness are not two sides of the same sheet. That's just your dogma.

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an example of the above.

I don't think that consciousness persists after the dissolution of the brain or in absence of the body any more than I think digital computation is possible in the absence of a digital machine, regardless of of whether or not energy - which also forms the motus of digital computation- can be destroyed.

Is consciousness energy...trivially, yes. But that's not a complete or adequate description of consciousness from my perspective any more than "energy" is a complete description of computation. More like, "energy flowing through a particular substrate of specific architecture". Take away the substrate, you don't have consciousness. Take away the architecture, you don;t have consciousness. Take away the energy, you don't have consciousness. If you leave just that last one, however, without the others...you -still- don't have consciousness. It's not -just- energy floating around without structure or substrate..if it were, it's not inconceivable that a power line...... or just the static in the air.... would suddenly begin to quote shakespeare.......which it doesn't...as I'm sure I won't have to argue with anyone.

If you want a human consciousness, you need a human machine. We have never observed a human consciousness (or any consciousness) in the absence of just such a machine. It not "out there" somewhere, independently...or at least..if it it is, no one can show it to be....while it;s trivially easy to show that it;s "in here" with reference to human machines.

[The Viking]

The 'energy' supplied by the genetic material makeup of our conscious mind remains, but as a wholly different 'entity' of existence.

In other words, we rot.

[robvalue]

Some of us start earlier than others

[The Valkyrie]

Some of us start earlier than others

In some the brain starts rotting LONG before death.

[Silver]

Imagination is the foremost defeat against religion.