Thread: The Solution to All of Lifes Problems

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I'd have to disagree with you there. The only certainty in existence is that the individual exists. Individual perception is all we can be certain of. Therefore, once that individual perception is lost, it's pretty much as if existence in general has stopped. I'm not saying that if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound - no. I'm saying that if you're dead, existence ceases.

If that's the case, someone else's suicide could create a problem for me. If it's someone I knew, I would be sad. If it was someone that one of my friend's knew, I would be sad for them. Through the connectivity of all people, I would in some way be affected. Stop creating problems for me.

And even if "all decisions are selfish" (and I agree with a few possible exceptions), some are more selfish than others. Some benefit more than just the person committing the act. Ergo, a loving, competent parent is, in fact, doing a service to their child.

Originally Posted by Sandform

A) You mean besides the fact that we've never observed anything conscious that isn't inside of a neural network of the brain?

B) I do believe you are being a semantic whore again...generally when a person refers to the body they mean the head, neck, torso, arms, and legs.


The decay of the brain after death from those who have been dead for a specific amount of time resulting in brain damage?


We already know that consciousness is directly related to the brain...damage changes memories, emotions, intelligence, etc.

To anyone who isn't a hopeless romantic over what the universe has to offer it is obvious that the brain is that which constructs consciousness.

Tell me then, how is it obvious? Are you saying someone with down syndrome, or post birth brain damage is less conscious than you are? How is consciousness measured? You might as well go as far to say that people who are simply stupid are less conscious. You can cut parts of the brain clean away and the person will still tell you they feel just as conscious as before. On the opposite side, destruction of the brain might end the appearance of consciousness (i.e. any visual response to stimuli, which is what you seem to be labeling consciousness) but you can destroy the heart and produce the same effect, along with all of the other vital organs.

The fact is, you don't know what consciousness even is. I know this, because your nobel prize isn't displayed in your signature. How exactly do you expect to be able to make such claims about where consciousness is and what happens to it when we die if you don't even know what it is?

The brain is part of the body, and it is not a matter of semantics to make that distinction. Even if one were to make the concession that consciousness probably resides in the nervous system, the nervous system stretches to each and every part of the body so this makes little difference. The brain is fundamentally no different than pain receptors in your pinky toe.

From the sounds of it, if you are right and consciousness is measured by intelligence, then you don't have nearly enough consciousness to talk about the subject with any credibility.

Originally Posted by Sandform

If you were talking to me...


I was talking about observing a being who is conscious..."anything conscious."

How does one observe consciousness? You didn't answer that question. All you managed to say was that when someone actually tells us they are conscious, we can assume that they are (even though this still isn't a very accurate observation).

I'll ask again in order to make the question plainly clear. What is consciousness and how do you propose to recognize it in things that are not capable of simply saying, "I am conscious." Also, how do you propose to differentiate between the truth and a lie when that statement is uttered?

You can only observe your own conscioussness. How do you know that anything else is conscious if it isn't you? It could just be an imitation of consciousness.

It is every bit as much an article of faith to believe that consciousness ends at death as it is to believe that it transcends death.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

It is every bit as much an article of faith to believe that consciousness ends at death as it is to believe that it transcends death.

Why?


Because believe it or not, there is evidence that it ends at death.

Due to evidence that consciousness is linked heavily to the brain, to the level of dependance on the brain.

In turn when the brain dies that counts for evidence that it ends.

I call that evidence, not faith.

Certainly, there are correlations between conciseness and the brain, but there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness ends when the brain dies. That is an assumption.

Sandform pretty much gave the response I would give you, Xaqaria.

Certainly, there are correlations between conciseness and the brain, but there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness ends when the brain dies. That is an assumption.

A highly probable assumption.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Sandform pretty much gave the response I would give you, Xaqaria.


A highly probable assumption.

I third that opinion. (I agree that it is indeed highly probable too.)

What if you have to repeat the same life all over again?

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Certainly, there are correlations between conciseness and the brain, but there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness ends when the brain dies. That is an assumption.

Yeah, it's an assumption based on evidence.

On the other hand the idea that the consciousness continues on after death is an assumption without evidence.

Originally Posted by Cryptic

What if you have to repeat the same life all over again?

What if heaven is nothing more than watching endless re-runs of 'Happy days'?!?!?!

Originally Posted by Omicron

Yeah, it's an assumption based on evidence.

On the other hand the idea that the consciousness continues on after death is an assumption without evidence.

Can you point me to this evidence that consciousness ends at death?
People who have been clinically dead have retained consciousness.
So I think you have it backwards, but you are welcome to your faith based belief.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Can you point me to this evidence that consciousness ends at death?
People who have been clinically dead have retained consciousness.
So I think you have it backwards, but you are welcome to your faith based belief.

Please define clinically dead...Heart beats stopping does not count as completely dead. "Faith based" yeah. LOL sure. It is totally faith based to believe that something directly related to brain activity alone ends when brain activity is over.

How about loss of all functions of the cortex and brainstorm?

You know, my television's signal is 'directly related' to my television set but i don't believe there are little people living in there.

I reassert it. Faith based with no evidence.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

How about loss of all functions of the cortex and brainstorm?

You know, my television's signal is 'directly related' to my television set but i don't believe there are little people living in there.

I reassert it. Faith based with no evidence.

No actually...

Ok instead of what I was going to say I'm going to make a very simple example.

Check out the limbic system and what a lobotomy is. You are a jerk if you believe in Cartesian dualism.

The brain is a RADIO reciever!!! Ding ding ding. Lolz.

Distinguish between directly related and related ok?

Do you want to discuss this or are you more interested on being an asshole? Clarify, so I’ll know whether to engage or ignore you.

Honestly the fact that you can severely alter a persons basic personality, remove memories, create hallucinations, and alter every other thing that is a part of what we consider consciousness obviously points to the brain being the creator of consciousness, and that without it you would have none. It is not faith based to say that when the only thing ever to be seen to have consciousness is gone or decomposed that the consciousness itself will be gone as well. It is only in your fantasy land where you are right all the time that it is "faith based" to say as such. It is as faith based as believing that your eye color is whatever eye color you see in the mirror.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Honestly the fact that you can severely alter a persons basic personality, remove memories, create hallucinations, and alter every other thing that is a part of what we consider consciousness obviously points to the brain being the creator of consciousness, and that without it you would have none.

You are confusing ego with conciousness.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It is not faith based to say that when the only thing ever to be seen to have consciousness is gone or decomposed that the consciousness itself will be gone as well.

Sure you can. An assumtion is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. Faith is belief that is not based on proof. I'm sorry, but I'm not making that up. I'm not one for arguing semantics but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It is only in your fantasy land where you are right all the time that it is "faith based" to say as such. It is as faith based as believing that your eye color is whatever eye color you see in the mirror.

Blah blah blah your mother smells like a plate of enchiladas.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

You are confusing ego with conciousness.

Um... no he's not. He just made a perfectly good argument for the high probability of a direct relationship between the brain and consciousness.

You have... how much evidence? Oh yeah, NONE.

So your stance is much more of a 'faith' than ours. We're just siding with probability, science, and reason.

Of course there is a relationship between conscious and the brain! Don’t be silly. No one is arguing that there isn’t.

Guys, you need to study up a little more on conciousness. Ego is not consciousess. Personality is not conciousness. Motor activity is not conciousness.

I posted an example of conciouseness existing independantly of brain activity and it has yet to be refuted. Please do so if you can. We are 1 to 0 on the proof department .

Post some proof or get off the pot.

Of course, just for the record, I never actually made the claim that conciousness survives after death. All I said was:

Originally Posted by The Enterer

It is every bit as much an article of faith to believe that consciousness ends at death as it is to believe that it transcends death.

But don’t let that stop you from making assumptions.

Probability is incalculable.

Originally Posted by Sandform

If you were talking to me...


I was talking about observing a being who is conscious..."anything conscious."

But like I said you can observe something has a working brain but you can't observe consciousness. The fact that we are already apart of two conscious perspectives (The Self and the self) allows us to watch our own consciousness as it receives a flood of thoughts, sounds, sights and other sensations. But we are limited to just those two, unfortunately, our reality and the real reality. We can't observe consciousness in another creature, and it's not a question of "maybe it's just a machine" or something, we're all just machines, but we have awareness for absolutely no reason whatsoever that science can explain.

So what I'm saying is that scientists have not observed consciousness in anything with or without a brain because they have not scientifically observed it period.

Show me evidence of existence.

Originally Posted by really

Show me evidence of existence.

I submit to you that if existence doesn't exist then asking the question is pointless.