Suicide.
What do you think...?
~
Printable View
Suicide.
What do you think...?
~
You're right, but that solution also deprives you from all of life's potential.
Wrong it is sex.
Terrible proposal. Suicide is a problem all in it's own.
I disagree. It only "solves" the problems of the person who commits suicide (not including if they go to Hell, but that's a different argument), yet causes problems with those he/she left behind. Unless you've lived your whole life away from people, thus forming no relationships at all, someone will miss you. Also, there most likely will be hospital/funeral/burial/travel (for those attending the funeral/memorial service)/etc. costs.
I find suicide to be a very selfish decision. It affects everyone and only shows that that person gave up. I understand how bad people have it and how dark and sad and lonely and painful their lives can be, but there is always a way out.
Selfishness is irrelevant. You're dead. I agree with the OP in that it is technically a solution, but it's sort of the trivial solution, to use a math term.
It is a "solution", although not a very advantageous one (take it from someone who's been there and done that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
A solution in the same way that mass genocide is a solution...
Is there a such thing as non-mass genocide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
You guys are not quite grasping the full extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
If your suicide is causing emotional harm to others, then what would solve those problems for them? Suicide.
The end result is that death solves all problems. Literally.
I am also just being a philosophical smart-ass. Any humanistic existentialist would slap me and I think you guys agree that taking advantage of this spark of consciousness is what we ought to do rather than focus on how to remove problems.
I simply want to see peoples reactions.
~
I wouldn't slap you. Actually, no existential humanist would slap you for this line of thought. Think about it, humanism is about the sanctity of humanity and existentialism is essentially about making life what you want it to be. If you feel the need to kill yourself, no existential humanist will stop you. We will tell you whatever opinion we have of suicide but we won't "drive it home". Why? Because it's your choice (existentialism).Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It's not an answer, it's giving up on the question. :|
What question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainchild
Although, being a humanistic existentialist myself, I feel like slapping myself for playing with these ideas. It does expose peoples views of life and brings to exposure the idea of death.
~
Second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't see it as a solution...
Actually I was making the point that it is a non-solution. A solution implies fixing something...however suicide fixes nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
For example your hand is burned so you cut off your arm. You've removed the "problem" but it has not fixed anything.
Removing problems is not the same thing as solving a problem.
If (for you) the solution to a problem is removing it, instead of fixing the problem, then sure, suicide is a solution. For some people suicide really is the only solution.
But I'm sure that you would logically agree that someone with social anxiety hasn't "solved" his/her problem by avoiding people.
Or if you were building a machine and something isn't going right...so you through the whole machine away.
Suicide is a permanent solution for a temporary problem.
It isn't always temporary...and I find that line B.S. anyway...most people who commit suicide do it after years of battling with depression and other issues. It is only "temporary" in other peoples eyes because they think that one individual issue at the time of suicide was the cause. They fail to see that it was probably just a re-occuring event in someones life that happened under different circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration
What's the question? After death, you will no longer have to worry about anything nor suffer anything ever again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zera
For practicality, it does prevent any other future problems and rids any current issues. If I cut off my arm to solve my burnt hand, that creates the other problem that I do not have an arm now. This is, then, an inappropriate analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
The truth is, if I burnt my hand and killed myself, I would no longer have a burnt hand nor any other problems.
Fixing is a way as to be saying to modify circumstances in order to happily adapt to it. If I live in a condition X and cannot stand it, there are solutionsQuote:
If (for you) the solution to a problem is removing it, instead of fixing the problem, then sure, suicide is a solution. For some people suicide really is the only solution.
I can consider:
I can try to change my conditions to satisfy myself or I can kill myself and rid all problems I have had and ever could have.
I think the question you might want to consider is; is death a bad thing?
Still not appropriate analogies. Nothing can encapsulate the perfection of death.Quote:
But I'm sure that you would logically agree that someone with social anxiety hasn't "solved" his/her problem by avoiding people.
Or if you were building a machine and something isn't going right...so you through the whole machine away.
A social phobic will still suffer anxiety and panic attacks even when avoiding social settings. If I throw away a broken machine, I still need a machine. However, in both circumstances, I can kill myself and have no more problems.
This is important; what is the temporary problem? I would say that the temporary problem is living. You are going to die. So, the truth is that you are solving or jumping the inevitable. You will die and before you die you will suffer and have pain along with many other things. There may be good and exuberant things, but death offers an infinity of peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration
~
Ah. I think I'm starting to grasp your logic. I've been doing some deep and dark soul searching here recently and death is still, of course, big on my list. I've even begun to watch some extremely dark arthouse/indie foreign films (since they depict and discuss death more realistically than Hollywood) and I honestly feel refreshed by being able to recognize death as not some evil partaking of fringe cults or even simply the unfortunate thing that befalls us all. I think that coming to understand death fully will help Westernized society greatly. Religious zealots would no longer be able to wrangle a nation by exploiting the citizenry's fear of God (which is really a fear of death). Coming to understand the true neutrality (not good, not evil) of suicide, IMO, will help those that hold warped ideas about death to see that it's just one of many things happening in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Although potentially dark, nihilism can be SO enlightening and is always philosophically delicious.
Exactly! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brainchild
~
What is sad is that I understand what Onus is saying, I just completely disagree...
It's like saying an equation is solved if you erase the equation...
When a person kills themselves it isn't because they want to die, it is because they don't want to live the way they are living.
Becoming nothing isn't a solution, it is a non-solution.
If a child is born with a defect are you fixing the problem by killing him?
(genocide analogy again blah blah).
In a solution the thought process goes like this, what can I do to get what I want?
Unless you're desire is to die, then suicide isn't the solution. And no one wants to die except people who want to visit the after life...Most people just don't want to feel pain anymore, and instead be normal (or happy).
That is a false analogy. You cannot analguously represent the beauty of death. You do not have to do anything if you are dead. Nothing at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Perhaps you are focusing too much on "a solution" rather than the benefits. I am perfectly happy right now. If I kill myself, then my life will end on a very happy note and that I controlled it and experienced it all on my own. There is no fact that I do not like the way I am living, I simply can kill myself and also prevent anything from ruining my current life.Quote:
When a person kills themselves it isn't because they want to die, it is because they don't want to live the way they are living.
Fixing would be fixing the defect and the child still living. However, if you kill the child, neither the child nor you have to worry about the defect anymore.Quote:
Becoming nothing isn't a solution, it is a non-solution.
If a child is born with a defect are you fixing the problem by killing him?
(genocide analogy again blah blah).
Yes, genocide analogy is close but someone has to do the killing. Mass suicide leaves no one left after.
~
I added this...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
In a solution the thought process goes like this, what can I do to get what I want?
Unless you're desire is to die, then suicide isn't the solution. And no one wants to die except people who want to visit the after life...Most people just don't want to feel pain anymore, and instead be normal (or happy).
~~~~~~~~~
Your example of wanting to end your life before feeling pain is an example of when suicide is actually a solution (since it gives you what you want).
You're not exactly a half-full glass kinda guy, I'd guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I always thought the solution to all life's problems was this:
And honestly, it may sound weird and laugh at me all you want, but I don't want to die.
lol I love Jon Lajoie.Quote:
Originally Posted by suttsman
I have to concede - not giving a fuck rules out suicide. :bowdown:
~
You know what movie cracked my mind right open? Gaspar Noe's Irreversible. I know there are lots of teens on here so please run it by your parents if you're interested. It's REALLY out there (centerpiece scenes are touted as the most violent scenes in movie history---probably true) but I found it to be profound. A true masterpiece.
Hard to argue with that logic. But with all of humanity now dead, do not problems still exist apart from human-kind? Forest fires, diseases, floods, survival of the fittest between all living organisms. Sure, you would not be around to face those problems, but they still exist, depending on how you view the "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it..." scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Would not death be solution to "life's problems," rather than suicide? The act of suicide, in itself, creates a new problem: "I am dying."
Also, there's always the mystery behind what comes after death. I don't desire to argue whether or not there is life after death, but am presenting the possibility that death does not ultimately solve all problems.
While killing yourself does not technically solve any problems, it does remove them. If you're dead, nothing can affect you, everything you had a problem with, no longer applies to you. If you're dead, for you, none of the problems of life even exist.
It's basically the equivalent of turning off your computer to solve a software problem. Once your computer is off, the software isn't even running, so there's no more problem as long as your computer remains off.
That is the best video I've ever seen. I've never laughed so hard by myself before. Just don't give a fuck. LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by suttsman
Rofl, masturbate with stolen cheese. Gotta try that one.
Every "problem" is only ever a perceived one and not something inherently problematic with the system and one's flow in the now...
Death simply means a change or transition...
The Universe is in constant change...
Every change brings with it the death of some form or shape to bring into form something more complex and novel...
To commit suicide is just one's desire to expedite perceived change...
To have disdain and hatred enough for one's moment in the now is to show impatience and disrespect for who they truly are...
More likely than naught... things wouldn't be resolved from suicide... carrying around a perspective such as that...
Death is the apex of one curve of the snake Life...
One should look at all opposites as necessary complements...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...yclicsnake.jpg
Death is the process that gently warms the orphic egg of Life during it's most sensitive phase before birth. If we were to look into the cauldron of the Art card, we would see that process bubbling away as the egg grows stronger through death by taking the Life of others and making it it's own...
In truth... Death is the first creative god...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/.../Art-tarot.jpg
Death is something to be revered... not ever feared or rushed...
To fear or expedite death... is to misperceive or misunderstand life...
Look here as our vivacious and flexible version of death uses his scythe to stir up bubbles of new lives from out of the seemingly dead and decaying sediment.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...48/death13.jpg
Seriously though, I had to lol, if you are dead (in heaven or instantly vaporized from existence depending on your beliefs), will you really give a fuck? Honestly I don't think I will.
I heard somewhere that people on average, give 60% too much of a fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysteryhunter
Ego-death. Not suicide. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Epic fail ftw?
Kill your ego-self and spiritual self.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
Kill......Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
LoL
Meaningless meanings
Falling
Dropping
I think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Ego=sense of self. Sui-cide= to kill one's self.
Yeah. If you commit suicide, you do not overcome karma. If your ego dies, you overcome karma.
Don't be silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
~
Are you sure? Have you done either? Don't believe everything you read in books. Enlightenment is most likely a path without a guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I can tell the difference through abstraction. I can explain also, if you want. But words are limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
No explanation needed, thank you. All you have to do is tell me, have you committed suicide? Have you escaped karma? Has your ego died? If you answer no to any of these questions, then you are no authority to speak so absolutely on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I don't think I need to tell you that. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Not yet. How about: Has "the" ego died?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Slowly dying.
I speak on behalf of those who have that "authority".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Edit: Also, Ego death could be called Enlightenment. Suicide is not Enlightenment.
Cloud!
More assumptions, really?
Zen is without addition or subtraction.
It exists in totality as everything and nothing at all.
Forget the wordplay.
Forget the effort of being something(,) you are not.
In fact, if everyone was to have their way, we'd all have to shut the fuck up.
If you're talking to really, he has no idea what you're referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Totally agree with you, O'nus. And for all those people moaning about how death isn't a solution to the problem - your reasoning is just wrong. Life is the problem. Death means there is no more problem. Ultimately, what's the difference between the problem being gone, and solving the problem? Nothing.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
It's a matter of opinion, really. Most people think I'm just plain wrong.
And giving birth isn't a selfish decision? You have kids because you WANT to. It's a selfish thing. Most people don't consider whether or not the child will enjoy life.Quote:
I find suicide to be a very selfish decision. It affects everyone and only shows that that person gave up. I understand how bad people have it and how dark and sad and lonely and painful their lives can be, but there is always a way out.
We live in a selfish world. All actions are selfish. There is no such thing as a selfless action. Again, as I've said above, once YOU cease existing, it's as if everything else stops existing too.
We've all 'experienced' ( I know that's a contradiction, but how else do you say it? ) non-existence; i.e. prebirth, and all the scientific evidence (and logical reason) points towards the death of our brains meaning the death of our consciousness. So we're just going back to the same place as before we were born.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
KA-ZING.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
-
Suicide really has the image of being all terrible all-around. In some cases, if it's thought out well, some people might just be better off being dead.
It's really strange that in hardly any country you are 'given', by the state, the right to decide over your own body and your own life. (How could they really pretend to take away that right anyway..)
Thus. Suicide. I ain't doing it, but people should have the freedom to do it (with dignity), if it solves their problems.
sounds grim :(Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
It is a contradiction, and there is no way to say it. You cannot experience non-existence, no matter how you phrase yourself. It is not a place to go back to. Also, once something exists, it does not cease to exist. Dying is not ceasing to exist, it is a change of form (the same goes for birth).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Well the point is that the last form ceases to exist. That form counts as a something, and it is ceasing to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
In real non-existence, it is oblivion. Nothing. (Non-existence is not).
No form, no formless. No observation, no observed, no observing and no observer.
Nothing to talk about.
Irrelevant.
That is a good way of putting it. When you solve a problem, the problem is no more. Suicide is just another way of eliminating problems. If I were the victim of some horrible accident that left me maimed and in constant excruciating pain, with almost total loss of motor control, I would definitely consider suicide, as it would eliminate all of those problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
I think that is a weird saying. I still don't understand how it would be possible for it to not make a sound. People are not the cause of sound waves, we just hear them. Likewise, a tree falling, will produce sound waves. If a radio is on in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I say yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
From what evidence are you making these wild speculations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I refuse to have an argument with self-righteous mystics.
Feel free to believe that we never cease to exist, but please, don't present this belief with absolutely no evidence or reasoning to support it.
I think you misunderstand. I was saying that I don't agree with people who say that it DOESN'T make a sound. i.e., I think it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it. What I was saying is, all that matters is what is percieved. So if something is not percieved by the individual it may as well not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Lol :D it's quite simple. When the body dies, it does not magically disappear. It usually decomposes underground once it is buried. Change of form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
It doesn't sound like a dancing banana. :banana::banana::banana::banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by poog
OR DOES IT?!
But you die when your brain dies. Your body changes form, but you only change from existing to not existing.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I consider my body part of me. Not all of me, just the physical form. So when I die, that bit of me will undergo a long process of deterioration ending with me being dirt or plant food. This, we have proof of. What happens to your consciousness is most likely non-existence, but no one can say for sure. Whatever happens when we die, we'll find out soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
I didn't mean to confuse you, I did understand what you were saying. I've just seen that expression too many times to not comment on it. It seems like everyone agrees that it would indeed make a noise, I just don't get how that saying is still going around because I don't see any way it could not make a noise. To suggest that sound waves cease to exist unless people are nearby is just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Your brain is the only physical part of 'you'. Your body is just a machine - albeit a very sophisticated and well designed machine - but a machine nontheless. It has no relevance to your consciouness, other than the fact that it is controlled by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Not if we cease to exist! :PQuote:
Whatever happens when we die, we'll find out soon enough.
Amen to that. Then again, I would say that it is equally as silly, if not more, to believe in God. Both are denying science to an equal extent. So it's subjective.Quote:
To suggest that sound waves cease to exist unless people are nearby is just silly.
Unless we're dealing with quantum mechanics, in which case it wouldn't make a sound unless a lab tech was listening :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Just being pedantic.
Not a solution. Only a way to quit.
A noise is the brain's interpretation of a vibration in the ear drum and inner ear caused by a compression wave in the surrounding atmosphere. Without a brain to interpret this chain of vibration, anything a tree might do in the forest does not cause a sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Since when is the brain not part of the body? Are you saying that consciousness is non-physical in nature? What is it then? If it is not physical, why then must it cease due to a physical death?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
I think I get it now. Sound waves are not sound, they're just the physical part of what we interpret to be sound. The sound waves would still exist, but without a brain there to change those waves into actual sound, they would be nothing more than soundless sound waves, vibrations in the surrounding medium. I never thought of it that way before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
This is perhaps an assumption based off appearances - which are not subjective reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Appearances? I don't really understand what you mean here - science and reason points towards death being the transition from existence of the individual consciousness, to non-existence of the individual consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I think you misunderstood by previous post. I'm not saying that there is more to consciousness than physical. I was saying that consciousness only exists in the physical world, and there is no more to it; BUT that the body is not a part of that. Your body is only connectedto your consciousness in that you control it - but without it, theoretically, your consciousness can be maintained without it being changed dramatically - except that you wouldn't have any inputs or outputs to the physical world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Your consciousness is totally, utterly contained within the brain. That's it.
When we covered the question in class of the 'falling tree with no-one around', I was relieved to find out that they were short about it and identified it as a simple word-definition-question.
A tree falling produces sound waves. In some situations one would call sound waves sound, in some one might not. A tree falling and reaching someones (who is conscious) eardrums, is often also called 'sound'. Nothing really more to it. Main point is that it is a matter of definition. I don't really see why this question is the most legendary question of philosophy, at least as far as a lot people think. Since the question really isn't a mystery, if you accept that words are man-made and do not have rigid definitions.
In the words of the Fresh Prince of Bell Air:
What if the tree falls on Uncle Phil and he hurts the tree?
Appearances - I watch this and that, conclude that this causes that. Limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Science and reason are limited to their own paradigm of causality. The subjective is not the objective. The brain is not the infinite.
Certainly, at least as a last resort.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There is no way I would have a miserably painful death if I could help it. Just give me my .45 and let me be.
In (most) other situations there are other measures one can take to fix or at least make bearable some of life's problems, such as going crazy, grabbing your boss by the lapels and shaking the shit out of him.
Yet you haven't given me a single bit of reason or evidence to suggest that death isn't the end of consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Has it been said yet that suicide is the only philosophical question?
I agree. The only thing worth pondering over in the entire world is whether or not to commit suicide.
A) Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
B) You never answered; since when is the brain not part of the body?
And you haven't given a bit of evidence suggesting that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Wow man that's dark.
A) You mean besides the fact that we've never observed anything conscious that isn't inside of a neural network of the brain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.
We have not observed actions from something without neurons allowing it respond
We have not observed reactions from something without neurons allowing it to sense
How do you observe consciousness?
An experiment might be to remove a brain from an already dying body (to be humane) and connect it to computer inputs where the external inputs used to be, and then see what happens. If able, the brain might still tell you it feel conscious.
If you were talking to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I was talking about observing a being who is conscious..."anything conscious."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
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.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
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.
A highly probable assumption.Quote:
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.
I third that opinion. (I agree that it is indeed highly probable too.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
What if you have to repeat the same life all over again?
Yeah, it's an assumption based on evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
On the other hand the idea that the consciousness continues on after death is an assumption without evidence.
What if heaven is nothing more than watching endless re-runs of 'Happy days'?!?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic
Can you point me to this evidence that consciousness ends at death?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
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.Quote:
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
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.
You are confusing ego with conciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Blah blah blah your mother smells like a plate of enchiladas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
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:
But don’t let that stop you from making assumptions. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
Probability is incalculable.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
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.
I submit to you that if existence doesn't exist then asking the question is pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Actually, it's currently 0 - 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
Neither of us have proof. But our stance (the scientific one) is largely more probable. What is the evolutionary point to having consciousness outside of the physical brain?
They haven't been brain-dead and regained consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
The evidence comes from the evidence that the consciousness is intrinsically linked to the brain. This evidence comes from, for example when someone gets brain damage from a fall, and their whole personality is changed. That would suggest the person's consciousness is dependent on the brain to work. Thats why scientists have identified parts of the brain that serve various functions, and can remove them and edit them to change a persons consciousness. An example here being that one way to treat highly depressed people is in development through brain surgery.
SO if there is evidence that the consciousness is completely dependent on the brain, which there is, then it follows that when the brain stops , so does the consciousness.
Actually, there'd be nothing at all. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
My point is that "proof", by nature is limited. As content, it cannot prove the context of its reality.
There is nothing new in this post that I haven't already refuted. Sorry, but I'm not going to go around in circles with you guys on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Actually you've refuted nothing...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
You like to make claims without proof.
The fact that the brain is that which consciousness is derived from is no more unproven than the fact that the planet we live on exists.
It is unproven in the same way that you can't prove anything. You're begging the question of what is evidence, in such a way that evidence means nothing to you. You might as well say that birds aren't proven to exist.
What claim without proof did I make?
*Edit* Besides the whole 'your mother smells like a plate of enchiladas' thing. I admit i winged that bit.
That's a huge assumption, especially considering my previous response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
What can everything come from but nothing?
In essence, could it not be the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Are you being satirical? I think you are but I can't tell...not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Anyway, that was the point of my last response. Only if you believe that evidence can't exist for anything can you say that there is no "evidence" that the brain is that which the mind is derived from.
No, I'm serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Ok, explain and "prove" the infinite context of reality in linear terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
This is the problem of paradigm. Consciousness/spiritual research, as groundbreaking as it is, already has a comprehensible amount of information on consciousness. Though naturally, it is not accepted through the unfamiliarity of its context.
Wow, how strikingly simple! ;) Now, someone tell me, how there could be evidence for this? Proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
This is why we say "beyond proof", but that does not place such realities in the "spaghetti monster"/"magical pixies" slot! Understand the paradigm! Reality is self-evident!