Thread: Atheism and Lucid Dreaming

Well IMO ceasing to exist = death = life ending. that will answer your question. Sorry to confuse you.

Originally Posted by sloth

So when you say the word "you", what are you referring to?

Your body as a whole, though I would argue that the brain is the center (not anatomically, obviously).

Also, at what point does one no longer exist? You have stated that "you exist after you're dead" which does appear to be true, as people have been brought back to life, as long as the body is preserved, and luck is on their side.
So, at what point does one no longer exist? Is it at the point that the body can no longer be revived?

I point you back to the caveat I included in my previous post: "...after a certain point, there is no way for you to actually exist as your body decomposes." During life, existence is permanent. After death, existence is temporary.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Your body as a whole, though I would argue that the brain is the center (not anatomically, obviously).

And if I lose my arm? Did I lose a part of me?
What about if I have an extra arm surgically added? Two heads (Mad scientist did that with dogs years ago)? Did I gain more "me?" What if it's a tumor? Skin flake?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I point you back to the caveat I included in my previous post: "...after a certain point, there is no way for you to actually exist as your body decomposes." During life, existence is permanent. After death, existence is temporary.

And what is that point?

Originally Posted by sloth

And if I lose my arm? Did I lose a part of me?
What about if I have an extra arm surgically added? Two heads (Mad scientist did that with dogs years ago)? Did I gain more "me?" What if it's a tumor? Skin flake?

Lose an arm? Sure, you lost part of "you." Same with adding parts, same with growing and removing tumors, same with losing skin. But most of that is inconsequential as I consider the brain to be the "center" of "you." It's the most important part. You can lose an arm and be the same person. Lose your brain? Not so much.

And what is that point?

I would be hard pressed to give any exact time, as would most people.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Lose an arm? Sure, you lost part of "you." Same with adding parts, same with growing and removing tumors, same with losing skin. But most of that is inconsequential as I consider the brain to be the "center" of "you." It's the most important part. You can lose an arm and be the same person. Lose your brain? Not so much.

Because these things are attached? What about the two headed dogs? Two headed humans? That chick with the two heads: is the left toe part of both of them? What about each opposing brain? Is brain B part of Person A? What if I superglue a snorkel to my ass? Is that now part of me? What if I run blood supply to it? What if I have biotic limbs that accept commands from my brain? What if the snorkel comes off? Was it ever a part of me to begin with? What if my biotic limb stops obeying signals from my brain and starts beating me up? Is it still part of me? What if the snorkel is just barely attached? Does the "appendage" have to be attached at all? What if signals are collected from my brain and transmitted via radio waves to my neighbors house, where it controls a robotic hand that flips him off? What if I have a brain parasite that controls my thoughts, like the ones that make you less hesitant to change litter boxes? They control my brain patterns. Are they a part of me? What about intestinal parasites? They attach, and share blood supply. What if I'm just really persuasive, and I can use other people as tools? They are following commands from my brain. Are they part of me? Are we all one? What about when I tell my dog to poop? I have trained him to poop on command. He really doesn't have a choice, does he? Where do "I" end?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I would be hard pressed to give any exact time, as would most people.

So you don't know?

Originally Posted by sloth

Because these things are attached? What about the two headed dogs? Two headed humans? That chick with the two heads: is the left toe part of both of them? What about each opposing brain? Is brain B part of Person A? What if I superglue a snorkel to my ass? Is that now part of me? What if I run blood supply to it? What if I have biotic limbs that accept commands from my brain? Where do "I" end?

"You" end at the extremes of your body. A certain distance from your skin or the hairs on your body is where "you" end, I say. I'd consider a biotic limb that accepts commands from your brain as a part of you, yes. A superglued snorkel? Physically, sure. Biologically (and thus importantly), no.

What is the point of all these questions? Just get to it already.

So you don't know?

Correct. Nor does anybody except perhaps those well-versed in bodily decomposition. Ask a mortician.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What is the point of all these questions? Just get to it already.

Because you are a troll, first of all. You have trolled people on this forum for years, so it obviously means a lot to you. I would still be interested in discussing such things with you if you were not a troll, but I am ESPECIALLY interested in discussing them with you, since you are a troll.

In this particular case, for instance, PlanesWalker has asked the question "Why does the experience have to cease? Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you have to end." This is obviously a question concerning metaphysical, or spiritual aspects. To this question, you answered "That's what death is: the end of your life. Hard to do any sort of "experiencing" once your brain is toast." I am fairly positive that PlanesWalker was aware of these most basic facts, that our science books tell us, about death, and was attempting to dive into alternate possibilities; Possibilities that do not concern, or are not limited by science. Most likely, you knew this too. You're a smart guy. So, responding with basic science facts obviously did not contribute to the conversation in any way. You didn't REALLY believe that you were bestowing some new piece of knowledge did you? You didn't expect PlanesWalker to say "OH! Now I understand." did you? PlanesWalker seemed to be asking about the possibility of an afterlife, possibly of a supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual nature, which obviously has nothing to do with science, and you responded by stating basic, well-known science facts. You were trolling.

I'm attempting to figure out if, and why you derive pleasure from this activity. I can't put my finger on exactly what aspect of it is your driving force. Why would someone choose to frequently recite basic science facts into conversations that don't involve, or call for them? I am not requesting that you manually explain this to me. I wouldn't be able to trust your statements if you did. I think I would need to just analyze those troll posts that you readily present to me. Hopefully you'll teach me something, or maybe even change my mind about something.

Secondly, though I didn't initially probe your comment in order to explore this, I am also slightly interested in finding out why you seemed so uncomfortable saying the words "I dont know" when asked about exactly what point "I" would no longer exist. First you said "after a certain point". You actually wrote three full sentences, but didn't answer the question. I then asked even more directly, and you stated that you would "be hard pressed to give" the answer, which, again, was a clever way of avoiding those three ugly words, "I don't know". Then, on my third attempt, when I directly confronted you with the possibility that you didn't know, you did courageously agree, but then you apparently felt the need to defend yourself by immediately stating "Nor does anyone except perhaps those well-versed in bodily decomposition". Why was this tacked on? This does not help to answer my question at all, so obviously it was for your benefit. Not mine. I can only think that it was meant to serve as a defense for the fact that you had just finally admitted that you did not know. I have always been fascinated by this, as I have seen it in many people, and I have been especially tickled by such numerous, particular similarities in the thoughts and personalities of the religious, and the devout atheist.

And finally, I am sincerely interested in your actual responses to my probing of your descriptions of the world. I am curious to see what kind of ideas or theories you may have come up with on your own. So far, you have answered in the manner that I expected you to, which is a bit disapointing, but still fascinating to me. In this particular case, when I attempted to have you break down your statement, you have said that some things that are attached to me are part of me but not others, but have not explained the difference. You have already been forced to add one qualifier. Now in order to describe "me" we now must consider some physical and a biological me. I am curious to see how you see this concept, because I do see it in a different way. You have adopted, I believe, a more mainstream idea of it. So, in learning why you believe what you believe, it will help me understand why so many other people also believe these things.

So, anyway, my "point" is to learn. I'm sure you probably weren't interested in such a detailed reason, you did ask "What is the point of all these questions?". While I may be curious about a lot of aspects not directly related to the questions that I ask, I am curious about your responses to these questions, at face value. They are real questions, and I am attempting to learn.

So, with that out of the way, I am still attempting to wrap my head around how you are defining the concept of "me". That is, if you are open to analysis and/or criticism toward your comments.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"You" end at the extremes of your body. A certain distance from your skin or the hairs on your body is where "you" end, I say. I'd consider a biotic limb that accepts commands from your brain as a part of you, yes. A superglued snorkel? Physically, sure. Biologically (and thus importantly), no.

So there is a physical me, and a biological me? What makes the biological me different from the physical me? Can one part be both, physical, and biological? Can something be biological, but not physical, and vise versa? Why is the snorkel not part of the biological me? Is it because it doesn't serve a purpose? Because it doesn't receive bloodflow? If the snorkel received bloodflow, THEN would it become part of the biological me?

Thanks for your time.

Originally Posted by sloth

Because you are a troll, first of all. You have trolled people on this forum for years, so it obviously means a lot to you. I would still be interested in discussing such things with you if you were not a troll, but I am ESPECIALLY interested in discussing them with you, since you are a troll.

In this particular case, for instance, PlanesWalker has asked the question "Why does the experience have to cease? Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you have to end." This is obviously a question concerning metaphysical, or spiritual aspects. To this question, you answered "That's what death is: the end of your life. Hard to do any sort of "experiencing" once your brain is toast." I am fairly positive that PlanesWalker was aware of these most basic facts, that our science books tell us, about death, and was attempting to dive into alternate possibilities; Possibilities that do not concern, or are not limited by science. Most likely, you knew this too. You're a smart guy. So, responding with basic science facts obviously did not contribute to the conversation in any way. You didn't REALLY believe that you were bestowing some new piece of knowledge did you? You didn't expect PlanesWalker to say "OH! Now I understand." did you? PlanesWalker seemed to be asking about the possibility of an afterlife, possibly of a supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual nature, which obviously has nothing to do with science, and you responded by stating basic, well-known science facts. You were trolling.

No, in fact I wasn't trolling whatsoever. His statement, in my opinion, made absolutely no sense, so I took him up on it. Maybe you considered my tone a little too derisive. That's fine, because his was as well. But trolling? No.

I'm attempting to figure out if, and why you derive pleasure from this activity. I can't put my finger on exactly what aspect of it is your driving force. Why would someone choose to frequently recite basic science facts into conversations that don't involve, or call for them? I am not requesting that you manually explain this to me. I wouldn't be able to trust your statements if you did. I think I would need to just analyze those troll posts that you readily present to me. Hopefully you'll teach me something, or maybe even change my mind about something.

The entire first post regarded topics related to science. PlanesWalker's reply was in response to Fugue's claim that once his brain dies, his mind dies, and everything about him dies as well. That topic is rife with "basic science facts."

And frankly, I don't particularly care if you want to be an armchair psychologist and try to analyze my motives for posting.

Secondly, though I didn't initially probe your comment in order to explore this, I am also slightly interested in finding out why you seemed so uncomfortable saying the words "I dont know" when asked about exactly what point "I" would no longer exist. First you said "after a certain point". You actually wrote three full sentences, but didn't answer the question. I then asked even more directly, and you stated that you would "be hard pressed to give" the answer, which, again, was a clever way of avoiding those three ugly words, "I don't know". Then, on my third attempt, when I directly confronted you with the possibility that you didn't know, you did courageously agree, but then you apparently felt the need to defend yourself by immediately stating "Nor does anyone except perhaps those well-versed in bodily decomposition". Why was this tacked on? This does not help to answer my question at all, so obviously it was for your benefit. Not mine. I can only think that it was meant to serve as a defense for the fact that you had just finally admitted that you did not know. I have always been fascinated by this, as I have seen it in many people, and I have been especially tickled by such numerous, particular similarities in the thoughts and personalities of the religious, and the devout atheist.

I was a little curious why you were asking me so many questions, so I thought that anticipating a few possible future questions and answering them (and being a little verbose and elaborating upon your questions) would help move the discussion along.

I tacked on "nor does anybody else" because in addition to me not knowing when that "point" comes, I can't imagine most others knowing either.

One thing you should learn is that conversations can branch out into other topics, and they can include tangents. I'm typing on the fly, so lots of things are bouncing around in my head as I'm replying. Sometimes I include those random thoughts into posts. Take them as they are.

Please don't ever claim that I would be afraid to say I'm ignorant of something, especially when the only thing you know about me comes from an internet forum.

And finally, I am sincerely interested in your actual responses to my probing of your descriptions of the world. I am curious to see what kind of ideas or theories you may have come up with on your own. So far, you have answered in the manner that I expected you to, which is a bit disapointing, but still fascinating to me. In this particular case, when I attempted to have you break down your statement, you have said that some things that are attached to me are part of me but not others, but have not explained the difference. You have already been forced to add one qualifier. Now in order to describe "me" we now must consider some physical and a biological me. I am curious to see how you see this concept, because I do see it in a different way. You have adopted, I believe, a more mainstream idea of it. So, in learning why you believe what you believe, it will help me understand why so many other people also believe these things.

So, anyway, my "point" is to learn. I'm sure you probably weren't interested in such a detailed reason, you did ask "What is the point of all these questions?". While I may be curious about a lot of aspects not directly related to the questions that I ask, I am curious about your responses to these questions, at face value. They are real questions, and I am attempting to learn.

So, with that out of the way, I am still attempting to wrap my head around how you are defining the concept of "me". That is, if you are open to analysis and/or criticism toward your comments.

So there is a physical me, and a biological me? What makes the biological me different from the physical me? Can one part be both, physical, and biological? Can something be biological, but not physical, and vise versa? Why is the snorkel not part of the biological me? Is it because it doesn't serve a purpose? Because it doesn't receive bloodflow? If the snorkel received bloodflow, THEN would it become part of the biological me?

Thanks for your time.

Don't read into the dichotomy between physical and biological too much. If you superglue a snorkel to you, by definition, it is PHYSICALLY attached to you. In that largely meaningless way, yes, it is "part" of you. So to clear up the confusion, yes, there is only the biological "you." If, however, the snorkel received blood flow, I still don't think it would be biologically part of you. How would that be done? As you asked, what purpose would it serve? That question is probably irrelevant in most cases as purpose can be incredibly subjective. Tumors, for instance, are biologically part of you, but they serve no purpose. Yet pacemakers are only physically part of you, but they serve to regulate heartbeats.

I think to consider whether something is biologically part of you, it must itself be alive and interacting with your body in some way. A snorkel is not alive, and somehow running blood through it wouldn't change that.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm not sure if I actually offended you in some way, or if you are just being cute, so I don't really know how to respond to this. I guess I'll just put this random smiley here:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, in fact I wasn't trolling whatsoever. His statement, in my opinion, made absolutely no sense,

Would you like me to explain it to you?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

so I took him up on it. Maybe you considered my tone a little too derisive. That's fine, because his was as well. But trolling? No.

So, you really are stating that you actually thought you were revealing information that was not already known by all? Please allow me to make it clear now, that most people understand the most basic concepts of death, according to science books, so that in the future you won't have to recite them.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The entire first post regarded topics related to science. PlanesWalker's reply was in response to Fugue's claim that once his brain dies, his mind dies, and everything about him dies as well. That topic is rife with "basic science facts."

PlanesWalker's question asked why we couldn't EXIST after death. At this point, the conversation, in regards to PlanesWalker's question, involved metaphysical, or even spiritual aspects. Again, I truly cannot believe that he did not already understand the basic science that you stated, or that you did not expect him to. I will need to take your word for the fact that it is pure coincidence that your response was identical to that of a troll.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And frankly, I don't particularly care if you want to be an armchair psychologist and try to analyze my motives for posting.

Good! We'll get along great, then.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I was a little curious why you were asking me so many questions, so I thought that anticipating a few possible future questions and answering them (and being a little verbose and elaborating upon your questions) would help move the discussion along.

I guess I will need to just trust you in the fact that your answer shared traits common with devout religious people, and devout atheists, due to pure coincidence.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I tacked on "nor does anybody else" because in addition to me not knowing when that "point" comes, I can't imagine most others knowing either.

I am now tacking on the fact that in times of danger, the sea cucumber has the unique ability to split itself in half releasing a poison deadly to its enemies, because it has equal relevance to the discussion. To make things smoother in the future, I will state now that I will not be asking you what OTHER people know, because that would be hearsay.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

One thing you should learn is that conversations can branch out into other topics, and they can include tangents. I'm typing on the fly, so lots of things are bouncing around in my head as I'm replying. Sometimes I include those random thoughts into posts. Take them as they are.

"One thing I should learn"? Hey... You're being cute again aren't you? I guess I will need to just trust you in the fact
that it was a coincidence that your statement shared traits common with someone who was on the defensive.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Please don't ever claim that I would be afraid to say I'm ignorant of something, especially when the only thing you know about me comes from an internet forum.

I think your actions on the forums is adequate to conclude some things about you. This is logically valid, especially considering your post history on the forum. You really haven't made a habit of stating the dreaded "I dont' know" have you? And this isn't the first time you've answered a spiritual-based question with science facts. Yes. Your years of posts on the forums have revealed somewhat of a piece of who you are, even if that revelation is fake for some reason. I am not speaking from one or two of your comments. I've watched your activities for years. You have revealed a lot about "Blueline". You don't write thousands of words of your own thoughts and beliefs without revealing a piece of who you are. Even a fake persona is designed by someone, and reveals traits about its creater. And if I am simply pointing out properties of, and/or speaking to some fake Blueline for some reason, so be it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Don't read into the dichotomy between physical and biological too much.

Then I need something to look into. I am asking you where "I" end, in a scientific, spiritual, and/or metaphysical sense. If there is no spiritual, or metaphysical about it, that's fine, but if that is true you will need to describe exact dimensions, exact specifications, or admit that you don't know, and that these spiritualists may be right about something, or admit that both sides of the argument are nonsensical. ...or run away, of course.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If you superglue a snorkel to you, by definition, it is PHYSICALLY attached to you. In that largely meaningless way, yes, it is "part" of you. So to clear up the confusion, yes, there is only the biological "you." If, however, the snorkel received blood flow, I still don't think it would be biologically part of you. How would that be done?

So if the physical part of me is meaningless, we are left with only biological. I am curious as to why you even mentioned "physical" in the first place, if this is the case. The question remains, what makes up a biological "me"? How one would supply bloodflow to a snorkel is irrelevant. Why is the snorkel that receives bloodflow not a part of the biological me?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

As you asked, what purpose would it serve? That question is probably irrelevant in most cases as purpose can be incredibly subjective. Tumors, for instance, are biologically part of you, but they serve no purpose. Yet pacemakers are only physically part of you, but they serve to regulate heartbeats.

No, I didn't.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think to consider whether something is biologically part of you, it must itself be alive and interacting with your body in some way.

Like a hooker?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

A snorkel is not alive, and somehow running blood through it wouldn't change that.

What makes something "alive"?

Originally Posted by sloth

I'm not sure if I actually offended you in some way, or if you are just being cute, so I don't really know how to respond to this. I guess I'll just put this random smiley here:

Sardonic would be the correct term.

Would you like me to explain it to you?

No need.

So, you really are stating that you actually thought you were revealing information that was not already known by all?

If he's asking WHY experience has to end at death, then he must either not know what death entails (unlikely, for the reasons you stated) or thinks we live on after death with the ability to continue experiencing things.

PlanesWalker's question asked why we couldn't EXIST after death. At this point, the conversation, in regards to PlanesWalker's question, involved metaphysical, or even spiritual aspects. Again, I truly cannot believe that he did not already understand the basic science that you stated, or that you did not expect him to. I will need to take your word for the fact that your response was identical to that of a troll.

And I answered WHY we can't exist after death and continue to have our brains still experiencing things. Just because the conversation could've included metaphysical or spiritual aspects doesn't mean it ONLY includes those aspects.

I am now tacking on the fact that in times of danger, the sea cucumber has the unique ability to split itself in half releasing a poison deadly to its enemies, because it has equal relevance to the discussion. To make things smoother in the future, I will state now that I will not be asking you what OTHER people know, because that would be hearsay.

My addition was relevant because if you were interested in finding out the answer to that question, asking a mortician or somebody well-versed in bodily decomposition would be the most proper way to proceed. I don't know if your blood pressure skyrockets when somebody adds something else to their answer, but it really is nothing serious.

"One thing I should learn"? Hey... You're being cute again aren't you? I guess I will need to just trust you in the fact
that it was a coincidence that your statement shared traits common with someone who was on the defensive.

Cool. Run with that, because that's the answer.

I think your actions on the forums is adequate to conclude some things about you. This is logically valid, especially considering your post history on the forum. You really haven't made a habit of stating the dreaded "I dont' know" have you? And this isn't the first time you've answered a spiritual-based question with science facts. Yes. Your years of posts on the forums have revealed somewhat of a piece of who you are, even if that revelation is fake for some reason. I am not speaking from one or two of your comments. I've watched your activities for years. You have revealed a lot about "Blueline" even if you were just acting out a fake persona for whatever reason. Even a fake persona is designed by someone, and reveals traits about its creater. And if I am simply pointing out properties of, and/or speaking to some fake Blueline for some reason, so be it.

I can recall many posts where I've readily claimed ignorance on a topic and even espoused the virtues of doing so. If I haven't in certain topics where you perhaps felt I should, then maybe I didn't consider myself ignorant enough to warrant claiming that position? Again, this internet psychoanalyzing is leading you in really weird directions.

Then I need something to look into. I am asking you where "I" end, in a scientific, spiritual, and/or metaphysical sense. If there is no spiritual, or metaphysical about it, that's fine, but if that is true you will need to describe exact dimensions, exact specifications, or admit that you don't know, and that these spiritualists may be right about something, or admit that both sides of the argument are nonsensical. ...or run away, of course.

I've described the specifications that I know of, and at a certain point in our conversation I claimed I didn't know any further. I'm not sure I can attempt to appease you any further.

So if the physical part of me is meaningless, we are left with only biological. I am curious as to why you even mentioned "physical" in the first place, if this is the case. The question remains, what makes up a biological "me"? How one would supply bloodflow to a snorkel is irrelevant. Why is the snorkel that receives bloodflow not a part of the biological me?

I mentioned physical because it's just a convenient way to described something that is attached to you, but isn't biologically part of you. I told you not to read into it too much because it's not important. If you take issue with the way I phrase things, oh well.

The biological "you" is all of the cells that make up your body, most importantly the brain. I answered this question previously.

I asked "how would that be done?" because I wanted to know, prompted by your question of whether supplying blood to it would make it biologically part of me, HOW supplying blood to the snorkel would make it biologically part of me. A rhetorical question, really. I'm implying I'm skeptical, to say the most.

No, I didn't.

Apologies, your question was phrased differently. But the issue was still about purpose, so my posts remains relevant.

Like a leech?

Possibly, though I'm not sure this issue could be broadened past this point. At some point I'd consider it absurd to consider, say, a dog licking your face to be biologically part of you.

What makes something "alive"?

Respiration/energy acquisition and use/growth/procreation, etc.

Ooh. You replied before I edited. I apologize that you had only the sloppy, typo-laced post to work with.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Sardonic would be the correct term.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No need.

So, did you figure it out on your own? You said that his post did not make sense (to you).

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If he's asking WHY experience has to end at death, then he must either not know what death entails (unlikely, for the reasons you stated) or thinks we live on after death with the ability to continue experiencing things.

Well, he never said anything about LIVING on after death. But yes. He obviously thinks that it is possible that we live or exist on after death with the ability to continue experiencing things, is most likely fully aware of, and not concerned with what science has to say on the subject, and you answered with basic science facts, not to actually answer question, but to shoot it down, like a troll. PlanesWalker even went on to say that "Death is the end of your shell, good sir." in an attempt to reiterate the idea that his question was of a metaphysical nature, to which you stated more science facts, in order to troll some more. I get that. I understand.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And I answered WHY we can't exist after death and continue to have our brains still experiencing things. Just because the conversation could've included metaphysical or spiritual aspects doesn't mean it ONLY includes those aspects.

...which was not the question he asked. He did not mention brains at all. The simple fact is that we don't know what happens after death, and neither do you. You cannot know. "And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not." -Bill Maher in the documentary "Religulous" (2008).
To reverse the second part of your question, if I had answered PlanesWalker's question by saying "Our experience doesn't cease because when we die we go to heaven and sit at the right hand of Jesus Christ, our lord and savior." you probably would have called me on it. My answer would have completely ignored the POSSIBILITY that we simply die and become worm food, and would have stated things as if they were absolute certainties, as the totality of the reality of the prospect, rather than actually exploring the idea, as I'm sure was the original intent of the question. You would have called me on it, and you would have been right to do so. Now I am calling you on your answer, partly because it completely ignores the POSSIBILITY that we exist, or experience things in some form or fashion after death, and states this as if it is an absolute certainty; And partly because the entire point of your answer was to shoot down the question, in order to troll.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

My addition was relevant because if you were interested in finding out the answer to that question, asking a mortician or somebody well-versed in bodily decomposition would be the most proper way to proceed. I don't know if your blood pressure skyrockets when somebody adds something else to their answer, but it really is nothing serious.

lol! Fine. I'll go find a mortician. Thank you for your advice.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I can recall many posts where I've readily claimed ignorance on a topic and even espoused the virtues of doing so. If I haven't in certain topics where you perhaps felt I should, then maybe I didn't consider myself ignorant enough to warrant claiming that position? Again, this internet psychoanalyzing is leading you in really weird directions.

I will admit that I did kind of run with that idea, based off of my observations of you, but it was not originally my intention to concern you with it, or even accuse. You asked why I was asking so many questions, and since you were polite to spend your time on them, I felt that it was the least I could do, to be perfectly straight and forthcoming about my intentions and motivations. But in all actuality, my opinions about you are irrelevant. I would not spend more of your time defending them, or this point. Besides, you may be right. The coincidences has really stacked up, but you may have this one.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I've described the specifications that I know of, and at a certain point in our conversation I claimed I didn't know any further. I'm not sure I can attempt to appease you any further.

So you don't know what "I" or "you" TRULY is, so you really don't know when exactly "you" ends. It is possible for an afterlife, of some sort.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I mentioned physical because it's just a convenient way to described something that is attached to you, but isn't biologically part of you. I told you not to read into it too much because it's not important. If you take issue with the way I phrase things, oh well.

Alright.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The biological "you" is all of the cells that make up your body, most importantly the brain. I answered this question previously.

I think you're missing my point, but I can keep this up all day. What about those parts that are not made of cells? Like hair? Fingernails? Tooth enamel? You said that "me" extends to the tips of my body hair, but now you are saying that "me" is all of the cells that make up my body, even though hair is not made of cells. Is it possible that you don't know?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I asked "how would that be done?" because I wanted to know, prompted by your question of whether supplying blood to it would make it biologically part of me, HOW supplying blood to the snorkel would make it biologically part of me. A rhetorical question, really. I'm implying I'm skeptical, to say the most.

Understood. Pardon my false interpretation.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Possibly, though I'm not sure this issue could be broadened past this point. At some point I'd consider it absurd to consider, say, a dog licking your face to be biologically part of you.

I'll comment on that soon.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Respiration/energy acquisition and use/growth/procreation, etc.

I didn't actually expect you to respond to that question, after the way I have hopped all over your first statement so far. In the interest of helping the conversation move foward, and of not being a total ass, I'm not going to follow through on this one, at this time.

Originally Posted by sloth

So, did you figure it out on your own? You said that his post did not make sense (to you).

Either you're taking this FAR too literally, or I'm not specific enough. Probably both.

It didn't make sense because it involved appeals to the supernatural. I understood what he was saying, yes, but the implications of his post are what didn't make sense. Hopefully that should clear this issue up.

Well, he never said anything about LIVING on after death.

He said: "Why does the experience have to cease? Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you have to end." The very obvious implication here is that he thinks we can...well, you said it right here: "He obviously thinks that it is possible that we live or exist on after death with the ability to continue experiencing things..." He very clearly expressed that implication in his post, and I took the opposite position. Even if he didn't mean we live on in the literal sense (which is the probably the case), where our biological bodies are still walking around on Earth, and if he meant that our "soul" or our...I don't know, "vibrational energy" or whatever term he might've liked to use, continues on after us, there is still no issue with my post here. I rejected that implication, stating that I think, with a certain degree of confidence, that once our bodies die, we die. Everything about us dies, etc.

But yes. He obviously thinks that it is possible that we live or exist on after death with the ability to continue experiencing things, is most likely fully aware of, and not concerned with what science has to say on the subject, and you answered with basic science facts, not to actually answer question, but to shoot it down, like a troll. PlanesWalker even went on to say that "Death is the end of your shell, good sir." in an attempt to reiterate the idea that his question was of a metaphysical nature, to which you stated more science facts, in order to troll some more. I get that. I understand.

Rejecting another's idea does not make one a troll. Do you know what a troll is? Or do you think that whenever opposition rises to any given idea, they're just trolling?

...which was not the question he asked. He did not mention brains at all. The simple fact is that we don't know what happens after death, and neither do you. You cannot know. "And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not." -Bill Maher in the documentary "Religulous" (2008).

The brain is the mechanism/organ/whatever you wish to call it that we use to experience things. Or at the very least, it's the processing unit. Yes, I mentioned the brain because I was taking the opposite position.

Do I know what happens after death? No, not at all, and part of my posting history reflects that. Do I think the position I've taken here and in other places is the most plausible and likely explanation? Yes, but don't mistake confidence for certainty.

To reverse the second part of your question, if I had answered PlanesWalker's question by saying "Our experience doesn't cease because when we die we go to heaven and sit at the right hand of Jesus Christ, our lord and savior." you probably would have called me on it. My answer would have completely ignored the POSSIBILITY that we simply die and become worm food, and would have stated things as if they were absolute certainties, as the totality of the reality of the prospect, rather than actually exploring the idea, as I'm sure was the original intent of the question. You would have called me on it, and you would have been right to do so. Now I am calling you on your answer, partly because it completely ignores the POSSIBILITY that we exist, or experience things in some form or fashion after death, and states this as if it is an absolute certainty; And partly because the entire point of your answer was to shoot down the question, in order to troll.

Look, drop the trolling nonsense. I wasn't trolling at all.

As for certainty/confidence, I talked about that above. Just because I didn't include some statements about "well I don't know for certain either, etc etc etc.," doesn't mean I don't agree with the omitted statements. If you've been following my posts for years as you previously claimed, you should've remembered that I've stated my position over and over again. Think of a formal debate: does either side ALWAYS qualify their positions with "well this is what I think, but due to the nature of human knowledge and how we acquire knowledge, I cannot know for sure?" No, they don't. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. In this case, I didn't.

So you don't know what "I" or "you" TRULY is, so you really don't know when exactly "you" ends. It is possible for an afterlife, of some sort.

I have what I think is a perfectly good natural explanation that I place most of my confidence in.

I think you're missing my point, but I can keep this up all day. What about those parts that are not made of cells? Like hair? Fingernails? Tooth enamel? You said that "me" extends to the tips of my body hair, but now you are saying that "me" is all of the cells that make up my body, even though hair is not made of cells. Is it possible that you don't know?

I replied without considering hair, nails, teeth, etc, because the majority of our bodies are made of cells. I would consider them part of you as well. It wouldn't make sense not to, I think.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Either you're taking this FAR too literally, or I'm not specific enough. Probably both.

How literal does one need to be in order to describe the intricacies of reality itself? There are actions taking place on scales that we will never see, and at this point don't even fully understand. It's easy to say "Ball." "Dog." "Merkin". because we like to classify things. But later we learn that balls, and dogs, and merkins are actually very complicated collections of molecues, and that these molecules act in ways that are a bit mysterious to us, and that thes balls and dogs and merkins affect the world in ways that we don't predict. If we are to actually study the substance of reality itself, I think it is important that we examine that reality, to the closest literal possibility.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It didn't make sense because it involved appeals to the supernatural. I understood what he was saying, yes, but the implications of his post are what didn't make sense. Hopefully that should clear this issue up.

Now wait right there. The implications didn't make sense to you? Really? Why is it that I can imagine these things and you cannot? Did you watch Harry Potter? Did that make sense to you? Did you spend the entire movie saying "Why are they carrying sticks?" Can you imagine the implications of what it would be like if smurfs infested our world? Tiny hat sales would boost. There would be little mushroom house parks. Mouse trap sales would skyrocket.

Come on, Blueline! This is what I'm talking about. You are still trolling, and you aren't even being honest with me. You are refusing to participate in thought experiments because they don't fit with what you already think you know, trolling them by spouting science facts, and then claiming that you're doing it because you CAN'T understand things.
How could I possibly believe that? If you aren't going to be serious about this, so be it.

Originally Posted by sloth

How literal does one need to be in order to describe the intricacies of reality itself? There are actions taking place on scales that we will never see, and at this point don't even fully understand. It's easy to say "Ball." "Dog." "Merkin". because we like to classify things. But later we learn that balls, and dogs, and merkins are actually very complicated collections of molecues, and that these molecules act in ways that are a bit mysterious to us, and that thes balls and dogs and merkins affect the world in ways that we don't predict. If we are to actually study the substance of reality itself, I think it is important that we examine that reality, to the closest literal possibility.

Now wait right there. The implications didn't make sense to you? Really? Why is it that I can imagine these things and you cannot? Did you watch Harry Potter? Did that make sense to you? Did you spend the entire movie saying "Why are they carrying sticks?" Can you imagine the implications of what it would be like if smurfs infested our world? Tiny hat sales would boost. There would be little mushroom house parks. Mouse trap sales would skyrocket.

Come on, Blueline! This is what I'm talking about. You are still trolling, and you aren't even being honest with me. You are refusing to participate in thought experiments because they don't fit with what you already think you know, trolling them by spouting science facts, and then claiming that you're doing it because you CAN'T understand things.
How could I possibly believe that? If you aren't going to be serious about this, so be it.

I told you to drop the trolling nonsense, yet you've kept it up in the most childish manner. I'm out of this conversation.