Whenever these secular tv producers take on any religious topic, it always leave me thinking they must be brain dead. To literally produce a documentary on a topic you personally don't believe in suggests an hatred for the topic after watching their production. Sometimes I often wonder if they are not anticipating the contempt those who do believe the religion in question will feel after they did such a piss poor job in creating. It is just filler. Not really meant to actually stimulate people such as yourself into any higher thought. Sadly, most if not all of the unwashed masses will watch that show, and take it as gospel truth. Like everything else in their lives, they proceed with no discipline, or personal pride. They aree merely being thought for. Like many self-proclaimed Jews, Christians, atheists, Buddhists, or anything else; they are "ethnic" Jews, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists...blah, bliggity blah. They believe because the culture they surround themselves with believes. They have undertaken no real journey or struggle themselves that is not at best reminiscent of an amusement park "adventure" into their "beliefs". Or the click of some off the beaten path website made by a rampaging lunatic with no clue who now captivates their entirety of spiritual experience at worst. Their adventure, if one can call it that, is a short walk in the crazy park indeed. comment by: Jesse James If there was no afterlife and since time is infinite and our existence is a minute finite moment the fact that we're aware that were experiencing this proves that there is an afterlife (or before life) existence. If there is nothing before or after our lives how do we know we're actually experiencing life? Or for easier proof ben Franklin says it all with the fact that since there is such a thing as beer proves the existence of God. -comment by: mythago
Who knows what transformations would occur between this state and that. Next they depend on an open communication channel. I'm not sure what that means in this context, but it seems like part of this experiment is testing the channel itself. Maybe the actual channel is a drop of water falling off a leaf in the garden. Who would know? Finally it would need an able and willing receiver. Again the actual ability of the mediums hasn't been verified and no one knows to stand out in the garden, so...? The shared secret is a good start, but the rest of the communications system is both untested and dependent on the experiment being successful. comment by: artiefischel "The very notion of consciousness, however, cannot be scientifically tested until it is in some way defined. Philosophers have been arguing over definitions for centuries, and some have even suggested that consciousness is not a real phenomenon (e.g., Daniel Dennet). If we're going to skip over the very complex argument over whether or not consciousness is even a real phenomenon, does it then make sense to talk about scientific experiments to test whether it persists after death? The experiments tried so far have been designed to test a very strong form of the hypothesis - basically the existence of 'ghosts'. I don't believe it's unscientific to test these, but they have very little to do with the weaker notions of consciousness that have been argued over by philosophers.
If we presume that consciousness is a real phenomenon at all, then I think in spite of the difficulty of scientifically testing the weaker notions of it (not possible for the foreseeable future), I think we can still reason about it logically - and of the premises my argument relies upon, a) 'your consciousness' having a non-zero probability b) 'your consciousness' not having a diminishing probability over time c) time being infinite and d) 'your consciousness' being a real thing, the only one that looks like it might be a stretch is 'your (or anyone's) consciousness'. As weird as it sounds, from the scientific perspective, and without a testable 'theory of consciousness', when I say 'I'm conscious', that is nothing more than words coming out of my mouth. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'I'm conscious' refers to anything real. In other words, we show our prejudices as soon as we begin this discussion. We can describe our conscious experiences, and note that we recognize the 'qualia' of the color blue, or of the sound of an owl's 'hoot', but that notion of 'qualia' currently has meaning for philosophers only - not scientists. So it's misconceived to tell me that my argument fails on scientific grounds, because we _both_ entered this conversation assuming that consciousness is a real phenomenon. To Jack Strawb's point, the 'soul' could be the whole body, a whole brain, a portion of a brain, a neuron, an atom, a subatomic particle - or anything that could be conscious. My argument assumes the existence of consciousness and has 3 other premises, but assumes no particular model of consciousness. My argument merely determines, for any given model of consciousness, whether it predicts the continuation of one's consciousness after death. A model where 'your consciousness' is dependent on every single atom in the brain, for example, would not. A model where 'your consciousness' depends on a single atom on the other hand, would predict the continuation of consciousness for the lifetime of that atom. A model where 'your consciousness' is dependent on a set of quantum states would predict that 'your consciousness' would reoccur whenever those quantum states reoccur." -comment by: ParasamGateZero
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
I think I need PROOF that I am not OBSESSED because I sometimes confuse it with LOYALTYIt is a SUPERNATURAL MEDICAL FICTION DRAMA premiered on TNT on June 16,2015 starring Jennifer Beals Jennifer with eye glasses is SUPER HOT!
Archives
September 2015
Categories
All
|