Hi

[Plu]

Except, if you are a physicalist/materialist, you have no explanation for it.

So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.

If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.

[Baruch]

So? I don't need to explain it to notice it's having some kind of effect. Nor do I need to explain it to enjoy the effect, or steer it.

If people needed an explanation for anything before thinking about it or doing anything with it, they would never be able to get anywhere. It's just that some people have been taught that a dumb explanation is better than no explanation, and that's what got us this current mess.

Correct.  But geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males.  The SJWs are just Woody Allen's clones (see cloning of dead leader's nose from Sleeper), endlessly loosing their hot girlfriends at the beach.  Not Popeye.

My point of radical empiricism, is that we don't need to rationalize things in the first place.  That reality is irrational to begin with, so rationalizing  can be positively negative in its effect .. when we falsely think we understand something.  As it turns out, all our explanations are more or less false.

Example .. I have my right hand typing this, I can see I have 4 fingers and a thumb on my right hand.  There is no reason for me to build a deductive system to justify this "belief" because it isn't a damn belief.  It is an empirical observation.  The problem comes with trying to interpret what this means.

[Plu]

But geeks want explanations for everything, it is part of their protective camouflage to protect themselves from alpha-males.

Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.

[Baruch]

Guess I'm not a geek according to your dictionary, then.

That is the problem with stereotypes and all such categorization.  We have to do it to make sense of things, but it also hides the messy details behind a clean abstraction.  I still struggle with the need for explanation.  But I know it is futile.

[Arik]

You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.

It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.

[Baruch]

It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.
These same folks however go around and around millions of times saying that without evidence nothing is proved.
This hypocrisy must be the peak of moral bankruptcy at his best.

More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake.  So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant.  The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do.  Because they have no agenda.

For me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either.  Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d.  I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.

[Arik]

It doesn't matter how many times someone says something, although you seem to be the one under the impression you can ignore the facts and say whatever you want. I don't care if you think "my idea" is a failure or not. Unlike you, I have research on my side. Brainwaves have been observed in people at the point of medically declared "death." On the medical table, you are declared "dead" when your heart stops, not when your brain stops. These people are not braindead, as you claim. That has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to do the Google search to find the articles. I'm wasting any more effort on you than I have to.

Good BL.

You really shouldn't waste anymore of your time guessing and guessing.
Much better let the professional do their job and let them say whether the bloke is alive or dead.

Oh yes, I refer to those scientists that study years and years.
These same people that materialists applaud as researches of science which materialists rely on when support their ideas but ignore them when their opinion goes against their ideas-beliefs.

[Arik]

More accurately, they only count what they can see, while awake.  So what happens when you are asleep, or what happens that you don't or can't see, is irrelevant.  The most logical people are agnostic, they aren't rationalizing like theist and atheists do.  Because they have no agenda.

Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?

For me personally, what happens when we die isn't important either.  Being awake is completely theistic to me, I don't need any special experiences, nor do I have to die, to see G-d.  I see G-d every day, anthropomorphically with the people (and other creatures) that I share this world with.

A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.

[Arik]

There is a whole spectrum to dying.  Declaration of death is a legal concept not a medical one.  But definitely not anybody coming back from complete death.  Hence the Jesus resurrection is symbolic/mythical, as described.  If it was otherwise, then it was a coma recovery.  This ambiguity is why it used to be that very cold drowning victims could have been saved, but weren't because they were considered unrecoverable, but were recoverable.  Of course they weren't totally dead.

It can be argue for ever and ever whether a person is dead or not or whether a flat EEG means anything at all.
What make me believe that the consciousness leave a body is that the consciousness is able to go through (during an NDE) a clear, sharp and well-defined experience that wouldn't be possible with a person being still alive (brain not dead yet).

[Plu]

It is most bizarre to see materialists saying that when you die is all over with no evidence of whatsoever that the consciousness die when the body die.

Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.

[Arik]

And it's still not a refereed paper in a scientific journal.  Unlike several of the ones referenced here that explain what NDEs are.  Spoiler alert: [spoiler]They're perfectly explainable without resorting to made-up bullshit and wishful thinking.[/spoiler]

By the bye, author of your link?  Cardiologist.  Not neurologist, not even a psychologist.  WRONG FIELD OF EXPERTISE.  Would I see him professionally if I had heart trouble?  Maybe.  Brain tumor?  Fuck no.

You are now at the point where you need to just admit, no, you do not have any actual scientific evidence to support your opinion, just the desire for it to be true as some sort of psychological security blanket.  At least have the honesty to do that.

You are an absolute joke Mister.

You propose a link that is a pure and simple opinion pretending that in reality is a prove.
I can go through a myriad of opinions.
Some back your belief some mine and we wouldn't get anywhere in this way.
So far none that has studied NDEs has ever come up with any sort of REAL evidence.
Why?
Simple.
Because NDEs go behind the physical aspect of this reality-dimension and all studies so far related to the physical aspect only.

The real prove is elsewhere Mister.
These so called people who went through an NDE could see from above their DEAD body but most of all they could perceive what the nurses and doctors that were there try to bring them back from their death were doing and thinking.
Once back in their body they could describe what they have seen and what the doctors and nurses were thinking.

This wouldn't be possible unless the consciousness left their dead bodies.

You keep on declaim your superior knowledge by swearing, shouting in red big words but so far you haven't be able to explain how these people could see and perceive what was going on while their body lie dead in the casualty room.


Grow up Mister.

[Arik]

Note that I said no such thing; I only said it's dumb to say that I "saw a dead consciousness" when you're claiming the "consciousness lives on after death" is a supernatural thing.

I was referring to the materialists idea that when the body die also the consciousness die that is why I said..have you ever seen a dead consciousness?
If that cause a misunderstanding then I do apologize.

[Baruch]

Ummmm, I am a bit confused Baruch.
Are you saying that there is much of a difference between materialists and atheists?



A fairly good philosophy in life although I definitively go a lot further than that.

Rhetorically theists and atheists are the same, in the sense that they have an agenda.  Since I am theist, I also have an agenda.  I am not unbiased.  Agnostics have no bias, or agenda.  But I am not saying that agnostics are superior.  It may be that they are just lazy and dull witted ;-)

----

Of course, there are more than one kind of atheist.  Bhakti Vaishnavas are classic theists.  But there are even atheist Shaivas.  India has a spectrum of traditions.  And India long ago had Charvakas (materialists) .  With the understanding that divinity in S & E Asia is very different than the W Asia kind (Abrahamic).

The often sited Western varieties are rationalist (theism makes no sense) and empiricist (theism has no evidence).  It is the latter group you face here.  Usually materialists are of the second type ... because if it is material, it isn't divine, but natural ... and they contend that everything is material, so everything is natural.  They also consider divine and material mutually exclusive.  That syllogism is as far as their logic need go.  QED, if you accept their premises and their syllogism.

[Hydra009]

have you ever seen a dead consciousness?

Repeating this because you think it's such a knock-down argument that you want to bask in its brilliance or because of substantial reading difficulty?

You can't see a dead consciousness. The whole reason it's so hard to convince people a consciousness remains after you die is because there's no particles to make it up out of, so definitely it can't be something visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible to the still living.

[Baruch]

Your own human experience counts for nothing, Popular Science articles are everything.