How many GODS do you have?

[Baruch]

I'm not you sure realize this, but you're arguing against your own point. If you believe in an immaterial soul that exists independently from the body, then software is not a good example. I have pictures saved on my phone. Where do those pictures go if I smash my phone into a million pieces? Nowhere, because the software depends on the hardware to exist. Even if my phone were connected to the cloud, and I was able to recover my pictures that way, those files still only exist because they were shared to a physical computer out there somewhere. So unless we develop the ability to interface with technology and we upload our consciousness to the internet, our consciousness will not continue to exist after our brains cease to function.

Does the thing you took a picture of ... disappear if you smash your phone?  The picture is merely an image of what it was taken of, not the thing itself.  Just as the paper listing of a program doesn't disappear, or my memory of it in my head, disappear, when your HD crashes.

[Absolute_Agent]

You can, in fact, reasonably divorce the concept of a process from its bound entity as categories, the same way that the running of a computer program can be divorced from the computer itself. In fact, you must be able to do this to have abstract entities in the first place.

If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:

If

1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and

2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"

Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.

Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call consciousness is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions.  The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look.  For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations working on the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence.  This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains.  Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver.  Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves.  IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible.  Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

AI/Robot religion says, giant Japanese speaking robots, with or without people in them (it is immaterial which, to these people, because people are meat-ware) are real, because we saw it on the silver screen.  ;-)  These are smart people, but as monkeys we are all easily taken in by our own cleverness.  Scientism says that scientists are the high priests of this godless religion ;-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh5G6RUgjiM

Scifi isn't mythology, isn't it?

I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence.  Science is useful when circumscribed by moral values, and religion is benevolent when tempered by pragmatic rationality.  Science fiction is myth--yet as past myths often point to a historical reality, so myths of the future often become fulfilled prophecies in hindsight.  This is related to the way that consciousness forms our material reality.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Hakurei Reimu]

If I'm not mistaken you have just contradicted yourself to your own face:

If

1) Consciousness is a material process analagous to processes in a computer, and

2) Processes such as software execution CAN be divorced from their material "things"

Then consciousness can be divorced from the brain, can exist without the brain just as software can exist without a computer.

Divorced on a conceptual level; you can make the distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.

There is no contradiction here. It's only you making "divorce" out to be more than I described.

Software can exist (to a degree) from the computer that normally runs it, such as being written to media, but a process cannot be so meaningfully separated. Nothing can happen to software that exists on DVD. It takes a computer to run it.

Note, what I am calling consciousness is analagous to software while what you call conscious is analagous to software execution in a computer--one is a pattern of instructions while the other is a process of executing those instructions.

Yes, that difference is the whole point of contention. I have seen nowhere where you have convincingly supported yours. Every time you try to draw the argument to your side, there is a specific aspect of the difference between software and consciousness that destroys the point.

The brain is like a computer which takes consciousness, or software, and executes it in material reality so to speak--which process you are calling consciousness is actually only the manifest influence of consciousness.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this model of consciousness if you cared to look.  For instance the phenomena of multiple inventors in completely different locations donated withing in the same inventions simultaneously, not having been previously aware of each other's existence.  This suggests they were simply downloading the same information from a common immaterial source--an entity of consciousness independent of brains.

Or that the prevailing technological and scientific development makes the time ripe for the invention to be necessary and possible, and usually only a few permutations will work. The telephone was invented nearly simultaneously by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, but neither invention would have been possible prior to Östed's discovery of the connection between electricity and magnetism, and subsequent investigation to how magnetism and electicity interact. Not only that, there were the discoveries in the connection between sound and mechanical motion, and as such the little bits came together in Bell and Gray. Furthermore, Antonio Meucci filed a caveat (intention to invent) something similar five years earlier. It's not impossible that the fragments of the idea were bopping around for that time.

I don't think that you can show that any "independent" invention can be entirely independent. All invention builds upon the work of antecedents, which is quite definitely shared material.

Furthermore, you could also find that the brain is structured as a signal receptor, somewhat like a radio receiver.  Your radio doesn't produce radio stations--it merely downloads and translates preexisting entities--radio waves.

You "could" find? Then this is not actually evident. Things that are not evident aren't counted as evidence, boyo.

If you have a means of independently verifying this signal, by all means go out and find it. Otherwise, it's just a story you tell.

IMO my model of consciousness is much more sensible.  Apparently you cannot refute it except to call on Occams razor, which is simply an easy way of saying you don't want to test my model. 

I am not interested in your opinion of what sounds "sensible," as the universe owes you no such explanation. (Quantum theory is the ultimate "fuck you" here.) Occam's razor is an epistemological device which imposes discipline onto our speculations, but it is also mathematically justified. Multiplying assumptions tends to spread out your range of possible fitting data, and turn out to be more vague and dissipated. It takes much more data to prove and disprove one of these hypotheses than one with fewer assumptions.

Furthermore, it's not as if verified phenomena cease to exist if the more complicated model is true. Even in a world with genuine out-of-body experiences, there will still be people who lie, exaggerate, and are the victims of false memories brought about by limited anoxia to the brain and suggestion.

[Absolute_Agent]

Divorced on a conceptual level; you can make the distinction between a process and objects carrying out/undergoing that process, without separating the two in the slightest. The distinction boils down to that you can usually stop a process from occurring in an object without obviating the object, but you can't destroy the object without the process going along with it.

If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally.  Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.

Now you claim that a process must stop when it's host "thing" is destroyed, yet a process can end without the host"thing" ceasing to exist.  But what kind of "existence" is that?  When consciousness stops, the body is buried.  When software execution ceases the computer is scrapped.  But it's still a computer you say?  What good is it?  It's still a brain you say?  What good is a brain without consciousness?  What good are all those fantastic chemical acrobatics?  It's just empty fireworks.  The stove is on but no one's home.  Functionally, pragmatically, the process is more real than the material form in which it operates. The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped. 

You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.

Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality.  The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.

It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...

There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body.  You just aren't interested in looking at it.  Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Arik]

In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

[josephpalazzo]

Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?



1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

1. Humans have been around for 200,000 years. Billions have died in those years. None have ever come back after death. Those are facts. Sorry for you to hear this, but it is over once you're death.

2. If some one cracks your brain with an ax there won't be an Arik spewing nonesense on the internet. If you believe otherwise you are naive and gullible. i dare you to try it. Plunge an ax through your brain, and if you come back, I'll apologize. Deal?

3. Cannot proved or disproved. What's your point?

4. I don't believe in God, and I see no need to believe in one. If you want to believe in God, it's your choice, and I don't give a fuck.

5. Yes, there are both figment of the imagination.

6. Don't know, don't care.

7. NDE's are like dreams - a product of the brains. In the USA, patients have visions of their beliefs in Christianity. In India, those patients ave visions of idols in their own culture. Ditto in othe countries. Those are facts. deal with it.

8. Unless you have a PhD in biology, I strongly suggest you stay off the topic of evolution. My expertise is in physics, and most likely i know ten times more than you do in evolution, but you will find a rare occasion that I have come on this forum to talk about evolution because I know I'm not an expert in that field. That's a major difference between a troll like you and I. I know where my expertise lies, and where it doesn't. You don't even know that much.

9. Yes, and I would include philosophy, math, art, literature, economics, history, just to name a few areas of learning that can enlarge your understanding.

10. ...or become the president of the USA - ever heard of Donald Trump?!?

Ok troll, enough of your nonsense. Do not expect me to answer you in the future. I have a policy not to waste time with gullible, naive and ignorant assholes like you.

[Arik]

Dearheart, a knockdown doll gets knocked down all the time. Just because you get right back up for more punishment doesn't mean you're not getting knocked down.

Gee, this must be a very deep kind of philosophy.
Congratulation Haku.

So, in 3-10 minutes after getting blood flow cut off, the brain just up and dies, all together? In perfect synch, like some kind of Palestinian Suicide Squad? Nonsense. Even in these cases, there are differences in the conditions of the individual cells that means that some brain cells will last longer than others. The damage starts setting in at three minutes, and by ten minutes, the damage is usually so severe that consciousness never returns. If you're revived after four minutes, you'll be mostly okay, with some long-term effects. If you're revived after twelve minutes, you'll be a vegetable.

We know this because we have patients who run the spectrum. There is a clear progression of deterioration.

The other thing is in these episodes, you pretend that the healthcare providers are sitting around on their thumbs. Not so. They're doing stuff like CPR and other means to try to keep the heart pumping. That keeps the blood moving, even in a reduced capacity, and as such, while the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to continue functioning, it does get enough oxygen to survive much longer than it would were there no blood flow at all.

More excuses Haku.
The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.
Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.

The other thing is that, being uncontrolled experiments as they are, you don't know where the information in NDEs are coming from. Again, we only get accounts of these NDEs after patients are brought back from the brink and spend some time convalescing.

Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.

NDEs are not experienced as they happen. They are reconstructed after full blood flow is restored, and the brain is getting enough oxygen to start returning to full function. That and the fact that healthcare providers are administering healthcare to the patient to keep some form of blood flow going to the brain easily explains how NDEs can last more than ten minutes. Also, recollected time is kind of fluid.

Wrong again Haku.

NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.

You wish, Arik Idle. It is in the nature of idiots to think they're ahead when they are actually far behind. When you can't even describe the biology of brain death and health care in the case of cardiac arrest accurately, you're not in any position to say what happens in those cases.

It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.
As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.

Things described as "evolution" in the sciences describe quite particular things and I would thank you for not appropriating vocabulary you don't know how to apply correctly.
We usually call this "developement" and "learning."
Only when non-science idiots like you use it. Etymologically, it means "to roll out" and as such is used to describe a progression of stages or states, like the stages in the life cycle of a star, or a population. There is no implication of progression up a ladder of betterment. Part of the evolution of a star, for instance, is its inevitable death. The process of an organ or limb withering into a vestigial is a part of biological evolution, so this notion that evolution involves betterment is a myth perpetuated by those people who don't study the relevant fields.
No, you're just using the word "evolution" in a way not recognized by science. You don't get to say what is "real" evolution. Only scientists get to do that.

Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.


https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47424/did-the-word-evolution-exist-before-darwinism


Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.

You are the only one here who has not brought evidence. I already outlined the problems with your NDE canard, the most glaring of which is the completely uncontrolled manner of any scenario in which it shows up, and the only piece of information that has ever been introduced in a controlled way fails to show up in ANY NDE. This, analogies, and bald-faced assertions without support are the only things you have brought to the table. None of these things are evidence.

So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?

Better go back to sleep Haku.

On the other hand, we have brought you hard-won knowledge from the only group of people who have ever brought evidence to bear on your questions. So, pot, stop calling the silverware black.
I already stated that you require physical conditioning to break the blocks, and physical conditioning in this area is something I very much lack. Have one of your spindly gurus break those blocks, and you'll be talking, because then you'd have proven that physical conditioning is unnecessary.

Oh, I see.

So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?

Seriously, how does my failing to break blocks with my mind power (without the relevant physical training) somehow prove that mind power is what breaks these bricks?

Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?

Another bald-faced assertion. Look, the reason why I said that you can see, hear, smell, etc. the driver was to underline the point that the driver has physically verifiable properties. Well, your brain in action also has the same thing: hook up your brain to an EEG, or use a fMRI, and you can see the brain lighting up as I type these words. Particularly my motor cortex, my Broca's and Wernicke's areas, my prefrontal cortex, and my visual cortex. These are exactly the places where if disruption occurs I will lose my reasoning, vision, ability to move, or ability to process language. My consciousness is a physical process that can be measured and observed at work, but it is not separate from my brain.

The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.

We've seen people thinking with fMRI and EEGs, Mr. Idle. That is evidence, and it points towards consciousness as a physical process, not an abstract entity.
No, you haven't. That list was not intended to be exhaustive. You can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste hydrogen gas either. Yet it is as physically real as your body is, particularly if it ignites and blows you the fuck up.
Yet, apparently, when separated from the body as you contend with NDE OOB experiences, your consciousness functions just fine without any brain matter involved, regardless of its state of operation. It's able to eavesdrop on people, see people do their work, etc, in the absence of any physical substrate, yet when inside a body, damage and drugs disable these abilities utterly.

You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.

Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.

Do these abilities lie in the consciousness or in the brain, Mr. Idle? If they're in the consciousness, why does damaging the brain in the relevant region destroy the ability? If they're in the brain, why does the consciousness still have them when separated from the body? If they're in both, then why doesn't your consciousness act as backup? After all, all your consciousness needs to do is manipulate your motor cortex, and you're golden.

One more stupid point.

When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.
When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.
What else you suppose to do?

However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.

Injuries are not created equal. If you break your leg, you won't be able to walk on it, even in an OOB experience. That implies that the function of walking is bound to your legs. If you break your brain, you won't be able to think with it. That implies that the functions of cognition are bound to your brain.

Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.
That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.

For every faculty of the mind, we have a specific brain injury that impairs it, and the list of impairments is long indeed. This implies that these faculties are bound to the brain, and not a part of any abstract consciousness. So what does the consciousness do, Mr. Idle?

As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.
After that you are free.
But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.

[Blackleaf]

Arik here acting like he's a genius, while the rest of us see him as the babbling idiot he is. No evidence, no arguments worth a damn, no expertise on the subject, like a child thinking he knows better than his parents. If I were you guys, I wouldn't waste my time.

[Simon Moon]

Good point Jos.

Now let us see if you can bring any evidence to these beliefs which most atheists are so keen to bring up so often so we don't have to say that these beliefs are asserted without evidence and therefore they will have to be dismissed without evidence.

Are you ready Jos?


1) When we die is all over.
2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
3) We never lived before and we will never live again.
4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.
5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.
6) Jesus never existed.
7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.
8) The progress of the consciousness has nothing to do with evolution.
9) Physical science is the real McCoy.
10) The power of the mind is not important in breaking slabs of concrete.

You do not seem to be able to differentiate between a claim, and not being convinced of a claim.

You are passing the burden of proof. You and your ilk are making the claims for: afterlives, NDE's, gods, 'spirituality', etc. It is up to you to support your claims. The burden of proof is not up to those that do not believe your claims, it is up to those making the claims. 

1) When we die is all over.

Very few atheists make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there is no life after death. Most take the position, that theists claims that there is life after death has not met its burden of proof, therefore, there is no warrant to believe it is true.

2) The consciousness is a product of the brain.

Please point to one verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable example of a consciousness that exists absent a brain.

All evidence points to consciousness being a result of physical brain processes. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that consciousness is not a product of a physical brain.

3) We never lived before and we will never live again.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that I have never lived before or will not live again. My position is, that those of you that claim this is true, have not met your burden of proof. Therefore, I have no warrant to believe it is true.

4) There is no need for a God to create or run the universe.

There is no evidence that a god is needed to create or run the universe. Please provide verifiable, falsifiable, demonstrable evidence that a god is necessary.

Again, you are the one making the claim that a god is necessary, therefore, you have the burden of proof.

As soon as theists are able to meet their burden of proof, I will be forced to accept it is true.

It is interesting, however, that the majority of physicists and cosmologists, are non-believers. Doesn't mean they are correct, only that the people that understand the evidence well beyond you are I do, do not see evidence of gods.

5) Religion and spirituality is the same thing.

There is at least one obvious difference, religion is pretty easy to define, spirituality is not. For every single person I've ever heard use the term 'spirituality', I get just as many different definitions.

6) Jesus never existed.

Very few atheists make this claim. Even guys like Robert Price or Richard Carrier, 2 of the most vocal mythicists, do not claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist. Their position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that he did exist.

But here's the thing, even if a historical Jesus did exist, that offers zero evidence that any of the miracle god claims attributed to him occured. After all, the evidence for a historical Mohamed is stronger than for a historical Jesus, but I'll bet you don't believe Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged creature.

7) NDEs are all hallucinations and lies.

Even if they are hallucinations, that doesn't mean that they are lies. The person experiencing a NDE, may be having a completely natural (but nonstandard) brain state, that they are misinterpreting. They might completely believe their experience is real, without lying about it.

9) Physical science is the real McCoy.

Science is the single best and most reliable method ever developed by humanity to explain reality. Please name another method that is as successful and reliable.

[Unbeliever]

The electricity is part of the wire.  But the pattern of electricity has nothing to do with that, since if comes from a "will" not "random".  These people will invoke Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato ... then claim ... I don't do philosophy (because then it wouldn't be science) and that I am totally autonomous from history and present context ... my ideas aren't just a meme from 2500 years ago.

Pythagoras was a pretty funny guy - he invented a prank cup that, when over-filled, would drain the contents out through the base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_cup


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmOvA5VlO8U


:-P

[Baruch]

"You are passing the burden of proof." ... that is a political act aka courtroom strategy.  In IRS, you have the burden of proof.  In regular court, the government has the burden of proof.  Rhetoric is commonly the conceptual system in which parliamentary debate occurs.

So what politics is one doing when one says "You are passing the burden of proof".  In the case of my hand, proof is irrelevant, I know my hand is on my arm.  In the case of love, proof -> demonstration.  Does she demonstrate that she loves me or not?  in the case of love, if I play the courtroom gambit of "you are passing the burden of proof" what I am saying is, she has asked me to demonstrate that I love her, rather than her responding with a demonstration that she loves me.

In the case of abstractions like free will or G-d ... other than dialectical sparring, what does "you are passing the burden of proof" get us?  Well something more than the fallacy of ad hominem "that poster is stupid".  In rationality, one has axioms that all agree on, and one follows a valid sequence of deduction (except nobody does this in practice, because either we don't agree on the axioms or nobody has the ability to do the logical deduction correctly in practice).  In empiricism, we rely on objective evidence (it is confirmed that the victims blood was on the glove of O J ... or it is confirmed by independent witnesses that OJ threatened the victim verbally).  But empirical evidence for anything, if ruled out in advance (do we accept the evidence or not), we go into a rhetorical chain of evidentiary rules (the bloody glove wasn't obtained per legal evidentiary rules, it could have been tampered with).  With people, it isn't unusual that we can't come to an agreement, it is unusual, even if we are following the same rules, that we can ... come to an agreement.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If you then concede that a process is inseparable in actuality from its host "thing" you have then confirmed my point that a process is integral to things generally.  Which leads to consciousness being an entity, because by your admission it is in actuality part of a "thing". The conceptual distinction then being illusory and referential only.

No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.

When I say that a process cannot be separated from its contigent thing, I mean that to talk about a process as if it were not happening to that thing is absurd. The running of a car in the absence of a car is absurd. The same is not generally true of entities like cars. A car can be not running.

So, there's an asymmetry between entities and processes. A given process is contingent on an entity, but an entity is not contingent on the process. It may be an entity that is not doing it's job, but it's still there. You ask what good are bodies and computers without consciousness and software execution, and to that I asnwer â€" irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is not an argument about utility, functionality, teleology, pragmatics or any other higher-order purpose, but just to the existence and the nature thereof of brains and consciousness. A dead, silent brain is still clearly a brain, and a broken computer is still clearly a computer. Whether or not there's a point to them is a red herring.

Even if I were to admit that consciousness is an entity, it doesn't change the fact that it's still contingent upon a brain. It's still a fact that we have never observed a consciousness outside of a brain, or other matter substrate. A consciousness without a brain to operate on is just as pointless and functionless as a brain without a consciousness, especially given how much of your mental faculties are verifiably linked to your brain.

The software continues to exist long after the thousands of computers on which it operated are scrapped. 

And given that we're talking about the execution thereof, the continued existence of the software outside the computer is not really gerund to the discussion.

You haven't really explained why software did not apply as an analogy for consciousness, except that you claim consciousness must be an observable process in physical matter.

Software can be observed to be in a state where it is not doing anything and does not affect to cause change in any object, like when it is stored on a DVD. Consciousness is defined by changes in state, particularly awareness. Awareness requires the assimilation of new information. Ergo, equating consciousness to software is a bad analogy.

Besides, reasoning by analogy is an actual fallacy. You use analogies in clarification, not in reasoning.

Consciousness is more than a material process, it has its origins in a non-material reality.  The processes you see when you think you are observing consciousness are only the effects of consciousness as it impinges on the physical brain structure.

And here's the mere assertion. The claim that consciousnes is more than a material process has to be substantiated, and you have not done so. Indeed, everything we know about the brain indicates that, if consciousness is a separate thing, it would have prescious little to do. The only thing it seems to actually do is to have a sense of being in control, and not actually be in control.

It follows logically that if you observe a material process in the brain analogous to software execution, you should expect that there is a body of instructions directing that process, analagous to the software itself--an immaterial entity. Occam's razor indeed...

The correct application of Occam's razor applies to hypotheses that explain the data equally well. The notion of consciousness as a separate entity does NOT explain what we see at all, unless you make consciousness an impotent rider in the brain with no purpose or function. Fallacious hypotheses are killed long before they get to Occam's razor.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for consciousness existing independent of a material body.  You just aren't interested in looking at it.  Schools of fish acting in perfect synchronicity is a good example, and there are many more if you wanted to find them.

And here's the accusation that I'm "not interested" in things that don't fit my worldview. No, that's the pot calling the silverware black. I'm not interested in fallacious reasoning, and yours is very fallacious. You have brought no evidence at all, only analogies, which is a fallacious form of argument. You have no way of explaining why every mental faculty has a specific brain injury that disables it, if the consciousness is the seat of any of those faculties. You have no demonstration of consciousness being observed outside of the brain, a necessary condition for it to survive death or make OOB experiences a thing, except for the hellish possibility of your consciousness being trapped in an unresponsive body in perpetuity after death. The only thing you have brought that might have been evidence was your inventions malarkey, and there you can't separate the extraordinary hypothesis of an all-consciousness communicating ideas to inventors from the complex but very ordinary interaction between the prevailing technology and human need â€" that things were invented because the time was ripe. It is not evidence for separate consciousness because it is not indicative of that hypothesis to the exclusion of other explanations.

[Hakurei Reimu]

More excuses Haku.

An observed fact is never an "excuse."

The reality is that after 3 to 10 minutes that your heart stop sending blood-oxygen to the brain you are gone so the brain can not possibly put together any experience that is clear, sharp and remembered even after many years.

Then you have no way to explain the progressive deterioration of patients after anoxia. Furthermore, you have no assurance that the memories of what these patients experience came at the time or after normal blood flow is restored. But we know false memories exist, because we have experiments that have created them. Furthermore, these completely fabricated memories are as clear and sharp as any NDE. Clarity and sharpness are not guarantees of accuracy.

Doctors declare a person dead after they do their very best to revive a person including the CPR so your argument is bankrupt.

All that means is that the person is beyond medical help. Their declaration is just not detailed enough to allow them to say that any part of the body is definitively dead. A person who is not revived... doesn't come back to relate a NDE. They're dead. There's a quite definite bias to who we hear NDE's from.

Wrong again Haku.
If you bother to read these NDEs you will find that the patient is able to describe his-her experience immediately not after convalescing.

Waking up from a coma doesn't take place immediately, you idiot. A person waking up immediately after normal sinus rhythm and blood flow is restored just doesn't happen. Those medical dramas telling you otherwise are lying to you. The brain takes a while to get itself back into order, and during that time its still receiving information. Hence, "convalescing."

Wrong again Haku.

NDEs are experienced as they happen out the body by the consciousness and remembered also after when the consciousness is back into the body-brain.
It is a dogma to believe that you can only experience an NDE when your brain is on.

You have no assurance that the memory of that experience was formed at the time that the NDE patient claims. It's all related hours after the fact, even if the patient relates the memory immediately after waking up, because the waking up doesn't take place immediately after but hours later at best. Sometimes waking up from a coma takes days. You have hours unaccounted for. And before you say otherwise, episodes severe enough to require the heroic intervention required are the kind of comas it takes hours to wake up from.

Furthermore, while a patient may relate an experience immediately after waking up, there's no guarantee that the original related experience matches that of the experience related even days later. Again, we have demonstrations and evidence that episodic memory is altered every single time it is recalled. Unless someone was sitting at the bedside recording audio at the time, it's not going to be an original account, but filtered by time and experience.

It is also in the nature of fools to think that they can score points by insulting opponents.

I insult you for my pleasure, not to score any points. Everyone else can see that you're an idiot. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

As far as knowing or not as the body works I confess that I am an expert as a doctor is but that is why I listen to what these experts say which is something that you fail to do.

I do. Except I listen directly to the doctors and try to understand what they say on their own terms. I also take specializations into account. The people most qualified to comment about NDE are psychologists and neurophysiologists. Those experts say that there are quite organic reasons to believe that NDE's are not evidence of actual OOB experiences or evidence of a separate consciousness, and they have access to the full medical histories of the patients involved (you and I don't). None of them think that any of your excuses are noteworthy, so I don't either.

Apparently the word evolution had nothing to do with Darwin and also existed before his theories.

Irrelevant as I've never made that point. The way it is used now is what matters, and while some evolution involve advancement as we would consider it, what we call regressions are also parts of the theories.

Probably come from the Latin to mean the gradual development of something advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation and so on that is why your stubbornness in believing that is only about biological changes make you a total dreamer.

There is no field of study called "mental evolution." It's just you applying the word "evolution" to the mind and making up whatever definition suits you. Sorry, I'm not playing that game.

So real people, real casualty situation, real doctors and real hospitals are not evidence?

Not evidence for OOB experiences, just like the existence of real chocolate bars are not evidence for OOBs. You have not shown anything beyond "your brain thinks up funny things after a coma."

Oh, I see.

So you are not prepared to insert hooks in your flesh Haku, are you?

No. Again, I don't see how demonstrating my lack of ability to use mental powers to nullify pain demonstrates the power of the mind to nullify pain. We've already been over the hooked gurus thing and what I would consider a proper experiment and examination, and we will not go over it again.

Those guys that insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain never had any physical training so how you explain that?

Don't change the subject! I was talking about your spindly gurus' ability to break blocks like the karate masters! They can feel all the pain they want doing that, they just have to break the blocks.

And we've already been over the hooked gurus.

The same thing apply when you travel in your car.
As far as the two go hand in hand together one need the other to do things.
That doesn't mean that the two are inseparable because sooner or later the driver will leave the car same same as the consciousness leave the body when physical dead occur.

Again, find a consciousness that is actually observable outside the body, when it is outside the body, and you'll be miles ahead of where you are now. Until then, your driver analogy is just that, an analogy and an inappropriate one.

You could have not chosen a more stupid example-analogy then this.

Being constrain inside a body involve that you are dependent on that body to do things.
And if that body doesn't work properly for some reasons then you are stuck unable to do anything.
There are people that refuse to live inside a body so they kill themselves.
This show how being inside a body can be so so bad for some.

Then what of your OOB's then? Aren't those "experiences" happening outside your body, and not contingent on your body? The point about your analogy to a driver in the car was that the driver was NOT dependent on the car; he could get out of the car and walk the distance himself if need be. Sorry, but at this point your claim has devolved into absurdity.

One more stupid point.

When you are stuck inside a body is like when you are stuck inside a car.

Your entire point is that you're not stuck inside the proverbial car.

When something bad happen to your body or to your vehicle you also suffer.

I doubt that I would suffer as much in a car's protective body as I would if I suffered a collision at 60 mph with a multi-ton car on my actual person. And why would an immaterial consciousness need protection from the material world anyway?

What else you suppose to do?

Get out and walk.

However the consciousness unlike a physical driver is an abstract entity and therefore it is immune to physical death.

Why would an entity not immune to physical injury then be immune to physical death? You want me to stop calling you an idiot? Stop saying stupid shit like this.

Obviously if you are stuck inside a smashed car after an incident you can not do much, do you?
That is why until physical death occur you are dependent on your body-brain to do anything.

So inside the brain, the consciousness is a completely impotent existence completely dependent on its brain to do all the thinking for it. What a useless NEET consciousness is!

That doesn't mean that when this constrain is over you are still in that situation.

Even trapped in a car, you still have the ability to call for help. You can use a cell phone, or just shout very loud. You still have the ability to kick at the windshield to try to break it so you can crawl out. Indeed, in NDEs, this seems to be exactly what happens, even though the body is still in a condition that is recoverable â€" because all NDEs are related by just such people.

Sorry, Mr. Idle, none of your spiel dismisses the fact that, unlike drivers of cars, consciousness is never detected outside the body and is never seen acting independently of a brain.

As I just explain above you are stuck until this constrain end with the physical death.

Your "constraint of the body" canard doesn't wash, and indeed undermines your entire point.

After that you are free.

Unless your body is revived, and it's back in the lamp with you, Jafar!

But free only if your karma let you free otherwise the music of reincarnations goes on and on especially for those so called smart people that still don't understand how the whole system works.

If you're right, then I have literally infinite time to reconsider. If you're wrong, then I will have wasted my one and only shot at life. Unless you bring me better... well, any evidence, the smart choice is to not believe you. You are definitely no bodhisattva.

[Absolute_Agent]

No, again, that doesn't follow. It only follows if you consider processes themselves entities, which given your and Mr. Idle's umbrage to my characterization of conscousness as processes, you do not.

Correct.  I do not consider consciousness as a material process.  There is no logical reason to.  It is an unbounded immaterial complex of intelligent, likely geometric structure which generates the illusion of material reality.  In practice a materialist is necessarily capable of denying all evidence for this understanding of conscious since it by definition does not exist in a material form.  However, I adopt this model because it is the most rational, logical and useful.  The assumption that there can be no reality other than material reality is irrational, akin to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe of old.  The material process you label consciousness is only an expression of one or more aspects of consciousness in the material realm through physical entities designed as receptors of consciousness.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk