yguy

If it were known that consciousness were inextricably interwoven with the brain, that would indeed be a logical conclusion. It isn't known - therefore the logical approach is to admit ignorance.

SimplyAtheistic

Actually it is known, only people such as yourself won't accept it.
Jake

JGL53

But reality isn't what yguy wants, Jake. What else you got?

Jet Grind

Then your ignoring pretty much all the knowledge we've accumulated in the field of neuroscience.

More delusional nonsense.

Impress you? You're giving yourself too much credit if you think that's what I'm trying to do. That's just a book reccommendation. Also, if you're going to insult Dr. Pinker, try not to use conservative newspeak terms (i.e. infanticide).

Rediculous. I'd love to believe in an afterlife. Just like any living organism, I have the innate desire to prolong my existence. Your argument doesn't hold, as usual.

never been there

I would like to put in my $.03 (Canadian = 2 cents US) in emotional's favour. It's helpful to our discussions to have someone who has sincerely tried a variety of beliefs, and is so honest about the true motivation for trying to believe. And a post search reveals that if emotional isn't really "one of us", the fit still isn't a bad one. See:
emotional mocks Muslim apologist

emotional butts heads with Magus (starts on page 2 of the thread)

and calls him an idolator

JGL53

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yguy
I don't know that it is. I suspect it is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then your ignoring pretty much all the knowledge we've accumulated in the field of neuroscience.



- J.G., how do you know he is 'ignoring' it? Perhaps he is near totally ignorant of it.

yguy

I see no reason to do otherwise, since absolutely none of it mitigates against the persistence of consciousness after death.

Nevertheless, you have...but perhaps not in what you would consider a postive manner.

I suppose now you're going to tell me there is a substantive difference between infanticide and Pinker's preferred terminology, "neonaticide"?

Frankly, anyone who would give any credence to anything this ghoul has to say...ah well, let's just say the forum rules constrain me from accurately describing such a mentality.

More precisely, you have the innate desire to prolong life on your terms.

Jet Grind

Are you simply attempting to derail the converstion here? We're talking about consiouness being brain based. If you were to say otherwise, then you would have to discrdit a lot of neuroscientific knowledge.

*yawn*

If you aren't particularly fond of Dr. Pinker's views then that's just peachy. I'm talking about a book he wrote about something completely different. If you don't want to read it then you don't have to, don't get your panties in bunch over this, K?

"On my own terms"? What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Nowhere357

I think you have successfully demonstrated that the default position is that there is no afterlife. However, you seem to consider the matter proven, and I don't think that is the case.

Will you agree that, although the default position is the correct logical conclusion for a skeptic, that nonetheless sometimes the default position may turn out to be incorrect?

As a lucid dreamer, I find this question interesting. We do seem to stop (mentally) existing until the brain pops the clutch again. It's possible, however, that the mental awareness never ceases - that memory simply is not laid down, so it's not possible to remember what happens. Supporting this is the fact that many people fail to recall even normal rem dreams.

Anyway, the fact of our mental awareness is interesting and a long way from being understood.

yguy

You're not interested anyway, so forget it.