Consciousness Without Brain Activity.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Don't start with me Papa Smurf!!! Today Isn't going to be your day if you do.

An apology would have been expected.

And. You started with me, I may note.

[Aquila King]

15 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'm going to separate this for you really easy.

...I'd love to discuss this just once without being talked down to through piety...

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

An apology would have been expected.

And. You started with me, I may note.

When it comes to you and your wishful thinking, you do not deserve an apology. You haven't brought anything to the table. 

 

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

..I'd love to discuss this just once without being talked down to through piety...

Good luck on that. 

[XenoFish]

And I love to have a discussion with people who can actually think about things. Who can provide supporting links for their beliefs and can defend their arguments without resorting to "scientism or materialism" as a back up defense. But I'd have better luck making gold from kitchen chemicals.

[Aquila King]

20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You've mentioned two words that I really hate that always come from the more esoteric ones when they start losing and argument, scientism and materialism. 

Materialism is a worldview that the 'non-spiritual' accept.

Scientism is also a philosophy that often times goes hand with the materialist worldview.

If you don't like these terms then I'm sorry. I haven't kept up with Atheist PC principles lately. What else should we call it then?

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Aquila King said:

That's demonstrably false. No where did I even hint at any such thing.

It's ironic. You're making a claim with no basis in reality whilst asserting that others are doing that very same thing instead.

A few posts you've tried to blamed "materialists" being the reason science doesn't accept "alternative" explanations. 

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

And I love to have a discussion with people who can actually think about things. Who can provide supporting links for their beliefs and can defend their arguments without resorting to "scientism or materialism" as a back up defense. But I'd have better luck making gold from kitchen chemicals.

Scientism and Materialism are not arguments, their definitions.

We aren't resorting to anything, merely describing the opposing worldview. As I said if you have better words for it then by all means enlighten me.

[XenoFish]

Just now, Aquila King said:

Materialism is a worldview that the 'non-spiritual' accept.

Scientism is also a philosophy that often times goes hand with the materialist worldview.

If you don't like these terms then I'm sorry. I haven't kept up with Atheist PC principles lately. What else should we call it then?

It has nothing to do with anything PC, it has everything to do with non-argument. It's a fallback that people use when they don't have an intelligent response. They get toss around here like some kind of accusation. I've seen scientism used repeatedly in a thread by someone who couldn't defend what they said. Over and over again. Then you have those who claim it's true because it feels right and I heard if from a friend of a friend, of a neighbor, who read it on the internet. That's another non-argument. Even with the subject of this thread the science crowd has more going for them than the metaphysical group. And they want it to be true for whatever reason. So unless something changes and we learn something different that has repeatable results. Then dead is dead, you are not conscious after death. 

[Rlyeh]

15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Ahh. You have changed the tune now. I'll stand by what I said.

I haven't changed anything. Looks like you already knew the answer to your question.

[XenoFish]

You like so many other want it to be true and I spent 20+ years of my life hoping to find that there was something after this life. That's a lot of time, effort, and energy to have no real results. My hopes were that the gods were real, that beings such as angels and demons existed, and that the dead were still around. But once you start stripping away everything you've done and look to psychology and science, you find that your hope amounted to nothing, again I say, dead is dead.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

A few posts you've tried to blamed "materialists" being the reason science doesn't accept "alternative" explanations. 

That is correct. That doesn't in any way mean that I'm opposed to science or the scientific method. Merely materialism. There is a difference.

You seem to be a prime example of the very problem I'm discussing. You fail to disassociate materialism from science. You apparently see the two as one and the same when they're not. Materialism is a belief and a worldview. You may support it through scientific evidence but that doesn't mean that science is inherently materialistic, nor that it should be.

[XenoFish]

ma·te·ri·al·ism

məˈtirēəˌlizəm/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2. 2.

   PHILOSOPHY

   the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

    

   Even thoughts are made of something material. 

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Aquila King said:

That is correct. That doesn't in any way mean that I'm opposed to science or the scientific method. Merely materialism. There is a difference.

You seem to be a prime example of the very problem I'm discussing. You fail to disassociate materialism from science. You apparently see the two as one and the same when they're not. Materialism is a belief and a worldview. You may support it through scientific evidence but that doesn't mean that science is inherently materialistic, nor that it should be.

So you think if materialism disappeared that "spiritual" explanations would satisfy the scientific method?

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It has nothing to do with anything PC, it has everything to do with non-argument. It's a fallback that people use when they don't have an intelligent response. They get toss around here like some kind of accusation. I've seen scientism used repeatedly in a thread by someone who couldn't defend what they said. Over and over again. Then you have those who claim it's true because it feels right and I heard if from a friend of a friend, of a neighbor, who read it on the internet. That's another non-argument. Even with the subject of this thread the science crowd has more going for them than the metaphysical group. And they want it to be true for whatever reason. So unless something changes and we learn something different that has repeatable results. Then dead is dead, you are not conscious after death. 

You claim it's a non-argument because you personally don't accept it. That doesn't suddenly mean the argument is invalid. You proved in your own post above (in bold) that strict adherence to scientism is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. I know you don't think so but that's what it is.

You insist others play on your terms, and when they point out that the rules of the game are overwhelmingly flawed then you claim that they're just using it as an excuse to not lose. That's not how it works my friend.

2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

So you think if materialism disappeared that "spiritual" explanations would satisfy the scientific method?

In some cases, yes.

[Rlyeh]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

In some cases, yes.

Such as? If spiritual explanations can satisfy the scientific method then there should be nothing stopping the experiments.

[XenoFish]

Just now, Aquila King said:

You claim it's a non-argument because you personally don't accept it. That doesn't suddenly mean the argument is invalid. You proved in your own post above (in bold) that strict adherence to scientism is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. I know you don't think so but that's what it is.

You insist others play on your terms, and when they point out that the rules of the game are overwhelmingly flawed then you claim that they're just using it as an excuse to not lose. That's not how it works my friend.

Then you didn't read my post. I stated that scientism and materialism are tossed around as almost insults towards those who are not spiritually minded. When they (the spiritualist) can't defend their statements they resort to those terms to insult others. Spiritual beliefs belong in psychology as they are all about believing something. You want to believe there is life after death, I don't think anyone would give a flying F about that, but as soon as you claim it is a real thing without any backing. That's when the "trouble" starts. 

We (the skeptics) get into the same mess when people claim to have seen a ghost or their house is haunted. A lot of us list suggestions at to check if it's legit. Occasionally we get those who heed our advice, most of the time we get blasted by those only seeking confirmation of their beliefs. With this thread, it's the same thing. I'm having a debate about a subject that I don't even care about for reason I don't even know. 

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'm having a debate about a subject that I don't even care about for reason I don't even know

I think, like me, you are looking for some sort of answer but aren't willing to simply discard the evidence in favour of something that supports what you would like to think.  Accepting something that completely changes your worldview is hard for the best of us, unfortunately I believe mankind won't really move forwards until we have let go of the ancient past and start forming new beliefs based on current understandings.  At the very least one that doesn't contradict itself at every turn.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

Such as? If spiritual explanations can satisfy the scientific method then there should be nothing stopping the experiments.

There isn't anything stopping the experiments.

https://www.sheldrake.org/research

Except of course materialist scientists who seek to further their dogma.

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

Just now, XenoFish said:

I stated that scientism and materialism are tossed around as almost insults towards those who are not spiritually minded. When they (the spiritualist) can't defend their statements they resort to those terms to insult others.

And on what basis do you claim that we don't defend our statements? We do defend our statements, we simply don't defend them to your satisfaction. Which that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the defense is plausible or not and everything to do with your personal standards being met.

And of course those standards necessarily require that every piece of evidence from the spiritual must be experimented on through the scientific method, which like it or not is scientism.

Of course when we give you even that, full scientific papers with experimentation and everything, you still reject it as 'fraudulent' or 'poorly conducted'.

We give you what you ask for and you reject it. You ask for unrealistic standards of proof and then we call you on it you accuse us of insulting you. What more could you possibly want? Because at the end of the day it appears as if it'll just never be enough.

[Aquila King]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I think, like me, you are looking for some sort of answer but aren't willing to simply discard the evidence in favour of something that supports what you would like to think.  Accepting something that completely changes your worldview is hard for the best of us, unfortunately I believe mankind won't really move forwards until we have let go of the ancient past and start forming new beliefs based on current understandings.  At the very least one that doesn't contradict itself at every turn.

This is ultimately all I'm asking for.

I'm against all forms of dogma. Religious or otherwise. I was a dogmatic atheist once, and I abandoned it because of it's materialistic dogma. I just wish that Materialists/Atheists, whatever you wanna call them, could see that their views are just as dogmatic as any religious person out there.

At the end of the day, none of us are certain about anything. And literally anything is at least in some sense possible. Once we open our minds to all the possibilities, that's when we'll truly be free.

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I think, like me, you are looking for some sort of answer but aren't willing to simply discard the evidence in favour of something that supports what you would like to think.  Accepting something that completely changes your worldview is hard for the best of us, unfortunately I believe mankind won't really move forwards until we have let go of the ancient past and start forming new beliefs based on current understandings.  At the very least one that doesn't contradict itself at every turn.

I spent years looking for the afterlife, never found it. Not one shred of actual proof and I'm quite content with the idea of oblivion. Having some happy little delusion would be more painful emotionally than accepting that this life is it. 

I get it. People want it to be real for WTF-ever reason they so desire. Perhaps they hope to see their grandmama again, I get that. I do but there is a limit. Between simply having a belief and treating that belief as fact. As I mentioned in an earlier post. Once we're dead we'll find out for certain. Other than that why worry about it?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

At the end of the day, none of us are certain about anything. And literally anything is at least in some sense possible. Once we open our minds to all the possibilities, that's when we'll truly be free.

Then you must ask yourself why even question anything? Because once you start questioning things, you start forming beliefs, and those beliefs. Be they based on fact or speculation create your subjective filter towards all things. The things about having an open mind is that sometimes nonsense falls in when you're not aware of it. You need a filter.

[XenoFish]

We could even break this down further into objective and subjective view points.

On a subjective level someone might believe there is life after death (this is a personal belief).

On an objective level there is no current evidence for an after life. 

So the real issue with a lot of these threads is taking a subjective view as an objective reality. This even goes towards magick itself.

Edited September 22, 2017 by XenoFish

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Then you must ask yourself why even question anything? Because once you start questioning things, you start forming beliefs, and those beliefs. Be they based on fact or speculation create your subjective filter towards all things. The things about having an open mind is that sometimes nonsense falls in when you're not aware of it. You need a filter.

Xeno, don't drag that statement of mine out too far. Of course this ^ is correct, you should know what I mean...

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Xeno, don't drag that statement of mine out too far. Of course this ^ is correct, you should know what I mean...

Then you need to use plain speak when making a statement. I had the same problem with another member using word gymnastics to explain things. The things is you've not been here long enough for anyone to know what you mean. Given time say a year then this may be a none issue. We don't know you yet and I've conversed with a lot of people over the 3 years I've been here.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

We could even break this down further into objective and subjective view points.

On a subjective level someone might believe there is life after death (this is a personal belief).

On an objective level there is no current evidence for an after life. 

So the real issue with a lot of these threads is taking a subjective view as an objective reality. This even goes towards magick itself.

The existence of an afterlife is conclusion that is drawn, based on evidence. Evidence that needs to be interpreted. Interpretations that are subjective not objective. There's no basis for the claim that there 'is no objective evidence for an afterlife' as the evidence could be staring you in the face all along, and yet you simply don't see it because of the way you subjectively interpret the world.