reply to post by Jezus
The best evidence is your conscious experience.
You don't need anything else.
I do not subscribe to the belief that evidence is composed solely upon shared agreed upon personal experiences. Here is why:
Let's take a modest group of just four individuals; Two of them have subjective personal experiences that validate the existence of a deity for those
two and the other two have subjective personal experiences that invalidate the existence of a deity.
If the two who have the subjective experience for a deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that, yes, a deity exists.
If the two who have the subjective experience for no deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that no deity exists.
Yet put all four together and no amount of previous comparisons will ever lead to a conclusive truth or fundamental aspect of reality. The experience
of the entire group becomes contradictory and invalid as both can't logically be correct.
At which point *should* a subjectively experienced aspect become accepted as inherently true? When it agrees with your statements, mine or shared
amongst all six billion inhabitants of this planet or all life on this planet or the collective life of the universe or of all objects in
existence?
...
I'm not saying it isn't possible at all, but that there is no evidence in which for me to accept what you state as true. I am asking for such
evidence in which I can pass judgment upon as being true. Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not
true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.
However, to help in this understanding you could research brain damage studies, memory studies, and dream studies.
All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any
research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and
yet you continuously fail to produce them.
This will help to understand that the brain is specialized and mechanical but is not the receiver of the conscious experience.
That mind receives the signal.
All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any
research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and
yet you continuously fail to produce them.
Understanding the innate abstract characteristic of consciousness doesn't require any knowledge of future discoveries.
To state as a matter of fact that all there is to know about the subject as it exists today is to imply knowledge of future discoveries or knowledge
of all there is to know about the subject implying that no further discoveries on the subject will ever be discovered.
...
Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If
you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.
Now, science will eventually (as it already is) allow us to understand the nature of out of body experiences but this will not make
consciousness provable on a scientifically level only a logical level.
This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how
they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these
phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.
You should definitely research out of body experiences.
This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how
they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these
phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.
Avoiding this subject while trying to discuss consciousness will never allow you to comprehend the nature of the mind.
This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how
they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these
phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.
Abstract thought is not something to be afraid of.
I'm not afraid of abstract thought, nor am I afraid of any possible scenario for reality. I do not blindly follow self proclaimed prophets of truth
and knowledge of reality. All things are open for speculation, but not all things are open to being deemed absolutely true unless proven absolutely
true. It's a deceptively simple concept. To be open minded to all aspects of reality while striving towards humility and reserve of judgment towards
reality until proven to be reality. *NOT* to profess knowledge of reality and all there is to know of reality or minute aspects of reality.
You are looking for the "answer" from scientists but not everything is so simple.
I am looking only for those answers from scientists that you proclaim are from scientists. This is an inquiry towards your claims alone.
You can research the physical structure of the brain but this will only take you so far, eventually you are going to have to think critically
if you really want to understand the fundamental aspects of reality.
Thinking critically and speculating blindly are not equally the same. You can not call blind speculation a critical thought nor can you profess blind
speculation as an absolute fact until you have proven it an absolute fact.
...
Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If
you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.
