|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 6, 2019 21:47:37 GMT
not vice versa.
Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 6, 2019 22:05:16 GMT
not vice versa.
Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist.
evidence, proof or even a basic outline of your rationale?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 6, 2019 23:11:26 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying consciousness perceives matereriality and that perhaps on a more philosophical level "materiality" wouldn't exist without a consciousness to perceive it? Kinda like that whole "How can sound exist if there is no one to hear it?" question. Obviously the consciousness doesn't literally create materiality unless your a genie or something so that's what I'm guessing you mean.
"Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist."
Well no, obviously it does since we know the consciousness comes from the brain, which of course is material.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 0:03:31 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying consciousness perceives matereriality and that perhaps on a more philosophical level "materiality" wouldn't exist without a consciousness to perceive it? Kinda like that whole "How can sound exist if there is no one to hear it?" question. Obviously the consciousness doesn't literally create materiality unless your a genie or something so that's what I'm guessing you mean. "Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist." Well no, obviously it does since we know the consciousness comes from the brain, which of course is material. Who is 'we'?
Consciousness does NOT come from the brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 0:05:38 GMT
not vice versa.
Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist.
evidence, proof or even a basic outline of your rationale? Many experiments have been done proving it.
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 0:06:52 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying consciousness perceives matereriality and that perhaps on a more philosophical level "materiality" wouldn't exist without a consciousness to perceive it? Kinda like that whole "How can sound exist if there is no one to hear it?" question. Obviously the consciousness doesn't literally create materiality unless your a genie or something so that's what I'm guessing you mean. "Therefore, it doesn't need materiality to exist." Well no, obviously it does since we know the consciousness comes from the brain, which of course is material. Who is 'we'?
Consciousness does NOT come from the brain.
"Who is 'we'?" Scientists, neurologists, brain surgeons, psychologists, ie people who know a lot more about this thing that you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 0:08:21 GMT
Who is 'we'?
Consciousness does NOT come from the brain.
"Who is 'we'?" Scientists, neurologists, brain surgeons, psychologists, ie people who know a lot more about this thing that you do. And they're all full of shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 7, 2019 0:10:02 GMT
"Who is 'we'?" Scientists, neurologists, brain surgeons, psychologists, ie people who know a lot more about this thing that you do. And they're all full of shit. So you think Ben Carson is full of shit? Cause I actually do agree (at least when he's not talking about brain surgery)
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 7, 2019 0:10:33 GMT
evidence, proof or even a basic outline of your rationale? Many experiments have been done proving it.
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field.
That is a great claim, can you provide evidence to back it? And can you tie it to your premise that consciousness creates materiality.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 1:18:02 GMT
And they're all full of shit. So you think Ben Carson is full of shit? Cause I actually do agree (at least when he's not talking about brain surgery) If he says consciousness comes from the brain, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 1:19:56 GMT
Many experiments have been done proving it.
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field.
That is a great claim, can you provide evidence to back it? And can you tie it to your premise that consciousness creates materiality. I just told you one example. It can be gleaned from that example that that energy field can exist without the materiality of the part of the leaf. Every being has an energy field.
There are amputees who have taken the same test, and there is an energy field where the amputated limb was. Why? If the limb is no longer there, there shouldn't be an energy field there.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 7, 2019 1:23:03 GMT
"Who is 'we'?" Scientists, neurologists, brain surgeons, psychologists, ie people who know a lot more about this thing that you do. And they're all full of shit. With such an elegantly worded comment and rebuttal you sure have me convinced, heeeeey that you are right and those dumbknownothing scientists must be wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 7, 2019 1:38:19 GMT
That is a great claim, can you provide evidence to back it? And can you tie it to your premise that consciousness creates materiality. I just told you one example. It can be gleaned from that example that that energy field can exist without the materiality of the part of the leaf. Every being has an energy field.
There are amputees who have taken the same test, and there is an energy field where the amputated limb was. Why? If the limb is no longer there, there shouldn't be an energy field there.
yes you have made a claim, I am looking for something other than your assertion to back it up, like for example an article about these experiments and perhaps an explanation of why you think a residual energy field after the fact is evidence that the energy was the creating force.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 2:14:10 GMT
I just told you one example. It can be gleaned from that example that that energy field can exist without the materiality of the part of the leaf. Every being has an energy field.
There are amputees who have taken the same test, and there is an energy field where the amputated limb was. Why? If the limb is no longer there, there shouldn't be an energy field there.
yes you have made a claim, I am looking for something other than your assertion to back it up, like for example an article about these experiments and perhaps an explanation of why you think a residual energy field after the fact is evidence that the energy was the creating force. No, it actually proves just the opposite.
The fact is, no amount of evidence or proof would satisfy you.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 7, 2019 10:00:08 GMT
Well no, obviously it does since we know the consciousness comes from the brain, which of course is material. I'm not sure what Heeeeey's stance is here, but it's actually difficult to demonstrate that matter exists. You could take a radical Berkeleian stance and say that perception exists but there is nothing extra that is perceived - when you are examining a brain, there's no actual brain that exists outside of the minds of those examining. This would make what we think of as matter a projection of consciousness rather than a substance per se. This stance is so counter-intuitive that there's no real reason to endorse it other than to be a bit contrary or because it adds credence to one of your faith-based pre-conceptions about the world (for instance it combines very well with some variants of Hinduism), but it's very hard to refute. Then there's also more dualistic stances that say that consciousness can exist without matter. Again this is hard to refute - how can we test whether there is non-material consciousness when science relies on investigating matter? Less extreme dualists are those that say matter is needed for consciousness, but is not by itself sufficient for consciousness - that one can envision an outwardly functional human that has no subjective experience and posit that there is something non-material that must cause that subjective experience. These stances are more compatible with Christianity. Of course, why Heeeeey seems so certain about the topic is beyond me. Certainly materialism can explain the mind as well as these alternative theories can whilst being less counter-intuitive than Berkeley's subjective idealism and simpler than dualism.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 7, 2019 10:20:26 GMT
Many experiments have been done proving it.
There is not one single fucking experiment proving this bullshit. That's why you won't be able to cite one.
And you were too stupid to understand a single aspect of it, so you made up the results to conform with your 3 year old level of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 11:09:34 GMT
Many experiments have been done proving it.
There is not one single fucking experiment proving this bullshit. That's why you won't be able to cite one.
And you were too stupid to understand a single aspect of it, so you made up the results to conform with your 3 year old level of intelligence.
^^^Professor Know-Nothing.
I already explained what scientists do. They say what they're PAID to say, and you're stupid and gullible enough to take what they say as gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 7, 2019 11:11:31 GMT
I already explained what scientists do. They say what they're PAID to say, and you're stupid and gullible enough to take what they say as gospel.
More ignorant bullshit with no basis in reality. You don't even believe it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't cite scientists when you are stupid enough to think they support your idiotic beliefs--as you did in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 7, 2019 11:14:04 GMT
I already explained what scientists do. They say what they're PAID to say, and you're stupid and gullible enough to take what they say as gospel.
More ignorant bullshit with no basis in reality. You don't even believe it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't cite scientists when you are stupid enough to think they support your idiotic beliefs--as you did in this thread. Both Einstein and Tesla (and there are others) are on record as saying they believe there is a vast intelligence that created everything out of the non-material.
And both were a quantum leap more intelligent and knowledgeable than YOU are.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 7, 2019 11:27:31 GMT
evidence, proof or even a basic outline of your rationale? Many experiments have been done proving it.
They did an experiment with a leaf. They detected an energy field around a leaf. When they cut a piece of it off, that energy field was still around the area where the piece they cut off was. That suggests that that portion of the energy field still existed even without that piece of the leaf there. Also suggesting that the materialism of the leaf was formed first in that energy field.
What happened to the bit they cut off? Did it cease to exist because, as you claim, the energy field (that presumably originally created that section of the leaf) was still around the area where the piece was and it was? Did the energy field that remained immediately create another bit of leave that perfectly matched the cut off bit? Or were there now TWO energy fields...the one that was around the original leaf including the section that was cut off AND a new energy field that had to have still been around the bit that was cut off, and presumably discarded or placed elsewhere. If so, did the physical cutting the leaf apart force the energy field to divide?
This site seems to suggest that experiment didn't really show that there is really a residual energy field...just residues. They would need to do that experiment in a variety of situations...ie NOT with the leaf laying on a surface, but, perhaps, suspended in mid air and/or on different serfaces.
|
|
