The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 14:13:31 GMT
But how can one be conscious of unconsciousness? The fact that you have no awareness when you are actually unconscious is proof that you have no awareness when you're dead. But we don't know we are unaware when we are unconscious. It may be rather than you being unaware, that instead once you are conscious again you cannot remember being aware while you were unconscious. There may be a kind of awareness when one is unconscious of which no memory remains when consciousness returns.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 29, 2017 14:14:09 GMT
I presume it will be a lot like it was before I was born. I agree. You'll go back to being who you really are instead of this temporary character you're playing. You'll also be graded on your performance, and you won't be able to go back and change any of it. I presume some of the people that are left behind might grade a departed person's life, according to the impact that he/she left behind. Yep. You can't go back and change any of it....because of being dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 14:16:04 GMT
It would be absurd to be graded on our performance, given that there is absolutely nothing that we could have changed about how we've lived this life, and it is impossible to imagine a reality in which we were able to choose which thoughts to think before thinking them, to choose what our preferences, biases and prejudices were, or to choose how the events that we have experienced would shape our character. God would have to be an insane maniac to judge us based on the immutable attributes with which he imbued us. Then perhaps you had better look at your life now, and change it while you still can. He says he thinks there's no possible way to change his life and you respond by suggesting that he change his life? Smart. Very smart.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 29, 2017 16:57:09 GMT
The fact that you have no awareness when you are actually unconscious is proof that you have no awareness when you're dead. But we don't know we are unaware when we are unconscious. It may be rather than you being unaware, that instead once you are conscious again you cannot remember being aware while you were unconscious. There may be a kind of awareness when one is unconscious of which no memory remains when consciousness returns. But there is no evidence of that. There is a lot of evidence contradicting that. Electro-encephalogram brain scans show no indication of brain activity that might suggest consciousness. And why would someone forget experiences they were once aware of only moments before? In other words, there is no basis to assume that what you are suggesting is true, and it seems inconsistent with observable facts. So why consider that as a realistic possibility?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 17:12:20 GMT
Then perhaps you had better look at your life now, and change it while you still can. He says he thinks there's no possible way to change his life and you respond by suggesting that he change his life? Smart. Very smart. Are you so stupid that you can't make a distinction between present tense and past tense?
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 29, 2017 17:13:54 GMT
edible, adj. Good to eat and wholesome to digest, as a worm to a toad, a toad to a snake, a snake to a pig, a pig to a man, and a man to a worm. -Ambrose Bierce
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 17:40:16 GMT
But we don't know we are unaware when we are unconscious. It may be rather than you being unaware, that instead once you are conscious again you cannot remember being aware while you were unconscious. There may be a kind of awareness when one is unconscious of which no memory remains when consciousness returns. But there is no evidence of that. There is a lot of evidence contradicting that. Electro-encephalogram brain scans show no indication of brain activity that might suggest consciousness. And why would someone forget experiences they were once aware of only moments before? In other words, there is no basis to assume that what you are suggesting is true, and it seems inconsistent with observable facts. So why consider that as a realistic possibility? Sure there's no evidence. I was just saying we can't appeal to unconsciousness to rule out an afterlife when in truth we can't be sure no awareness exists in unconsciousness. As for the evidence you cite against there being awareness in unconsciousness, the lack of brain activity would presume awareness requires a brain - unfortunately we can't verify that people without brain activity aren't aware because they need brain activity to answer us! Regarding memory, we forget things all the time. Have you ever woken from a dream and found almost immediately you forgot what you were dreaming? Or entered a room to do something and found you've forgotten what you were doing?
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Jun 29, 2017 19:59:27 GMT
The honest answer is that nobody knows. You won't know until you die.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 20:59:29 GMT
He says he thinks there's no possible way to change his life and you respond by suggesting that he change his life? Smart. Very smart. Are you so stupid that you can't make a distinction between present tense and past tense? Nope. And I'm also smart enough to know that that's not an excuse, unlike you. But what can you expect from a man that thinks you have to have a certain level of advancement to jump off a cliff and not float.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 30, 2017 4:07:03 GMT
Sure there's no evidence. I was just saying we can't appeal to unconsciousness to rule out an afterlife when in truth we can't be sure no awareness exists in unconsciousness. We CAN be "reasonably sure". And beliefs should be based on what is reasonable. I contend that it is unreasonable to assume that something is true simply because it is impossible to prove it 100% false. There should be some compelling reason to believe in something that seems contradictory to observable science, and in which there is no evidence to back it up. Again, we can be reasonably sure based on our scientific understanding of the brain and conscious awareness. Because when people are consciously aware, brain activity is high and looks a certain way on an eeg. It is even specific enough to determine the type of awareness the person is in (fully conscious, semi-conscious, dreaming, hypnotized, etc). When there are ZERO readings, the person is unconscious. And when unconscious people become conscious again, they have no awareness of the passage of time. The last thing they remember is what they were doing before they were unconscious. What you are suggesting is that when brain activity becomes zero, a person can still experience conscious awareness, BUT they lose all memory of such awareness when they become conscious again. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence! To believe in this without such evidence is unreasonable, and that's all I'm saying. Yes, I presume that any conscience awareness requires a working brain, because all evidence points to that. There is no logical reason for me to assume that any other possibility is true. Yes. But forgetting a dream or what my intended goal was is very different from forgetting that I was consciously aware. I may not remember any of the details of my dream, but I remember that I had one. I may not remember what I was looking for in the room I entered, but I remember I was looking for SOMETHING. I'm still aware that I entered that room for a specific reason. It's not as though I just suddenly looked up and realized I was standing in a room, not knowing how or when I got there. In both of those cases, I'm aware of the passage of time. So I may not be aware of exactly what happened, but I am aware that something happened in an elapsed period of time.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 6:52:55 GMT
. I contend that it is unreasonable to assume that something is true simply because it is impossible to prove it 100% false. Sure but my contention is not that unconscious awareness exists, I was just saying we can't rule it out. It was you who says it does not and could therefore be used to prove the afterlife does not exist. Sure but that's for conscious awareness. It is question-begging to assume unconscious awareness would also require some level of brain activity since what is being debated here is whether it is possible awareness could exist without brain activity. Again I'm making no claims here. It is you who is saying we can be nearly certain that unconscious awareness doesn't exist - the burden of proof falls to you. You can if you want discount unconscious awareness from your conception of the world until someone gives evidence for it. But you can't use its supposed nonexistence as evidence (let alone proof as you initially stated) that something else (an afterlife) does not exist when the nonexistence of unconscious awareness is unestablished. In the case I mentioned sure. I just woke up after sleeping 6 hours. On average a person dreams 4-6 times if they get a decent night's sleep. I don't remember dreaming at all last night or most nights. Where I do remember dreaming I can usually only remember 1 or 2. So the vast majority of my dreams are forgotten without even the memory I had them. No. Although there is a phenomenon in psychology where you are doing something mundane (like driving somewhere you've driven a thousand times before) and you suddenly realise you have no memory of how you got to where you are right now - it seemed you just got in your car and now you're home. Ever woken up after an 8 hour sleep and felt your head had only just hit the pillow?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 30, 2017 11:53:09 GMT
. I contend that it is unreasonable to assume that something is true simply because it is impossible to prove it 100% false. Sure but my contention is not that unconscious awareness exists, I was just saying we can't rule it out. It was you who says it does not and could therefore be used to prove the afterlife does not exist. I never said that. I didn't say anything about an "afterlife". All I did was state an opinion about what happens when you die. The fact is, there is no evidence of (and therefore the no reason to believe in) an afterlife. The debate on that question is moot since there is no evidence that it could. Again extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Everything we know about the brain and consciousness suggests that no such possibility exists. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence! To believe in this without such evidence is unreasonable, and that's all I'm saying. No it doesn't because that is NOT an extraordinary claim. That is THE logical, reasonable conclusion given the facts at hand. I didn't say we can be 100% certain. But we can be nearly certain, and we are. The degree of uncertainty requires knowledge that we can only assume exists, and never actually obtain. That's what makes my position the reasonable assumption. I don't have to. One is not required to prove a negative! I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist in order to establish the reasonableness of believing that it does not based on an absence of evidence. So you are wrong; the burden of proof is actually on someone making an affirmative claim, which I am not. Yes, because certain types of sleep results an unconscious state! So if anything that helps my point.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2017 12:29:54 GMT
Evidence of spiritual phenomena surround you and if it was water you'd drown it. The "fact" is that you have never seen any evidence, or perhaps you have never recognized any evidence you did see. Yes, you are, but you misunderstand the "status quo" and your relation to it. A common mistake for people with your especially low intelligence is to give special privilege in argument to "nothing" or "less." That is not how it works. If there is a debate on how many tires and wheels an automobile should have on the road then "four" is the status quo. People who argue for three or any other number than four do not have the "status quo" and therefore incur a burden of proof. A person arguing for three wheels does not get any privilege because his number lower. Likewise you do not obtain any privilege in argument because you accept less. The "internet" did attempt to define the "burden of proof" as falling on the "person making the claim" which of course is totally useless as a definition. Unless some argument that never before in the history of the world is made it is a totally useless definition. These arguments are not new. They have been around throughout recorded history and likely before. The existence of religion, god, and to a lesser extent proofs of such things have also been around that long. The existence of religion with an obvious purpose is the status quo much like four wheels meeting the road on automobiles is the status quo. If you prefer to be ignorant and obstinate, that is your choice, but do not claim you have some privilege in argument where you obviously do not.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 14:07:03 GMT
Sure but my contention is not that unconscious awareness exists, I was just saying we can't rule it out. It was you who says it does not and could therefore be used to prove the afterlife does not exist. I never said that. Looking back, no you didn't. I apologise. You can ignore most of what I said after that since I was essentially attacking a straw man! Regarding unconsciousness awareness, I agree with you there is no evidence for it. I also agree that if anyone wants to claim it exists the onus is on them, though I think if you were instead to claim it doesn't exist then that puts an onus on you too - though I see you weren't actually claiming that and I just flew off the handle. The default should be that we have no evidence that would lead us to accepting it exists. I think such things can be accepted as a matter of faith with of course the caveat that because it is based on faith, no-one else has to agree with you on it. But anyway after all my kerfluffle, I don't think I really have much of a problem with your stance. So I apologise once again and promise to read what you're actually saying more closely in the future!
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jun 30, 2017 15:32:46 GMT
I never said that. Looking back, no you didn't. I apologise. You can ignore most of what I said after that since I was essentially attacking a straw man! Regarding unconsciousness awareness, I agree with you there is no evidence for it. Depending on what you have in mind by "awareness", I assume that phenomena such as blindsight would be pretty good evidence for unconscious awareness. Actually, we might not need to look for pathological cases: if we assume that people are unconscious during at least some stages of sleep, there is unconscious awareness during those stages, since they can be woken up by external stimuli. They are still registering and responding to events in the world, which would seem to require awareness in some sense. (I'm not so persuaded by this example since I don't think there's any reason to believe that people are unconscious during sleep. But it seems to be a common assumption.)
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 30, 2017 15:46:28 GMT
Try forming your answer before a mother in Africa that has just lost her young child to war/disease, rather than from your armchair.
If your answer is logically, morally, or emotionally unacceptable to this mother, then regardless of whether you turn out to be correct or not, mankind has lost.
Only a welcoming God could comfort someone in such a situation, and only a welcoming God makes sense and justifies human existence. All other answers, from either end of the scale, constitute defeat and darkness - no matter how much secular humanists or strong religious conservatives would argue otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 30, 2017 16:07:19 GMT
Not true! Other people could actually comfort each other in times of crisis. If you're saying - only a welcoming God is a justifiable and sensible explanation for human existence....that is also not true! Having differing opinions does not automatically constitute defeat and darkness.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 30, 2017 17:15:29 GMT
...the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, the worms play pinochle on your snout...!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 19:00:44 GMT
All other answers, from either end of the scale, constitute defeat and darkness I couldn't disagree more, but either way does that actually matter? If the truth is "defeat and darkness" then so be it. Let us have that over a bright victorious lie.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 30, 2017 19:12:58 GMT
Evidence of spiritual phenomena surround you and if it was water you'd drown it. Such as? In this we agree! And......THIS is the point at which I stop reading and ultimately no longer give a sh*t about your opinion on any subject.
|
|