Is the self eternal?

[grasping the after wind]

There cannot be objective proof of a negative. The burden of evidence lies with those that assert that consciousness and personality are more than emergent properties of the brain.

No one asked you to prove a negative. The burden of evidence lies with the one that asserted that consciousness and personality are emergent properties of the brain not on the one that says they need evidence to believe that is the case.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Or, neuroscience.

Blind faith belief then. Writing the word nueroscience seems about as unconvincing to me as someone writing the Bible says so. One can take the word of those that one puts their faith in but one ought not to expect others to accept that faith without evidence that they find valid.

While correlation is not proof of causation, it is evidence of causation.

What testable, falsifiable evidence is there that consciousness and personality are more than emergent properties of the brain?

Your question is strangely worded. It resembles the question" What evidence is there that you are more than a wife beater." I do not accept your premise that that consciousness and personality are emergent properties of the brain . You need to establish that that is the case before you ask me to prove that there is more to something i do not even believe there is less of. Appeal to authority is not anymore a proof of causation than correlation is so please don't reply with any faith based one word answers.

 

[Davian]

No one asked you to prove a negative.

That was how your post was phrased.

The burden of evidence lies with the one that asserted that consciousness and personality are emergent properties of the brain not on the one that says they need evidence to believe that is the case.

Again, one cannot prove a negative, that consciousness and personality are only emergent properties of the brain.

 

[Davian]

Blind faith belief then.

If that is your opinion of science, I am not here to try to change it.

Writing the word nueroscience seems about as unconvincing to me as someone writing the Bible says so.

You find the bible to be unconvincing?

One can take the word of those that one puts their faith in but one ought not to expect others to accept that faith without evidence that they find valid.

Your question is strangely worded. It resembles the question" What evidence is there that you are more than a wife beater."

It also resembles the question "what evidence is there that the Earth is not flat".

I do not accept your premise that that consciousness and personality are emergent properties of the brain . You need to establish that that is the case before you ask me to prove that there is more to something i do not even believe there is less of.

Earlier, when you said to "Remember correlation is not causation" comment, do you not agree that there is correlation between brain function, consciousness and personality?

Appeal to authority is not anymore a proof of causation than correlation is so please don't reply with any faith based one word answers.

Where have I done so?

 

[quatona]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Yes. I didn´t say anything about causation.

You cannot show me consciousness without a lung or without a heart anymore than you can without a brain.

So? More indication that consciousness depends on there being a physical body.

It also has been theorized that AI might have the ability to be self aware, if so, your idea that consciousness requires a brain would be disproven.

"it has been theorized that...might..." proves or disproves nothing. People theorize a lot of things. So let´s not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[ananda]

Agreed.

Are you agreeing with me that you personally shouldn't be jumping to conclusions?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Who (that is non-omniscient) doesn't "jump to conclusions"? We all come to various conclusions based on our interpretations of the limited data we possess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Who (that is non-omniscient) doesn't "jump to conclusions"? We all come to various conclusions based on our interpretations of the limited data we possess.

It sounds like you are just playing games with me now. Jumping to conclusions isn't the same thing as drawing conclusions through careful thought -- though that keeps the full context in mind, does not drop inconvenient facts, looks at a problem from different angles, asks the right questions, etc.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

It sounds like you are just playing games with me now. Jumping to conclusions isn't the same thing as drawing conclusions through careful thought -- though that keeps the full context in mind, does not drop inconvenient facts, looks at a problem from different angles, asks the right questions, etc.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Not at all. Look up the definition of "jumping to conclusions" - it includes the idea of concluding something while one does not possess all of the facts. Only someone omniscient can possess all facts.

How do you suppose I jumped to a conclusion, if you don't agree with that definition?

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed permanently due to flaming and it has turned into a General Apologetic thread and according to the SoP here - http://www.christianforums.com/threads/philosophy-forum-statement-of-purpose.7864312/ GA threads aren't allowed.

Mod Hat Off​