Posted: Nov 15, 2010 8:53 pm
darwin2 wrote:Third, I never made a claim that I can demonstrate a single well-recorded instance of a "conscious mind" existing absent a physical substrate - brain.
Fourth, I did make the scientific statement that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. If consciousness continues after death it will exist in whatever form it finds itself in after death. And that Sir is a correct scientific statement.
Your fourth point is not a scientific statement, it is a blind assertion. If it was in any way scientific, it would have been supported by some form of evidence, however small it may be. You have already admitted that you have none, which renders your statement utterly unscientific. While speculating about after-death consciousness may make for interesting mental gymnastics, there is no reason whatsoever to entertain the notion.
Sir, Science has never demonstrated that it is impossible for consciousness to exist outside the brain.
Just like science has never demonstrated that there are no invisible blue baboons on Saturn. There is simply no reason whatsoever to investigate such an absurd claim based on the complete lack of evidence pointing in any direction of the kind.
Science tries to brainwash people like you into believing that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain. Obviously they have been successful. I find this brainwashing by fundamental scientists equivalent to fundamental preachers brainwashing their followers into believing that the bible is the written infallible word of God.
It takes courage to seek the truth especially when you have been brainwashed into believing a delusion. It especially takes courage when those in your social environment are totally committed to a specific delusion that you have found to be wrong.
I am simply going to refer you to canard #2 in this post by Calilasseia:
[2] Science is NOT a branch of apologetics.
Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.