Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

Does consciousness survive death?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#21  Postby chairman bill » Nov 14, 2010 10:28 am

darwin2 wrote:... As far as assessing the probability of my suggested techniques, the probability at this point in time based on the scientific evidence available is that there is a 50% chance of consciousness ceasing at death and a 50% chance that consciousness continues after death ...


Fail. You're not tossing a coin here. It's not an either this or that scenario. You might as well say that there's a 50:50 chance of getting hit by a car next time you cross the road. Who'd ever cross a road with those odds? All the scientific evidence points to consciousness as a function of complex brains, and that when brains stop, consciousness stops too. I'd suggest that the odds are at least 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991% certain that death = the end of consciousness.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#22  Postby my_wan » Nov 14, 2010 10:31 am

darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

I am not an atheist so you will have to ask an atheist that question.

Problem is most of us know atheist who believe in an afterlife. So then why do you say atheist believe that conscioussness end with "death" ? Perhaps you pulled that claim from a dark smelly place?


That's very interesting. I have never met an atheist that believes in an after-life. Obviously you have. If some atheists believe in an after-life, they should be able to describe in some detail what the after-life is like. Since you have met these atheists, I would appreciate it if you describe their thoughts on the after-life and give me their scientific evidence to support an after-life.

Why should they "be able to describe in some detail what the after-life is like"? I have a pet, and now you have have reasonable grounds to believe I do. So now "describe my pet in some detail". By the logic you provided you should be able to! See how ridiculous that is?

darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
darwin2 wrote:After the death of their physical body, atheists will now have to deal with the reality that they are alive and conscious in an after death dimension. Most likely the shock of this new reality will “probably”leave an atheist confused and a little frightened

More likely wonder if I can play games with the SETI people :smoke:


Please tell me if you can what is illogical and unscientific about my above statement.

Hmm, WOW. That's like saying: Imagine how surprised and scared atheist would be if they realized they were alive. After all, God created life so how can we believe we are alive now if God didn't exist. See how ridiculous that is?

Yet you characterized it as if it was not only logical, but also scientific. Not only is it not logical, logical doesn't make something scientific. That's why math is not science, but science requires math. In fact you said nothing that is even logical, and scientific wasn't even remotely involved. For instance, Luxembourg is 44% atheist, yet only 22% do not believe in any sort of spirit, god, or life force. So now I have used results from science to invalidate your claim. Thus your claim was neither logical, scientific, nor correct.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#23  Postby chairman bill » Nov 14, 2010 10:37 am

"describe my pet in some detail"


Image I'm seeing fluffy. Warm. Four legs, cold black nose, floppy ears, paws. It's a dog. Am I right?
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#24  Postby my_wan » Nov 14, 2010 11:12 am

chairman bill wrote:
"describe my pet in some detail"


Image I'm seeing fluffy. Warm. Four legs, cold black nose, floppy ears, paws. It's a dog. Am I right?

Sorry no.. Jester got in some trouble with the traffic :whine:
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#25  Postby chairman bill » Nov 14, 2010 11:23 am

Oh shit. Sorry. But he's in doggy heaven now (assuming he used a scientific method).
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#26  Postby Doubtdispelled » Nov 14, 2010 12:01 pm

chairman bill wrote:
"describe my pet in some detail"


Image I'm seeing fluffy. Warm. Four legs, cold black nose, floppy ears, paws. It's a dog. Am I right?

You seem to be almost in contact with my pet instead, Bill, but for one little detail regarding the ears. As she is currently in a state of repose rendering such a mistake likely, we'll overlook that though.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11846

Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#27  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 3:50 pm

Weaver wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Weaver wrote:How do you assess the probability of your suggested techniques?

How do you know, for example, that rushing through demons will "probably" cause them to disappear, rather than give you a headache and a pissed off demon? How do you know that visualizing a peaceful place "will probably" cause you to instantly be in that place?



Read my post correctly. I never said I know. I would not use the word "probably" If I knew that as a fact. I am expressing an opinion and not a fact.
Actually, I did read it correctly ... though you are expressing opinions in many places, once you get to your scientific method analysis, you state that various things will "probably" occur. This is a value judgment whereby you assess one potential outcome to be more likely than another. I want to know how you arrived at the values for your judgment.

As far as assessing the probability of my suggested techniques, the probability at this point in time based on the scientific evidence available is that there is a 50% chance of consciousness ceasing at death and a 50% chance that consciousness continues after death. If I find myself conscious after death, I will use the Scientific Method to explore this after-death reality I find myself in and i believe the Scientific Method will lead me to the truth whatever the truth turns out to be.
Please provide the scientific evidence that the likelihood of consciousness continuing after death - after REAL death, not "clinical death" which is an alive brain in a body with a stopped heart - is 50%/50%. That is a huge probability for a very, very unlikely event - I and others would really love to see the evidence you have.


I use the term "probably" because I don't have any scientific evidence to prove they will occur. But if consciousness does continue after death, I would have to assume this could be a scary experience for an atheist who believed that consciousness ceases at the death of the physical body. I have known atheists to be very logical people and I assume that once they find themselves in an after death environment, they will use their critical thinking skills to explore this new reality. In this lifetime, we humans have the ability to do critical thinking to arrive at facts about our world. If consciousness continues after death, I find it unlikely we will lose this precious gift and that is why I use this term "probably."

In addressing the question does death end consciousness or does consciousness continue after death, I stated that there is a 50% chance it does and a 50% chance it doesn't. You state that the survival of consciousness is a very very unlikely event and this statement is very unscientific because you have no evidence to prove it is very very unlikely. The most you can conclude is that there is a 50% chance it is unlikely. At this point in time, my statement that there is a 50% chance consciousness continues after death and a 50% chance it doesn't is more realistic. And that is the most science can say at this time on this issue. Now as to what form consciousness will take if it survives death, I have no idea what that may be. So why speculate on it? If we survive death we will know. If death ends it all, it is a moot issue.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#28  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 3:57 pm

trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:There is an afterlife, but only atheists will be allowed into heaven. The lord works in mysterious ways.


That's a silly, immature and unscientific comment. This is a scientific website. Please be scientific in your responses.


No more silly and immature than the assertions of theists about the afterlife. Unscientific it may be, perhaps at this stage it's worth noting that I am not a scientist. This is not a scientific website, it is a rational scepticism site.
You seem to think atheist = scientist, while this is true in many cases, it is certainly not generally true.


Believing in an after-life is only silly and immature if there is no afterlife. Believing there is no afterlife is only silly and immature if there is an aftrerlife.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#29  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 4:06 pm

chairman bill wrote:
darwin2 wrote:... As far as assessing the probability of my suggested techniques, the probability at this point in time based on the scientific evidence available is that there is a 50% chance of consciousness ceasing at death and a 50% chance that consciousness continues after death ...


Fail. You're not tossing a coin here. It's not an either this or that scenario. You might as well say that there's a 50:50 chance of getting hit by a car next time you cross the road. Who'd ever cross a road with those odds? All the scientific evidence points to consciousness as a function of complex brains, and that when brains stop, consciousness stops too. I'd suggest that the odds are at least 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991% certain that death = the end of consciousness.


Your statement that when the brains stop consciousness stops too is very unfounded and unscientific. It is only opinion. You have no evidence to prove this. This is a rational website, so please be more rational in your response.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#30  Postby Weaver » Nov 14, 2010 4:12 pm

Oh, bollocks (to cop a phrase from my Brit friends ...)

darwin2 wrote:I use the term "probably" because I don't have any scientific evidence to prove they will occur.

In that case, you should say "possibly" at most - although even that word implies a possibility not supported by available evidence.
But if consciousness does continue after death, I would have to assume this could be a scary experience for an atheist who believed that consciousness ceases at the death of the physical body.

And if invisible pink unicorns are roaming the Earth disguised as gorilla farts, I would have to assume their horns could be hazardous to any emus flying nearby. However, that's no reason to really worry about unicorns, gorilla farts, or flying emus.

I have known atheists to be very logical people and I assume that once they find themselves in an after death environment, they will use their critical thinking skills to explore this new reality. In this lifetime, we humans have the ability to do critical thinking to arrive at facts about our world. If consciousness continues after death, I find it unlikely we will lose this precious gift and that is why I use this term "probably."

Well, as demonstrated above, you shouldn't use the word "probably" - it means "greater liklihood of occurance than not", it is a value judgement between two potential outcomes, and you haven't shown that there is any liklihood or probability at all on your side.

In addressing the question does death end consciousness or does consciousness continue after death, I stated that there is a 50% chance it does and a 50% chance it doesn't.

Yes, I noted this blind assertion - do you intend to supply any facts to back up this conclusion, or will you continue asserting this value judgement contrary to all observational reality? Just because you don't know what the value is doesn't make it 50% likely.
You state that the survival of consciousness is a very very unlikely event and this statement is very unscientific because you have no evidence to prove it is very very unlikely. The most you can conclude is that there is a 50% chance it is unlikely. At this point in time, my statement that there is a 50% chance consciousness continues after death and a 50% chance it doesn't is more realistic. And that is the most science can say at this time on this issue.


Thus far there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness is independent of the brain. Everything we have seen so far suggests quite strongly that it is a function of, and contained within, the brain. Therefore, the highest probablilty is that when the brain stops, so does consciousness.

Certainly it cannot be PROVEN 100% that consciousness cannot exist independently - proving a negative is impossible. But as there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that consciousness can or has continued after brain death, there is no reason to believe otherwise. The probability should not be assessed as simply 50%/50% - there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to suggest lasting consciousness, so one cannot grant such a high probability.

Now as to what form consciousness will take if it survives death, I have no idea what that may be. So why speculate on it?
Because if you are going to assert a high liklihood of occurance - in something like consciousness lasting beyond brain death, this value could be as low as 0.000001% and still be considered "high" - you need to demonstrate a method whereby it is possible. You haven't.

If we survive death we will know. If death ends it all, it is a moot issue
So, having started the topic, you now don't want to discuss it because we cannot know? :nono:
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#31  Postby Weaver » Nov 14, 2010 4:14 pm

darwin2 wrote:
chairman bill wrote:
darwin2 wrote:... As far as assessing the probability of my suggested techniques, the probability at this point in time based on the scientific evidence available is that there is a 50% chance of consciousness ceasing at death and a 50% chance that consciousness continues after death ...


Fail. You're not tossing a coin here. It's not an either this or that scenario. You might as well say that there's a 50:50 chance of getting hit by a car next time you cross the road. Who'd ever cross a road with those odds? All the scientific evidence points to consciousness as a function of complex brains, and that when brains stop, consciousness stops too. I'd suggest that the odds are at least 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991% certain that death = the end of consciousness.


Your statement that when the brains stop consciousness stops too is very unfounded and unscientific. It is only opinion. You have no evidence to prove this. This is a rational website, so please be more rational in your response.

Yeah, right, just as there is no evidence to prove that there isn't a china teapot circling the Sun in Earth orbit. Like we haven't heard that before.

Here's a hint: Don't try to tell us how we should act on our rational website when you are making blind, irrational assertions and expecting people to go along with them.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#32  Postby chairman bill » Nov 14, 2010 4:17 pm

darwin2 wrote:... please be more rational in your response.

Well, saying that the scientific evidence points to consciousness as a outcome of complex brains, is hardly irrational. Your 50:50 claim ref survival of bodily death on the other hand ...
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#33  Postby trubble76 » Nov 14, 2010 4:26 pm

darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

That's a silly, immature and unscientific comment. This is a scientific website. Please be scientific in your responses.


No more silly and immature than the assertions of theists about the afterlife. Unscientific it may be, perhaps at this stage it's worth noting that I am not a scientist. This is not a scientific website, it is a rational scepticism site.
You seem to think atheist = scientist, while this is true in many cases, it is certainly not generally true.


Believing in an after-life is only silly and immature if there is no afterlife. Believing there is no afterlife is only silly and immature if there is an aftrerlife.


This is an attempt to equate believing in something for rational and empiracle reasons and believing in something because it's what you were told. There is just as much reason to believe in an afterlife as there is to believe in Russell's Teapot, or Sagan's dragon. ie none.
If that still doesn't convince you, then perhaps you could lend me £1000, I would repay it ten-fold in the hereafter.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#34  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 6:33 pm

my_wan wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
Problem is most of us know atheist who believe in an afterlife. So then why do you say atheist believe that conscioussness end with "death" ? Perhaps you pulled that claim from a dark smelly place?


That's very interesting. I have never met an atheist that believes in an after-life. Obviously you have. If some atheists believe in an after-life, they should be able to describe in some detail what the after-life is like. Since you have met these atheists, I would appreciate it if you describe their thoughts on the after-life and give me their scientific evidence to support an after-life.

Why should they "be able to describe in some detail what the after-life is like"? I have a pet, and now you have have reasonable grounds to believe I do. So now "describe my pet in some detail". By the logic you provided you should be able to! See how ridiculous that is?

darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
More likely wonder if I can play games with the SETI people :smoke:


Please tell me if you can what is illogical and unscientific about my above statement.

Hmm, WOW. That's like saying: Imagine how surprised and scared atheist would be if they realized they were alive. After all, God created life so how can we believe we are alive now if God didn't exist. See how ridiculous that is?

Yet you characterized it as if it was not only logical, but also scientific. Not only is it not logical, logical doesn't make something scientific. That's why math is not science, but science requires math. In fact you said nothing that is even logical, and scientific wasn't even remotely involved. For instance, Luxembourg is 44% atheist, yet only 22% do not believe in any sort of spirit, god, or life force. So now I have used results from science to invalidate your claim. Thus your claim was neither logical, scientific, nor correct.



You shouldn't make statements you can't back up. I have doubt there are atheists that believe in an afterlife. Your response using the analogy of a pet just doesn't cut It.

You bring God into your response. This is not a thread about God. If you want to talk about God, create your own thread. This thread is about the survival or lack of survival of consciousness after death. Who cares what the people of Luxembourg believe? When we ask the question does consciousness continue after death or does it cease after death, there can be only two possible answers. Either it does or it doesn’t. There is absolutely no evidence to support either answer at this moment in time. Logically and realistically the best answer is that there is a 50% chance for either being correct.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#35  Postby Weaver » Nov 14, 2010 6:36 pm

Your logic is lacking. It is not a 50:50 proposition. There is absolutely no reason to think consciousness could or does exist after the brain is dead.

Disagree with me? Fine - provide some evidence.

All you have so far is bullshit assertions and piss-poor "logic".
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 53
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#36  Postby my_wan » Nov 14, 2010 6:43 pm

Weaver wrote:Your logic is lacking. It is not a 50:50 proposition.

The old: If I'm ignorant of the answer it must be a 50:50 chance... :lol: :lol: :lol:

darwin2 ,
Since I don't know if you are an alien or not, does that mean there is a 50:50 chance you are? :what:
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#37  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 7:13 pm

Weaver wrote:Oh, bollocks (to cop a phrase from my Brit friends ...)

darwin2 wrote:I use the term "probably" because I don't have any scientific evidence to prove they will occur.

In that case, you should say "possibly" at most - although even that word implies a possibility not supported by available evidence.
But if consciousness does continue after death, I would have to assume this could be a scary experience for an atheist who believed that consciousness ceases at the death of the physical body.

And if invisible pink unicorns are roaming the Earth disguised as gorilla farts, I would have to assume their horns could be hazardous to any emus flying nearby. However, that's no reason to really worry about unicorns, gorilla farts, or flying emus.

I have known atheists to be very logical people and I assume that once they find themselves in an after death environment, they will use their critical thinking skills to explore this new reality. In this lifetime, we humans have the ability to do critical thinking to arrive at facts about our world. If consciousness continues after death, I find it unlikely we will lose this precious gift and that is why I use this term "probably."

Well, as demonstrated above, you shouldn't use the word "probably" - it means "greater liklihood of occurance than not", it is a value judgement between two potential outcomes, and you haven't shown that there is any liklihood or probability at all on your side.

In addressing the question does death end consciousness or does consciousness continue after death, I stated that there is a 50% chance it does and a 50% chance it doesn't.

Yes, I noted this blind assertion - do you intend to supply any facts to back up this conclusion, or will you continue asserting this value judgement contrary to all observational reality? Just because you don't know what the value is doesn't make it 50% likely.
You state that the survival of consciousness is a very very unlikely event and this statement is very unscientific because you have no evidence to prove it is very very unlikely. The most you can conclude is that there is a 50% chance it is unlikely. At this point in time, my statement that there is a 50% chance consciousness continues after death and a 50% chance it doesn't is more realistic. And that is the most science can say at this time on this issue.


Thus far there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness is independent of the brain. Everything we have seen so far suggests quite strongly that it is a function of, and contained within, the brain. Therefore, the highest probablilty is that when the brain stops, so does consciousness.

Certainly it cannot be PROVEN 100% that consciousness cannot exist independently - proving a negative is impossible. But as there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that consciousness can or has continued after brain death, there is no reason to believe otherwise. The probability should not be assessed as simply 50%/50% - there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to suggest lasting consciousness, so one cannot grant such a high probability.

Now as to what form consciousness will take if it survives death, I have no idea what that may be. So why speculate on it?
Because if you are going to assert a high liklihood of occurance - in something like consciousness lasting beyond brain death, this value could be as low as 0.000001% and still be considered "high" - you need to demonstrate a method whereby it is possible. You haven't.

If we survive death we will know. If death ends it all, it is a moot issue
So, having started the topic, you now don't want to discuss it because we cannot know? :nono:


Probable is the correct and appropriate word. The theme of this thread is does consciousness continues after death or does it end with death. The use of the word probable here simply means there is no scientific evidence at this moment in time to support either possibility. In this context the use of probable is both correct and appropriate as is the use of 50%.

Science has made great advances in understanding the functioning of the brain but unfortunately they have become
arrogant and delusional when they state their data almost certainly proves that death of the physical body ends consciousness. The sad thing is that their arrogance and delusions on this issue has brainwashed many into believing that it is not possible or extremely unlikely that consciousness can continue after death.

Sir, your last statement"So, having started the topic, you now don't want to discuss it because we cannot know?"is rather silly. Obviously at this time we can't discuss it because we don't even know if an afterlife exists. But if it does exist, I suggest the Scientific Method to explore it. Truthfully your statement "And if invisible pink unicorns are roaming the Earth disguised as gorilla farts, I would have to assume their horns could be hazardous to any emus flying nearby. However, that's no reason to really worry about unicorns, gorilla farts, or flying emus" is also extraordinarily silly and has no bearing on the theme of this thread.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#38  Postby chairman bill » Nov 14, 2010 7:14 pm

Kylie either wants to marry me & have my babies, or she doesn't. Therefore there is a 50:50 chance she does. That she's never met me, and probably doesn't have a thing for bald, ugly old gits, suggests that figure might be a little on the optomistic side
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#39  Postby cursuswalker » Nov 14, 2010 7:15 pm

I believe the OP can be filed under 'Wishful thinking- misc.'
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 54
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#40  Postby darwin2 » Nov 14, 2010 7:18 pm

Weaver wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
chairman bill wrote:

Fail. You're not tossing a coin here. It's not an either this or that scenario. You might as well say that there's a 50:50 chance of getting hit by a car next time you cross the road. Who'd ever cross a road with those odds? All the scientific evidence points to consciousness as a function of complex brains, and that when brains stop, consciousness stops too. I'd suggest that the odds are at least 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991% certain that death = the end of consciousness.


Your statement that when the brains stop consciousness stops too is very unfounded and unscientific. It is only opinion. You have no evidence to prove this. This is a rational website, so please be more rational in your response.

Yeah, right, just as there is no evidence to prove that there isn't a china teapot circling the Sun in Earth orbit. Like we haven't heard that before.

Here's a hint: Don't try to tell us how we should act on our rational website when you are making blind, irrational assertions and expecting people to go along with them.


Name one blind irrational statement I have made and describe why it is irrational!
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest