Apr 24, 2011 -- 6:55PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 6:50PM, Namchuck wrote:

I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.  

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

Alan Watts

 

I wouldn't suggest that that is very accurate either.

I would also suggest that science has undoubtedly shown that its methods enable us to get closer to 'reality' than any religion can.

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:11PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:06PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 6:55PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 6:50PM, Namchuck wrote:

I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.  

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

Alan Watts

 

I wouldn't suggest that that is very accurate either.

I would also suggest that science has undoubtedly shown that its methods enable us to get closer to 'reality' than any religion can.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwUkyQ3YgkU

 

These are discusion forums, Neomonist. One doesn't discuss things by directing people away to watch video's.

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:21PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:16PM, Namchuck wrote:

These are discusion forums, Neomonist. One doesn't discuss things by directing people away to watch video's.

A video can be included as part of a discussion, unless one wishes to restrict evidence.

 

While I'm all for evidence, I've seen whole threads taken up with the citing back and forth of video's.

Ill just state my position once again: Even with its limitations, the paradigm of meritocratic rational inquiry it's still our best way of discovering the nature of Nature and of reality.

And there is no compelling evidence that death is any sort of 'Grand Illusion'.

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:43PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 7:30PM, Namchuck wrote:

Ill just state my position once again: Even with its limitations, the paradigm of meritocratic rational inquiry it's still our best way of discovering the nature of Nature and of reality.

As I;ve said elsewhere, we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

Well, there is always the possibility that far more convincing evidence for the survival of consciousness might be discovered in the future, but the current trend in human understanding certainly doesn't bode well for it.

Yes ... "Death" can be -- IS -- "induced" ... And "Death" is REAL ...

Apr 24, 2011 -- 6:21PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 24, 2011 -- 8:10AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Apr 23, 2011 -- 1:10AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 23, 2011 -- 1:06AM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 23, 2011 -- 1:02AM, Namchuck wrote:

There is very little evidence for the survival of consciousness in any form.

There is very little against it as well.

I refuse to close my mind to either possibility.

Once again, in the absence of any compelling evidence for the survival of consciouness (in any form), the probabilities are not evenly poised.

While I'm open to such evidence, I simply won't indulge my fondness for the idea with wishful thinking. 

I suppose you don't call accounts of NDE evidence? Just yesterday, I think it was on NPR, there was a guy talking about accounts by young children. He considered this better evidence than that from older kids, teenagers and adults.

And there are accounts where absence of brain function was correlated with later descriptions of actual events, things said or done by doctors or nurses reported by the "dead" patient. 

sdp

Correct, NDE's are not evidence of post death survival. They are evidence of what the mind is capable of in extremis, but such experiences can now be induced.