Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
O mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily We have created you (i.e. Adam) from dust,
then from a Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge i.e. the offspring of Adam),
then from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood)
then from a little lump of flesh - some formed and some unformed (as in the case of miscarriage) - that We may make (it) clear to you
(i.e. to show you Our Power and Ability to do what We will).
And We cause whom We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed term,
then We bring you out as infants, then (give you growth) that you may reach your age of full strength. And among you there is he who dies (young),
and among you there is he who is brought back to the miserable old age, so that he knows nothing after having known. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down water (rain) on it,
it is stirred (to life), and it swells and puts forth ery evlovely kind (of growth).
Your use of identical phrases, long, tedious posts, and the same assertions and fallacies are a strong indicator. I could run some of your posts and Irkles through the relevant software, but it is not that important to me.
And Irkle can not be living in my head, someone else has also raised this suspicion.
Not Wikipedia, the sources used by Wikipedia. Your desperate evasion of my actual point is noted.
Yes, you used that fallacy in an attempt to make any accurate and relevant responses look like excuses before they were made. The fallacy is not often used, the only other person who used it was someone called Irkle.
I was just echoing your ad hominem on Carroll. Now you are objecting when someone uses your methodology on you. That sounds like shrieking to me.
Ironically speculation and bald assertion completely lacking in substance. Not only can I support my claims, so can the scientists in that Wikipedia link you are desperately ignoring. Those are not speculations and bald assertions, that is over 50 years of actual scientific work you need to address.
But instead of doing any actual research, you throw a tantrum. Because that is all you have. But if you want to actually discuss the science, I invite you to the science forum.
Sorry Irkle, I did the research. Google (actually DuckDuckGo) said he was a philosopher of religion. That is neither knee-jerk nor non-substantive, and the fact that you need to try and dismiss me with your usual ad hominems underscores the knee-jerk, non-substantive character of your responses.
Wikipedia called him a philosopher of religion, probably because he has written for the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. But if he is not a philosopher of religion, then I made a mistake. People do. Perhaps if you thought about alternative possible reasons instead of your usual knee jerk ad hominems and non sequiturs.
I am also going through the Amazon book preview, which shows the first part of the preface and the conclusion. Try it. Have a look at page 1, and then tell me the obvious flaw in his logical argument. Page 1. And then tell me why I should rely on what he says?
As I have said before, there is a crisis in modern philosophy, because too many philosophers are ignoring the relevant logic, science and mathematics that refutes their arguments.
See, I actually research your claims. That is why I can shoot them down, every time.
No, yes, no.
No, I am enjoying myself, pointing out your usual flawed methodology of assertions and fallacies, your lack of substance, and your inability to explain how life after death would actually function. I am not bored.
Yes, as an independent worker, I have time on my hands. Also, it is good practice for my English. Thankfully yours is also good, otherwise I would probably not respond.
No, I am the internet version of someone who researches things, and only talks about what he knows. Instead of your usual ad hominem, you could try and explain, with evidence, how life after death would actually function.
You know, something of substance.
OCD? Help is available. Seriously.
Perhaps Irkle enjoyed giving you English lessons. I find you tedious. In about two minutes, you are going to disappear from my life.
Here is your typical post, after you have parsed someone else's post into 25 fragments:
[INDENT]Ad hominem fallacy. Straw man fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy. Non-substantive. Game-playing. You don't know as much as me. I have the relevant education. I do real research and you don't. Blah blah blah.[/INDENT]
In fact, you repeatedly, with astonishing regularity, commit the very sins of which you accuse others. Your posts are riddled with ad hominems and other fallacies. Your posts are almost completely non-substantive. Your rather dismal reputation score would suggest others recognize this as well.
The topic of this thread is the possibility of life after death. Someone referenced hardcore atheist, materialist and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. I mentioned a new book about consciousness by analytical philosopher Joshua Rasmussen that has been well-received within the philosophical community. You indicate you are prepared to refute Rasmussen after skimming page 1 of his book. Do it then. Yawn.
You referred me to a Wikipedia entry on neuroscience. That entry has precisely nothing to do with the nature of consciousness. It is simply an overview of neuroscience and the various disciplines comprising it. The nature of consciousness and the relationship between the mind and the brain are not discussed AT ALL.
But wait, you say: You actually linked to the References section of the entry. Yes, some 145 footnotes, the vast majority likewise having nothing to do with consciousness or the mind-brain relationship.
This is your "research."
As it happens, I own two of the volumes in the Suggested Reading section:
[INDENT]Penrose, R., Hameroff, S. R., Kak, S., & Tao, L.; Consciousness and the universe: Quantum physics, evolution, brain & mind (2011).
Sternberg, E.; Are You a Machine? The Brain, the Mind and What it Means to be Human (2007).[/INDENT]
Both paint quite a different picture from what you would like readers here to believe.
The reality is, attempting to explain consciousness in neurological terms is what neuroscientists DO. It is the neurological PARADIGM.
[INDENT]The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it. Although there are active research programs looking at correlates of consciousness, and explorations of informational properties of what might be relevant neural ensembles, the tacitly implied mechanism of consciousness in these approaches is that it somehow just happens. This reliance on a “magical emergence” of consciousness does not address the “objectively unreasonable” proposition that elements that have no attributes or properties that can be said to relate to consciousness somehow aggregate to produce it. ... There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.[/INDENT]
Kitchener, P.D. and Hales, C.G. (2022), "What Neuroscientists Think, and Don’t Think, About Consciousness," Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:767612. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612, [url]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612/full[/url].
"Incontrovertible premise" = paradigm. No neuroscientist thinks neuroscience has explained consciousness. If consciousness originates outside the brain, this is not within the scope of neuroscience.
You're an internet goof. A poser. And with one more click you are about to go poof insofar as O'Darby is concerned.
Perhaps Irkle enjoyed giving you English lessons. I find you tedious. In about two minutes, you are going to disappear from my life.
Here is your typical post, after you have parsed someone else's post into 25 fragments:
Ad hominem fallacy. Straw man fallacy. Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy. Non-substantive. Game-playing. You don't know as much as me. I have the relevant education. I do real research and you don't. Blah blah blah.
In fact, you repeatedly, with astonishing regularity, commit the very sins of which you accuse others. Your posts are riddled with ad hominems and other fallacies. Your posts are almost completely non-substantive. Your rather dismal reputation score would suggest others recognize this as well.
The topic of this thread is the possibility of life after death. Someone referenced hardcore atheist, materialist and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. I mentioned a new book about consciousness by analytical philosopher Joshua Rasmussen that has been well-received within the philosophical community. You indicate you are prepared to refute Rasmussen after skimming page 1 of his book. Do it then. Yawn.
You referred me to a Wikipedia entry on neuroscience. That entry has precisely nothing to do with the nature of consciousness. It is simply an overview of neuroscience and the various disciplines comprising it. The nature of consciousness and the relationship between the mind and the brain are not discussed AT ALL.
But wait, you say: You actually linked to the References section of the entry. Yes, some 145 footnotes, the vast majority likewise having nothing to do with consciousness or the mind-brain relationship.
This is your "research."
As it happens, I own two of the volumes in the Suggested Reading section:
Penrose, R., Hameroff, S. R., Kak, S., & Tao, L.; Consciousness and the universe: Quantum physics, evolution, brain & mind (2011).
Sternberg, E.; Are You a Machine? The Brain, the Mind and What it Means to be Human (2007).
Both paint quite a different picture from what you would like readers here to believe.
The reality is, attempting to explain consciousness in neurological terms is what neuroscientists DO. It is the neurological PARADIGM.
The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it. Although there are active research programs looking at correlates of consciousness, and explorations of informational properties of what might be relevant neural ensembles, the tacitly implied mechanism of consciousness in these approaches is that it somehow just happens. This reliance on a “magical emergence” of consciousness does not address the “objectively unreasonable” proposition that elements that have no attributes or properties that can be said to relate to consciousness somehow aggregate to produce it. ... There is no consensus about how it is generated, or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.
Kitchener, P.D. and Hales, C.G. (2022), "What Neuroscientists Think, and Don’t Think, About Consciousness," Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:767612. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...22.767612/full.
"Incontrovertible premise" = paradigm. No neuroscientist thinks neuroscience has explained consciousness. If consciousness originates outside the brain, this is not within the scope of neuroscience.
You're an internet goof. A poser. And with one more click you are about to go poof insofar as O'Darby is concerned.
Lol, your usual wall of fallacies, assertions, misrepresentations, and evasion of the substantive questions I asked. It is as if you can not explain, with evidence, how life after death would actually function.
And I have asked these and other substantive questions before, and none of the cosmic consciousness believers has honestly answered them. So let us focus on the OP and try once again.
The inference from your recommendation is that Rasmussen's book answers questions about consciousness better than naturalism does. Because if it does not, why should I read the book?
And if the evidence is for a cosmic consciousness, then how does it work?
How does a cosmic consciousness explain Qualia?
What is the chance blind evolution would allow us to develop a high energy cost organ to tune in to this alleged cosmic consciousness? Was it guided? If so, how?
Why is the philosophical argument better than that of neuroscientists and medical professionals?
If you want to introduce a third, unknown element outside of people and consciousness, a cosmic consciousness, you need to provide evidence for that extra entity that is a better explanation than a brain being responsible.
The question you evaded, how would life after death actually function?
These are substantive questions you (and the other cosmic consciousness people) need to answer, with evidence, and it must explain consciousness better than naturalism. Otherwise you are nothing more than the internet equivalent of a one person book club.
The earth would consume all of the son of Adam except his tailbone.
From it he was created,
and from it he will be recreated (on the Day of Resurrection).
'Everything of the human body will perish except the last coccyx bone (end part of the spinal cord),
and from that bone Allah will reconstruct the whole body.
Then Allah will send down water from the sky and people will grow like green vegetables'."
The earth would consume all of the son of Adam except his tailbone.
From it he was created,
and from it he will be recreated (on the Day of Resurrection).
'Everything of the human body will perish except the last coccyx bone (end part of the spinal cord),
and from that bone Allah will reconstruct the whole body.
Then Allah will send down water from the sky and people will grow like green vegetables'."
The earth would consume all of the son of Adam except his tailbone.
From it he was created,
and from it he will be recreated (on the Day of Resurrection).
'Everything of the human body will perish except the last coccyx bone (end part of the spinal cord),
and from that bone Allah will reconstruct the whole body.
Then Allah will send down water from the sky and people will grow like green vegetables'."
So I’ll live eternally as a vegetable, even if I obey Allah? Sounds like a “raw” deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
