probably about 1200% bigger, hence vast
the conceived self undergoes a few dramatic changes also
I'm not sure what you are arguing here
A smack in the head vastly re-establishes the physicality of the body and mind?
When do you get a soul? & related questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
A smack in the head vastly re-establishes the physicality of the body and mind?
the lack of consciousness in a dead body seems a great contributor to its rapid decline into a putrid mess
it was for about the first 23 years of my life
I guess I got sick of the futility or something
the problem of rendering god knowable of course
in the standard manner, namely by applying a theory
The general outline for evidence is theory->application->conclusion.
At least in many pedagogical methods, there are very good reasons why theory is taught before prac.
On the contrary, there are huge differences between a dead body and a living one. Your grasping at straws making that silly claim.
Cris
:shrug:
Once again, its not that I have a problem with empiricism applied to its proper use. Its only when it gets misappropriated to lend validity to claims that clearly lie outside its jurisdiction that I call foul.
IOW the statements "it does not exist" and "empiricism is incapable of seeing it" are not non-different
For instance if I am assailed by issues of lust and greed, I can still go on to become a remarkable physicist.
yet for some reason this lack of complete knowledge on your behalf strikes you as sufficient to launch into an absolute argument
:shrug:
correlation = causation is not celebrated as a steadfast empirical tool.
Once again, its not that I have a problem with empiricism applied to its proper use. Its only when it gets misappropriated to lend validity to claims that clearly lie outside its jurisdiction that I call foul.
Post dated rain cheques are another pseudo-scientific accessory for empiricism
On the contrary, the very nature of investigation (ie consciousness) has no precedent within the empirical world
not really, since you are bypassing the issue whether empiricism has the monopoly on all knowable claims.
IOW the statements "it does not exist" and "empiricism is incapable of seeing it" are not non-different
"purified senses" is the probably a more precise term for the task at hand
The key factor that determines whether the senses are purified or not is the overwhelming presence of material desire.
What you are failing to factor in is that consciousness (or the nature of perception) can be greatly influenced by desire. Ordinarily this doesn't play a factor in empiricism but in any spiritual discipline its where all the chips are stacked.
For instance if I am assailed by issues of lust and greed, I can still go on to become a remarkable physicist.
lg,
A car engine also has two states, running and not running. In each state they have very different properties yet they are constructed of the same materials, albeit with some minor chemical differences. The analogy with a dead body and a live one is identical. Niether scenario requires any immaterial or magical influence.
You must move past this issue.
A car engine also has two states, running and not running. In each state they have very different properties yet they are constructed of the same materials, albeit with some minor chemical differences. The analogy with a dead body and a live one is identical. Niether scenario requires any immaterial or magical influence.
even a running car engine requires consciousness somewhere down the track (or for that matter, even a non-active car ... unless you want to advocate that a car could form by random forces)
its the issue of to what degree something is contingent on consciousness.
Even a running car operated by an automatic system requires consciousness. An inert vehicle cannot start itself in a million years without it
As far as we presently know, consciousness has little or nothing to do with death & decay.
You are either some kind of idiot savant or the most obtuse obfuscator I've come across..
You perpetually criticize logic, empiricism & reductionism yet you will not explain how & why you come to your conclusions & why you proclaim them as truth that we refuse to see.
Who believes that? There are extensive differences between a living body and a dead one, and the transition is quick and irreversible.
Actually the experts said she was dead.
I think we both might be working out of different frames of reference for consciousness if you're suggesting a plant can be alive yet have have no consciousness.
In short, I am suggesting that anything that has an element of self awareness has consciousness. Of course there are a range of levels of consciousness. For instance even though a plant may strive towards the sun or respond in a certain way to predators (for instance I vaguely recall that some trees when being attacked by a particular type of ant not only releasing some sort of chemical into their leaves to make them less palatable but also a similar effect was noted in nearby trees that were not currently under attack), you cannot put that on an equal level with the capacity for self rumination the human form of life exhibits.
yet for some reason they make arrangements with the morgue when the client doesn't make the grade in intensive care .....