cosmic consciousness

371 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
Even that does not make sense

Even that does not make sense. If someone went to the effort of taking you somewhere against your will, they just don't allow you to casually walk out the door.

Cognostic's picture
congratulations YOU ARE THE

congratulations YOU ARE THE WINNER OF THE IDIOT OF THE MONTH AWARD:
"Wherever you look Tal you will never find any evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain."

The PRIMARY view in neuroscience is that consciousness as we know it is entirely generated by the brain and does not exist separately from or independent of the brain. (Cog's Shovel)

Obviously these morons in neuroscience are just making wild unfounded assertions without any evidence what so ever!!!

"The reasons for believing this are straightforward: Chemically and electrically interacting with the brain can modify or extinguish consciousness (dreamless sleep, general anesthesia, drugs, brain death); and there have been no reproducible experiments that have been able to show causal interaction with consciousness without interfacing with the brain first." BUT WHAT THE FUCK, SCIENTISTS MAKE MISTAKES ALL THE TIME.

https://www.quora.com/Is-consciousness-totally-the-product-of-the-brain-...

Alain's picture
Surely most scientists make

Surely most scientists make mistakes.
There is no question about it.
Consciousness is stuck inside the brain as a driver is stuck inside a vehicle.
As the car can not go without a driver also a brain can not go without a consciousness or the other way around and this happen until life in the body or in the vehicle remain.
After that the driver or the consciousness are free to leave and they will leave for sure.
Why a driver would keep on staying inside a vehicle that is dead or a consciousness stay inside a dead brain?

All scientists sooner or later will come to this conclusion in the same way as the scientists of the past realized that the planet earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe.

This however will come as a major shock not only to all scientists that so far wouldn't believe that but especially to the atheists fraternity that will see one of their strong pillar collapse in pieces for ever and ever.
As soon as the consciousness will be found immortal then all other pillar that so far have kept atheism alive will collapse one by one and God will not be doubt-question anymore.

xenoview's picture
@alain

@alain
I apply xenoview's razor to your claims that a god exist. Provide objective evidence that a god exist.

Alain's picture
Wrong again Xen.

Wrong again Xen.

As being in physical love release certain chemical such as dopamine, norepinephrine otherwise known as adrenalin and serotonin also spiritual love for God release different chemicals especially from the pineal gland.

Now if God wouldn't exist then why love for Him would release these chemicals?
Therefore it is obvious that God exist.

arakish's picture
Alain: "Now if God wouldn't

Alain: "Now if God wouldn't exist then why love for Him would release these chemicals?"

Because you have beguiled yourself so badly that you live in a schizophrenic dissociative delusion. Seek psychiatric help.

rmfr

Alain's picture
I follow logic Arak not

I follow logic Arak not guessing.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

So far you have provided no "logic" whatsoever. None. Zero. Zilch. All you have provided is a huge pile of woo woo bullshit.

Finally, like Talyyn, you ain't no friend of mine, thus you do not get to use a nickname. It is Arakish.

Additionally, I just went back and re-read this thread. You are doing nothing except behaving like our banished Avant Brown. You are being completely ignorant (ig•nur•unt) and ignorant(ig•nor•unt) like all Religious Absolutists. Hopefully, you will read this entire post because it does describe you as the troll you are.

About Religious Absolutist Training

If it does not conform to what was taught during their indoctrination process, then they are to deny it by looking at evidence through God Glasses, which is nothing more than confirmation bias. (There are even Religious Absolutist made YouTube videos about God Glasses. Just do a YouTube search for “god glasses.”) Confirmation bias is where you simply repudiate anything that stands against your beliefs, even if it irrefutably counters those beliefs. You only affirm those things that you think you can rationalize from your indoctrination process to make sense for your position. Using rationality and logic, this means it is nothing more than playing “make-believe,” and it is not even a sincere belief most of the time. It is a delusion called, “Let’s play pretend.”

The Religous Absolutists usually begin the training from early childhood through a controlled, systematic, totalitarian indoctrination process which utilizes mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism when a child’s mind, especially in the ages of 4 to 14 years, is at its most susceptible and most vulnerable to cultural conditioning. I know this for fact because it is the ghastly, abhorrent, and terrifying nightmare I endured as a child for seven years. Tyrannically dictated norms of fidelity are imposed such that children are trained to vomit conflicting ideas and to never consider their veracity. And I look back at this and, to this day, wonder how in hell I could have allowed those horrible savages to brainwash me that way. Although it never truly took, I was worn to the point I gave up and succumbed. I had to play pretend just to keep them from continuing to ostracize me, excommunicate me, abuse me.

Religious Absolutists are trained to react to ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. They are taught to never question their beliefs. Militantly trained to maintain and preserve the faith. And, due to this designed abusive training and indoctrination process, they shall do so with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence. Worst of all, their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they need to defend their belief at all. This form of indoctrination, no matter its intended outcome, is actually “child abuse” in the form of psychological terrorism. All of which is immoral in any moral landscape. However, due to the First Amendment, religion gets a free ride to practice all the immorality they wish. One only has to prove it is religious to prove it is not immoral.

An indoctrination process which teaches you to never think for yourself, but to close your mind against all things except for what some sky-faerie in an obsolete and irrelevant and barbaric and savagely immoral Bronze Age religious text commands you to think. For me, that is the most heinous of acts, especially to do it to children. And no matter whatever you may say to the contrary, this is child abuse. Ask Richard Dawkins.

And I wholeheartedly agree with David Killens at the Atheist Republic forums:

“I despise apologists, especially those who use their skills to sway the minds of children, and rob them of their independence and self-worth. They also begin a journey of life that will always posses fear. I do not like it, and if I had the power, I would prosecute apologists for child abuse.

“You beat a child, they will bruise, but they will recover. Teach them religion, and they lose many admirable characteristics, and be scarred (and pretty messed up) for life. Both are despicable acts, but one inflicts major long term damage.”

In addition to prosecuting the Apologist Religious Absolutists, I would also prosecute the parents for condoning and allowing such abuse to be visited upon their child.

I submit to you, that to believe in this manner is not being human. Instead it is just being a mindless drone obeying an imaginative figment. You are just pretending to be like one of those Nazis when he defended his actions by saying, “But I was just obeying orders.”

And this shall not be the only time I ask this: “What the hell is wrong with you Religious Absolutists that you must wipe the mind of what may turn out to be the next Nobel Prize Winner that may discover something so profound…?”

Except in your case, although you may not have been trained in your bullshit, you have read a few woo woo books and have deluded yourself.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@Alain

@Alain

"Surely most scientists make mistakes."

Yes they can, they are human. But one component of the scientific process is peer review, and this is when any mistakes are uncovered. Papers are published, peer reviewed, errors uncovered, and then the cycle repeats.

But the final product is the culmination of years of dogged research, and peer review to verify the authenticity of their findings.

Cognostic's picture
Cog's Shovel: The turtle

Cog's Shovel: The turtle can not go without the legs, this happen until life remains, A turtle without legs is a snake with a shell and that is like a clam but it doesn't dig in the sand.

After the turtle is free to leave its legs it can be a UFO. Why would the turtle return to legs when it can fly? The turtle can see that the earth is not flat and visit other planets and know earth is not universe center. "This however will come as a major shock not only to all scientists that so far wouldn't believe that but especially to the atheists fraternity that will see one of their strong pillar collapse in pieces for ever and ever."

As soon as the turtle will be found immortal then all other pillar that so far have kept atheism alive will collapse one by one and the turtle will not be doubt-question anymore.

Alain's picture
You try to be smart Cog but

You try to be smart Cog but something very important is missing in your logic.
It is that there is no logic in your pseudo-logic.
And there are no foundations too.
It is all build on guessing while my logic is build on personal experience and corroborated by other people experience.

arakish's picture
Alain,

Alain,

Here is a word for you: incorrigible.

And another: inexorable.

rmfr

Alain's picture
Thanks for that.

Thanks for that.

Now I just try to find a word for someone who reckon that anyone who challenge an atheist is a 10 years old troll.

Can you help me to find the proper word?
Thanks brother Arak.

arakish's picture
See? My point exactly. You

See? My point exactly. You are incorrigible and inexorable. You are also ignorant (ig•nur•unt) and ignorant (ig•nor•unt).

You have no evidence, never shall have any evidence because it is all a "fantasy" in that tiny brain of your. Yet you still believe in the self-beguiled schizophrenic dissociative delusion. Seek psychiatric help.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
Alain: Call arakish a

Alain: Call arakish a goober. Any time you disagree with him you just call him a goober. It's the most insulting word in the English language.

arakish's picture
Thanks Cog. Love it. rmfr

Thanks Cog.

Love it.

rmfr

Alain's picture
Actually I have already been

Actually I have already been kicked out from an other forum for making fun of some fools.
I like your forum too much to be kicked out again by making fun of someone beside I like all of you.
Night.

arakish's picture
And don't forget about

And don't forget about trolling. You are borderline right now.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Alain's picture
Are all those who do not

Are all those who do not agree with atheistic ideas in trouble or just me?

arakish's picture
Just trolls who do nothing

Just trolls who do nothing more than inundating with same bullshit over and over and over again and again and again.

rmfr

Stare's picture
What are we supposed to used

What are we supposed to used to prove God?

arakish's picture
Fignations of imagiments.

Fignations of imagiments.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
No we do not Stare. It is

No we do not Stare. It is incumbent for the claimant to prove the claims. No one has to disprove anything.

Grinseed's picture
Die?
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I've said this before but I'm

I've said this before but I'm generally against the strict materialist view that mental states reduces to "nothing but" the processes that produce them. I have no problem with saying that consciousness and its contents are constituted by neurological events, as long as they are never equated, or redefined, to be nothing but those things.

Strict materialists need to start getting confortable with consciousness having both neurological and phenomenological features.

David Killens's picture
John, is this another

John, is this another assertion that can not be proven or tested? In other words, made-up woo woo?

Meepwned's picture
What are the phenomenological

What are the phenomenological features of consciousness and how can we confirm that claim?

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
They are more or less the

They are more or less the first-person things that you experience, which cannot be observed from a third-person point of view. The pain you feel when you step on a nail is a phenomenon that exists within your consciousness exclusively, which is altogether of a different sort from say, the sounds you experience when listening to music.

The only way I can think of to confirm that claim is to first introspect, and observe how the different features of your own private conscious experience have different qualities. Secondly, to take a course in neuroscience and notice how knowing the neural pathways of something like pain never tells you what it is like to experience pain.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"The pain you feel when you step on a nail is a phenomenon that exists within your consciousness exclusively"

NO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUudAVD7epw

Meepwned's picture
Ah, so we can't confirm them

Ah, so we can't confirm them unless we assume the validity of subjective experiences. Why are subjective experiences valid as a form of evidence again?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.