EugeneW

"The unequivocal triumph of Garrett Travers" or "How a new thread leads to his defeat"

Do you deny my evidence? If I feel pain, depression, fear, despair, melancholy, and have a sense the end is near, you can explain these feelings ratio...

Well, it depends what your emphasize. Matter or soul. There is also something inside of matter. The evidence is that I feel pain.

You accept only your own evidence. Such an explaining materialistic theory exists in the face of your theory only. Materialism can explain consciousne...

The brain alone can't produce consciousness. It needs a body to live in and give consciousness to. No body no consciousness.

The function doesn't explain what is seen. If I dream about a bird flying, you can describe that by the shape of a bird flying around on my neural str...

It depends what he meant with things not created. Everything is indirectly created.

That's what the ruling powers tell you.

My romantic involvement with the ladies has led to a lot of pain and war. Restricted sexuality though can give birth to worlds of terror.

Well, a lot of argument, arguably . Wind is not the function, nor the functioning matter. That leaves out that what's to be explained. Consciousness.

It says that an important component of consciousness is wakefulness. But sleepfullness is just as important. In dreams consciousness is pretty present...

Now here you're right. It appears to describe. But it's not consciousness itself residing in the process. So what is missing in the description is con...

The evidence that they don't explain it is that these processes miss a key ingredient.

Consciousness is not the zillions of parallel ion peak currents running continuously around on the neuronal network from the early stages of embryonic...

If you consider everything created, only what is created can create. That what's created by what's created might create or not but it can never reach ...

Take care.

You value evidence. I don't.

That's what the church said too back then. They punished Galileo on rational grounds. His view was illegitimate. As is one against yours, as you said.

You see? Like the church said to Galileì.

Aha! So your reality can't be argued against? It's the one and only reality? Like the church said...

Well, if you think that gives you a good view of reality, who an I to argue?

Okay. You are basing your realism on your senses. Why?

That's because there is nothing to challenge. Yet.

More than you wrt to me.

See what I mean? How predictable. I can temporarily accept scientific reality.

I'm challenging your intellectual rigor. For sure you now write about me saying "in fact".

In fact they can extent all over space. What has neoplatonism got to do with this thread? You act like the church once acted vis a vis Galileo. Except...

You seem rather hot about it. What do you know about elementary particles?

An argument is needed in your reality. Not in mine.

Indeed. And that's very different from the scientific.

A parallel collective running of ion currents in my brain made me say all this. What reality...

In every reality never exists.

I like this. Science admirers who don't know how to argue away what's not scientific.

For your information: never is a negation.

Your was nonsense has never been real.

No point in arguing with someone convinced of their own reality. Their collective motion of particles are determined. :lol:

Yes I can. :lol:

So says your nonsense.

Yes I can. :lol:

It's not that difficult to transform reality in a scientific materialistic picture. It's just an empty picture.

I haven't accepted it. But I can talk about it.

Now you are threatening me? Good argument!

And what vaporized them?

Then you have to accept that reality first.

So do the mystics.

I just ignore scientific reality. Precisely because I know about it. What's to argue?

Where do the scientific realists keep churning guys like you out? Heterotic string theory in 26 dimensions?

:rofl: All that remains if arguments don't work anymore. Laughing.

That's exactly the reason they're not interested in that reality.

Dark energy is no proof of gods. It's just as electricity. Of which you said it's no sign of God. It's the existence of the whole universe that is pro...