RegularGuy

Have you met @"S"? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you. I tend to value @"Andrew4Handel"and @"JosephS"’s insights. Tha...

Insightful.

Agreed.

“Meaning” has different meanings according to different contexts/uses. A lot of differing opinions in this thread, and I suspect that is due to the di...

That’s how scientists measure it. It doesn’t explain what it is.

Dawkins is @"S"’s mentor.

This is leading nowhere. It’s getting tiresome. I’m thinking about taking another two months off of this forum because I can’t deal with Dawkins-lovin...

That’s a sad view. Phenomenology counts, IMO

I’m always looking for answers. That’s why I’m on this forum in part. I bounce ideas off people and see what comes of it.

That’s my point. It may be meaningless to you, but it’s not meaningless to them. That’s the very essence/nature of consciousness.

And you don’t think they speculate? You don’t think many of these intelligent men and women have certain beliefs about their experiences?

Laughable how? Because you haven’t experienced it? Because it doesn’t fit with your scientism?

Many people have encountered UFOs. Quite frequently and ongoing among Air Force pilots. They are first-person accounts. They may be mistaken, or there...

I think you understand quite well.

It cannot be verified that consciousness only occurs in functioning brains.

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto ot...

No, I cannot verify their report, and that’s the point. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

That is speculative actually.

I have 20/10 vision. Speak for yourself.

There’s no way of verifying your model either.

That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. Like I said to TS, it fits your model but it isn’t conclusive.

That’s your interpretation. You’re discounting the person’s perceived experience because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived model.

So says the psychopath. Maybe souls are literal and you really don’t have one? I’m not sure now.

Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports.

That’s dumb. Back flips are perceivable to others. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity.

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S.

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically. Whether or not there is something actual that a soul is I am agnostic.

That’s also called psychopathy.

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that.

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist. I don’t know how to communicate with y...

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy. Only atheists are so fundamentalist.

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences. I’m sorry you don’t pay attention to yours, or you dismiss...

I very much doubt that you have a soul. To take a play from your playbook, there’s no evidence for it.

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life witho...

I have been called worse from better people than you.

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because th...

I am influenced by many things. I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some. I am not religious.

Scientism is anti-science. I’ve been trying to make that point all along.

Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me.

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation.

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that bl...

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon.

No, they’re not provable. That was my point.

Ask the Hume expert @"S".

I suppose that’s logically correct. However, we haven’t done that yet.

That sounds like an argument from incredulity.

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that?

No. Lack of evidence also PROVES nothing.