Well, what I want to know is what people think think will happen after they die. Do you believe heaven and hell, an endless limbo, reincarnation, etc.?
loco why are you so naive? you feed the WORMS first. then the plants. :P My skeleton will probably be prettier than all of yours. It...will.....SHINE! But yeah, you die. period. But the one I wouldn't want to be in would be limbo. That would suck.
I will fly through a very narrow and smelly corridor. At the end I will meet Gandalf the White and Yoda the Green Midget. There I will learn the ways of the force and I will be reborn on earth as a turtle.
Our consciousness and everything that makes us, us consists of the various function of our brain. We can even change the "us" by changing the brain. Sp if the brain stops functioning the "us" will no longer exist as what is generating the "us" is no longer generating it.
Like how you have a program on a harddrive. If we were to break that hardrive changing the part that makes up that program, that program will no longer exist.
I will fly through a very narrow and smelly corridor. At the end I will meet Gandalf the White and Yoda the Green Midget. There I will learn the ways of the force and I will be reborn on earth as a turtle.
That's very... creative. Anywho, I think that when you die, you die.
Our consciousness and everything that makes us, us consists of the various function of our brain. We can even change the "us" by changing the brain. Sp if the brain stops functioning the "us" will no longer exist as what is generating the "us" is no longer generating it.
Like how you have a program on a harddrive. If we were to break that hardrive changing the part that makes up that program, that program will no longer exist.
This of course is a mere theory that attempts to explain the link between human consciousness and its brain.
This of course is a mere theory that attempts to explain the link between human consciousness and its brain.
As pointed out in the video the arguments for dualism are practically in the same vein as the arguments for creationism. In fact look at your own sentence, How many times has the words "only a theory" been used as if it denounces evolution. Your doing the same thing here with the link between the brain and consciousness.
I think Mage wins the topic cause the theory is actually backed up by proof meanwhile the idea of an afterlife no back-up info their.
First of all I have yet to see proof that has been generally accepted by the community on this. If you have a link or anything that could clear this up then please don't hesitate to show me.
Secondly, I am by no means supporting the theory of an afterlife. I simply don't want to see this thread come to a dead after only looking at a fraction of the question itself.
I think one would be reincarnated, perhaps as an animal, perhaps not even on earth. Of course, man invented the idea of the afterlife or reincarnation because man didn't want to consider the alternative; NOTHING AT ALL Absolutely nothing, no awareness OF nothing. What could be worse?
This is perhaps the right answer. It is most definitely the answer that I personally believe in.
I just like to point out other theories that have been appointed by the community. "limbo, reincarnation ect.." I would gladly discuss these topics with anyone.
First of all I have yet to see proof that has been generally accepted by the community on this. If you have a link or anything that could clear this up then please don't hesitate to show me.
I'm sorry but I would rather not get into this question as evidence is very subjective.
After all its evidence, it acts as a mere phenomena that doesn't disprove the statement. For example, A person has sampled over 10 millions crows, noticing that they are all black he therefore makes a statement saying that all crows are black. This might still be wrong as the 10 million and ones crow he samples might be white. This also works vice versa. As a person might only see a single while swan and thus boldly concludes that all swans are white, whereas this might be true.
I'm sorry but I would rather not get into this question as evidence is very subjective.
So basically you would deny what ever I presented you? And no evidence is not oh so subjective. With your example while the conclusion that "all crows are black" could be wrong, (which science leaves room for that to happen) the evidence is still there that crows are black and that is not a subjective finding. If at some future point a further discovery is made of a non black crow we can then use that evidence and adjust our finding to say most or some crows are black instead. The evidence that crows are black is not subjective in this matter and has not gone away.
