I am not sure what you mean. We do not see consciousness in a brain yet we know we are conscious. — Andrew4Handel

That certainly has nothing to do with what you just quoted from me above it, does it? Was I even specifically talking about consciousness there? You brought up a broader idea. I was commenting on that. Follow the conversation if you're going to participate in it.

What about clinically dead patients who have full knowledge of what transpired during their intermission? — Shamshir

You think I'm going to just take your word for that?

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa

Of course there is such a thing, and establishment is irrelevant except in relation to a demonstration. That doesn't determine whether or not something is impossible, it only shows it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why my word? There's enough testimonies and research on the matter, that you could find, if only you looked.

What do you consider credible evidence? It seems you are making a value judgement by using the word credible. — Andrew4Handel

No, it's a judgement, but values have nothing to do with it. An example of credible evidence would be the science supporting the claim that Earth isn't flat. An example of incredible evidence would be some chump just pointing out that some people say some stuff about supposed extraordinary events which could easily be made up, and there being no way of knowing the claim to be true.

If people can't get to grips with a basic epistemological standard, then they're simply no good at philosophy and should find another hobby.

The OP is an attempt to give a shred of credibility in its favour. — Inyenzi

Well it fails. It might convince a few idiots, but I'm certainly not one of them.

Have a nice day.

I find it quite easy to imagine consciousness to be separate from the body based on preexistent phenomena.

For example it could be like CD which you can slot into different computers. Your mind could inhabit different bodies.

It could be like a radio receiving a signal.

It could be like the telephone or internet where you can communicate with someone but they are not actually in the device.

I think the link between mind and body does not entail complete dependence. — Andrew4Handel

I find this interesting. Obviously the bacteria and the finger nails and the electrons in my body are not what makes me conscious but are similar to the internet i use on a daily basis in that they have continual contact with my body. Other than my central nervous system, what is it that makes me or you conscious beings. If i wasn't a christian i would probably believe each person was a subset of a giant universe wide conscious and each person makes decisions based on the subset that they are given.

S
10k



Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa


Of course there is such a thing, and establishment is irrelevant except in relation to a demonstration. — S

Unless one establishes that "X" is impossible...by definition it is possible.

If you cannot see that...that is your problem...and the problem with your argument.

That doesn't determine whether or not something is impossible, it only shows it. — S

That sounds like something written by a not especially bright 5 year old.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have been taking action against them long ago. — S

All Frank Apisa said was that there are basically mathematical principles that no one can argue with.

If i say truth is not equal to A (hypothetical situation) then it would follow from the information given that any other variable other than A is a possibility.

"if something is not impossible then there is a chance it can happen even if it is unlikely.

This is basic math.

I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have been taking action against them long ago.
— S

All Frank Apisa said was that there are basically mathematical principles that no one can argue with.

If i say truth is not equal to A (hypothetical situation) then it would follow from the information given that any other variable other than A is a possibility.

"if something is not impossible then there is a chance it can happen even if it is unlikely.

This is basic math. — christian2017

There are several obvious things wrong with what you just said.

1. It made no mention of what I was objecting to in the quote, perhaps because you were oblivious to what I was objecting to, even though I spelled it out.

2. It doesn't address the problematic wording I was taking issue with.

3. You confuse mathematics and logic.

4. You miss the point.

5. You preach to the choir.

Next time think more critically instead of rashly jumping to someone's defence.

"3. You confuse mathematics and logic. "

There is a close link between logic and discrete mathematics and boolean algebra.

As for the rest i guess i need to go back through and see what was said.

I see what your saying about presumed possibility. If i point my finger at myself then i would be a fool to say i'm not pointing my finger at myself. I'm sorry about that.

As for the rest I guess I need to go back through and see what was said. — christian2017

You should have done that to begin with. I don't know why people bother to quote other people if they don't address anything in the quote. It was crystal clear that I was objecting to his mindless and unhelpful repetition: a problem that he is known for, and for which he is perhaps the worst offender. The first thing he said in reply to me was literally a copy and paste of what he said previously.

i agree i should have read it to begin with.

S
10k
↪Frank Apisa
I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have begun to take action against them long ago. You sound like someone who has brain damage. — S

What you really do not like, S...is being shown how wrong-headed so many of your comments are.

Tough.

I see what your saying about presumed possibility. — christian2017

It was a point based on a distinction which, if he was more consistent and cared to apply critical thinking skills, he would agree with, but he cares more about repeating himself like someone with brain damage.

It's possible that something is impossible without being known to be so. It's possible that something has been demonstrated or established to be impossible without being known to be so. I was just making that clear with my more careful wording. We presume that something is possible unless shown otherwise. As someone who goes around ranting about agnosticism and what we do not know, you'd think he might be sympathetic to that, but as usual his giant ego prevents him from making any concession here. As usual, his line of attack is one of the weakest possible lines of attack, which is to just repeat himself and to name call.

christian2017
188

I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have been taking action against them long ago. — S


All Frank Apisa said was that there are basically mathematical principles that no one can argue with.

If i say truth is not equal to A (hypothetical situation) then it would follow from the information given that any other variable other than A is a possibility.

"if something is not impossible then there is a chance it can happen even if it is unlikely.

This is basic math. — christian2017

Thank you, C.

As you noted, the only point I was making was that unless one can establish something as possible...it is, at a minimum, POSSIBLE.

It does not mean it is likely. It is possible.

In any case, the likelihood of most of the things being discussed here cannot be determined.

S has trouble getting that.

S
10k

As for the rest I guess I need to go back through and see what was said. — christian2017


You should have done that to begin with. I don't know why people bother to quote other people if they don't address anything in the quote. It was crystal clear that I was objecting to his mindless and unhelpful repetition, a problem that he is known for, and for which he is perhaps the worst offender. The first thing he said in reply to me was literally a copy and paste of what he said previously. — S

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it.

I noted that there is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible.

I am correct in that.

You want to assert one of your pieces of nonsense...mostly because you want to call other people "fools."

You seem to be the fool.

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it. — Frank Apisa

I will just continue to disregard what you mindlessly repeat, occasionally calling you out for it.

S
10k

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it. — Frank Apisa


I will just continue to disregard what you mindlessly repeat, occasionally calling you out for it. — S

If only!

But you are not disregarding it at all.

You are regarding it quite seriously.

Okay...so we keep discussing it whenever you make one of your unsustainable assertions.

There is evidence of children recalling previous lives. See this article.

No, it's a judgement, but values have nothing to do with it. An example of credible evidence would be the science supporting the claim that Earth isn't flat. An example of incredible evidence would be some chump just pointing out that some people say some stuff about supposed extraordinary events which could easily be made up, and there being no way of knowing the claim to be true. — S

Values have everything to do with it. The idea your beliefs have nothing to do with your values is simply derisible.

Science does not prove the earth is not flat, evidence does. You do not need science to validate claims. How often in a conversation do you demand people validate a claim with science. Never?

People cannot prove the claims they make about the contents of their experience nor can science.

You have made such a simplistic and facile notion of evidence that only trivial claims could past muster.

It is clear that your notion of evidence is maximally bias and prejudice.

I find it completely fascistic when people refuse to except certain evidence based on what is essentially ad hominem about personal testimony and accusations of delusion and lying.

People tend to ask for evidence based on prejudice.

certain evidence based on what is essentially ad hominem about personal testimony — Andrew4Handel

Personal testimony is NOT certain evidence. That's why there's currently a lot of debate about how much eye witness testimony should count in courts.

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa

If something is not established as impossible (an establishment which would seem to itself be impossible except in the case of logical contradictions) it is, by definition, not possible, but possible merely logically and as far as we know. For something to be considered to be possible (on the basis that it is possible as far as we know) just is to presume that it is possible.

None of this means that we have any reason to be of the opinion that it really is possible, much less actual.

As far as evidence is concerned - evidence concerning 'rebirth' or 'previous lives' is about the only kind of post-death evidence that is possible to obtain, because evidence of other realms of existence, even if they're real, is obviously not obtainable, save for that presented by first-person accounts of NDE's.

But in the case of rebirth, there is a source of evidence, namely, children who claim to remember their previous lives. This has been researched by interviews and cross-checking of such claims, which has produced fairly consistent body of data.

Typically these cases comprise apparent recollections by children who, soon after they learn to speak, begin to talk of their past-life identities and experiences. Often they manifest as the child rejecting the family they've been born into, i.e. 'you're not my family, my family name is [x] and I live in [y]' and so forth. These apparent memories gradually fade and are usually lost altogether by the age of 8. They are also much more likely (but not exclusively) to be found in cultural traditions that are accepting of previous lives (such as Indian and Chinese cultures).

The reason this presents the opportunity for empirical analysis is that such purported previous life memories can then be validated against documentary and other records, which is what the researchers of this field of study have done. The general kinds of trends are as follows:

* talk about alleged past-life memories begins at the age of 2-5 and ceases at the age of 5-8;
* alleged memories are narrated repeatedly and with strong emphasis;
* social roles and professional occupations of the alleged previous personality are acted out in play;
* mention of the cause of (often violent) death in previous life;
* exhibition of emotional conflict due to ambiguity of family or gender;
* display of unlearned skills (including foreign language skills) as well as propositional knowledge (of names, places, persons, etc.) not plausibly acquired in the present life;
* unusual behaviour and idiosyncratic traits corresponding to the previous personality such as phobias, aversions, obsessions, and penchants;
* birthmarks, differing in etiological features such as size, shape and colour from conventional birthmarks and other relevant birth anomalies, sometimes significantly corresponding to wounds involved in the death of the previous personality.

Caveat: the matter is subject to strong cultural taboos in Western society, for obvious reasons - such beliefs having been declared anathema in the early Christian church and also challenging current scientific understanding of the nature of mind.

As one of the best-known researchers in the field noted 'in the West, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they must be made up." In the East, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they happen all the time".

Janus
7.1k

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa


If something is not established as impossible (an establishment which would seem to itself be impossible except in the case of logical contradictions) it is, by definition, not possible, but possible merely logically and as far as we know. For something to be considered to be possible (on the basis that it is possible as far as we know) just is to presume that it is possible.

None of this means that we have any reason to be of the opinion that it really is possible, much less actual. — Janus

Some things we can establish as impossible.

We can establish that a triangle cannot have 5 angles. The moment a figure has more than (or less than) three angles...it no longer is a triangle.

We can establish that a sphere cannot have any angles. The moment is has any angles it no longer is a sphere.

But whatever is not established as impossible is, by definition...POSSIBLE.

There is no need of it being presumed...because unless it has been established as impossible...it simply IS possible.

It is a trivial thing...almost a tautology.

I do not understand the arguments against it.

Wayfarer
7.2k
As far as evidence is concerned - evidence concerning 'rebirth' or 'previous lives' is about the only kind of post-death evidence that is possible to obtain, because evidence of other realms of existence, even if they're real, is obviously not obtainable, save for that presented by first-person accounts of NDE's.

But in the case of rebirth, there is a source of evidence, namely, children who claim to remember their previous lives. This has been researched by interviews and cross-checking of such claims, which has produced fairly consistent body of data.

Typically these cases comprise apparent recollections by children who, soon after they learn to speak, begin to talk of their past-life identities and experiences. Often they manifest as the child rejecting the family they've been born into, i.e. 'you're not my family, my family name is [x] and I live in [y]' and so forth. These apparent memories gradually fade and are usually lost altogether by the age of 8. They are also much more likely (but not exclusively) to be found in cultural traditions that are accepting of previous lives (such as Indian and Chinese cultures).

The reason this presents the opportunity for empirical analysis is that such purported previous life memories can then be validated against documentary and other records, which is what the researchers of this field of study have done. The general kinds of trends are as follows:

* talk about alleged past-life memories begins at the age of 2-5 and ceases at the age of 5-8;
* alleged memories are narrated repeatedly and with strong emphasis;
* social roles and professional occupations of the alleged previous personality are acted out in play;
* mention of the cause of (often violent) death in previous life;
* exhibition of emotional conflict due to ambiguity of family or gender;
* display of unlearned skills (including foreign language skills) as well as propositional knowledge (of names, places, persons, etc.) not plausibly acquired in the present life;
* unusual behaviour and idiosyncratic traits corresponding to the previous personality such as phobias, aversions, obsessions, and penchants;
* birthmarks, differing in etiological features such as size, shape and colour from conventional birthmarks and other relevant birth anomalies, sometimes significantly corresponding to wounds involved in the death of the previous personality.

Caveat: the matter is subject to strong cultural taboos in Western society, for obvious reasons - such beliefs having been declared anathema in the early Christian church and also challenging current scientific understanding of the nature of mind.

As one of the best-known researchers in the field noted 'in the West, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they must be made up." In the East, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they happen all the time". — Wayfarer

How many of those supposed "studies" have been done...and by how many researchers?

I find it unusual in the example link...that the kids remembered previous lives right there in their neighborhoods...where their supposed remembrances were able to be "checked and verified."

How many of those supposed "studies" have been done...and by how many researchers? — Frank Apisa

The main researcher was a Professor Ian Stevenson, who held a privately-endowed chair at the University of Virginia (died 2007). He described more than 2500 cases over thirty odd years. There have been some other researchers but overall it’s, shall we say, not regarded as a ‘proper’ research topic.

Thanks.

The point simply is, a lot of people will say ‘well what possible evidence could there be....’ when, thanks to Stevenson - generally ignored or maligned by the establishment - there’s actually quite a bit.