Why we're immortal

[Sunflowers]

Gibberish. You believe what you want then.

Is that not everyone's position?

I believe in reality.

Is it not worse when believers believe in talking serpents and donkeys, and that a genocidal prick of a god can be a good god?

Regards
DL

No, some of us - me, for instance - use our reason and the reason of others to try and figure out what's what. Others - you - flatter yourselves that reason has no more authority over such matters than yourself and thus you get to decide what's true.

Now, stop being dishonest and stop listening to yourself and start listening to reason, goddammit.

Your reason tells you, if you will but consult it, that it makes no sense to attribute half a mind to someone, yes?

It tells me that, it told Descartes that, it tells virtually everyone that.

Another example of your reason confirming this. If you lend me 1000 dollars and I then have half my brain removed, I still owe you 1000 dollars, yes? I don't owe you half, yes? I can't say "look, my brain has been cut in half and one half has been chucked in the bin - that half, the half in the bin, is half me, and so it owes you $500, whereas this other half of me - the half in my head - owes you the other $500.

You wouldn't accept that for a moment, because what I've said is mad. Mad because minds can't be divided.

Anyway, as with Red and others too stupid or too arrogant (or both) to listen to reason, this is now just so much scribble to you, yes? You're too into yourself and your beliefs to bother listening to reason, so you're just going to live in a bonkers fantasy world of ignorance for all eternity.

[Greatest I am]

Others - you - flatter yourselves that reason has no more authority over such matters than yourself and thus you get to decide what's true.

I see that you have me so figured out, that I have no need to bother writing anything.

Carry on, while ignoring that I did not say anything of reason having no authority.

Let me know if I win the argument and learn nothing, or lose it and gain the reward of learning something new.

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

Others - you - flatter yourselves that reason has no more authority over such matters than yourself and thus you get to decide what's true.

I see that you have me so figured out, that I have no need to bother writing anything.

Carry on, while ignoring that I did not say anything of reason having no authority.

Let me know if I win the argument and learn nothing, or lose it and gain the reward of learning something new.

Regards
DL

No, you said that you do not accept any claim in the absence of evidence.

If reason represents something to be the case - and our reason does represent our minds to be indivisible - then that is evidence. What more can evidence ever amount to?

As I said, my reason - and yours too - represents our minds to be indivisible.

Again, have you ever attributed 'half' a mind to someone? Can you make sense of the idea?

No, and no - yes?

Your reason - your reason - represents minds to be indivisible.

So does mine.

So does virtually everyone's.

That's stunningly good evidence that our minds are indivisible.

Unless by 'evidence' you just mean 'something you agree with' - which you do, right? I mean, that's where your whole line of argument leads. Rather than noting that it makes no sense to attribute half a mind to someone, and no sense to think that I can reduce my debts by loping bits off myself, you're going to just insist that until I say something you - you - happen to agree with, I am not providing evidence in support of my claims. Yes?

If not, then engage with the argument and demonstrate me to be mistaken.

[Greatest I am]

Others - you - flatter yourselves that reason has no more authority over such matters than yourself and thus you get to decide what's true.

I see that you have me so figured out, that I have no need to bother writing anything.

Carry on, while ignoring that I did not say anything of reason having no authority.

Let me know if I win the argument and learn nothing, or lose it and gain the reward of learning something new.

Regards
DL

No, you said that you do not accept any claim in the absence of evidence.

If reason represents something to be the case - and our reason does represent our minds to be indivisible - then that is evidence. What more can evidence ever amount to?

As I said, my reason - and yours too - represents our minds to be indivisible.

Again, have you ever attributed 'half' a mind to someone? Can you make sense of the idea?

No, and no - yes?

Your reason - your reason - represents minds to be indivisible.

So does mine.

So does virtually everyone's.

That's stunningly good evidence that our minds are indivisible.

Unless by 'evidence' you just mean 'something you agree with' - which you do, right? I mean, that's where your whole line of argument leads. Rather than noting that it makes no sense to attribute half a mind to someone, and no sense to think that I can reduce my debts by loping bits off myself, you're going to just insist that until I say something you - you - happen to agree with, I am not providing evidence in support of my claims. Yes?

If not, then engage with the argument and demonstrate me to be mistaken.

Now you change the language because you goofed.

Apology accepted.

Let's see what the neuro scientists think of your undivided or separated brain.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchr ... in/up-next

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

Now you change the language because you goofed.

Apology accepted.

Let's see what the neuro scientists think of your undivided or separated brain.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchr ... in/up-next

Regards
DL

Er, no. You believe whatever you want to believe. Not everyone is like that. Some of us believe what our reason tells us regardless of whether it tells us what we want to hear.

You, however, just believe whatever the hell you want when it comes to anything metaphysical. And that makes you a giant fool and not worth debating with.

As for scientists - this is an issue in philosophy! Scientists are not investigating whether we have souls or what their nature is. Didn't you realize that?

Why not ask some bakers what they think about it.

You really are very, very, very, very, very, ignorant.

[Greatest I am]

Now you change the language because you goofed.

Apology accepted.

Let's see what the neuro scientists think of your undivided or separated brain.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchr ... in/up-next

Regards
DL

Er, no. You believe whatever you want to believe. Not everyone is like that. Some of us believe what our reason tells us regardless of whether it tells us what we want to hear.

You, however, just believe whatever the hell you want when it comes to anything metaphysical. And that makes you a giant fool and not worth debating with.

As for scientists - this is an issue in philosophy! Scientists are not investigating whether we have souls or what their nature is. Didn't you realize that?

Why not ask some bakers what they think about it.

You really are very, very, very, very, very, ignorant.

Philosophy and the metaphysical do not blend.

One is for the intelligent and the other and for dummies as it is all speculative nonsense that can never be shown to exist or be true.

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

You are right that we will not be able to debate this as I use logos while you use mythos.

Add that you just ignored an expert that refuted your basic theory IMO, so you have shown your inability to reason or even question opposition.

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

Philosophy and the metaphysical do not blend.

One is for the intelligent and the other and for dummies as it is all speculative nonsense that can never be shown to exist or be true.

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

You are right that we will not be able to debate this as I use logos while you use mythos.

Add that you just ignored an expert that refuted your basic theory IMO, so you have shown your inability to reason or even question opposition.

Regards
DL

What on earth are you on about? Stop pronouncing and try doing some actual thinking. Again: you're not a god. Get over yourself and start listening to reason.

And what 'expert' did I just ignore? You do know I'm an expert? Why would I, a philosopher, listen to what some scientist says about the mind? If they're talking about the mind (as opposed to the brain) they are talking outside their field of expertise. Again, I should no more listen to the scientist than my local baker on the matter.

[Greatest I am]

Philosophy and the metaphysical do not blend.

One is for the intelligent and the other and for dummies as it is all speculative nonsense that can never be shown to exist or be true.

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

You are right that we will not be able to debate this as I use logos while you use mythos.

Add that you just ignored an expert that refuted your basic theory IMO, so you have shown your inability to reason or even question opposition.

Regards
DL

What on earth are you on about? Stop pronouncing and try doing some actual thinking. Again: you're not a god. Get over yourself and start listening to reason.

And what 'expert' did I just ignore? You do know I'm an expert? Why would I, a philosopher, listen to what some scientist says about the mind? If they're talking about the mind (as opposed to the brain) they are talking outside their field of expertise. Again, I should no more listen to the scientist than my local baker on the matter.

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

[Sunflowers]

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

Again, gibberish. How does evidence that we are immortal have no basis in reality? You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[teo123]

indivisible objects must be simple objects and simple objects are indestructible.

Photons can't be divided, yet they appear and disappear (turn into something else) all the time. When a photon enters an atom, it can happen that it turns into the energy of an electron and an electron goes further away from the nucleus. Similarly, when an electron gets closer to the nucleus, it loses some energy, and that energy can, under some conditions, turn into a photon. Yet, there being "half a photon" would require quite a few things we think we know about physics to be false.