badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 @Antlerman I can't remember what book I was reading, but he was talking about snakes seeing heat and dolphins perceiving with sonar and went into the whole Kantian the thing perceived is not the thing itself. I found it really illuminating. Right, if I compare literalist Christians to "children", they're just not going to take it right, even though I don't believe it is infantile or wrong or shameful if that is honestly where you are in your development. And right: regarding partial truths (which is why I made my big long post in the ex-c spirituality forum about frustration and getting rid of it by trying to be more ecumenical and having less of a need to even privately think I'm "right"). If there ends up being some type of afterlife scenario, I imagine I'll find my current conceptualizations adorably naive because just looking at what Hubble has brought us... I know any conceptualization I could have of all THAT is going to be far smaller than reality. So I may as well stop pretending I've got it all figured out now and remember that whole "working framework" part of things. I like what you're saying about Truth itself being like Life itself and everything else reflections. It's back to the whole "the form is not the thing" thing. Honestly I think that kind of pluralistic compassion (because it seems to me to be an act of compassion to let each individual grow at their own rate in their own way) is what the world will require to be less screwed up. Much of the problems we have are due to coercion. Most of that coercion comes from "the best intentions" and a sort of self-righteousness we somehow think is pure. I've been guilty of it too, probably extremely recently. But I don't see it as a moral virtue and don't wish to feed the Gremlin after midnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If you're interfacing with "real reality" then what are dolphins interfacing with? They perceive with sonar, and as a result perceive an entirely different world from you and I? Which one of you is "right"? That's a wonderful analogy that makes the point quickly. I'm going to use that myself now. Ok, I'm going to take another quick stab at this because I'm still trying to put what you guys are saying into language I can understand. What does this tell us? We see within a certain spectrum of light, dolphins see with sonar, but Pi still equals 3.1415926 regardless of perception. If I'm being entirely honest, this stuff all sounds like something you can ponder over while smoking a doob and say "wow! or dude!" to, but it doesn't change what we still know about how to make money, how to build a tractor, how we evolved, what is likely to happen when our brain stops functioning, etc... It might make some people more happy, peaceful of fullfilled to ponder and experience things that I can't ponder or experience, but I'd counter with they don't experience what I experience when I drink vodka and eat salt fish while on a boat on Lake Baikal at the end of most people's worlds, live in, travel through and experience the far east, drink wine with Italians while singing folk songs, etc... IOW, I'm not attempting to downgrade anyone's thoughts or experiences here, just trying to understand if what you are talking about and understand if to you guys it's about thoughts and experiences. If so, then I wonder if it's just your approach to life as what I explained in the paragraph above is mine. And Deva, you can pipe in too as AM's responses as often as not just glaze my eyes over (sorry AM, no insult intended. You and I just have such completely different brains we speak entirely different languages). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If you're interfacing with "real reality" then what are dolphins interfacing with? They perceive with sonar, and as a result perceive an entirely different world from you and I? Which one of you is "right"? That's a wonderful analogy that makes the point quickly. I'm going to use that myself now. Ok, I'm going to take another quick stab at this because I'm still trying to put what you guys are saying into language I can understand. What does this tell us? We see within a certain spectrum of light, dolphins see with sonar, but Pi still equals 3.1415926 regardless of perception. If I'm being entirely honest, this stuff all sounds like something you can ponder over while smoking a doob and say "wow! or dude!" to, but it doesn't change what we still know about how to make money, how to build a tractor, how we evolved, what is likely to happen when our brain stops functioning, etc... It might make some people more happy, peaceful of fullfilled to ponder and experience things that I can't ponder or experience, but I'd counter with they don't experience what I experience when I drink vodka and eat salt fish while on a boat on Lake Baikal at the end of most people's worlds, live in, travel through and experience the far east, drink wine with Italians while singing folk songs, etc... IOW, I'm not attempting to downgrade anyone's thoughts or experiences here, just trying to understand if what you are talking about and understand if to you guys it's about thoughts and experiences. If so, then I wonder if it's just your approach to life as what I explained in the paragraph above is mine. And Deva, you can pipe in too as AM's responses as often as not just glaze my eyes over (sorry AM, no insult intended. You and I just have such completely different brains we speak entirely different languages). I'll simplify my view. I believe consciousness can't die. I don't believe the mind and the brain are the same thing. I do believe in an afterlife scenario. Whether i will experience myself as me, only upgraded, or me like now, or as everything or something else... I have no idea. But I don't expect "me-ness" to end with this life. My experiences and the experiences of others close to me lead me to believe that such an outcome is highly unlikely (a cessation of experiencing). I think experiencing is what consciousness does and everything here now evolved/came about/whatever you want to call it, in service of allowing Mind to experience itself. I realize that is vastly different from how you see the world and may be woo woo to you. I know that's not how you think it works and that it all sounds like a big acid trip or hippie love fest. And I am okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? I don't believe the mind and the brain are the same thing. Sure, I agree. But personally, I don't see how my own personal mind/ego can exist without my brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 All this talk about dolphins and snakes seeing the world differently, the this song comes up in Pandora: http://www.youtube.com/embed/9V_oJcBlI9E Edit: Embed fail. I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? I don't believe the mind and the brain are the same thing. Sure, I agree. But personally, I don't see how my own personal mind/ego can exist without my brain. Why do I have to explain it to you? No answer I could possibly give you would be anything you would agree with. It just feels like a pointless waste of energy to get into it. Besides, it's personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 @VF, nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why do I have to explain it to you? No answer I could possibly give you would be anything you would agree with. It just feels like a pointless waste of energy to get into it. Besides, it's personal. No one is making you. But what's the point of these gigantuous threads on the subject then if it can't be explained? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If you're interfacing with "real reality" then what are dolphins interfacing with? They perceive with sonar, and as a result perceive an entirely different world from you and I? Which one of you is "right"? That's a wonderful analogy that makes the point quickly. I'm going to use that myself now. Ok, I'm going to take another quick stab at this because I'm still trying to put what you guys are saying into language I can understand. Alrighty, I'll make a better effort as well.... What does this tell us? We see within a certain spectrum of light, dolphins see with sonar, but Pi still equals 3.1415926 regardless of perception. Actually not. Not in a dolphins world. Pi is a mental construct of humans. Mathmatics is a mental concept. There is no square root of a negative 1 in nature, for instance. That said, I think your point is that a rock is a rock no matter what anyone perceives of it. That is true. However do you believe you really understand a rock? If so, how? How are you understanding it? And that "how you understand it", is that an absolute understanding? Doesn't the Dolphin understand the rock much differently? Is it any less a rock to them, than it is to you, despite have vastly different meanings? What I hear is an anthrocentric bias towards what in fact reality "really is". The problem with this as well is that that rock understood through the eyes of humans is always changing. How the proto-human understood a rock, versus how early man did, versus how man in dawn of civilization, versus modern man, has never been one understanding, but many and varied. What this is getting at is the one point: The Myth of a Pregiven World. That myth in early modern science assumed that with enough use of proper tools we can understand what nature really, bypassing any coloration of human perception; that there is a raw reality out there that can be known by us. The reality is, our perception creates that reality of the rock to us. Outside our minds, it doesn't exist to us. And this isn't dope-smoking 'whoaaaa' stuff, it's actually a highly rational understanding. The observer always influences what is observed, to the point it cannot escape it. That is actually an understanding through science. If I'm being entirely honest, this stuff all sounds like something you can ponder over while smoking a doob and say "wow! or dude!" to, but it doesn't change what we still know about how to make money, how to build a tractor, how we evolved, what is likely to happen when our brain stops functioning, etc... That's an interesting analogy you bring up. The whole point of altered states of consciousness. Indeed. Yes, and no. The use of mind-altering drugs can help one to unfocus their current reality and allow a certain degree of insight into other modes of consciousness, particularly the use of hallucinogenic drugs. I'm referring not so much to recreational highs, but specifically to unfocus the illusion of reality we create for ourselves in our daily lives through all our conventions and symbols, with the goal of opening the mind to greater awareness. Frankly, this is what the practice of insight meditation does as well, except to a higher and clearer degree than the use of LSD. It breaks down these illusory constructs of reality that we assume are truth to allow insight into other modes of consicousness, opening the subconsious to the conscious, for instance. I'll call them higher modes of thought since they can recognize the illusory quality of our so-called "normal" modes of thought, whereas our "normal" modes of thought are oblivious, blinded to itself, working off the assumption it is "reality". It is not, actually. Not at all. The best term I have heard for this is “Consensus Consciousness.” “Reality” to our waking consciousness is this; an average-mode of thought. It is conventional thought, average modes of thinking about the world. And here is the key: that average-mode consciousness, that Consensus reality, changes! And to each stage of our development that average-mode consciousness is reality. Each stage views earlier stages as “out of touch with reality”, whereas that previous stage said the same of the stage before it. Each one claims to be in touch with reality. That, is the grand illusion. What altered states of consciousness offer is insights into reality that break down these conventions. Of course one can argue that someone can go sailing straight out of any grounding with reality, and this is true. But I’m not going to take the time to go into the modes and means of development into the realms of higher consciousness without losing oneself to madness in this post here. It might make some people more happy, peaceful of fulfilled to ponder and experience things that I can't ponder or experience, but I'd counter with they don't experience what I experience when I drink vodka and eat salt fish while on a boat on Lake Baikal at the end of most people's worlds, live in, travel through and experience the far east, drink wine with Italians while singing folk songs, etc... I appreciate your thoughts here, and though one can say it brings them happiness it really is more about an overall connection to the world being freed from illusions about it. Badpuppy says the world is a dream, and in a sense that’s metaphorically true. We do “wake up” from that unconscious slumber however, but it is a through a process of “unlearning”, really. That really is the key to this. It’s not leaning something new, but unlearing what we are trained to see as “truth”, or “reality”. When that happens, you are freed. It is about freedom. Then, though that freedom, every single experience of life is infused with that conscious awareness, the awakened mind. Reality IS, and all that is, is modes and expressions of that. All that is arises from That, and none of those things itself is that Reality. (I know that probably made you glaze over just now. ) Think of it terms of greater depth of understanding and experience of everything in life, though healing the mind of all its illusions. And Deva, you can pipe in too as AM's responses as often as not just glaze my eyes over (sorry AM, no insult intended. You and I just have such completely different brains we speak entirely different languages). No insult taken. I think you should drop a hit of acid. Then all will start coming into focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why do I have to explain it to you? No answer I could possibly give you would be anything you would agree with. It just feels like a pointless waste of energy to get into it. Besides, it's personal. No one is making you. But what's the point of these gigantuous threads on the subject then if it can't be explained? Saying where I'm at and what I think is different from sharing specifics of quite personal experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Actually not. Not in a dolphins world. Pi is a mental construct of humans. Ok, stop right there. Dolphins may not perceive it, but it's an objective reality. If engineers ignore this reality because they wish to look at the world from a different approach, it can have drastic consequences. That is true. However do you believe you really understand a rock? If so, how? How are you understanding it? And that "how you understand it", is that an absolute understanding?. I'll discuss this in language I'm most familiar with. In the stock market you can measure a stock's future probabilities in a myriad of different ways. Some ways are more accurate than others, but there are as many ways to do so as there are investors/traders. Nevertheless, the stock price is going to go where it's going to go, regardless of where I think it should go. I have to accept this objective reality or lose money. I see life like this too. We can view the world in many different ways from many different perspectives, but none of those change what is already set in motion and what is already objectively true whether it can be properly understood or not. For instance, the world rotates one time per day regardless of whether it is measured by commonly accepted measurement standards. The sun is still going to be at relatively the same position every day at a specific point in time even if that point in time is inconceivable by dolphins, even if our concept of time is just our concept or even if it is measured differently by aliens. I think you should drop a hit of acid. Believe me, I would if I could. I'm in the wrong circle of friends I guess and wouldn't have a clue where to get any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why do I have to explain it to you? No answer I could possibly give you would be anything you would agree with. It just feels like a pointless waste of energy to get into it. Besides, it's personal. No one is making you. But what's the point of these gigantuous threads on the subject then if it can't be explained? Saying where I'm at and what I think is different from sharing specifics of quite personal experiences. Well, I won't bug ya. But since this is a forum where we speak our minds, I'll just give you my own perspective and let it go. It sounds fishy to me when someone believes something and can't or won't back it up with a reason. I'm not saying that to be mean or even antagonistic. This is just how people like me (materialist ) perceive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why do I have to explain it to you? No answer I could possibly give you would be anything you would agree with. It just feels like a pointless waste of energy to get into it. Besides, it's personal. No one is making you. But what's the point of these gigantuous threads on the subject then if it can't be explained? Saying where I'm at and what I think is different from sharing specifics of quite personal experiences. Well, I won't bug ya. But since this is a forum where we speak our minds, I'll just give you my own perspective and let it go. It sounds fishy to me when someone believes something and can't or won't back it up with a reason. I'm not saying that to be mean or even antagonistic. This is just how people like me (materialist ) perceive it. Why should it sound fishy? Is every human being on the planet obligated to give you a dissertation on everything they think and feel and their exact reasons for it? I'm not seeking converts here. You speak as if people "owe you" an explanation for their worldviews, and they don't. Perhaps if they are trying to "convince you" to "join them" but I have made no such suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why should it sound fishy? Because real things can really be explained. Stephen Hawking would never tell you "it's personal" when asked what he thinks will happen when he dies. Like I said, you don't owe me anything, but we are on a public discussion board where we actually discuss things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? That's a "reductionist" thinking and can't be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why should it sound fishy? Because real things can really be explained. Stephen Hawking would never tell you "it's personal" when asked what he thinks will happen when he dies. Like I said, you don't owe me anything, but we are on a public discussion board where we actually discuss things. I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking's explanation wouldn't be something he considered personal and private. I don't post videos every time I have sex either, but it doesn't make it not real. Obviously you are not expected to accept ANYTHING as real that you don't think is real. That's just fine. Yet to pretend anything someone won't personally post on a public forum for you isn't real, because they won't post it... meh. I don't know what to tell you. You're free to think that. I'm happy to share a lot of my views and philosophy and engage in discussion with people, but when we get down to "why", well, for me that's personal. I understand your perspective, and that's fine. Not trying to convert you. The way I see it... if you want to truly understand it, you won't ask someone to explain it to you in a point by point debate, you will go out and seek the experience yourself. And if you don't want to do that, that's fine, too. Not everybody seeks the same things in life, and that's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Actually not. Not in a dolphins world. Pi is a mental construct of humans. Ok, stop right there. Dolphins may not perceive it, but it's an objective reality. No it's not. A perfect circle does not exist in nature. Mathmatics is a subjective, symbolic language used to create models of objective reality. Any model itself is not reality, and is not an absolute, regardless of how immutible it may bear out to be. If engineers ignore this reality because they wish to look at the world from a different approach, it can have drastic consequences. I agree we need to operate within the frameworks of established models, especially since they are proven stable. But stability does not equal an absolute. You're correct, mathmatical models are shown to work, and an engineer should follow them. But.... here's comes the big butt! Again, back to the mental-phenomenal world. Mind to matter understanding through models of the objetive world is realitively simple by comparison to looking at the subjective realities of human experience and knowing. This is an hermenutic affair, nothing that the tools of math would apply to. There, in that domain of reality you have to have other models of reality to to lead to some undestanding. They are going to be far less precise than math, because the physical world follows pretty set patterns and rules. NOT SO, with the mental world! The trap in our Western science-infatuated mindset it to imagine the sucesses of science in the natural world will also answer truth in all these other human domains! This is what I mean by reductionsism. It tries to reduce understanding reality to a monological gaze of everything as some object in nature, like looking at a rock. The mental domain is incredibly more freed to evolve and change than the physical domains. Yes, there are predictable patterns that can emerge, but those can quickly be broken and defy any sort of "laws" like you may see in the material world. You create models, which you yourself use in the stock market, but they are far less stable that say math is in calculating a tragetory through space given realitively stable gravitational forces. That is true. However do you believe you really understand a rock? If so, how? How are you understanding it? And that "how you understand it", is that an absolute understanding?. We can view the world in many different ways from many different perspectives, but none of those change what is already set in motion and what is already objectively true whether it can be properly understood or not. I think the key difference is that I don't view the mental domains as following "fixed rules" like the physical domains. I do not equate the two as the same thing. The perception changing isn't on the level of say the law of gravity, but at a much, much higher reality. The law of gravity is a physical reality, and our physical bodies will respond to it physcially. If our mental models of reality don't match that within some mode of stablility, we are going to die. That is functioning on a basic stimulous response level. Here's the key. Higher mental models are free from a deterministic reality, that every thought we have is programmed to occur from lower levels, but they are not free to violate physical laws (except of course through the use of tools created though fictions our minds create, such as airplanes, through we we are now able to make our bodies fly). Our minds are free, but they are not free from physical laws. We are in the body, so to speak. But again, equating that with "truth" on a mind level is a category error. I'll say that again, to equate evaluating and determining truth on a mental level with truth on a physical level is a category error of an emperical-analytic set of tools. I think you should drop a hit of acid. Believe me, I would if I could. I'm in the wrong circle of friends I guess and wouldn't have a clue where to get any. I think you may need to after this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? That's a "reductionist" thinking and can't be answered. More like it's personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 @Vigile... also... My personal experience means NOTHING to you. It's third-party anecdote. Experience only means something to the experiencer. Me trying to explain my world to you is like trying to explain red to a blind person. This isn't to say I think you are in any way "blind", merely that you, for whatever reason, choose not to engage with a certain type of experience. Without that experience there is no language to make the pieces fit. So why would I spill out my soul and share deeply personal experiences with you that you would dismiss as anecdote? I wouldn't. And asking me to is silly because you know you wouldn't accept it anyway because it's not YOUR experience and it's not something that can be measured in a test tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why should it sound fishy? Isn't that his prerogative just as much as it is yours to think there is an afterlife without having an explanation? I'm not sure why he needs to explain his suspicion of it being fishy. He shouldn't have to. It does sound "fishy" to people like Vigile and me. Our brains are wired differently. Our minds perceive and process the world in a different way. Shouldn't our views also be tolerated? This is how we are, we challenge things constantly, question them, test them, analyze them, and break them down. We are by nature born to reduce things. I remember when I grew up. I took machines apart. My dad had a tape recorder that I totally destroyed because I took it apart completely and couldn't put it together again. I did this with many other things as will, but managed to put them together. I built things, models, lego, machines, etc. My dad was an engineer with a degree in chemistry as well, and I went into computer software. I build my own computer servers. I wrote software, websites, databases, etc. That's who I am. And I'm certain Vigile have a similar story to tell. So here we are. Vigile and I like to break things down to see how they work. You don't want that. I respect that, and that's why I'm avoiding asking you questions. But just remember this, don't ask questions yourself unless you want these two "reductionists" start disassemble and analyze the things you're saying. Asking us a question is taking up the banner for "I want to discuss." Is every human being on the planet obligated to give you a dissertation on everything they think and feel and their exact reasons for it? No they're not. Totally agree. Just remember it's a two-way street. Don't ask for a dissertation unless you are ready to give one yourself. I'm not seeking converts here. You speak as if people "owe you" an explanation for their worldviews, and they don't. Perhaps if they are trying to "convince you" to "join them" but I have made no such suggestion. I've learned over the years that this is a danger we always face during discussions. Where's the line between just sharing and trying to convince? Sometimes you can't tell the difference with people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? That's a "reductionist" thinking and can't be answered. More like it's personal. Sorry, you misunderstood. "Why" is a question that a reductionist would ask. I was poking Vigile for asking "why", not that you are a reductionist for what you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Yet to pretend anything someone won't personally post on a public forum for you isn't real, I don't pretend anything. I'm just bluntly telling you what I and others think of the cop out you offered. Your analogy with sex is what is called equivocating, btw. You are free to think what you want, but don't get offended if you hint that you think something and then play coy when asked why you do on a public forum. That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? That's a "reductionist" thinking and can't be answered. More like it's personal. I'll state my thoughts to this. Self-aware consciousness arose within the Universe in our species. Consciousness is seen in other species, with or without a brain, I'll add. Consciousness is experience in lower and higher levels of awareness. It is a constant that arises out of the 'fabric' of the Cosmos. It is immaterial in its nature, despite its apparent "fusion" with the material. It continues to be opened into despite the death of the body, from age to age, depth to depth. It is part of this universe and will continue to be so after we die in our bodies. It is in you, it is in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Why should it sound fishy? Isn't that his prerogative just as much as it is yours to think there is an afterlife without having an explanation? I'm not sure why he needs to explain his suspicion of it being fishy. He shouldn't have to. It does sound "fishy" to people like Vigile and me. Our brains are wired differently. Our minds perceive and process the world in a different way. Shouldn't our views also be tolerated? This is how we are, we challenge things constantly, question them, test them, analyze them, and break them down. We are by nature born to reduce things. I remember when I grew up. I took machines apart. My dad had a tape recorder that I totally destroyed because I took it apart completely and couldn't put it together again. I did this with many other things as will, but managed to put them together. I built things, models, lego, machines, etc. My dad was an engineer with a degree in chemistry as well, and I went into computer software. I build my own computer servers. I wrote software, websites, databases, etc. That's who I am. And I'm certain Vigile have a similar story to tell. So here we are. Vigile and I like to break things down to see how they work. You don't want that. I respect that, and that's why I'm avoiding asking you questions. But just remember this, don't ask questions yourself unless you want these two "reductionists" start disassemble and analyze the things you're saying. Asking us a question is taking up the banner for "I want to discuss." Is every human being on the planet obligated to give you a dissertation on everything they think and feel and their exact reasons for it? No they're not. Totally agree. Just remember it's a two-way street. Don't ask for a dissertation unless you are ready to give one yourself. I'm not seeking converts here. You speak as if people "owe you" an explanation for their worldviews, and they don't. Perhaps if they are trying to "convince you" to "join them" but I have made no such suggestion. I've learned over the years that this is a danger we always face during discussions. Where's the line between just sharing and trying to convince? Sometimes you can't tell the difference with people. Fair enough on all points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I believe consciousness can't die. Why? That's a "reductionist" thinking and can't be answered. More like it's personal. Sorry, you misunderstood. "Why" is a question that a reductionist would ask. I was poking Vigile for asking "why", not that you are a reductionist for what you believe. Gotcha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts