hello where is the general chat

<#618965202402017318>

@yume

Wtf is void even

Nothing

Then what's the fuss over nothing

Words of wisdom from the man that took humanity to the stars

I find this to be a faulty argument

The brain which is the source of our consciousness is a biological machine like any organ

It doesn't dissapear it decays into nutrients like most other organic things

Consciousness is not a biological machine, that hypothesis is not supported

I'm assuming he's talking about the idea of consciousness not just dissapearing because energy can't be created or destroyed

The brain is

And the brain is the source of consciousness

The brain isnt consciousness

A brain alone isnt conscious

No it does other things as well

But consciousness exists in the brain alone

Youre missing a whole aspect of essence that has been debated for centuries

Which is?

Not really actually, it exists in the perceptions of individual cells too

Not in the nucleus, but in the membrane

Essence is the topic thats debated on, whether it be in platos conception or sartes

Regardless the idea that consciousness only exists in the brain is not supported

I should say, I'm saying that I don't think his argument is valid because what I'm saying is just as possibly true

In regards to what I think the fact of the matter is I have no idea is my honest answer

The idea that consciousness dissolves into more fundamental particles like a brain dissolves into nutrients is a basic ommition of the fact that the brain doesnt just magically dissolve

The brain would only decay because of other life forms feeding on it

What life form feeds on conciousness?

Unless it is a permanent aspect of existence

<:smugpepe:619749634402942998>

You're assuming consciousness can't be a natural function of the brain

And has to be supernatural in some way

No, thats what YOURE assuming

You are assuming that it IS

Im saying its inconclusive

I think it's inconclusive as well, I think what your saying is valid but I also think my point is equally valid, which is why you can't say "my study of science proves to me life after death" because no one understands consciousness, really

Well, you said his argument is faulty while also identifying no fault

The dudes a nazi, first nasa director

But he had a grip on this one aspect

I said his argument is faulty by pointing out an obvious counterpoint