Message from @Wickland2
Discord ID: 641779506553815040
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
Your counterpoint is just as invalid
Also, science isnt built to understand mystical experiences or consciousness
Science wants to know WHY something works, mysticism wants to know HOW
They diverged from each other following the development of the scientific method