| NJ5 said: could you care to explain my bad reasoning? I can point at a few quotes: through science, which is puerly observation, its fair to say that the concious mind is either active with in the body, or the body is dead. The concios mind does not exist in some sort of physical form and there for cant be transfered. (This one does not follow... a mind is interdependent with a body, therefore the mind is not physical??) I dont see a problem??? if you read the whole paragraph it makes sence, when you take it out of context like that of course it sounds weird. How can I possibly claim that conciousnes is not contained within the physical? Because as we know anything that is mechanic must follow its proticol. (Again, does not follow. You are saying that something physical has a protocol, therefore consciousness is not physical. Apparently you assume consciousness does not have a protocol, yet you give no reasons for that assumption. Our belief that we have freedom of choice does not automatically imply we don't follow a protocol)Actually I used the idea of "freedom of choice" to put foward my idea that the freedom to choose is not a part of following a protocol, and that freedom comes from something that is not physical that makes up every human being. And doesnt any theory base itself on asumptions?
Yes, but the assumptions are supposed to be stated explicitly, and they are not supposed to be the conclusions of the theory. In your post you state repeatedly that "there is more to life than the physical", yet there's no clear support of that from any assumptions you state. lol.... to show you your error i would have to type everything I've said in here again, there is no problem here. bacteria work much like trees. which i explained are puerly biomechanical, and have no concious mind. But where have you proven that a conscious mind isn't purely biomechanical / bioelectrical / biochemical or similar?lol read above And you obviousily have no idea what an analogue computer is, because its still mechanical, and runs off measurements, it may not be binary but it is still mechanical What definition of mechanical are you using here? An analog computer can just as well be based on chemistry or electricity as mechanics, it encompasses a lot of different things actually. There are even DNA-based computers. I mentioned analog computers to disprove your statement that "a computer only uses 0s and 1s". You attempted to diminish the notion of a computer by saying it can only use 0s and 1s, which is only true for a subset of all computers. yes that is true that a few use 1's and 0's, I used that refrence to in game AI on computer that actually do use 1's and 0's. To clarify what I am talking about when I say mechanical you need to research the definitions of how that word is used becuase I dont have time to sit here and explain word meanings. when you mention DNA computers, no idea what they are, but the fact that DNA is just a code continues to prove what im saying about the mechanical nature of the physical lol
|
From what I've seen from the things your saying you have a very closed mind to the spiritual, yet I keep showing you how everything in the physical follows a protocol. I'm saying the active freedom to choose does not come from protocol and there for can not come from the physical. when was the last time you saw something do something that it wasnt programed to do? And dont tell me computers that learn... they are programed to learn similar to the learning functions of the brain. thus making them as mechanical as the brain and there is no arguement there.
I recomend you spend as much time as me researching and thinking about these things, then come back in a few years and present your theory, not just trying to disprove my theory.
If at first you don't succeed, you fail
