>>9763
"Existence is eternal [...]
[...] consciousness is the only thing you can be certain will exist forever [...]"

Congratulations, you just made a circular argument.

It is unimaginable to a consciousness that it can disappear from existence because that's what a consciousness does, it imagines. Imagination is the creation of simulated existence - human imagination is physically captured in neurons/brain cells as arrangements of electricity. Without this facility for imagination, an entity cannot perform the most basic function of consciousness - to place itself in these simulated realities (i.e. the term "consciousness" 99% of the time means "self-consciousness", not the psychological impediment, but the term literally - "aware of oneself")

However unless consciousness is defined as all matter/energy then there is certainly things outside of that consciousness physically. If a given entity A within a physical universe has a consciousness, other entities within that universe can alter that entity, possibly to the point where the physical facilities needed for consciousness cannot function.

Sorry bro, you can die. But you can commit your imagination to external form using writing and such. That will probably outlive you. Not so bad.

File 136306415892.jpg - (49.52KB , 500x375 , combo breaker.jpg )

I am afraid there is a log error here
1.we can only be sure of our own existance
2.we cannot acknowledged our own non-existance
but then you make the assertion
3.existance is eternal
you suport this with the permenancy of energy/matter, but there is a difference between one, minus one and zero.
you then make conciousness a "thing", logicaly as it it made up somehow of the particles of the mind

look to put it in laymans terms your last point that conciousness is the only eternal substance is inherantly flawed by your previous asertion that matter is permenant, and even if you suport this with the belief that matter may not exist independantly of perception if the form of the mind changed (like death duh)it could not perciev itself and so slip into the void

File 136228956991.jpg - (131.79KB , 501x387 , obamaspliff.jpg )

>>9386

Life has no meaning, no purpose. It is a state of existence within our perceivable conscious reality. It is a state of being which arises from the culminated efforts of a long series of chemical mechanisms. We are quite simply animals with specialized organs/appendages and more advanced brains. Existence-wise we have no more purpose than a bacterial cell, other than to fulfill survival. However meaning can be assigned or imposed by an individual or a society. This is where the higher functioning brain literally collaborates with itself and the body/nervous system to form the Self, the consciousness, the Narrator, if you will.
Existence to humans means the defining, preservation, and acting of our personal identity, we realize our thoughts into actions which can alter reality to suit our selves and/or others. Ergo, any and every action or inaction chosen or taken in freewill resonates in us and others, and defines us to ourselves as well as to others. We are social creatures, who all require validation of reality and identity, and how else than from another of our kind?

As animals/humans we have this ability:
Accomplish, Grow, Experience - AGE

>>9386
Should such things be embraced? When aware of the inherent meaninglessness of it all why gratify ourselves? In fact the self ans freewill are the biggest delusions of them all.

>>9386
>Let's Get down to it, what is the actual meaning of life?
>meaning of life
>life
To live. Survival. All life follows the rule of pursuing this goal. It is the 'reason' for the evolutionary process that has shaped all life. The confusion human people experience about this is because of their inability to understand the entirety of the process/system. The purpose of all life is to sustain LIFE. A simple single-celled organism does this by sustaining itself; it is alive, it is a subset of life, it is sustaining life. More complex and the goal/behavior may change, to reproduction, to social interaction. But it's all still about staying alive; if not for the individual organism then for its species, or for its pack, tribe, society. You can think of the emergence of sexual/social life forms, and ever on up, as simply a repetition of the first emergence, but at a higher order; the goal is the same.
No matter how it may appear (as with humanity and its devastation of the earth), no life-form is ever acting against this interest. It may be acting against the interest of biodiversity, but biodiversity itself must be remembered as also only a means to the larger end of preserving LIFE. And the evolutionary process is certainly not one of balance! It is entirely natural, and serving of the greater goal, that different kinds of life-forms will appear and disappear.
There is not really any end state. There are just continual re-emergences at higher levels. And so far these re-emergences have always suited the larger goal. For example, the coming transition to 'artificial'/'machine' life; a debate about "What is life?" might be worthy, but not likely. It will be life. And it will be life on a previously unimaginable scale, and spread throughout the cosmos rather than limited to one planet (where it is subject to nova or whatever other life-ending apocalypse). It will serve the greater goal.

People are something else altogether. We are also life, and so when we choose to preserve personhood over any other form, we are still serving the greater goal. But, we are also unlike any other form of life. Not 'that has existed on earth', any other form of life period. It's not clear that we will always serve the great goal (as in the hypothetical eschatology of collective mass suicide due to boredom/completeness, in some unimaginably distant era where we are the only remaining form of life, period)... does that make us 'not alive'? That'd be a whole different discussion, I think.

Nope. Large groups of people will always be ruled far easier by rhetoric, emotion, and fear, than logic and truth.

>>9818
Now because people are stupid and dont know any better.

the science of the 'soul' is called psychology. we just call the 'soul' a 'psyche', now.

Well, OP, I'll tell you the biggest problem with that quote. They misattributed it to a GOD, who did not say it, when it should actually be attributed to Jeremiah who was not a god, and who did, or presumably something to that effect, before it was rewritten more times and for more purposes than anyone can fully count until it may or may not bear any resemblance to its original intent, by a quite likely mentally unstable person suffering from paranoid delusions and violent hallucinations.

Jeremiah was a bullfrog. I don't regard superstitious and quite frankly, ill-mannered, violent, psychotic bullfrogs from the Bronze Age to be very compelling, philosophically.

If anything exists, it will have an effect on the universe by its mere existence, yes. Therefore, unless God is somehow exterior to the universe, He would have an effect on it.

There is no problem with this argument itself, it's just that it is using "God" as a red-herring. You could replace "God" with any number of nouns, both proper and common — even "a rock" — and nothing about the validity of the argument would change.

A physical reality imposes or can impose changes upon your senses or another physical reality with some level of persistence - i.e. a book. A virtual reality is something "encoded" in a particular arrangement of physical realities - i.e. the people, places, things, and events described by the text in that book. Both realities are "objective" and therefore your argument that God must be a physical being does not follow from God needing to have a state of objective reality.

>>9704
implying importance

We are more than that, OP.

Also bones and cartilage.

You know the human mind is more complex than a galaxy and our consciousness is knowing our existence but we are still primitive still moving in science so wait another thousand years then ask that question.

Their is telling the truth and discovering the truth so their is truth, as far as right and wrong goes its positive and negative both attract the same but not each other.

>>9041
of course there is a perception of right and wrong. this whole question is very oddly worded

Facts > Truth

>>8546
>mathematics
>empirical
perhaps you misunderstand empiricism? one of its greatest flaws other than infinite confirmation is the necessary assumption that the senses are true and trusted, always.

What's not physical is irrelevant.

If an immaterial entity is suddenly in front of my car, I won't fucking run into it.

If it was a person or a deer on the other hand, I'd stomp the shit out of those breaks.

Stupid people is what makes the world go around, it's like a survival mechanism.

When I hear about people with nde I wonder if they are media whores and take the opportunity they have been given to give false hope to those who have been begging for it for century's,

>>9672
Given that I have the slightest bit of physical evidence for my claim, and a bunch of circumstantial, I don't think it's too big a leap too assume that once you're dead you're dead. People who have heart surgery see nothing. People who are dead do not move, they decay, they do not visit us in any ghostly form, and when they "do," it's highly uninteresting pre-written phrases like, "I'm okay up here and we'll all be together one day." Now tell me, given that I have a friend who was straight-up killed with no time for an NDE, who said flatly that she saw nothing, why should I believe in an afterlife?

It probably more just proves humans desire for experiences similiar to a NDE.

>>9734
>The difference is that the populace can overthrow a government if there is enough sentiment against that government.

Oh yes. Because the US government, owner of the largest standing army in the world, would just allow people to form a coup. The military even does exercises in US cities in case of revolution.
Hell. The US even uses it's military power to force other countries to comply with their governments, or if the US doesn't like that government, replace it and set up one they agree with (policing the world). Or have you forgotten about Afghanistan, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Israel, etc etc etc...

>You can compel a man to give you money with a shotgun, to get money from millions of people you need to be a salesman.

Or in control of millions of gunmen (the standing army and polices forces).

Also, the ends don't justify the means.

Your position seems to be:
>Our country must be good because people can't overthrow it.
>If people don't overthrow governments, then they must agree with the government.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>9741
Let me make it clear, Green Text is for quoting, Go back to the fail train if you wan't to do it wrong.

>>9741
>Our country must be good because people can't overthrow it.

Not at all. "Good" and "bad" are irrelevant to my point. My statement is simply that our government is demonstrably ACCEPTED by the populace in general.

And the populace could overthrow the government through concerted action. Not military reaction, just simple persistent collective non-compliance.

I'm not talking about a random sub-group of the populace doing it. I'm talking about a clear majority of the nation cooperating to establish a new system. Rather like Marx's predictions, but unlike Marx I am not starry-eyed enough to believe that it is inevitable, just that it is possible.

If half the population of the United States all got together and agreed to play by new rules, the status quo could do nothing to stop them.

Can you remember something that never happened? No.

...but it is your own personal decision to believe in the metaphysical and to what extent.

Although I am still learning and gaining personal knowledge about the metaphysical, the consciousness and the soul, I still believe in the realm of physicality when it comes to the brain. My opinion is that neither Deja-Vu nor Clairvoyance exist. The phenomena has been studied and has been explained as a small chemical imbalance or anomaly that takes places and produces a unique sensation, specifically that you have already experienced something. It is a subjective experience, and while you may feel this is a "real" thing, it is not. I would also assume that Deja-Vus would take place more frequently during the process of cerebral pruning in adolescence. Adolescence... explaining your grammar and ignorant perspective concerning the human mind.

I'm sorry, you are not the chosen one.

>>9733
Haha i was curious i know im not that special but i was thinking just now and thought of something interesting could it be possible that i have had such a vivid dream that it becomes similar in look to an event that happens in the future causing Deja Vu? which means basically its nothing special.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081118122146.htm

http://taylorlueck.hubpages.com/hub/Deja-Vu-A-Psychological-Explanation