KingEbukasBlog:


How can we say for sure that the brain images prove astral projection to be true ? What if experience is the only means for verification ?

Remember that astral projection is supposed to prove that consciousness can exist without the brain, hence, we should be expecting to see no extra brain activity while the person 'travels' in this double blind experiment.

The goal of this is that the person should be able to tell the contents of a board in another room that not even the tester knows about in order to to prove that astral projection is actually true.

CoolUsername:


Remember that astral projection is supposed to prove that consciousness can exist without the brain, hence, we should be expecting to see no extra brain activity while the person 'travels' in this double blind experiment.

The goal of this is that the person should be able to tell the contents of a board in another room that not even the tester knows about in order to to prove that astral projection is actually true.

Do you know about multiple personality disorders ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Do you know about multiple personality disorders ?

Yes, although I thought we were talking about astral projection.

CoolUsername:


Yes, although I thought we were talking about astral projection.

In persons suffering MPD , two or more identities can coexist are the same time sharing the same level of consciousness as other identities . One can choose to see the spirit as a separate identity that takes a colossal level of consciousness while leaving the material mind with a lower level of consciousness . The point is : there could be brain activity showing a somewhat level of consciousness when someone astral projects . I mean astral projection is not some kind of activity that would put the brain in abeyance like you presumed . Precis : you could be wrong about your perception of astral projection and brain activity .

KingEbukasBlog:


In persons suffering MPD , two or more identities can coexist are the same time sharing the same level of consciousness as other identities . One can choose to see the spirit as a separate identity that takes a colossal level of consciousness while leaving the material mind with a lower level of consciousness . The point is : there could be brain activity showing a somewhat level of consciousness when someone astral projects . I mean astral projection is not some kind of activity that would put the brain in abeyance like you presumed . Precis : you could be wrong about your perception of astral projection and brain activity .

The most important result of the experiment is for astral projection to pass a double blind test. We can then go into the nitty-gritty details later.

CoolUsername:


The most important result of the experiment is for astral projection to pass a double blind test. We can then go into the nitty-gritty details later.

Well till then . But while we wait , let's take a look other documented causes that suggest that spirits (immaterial minds and bodies ) exists . Shall we ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Well till then . But while we wait , let's take a look other documented causes that suggest that spirits (immaterial minds and bodies ) exists . Shall we ?

So, we are agreeing that astral protection cannot be claimed as a fact for lack of evidence, right?

CoolUsername:


So, were are agreeing that astral protection cannot be claimed as a fact for lack of evidence, right?

Lack of evidence ? Because science cannot explain a particular phenomenon means there is no evidence for it ?

CoolUsername ladies and gentlemen

KingEbukasBlog:


Lack of evidence ? Because science cannot explain a particular phenomenon means there is no evidence for it ?

CoolUsername ladies and gentlemen

You were asked to provide empirical evidence. You're the one who failed to do that.

CoolUsername:


You were asked to provide empirical evidence. You're the one who failed to do that.

There are empirical evidences for haunted houses , should we scrutinize them ? You ready ?

KingEbukasBlog:


There are empirical evidences for haunted houses , should we scrutinize them ? You ready ?

CoolUsername , this will take time . Can I use idealism to defend the existence of unembodied minds ?

cc : lalasticlala

More contributions please .

Implicit atheism ko, implicit idiocy ni

MrPresident1:
Implicit atheism ko, implicit idiocy ni

Oga sir . I dey hail oo

Na implicit theism sir

More contributions please

KingEbukasBlog:


There are empirical evidences for haunted houses , should we scrutinize them ? You ready ?

Here it is Johnydon22 , coolusername took of before we even got started .

KingEbukasBlog:


Here are significant attributes of God : immaterial and non physical . How can you see something immaterial and non physical ? Are you suggesting empiricism ? That knowledge can only be gotten through sensory experience . But our senses are fallible . And can anything which exists in our world and every possible world be known to us ONLY through our senses ? I think you are making a tentative conclusion here . But if you insist on gaining knowledge of God's existence through sensory experience then George Berkeley's Esse Est Percepi ( To be is to be perceived ) should suffice . The argument goes :

1. We perceive ordinary objects
2. We perceive only ideas.
3. Therefore , ordinary objects are ideas.

The only two things that exist according to George are minds and their ideas . And ideas are mind-independent , they are passive and causally impotent . So what could cause the existence of minds ? An eternal mind . Boom ! God's existence proven through sensory experience . And we can 'materialize' mathematical/abstract objects because they are ideas in God's mind

What about rationalism ? Knowledge can be gotten only through reason . Deists and theists alike obtained the knowledge about God's existence through reason . I gave you 7 logical and indubitably irrefutable reasons to acknowledge the existence of God . And they are ETERNALLY tenable since God's existence is true .

KingEbukasBlog:


Here it is Johnydon22 , coolusername took of before we even got started .

Ok, so I looked at the argument, but it still makes the same slippery assumption that you always make. How can an idea be mind independent?

I would also like to understand your writing definition of an 'idea'.

CoolUsername:


Ok, so I looked at the argument, but it still makes the same slippery assumption that you always make. How can an idea be mind independent?

Sorry mind-dependent . Thanks for pointing that out

I would also like to understand your writing definition of an 'idea'.

Perceptions , opinions , beliefs , thoughts about anything concrete or abstract . Like I described abstract objects as ideas in God's mind .

KingEbukasBlog:


Sorry mind-dependent . Thanks for pointing that out



Perceptions , opinions , beliefs , thoughts about anything concrete or abstract . Like I described abstract objects as ideas in God's mind .

I feel that the premise of the argument is flawed in the sense that it equates the reality of ideas with that of physical objects. How real is the concept of something like love in comparison to a ball?
Does thinking about something make it real? Can Spiderman then be considered real since it is an idea from the mind of Stan Lee?
If your concept of what is 'real' encompasses both Spiderman and actual people into its definition, what them isn't 'real'?

CoolUsername:


I feel that the premise of the argument is flawed in the sense that it equates the reality of ideas with that of physical objects. How real is the concept of something like love in comparison to a ball?
Does thinking about something make it real? Can Spiderman then be considered real since it is an idea from the mind of Stan Lee?
If your concept of what is 'real' encompasses both Spiderman and actual people into its definition, what them isn't 'real'?

Good question . It is a popular objection to George's idealism : how can we tell the difference between real and things that are imaginary . I was expecting that anyway .

Imaginary things depend on our will as humans . They exist because we want them to exist . If Stan Lee hadn't thought of Spider Man , there wouldn't have been a Spider Man . Things that are real are made up of only ideas of sense. And ideas of sense follow laws of nature . The salient feature of anything real is that it has order and occur in regular patterns . We perceive real things because of their order and coherence but our minds can create imaginary objects .

KingEbukasBlog:
Good question . It is a popular objection to George's idealism : how can we tell the difference between real and things that are imaginary . I was expecting that anyway . Imaginary things depend on our will as humans . They exist because we want them to exist . If Stan Lee hadn't thought of Spider Man , there wouldn't have been a Spider Man . Things that are real are made up of only ideas of sense. And ideas of sense follow laws of nature . The salient feature of anything real is that it has order and occur in regular patterns . We perceive real things because of their order and coherence but our minds can create imaginary objects .

I don't think I can get behind this logic, before the invention of the microscope, there was no sensory information on microbes. That wouldn't have stopped them from existing, would it? Evolutionarily speaking, are we going to say that the Universe didn't exist until humans developed brains capable of thinking? That's completely illogical. Without perception the only thing missing is our own subjective knowledge/experience of an object or idea. I think Berkeley's assertion falls into the same problem that most ontologies fall into, in that they don't add new information to an argument.

CoolUsername:
I don't think I can get behind this logic, before the invention of the microscope, there was no sensory information on microbes. That wouldn't have stopped them from existing, would it? Evolutionarily speaking, are we going to say that the Universe didn't exist until humans developed brains capable of thinking? That's completely illogical. Without perception the only thing missing is our own subjective knowledge/experience of an object or idea. I think Berkeley's assertion falls into the same problem that most ontologies fall into, in that they don't add new information to an argument.

King Ebuka : And there's where God comes in , the ultimate perceiver of all things , a divine mind which exists eternally and sustains everything we perceive . And even if we are not there to perceive these things that existed before us , the mind of God is there to perceive them . All realities are created and perceived in the mind of God . (To be is to be perceived )

You didn't see this coming , did you?

CoolUsername :

KingEbukasBlog:


King Ebuka : And there's where God comes in , the ultimate perceiver of all things , a divine mind which exists eternally and sustains everything we perceive . And even if we are not there to perceive these things that existed before us , the mind of God is there to perceive them . All realities are created and perceived in the mind of God . (To be is to be perceived )

You didn't see this coming , did you?

CoolUsername :

Let's not get ahead ourselves, here. First, you haven't accounted for how perception impacts reality in anyway.

Secondly, by your own logic, God can't possibly exist, as there would have been nothing to perceive it before the creation of reality.

CoolUsername:


Let's not get ahead ourselves, here. First, you haven't accounted for how perception impacts reality in anyway.

Secondly, by your own logic, God can't possibly exist, as there would have been nothing to perceive it before the creation of reality.

nice

KingEbukasBlog:


King Ebuka : And there's where God comes in , the ultimate perceiver of all things , a divine mind which exists eternally and sustains everything we perceive . And even if we are not there to perceive these things that existed before us , the mind of God is there to perceive them . All realities are created and perceived in the mind of God . (To be is to be perceived )

You didn't see this coming , did you?

CoolUsername :

for once argue without being petty

johnydon22:


nice

God is eternal ?

CoolUsername:


Let's not get ahead ourselves, here. First, you haven't accounted for how perception impacts reality in anyway.

Secondly, by your own logic, God can't possibly exist, as there would have been nothing to perceive it before the creation of reality.

God is eternal

johnydon22:


for once argue without being petty

Come on , that was funny . A little chuckle won't hurt