Is it existence within this universe like a physical chair? Is it existence like the idea of a chair “exists”? Or does it exist like a friendship or a family exists?

I’d argue a self (or a soul) would be the third type, and that the word “existence” is ill suited to describe it.

As is this fantasy…An identity, Person, Self pops out of thought wich again is a response of memory…etc etc…its non-existent…

So what would happen to the body? I’m guessing the original body is essentially just a zombie now…alive, but an empty shell. Naturally, the person must not care for it too much if they decided to upload their mind, but it still makes me wonder what one would do with the body now.

Excellent article.

Brain states are factors of

DNA X Environment.

Those are surely both going to be reconfigurable, and massive databases are being constructed in ever building detail.

At some point it shod be possible to give a map of anyone who has lived – ever.

That is the aim of Quantum Archaeology anyhow. It also wont matter to the dead when its done.

As with John Smart’s description what’s needed is observation and computation machines, both of which are powering on trends.

https://sites.google.com/site/quantumarchaeology/

I once read something remarkably similiar to the describtion of the life of an abstract, wished for claim that you made.

Religion regulated every aspect of human life.Then it retreated after philosophie, science etc made aviable better ways to deal with the problems that religions adressed (in the west, at least), as for example the facts about certain animals mentioned in the bible, claims about physics and so forth.Now -at last- it is trying to hold onto ethics, and providing some abstract “why” for the existance of things.

The West used to be like the middle east (who wasn’t as bad as today, back then).

Taking religious writings and honestly thinking about the Ethics therein contained will (as has already begun, especially in the eastern part of the West;)) finally push it away from it’s hold onto Ethic/ right behavior.Most people don’t follow the e.g Bible’s ethic, else they’d be barbaric.They pick and chose.

All that will be left will be: You can’t disprove/ we have some “explanations” we can’t prove.

All that will be left will be: A boundle of arguments from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Even if what you say is true Bri, how much longer will it take for, in your words, create new life from the bottom life rather then “continuing” it? How will one then rationalize the statement? That it’s not about entirely new life-forms but “life” itself in the most abstract way?

That seems to me more and more like desperation rather then patience and understanding. If an idea is pushed continously farther and farther, like the idea of omnipotence, that humans cannot create life etc etc…I’m sorry, but how plausible it is just seems to get smaller and smaller – and the only way it can somehow still be considered “plausible” is if their was no possible way to test it whatsoever…..that doesn’t prove it exists however — just that you can’t prove/disprove the idea because you can’t go any farther (e.g. agnosticism?)

You can argue, at any given point of time, it’s like that….but if, throughout history, tests have been done to prove the truth behind something and the results have continuously shown up “negative”….how can you go on with the idea that such a thing is true, if only from a practical stand-point?

Please keep in mind that I’m speaking very generally – I’m trying to express that, if only from a practical point, you have to make up your mind whether or not an idea is true or not, and if the pocket of faith is reduced farther and farther because of empirical evidence, it becomes harder and harder to believe in it. You still could, by all means….I just hope you realize there really isn’t much to say so, and you don’t hold it against others who disagree.

Anyway: This argument is entirely irrelevant to the point made.

I remember having read something about creating bacteria through chemistry.

Continuation of live?Hm.To me that’s new life, not just a part of some alleged abstract “life.”

The statement that humans cannot create life is flawed….really, I don’t know know what living organism on this planet cannot create life simply due to the fact they are alive. If we are talking about the creation of an entirely new species, I feel the need to point to medicine and biotech which gives those words a run for their money…..where do you draw the line?

In any case, you’d have to be far more detailed if you want to get away with saying that humans cannot create life — as far as I can tell, we do that all the time.

How condescending from you.

“How do I take it personally. I could care less.”
You could care less means you care rather much.Thanks.Saying you have problems with logics is no insult.It’s a fact.

“You’re constantly saying thing in such a definitive manner.”
I’m not familiar enough to use the English subjunctive.

“Just because you think it or write it, doesn’t make it definitive.”
I always check wether my statements apply to myself.Do you do this, too?

“All those names that you calle are banned in the usage agreement we are supposed to follow.”
You called me names .X.Liar.Let’s talk about Amerika.See.Offensive.

“It’s speaks volumes about your character and how much I should heed your words”
Fallacy.I won’t bore you with Latin, my character says nothing about the truth of my words.Besides, nice that you know me so well.

“Call America the evil empire.”
You’re the one moralizing.I don’t think in terms of black and white, good and evil.

“I know many Germans who don’t share your views.”
“Germans” in the USA are a preselected sample.
I know many people who hate your country.Who cares.

“Google is full of opposing view points. It may bolster your arguments but it is not definitive.”
Google is a searchmachine.The content of the websites are not the contents of google.

“Saying that o take everything personally, is you trying to be insulting.”
You started altercasting me, telling me I’m full of hate.Isn’t it hypocracy to complain about this remark after such a deed?

“Your not even close to right.”
If you say so.

“I would like to understand your opinions. I hope in that way we can be friendly.”

I won’t call you a liar again, but you don’t even read my answers completly.

“I wish the best for you and your country. I look forward to reading your posts and to responding to them. Believe me, I don’t take anything you say personally.”

That’s why you so nicely imformed me about this website being AMERICAN, and that I allegedly act contrary to the rules of conduct of this site.All these contradictions.

Shouldn’t type while being slumped over (hanging, if that’s not the right word choice) my desk after “strenous physical activity”.

Again: I apologize.It makes me look rude, although I think it funny, in some way (you know, looks like a “Freudian slip”).

“… I have FAITH in KNOWING that…” – strikes me as odd.

See how she reframes it: I’m the one not understanding her.In reality, it may be vice versa.Understanding an opinion doesn’t mean one has to agree.

There is a reason it is called blind faith.

@Liar: Who created god?

No human can create life? What are you talking about?

This isn’t a personal attack, but you are going to have to make what you say more sharply defined then that. No human can create life? How many people are born every single day? What about the whole field of biotechnology? Cloning?

Ps:Giulio brought it up (triangle thing).This wasn’t what I meant to say.I said omnipotence can’t be since someone can’t make a stone heavier so heavy that he can’t carry it anymore, and still be called omnipotent (depends on your definition).

Yes.What sometimes buggers the more sceptical people is that some religious people say you are arrogant for daring to question them.Then they say they know it because they feel it.This in fact means they take their feeling to be objectively more worth than yours.Sometimes this annoys me.

I think everyone should be able to believe and (!) question whatever he wants.

For this, I guess we are living at the best time in human history (at least till today).

Of course, it would be nice if one could “survive” dead because some greater entity cares.

Have a nice day:)

About unpopular views: You see, they can even tolerate me (as to date) :)

“@X you make me laugh! If there is anyone who is arrogant you are. You won’t answer my question if you believe in the big bang theory.”

Just read my comment.I neither believe nor disbelieve this, since I didn’t study the matter.Is that so hard to understand?Maybe Marcos was right about you.

“Mine are generated from trying to understand what my psychic experiences are. They are not constructs of my mind. ”

This makes absolutely no sense.If you can’t think logically, how do you want to understand science?

Btw: You are trying to altercast me all the time, it seems.Stop doing this.

“You should check out the TED video with the Niro anatomist that had an out of body experience. She describes the areas of the brain, how they were effected, and what she was perceiving. Try your arrogance on her.”

Argument by authority.Is that all?I have seen nutjobs proclaim all kinds of things.You are the one who is arrogant, since you don’t want to question your beliefs.

” That’s forty six years. How many years have you understood science for..”

You can do sth a million times the wrong way.Just because you are older than me, doesn’t mean you know what you are speaking about.
I saw what you were saying about evolution for example.If you call that understanding, than militant islamists understand science too.

Ps: If we want to talk about physics, give me the math.If you can’t do that, you really don’t understand it.Thanks.

Just because you interpret everything so as “to make it fit” with your view, doesn’t mean your beliefs are better.They are just much more arbitrary.I’ll take the guy who corrects himself over the one who never admits being wrong any day (science vs religion, metaphorically speaking).

And honestly, how much math do you know?
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

You have the typically new-age outlook, spread by people who don’t understand science themselves.

Maybe you would want to get your hands on a copy of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Worldviews-Where-Science-Spirituality/dp/0307886891

Have a nice day, and don’t mind my manners.I’m just a fast writing barbarian.

Pps: If you want to read something about spirituality/your experiences from the viewpoint of science:
http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Brain-Understanding-Meditation-Consciousness/dp/0262511096/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352542876&sr=1-1&keywords=zen+and+the+brain

Anyway: Your view strikes me as pretty arrogant, willfully ignorant.

I guess you read into my comments what you want to, the same way you really belief because you want to belief.

Have a nice day :)

Attaining gods ability, I was talking to Giulio.

I agree with the possibility of your idea (some things won’t be settled ), so no need to argue it.

I’m also well aware of the fact that I today, can’t even imagine the reasoning ability of other possible entities.

About being humble:
First- I don’t identify with my beliefs, so you should not commit the mind-projection fallacy.

Second: I feel no need to fill in gaps of knowledge with conjuring up things.I don’t believe anything concerning your questions, since I didn’t study much on this topic.There may be ways to know what has been, very plausible ways, but without learning or thinking about it I don’t know them.

Therefore, because I don’t consider myself as having the necessary basis to form an educated opinion, I don’t have any opinion on these topics.

Just because I don’t know something does not mean I have to make up something.We have to live with temporary ambiguity, if we want to obtain truth.Everything else is immature.

In a way, this is more humble than the conduct of religious people, who despite of evolution think their faculties could automatically perceive some abstract truth better than other people, or who feel the need to succumb to social pressure on this matter, or who just are feeling bad with not knowing something or having to die.Do you fear death?

Of course, you have different premises than I, but only one of us is open to really question his presumptions.

The burden of proof lies with you, since you made the positive assertion of the existance of a God.

I’ll try tp make it easer for us to communicate:

You believe in God because of your feelings.How do you know this is a valid reason?

Ps: I was not offended by your beliefs, you can believe whatever you want (as long as this does not interfere with the lives of others in a retricting way).It seems you think I have got a problem with your beliefs?

Remember your Voltaire quote, and add to this the fact that I don’t even despise what you belief.Depending on the circumstances, each of us could be completely different than he is, each of us could have turned out like the other did.

So well, to answer your last question in some sense:

I believe in some kind of non-dualism.
I believe in the use of ockham’s razor, and other tools (!)^^
I believe in myself ;)
I believe in negotiation, not violence, concerning intersubjective communication.
I believe in Realpolitik, though, talking about nations.
I believe in studing what others said, before forming a strong opinion.
I like a certain brand of existentialism (like the writings of Camus).
I believe in Nietzsche (as in thinking sme is good at sth), because he had a good style (not talking about his translated works, I only know the original).
I believe humans are far from the best there could be.
I’m an atheist, but as open to any evidence as I can be.Of course, this means I have to constantly watch my mind.This goes for all opinions, and describes my ideal, a constant process, not a static something.
I believe in European Unity.
I believe in automatization of work, so that people can hopefully choose to hang around and do whatever they want.

In the end, I don’t believe anything the way you may do.If you ask me tommorow, or next week, I may have different opinions.

In a sense, I know nothing, and almost all our beliefs are delusions.But this would need another paragraph.

Have a nice day:)

Thanks in advance:)

Tell me, why should I as nonbeliever care about the bible?

First: Admit you’re religious yourself.

Second, you won’t convert me or anyone here;)

Third: What do you mean by omnipotent.

And last: They should first prove there is a god.

Focus on yourself — have a philosophy that makes sense, and not just to you…have one that you are actually happy to have. Believe in something for the right reasons, and then stand behind it…until, and unless, logic and experience prove you wrong, in which case, succeed those beliefs with new ones

Whatever you choose to believe in, don’t fool yourself into thinking you know something you really don’t — don’t let “faith” be the guise for ignorance. Faith is wonderful, but self-delusion is not…don’t change your convictions “just because”, but always keep yourself open to new things — always strive to better yourself in everyway, and that includes in beliefs. It’s not easy to change your world-view especially if you’ve had it for a long time, but it’s important to recognize when it no longer holds up like you thought you did and to succeed it with something better.

The problem with that mentality is that, from my point of view, it is obviously something very masochistic and unsatisfying, and in many ways, quite dangerous — basically, it’s asking us to close our minds and trust.

Only when all other means are exhausted would I even recommend living with that kind of mentality. Others may get at me and say that I’m the one being selfish because I don’t accept blindly, but I don’t agree at all.

Hope is a good thing, faith is wonderful….but it has a place too, otherwise you are just being delusional — faith and logic are not these cartoonish mutually exclusive opposites, that’s just silly…that’s like the idea that theists are blind-believers and atheists are immoral walking brains — how babyish.

Whatever you choose to believe in, believe in it for the right reasons – see how it can be intepreted from other people. Liberty is a responsibility….don’t believe in something “just because” – you have that freedom, but even though you can believe in a Flying Sphagetti Monster, I wouldn’t recommend it nor teaching your kids about it….just because you can, doesn’t mean you should — it’s not about disrespect, it’s about not losing your sense of objective reality which is too important, faith can dull that. There is no reason why your head and your heart can’t both arrive at a decision.

I’m happy to be living in such a skeptical age – an age where people aren’t afraid to ask questions and excess of information, because it enables us to truly grow…if there was this one book that explained EVERYTHING…well, we’d know all the answers, but their wouldn’t be much growth….living in such a skeptical time with so many “truths”, enables us to slowly grow and understand what truths matter the most to us.

I thought you were providing an example for what people may say, and I think it was a good one (encountered this claim very often).

The Christian minority (not talking about paper-christs, professed christs who do nothing but say they are this or that by heritage) in our country, mostly old people, uses to say thinks like: “The ways of the lord are inexplicable.” when you ask them why certain events can still happen.

I guess that’s in a similiar vein, although it technically says something about the ways, not us, but one has to take into account that this is relative.

Should have been it’s own paragraph.I wanted to make the point, outside of mathematics and logical systems there is no absolute proof.

Even if something happened, there is the possibility of your cognitive representation being faulty.This, to some extent, is of no practical importance (think recording, two people can still “see” a thing differently), but we are talking about your abstract reasoning.

You can’t prove that the sun will rise again tommorow.If you have a claim, it is up to you to prove.Else, you can’t expect others to take reasoning based on this claim into account.

Of course, we can take it as premise, as axiom.But why should?The axioms of logic at least have tangible results, are testable to some extent (predict things).

If you just say something like that shall explain everything, you could as well have said nothing.If it is of no consequence, you can do without it.

About feelings: Humans are a product of evolution.Therefore, it is extremely likely that our reasoning and and emotions are pretty primitive compared to what’s possible.

Your feeling of an onmipotent daddy is just based on the ape in you, who mostly organizes his societies in a strictly paternalistic, hierachical way.Combine this with some abstract thinking, and you get your god.

Therefore; your emotions are at best very weak evidence for things, since they are very, very imperfect and based on the rest of your imperfect “being”.

I think this “we are inferior and therefore” argument is rather common.

But I think, first, people should give a reason to actively(!) believe in the existence (os opposed to the possibility, which would go for many beings once proclaimed to exist) of a god.

Not wether something can’t be disproved.

What makes this monotheistic claim special, why not ask instead wether you can get that Aphrodite godess into bed?

Where is the difference, why is one deemed more likely to exist than the other (if we are talking about probabilities, well, we could do away with gods in the monotheistic sense completely).If it is only tradition, people should grow up and get their own opinions^^

I just wanted to make this clear, since there are people who take the scriptures to have certain literal meanings.I had many a conversation on this topic with christians (although mostly online, since I only know atheists and muslims- besides the priest at our local church, if you call seeing someone a few times in your life counts as knowing), and some people think their god stands above natural laws (as they are, not as we may know them) and logic.

Have a nice day:)

Ps: What would we be doing if we were god-like?My utopia would allow me to “waste” all my time with games, simulations etc;)

You cannot wait on the edge of your seat forever; it gets uncomfortable. God, or the idea of God, has been around long enough for us to question and determine the objective truth of the existence of such a being. If you are asking people to act like agnostics and wait for more evidence before making a firm decision, you are basically asking people to wait forever.

You can argue that I don’t know that for sure, but I think the thousands of years of debating has had some merit.

Not that I believe in this view, or think all that much of this stuff in the first place, but throwing it out there.