Dont you get a simple question? I'm not claiming to prove anything. Why is it so difficult for you to envisage an imaginary scenario? like I said, if its beyond your imagination, don't answer.
The claim was that we are our memeory, without memory we dont exist. My reply was explaining we loose most of our memory, does that make us less than we are?
Sorry krump but i cant see a reply.
Brain damage is not the same as loosing your memory. I have to remind you of the analogy of the PC.. would the computer be less capable because it lost its memory?
When I am considering the POSSIBILITY of the soul, I dont see it in the same way as you. I can imagine that each life is a journey for that soul and it is not a matter of the soul relying on the body for its existence. The body is a means of existence, if it gets damaged the soul can not experience or express its ability. It is not something you can bargain with, just as life for us is not our choosing, so is our ethereal existence, its nature. BUT it is speculation not a proven fact , may i add.
This years flock of sparrows are they a image of last years, or are they a continuation of the nature of sparrows.
The question you said you had answered.
The computer is your brain. The mind is the user.The temporary memory of the computer is the experiences of the brain and the user. Now if the computer looses its temporary memory it does not change the user or the computer, just as the brain looses its memory the mind or the brain dont change. Now if the computer is damaged it cant be used or express the wishes of the user,just as if the brain is damaged the mind can not experience or express the wishes of the mind. get it?
Ide be glad of you pointing out the errors of my thought process.:sarcastic:
Well I guess this is where we differ. I don't see the mind being anything separate from the brain. I don't think the mind can exist without the brain.
Im discussion the concept, not the exact truth.
Well alright, but you know me, I can't exactly play within certain perimeters very well without going into the off limit zone.
We can talk all day long about concepts separate from truth but what we tend to end up with is a hodgepodge of ideas.
So if you destroy the brain would the mind still function? If we take your analogy of the computer and the user, if the the computer gets destroyed, what happens to the user?
I'm saying the computer and user are one, you are saying they are separate. So you'll have to fill me in on how the user exists independent from the computer. Can you do that for me?
Now remember this is a concept, i cant prove..The mind or soul ,call it what you wish, is an ethereal entity not governed by earthly laws, it enters the body at birth and grows with the body in an experience of life. If the computer, brain, gets destroyed or is damaged it is in limbo till the body dies. It is a life force independent but dependant on the body it occupies.
Can the mind or user do everything the brain or computer does? Meaning does the mind learn? Does the mind experience? Does the mind do anything apart from the brain?
The problem I am having is to determine why even include the brain, if the mind has all the functionality as the brain? It seems like an unnecessary step. Why not exist just as the mind? Why the need for a brain? Unless the brain is required for the mind to have a function or use.
So in other words the computer exists to give the user something to do. The user is completely useless without the computer? Therefore if you destroy the computer, the mind can't do anything.
Object or concur?
Scientists lie and make mistakes more times than not.
The mind or soul, uses the brain as its representative for physical functions, the soul does experience life through its attachment to the brain.
No the mind is dependant on the brain , just as the user is dependant on the computer. If the brain or computer fails, it or the user has to sit out the failure.
I wouldn't believe it until I die and see for myself. Scientists lie and make mistakes more times than not.
I hate to be this guy, but we all know in reality there is no such literal idea of life after death. I could understand a metaphorical interpretation but, physically, this in an impossibility in the reality we live in due to obvious reasons.
Again whether you want to be literal or figurative can change the basis of my response. In the reality we live in, as defined by the various laws we have made up and agreed upon for our world, life and death are very discrete events that don't have much disputation in their definitions. I like and do believe in a more spiritual way of looking at life and nature. I do this though, knowing that i am not being literal. The physical and mental aspects of a being are what make us a living and thinking human. Reincarnation, life after death, heaven, spirits and souls living on after death are interesting ideas to think about but they have no evidence whatsoever to support their literal interpretation. Again, the idea is so far fetched that there may not be evidence against this because when you question the reality we live in, then we cannot use logic to prove something wrong or right. Questioning the very world we live in has no argument against it because reality is defined by perception. I'm going to go with the idea that has kept various thoughts and theories in-check for a long time, and that is you cannot say something is true or real until you prove it with evidence, as opposed to the opposite of that which is everything is true and real unless you prove that theory wrong.