FreedomFromAll said:
Judgement? Who was judging?
You were. Here's the OED definition (#11) of the verb judge:
To form the opinion, or hold as an opinion; to come to a conclusion, infer; to apprehend, think, consider, suppose.
Definition #9 is similar, but the above seems slightly more general.
You wrote:
FreedomFromAll said:
You can tell me until you are blue in the face that you researched and came to a conclusion that doesnt do anything for your claim. Well I take that back it does do something but nothing creditable. So yes I do think that your position is ill-considered and unfounded and entirely faith based.
The bolded parts are (some of) your opinions concerning my view. Ergo, you judged. But you're in no position to do so, since (presumably) you do not know me, you don't know what kind of education I've received, what sort of research I have done, and so on.
Please note that this is example #1 of me demonstrating proper etiquette in a discussion: when asked a direct question, you should answer it directly. Failure to do so leads to the conclusion that you're not interested in truth.
There are obvious caveats to this rule. For example, if I (or anyone) were to ask something like "what are all the books you have ever read, along with summaries of each? Account for how each one affected your mind?" that would be overreaching, and someone would be right not to answer, or at most give a relatively brief general answer.
FreedomFromAll said:
Dead is dead is dead. I couldnt make it any clearer.
It seems to me that we've had something like this discussion before, and you employed similar tactics. This does not answer the questions I've asked you, which I ask again, as directly as possible.
You claim that death is an experiential blank, or something like that. I asked: how do you know that? You replied that you know it the same way you know the light goes off in your refrigerator when you close the door. So, I ask: what does your refrigerator have to do with your knowledge of death?
FreedomFromAll said:
There is nothing to understand other than a dead body is no longer alive.
I disagree. Why do you think this is all there is to understand about death (note: this is another direct question)?
FreedomFromAll said:
There isnt any magic involved since magic is fantasy.
Two more direct questions:
1) How do you know?
2) Why does it matter to the topic at hand?
FreedomFromAll said:
Then you are being hypocritical.
In what way?
FreedomFromAll said:
If you are right lol right about what exactly?
That brains are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for consciousness to exist. Please note how I directly answer the question you directly ask.
FreedomFromAll said:
Are you claiming that we need no brains?
Well, to be alive, we need brains. But we do not, on my view, need brains for the continuation of consciousness, though I think it's likely that consciousness changes considerably without a working brain. In other words, brains are necessary to the quality of our particular consciousness, but they are not necessary to the having of consciousness
simpliciter. Again, note that I'm answering your question.
FreedomFromAll said:
In all of that "careful study of academic and scientific sources" did you miss the part about the functions of the brain?
I doubt very seriously that I did, since the bulk of my research was in the neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science relevant to consciousness, memory, experience, volition, and agency.