14 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadbecause you are reasoning from a false analogy.
What am I failing to see?
As I understand it, I gave an analogy and you claimed it was a bad analogy because it was not identical to the original. But what use is an analogy if it identical? All that matters is that the issue I am trying to bring attention to is identical or at least very similar. Whether or not the brain has tracks, sectors, bits and by ...[text shortened]... s quite irrelevant to whether or not my analogy is reasonable.
So why is my point immaterial?
the brain and a hard disk do not store data in the same way.
nor do they retrieve data in the same way. they are apples and oranges.
you are over simplifying.
start over without the analogy.
14 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleunderstanding of what?
The words of Buddha are correct; and they are related to the evaluation of the mind.
One thinks according to the level of his understanding😵
thoughts will come, not always from understanding, which is a good reason to distinguish thoughts from that of which one can become aware in real time rather than import from the thoughts of others.
meditation of a certain kind, Insight or Vipassana meditation, seeks to build one's ability to become aware.
practical example: I had a gall bladder attack shortly after leaving the hospital after being treated for a life-threatening infection following from removal of a segment of my large intestine. I would describe that surgery as non-discretionary, and it left a scar extending the full vertical length of my abdomen -- the scar helps me stay aware that I now only possess a semi-colon.
But I digress ...
I did not know what the pain was -- and on phoning a 24-hr nursing hotline about it, I was advised to take an ambulance to the ER as it could have been a heart attack. So I did that and after some meds, I was ok -- they didn't want to go back in at that point.
Well, I had a 2nd bout of pain and this time I realized what it was -- having eaten the wrong thing, the pain being exactly the same, I decided it probably would last 5 or 6 hrs and then go away. If it did not do so, then I was wrong and thus would then go to the ER.
So I made the pain the focus of my meditation and, unable to sleep anyway, I faced the pain, said yes to reality instead of denying it, and got through it quite well without fear or medication.
The difference between the two experiences of the same thing was primarily that I made myself aware of the pain, did not give in to fear, and accepted it without over reacting. That is what the meditation training and dharma talks have given me.
I now face many challenges, both in terms of health, and financially due to the current mess.
My approach to these things has been transformed by the training I've received.
It is not a belief system in which I must place my unreasoning faith; it is instead a rational way to face unpleasant truths. Awareness is most important, followed by the ability to distinguish that of which one becomes aware from that which one thinks.
Making that distinction makes one better at the former and therefore also better at dealing with it.
14 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinUnderstanding of Yourself😵
understanding of what?
thoughts will come, not always from understanding, which is a good reason to distinguish thoughts from that of which one can become aware in real time rather than import from the thoughts of others.
meditation of a certain kind, Insight or Vipassana meditation, seeks to build one's ability to become aware.
practical example: ...[text shortened]... that distinction makes one better at the former and therefore also better at dealing with it.
14 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinHow they store the data is not part of the analogy. It is as irrelevant as what color they are. If we were discussing the properties of nearly spherical fruit then apples might be a good analogy for oranges.
because you are reasoning from a false analogy.
the brain and a hard disk do not store data in the same way.
nor do they retrieve data in the same way. they are apples and oranges.
you are over simplifying.
start over without the analogy.
Do you know what happens to data once it is totally erased from a computer had disk? If you can answer that, why would the storage mechanism be important when asking the same question about the human brain? It seems to me that you simply don't want to answer the question.
14 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadrestate the question -- that's what I asked last time --
How they store the data is not part of the analogy. It is as irrelevant as what color they are. If we were discussing the properties of nearly spherical fruit then apples might be a good analogy for oranges.
Do you know what happens to data once it is totally erased from a computer had disk? If you can answer that, why would the storage mechanism be im ...[text shortened]... estion about the human brain? It seems to me that you simply don't want to answer the question.
15 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinThe initial question is whether or not we need to interview someone who has already died in order for us to know anything about what happens to consciousness after death.
restate the question -- that's what I asked last time --
I believe that consciousness involves memory. I believe that we can conclusively say that when a human being dies his memory is either lost, damaged and certainly becomes inaccessible to all intents and purposes. I believe this is sufficient reason to claim that consciousness does not and cannot continue after death.
15 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou can claim what you like, but since your question is rather silly, not much point in spending time on the argument.
The initial question is whether or not we need to interview someone who has already died in order for us to know anything about what happens to consciousness after death.
I believe that consciousness involves memory. I believe that we can conclusively say that when a human being dies his memory is either lost, damaged and certainly becomes inaccessible t ...[text shortened]... this is sufficient reason to claim that consciousness does not and cannot continue after death.
the point has already been made that we do not know what happens after we die.
as to what happens when we die -- that one is easy, just look it up, there are entire books written on what happens when we die.
all those that concern the existence or nonexistence of all or a part of a person after they die are in the realm of speculation or outright fiction.