donnffd:


Bro, she wasnt confused, because you dont understand her stand doesnt mean she is confused...

Haba Bro you just won't stop defending her would you? because she is a woman if it was a guy i know you won't go this far you won't even interfere at all. I intentionally used that word and you know what i mean.

donnffd:


Then this your ploy of throwing the words gnostic and agnostic around like asif being agnostic gives you hope.
I am an agnostic in the sense that i am not 100% certain dat no deities exist but i believe the chances of their existence is freaking low, i can comfortably say your god or every other god that has existed in human history doesnt exist, now is there something out there that we dont know of, maybe, i dont know but of the ones i have been told of, they absolutely dont exist...

Well @ this point, i don't think i can help you even after reading the second article and watching the video, then you are on your own.

But let me correct something stop saying "your god or any other god" there is only one God which is the God that created the universe and all the things in it.

Don't worry we will all find out on that last day when we are taking our last breath. It's just a matter of time.

Actually your post was very very long, i had to skim it. However the following points caught my attention while skimming

AgentOfAllah:


You have quoted a lot of physicists and philosophers in your posts. I haven't verified the authenticity of your quotes, but I will assume you have done your due diligence, and aren't falsely quoting, or quoting out of context.

Bro you do not need to assume. Why should i quote someone falsely or out of context? In other to achieve what? That's plain stupidity. I can give you the link to the whole story if you want to further your research.

AgentOfAllah:


No doubt, they have their reasons for arriving at their respective conclusions, but do you have reasons for arriving at yours?

Well, i can't start stating my reasons here, i have done it before and i have seen other theist do it, it doesn't work, it's just a waste of time since you obviously don't believe in the religious books i will be quoting from.

AgentOfAllah:


I would like to give you more respect than to assume you believe the things you do because some brilliant persons said so. So, prove that you are worth the words you bellow from the pages of great

philosophers by engaging us with your own philosophical thoughts on the subject, rather than just regurgitating things that have been said in the past.

My belief in God is independent on what any physicists say. What prompted me to actually quote them was as a result of an argument we had on one thread and I decided to open this thread just to show them what their mentors/role models say about God's existence.

Like I said above, it will be a total waste of time giving you my own philosophical thought on the subject.

Dejideji1:
Actually your post was very very long, i had to skim it. However the following points caught my attention while skimming

It wasn't very very long, it was just long, which was why I requested you to bear with me to the end. Anyway, my post was long because I wished to engage you on the philosophy of atheism, since you seemed to be a respecter of philosophy, going by your posts.

Bro you do not need to assume. Why should i quote someone falsely or out of context? In other to achieve what? That's plain stupidity. I can give you the link to the whole story if you want to further your research.

I'm glad you did your due diligence.

Well, i can't start stating my reasons here, i have done it before and i have seen other theist do it, it doesn't work, it's just a waste of time

My pardons! It's just that you made the following statement:

Dejideji1:
God is not a physical being for whom you can provide physical evidences. There are evidences about God, but the nature of this evidences is very subtle so you have to engage in extra-scientific and therefore philosophical/religious reasoning.

I had assumed you meant it when you said the subtle evidence of god is in philosophical reasoning. Instead of indulging my willing invitation to a philosophical discourse about god then, you disappointingly write me off as a waste of time. Thanks!

...since you obviously don't believe in the religious books i will be quoting from.

Quoting from a religious book, mind, is not a philosophical discussion because such books already presuppose the existence of some god(s) with scant, ambiguous or inconsistent definitions of said god(s). That is hardly the right place to start a debate on the existence of god. The real discussion is why you think those religious books are correct.

My belief in God is independent on what any physicists say. What prompted me to actually quote them was as a result of an argument we had on one thread and I decided to open this thread just to show them what their mentors/role models say about God's existence.

Most people I know, who have mentors, know that their mentors are fallible humans. Don't you think mentors are fallible?

Like I said above, it will be a total waste of time giving you my own philosophical thought on the subject.

Well, thanks for writing me off as a waste of time!

Dejideji1:


Don't worry we will all find out on that last day when we are taking our last breath. It's just a matter of time.

Lol, i would still defend a guy, if he also ddnt respond...

Lol, you know i get that alot, when we take our last breath, we shall know...the painful part of it all is that when we eventually die, i cant tell you i told you so because you and i wont even know we are dead, we wont know anything at all...knowing is not a trait the dead has

The universe couldn't have been an accident. There's surely a mastermind. But the question is; is the god of the universe the christian and Islamic god? Or is it any of the countless gods that mankind has known or created over the millennia?


The quest for proof of existence as demanded by atheists is not about the existence of a god but the religious claim of personalizing him.

neocortex:


"nothing comes from nothing"

This statement renders your argument invalid.
There can never be a "first mind" if the mind itself is "something"
because that will imply that that the "first mind" came from nothing.

I felt compelled to revisit this argument again even though what annoyed me initially was you calling it "my argument"

They said " if ever absolutely nothing existed then nothing will be existing now. that means the universe and every other things wouldn't be existing now "SINCE NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING "

that means it is CERTAIN there was something before the universe came into existence. And that thing is the mind they are talking about.

But how that mind came into existence is another debate entirely. And that is not part of their argument. but what they want to prove is that there was something before the universe began and that thing was God. and he caused the existence of the universe.

Now for the argument on how that first mind came into existence, there is a topic currently on front page on who created God. I saw you viewing the topic some hrs ago. That should answer your question.

oglalasioux:
The universe couldn't have been an accident. There's surely a mastermind. But the question is; is the god of the universe the christian and Islamic god? Or is it any of the countless gods that mankind has known or created over the millennia?


The quest for proof of existence as demanded by atheists is not about the existence of a god but the religious claim of personalizing him.

Bro, there is only one God and that is the God that created the universe and all the things in it. There is nothing like the Islamic or Christian god as you claim since both religions are both referencing the supreme being that created the universe and the things in it. It's only their doctrines that differ.

Dejideji1:


Bro, there is only one God and that is the God that created the universe and all the things in it. There is nothing like the Islamic or Christian god as you claim since both religions are both referencing the supreme being that created the universe and the things in it. It's only their doctrines that differ.

So you mean this same god is the god of the Muslims and Christians? If both religion are referencing the supreme being that created the universe then either they don't know this supreme being or if they are right in their generalization about him then this god has issues. Many many issues.

In my opinion, there is a supreme being but the religions are barking up the wrong tree. God cannot be what they've turned him into.

donnffd:


Lol, i would still defend a guy, if he also ddnt respond...

Hummn are you sure? Anyway let's leave that.

donnffd:


Lol, you know i get that alot, when we take our last breath, we shall know...the painful part of it all is that when we eventually die, i cant tell you i told you so because you and i wont even know we are dead, we wont know anything at all...knowing is not a trait the dead has

Do you believe you have a spiritual part of you? Obviously i don't think so since Atheists only dwell on the naturalist/materialist world view like George Stanciu et al said.

Your (spirit = soul - body)

don't let me go spiritual since you don't believe in it. Checkout the questions below.:

Can consciousness persist outside of the body? I know as an atheist or scientist you will say NO.

Now consciousness is immaterial while the body is material how does a material body produce something that is immaterial?

Which one can exist independent of the other? This questions were raised as a result of the many accounts of patients that have had NDE. Believe me scientists are yet to fully understand consciousness (i read an article on this)

There accounts of meeting a deity afterwards and those vividly describing the operation process (for those under general anesthesia undergoing surgery) and the most startling accounts were those that were born blind.

(i believe you read the 2nd article so I don't need to give you details)
So what can you say about all this?

.

oglalasioux:

this god has issues. Many many issues.

Lolz what are the issues ooo?

Dejideji1:


Now consciousness is immaterial while the body is material how does a material body produce something that is immaterial?

I really dont know, but it is obvious that without the material, the immaterial component cannot be...why is it that some people have injuries to the head and forget who they are or some parts of their lives?, if consciousness is really immaterial and transcends the material brain, why does that happen?

Which one can exist independent of the other? This questions were raised as a result of the many accounts of patients that have had NDE. Believe me scientists are yet to fully understand consciousness (i read an article on this)

Ofcos, consciousness is something noone fully understand but there is no such indication that it can survive the material body...NDE always hav a regular pattern, either a tunnel with a bright light and all that, it is possible that its the way an oxygen-starved brain works.

donnffd:


why is it that some people have injuries to the head and forget who they are or some parts of their lives?, if consciousness is really immaterial and transcends the material brain, why does that happen?

Consciousness has nothing to do with memory. It's just a state of awareness and it's immaterial as you can't see, feel, measure or quantify it.

Consciousness cannot be simply the
result of meat (the brain) because
consciousness is a property entirely
separate from matter. Consciousness
has an irreducible existence .

Regardless of how complex a material
thing such as a brain gets through
evolution, it remains just that… a highly
complex material thing , and not a
conscious or personal thing.

donnffd:

Ofcos, consciousness is something noone fully understand but there is no such indication that it can survive the material body...

For the NDE cases recorded of those giving vivid account of the operation process despite been rendered unconscious under general anesthesia

How can you explain that? Can we call it a case of consciousness persisting outside the body?

donnffd:


NDE always hav a regular pattern, either a tunnel with a bright light and all that, it is possible that its the way an oxygen-starved brain works.

Bro i have heard that oxygen starved bla bla bla before it's just a point used by skeptics for argument. I believe u read that my second topic that point as been flawed.

Your whole argument falls apart if I provide a list of my own, detailing Atheist Scientists and their quotes.

Playing this game that way is just boring, seeing as the tables have turned. now, the Atheist Scientists outnumber the theist ones.

Dejideji1:


Consciousness has nothing to do with memory. It's just a state of awareness and it's immaterial as you can't see, feel, measure or quantify it.

Consciousness cannot be simply the
result of meat (the brain) because
consciousness is a property entirely
separate from matter. Consciousness
has an irreducible existence .

Regardless of how complex a material
thing such as a brain gets through
evolution, it remains just that… a highly
complex material thing , and not a
conscious or personal thing.

Claims.

This is like saying,



The players in FIFA 16 games cannot simply be the result of the high speed processor and programming in the console, because they are entirely seperate from matter. I mean, you can't touch them, can you? they're intangible. they have an irreduceable existence.
regardless of how complex a material such as a ps4 gets through constant development, it still remains a personal thing and is incapable of being the players in FIFA 16.


My guy, go for a neurobiology course, and come back to repeat this jibberjabber.

Teempakguy:
Claims.

This is like saying,



The players in FIFA 16 games cannot simply be the result of the high speed processor and programming in the console, because they are entirely seperate from matter. I mean, you can't touch them, can you? they're intangible. they have an irreduceable existence.
regardless of how complex a material such as a ps4 gets through constant development, it still remains a personal thing and is incapable of being the players in FIFA 16.


My guy, go for a neurobiology course, and come back to repeat this jibberjabber.

Bro this your reply is extremely ridiculous i can't believe you just spew this trash. I don't think you know what consciousness means. are the players in your FIFA conscious?

Why make your comparison with an inanimate thing? How are they related? Well I can see you play too much of FIFA and it has severely affected your ability to reason properly.

You are the one that actually needs to go for a neurobiology course because it's obvious you don't know what you are saying. The last time i checked, scientists have not been able to properly establish how the brain can generate consciousness.

neuroscientists have not adequately
explained how the behavior of neurons can give rise to subjectively felt mental states.

It seems ridiculous even to consider why a handful of wires and transistors fails to generate subjective perceptions, then ask the same question about neurons outside the brain.

Dejideji1:

Bro this your reply is extremely ridiculous i can't believe you just spew this trash. I don't think you know what consciousness means. are the players in your FIFA conscious?

I don't think his response is ridiculous, I think it is your claims about consciousness that are ridiculous, and his post only serves to highlight the ridiculousness in yours. Since the point is lost on you, I'll attempt to break it down in simpler terms.

You said:

Dejideji1:

Consciousness has nothing to do with memory. It's just a state of awareness and it's immaterial as you can't see, feel, measure or quantify it.

Consciousness cannot be simply the
result of meat (the brain) because
consciousness is a property entirely
separate from matter. Consciousness
has an irreducible existence .

First off, let me just say, comparing the brain to "meat" has the same descriptive appeal and internal logic as comparing a CPU to plastic or metal. The brain, is of course more than meat!! It is a complex network of synapses and neurons that do more than just MEATING around. But you already know this, don't you? It is only a matter of expedience to refer to the brain as 'meat' because your whole argument falls apart otherwise. Having put that aside, lets address your many claims about consciousness.

Claim 1: Consciousness cannot be the result of the brain.

Why??

Claim 2: Because consciousness is a property entirely separate from matter

This is NOT a reason, just a rephrasing of your initial claim. So I ask again. Why??

Claim 3: Consciousness has an irreducible existence.

Again, why

See how when you break things down, their depths (or lack thereof) become lucid?

I believe Teempakguy has used the apt analogy of FIFA'16 to call your attention to the absurdity of your claims. You're aware of the reductionist definitions of hardware and software in computer theory. I also trust you are just as aware that both are mutually dependent. No doubt, a contraption with a lot of processors can exist independent of a software, but it will just be a 'brick' in computerspeak. Likewise, some independently meaningless characters we call software can exist inside some medium (the nature of the medium, regardless), but without an operational processor to run and process them, they will just be a bunch of inaccessible characters encoded in a disc or a stick or the internet or something of the sort. What I think the gentleman intended to do, was to demonstrate that it is not unusual for an abstract software to be functionally inextricable from a material machine and vice versa, so why should the case be different for living things and their so-called consciousness?

The closest thing to evidence you have provided in this regard, is the existence of vivid, yet subjective accounts of OOB experiences:

Dejideji1:

For the NDE cases recorded of those giving vivid account of the operation process despite been rendered unconscious under general anesthesia
How can you explain that? Can we call it a case of consciousness persisting outside the body?

I trust you know vividness is not evidence of anything. George R. Martin gives vivid accounts of events in Westeros, yet we know it's a fictional place. Accuracy, not vividness is what counts! I wouldn't go as far as to deny OOBEs do happen, but I cannot accept such accounts simply because they are subjective and cannot be verified independently, let alone be deemed accurate. Claiming this as evidence that matter is independent of consciousness flies in the face of the definition of the very word "evidence".

Dejideji1:

Bro i have heard that oxygen starved bla bla bla before it's just a point used by skeptics for argument. I believe u read that my second topic that point as been flawed.

What is oxygen starved bla bla bla?

Dejideji1:


Consciousness has nothing to do with memory. It's just a state of awareness and it's immaterial as you can't see, feel, measure or quantify it.

Consciousness cannot be simply the
result of meat (the brain) because
consciousness is a property entirely
separate from matter. Consciousness
has an irreducible existence .

Regardless of how complex a material
thing such as a brain gets through
evolution, it remains just that… a highly
complex material thing , and not a
conscious or personal thing.

Now we need to do some definitions, Consciousness is a state of being aware(i agree), Humans are conscious, Dogs are conscious, Rats are conscious even Mosquitoes and Ants are conscious.

I am sure you dont think that these animals' consciousness survive their death, you would say humans are special, and for good reason i would agree.

So lets agree that the kind of consciousness you are talking about is the Human Kind, the one in which we are not just only aware, but also Self-aware.

If you are self-aware, then you have a sense of self, you know you have a name, a family, feelings, goals and so on.

Now if that is immaterial and can survive after the brain dies, then why is it that if people have accidents, the lose bits of this "self-awareness", some dont remember their names, many dont remember their families.

Alzheimer disease is one illness that degrades "self-awareness", how is it that something immaterial would be degraded in such a way

Now, Finally, because we dont know how Self-awareness arised(which would probably do in a few years), doesnt mean we dont know what causes it, remove the pre-frontal cortex in the human brain, and you have a human that is no different from a walking pig.

If truly "Self-awareness" survives the dismantling of the brain, why does that happen?

AgentOfAllah:

Bro you and your long post again! Well i just couldn't read through it this time around because I don't have time.

And from my first glance, your response Is just as ridiculous as that of the guy you are defending. So I didn't bother going Tru it again since it appears both of you Don't understand the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe.

Dejideji1:

...since it appears both of you Don't understand the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe.

I understand your concept of consciousness. It assumes consciousness exists independently of the brain. You just haven't been able to show this is the case. It appears you have have put the same level of consideration into it as what a 2 year old puts into their fear of boogey men, snarks and grumpkins! And this is not ridiculous to you!

So you say this:

Dejideji1:

Well i just couldn't read through it this time around because I don't have time.

and this:

Dejideji1:

...So I didn't bother going Tru it again

Yet you know that my:

Dejideji1:
...response Is just as ridiculous as that of the guy you are defending.

A pretty succinct summary of all the respect you have for logic summed up in two/three lines! Need I say more?

donnffd:


Now if that is immaterial and can survive after the brain dies,

then why is it that if people have accidents, the lose bits of this "self-awareness", some dont remember their names, many dont remember their families.

Bro, they didn't lose self awareness, (consciousness) if you lose it then you are as good as dead. they only lost some memories. Pls try to differentiate between the two. Or let me explain it in the simplest way: consciousness is just knowing that you are still alive.

donnffd:


If truly "Self-awareness" survives the dismantling of the brain, why does that happen?

because self awareness (consciousness) is immaterial and you can't destroy something that is immaterial. But note that consciousness is a personal thing and that is what makes it difficult to explain.

For example someone that is dead we only see he/she as dead since he/she is no longer responding to stimulus but that is how we see it but what about the individual him self? I don't really know how to explain it but hope you get my point?

Some Philosophers see (mind) consciousness as the real being which is invisible and immaterial. And some physicists call it the "ultimate reality"
So when one is dead, you are left with the "ultimate reality" but it's only that individual that can experience it since consciousness is a personal thing.

your mind is the real being you are just using the material body to respond to stimuli in this material world. Think deep about this and you will see what i mean.

AgentOfAllah:

Bro please read the reply i gave @donnffd for the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe

Dejideji1:


Bro, they didn't lose self awareness, (consciousness) if you lose it then you are as good as dead. they only lost some memories. Pls try to differentiate between the two. Or let me explain it in the simplest way: consciousness is just knowing that you are still alive.

i ddnt say they lost self-awareness, i said they lost bits of themselves, and how is that possible if its the material that got damaged, i taught consciousness is immaterial?

its like you ddnt read my post fully, i told you we should do some definitions and i assumed you were talking about the kind of consciousness humans have, if you are saying consciousness is just knowing that you are alive, then what differentiates humans from dogs, cows, elephants, dolphins, ANTS, and MOSQUITOES? Go back to the post and read it fully

Moreover you keep saying its just memories, so what happens to a person who commited murder all his life, hit his head in an accident, forgot all that he did and dies 3years later, when God and the angels decides to send him to hell for that, and he doesnt remember it and claims God is accusing him falsely, what would happen

because self awareness (consciousness) is immaterial and you can't destroy something that is immaterial. But note that consciousness is a personal thing and that is what makes it difficult to explain.

For example someone that is dead we only see he/she as dead since he/she is no longer responding to stimulus but that is how we see it but what about the individual him self? I don't really know how to explain it but hope you get my point?

Some Philosophers see (mind) consciousness as the real being which is invisible and immaterial. And some physicists call it the "ultimate reality"
So when one is dead, you are left with the "ultimate reality" but it's only that individual that can experience it since consciousness is a personal thing.

your mind is the real being you are just using the material body to respond to stimuli in this material world. Think deep about this and you will see what i mean.

You havent answered the question boss, i said that if you remove the prefrontal cortex of the brain, you get a human that cannot think and is no different from a pig but he is alive and knows he is alive... how does that happen? better yet give me one example of how consciousness survived the death of the brain, then we start there, if you cant give me, then how can you claim that it can when you havent died before

and please dnt tell me NDE, those are just as speculative as alien abductions and its likes

Dejideji1:


Bro please read the reply i gave @donnffd for the concept of consciousness i was trying to describe

Okay

Done, and how have you shown that consciousness is independent of the brain?

Dejideji1:

because self awareness (consciousness) is immaterial and you can't destroy something that is immaterial.

A software is immaterial so you mean to say it can't be destroyed?

AgentOfAllah:

Okay

Done, and how have you shown that consciousness is independent of the brain?

I'm not saying the brain doesn't have a role to play in consciousness, the argument is on consciousness persisting outside of the body. But remember it's a personal thing so you can only answer for your self.

Now I doubt if you read my second topic on NDE a case of a lady who was brain dead was narrated there, and how she still gave vivid account of the operation process after she was resuscitated. Pls i believe you read that article i can't go into details

AgentOfAllah:

A software is immaterial so you mean to say it can't be destroyed?

Bro this is the same mistake that guy you were defending made! How can you make such comparison? Inanimate vs animate? How are they related?

I did programming while I was in school and i wrote codes and ran them. I won't totally agree with the fact that it's immaterial simply because you can't see it while it's in operation but you can demand for the codes and see it. going deep, they are just instructions guiding the CPU on how to operate/carry out a certain task more or less like switches

Don't compare, the human mind(consciousness) is far more complicated than ordinary written codes.

[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=46749800] *modified

AgentOfAllah:

*modified

donnffd:


i ddnt say they lost self-awareness, i said they lost bits of themselves, and how is that possible if its the material that got damaged, i taught consciousness is immaterial?

This your question is not clear. Are you arguing that consciousness is not immaterial? You can't argue that because it's already an established fact. U may make further research on it.

Lost bits of themselves? that can only be memory which has nothing to do with consciousness.

donnffd:


Moreover you keep saying its just memories, so what happens to a person who commited murder all his life, hit his head in an accident, forgot all that he did and dies 3years later, when God and the angels decides to send him to hell for that, and he doesnt remember it and claims God is accusing him falsely, what would happen

Lol thought you don't believe in God. This question shouldn't bother you. If I will answer that I will go spiritual. Which you can't reason with.

donnffd:

You havent answered the question boss, i said that if you remove the prefrontal cortex of the brain, you get a human that cannot think and is no different from a pig but he is alive and knows he is alive... how does that happen?

And how can you successfully execute that without the patient dying?

donnffd:


better yet give me one example of how consciousness survived the death of the brain, then we start there, if you cant give me, then how can you claim that it can when you havent died before

Bro i will give you one example you can relate to, not the NDE stuff. But right now my ba3 is almost empty. In fact i hurriedly answered the above.

I will come back to that example

Dejideji1:


I'm not saying the brain doesn't have a role to play in consciousness, the argument is on consciousness persisting outside of the body. But remember it's a personal thing so you can only answer for your self.

I'm not saying what I'm saying, I'm just saying! Cheezuz! Dude, make a clear statement and stop prevaricating. Is consciousness independent of the body or not?

Now I doubt if you read my second topic on NDE a case of a lady who was brain dead was narrated there, and how she still gave vivid account of the operation process after she was resuscitated. Pls i believe you read that article i can't go into details [quote] Are you being serious? You want me to read someone's vivid anecdote and pretend it's evidence for your spurious claim?

[quote]
Bro this is the same mistake that guy you were defending made! How can you make such comparison? Inanimate vs animate? How are they related?

Straw man. This is not a question of inanimate vs animate, this is a question of whether consciousness is independent of the brain. You claim it is because it is immaterial, but haven't shown one shred of evidence...We have gone a step further to show that there is nothing unusual about immaterial things and material things being functionally holistic. So, unless you wish to demonstrate how consciousness is animate, I advise you stick to the point of contention.

I did programming while I was in school and i wrote codes and ran them. I won't totally agree with the fact that it's immaterial simply because you can't see it while it's in operation but you can demand for the codes and see it. going deep, they are just instructions guiding the CPU on how to operate/carry out a certain task more or less like switches

I don't know what your definition of material is, I hope it means something that is made of matter. So unless you can show that softwares are made of matter, yeah, they are pretty immaterial. What you see when you load source codes are flickering pixels on a display that manipulates light to take the form of abstract symbols that make sense to you, but those symbols are immaterial; just as immaterial as the vivid dreams I sometimes have, where everything appears real to the extent that I can see and touch them.

Don't compare, the human mind(consciousness) is far more complicated than ordinary written codes.

Since the only property of consciousness that makes you declare it independent of the brain is its immaterialism, I see no reason why it cannot be compared with other immaterial things. Complexity of consciousness is NOT proof of independence, any more than a sufficiently complex software is proof that it can operate outside a CPU.

Dejideji1:


This your question is not clear. Are you arguing that consciousness is not immaterial? You can't argue that because it's already an established fact. U may make further research on it.

I ddnt say that, dnt twist my words, you claim its immaterial and can survive the brain, i was asking how an immaterial thing could be damaged if it can exist without the material container...

Lost bits of themselves? that can only be memory which has nothing to do with consciousness.

Jeez, i taught i defined the kind of consciousness i was describing!!!...you want to tell me that memories is not part of being self-aware?

What is your Name? Deji!, ddnt you remember that your name was Deji? abi it was divinely put inside?

Lol thought you don't believe in God. This question shouldn't bother you. If I will answer that I will go spiritual. Which you can't reason with.

smh...

And how can you successfully execute that without the patient dying?

Sighs...you are killing me, what differentiates Humans from other animals what ever that is, is in that part of the brain, remove it and a human is just another dumb animal...is that too hard to understand?

Bro i will give you one example you can relate to, not the NDE stuff. But right now my ba3 is almost empty. In fact i hurriedly answered the above.

I will come back to that example

waiting...

@ Dejideji1 Since Animals Are Self aware (consciousness) Which Theist Know It As Soul Now Answer Me This When This Animal Die Were Do Their "Soul" Go??

Lol... Mr dejideji is talking himself into confusion.

You called the brain just a meat and then u say this...

Dejideji1:

I'm not saying the brain doesn't have a role to play in consciousness, the argument is on consciousness persisting outside of the body.

So you think the brain (meat) might actually have a thing to do with consciousness yet you are certain consciousness persists outside the brain.

Pls help me out... do you u actually think there is a relationship between the brain and consciousness?

Why do u think consciousness can exist outside the brain, yet think the brain has a role in consciousness?