Nobody has proven that consciousness is located inside the brain.

That's like saying that no one has proven that sight is "located" in the eye.
Consciousness is not "located" anywhere, it's the culmination of thousands of bio-chemical/electric actions and reactions that take place in the brain.

>>18136592
this

>>18136585
It's not "located" in the brain, it's produced by the functions of the brain.

If consciousness isn't a result of brain activity, then what is it?

>>18136585
Stop making shit up asswipe, go read a book.

>>18136585
That sounds like an opening to an interesting philosophical discussion OP.
But... since /x/ is giving you a hammering already.
Cut your brain off and see if you are still experiencing consciousness.

>>18136585
it is in the brain.

hereisa simple experiment to prove it:
if you lose your hand are you still you?
if you lose your legs are you still you?
if you lose your dick, are you still you?
if you lose your hreat and replace it by a pacemaker aaree you still you?
if you lose your lungs, and replace it by a machine are you still you?
if you lose everything below your neck are you still you?
if you lose your neck are you still you?
if you lose your ears are you still you?
if you lose your mouth are you still you
if you lose your eyes and become blind are you still you?


the ONLY part YOU CANNOT LOSE is your BRAIN!
conscousness IS in the brain

>>18136624
scary

>>18136629

If you duplicate that brain would it produce 2 exact clones of that conscious, or would one slowly become different from the other one?

I listen to MU too.

>>18136592
No, this is the result of a working consciousness not the cause.

>>18136640
obviously it would become different because they will have two different sets of experiences. The real question lies in the Ship of Theseus problem and individual pieces of the brain being replaced. We will probably be able to do that in the next few decades and we might want to consider the ramifications first.

>>18136655
How is not that the cause, can you explain?

File: m.jpg (200KB, 640x446px)

200KB, 640x446px

>>18136585
>consciousness

I just had a quick scan through the wikipedia page on consciousness, mainly for my own interest!
Location of consciousness was not generally discussed, but assumed to be a function of the brain.
You may be more interested in discussing sentience, awareness, self-awareness, the soul etc.
Descartes, discussed the Mind–body problem which became Cartesian dualism, and he proposed the pineal gland, as a possible location

You are actually probably discussing Neural correlates.

Your only other course of information is of course Spiritual.

>>18136658
If someone duplicated your brain would you be in two different place in the same time?

File: laci.jpg (66KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 900x600px

>>18136585
There's no 'consciousness'.
We're all 'robots' of sorts.
Bundle of eletric impulses that only work for so long until our flesh is to old to transmit such information.
Then we die.
The end.

Happy now?!

Now go out and enjoy life till you can still move around and do fun stuff.

File: GynaColleges.jpg (33KB, 443x439px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 443x439px

>>18136681
>enjoy life till you can still move

You were so close to making sense.

>>18136678
Well that's the ship of theseus problem. Its been debated for hundreds of years. It would seem that the best answer both logically and metaphysically is the "worm" solution because it doesnt need to contradict the other statements implied by the problem whereas all other solutions do.

Essentially the moment the first board (or neuron in this case) is replaced, you have begun to create two separate entities. They are both "you" and at some point in time they shared common parts. The problem with this solution (if you consider it a problem), is that we must abandon the idea that "you" are a finite three dimensional being, and instead contain at least one extra dimension that makes you you, which is your temporal existence.

At the end there are two of "you" existing at the same time, two separate beings who shared parts at one point, and are now individuals who are BOTH you.

>>18136691
Implying being in a wheelchair 24/7 (due to illness) or stuck in a hospital bed is fun, okay.

I suppose it can be fun, but I rather 'move' around and do stuff.

Or are we all here on /x/ meditation yogis that can travel through dimensions just sitting in their chairs?

Consciousness is like the internet; our brains are like individual computers connected to the web. So consciousness is not located in the brain, but your brain has access to consciousness, and at various levels.

hey this is /x/ not /sci/

>>18136674
Sure. If it would be the cause then we wouldn't be able to make free decisions in both thinking and acting. But since we can do this the only possible conclusion for me is that the correct sequence is: consciousness --triggers--> brain activity... not the other way around.

>>18136702
You missed anon's point.
You had said
>till you can still move around
Instead of "while" you can still move around.

File: ae0ed2da684d084158741578fbf87f79.jpg (50KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x425px

>>18136599
Any circuit of signal propagation can serve as a receptacle for consciousness. This actually *has* been demonstrated in the human body, e.g. the stomach has a ""second brain."" You and I are connecting are consciousness through electrical circuitry right now.

!

If you ask me, it's pretty obvious given it's structure, that the brain is just a reflector for consciousness--not a circuit board like many born in the digital age choose to believe. I don't see any binary switches in the brain's structure, do you? I don't see any transistors or logic gates in there, do you? It's all wires, neurons.

How do you make a circuit board with only wiring?

>>18136678
What do you think life is, dude? There's actually just one organism on this planet.

Perception takes place in the brain, not cociousness. Sensory data, that's all it is. Thought processes too and lots of information and reflexes, all things related to maijng the body function.

Your will does not come from anything inside your body. Different people with similar settings and biologies still act differently because of their individual will. This will is also known as the I AM presence among a lot of new age types. Those without a strong will refuse to accept their own weakness and chose to believe simply that this was the only way it ever could have been, the chemical reactions did what they did and I just followed the laws of physics.

It's very sad to see people "living" like this.

>>18136788
Nonetheless, it is their choice to do so, once they choose to do so they either blind themselves to extra-body modes of consciousness, or else mute themselves so that they don't have any. And so from their perspective, their belief that "consciousness only exists within the confines of this space, my body" appears to be true.

It's like a physical form of solipsism. Sometimes people just need a timeout for a lifetime or two to sort things out.

File: MRI of sight regions in brain.jpg (44KB, 474x530px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 474x530px

>>18136592
Except we can show you where sight is located. So really, we've proven it ISN'T located in the eye.

>materialists not knowing their own religious canon

>>18136800
>Implying the brain isn't an Aetheric transformer.

>>18136719
That's pantheism and bullshit.

>>18136681
Literally the worst post I've ever soon

http://www.silverweapon.com/mindproof.html
materialist BTFO

itt: materialist BTFO

it's kinda sad really . when u think about it

I triple dog dare you all to watch or read anything at all from David Wilcock or Corey Goode. Specidically, look up The Source Field Investigations. The gust is that all source of life is in a realm all around us we cannot see but is very real and our consciousness is collective,

>>18136585
Ah, yes, religion, known for proving things. Not, you know.
>blind faith
>burn the witch
>us vs them
>shutting off the brain to think a certain way
You're making some really bad inferences with "believers" and "religion" and "science", I'm sorry. That's a disservice to all three.

"Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion."
>"And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?"
"... there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, 'Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn’t it?'"
"Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence."

"One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you."

>>18136913
"Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn’t alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end."

"Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren’t for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. [There are other professions] (no need to mention lawyers specifically) in which falsifying evidence or at least twisting it is precisely what people are paid for and get brownie points for doing."

There's more, but, hey.

>>18136913
>>18136914
he said materialists not scientist you retard

a religious person can be a scientinst

File: image.jpg (107KB, 1031x860px)

107KB, 1031x860px

>mfw this thread

>>18136892
Have you read the Law of One, or I've also heard it refereed to as "The Ra Materials?" Very eye opening stuff along those lines. 4th density when?

>>18136930
Forgive me, that was needlessly vague. This really seems like truth to me: http://www.lawofone.info/

>>18136921
>materialism is a branching ideology from what constitues contemporary scientific method
>but don't worry
>materialists can't be hard believers of the scientific method
>or even become reductionists or determinists or...
>aka scientists

Weird, right?

>>18136913
>>18136914
Oh, please, tell me how all scientist were atheists. I'm sure that Newton, Copernicus, Pascal, Kepler, Planck and many others were complete fedoras (who actually don't think for themselves but spout whatever their pop-''scientists'' say is ''right'').

>>18136585
You're an idiot.

Consciousness is located in the brain.

What you're trying to say, is that conscious thought isn't the total accumulation of brainpower, because homeostatic functions require more space than active consciousness. This is a fact. You will never be able to be as smart as your own brain because "thought" and "cognition" only require a portion of the brain, as opposed to the traditional view that it's a collaborative effort of the whole.

There is a very interesting theory that makes a lot of sense if you read the book "The holographic Universe"

The brain is not really all there is, it is simply plugged in to a higher plane of reality like a fourth dimension of sorts, what we get to see in physical reality cannot explain conscious being fully. The brain is the messenger - but what does it send its signals TO?

Anyways look it up if you want somebody to explain it better than I - the stuff I read was quite convincing.

>>18136955
You're an idiot for taking your own belief as axiomatic in an age when we have empirical evidence of consciousness existing outside the brain.

Usual perspective doesn't equal fixed location.

>>18136984


continued

Consciouness is somewhat theorized to be a sort of "field" that surrounds your physical body and apparent\lty is what you connect into during dreams and out of body experiences - there is no hard science for this stuff but thats because we just cannot prove something we cannot access at will or even start to grasp and understanding to.

Like I said, the book and other materials really explains it better, whether it is correct or not, or some aspects are correct, either way, it is very interesting stuff.

One thing that irks me though is that a lot of people that support consciousness after life do so because they want to continue living.. as them. EVEN if that were the case, wouldn't you lose all your memories anyways? If you were the same "entity" but all your memories were wiped to start fresh, are you still you?

>>18136953
Where are you getting the inferences that
Scientist => Nonreligious
Scientist =/= Believer
Materialist =/= Scientist
Materialist =/= Believer
Scientist =/= Blind Faith

>?

If you're saying that... alongside me, one person can be more than one thing, why is it so hard to understand what I've posted so far? Don't you get it? Or are you just looking for an argument that has yet to exist?

Believers are not necessarily beholden to one method of taking something to have an absolute truth value. To be a believer, you can take something to be true, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something true, with factual certainty.

Do you know what empirical evidence entails? Scientific method. Cause, effect, observation, conclusion, hypothesis, theory. Do you know what Materialism is? The philosophical view that all things are just wholly physical. Everything that can't be observed or found to exist physically, must be an emergent property of things that do.

You need Truths, and Beliefs, to make knowledge. You can create your own truths, form your own beliefs, and assemble knowledge, or you can criticize your beliefs, try to learn truths, and discover knowledge. You can also create your own truths, criticize other beliefs, and make knowledge. You can do just about anything with truths and beliefs, and obtain knowledge.

Which is, why the fuck, Materialists are not always, nor are the necessarily, as believers as religious people. Because the majority of "true" religious people will not fly for being "true" materialists, or scientists. They will believe differently, especially if they adhere to the scientific method. The knowledge is never the same. No two people are uniform, in that case alone.

The majority of people you mentioned found their own ways to incorporate God into the equation/s, which isn't even a problem; less blind faith. Google Spinoza, for crying out loud, and stop assuming it's all about Atheism or popular science.

>>18136990
Can consciousness exist without the brain?

No.

Therefore based on empirical evidence, consciousness is located in the brain, but it isn't a "fixed" location, it's a process of dynamic synthesis of sensory input and homeostatic awareness combined with personal experience, filtered through other personal experiences.

>>18137007
>Can consciousness exist without the brain?
>No.

assumptions make an ass out of you and me. faggot. even the star trek writers had more imagination than that

>>18137008
Uh.

Imagination? Aren't we looking for... you know...

Just saying. Something is just very wrong here, because you're making some assumptions too. I kind of feel like you didn't read much of anything >>18137007 has been posting.

>>18137007


You don't know that. Science does not know that. Not for sure.

The brain may highly highly influence our consciousness and be an essential tool, but the possibilty of there being something else, hidden from our three dimensions that is "You", a sort of aura or soul if you will that interprits everything could be true.

Just stop for a second and think about yourself. Who you are, really. The viewer of all this, reality around us.

File: th (1).jpg (12KB, 300x156px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x156px

>>18137007

>>18137017
Could be true.

As true as the other explanations. So, if you have a personal belief or claim to understanding, that's fine and dandy.

But, those are personal beliefs. If you want justice, if not absolute truth, you need to get everyone to take what you believe as their own beliefs as well. Believe me (or don't), the human mind, regardless of what drives it, has some interesting functions that keep us from making great choices, more often than not.

An example is every other /x/ thread where there's a constant battle between two or more anons. They just can't compromise.

>>18137008
It can't. Prove it.

Now, I have an excellent imagination. Consciousness can exist in a synthetic limbo through simulated inter-subjective narratives interacting with a container that has those attributes applied to it. This is facilitated through the aetherlyne network that transposes functional conscious-geometry to the abstract user interface.

>>18137017
>opinions
Descartes is an idiot. The method of doubt is a thought experiment. If you look at a chair and think it's black, can communicate the colour you think it is to someone else, and they can reliably communicate the same sentiment back to you, who cares if it's really something else? It doesn't serve any additional purpose. What's more likely, that the world is a giant elaborate ruse to deceive everyone, or that the inter-subjective consciousness is as close to objective reality as it functionally matters for communicative and subjective purposes.

The very fact that you can FEEL yourself - the brain alone can't explain this. Why isn't reality just a bunch of people, in an identical world acting like every acts - but without the strange experience of what you all feel RIGHT NOW as being alive. It's honestly to me probably linked to the origin of the fucking universe itself. and so profound in its nature that nothing can convince me otherwise that what I FEEL as being alive is explained simple by physical cells communication with each other.

Sure, it helps me understand the world and move etc.

But I KNOW I am ME. I FEEL reality. The brain does not explain that.

>>18137030
Y-yes it does. It explains that by your feeling of air and hair and blood and warmth, and bones, and all your delicate casings, and light, and smell... through nerves.

If we destroy your inner ears, you won't "feel reality" anymore, because you will no longer have balance. The world will feel off. Now, this doesn't mean you don't have a soul, or what have you.

It just means that I have a very, very strong suspicion that what you think you're feeling is exactly what your brain can explain.

>>18137027
>It can't. Prove it.

OOBE, shared dreams, precognitive experiences, telepathy etc. etc. etc.

wew that was hard....

inb4 none of it is real because it doesnt fit your views

When somebody has massive brain damage or even just mild to severe - many parts of their brain are nonfunctional or gone.

Yet they still experience "THEM".

No matter which parts are inpared, one person could have one half gone, the other the other half.. they still experience the "viewer" locked into this forced reality we were born into.

If the brain really is consciousness, or all the parts a culmination of consciousness,,, I dont understand how when we can damage so many parts we still never lose the "us"

the "us" part cannot be damaged. Simply being there to view reality, no matter how distorted things can get, is simple being. Simple being and viewing feels like something, much, much more and I believe fundemental to the grand reality of our universe. Life and the cosmos are linked, no doubt in my mind.

>>18137037
I've had what seems like 3 out of 4 of those things.

I can explain them away with what may as well be Materialism in general. But...

>inb4 none of it is unreal because it fits your views
Eh?

File: zizek_feels.png (119KB, 500x281px)

119KB, 500x281px

>>18137027
>Descartes is an idiot

lol we got a real smarty-pants modern philosopher right here on /x/! How much of your work has been published?

>>18137034


Regardless of damage, you are sitll aware of everything. You could be blind, deaf, paralysed etc. with no input whatsoever, you still would know you exsist.

What the fuck, IS that? What ARE we?

>>18137037
>I'm listing a bunch of words because I didn't understand what he was talking about.
No. I'm a spiritual person, I'm reasonably open minded, but all of that is a bunch of nonsense.

You could have said that a simulated consciousness could, in theory, perfectly emulate a human consciousness, which means that a functional human consciousness can exist outside of a brain. I couldn't really argue with that, but what you said is pants on head retarded.

>>18137042
NDE's, Past life experience, the noosphere, the earth magnetic field and dreams connection, 2000+ years of spiritualism.

the list could go on desu

but sure buddy, if you think of materialism from a non-duality stand point then sure, everything is material, but we both know that's not what people mean by saying metarialism.

and if anyone of you stupid faggot moron think consciousness = electro chemicals in the brain than by all means. show the math, show me the chemical reaction that gives you consciousness.

>>18137045
Alive? Duh.

Problem being, were you made completely deprived of sensory information, or were you born that way? Because I imagine being born without any sensory input would not result in what you and I are. I don't think there would be any meaningful discerning of "alive-ness" or "being".

Quite literally, nothing. You would not be able to consider or even barely utter the very concept of (You). The observer is no longer even remotely what will constitute a human consciousness anymore. Nothing is what it should be, and therefore, the outcome is wholly alien and truly inaccessible to us.

You grapple with qualia. I get it.

I think it's just that you're asking the wrong questions, and looking for an answer you want to hear instead. It's never wrong to go back and make sure you know what you're looking for- people often make categorical mistakes.

File: 3329641599_47889b8b0d1.jpg (101KB, 358x500px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 358x500px

>>18137043
>that image
Ain't even mad. Also, it's infinitely more than zero, but in a topic unrelated to philosophy.

>>18137055
Uh. Can you explain to me what they mean when they say Materialism, then?

Because I do philosophy. I realize that there are subsets of things, hard things, soft things, slightly different things as well. But, I don't think that any of the Materialist views completely throw away THE CONCEPT OF PHYSICAL MONISM, the very basis of the ideology.

They should choose their words more carefully. Also... I think it's not math that you would need to better show an electrochemical process, but biology and chemistry specifically. Unless you're concerned about all things, then you may as well incorporate all the hard sciences.

I mean, you know, nobody has to even show you "the math". Google exists, and so does the public domain. If you want to know, if you have burning questions, solve them yourself so that you both lack doubt in your findings, and know that everything you find is not the result of someone trying to get you to believe something false, disingenuous, or otherwise inconclusive.

the brain is just a power amp.

it recieves a signal and amplifies it by growing neurons that are tuned to the signal and then increasing the voltage and current of the signal and sending it through wires to your muscles and organs and glands, which are the speakers.

our experience is that of an animal which is used for consciousness. if you hurt the brain you experience that as distortion etc. because you're interrupting and mutilating the signal receiver. over time it can repair.

its not really possible to know what goes on beyond the animal form and it's not really important either.

>>18137055
Are you in highschool?

There is no way you have any post-secondary education in anything related to an intellectual pursuit. There is nothing wrong with spiritualism, but believing it without any critical thought is dumb.

The problem with science is that it's on a quadratic curve. By comparision, 100 years ago, people were barbaric and medicine was hilarious. 100 years from now we're going to be exponentially antiquated because of how much faster technology is developing. You shouldn't put all your faith in technology because you're only going to get some partial truths, and a whole bunch of misinformation.

But, on the otherside, unironically believing in a bunch of hippy dippy nonsense with no factual basis is dumb. Sunlight gives you vitamin D, which is why those lights for people with SAD actually work; they simulate the sunlight. Crystals, telepathy, "the noosphere", and past life experiences are all superstitious nonsense. It's the same as believing black cats will give you bad luck. It is not the same as believing that walking under an open ladder is bad luck, because you could very realistically be hit in the head with something stupid.

>>18137071
oh yeah? well i do chemistry. You do know how to write chemical reactions, rite? I mean they teach it in schools

so pls do write the chemical reaction of consciousness. i'll wait.

unless you don't actually mean chemical when u say chemical, then you should choose your words more carefully.

I'll just leave this here, folks.

www.nderf.org

>>18137080
>chemical
I haven't said chemical anything once because I'm not an idiot, yet you seemed fixated on this idea that "unless you mechanically write the equation for consciousness it doesn't exist in a localized setting".

What are you doing? It's okay to believe in bullshit, but if you're going to believe in bullshit, don't get so defensive when people call you out on it.

>>18137083
ok, the 'electrochemical' reaction then ; )

also, that projection lmao

File: Hank_Hill_by_JRSly.jpg (52KB, 675x902px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 675x902px

>>18137085
I didn't say electrochemical anything either, and what exactly am I projecting? Jesus christ anon, your illiteracy is becoming a problem. I certainly hope you don't have to write papers or reports for your "chemistry" job.

>>18137090
>I didn't say electrochemical anything either,

> Also... I think it's not math that you would need to better show an ELECTROCHEMICAL PROCESS, but biology and chemistry specifically.

w/e doe im out

>>18137080
...

>chemical reaction of consciousness
Okay, I'll bite. Draw us a unifying equation that shows us, chemically, how consciousness arises, master of the chemical plane (and grammar). Because, in this moment, you're asking me to prove what I most certainly don't need to... I never made strides to claim that I could detail for you, with the utmost accuracy, a magic sentence that proves all. This isn't an issue or question for me that I want to solve. There is no burden that I am obligated towards.

I "don't understand what's with you", but I do.

It's not even my job to convince you. Notwithstanding that I do know how to do Chemistry- but I'm not a full-blown expert in the field, so don't expect me to show you a fully detailed human genome that both shows the history of brain development, as well as how many other hominids we absorbed or were absorbed, time immemorial, either.

And, check this out. Biology? Involves certain avenues of Physics. Chemistry? Involves certain avenues of Physics and is the basis of Biology. Do you know why these things overlap?

Well, you study Chemistry, so I'm surprised you don't know about fields, or haven't gotten into enzymes. It's energy. Electric potential. It's there. In Biology, through Chemistry, that can be explained away by Physics. Even nonorganic things display electric potential. Electrochemistry? It's part of Biology and requires some basis of understanding in Chemistry. If you care more about the phenomenon, then, again, add Physics.

>>18137095
Bye?

File: Laughing Lion.jpg (201KB, 493x500px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 493x500px

>>18137095
Oh look, an underage idiot can't follow a reply chain, and after immense anal devastation due to a profound lack of intelligence, he does the ol' "I'm cooler and smarter than you so I'm leaving, but in reality I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I can't support my baseless opinions."

One day you'll grow up.

File: image.jpg (85KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x426px

"1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

>>18137096
It's already been done awhile ago, dude. Here, read up.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/sumdif.html

That's your "unifying equation for consciousness." Sorry it's not in cooking recipe form, that simpletons can understand. I guess you'll have to actually learn math, and figure out exactly how much information you can pack in a signal, of any kind.

Here's a video that has moving pictures, if you need help with your visualizations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU

File: image.jpg (100KB, 480x552px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 480x552px

ARTICLE 12
"I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING"

1020 The Christian who unites his own death to that of Jesus views it as a step towards him and an entrance into everlasting life. When the Church for the last time speaks Christ's words of pardon and absolution over the dying Christian, seals him for the last time with a strengthening anointing, and gives him Christ in viaticum as nourishment for the journey, she speaks with gentle assurance:

Go forth, Christian soul, from this world
in the name of God the almighty Father,
who created you,
in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God,
who suffered for you,
in the name of the Holy Spirit,
who was poured out upon you.
Go forth, faithful Christian!
May you live in peace this day,
may your home be with God in Zion,
with Mary, the virgin Mother of God,
with Joseph, and all the angels and saints. . . .

May you return to [your Creator]
who formed you from the dust of the earth.
May holy Mary, the angels, and all the saints
come to meet you as you go forth from this life. . . .
May you see your Redeemer face to face. 591

File: image.jpg (114KB, 636x534px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 636x534px

1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.

1052 "We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ's grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies" (Paul VI, CPG § 28).

1053 "We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern" (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

1054 Those who die in God's grace and friendship imperfectly purified, although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of God.

1055 By virtue of the "communion of saints," the Church commends the dead to God's mercy and offers her prayers, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.

1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the "sad and lamentable reality of eternal death" (GCD 69), also called "hell."

1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: "Lord, let me never be parted from you." If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26).

File: image.jpg (405KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1024x768px

1059 "The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ's tribunal to render an account of their own deeds" (Council of Lyons II [1274]:DS 859; cf. DS 1549).

1060 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

File: image.jpg (230KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1024x768px

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

>>18137174
>>18137179
>>18137181
>>18137187

Can you not? I'm sorry. I know there's this unspoken rule about not talking to crazy bible thumpers about their insanity. But, could you please go to >>>/b/ or something? Nobody reads your shit. It's just spam to us.

File: 1453415469104.jpg (51KB, 473x480px)

51KB, 473x480px

>>18137169
...

I... I don't think anyone here is reading anything, they're just talking past one another. When did I argue that there did not exist any attempts to construct a unifying equation for consciousness?

Who is saying that there is must be formatted a certain way?

What's with all the grandeur? Why am I conveniently the one who lacks mathematical skills, or requires everything to be of a chemical nature, solely, to understand anything? What is all of this? Confabulation? Knee-jerk reactions? A sounding board for neuroses?

Will anyone calm down and approach anything in this thread, unconditionally? No, no they won't. It's partisan as hell in here.

>>18137096
>hey >>18137080, you say you study chemistry
>you claim to know how to write chemical reactions
>you claim to be knowledgeable about chemistry
>and claim that you understand what I've given you so far
>I'm not a self-proclaimed expert on delivering (insert here)
>you sell yourself that way though
>why not show us what a chemical reaction of consciousness is then
>rather than ask someone who has no burning questions about the chemical nature of human beings to prove something that seems far more fickle than >>18137169

>so don't expect me to show you a fully detailed human genome that both shows the history of brain development
>as well as how many other hominids we absorbed or were absorbed
>either

The implicit nature of that sentence is that those things have more to do with the specific biological and thus chemical nature of human beings, and not something more grounded in Physics- and I accept the latter. I would have gone so far to have even find what you, >>18137169, have posted, and make attempts to break it down. I just... I don't even know why I'm replying to this thread anymore.

I've wasted so much time breaking apart the very abstract nonsensical shenanigans that cause all of us to do such irrational shit on a daily basis, for no reason.

Fuck me, your hubris is everlasting.

>>18137200
>that there is such
Frustration brings typos. Being autistic about posts on /x/ brings suffering.

>>18137200
I am the Christian desu I approach all conceptions and perceptions and /x/ fancies unconditionally....

I've learned a lot on /x/ and /fringe/ and I love the whole lot of ya and think that you're wonderful people

>>18137200
Go SJW ftw!

>>18136585
Citation needed, cunt biscuit. Your post seems pretty solidly in the belief category, while we have a ton of evidence pointing to consciousness being a result of the electrochemical processes going on in the brain.

>>18137287
Fuck you, it has nothing to do with SJW. It is the least politically correct thing for me to call a large swath of people, more or less, parts stupid. No- here.
>parts retarded
>this backwards fucking meme shit
>fuck right off with your alternative safe space needs
Oh, they can fix it, they can very well fix it. But when one person doesn't understand something and seeks to understand it genuinely, while the other person calls them stupid for not understanding something and lacks the skills or tools to
>communicate to them
answer/s to their questions, no matter how roundabout or silly, then the person seeking knowledge is at a greater loss than the person who does not know how to communicate or interpret well- or simply refuses to. It's amplified to greater degrees of worse when it's nothing but people who default to calling everyone else stupid as their first line of defense.

Nobody learns. Everyone loses. Some side of me hopes that it's genuinely how they operate in the real world, too, because
>only a fool would take anything here for fact

>communication is the bane of all agents in a given system
>and yes, that definitely lines up if you talk qubits

>>18137283
I haven't learned anything of sincere value from /x/, but at least you've got that going for yourself.

>>18136640
Personality is largely a result of experiences and how your mind interprets them, a clone of you wouldn't necessarily have a similar personality or outlook on life to yours.

>>18136674
Because it doesn't make him feel warm and fuzzy inside.

>>18137287
"Call your opponent an SJW and automatically win the argument" doesn't work here, sorry. Go back to whatever shitty forum and/or blog you call home.