My wife is working out our ancestral heritage. It is nothing like yours, being mostly eastern European and northern African. But you know that we are only 6 degrees at most different from one another. Or so it is said. Related can also mean intellectually rather than from the gene pool.

Gene check: I'm half Swedish and a quarter Irish.
As for my other quarter, they came over first or more accurately some of them did.
This info was learned by my American born full-blooded (fully gened?) passed away Swedish father at a Mormon institute that specializes in ancestry.
Half of mother traces back to French colonists kicked out of Acadia (no longer exists in Canada) by the Brits. Some became Cajuns. Mine became Yankees and that makes me some kind of a quarter mongrelized Frenchie.
That's OK. If a full Frenchie, I'd still be mongrel anyways.
I've heard it said mongrels make the best dogs.
No, I will not bark like Hitlery. .

You sir, are an old guy even weirder than me.
We must be related.

Bet that made going outside difficult.

You want a ring story? Here's one, I bet you never heard:
A man studied the black arts. Then he married a beautiful woman. He was very jealous of her He summoned up the Devil. He asked the Devil to keep his wife from cheating on him. The Devil said that in exchange for his soul, he'd give him a ring, and as long as he worn that ring she could never cheat on him. The man agreed. The Devil said, you will sleep now and when you wake the ring will be upon your finger. That morning when the man awoke he found his finger in his wife's vagina.

What I really want is me precious so I can turn invisible to steal all kinds of mystical stuff.
Me precious.
Me precious.
Mmmmmmmmmm~.
ME PRECIOUS!

Me too.

Just kidding around . . .

I can accept it when people say "Well, I'll think about it." That is all I am asking. The response I'm getting is rather the opposite: that they don't want to think about it. I can only conclude that it is because the implications affect literally every point of philosophy imaginable. To me, that means that the answers are all that much more important because they form the foundation of a philosophy built on reality. The answers to this question resolve many of the significant controversies in philosophy, from abortion to religion.

I'll sign off for now. Thanks for a great topic. A lot of the political discourse has gotten pretty stale. This has been a good exercise of (apologies to Hercule Poirot - courtesy of Agatha Christie) the "little gray cells".

Hehe. Agreed. May cooler heads prevail.

What I have proved is that of the two possibilities, only one offers the possibility of support of its position. Whether one chooses after that reality has been acknowledged is up to them. It has been the case all throughout history that people have refused to believe the truth unless they seek for it themselves. The Catholics' persecution of Galileo comes to mind. To one who is honestly seeking, I can tell them where and how to look, but I force no man to pursue such a path precisely because free will and intent are integral and key to the process.

"Strong emotions and the associated physical sensations do not impart proof of disembodied consciousness."

You obviously have some preconceived notions about what evidence you are or are not willing to accept. Such is for you to decide, but is indicative of one who only seeks to go where he wishes rather than of one willing to go where the facts lead.

I will leave you to your thoughts. The only sure things in life are death and taxes, right? ;)

Nonsense.

That's how religion got started.
I often wonder about the first guy who invented a god. Was he sincere or just trying to get people to do as he says by scaring the bejeezus out of them? Most likely the latter.

Too logical.

Thank you for a heads-screwed-on-straight post.
When it comes to faith people will disregard history, physics, and whatever else you can think of. When that doesn't work, they'll make up some very elaborate reasons that in their minds justifies the beliefs. However, those on the other side of the argument can be so committed to proving deists incorrect that they'll go on trying to move the immovable object until their tongues fall out.

Einstein was piss poor epistemology until it wasn't. Need further examples?

:D We have discussed it over many months.

I've relaxed for 12 hours since this comment; but I can always count on you for perspective, Herb.
:D

I'm going to tell you what I've said to blarman. Enough already! You two can carry this on for months without either convincing the other. Like I said, you both seem to fall into the description psychologists use to describe a certain attitude, "you'd rather be right than be happy."
Relax, you two argumentative brainy guys, have a drink, eat a hot fudge sundae, get laid, for god's sake. OOPS!

Sheesh.
Man, you are a glutton for punishment.
Drop it already, you're even beginning to bore my beagle. If you need to prove your beliefs so badly, perhaps you should ask yourself why. You seem to fall into what psychologists describe as a person who'd rather be right than be happy.

I understand that there's a web site where you can purchase such items.

You have not logically proven that human consciousness is independent of human biology. You have verbally kicked up a lot of dust and waved your words around in a Rumpelstiltskinish manner using poorly constructed arguments.

And no, I don't want to hear your "proof" in a private message. You should be able to publicly offer your 'imparted knowledge'.

Strong emotions and the associated physical sensations do not impart proof of disembodied
consciousness.

I am not proposing that one prove the negative position. As I showed in my proof above, I propose that we investigate the option where proof is possible: the assertion that death is not the termination of consciousness. If you wish to prove my logic to be incorrect, simply invalidate the proof.

That being said, however, the assertion that no evidence in favor (of the the assertion that death is not the termination of consciousness) may be found is preposterous when one has not even looked for such and in fact merely denies that any which may be proposed can't possibly be valid. One choosing to do such is intentionally creating a logical problem for which no objective solution may be found at all! In light of the existing and unrefuted proof so far presented, such a course is the refuge of those attempting to avoid reality altogether and I will not be a part of such closed-mindedness.

You assume that the only faculties available to consciousness are those of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell via a physical form. Again, you tie biology to consciousness as inseparable while refusing to posit the notion that such an assumption is erroneous. I posit the notion that sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell are extensions and additions to sensory perception, but that other paths of sensory perception may exist. Would a consciousness gain by taking a form? Assuredly. And it would once again be limited after it left such a form. Exploring such implications is, however, left to those willing to contemplate such in the first place.

You are right in that one can not shoehorn a size 11 foot into a size 2 shoe. We have to expand our horizons and go looking for bigger shoes - or we have to be content to walk barefoot. I have mountains to climb and I anticipate sharp rocks. I'll take the shoes.

Why? We have logically shown it to be the only proveable supposition. That you deny yourself the opportunity to pursue a course of knowledge does not invalidate the possibility for others. No one who started out with the mindset of "it can't be done" ever invented anything or explored anything or discovered anything. Only those who were willing to posit what may be and pursue it did that.

Ultimately it is your choice as to what you want to do. For myself, I choose not to rule anything out until proven otherwise.

And I will say to you again, that is an unproveable assertion (as we have shown logically).

If I were to tell you that I knew that not to be true, what would you say? If I were to tell you that I know consciousness is not biologically dependent, what would you say?