Hmm...sounds like piss-poor epistemology.

Not bad, but I think when I grew up a meme was called a fad.

A=A

That's the kind of imaginary explanations for why their previous theories (Big Bang and Accelerating Expansion of the Space-Time of the Universe) don't match up with their observations. It's a perfect example of how theoretical physics has split from observational and experimental physics.

If it doesn't fit, just make something up.

Human consciousness has a specific identity, and you know that identity is not a contradiction to the axiom of existence.

Not to support the religious aspects put forth by blarman, but death is only the end of consciousness as far as our senses go. As I posted, Quantum physics and consciousness are opening doors that heretofore were considered impossible. There are perfectly valid ideas relative to the existence of consciousness independent of mass as a form of (dark?) energy.

Not to further mysticism, but some theory about consciousness is that it exists independently of physical manifestation, possibly as a part of or entirely dark energy. How it exists, how it uses energy to "see" or "hear" is unknown as yet. It becomes a part of a living thing and uses it to the extent of the thing's neural ability. Totally unproven theory, but you know these scientists, you never know what they'll come up with. In any case, according to those who are working on consciousness and quantum physics, there's nothing mystical about it. Might be a dead end, but who knows?

Logic 101: “You are never called upon to prove a negative. That’s a law of logic. When you accept such an important issue as the creation of the universe on faith, you’re destroying your confidence and the values of your own mind. It has to be either reason or faith.” –Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFYAI...

So, you need not only your consciousness to continue after death, you also need your eyes, ears, taste buds, nervous system and supporting biology to continue as well. How else would your consciousness perceive and how did it do it before you were born and why don't you remember any of that?

You continue to think that you can 'shoehorn' religious mysticism into philosophy somehow. Won't fit.

Seriously, blarman; when you're dead, you're not conscious.

Your assertions are based on ideas that ignore and contradict readily observable aspects of existence.

I dunno.
During the 20th century, dozens of things that were deemed impossible suddenly became possible. Who knows what tomorrow might bring. I think the quote goes, "I do several impossible things before breakfast" -- The Red Queen in Alice Through The Looking Glass.

Seriously?

I am not talking about existence nor debating it. I am not asserting that it is subjective in any way. I am not asserting that consciousness precedes existence. I assume existence (as an axiom), but I am also confining my study to that of conscious entities - not banana peels. I do not question the existence of a banana peel, but it is not relevant to this discussion because insofar as I can determine, it is not a conscious entity.

Rand asserted that the only way to examine the universe was by the perception of a consciousness which could identify it's boundaries, its distinctness from other objects AND had the capability to reason. Unless you disagree with that statement, we will proceed upon that basis. Before I worry about the after-death existence of a banana peel, however, I'm going to look at a more personally valuable and applicable question: whether or not my personal consciousness will still exist after death. Will my ability to perceive and reason continue after death? Because if not, existence won't matter one iota to me after that point. My first and foremost concern is myself. I have no question that the rest of the universe will go on one way or the other.

"Testing your ideas about death and consciousness should come with a medical disclaimer."

Only if one lacks the imagination to come up with a test that does not involve self-destruction or bodily injury.

Polite contradictions. Consider the problems encountered in thinking "consciousness" precedes "existence". The logical extension of that idea is a 'cartoon world' where everything is possible.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...

Testing your ideas about death and consciousness should come with a medical disclaimer.

Draw your own conclusions from his response....

"Your arguments presuppose the "primacy of consciousness", and imply that knowledge of the end of human consciousness can only be confirmed or known through the first hand experience that ends it."

Do you propose another method of obtaining the necessary information? I'm open to suggestions. The problem is that what we might call an observation of death is merely an observation of the cessation of biological functions. There is no correlating test for the presence/absence of consciousness I am aware of. Example: one in a comatose state. Such an one exhibits limited biological function, but no self-will (aspect of consciousness) ascertainable by scientific discovery. Is such a one alive or dead? Might there remain a nascent/inactive consciousness or even an active one which has somehow lost its ability to control its vessel?

"Existence is; and, regardless of whether you "think", you are. The banana peel and you both exist whether you are conscious, or not. You and the banana peel are existents observable by others. Your death ends all the biological functions that your human consciousness depends on."

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.

I agree that things exist. The question, however, is whether the consciousness continues to exist despite the termination of those biological functions. (Which brings up the interesting concept of what would cause a consciousness to temporarily inhabit a physical form in the first place...) I think you are assuming biological and conscious function are one and the same. I question the assumption and contemplate the possibility of independence.

"There are rational explanations for unusual, individual, mental experiences. Those experiences are not a valid basis to construct ideas fundamentally in contradiction to what is."

I never asserted otherwise. However, I also categorically reject the collective insanity case implied here - that somehow each and every assertion of "miraculous" circumstances can be attributed to some mental defect or hallucination. That is the refuge of unjustified speculation fueled by confirmation bias. Many in such cases have been examined by medical staff and declared completely competent. In cases of healings, many have taken place in the very presence of astonished medical staff.

Must all such instances have to be taken at face value? No, and I do not suggest any such thing. An impartial judge, however, does not issue a peremptory verdict without first weighing the arguments.

Rather than looking at individual claims and putting the proverbial cart before the horse, however, I think it prudent instead to establish the feasibility of the original question first and foremost. If the hypothesis may be reasonably asserted that consciousness and biological function are not one and the same, then these incidents (asserted by some to be miracles) may be examined individually as potential evidence in corroboration of the assertion.

Absolutely.
If knowledge can only be confirmed first hand then most of science is bunk. I'm sure B realizes that a truth can be confirmed without personally experiencing it.

That's right!
He inferred that each person was their own religion and eschewed the building of edifices and rituals.

What is Easter?
Please keep in mind that I do not wish to come across as correcting, as much as wish give information.

Mainly, Easter is not about Jesus's time on the cross, it is about his resurrection from the grave. Two different matters all together.

On another note, it is not about religion. Christianity is not a religion. Christ was very anti- religion.

Your arguments presuppose the "primacy of consciousness", and imply that knowledge of the end of human consciousness can only be confirmed or known through the first hand experience that ends it.

Existence is; and, regardless of whether you "think", you are. The banana peel and you both exist whether you are conscious, or not. You and the banana peel are existents observable by others. Your death ends all the biological functions that your human consciousness depends on.

There are rational explanations for unusual, individual, mental experiences. Those experiences are not a valid basis to construct ideas fundamentally in contradiction to what is.

It's your choice: you can stand on a position which has no possibility of being proven and rationalize to yourself the justification, or you can investigate the only position which holds the possibility of being proven. If you choose to stand on a position which can not be evidentially supported, however, you risk blatant hypocrisy if you insist on an evidential position from those who assert the contrary.

I also strongly caution against any assertion that no evidence of consciousness after death could exist when one has already admitted that he has declared the search for such a waste of time and/or effort. A pronouncement of that type is open evidence of confirmation bias - not of one searching for reality.

Adieu.

A strawman is a substitute argument which is inherently false. I used none such, but I may have responded to a question you did not intend to ask. When I read your comment, it seemed to focus on the aspect of observation and how it applied to groups. As I seem to have misunderstood your comment, perhaps I could prevail upon you to restate your comment.

"The banana peel..."

I'm really struggling to understand where you are coming from and where you are headed. Perhaps you can restate the entirety of your comment and precede it with your assumptions. I am not intentionally being difficult, I am just struggling to find the set of logical tracks upon which your mental train of thought is proceeding.

I’m not saying “nothing can be proven,” I’m saying “a negative cannot be proven.” Big difference. As for your saying that “justification is wholly a value judgement - an opinion,” no it isn’t. According to dictionary.com, justification is “a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends,” and to “justify” is “to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right.” Another big difference. I stand by my original statements above.

I can't disagree with any of what you said.

Strawman, blarman. I'm referring to easily observed aspects of existence. They are not the intense hopes of belief.

The banana peel seen on your porch, by your neighbor, was still there regardless of whether you were playing a joke, knocked unconscious, or dead. Your condition can concretely be determined with a bucket of water or medical assessment.

Using your argument would eliminate the reality of any diminished mental condition—because we cannot be that person. Twisting logic like this cuts off 'blood flow' to one's capacity for reason.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything, and it underscores our necessity to reason. Having physical reactions within our bodies is not proof of a contradictory dimension; and dire, emotional stress is not a tool used in rational thought.

Agreed. The more relevant question is are there witnesses today, or even can there be? In very fact, this is the position I advocate in favor of the most, as it settles the issue definitively.