> it reaches the unfun point of people searching for dictionaries so they can have the winning definitions of words, as opposed to discussing the core aspects.
No one wants to play, "X does Y" "Oh but actually X is (a different definition of X)"
Its argument baiting, and its also wrong, Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness, And the philosophical questions of consciousness majorly assume that it exists.
> Electricity and neurotransmitters slosh around and cause those things.
Thats parts of my meatbag of an entity, which is recognized by most governments, and almost every person in the world, to be "me", to be the person that I am, everyone agrees this is a fine definition, but whatever.
This arbitrary meatbag with energy in it makes a noise, the god meatbag does not make a noise.
A brick makes a noise when its dropped, god doesn't
Atoms interact with one another via their forces, god doesn't
Its the exact same statement as before just with some words changed over. There is no value add to this.
By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.
> Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness
Yes they do, I saw Stanford prof Andrew Huberman say we're just a flow of electricity. Read of another neuroscientist that claimed there is no such as reason without emotion. More generally, scientists wade into philosophical waters all the time.
> By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.
It does, because humans are only part dirt and bricks. Consciousness is the lynchpin, the thing that cannot be explained in terms of dirt and bricks. Hence, once you admit there is more to reality than the physical, it once again becomes possible to search for God/Atman/Nibbana whatever you prefer.
The arbitrary meatbag is not the whole story of the human.
> it reaches the unfun point of people searching for dictionaries so they can have the winning definitions of words, as opposed to discussing the core aspects.
No one wants to play, "X does Y" "Oh but actually X is (a different definition of X)"
Its argument baiting, and its also wrong, Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness, And the philosophical questions of consciousness majorly assume that it exists.
> Electricity and neurotransmitters slosh around and cause those things.
Thats parts of my meatbag of an entity, which is recognized by most governments, and almost every person in the world, to be "me", to be the person that I am, everyone agrees this is a fine definition, but whatever.
This arbitrary meatbag with energy in it makes a noise, the god meatbag does not make a noise.
A brick makes a noise when its dropped, god doesn't
Atoms interact with one another via their forces, god doesn't
Its the exact same statement as before just with some words changed over. There is no value add to this.
By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.