Sorry, I'll try again. You are issuing a claim that your 'view' is true and somewhere out there an impressionable individual has accepted your claim. In the scenario being discussed, science demonstrates that your 'view' is 100% false and that means it was a lie (becuase you originally claimed it as being truth). How would you feel knowing that you lied to everyone and that lie was accepted as truth by at least one impressionable person?
You mean that if your view is right, mine is false and because I am saying it is true, I am lying.
First lie is usually intentional else it is just a mistake.
Second science doesn't demonstrate that my view is false, it is compatible with it. My view just relativise science but doe snot make it incompatible.
It follows that if I am wrong, my mistake is not big, thus I won't feel like a make people sad or anything else bad. I think on the contrary, it helps anyway to live in this world because I do not deny its relative existence.
Nope, I don't believe in life after death; however, that is unusual because most of the worlds population does. Face it, it's an attractive idea.
First for me there is always life after death. But I do not believe that it is myself who rebirth, in other word after MY death, there are other life (but not mine).
Attractive idea? It depends: heaven or hell?
Just saying it doesn't make it true. What you could say perhaps is that time might be an illusion as we might exist in every possible past / future scenario simultaneously and it is only our memory in any given moment that gives us a sense of linear change.
It is true, time is a perception, to say that it is something else also, you have to prove it but you cannot because you will always use perceptions to sustain your claim.
I never said you experience unconsciousness so I am not sure what purpose reiterating that point is. What I can tell you is that a person in an unconsicous state is very real and can be observed.
no, you assume he is unconscious but you cannot know that.
No need to know what time is, but here is what it is? You're not making any sense.
Because time is a perception it is not outside consciousness, hence it does not affect consciousness
Without a functioning brain, a cross section of spacetime on Earth is not conscious. Functioning brains are transient; hence, your consciousness is transient.
Again you use brain, but brain is a perception
If you watched your mother being flayed alive, would you feel wonderful?
no, I would feel sad do not have being able to see the truth before.
For me truth is beyond bad or good, it is something that transcends our capacity of expression. Until we let go our ego we cannot really see truth.
disease, death if seen as bad or good, is because we do not see truth.
Are you implying that if I injected you with herpes then you would magically become asymptomatic?
no you have to find out why you injected this, for what reason.
maybe you won't heal anyway but you will be able to live with it.
I saw what you said about time. It's another unsupported claim on the heap. If you issue a claim of truth then you are saying that reality corresponds to your idea. Objective evidence is a demonstration of that correspondence (i.e. showing that realitya agrees with your idea). That's what you need to show.
It agrees with my idea because it does not contradict it.
An epiphenomenon is a side-effect of a primary phenomenon. For example, a phenomenon would a rhinovirus living inside of you. An epihenomenon would sneezing.
Here you see a causality because you build a biological model of it.
And in this case these two phenoemena are empirically testable while consciousness is not. if you say it will, it will only be as a brain test, not as consciousness test
In the case of consciousness, the phenomenon would be a functioning brain. An epiphenomenon would be consciousness.
yes but you do not explain how, that is the problem!
epiphenomena is not explanation, it is the model that link the two.
