Have you met @S? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you.

I tend to value @Andrew4Handeland @JosephS’s insights. That’s my persuasion. However, @S would say that I am a wishful thinker.

By the way, go fuck yourself, S. Piece of shit.

So when you say that ‘paintings and visual arts don’t mean anything because only words have meaning’, in my opinion you are trying to contain the meaning of all your experiences to a particular value structure that you believe to be universal (ie. words) - and so anything that cannot be contained within words is declared ‘meaningless’. — Possibility

Insightful.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, although I was also whining in frustration that poor definition of terms has made this discussion less productive than it could have been. — T Clark

Agreed.

“Meaning” has different meanings according to different contexts/uses. A lot of differing opinions in this thread, and I suspect that is due to the different contexts/uses. Most if not all of the posts give “true” accounts of meaning (or meaninglessness). We just have to be humble enough to acknowledge that our posts may not exhaust the meaning of “meaning.”

It's made of Mass, Length squared, and Time negative squared. — PoeticUniverse

That’s how scientists measure it. It doesn’t explain what it is.

Dawkins is @S’s mentor.

So you want to ply a little, or is this boring for you? Do you want a good question or a twisted idea? — James Pullman

This is leading nowhere. It’s getting tiresome. I’m thinking about taking another two months off of this forum because I can’t deal with Dawkins-loving psychopaths.

It doesn't matter one way or the other! — S

That’s a sad view. Phenomenology counts, IMO

Yes I know what you mean, but it´s this kind of questions, posed this way, that drives good "minds" from looking for the answers — James Pullman

I’m always looking for answers. That’s why I’m on this forum in part. I bounce ideas off people and see what comes of it.

Because it's meaningless, i.e. counts for nothing, to anyone who i) isn't that person, and ii) has their wits about them. — S

That’s my point. It may be meaningless to you, but it’s not meaningless to them. That’s the very essence/nature of consciousness.

You mean that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify? Big deal. That just means that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify, and nothing else. — S

And you don’t think they speculate? You don’t think many of these intelligent men and women have certain beliefs about their experiences?

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, — S

Laughable how? Because you haven’t experienced it? Because it doesn’t fit with your scientism?

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, and noting the number of accounts is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost, too. — S

Many people have encountered UFOs. Quite frequently and ongoing among Air Force pilots. They are first-person accounts. They may be mistaken, or there may be something else.

They are just consensual taxonomy. — James Pullman

I think you understand quite well.

That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified — S

It cannot be verified that consciousness only occurs in functioning brains.

What's "my model"? I haven't made the same claims as Terrapin, but I did somewhat rhetorically raise the question of whether there's any credible evidence of consciousness without a functioning brain. That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified. — S

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto others. A lot of atheists are psychopaths. Not all of them, but there is strong evidence that you are one. — Noah Te Stroete

If there's no means of verification, then it counts for nothing. You accept that, then? Because I was under the impression that you wanted to count it as evidence. But it can't be, because it could be fabricated or mistaken. — S

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto others. A lot of atheists are psychopaths. Not all of them, but there is strong evidence that you are one.

No, it's not my interpretation, it's my reasonable conclusion. Do you have a way of verifying their "report"? Yes or no? If yes, explain. If no, then it counts for nothing, as opposed to evidence in favour of one possibility over others. — S

No, I cannot verify their report, and that’s the point. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

mental modes that give rise to consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

That is speculative actually.

We normally only see clearly only at about the size of a deck of cards held at arm’s length (Try looking just a little away and the clarity goes way down)—this is the center of the tunnel which is caused by neuronal stripes. I am not really dying to go down the tunnel… — PoeticUniverse

I have 20/10 vision. Speak for yourself.

No, the first-person "reports" are just what they say after the event, which could be entirely fabricated or otherwise mistaken, with no possible way of checking, so it counts for nothing. — S

There’s no way of verifying your model either.

That’s your interpretation and you’re entitled to it. Like I said to TS, it fits your model but it isn’t conclusive.

In other words, the person medically dies at 4:20. Then they're brought back at 4:24, whereupon they once again have perceivable brain activity. At 4:26, they report their NDE. Why would we conclude that the NDE didn't occur somewhere between 4:24 and 4:26? — Terrapin Station

That’s your interpretation. You’re discounting the person’s perceived experience because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived model.

The point is that what you're saying is indistinguishable from bullshit, so it counts for nothing. — S

So says the psychopath. Maybe souls are literal and you really don’t have one? I’m not sure now.

It's not like they'd be able to report the near-death experience they're having while they're medically dead, while they have no perceivable brain activity. — Terrapin Station

Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports.

How very... convenient. Kind of like, "I can do a backflip", "Go on then", "I can't do it whilst you're watching". — S

That’s dumb. Back flips are perceivable to others. Consciousness is only accessible to the self.

Consciousness/qualia is of the brain as a process therein because
1. It reflects what the brain has just come up with from its analysis.
2. It can go away in a faint, with a blow to the head, anesthesia, or get foggy from drugs. — PoeticUniverse

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity.

You're saying that you use "soul" metaphorically? For the metaphor, you're non-literally talking about what in terms of what? — Terrapin Station

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S.

If you're saying that souls are fictional, that's fine. You're not thinking that I'd disagree with that, are you? — Terrapin Station

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically. Whether or not there is something actual that a soul is I am agnostic.

That's not true. There's a difference between understanding the emotions of others, and choosing to disregard them. — S

That’s also called psychopathy.

Showing empathy would just be evidence that I have the ability to understand the emotions and experiences of others. — S

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that.

We just call that the ability to empathize. No need to make up nonsense like a "soul" for it. — Terrapin Station

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist.

don't even accept what seem to be standard notions of space, time, etc. — Terrapin Station

I don’t know how to communicate with you.

Because they don't exist. — S

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy. Only atheists are so fundamentalist.

Well, or fantasizing, basically. I like doing that, too, but I don't take it to be something other than fantasizing. — Terrapin Station

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences. I’m sorry you don’t pay attention to yours, or you dismiss them as “unscientific.”

Will you pray for my soul? — S

I very much doubt that you have a soul. To take a play from your playbook, there’s no evidence for it.

You're still missing the point, it seems. There's an important difference between ruling out and what I call taking seriously. — S

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life without an original thought.

Well, you know what? Since you didn't hesitate to call me an advocate of scientism, I'm going to call you religious from now on. — S

I have been called worse from better people than you.

Can you please transparent enough to stop hiding behind the term "open-minded" when you really mean "accepting of nonsense". — S

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you.

One: can't you read? Two: are you seriously going to deny that your talk of spirit and God is religiously influenced? — S

I am influenced by many things. I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some. I am not religious.

Also, make your mind up, lol. One minute I'm an ardent advocate of scientism, the next I'm anti-science! — S

Scientism is anti-science. I’ve been trying to make that point all along.