immortal

That's not the point why should little girls deserve the punishment for some abnormal people who abuse boys? If you really think that minor boys have been intentionally mistreated then give us a statistics to prove that this is the case as your proposing it as. I don't think majority of the people would preferentially mistreat boys over girls when they are minors. And also society is accustomed to think that girls are weak and hence they will be treated a little well than boys and if you think that is offensive you don't deserve to be a man, be a man.

This is the reason why God won't make us physically invincible without making us prepared for it to have that kind of knowledge in the first place because we will use it to disturb the very framework of the society and disturb his plans.

See References They are from the last decade, I do know that sometimes a branch of science suddenly advances in a decade or sometimes it remains stagnant for decades but history is always relevant, you just don't dismiss the old concepts altogether without any reasons, it works in a cumulative way.

Well in fact those words are being used by psychologists and such a thing is documented. Introducing consciousness - Open university

Yes, its called as non-conscious perception or subliminal perception i.e you can have non-conscious vision and yet you will not have the feel of that vision, it will be processed subconsciously.

What is the syntax to give indented quotes?

Like this one?

Only identical particles or identical atoms are truly indistinguishable that doesn't mean that there are no other atoms having different number of electrons in their quantum system. We cannot distinguish a hydrogen atom from an another hydrogen atom but we can distinguish a hydrogen atom from a helium atom having two electrons in its quantum system. Its because of their different habituation from the surrounding environments which produce synaptic plasticity and the generation of synaptic spines which helps humans to have access consciousness by accessing memory stored in the form of synaptic structures makes each human unique from others in the community.

I think we all need to see this thread from the perspective of a phenomenological psychologist as to how important our body projects and identities are for ourselves and in relation with others and how complex such a body-world relationship can get. The body: A phenomenological psychological perspective

Your beliefs are not science. Your still clinging to the old Newtonian world view. John Wheeler said "Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve". This is the view accepted by science. Its not "Matter tells how other Matter should move"

We need to educate the young ones so that they won't fall into religious superstition and such things should not be tolerated. How can we convince anyone who consider themselves Holy and the rest as corrupted?

Yes, I don't see them as complete fools, there is a glimpse of rationality behind it but we don't have undeniable evidence to accept it and hence I basically don't know. If someone wants to invest their time on it then that's something personal and its well and good but we don't have any credible evidence to accept their views as true.

An external mind, you cannot be aware of your brain and body once they shut down. There can be only one external world existing independent of the mind, if physicalism and scientific realism is found to be true then you're dead, completely annihilated, nothing would exist. If there is an external mind in the external physical world then you'll be having that experience in this reality not the physicality or scientific reality which would found to be exist only in your external mind and not really out there. For Buddhists everything is an illusion, they don't even believe in the existence of any form of external physical world, for them the external mind is an illusion too and hence they don't believe in an individual self and its strictly called as rebirth and not reincarnation. So for Buddhists even life after death is unreal. For Upanishads there is an external noumenon or a numinous world having an objective external mind and they believe in an distinct individual self and also in God, they are not an illusion, they are real and an objective world exists independent of the mind and its strictly called as reincarnation and not rebirth since it is real. This is the reason the Upanishads say everything in the world is God or All is God but Buddhists don't say that, for them any world is just an illusion and hence they don't say that everything in the world is God. The answer varies depending on what kind of "you" and "being alive" you're referring to. If physicalism is true and if you're referring to my body and brain then yes, I will be alive in a real sense. If physicalism is false and if you're referring to my body and brain then yes, I will be alive not in a real sense but in a kind of virtual reality. If you're referring to the way the Buddhists would refer "I" and "you" as self then there are no distinct I's nor distinct You's, there is only one Self which is beyond life and death itself. If you're refering to the way the Upanishads would refer "I" and "you" as self then there are distinct individual self and an objective external mind and a God exists. So it says there is a subjective-objective noumenon world which is "one" only in essence but not "one" numerically. So the numinous objective world goes on to exist even after the subject loses his self identity. For Buddhists this noumenon world doesn't exists and so does the distinction of subjective and objective.

A God will have its associated numinous nature and hence it should have been. The study of the numinous nature and the existence of God. I go by that definition, Philosophy questions the consistencies and on the foundations or the basic assumptions of any discipline and that includes the basic foundational assumptions of science and its so called scientific method. I like to go by the second definition of mysticism neither the first nor the third. We are not confused, I do know the boundaries of science and theology. Whether they are mere hallucinations or is there any truth in it is best questionable and its the job of theologians to prove it that they weren't delusional idiots and in the absence of evidence the default position is we don't know.

How much do you know about what kind of God I'm referring to? I was not refering to the God of the Abraham, that a wrong conclusion and a serious misunderstanding of yours. He was a great Platonist philosopher of his time. Plotinus See also- Neoplatonism and Gnosticism No, the Holy Father can be known and only he can give us deliverance by knowing him and his perfect knowledge through the secret teachings of Jesus Christ. There was a different Gnostic tradition at the same time along with Sethians, they were Valentinians founded by Valentinus. I take his views. Valentinian Theology The Father wants us to know him and wants us to take the path of righteousness to attain his perfect knowledge which evades us from suffering, bondage and death. Sethians and Gnostic Sethianism

Socrates, at his trial in Athens, stated a basic philosophical premise, that "the unexamined life was not worth living." Michel de Montaigne declared that "to philosophize is to learn to die," Now for the most part, non-theists live by a secular conventional Human principles which society has set up for us through the process of cultural evolution but is this the only principle to live by, what if an higher principle exists which is more worthwhile than the conventional Human principles. If we go by Socrates then we really need to examine whether humans are divine or not. Does divinity exists in human beings? If it does then why should we live by conventional human principles rather than living by a divine principle which transcends and is beyond everything. The ultimate higher principle from which all our actions should be based on. For example:- Marcus Aurelius believed in providence and he believed in Gods and in the divinity of human beings and he could have easily led a life based on conventional human principles enjoying the the pleasures of the palace rather than living a simple stoic life even though being in a palace. In terms of Marcus it makes perfect sense he was preparing himself to face death and to take his new journey since he believed in a divine soul, providence and in gods. The question is how do we know what is worthwhile and what is not, which principles are a waste of time and which aren't, which principle is more important and worthwhile than the other? i.e if theists don't lead their lives based on a divine principle examining the divinity of humans then how do we know whether such higher principles exists or not in the first place. There might be principles which are more good to the individuals and to the society as a whole reforming the political arena than the current existing reforms. Therefore I strongly criticize the movement of New Atheists who suppress and show intolerance to speculative metaphysics, instead what we should be intolerant is towards religious superstition and its superstitious practices rather than suppressing new ways of thinking and practices which has deep rationality behind it leaving the choices to individuals and their personal liberties.

If you have a subjective self experience even after the complete shut down of the brain then its rebirth or reincarnation not death.

The inverting spectrum argument was a thought experiment to show that qualia experiences or experiences which have a phenomenal character associated with them are purely subjective and ineffable, the reason why we can understand is not because they can be described, its because they can be experienced and that knowledge is what qualia represents. The opinions of various philosophers and scientists who have extensively studied consciousness is the very opposite of yours. The experience of or the state of being alive. Total annihilation, no subjective experiences, if you had an experience of a partial or a near death experience you know what its like when your brain shuts down.

My views are slightly opposite of Kant if one thinks that there are no other ways of epistemology other than rationalism and empiricism. Okay lets define them. Philosophy Metaphysics Mysticism Intuition Theology Definitions from Grolier Encyclopedia. Yes, he is saying that all our knowledge even of rationalism comes from empiricism, there are other arguments which asks whether mathematicians discover already existing hidden truths or they really invent them through the process of rational thinking. The content is metaphysical and he calls it as noumenon and we need to explore the content in order to know the ultimate nature of reality and hence it is important and very much relevant. Thus according to him that ultimate nature of reality what he calls as noumenon is unknowable since all our knowledge comes from empiricism and the mind cannot really transcend itself to know itself (i.e the thing in itself). Mysticism deviates from such position and says that the ultimate reality can be known and we can transcend the mind and know the mind itself through non-positivist methods of epistemology and we need to test the efficacy of those methods and its the job of theologians to do it not of scientists, metaphysicians or philosophers because their disciplines doesn't have the required tools to access such truths and hence there are of a different magisteria than religion. This is true, he was not a mystic but his intellectual arguments clearly showed that the ultimate objective reality should be really something different from our ordinary empirical experiences and it invokes mysticism. Was Kant a mystic? Much about mysticism in that article is crap and misrepresented and hence don't take it literally.

Neither rationalism nor empiricism can answer metaphysical questions and therefore we need to look for non-positivist methods of epistemology rejecting both rationalism and empiricism to gain new truths.

The answer is there for you to take it if you seriously want it. If Kantian assumptions are true. Then the answer is we must abandon our hope of a successful fundamental theory which can account for the objective nature of reality.

The solution to such a contradiction is that subjective idealism is true and scientific realism is false which implies the cosmos is an illusion which exists only in the mind. This is how the world is seen in the east.

These are the easy problems of consciousness which can be explained by the functionalism approach of cognitive sciences. Focus or Attention is called as Introspective consciousness. Memories is called as access consciousness. Reflection on a subject is called as transitive consciousness. Now just naming and classifying them becomes one step but we still need to explain how it works using the functionalist approaches of cognitive science but calling them as easy really undermines the job that is in hand. There are hard problems too, its mainly about the feel, 'what it is like to be', I mean redness, blueness, taste of wine etc which are called as the phenomenal character(quale) associated with brain activity which is the real hard problem. It is mainly because even in a machine, some of its parts gets damaged and stop processing things but they don't feel the pain or hunger deep inside them, now brain is also an analog machine which does some processing and its no different than any other machine but why do I have to experience pain and hunger, surely the brain can send signals just like a machine and fix things but why do I have to feel the pain. As you can see it appears as though the phenomenal character have no function at all, it seems they are unnecessary and serves no purpose and hence their origin through the process of evolution is in question and those things cannot be studied through the functionalist approach. The inverting spectrum argument indicates that the there is no connection between the representational content (i,e information) and the phenomenal character. I would see a banana and experience it as yellowish and say it is yellow. You might see the same banana and experience it as blueish and say it is yellow. Yellow is the representational content and yellowish and blueish are the experiences and we can no way say that whether my subjective yellow is also your subjective yellow or not. There are lots of other problems and we are very far away from explaining the distinct experience of self and how it arises with fullness and to introspectively think on your mental states and have an experience of future and past relationships as you call we remembered remembering.

Your question is not of the origin of life, it is of the origin of consciousness which some consider was the next biggest leap in the cosmos. The question is of why do we have an inner life at all (i.e the feeling of being part of something larger). According to Schroedinger consciousness is not going to be found in the world picture because it itself is the world picture. Or in other words it is consciousness which is fundamental to everything. So a lot depends on whether consciousness can be understood through the reductionist approach or not.

The claim that universe is a unity is itself a positive metaphysical position which leads to the self-evident contradiction to the multiplicity of the universe and hence you cannot assert that the universe is a unity. A neutral metaphysical position is one where you can neither say that universe is an unity nor you can say that universe is not an unity. Hence metaphysics cannot logically say anything about the universe nor it can guide us anywhere. Its absurd. Does it mean nothing exists?