I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to “feel”.
That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.
That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life
As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.
A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
Did I mention dualism or substance monism? Materialism doesn’t necessarily include physicalism.
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Read up on why physicalism is not verifiable. Your imagination saying consciousness ends with death is equally verifiable as my imagination saying you’re taken away by the flying spaghetti monster.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms.
Ever heard of ontological pluralism? Naturalism is not physicalism…
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life
Consciousness being tied to the physical body isn’t “unscientific”, it’s the only option that can be tested and studied.
Read a bit about falsifiability and philosophy of science. Physicalism is a metaphysical theory, and not falsifiable.
I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.
As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.
A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?
Did I mention dualism or substance monism? Materialism doesn’t necessarily include physicalism.
Read up on why physicalism is not verifiable. Your imagination saying consciousness ends with death is equally verifiable as my imagination saying you’re taken away by the flying spaghetti monster.
Ever heard of ontological pluralism? Naturalism is not physicalism…
Your last response wasn’t constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I’ll just end this here.
Have a nice rest of your existence.
Riiiight buddy, it has absolutely nothing to do with you being shown how limited your knowledge is about the philosophies of science and mind.
Was the fox and the grapes your favourite fable growing up?