Am I more than my mind? Then explain to me why a head injury destroys my 'identity', and my ability to interact as if I was more of a computer rather than a trascendent entity locked inside a physical capsule.

Making a salad out of words doesn't constitute validity. I can make pretty sentences too, I will demonstrate: '' The spirit is the sea of life, where all things go when they pass. The heart of our waking supercedes the art of living. We do not live in what is mind, but beyond our existence outside of what is mind. This, where we are now, is only an experience. There is more to what is now. Much more. This is only a task for our soul to become greater than it was before. So that we may reach a level of transcendentalism.''

It's rather easy to come up with imaginative scenarios. However, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes to you personally if it doesn't fit the temporal paradigms.

This post was edited by RocketSilence on Dec 27 2012 12:07pm

Can you access the internet without an electronic device?

You are making the assumption that the internet is a healthy analogy for an assumed metaphysical source inside us. This would be incorrect. The internet is a system, a channel of information packed inside a web of common interests around the world. This is a virtual book that branches off into a myriad of subjects. However, the metaphysical property you assume exists within us is something that would forego the simplicity of the internet and end up reaching into an intricate field of properties that would be as complex as the universe -- if not more.

The brain, yes. This metaphysical transcending force you assume we have, no.

There is no soul. You are caught up in your false interpretations for the body's paradigms. It makes sense to you, but that doesn't mean it makes sense according to the universe's principles. You cannot just cheat logic for magic. You are equivalent to a child that assumes they have a healing power because their body recovers faster. /facedesk

This post was edited by RocketSilence on Dec 27 2012 12:39pm

If this is the basis for your argument then we're done here. I won't waste my time on a closed mind.

A closed mind? Tell me how I have a closed mind when there is absolutely no evidence for the soul? Your assumptions and your appalling childish dances to protect your beliefs doesn't stand up to critical thought processing and emperical evidence that have been encompassing every single critical study for centuries. Please, instead of throwing a bloody fit unprofessionally. Why don't you show just how much you believe in your own thoughts, instead of giving up on them and calling it quits as if you aren't believing in the soul for the sake of believing -- but for the sake of being different and implicating the love for war humans have in this case. I will state this right now. I am not here to toy with children who want it their way. You will need to provide professional studies of your so called 'soul', before you get any serious response from me. Judging from your signature, you must be dosed on annoying dopamine chemicals. So your imaginarium is bleeding into your reality and you fool yourself into seeing things that aren't there on the same damned calibur as those fucking conspiracy theorists. I do not like dealing with your types. You are all mindless scoundrels who protect their image more than their ideas.

This post was edited by RocketSilence on Dec 27 2012 12:58pm

I'm not giving up on my beliefs. I'm giving up on you. You think there's no soul, end of discussion. You obviously found it very insulting when I said you were closed minded because now you're posting ad hominem after ad hominem.

I can't help but think you're the multi of someone I've pissed off.

You started the ad hominem by saying he is closed minded simply because he doesn't share your opinion.
An opinion I might add that has no evidence for

Still waiting for you to provide evidence. Right now, my ad hominems are more worthy than your absence of proof. Do you want some more ad hominems with that tautology of yours, sir?