Malice1
Experienced
- Apr 6, 2018
- 285
"randomly from Google", yeah. FYI, New Scientist, Nature and Biology Letters are the most reputable sources around, and most importantly they do not make claims based on 3 cherry picked arguments mashed up to get to absolutely no conclusion.
We already have explained how a physical structure for our brain is necessary to kickstart the whole cognitive process, and how the minimum damage can lead somebody to be a wholly different person from what he/she was. But hey, we should have absolutely at all costs people with dementia, newborns who prematurely die and basically everybody on Earth to pop up from their cranium their brain functions to enjoy playing with the consciousness of deceased dinosaurs in the afterlife
lol, still confusing technological innovations with actual biology. I'll pass
But whatever, I'll let people enjoy their trillion years lifespan floating around Canis Maioris.
Ad maiora, as they say
Yeah, thats what we currently know about the brain. We dont know everything thats why were still studying it. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by approaching it from a scientific standpoint but i could have easily have said that a god created an afterlife. You would then have to disprove this because of your 100% claim and if you couldn't (which im sure you cant) then your percentage would have to drop a few points.
Anyway i dont care now. Ill ctb with N and find out for myself.
Last edited: