Posted by EngineeringProfit > 20 hours ago | Report Abuse

Prophet Dickens expresses the correct idea that, just as we did not suffer or feel anything before birth, death might bring a similar state of peaceful nothingness, free from suffering.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 20 hours ago | Report Abuse

In fact, to live eternally is the real suffering paradoxically!! As the trueest ever prophet says, "To live eternally is to suffer indefinitely!".......................hehe

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 20 hours ago | Report Abuse

One of the reasons behind successful ISIS recruitment......................................................

Posted by DickyMe > 18 hours ago | Report Abuse

"Posted by StarOfTheBull > 12 hours ago | Report Abuse

Life is temporary, after life is eternity. Reliance on religion is thought as preparation for eternity. 🤔"
===========================
Why not die immediately after birth or commit suicide?
Why bother others with belief system?

Posted by Sslee > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Everyone want to go to heaven but no one want to die and go to heaven because no one had come back from dead to tell heaven do exist.

So why wait for afterlife when you can build your heaven in this life?

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

They are not foolish. Consciousness is a product of the brain’s physical processes. This is based on extensive evidence that changes in brain structure and function directly impact conscious experience.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Modern neuroscience has identified brain networks closely tied to conscious experience, such as the Default Mode Network (DMN) and the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW). Functional MRI (fMRI) and other brain imaging techniques show that specific patterns of neural activity correlate with various states of consciousness, such as wakefulness, attention, and self-awareness.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

These findings suggest that consciousness is inextricably linked to brain function. If certain parts of the brain are damaged or non-functional, consciousness is altered or lost, implying that the brain is necessary for its generation.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Occam’s Razor: The principle of Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence is usually the best. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that consciousness is a product of physical brain processes. Introducing a non-physical, supernatural, or extra-brain consciousness adds unnecessary complexity to the explanation without empirical support.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Evidence from Coma and Brain Death
Clinical cases of coma and brain death illustrate the direct relationship between the brain’s functioning and consciousness:

Coma: When certain brain regions are damaged, particularly those involved in arousal and awareness, people fall into comas, where they lose consciousness. These states are reversible in some cases, demonstrating the dependence of consciousness on specific neural activity.
Brain Death: In cases of brain death, where all brain activity ceases, there is no recovery of consciousness. Brain-dead individuals cannot think, feel, or perceive.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Split-Brain Experiments: In patients who have undergone corpus callosotomy (a procedure to sever the connection between the two brain hemispheres), their consciousness appears to split. Each hemisphere seems to have its own distinct awareness, pointing again to the role of the brain in generating unified conscious experience.
If consciousness were not dependent on brain function, we would not expect such profound changes in memory, identity, and awareness with changes in brain structures.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Brain Evolution: Higher-order consciousness, including self-awareness, appears in species with highly developed brains, like humans, primates, and some mammals. As the brain evolved more complex structures, such as the prefrontal cortex, consciousness emerged as a way to process information, anticipate outcomes, and navigate complex social environments.

Posted by qqq47660 > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

not a good idea to talk bad about muslim and islam here.

u also don't want problems.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Soul? The idea that consciousness can exist without a functioning brain is not supported by scientific evidence. All available data suggest that consciousness is deeply tied to the brain’s physical processes. The fallacy lies in assuming that consciousness is an independent entity when it is, in fact, an emergent property of brain activity. Whether through clinical evidence, evolutionary theory, or neuroscientific research, the physical brain is shown to be essential for generating and maintaining consciousness. Attempts to separate the two introduce speculative and unsupported claims that fail to account for the wealth of evidence linking consciousness to neural function.

Posted by StarOfTheBull > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

What is that so bothering you if you are not sure what I actually implied?

DickyMe

14,821 posts

Posted by DickyMe > 19 minutes ago | Report Abuse

"Posted by StarOfTheBull > 12 hours ago | Report Abuse

Life is temporary, after life is eternity. Reliance on religion is thought as preparation for eternity. 🤔"
===========================
Why not die immediately after birth or commit suicide?
Why bother others with belief system?

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Talking about science, not bad mouthing

Posted by qqq47660 > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

I think only muslims can reform islam....not up to China man.

Posted by StarOfTheBull > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Agree. And also to all other religions.


qqq47660

8,949 posts

Posted by qqq47660 > 13 seconds ago | Report Abuse

not a good idea to talk bad about muslim and islam here.

u also don't want problems.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Unlike PAS, science is fundamentally about challenging ideas to make progress, not about badmouthing, slandering or discrediting others for personal or political gain.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Wake up! At its core, science operates through a rigorous process of inquiry, skepticism, and continuous questioning, with the aim of improving understanding and advancing knowledge. To conflate this with badmouthing—an attack on individuals or ideas based on malice or personal bias—completely misunderstands the nature of scientific inquiry.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

One of the hallmarks of science is peer review and open criticism of ideas. This is not an attack on the individuals proposing these ideas, but a way to test, refine, and improve theories. Every hypothesis must withstand scrutiny and be open to falsification. The entire scientific process depends on the willingness to challenge prevailing assumptions to uncover the truth.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

According to Prophet Popper, falsifiability is the idea that for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be testable and capable of being proven wrong. This principle encourages scientists to challenge ideas and find weaknesses in them, not out of malice, but as a way of advancing understanding.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Every groundbreaking theory—whether Newton’s laws, Darwin’s theory of evolution, or Einstein’s theory of relativity—was subjected to rigorous debate and scrutiny before being accepted by the scientific community.
Unlike badmouthing, where the intent is often to undermine or humiliate, the critique in science is designed to strengthen ideas by addressing their limitations and proposing improvements. Without science many parts of the world would still live in darkness. And many children's brain development would be compromised.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

The scientific method demands open-mindedness and the willingness to revise or discard even deeply held ideas if evidence contradicts them. This is not a form of antagonism or bad-mouthing, but a commitment to truth over personal belief or dogma.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Thie whole process isn’t about badmouthing any caveman's age claimant - it’s about ensuring that the conclusions drawn are valid and can be trusted to be conveyed to the young ones

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Without it, science would stagnate, relying on unchallenged assumptions rather than constantly pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Focus on Ideas, Not Individuals: The scientific community is careful to critique ideas and results, not the people behind them. When scientists argue against a theory, they are addressing the methodology, data, or logic, not engaging in personal attacks. In fact, many scientists work collaboratively, challenging each other’s ideas in the pursuit of better answers.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Badmouthing, by contrast, is about denigrating individuals, often based on personal grudges or emotional reactions. Science, by nature, rejects such behaviors because they do nothing to advance the pursuit of knowledge.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Refining Ideas: Many scientific breakthroughs have arisen from failed experiments or the realization that existing theories were incomplete or incorrect. For example, the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theory of relativity was not an attack on Newton but an evolution in understanding.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

And now the shift from soul-based consciousness to the emergent theory of consciousness of the physically evolving brain

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Science thrives on its iterative nature—each new piece of evidence, whether it supports or contradicts current ideas, is valuable. The process of refining and updating theories based on new data is how science progresses. This iterative process is fundamentally incompatible with badmouthing, which seeks to tear down rather than build up.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Science stands in contrast to dogma, which resists change and criticism. In dogmatic systems, questioning established ideas is seen as a threat, and dissent is often met with personal attacks or dismissal. Science, however, encourages questioning as a means of achieving a deeper understanding.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Rejection of Certainty: True science avoids claiming absolute certainty. It is always open to being challenged and revised in light of new evidence. This constant questioning is not about badmouthing but about humility in the face of complexity.

Posted by Sslee > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Science at best can give you a clear cut right and wrong answer.
But in real life things are not as simple as right or wrong so be pragmatism in seeking truth from facts.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

The resistance to dogma in science encourages ongoing dialogue, which drives progress, rather than personal attacks that aim to shut down debate.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

It's high time for the young generation to take criticism as a necessary path to progress: Science is about challenging ideas, not attacking individuals. By subjecting hypotheses to scrutiny and encouraging open debate, science refines and improves knowledge. This is not badmouthing; it is a constructive process that values truth over ego, collaboration over conflict. Badmouthing stifles progress by focusing on individuals rather than ideas, while science advances through critical thinking, open-mindedness, and continuous questioning. The ultimate goal of science is to uncover truth, and that can only be achieved by subjecting all ideas—no matter how established or cherished—to rigorous scrutiny.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

No, true science avoids claiming absolute certainty because the nature of scientific inquiry is inherently tentative and open to revision. Science operates through observation, experimentation, and evidence, all of which can improve over time, leading to refinements in understanding or entirely new perspectives. However, science can often tell with almost absolute certainty what is false by disproving hypotheses through empirical testing and evidence.

Posted by Sslee > 1 minute ago | Report Abuse

Science at best can give you a clear cut right and wrong answer.
But in real life things are not as simple as right or wrong so be pragmatism in seeking truth from facts.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

While science avoids claiming absolute certainty about what is true, it excels at identifying what is false.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Track record: Over time, scientific testing has debunked many false claims, such as the idea that the Earth is flat, that disease is caused by “miasma” (bad air), or that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones (as disproven by Galileo). Science can assert with near certainty that these claims are false because they have been rigorously tested and consistently disproven.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

By identifying false claims, science narrows the range of possible explanations, making it highly effective at eliminating incorrect ideas even as it refrains from claiming ultimate truths.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Educating the innocent children to adopt scientific mindedness, ethic and ideology: Many scientific findings are expressed in terms of probability, with conclusions supported by data and statistical significance. While scientists might never say something is “100% true,” they can assert that it is extremely likely or that the evidence supports it beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, the theory of evolution by natural selection, while always open to further refinement, is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, making it as close to certain as possible.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

High Confidence in Disproven Claims: On the other hand, science can state with almost complete certainty when something is false. For example, we can say with near absolute certainty that perpetual motion machines do not work, because they violate the well-established laws of thermodynamics.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Protecting the children from danger - The Danger of Claiming Absolute Certainty: Claiming absolute certainty in science can be dangerous, as it leads to dogma, rigidity, and the rejection of new evidence.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Historical Lessons: History is filled with examples where absolute certainty led to scientific stagnation. For instance, the rigid adherence to Aristotelian physics in medieval Europe delayed the acceptance of more accurate models like those proposed by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Educating the innocent children to adopt scientific mindedness, ethic and ideology: By maintaining an openness to new evidence and avoiding claims of absolute certainty, science preserves its dynamism and adaptability, allowing for ongoing progress.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Embracing Uncertainty: Far from being a weakness, science’s embrace of uncertainty is a strength. It allows scientists to explore possibilities, revise hypotheses, and continually improve the precision of their understanding without the constraints of dogmatic belief.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

The meaning of schooling in the new millennium - Science as a Path to Truth, Not Certainty : True science avoids claiming absolute certainty because it recognizes the limits of human knowledge and the provisional nature of understanding. Scientific theories are always open to revision in light of new evidence, ensuring that science remains a dynamic and evolving discipline. However, science is highly effective at identifying what is false, using rigorous methods of testing and falsification to rule out incorrect ideas with near-complete certainty.

This balance of humility in the face of complexity, combined with the ability to decisively refute falsehoods, is what makes science a powerful and reliable tool for understanding the world. It values evidence over belief, progress over finality, and truth-seeking over dogma.

Posted by StarOfTheBull > 17 hours ago | Report Abuse

Must learn from Abang Jo.

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 16 hours ago | Report Abuse

Yup, we have managed to convince Abang Jo to reject many jobless badly-trained (by our standard) teachers from peninsular recently. We Sarawakians want to chart our own path in education - coaching our young generation right from the very tender age

Posted by EngineeringProfit > 16 hours ago | Report Abuse

We need more teachers who are capable of teaching our students to value evidence, seek truth, and embrace progress,. Our schools must contribute to the creation of informed, capable Sarawakians who are equipped to tackle the challenges of the future. Failing to do so not only undermines individual potential but also risks societal stagnation and vulnerability to misinformation. Therefore, our schools must fulfill their legal and moral duty to shape the minds of the next generation for the betterment of all.