ah, Ebbie...I am not so sure I WOULD be happy! It very much depends on whose version of eternity or 'higher planes of existence' turns out to be true. I have had some of them explained that, "no thank you, I don't care to go forever under those bylaws"

I don't expect it to be an issue, somehow.

Little Hawk: over & over you miss my point....I am not arguing 'reality'...I don't HAVE a "chosen set of assumptions about reality"....I have an 'opinion' about how to conduct a debate, plus, way down low in priority, some 'suspicions' about what reality is probably not.

You use words like "every thing" and "validate" and "provable" in slippery ways that are very close to, if not totally, equivocation. ...this does not make you 'wrong' about reality, but it IS a flawed usage There are rules about proof, logic, coherent argument, etc., that are not subject to 'agreement'. You cannot just say "you pick your (rules) and I'll pick mine".

You can say "It is my opinion that mind and body are independant", and you can say "I choose not to enter this discussion or abide by those rules you refer to", and there is little I can say... "You say to-may-to, I say to-MAH-to"...but you can also say "I don't like 2+2 always equaling 4", and it won't get you $5 at the bank.


so...I do understand that you have a different set of concerns, and that you feel you have had experiences that justify, if not 'prove', your viewpoint...(and yes, I understand that you don't really feel the need to justify OR prove any basis for thinking differently than I do.)
We both know that we shoulda called it a draw a long time ago....*grin*...but I'd venture we both derive a certain satisfaction from refining our viewpoint in these various discussions......I will, however, refrain from direct confrontation on these issues in the future, if you think it best. I like debate, but I don't like getting close to antagonism with folks I truly respect and enjoy....