When people have near death experiences and are clinically brain dead they experience emotions in their afterlife/spiritual/out of body experience.

This proves that emotions are NOT some physical product of evolution, generated by the brain. Many religious never factor in or think of what generates emotions, they think of it as a biological phenomena which their religions do nothing to explain. Nor do they factor in where this energy goes, or even the fact that it is energy.

The media and the powers that be are constantly creating turmoil and emotion in peoples lives, look at the past 2 years of Covid.

The spiritual soul energy of emotion is being farmed and fed on by non-human entities and consumed like heroin.

We are not the top of the food chain.

This is why even in movies they try to elicit strong emotional responses, it's for the "loosh".

That's why we are hit with war, famine, disease, pestilence, trauma for all of human history.

We are like batteries to them.

Where's the proof

Where did you get this info, tell me more, maybe more detail.

You'd have to do research and make an effort. You'd have to study near death experiences, look at the "hard problem of consciousness" in neuroscience, study philosophy from Plato to Kant and ask how immaterial regularity of the world can be explained by evolution, how do the immaterial laws of logic, induction, number theory etc exist and how do we access them if we are all evolved from only matter ala the big bang and evolution etc.

People can listen to my arguments and do research. Most are too lazy to even question their reality properly.

I do not claim definitive proof, but this seems to be very likely to me.

None of that sounds empirical to me dawg

https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapingPri...arly_10_years/try this, it's along the same lines

You're asking for empirical proof of the immaterial. You refuted yourself.

That is, in essence, the entire problem of consciousness.

The scientific method does not even pass the scientific method. How can we use naive empiricism yet still use the immaterial laws of logic to delineate between the results of our experiment, how does empiricism account for those laws of logic we are using in naive empiricism?

VERY basic philosophy of science questions that show how inept and anti-intellectual science currently is compared to where it could be.

If we're talking about the immaterial then the problem itself is immaterial