Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Souls, science... you know..Follow

#1 Jan 13 2006 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
http://www.quantumbiocommunication.com/consciousness/at-last-scientist-are-discovering-the-soul.html

Quote:
reductionist model says our memories are in our brains. Why does it say that? Because when the brain is damaged people have damaged memories - whether through Alzheimer’s disease, or a comatose state, or through drunkenness.

But the argument is fallacious: it’s the same thing as saying my radio set is damaged and no music is coming out, therefore the music must be manufactured by my radio. The radio doesn’t manufacture the music; it only actualises the music. My television set doesn’t manufacture all those people that I see inside the box; it only actualises them from somewhere else. So, too, your brain is not the source of your thoughts.

Your brain is a quantum instrument that causes the collapse of wave functions that exist as possibilities before you actualise them as space-time events. So your brain takes possibilities and actualises them into space-time events. It’s a quantum instrument that converts possibility into actuality. It takes the unmanifest and makes it manifest, both in imagination and also as sensory experience.





I think sooner or later, this should catch on....

nonetheless, I'll keep rambling about, because as time goes on, more and more people seem to be understanding , whether it be by standing on the shoulders of giants, or seaching around the giants feet where the giant never looked.... it's there, and it's big.

The fact that the exact things that I have deducted in regards to the "soul" and quantum mechanics with only minimal influence from borrowed ideas and common scientific theorum, causes me to then deduce that either there is some clear cut case of mass self-delusion that is happening, or that we actually my be slowly uncovering that veil of darkness that has shrouded the human intellect for eons. i don't make this stuff up, and it is not a choice to not believe it, once you see the Man Behind the Curtain, it's hard to believe the stories about the Great Oz. I see the scientific world only in it's infancy regarding the true nature of the life, the universe, and everything.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Jan 13 2006 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
And I deduce that you are completely full of yourself. Bully for you!
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#3 Jan 13 2006 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
#4 Jan 13 2006 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



None because Angels Don't Exist
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#5 Jan 13 2006 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
None because Pins Don't Exist
#6 Jan 13 2006 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
Have you ever seen a black angel? No, therefore Angels are all white, and white angels can't dance.
#7 Jan 13 2006 at 11:57 AM Rating: Decent
I actually wrote out around 2 pages for a philosphy test about this one time. Gives me a good laugh when I run onto my old philosophy notes and read the stuff that I could get As for in that class.
#8 Jan 13 2006 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kelvyquayo, Defender of Justice wrote:
reductionist model says our memories are in our brains. Why does it say that? Because when the brain is damaged people have damaged memories - whether through Alzheimer’s disease, or a comatose state, or through drunkenness.

But the argument is fallacious: it’s the same thing as saying my radio set is damaged and no music is coming out, therefore the music must be manufactured by my radio. The radio doesn’t manufacture the music; it only actualises the music. My television set doesn’t manufacture all those people that I see inside the box; it only actualises them from somewhere else. So, too, your brain is not the source of your thoughts.
The analogy with a radio is flawed. It would have to be a boom box (radio and tape deck) if you are talking about memories. If you suffer brain damage you may indeed have damaged whatever is in there converting your input possibilities into actuality, but presumably there are already stored actualities or maybe proto-actualities in some cerebral storage unit. Seems that could get damaged too.

Quote:

I see the scientific world only in it's infancy regarding the true nature of the life, the universe, and everything.

I don't think anyone would dispute this.



Do differnt kinds of dope enhance cogitation of different subjects?

Just wondering.

Edited to get my quote tags all in a row.

Edited, Fri Jan 13 12:12:38 2006 by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jan 13 2006 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
My brain is actualizing the possiblity that Kelv is smoking too much reefer.
#10 Jan 13 2006 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
The statement that the reductoinist model argument is fallacious is itself fallacious due to the nature of the example. Theory A has Evidence A. But Theory B has Evidence Q and that's obviously not right, so Theory A must be wrong.

While the proposed idea about waves collapsing into actuality as part of the functioning of a quantum instrument is hip and trendy, it makes me wonder where Occam's Razor went.

I wish young scientists would quit wetting their pants every time a new angle presents itself for consideration. Science should be about testing those hypotheses - not proclaiming them as truth because they suit one's pet notions.

#11 Jan 13 2006 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
****
4,194 posts
Quote:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


11, precisely 11. If none is accepted a good number then any number can so an infinite amount of angels are waltzing on all the pins in your household at this very second.
#12 Jan 13 2006 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I wish young scientists would quit wetting their pants every time a new angle presents itself for consideration. Science should be about testing those hypotheses - not proclaiming them as truth because they suit one's pet notions.


Wingchild, you are forgetting about the NEW scientific method:
1) Hypothesis - must be vague and preferable untestable.
2) "Test" the hypothesis
3a) Data suports the hypothesis--publish results
3b) Data disproves the hypothesis--cook the data til it fits, then publish

#13 Jan 13 2006 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Walkerscrisps wrote:
Quote:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


11, precisely 11. If none is accepted a good number then any number can so an infinite amount of angels are waltzing on all the pins in your household at this very second.


Infinite was my answer back in the day, but before that I had to get into a long-winded discussion about the size of angels. Fun times!
#14 Jan 13 2006 at 12:57 PM Rating: Default
the theory that our physical beings are just vessels our true selves use to interact with the physical world is not new. infact, it is the bases to an extent of our belief in a higher being, God.

ghosts, out of body experiences, reincarnation, even christianaity all embrace this mindset.

in the Bible, in revelations, it is said God will lift the vail placed upon the world. a shroud placed there to keep us from fully understanding ourselves. and when it is lifted, there will be no more war, no more hunger, no more suffering of any kind. and the Lions will lay down with the sheep.

this belief dates back furhter even than the jewish religon. the ancient egyptiins believed that our bodies are only vessels, and their entire empire was built upon that belief.

only a veil of stupidity could possibly excuse this country from trying to reduce islamic terrorism by occupying a muslim country.
#15 Jan 13 2006 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Odd, how metaphysical theories can be correlated to world policy.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#16 Jan 13 2006 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
Just freakin spam 13 posts already so we can see what crappy title Dana has planned for you. Then we can all laugh and point at your folly.

Thanks.
#17 Jan 13 2006 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
shadowrealm wrote:
the theory that our physical beings are just vessels our true selves use to interact with the physical world is not new. infact, it is the bases to an extent of our belief in a higher being, God.


Lord Berkeley's defense of God as the guarantor of reality.

http://www.nndb.com/people/584/000087323/

Quote:
The contents of the visual and the tactual consciousness have no element in common. The visible and visual signs are definitely connected with tactual experiences, and the association between them, which has grown up in our minds through custom or habit, rests upon, or is guaranteed by, the constant conjunction of the two by the will of the Universal Mind.


Shortened: How do you know the color blue is really blue? What if it's bright neon pink, but your brain interprets it as blue? What if you see blue but everybody else is seeing bright neon pink? What keeps our very different brains from interpreting sensory input in totally different fashions?

Berkeley figured God took care of it all. Whether one infers that The Lord is the original Quantum Mechanic is strictly limited by one's religious outlook, I suppose.
#18 Jan 13 2006 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
No.

I dont have time to debate atm, as i am late for work, but no, same garbage, different toon.

Edited, Fri Jan 13 13:32:13 2006 by EvilPhysicist
#19 Jan 13 2006 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Just freakin spam 13 posts already so we can see what crappy title Dana has planned for you. Then we can all laugh and point at your folly.

It would have been awhile ago, but I didn't have internet access for over a week during the move. I'm in no rush, really, and a good deal of my posts go to the Everquest board anyways.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Jan 13 2006 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
**
991 posts
Do you want us to start a "Debalic Spam Here" thread?

I agree with Neph. Only 10 more to go!
#21 Jan 13 2006 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Shortened: How do you know the color blue is really blue? What if it's bright neon pink, but your brain interprets it as blue? What if you see blue but everybody else is seeing bright neon pink? What keeps our very different brains from interpreting sensory input in totally different fashions?
I've actually tried explaining this to a bunch of people and most don't follow it for some reason but it seems rather simple.

Take for example, someone with severe dyslexia which can effect not only words (sometimes it doesnt ever effect reading) but your visual senses too - You could be born into a world where the grass, to you appears to be what the rest of us call red but since you were born this way and taught that the grass is "green" anytime you see that color no matter what you interpret it as - you label it as "green".

I actually believe kelvy was the one to say it many posts ago but it was something (shorter) to the effect of: "it doesn't matter if your talking about the same thing as long as you both believe that what your talking about is the same and a situation never arises where your beliefs differ"
#22 Jan 13 2006 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Agreed, that was always my solution for it, too. The "real" color of something doesn't matter so long as all the participants in a conversation are using the same word in their shared language to relate to whatever color they're pointing at. Thus there need be no diety acting as a guarantor of reality, because shared language effectively makes reality every time we name something.
#23 Jan 14 2006 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I don't feel like arguing now either.

but

ego wrote:
-ONe dimension is a geometric point. Without them we couldn't have any other dimensions could we?
-Wehn 2 of these points are put together we create somthing that is 2 dimensonal... like a hydrogen atom contains 2 quantum points, a proton and an electron.
-Wehn you put together 3 of these points then the 3rd dimension is created, such as a box or a planet; height, length, and width.

-A quantum point is kinda like a portal, in the way that it is only has actual form based on the "energy" around it.
-The total area surrounding that central point contains an infinite amount of potential energy. This means that there is an infinate ammount of possiblilties surrounding that point.
-Each of these infinate potential possiblities mixed with the patterns that are created as waht we call "time" causes it to radiate outward is the very fabric of our entire universe, physical and meta-physical.


Our thoughts pshycially are made of ionized potasium atoms and ionized sodium atoms. As I have mentioned before, atoms are physically formed by quantum points such as protons, nuetrons, and electrons; thus become part of our phyical universe. "Ionized" means that the electrons in the atoms are unbalanced and unstable and thus interact with other ionized atoms as a sort of electrical chain, as one atom and then the next becomes more positive or negative than the other on.

While this description of the most basic essence of our thoughts describes the mechanics of "thought" is does not describe waht causes it to happen. The only conclusion is that all of the atoms and quarks and wahtnot are operating according to some pattern or law that is in a constant state of "adjustment" and that is firmly rooted in an essential "oneness" that started it all. Waht this means in relation to our thoughts is that our thoughts may provide access to all of the information in the universe. Physical reality is one aspect of the universe. It is the 3 dimensional aspect. Our thoughts are eternal patterns that are etched in the quantum slate. Out thoughts are tools for our "true self". Our "true self" is ourselves unobstructed by the laws of physics. OUr thoughts are the gateway between. Our thoughts straddle the dimensions. Think about waht thoughts really are. The 3rd dimension in time is an ever changing skin over the rest of all of the quantum universe. It is obvious that our thoughts must also reside seperate from the 3rd dimension within the rest of the quantum universe. We are timeless immortal beings who's manifestation on earth is but one aspect of our whole being.


This poses the intersting enigma of the "holographic universe". Which as I understand is, involve the fact that physcial reality is not truly solid, but is made of various "points" of energy that are reacting to one another... and in; them repelling one another through positive and negative forces is waht produces the "illusion" of a solid reality, wehn we in fact are just swirls of energy that is kept on a tight leash.



so if at any time you do feel like arguing about this, then I beg you people, FREE ME from my SELF DELUSIONS!!

Because everything that I have wrote appears completely logical to me. Please, PLease lead me to path of the truth and tell me why this is wrong.


[quote=***************** I deduce that you are completely full of yourself. Bully for you![/quote]

I won't argue with that!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#24 Jan 14 2006 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Wingchild wrote:
Quote:
I wish young scientists would quit wetting their pants every time a new angle presents itself for consideration. Science should be about testing those hypotheses - not proclaiming them as truth because they suit one's pet notions.


Bloodwolfex wrote:
Quote:
Wingchild, you are forgetting about the NEW scientific method:
1) Hypothesis - must be vague and preferable untestable.
2) "Test" the hypothesis
3a) Data suports the hypothesis--publish results
3b) Data disproves the hypothesis--cook the data til it fits, then publish


I think there are some things that are impossible to test without first having some solid knowledge of to be used as a fact. In this instance it's like saying something can't be true because there is no indisputable law to support it's feasibility. Using "vague and untestable" hypotheses might be the ONLY way there is to uncover certain truths that might later lead to new developements in the process.

Nothing is absolute, so why can't we search for the truth using any means necessary? If someone believes in souls, and has some idea of how they might work as the OP has given, then let them. They can either be wrong, and run in circles their whole lives finding nothing, or they can be right to an extent where something new is uncovered-- if even by accident. For all we know all the Gods and Goddesses of various religions could be human born personifications of something real, something otherwise intangible.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#25 Jan 14 2006 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Quantum actualization is the new intlligent design. Stay up with the trends.
#26 Jan 14 2006 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Allegory wrote:
Quantum actualization is the new intlligent design. Stay up with the trends.


Lol ya, but it has the word quantum in it, so i immediately bewilders anyone who hears of it, and thus must be true.

Instead of seeing it for the BS that it is, people like kelv are mesmerized by it and take it as a new deep truth.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 209 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (209)