Page 6 of 13 « First<45678>Last »
Topic Options
#15268 - 12/01/08 02:39 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
There are a couple of problems with it that bugged me in the past. When I was young I did find Buddhism rather interesting and the Dalai Lama seemed like a cool guy. Nowadays I think it is a pile of parasitic shit and the head dude smiles that much he's probably sponsored by Prozac.
Now, a lot of those funny yellow guys said a lot of smart shit but if you're sitting on your ass 20 hours a day, it would be a damn depressing if you didn't come up with a thing or two.
Their reincarnation stuff is pretty similar to this all.

Anyways, the problem with consciousness being disconnected from humans triggers more questions than it can explain.

If consciousness can be energy related, and we're not thinking about creators, how could it evolve? In space-time, we mean jack-shit, so in that whole period that there was no intelligent life, was there consciousness? Why would there be consciousness because the lack of intelligent life seems to make it so useless.
If consciousness can sidestep death and cling to energy, it should be assumed that consciousness is a seperate entity and was always out there. If consciousness is a new product, why would it suddenly cling to energy? About all behavior in QM is about as old as the universe and none suddenly changes. Most laws of physics are static since time X and don't change suddenly, so if consciousness is a new thing all odds are against it being able to cling.
So the first problem would be; what did put consciousness there and for what reason?

Second, at what stage did consciousness decide to infect life and what is its routine in that selection? How does it do it and why does it do it to whom?
Was homo australopithecus worthy of consciousness or did it take until a later step in the evolution. Are great apes selected as carriers. Birds, rabbits, ants, bacteria? Trees or grass?
How does consciousness get into people. It is assumed that babies up to a certain age are not conscious in the sense of having a personality. Language probably triggers the development of consciousness. It's highly unlikely that consciousness waits out there until we say mommy for the first time. You'd have to add a lot of other things to consciousness for that all to work. If it is capable of all those things, it starts to appear godly.

I find it all highly unlikely and when using Occam's razor seriously on this, isn't the easiest explanation the one where consciouness develops naturally in people and dies naturally with them? It at least doesn't keep popping up new questions all the time.

D.

Top
#15273 - 12/01/08 04:19 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
In space-time, we mean jack-shit, so in that whole period that there was no intelligent life, was there consciousness? Why would there be consciousness because the lack of intelligent life seems to make it so useless.


As your questions are theoretical so shall be my answers. Merely speculation, open to be proven right or wrong. The energy within the human body is limited to the experience of space and time because its vessel dwells within the realm of that reality. I do think it’s likely that this is not the only dimension in the whole of the universe. Furthermore its obvious that this is not the only planet or galaxy in the universe, there are others out there capable of sustaining physical life akin to our own. So even when this planet was in a phase of not being able to support intelligent life, there were others that were.


 Quote:
If consciousness can sidestep death and cling to energy, it should be assumed that consciousness is a seperate entity and was always out there. If consciousness is a new product, why would it suddenly cling to energy?


The reality our physical bodies dwell in is limited by the senses it has evolved to contain. Animals are capable of perceiving many things that humans are not, and there are just as many examples of those with a lower level of perception. The body of a human is limited to the confines of a time/space dimension. Energy is not, and without being in a pure-energy state, it is absolutely impossible to know how it experiences what we call time or sentience or anything else for that matter. I don’t think that consciousness/energy is a new product that suddenly transforms into the non-physical, I think it just becomes localized there for a temporary period and existed prior to life on this planet. Merely a matter of speculation, but I think it is our nature to seek knowledge on what some might call a journey to obtain perfection. The only way to do that is through the diversity of experience. Life in this body is but one experience within myriads.

As to the specifics of intelligent life, I think it is something that science has the potential to demystify at some point in the future, but at this point in our evolution cannot possibly be known. I’m sure there are a lot of interesting studies and theories and papers out there. It’s human nature to keep on asking questions. Perhaps science will reach some conclusion in our lifetimes, perhaps humanity has already set into motion the downfall of this planet and we’ll be lucky if it’s even able to comfortably sustain life a hundred years from now. We’ll just have to wait until we get there.

Top
#15279 - 12/01/08 05:35 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I must admit, I have read this thread with much interest. By the time I came across it, it was some 4 or 5 pages long and alot of points I have gone to respond to have been well covered by someone.

And the wackjob that thinks chemical imbalance isn't real, well best to ignore the people that are about to explode into a mist of conspiricy. We have seem many of them turn the last corner away from reality on this forum.

However, I will add a little to the discussion. As most of you know, I have a terminal illness. So of course, death is a subject much on my mind in the last 3 years since my diagnosis.

As much as I would love there to be some sort of happy ending (especially when it comes to my childrens thoughts), I haven't been able to experience anything which can let me beleive in an afterlife that isn't a memory in someone elses existance. To that extent, I am hoping somewhat that some people here will remember me and my thoughts for some time (until the forum crashes again at least LOL).

I however have a friend who works in the local morgue. She is a pathologist and gets to work with the bodies, from booking them in to the autopsies. I have asked her what her thoughts on the matter are (being she is dealing with those killed in some kind of trauma, generally not heart attacks and the like).

She said to me that in her opinion (oh yeah, she's a wiccan), there is absolutley nothing there.

She said there was once that she felt the need to talk to a youngish guy that killed himself, to tell him that he that it was a really silly thing to do, she's not sure why she felt the need. But other than that, she has NEVER witnessed ANYTHING that has made her think that there is any 'soul' left (and certainly not in a state we could comunicate or relate to) with.

The only logical argument I can come up with for a continuance of energy in LAD, is that our actual atoms will once again become something else, but as Dan and Jake have stated, I also cannot see any way in which any energy they might produce as a coherant form in the human body and brain, could stay together as some sort other cohesive form that has a memory of it's prestate.

Dan, welcome to the bullshit club. I am a great bullshit detector, not so much the exterminator, maybe we can join forces and take over the world...........oh, just joking (for the OTHERS that might think I'm serious, I'm sure you get it Dan).

Zeph


Edited by ZephyrGirl (12/01/08 05:37 PM)
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#15281 - 12/01/08 06:49 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
We can be the new simon and simon! (or possibly pinky and the brain. We can flip for brain)


\:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15282 - 12/01/08 06:58 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I call heads, you can have your brain 'down there' if you like. LOL as long as we're not sharing a brain. ;\)
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#15286 - 12/01/08 07:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Not to worry. Most of my brains are 'down there', plus my head is certainly big enough for two. I know these things are true because people keep saying them!

Do you have Pinky and the Brain down in Oz?

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15326 - 12/02/08 01:31 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
She said to me that in her opinion (oh yeah, she's a wiccan), there is absolutley nothing there.


Theoretically, if a Wiccan is doing a ritual to pray to different goddesses to affect change, who exactly do they think they are praying to if not a sentient energy of some sort? Why spend all that time honoring different deities and looking for results in communing with them if you hold onto the belief that a sentient energy cannot exist? It’s quite the contradiction. Not that I believe in any Wiccan deities, I just find it interesting that someone who does can adhere to such contradiction.


 Quote:
She said there was once that she felt the need to talk to a youngish guy that killed himself, to tell him that he that it was a really silly thing to do, she's not sure why she felt the need. But other than that, she has NEVER witnessed ANYTHING that has made her think that there is any 'soul' left (and certainly not in a state we could comunicate or relate to) with.


I wouldn’t expect to receive any sort of information about consciousness survival from a dead body in the morgue. The body has obviously outlived its use, it’s a dead receptor in the process of decay. I’d think that a dead person would be more interested in what their loved ones are doing or proceeding to the next plain of existence. There’s a really good movie out there about necrophilia in the modern world, filmed through the perspective of one woman who happens to have this fetish, called Kissed. I don’t think having sex with dead people would turn most people on, but I liked the movie because it happened to be intelligent and offered a unique perspective that I had never seen anywhere else. It was just creepy enough to make it interesting.

Top
#15328 - 12/02/08 01:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Picunnus]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Picunnus
I am not disputing the possibility of some force that can extend beyond the physical boundaries of the mind - like a cell phone perhaps, as you suggest. I am saying, after the cell phone disintegrates, what is there to harness the force?


One of the things that I find interesting is the fact that we can see the light of stars that have long been dead. It just takes such a vast amount of time for the energy of that light to travel to a place where our eyes can see it after the star has burned out. I forget what the exact scientific term assigned to the phenomenon was, but there is information out there about radio transmissions from decades ago being picked up by satellite receptors orbiting the Earth. So it’s been proven that energy can exist beyond the realm of having a physical device to harness it. The light of burned-out stars would still be there, even if we chose never to look at the sky.

You’d have to have a more in-depth knowledge of quantum physics to understand how and where and in what directions energy can travel, and it would depend on the energy. Unused energy is reabsorbed to where it originated from. In the case of a burned out light bulb, for example. A light bulb being able to light up is dependent on two things. One, the correct physical components in working order; and two, a steady stream of electricity flowing to it (if you turn the light switch off, the electricity reverts back through your electrical wiring). So with regard to “harnessing the force,” there are other light bulbs out there and the electricity does not cease to exist, it merely becomes available to be harnessed by another light bulb.

Top
#15329 - 12/02/08 02:03 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
And what if I use a battery to make my lightbulb shine?

Humans are batteries.

D.

Top
#15330 - 12/02/08 02:28 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
And what if I use a battery to make my lightbulb shine?

The battery is made up of physical components which are only able to function for a period of time. You would have to have a more in-depth understanding of quantum physics to understand the reintegration of energy. Everything when reduced to its base composition is energy, vibrating at different levels. Energy can be changed but it can’t be destroyed.

Top
#15332 - 12/02/08 03:08 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
Everything when reduced to its base composition is energy, vibrating at different levels. Energy can be changed but it can’t be destroyed.

Also see string theory.
Pretty interesting subject, if someone is interested you should look up "Briane Greene". University professor in physics.

But even so, if we exist out of tiny energy "strings" or particles. Still things as telekinses is impossible. Why: well for several reasons.
1) The smallest thing we know untill now are quarks. These can't be indicated with special equipment but have recently been proven by mathematici.
2) If you think you can explain telekinetic gifts with strings of energy you are thinking wrong. These strings are quite small. How small? Billions of times smaller then the smallest atom we know. (Wich is Hydrogen).
3) Just as Aquino pointed out in one of his essays about psyops: we humans don't have an organ wich can generate enough energy to "send" a thought towards another person within his consiousnes without making a noise or writing it down. The energy acuired for doing this is far to great for any of our organs to produce. It is much more simplified by sending a letter or by telling so.


Edited by Dimitri (12/02/08 03:15 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15335 - 12/02/08 03:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No, I don't need to have a more in-depth understanding of QM. I see that argument frequently used in this conversation and you maybe don't realize but it is rather similar to the 'you do need to have a more in-depth understanding of the bible' I hear when having other debates. It's the same refering to a higher power and as in that case, the higher power doesn't prove neither gives evidence for the argument made.

The problem here is that QM nowhere does predictions regarding afterlife or funky things at a human level. You are looking at some behavior or a theory of one thing and setting up an imaginary link with something else.

In QM teleportation is possible but do you believe I can port up to NY by blinking? No you don't. Why is that behavior not possible and the one you prefer to be true is?

D.

Top
#15338 - 12/02/08 04:38 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
The original article plus references can be found at this link. It was written by someone more educated on than me on this, so I will leave it to what expertise science has developed on this matter to date. For everyone that has been asking for a more “scientific” approach...


SURVIVAL PHYSICS: INTRODUCTION

A major paradigm, accepted across all established scientific disciplines, states that mind and consciousness result from brain function alone. This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion totally at variance with the evidence. This evidence has been building for over a century and is now so firm as to effectively constitute totally convincing proof of survival. Roll and Zammit cover this aspect exhaustively.

The reason scientists in general go to great pains to discredit this evidence is because it conflicts with all theories physicists have so far developed. Until a major paradigm-shift in physics has occurred there can be no hope of any change of attitude. Hence it is of paramount importance that the flaws in existing physics are resolved so that it becomes extended to incorporate survival and other controversial phenomena.

This article shows how a successful search made to solve three difficulties in physics resulted in providing just such an extension. The resulting “Survival Physics” shows that, as a natural consequence of the mathematical logic, at least the sub-conscious mind is the true reality at the base of all that exists. Although the brain must die its exact copy lives on to be connected with another parallel universe. Built the same way as our own, these seem just as real as ours when the mind is in register.

THE PROBLEMS WITH PHYSICS

Theoretical physics has so far been unable to resolve three major difficulties. In consequence greater and greater sophistication in concepts and mathematical formalism has resulted, yet no solutions are yet within sight. Could it be that theorists are all leading each other into a blind alley so that a totally different approach is required? This article shows that when a return is made to the logic of common sense, in which only fairly elementary maths is required, a solution to all three problems appears simultaneously.

One problem concerns the big bang theory that purports to explain the creation of the universe from nothing. It is clearly flawed since it makes a major false prediction known as the “Cosmological Constant” (CC). Theorists are unable to switch off their creative explosion. To show how serious this is I quote the Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg, who wrote in “Reviews of Modern Physics” January 1989 that this “represents a veritable crisis for physics”. Even today the situation remains unchanged after the 25 years of its existence. In 1987 this author realised his own expertise was potentially able to solve the difficulty. Unfortunately the second difficulty known as “wave-particle-duality” needed simultaneous resolution.

When matter is repeatedly divided the atom is eventually reached. Then further division shows this to constitute sub-atomic particles. Quantum theory is the study of the mechanics operating at this sub-microscopic level of reality. In the 1920’s it was discovered that at this level nothing moved as it does at the visible level. In fact motion seemed governed by a plan formed by interfering waves. If two pebbles are thrown into a pond simultaneously waves spread out in rings and the rings cross into each other creating a patch of rough water. This is the interference pattern characteristic of waves. At the quantum level, particles only appear where the wave amplitudes add up; none are seen where they cancel out. The conceptual difficulties are best illustrated by reading a book by David Deutsch called, “The Fabric of Reality” (Penguin 1998). He says the only possible interpretation requires the universe to split in two every time one of these particles has a choice of two ways to go. It involves an almost infinite set of universes existing in the same place each multiplying at an almost infinite rate! This is needed if consciousness is kept out of the solution. One of the original ideas from the 20’s, however, is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”. This says that a particle only exists when an observer “collapses the wave function”. So this interpretation had already accepted consciousness to be involved in the creation of matter.

To me this meant that the quantum level had an unreal quality and had to be contrived by consciousness. There had to be a true reality at a deeper level having a structure able to evolve a conscious intelligence. It could not, therefore, operate on the wave mechanics of the quantum level but needed to exist to make those waves. It was more likely to operate on the classical mechanics found satisfactory for explaining how stars and planets moved: “Classical Mechanics”.

This introduced the third difficulty for which no resolution has emerged for over 70 years. Einstein’s theory called “General Relativity” (GR) is accepted as the best since it has survived almost every experimental check. Unfortunately it is incompatible with quantum theory. It was also impossible to apply it to solve the problem of the cosmological constant owing to the assumption that only motion relative to the observer existed. Now as objects are speeded up they gain energy of motion called “kinetic energy”. In relativity its value differs from one observer to another if the observers also see each other in motion. Consequently kinetic energy, according to GR, has to be regarded as illusory. To solve the problem of the CC kinetic energy had to be real. Consequently a new mechanics had to be derived. I had to be, not only compatible with quantum theory, but also had to match all the experimental checks that had elevated the status of GR to one of the two major achievements of 20’th century physics.

THE SOLUTION

To provide a satisfactory alternative to GR seemed to present a formidable obstacle since this had to be derived first. However, by applying the mechanical engineers logic of common sense a satisfactory new “Exact Classical Mechanics” (ECM) soon emerged. It matched all the data just as well as did relativity theory but had the advantage of starting out quantum compatible. It was first published in Russia in 1991 but can be found on the “Campaign for Philosophical Freedom” website of Michael Roll, very professionally organised by Paul Read.

ECM theory had all motion referred to the local background medium, to be called the “i-ther”. So now kinetic energy could be regarded as real. To enable a paradox free theory of creation from the zero energy state of nothingness to appear it was also necessary to extend the theory to yield an, “Opposed Energy Dynamics”. ECM theory yields Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 by a totally different method but without reference to relativity in any way. This equation shows that matter is made out of energy. So energy is the ultimate building substance of the universe of matter. Since matter had to emerge as a construct of the i-ther, this ultimate level of reality had also be made from the same stuff.

For energy to appear from nothing it had to exist in two opposite and complementary kinds: positive and negative. We assume we are made of only positive energy defined by Newton’s laws. He said that when an object was caused to accelerate it had to be pushed by a “force of action” pointing in the same direction as the motion produced. An object made of negative energy would move in a direction opposite this force. Although difficult to accept at first introduction, this actually involves no conceptual difficulties. If two objects both made of negative energy are imagined to collide, both have their responses reversed and so the effects cancel. Consequently if all matter were negative it would behave in exactly the same way as that we observe. Indeed it is impossible to say which dominates for our matter.

For creation to occur both kinds need to exist as a balanced mixture of minute real particles to be called “primaries”. These are the only true particles that really can exist. Then it is also possible for the positive and negative primaries to cancel each other to zero, so enabling an existing mixture to annihilate itself to become nothingness. So what would actually happen during the collision of opposites? They would certainly all be in vigorous motion, like the molecules of a gas, eternally colliding and bouncing off one another.

Opposed energy dynamics gave the answer. Another law of mechanics called the “conservation of momentum” had also to be satisfied. The momentum of an object is defined as its mass multiplied by its velocity. The sum of the momentums of all objects colliding has to be the same after the collision as it was before, as measured in any specified direction.

Instead of annihilating this condition forced both colliding primaries to gain energy of their own kind in balanced amounts. They were breeding like opposite sexes! A detailed computational study taking collision probabilities into account showed that the average energy gain would be 0.091 of incident kinetic energy if the average speed were 99% of the speed of light. The proportion rose to 0.199 as speed fell to 10% of light speed. Of course the incident kinetic energy rises rapidly as speed increases. In consequence the i-ther would form a rapidly growing ball but its density would also increase until an unstable condition was reached. And this solved the problem of the CC!

The entire flow field now broke up into minute cells divided by watershed-like boundaries, possibly forming a regular pattern like a honeycomb. Inside each cell, flows converged to a central point and here conditions, again governed by the need to conserve momentum, favoured mutual annihilation. In the outer annulii of each cell a gas-like fluid existed forming a breeding blanket and nearly all this creation was cancelled out at the central focal points. A minute net creation remained causing a slow growth, over aeons of time, to the vast size of the universe we see today -except for one thing: matter did not yet exist. The i-ther is only the source of matter. However, when matter eventually appeared it would go with the flow. And the flow predicted was one of accelerating expansion. Every part would be moving away from every other with both speeds and accelerations proportional to separating distance. This was predicted in 1992 and in 1998, as reported by B. Schwarzchild, astronomers discovered that, contrary to their expectations, the expansion was indeed accelerating. So Survival Physics has made an important prediction later confirmed by observation.

A SUB-QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS EVOLVES

There could be almost spherical centres of annihilation (hubs) or long filamentous shapes (links) all of finite diameter and consisting of primaries in the act of mutual destruction. Hubs and links, however, would themselves form permanent structures. Many links could couple to a single hub as one of an infinite variety of geometries that could form by chance.

This structure formed a source of power that could only manifest as waves: so explaining why the quantum level has to operate on wave mechanics. The waves need intelligent organisation, however, but arrangements of hubs and links could be imagined that looked very like the artificial neural networks that scientists, such as Hinton have shown to have memory and learning capability. The speculative part of the emerging theory had to assume that in the fullness of time a neural network would evolve and that further evolution would lead to the emergence of the conscious intelligence needed for wave organisation.

This meant that at least the sub-conscious mind had to exist as an i-theric structure. It would need to contrive matter by the clever organisation of real quantum waves. A sub atomic particle would be formed by the repeated focusing of waves at points chosen at random but confined to regions of constructive wave interference patterns. In this way a satisfying interpretation for the enigma of wave-particle-duality emerged. A particle, such as an electron, would no longer be regarded as a single object travelling along the curved paths caused by the action of electric and magnetic forces. Instead electrons would be sequences of wave focusing events joined end to end in time but not in position. These positions would be chosen mathematically so that, as observed by scientists, electrons would only now appear to be acted upon by a real force of electromagnetism. The other three forces of nature could be similarly interpreted. Hence our universe now appears as a semi-virtual reality. It is built from real energies but these are intelligently organised.

Each i-theric mind would have to be separated from the universal sub-conscious by some form of information filter-barrier programmed into the i-ther, so that it could interact with other minds in meaningful ways. This could explain why at least one matter system had to be organised to provide a temporary housing in which such interaction could occur. Then on the demise of that housing another based on different laws of physics was provided so that development of individual minds could continue. The i-ther could build several interpenetrating universes all occupying the same space but tuned to different quantum wave frequencies. Then the i-theric mind could tune into just one at a time. If the brain has its own consciousness then a copy is carried in the i-ther.

In this way a theory emerged, that had survival as its core feature. It had appeared from the simultaneous solution of the three major difficulties of physics. With this model the entire spectrum of the so-called “paranormal” can be given an explanation as potentially real effects including mediumship, telepathy, psychokinesis, healing, apports, OOB’s, NDE’s and prediction.

Top
#15339 - 12/02/08 04:42 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm going to quote Shermer on this:

 Quote:
The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world (such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely you know a particle’s position, the less precisely you know its speed, and vice versa) to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light in scientific circles.

Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. The conjecture (and that’s all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave function collapse that leads to the quantum coherence of atoms, causing neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons and thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern, thereby creating thought and consciousness. Since a wave function collapse can only come about when an atom is “observed” (i.e., affected in any way by something else), neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggests that “mind” may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms….

In reality, the gap between sub-atomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum, the University of Colorado particle physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum mechanically the system’s typical mass m, speed v, and distance d must be on the order of Planck’s constant h. “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it.


D.

Top
#15345 - 12/02/08 05:55 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ronald D. Pearson doesn't believe the big bang happened. He thinks modern physics is wrong about just about everything. You really know how to pick your sources.

It seems as though you are grasping at straws here Miss De Sade.

Good conclusions are reached by starting with evidence,logic, and reason, and working your way forward to a conclusion that fits. What you are doing is precisely the opposite, in that you have a conclusion and you are willing to throw just about anything out there to justify it. The way you keep quoting people you see as 'more knowledgeable', without really understanding the material, is exactly the same thing as christians that toss scripture in the absence of being able to formulate a real argument. The fact is you strongly believe all this stuff but you don't know (or at least can't seem to articulate) why.

The word for that, my dear, is faith.

There is nothing inherently wrong with your conclusions, but your notions of what constitutes epistemology;ie how you arrived at them, are horribly flawed.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 6 of 13 « First<45678>Last »


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.011 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.