That science makes absolutely no sense. Conscioiusness is a process, not a substance. Energy has absolutely no intelligence.> Your "mind" is somethingWhat is meant by mind? You have a brain that's going through certain processes when you're alive, and decaying when you die...just like your liver. The brain happens to go through electrical and chemical processes, but they stop when you die, just as your live stops what it does. Once the brain stops, consciousness ends.Consciousness has no mass. How would it get converted to energy, any more than then information on a page would?What do you think happens when you pull the plug on your computer? Does its "consciousness" go somewhere?> the first law of physics is 'Nothing Can be created or destroyed'Whose first law of physics? Matter can switch to energy under certain circumstances (like the detonation of a nuclear bomb, the burning of a star, etc.), as you pointed out in Einstein's special theory of relativity. Most people doing start going into thermonuclear fission or fusion when they die. And if they did, they'd be (partially or fully) converted into enery that had absolutely no intelligence.The idea of intelligent energy is very new-age, but completely meaningless.
-
Guiltiness?
-
Well, I personally believe that consciousness (the mind) is separate from the brain. I cannot fathom how the brain, as physical matter, could handle what we claim it does. If you try and compare your brain to a computer... how could even the largest computer ever store all the experiences (feelings, images, etc.) that we experience throughout our lives? Each day would require a massive amount of storage and processing power. (I suppose quantum computing could change my view on that though.) Yet we can remember it all in detail... either through memory or hypnosis.I believe the part that is uniquely "you" is made of energy (for lack of a better word) that is not detectable nor understood. Even though many will say that near-death and out-of-body experiences are hallucinations or dreams, I believe they can be real... and that they provide insight on why/how we are not just a body with a brain, but that we just inhabit them while in this physical plane of existence.Call this "new age" if you want, but it makes sense to me.
-
nice to find someone who thinks a bit like me *hugs* :grin:
-
In reply to:Well, I personally believe that consciousness (the mind) is separate from the brain.Why?In reply to:I cannot fathom how the brain, as physical matter, could handle what we claim it does.Oh...because you cannot fathom. What you say in the rest of the paragraph doesn't get us any further, since the largest computer that now exists can't model the brain. The largest computer that existed until the mid-90's couldn't beat a chess master. Now computers regularly beat chess masters. Even before that, the fastest non-horse-powered vehicle couldn't beat a running man.I could understand your saying, "I'm not an expert in neurology or artificial intelligence, so I don't understand how the brain does what it does; in fact, I don't think they folks who are experts in those areas have the whole story. I'll just have to say I don't know how the brain works and leave it at that." Instead you insist on believing a fantastic story that's based on no demonstrable evidence. It's simply a random religious belief.In reply to:I believe the part that is uniquely "you" is made of energy (for lack of a better word) that is not detectable nor understood. Even though many will say that near-death and out-of-body experiences are hallucinations or dreams, I believe they can be real... and that they provide insight on why/how we are not just a body with a brain, but that we just inhabit them while in this physical plane of existence.Not detectable? Then how can you even say anything about it? I can come up with any crazy idea and say "it's not detectable, but I believe it."The near death stuff has been explored scientifically, and it looks like the brain reacts in certain predictable ways to lack of blood or oxygen. No one has ever died and come back, so what does a near-death experience mean? The experience of a brain that was deprived of oxygen for some period?None of what you say is based on anything rational or detectable. It is pure fantasy. It is purely religious.In reply to:Call this "new age" if you want, but it makes sense to me.If it makes you feel good, then by all means, continue to believe it.
-
Yeah thats some pretty good points there. The only kinda scientific thig that i can think of at the moment pointing to god existing is the 36 grams or whatever it is that leaves your body when you die. No one could work out what this was since it wasnt gasses or anything like that. I belive in a religion but I just stopped going to church and following the rules mainly because it didnt make me happy. I dont see whats so bad about doing what makes you happy if it harms no one else. Thats why when masterbaton is talked about as being wrong it pisses me off so much. My religion now is to do what makes me and the people I love happy. Since in the end thats all that matters.
-
> 36 grams or whatever it is that leaves your body when you die
OK, what kind of foolishness is that?
-
Dunno some doctor noticed that there was an certan weight that left a person when they died after taking into account air and any other gasses and shit like that. Some people belive it is your soul or whatever you want to call it leaving your body. Try googling it I would and link you but its 4:10am and I'm too tired.
-
Couldn't find anything on it, but I recall some Russian doctor made that claim a while back. Sounds like complete nonsense. However, I did find that the recommended daily allowance of protein equates to approximately .36 grams of protein per pound of body weight; some folks think anyone who exercises should get more.
-
Yer I'm going to bed now but I may take a look into the claim sometime and see if I can find anything about it then post the link. Since it may sound like nonsense but it sounds rather interesting. Lol I dunno why but a russian doctor just makes it seem kinda comical. I can just imagine him doing tests in his big furr coat and hat in the snow!... must be cus I'm up late that I am laughing at such stupid stuff.
-
Hey, I'm in no way trying to convince you to believe what I do. I respect your opinion... and as you say, there's no way to prove anything I said.
As far as the computer analogy goes, I originally had "even computers in the future" but it didn't fit in my sentence good, so I took it out. What I'm trying to compare it to is storing information in "bits". Of course, our brain does this with some kind of electrochemical process... so the question becomes, how can there be enough synapses to hold all of this information? And then there's the fact (not sure if this is proven though) that we use less that half of our brain anyway... some have even said we only use 10% of it. And then (and I can't remember this in detail) but there was the case of the boy born with 80% of his brain missing, yet he still lived and functioned fairly normally. Of course, you can attack all of this as unproven or inconsequential... and that's fine. I'm just throwing some things out there... just trying to understand life (with the limited capability of my brain).
As far as NDEs and OBEs, there's always a lot of debate as to whether these are real or not. I don't think it deserves to be labeled "pure fantasy" though. There's a lot of credible people who believe it. Could it be caused by a lack of oxygen? Sure, it could be. So anyway, you are right, I cannot prove this stuff. Doesn't mean some of it can't be true though.
I'm not an expert in neurology or artificial intelligence, so I don't understand how the brain does what it does; in fact, I don't think the folks who are experts in those areas have the whole story. I'll just have to say I don't know how the brain works and leave it at that. (Sorry, that was so good, I had to use it.)
In reply to:
If it makes you feel good, then by all means, continue to believe it.
Thanks so much for allowing me to continue to believe what I want. You're the best!
-
...there's no way no way no way to prove anything I said.There's no evidence for it either.> I originally had "even computers in the future"Why not? How do you know how sophisticated and powerful computers will be in 300 years, and how much our understanding of the physiology and function of the brain will increase? You're dismissing science out of hand.> What I'm trying to compare it to is storing information in "bits". Of course, our brain does this with some kind of electrochemical process... so the question becomes, how can there be enough synapses to hold all of this information?Well, there are, believe it or not. If not, where do you think the extra data gets stored in our day-to-day thinking? The brain organizes itself and stores information by forming new neural connections, and modifying thresholds for triggering neurons, etc. There is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between neurons and storage bits.> And then there's the fact (not sure if this is proven though) that we use less that half of our brain anyway... some have even said we only use 10% of it.This is an old fallacy, from misinterpreted experiments. Most if not all of the brain is in use. In fact, there appear to be structures other than neurons that take part in brain activities.> 80% of his brain missing, yet he still lived and functioned fairly normally.I don't know anything about this, but I seriously doubt he functioned on the level of a normal person.> As far as NDEs and OBEs, there's always a lot of debate as to whether these are real or not. I don't think it deserves to be labeled "pure fantasy" though. There's a lot of credible people who believe it. Could it be caused by a lack of oxygen? Sure, it could be. So anyway, you are right, I cannot prove this stuff. Doesn't mean some of it can't be true though.What is there to debate? No one has died and came back. There is a rational explanation for what people perceive when their brain is deprived of oxygen. Why then is it necessary to come up with fantastic, colorful explanations? By your standard, anything can be true. Maybe the moderators here are all witches and warlocks. Can you prove it false?> I'm not an expert in neurology or artificial intelligence, so I don't understand how the brain does what it does; in fact, I don't think the folks who are experts in those areas have the whole story. I'll just have to say I don't know how the brain works and leave it at that. (Sorry, that was so good, I had to use it.)That can be fixed. There are books on the subject that don't require and advanced degree to read, and are interesting reads to boot. In fact, real science is really interesting. The experts don't have the "whole story" and could not completely model the brain, even given a powerful enough computer. But they do have a lot of the story, and I doubt that any expert in the field would agree with your guesses about the physical brain's capacity.> Thanks so much for allowing me to continue to believe what I want. You're the best!I aim to please. Freedom of thought totally kicks ass.
-
I mean this in a good way: you're a tough nut to crack. I also mean no offense in this: I'm glad the whole world doesn't think like you do. So limited. No exploration of that which has not yet been (or maybe cannot be) proven. To put into single words: limited, stilted, boring. I'm not saying everyone should believe anything anyone comes out with. But an open mind can open doors that were not noticed before.In reply to:You said: I could understand your saying, "I'm not an expert in neurology or artificial intelligence, so I don't understand how the brain does what it does; in fact, I don't think they folks who are experts in those areas have the whole story. I'll just have to say I don't know how the brain works and leave it at that." Instead you insist on believing a fantastic story that's based on no demonstrable evidence. It's simply a random religious belief.I said: I'm not an expert in neurology or artificial intelligence, so I don't understand how the brain does what it does; in fact, I don't think the folks who are experts in those areas have the whole story. I'll just have to say I don't know how the brain works and leave it at that. (Sorry, that was so good, I had to use it.)You said: That can be fixed. There are books on the subject that don't require and advanced degree to read, and are interesting reads to boot. In fact, real science is really interesting. The experts don't have the "whole story" and could not completely model the brain, even given a powerful enough computer. But they do have a lot of the story, and I doubt that any expert in the field would agree with your guesses about the physical brain's capacity.Just had to comment on this, my paragraph above came from you. Looks like you accepted that better than anything else I've come up with. Got any more tips on what I should say?
-
I say this with complete heterosexuality.Steve, I love you.
-
I mean this in a good wayOh, yeah? I guess not:> So limited. No exploration of that which has not yet been (or maybe cannot be) proven. To put into single words: limited, stilted, boring. I'm not saying everyone should believe anything anyone comes out with. But an open mind can open doors that were not noticed before.There's a difference between exploration and belief. There's a difference between an open mind and gullibility, and it's not a subtle difference. How do you propose I explore your theories on the soul? There's noting to see, nothing to measure. It's pure philosophy. Your reason for believing it is that you don't well understand the science involved, and you seem not to have the imagination to see how knowledge advances. So you choose to come up with an arbitrary idea, not backed up by anything (other than "How else could it be?"), and it becomes your faith.I may be boring, but if you understand science, it's not boring at all. Learn about quantum and subatomic physics, astrophysics, physiology, etc., and you'll be amazed. If you lived before we understood what makes the stars burn, I'm sure you would come up with and interesting but wrong explanation, and believe it as the truth.Is "interesting" more important than "true"? If truth means anything, then we have to admit that we have no known-to-be-correct explanation for some things (e.g., Why does it appear that the universe continues to expand? No one thinks they know the correct answer. Do you?)Does intellectual honesty mean anything, or has it been plowed under by new age gibberish? Is the interesting the enemy of the true?I don't know what the point of your quote was, other than that I agree that you are ignorant of science. My point is that, if you want answers to difficult problems, science is a good place to start. Unfortunately, made-up nonsense is more interesting to you, so that's what you went with.I have more ideas not on what you should say, but what you should do: Educate yourself. Come up with whatever ideas you like, but don't just believe them. "I don't know how the brain works and I'll leave it at that" is not the right answer. "I just don't know, but I have some thoughts.", or "I'll try to learn more about it" are more reasonable.The problem with believing crazy stuff because it's interesting, other than its lack of intellectual honesty, is that you then become subject to demagogues and crazy people with crazy ideas that are truly destructive. Now are you going to defend astrology? After all, lots of interesting people believe it's correct.OK now, do we understand what an ad hominem argument is? And isn't it telling that we're in the masturbation forum?
-
Your knowlage of science masturbatates my mind steve! I found some more info on my earlier post his name was Duncan McDougall and he estimated it weighed 21 grams.This probrably explains it better then I can http://www.lougentile.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1
-
You blinded me with science . This will be my last post here. Today, I'm going to end my life, so that I may prove that our existence does not end with death. Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide you the results of my experiment. Have a good day.
-
Can't you use some of that energy to leave a sign of some sort?
-
The article about Duncan McDougall and his 1907 experiment said:In reply to:. . .It would take a great deal of credulity to conclude that MacDougall's experiments demonstrated anything about post-mortem weight loss, much less the quantifiable existence of the human soul. For one thing, his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases.... . .What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more.. . .He was a guy with a religious belief, trying to confirm his belief. His experiments had little relation to good science. Pure hogwash.
-
true they were not that acurate but no one else has actualy done more tests on the theroy so you still dont know. Personaly I dont think a soul would have weight since if a soul were real it wouldnt be somthing that would be weighed. But fuck know... maybe?
-
> so you still dont know
Just as we don't know if the Queen of England is actually a space alien. A space alien who looks good in hats.