You are the god particle!!

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I know what you mean, ALLisONE. But you are way off and believing in stuff that isn't reality. You are exaggerating the oneness; we are one, but we are distinct too. You my friend, are delusionial.

Of course we are one holistic system. We have a head, two hands and legs and the torso; But I can seperate my legs and hands and still have consciousness. We could seperate the torso from head and still the head would be conscious, provided there would be bloodcirculation happening in the head.

You might want to check the following video (warning, may contain offensive material):


But I have the feeling that you are one of those believers in the extreme oneness, and insisting that our feeling of distinctness is only illusion. Hence I respectfully leave you with your beliefs and kindly ask you to allow me to keep mine

-v

reply to post by 13579


Oh come on man. You can believe all that if you like, but don't come offering me it as a fact. I might be dense and more stupid or whatever, but to me that is exactly theory and not fact. You might want to read the definations of theory and fact.

Originally posted by 13579
sorry my friend. I know your happy in your little bubble. but people like me have no bubble and take life as a gift and want to understand it and share it with others NOT for fame OR ego just because we think its the RIGHT THING to do.

you ego may get in the way but mine does not.

I hope that you do see the irony in your post
You do see, that you are in the ego-bubble? You insist that you know the truth. You keep on your fancy theory that includes Higgs Bosons misinterpret. Talking about the ego of mine, you might want to hear the translations of the latin phrases, which I have in my avatar?

Natura nihil facit supervacaneum = Nature does not do anything in vain.
Nosce Te Ipsum = Know thyself.
Scio Me Nihil Scire = I know that I know nothing.

See, terrible ego there. I am open to all options as I don't consider me and my theories to be the center of the world. But I tend to use the method of falsification to find out more substantial theories out of rubbish.

As with the previous poster whom I replied, I have the feeling that you are a believer. I will not go further in this discussion, as it might be pointless. There is hardly any ground for inquiry as you seem to have found your truth already.

-v

[edit on 18-12-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0


You didn't understand a word I said. You sir, are lost, and confused. Sorry, maybe someday in the future you will reach enlightenment, but right now you are not even close.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Indeed, if you think so.

That is usually the response I get from believers.

I'll respect your opinion and wish for a merry christmas and pleasant day. Take care.

-v

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
A man can loose parts of his brain and still be conscious but that doesn't mean those missing parts don't improve, support, or cause part of his consciousness, and make him more conscious. Usually when there are missing parts of a brain, that brain is lacking it's full potential, it's full ability to be conscious, so there is a direct link between that missing part and consciousness. That means parts of your brain are a part of your consciousness, so it is equally true that those parts are conscious, not by itself, but as a whole.

That is true.

In fact if the left side of child's brain is damaged when he is young enough the mind will actually switch the lateralization of the language functions to the right side of the brain.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
The point is, what may appear true today may not be what is true tomorrow, so unless it can be proven true over and over again through constant falsifiability, then there is no reason to continuously believe it to be true. Science is never about absolutes as it constantly forces itself to recheck it's "facts".

This is exactly why we must admit that the mind does not exist in a scientific way.

Science is not “only” concerned with empirical evidence (debatable) but it does require that the foundations of any scientific study be based on observable and measurable information.

Science is fundamentally built on observation of patterns.
It assumes the world is predictable and requires a measurable result.

However, in order to be predicted or measured an event must be linear (or at least simple enough to be broken into linear pieces).

Some issues can NOT be observed directly.
This means that from a scientific standpoint they are only theoretical.

The mind is the common denominator of abstract thought.

A concept like the mind can obviously be studied in a scientific way (psycholinguistics is very interesting) but the most important recognition of any neuroscientist when discussing purely cognitive issues is that they are making assumptions based on a combination of logic and observation of correlations between brain activity and observable behavior (regardless of whether this behavior is speculated as physiological or psychological).

This means that we can theoretically discuss concepts like the mind but we are making logical inferences based of our own conscious experience.

The reason science works out so well is because we seem to have similar conscious experiences that form the ability to communicate but we cannot “feel” the consciousness of another person.

The mind is made up of feelings.

Could the God particle be possible proof of a higher entity?

reply to post by Jezus

This is exactly why we must admit that the mind does not exist in a scientific way.

Your argument is automatically null and void due to the hypocritical elements of it.


You wish to use this:

The point is, what may appear true today may not be what is true tomorrow, so unless it can be proven true over and over again through constant falsifiability, then there is no reason to continuously believe it to be true. Science is never about absolutes as it constantly forces itself to recheck it's "facts".

To argue against a scientific theory of the Mind while equally use it as a tool to argue your own personal Theory of Mind. I love how you try to do it though, with a complete lack of understanding what a theory is and how a theory works.

Some issues can NOT be observed directly.
This means that from a scientific standpoint they are only theoretical.

You can't think of any one Theory that predicts something that hasn't been observed directly but is accepted today without thought (unfortunately) because it's predicted effects are observed and felt and seen?

And how hypocritical of you to even argue that way to begin with, such an ill thought out baseless argument. Because something is not observed directly and is only theoretical, it is invariably WRONG? Says oodles about your own assertions, isn't that wonderful that we can discern that your own assertion is equally and validly wrong thanks to your lack of critical thought when you argue against another assertion? I think it's the bee's knee's myself!

Originally posted by Rooky
Could the God particle be possible proof of a higher entity?

There is no such thing as a God Particle.

The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media,[19] after the title of Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?.[20] While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider,[20] it is disliked by scientists as overstating the importance of the particle.[19]

source

I once asked a brilliant physicist at Manchester University what he thought of the name the media use for the Higgs boson, the mysterious particle that is regarded as the universal origin of mass. That name, of course, is the God particle.

It is partly with thanks to names like "God particle" and spurious end-of-the-world scenarios that the Large Hadron Collider at Cern near Geneva got so much coverage when it was switched on last year. And broke.

Cern is just one lab that is in the business of hunting for the particle. The other is the Tevatron at Fermilab near Chicago. That machine is the most powerful particle accelerator in the world (that works).

But back to the physicist in Manchester. He paused. He sighed. And then he said: "I really, really don't like it. It sends out all the wrong messages. It overstates the case. It makes us look arrogant. It's rubbish." He then added: "If you walked down the corridor here, poked your head into people's offices and asked that question, you would likely be struck by flying books."

Today it's the 80th birthday of Peter Higgs, the Edinburgh-based physicist whose work pointed to the existence of the particle in the early 1960s. In previous interviews, I've asked him what he makes of the name, God particle. He hates it. He worries it might offend people who are religious, but I think he hates it for other reasons too.

source

I can only hope you garner a better understanding now and take the initiative to continue learning more about this.

Originally posted by sirnex
Because something is not observed directly and is only theoretical, it is invariably WRONG?

WRONG?

What are you talking about?

The mind exists even though from a purely scientific point of view it doesn't.

Just because something doesn't exist in a physical sense doesn't mean it is "wrong" or unimportant.

reply to post by Jezus

The mind exists even though from a purely scientific point of view it doesn't.

OK, so you deny neuroscience and Theory of Mind as a scientific principle of discovering consciousness and mind. Both are scientific forefronts for discovering what make's us conscious entities and why we have a mind. Neither front has ever said that from the scientific view that it doesn't exist, regardless of your opinions of the science behind it.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

The mind exists even though from a purely scientific point of view it doesn't.

OK, so you deny neuroscience and Theory of Mind as a scientific principle of discovering consciousness and mind. Both are scientific forefronts for discovering what make's us conscious entities and why we have a mind. Neither front has ever said that from the scientific view that it doesn't exist, regardless of your opinions of the science behind it.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by sirnex]

Neuroscience studies the correlations of observable brain activity and behavior. While this scientific study may allow us to make logical assumptions of the mind it doesn’t change the fact that the mind is fundamentally abstract.

In a purely scientific view (not necessarily logical) the mind does not exist.


Look into neurolinguistics and brain damage studies.

Some people specifically lose the ability to speak nouns groups (like vegetables)
Some people can speak and can’t understand their own words.
Some people can write and can’t read what they just wrote.
Some people can tell you the “feeling” of music without even believing they heard it

The relationship between the brain and mind is not as simple as you think.

reply to post by Jezus

Neuroscience studies the correlations of observable brain activity and behavior. While this scientific study may allow us to make logical assumptions of the mind it doesn’t change the fact that the mind is fundamentally abstract.

Yes, what you are saying is true, but it's a poor understanding in my opinion.

What is neuroscience and how is this science applicable to the study of the Mind?

Let's look at what Mind is.

Mind (pronounced /ˈmaɪnd/) is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness.

source

Thought
Perception
Memory
Emotion
Imagination
And all unconscious cognitive processes.

All these separate components are aspects of one thing that we call Mind.

Now that we have this understanding, what does Neuroscience study?

The scientific study of the nervous systems underwent a significant increase in the second half of the twentieth century, principally due to revolutions in molecular biology, electrophysiology, and computational neuroscience. It has become possible to understand, in much detail, the complex processes occurring within a single neuron. However, how networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior, cognition, emotion, and physiological responses is still poorly understood.

source

So, what have we learned? All those aspects of Mind *are* studied by Neuroscience, but that they are poorly understood at this time.

This tells us that your statement:

In a purely scientific view (not necessarily logical) the mind does not exist.

Is a false and unfounded biased opinion. Yes, it *really is that simple*. I hope you've enjoyed your lesson as much as I've enjoyed teaching you. I can only hope you walk away from this with a greater understanding and a more open mind and are able to dispense that biased unfounded belief of yours. Once that mind is open to all contraries and you learn to reserve judgment with humility, you'll learn a whole hell of a lot more than you realize. As you stated, your opinion is that it is *not* that simple, yet this lack of simplicity only arises to to self imposed limitations drawn from unfounded biased opinion believed to be concrete facts. Pull up that anchor boy, and full sails ahead! Reality is more wondrous than you can even imagine!

Originally posted by sirnex

In a purely scientific view (not necessarily logical) the mind does not exist.

Is a false and unfounded biased opinion. Yes, it *really is that simple*. I hope you've enjoyed your lesson as much as I've enjoyed teaching you. I can only hope you walk away from this with a greater understanding and a more open mind and are able to dispense that biased unfounded belief of yours. Once that mind is open to all contraries and you learn to reserve judgment with humility, you'll learn a whole hell of a lot more than you realize. As you stated, your opinion is that it is *not* that simple, yet this lack of simplicity only arises to to self imposed limitations drawn from unfounded biased opinion believed to be concrete facts. Pull up that anchor boy, and full sails ahead! Reality is more wondrous than you can even imagine!

You are confusing the concept of science in general (studying) with scientific evidence.

We can make logical assumptions about the “mind” by studying the brain.

However, from a purely scientific view (again this is not necessarily logical) the mind is nothing but an abstract idea comprised of those concepts you brought up.

"Emotion" is a very interesting one.

An emotion is a raw state of mind that we remember and attach a word to.

The mind is made up of emotions.

In science we can study the brain, behavior, correlations between them, physiological psychology, and biological chemistry. These are the physical moving pieces.

The mind is on the other side of the equation.

Originally posted by sirnex
However, how networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior, cognition, emotion, and physiological responses is still poorly understood.

"produce"

Remember correlation is not causation.




[edit on 18-12-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus

You are confusing the concept of science in general (studying) with scientific evidence.

Well, if we want to talk about evidence based beliefs, then technically there is really no evidence at all for the mind. Physical or not. Both trains of thought in such a case would be equally valid.

In science we can study the brain, behavior, correlations between them, physiological psychology, and biological chemistry. These are the physical moving pieces.

Do you know how the brain produces and emotion? I'm just curious as it's a very valid point here in this discussion. If you don't know then I'm more than willing to explain it. Unless of course you want to say emotional responses aren't tangible physical occurrences as well.

Have you read about the experiment they did with fly memory?

When is the mind the mind? Is it the sum of it's total constituent systems, or is it something else entirely different that only you understand regardless of the scientific definition and study of it?

The mind is on the other side of the equation.

Other side of *what* equation?

"produce"

Remember correlation is not causation.

Well, technically before that statement can be true, you have to somewhat understand how 'produced' is being used in the sentence. It's basically just simple reading comprehension skill.

Your argument of correlation is not causation based on the word 'produced' is about as valid as saying a seed doesn't 'produce' a tree.

I'm telling you, if you want to learn, then thing's actually DO become really that simple. Your just being too arrogant in your beliefs as being more factual without evidence. I suppose it could just be blinded by biased opinions and conjectures. Who knows, I'm not you so I can't validly discern why you think the way you do.

I wonder if your bizarrely confrontational attitude has anything to do with you difficulty in comprehending abstract concepts.

Originally posted by sirnex
Unless of course you want to say emotional responses aren't tangible physical occurrences as well.

Of course they aren't.

Emotions are states of mind.

The mind is fundamentally abstract.

We can see correlations between perceived mental states and brain activity but this is still nothing but moving pieces.

The mind responds to the brain’s message of senses, and the brain responds to the mind’s message of emotion.

Emotion Vs Perception

Mind Vs Brain

reply to post by v01i0

Hence I respectfully leave you with your beliefs and kindly ask you to allow me to keep mine

if that is the case

reply to post by Jezus


yet he does not uderstand what is "producing" it does he? Nope.

Atoms! then what? subatomic particals then what? and on the flip side of that what is it interacting with? body? enviroment / earth / sun / solar sytem / galaxy / universe.

but yet he can not tell me what connects them both.

and its simple WE DO / LIFE DOES

we are the apex of our reality creating all around us just by being here

doh



gave you a star

reply to post by sirnex

There is no such thing as a God Particle.

Yep i did say that.. becuase Your IT.. LOL!!!

how can you find something that is already there? all you need to do is look in the mirror.. there is your god partical looking right back at cha.

; )

reply to post by Jezus

Emotions are states of mind.

I don't know the full extent of how you view thing's, but for me that sounds pretty much as archaic as stating evolution is solely based on natural selection alone. I have this really bad habit of staying on top of new knowledge and discoveries. That and I don't base an opinion of a select few articles that may agree with each other. Lot's of contrary opinions out there.

The mind is fundamentally abstract.

Which aspect of abstract are you using here?

*consider a concept without thinking of a specific example; consider abstractly or theoretically

*existing only in the mind; separated from embodiment; "abstract words like `truth' and `justice'"

*outline: a sketchy summary of the main points of an argument or theory

I only ask because I think sometimes, people don't really understand *how* to use certain words in argument. Depending on the base of definition, I can more easily discern your true intents here as each three of these different usages give different meanings to the argument.

We can see correlations between perceived mental states and brain activity but this is still nothing but moving pieces.

So, invariably just because it may be viewed as 'moving pieces', it has to be the wrong view? Interesting...

The mind responds to the brain’s message of senses, and the brain responds to the mind’s message of emotion.

Can you cite any subsequent research or articles you have read that may back this up or is this just an opinion of yours in which your going to later whine that I just don't get it?

reply to post by 13579

but yet he can not tell me what connects them both.

Force carriers; Without force carriers, atoms wouldn't be able to interact to the point of being able to coalesce into stars, planets, water, people etc. You have a very infantile understanding of physics and science and you've decidedly chosen to muddy that understanding even further with an arrogant narcissistic prideful biased opinion of reality in which you view is absolutely correct and yet can't back that up with any evidences.

how can you find something that is already there? all you need to do is look in the mirror.. there is your god partical looking right back at cha.

I'm going to throw a bowling ball at your face. Shame you won't find it because it's already there.

Please get a spell checker or take the time to learn the English language. Did you not pay attention in ESL or are you still in elementary school just now starting to learn about physics and such? I ask with all seriousness because if we can figure out what the problem is here, then we may be able to dispel that arrogant ignorance of yours.