You are the god particle!!

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

The mind is fundamentally abstract.


Which aspect of abstract are you using here?


The mind is the common dominator of all abstract thought. The mind factor is exactly what separates abstract from tangible.


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


Where are you getting this "wrong" from?


Originally posted by sirnex

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?


The best way to understand this concept is to study neurolinguistic, brain damage studies are particularly revealing.

The brain filters the mind into words.




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The mind is the common dominator of all abstract thought. The mind factor is exactly what separates abstract from tangible.


Can you please answer the question in context of the question. You were given three separate distinct aspects of the definition of 'abstract' with no single one of those being of equal use to the other. Which iteration of abstract are you applying to your argument?


Where are you getting this "wrong" from?


By your statements, should I quote or should you learn to explain better?


The best way to understand this concept is to study neurolinguistic, brain damage studies are particularly revealing.

The brain filters the mind into words.


I didn't ask for a fresh straw man to play with. Can you please answer the question in context of the question.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


what he means is the mind is not a part of the body as a mesurble part.

We can view electrons and functions of the brain, but can NOT mesure the mind as it is ABSRTACT ie its the sum of its parts / interactions of all that is going on.

understand? or do you think a mind is mesurable?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



its the sum of its parts / interactions of all that is going on.

understand? or do you think a mind is mesurable?


Can you see the ill thought out argument there? The contradictory hypocrisy? Or does that actually make sense to you? Read your statement a little more slowly, hopefully you'll see what I'm getting at! You with your vast superior intellect, this should be easy as pie for you!



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



The mind is the common dominator of all abstract thought. The mind factor is exactly what separates abstract from tangible.


Can you please answer the question in context of the question. You were given three separate distinct aspects of the definition of 'abstract' with no single one of those being of equal use to the other. Which iteration of abstract are you applying to your argument?


These divisions are semantics.

You need to understand the common denominator that connects of all your concepts of abstract.

Start with your middle choice and connect it to the first and second.

In this case it is exactly what we are discussing, the mind.


Originally posted by sirnex
*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



Originally posted by sirnex

Where are you getting this "wrong" from?


By your statements, should I quote or should you learn to explain better?


I never said the fact that physiological psychology, biological chemistry, and neuroscience were “wrong”, they are simply the study of correlating mechanisms, moving pieces.

The study of the mind is a connected but fundamentally separate issue because it is abstract and theoretical.


The best way to understand this concept is to study neurolinguistic, brain damage studies are particularly revealing.

The brain filters the mind into words.



Originally posted by sirnex
I didn't ask for a fresh straw man to play with. Can you please answer the question in context of the question.


The reason you should study into neurolinguistics is because it attempts to connect abstract thoughts (like the meanings of words) to the physical brain.

Some people are brain damaged in such a specific abstract way, for example losing the ability to say a noun group as specific as vegetables which is really nothing but an abstract human concept. Some people are even being able to speak without understanding it.

What is revealed is that as we grow our mind’s response to stimulation and information actually creates the physical structure of the brain. When are brain gets damaged we might still know what a carrot is when looking at it but we lose the physical sequence of sounds created by our voice and mouth.


[edit on 19-12-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



These divisions are semantics.


True to a point, but we wouldn't want to misinterpret your usage of abstract to be:

*pilfer: make off with belongings of others

It would just sound really odd if this was how your applying abstract to the argument, at least to me it would be. Utterly up to you how you want to use abstract, just semantics after all.



You need to understand the common denominator that connects of all your concepts of abstract.


Might take awhile for me to reconcile 'make off with belongings of others' into that 'common denominator'. I'll get back to you on that one.


I never said the fact that physiological psychology, biological chemistry, and neuroscience were “wrong”, they are simply the study of correlating mechanisms, moving pieces.

The study of the mind is a connected but fundamentally separate issue because it is abstract and theoretical.


You seem to be implying that regardless of the Mind being scientifically defined as the sum of it's total parts and the study of those total parts, that the mind itself is not scientific view. Pretty much regardless of what science itself has to say on the matter.


The reason you should study into neurolinguistics is because it attempts to connect abstract thoughts (like the meanings of words) to the physical brain.


Your focusing on one area of research as if it's an end all to the discussion? Given the scientific definition of the mind and the mind being the sum of all those parts, neuroscience makes study of those each parts. Not just one area that you keep bringing up.


Some people are brain damaged in such a specific abstract way, for example losing the ability to say a noun group as specific as vegetables which is really nothing but an abstract human concept. Some people are even being able to speak without understanding it.


OK, so your saying that they are of sound mind with capacity of higher intelligent though but just unable to express that information to us because the brain is damaged?


What is revealed is that as we grow our mind’s response to stimulation and information actually creates the physical structure of the brain. When are brain gets damaged we might still know what a carrot is when looking at it but we lose the physical sequence of sounds created by our voice and mouth.


So where is the Mind in all of this? What mechanism or play of physics occurs that allows this intangible unobserved entity to work with the brain? What give's rise to Mind and is Mind governed by the laws of physics or does Mind break those laws?

[edit on 20-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


But its hard for you to understand?

I have shown you many times how and why it works but you will not accept it?

In half your posts you prove me right without even noticing it..

Without YOU there is no MATTER correct? then you say YES but! what about my kids? or be for them MATTER was here??? yes it was...

But the OBSERVATION OF IT makes MATTER what it is do you not understand that?

the only reason we CALL it MATTER is via OBSERVATION?

is the sky blue? YES really? no its not.. but you take it as granted correct?

why? because you OBSERVE IT to be BLUE via INTERACTION

get a clue mate



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


and stop avoiding my questions with a question.

is the mind mesurable or not? YES OR NO

very simple question



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



Without YOU there is no MATTER correct?


Without me, there would still be matter as far as I can discern because matter existed prior to my existence.


But the OBSERVATION OF IT makes MATTER what it is do you not understand that?


I understand your statement and I understand the aspect of the science in question that is leading you to conclude that statement, but that aspect of science doesn't actually state that and that is what you are purposefully ignoring despite me directly quoting and sourcing it.


the only reason we CALL it MATTER is via OBSERVATION?


How lame and infantile. If I called matter, dog crap, would it now instantly turn into a steaming pile of dog crap? I'm pretty sure the universe does not operate on the rules of semantics of the human species.


is the sky blue? YES really? no its not.. but you take it as granted correct?


I understand what your getting at here, and I've tried to use this line of reasoning to a degree with someone else about a separate topic of qualia.

No, the sky is not blue. The brain interprets a specific wavelength of light as distinct and separate from other wavelength's and we label that processed information through the use of language. This doesn't inherently imply that we 'create' the color blue. That wavelength would still exist irregardless of what label is given to it.


why? because you OBSERVE IT to be BLUE via INTERACTION


Sad...


get a clue mate


You should be more concerned with taking your own advice, you really should...


and stop avoiding my questions with a question.


OK hypocrite, as you demand.


is the mind mesurable or not? YES OR NO


Yes.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Without me, there would still be matter as far as I can discern because matter existed prior to my existence.


and is this not my point.?

YOU ARE MADE OF MATTER correct?

YET how can SEE MATTER? i mean this is you flaw here...

You can discern because you VIEW it yet you are made from the very thing you are discerning to be OBVIOUSE?

are you really that ignorant of the facts?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I understand your statement and I understand the aspect of the science in question that is leading you to conclude that statement, but that aspect of science doesn't actually state that and that is what you are purposefully ignoring despite me directly quoting and sourcing it


and i just told you it was wrong?

but the "that" aspect? so you are using "aspects" as facts or to backup your invalid logic?




but that aspect of science doesn't actually state that and that is what you are purposefully ignoring


what am i ignoring? that you consist of matter but yet you make matter what it is via observation?

Sorry what part am i missing? or is it that you can not grasp what it is im saying?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
double post ///

grr

[edit on 20-12-2009 by 13579]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   


Yes.


Show me.

im waiting
Please explain how one mesures the mind..

Im very interested.. because we cant. So if you would like to provide some proof to back up that statement feel free..

In fact i INSIST you do.. more so because its the premiss of this thread.

well? what are you waiting for? go get the evidence

!google can i mesure the mind.. start there LOL



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 

You are a piece of a puzzle.
Necessary to complete the puzzle, without
leaving a blank space, for you.

Tests are meaningless. They do not record
intention and skill except in a limited area.
Those who do not do well in one area of
knowledge will excel in another.
I believe everyone of us has a purpose,
be it to do something or to thwart something,
or to be the human link to another and help
them to do something, to prevent something
or even to show them a gentler kinder way


Or why are you here?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Ah, I see your attitude with the word scale.

DOWN WITH THE WORD SCALE!



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Are we really the God Particle?

There are traits, feelings, consciousness - we attribute to humans that I have seen in animals and sadly lacking in humans.

Scarlett the cat returns to the burning building 6 times to rescue her kittens even though she is being burned alive every time.

A youngster fell into a gorilla cage an was protected by a female ape who cradled him in her arms.

Pregnant women of the Congo working in fields have reported female great apes coming out to bring gifts of fruit to them.

A cow in England saved her unconscious owner from being stomped to death by a bull by circling the other cows around his body.

A blind Lab saves a drowning girl.

a golden retriever dials 911 and saves his owners life.

Two rottweilers formed a canine chain to reach and pull their owner out from a hole in the ice.

A little hound dog cared for a human infant left in a barn by a frightened 14 year old girl by dragging the infant in with her and her litter of pups.


Makes me wonder...What is "human"? What is a God Particle?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


No... YOU are the god particle!



-rrr



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You seem to be implying that regardless of the Mind being scientifically defined as the sum of it's total parts and the study of those total parts, that the mind itself is not scientific view. Pretty much regardless of what science itself has to say on the matter.



Originally posted by sirnex
Given the scientific definition of the mind and the mind being the sum of all those parts, neuroscience makes study of those each parts. Not just one area that you keep bringing up.


Scientifically the mind is the most theoretical possible concept.
Scientifically we cannot even prove it exists.

The mind is not the sum of parts.

The mind is other side of the equation, responding to the brain's message.


Originally posted by sirnex
So where is the Mind in all of this? What mechanism or play of physics occurs that allows this intangible unobserved entity to work with the brain? What give's rise to Mind and is Mind governed by the laws of physics or does Mind break those laws?


This is where science and philosophy diverge.

Is the mind eternal?
Does each person’s mind have permanent characteristics or is the mind raw intellectual energy?
Is the mind changed from the experiences it receives from the brain?

I see no logical reason to believe the mind is destroyed when the physical body is and out of body experiences support that.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

above is link to post which further provides links to
Nassim Haramein
who describes a new theory of scaling laws, infinity and Schwartzchild protons
he won best physics paper at 9th Intl. Conf. CASYS09
at it clearly describes unity among all scales of existence
very amazing, and very pertinant here!


LOVE



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The mind is not the sum of parts.


Basically, screw what science says? They're just a bunch of imbeciles who won't look at the other side if the equation that you keep not explaining?


The mind is other side of the equation, responding to the brain's message.


What equation? What evidences or sources can you link to in which to back up this claim?


This is where science and philosophy diverge.

Is the mind eternal?
Does each person’s mind have permanent characteristics or is the mind raw intellectual energy?
Is the mind changed from the experiences it receives from the brain?


That line of questioning is philosophical yes, but that still doesn't answer the question.


I see no logical reason to believe the mind is destroyed when the physical body is and out of body experiences support that.


Science doesn't say anything is destroyed. The atoms still exist that make you, you, but not in the form as how you exist now. I suppose there are eternal oranges that exist after the physical orange dies. Or perhaps eternally stinky fresh dog logs after the physical one decays. How far do we take this, when do we realize we're being silly and wishful?





top topics
 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join