You are the god particle!!

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



and is this not my point.?


Doesn't appear to be your point to me. You've said numerous time's now that without life there would be no matter at all. I'm saying the contrary appears to be more truer as I am composed of matter and I did not exist prior to matter. I have no recollection of existing prior to the universe in which to observe the universe and thus create the universe. If I posses no memory of this very momentous and important event, then I see no reason to assume that it must have happened nor do I see anyone providing any evidence that this event occurred.


YOU ARE MADE OF MATTER correct?


Correct.


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


Proper spelling and grammar would do you wonders.

The brain is like an organic based electrochemical computer. Both a computer and our brain are capable of processing external stimuli and use that information to produce an effect upon the world around us. To navigate, recognize faces or sense temperature. Yet, I would bet that you would claim a computer doesn't have a mind or would ever be capable of having a mind.


and i just told you it was wrong?


So irregardless of what the science itself says, you say it's wrong and that's that huh?


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


The observer effect explicitly states that the observer need not be conscious. We just don't factor into the fundamental equation as much as you think we do.


Please explain how one mesures the mind..


The field of neuroscience studies every aspect of Mind.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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?


Science isn't able to study the mind individually.

Science says a lot of great stuff about the brain and discussion of the mind may be based on inferences from scientific foundations but it is still only logical and theoretical.

The study of the mind is fundamentally abstract; from a purely scientific view the mind is only a theoretical concept.

We can study correlations between brain activity and perceived mental states, but correlation is not causation.

The brain synthesizes the senses into a message.

The mind responds to this message.

The mind, soul, observer, raw intellectual energy, whatever you want to call it, is the opposite of the physical.

It is the common denominator of thought and abstract.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex
 





Please show the mechanism where information gaps the five sensory organs and said information is directly observed by the conscious mind. Hell, explain consciousness for that matter.


Guess you didnt read the part on quatom physics then chap?

LOL

and if you cant get it round that head of yours i suggest watching pop idol it seems more on your level.. of mm i was going to say thinking but i guess you dont.

chow for now bella
Oh boy. More mystical woo trying to apply quantum mechanics to consciousness. After Deepak Chopra's massive fail on this subject, you'de think people would quit .



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The mind, soul, observer, raw intellectual energy, whatever you want to call it, is the opposite of the physical.


This is still an empty claim as there is never any evidence put forth proving this concept to be true. As for the rest of the post, I can only repeat so many time's before I begin to get bored. Now I'm bored. What it simply boils down to is this, I state something and back that statement up, you state something and claim you just have to understand it. There just is no reason to continue anymore unless you can back the statement up, and this will be the last time I ask you.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



The mind, soul, observer, raw intellectual energy, whatever you want to call it, is the opposite of the physical.


This is still an empty claim as there is never any evidence put forth proving this concept to be true. As for the rest of the post, I can only repeat so many time's before I begin to get bored. Now I'm bored. What it simply boils down to is this, I state something and back that statement up, you state something and claim you just have to understand it. There just is no reason to continue anymore unless you can back the statement up, and this will be the last time I ask you.


This brain creates the message.
The mind experiences and reponds to this message.

While this fact is supported by science it can never be proven by science because it cannot be proven empirically.

Science deals with physical observations; it cannot prove that something fundamentally abstract exists.

The fact that the mind is separate from the brain is a logical observation.

It is supported by science, but proven by logic.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The fact that the mind is separate from the brain is a logical observation.


I disagree and find the need to point out that my inquiry of evidence for such an opinion is still unmet.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   




THE UNIVERSE HAS NO SHAPE WHAT SO EVER




In the Penrose world of scientific crckpottery, you earn 5 points for each word that is all caps.10 points if the statement shouted is demonstrably wrong. The universe must have one of three possible shapes. First, it might have positive curvature. In this case, which is called a "closed" universe, the universe would be finite in size but without a boundary, just like the balloon. In a closed universe, you could, in principle, fly a spaceship far enough in one direction and get back to where you started from. Closed universes are also closed in time: they eventually stop expanding, then contract in a "Big Crunch." All the geometry that is true on a sphere is also true in a closed unvierse: parallel lines eventually converge (e.g. longitude lines are parallel at the equator, but converge at the poles), large triangles have more than 180 degrees, etc. Secondly, it could be flat. Flat universes are infinite in spatial extent, and have no boundaries. Parallel lines are always parallel and triangles always have 180 degrees. Flat universes expand forever, but the expansion rate approaches zero. finally, it might have negative curvature, like a saddle. Flat universes are infinite in spatial extent, and have no boundaries. Parallel lines are always parallel and triangles always have 180 degrees. Flat universes expand forever, but the expansion rate approaches zero.
The shape is defined by density, and the "cosmological constant - sort of an anti-gravity.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
like a friend once told me:

I am therefore, "I AM."



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by 13579
 



and is this not my point.?


Doesn't appear to be your point to me. You've said numerous time's now that without life there would be no matter at all. I'm saying the contrary appears to be more truer as I am composed of matter and I did not exist prior to matter. I have no recollection of existing prior to the universe in which to observe the universe and thus create the universe. If I posses no memory of this very momentous and important event, then I see no reason to assume that it must have happened nor do I see anyone providing any evidence that this event occurred.


YOU ARE MADE OF MATTER correct?


Correct.


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


Proper spelling and grammar would do you wonders.

The brain is like an organic based electrochemical computer. Both a computer and our brain are capable of processing external stimuli and use that information to produce an effect upon the world around us. To navigate, recognize faces or sense temperature. Yet, I would bet that you would claim a computer doesn't have a mind or would ever be capable of having a mind.


and i just told you it was wrong?


So irregardless of what the science itself says, you say it's wrong and that's that huh?


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


The observer effect explicitly states that the observer need not be conscious. We just don't factor into the fundamental equation as much as you think we do.


Please explain how one mesures the mind..


The field of neuroscience studies every aspect of Mind.

Sirnex, on a number of occasions you have been critical of peoples spelling ability, and yet you cannot spell "possess" in your above post. It may be worth considering that english may not be the first language of some ATS members.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Oh snap, I left out one letter in one word out of a multitude of post's. Nit picker and hypocrite to boot. How about adding something substantial to the conversation? The reason I get on the other guy is because almost his entire post is riddled with improper grammar and misspellings. It's extremely hard to follow what he is saying, but thankfully I've already had two three year old children at one point and have still retained the ability to understand incoherent speech.

To note: I have asked numerous time's in this thread if English was not his first language, just to point that out. For your critical consideration, since we're on that topic. Thanks.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
O.k i'll get involved if you wish
You seem quick to dismiss many opinions, typically the ones in favour of conciousness being the animator of matter and superior to it. Now they cannot provide concrete proof, but neither can you for your side of the argument.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



The fact that the mind is separate from the brain is a logical observation.


I disagree and find the need to point out that my inquiry of evidence for such an opinion is still unmet.


I have said the best area of study for understanding this concept is a combination of psycholinguistics and brain damage studies.

No specific scientific empirical fact will prove characteristics of a fundamentally abstract issue, but observation of cognitive processes and their interaction with the physical brain leads to a logical understanding of the fact explained below.

The brain synthesizes a message of senses but it cannot feel.
The mind is the responding entity to this conscious experience; it is fundamentally abstract and distinct.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Although i believe in a spiritual dimension to this universe, which animates the material, if i were to take a neutral stance for a moment, whilst my beliefs outlined above would seem absurd to the atheistic, equally, a reductionist mechanistic universe which the atheistic favour is equally absurd, because such a universe simply should not be here, there should be nothing. Not even empty space. NOTHING.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 



O.k i'll get involved if you wish You seem quick to dismiss many opinions, typically the ones in favour of conciousness being the animator of matter and superior to it. Now they cannot provide concrete proof, but neither can you for your side of the argument.


I do not dismiss the opinions themselves. I am open to the possibility, but until evidence is put forth I simply refuse to blindly believe that what they claim is truth is true. If I made claim that the universe was born from the bowel movements of a pink unicorn, they would equally demand evidence from me as I do from them. I would then answer the same way they answer, they're ignorant of the truth and it's just something that you have to understand.

Not really that great of an intelligent discussion is it?



Although i believe in a spiritual dimension to this universe, which animates the material, if i were to take a neutral stance for a moment, whilst my beliefs outlined above would seem absurd to the atheistic, equally, a reductionist mechanistic universe which the atheistic favour is equally absurd, because such a universe simply should not be here, there should be nothing. Not even empty space. NOTHING.


I find it pretty hypocritical to denounce a materialistic universe and yet claim a spiritual causation is more valid based on the belief that something can not come from nothing. Whence did the spiritual arise then? Did it always exist, then why not a material causation as well always existing? Either case, neither *should* be here, but to claim one always existed and the other couldn't is hypocrisy and unfounded biased opinion. Yet, here we are, so how about we dispense with unfounded biased opinions and conjectures and deal solely upon what we can observe of reality? I don't see a spirit anywhere and nor has anyone proved it's existence.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



I have said the best area of study for understanding this concept is a combination of psycholinguistics and brain damage studies.


This focuses on *one* area of research. You simply can't base an opinion on one focus of research when the mind is defined as the sum of it's parts that are equally researched by the same branch of science.


No specific scientific empirical fact will prove characteristics of a fundamentally abstract issue, but observation of cognitive processes and their interaction with the physical brain leads to a logical understanding of the fact explained below.


The scientific explanation of the Mind is defined and we've already gone over that definition and the science that researches the areas of that definition. I have asked you plenty of times now as patiently as I can be for evidence of your choice opinion of Mind. I am disenchanted with your assertion because you either refuse to present that evidence of lack that evidence outright, in which case your opinion is simply unfounded conjecture.


The brain synthesizes a message of senses but it cannot feel.
The mind is the responding entity to this conscious experience; it is fundamentally abstract and distinct.


I see no need to repeat the above here again.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I have asked you plenty of times now as patiently as I can be for evidence of your choice opinion of Mind. I am disenchanted with your assertion because you either refuse to present that evidence of lack that evidence outright, in which case your opinion is simply unfounded conjecture.


The fact that the brain is separate from the mind is a logical observation based on an understanding of neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics as a whole.

No simple individual scientific observation can prove this fact because the mind is fundamentally abstract and scientifically theoretical.

The reason I mention psycholinguistics and brain damage studies is because it will allow you to understand the correlation between the physical world and the mental state.

In order to understand this concept you must consider the relationship between all of these disciplines rather than isolating physical pieces.

The mind is the variable that allows a person to look at information and create something new, it cannot be a closed loop.

The brain synthesizes a message of senses but it cannot feel.
The mind is the responding entity to this conscious experience; it is fundamentally abstract and distinct.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



No simple individual scientific observation can prove this fact because the mind is fundamentally abstract and scientifically theoretical.


OK, so by your own admission, you lack any evidence at all for your biased conjectures. Thank you for the honesty.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
sorry i aint been posting but its nice to see sirex doing his trolling once again LOL

I think he likes me! ; )

What connects the universe with reality sirex?

I await your reply

and please do hurry up ..



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



What connects the universe with reality sirex?


Nothing, they are the one and same and either word can be used interchangeably to describe reality. It's great to see you decided to come back, I just wish it were with a more substantial well thought out post that showed you've been thinking and working on this problem during your absence.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





they are the one and same


aha! and why is that my good friend?

You see, it helps to read what i say instead of trying to be right all the time.. its a very dogmatic view you have, tho granted from your many posts you do not share your own?

One of the same
you just proved me right

its not about the answer sirex but the question one asks

I knew what you was going to say be for you typed it

because I was asking the question, you just didnt see it


shall we continue?





top topics
 
23
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join