It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Needed: A Little Help With That Double-Slit Experiment

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
So, Im hoping that someone can help me out a little with a notion that's been bothering me lately. It concerns that famous double-slit experiment that is overviewed in this video that a friend of mine sent to me.

www.youtube.com...



She sent it urging me to "debunk it" since it's been used to justify the notion that the human consciousness (as a subset of a universal consciousness) is a primordial driver of physical existence, as opposed to my own theory that human consciousness is an epitome achievement of physical existence (the result of some amazing accomplishments in progressive development).

After watching this and doing a bit of light reading on the subject, I've had a notion bubble up that I want to toss out here for general reaction. I'm nowhere near embracing this notion, but I'm being affected by it. I just would like to see if the ATS metaphysics crowd sees any of what I'm seeing here.

Here's the heart of my overall premise concerning physics, and what I'm seeing as being suggested by this famous anomaly as a result of how I view physical reality. As you'll discover, my own view is not challenged by this experiment's results, and this gives me pause.

I do not feel that the particle is the sub-structural unit of physical existence. I realize that Higgs Bosun (the God Particle that supposedly gives all matter its solidity) has allegedly been discovered recently (if the memo proves to not be a hoax), but I also realize that particle physicists are at each others' throats over the memo's claim, so please don't refer to that memo as proof, since it's not even proven to not be a hoax as of right now. The truth is that 17 miles of high velocity particle carnage has yet to reveal anything other than the fact that the more you smash them, the more new particles you end up with. I do have a theory concerning particles. It involves the impact of point of perspective, or POP.

The corporeal brain is made up of particles (of course), and from its POP, each particle (as well as all similar particles) exisst as just as solid and physically definable as that brain views itself. This is the magic of perception, and while its not necessarily reality, it can certainly seem real enough to the perceiver. In the corporeal brain's case, the truth about its primordial sub-structure is that it consists of event units that associate with one another in assemblages that I'll be referring to as redundant event trajectories (meaning that these are stable event progressions that exist as closed loops of repeating pattern activity - an orbit is a prime example of such a redundant event trajectory). In fact, what the brain perceives as particle matter, are similar redundant event trajectories that do not exist as part of a larger matrix event trajectory, or that have been forcibly removed from a larger matrix event trajectory (say, by sending that matrix down a 17 mile long tunnel until it smashes into another matrix event trajectory, causing both redundant trajectories to launch new event trajectories, as happens when a cue ball is sent into the rack on a pool table). This (in my view) suggests the dead end nature of particle physics, and I believe that the double slit experiment does a small part in defending this assertion, but I need a little help in my own perspective with this one.

As we know, the experiment involves a particle beam (this video suggests that it was electrons, but I orginally read that it was photons that were shot at light-sensitive paper, so that the pattern would be recorded) being shot through two vertical slits in a plate, with the results suggesting a wave dispersion pattern, as opposed to a particle dispersion pattern on the collector surface behind the plate. Okay, fair enough. Researchers had expected the pattern to represent the two vertical slits, but had no trouble with the potential for dynamic interactivity between the particle gun and the slit openings, resulting in the wave pattern. After all, what's the difference between a wave and a beam to a particle within either? Obviously, not a real difference to the particle and its dynamic existence within the collective itself.

In the experiment, the researcher followed that send by adjusting the photon gun (I prefer the photon version, since I can at least make sense of the pattern detection paper aspect of that version) to shoot one photon at a time, to see if it would result in a more orderly twin-slit pattern if all collision potential per photon particle were eliminated from the trip between the gun and the paper. As we all know, this didn't affect the resulting pattern - which astounded the researchers.

Then, they set up an observation camera to see why the solo photon particles were continuing to create the wave pattern, even when they were not part of a wave, or a beam which could've been the same particle experience as a wave for each photon (let's face it, it's true). Famously, the pattern resulting from this new configuration was the twin verticale slits that the researchers had originally assumed would be the result of the solo photon shoot pattern. Again, they were astounded, and this has lead many to assert that the observer collapses a potential that exists as infinite until it is collapsed by that observer - basically, the superposition theory.

Okay, well here's my own interpretation of what the double-slit experiemnt suggests.

The original gun blast (the particle beam) obviously established that the photons behavior was similar to what they anticipated from a wave, but then, they were basing that assumption on the idea that a photon particle would behave in a projected collective differently as a result of the relative size of that collective, which was quite as assumption. The slits in the material might affect a different kind of collective (such as a collective of more dynamically restricted whole units, such a H20 molecules, since their more developed matrix structure inherently involves deeper contextual predeterminations than the relatively primitive photon matrixed event trajectory) in the manner anticipated, but certainly the size of the collective would not be directive. In this case, the researchers were expecting a photon mass to act as a liquid mass, when it reached the slits, and that was a flawed assumption to begin with.

So, when the reseracheres regrouped and started sending photon particles (redundant event trajectories in their own right) from the gun to the slits and then to the paper, they were repeating (as far as the contextual environment that consists of the gun, the slits, photons, and the paper) the experiment exactly, as far as the elemental aspects of the experiment itself were pieced out, and so why would they be surprised that the results would be the same. It was, essentially, the exact same event trajectory, with the only difference being the relative distance between each photon that passed through the slits (which was variable to begin with and not regulatable within the beam itself). The photons - being dynamic event trajectories with their own suite of impacting variables, as well as the variables presented by each event trajectory that exists between the gun and the collection paper (like oxygen, nitrogen, C02, hydrogen, and other invisible molecules that obviously exist between the gun and the slits and between the slits and the paper) - responded to the same trip with the same impact indications recorded on the paper. Not really much of a surprise.

Where it gets interesting is when the camera was placed and the pattern was affected, and this is where I find myself becoming pretty encouraged about the primordial nature of the event and the informational impact of the event on the contextual environment - which is the basis of my Autogenesisism theory.

In my view, the ongoing activity of the corporeal brain (all brains) results in the creation of a dynamic existential hybrid - an event trajectory that consists of unit configurations of information - that is used to manage the survival effort of the corporeal whole that has become too extended and sophisticated to be effectively managed by the matrix' DNA directives alone. In the case of the human corporeal matrix, this informational event trajectory deals with a lot more than simple matrix survival management, and has actually launched a sub-trajectory of its own to manage its own ongoing generation process. Bio-feedback, of a sort, that focuses on establishing a version of "real" that will ensure consistency of experience for the brain, as it vets the sort term memory center's incoming data stream. I call this sub-trajectory feedback loop The Personality. Basically, The Personality is responsible for developing each human experience of self and its place in what it believes to be reality.

When the researchers set this experiment up, each had their own inherent expectations, and as with all human beings, there was no way to prevent such expectations from emerging as a result of all beliefs and realizations that had come together to create each researcher's own inimitable version of reality (thanks to the work of The Personality that each researcher possesses). As the researchers made the decision to set up the camera, the impact of the informational event trajectory or each researcher was immediately introduced into the contextual confines of the experiment as a whole. This is due to the fact that each researcher now fully expected to be able to witness the actions of the photons via the camera's recording, which launched the impact of each researcher's expectation concerning what may or may not be discovered. Keep in mind that information (dynamic and residual) establish the contextual precedence structure within the contextual environment, by way of ramification, even if that ramification is the dynamic expectation of an informational event trajectory from the brain of a researcher. Also, keep in mind that the solo photon flights were presented with very few other affecting influences (compared to those photons within the full beam) so the reserachers' expectations would have a much more profound impact on each solo flight behavior than they would have on the original beam shoot that established the nature of the pattern as unaffected by expectation.

Generally, in the case of multiple expectations, the impact will be diminished by dynamic interaction with the impacts of each expectation causing the other to disperse (relatively speaking), but in this case, the expectations were deeply ingrained within the long term memories of the researchers involved (it should create a twin slit pattern, by all reasonable accounts of such laws of physics) and this served to amplify the impact on the experiment as a contextual environmental confine, with the photon pattern responding appropriately to that dynamic informational impact. What occurred is that the unified expectations of the researchers' informational eventy trajectories set up the allowed event trajectory channel of potential for each photon as the camera that allowed each brain to reasonably produce an expectation of what it would discover after the experiment's conclusion sat in position, and the expected results were obtained.

Of course, taking the camera away simply removed that expectation of the twin slit pattern, since it had already been proven that such a result would not occur if the camera wasn't in position. Again, expectation where none had originally existed when the solo photon phase began, save the unsettling indications that the researchers had obtained as a result of the full photon beam experiment - which likely had its own impact of the solo photon shoot expectations, even if subconscious in nature.

So, what's the bottom line concerning all of this for me?

It helps verify, for me, that the event itself is the affectable unit, with information as the means of affecting it. The particle is just our brain's interpretation of the smallest observable redundant event trajectory, and doesn't exist as an indivisible physical unit. In fact, as an event trajectory, it can be affected by our own dynamic informational event trajectory, but not if there is competition from other human info-event trajectories, which is 99.99999999% of the time. With all the competing directives that potentially exist, the ruling informational directives will generally be the established residual directives that have developed as a result of precedence and the ramification of competing contextual predeterminations within the affected environment.

Any thoughts on this? I'm not married to this interpretation, but it seems more plausible than some of the interpretations I've run into.

edit on 4/27/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Wow, quite in depth and I'll admit over my head in some areas. I've been fascinated with particle physics and quantum mechanics since learning about this experiment.

I would point out that people often get confused when talking about how monitoring a particle changes it's behavior. This isn't to say that a human watching interferes, it means even a stray electron can change the behavior, photons from a light might change it.

It's not specifically talking about people or cameras, it's basically going on the concept that to actually perceive something, you are interacting with it in some level. To film it, you need light, light is photons. Etc Etc.

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to the human brain, if at all.

The intriguing part of the experiment is that the particles appear to interact with themselves, and they take every possible path. We know where it starts, and where it ends, but we don't know the in between as it takes every possible path. It's a hard concept to get your head around but does open up amazing possibilities.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Nevermind. Whoops.
edit on 27-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
You definitely have an interesting take on the experiment.
However, I think you might be reading too much into it.

As a previous poster pointed out, the introduction of the camera into the experiment changes the results.
In this case, it's a very small particle detector.
It's method of operation in this experiment is what causes the particle to choose the other path exclusively.
By shooting another particle at the slit in order to detect the incoming particle, it basically knocks the incoming particle off course and destroys the interference pattern.

Particle-Wave Duality is a pretty cool theory, but I personally think they might be just a little off in their interpretation of the particle's wave form. Instead of the particle exhibiting wave-like characteristics, I'm more inclined to think that the minute forces acting on the particle is what is creating the wave like behavior, and through that creating the interference pattern.

If I could suggest, you might want to read up on Schrodinger's Cat, it might be more suited to your theory than the double-slit experiment.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If you find the double slit experiment interesting, you might want to check out the quantum eraser experiment, it gets even weirder.
Double slit with no camera = waves/many lines fuzzy.
Double slit with camera = particles/two lines.
The double slit experiment results baffled the scientists and they wondered how the camera may have interfered with the wave/particle.
So what they did was set the camera up as normal but within the camera they placed a device that would delete the movie telling them any information about what had been recorded. No person would ever know. So if the wave/particle is been affected by the photo being taken the result would be two lines (because the camera caused the collapse in some way).
This did not happen, the result was many fuzzy lines.

Scientists are doing more and more of these experiments, go to you tube.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If you find the double slit experiment interesting, you might want to check out the quantum eraser experiment, it gets even weirder.
Double slit with no camera = waves/many lines fuzzy.
Double slit with camera = particles/two lines.
The double slit experiment results baffled the scientists and they wondered how the camera may have interfered with the wave/particle.
So what they did was set the camera up as normal but within the camera they placed a device that would delete the movie telling them any information about what had been recorded. No person would ever know. So if the wave/particle is been affected by the photo being taken the result would be two lines (because the camera caused the collapse in some way).
This did not happen, the result was many fuzzy lines.

Scientists are doing more and more of these experiments, go to you tube.

edit on 27-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


This reinforces the idea that the expectation trajectory is affecting the solo photon flight path. The device eliminates the expectation that the actual path will be observed in retrospect, but more importantly, the rersearchers inherent expectations - regardless of whether the device is initiated or not - have been affected by the introduction of the device as a potential element, thereby affecting the contextual composition of the experiment as an event whole.

This being the case, the default pattern results. Too much conflict within the dynamic expectation impact, so the environmental precedence becomes determinative. Still sounds like it's holding steady as a notion.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gregorus13
If I could suggest, you might want to read up on Schrodinger's Cat, it might be more suited to your theory than the double-slit experiment.


Schrodinger's Cat is a philosophical mind game, and has nothing to lean back on as evidence that there's anything to it. I do not embrace superposition theory. The whole idea of infinite universes emerging as a result of every possible event that did not happen is logically unsupportable, and clashes profoundly with the natural expediency of physical development as expressed within every known contextual environment. Such a foundational aspect of reality would be observed "leaking" here and there if such a possibility existed.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



She sent it urging me to "debunk it" since it's been used to justify the notion that the human consciousness (as a subset of a universal consciousness) is a primordial driver of physical existence, as opposed to my own theory that human consciousness is an epitome achievement of physical existence (the result of some amazing accomplishments in progressive development).


Easy, tell her to get her information from a science journal instead of a user generated youtube video that has nothing to do with the science itself. Quantum mechanics says nothing about the human mind affecting any aspect of fundamental reality. We don't make thing's pop into existence through observation. We don't change properties of thing's through observation. Does she accept evolution at all, or is she against that too? We as a species hasn't been around that long, so how can the human mind have created physical reality? Did we just pop into existence one day and collectively thought hey, let's make a universe that looks really old and populate it with things that make it look old and then all forget we did it after we jump into these cool bipedal bodies we made for ourselves.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Out of all the experiments done to date this has to be the one that fascinates me the most although recent finds about quantum entanglement are also quite tantalizing!

I view the two slit experiment to mean reality doing exactly what your Playstation 3 does, renders reality as the user observes it! Makes you scratch your head a little bit to say the least!

Only thing is, we do not observe this on a larger scale, a question was asked once if the two slit experiment could be achieved by firing a cat at the two slits (Kind of morbid, I know) but the outcome was the velocity and size "gun" we would need to shoot the cat in order to see the same results was unachievable.

So not everything we observe in the quantum world can be associated with our "big" reality as we currently know it, although im pretty sure that will change in the future! If we have one =)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


except none of these experiments say this or test for this, currently at least. This aspect of quantum physics comes from fringtards selling books and dvds.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The Wave / particle debate usually ends up sounding like an argument over an analog to digital artifact.
Its just not intuitive from a discrete particle paradigm.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The whole idea of infinite universes emerging as a result of every possible event that did not happen is logically unsupportable


Do you feel that human logic is capable enough to actually be applied to such concepts? Meaning, is the logic of the human brain actually capable of comprehending such things in a total, meaningful way that we can use it as a foundation of that nature? Might there be a better way of basing and stabilizing ones perspective to better aid in observation, even if still limited by nature?

i think the idea that paradoxes exist lends credibility to the idea that human logic, specifically, might not necessarily be capable of understanding some, or all, things about the universe. Hard to tell how small that window really is, objectively. Beyond that, is the human perspective capable of even relating to such a differing scale iteration meaningfully? If so, could the same be said for the other side of the "scale spectrum (smaller scales)?" If you think so on this too, what would you expect to happen if one iteration (point of perspective using your terminology) became mindful and conscious of both scale relations at the same time?

i would like to note though, that this idea isnt being presented to stop exploration, rather the opposite. Whether or not we are actually able to understand beyond the context of "human in universe," we should always continue exploring and learning about what is around us. That is, as long as people continue to learn past the point at which they are comfortable with the current understanding. Such views, even communally, will always be limited by their very nature, and always have room to continue growing. We can most certainly utilize patterns though!

edit on 27-4-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by NorEaster
 



She sent it urging me to "debunk it" since it's been used to justify the notion that the human consciousness (as a subset of a universal consciousness) is a primordial driver of physical existence, as opposed to my own theory that human consciousness is an epitome achievement of physical existence (the result of some amazing accomplishments in progressive development).


Easy, tell her to get her information from a science journal instead of a user generated youtube video that has nothing to do with the science itself. Quantum mechanics says nothing about the human mind affecting any aspect of fundamental reality. We don't make thing's pop into existence through observation. We don't change properties of thing's through observation. Does she accept evolution at all, or is she against that too? We as a species hasn't been around that long, so how can the human mind have created physical reality? Did we just pop into existence one day and collectively thought hey, let's make a universe that looks really old and populate it with things that make it look old and then all forget we did it after we jump into these cool bipedal bodies we made for ourselves.


I agree with you on all of this. Completely. And so does she. The people who've attached themselves to this double slit experiment use it to "prove" their assertion that physical existence is a top-down creation - which is no different (essentially) than Creationists, who proclaim the same top-down arrangement, and have simply decided that they prefer to name the ultimate creator of physical existence God. She's concerned about my ability to address the technical aspects of this particular experiment, since it's on speed-dial with the quantum club, and their supernatural world of infinite universes and such.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Out of all the experiments done to date this has to be the one that fascinates me the most although recent finds about quantum entanglement are also quite tantalizing!

I view the two slit experiment to mean reality doing exactly what your Playstation 3 does, renders reality as the user observes it! Makes you scratch your head a little bit to say the least!

Only thing is, we do not observe this on a larger scale, a question was asked once if the two slit experiment could be achieved by firing a cat at the two slits (Kind of morbid, I know) but the outcome was the velocity and size "gun" we would need to shoot the cat in order to see the same results was unachievable.

So not everything we observe in the quantum world can be associated with our "big" reality as we currently know it, although im pretty sure that will change in the future! If we have one =)


The oddness of quantum behavior is due to the relative lack of contextual precedence as a "ramification web", as is the case when you start dealing with extremely complex event matrix structures - like a cat being shot through a double slit plate by a big gun. The tiny "particles" as extremely primitive redundant event trajectories, and they lack the ramification structure within their own identified confines to be representative as a scaled version of what we know to be consistent with much higher levels of identified physical manifestation. What's also true is that the ramification web is much less restrictive for a very simple event trajectory with relatively little impact on the contextual infrastructure of an environment. Basically, the over all dynamics are radically different, but then that seems like it should be obvious.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I fail to see any conflict here, You seem to be under the impression that your interpretation of the results of the double slit experiment somehow conflict with conventional particle physics and certain scientists views on how we interact with our reality. You stated towards the end that our expectations of how an event should take place is what drives the interference with the original event matrix vector and creates the new event. Explain to me how that is different from essentially being the driver of physical reality. Physical reality does not necessarily have to be a subset of human consciousness either. Just the same as Human consciousness does not have to a be a subset of physical reality. We exist within the same universe. Looking at this from a spiritual perspective, their are aspects of consciousness that exist outside of physical reality and vice versa, however, we have an intersection. An area where the two aspects interact. We already know that environmental signals are the secondary driver of our bodies, working in unison with our DNA coding. whose to say that we don't send out our own signals into the environment. Our signals work in unison with the already pre encoded physical laws and create the reality that we experience. Whether that be through the Higgs Boson particle or a much simple particle interference.
edit on 27-4-2011 by xkillbox5000x because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by NorEaster
The whole idea of infinite universes emerging as a result of every possible event that did not happen is logically unsupportable


Do you feel that human logic is capable enough to actually be applied to such concepts? Meaning, is the logic of the human brain actually capable of comprehending such things in a total, meaningful way that we can use it as a foundation of that nature? Might there be a better way of basing and stabilizing ones perspective to better aid in observation, even if still limited by nature?


Observing the nature and structure of logic is not inventing it or imposing it. The human mind is not logical at all, and for the most part, that irrationality probably serves it well. The human brain, however, is logical, and the reason it's logical is because it could not function if its entire functionality wasn't based on a strict logical foundation. The ramifications that play out as a result of every event unit leading to the next event unit requires an airtight logical infrastructure, and while the mind can ponder the relavence of such a rigid requirement, the brain itself exists as a direct result of it. It's important not to confuse the mind with the brain.


i think the idea that paradoxes exist lends credibility to the idea that human logic, specifically, might not necessarily be capable of understanding some, or all, things about the universe. Hard to tell how small that window really is, objectively. Beyond that, is the human perspective capable of even relating to such a differing scale iteration meaningfully? If so, could the same be said for the other side of the "scale spectrum (smaller scales)?" If you think so on this too, what would you expect to happen if one iteration (point of perspective using your terminology) became mindful and conscious of both scale relations at the same time?


Again, there is no such thing as "human logic", except as a combination of English words that have been constructed to suggest that there is no inherent logical structure that holds physical reality together as a cohesive and consistent whole. The human perspective is not logical, and isn't required to be logical. It's dynamic Identity expression, and as such is an epitome achievement of progressive development. As such, I don't expect the human perspective to readily embrace the true nature of reality's sub-structure. I also don't worry about it.

The human perspective can imagine whatever it wishes to imagine, and that's the brilliance of it - its freedom of creative expression. That doesn't create itty-bitty people that exist at the quantum level, and the reason it doesn't is because there is a very specific development chain that causes and requires the brain (any brain) to exist, and the requirement involves an event matrix whole that is too complicated for the DNA directives to be managed at the point of application. Believe what you wish, but to a certain extent, size does have to enter in and become a factor when such a requirement exists.


i would like to note though, that this idea isnt being presented to stop exploration, rather the opposite. Whether or not we are actually able to understand beyond the context of "human in universe," we should always continue exploring and learning about what is around us. That is, as long as people continue to learn past the point at which they are comfortable with the current understanding. Such views, even communally, will always be limited by their very nature, and always have room to continue growing. We can most certainly utilize patterns though!

edit on 27-4-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)


This entire notion is based on redefining the indivisible unit of physical existence, and then walking it all right back to where we humans emerge, to see if the concept holds together. And to be honest, it does, and to a degree that is kind of intimidating for me. This double slit experiment is being a really good test of this theory, and so far, I'm not seeing any problems. I suppose that this is why I started this thread. Not to debate philosophy, but to see if anyone can challenge my interpretation on the merits directly. I'm almost hoping that someone can, since this whole premise has an intensity that can be uncomfortable at times.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xkillbox5000x
 


Granted I just compartmentalized and tried to simplify ideas that I don't have a very full grasp on or a very experienced background in



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
-- The existence of information collapses the wave function --

Some one already mentioned this but the delayed eraser experiment is where it really gets interesting.

After the double slit experiment, many claimed that the measurement collapsed the wave function.

So, experimenters set up an experiment where they measured what slit the particle used but after the experiment was complete they deleted the information.

What they found was that the existence of information collapsed the wave function, not the measurement.

So, if you can understand the abstract nature of raw data you can understand why this experiment is so significant.
edit on 27-4-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
It's important not to confuse the mind with the brain.


It is important not to confuse your perspective with my own


Anyway, you misunderstood my intention as well as my points. i will chalk this up to miscommunication on my part. i wanted to better understand where you were coming from for the ensuing conversation, but i think ill just move on


best of luck!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join