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.
...bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening....
....come to return all children of Adam irrespective of their skin colour to their innate origin....
....come and he will cut through ignorance, superstition, prejudice by opening the gates of science and knowledge. He will establish a world brimful of prudence and he will prepare the ground for the collective, active and constructive participation of all in the global management....
....purify our thoughts.....
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
result of quantum gravity effects
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
The simple fact of the matter is this:
This will never, ever, ever be allowed to stand by skeptics or mainstream science. No matter how convincing the evidence or how much it makes sense.
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Just Chris
Ryan's comment negates nothing; all life: plant, mineral, organism, has a soul. Rosicrucian and relative texts confirmed this over 100 years ago.
Originally posted by Just Chris
Just to add,
A comment from a chap called "Ryan" on the article page:
"experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules" I thought microtubules were found in all cells of the human body. The sperm cell is pretty much a head with a nucleus, and a long microtubule tail. Plant cells also have microtubules. Does the quantum theory of conciousness apply to these cells as well or only cells found in the brain? How about the brain of a mouse? It's an interesting hypothesis but this news article doesn't give much. Peer review study please~"
Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.
He mentions the sperm cell containing microtubules, and it makes sense if you've ever wondered how it would be possible for our children to have a SOUL of their own when in practice, it's been created by the parents.
Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion or not?
edit on 31-10-2012 by Just Chris because: (no reason given)
Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Just Chris
Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.
Is that supposed to disprove the theory? Of course these creatures have souls. People just think they don't because they couldn't imagine what it's like to be a mouse and still have a soul. Hmm, I don't know, try being a baby!
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by SaturnFX
Frankly, I've had people insult my intelligence for even considering the idea of the paranormal. Anything paranormal. And more than once.
I'm really confused as to why you're explaining what an Atheist is. Belief in the concept of a soul and so on does not automatically necessitate a belief in a god, even though many of the Atheists that I run into that mock me for considering the paranormal seem to think that.
Thing is, it seems to be the popular thing amongst skeptics and a lot of outspoken scientists to be actively opposed to even the concept of considering the idea of the paranormal.
I experienced a lot of vitriol and dogmatism from fundamentalist Christians growing up, I have found a similar mindset amongst some skeptics that I have come across, and see a similar spirit in some scientists. This is where my skepticism comes from.
A semi-rational explanation for a common human concept is not what many of these people want after so many have argued so vehemently about how stupid and childish the very concept is. If you've run into some of them, you know that some of them are every bit as dogmatic as a religious fundamentalist.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
I think the question is, would you accept the evidence if it were provided, or would you look for any possible reason - no matter how small - to say, "This is fake" or "This proves nothing".
Many people say if shown evidence, they would believe in what the person has to say. But when they say, "Show me evidence," they're really saying, "Give me a brick to scrub my face on and I might consider the validity of your thesis."
In other words, you have to rub their face in two dozen different kinds of proof before they begin to reconsider their stance. Is that who you are?