For The 'Non-Believers'

gratitude&love:

Memory recollects the sensory experience, which would naturally stimulate the same area of the brain, so this is not too unusual. However, it is very easy to generally tell memory from what is happening right now, not to mention the fact that one would first have to have an image of an orange to have a memory of it.

But it is not the same blade of grass, but the progeny of one of that dead blade or a blade relatively near it.

But let's assume that these things are made up of energetic reactions. Tell me, when you light a match and the flame eventually dies out, what happens to the flame's and the energy and such?

This is not, at all, verified by the prevailing views of science.

Have you any links for this? As i htink you're thinking of "virtual particles", which are short-lived particles emerging from the vacuum-energy of deep space which immediatly annihilate eachother as particles are always made in pairs of particles + anti-particles. Moreover, there is no empty space in existence, there is always energy present. Always. "Nature abhors a vacuum".

Similar experiments have been demonstrated to be frauds or unrepeatable.

Philosophical proofs require more than "just life".

To what extent are we part of this being and in what manner? What proof and such?

Gravity is a constant force, not a force that continually pushes more and more. If your'e blocked from going closer to the centre of gravity via the medium in the way - in this case, many hundreds of miles of solid rock - gravity simply holds you where you are.

Proof: Removing many areas of the brain in both hemispheres will produce incapacities to think, emote, sense, and other such things. However, the brain is remarkably adaptive in terms of being able to rewire itself when it has lost one hemisphere, specifically when that person is relatively young and the rate of regeneration is still high and neural creation still mostly active. There is a good deal of redundancy in the body as this is good for survivability.

Experience shapes neural pathways via stimulating growth in certain areas. When does one start to feel who one is? Never. One only feels who one is at the moment. Since one manifestly changes every moment, one is never truly the same. It is only the continuum of one's existence and the knowledge of the past that gives us our identity. This is not to say that our identity is -flawed-, but we are always "ourselves" but that self is in flux.

The rest of the body obviously has differences too, yes, but the brain the most. No two brains are really the alike, whilst most of the other major organs share more similarities.

The automobile was not created in a vacuum and developed after we realized certain laws, developed certain technologies (which stemmed from natural things) and other such stuff. Moreover, emotionalr esponses are chemical reactions perceived by the individual, but someone who has never had the stimulus of fear or love would be unable to tell you how they felt, although they have physiological capacity (in most cases) to do so.

Thank you for being you and goodnight, also.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gratitude&love:

You just thought up a new colour? Or did you root in a prior experience you had?

If one can think up a new colour, and recognize it as a new colour, than all people ought to be able to do as such, even if we could never show that colour to anyone else. This does not seem to be the case.

Now, as regards things you "just know", that isn't really so. We know not to stop breathing because it hurts if we don't and we are told that if we do, we will die. You, on the other hand, seemed to recognize from a very young age the logical inconsistancies and nonsense of the belief system your parents espoused. You determined this, I'd say.

What is this "more" that you thought science lacked? And in what ways do you think Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, et cetera, as very evolved scientists?

I think it is a possibility that yes, the miracles had naturalistic origins in various scientific manipulations. Apollonius of Tyana claimed that nothing he did was unnatural, and he too was a worker of miracles, even having raised the dead it is said.

Agreed. All moments live forever that existed in the past. They are unchanagable, unless, of cousre, time travel can actually change the past in this universe, as opposed to the multiple-reality time travel theories.

Which one of the sources? The Maharishi University one?

"What the Bleep do we Know" isn't that reliable of a source of information. It's been lambasted by a lot of authorities in representing things poorly. New Age books need to generally be taken with a grain of salt, too. But might you change theese experiences?

A probability cloud of electrons don't exactly "pop in and out of existence", itis just that due to the Uncertainty Principle, we cannot (as of yet) know a particle's exact position and velocity at the same time.

Actually, somethings can exert so much force that the repulsive forces are overcome. I believe an example of that in nuclear fusion. But yes, it tends to be that less dense objects more easily phase-shift. Note the boiling point of hydrogen as opposed to uranium.

I have, actually. I have also done a similar experiment of my own in my freezer with insubstantial results.

Logical and/or empirical proof are necessary for philosophical assertions. It not just enough to say "this is how it is so" but one must prove it through either or both of these.

In what ways are you refering to "not creditting your ego"?

What reason do you have for a notion of a conscious energy permeating all?

Let me ask you this: Did you actually think up a new colour? Or did you experience this colour in some form of sensory form before? Also, it is not a shade or a mixture, yes?

Precisely. This is how Einstein's notion of gravity is normally explained.

Mass. Mass is what determines gravity. Weight is only equal to mass in Earth's gravity. Here, let me give you an article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

What do you think could it be aside from the brain? Have any proof more than a hunch?

Yes. The river is ever shifting, yet the same river.

Theoretically, yes. A new brain being placed into another body would essentially replace the person (mentally).

Congratulations on your successes and joys.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks, on the rest of the post, i'd like to take my time in answering, so let me think on these subjects. also i've gotta go to spokane now. so i wouldnt be able to give an accurate portrayll of my ideas and understanding on the matieral at hand. also the name thread been taking alot of time since im not to great at typing. sorry for the delays, i'm obviously not quite as educated as you! in fact 8th grade, then my g.e.d. wish i could go back now that i have a desire to learn!

oh one quick question. on time travel, do you really think that a moment in our universe can be changed or do you think it would merely bring your conciousness or the consciousness of others into a alternate universe. wich coincidently i think that is where the electrons and nucleous go when they pop in and out of existance. into other universes, wich there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities. well i gotta go i'll discuss the rest of this interesting post later.

gratefull for your patience and understanding, and also your shared knowledge.

 

gratitude&love:

You should attempt to! Education is supremely worth while, even if it is just buying and reading books on various subjects that interest you. In fact, I've found that self-education generally is the best.

I find all sorts of time-travel extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely. The Many-World Theory (which you refer to with the infinite other universes) has major problems. Amongst these are:

1. A violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy (creating new universes would create new energy).

2. Violation of the speed of light (a new universe would have to encompass the entire universe).

3. Any proof that these other universes would exist.

 

at the end of the day i believe there is something higher in the universe.
the almighty father? i doubt it, but there is something because it created the big bang and this universe. its like this if a masterpiece is painted then someone painted it, but its not wrong or right to believe or not believe but probably people are generally happyer if they think there is life after death, but where does a little faith begin and blind ignorance end.

 

no i was just making a point that if some one had invented this, there would be no way of proving or disproving assuming that your next statement isnt the case. sorta like if god or the equvilant of god exists or not, many claim he does, but not everyone can see it. and you cant prove it, but you cant disprove it.

right so if people can think of this god, does that not mean he exists?

for some, like my parents it hurts to think there isnt a god. but i'd probably classify that as a fear that they're alone, or that they've been wrong. i'll try to think of something along these lines tonight at work.

an explanation of why all of this is. we know pretty much how, although once it seems we "know" we find we dont.
they were scientists in the way they not only understood the science of life they controlled it even more so then the advanced science of today. they had to explain what they knew in terms the people back then would understand. i think if they were to be today they could give us a little more info. although it is probablly more fun at least to me to only get a little info. then figure the rest out for myself. so maybe they'd just give us more riddles.

.

[/QUOTE]i'll finish up tommorow gotta go to work.

 

gratitude&love:

This is an excellent point, although I would distrust the veracity of any such claims. But as to God, so long as the argument isn't rooted in faith, but in reason, one can come to truth after rigorous debate.

There is an argument for that, yes, but it isn't fully valid. No being can be exist simply by being imagined, specifically the necessary being, but a colour is a whole means of thinking of something, which by necessity must exist first before it can be thought, thus yes, it exists.

Yes, religion is comforting.

What of the possibility that they were liars and frauds?

 

Well what you do in life still matters because you still have life after NOW... Anotherwords what you do today effects your life tommorow, until you know there will be no tommorow (hence why people do some crazy shit when they know they are going to die... I'd probably try to overthrow the government or some silliness like that)

But a reason why I don't believe in life after death is because I don't care. Empty abyss? Been there, done that... if you want to try it get 2 or 3 bags of skittles (unless you have problems processing sugar too fast like I do, in which case 1 is enough) and eat them all at once. It should put you into some sort of sugar coma.

Its not really something to fear. Its kind of hard to explain unless you experience it, but caring about weather you live or die depends on your being alive. When this type of thing happens your desire to live fades... All your desires and goals fade and suddenly seem... pointless.. animalistic... trivial... The emotions from your memory fade until you can't remember anything anymore because you don't care to, and then you don't care about anything and then there is just this kind of peaceful blankness.

Of course if its just a sugar coma, this is the part where you stare at the cieling for several hours while what seems like seconds go by before you recover and get up again. It seems to me that this experience and ultimate death would have to have the lack of emotion in common, although if you are anticipating a quick death rather than experiencing a slow one you would probably very scared, that can only last so long. When people ask me if I am afraid of death I say, Im not going to worry about it when I'm dead so why worry about it now.