Fundamental or nearly fundamental energy and the origin of Intelligence?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Dennis Tate, Mar 19, 2021.

?

Would Intelligence begin in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy?

  1. No

    4 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. I would tend to think so at least????

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  1. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    There are a number of reasons why I take NDE accounts very seriously.......
    (which does not rule out the possibility that somebody might make up an NDE account for less than sincere reasons but).......


    the effect of near death experiences on the people who have had them is impressive. Even the researchers quoted in various Psychology Today articles on the topic seemed to
    have felt that these accounts had some sort of psychological value.........
    even if it was just to give people at least some sort of "hope" or sense of value in the larger scheme of things.



    There are at least two ways of looking at the fact that NDE accounts or something like them actually have a number of ways of being generated......
    some of which can be done under what appears like "laboratory conditions."
    I am one of those people who tend to think that this tends to verify that there is something "real" about these.....
    my guess at this time would be a connection between our "over soul" as former Atheist and near death experiencer Mellen Benedict termed it.....
    for the part of our memories, identity or personality that seems to exist even before we were born or even conceived????????

    The Dr. Ian Stevenson research may eventually be understood to shed some light on whatever that might be??????


    https://www.near-death.com/psychology/triggers.html

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    And you guessed it from the formula ?
    No, you think in wrong direction and if one could agree that this kind of formula could fit with the observation for more simple molecules, the quantum properties of water do not permit this conclusion.

    For sure, i agree with the results this formula provide, but as said, the formula apply as an average, and i works almost fine.
    Here at PH =7 ("neutrality"), so [H3O+]=[OH-} , [H3O+] and [OH-] are at 10⁻7 molar concentration.
    And therefore the H20 is supposed to be almost equal to 1 molar, so one could guess : Hey look, all water is in the H2O form like in the vapor state.

    But, the formula do not represent what happen at the molecular scale and this is what we are here talking about; what happens at the molecular scale.

    You know what "molecule" (if we can name that a molecule...) is majoritary in ocean ?
    (H20)5 a walrafen pentamer with 80% abundance.
    But it has the ability to change fast in the network (yes the coin is spining fast...), so talking about "a molecule" is an average point of view.
    So, great max, if you want to talk about a molecule of H2O... there is 20% of free H2O in water.
    This is not what your formula said ? (You said 100%).

    Sure, because the formula is talking about "the average" , and not even of the average of H2O, no, at the average of H3O+ and OH-, usefull to do some Hydrxyd Potential calculation (because a liquid is not electrocharged).

    You are totaly wrong, it is very complex structure.

    In fact, liquid water is some kind of O and H fast changing atomic complex network (valence and hydrogen bounds changing fast), with some temporary structuration (and sometime we have "loose" H20 with hydrogen bounds) depending on various interactions (dissolved ions, pressure, etc).
    The behavious of this "liquid" is very stable with temperature change.

    Almost like the plasma in the Sun.... (if the temperature would be lower), but we can forget this point for the debate.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    Yes, probably intelligence with consciousness so the qualia, is linked to life.
    No life without water, no intelligence without water.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    A Dr. Masaru Emoto got some truly unusual results in his studies on water.

    A Swiss scientist named Hans Jenny did some seemingly related research on finely ground sand. One of the only questions I can think of related to water would be......
    does water somehow conduct at least some..... Energy from Quantum Vacuum or something similar???????????
     
  8. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Ordinarily I would not have been able to be on this forum as much as I have been due to my now being five days into a fourteen day quarantine......... Whether my guesses are wild or educated would depend on how you would define the world "educated." I assume that you would likely consider my guesses to be rather wild...... that is certainly your choice!

    I began to read String Theory for philosophical reasons...... not because of a background in Physics.

    Yes... I do believe that Mr. Mellen Benedict did indeed gain knowledge on higher invisible dimensions during his brush with death and......
    due to whatever increased intellectual capabilities he got during his NDE that he would be able to use every day from the time of his NDE until his eventual death?????

    The very fact that a WHITE SUBSTANCE was added to the Stanley Meyer hydrogen fuel dune buggy in a USA court of law............
    indicates that the judge on the case was willing to go down in history as one of America's most cowardly and / or corrupt...... justices.......
    I assume due to the level of political influence from which the order came for him to allow that to happen in his court??????

    Stanley Meyer on the other hand may well have TURNED DOWN an offer of a billion dollars or so for his technology but..... he knew the buyer would put it on a shelf and hide it. Stanley Meyer seemed to sincerely think that his technology could positively transform the world economy and eventually save millions of lives.


    No... I am not educated in the physics necessary to understand String Theory properly......
    but.....
    IF NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCER DR. GEORGE RITCHIE was telling the truth about his 1943 NDE
    then... fifty years from now our grandchildren may consider that my having read the NDE of DR. George Ritchie with an open mind.........

    may be in some ways a better background than that of somebody with a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics......
    who for dogmatic and simplistic reasons writes off the Dr. George Ritchie quite interesting testimony that sounds a lot like
    String Theory as it was worded in the 1990's.... on at least a number of important levels?!


    https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/stanley-meyers-and-zero-point-energy.42388/

     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,591
    A Universe by natural selection? That's an interesting thought.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  10. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154

    A truly interesting thought indeed.......
    but I was definitely reminded of chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" when I read what former Atheist Mellen Benedict wrote about his "void" experience!

    It seemed similar on many levels to what Dr. Stephen Hawking and his co-author had came up with!


    https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Only if you're utterly clueless.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  12. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Then I guess I am utterly clueless.......
    and I should probably be banned from this forum before my cluelessness does any further damage to the reputation of Sciforums?!

    My blog that I did to attempt to summarize my thoughts on all of this a few years ago should be sufficient reason to ban me?

    CarbonBias
    .blogspot
    .ca

    My bias AGAINST the traditional Darwinian Model of Evolutionary Theory that I was taught around 1968 or 1969 is rather obvious.

    My all time record for being disfellowshipped from Christian churches is two.....
    all in about one month back in 1991.....
    but they did me a favour. I no longer fitted in either church due to my no longer by that time being willing to believe in the Soul Sleep Theory that Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong had taught me when I was a teenager. That theory had greatly assisted in bringing me out of Atheism beginning around 1973 when I was fourteen. I had been an Atheist from the time I was about eight.. .until I began to listen to Garner Ted.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,591
    An interesting tale
    I can relate to this experience of seeing a bright light during near death experience. But then I had a light bulb blow out in a bright flash before it went completely dead, unable to process any energy at all. This event reminded me that all near-death experiences seem to occur before death and there are no tales of returning from death with tales of lights an experiences of infinity, what have you.

    I have experienced bright lights after my head was hit by a soccer ball. I saw a bright flash of light (short circuiting of my brain), before I passed out for a few seconds. I don't attribute that to entering a spiritual afterlife. What, if any is the difference between one and the other?

    IMO, to draw any conclusion of an after-life is unwarranted. There is just no evidence, whereas we can demonstrate shorting and heating and even bright lights before going dead, which is the return to fundamental elemental state of energy before thermodynamics kick in.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  14. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    Other water form for the "simple water", Probably the most aboundant water form in the Universe :

    Black Hot Superionic Ice.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/blac...e-natures-most-common-form-of-water-20190508/

    I will not talk about the controversial water memory experiments of Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier but it is worth (in my opinion) taking a look.
    https://handwiki.org/wiki/Biology:DNA_teleportation
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,591
    All that is good and well, but now we are no longer talking about H2O (water).

    All this ionization changes the water molecule H2O into a new compound molecule with a different name, Hydronium.

    Hydrogen ion
    chemistry
    https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen-ion

    You might be interested in yet another state of water,

    The Science Behind Dioxytetrahydride Gas
    https://www.wateriontechnologies.com/science.asp


    I believe there is a conflict here. IMO hat should read the Fifth state of water.

    The term "Fourth state of water is already taken"


    The Fourth state of water

     
  16. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    "States" are not any more be taken to be so "fundamental".
    We added plasma states, then bose-einstein condensat, and many other ognanisation behavior followed, that could also be names "states".

    For water, there is an other theory i can remember (i couldnt find any of this on internet any more).
    Some scientists (physicians) think that the liquid state of water is not like other liquid.
    It would not be a liquid state but some special "bose einstein condensat state" occuring at normal temperature (i do not remember the details but it looked plausible at time i read this).
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,591
    We'r really talking about "fluids".

    Definition of Fluids (read this, its really interesting)
    https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/physics/fluids/states-matter#
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,199
    OK, but you were not expressing yourself very clearly then. I was correcting the misleading impression you gave that water was largely dissociated into H3O+ and OH-.

    The issue of transient hydrogen bonded structures is another matter. Thank you very much for drawing my attention to this pentamer structure. I was not aware of this work. I found a very good article about it here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JC014457

    However it is not fair to think of water as consisting of pentamer units, since these structures are rapidly breaking apart and reforming all the time, due to the binding energy of the hydrogen bond being comparable to kT at ambient temperatures*. What seems to be the case is that if you take a snapshot at any given instant, 80% of the molecules will be in a pentamer configuration. But a snapshot taken a microsecond later would show the same molecules being members of different pentamer units. But interesting, certainly.

    *The molar value of kT is RT, which is about 0.6 kcal/mol at 25C (298K). The molar strength of the H bond , according to the article, is about 2 kcal/mol.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  19. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    On the contrary, i would say that this is a good example continuing the idea that H2O in "water" is not a fixed structure.
    With the H30+ and OH-, it is well known and obvious; in the network or grid point of view it is like if there would be some H2O that would appear and disappear among the grid, so some intermediate state of H3O+ and OH-.
    Here with the pentamer we go a way further, saying that there could be some bigger fast created / disapearing structures using the H2O more tiny structure, "connecting"/"disconnecting" to other pentamer.
    And here , we only talk (about pentamer) about what we actually could have observed.

    It is very likely (in my opinion) that the good "model" is a more complex and multiscaled structuration, where there is localy/temporaly H2O molecule "by chance" (some transition) but more fundamentaly liquid water could be a networked organisation of H and O with covalent bounds and hydrogen bounds.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,591
    IMO, water is H2O. Any more complex molecule other than H2O is no longer just plain Aqua.

    We do not call water Hydronium, we call it water .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronium#

    What is a cation?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Formed by: Metal atoms
    Charge: Positive
    Electrode attracted to: Cathode (negative)
    Examples: Sodium (Na+), Iron (Fe2+), Ammoni...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody[/quote]
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,199
    This seems close to word salad.

    But thanks again for putting me - indirectly - onto that Raman spectroscopy paper. I've learned something from that, at least.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Dennis:

    That's your excuse for failing to answer the questions I asked you?

    I have observed that you've managed to find lots of time to post miscellaneous bits and pieces from your favorite websites concerned near death experiences, often to try to make spurious connections between those experiences and fundamental physics. And yet, when I ask you direct questions in connection to what you post, suddenly you have no time to formulate a coherent response.

    Are you here to discuss things, or just to preach the word about your belief system?

    Your opinions seem to me to be a sort of disorganised hodge podge. You are apparently a Christian of some kind. You place special significance on your belief in near death experiences, for some reason - maybe because you think those experiences are evidence for God, or something. And you seem to believe that people who report near death experiences have special access to knowledge, or access to special knowledge, about the fundamentals of the universe, and more.

    When when I try to drill down into the reasons you believe all these things, I hit a wall - like it's not something you're able to explain, or like you think you don't need good reasons to believe all that stuff, or like you think you have good reasons despite being unable to explain what they are.

    I think it's great that you're interested in scientific cosmology, but my impression is that you lack any kind of tool kit which would allow you to distinguish between pseudoscience and legitimate science. Your religious views and your scientific ones just sort of blur together into a vague and incoherent glom.

    Until you start facing up to questions about how you know what you think you know, you'll remain in the sort of mental haze you're currently in. I'd like to help, but you have to be willing to engage.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Dennis:

    It's interesting to me that you label this as an "atheistic or agnostic version", as if Hawking was talking about religion rather than science. Are you aware that atheism holds no position on any particular "model of the universe"? Atheists don't believe in God; that's all. They can believe all kinds of things about the universe, apart from that.

    The multiverse idea you mention here is a speculative hypothesis. In the context you refer to it, it's just one possible idea that Hawking is throwing up for consideration. He's not stating his personal belief that it is true. Like a good scientist, he is content to wait until there's evidence one way or another before committing to a belief in something.

    What makes you think that? Be specific. How does mental activity tie in to string theory or extremely high energies?

    I mean, if this is really something you think/believe, then you must have some reasons for thinking or believing it. What are they?
    What makes you think that the existence of high temperatures in a particle accelerator does anything to verify string theory? Where did you get that specific idea from?

    For instance, I can understand that you might have read reports along the lines that "scientists hope to use high-temperature particles in particle accelerators to test string theory", or something like that. But that isn't saying that the high temperatures themselves are evidence for string theory. So maybe you're just confused about that.

    "Q" is a fantasy figure in a science fiction TV show.

    I'm not sure what particular parallels you're trying to draw between that character and string theory. It sounds like your thought process goes something like this:
    • Q is a very powerful figure in Star Trek, with apparently "superhuman" abilities.
    • String theory is something that is said to be most visible at "high energies", not usually seen in everyday human life.
    • Therefore, string theory must be sort of like a "superhuman" thing, which sounds a bit like Q.
    • The TV writer who wrote the Q character must have had similar thoughts.
    Can't you see that the connections you're making there are incredibly tenuous and speculative? Ask yourself:
    • Is there any direct reference made to string theory in the Star Trek episodes involving Q?
    • Could the writer not have known anything about string theory, and still have written the same character for Q?
    • Is there anything in string theory that even hints that the "superhuman" traits of the Q character might be possible?
     

Share This Page