Does an Atheist Know God?

[Monk Of Reason]

p


EPR is a known and proven thing. Consciousness isn't exclusively local nor is it exclusive to a brain. The numbers don't lie.

What does EPR stand for in this context?

What is the evidence for that? what numbers? You havent' shown me either.

 

[Fool]

What does EPR stand for in this context?

spooky action at a distance with information traveling faster than speed of light.

Consciousness and panpsychism

What is the evidence for that? what numbers? You havent' shown me either.

[/QUOTE]a brain is not necessary for something to be sensed, or information to be transceived.

4 Things That Currently Break the Speed of Light Barrier


NIST Team Proves 'Spooky Action at a Distance' is Really Real


No faster-than-light communication: The two detectors measured photons from the same pair a few hundreds of nanoseconds apart, finishing more than 40 nanoseconds before any light-speed communication could take place between the detectors. Information traveling at the speed of light would require 617 nanoseconds to travel between the detectors.

"Spooky actions at a distance": physics, psi, and distant healing. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Monk Of Reason]

]a brain is not necessary for something to be sensed, or information to be transceived.

4 Things That Currently Break the Speed of Light Barrier


NIST Team Proves 'Spooky Action at a Distance' is Really Real


No faster-than-light communication: The two detectors measured photons from the same pair a few hundreds of nanoseconds apart, finishing more than 40 nanoseconds before any light-speed communication could take place between the detectors. Information traveling at the speed of light would require 617 nanoseconds to travel between the detectors.

"Spooky actions at a distance": physics, psi, and distant healing. - PubMed - NCBI

The issue being that the information isn't from cognitive function but rather the physics described "consciousness" which simply means ability to react to the surroundings. It doesn't have thought or will. The existence of faster than light information transfer is not well understood in terms of how it functions (part of whole theory is the current leading best guess) but it doesn't have anything to do with spiritual concepts of higher power.

 

[Fool]

The issue being that the information isn't from cognitive function but rather the physics described "consciousness" which simply means ability to react to the surroundings. It doesn't have thought or will. The existence of faster than light information transfer is not well understood in terms of how it functions (part of whole theory is the current leading best guess) but it doesn't have anything to do with spiritual concepts of higher power.

part of the problems is that all energy takes some form of matter. there are more than 7 known states of matter. E = m(c*c) states that energy is just a form of matter and matter a state of energy. we know light matter and light energy vs dark matter and dark energy.

the old theories imply that consciousness is a result of the brain. it isn't. the brain and it's stem is nothing but an antennae that receives and transmits reaction to outside stimuli. this stimulus doesn't have to have a brain in order to receive information because of entanglement. thus the photons with us are entangled within photons elsewhere.




http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9572/1/Shan_Gao_-_A_quantum_argument_for_panpsychism_2013.pdf


http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/2/2


A Quantum Theory of Consciousness

 

[Monk Of Reason]

part of the problems is that all energy takes some form of matter. there are more than 7 known states of matter. E = m(c*c) states that energy is just a form of matter and matter a state of energy. we know light matter and light energy vs dark matter and dark energy.

the old theories imply that consciousness is a result of the brain. it isn't. the brain and it's stem is nothing but an antennae that receives and transmits reaction to outside stimuli. this stimulus doesn't have to have a brain in order to receive information because of entanglement. thus the photons with us are entangled with photons elsewhere.




http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9572/1/Shan_Gao_-_A_quantum_argument_for_panpsychism_2013.pdf


http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/2/2


A Quantum Theory of Consciousness

Where are you getting these linnks? I ask this because this is the second time now that you have leapt from one argument to another with just the links. I'll talk about Gao Shan and his papers in a moment but know that his work is on quantam collapse of superpositions and the relationship between a conscious observer. In some cases he argues that it is distinctive differencesses between machine and man and others he talks about a universal consciousness.

He is considered a frindge theorist on this as his study is geochemistry. I admit that some of the papers linked is above my head in terms of being able to decipher and determine what is and is not viable. He is a serious scientist and one of the many victims of 2016. But none of it has to do with faster than light information transmition.

I also have yet to find an article that talks about his papers on consciousness. I don't know if he simply didn't garnish enough attention to get a response or if its because its a frindge theory that no one took seriously. I would have to put a lot more research into it to know his exact standing and the full merit of his theory.

But can you articulate for me what portion of his his work you are envoking for which specific point of your argument?

 

[Fool]

The issue being that the information isn't from cognitive function but rather the physics described "consciousness" which simply means ability to react to the surroundings. It doesn't have thought or will. The existence of faster than light information transfer is not well understood in terms of how it functions (part of whole theory is the current leading best guess) but it doesn't have anything to do with spiritual concepts of higher power.

Where are you getting these linnks? I ask this because this is the second time now that you have leapt from one argument to another with just the links. I'll talk about Gao Shan and his papers in a moment but know that his work is on quantam collapse of superpositions and the relationship between a conscious observer. In some cases he argues that it is distinctive differencesses between machine and man and others he talks about a universal consciousness.

He is considered a frindge theorist on this as his study is geochemistry. I admit that some of the papers linked is above my head in terms of being able to decipher and determine what is and is not viable. He is a serious scientist and one of the many victims of 2016. But none of it has to do with faster than light information transmition.

I also have yet to find an article that talks about his papers on consciousness. I don't know if he simply didn't garnish enough attention to get a response or if its because its a frindge theory that no one took seriously. I would have to put a lot more research into it to know his exact standing and the full merit of his theory.

But can you articulate for me what portion of his his work you are envoking for which specific point of your argument?

drill down. he speaks on panpsychism, quantum consciousness, or mind

 

[Fool]

Where are you getting these linnks? I ask this because this is the second time now that you have leapt from one argument to another with just the links. I'll talk about Gao Shan and his papers in a moment but know that his work is on quantam collapse of superpositions and the relationship between a conscious observer. In some cases he argues that it is distinctive differencesses between machine and man and others he talks about a universal consciousness.

He is considered a frindge theorist on this as his study is geochemistry. I admit that some of the papers linked is above my head in terms of being able to decipher and determine what is and is not viable. He is a serious scientist and one of the many victims of 2016. But none of it has to do with faster than light information transmition.

I also have yet to find an article that talks about his papers on consciousness. I don't know if he simply didn't garnish enough attention to get a response or if its because its a frindge theory that no one took seriously. I would have to put a lot more research into it to know his exact standing and the full merit of his theory.

But can you articulate for me what portion of his his work you are envoking for which specific point of your argument?

you're more than welcome to read and understand the information for your self, or ignore it, but "no" i'm not doing a synopsis for you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

drill down. he speaks on panpsychism, quantum consciousness, or mind

Yes. And in those contexts it seems to be wavering from the data. Its an interesting way to look at things but what predictions can be made to test his hypothesis?

you're more than welcome to read and understand the information for your self, or ignore it, but "no" i'm not doing a synopsis for you.

I don't mean to be rude but I doubt you could. This is a paper written by someoen with a PhD with the intent of being read on that level. I have some degree of knowledge of physics and can read with a certain level of scientific literacy but thats just because I'm a nerd. This isn't a layman's paper. Unless you have a degree in a related field I doubt you, or anyone else that doesn't have a degree in the related field, can fully decipher the paper. I get the jist of what he is saying but during his mathmatical explanations of phenomenon I'm not knowledgeable enough to check it or refute it. Its why I searched for critique of the paper as that usually lends us a better understanding of a complicated paper. I'm not throwing it out or ignoring it. I'm just stating our current limitations with it. Though do know that there hasn't been any research done on his work that I have found and the only person who has written anything similar to his hypotehsis is the one man.

TLDR vr Theoretical physics is hard and very few people can talk about it in depth.

 

[Fool]

Yes. And in those contexts it seems to be wavering from the data. Its an interesting way to look at things but what predictions can be made to test his hypothesis?

I don't mean to be rude but I doubt you could. This is a paper written by someoen with a PhD with the intent of being read on that level. I have some degree of knowledge of physics and can read with a certain level of scientific literacy but thats just because I'm a nerd. This isn't a layman's paper. Unless you have a degree in a related field I doubt you, or anyone else that doesn't have a degree in the related field, can fully decipher the paper. I get the jist of what he is saying but during his mathmatical explanations of phenomenon I'm not knowledgeable enough to check it or refute it. Its why I searched for critique of the paper as that usually lends us a better understanding of a complicated paper. I'm not throwing it out or ignoring it. I'm just stating our current limitations with it. Though do know that there hasn't been any research done on his work that I have found and the only person who has written anything similar to his hypotehsis is the one man.

TLDR vr Theoretical physics is hard and very few people can talk about it in depth.

Integrated Information Theory


Consciousness as a State of Matter

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Integrated Information Theory


Consciousness as a State of Matter

Unfortunatly I don't have time at the moment to watch a 20 minute video. I will dedicate time to watching it tonight if I have time.

As far as the first link its nothing new. You have made 2 fundamental blunders with your argument. The first as I stated before being unable to differentiate betwen scientific and non-scientific groups. You obviously seem capable of findng good sources when you need to. However you fall prey to the second bludner which I have attempted to explain. The "consciousness" that they are talking about in integrated information theory is a physics issue that is a different thing all together than the medical understanding of consciousness.

A lot of the bunk websites and groups take these studies of consciousness and then run with them taking on the layman term of consciousness. There is an interesting bit on QM about how the observer actually affects what is observed. But observer doesn't mean a person who is watching it. It isn't so special that it requires a functioning brain. Observation is any kind of interaction. For example what ist he speed of gravity? How quickly does the "information" that gravity provides by affecting the surrounding area move? How quickly does a magnet's field reach? Those are observations. The strong force is how sub atomic particles "observe" each other. In fact unobserved phenomenon is very difficult to replicate.

The second link talks about a theory on how information or observation of information by particles interact. Could it be a particle like the higgs boson or the gravitron? This is what it proposes. Which is an amazing discussion and conversation if you would like to switch over to that.

 

[Fool]

Unfortunatly I don't have time at the moment to watch a 20 minute video. I will dedicate time to watching it tonight if I have time.

As far as the first link its nothing new. You have made 2 fundamental blunders with your argument. The first as I stated before being unable to differentiate betwen scientific and non-scientific groups. You obviously seem capable of findng good sources when you need to. However you fall prey to the second bludner which I have attempted to explain. The "consciousness" that they are talking about in integrated information theory is a physics issue that is a different thing all together than the medical understanding of consciousness.

A lot of the bunk websites and groups take these studies of consciousness and then run with them taking on the layman term of consciousness. There is an interesting bit on QM about how the observer actually affects what is observed. But observer doesn't mean a person who is watching it. It isn't so special that it requires a functioning brain. Observation is any kind of interaction. For example what ist he speed of gravity? How quickly does the "information" that gravity provides by affecting the surrounding area move? How quickly does a magnet's field reach? Those are observations. The strong force is how sub atomic particles "observe" each other. In fact unobserved phenomenon is very difficult to replicate.

The second link talks about a theory on how information or observation of information by particles interact. Could it be a particle like the higgs boson or the gravitron? This is what it proposes. Which is an amazing discussion and conversation if you would like to switch over to that.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/

Hameroff has recieved his share of criticism in the theory and it is far from accepted by the mainstream. The theory has some issues but is interesting. The biggest problem with his theory is that its purely theoretical with no evidence that microtubulars have any effect in the functions of nuerons much less any kind of macro scale importance to the overall function of the brain. But it is interesting.

I"ve responded to a lot of links at this piont and I would like to circle back a bit. What exactly is the point you are trying to make or argue for? Then from there what from the links is being used to support said argument?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do Atheists know Love?

Some do. Some not so much. Atheists are weird like that, almost like real people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm getting a very Narnia version of belief here. Where the good Calormene were really serving Aslan all along even though they believe in Tash.

Drolefille sighting!!

Everyone should have at least one rationale theist friend, and one rationale atheist friend. It helps avoid cardboard cutout assertions about those whose belief paradigm is different.

 

[Milton Platt]

Do Atheists know Love?

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Interesting...so god is a human emotion, then???

 

[Fool]

Yes. And in those contexts it seems to be wavering from the data. Its an interesting way to look at things but what predictions can be made to test his hypothesis?

I don't mean to be rude but I doubt you could. This is a paper written by someoen with a PhD with the intent of being read on that level. I have some degree of knowledge of physics and can read with a certain level of scientific literacy but thats just because I'm a nerd. This isn't a layman's paper. Unless you have a degree in a related field I doubt you, or anyone else that doesn't have a degree in the related field, can fully decipher the paper. I get the jist of what he is saying but during his mathmatical explanations of phenomenon I'm not knowledgeable enough to check it or refute it. Its why I searched for critique of the paper as that usually lends us a better understanding of a complicated paper. I'm not throwing it out or ignoring it. I'm just stating our current limitations with it. Though do know that there hasn't been any research done on his work that I have found and the only person who has written anything similar to his hypotehsis is the one man.

TLDR vr Theoretical physics is hard and very few people can talk about it in depth.

kind of like gravity?

we know it exists, science can't tell us why it exists. the only ABSOLUTE in science is that there are no absolutes

Where Does Gravity Come From? - Universe Today

 

[Fool]

Interesting...so god is a human emotion, then???

love is not exclusive to humans.

love is an action and an idea.

the idea is a potential and it's ideal are those who manifest it.

we are all gods, we are all facets of Love.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

kind of like gravity?

we know it exists, science can't tell us why it exists. the only ABSOLUTE in science is that there are no absolutes

Where Does Gravity Come From? - Universe Today

Indeed but I think you responded to my old one twice. I have one more response there you havent' responded to that I wou ld like for you to.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

sorry, i was trying to manage to many things at once. can you direct me to the response in question?

No problem. #192

 

[Fool]

Hameroff has recieved his share of criticism in the theory and it is far from accepted by the mainstream. The theory has some issues but is interesting. The biggest problem with his theory is that its purely theoretical with no evidence that microtubulars have any effect in the functions of nuerons much less any kind of macro scale importance to the overall function of the brain. But it is interesting.

I"ve responded to a lot of links at this piont and I would like to circle back a bit. What exactly is the point you are trying to make or argue for? Then from there what from the links is being used to support said argument?

the underlying point, consciousness is not the result of a brain but the reverse is true. brains came into being because consciousness exists at a lower level and evolves to a higher level. consciouness exists at many levels from a chemical to a higher state. i'm sure that most humans are like most bacteria; they aren't aware of anything above their level of consciousness. how could they be, unless they had an open mind, or were able to think outside the box, or the conditional mind.

in the eastern concepts you can't have just spirit(mind). you have to have a state of matter. with this idea the concept is that mind is some state of matter at all levels but it doesn't have a fixed form. so like the universe has a state of matter at all times then consciousness does also, it simply doesn't have an exclusive form, or definite form. the forms change, or transform, but like the universe its always in some state of matter