The Watchmaker Revisited

[shunyadragon]

Now **mod edit** or get off the pot.

Insults appear to be your last resort for a lack of basic knowledge of science.

 

[godnotgod]

But the signals have to come from somewhere. And the signals come tv station via transmission tower. It is the tower that converts electrical signal into radio or tv signal.

Consciousness doesn’t travel through the airway like tv or radio signals.

Consciousness is part of the brain’s function, it doesn’t exist independent of the brain, and we are only aware of the environment when any one of our sensory perceptions (eg eyes, ears, nose, etc) perceive it.

A person’s consciousness is impaired if he should suffered from head trauma.

Is a person’s consciousness still working, if he become unconscious, or worse brain dead?

Consciousness doesn’t exist eternally.

The whole Pure Consciousness is just woo woo BS, and worse still, is your continuous mixing Hindu lore with Zen Buddhism.

There is nothing in Zen Buddhism that speak of Brahman, or the cosmic or universal consciousness.

Are you deaf?

The point of the analogy is non-locality, not where the signal originated.

I already provided scientific proof of the brain's ability for non-local communication. Not going back. You go fetch.

 

[godnotgod]

It is where your head is, and no room for anyone else.

I gave you not only plenty of room, but plenty of opportunity, to demonstrate your materialist argument, but you have failed. Polymath has failed. Gnostic has failed. So now the only thing you can resort to is ad hominem. Typical.

 

[shunyadragon]

I already provided scientific proof of the brain's ability for non-local communication. Not going back. You go fetch.

There is no proof in science. observed behavior you cite is simply observed behavior from the human perspective, which you choose to exploit selectively to justify your religious agenda.

I changed my post, no ad hominem except your original insult.

 

[gnostic]

All I want is for you to show me exactly where what you think to be 'real' material reality exists at the fundamental level. Show me that what you call 'particles' have real material substance to them. That's all.

I gave examples that matters can generate certain fields, whether it be electrical, magnetic or gravitational fields.

If you think I am wrong, then prove it.

Do you not need electrical charged plates, to generate electrical fields?

Can you have magnetic fields without magnet?

If all the sun, planets and other objects that orbited around the sun (eg dwarf planets, asteroids, comets) were to cease to exist right now, would the gravitational fields exist?

Objects (matters) are real, and they can generate fields around it.

I am not denying that fields are real. I am not denying energy are real. But matters are real, and so are particles.

You are the ignorant one who think thereare no particles.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no proof in science. observed behavior you cite is simply observed behavior from the human perspective, which you choose to exploit selectively to justify your religious agenda.

I changed my post, no ad hominem except your original insult.

There was no insult, as your post was. '**mod edit** or get off the pot' is just saying to put your cards on the table, but you and gnostic have no cards left.

I posted both a video and the original study at the University of Mexico on brain non-locality in .pdf format. In addition, there have been numerous modern research projects which have confirmed Jacobo-Grinsberg's original findings. I guess you just ignored it all and poo pooed everyhing I posted as 'woo woo', so if you still want proof, you and gnostic both need to go fetch. Not going to run around any more for people who deliberately choose to remain ignorant and stuck in the stagnant backwater of the materialist paradigm.

 

[godnotgod]

I gave examples that matters can generate certain fields, whether it be electrical, magnetic or gravitational fields.

If you think I am wrong, then prove it.

Do you not need electrical charged plates, to generate electrical fields?

Can you have magnetic fields without magnet?

If all the sun, planets and other objects that orbited around the sun (eg dwarf planets, asteroids, comets) were to cease to exist right now, would the gravitational fields exist?

Objects (matters) are real, and they can generate fields around it.

I am not denying that fields are real. I am not denying energy are real. But matters are real, and so are particles.

You are the ignorant one who think thereare no particles.

Last request, and then we're done.

Show me the real material particles you are referring to.

 

[gnostic]

Last request, and then we're done.

Show me the real material particles you are referring to.

You haven’t answered my questions.

Perhaps I should have to one example.

Is the Earth not real or not?

Does the Earth not generate magnetic field? For what purposes is the magnetic field? How do think it happen?

Does the Earth not generate gravitational field? How does it happen?

 

[gnostic]

Are you deaf?

As a matter of fact, I do have hearing impairment. Serious enough that I need hearing aids.

Are you going to insult me about this?

I am a Chinese Australian. Do you want to comment on the color of my skin?

Please, go ahead, you arrogant snot.

 

[godnotgod]

As a matter of fact, I do have hearing impairment. Serious enough that I need hearing aids.
.

You need more than a hearing aid; you need a comprehension aid. You shouldn't even be on these forums, as you become confused easily, as I and ben d have pointed out over and over again.

I ask you a question about the realness of the particle, and you come back with an erroneous description of the magnetic field and the Earth.

If you cannot answer the question, then just admit it. Show me where this 'real material' of the particle exists. Really simple for someone who keeps telling me that the particle is real. Almost borders on the theist who wants to convince me that his God exists if only I believe.

I can understand that you're angry because you cannot answer the question. That is typical of people who box themselves into a corner and don't know how to get out.

 

[godnotgod]

You haven’t answered my questions.

Perhaps I should have to one example.

Is the Earth not real or not?

Does the Earth not generate magnetic field? For what purposes is the magnetic field? How do think it happen?

Does the Earth not generate gravitational field? How does it happen?

That's it. Go ahead and circumvent my question by shifting the burden onto me.

The issue at hand is not about magnetic fields, but about the materiality of the particle. You made the claim, now defend it.

Sh*t or get off the pot.

 

[gnostic]

That's it. Go ahead and circumvent my question by shifting the burden onto me.

The issue at hand is not about magnetic fields, but about the materiality of the particle. You made the claim, now defend it.

Sh*t or get off the pot.

And you keep repeatedly evading my questions.

No, you have repeatedly stated that fields, waves and energy are real, but not matters, not particles. You have also stated that matters are actually standing waves, only; again that the matters are only illusions.

I am stating that matters are real and responsible for the fields, and for energy. To me, they are all real.

Without matters, there are no energy, no fields.

Electron is a particle, with negative charge. Unbound (to any atomic nuclei, the negative charge will have a electric field around the charge.

But since you cannot actually see electrons, but you can see the effect of the electromagnetic fields, when you have two opposite charge plates or electrodes.

Can you tell me that object (matter) cannot produce fields? Can you tell me that fields can exist without any source?

Worse of all, you have not shown a single evidence that this Pure Consciousness or Brahman really exist, others than playing word game and providing dumb analogy of TV signals. Equating nonlocality with consciousness, my a s s.

 

[godnotgod]

I am stating that matters are real and responsible for the fields, and for energy. To me, they are all real.

What is 'matter', and what makes it 'real'?

Tong is saying that the field is what creates the 'particle', which is not matter, but a 'bundle of energy', and therefore, 'there are no (material) particles', as we once thought.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In either cases, there are no WHO involved, whether it be God, Creator, Designer or any other anthropomorphic entity, because that based on solely on ignorance and superstition.

If you are suggesting the WHO being responsible for the universe, then you need evidences other than some Iron Age holy books.

Then it is true that we both do think about the implications:

* You've thought "Who?" is a superstitious response

* I've thought "Nothing!" is a possible response

* Not being omniscient, I cannot logically exclude "Who?" as superstitious people can logically be right, by coincidence

The Bible says people have no excuse in this area--you and I have no excuse to be illogical, willful.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Moderation Post ***

Please be aware of Rule 1:


1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

 

[Polymath257]

What is 'matter', and what makes it 'real'?

Tong is saying that the field is what creates the 'particle', which is not matter, but a 'bundle of energy', and therefore, 'there are no (material) particles', as we once thought.

Let's just, for the moment, agree with this. Why would that 'bundle of energy' *not* be matter? Why would it *not* be 'material'? What aspect of 'material' do you think an electron lacks?

Now, in fact, a particle is NOT just a 'bundle of energy' because it has other properties than just its energy: spin, momentum, isospin, charge, rest mass, etc.

 

[godnotgod]

*** Moderation Post ***

Please be aware of Rule 1:


1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

OK, thank you.

 

[gnostic]

What is 'matter', and what makes it 'real'?

Tong is saying that the field is what creates the 'particle', which is not matter, but a 'bundle of energy', and therefore, 'there are no (material) particles', as we once thought.

You don’t seem to understand understand energy don’t exist on it own, as the “source” on to itself.

There are only two ways that I know of, that energy can exist. They only exist in the presence of -

1. fields
2. particles

Without either, there are no energy.

The thing is none of these fields or energy, have to do with you mixing up quantum fields with Pure Consciousness or Brahman.

I doubt very much that from I got from shunyadragon, Polymath257, and ecco about Tong’s video that Tong speaking about quantum fields and particle physics, was positing the cosmic consciousness.

The reason why I chose not to watch the Tong’s lecture, have nothing to do with his knowledge on quantum and particle physics, but on your interpretations of his lecture that it relate anything to consciousness or your perverted version of Brahman.

It is you and your Brahman shenanigans that I am really arguing about, not Tong’s lecture.

I have already asked shunyadragon and others in my older reply, did Tong mentioned consciousness at all, and they said “no”. And that “no” is all I needed to know about Tong’s video.

And what I have learned is that you are trying to falsely equate Brahman with “bundles of energy”, quantum fields and quantum vacuum.

Isn’t what you are doing with your mystic religion and with Tong’s lecture is a logical fallacy - false equivalence.

You are the one trying to connect with Tong’s lecture with your Brahman, because what Tong said about energy, field and quantum vacuum...BUT Tong never mentioned “consciousness” in his lecture, did he?

Do you not see what I am saying?

My argument is not about quantum fields or energy or particles at all, but about your insistence in trying to tie Brahman to quantum physics. That’s the bottom line in debate.

 

[Polymath257]

Last request, and then we're done.

Show me the real material particles you are referring to.

Here are a few:

http://eng.thesaurus.rusnano.com/upload/iblock/e0e/quant.jpg

http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~cms130/phys2013/qt/Quantum Tunneling/STM.ht2.jpg

These are actual pictures of atoms taken by ST Microscopes.

 

[godnotgod]

Let's just, for the moment, agree with this. Why would that 'bundle of energy' *not* be matter? Why would it *not* be 'material'? What aspect of 'material' do you think an electron lacks?

Now, in fact, a particle is NOT just a 'bundle of energy' because it has other properties than just its energy: spin, momentum, isospin, charge, rest mass, etc.

You've described properties. Where is the fundamental material? I'm just using the Tong video as reference.