What came before the Big Bang?

[Bunyip]

As I previously stated, that 'scientific' view is nothing more than a hypothesis, wrongly labeled 'Emergent Theory'. It proves nothing.

]


Unlike you, they do not claim to have proof. It is simply what the evidence demonstrates. Incidentally, that is where you went wrong - scientists rarely if ever claim to have proven anything, which is why the researchers in the experiment you claimed proved that thoughts come from outside of the brain did not actually claim to have done so.

 

[Bunyip]

It did NOT prove that thoughts come from outside the brain! Are you dense? I have told you several times now, but you are not listening! The experiment deliberately avoided testing for information transfer. Instead, it focused on the hardware itself; the brain, to see if the brain was capable of non-locality. Non-locality was what the experiment proved.

Jacobo Grinberg-Zyberbaum ARE famous.

Stop rambling on as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. Read the .pdf doc I provided, then return. But since you don't know how to read, I can't see how you will know what the experiment is actually saying.

Buddy you are losing your temper and repeating stuff that was dismissed a week ago. I am familiar with this experiment, it proved nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, and? The brain is a machine and can only do so much output. There is a myth that humans can only utilize like 10% of the brains actual capacity. That is how powerful the brain is. However the myth part is it is only using 10% of the brain at once. So you tone down some parts and you utilize others, quite simple.

Nothing about the brain from any studies whatsoever can compare the brain to a mere receiver. The only way we have confirmed input to the brain is through our major 5 senses. It is a highly sophisticated machine and to act like it is just a receiver is to ignore how powerful and sophisticated the brain actually is. Further there is nothing about the brain or studies that indicate that the brain is receiving outside information without the major 5 senses, it just can't be done and to just assert it without any evidence, cause there is none, is inane.

No, the brain is not a machine. It is an organ of the body.

I never said nor implied that the brain was a 'mere receiver', but it is a receiver. Proof? Here, read:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf

 

[godnotgod]

Buddy you are losing your temper and repeating stuff that was dismissed a week ago. I am familiar with this experiment, it proved nothing.

You're a liar.

 

[idav]

It did NOT prove that thoughts come from outside the brain! Are you dense? I have told you several times now, but you are not listening! The experiment deliberately avoided testing for information transfer. Instead, it focused on the hardware itself; the brain, to see if the brain was capable of non-locality. Non-locality was what the experiment proved.

Jacobo Grinberg-Zyberbaum ARE famous.

Stop rambling on as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. Read the .pdf doc I provided, then return. But since you don't know how to read, I can't see how you will know what the experiment is actually saying.

Non-locality doesn't prove thoughts come from outside the brain. It is almost obvious to me that non-locality makes such a thing possible but to attribute this to consciousness produced in the brain from the cosmos is wishful thinking. Can we share thoughts, possibly but even that is highly speculative and is not proven cause humans can't prove to have thoughts that don't come from regular senses, learned IOW from the immediate environment.

edit: if anything it proves non-locality to the brain itself only to the individual as neurons work with each other which allows for parallel processes.

 

[Bunyip]

You're a liar.

You resort to childish attack, because you can not make your case. The experiment most definitely and categorically did not prove non-locality. Nor does it make that claim.

 

[idav]

Non-locality doesn't prove thoughts come from outside the brain. It is almost obvious to me that non-locality makes such a thing possible but to attribute this to consciousness produced in the brain from the cosmos is wishful thinking. Can we share thoughts, possibly but even that is highly speculative and is not proven cause humans can't prove to have thoughts that don't come from regular senses, learned IOW from the immediate environment.

edit: if anything it proves non-locality to the brain itself only to the individual as neurons work with each other which allows for parallel processes.

No, the brain is not a machine. It is an organ of the body.

I never said nor implied that the brain was a 'mere receiver', but it is a receiver. Proof? Here, read:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf

Yeah that is wishful thinking. Nothing can prove the brain receives outside of direct contact with what the body is feeding the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

Non-locality doesn't prove thoughts come from outside the brain.

I said that the experiment cited proves that the brain is capable of non-locality. In the words of the researchers:

"In other words, the phenomenon we are dealing with is the action of nonlocal collapse of the wave
function of a unified system and not the result of a transmission using local signals from one brain to the other."

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah that is wishful thinking. Nothing can prove the brain receives outside of direct contact with what the body is feeding the brain.

Except that it has been proven, whether you like it or not.

 

[godnotgod]

You resort to childish attack, because you can not make your case. The experiment most definitely and categorically did not prove non-locality. Nor does it make that claim.

It DOES make that claim, but you don't know that because you are not familiar with the experiment as YOU claim, making you a liar. That you are a liar has nothing to do with anyone being childish. It's just that you choose to lie, and I am merely pointing it out. What the experiment did NOT prove, as YOU claim, is that thought comes from outside the brain, which, as I stated, the researchers deliberately avoided testing for.

 

[atanu]

How could a dead brain generate consciousness? That makes no sense.

But you only said that brain generates consciousness. Now you introduce a factor 'dead'.

As if you know what is really the difference between a living and a dead brain.

.....

Do me a favour. Take a dead brain and get consciousness generated out of it .. and then perhaps you can act all knowing and sarcastic. Please do not act all knowing prematurely.

 

[Bunyip]

It DOES make that claim, but you don't know that because you are not familiar with the experiment as YOU claim, making you a liar. That you are a liar has nothing to do with anyone being childish. It's just that you choose to lie, and I am merely pointing it out.

Throwing a tantrum gets you nowhere mate, this is a forum for grown ups.

Put your money where your mouth is and quote directly from where that experiment claims to have proven non-locality. And THEN perhaps finally give some rationale for how that is even relevant.

You will be unable to do so. Calling people names is easy, backing up your accusations will prove impossible.

 

[idav]

I said that the experiment cited proves that the brain is capable of non-locality. In the words of the researchers:

"In other words, the phenomenon we are dealing with is the action of nonlocal collapse of the wave
function of a unified system and not the result of a transmission using local signals from one brain to the other."

That proves nothing of thoughts or consciousness coming from outside the brain. Everything is non-local such is the case with all matter so I don't really see the point. I believe in that wave function stuff so it doesn't even in the slightest hinder anything I have been saying. Non-locality is an argument for free will, an argument about cause and effect. What are you trying to drive at with that? A universal conscious wave function, no way. The collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with consciousness or an observer, that is a myth brought on by pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

 

[Bunyip]

But you only said that brain generates consciousness. Now you introduce a factor 'dead'.

As if you know what is really the difference between a living and a dead brain.

Of course I know the difference - brain death can be readily established, as of course can viability.

.....

Do me a favour. Take a dead brain and get consciousness generated out of it .. and then perhaps you can act all knowing and sarcastic. Please do not act all knowing prematurely.

Why would I need to make a zombie brain?

Tell you what - here is a better, and less pointless challenge; Why don't you give an example of a consciousness that is not emerging from a living brain.

 

[godnotgod]

]


Unlike you, they do not claim to have proof. It is simply what the evidence demonstrates. Incidentally, that is where you went wrong - scientists rarely if ever claim to have proven anything, which is why the researchers in the experiment you claimed proved that thoughts come from outside of the brain did not actually claim to have done so.

Now you're anal!

I NEVER STATED THAT THE RESEARCHERS CLAIMED THOUGHTS TO HAVE COME FROM OUTSIDE THE BRAIN! THEY CLAIM TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE BRAIN'S CAPABILITY FOR NON-LOCAL COMMUNICATION.

Why do you persist on putting words in my mouth?

 

[godnotgod]

Throwing a tantrum gets you nowhere mate, this is a forum for grown ups.

Put your money where your mouth is and quote directly from where that experiment claims to have proven non-locality. And THEN perhaps finally give some rationale for how that is even relevant.

You will be unable to do so. Calling people names is easy, backing up your accusations will prove impossible.

Pointing out the fact that you are lying when you claim to be familiar with the experiment when you clearly are not, as evinced by the fact that you are making statements about what the experiment says that simply are not what the experiment states is not throwing a tantrum; it is pointing out that you are lying.

 

[Bunyip]

Now you're anal!

I NEVER STATED THAT THE RESEARCHERS CLAIMED THOUGHTS TO HAVE COME FROM OUTSIDE THE BRAIN! THEY CLAIM TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE BRAIN'S CAPABILITY FOR NON-LOCAL COMMUNICATION.

Why do you persist on putting words in my mouth?

Bit of a potty mouth huh? I'll take the tantrums as a victory.

 

[godnotgod]

That proves nothing of thoughts or consciousness coming from outside the brain. Everything is non-local such is the case with all matter so I don't really see the point. I believe in that wave function stuff so it doesn't even in the slightest hinder anything I have been saying. Non-locality is an argument for free will, an argument about cause and effect. What are you trying to drive at with that? A universal conscious wave function, no way. The collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with consciousness or an observer, that is a myth brought on by pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

There are two parts to the researcher's statement, the second of which says that the phenomenon that is being observed is

"not the result of a transmission using local signals from one brain to the other"

If that is the case, and it is , then such transmission must be nonlocal.

 

[idav]

Now you're anal!

I NEVER STATED THAT THE RESEARCHERS CLAIMED THOUGHTS TO HAVE COME FROM OUTSIDE THE BRAIN! THEY CLAIM TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE BRAIN'S CAPABILITY FOR NON-LOCAL COMMUNICATION.

Why do you persist on putting words in my mouth?

The collapse happens because of cause and effect. Non-locality doesn't persist under the weight of the forces of laws of nature. The brain is no different. The non-locality isn't enough to make an affect on our brain to allow for thoughts or consciousness to be a factor outside the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

Bit of a potty mouth huh? I'll take the tantrums as a victory.

That is a position of the utmost stupidity, to use how you perceive me as a basis for a false victory. You don't like the fact that I point out the truth, so you call it a tantrum in a cheap effort to degrade what I am actually saying, and most importantly, to divert attention away from your inability to think correctly. As proof of what i am saying, once again, I point out that you consistently hold that I am making the claim that the researchers are trying to prove that thoughts originate outside the brain, when clearly they are not attempting to any such thing. I have stated this over and over again, which you simply choose to ignore and then to restate your fallacious notions.