What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

I am no more nothing but dust, then the Mona Lisa is merely pigment.

As to purpose and resolve, those are independant of promises of deeper mysteries.

I think we do have a choice to make concerning the dust.
Apparently you have made yours.

Paintings.....like numbers.....are an illusion.

 

[Bunyip]

THAT still has not been proven... It's *likely* but not necessarily the answer.

It is a safe assumption, given the absence of any reason to think otherwise. Proof is for math and brewing, we have to make do with a few assumptions.

Who says the thoughts stop when you kill the brain? Sure, you can no longer measure brain activity. But brain activity does not translate to thoughts:

Of course it does. No brain, no thoughts. Who says that thoughts stopwhen you kill the brain? Well doctors for example.

No one has ever been able to translate these graphs into a form understandable as actual thoughts: It is merely activity of certain parts of the brain that gets measured. NOTHING more.

It is the activity in our brain when it is thinking, no brain activity - no thought.

It has not been proven that thoughts are temporal. It has not been proven that they take place in time and space. It has not been proven that "time" exists beyond the following: It's a human term to descrive a phenomenom. It could be wrong. It likely is wrong.

But it has not been proven that Pluto was not made by penguins either - we only need to consider possibilities that we have reason to consider.

Time is not linear: But we don't know exactly what it is. It could be cyclical, but we don't know this either. We only know what it is not: Linear.

Ok.

Our understanding of the subject changes based on new information. The current information shows us that time is more complex than how a human would normally think the concept. Things do not necessarily happen "in order" even if it seems that way to us, on Earth...



Yes, there is no evidence to suggest you can. But there is none for the other view either...

There is plenty of evidence for things happening in order - I can assume this message will be posted in a few seconds when I press send.

THAT is what i'm trying to say. Black and white thinking is the true death of science. Science will NEVER answer everything... It'll always seek to however. That is the point.

As for existence itself. I am a Buddhist. Therefore i make no claims about existence.

 

[Bunyip]

I think we do have a choice to make concerning the dust.
Apparently you have made yours.

Paintings.....like numbers.....are an illusion.

Tell that to the insurers.

 

[Thief]

Tell that to the insurers.

Insurance?....as a reference point in reality?

yeah right

 

[Darkstorn]

It is a safe assumption, given the absence of any reason to think otherwise. Proof is for math and brewing, we have to make do with a few assumptions.

It is not a safe assumption if people think otherwise: I do. Your post was a response to my view.

Of course it does. No brain, no thoughts. Who says that thoughts stopwhen you kill the brain? Well doctors for example.

No. They don't say that. Because thoughts have not been proven to be a physical process. Neither has consciousness. We don't know enough about this issue beyond making educated guesses.

But again: I don't agree with you. So again, it is not safe to assume that it's "the best we have." Especially when it's not: THIS issue has puzzled mankind the MOST. More than the Big Bang, more than God. None of the great philosophers agreed with even each other about mind/body separation...

It is possible there is no separation whatsoever and everything is physical. But currently there literally is a big empty gap between our bodies and our consciousness. That cannot be answered. Not by scientists. Not by you.

NO real doctor would ever make claims about consciousness. Because they are scientists. At best they can guess and make their guess known to others but they will not claim it as fact. It would be a death sentence for their own cause: To claim something as fact without proof.

Ridiculous.

It is the activity in our brain when it is thinking, no brain activity - no thought.

Incorrect. People can perform involuntary actions and these WILL show up on brain scans. So... This is one of your points that HAS been proven wrong by science...

And again: No one has proven that thoughts are dependant on the brain: It could be immaterial. It could even be magic or god for all we know. We don't know enough to really make ANY claims whatsoever...

This is a blind spot in our knowledge. To ignore it and claim your opinions as fact is mindboggling: Not even the best scientists and philosophers know the answer to these questions. But you somehow do... Without bothering to logically show us how. Or even give us proof.

But it has not been proven that Pluto was not made by penguins either - we only need to consider possibilities that we have reason to consider.

Yes it has. Our understanding of planets greatly exceeds our knowledge of our own minds... We do know almost exactly how and WHEN Pluto formed...

There is plenty of evidence for things happening in order - I can assume this message will be posted in a few seconds when I press send.

*sight* some things seem to happen in order. That was my point. I know there is perceived order in things: Hell, it's likely there is order even on universal scale and nothing is random.

BUT time is not linear... This is proven so far. So my statement was true in regards to this and your post seems like a silly joke in comparison... I wish you were at least being honest in your arguments as i am: I'm trying to help people see other views. You're just wasting my time now.

 

[Bunyip]

Insurance?....as a reference point in reality?

yeah right

Sure. Them, death and taxes.

 

[Bunyip]

It is not a safe assumption if people think otherwise: I do. Your post was a response to my view.

I don't tend to consider what everyone thinks with the same weight as I consider what they have evidence for.

No. They don't say that. Because thoughts have not been proven to be a physical process. Neither has consciousness. We don't know enough about this issue beyond making educated guesses.

There is no evidence of thought without a brain. Or do you have some?

But again: I don't agree with you. So again, it is not safe to assume that it's "the best we have." Especially when it's not: THIS issue has puzzled mankind the MOST. More than the Big Bang, more than God. None of the great philosophers agreed with even each other about mind/body separation...

It is possible there is no separation whatsoever and everything is physical. But currently there literally is a big empty gap between our bodies and our consciousness. That cannot be answered. Not by scientists. Not by you.

NO real doctor would ever make claims about consciousness. Because they are scientists. At best they can guess and make their guess known to others but they will not claim it as fact. It would be a death sentence for their own cause: To claim something as fact without proof.

Ridiculous.



Incorrect. People can perform involuntary actions and these WILL show up on brain scans. So... This is one of your points that HAS been proven wrong by science...

No brain activity, no thoughts. No brain no thought. It is a perfect 100% correlation.

And again: No one has proven that thoughts are dependant on the brain: It could be immaterial. It could even be magic or god for all we know. We don't know enough to really make ANY claims whatsoever...

This is a blind spot in our knowledge. To ignore it and claim your opinions as fact is mindboggling: Not even the best scientists and philosophers know the answer to these questions. But you somehow do... Without bothering to logically show us how. Or even give us proof.

I'm not making unknowable claims of knowledgd, we just have no experience of immaterial thought, only materisl thought. That is - thought that is a product of a brain.

Yes it has. Our understanding of planets greatly exceeds our knowledge of our own minds... We do know almost exactly how and WHEN Pluto formed...

They were highly technologically advanced penguins that could time travel.

*sight* some things seem to happen in order. That was my point. I know there is perceived order in things: Hell, it's likely there is order even on universal scale and nothing is random.

BUT time is not linear... This is proven so far. So my statement was true in regards to this and your post seems like a silly joke in comparison... I wish you were at least being honest in your arguments as i am: I'm trying to help people see other views. You're just wasting my time now.

Hey hang on a sec, I'm being polite and friendly and answering your questions honestly.

I am not inclined to dishonesty - please identify where you believe I have been dishonest?

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't tend to consider what everyone thinks with the same weight as I consider what they have evidence for.

But YOU have no evidence... And neither does anyone else. Stop saying you have evidence when you're even incapable of showing it to us... What is wrong with you?

There is no evidence of thought without a brain. Or do you have some?

I never claimed there is.

No brain activity, no thoughts. No brain no thought. It is a perfect 100% correlation.

No it's not. No one has yet proven that the BRAIN is responsible for our thoughts... It's only proven that the brain is resposible for all the bodily functions. Nothing more. NOTHING.

I'm not making unknowable claims of knowledgd, we just have no experience of immaterial thought, only materisl thought. That is - thought that is a product of a brain.

We have no experience of material thought because we don't know if its material or not...

Seems to me more like you are incapable of thinking beyond extremes. You'll accept any explanation if it's the ONLY expanation. Here's the thing: There is an equal amount of proof that thought is NOT material. I.E none. There is no proof EITHER way.

They were highly technologically advanced penguins that could time travel.

We still know there were no penguins, time-traveling or not. By the way, did you know you're traveling in time right now? Forwards...

Hey hang on a sec, I'm being polite and friendly and answering your questions honestly.

Okay. Here's my view: I am 100% serious. I am actually trying to have a conversation here. But all i have is some Australian who shows us the stereotype of Australians first hand...

Ps. The stereotype is that Australians are descendants of a penal colony and lack capacity for intelligent discussion.

 

[Bunyip]

But YOU have no evidence... And neither does anyone else. Stop saying you have evidence when you're even incapable of showing it to us... What is wrong with you?

I'm saying it because we ONLY have evidencd for thought as a product of brain, we have no evidence of thought independant of a physical brain.

I never claimed there is.

Then why consider it?

No it's not. No one has yet proven that the BRAIN is responsible for our thoughts... It's only proven that the brain is resposible for all the bodily functions. Nothing more. NOTHING.



We have no experience of material thought because we don't know if its material or not...

Seems to me more like you are incapable of thinking beyond extremes. You'll accept any explanation if it's the ONLY expanation. Here's the thing: There is an equal amount of proof that thought is NOT material. I.E none. There is no proof EITHER way.

Again - we have only evidence of thought being a product of mind. No evidence of thohght independant of mind.

We still know there were no penguins, time-traveling or not. By the way, did you know you're traveling in time right now? Forwards...

You don't KNOW it, it is just a safe assumption.

Okay. Here's my view: I am 100% serious. I am actually trying to have a conversation here. But all i have is some Australian who shows us the stereotype of Australians first hand...

Ps. The stereotype is that Australians are descendants of a penal colony and lack capacity for intelligent discussion.

Now you are being openly insulting, just because somebody here is trying to communicate with you. As I keep saying - all the evidence points towards thought being. product of a material brain, and we have none to suggest otherwise.

 

[godnotgod]

Dance I shall.....upon your grave.
hehehehehehe

No really....in one breath, you say as I do and the next breath, you blow it off.

Take your current comment....
'There is nothing to believe....nothing to get.'

A denial.

THEN you make statement....
'There is only this eternal Present Moment....and (I am) it!'

A proclamation of BELIEF!

THIS PLOY YOU USE CONTINUALLY IS CALLED......DOUBLE-MINDED!

You do it all the time.....while making denial of duality!

Then you tell me to go dance!
Admitting (in effect)....that I do exist and can take action.

Your next retort is predictable....more denial.
You will now attempt as you have always done so......tell me I don't exist.

You don't. You just think you do. There is no person that exists; there is only being. You are an action of the total universe, but somewhere along the line, you accumulated your experiences and called them "I". No such animal. Just an illusion. But now you want to go on after your form dissolves. Something survives, but it isn't what you think.

There is nothing to believe; there is only to be here, now, awake.

There is nothing to get; you already have everything. You ARE everything, just as the drop of water is nothing short of the ocean itself.

That you are the eternal Present Moment is an experience; not a belief. You can experience it directly, now, completely.

There is no dancer of the dance; there is only dancing itself.

Now go dance.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are just ignorong the simple fact - the only evidence of thought js as a product of brain. We have direct evidence for this, kill the brain - the thoughts stop, destroy the brain, the personality is gone. That is direct evidence.

No we don't have any direct evidence: Direct means FIRST HAND. It means, for you to have direct evidence you must have gone through this process... Now you're confusing the word "direct" with "indirect." Nice.

I said without evidence, not without proof.

No. You said "Then why consider it?"

Well you have insulted me and all Australians, but are again misquoting. I did not claim to have proof.

Semantics. That your last argument? Good.

Ps. You have neither proof nor evidence. Your own thought process is not evidence: Because we cannot know if you're just trolling, stupid or lying...

And yes, i have insulted you. Twice. Want me to do it again?

 

[godnotgod]

You are just ignorong the simple fact - the only evidence of thought js as a product of brain. We have direct evidence for this, kill the brain - the thoughts stop, destroy the brain, the personality is gone. That is direct evidence.

The brain need not be killed for thoughts and personality to come to a halt. Meditators achieve this all the time, and their brains and they remain alive and well. The personality is part of Identification. It is not the authentic Self.

What remains is consciousness. You can turn the TV set off, but the signals remain in the air. The brain is just a receiver. It is consciousness that transmits.

 

[Bunyip]

No we don't have any direct evidence: Direct means FIRST HAND. It means, for you to have direct evidence you must have gone through this process... Now you're confusing the word "direct" with "indirect." Nice.

Direct first hand evidence of thought being a product of a brain:

1. Take a functioning, thinking brain.
2. Destroy it.
Result: 100% consistent result of cease in thought.

That is direct first hand evidence.

No. You said "Then why consider it?"



Semantics. That your last argument? Good.

Ps. You have neither proof nor evidence. Your own thought process is not evidence:

I have plenty of evidence and did not claim proof.

Because we cannot know if you're just trolling, stupid or lying...

And yes, i have insulted you. Twice. Want me to do it again?

Well sure,but they are pretty strict here. you will probably get a caution or suspension.

 

[Bunyip]

The brain need not be killed for thoughts and personality to come to a halt. Meditators achieve this all the time, and their brains and they remain alive and well. The personality is part of Identification. It is not the authentic Self.

Sure. But they still only think when they have a physical brain. I was not suggesting that you can not have a brain without thought, but that you can not have a thought without brain.

What remains is consciousness. You can turn the TV set off, but the signals remain in the air. The brain is just a receiver. It is consciousness that transmits.

The TV is the reciever, if you turn off the transmitter the signal stops.
The brain is the transmitter, not the reciever.

 

[Darkstorn]

Direct first hand evidence of thought being a product of a brain:

1. Take a functioning, thinking brain.
2. Destroy it.
Result: 100% consistent result of cease in thought.

That is direct first hand evidence.

That is not direct first hand evidence. No way around this.

I have plenty of evidence and did not claim proof.

Semantics. I'm claiming you have neither.

Well sure,but they are pretty strict here. you will probably get a caution or suspension.

Suspension is unlikely seeing as you're the first person i've ever insulted here. And i'm only doing it because you're coercing me into it, trying it to be so. I'm of course going to oblige. If you want something from me, i must fulfill it in order to not cause suffering to you.

We both know you wanted it to happen. There is no point trying to argue it: I already admitted to insulting you so you'll gain nothing by pretending ignorance.

TLDR: I respond to trolls with the response they expect: So i can later show through logic they were trolling and causing me to say things like that. That is: You are just as suspectible as me to any warning... The difference is that i'm not going to bother reporting you for it. I think it's more fun this way.

 

[Bunyip]

That is not direct first hand evidence. No way around this.

Of course it is direct first hand, empirical, demonstrable evidence. It is how science learns all that it learns. It is direct, testable, faslifyable repeatable evidence.

Semantics. I'm claiming you have neither.



Suspension is unlikely seeing as you're the first person i've ever insulted here. And i'm only doing it because you're coercing me into it, trying it to be so. I'm of course going to oblige. If you want something from me, i must fulfill it in order to not cause suffering to you.

We both know you wanted it to happen. There is no point trying to argue it: I already admitted to insulting you so you'll gain nothing by pretending ignorance.

TLDR: I respond to trolls with the response they expect: So i can later show through logic they were trolling and causing me to say things like that. That is: You are just as suspectible as me to any warning... The difference is that i'm not going to bother reporting you for it. I think it's more fun this way.

See if you can respond with logic and reason instead, the insults make it look like you are losing.

 

[Darkstorn]

Of course it is direct first hand, empirical, demonstrable evidence. It is how science learns all that it learns. It is direct, testable, faslifyable repeatable evidence.

It's not.

Given how new you are here, I can safely assume that you will get picked up on each of those as well.

You do realize i've been here longer than you. How did you manage to get those posts in just a few months? I've been here for a year and a half.

See if you can respond with logic and reason instead, the insults make it look like you are losing.

No they don't: At least not if you take into account everything else i wrote. If anything, i don't see anyone agreeing with your limited black and white thinking. Truly.

I might not have "won." But i find it obvious that your less-than-logical answers prevent your point from being understood by others. Really, i simply see no one agreeing with your view because it assumes that something is evidence just because.

Your view has no evidence nor proof, any more than the other view. I am not making any claim as to which one is true because i understand this. You don't. You have no evidence nor proof.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not.



You do realize i've been here longer than you. How did you manage to get those posts in just a few months? I've been here for a year and a half.



No they don't: At least not if you take into account everything else i wrote. If anything, i don't see anyone agreeing with your limited black and white thinking. Truly.

I might not have "won." But i find it obvious that your less-than-logical answers prevent your point from being understood by others. Really, i simply see no one agreeing with your view because it assumes that something is evidence just because.

Your view has no evidence nor proof, any more than the other view. I am not making any claim as to which one is true because i understand this. You don't. You have no evidence nor proof.

So basically your tactic is to just repeat 'it's not', 'it's not' and throw some sort of little tantrum?

As I said, we have direct, empirical, testable, falsifyable evidence that thought is a product of brain. And no evidence of thought without a brain. So 100% of the evidence is on one side of that equation. Why not stand in a corner and shout 'it's not!' along with some some insults about other counies you don't like and see if it all magically turns into a logical response?

 

[Darkstorn]

So basically your tacticis to just repeat 'it's not', 'it's not' and throw some sort of little tantrum?

You do realize that me saying "it's not" is no different from what you're saying? With the exception that i've not actually even explained my own view regarding consciouness and thoughts to you. I am merely pointing out the fact that you are not right. Or wrong. You simply don't know.

And you have no evidence, nor proof.

As I said, we have direct, empirical, testable, falsifyable evidence that thought is a product of brain. And no evidence of thought without a brain. So 100% of the evidence is on one side of that equation.

Show it. I've asked this many times. Show it to me. Then i might consider your view as anything more than a narrow-minded opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

You do realize that me saying "it's not" is no different from what you're saying? With the exception that i've not actually even explained my own view regarding consciouness and thoughts to you. I am merely pointing out the fact that you are not right. Or wrong. You simply don't know.

And you have no evidence, nor proof.



Show it. I've asked this many times. Show it to me. Then i might consider your view as anything more than a narrow-minded opinion.

You're correct.