What came before the Big Bang?

[Bunyip]

No. In the example given, the brain is not producing thoughts, but receiving electrical impulses. It is a processor.

When thoughts stop because a person dies, it may only mean that the brain has ceased processing the thoughts it receives from a non-local source. In my example, if subject B had died during the experiment, of course his brain would not receive the impulses from subject A's brain, and there would be no detectable signal. But the experiment made clear that the subject B's brain did indeed receive signals from subject A's brain as evinced by the EEG responses.

Sure, it is the processor that thinks. In your example, the experiment did not conclusivelg demonstrate what you claim. At least not that I can see. It is assuming a form of mental communication not proven to exist - telepathy.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, it is the processor that thinks. In your example, the experiment did not conclusivelg demonstrate what you claim. At least not that I can see. It is assuming a form of mental communication not proven to exist - telepathy.

The experimenter, you will recall, was not concerned about thought transfer or telepathy between the subjects; he was only concerned with the automatic responses of both brains, (ie EEG electrical impulses) which had nothing to do with thinking. Subject B did not know his brain was responding as it did. That it did is proof that B's brain was receiving signals from A's brain non-locally. There was no connection between them of any kind. The Faraday cages additionally insured no electrical signals could escape from A to B.

Heh heh heh. The processor doesn't think; it only thinks it thinks. The other problem here is the illusory "I", or 'mind', or alleged agent of thought. In reality, no such entities can be found to exist. Descartes only assumed "I" existed from the get go.

What I am gettting to is this: there is no agent of thought; there is only thinking itself. The illusory 'I' latches onto thought and claims it as its own, ie; 'MY thought'. this is what is known as Identification. It is the Third Level of Consciousness. Only when one enters into the Fourth Level, that of Self-Transcendence, does one see clearly the illusory nature of Identification, or Waking Sleep as it is also called. IOW, one only THINKS oneself awake, when one is in a dream-state.


What is the Brain's Function?

The brain is the Central Processing Unit and receives thoughts in the form of a code (similar to computer "Machine Language") from an external source and them processes the code in using two, main procedures. First, the brain sends the thought to the memory to see if, within our memory bank there exists the information and knowledge needed to understand and use the thought. For example, a thought that has suddenly occurred to us - the desire or urge to have a cup of coffee. Once received, the memory immediately transmits information: what coffee is, what coffee we know and prefer. The processor takes the next step and decides how much coffee, when and where... All these are actions that it already recognizes.
The second procedure is the brain's reaction to a new thought, one for which it has no previous information in its memory banks. For example, the desire to purchase a new product or service, to try a food that we've never tried before and so on. In this type of situation, the brain goes into a analytical and experimental state using the five senses as its assistants.
In other words, the brain is a mechanism that helps us to understand. It doesn't manage our thoughts but rather the work needed to understand and execute our thoughts. It understands the thought and distributes the appropriate orders.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5343

 

[Bunyip]

The experimenter, you will recall, was not concerned about thought transfer or telepathy between the subjects; he was only concerned with the automatic responses of both brains, (ie EEG electrical impulses) which had nothing to do with thinking. Subject B did not know his brain was responding as it did. That it did is proof that B's brain was receiving signals from A's brain non-locally. There was no connection between them of any kind. The Faraday cages additionally insured no electrical signals could escape from A to B.

Heh heh heh. The processor doesn't think; it only thinks it thinks. The other problem here is the illusory "I", or 'mind', or alleged agent of thought. In reality, no such entities can be found to exist. Descartes only assumed "I" existed from the get go.

What I am gettting to is this: there is no agent of thought; there is only thinking itself. The illusory 'I' latches onto thought and claims it as its own, ie; 'MY thought'. this is what is known as Identification. It is the Third Level of Consciousness. Only when one enters into the Fourth Level, that of Self-Transcendence, does one see clearly the illusory nature of Identification, or Waking Sleep as it is also called. IOW, one only THINKS oneself awake, when one is in a dream-state.


What is the Brain's Function?

The brain is the Central Processing Unit and receives thoughts in the form of a code (similar to computer "Machine Language") from an external source and them processes the code in using two, main procedures. First, the brain sends the thought to the memory to see if, within our memory bank there exists the information and knowledge needed to understand and use the thought. For example, a thought that has suddenly occurred to us - the desire or urge to have a cup of coffee. Once received, the memory immediately transmits information: what coffee is, what coffee we know and prefer. The processor takes the next step and decides how much coffee, when and where... All these are actions that it already recognizes.
The second procedure is the brain's reaction to a new thought, one for which it has no previous information in its memory banks. For example, the desire to purchase a new product or service, to try a food that we've never tried before and so on. In this type of situation, the brain goes into a analytical and experimental state using the five senses as its assistants.
In other words, the brain is a mechanism that helps us to understand. It doesn't manage our thoughts but rather the work needed to understand and execute our thoughts. It understands the thought and distributes the appropriate orders.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5343

Sorry, but if the experiment was nothing to do with thinking, how is it relevant?

 

[MistuhAtheist]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Yes, I do believe in the Big Bang.

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

No, I don't believe that there was a superior being that created the Big Bang.

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Yes, the multiverse theory is an excellent explanation,

Was it something else?

And yes, there is insufficient evidence to say for sure it was the Big Bang
Thank you for your time
MistuhAtheist out!

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but if the experiment was nothing to do with thinking, how is it relevant?

It shows that the brain receives input from outside itself, sans the body's sensory apparatus.

 

[Bunyip]

It shows that the brain receives input from outside itself, sans the body's sensory apparatus.

Sure, but the issue here was thought.

I accept that the brain recieves all manner of sensory input.

It takes in those inputs and processes them, that is to say - it thinks.
If you are claiming that one of those inputs is thought, I see no evidence for that.

 

[jimniki]

Guys, is it possible that we are not even real....
Like we are all in a sandbox being examined and studied by a university somewhere far far away.

They programmed all the variables, gave us 5 perceived sensors, and now we are starting to evolve to a point where we are reaching the borders of the sandbox and scratching our non existent heads....

Is this explanation any sillier than the one about a man with a beard up in the sky?

 

[Bunyip]

Guys, is it possible that we are not even real....
Like we are all in a sandbox being examined and studied by a university somewhere far far away.

They programmed all the variables, gave us 5 perceived sensors, and now we are starting to evolve to a point where we are reaching the borders of the sandbox and scratching our non existent heads....

Is this explanation any sillier than the one about a man with a beard up in the sky?

Sure, I agree with you.

But we assume that we are real because if we are not, and this is some artificial reality it makes no practicle difference.
The laws of physics, etc work to explain this universe, whether it be real or virtual.

 

[Desert Snake]

Guys, is it possible that we are not even real....
Like we are all in a sandbox being examined and studied by a university somewhere far far away.

They programmed all the variables, gave us 5 perceived sensors, and now we are starting to evolve to a point where we are reaching the borders of the sandbox and scratching our non existent heads....

Is this explanation any sillier than the one about a man with a beard up in the sky?

I don't understand the 'beard' context. That's like Santa. People often equate deity with santa, I think it's interesting. If deity EVER seemed like santa, I would be an atheist as well.

Add to that, I wasn't led to believe there was a santa, so it's really difficult for me to wrap my mind around that one. May be I'm lucky.

 

[viole]

That still does not mean thought originates in the brain. The brain is a processor of information, but not necessarily the source of thought. That a damaged brain changes thought may only mean that the processor that receives thought patterns changes the them.
There is some work being done on the non-locality of the brain. One now famous study showed that two conditioned subjects later isolated from each other had similar brain wave responses when only one brain was stimulated. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJ9I9Oh9Tc

Also: recent studies of long term meditators, esp Buddhist monks, demonstrate their brains have actually grown thicker cerebral cortexes. Consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around, as science has it.

Well, what that guy says about Quantum Mechanics is simply wrong. While it is true that interacting particles present non local entanglement, you cannot possibly use this to transmit information faster than light.

No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is a bit of a bummer: I could have sent useful information to my own entangled brain in the past.

So, since transmission of information at superluminal speed is physically impossible, how much time does it take for these external thoughts to reach our brain, if we assume that they travel at light speed? By using triangulation, we could pinpoint the source of this cosmic source of thoughts

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, but the issue here was thought.

I accept that the brain recieves all manner of sensory input.

It takes in those inputs and processes them, that is to say - it thinks.
If you are claiming that one of those inputs is thought, I see no evidence for that.

Well if the brain can receive input from another brain across space, then why not thought, especially if you think that thought originates in the brain. Thought is just another form of energy.

The experiment in question is not about sensory input. That has been isolated. Brain B is directly receiving input from Brain A, without sensory input (!) IOW, there is a direct transmission across space from one brain to the other, and even without the recipient knowing it has occurred.

A computer has a processor, but we still don't say it thinks.

Our western notion is that mind is created by the brain, and mind is who we are, as "I", which thinks. But that is only an assumption.

However, beyond mind is consciousness, which is non-local, and it is consciousness that is the origin of thought. "I" merely latches onto it as 'MY' thought. Watch thought as it arises. It is not necessarily 'yours', if consciousness is paying attention. It is just arising and subsiding. IOW, there is no thinker of thought; there is only thinking.

 

[viole]

I don't understand the 'beard' context. That's like Santa. People often equate deity with santa, I think it's interesting. If deity EVER seemed like santa, I would be an atheist as well.

Add to that, I wasn't led to believe there was a santa, so it's really difficult for me to wrap my mind around that one. May be I'm lucky.

Yes, and symmetrically the santaist could say: if santa EVER seemed like deity, I would be asantaist as well.

You seem to indicate that deity is a-priori more plausible than santa, for some reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, and symmetrically the santaist could say: if santa EVER seemed like deity, I would be asantaist as well.

You seem to indicate that deity is a-priori more plausible than santa, for some reasons.

Ciao

- viole

Some equate santa with a pagan god.

 

[viole]

Some equate santa with a pagan god.

And?

What makes you think that pagan gods are not plausible? Or less plausible than the non pagan versions?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

And?

What makes you think that pagan gods are not plausible? Or less plausible than the non pagan versions?

Ciao

- viole

Who said that?

 

[viole]

Who said that?

Well, you said that if deity EVER seemed like santa, you would be atheist as well.

And if we associate santa with pagan gods, then this would translate into: if deity EVER seemed like pagan gods, I would be atheist as well.

The question is why, since pagan gods, santa and deity are all equally plausible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

The question is why, since pagan gods, santa and deity are all equally plausible.

Ciao

- viole

Not in my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, what that guy says about Quantum Mechanics is simply wrong. While it is true that interacting particles present non local entanglement, you cannot possibly use this to transmit information faster than light.

No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is a bit of a bummer: I could have sent useful information to my own entangled brain in the past.

So, since transmission of information at superluminal speed is physically impossible, how much time does it take for these external thoughts to reach our brain, if we assume that they travel at light speed? By using triangulation, we could pinpoint the source of this cosmic source of thoughts

Ciao

- viole

They don't travel at light speed. They don't travel at all. The communication is signal-less; instantaneous, across universal consciousness. It is already all inter-connected*. In the experiment, the two brains were synched and it was found that one matched the other for identical response.

Thoughts are not photons, limited to the speed of light. Thoughts arise from consciousness, which is outside the realm of Time and Space. We are talking transcendence, as opposed to immanence:

"Now, let’s talk about quantum physics. Curiously, also in the tail end of the nineteenth century, a breed of scientists called physicists began looking into submicroscopic matter and discovering strange things about it. You could call their findings, as time went on, stranger and stranger. Eventually, in the hands of two physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger, these discoveries seemed down right mystical. These two physicists discovered a mathematical equation that governs the behavior of submicroscopic objects that could only make sense if you flatly accept that quantum objects are waves of possibility. Of course, they must become concrete objects of our experience when we observe them (the observer effect); but where do they reside before we observe them? They reside in potentia—the realm of potentiality or possibility, said Heisenberg. Where is potentia? It has to be in a world transcending space and time. Experiments after experiments supported this view of transcendent waves of possibility that become particles in space and time only upon observation. [ie; through consciousness]


But there are ways of avoiding the mystical language of transcendent-immanent duo, and physics textbooks became expert in evading the mystical aspects of quantum physics. Some people told their students, “nobody understands quantum physics,” making not understanding quantum physics a virtue so that people could move onto achieving success in using quantum physics without understanding it.

But then two things happened. So long as the ideas of transcendent potentia were just a philosophical necessity, we could ignore it by feigning practicality. But in 1982, a group of physicists under the leadership of Alain Aspect experimentally demonstrated the difference between transcendent and immanent domains. In the immanent domain, all communications and interaction between objects require signals. But in the transcendent domain, Aspect’s experiment showed communication is signal-less. The signal-less communications are called nonlocal, and their discovery threatened to change our worldview.

Physicists always associate a field with any interaction; if there is communication, there has to be an agent of communication. What should we call the agent of nonlocal communication?

The direction of the answer to this question came from consciousness research. Some physicists, I was one of them, realized that the final message of transcendence in quantum physics is consciousness. Even Heisenberg anticipated this when he said that the change that takes place when we measure (observe) a wave of potentiality changing it into a particle of actuality is really a change in our knowledge about the object. Now think! What is the agency that we know with? It is called consciousness which etymologically means “to know with.”

Amit Goswami, physicist

The Mystery of Transcendence : Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

* see also hologrophic universe: The Holographic Universe

...and from the wonderful world of Zen, we have this:

A Zen Master and his student meditated in silence together for years. One day, the student wondered if his Master could read his thoughts, and as he turned to look up into his Master's face, Master looked back and winked.

 

[viole]

They don't travel at light speed. They don't travel at all. The communication is signal-less; instantaneous, across universal consciousness. It is already all connected. In the experiment, the two brains were synched and it was found that one matched the other for identical response.

Thoughts are not photons, limited to the speed of light. Thoughts arise from consciousness, which is outside the realm of Time and Space. We are talking transcendence, as opposed to immanence:

"Now, let’s talk about quantum physics. Curiously, also in the tail end of the nineteenth century, a breed of scientists called physicists began looking into submicroscopic matter and discovering strange things about it. You could call their findings, as time went on, stranger and stranger. Eventually, in the hands of two physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger, these discoveries seemed down right mystical. These two physicists discovered a mathematical equation that governs the behavior of submicroscopic objects that could only make sense if you flatly accept that quantum objects are waves of possibility. Of course, they must become concrete objects of our experience when we observe them (the observer effect); but where do they reside before we observe them? They reside in potentia—the realm of potentiality or possibility, said Heisenberg. Where is potentia? It has to be in a world transcending space and time. Experiments after experiments supported this view of transcendent waves of possibility that become particles in space and time only upon observation. [ie; through consciousness]


But there are ways of avoiding the mystical language of transcendent-immanent duo, and physics textbooks became expert in evading the mystical aspects of quantum physics. Some people told their students, “nobody understands quantum physics,” making not understanding quantum physics a virtue so that people could move onto achieving success in using quantum physics without understanding it.
But then two things happened. So long as the ideas of transcendent potentia were just a philosophical necessity, we could ignore it by feigning practicality. But in 1982, a group of physicists under the leadership of Alain Aspect experimentally demonstrated the difference between transcendent and immanent domains. In the immanent domain, all communications and interaction between objects require signals. But in the transcendent domain, Aspect’s experiment showed communication is signal-less. The signal-less communications are called nonlocal, and their discovery threatened to change our worldview.

Physicists always associate a field with any interaction; if there is communication, there has to be an agent of communication. What should we call the agent of nonlocal communication?

The direction of the answer to this question came from consciousness research. Some physicists, I was one of them, realized that the final message of transcendence in quantum physics is consciousness. Even Heisenberg anticipated this when he said that the change that takes place when we measure (observe) a wave of potentiality changing it into a particle of actuality is really a change in our knowledge about the object. Now think! What is the agency that we know with? It is called consciousness which etymologically means “to know with.”


Amit Goswami, physicist


The Mystery of Transcendence : Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

Communication of information between two distant objects takes always a finite , bigger than zero time. Because information cannot travel faster than light.

If you could prove otherwise, you would be very famous, because you have proved that it is possible to send information in the past, which would lead to a whole series of paradoxes.

So, if you use science to prove your point, then use it consistently instead of cherry-picking only the parts you like.

Instantaneous communication of information is impossible according to quantum physics and relativity. Period.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Not in my opinion.

Think neither God, nor not-God.

Then you'll be free.