What came before the Big Bang?

[Bunyip]

I think it definitely is. Let's put thought aside for the moment. How can the scientifically documented transmission of stimuli from one brain to another across space be accounted for? This alone is evidence that cannot be denied.

I'm not really interested in accounting for something that is unrelated to my position. I have no idea what you believe it is even evidence for. As I have also said, your experiment is not sound and I do not see how the onservations lead to the conclusions, it is metaphysical woo.

What your experiment showed has nothong to do with thought, or with my point - which was that thought is temporal and a product of the brain.

Were stimuli come from is nothing to do with where thought comes from - the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not really interested in accounting for something that is unrelated to my position. I have no idea what you believe it is even evidence for. As I have also said, your experiment is not sound and I do not see how the onservations lead to the conclusions, it is metaphysical woo.

Maybe I missed something. Show me where the experiment is flawed, and what it is about it that you consider to be 'metaphysical woo', whatever that is.

What your experiment showed has nothong to do with thought, or with my point - which was that thought is temporal and a product of the brain.

I am suggesting that, because of the outcome of the experiment, it would lead to the question as to whether thought comes from the brain or from outside the brain. We definitely have transmission from one isolated brain to another across space.

Were stimuli come from is nothing to do with where thought comes from - the brain.

But the response from brain B may, because both are identical.

You seem to want to ignore the evidence that points to thought being non-local so that it fits the old paradigm.

 

[Bunyip]

Maybe I missed something. Show me where the experiment is flawed, and what it is about it that you consider to be 'metaphysical woo', whatever that is.

I did. To repeat - the conclusion does not follow from the premis, or from the data. It is not science, it is metaphysics.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, it does not relate to my point.

I am suggesting that, because of the outcome of the experiment, it would lead to the question as to whether thought comes from the brain or from outside the brain. We definitely have transmission from one isolated brain to another across space.

Yes, you have said that before and I have answered before,

Nothing in that experiment suggests that thought comes from outside of the brain, it is looking at stimuli, not thoughts. Showing that some input may be being transmitted from one brain to another is not at all showing that the same can haopen with thought.

In fact your experiment does not even calim to or attemot to show that thought comesfro outside of the brain. You are drawing conclusions that the experimiment you are citing does not draw - and somehow imagining that the experiment backs your claims.


[quote₩But the response from brain B may, because both are identical.

You seem to want to ignore the evidence that points to thought being non-local so that it fits the old paradigm. [/quote]

Not at all, it is just not evidence of thought, it is irrelevant.

 

[atanu]

What your experiment showed has nothong to do with thought, or with my point - which was that thought is temporal and a product of the brain.

Were stimuli come from is nothing to do with where thought comes from - the brain.

That awareness is a product of an object (that awareness is aware of) is a myth.

 

[godnotgod]

I did. To repeat - the conclusion does not follow from the premis, or from the data. It is not science, it is metaphysics.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, it does not relate to my point.



Yes, you have said that before and I have answered before,

Nothing in that experiment suggests that thought comes from outside of the brain, it is looking at stimuli, not thoughts. Showing that some input may be being transmitted from one brain to another is not at all showing that the same can haopen with thought.

In fact your experiment does not even calim to or attemot to show that thought comesfro outside of the brain. You are drawing conclusions that the experimiment you are citing does not draw - and somehow imagining that the experiment backs your claims.


[quote₩But the response from brain B may, because both are identical.

You seem to want to ignore the evidence that points to thought being non-local so that it fits the old paradigm.

Not at all, it is just not evidence of thought, it is irrelevant.[/quote]

No. It is not evidence of thought. That is not what anyone is saying. It is evidence of non-local communication from one brain to the other. This is unmistakable.

Somewhere, your brain is not making a connection here.

The significance of the experiment in terms of thought is that the response (not the stimuli, because that is what brain A was expsed to) of brain B to brain A is NON-LOCAL. There is non-local communication from one to the other. Thought is a form of communication that is processed by the brain, which suggests that thought may also be non-local.

There is no metaphysics whatsoever in the experiment, which is scientifically sound.

 

[godnotgod]

That awareness is a product of an object (that awareness is aware of) is a myth.

There are no little men inside the TV set.

 

[Bunyip]

Not at all, it is just not evidence of thought, it is irrelevant.

No. It is not evidence of thought. That is not what anyone is saying. It is evidence of non-local communication from one brain to the other. This is unmistakable.

Somewhere, your brain is not making a connection here. [/quote]

Wow. I'm not making the connection because there isn't one. I am not interested in non local communication, it is irrelevant.

The significance of the experiment in terms of thought is that the response (not the stimuli, because that is what brain A was expsed to) of brain B to brain A is NON-LOCAL. There is non-local communication from one to the other. Thought is a form of communication that is processed by the brain, which suggests that thought may also be non-local.

Only if you draw conclusions from your citation that is does not draw itself And use that citation to support claims it does not make.

There is no metaphysics whatsoever in the experiment, which is scientifically sound.

No it isnt. It also does not draw any of the conclusions you are usong it to support.

 

[godnotgod]

Wow. I'm not making the connection because there isn't one. I am not interested in non local communication, it is irrelevant.

YOU may not be interested simply because you choose to ignore the very strong possibility of a connection, but many others are keenly interested in the idea that thought does NOT originate in the brain, as we commonly think, and that, in fact, it originates non-locally, in the exact same manner which the results of the experiment demonstrated.

Any good science, when making a new discovery, is prompted to look further than merely what the immediate evidence suggests.

 

[Bunyip]

YOU may not be interested simply because you choose to ignore the very strong possibility of a connection, but many others are keenly interested in the idea that thought does NOT originate in the brain, as we commonly think, and that, in fact, it originates non-locally, in the exact same manner which the results of the experiment demonstrated.

Any good science, when making a new discovery, is prompted to look further than merely what the immediate evidence suggests.

Your experiment is not even about thought, it does not even relate to trying to demonstrate that thought does not originate from the brain.

That experiment is about non locality, it does not even discuss the possibility you imagine it to support.

 

[godnotgod]

I did. To repeat - the conclusion does not follow from the premis, or from the data. It is not science, it is metaphysics.

The experiment set out to find out if there was non-local communication between two isolated brains across space. It proved that. Period. That is not metaphysics or woo; it is science. It is also science to look further to see if THOUGHT may be non-local as well, since thought, like the stimuli/response of the experiement, is also communication processed by the brain. If that can be shown to be true somehow, it is right down the line of scientific thinking, which attempts also to disprove a theory, which in this case, is that thought originates in the brain.

 

[Bunyip]

The experiment set out to find out if there was non-local communication between two isolated brains across space. It proved that. Period. That is not metaphysics or woo; it is science. It is also science to look further to see if THOUGHT may be non-local as well, since thought, like the stimuli/response of the experiement, is also communication processed by the brain. If that can be shown to be true somehow, it is right down the line of scientific thinking, which attempts also to disprove a theory, which in this case, is that thought originates in the brain.

Nothing in that experiment is even exploring whether or not thought comes from outside of the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing in that experiment is even exploring whether or not thought comes from outside of the brain.

I never said that it did. In fact, the experimenters deliberately eliminated that from the experiment, as you may recall from the video. All they were interested in was whether brain A could communicate non-locally with brain B. Now, having said that, another way of putting this is to say that if the brain can process information non-locally, then non-locality is one of the brain's traits. Non-locality is how the brain functions, and if that is how it functions, then it may also process thoughts from a non-local source, instead of being the source of thought itself. IOW, even though the experiment was not about thought directly, it implicated that thought is a non-local phenomena.

Just because a TV processes TV signals does not mean it is the source of TV signals, even though, when probed, we can detect and see the processed signals as images on the screen. Non-locality is characteristic of how a TV set functions. That's easy. What makes it difficult for the human being, is that there is an added layer, called "I", or the self, which gets in the way, and calls itself the agent of thought to which it has attached itself (ie 'MY thoughts). But this "I" which is also called 'mind', is an illusion; a self-created principle that only SEEMS real.

 

[Bunyip]

I never said that it did. In fact, the experimenters deliberately eliminated that from the experiment, as you may recall from the video. All they were interested in whether brain A could communicate non-locally with brain B. Now, having said that, another way of putting this is to say that if the brain can process information non-locally, then non-locality is one of the brain's traits. Non-locality is how the brain functions, and if that is how it functions, then it may also process thoughts from a non-local source. IOW, even though the experiment was not about thought directly, it implicated that thought is a non-local phenomena.

Only according to you. It does not implicate that thought is non local, it makes no such claims and does not attempt to demonstrate that claim.

You believe that it implys something that it does not imply.

You are claiming an implication of yours as having been scientifically established by an experiment that makes no such claims.

 

[godnotgod]

Only according to you. It does not implicate that thought is non local, it makes no such claims and does not attempt to demonstrate that claim.

You believe that it implys something that it does not imply.

You are claiming an implication of yours as having been scientifically established by an experiment that makes no such claims.

It establishes the brain as capable of processing non-local information. Thought is information. So the experiment points to thought as possibly also being non-local. I think that is obvious, though it is not expressed. In fact, the brain may not only be capable of non-local processing, but that may be just the way it functions period, excluding the fact that it stores data as memory to compare to future input.

If you listen to the very end of the video, the speaker points out 'the staggering IMPLICATIONS of this experiment'.

Hmmmm.....now let us use our brains....what might THAT mean...? dot A connects to dot B and then to dot C....and.....OMG!

 

[viole]

So, returning to the brain experiment, in which subject A and subject B's brains were conditioned and then separated, can we not predict that whatever response you elicit from A's brain will result in the same response in B's brain? Because that is exactly what occurred.

Well this is transmission of not random bits of information, isn't it? Namely, it is positive information like "is A listening to loud music?" that can be answered by B' brain scan.

Therefore, the current laws of physics forbid instantaneous communication of this information via entanglement, or whatever else.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bunyip]

It establishes the brain as capable of processing non-local information. Thought is information.

Sure, but clearly a different form of information. Lots of things are information, that does not mean that they all are transmitted the same way.

That is like saying that it grows wood, and books are made from wood - so it proves that you can grow books.

So the experiment points to thought as possibly also being non-local.

No it does not. It claims to point towards some form of brain stimuli being transmitted non locally.

I think that is obvious, though it is not expressed. In fact, the brain may not only be capable of non-local processing, but that may be just the way it functions period, excluding the fact that it stores data as memory to compare to future input.

If you listen to the very end of the video, the speaker points out 'the staggering IMPLICATIONS of this experiment'.

Hmmmm.....now let us use our brains....what might THAT mean...? dot A connects to dot B and then to dot C....and.....OMG!

Hmm, if you want to be that way.

More like......let us use our brains...dot 'A' connects to line '12' and then obviously to tab 'Em'....which connects to Kevin bacon...therefore Umbrella!

 

[godnotgod]

No it does not. It claims to point towards some form of brain stimuli being transmitted non locally.

But you don't accept that it is actually transmitted non-locally, correct?

 

[godnotgod]

Well this is transmission of not random bits of information, isn't it? Namely, it is positive information like "is A listening to loud music?" that can be answered by B' brain scan.

Therefore, the current laws of physics forbid instantaneous communication of this information via entanglement, or whatever else.

Ciao

- viole

And yet, brain B responds isolated from, and synchronistically and identically with brain A. If that is not instantaneous, non-local communication, what is it?

 

[viole]

And yet, brain B responds isolated from, and synchronistically and identically with brain A. If that is not instantaneous, non-local communication, what is it?

How do you know that the two brains are synchronistically identical?
Do you think they performed measurements of the speed of the interaction (if any) that proves that it occurred instantaneously?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bunyip]

But you don't accept that it is actually transmitted non-locally, correct?

Thinking is how we process information, not information in itself.

Thought is not information, it is how the brain processes information.

And no I do not accept that the exleriment demonstrated any such thing.