What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

Locality cannot be dismissed.

I am here.....you are there.

 

[godnotgod]

Locality cannot be dismissed.

I am here.....you are there.

Your 'here' is my 'there, and my 'here', your 'there', but neither can be known as such without their background that is 'no-where'. figure and ground merge into one.

 

[Thief]

Your 'here' is my 'there, and my 'here', your 'there', but neither can be known as such without their background that is 'no-where'. figure and ground merge into one.

And 'you' shall.
Dust to dust.

But 'I' believe 'I' am spirit.
This life is linear and temporary.

 

[viole]

While I appreciate your explanation re: the difference between thought and information, the fact is that thought cannot occur without information. The key here is consciousness, applied to information for processing. That is thought. And it is focused consciousness, via meditation, that causes the cessation of thought.

You keep wanting to put words in my mouth. The experiment never claimed to demonstrate a source of thought outside the brain. It set out to see if the brain was capable of signal-less transmission/reception, and that consciousness is non-local.

Otherwise, how do you explain isolated brain B's instantaneous and identical response?

So if consciousness is non-local, and consciousness is the key to thought, then we may be led to the idea that thought (the active part of information processing) comes from outside the brain.

As I tried to explain earlier, we have no trouble seeing this in a TV set, but where the human being is concerned, the added layer of an "I" complicates things, since "I" is seen as the localized active agent in all activity, and where "I" essentially equates with 'mind', a product of the brain. At least that is the current 'scientific' idea known as 'emergent theory', but as explained earlier, is nothing more than a hypothesis.

When we look at how the human being functions within his field or environment, we find that he is totally sustained by it 100%. There is nothing he can do without it. Why should consciousness/thought be any different?

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but big words like non-locality, quantum entanglement and holography here seem to serve the only purpose of impressing the credulous. I am just trying to put some structure to evaluate whether they are applicable.

First of all, the experiment, if valid, effectively transmits classic information between A and B. One bit of information: A's brain excited/beep on B' EEG = 1,
A's brain not excited/no beep on B' EEG = 0.

I could transmit the whole work of Shakespeare by coding any letter of text in bits and sending them over by exciting A's brain accordingly and listening to B's EEG beeps. I could use different instances of paired As and Bs to send whole packets of bits in no time (literally) if I want.

If this is not not-local information transmission: what is it?

And since it is not-local information transmission, QM (and relativity) must be wrong and cannot be used to justify the results.

Second: that this alleged transmission is simultaneous is only in the minds of the experimenters. maybe I should meditate with them to see it as well

Where are the high precision clocks? Where are the interferometers? Where are the diagrams that show that the coupled events did not take any time to be registered?

There is nothing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but big words like non-locality, quantum entanglement and holography here seem to serve the only purpose of impressing the credulous. I am just trying to put some structure to evaluate whether they are applicable.

First of all, the experiment, if valid, effectively transmits classic information between A and B. One bit of information: A's brain excited/beep on B' EEG = 1,
A's brain not excited/no beep on B' EEG = 0.

I could transmit the whole work of Shakespeare by coding any letter of text in bits and sending them over by exciting A's brain accordingly and listening to B's EEG beeps. I could use different instances of paired As and Bs to send whole packets of bits in to time (literally) if I want.

If this is not not-local information transmission: what is it?

And since it is not-local information transmission, QM (and relativity) must be wrong and cannot be used to justify the results.

Second: that this transmission is simultaneous is only in the minds of the experimenters. maybe I should meditate with them to see it as well

Where are the high precision clocks? Where are the interferometers? Where are the diagrams that show that the coupled events did not take any time to be registered?

There is nothing.

Ciao

- viole

Not sure....have to ask....
You readily verse your belief of communication beyond the spoken and the written?
While at the same time you have a stance of 'atheist'?

 

[viole]

Not sure....have to ask....
You readily verse your belief of communication beyond the spoken and the written?
While at the same time you have a stance of 'atheist'?

Yeap.

Information is physical. It has the same dimensions of entropy, therefore is could be measured in mass divided by temperature.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

Actually, it is the separated pair that instantly knows of the state of the other. How physicists are explaining this from within the paradigm of 'travel of information at speeds lesser than speed of light'?

Let us get back to noncontroversial arena. I am still waiting for a response to above post.

 

[Thief]

Yeap.

Information is physical. It has the same dimensions of entropy, therefore is could be measured in mass divided by temperature.

Ciao

- viole

So then this convention of written and spoken word is temporary?
and you anticipate communication to step up to telepathy?

 

[atanu]

So then this convention of written and spoken word is temporary?
and you anticipate communication to step up to telepathy?

Excelent point, Thief.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but big words like non-locality, quantum entanglement and holography here seem to serve the only purpose of impressing the credulous. I am just trying to put some structure to evaluate whether they are applicable.

First of all, the experiment, if valid, effectively transmits classic information between A and B. One bit of information: A's brain excited/beep on B' EEG = 1,
A's brain not excited/no beep on B' EEG = 0.

I could transmit the whole work of Shakespeare by coding any letter of text in bits and sending them over by exciting A's brain accordingly and listening to B's EEG beeps. I could use different instances of paired As and Bs to send whole packets of bits in no time (literally) if I want.

If this is not not-local information transmission: what is it?

And since it is not-local information transmission, QM (and relativity) must be wrong and cannot be used to justify the results.

Second: that this alleged transmission is simultaneous is only in the minds of the experimenters. maybe I should meditate with them to see it as well

Where are the high precision clocks? Where are the interferometers? Where are the diagrams that show that the coupled events did not take any time to be registered?

There is nothing.

Ciao

- viole

Instantaneous receptivity is a secondary point. The synched EEG's are probably not accurate enough to determine absolute synchronicity, but without the actual experiment to examine, we don't know.

The real point here is that brain B registered a response that matched brain A's input, when both brains were isolated one from the other. That alone is remarkable, in terms of the standard view. How can this be explained in terms of that view?

Not clear on your use of the phrase 'not-local': did you mean 'non-local'?

 

[viole]

So then this convention of written and spoken word is temporary?
and you anticipate communication to step up to telepathy?

Let me put it this way.

If telepathy was real, I would be able to understand what you are trying to ask me without trying to decipher it.

But it isn't. So, I am not

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Instantaneous receptivity is a secondary point. The synched EEG's are probably not accurate enough to determine absolute synchronicity, but without the actual experiment to examine, we don't know.

Then QM and quantum entanglement should not be mentioned to make a point that has no empirical evidence and would be self defeating anyway.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, of course.

The real point here is that brain B registered a response that matched brain A's input, when both brains were isolated one from the other. That alone is remarkable, in terms of the standard view. How can this be explained in terms of that view?

What view?

Not clear on your use of the phrase 'not-local': did you mean 'non-local'?

Yes, sorry. My useless English, I guess

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Let me put it this way.

If telepathy was real, I would be able to understand what you are trying to ask me without trying to decipher it.

But it isn't. So, I am not

Ciao

- viole

Dead men don't read or write.

If life goes on....
Heaven will be able to see how we think and feel....the moment we stand from the dust.

 

[godnotgod]

Let me put it this way.

If telepathy was real, I would be able to understand what you are trying to ask me without trying to decipher it.

But it isn't. So, I am not

Ciao

- viole

Maybe because you're not tuned in, and you've got the conditioned mind in the way.

 

[godnotgod]

Then QM and quantum entanglement should not be mentioned to make a point that has no empirical evidence and would be self defeating anyway.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, of course.

I don't think those have anything to do with the experiments themselves, but clearly something like entanglement is going on, and should be further investigated. You seem to think such investigators are the laughing stock of the *cough* 'scientific' community, but there are a good number of bona fide researchers seriously pursuing this line of questioning, notaries such as Sir Roger Penrose, Amit Goswami, Stuart Hameroff, Deepak Chopra, and many, many others.

Mavericks have always been put down throughout history. Once a paradigm has been established, it offers security and 'authority' that stomps on anything that comes along to challenge it.

What view?

The standard scientific paradigm.

 

[Bunyip]

While I appreciate your explanation re: the difference between thought and information, the fact is that thought cannot occur without information. The key here is consciousness, applied to information for processing. That is thought. And it is focused consciousness, via meditation, that causes the cessation of thought.

Lovely idea, but how is it relevant? You are just changing the subject.

You keep wanting to put words in my mouth. The experiment never claimed to demonstrate a source of thought outside the brain. It set out to see if the brain was capable of signal-less transmission/reception, and that consciousness is non-local.

Otherwise, how do you explain isolated brain B's instantaneous and identical response?

Well I explain it the way any scientist reading that experiment would explain it - a reaction from both brains at the same time is evidence that both are reacting to the same stimuli, not that one is comunicating to the other instantaneously.

So if consciousness is non-local, and consciousness is the key to thought, then we may be led to the idea that thought (the active part of information processing) comes from outside the brain.

Wow, you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, but keep deliberately misrepresenting the experiment. The experiment did not show consciousness to be non local.

As I tried to explain earlier, we have no trouble seeing this in a TV set, but where the human being is concerned, the added layer of an "I" complicates things, since "I" is seen as the localized active agent in all activity, and where "I" essentially equates with 'mind', a product of the brain. At least that is the current 'scientific' idea known as 'emergent theory', but as explained earlier, is nothing more than a hypothesis.

When we look at how the human being functions within his field or environment, we find that he is totally sustained by it 100%. There is nothing he can do without it. Why should consciousness/thought be any different?

I see no reason or logic for you to draw any of those conclusions.

 

[godnotgod]

Lovely idea, but how is it relevant? You are just changing the subject.

Haven't moved an inch. It's relevant because consciousness is non-local.

Well I explain it the way any scientist reading that experiment would explain it - a reaction from both brains at the same time is evidence that both are reacting to the same stimuli, not that one is comunicating to the other instantaneously.

Excuse me. I think you're not listening: How can both brains react to the same stimuli when they are totally isolated from one another. The stimulus that brain A receives is also not connected to brain B. So how is brain B able to respond to a stimulus that it is not connected to in any way, shape, or form?

Wow, you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, but keep deliberately misrepresenting the experiment. The experiment did not show consciousness to be non local.

Yes, it did. Otherwise, where did the stimulus come from for brain B's response?

 

[Bunyip]

Haven't moved an inch. It's relevant because consciousness is non-local.

So you claim, but that is not what the experiment you are using as support was even testing for. Your claim that conscioisness is non local is not even what is being tested in that experiment.

Excuse me. I think you're not listening: How can both brains react to the same stimuli when they are totally isolated from one another. The stimulus that brain A receives is also not connected to brain B. So how is brain B able to respond to a stimulus that it is not connected to in any way, shape, or form?

Well that is simple, they were isolated from each other, but not the source of the stimuli.

Yes, it did. Otherwise, where did the stimulus come from for brain B's response?

What? You mean this 'stimulus' you claim in one breath to be thought, in another information and in another consciousness? You mean this stimulus you feel free to identify as whatever suits your position at the time? Where did it come from? Well from the same source as the stimulus recieved by A.

The experiment shows two brains reacting to the same stimulus, it does not show that thought is external to the brain, or that two brains can communicate non locally, or that consciousness is external to the brain. It shows that two brains can react to the same stimuli.

 

[godnotgod]

Well that is simple, they were isolated from each other, but not the source of the stimuli.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until we can address the above issue, and that is that:

Both subjects were isolated from each other.

Subject A was directly connected to the simulus, but Subject B was NOT.

Whenever brain A received a stimulus, brain B also registered the same response instantaneously.

Subject B was not connected to either Subject A nor directly to any stimulus source in any way.

Get it?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until we can address the above issue, and that is that:

Both subjects were isolated from each other.

Subject A was directly connected to the simulus, but Subject B was NOT.

Whenever brain A received a stimulus, brain B also registered the same response instantaneously.

Subject B was not connected to either Subject A nor directly to any stimulus source in any way.

Get it?

Before I respond, let's make it clear what we are discussing.

You are asking me about a stimulus - NOT thought, NOT information, NOT consciousness, correct? Yes or no?

Lets just clear up the constant equivocations between those four different things.

The simple and obvious explanation (and what the results demonstrate) is that subject B was clearly NOT isolated from the stimulus. If you factor that in, the results are perfectly cohesive with physics.