What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

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.

No You are wrong.

Subject A received stimuli to his brain via flashing lights, loud music, and electric shocks to his fingertips whose responses were recorded via EEG.

I will repeat this one more time: Subject B was TOTALLY ISOLATED from Subject A and from any of the direct stimuli which A received, as noted above. To insure signal isolation, both A and B were placed in electromagnetically shielded Faraday cages.

OK?

This was outlined in the video I provided.

In addition, in response to your protest that the experiment had nothing to do with proving non-locality, first of all, the title of the video is 'Nonlocality'. The speaker in the video states that the researcher "wanted to see if the brains had the physiological apparatus between the ears to maintain a NON-LOCAL connection. He didn't care about INFORMATION. He just wanted to prove that the brain had that ability" [ie; to maintain a non-local connection].

The only thing B's brain is connected to is a separate EEG machine which matched the EEG output patterns of A's brain !

OK?

The 'simple and obvious explanation' is not so simple and obvious.

 

[Bunyip]

godnot god

Obviously the two brains were not isolated, as demonstrated by the fact that they responded to the same stimuli.

Were they isolated they would not have responded to the same stimuli.

What you have there is a youtube video by the way, you seemt to be mistaking it for a scientific experiment.

You say that the stimuli were flashing lights, loud music and electric shocks - a faraday cage would not isolate subject B from light or sound, it is a bogus experiment.

 

[viole]

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.

All those experiment failed to prove any non-localness of any kind, even though it would be relatively easy to do. So, the claim that consciousness is non-local is without fundament.

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.

Ah, the good old conspiracy theory of science being closed against new ideas. It works with basically anything, from creationism to ESP going through UFO abductions, lol.

Of course, if that were true, we would still hold Galileo mechanics as the only viable physical theory we have.

Einstein and a few other mavericks destroyed the Newtonian paradigm which was held by basically every scientist at the beginning of 20th centuries. How did they manage that, in your opinion?

The standard scientific paradigm.

How can that be explained in the "standard" scientific paradigm?

- Sloppy experiments
- Confirmation bias
- Publishing only the hits and not the misses
- Simple fraud

These ESP things exist since centuries. But they always failed to provide any evidence. Whenever you have a professional skeptic or magician in the experiment team, the experiment fails, mysteriously and always.

I think the USA Army also tried to deployed ESP for communication and warfare, with the results you can imagine.

Therefore, I would not take them too seriously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

godnot god

Obviously the two brains were not isolated, as demonstrated by the fact that they responded to the same stimuli.

Were they isolated they would not have responded to the same stimuli.

Come now. Do you take the researchers for idiots? The stimuli were not the same. Subject A received direct stimuli as described. Subject B was physically isolated far enough away that he did not receive any of the direct stimuli that A did. Did you not listen to the lecture? B DID NOT KNOW HIS BRAIN WAS RESPONDING THE WAY IT DID!!!. He had no knowledge of any of the stimuli A was receiving, BUT HIS BRAIN DID !!! Brain B was responding, not to the actual stimuli, but to what Brain A was experiencing.

What you have there is a youtube video by the way, you seemt to be mistaking it for a scientific experiment.

Now you take ME for an idiot! The lecturer is describing a bona fide, published scientific experiment, not making one. It is an experiment that has now been successfully replicated independently around the world. Apparently, Mike Wright, the lecturer, is an instructor in QM, string theory, parallel lifetimes, dimensions, and time, according to the notes on YT.

You say that the stimuli were flashing lights, loud music and electric shocks - a faraday cage would not isolate subject B from light or sound, it is a bogus experiment.

No. Subject B was PHYSICALLY isolated so that he could not hear or see the stimuli being administered to Subject A. The Faraday cages were an added layer of isolation, not for sound or light, but for electromagnetic waves. The brain emits electromagnetic waves.

The experiment was carried out at the University of Mexico, as I recall, under controlled lab conditions. No one here is trying to make the tail wag the dog, if that is what you are implying.

You see, the problem with science, as good as it is in uncovering facts and making predictions, is that it superimposes a methodology over nature, and attempts to interpret nature in terms of its methodology. That is partly why you cannot accept the findings that seem to go against scientific reasoning. While science can tell us ABOUT how things work, it cannot tell us what the NATURE of Reality actually is. For that we need a different kind of vision, one that is beyond science, but which incorporates science as well. IOW, a vision that puts science in the correct context of Reality itself, and not the other way around, which is what science wants to do.

 

[godnotgod]

....the claim that consciousness is non-local is without fundament.

OK. I see that no matter how much evidence I produce, you are dug in. So I would like to try a different approach, if I may.

Do you think you exist as the person you refer to as "I"?

 

[viole]

OK. I see that no matter how much evidence I produce, you are dug in. So I would like to try a different approach, if I may.

You did not produce any evidence. Just some alleged transmission of consciousness or brain excitation towards a remote EEG. How that prove non-locality, even if the transmission took place?

Can you show me that this alleged transmission traveled at a higher speed than light's and is therefore not bound by time and space restrictions? Nope. So, you have not proven anything in the area of non-locality, I am afraid.

Do you think you exist as the person you refer to as "I"?

Yes, as long as the neurons of my brain are mutually closed enough to transmit electrical signals in negligible time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bunyip]

Come now. Do you take the researchers for idiots? The stimuli were not the same. Subject A received direct stimuli as described. Subject B was physically isolated far enough away that he did not receive any of the direct stimuli that A did. Did you not listen to the lecture? B DID NOT KNOW HIS BRAIN WAS RESPONDING THE WAY IT DID!!!. He had no knowledge of any of the stimuli A was receiving, BUT HIS BRAIN DID !!! Brain B was responding, not to the actual stimuli, but to what Brain A was experiencing.

I'm just looking at the data, that subject B simply recieved thebsame stimuli at the same time is the most plausible explanation, the rest is wishful thinking,

Now you take ME for an idiot!

No, I take you for a person I know to have grossly misrepresented results, you equivocate stimuli with consciousness and thought.

The lecturer is describing a bona fide, published scientific experiment, not making one. It is an experiment that has now been successfully replicated independently around the world. Apparently, Mike Wright, the lecturer, is an instructor in QM, string theory, parallel lifetimes, dimensions, and time, according to the notes on YT.

No. Subject B was PHYSICALLY isolated so that he could not hear or see the stimuli being administered to Subject A. The Faraday cages were an added layer of isolation, not for sound or light, but for electromagnetic waves. The brain emits electromagnetic waves.

The experiment was carried out at the University of Mexico, as I recall, under controlled lab conditions. No one here is trying to make the tail wag the dog, if that is what you are implying.

You see, the problem with science, as good as it is in uncovering facts and making predictions, is that it superimposes a methodology over nature, and attempts to interpret nature in terms of its methodology. That is partly why you cannot accept the findings that seem to go against scientific reasoning. While science can tell us ABOUT how things work, it cannot tell us what the NATURE of Reality actually is. For that we need a different kind of vision, one that is beyond science, but which incorporates science as well. IOW, a vision that puts science in the correct context of Reality itself, and not the other way around, which is what science wants to do.

Dude you are trying to attack science and use it to prove a claim at the same time.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, as long as the neurons of my brain are mutually closed enough to transmit electrical signals in negligible time.

So how does that phenomenon indicate the presence of something called "I", a localized being in time and space?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm just looking at the data, that subject B simply recieved thebsame stimuli at the same time is the most plausible explanation, the rest is wishful thinking,

That is not what the data says. B did not receive the same stimuli, as I explained; B was unaware of any stimuli whatsoever, but his brain responded in exactly the same manner that A's brain did, AS IF IT WERE RECEIVING THE STIMULI DIRECTLY. iT WASN'T. Why are you changing the parameters of the experiment? Your scenario is not the way it was set up.

No, I take you for a person I know to have grossly misrepresented results, you equivocate stimuli with consciousness and thought.

I keep telling you that I am aware of the difference, and you continue to go round in the same rut. Why? Don't you listen?

Dude you are trying to attack science and use it to prove a claim at the same time.

I am doing no such thing. I have given due credit to science, and have every respect for it. However, it is limited when it comes to understanding. It is about factual knowledge, which is not the same, and no, I am not using it to prove a claim. I don't need to prove anything. The researchers in this experiment have already done that, namely, non-locality, and it has been replicated by a good number of other independent researchers.

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Science is no holy cow.

 

[godnotgod]

You did not produce any evidence. Just some alleged transmission of consciousness or brain excitation towards a remote EEG. How that prove non-locality, even if the transmission took place?

There was no transmission of consciousness toward a remote EEG. The transmission was direct from B's brain to an EEG. The non-locality part comes in due to the fact that B was totally isolated from A. There was a zero connection between A & B, yet B's brain responded as if it were connected to A. The experiment thus proves non-locality. There is no question here. What is the problem? Is it that you simply cannot accept the evidence of the EEG recordings?

 

[godnotgod]

Einstein and a few other mavericks destroyed the Newtonian paradigm which was held by basically every scientist at the beginning of 20th centuries. How did they manage that, in your opinion?

Here. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD6LDUUw3HA

Emmanuel Kant told us that Reason has ineluctible limits. This is being demonstrated both on the micro and the macro levels, as this video demonstrates. Along with this development, we have new mavericks appearing on the horizon to challenge the old paradigm, just as Einstein and others did to Newtonian physics.

I love Michio Kaku's comment: 'Nature is smarter than we are'

The mystics are way ahead of the scientists, because the scientists, as clever as they are, have put the cart ahead of the horse, and the mystics know it.

 

[jimniki]

OK, let me start by asking...
Is nothing or void just the lack of matter and energy?
Does it stop "something" from occuring?

I want to get my head around whether the lack of matter/energy existed before the BB.
Some may say that its just a play on words.

Eg: does " nothing" affect anything in our universe other than to "not" get in the way of matter/energy.
I can appreciate the notion of our universe having started from a singularity without dimension and also nothing outside of it, not even void.

So if nothing didn't exist before the BB, as we extrapolated, since nothing is only the lack of matter/energy (which didn't exist), then can we assume that the created void (which obviously takes up space), was a result of the BB. So in effect space was created.

If the singularity without dimension created space, cannot we say that the universe was created from nothing? I'm cool with that...

The reason why I prefer something like this because I have a harder time trying to conceptualise consciousness before space/time...

 

[Bunyip]

That is not what the data says. B did not receive the same stimuli, as I explained; B was unaware of any stimuli whatsoever, but his brain responded in exactly the same manner that A's brain did, AS IF IT WERE RECEIVING THE STIMULI DIRECTLY. iT WASN'T. Why are you changing the parameters of the experiment? Your scenario is not the way it was set up.

Now you are just being dishonest. Clearly both brains reacted to the same stimuli at the same time.

I keep telling you that I am aware of the difference, and you continue to go round in the same rut. Why? Don't you listen?

I do listen, it is you who keeps equating one thing for another, and accusing me of dishonesty while you do it,

[quote[I am doing no such thing. I have given due credit to science, and have every respect for it. However, it is limited when it comes to understanding. It is about factual knowledge, which is not the same, and no, I am not using it to prove a claim. I don't need to prove anything. The researchers in this experiment have already done that, namely, non-locality, and it has been replicated by a good number of other independent researchers.

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Science is no holy cow.
[/quote]

Then stop trying to use it to prove your points. I notice that you do that, but I don't.

 

[godnotgod]

I have a harder time trying to conceptualise consciousness before space/time...

Consciousness is beyond time, space, and causation; beyond mind, so you cannot encapsulate it via concept.

Try thinking of the BB as an event in consciousness.

You see the hedge against the hills;
You see the hills against the sky;
But you see the sky against consciousness.

 

[`mud]

[SIZE=+1]One more time...[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Neither Jeff Rense nor Rense.com necessarily adhere to, or endorse, any or all of the links, stories, articles, editorials, or products offered by sponsors found on this site, or broadcast on the Jeff Rense radio program.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]All of the materials and data offered on this site, and on the radio program, are for informational and educational purposes only.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]And remember: it's all free to you, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Thank you for visiting.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Enjoy.[/SIZE]
~
still to find the Yutube link...could anyone re-post it ?
~
Sounds like a farce to me but I'm not very smart.....
but getting back to the "before the BB stuff"...Jimniki seems to be getting close.
~
Who created the "void" before the "nothingness" came around....
OHHHHHHHH....I guess God did it...but before that....who ?
~
Around and around and around.
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

Now you are just being dishonest. Clearly both brains reacted to the same stimuli at the same time.

Excuse me? Are you listening? Both brains cannot have reacted to the same stimuli; brain A was directly subjected to stimuli; brain B was not. BRAIN B RESPONDED TO BRAIN A, NOT TO THE STIMULI.

I do listen, it is you who keeps equating one thing for another, and accusing me of dishonesty while you do it,

You're not dishonest; you just fail to see what the case is. You're in denial.

[quote[I am doing no such thing. I have given due credit to science, and have every respect for it. However, it is limited when it comes to understanding. It is about factual knowledge, which is not the same, and no, I am not using it to prove a claim. I don't need to prove anything. The researchers in this experiment have already done that, namely, non-locality, and it has been replicated by a good number of other independent researchers.

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Science is no holy cow.
[/quote]

Then stop trying to use it to prove your points. I notice that you do that, but I don't.

I use it in order to speak the same language of the conditioned mind, which is Reason. The conditioned mind does not easily understand the language of the mystic.

But, you see, even when I do use Reason, even when I show it to you right in front of your very eyes, it is denied. That is because the conditioned mind won't allow anything outside of its conditioning, which, in this case, is science.

 

[Bunyip]

Excuse me? Are you listening? Both brains cannot have reacted to the same stimuli; brain A was directly subjected to stimuli; brain B was not. BRAIN B RESPONDED TO BRAIN A, NOT TO THE STIMULI.

THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN! You have not shown that brain B could not have simply been receiving the same stimula. You think you have, but you have not.

You're not dishonest; you just fail to see what the case is. You're in denial.

[quote[I am doing no such thing. I have given due credit to science, and have every respect for it. However, it is limited when it comes to understanding. It is about factual knowledge, which is not the same, and no, I am not using it to prove a claim. I don't need to prove anything. The researchers in this experiment have already done that, namely, non-locality, and it has been replicated by a good number of other independent researchers.

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Science is no holy cow.

I use it in order to speak the same language of the conditioned mind, which is Reason. The conditioned mind does not easily understand the language of the mystic.

But, you see, even when I do use Reason, even when I show it to you right in front of your very eyes, it is denied. That is because the conditioned mind won't allow anything outside of its conditioning, which, in this case, is science.

 

[`mud]

Some here want to compare "mysticality" with "science"....
I don't.
No Indian or shaman or smoke breathing spirit father will ever convince me of the crap that I've read here.
"Consciouness" or any other twist to the reality or the natural existance of life on this planet ever will.
But "voodoo" to you and your "spirits".....it's been fun anyway.
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

Some here want to compare "mysticality" with "science"....
I don't.
No Indian or shaman or smoke breathing spirit father will ever convince me of the crap that I've read here.
"Consciouness" or any other twist to the reality or the natural existance of life on this planet ever will.
But "voodoo" to you and your "spirits".....it's been fun anyway.
~
'mud

You're more fun than the rest.
You sound like my dearly departed grandfather.

He thought the earth was flat.

(actually, I think he was jerking me around....but made good argument)

 

[`mud]

Like a coin flipping around before it lands,
seldom does it land on it's edge,
but it could !
~
Pascal always wins
~
'mud