What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

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

With a pinch and a snap it spins on edge pretty good, too!

 

[viole]

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

Nobody knows. Including you

But there are ideas, that do not involve cosmic consciousness or similar things.
A good entry point is "The Mind's I" from Dennett and Hofstaetter.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

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.

No questions. Just a statement: it doesn't.

Even assuming the absurdity of thought transfer, you failed to prove non-locality. i can think of several things that can go through a Faraday cage. All non electrical particles for instance.

What about neutrinos. They will go through a Faraday cage as it did not exist. Someone should inform the mystics about this fact, lol.

Or maybe a new undiscovered field that interferes positively with brains waves (chuckle), whose particles are able to cross Faraday cages like neutrinos, but still travel at finite speed and are, therefore, local.

Who knows? There is only one way for you to prove non-locality: measure it with clocks or interferometers. All those experiments failed to do that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

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.

I have not shown it; the experiment has not shown it, because that is not what occurred. Use your head: why would researchers set up the experiment that way when it makes zero sense in light of their intention to find out if the brain is capable of maintaining a non-local connection?

(Of course, judging from your responses thus far, I really can't expect you to have the ability to connect dot A to dot B yet.)

One more time, with feeling: A AND B WERE TOTALLY ISOLATED ONE FROM THE OTHER! THERE IS NO WAY B COULD HAVE DIRECTLY RECEIVED THE SAME STIMULI THAT A DID.

You continue to use classical logic in order to determine what reality is. It doesn't work that way, though you have been conditioned to think that it must.

This conversation is over until you can provide an answer to the question without manipulating the protocol of the experiment to suit your model of reality.

 

[godnotgod]

No questions. Just a statement: it doesn't.

Even assuming the absurdity of thought transfer, you failed to prove non-locality. i can think of several things that can go through a Faraday cage. All non electrical particles for instance.

What about neutrinos. They will go through a Faraday cage as it did not exist. Someone should inform the mystics about this fact, lol.

Or maybe a new undiscovered field that interferes positively with brains waves (chuckle), whose particles are able to cross Faraday cages like neutrinos, but still travel at finite speed and are, therefore, local.

Who knows? There is only one way for you to prove non-locality: measure it with clocks or interferometers. All those experiments failed to do that.

Ciao

- viole

So then how do you explain the control groups, who did not condition themselves via meditation, and which did not have the same results?

Hey! I know! It vas der Invisible Pink Unicorninos, ya? She shows up clearly in the EEG readings. Duh!

Viole, there could be an experiment set up with atomic clocks and you will still call it crap.

Your suggestion that something could have escaped the Faraday cages still tells us that there is some form of telepathy. Are you then allowing brain to brain communication? That's not very 'scientific', is it?

So what about my question re: your brain synapses and "I"?

 

[godnotgod]

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.
~
'mud

"the natural existance [sic] of life" tells us nothing.

mud, don't you find it just a bit odd that you are even here, now? hmmm?

 

[godnotgod]

With a pinch and a snap it spins on edge pretty good, too!

Of course! It's doing its best to stand up from the dust!:biglaugh:

 

[jimniki]

Another thing my little mind cannot comprehend is that, can it be possible in another universe or pre BB, that our theory of the periodic table is null and void. Can another physical universe exist without electrons, neutrons, protons, etc

 

[godnotgod]

Another thing my little mind cannot comprehend is that, can it be possible in another universe or pre BB, that our theory of the periodic table is null and void. Can another physical universe exist without electrons, neutrons, protons, etc

There is no 'physical universe'. That is just a concept. All 'matter' is just energy slowed down to be perceptible to the senses. What we call 'reality' is a field of possibilities, as suggested by Quantum Physics.

 

[godnotgod]

Nobody knows. Including you

My initial question was:

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

and you replied with:

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

So you see yourself as "I", a localized self, correct?

 

[jimniki]

Good point...

Is there any chance that energies could slow down differently and create different manifestations.
Eg, we can create unstable heavy elements, could these heavy elements be stable in another universe without trying to breakdown.

 

[godnotgod]

Good point...

Is there any chance that energies could slow down differently and create different manifestations.
Eg, we can create unstable heavy elements, could these heavy elements be stable in another universe without trying to breakdown.

Think about it this way: the way it is now? This IS the different manifestation. This IS the new.

 

[Bunyip]

I have not shown it; the experiment has not shown it, because that is not what occurred. Use your head: why would researchers set up the experiment that way when it makes zero sense in light of their intention to find out if the brain is capable of maintaining a non-local connection?

Why would they do it? Well probabky because they either fail to grasp some very basic science, or are dishonest. Faraday cages do not isolate from all stimuli, subject B clearly just reacted to the same stimuli.

(Of course, judging from your responses thus far, I really can't expect you to have the ability to connect dot A to dot B yet.)

That is because the 'dots' here simply do not connect.

One more time, with feeling: A AND B WERE TOTALLY ISOLATED ONE FROM THE OTHER! THERE IS NO WAY B COULD HAVE DIRECTLY RECEIVED THE SAME STIMULI THAT A DID.

But it DID. It demonstrably did react to the same stimuli.

You continue to use classical logic in order to determine what reality is. It doesn't work that way, though you have been conditioned to think that it must.

Fine, but you are not using any logic. Classical logic may have its limitations, but it beats no logic hands down.

This conversation is over until you can provide an answer to the question without manipulating the protocol of the experiment to suit your model of reality.

I did provide the answer - there are two possible explanations of the results:

1. Subject B simply was clearly not isolated from the stimuli, as evidenced and demonstrated by the fact that it reacted to it.
2. Physicists are all wrong, and your woo woo youtube scientists have utterly destroyed modern scientific wisdom with a single brilliant experiment - and they are just far too humble to publish formally and claim their Nobel prize.

I would think that the odds of 1. being correct are almost 100%.

 

[jimniki]

Your are saying this "IS" the manifestation.
Did you mean this is "A" manifestation.

 

[Thief]

Of course! It's doing its best to stand up from the dust!:biglaugh:

As always.....wrong twist where the snap should have been....big laugh!

 

[godnotgod]

Your are saying this "IS" the manifestation.
Did you mean this is "A" manifestation.

It IS the manifestation you are asking about, and it is also A manifestation.

 

[godnotgod]

Why would they do it? Well probabky because they either fail to grasp some very basic science, or are dishonest. Faraday cages do not isolate from all stimuli, subject B clearly just reacted to the same stimuli.

Faraday cages shield against electromagnetic waves. The brain elicits weak EW's. It was just an added precaution.

Brain A was connected to an EEG machine directly, and directly subjected to loud music, electric shock to the fingertips, and pulsing lights. Brain B was connected to a separate EEG machine, and was NOT subjected to any stimuli whatsoever. No music, no shocks, no lights, and far enough away from Subject A that he could not detect the stimuli being adminstered to A. IOW, Subject B was isolated from A. There is no way B could have consciously detected the stimuli to which A was subjected. BUT B'S BRAIN RESPONDED IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS DID A'S BRAIN, WITHOUT SUBJECT B KNOWING IT WAS DOING SO.

So no: Subject B could not have reacted to the same stimuli as did Subject A. B did not hear, see, or feel any stimuli whatsoever.

Do you understand now?

(Probably not)

That is because the 'dots' here simply do not connect.

Because you fail to see the connection, or rather, the fact that there was no connection between A and B.

But it DID. It demonstrably did react to the same stimuli.

Really? Subject B was subjected to the same stimuli as was Subject A? Where?

Fine, but you are not using any logic. Classical logic may have its limitations, but it beats no logic hands down.

Does it? Try applying classical logic to Quantum Mechanics.

I did provide the answer - there are two possible explanations of the results:

1. Subject B simply was clearly not isolated from the stimuli, as evidenced and demonstrated by the fact that it reacted to it.
2. Physicists are all wrong, and your woo woo youtube scientists have utterly destroyed modern scientific wisdom with a single brilliant experiment - and they are just far too humble to publish formally and claim their Nobel prize.

I would think that the odds of 1. being correct are almost 100%.

Both of which are idiotic extreme views that have zilch to do with reality.

 

[Bunyip]

Faraday cages shield against electromagnetic waves. The brain elicits weak EW's. It was just an added precaution.

Brain A was connected to an EEG machine directly, and directly subjected to loud music, electric shock to the fingertips, and pulsing lights. Brain B was connected to a separate EEG machine, and was NOT subjected to any stimuli whatsoever. No music, no shocks, no lights, and far enough away from Subject A that he could not detect the stimuli being adminstered to A. IOW, Subject B was isolated from A. There is no way B could have consciously detected the stimuli to which A was subjected. BUT B'S BRAIN RESPONDED IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS DID A'S BRAIN, WITHOUT SUBJECT B KNOWING IT WAS DOING SO.

The simple explanation is still that they simply did not insulate subject B properly. And of course the evidence still clearly demonstrates that to be the case.

So no: Subject B could not have reacted to the same stimuli as did Subject A. B did not hear, see, or feel any stimuli whatsoever.

Do you understand now?

(Probably not)

Endlessly repeating the same silly misconception acheives nothing, both subjects reacted to the same stimula.

Because you fail to see the connection, or rather, the fact that there was no connection between A and B.




Really? Subject B was subjected to the same stimuli as was Subject A? Where?




Does it? Try applying classical logic to Quantum Mechanics.





Both of which are idiotic extreme views that have zilch to do with reality.

Nope, view 1. is perfectly plausible, is supported by the evidence and is almost guaranteed to be the case. There is nothing extreme about assuming your youtube pseudo scientists failed to isolate subject B properly. Especially given the gross dishonesty of many of their claims and inferences, the likelyhood that their methodology is as bankrupt as their honesty is very high.

 

[godnotgod]

The simple explanation is still that they simply did not insulate subject B properly. And of course the evidence still clearly demonstrates that to be the case.

You're saying that the researchers did not know that Subject B could hear the loud music, see the flashing lights, and feel the electric shocks to Subject A's fingers, right? If they did not know (ie; sloppy setup) that seems to contradict what you are saying about they're being frauds. As frauds, they would have known the setup was bogus.

Endlessly repeating the same silly misconception acheives nothing, both subjects reacted to the same stimula.

See above

Nope, view 1. is perfectly plausible, is supported by the evidence and is almost guaranteed to be the case. There is nothing extreme about assuming your youtube pseudo scientists failed to isolate subject B properly. Especially given the gross dishonesty of many of their claims and inferences, the likelyhood that their methodology is as bankrupt as their honesty is very high.[/quote]

So the researchers knowingly set up a fraudulent experiment in the name of science and published fake results in peer reviewed journals, correct? And that the several follow up experiments executed to verify the first were also fraudulent, correct? What's going on here? Are the hallowed halls of science being infiltrated by a secret woo woo revolutionary group? To what end?

I think your 'logic' is beginning to show signs of crumbling, don'cha think?

 

[godnotgod]

Nobody knows. Including you

No, Viole. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, but whether I know or not is not the issue. I want to know how YOU know the "I" is real.

But there are ideas, that do not involve cosmic consciousness or similar things.
A good entry point is "The Mind's I" from Dennett and Hofstaetter.

Cosmic consciousness? We're still dealing with simple egoic consciousness. I am not interested in what others think; I want to know how YOU know the "I" exists. You said that your neurons firing were evidence of such. What do they have to do with it? Are you referring to 'emergent theory'?