|
Post by phludowin on Nov 10, 2018 21:51:27 GMT
This "mind over matter" stuff sounds like new-agey mumbo-jumbo to me. And constantly pretending that it's ignored in the scientific community because of "groupthink" is not helping either. But there's a way for Rich Haas to prove he's not just a snake oil vendor. All he needs to do is take on the following challenge: Ask someone to cut off his (Rich Haas's) arm, and then grow his arm back through mind power. Or maybe find another human person who can grow a limb back with mind power. Unless he does it, I will continue to consider his writings new-agey mumbo-jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 0:19:25 GMT
Do you actually know what energy is? How does the amorphous 'soul' have 'energy'? T o what is it causing motion or interaction of which molecules, in what?Consciousness which survives bodily death doesn't need molecules, twit. What is it then?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 11, 2018 4:05:18 GMT
Stupid poster invites ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 15:00:00 GMT
Consciousness which survives bodily death doesn't need molecules, twit. What is it then? I don't understand the question. You think energy is only in the body?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 15:00:34 GMT
Stupid poster invites ridicule. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 11, 2018 15:02:49 GMT
Stupid poster invites ridicule. Do you? Well, if not believing silly things makes me stupid, then yes. 👍
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 11, 2018 15:03:14 GMT
I don't understand the question. You think energy is only in the body? Energy requires particles to carry it, shit for brains. What particles carry consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 15:05:00 GMT
I don't understand the question. You think energy is only in the body? Energy requires particles to carry it, shit for brains. What particles carry consciousness? Ever hear of string theory, jackass? Well, today's theories are tomorrow's science.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 11, 2018 15:11:35 GMT
Democritus never experienced atoms, but was able to create atomic theory. You don't have to have had direct physical experience of anything to be able to study it. That's a bit like saying a surgeon can't preform heart transplant surgery unless he's had a transplant himself. Your ignorance, sad to say, isn't unique to you, but I do confess you're one of the most voluble about publicly declaring it that I've ever experienced Maybe that knowledge came to him from his mind. As miraculous as the brain is, it has its limitations, as you and goz have exemplified. The brain doesn't have the circuitry to withstand knowing all there is to know, that would be circuit overload. It's limited to the five senses. If we were all essentially organic robots as you and goz believe, we would have no free will. We would have all the same like, dislikes, abilities, etc. Btw, consciousness and energy are two different things. Change my mind. Thanks for just completely contradicting everything you've been saying up until now. When you've decided to stick with which opinion you're going to take on this topic, drop everyone here a note and let us know; then try sticking to it. Until then, I don't see much use in attempting to 'change your mind' as you don't seem to have a mind, in terms of fixed viewpoint on this, to change. You'll take a certain line until you see that most others are going against it, and you're not holding your own too well: once that happens, you'll try to change horses in mid-stream, claiming to be expressing the view that most of the others here have been taking on the subject all along, and trying to challenge them to prove that the line you've now chosen to adopt (their line all along) is the correct one! This might be an okay gambit, if a cheating one, for you to try if you had the intelligence to pull it off; but since you don't, in all honesty, the attempt not only makes you look stupid, but a little bit disturbed as well. BTW, since you can't offer a satisfactory definition of either 'consciousness' or 'energy' (at any rate, you haven't done so on this thread), why would I bother? You'd simply make up new definitions to suit yourself each time.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 11, 2018 15:22:50 GMT
I don't understand the question. You think energy is only in the body? Energy requires particles to carry it, shit for brains. What particles carry consciousness? There is "no evidence" of psychic phenomena as far as most people are concerned. Many people are very open to the possibility of psychic phenomena yet they still haven't witnessed any first hand (I'm one of those). Still there are those rare people who might well have very good evidence of it. What "particles" might be involved in it could be beyond the range and scope of present science.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 11, 2018 15:40:03 GMT
Ever hear of string theory, jackass? Well, today's theories are tomorrow's science. Yes. Like anything else of a scientific nature, I've forgotten more about it than you ever bothered to learn. For instance, did you know that there is no experimental evidence for string theory? Of course you didn't
What you also don't know is that for this very reason, string theory is starting to lose favor in the scientific community and now looks more and more like a lost cause that will go down in history with the likes of epicycles and phlogiston as a model that looked promising at first and then was abandoned. (And don't even try to pretend you know what epicycles or phlogiston are.)
Nevertheless, the fact still remains that there is no such thing as energy without a particle to carry it. So what is the particle of consciousness, shit for brains?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 15:40:12 GMT
Maybe that knowledge came to him from his mind. As miraculous as the brain is, it has its limitations, as you and goz have exemplified. The brain doesn't have the circuitry to withstand knowing all there is to know, that would be circuit overload. It's limited to the five senses. If we were all essentially organic robots as you and goz believe, we would have no free will. We would have all the same like, dislikes, abilities, etc. Btw, consciousness and energy are two different things. Change my mind. Thanks for just completely contradicting everything you've been saying up until now. When you've decided to stick with which opinion you're going to take on this topic, drop everyone here a note and let us know; then try sticking to it. Until then, I don't see much use in attempting to 'change your mind' as you don't seem to have a mind, in terms of fixed viewpoint on this, to change. You'll take a certain line until you see that most others are going against it, and you're not holding your own too well: once that happens, you'll try to change horses in mid-stream, claiming to be expressing the view that most of the others here have been taking on the subject all along, and trying to challenge them to prove that the line you've now chosen to adopt (their line all along) is the correct one! This might be an okay gambit, if a cheating one, for you to try if you had the intelligence to pull it off; but since you don't, in all honesty, the attempt not only makes you look stupid, but a little bit disturbed as well. BTW, since you can't offer a satisfactory definition of either 'consciousness' or 'energy' (at any rate, you haven't done so on this thread), why would I bother? You'd simply make up new definitions to suit yourself each time. Basically, you and that other ignoramus, @faustus, believe that every aspect of the non-physical, ie, thoughts, ESP, precognition, NDEs, etc., are all due to chemicals in the brain. I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 15:42:41 GMT
Ever hear of string theory, jackass? Well, today's theories are tomorrow's science. Yes. Like anything else of a scientific nature, I've forgotten more about it than you ever bothered to learn. For instance, did you know that there is no experimental evidence for string theory? Of course you didn't
What you also don't know is that for this very reason, string theory is starting to lose favor in the scientific community and now looks more and more like a lost cause that will go down in history with the likes of epicycles and phlogiston as a model that looked promising at first and then was abandoned. (And don't even try to pretend you know what epicycles or phlogiston are.)
Nevertheless, the fact still remains that there is no such thing as energy without a particle to carry it. So what is the particle of consciousness, shit for brains?
Yes, I'm well aware that string theory is losing favor and being replaced with another theory, which goes to show your ignorant ass how science continues to make discoveries.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 11, 2018 18:38:04 GMT
Thanks for just completely contradicting everything you've been saying up until now. When you've decided to stick with which opinion you're going to take on this topic, drop everyone here a note and let us know; then try sticking to it. Until then, I don't see much use in attempting to 'change your mind' as you don't seem to have a mind, in terms of fixed viewpoint on this, to change. You'll take a certain line until you see that most others are going against it, and you're not holding your own too well: once that happens, you'll try to change horses in mid-stream, claiming to be expressing the view that most of the others here have been taking on the subject all along, and trying to challenge them to prove that the line you've now chosen to adopt (their line all along) is the correct one! This might be an okay gambit, if a cheating one, for you to try if you had the intelligence to pull it off; but since you don't, in all honesty, the attempt not only makes you look stupid, but a little bit disturbed as well. BTW, since you can't offer a satisfactory definition of either 'consciousness' or 'energy' (at any rate, you haven't done so on this thread), why would I bother? You'd simply make up new definitions to suit yourself each time. Basically, you and that other ignoramus, @faustus, believe that every aspect of the non-physical, ie, thoughts, ESP, precognition, NDEs, etc., are all due to chemicals in the brain. I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds. I think in your case it's chemicals in the brain, and you should seek professional help in getting them adjusted.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 20:24:52 GMT
Thanks for just completely contradicting everything you've been saying up until now. When you've decided to stick with which opinion you're going to take on this topic, drop everyone here a note and let us know; then try sticking to it. Until then, I don't see much use in attempting to 'change your mind' as you don't seem to have a mind, in terms of fixed viewpoint on this, to change. You'll take a certain line until you see that most others are going against it, and you're not holding your own too well: once that happens, you'll try to change horses in mid-stream, claiming to be expressing the view that most of the others here have been taking on the subject all along, and trying to challenge them to prove that the line you've now chosen to adopt (their line all along) is the correct one! This might be an okay gambit, if a cheating one, for you to try if you had the intelligence to pull it off; but since you don't, in all honesty, the attempt not only makes you look stupid, but a little bit disturbed as well. BTW, since you can't offer a satisfactory definition of either 'consciousness' or 'energy' (at any rate, you haven't done so on this thread), why would I bother? You'd simply make up new definitions to suit yourself each time. Basically, you and that other ignoramus, @faustus, believe that every aspect of the non-physical, ie, thoughts, ESP, precognition, NDEs, etc., are all due to chemicals in the brain. I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds. Since all thoughts, consciousness, memory and everything else in a living functional brain are the result of complex chemical and electrical (that tiresome old energy thing that you don't understand) interactions then yes, we believe this because it has been scientifically proven, mapped, experimented even to the point of developments in wonderful brain stimulation and manipulation in the case of sufferers of such diseases as Parkinsons disease. It explains the drugs that have been developed to modify aberrant brain behaviours. You are right, it is a science in its infancy HOWEVER it is all based on the one premise, which I stated above. To deny that is ridiculous and ignorant. The fact that you know next to nothing about the brain, means that before you enter a discussion it behoves you to educate yourself … or yourself look 'stupid' as you are now doing. I know this never worried you before because you are stupid about your stupidity and arrogant hence why we have designated you as a victim of Dunning Kruger syndrome. Why do you do this?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 21:09:52 GMT
Basically, you and that other ignoramus, @faustus, believe that every aspect of the non-physical, ie, thoughts, ESP, precognition, NDEs, etc., are all due to chemicals in the brain. I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds. I think in your case it's chemicals in the brain, and you should seek professional help in getting them adjusted. Actually, I misspoke. I meant to say that consciousness is a different level of energy. I strongly suggest you read the work of David Bohm. He said that all matter is frozen light. As for the brain, it records every moment of a person's lifetime. That's why some people say they saw their life flash before their eyes. Why the eff would the brain bother to record everything if it's only going to end in death? I know why, and you don't.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Nov 11, 2018 21:10:51 GMT
Basically, you and that other ignoramus, @faustus, believe that every aspect of the non-physical, ie, thoughts, ESP, precognition, NDEs, etc., are all due to chemicals in the brain. I wish you could hear how stupid that sounds. Since all thoughts, consciousness, memory and everything else in a living functional brain are the result of complex chemical and electrical (that tiresome old energy thing that you don't understand) interactions then yes, we believe this because it has been scientifically proven, mapped, experimented even to the point of developments in wonderful brain stimulation and manipulation in the case of sufferers of such diseases as Parkinsons disease. It explains the drugs that have been developed to modify aberrant brain behaviours. You are right, it is a science in its infancy HOWEVER it is all based on the one premise, which I stated above. To deny that is ridiculous and ignorant. The fact that you know next to nothing about the brain, means that before you enter a discussion it behoves you to educate yourself … or yourself look 'stupid' as you are now doing. I know this never worried you before because you are stupid about your stupidity and arrogant hence why we have designated you as a victim of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Why do you do this? Pot/kettle Btw, it's called 'effect', not syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 21:14:48 GMT
Since all thoughts, consciousness, memory and everything else in a living functional brain are the result of complex chemical and electrical (that tiresome old energy thing that you don't understand) interactions then yes, we believe this because it has been scientifically proven, mapped, experimented even to the point of developments in wonderful brain stimulation and manipulation in the case of sufferers of such diseases as Parkinsons disease. It explains the drugs that have been developed to modify aberrant brain behaviours. You are right, it is a science in its infancy HOWEVER it is all based on the one premise, which I stated above. To deny that is ridiculous and ignorant. The fact that you know next to nothing about the brain, means that before you enter a discussion it behoves you to educate yourself … or yourself look 'stupid' as you are now doing. I know this never worried you before because you are stupid about your stupidity and arrogant hence why we have designated you as a victim of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Why do you do this? Pot/kettle Btw, it's called 'effect', not syndrome. Hardly, pot/ kettle, since I subscribe to scientific knowledge and research and you subscribe to pseudo science, mumbo jumbo and fantasy. So if you have googled Dunning Kruger at least you now know why you do this which was the answer to my question.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 11, 2018 21:26:34 GMT
I think in your case it's chemicals in the brain, and you should seek professional help in getting them adjusted. Actually, I misspoke. I meant to say that consciousness is a different level of energy. I strongly suggest you read the work of David Bohm. He said that all matter is frozen light.As for the brain, it records every moment of a person's lifetime. That's why some people say they saw their life flash before their eyes. Why the eff would the brain bother to record everything if it's only going to end in death? I know why, and you don't. You always misspeak, because you understanding and knowledge is faulty and fixated on pseudo science with a confirmatory bias towards your already fixed nonsensical ideas. Please tell us all which 'particles' are involved in this 'level of energy', since energy requires something to be applied to, and what has the temperature or state of 'light' got to do with the properties of 'matter'? Yes, the brain stories our experiences as memories in a special area or areas of the brain. That is its function. Yes, when there is chemical interruption, often as the result of oxygen deprivation in the near death experience, the part of the storing of memories can be activate. This is scientifically proven and accepted. Since this is the way a brain functions from about 2-3 years old, the answer is that this is part of the brain's function. There is no specific intent, it just happens. Also the 'brain' has no consciousness of when death will occur so it maintains its functions until death, when it dies and everything stops. Could you be this stupid? It has been explained to you over and over and the scientific proof is there should you research real science and not the pseudo science you cling to in a pathetic attempt to prove your own ignorant views
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 11, 2018 21:47:27 GMT
Actually, I misspoke. I meant to say that consciousness is a different level of energy. Which is, of course, completely meaningless bullshit. We know what consciousness is, and no one talks about it in terms of "energy"--which, I repeat, can only be carried by particles, so even your bullshit requires consciousness to be physical. There you go, name dropping stuff you don't understand. Absolutely nothing in the work of Bohm has anything to do with consciousness. Nothing. (And don't try to fool anyone into believing you yourself have read anything by this guy other than a headline or a quote you never understood in the first place.) More complete and utter bullshit with no support at all in the scientific literature. This latest lie isn't as dumb as your hilarious claim that there are conscious animals which don't have brains, but it is nonetheless utterly divorced from reality. You just can't help putting your foot in it time and time again, can you?
|
|