|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 12:03:28 GMT
It's part of an energy field. Energy requires a particle to carry it. What are the particles associated with awareness, shit for brains? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 12:05:07 GMT
Who are these "scientists" of which you speak? Nobody you would know of, since you are on a quest to make sure you don't study or know anything about any science-related subject under the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2018 12:07:51 GMT
Who are these "scientists" of which you speak? since you are on a quest to make sure you don't study or know anything about any science-related subject under the sun. Since you refuse to name any. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 12:38:45 GMT
Since you refuse to name any. Your request for name dropping was fucking stupid beyond words. You don't even know why you asked; it was a thoughtless reflex that actually had no relationship to the point being made. And no, you wouldn't recognize a single name of anyone doing work in the field since you know jack shit about any of it.
The point, shit for brains, is that Heeeyyy does not get to dictate how scientists studying the mind, as a community using common terms via a process of consensus, use those terms. If she thinks there is a better way, then the only choice she has is to become a member of that community, do significant work, and convince folks to shift their vocabularies. That is how science works--not that you would have the slightest idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2018 13:59:21 GMT
Since you refuse to name any. Your request for name dropping was fucking stupid beyond words. You don't even know why you asked; it was a thoughtless reflex that actually had no relationship to the point being made. And no, you wouldn't recognize a single name of anyone doing work in the field since you know jack shit about any of it.
The point, shit for brains, is that Heeeyyy does not get to dictate how scientists studying the mind, as a community using common terms via a process of consensus, use those terms. If she thinks there is a better way, then the only choice she has is to become a member of that community, do significant work, and convince folks to shift their vocabularies. That is how science works--not that you would have the slightest idea.
Has it occurred to you that no one is taking you seriously? That's quite a pile there you have with nothing to distribute it. I think I have informed you that the frontiers of debate are replete with ad hoc definitions. Also I think it should be plain that "awareness" is not synonymous with "response" in any context, except perhaps your feeble attempts at science. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 31, 2018 14:06:50 GMT
This is why scientists and atheists are so confused. They think they know everything because of the affects they've seen from brain studies, but what they see is a product of the brain on consciousness, which has nothing to do with awareness.
They can't understand that awareness only uses the brain. It is not like the conscious/subconscious of the brain. Sometimes I feel sorry for them.
I think YOU are the one who is “confused” here. I’m not aware of any scientist or atheist who’s ever claimed to know everything, or that it was possible to know everything. With respect to the brain, scientists know a lot more than you do. What is your evidence that “awareness” (which is a descriptor) uses anything? And how is that statement even consistent with logic? It’s part of an energy field. Really? What kind of energy? Potential energy, kinetic energy, electrical energy, heat energy? What is your means of detecting and measuring this energy? How is it generated and where does it come from? There are well-documented cases of people's awareness being projected outside of their physical bodies. But no cases that are scientifically validated. In other words, they are CLAIMS that cannot be independently confirmed. There are well documented cases of alien abductions too. But no actual evidence of them. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 14:26:15 GMT
Has it occurred to you that no one is taking you seriously? Nope. People here who are scientifically and philosophically literate know that I am, as well. They probably wish I were less abusive, but I'm never going to have the reputation you have for being a complete know-nothing.
We aren't on the "frontiers of debate" here, pumpkin. Just because you know jack shit about a subject doesn't mean that it hasn't been an established field with established vocabularies and parameters for quite a long time. Cognitive neuroscience does not equate "awareness" with primitive responses such as sunflowers tracking the sun or bacteria moving away from damaging substances, this much is true. My first post was an attempt to show Heeeeyyy how a layperson's use of the term "awareness" could be qualified enough to be true had she bothered to do so. Instead of responding the way I did to her reply, I should have said that this was what I was trying to do. My actual reply was kind of stupid and reactionary, now that I've thought about it, because it wasn't as if she was really telling scientists to do anything differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 31, 2018 17:41:49 GMT
It's part of an energy field. Energy requires a particle to carry it. What are the particles associated with awareness, shit for brains? At least that's what science knows as of now. What they don't know is much more. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 17:50:50 GMT
At least that's what science knows as of now. What they don't know is much more. No, shit for brains, that is how energy is defined by science. So what are the particles associated with awareness, shit for brains? |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Dec 31, 2018 17:55:29 GMT
At least that's what science knows as of now. What they don't know is much more. No, shit for brains, that is how energy is defined by science. So what are the particles associated with awareness, shit for brains? It's in a realm outside if 3D density and vibration, dumfuk. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2018 18:28:20 GMT
It's in a realm outside if 3D density and vibration, dumfuk. You just pulled that bullshit out of your dumb ass and you know it. You are essentially making shit up. What a fucking worthless lunatic you are. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 31, 2018 19:03:24 GMT
No, shit for brains, that is how energy is defined by science. So what are the particles associated with awareness, shit for brains? It's in a realm outside if 3D density and vibration, dumfuk. To anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy that's complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 31, 2018 22:40:50 GMT
This is why scientists and atheists are so confused. They think they know everything because of the affects they've seen from brain studies, but what they see is a product of the brain on consciousness, which has nothing to do with awareness.
They can't understand that awareness only uses the brain. It is not like the conscious/subconscious of the brain. Sometimes I feel sorry for them.
I think YOU are the one who is “confused” here. I’m not aware of any scientist or atheist who’s ever claimed to know everything, or that it was possible to know everything. With respect to the brain, scientists know a lot more than you do. What is your evidence that “awareness” (which is a descriptor) uses anything? And how is that statement even consistent with logic? It’s part of an energy field. Really? What kind of energy? Potential energy, kinetic energy, electrical energy, heat energy? What is your means of detecting and measuring this energy? How is it generated and where does it come from? There are well-documented cases of people's awareness being projected outside of their physical bodies. But no cases that are scientifically validated. In other words, they are CLAIMS that cannot be independently confirmed. There are well documented cases of alien abductions too. But no actual evidence of them. I wish you would learn to speak English. For the purposes of discussion let's assume, never mind how correctly or incorrectly, that Charles sees an alien spacecraft land and you are not there and do not see it. Is it true that there is "no" evidence of an alien spacecraft landing? No, the truth is there is the testimony of Charles. The fact that you were not there to see it is irrelevant. Evidence exists except that you, yourself have not seen it. I suspect you accept other claims with no more evidence as long as you like the people who make the claims. For example I am certain many people accept the theory of relativity without seeing the evidence themselves. They accept sea level rise without an adequate personal experience. There are many other things people accept as "true" without seeing the evidence themselves. When you say there is "no evidence" for alien abduction you betray your bias against it and the fact that you are not capable of being scientific in regard to the topic, which does nothing of course toward establishing your scientific credentials. The correct English is that the evidence for alien abductions is extremely rare and often from questionable sources. Now you may complain that the difference between that and "no" evidence is so small that it should be ignored. You would be wrong. You would be especially wrong if you are not evenly skeptical, that is, if you are not as skeptical of "scientific" claims as you are of other claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jan 1, 2019 11:48:01 GMT
“They think they know everything” Fail!  |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 1, 2019 13:01:29 GMT
Now you may complain that the difference between that and "no" evidence is so small that it should be ignored. You would be wrong. We just have more demanding standards than you. If a claim cannot be independently verified, we're not going to count it as evidence. This is particularly the case if the phenomenon it is put forward to support is incredible given what we already know about the natural world. You wouldn't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 1, 2019 16:54:23 GMT
Now you may complain that the difference between that and "no" evidence is so small that it should be ignored. You would be wrong. We just have more demanding standards than you. If a claim cannot be independently verified, we're not going to count it as evidence. This is particularly the case if the phenomenon it is put forward to support is incredible given what we already know about the natural world. You wouldn't understand. We've been over this before and "scientists" here did not "independently verify" relativity, climate change, late progress against cancer or the like. I understand perfectly. If you are going to accept those things on limited reports then in the interests of fairness you ought to accept religious claims with similar evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 1, 2019 18:58:19 GMT
We've been over this before and "scientists" here did not "independently verify" relativity, climate change, late progress against cancer or the like. I'm afraid the individual bits of evidence supporting all those ideas have been independently verified, so long as you are using standard English and not your clueless bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2019 20:24:37 GMT
What exactly is awareness and what causes it? NOT what does awareness allow us to do, and not what it makes us capable of doing, but what is it if not natural? It's part of an energy field. Ok, so let's for argument sake agree it's a kind of field.
You say in another post: "There are well-documented cases of people's awareness being projected outside of their physical bodies."
So it seems you are contending it's impossible for that field to be generated entirely by, dependent completely on the brain because somehow it projects beyond the physical body. Is that what you think?
But that's the nature of fields, isn't it? To extend out, beyond what generates them. There are fields that extend beyond the thing that generates them. The magnetic field extends beyond the magnet that generates it...A small magnet can affect iron filings up to several cm. The earth's magnetic field extends many miles. Gravity is a field that extends thousands of miles. And light and radio waves depend on a field and it travels across the universe, far from its source. So, if we go along with the idea that awareness is a kind of field and can be projected outside the body, there's nothing that would keep that awareness from being produced by the brain, and extending beyond the brain...far enough out to explain NDEs and out of body experiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 1, 2019 20:40:31 GMT
It's part of an energy field. Ok, so let's for argument sake agree it's a kind of field.
You say in another post: "There are well-documented cases of people's awareness being projected outside of their physical bodies."
So it seems you are contending it's impossible for that field to be generated entirely by, dependent completely on the brain because somehow it projects beyond the physical body. Is that what you think?
But that's the nature of fields, isn't it? To extend out, beyond what generates them. There are fields that extend beyond the thing that generates them. The magnetic field extends beyond the magnet that generates it...A small magnet can affect iron filings up to several cm. The earth's magnetic field extends many miles. Gravity is a field that extends thousands of miles. And light and radio waves depend on a field and it travels across the universe, far from its source. So, if we go along with the idea that awareness is a kind of field and can be projected outside the body, there's nothing that would keep that awareness from being produced by the brain, and extending beyond the brain...far enough out to explain NDEs and out of body experiences.
Does gravity ever cease to exist? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2019 20:43:56 GMT
Ok, so let's for argument sake agree it's a kind of field.
You say in another post: "There are well-documented cases of people's awareness being projected outside of their physical bodies."
So it seems you are contending it's impossible for that field to be generated entirely by, dependent completely on the brain because somehow it projects beyond the physical body. Is that what you think?
But that's the nature of fields, isn't it? To extend out, beyond what generates them. There are fields that extend beyond the thing that generates them. The magnetic field extends beyond the magnet that generates it...A small magnet can affect iron filings up to several cm. The earth's magnetic field extends many miles. Gravity is a field that extends thousands of miles. And light and radio waves depend on a field and it travels across the universe, far from its source. So, if we go along with the idea that awareness is a kind of field and can be projected outside the body, there's nothing that would keep that awareness from being produced by the brain, and extending beyond the brain...far enough out to explain NDEs and out of body experiences.
Does gravity ever cease to exist? I don't know whether gravity would 'cease to exist' if there was nothing to generate it, what do you think? As far as we know, gravity is caused by massive object, energy, dark matter and perhaps dark energy. It may also be caused by other things we don't know about. I doubt we'd ever be able to experiment to see if gravity could ever cease to exist. |
|
