Atheism

[DarkAngel_]

I hope that those atheists that mean well know that they are in part responsible for the on going geneocide of Christians - all over the world..the people that granted you the freedom not to believe are being slowly destroyed - time for atheists to protect Christians..most who carry the faith do not know they are Christians - but they carry the kind and evolved values that created free and good civil society - save the ones that brought you into being - that allowed atheism - once the Christians are destroyed the atheists will be next.

Allowed? it was revolted into being! that freedom was not there's to be granted for we are all free! when Christians came into Rome and said, 'there is only one god,' that was the most godless thing to them! and those gods died. now god must be overcome, i must overcome my personal god to become better then i am... i do not ask you to, i tell you that i must! just to clarify my Nietzschian affliction, my passion is in saying your very claim is not of a christian origin but one that you observed... Christians are not targeted by me, nor existentialism.

no atheist is killing a christian unless that said atheist (which could be any other religion and still kill) is predisposed to violent tendencies, atheism means you don't believe not that you eat babies lol. i certainly am not a vial, terrible person. i am sarcastic, quick witted, loving, random, passionate, and free. i have more faults that are place holders of my attributes but i am the me i want to be, does that make me a killer? don't be absurd... unless revolutionary and true it is frivolous. christian morals did not make me, and Christians... are not the only peaceful people, as well atheists are not a people, Christians are. atheism will never 'run' the world or rule it, most seek to find knowledge. and no one will destroy my belief, i group no one and i care not of the religion of politician's, believe what they want, do there job, and i support them.

to go along with that i take offense to calling atheism a 'cause and all-end perpetuator of genocide,' i am a strong supporter of the US declaring the Armenian genocide true. as well as actively helping in Dufar to stop the current one. atheism does not say anything about an individual because it leaves them open to many personal beliefs... as the ones i have, for i am no modification of a belief i am an originator of my own. i take no responsibility of any genocide. i only take responability for my own actions, i do not kill as said.

no worries though, i don't have issue, still know that i am no evil man. i respect your belief as I'd expect no different! so eat, drink, and be marry! for madness is far more interesting! hahahaha

Edited April 27, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

If anything the "theoretical" explanation of the brain giving us a feeling "like we are floating anywhere that is within our field of vision" does not explain why normal perceptic channels and physical makeup are not necessary to viewing if they are indeed the sole means of viewing. How can they be bypassed if indeed the electro-chemical reaction in the brain is a necessary process to perception?

What it tells us is that the concept of embodiment that has always been assumed to be the default way we view ourselves and the world, is something that has to be created and maintained on a continual basis. Instead of having a natural sense of embodiment, that small area of the brain has to keep generating an internal map based on sensory information to identify where are body leaves off and the rest of the world begins. When it is shut down, we don't have an intrinsic sense of where our consciousness is.

But, if you believe these perceptions are evidence of leaving the body, ask yourself what sensory organ is seeing the world? If it is not the eyes, but instead some sort of spirit sensory organ - why is processing visual information in the same manner as the eyes would? In other words, why do these spirit or astral bodies see the same spectrum of light that they eyes and the visual processing areas of the brain do? Why can't the astral eyes see electromagnetic radiation that is too low or too high a frequency for our physical senses to see? Add to that the problem that people doing astral projection usually describe themselves as breathing and being able to touch things around them, and I got to ask why a spirit needs to breath and how it can feel hot or cold.

The theory that life can be explained by the activities of the brain is quite flawed. The theory the brain is a switchboard for operating a body is a far superior theory, in my estimation, and explains any experience that an individual may experience not requiring the perceptic channels of the body, which life consciousness whatever it is, could bypass and apparently does.

Except that your switchboard theory doesn't provide any evidence that there is an outside agent interfacing with that switchboard. And where exactly in the brain is this switchboard that enables a supernatural agent to have physical effects on the body? Descartes thought he found it in the Pineal Gland at the base of the brain; and of course that idea was discarded long ago. The fact is that arguments for mind/body dualism are dependent on the gaps in knowledge about how the brain functions, in much the same way that creationists depend on evolutionary gaps to try to insert divine intervention. Every time a gap gets filled by a new scientific discovery, it is another stroke against supernatural agency. I find it far more plausible to believe that remaining gaps will be filled by naturalistic explanations rather than being a permanent mysterious void that can only be filled with supernatural answers that will never explain how it works.

If it were discovered that there were phenomena occurring outside the physical universe and proven by science to exist and was the source of the essence of life. It would not be accepted with open arms. The disappearance of whole areas of science would occur

Well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it! Since you are claiming that some sort of phenomena outside of the physical universe is having physical effects in our world, then this supernatural agent must leave some trail of evidence to connect it with the natural world -- therefore, there would be some way to study its effects and learn something about this mysterious force. The difference between the scientist and the priest, is that the scientist would keep pushing the envelope and find ways to learn how it works, whereas the priest would consider that to be a sacriledge and declare it to be something to be worshipped, rather than examined.

Here I will offend the sensibilities of the authorities that present information to WIP and Dark angel. Both will not accept what I say because the truth as presented to them without bias and with the general agreement of the scientific community overrides and replaces their individuality.

Nonsense! I am not following an ideology or a dogma. I am making my own choices about what and what not to believe.

They cannot prove anything themselves with any certainty. The fact they can perceive, with their senses, a table does not prove a table is there and that argument could be made. Subjectively it makes little difference if they have a certainty that the table is there. They could ask themselves, is the table not there. Of this they have less certainty so it is more likely the table is there. Their perceptions prove nothing to them subjectively and of course perceptions are distorted anyway. Objectively, it takes a general agreement to arrive at any certainty.

This is my argument! General agreement based on prior experience and from comparing your experiences with others can get you to a point where you have confidence that you can trust your beliefs. But that is not 100% absolute certainty, and just wishing and claiming to be certain does not make it so!

[WIP]

but neurons are being effected differently by perception and the following chemical correspondence's and interactions, changing ones disposition to any number of untold actions. though still apparent when mapped by a computer that copies the neural 'imprint' of that activity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would dictate that we cannot know something like position and momentum of an electron at the same time. only a likely area of position (usually found in QED) hence those distinctive patterns have a predisposed pattern that can be predicted but not known precisely. my point was the brain interpretation is very reflective on experience and what is 'taken in,' chemical balances change accordingly. it is not unlikely that a repeated action against a chemical process will imbalance it, or change it completely. so that gives light to my next point:

I'm a little dubious about buying into the concept of Quantum Consciousness. There are still a lot of missing pieces to figure out in the neurochemistry and function of neurons ans synapses -- there seems to be a lot of possibilities without invoking quantum mechanics. I've noticed that most of the neuroscientists writing on this subject are skeptical about quantum effects creating consciousness since the Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality work at the subatomic level and not the scale of size that make up the microtubule structures in the neuron would seem to be too large for quantum effects. The other objection I've heard about quantum consciousness is how would we avoid a conscious freeze-up, since entanglement is another property of quantum mechanics that seems to keep fouling up efforts made to design quantum computer chips. Every time subatomic particles find themselves in the same state they become entangled, and the quantum chip is unable to function. If our brains were like quantum computers, how would we avoid having the same thing happening to us?

we reflect much of those senses, and can see that reality as a whole does have a separation of perceived things inside brain function, reality is not just those functions. giving rise to separation of our sense of self, others, and the world is philosophical hearsay! but on the other hand our chemical understanding and physical understanding of universal processes opens the debate that 'soul' has to do with all, so is in a way real. it may be a invalid point but anything based on packets of stable information has to have form.

I don't think there is any way around understanding our higher consciousness as a manifestation of brain function, but the particles which we are made of, along with the rest of the universe may have some sort of conscious properties at a very simple, basic level. I am not sure whether property dualism is needed to explain consciousness, or if one of the materialist theories would be the way to go. Right now, there is just not a good enough understanding of what consciousness means to settle on one theory.

[Pliny]

offend? no it's practically imposable... i never disagreed though. you do raise a good point that is awesomely brutal and honest of that 'original' non-modification of your so called over written authority. we are all idiots for thinking so strictly but i LOVE putting out thought and theories and such to take up my time... you see though it may not matter i am a strict atheist but i am an existentialist (not nihilisticly mind you either,) and the bias you mention just is not there! but i appreciate your honest claim to my offence, if only my mom was as outrageous. your point is so, jagged yet stuck outside a free floating theoretical thought i can't help but elaborate on some part of my previous points: you see i am a physics buff, i love science, and in the field of philosophy and art is the understanding that what can be explained is perpetual in nature as well relative... with terms and definitions accompanied that set up a large look into areas of science none would otherwise look at. QED is one, it explores a wave function duality that is awesome and 'string like' in origin (see string theory) yet how can it be stated these have no effect on reality if you can state our perceived reality has no effect on any in-large function, even in quanta which is proven! you see nor fate or coincidence exist, they are about apart of the same thing: a set of absolute randomness that perpetuates a pattern to infinity. we are something and that purpose may not be god given but in my eye's is a bridge to a complexity that even now is in study... the M-theory and such makes it beautiful. no western or other religion is correct it is just plain, so without any more waste of time the application of human experience is relative to true observable effects and even in cosmology this truth is unmistakable... though you do have a keen knowledge of those stubborn who question nothing but what facts are found, proven, on explainable. psychology would agree with your side in measure.

oh well though, they stop us from getting cocky. disagree freely please. this is getting fun!

We have two theories that attempt to explain the physical universe around us. The Newtonian theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. The Newtonion theory of gravity has proven to be more practical to us and it is still used to make calculations regarding our venture's into space. The theory of relativity has certain anomalies so we know it is not a precise theory. The development of string theory (in a stage of abandonment, I believe) and Quantum mechanics are, in my estimation for whatever it is worth, merely extensions of Einstein's theories in order to explain the anomalies in his theory of relativity. I see a problem in accepting that Einstein's theory is as valid as it is and physics proceeds from that point, not questioning it but instead trying to resolve the anomalies it creates.

If you want to observe for instance, perpetual energy, an impossiblity according to theory, stick a magnet on a fridge.

As to the theory of the big bang, the so called beginning of the universe, some "thing" must have been there to create a bang. You really must understand time, and not Hawkings' time, to understand it also started with the big bang. Was there time prior to that? If you ever discovered why something persists you would have discovered the reason the physical universe is here.

But getting back to the subject of atheism, and why you claim to be one, is based upon your certainty. Otherwise you would claim to be an agnostic and you don't make that claim. I would ask the same question of WIP. In a universe where certainty is not possible it is puzzling why a claim of certainty is made? The term Atheism does indeed proclaim certainty of a state, whereas agnostic should be the proper description of your stand based upon your admitted concept of the impossibility of certainty. Very unscientific in my view. I haven't had any clear explanation of this as yet so if I seem to be repeating myself it is because I probably am.

[DarkAngel_]

I'm a little dubious about buying into the concept of Quantum Consciousness.

oh believe me i am as well, but the best measure of effect's are mostly not observable, haven't got that far yet, hence the field has been expanding into ways of seeing what causes some quantified effect in the observable field... has to do with particle projection in any area of interaction, you see no matter how simple something is it is theorized that there are complex quantum interactions going on, seeing them is the problem because they a SOOOOO small, so using atom smashers and particle accelerators we are seeing for the first time 'lite-up' observable quantum fields... so Quantum Consciousness as meaning we are tied in some quantum level to the universe would be so cool and a beautiful theory.

Right now, there is just not a good enough understanding of what consciousness means to settle on one theory.

that is so true its not even funny... even though i'm laughing it would take so many years to do this, trick here is finding something that can saturate the brain with energy that can pick up microbial interaction's in real time without killing the subject! i'd put myself on the line to test it if i heard it was not lethally radioactive to organic matter. science = not knowing the time and screaming at the edge of your seat ripping your hair out because of one wrong number... 57 pages back...

[DarkAngel_]

I see a problem in accepting that Einstein's theory is as valid as it is and physics proceeds from that point, not questioning it but instead trying to resolve the anomalies it creates.

Don't diss the man he did good! lol!

the theories are far from abandoned, they are being explored and more anomalies are piling up, we have found they happen all the time! area's of defomorphism for instance have been shown to have a possibility of emitting tachyons! which we have been really close to proving in 2002 are a possible ghost partical that 'blinks' that's against relativity.... so yeah that's intense stuff... but the field goes on expanding, M-theory taking lead.

If you want to observe for instance, perpetual energy, an impossiblity according to theory, stick a magnet on a fridge.

LLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL

that was hilarious! thanks for that... wake up call to some... ummmm magnetism is a strong nuclear force and as all the forces, constant's, and laws... are not perpetual, the effect they have on matter and energy puts perpetuality on things like coalescence in gauss and strong photogenic emissions on nuclear reactive black body state plasma's... also a perpetual action of stars.

As to the theory of the big bang, the so called beginning of the universe, some "thing" must have been there to create a bang. You really must understand time.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html#

sorry i don't know how to do the link thing...

but he makes your point as well, also look into the book 'the universe is a green dragon' it explains a very good reason why some or allot of people think the universe, if in rewind, does not point out to a god but a cause.

I haven't had any clear explanation of this as yet so if I seem to be repeating myself it is because I probably am.

god, as defined is too simple an explanation, whatever is out there is far more then the definitive destiny holder and dice roller Einstein and the other 'trying-to-define' communities make it out to be. look at the global definition of a god and i'm sure you'll see on what page i stand, don't expect you to agree but i hope you to appreciate my stance. i'm certain whatever is; has intelligence... an intelligent cosmos does not = god. so i know this intelligence is real because of what i've seen in quantum physics... i don't believe it is godhood or life for that matter, but instead a complex build of structured universe and beyond... kinda like the downward spiral effect... how can it be non intelligent? it was not mapped but 'fell into place' as the effects are mechanically sound, see that as seen by a physicist, an artist, and a philosopher universally and you have your answer... it is far more then human... our belief is human.

Edited April 27, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

We have two theories that attempt to explain the physical universe around us. The Newtonian theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. The Newtonion theory of gravity has proven to be more practical to us and it is still used to make calculations regarding our venture's into space. The theory of relativity has certain anomalies so we know it is not a precise theory. The development of string theory (in a stage of abandonment, I believe) and Quantum mechanics are, in my estimation for whatever it is worth, merely extensions of Einstein's theories in order to explain the anomalies in his theory of relativity. I see a problem in accepting that Einstein's theory is as valid as it is and physics proceeds from that point, not questioning it but instead trying to resolve the anomalies it creates.

Newtonian mechanics is accurate enough for the world of "middle dimensions" as physicists call it, so it works fine for everyday use. General Relativity is needed for scales where curvature of spacetime becomes a factor, and quantum mechanics is needed to describe physics at the subatomic scale, but attempts to incorporate gravity with subatomic physics, which is what string theory is attempting to do, are in a developmental stage, and there are no ways yet to test them. It's not a matter of right or wrong theories. They work in the areas they are intended for. The reason why a unifying theory is needed, is to understand events like the Big Bang, when the universe was in a state of high mass and energy, compacted into a tiny space.

As to the theory of the big bang, the so called beginning of the universe, some "thing" must have been there to create a bang. You really must understand time, and not Hawkings' time, to understand it also started with the big bang. Was there time prior to that? If you ever discovered why something persists you would have discovered the reason the physical universe is here.

The discovery that the energy of empty space is greater than zero, and this dark energy is now causing the universe to accelerate, and fly apart, ultimately means that the universe was not the beginning of time, and there were universes before the one we are living in.

But getting back to the subject of atheism, and why you claim to be one, is based upon your certainty. Otherwise you would claim to be an agnostic and you don't make that claim. I would ask the same question of WIP. In a universe where certainty is not possible it is puzzling why a claim of certainty is made? The term Atheism does indeed proclaim certainty of a state, whereas agnostic should be the proper description of your stand based upon your admitted concept of the impossibility of certainty. Very unscientific in my view. I haven't had any clear explanation of this as yet so if I seem to be repeating myself it is because I probably am.

I've been trying to get across to you the concept of trustable theories as opposed to 100% absolute certainty, but you can't seem to tell the difference between them!

[DarkAngel_]

Newtonian mechanics is accurate enough for the world of "middle dimensions" as physicists call it, so it works fine for everyday use. General Relativity is needed for scales where curvature of spacetime becomes a factor, and quantum mechanics is needed to describe physics at the subatomic scale, but attempts to incorporate gravity with subatomic physics, which is what string theory is attempting to do, are in a developmental stage, and there are no ways yet to test them. It's not a matter of right or wrong theories. They work in the areas they are intended for. The reason why a unifying theory is needed, is to understand events like the Big Bang, when the universe was in a state of high mass and energy, compacted into a tiny space.

You know the art of science! could never have said it any better... just understand tying the theories together has been nearly imposable, way to much info to take in, which is why so many physicist types are breaking into the field.

[Pliny]

Don't diss the man he did good! lol!

the theories are far from abandoned, they are being explored and more anomalies are piling up, we have found they happen all the time! area's of defomorphism for instance have been shown to have a possibility of emitting tachyons! which we have been really close to proving in 2002 are a possible ghost partical that 'blinks' that's against relativity.... so yeah that's intense stuff... but the field goes on expanding, M-theory taking lead.

A theory is only as good as it predicts things and has practical application. Einstein's theory has predicted some things but most of it is in the abstract and it is a "theory". The theory that explains everything without any anomalies will be th eclosest to the truth.

LLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL

that was hilarious! thanks for that... wake up call to some... ummmm magnetism is a strong nuclear force and as all the forces, constant's, and laws... are not perpetual, the effect they have on matter and energy puts perpetuality on things like coalescence in gauss and strong photogenic emissions on nuclear reactive black body state plasma's... also a perpetual action of stars.

Do strong nuclear forces degrade? If so then what of magnetism?

There really is no explanation in current theory.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/bigbang.html#

sorry i don't know how to do the link thing...

but he makes your point as well, also look into the book 'the universe is a green dragon' it explains a very good reason why some or allot of people think the universe, if in rewind, does not point out to a god but a cause.

He makes a good point then.

god, as defined is too simple an explanation, whatever is out there is far more then the definitive destiny holder and dice roller Einstein and the other 'trying-to-define' communities make it out to be. look at the global definition of a god and i'm sure you'll see on what page i stand, don't expect you to agree but i hope you to appreciate my stance. i'm certain whatever is; has intelligence... an intelligent cosmos does not = god. so i know this intelligence is real because of what i've seen in quantum physics... i don't believe it is godhood or life for that matter, but instead a complex build of structured universe and beyond... kinda like the downward spiral effect... how can it be non intelligent? it was not mapped but 'fell into place' as the effects are mechanically sound, see that as seen by a physicist, an artist, and a philosopher universally and you have your answer... it is far more then human... our belief is human.

I understand your stance. There is no common understanding of it, no definition and there is no description of possible or probable properties.

Your stance isn't much different than WIP's except his is on a grosser plain.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Newtonian mechanics is accurate enough for the world of "middle dimensions" as physicists call it, so it works fine for everyday use. General Relativity is needed for scales where curvature of spacetime becomes a factor, and quantum mechanics is needed to describe physics at the subatomic scale, but attempts to incorporate gravity with subatomic physics, which is what string theory is attempting to do, are in a developmental stage, and there are no ways yet to test them. It's not a matter of right or wrong theories. They work in the areas they are intended for. The reason why a unifying theory is needed, is to understand events like the Big Bang, when the universe was in a state of high mass and energy, compacted into a tiny space.

Right the proper theory will not have anomalies that the two current theories have.

The discovery that the energy of empty space is greater than zero, and this dark energy is now causing the universe to accelerate, and fly apart, ultimately means that the universe was not the beginning of time, and there were universes before the one we are living in.

Space is a part of the physical universe. It cannot be empty. It is full of energy even if one only considers the light from the sun.

I agree that the universe is expanding and must expand. It won't fly apart though. Let me ask you this question is there the same amount of matter in the universe today as existed at the beginning of this universe?

I've been trying to get across to you the concept of trustable theories as opposed to 100% absolute certainty, but you can't seem to tell the difference between them!

I know the difference. The definition of Atheism is defined as a belief, after all.

Even though there is no common understanding of God or properties of God, including among adherents of the same religion, there is no acceptable definition, and that is all we are looking for or can look for, is an acceptable definition. Since current definitions of God are lacking in that the concept cannot be conveyed from person to person with any precision, God cannot exist and Atheism can't really know whether what it is denying exists. I suppose it is a way to irk adherents of religion - tell them that god does not exist when in actuality it has merely not been clearly defined. Science to the rescue.

So how do "you" feel hot and cold without touching? I know you can do it, WIP.

[DarkAngel_]

A theory is only as good as it predicts things and has practical application. Einstein's theory has predicted some things but most of it is in the abstract and it is a "theory". The theory that explains everything without any anomalies will be the closest to the truth.

nothing that is theory is considered truth, but when we assume things in all 3 tying theories, we find surprising truth in them, like a puzzle; the pieces are not always in order. Einstein is very abstract and his 'E=mc2' equation has been proven.

Do strong nuclear forces degrade? If so then what of magnetism?

There really is no explanation in current theory.

the typical field strength of strong nuclear forces are 100 times the strength of the magnetic force, it is in the 'Non-abelian group' meaning it is not commutative, so i guess if it is... it is so very slowly but i don't think so, the closer to a magnet attracted forces get the stronger the interaction, it is an effect zone that makes things coalesce. gravity for one; the more energy and mass in one area = the stronger the nuclear force hence the formation of celestial bodies.

He makes a good point then.

yes he does... i love it, i read allot

I understand your stance. There is no common understanding of it, no definition and there is no description of possible or probable properties.

Your stance isn't much different than WIP's except his is on a grosser plain.

i noticed, but i'm guessing then you see how religion has too much of a human personality on the definition?... which is very primitive and unchanging.

but science has had the definition in study, as far as we are it is the closest thing we have to finding that unified theory... which to us is the definition of the earth, the most divine thing. but no thing like a god, or the definitions there of.

that to me is beautiful.

[Pliny]

Well, Dark Angel what is beauty? What is love and hate and emotion? Is it contained in the reaction of nuclear chemistry. And what of the choice that WIP talks of. He insists he makes choices in his life are they not the result of electro chemical processes and not a matter of volition or self determination. What is it that determines choice? Just a reflexive reaction?

When we ignore all human traits but reason we have pure science. Observation tells us that self determination and emotion, love, hate are observable and then proceeds to define cause as contained in the electro chemical makeup of the human body. I think it has made the mistake of determining that these electro-chemical impulses are prior to events of self-determination when in fact it is the opposite. Emotion, choice, love, understanding are not reactions to stimulus but the source of reactions. The effect is produced because one decides it. The feeling is desired or expected. It is only when the feeling of whatever state one is in is not explainable that one has the feeling of being out of control. If a chemical reaction produced the feeling of love it is because the individual decided to produce the feeling of love, the body experiences it by certain processes. And the person then feels what he wishes from the body. If he doesn't experience what he expects he would probably be surprised.

The whole question of existence lies in what is prime. Science likes to think that some material process is prime actually the concept must be prime. All the while it is looking for effects from material causes because the material is all it can prove exists. So if it is true that material is cause and the source of all existence there is never an explanation as to the origin of material. And thus there is never an explanation to consciousness and the ethereal nature of existence. A consciousness has never been proven to be material and, in my estimation, never will because it is prior to the material not an effect of the material. The smallest nuclear particle postulated is still not prior.

I don't have much time today but hope this was as enjoyably humorous as my previous posts.

[DarkAngel_]

I don't have much time today but hope this was as enjoyably humorous as my previous posts.

humorous? don't insult yourself... the very postulation forebodes the validity in the scientific question, the ultimate 'if' and the question of 'why does the universe bother to exist!' i ask these often, i study them, it is a hard question but when one fills the mind with one relative story, that cosmic story, human existences lights up into life, passion fires into love and death has purpose again... i for one am in-love with this question and i will dance with it as i please tell the day i am mad! love is coalescent... it builds itself and until it cannot help it any longer it ignites, so to me stars hold a kind of love in their processes of life, and death, for the most creative and greatest thing they can do is to die, and give life again... we do the same as when we die we become substance for many things, and our bodies are willing worlds of such life, hence a kind of love in death... no need for otherworldlyness.

to me our emotions and self determinations are explainable as another page in that story, we are a mirror to this universe for the experiences of each atom, and quantum interaction is in us... we're are star stuff, and we have grown in a cosmic storm that will not last, but to us it is a forever we are willing to be in, we cannot help ourselves.

with all these processes, what defines a man more then man? when he finds something more in himself! and as a star must grow and change... we must, for great men are deliberate and even greater are passionate. love in this is an acceptance of those human traits you speak of so clearly... mine is based on simile and is quite different. but i enjoy it.

[WIP]

I could believe this except for the documented cases of NDE (near death experience) where some individuals were brain dead, and when revived could correctly identify people and conversations in the operating room.

link

link2

I forgot to look up the first link.

So, Cardiologist Michael Sabom seems to be a write a lot of books on this subject, and one of his books: Light and Death features the story of one of his patients - Pam Reynolds, a singer/songwriter from Georgia, who's NDE story seems to be the focal point of her career now, rather than her music.

Sabom's account of Pam Reynold's description of events after her operation, are used as evidence of some sort of non-physical conscious awareness, because the claim is made that she described events that occured while in a state of "standstill" where the body is cooled to 60 degrees to stop breathing and the heart from beating. The issue of contention is whether her NDE, or even part of the NDE occurred while in this state when it is assumed that there would be no brain activity going on.

Philosopher - Keith Augustine, who writes many articles for Internet Infidels, did a detailed examination of Sabom's book, and his chart of the events:

Two mischaracterizations of this case are particularly noteworthy, as their errors of fact greatly exaggerate the force of this NDE as evidence for survival after death.[15] First, in their write-up of the first prospective study of NDEs, van Lommel and colleagues write:

Sabom mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG [electroencephalogram] of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG [emphasis mine] (van Lommel et al. 2044).

Second, in his Immortal Remains—an assessment of the evidence for survival of bodily death—Stephen Braude erroneously describes the case as follows:

Sabom reports the case of a woman who, for about an hour, had all the blood drained from her head and her body temperature lowered to 60 degrees. During that time her heartbeat and breathing stopped, and she had both a flat EEG and absence of auditory evoked potentials from her brainstem.... Apparently during this period she had a detailed veridical near-death OBE [emphasis mine] (Braude 274).

But anyone who gives Sabom's chapters on the case more than a cursory look will see two glaring errors in the descriptions above. First, it is quite clear that Pam did not have her NDE during any period of flat EEG.[16] Indeed, she was as far as a patient undergoing her operation could possibly be from clinical death when her OBE began.[17] Second, she had no cerebral cortical activity for no longer than roughly half an hour. Both of these facts are nicely illustrated in Figure 1 below. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kei.../HNDEs.html#pam

So, the belief that Pam Reynold's story proves life after death, doesn't come from Sabom's book directly, but instead from the writings of other NDE proponents who have misinterpreted Sabom's timeline, and it seems Sabom is responsible for leading the average reader of his book to this conclusion:

Despite accurately reporting the facts, Sabom himself has encouraged these misrepresentations.[18] Though he informs the reader that Pam's experience began well before standstill, he reveals this incidentally, so that a careful reading of the text is required to discern the point. For instance, just after describing Pam's recollections of an operating room conversation, he notes, almost as an afterthought, that "[h]ypothermic cardiac arrest would definitely be needed" [emphasis mine] (Sabom, "Light" 42). He then goes on to assert that the very features of her experience which cannot be timed happened during standstill. At first, Sabom only implies this by describing the cooling of blood leading to standstill prior to describing the remainder of Pam's near-death experience (42-46). Then Sabom turns to a discussion of whether Pam was "really" dead during a portion of her standstill state:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kei.../HNDEs.html#pam

One thing that leads people to believe that these stories are supernatural, is an assumption that any event recalled while under GA must be evidence of an OOBE. I have only had one major operation in my life that required general anaesthetic, and all I remember is going under and then waking up in the recovery room. But Augustine points out that, although "anesthesia awareness" is a rare phenomena, it does occur in many patients -- and the vast majority of them did not flatline or have flat EEG's during the operation, so it wasn't a matter of a soul floating out of the body and watching events:

About one or two in a thousand patients undergoing general anesthesia report some form of anesthesia awareness. That represents between 20,000 and 40,000 patients a year within the United States alone. A full 48% of these patients report auditory recollections postoperatively, while only 28% report feeling pain during the experience (JCAHO 10). Moreover, "higher incidences of awareness have been reported for caesarean section (0.4%), cardiac surgery (1.5%), and surgical treatment for trauma (11-43%)" (Bünning and Blanke 343). Such instances must at least give us pause about attributing Pam's intraoperative recollections to some form of out-of-body paranormal perception. Moreover, for decades sedative anesthetics such as nitrous oxide have been known to trigger OBEs.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kei.../HNDEs.html#pam

Many of the events described in the book that are supposed to correlate with actual events, such as the partial head-shaving, a nurse declaring that her veins are too small etc., either cannot be confirmed, or evidence indicates that they did not actually occur. Another chief claim, that ear plugs placed in her ears during the operation would have made it unable for her to hear are also challenged since they do not block all external sound.

The conclusion is that none of the events described occurred during the one hour period that no brain activity would have occurred, and the events described fit well within the perceptions that could have been available during anesthesia awareness. It's interesting that Sabom is careful enough to guard his professional reputation by not making outlandish claims, while he has used language in a book to lead others to make those conclusions.

[WIP]

You know the art of science! could never have said it any better... just understand tying the theories together has been nearly imposable, way to much info to take in, which is why so many physicist types are breaking into the field.

Yes, the search for grand unified theories is belief-based, not evidence-based; it's from an assumption expressed first by Albert Einstein, that everything had to be in a simple unified state at the beginning of the universe. But it may be a faith-based assumption, since it was so easy to unify electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity just doesn't seem to provide an easy way to be incorporated into a grand unified theory. Some physicists have expressed concern that every university in the world is chasing some form of string theory, and putting all the eggs in one basket, while very few are trying to develop alternatives like Loop Quantum Gravity.

[WIP]

Space is a part of the physical universe. It cannot be empty. It is full of energy even if one only considers the light from the sun.

Whatever, but dark energy, whatever it is, is a property of space-time that applies a negative pressure which causes expansion and works in opposition to gravity. About 3.5 billion years ago, the universe expanded to the point where dark energy started to overtake gravity and cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate.

I agree that the universe is expanding and must expand. It won't fly apart though. Let me ask you this question is there the same amount of matter in the universe today as existed at the beginning of this universe?

You're not paying attention! The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Until this dark energy force was first discovered in 1998, the debate was over whether the expansion was fast enough to continue forever, or whether gravity would slow the expansion enough to cause the universe to contract together -- that scenario flew out the window with the discovery of dark energy! The universe expands faster and faster, and it already passed the point billions of years ago, where gravity was able, in theory to cause the universe to slow down.

I know the difference. The definition of Atheism is defined as a belief, after all.

No it isn't! It still means nonbelief.

Even though there is no common understanding of God or properties of God, including among adherents of the same religion, there is no acceptable definition, and that is all we are looking for or can look for, is an acceptable definition. Since current definitions of God are lacking in that the concept cannot be conveyed from person to person with any precision, God cannot exist and Atheism can't really know whether what it is denying exists. I suppose it is a way to irk adherents of religion - tell them that god does not exist when in actuality it has merely not been clearly defined. Science to the rescue.

Until recent times, there was no concept of the supernatural, even in religion. God was up there, above the firmament, and hell was underneath the earth. Souls were our breath, and the soul left the body when we stopped breathing.

Scientific discoveries in astronomy and about the human body have created the need to push God and supernatural entities like souls, ghosts and spirits into a "supernatural" realm, so that they cannot be examined through natural means. The problem is that people believing in these effects have no explanations for how they interact with our physical world.

So how do "you" feel hot and cold without touching? I know you can do it, WIP.

Are you telling me that sensing hot and cold is a nonphysical experience?

[DarkAngel_]

Yes, the search for grand unified theories is belief-based, not evidence-based; it's from an assumption expressed first by Albert Einstein, that everything had to be in a simple unified state at the beginning of the universe. But it may be a faith-based assumption, since it was so easy to unify electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity just doesn't seem to provide an easy way to be incorporated into a grand unified theory. Some physicists have expressed concern that every university in the world is chasing some form of string theory, and putting all the eggs in one basket, while very few are trying to develop alternatives like Loop Quantum Gravity.

There is some evidence but nothing concrete in sting theory and LQG.

well you see... none of those theories have been experimentally tested. LQG is a matrix network loop explanation for universal gravitation and space-time. what makes it exiting is it does not have extra dimensions. gravity is 'non-renormalizable' in contrast to the strong and weak nuclear interactions of the Standard Model. problem is it replaces the Big Bang theory in a respect by changing it to a 'bounce.' it also opens the thought that forces like gravity can 'bleed' through space-time as a relative effect on mass bodies in this quantum loop matrix. in theory it is said to explain many things standard model particle physics and string theory can't. but because it has its underpinnings in many nonperturbative quantization of diffeomorphism-invariant gauge theories (long one) it has been open to debate as to if the instantaneous potential differential can compensate for dark matter and avoiding tachyons.

Making predictions from the theory is very difficult for sim-tech computers to handle. the continuum limit has not been proven or even tested to be accurate in space time because right now no observation's loop quantum gravity makes, goes very far without being held back by its similarities to the Standard Model or general relativity, of which very little has been shown.

so the math works but the computers can barely handle it with all the 'human' errors, so trick is we need a new and easier mathematical language to help prove this one is a valid theory.

if u did not understand any of that, just ask or look it up and i'll answer whatever cause to be honest most of this i either learned online or learned in class.

(oh and empty space means zero point energy as opposed to negative space which is void of energy and only has a variant area.)

Edited April 29, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[GostHacked]

The whole question of existence lies in what is prime. Science likes to think that some material process is prime actually the concept must be prime. All the while it is looking for effects from material causes because the material is all it can prove exists. So if it is true that material is cause and the source of all existence there is never an explanation as to the origin of material. And thus there is never an explanation to consciousness and the ethereal nature of existence. A consciousness has never been proven to be material and, in my estimation, never will because it is prior to the material not an effect of the material. The smallest nuclear particle postulated is still not prior.

I don't have much time today but hope this was as enjoyably humorous as my previous posts.

If you want to know about conciousness, read a book that what written by someone other than you.

[Pliny]

If you want to know about conciousness, read a book that what written by someone other than you.

I suppose that is what you have done? And now you have a consciousness just like them. We are all one, kinda thing I suppose.

Someone to describe my consciousness would have to be me. Are all consciousnesses the same?

[Pliny]

Whatever, but dark energy, whatever it is, is a property of space-time that applies a negative pressure which causes expansion and works in opposition to gravity. About 3.5 billion years ago, the universe expanded to the point where dark energy started to overtake gravity and cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate.

Gravity like God is elusive, isn't it. Maybe gravity is God and he just holds everything together.

Gravity is everywhere, you know.

Might or might not be not untrue!

You're not paying attention! The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Until this dark energy force was first discovered in 1998, the debate was over whether the expansion was fast enough to continue forever, or whether gravity would slow the expansion enough to cause the universe to contract together -- that scenario flew out the window with the discovery of dark energy! The universe expands faster and faster, and it already passed the point billions of years ago, where gravity was able, in theory to cause the universe to slow down.

I should ask what you mean by universe I suppose, but if you mean space, energy and matter, then tell me into what is the universe expanding?

No it isn't! It still means nonbelief.

And shall remain so until the final proof, I believe.

Until recent times, there was no concept of the supernatural, even in religion. God was up there, above the firmament, and hell was underneath the earth. Souls were our breath, and the soul left the body when we stopped breathing.

Scientific discoveries in astronomy and about the human body have created the need to push God and supernatural entities like souls, ghosts and spirits into a "supernatural" realm, so that they cannot be examined through natural means. The problem is that people believing in these effects have no explanations for how they interact with our physical world.

Science tries to explain it but in some instances they have no explanation either. It will just take time I suppose.

Are you telling me that sensing hot and cold is a nonphysical experience?

It can be. You can remember it or you can imagine it anew. Isn't that sensing it?

[Pliny]

There is some evidence but nothing concrete in sting theory and LQG.

well you see... none of those theories have been experimentally tested. LQG is a matrix network loop......

........

(oh and empty space means zero point energy as opposed to negative space which is void of energy and only has a variant area.)

All this talk reminds of an accountant who thought he was an economist or the economist who doesn't know he is just an accountant.

[scorpio]

deleted

Edited April 29, 2009 by scorpio

[DarkAngel_]

All this talk reminds of an accountant who thought he was an economist or the economist who doesn't know he is just an accountant.

well im not saying im an expert just that it is one of my many passions. i am not a person to stop at a subject and keep at a standstill, you see a true need of new wisdom, consciousness, and knowledge is to not stop changing one's roles. i follow many sciences and LQG is one of the more interesting ones, are you trying to be, i don't know, controversial? your motives do not seem clear... is it not counter productive to just say i am small? for me i must know the whys! i must see what causes the thought! i am curious now, why is my stance being lower of such great import? i am small but it changes nothing! i am no small thing to me...

since i was 12 i have been studying physics so i am not as readily swayed by simple remarks... please battle my words, is that not why we are here?

when we battle we often help one another, give prospective, or better then all, a pause to reason, that gives the mind a new realization.

i'm sorry my friend but now you are sounding nihilistic.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity; opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." Einstein

so please form them, for the sake of those who do this for a reason.

all that i've wrote, i've learned or asked, nothing with absolute certainty. now i ask you what do you believe?

[WIP]

There is some evidence but nothing concrete in sting theory and LQG.

well you see... none of those theories have been experimentally tested.

I know! But, if you're a physics student, I assume you are aware that both theories make predictions that could be tested if the technology is available. There have been a few stories in the news over the last couple of years that the new Large Hadron Collider can produce high enough energies to test string theory predictions involving the decay of heavy W-boson particles and the decay of mini black holes - if they can be produced. There are other testable predictions involving gravity waves if the L.I.S.A. space array is able to detect them; so it's not a metaphysical debate; someone will be able to devise a test to either confirm these predictions or send all the theoretical physicists and mathematicians down another road to look for the theory of everything.

if u did not understand any of that, just ask or look it up and i'll answer whatever cause to be honest most of this i either learned online or learned in class.

Thanks for the info on Loop Quantum Gravity, but I don't need to know all of the technical nuances of the theory. I'll just read the summaries and assume that the peer review process will take care of fleshing out the accuracy of each theory's predictions and how reliable they will be for describing the real world.

if you've read any of my thoughts on the subject, I am not going to spend hours learning the math that these theories are based on. I'll just take the summarized versions and assume that peer review will take care of

(oh and empty space means zero point energy as opposed to negative space which is void of energy and only has a variant area.)

One of the theories about the nature of Dark Energy - which is causing the universe to fly apart, is that this vacuum energy of empty space is providing the positive energy to make the universe fly apart. It's sort of a revival of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, except that he was trying to use it to produce a model of a static universe. I know there are other theories about dark energy, but this one seems to be more popular than other alternative explanations so far.

[WIP]

Gravity like God is elusive, isn't it. Maybe gravity is God and he just holds everything together.

Gravity is everywhere, you know.

Gravitational effects are not elusive; if it was, you might be hurtling off into space right now. Gravity waves have not been detected, as the graviton particle also remains elusive, but gravity has a real effect on our world. Now, whatever you are describing as "God," where is the evidence for this force acting in the natural world?

I should ask what you mean by universe I suppose, but if you mean space, energy and matter, then tell me into what is the universe expanding?

If you insist on conceptualizing the universe as a three dimensional object, you are going to be assume that there has to be something out there giving up room to allow the universe to expand. But the universe is 4 dimensional, not 3, and the expansion is of space-time itself. It's not as if galaxies and gas clouds are flying apart -- the space between them is expanding. From our vantage point, it would be more accurate to describe the universe as stretching, rather than expanding. The universe has no center, and it has no edge, and we are trapped inside the dimensions of this universe, so we have no capacity, even in the distant future, to escape from this universe.

The picture of the universe since the discovery of Dark Energy, is that our universe is "open" or has a negative curvature of space-time. An open universe is un-bounded and infinite. It will expand forever -- unless theorists who believe there is a limit to how low the density of the universe can drop, are correct. If they're right, at some point in the distant future, our accelerating, cooling universe will disintegrate, and that vacuum energy of our big, empty universe will provide the seed to create a new universe or several new universes, depending on which theoretician is on the right track.

Science tries to explain it but in some instances they have no explanation either. It will just take time I suppose.

Before anything supernatural becomes the subject of serious scientific investigation, it is up to the proponents of: intercessory prayer, souls, ghosts, psychic powers etc. to present some evidence that the forces they believe in are leaving real evidence behind in our world. A theory of natural/supernatural interaction would be helpful, but so far, all that is offered up is misleading pop physics like quantum mysticism and claims they exist in other dimensions. I don't see anyone who is approaching the supernatural either from a religious angle, or arguing for psychic phenomena, showing any interest in developing any real theories.

It can be. You can remember it or you can imagine it anew. Isn't that sensing it?

So, a memory of something hot or cold is non-physical? Not that brain function is completely understood, but there are correlates between psychological memory tests and fMRI studies that indicate regions of the brain involved in various types of memory encoding and retrieval, so even recalling a memory leaves behind a physical trail of evidence. http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/pn/cabeza