The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[ToadBrother]

However, the question is, how can one describe 'self' within this system? Or can 'self' even exist? It would seem that we exist on one level of reality and yet cannot on another. But paradoxes are nothing new to quantum mechanics are they?

Don't get me wrong. One paradox does not admit all paradoxes, but the concept of self within a co-existing subatomic reality does present some interesting questions don't you think?

This is like asking "Given that the sun uses nuclear fusion, how does this relate to why my car starts every morning."

Quantum mechanics describes interactions of particles at the sub-atomic level. It is not neuroscience, and its effects are at such a small scale that it most certainly has nothing to do with macro-atomic systems like your brain (where "self" comes from). Roger Penrose went down that road and made himself a laughingstock with both physicists and experts on human cognition.

You seem to be trying to find some justification for what appears to be a sort of Dualism. It seems a rather silly exercise, in my opinion, but at the very least you could try to understand the terms your throwing around.

[Shwa]

Quantum mechanics describes interactions of particles at the sub-atomic level. It is not neuroscience, and its effects are at such a small scale that it most certainly has nothing to do with macro-atomic systems like your brain (where "self" comes from).

Really? So the mechanical affects of neutron radiation on a macro-atomic system like your brain will have no affect on your 'self?"

That it stands to reason that quantum mechanics has nothing to say like hyper-macro-atomic things like, I dunno, black holes? And yet it seems there are many people trying to apply it.

The only "Dualim" I am referring to is the particle-wave duality. Any 'divination' being done is purely yours. You're cherry picking.

[ToadBrother]

Really? So the mechanical affects of neutron radiation on a macro-atomic system like your brain will have no affect on your 'self?"

Radiation has clear macro-atomic effects, mainly because it, well, screws with molecular bonds, and in extreme cases with atoms themselves.

That it stands to reason that quantum mechanics has nothing to say like hyper-macro-atomic things like, I dunno, black holes? And yet it seems there are many people trying to apply it.

I think you'd better actually read the article.

The only "Dualim" I am referring to is the particle-wave duality. Any 'divination' being done is purely yours. You're cherry picking.

You just keep throwing phrases around. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[charter.rights]

It appears whatever "Religion" - Catholic? you put forward words and concepts not described in the NT. People have to back up and realize words are containers/blocks to weave an understanding. The interconnectness you are describing is the Spirit of understanding, Spirit of Knowledge, Spirit of whatever. In science, these are brainwaves, and the faster your brainwaves, the more connected you become. All of this can be constructed to make up ones state of mind. The bible has to be taken at face value. The words interpreted literally. What you are ignoring is the fact Jesus supposedly existed. If he did, it is impossible for him to be everywhere and anywhere all at once. That is the fallacy of your belief and you ought to rethink the church you belong to. In the OT, this God never claimed to be in all places at all times. If you read through the OT, you will see on numerous occasions, the Children of Isreal Cried out, and if they cried long enough, He heard them, and helped them. The bible defeats your position but like a typical Christian you ignore what doesn't fit into your belief construct. Stop insulting Jesus by infering him as a she when Historical documents show him to be a he, and the bible illustrates him as a he. Because you know this, your continuance is revealing to the fallacy of the so called Religious faiths versus the actual words.

Man is like the children of Isreal being led through the wilderness for 40 years by moses. Many of them were culled off because they were deemed unworthy to continue. In the OT you defile yourself by not abiding by the commandments and statues. In the NT you defile yourself by the words that comes out of your mouth. Regardless, man is surrounded: watch what your actions, what you take into your body, and what you express. Not doing this, only means the God in the OT and Jesus of the NT will ignore your existence. If you piss the God of the OT off you will not be ignored but obliterated out of existence. This God is sentient, and he is portrayed and described as that throughout the OT.

There is no evidence of the God of the OT doing any of his wonders for the last 3000 years. Before 3000 years who knows??? All we are left with are the stories. Understanding the stories and the Bible is not the same as supporting or believing this God is God. Be intelligent and being scientific is to stick to the logic, the facts, and the assertions made. A problem some on this thread have. Another fallacy of so called believers is to abuse the word God to include their concept of God.

Let's look at the salient points of using the God word/concept, shall we? This alphabet was introduced by Christian Missionaries to Britannia between the 5th and 7th century AD. The KJV was translated and establish by GB in 1604 and predates and is around the time North America was settled. GOD is a concept which refers and infers to the God of the Old Testament. The son of God refers to Jesus. This is the Origins of the so called English language definition of God. If you want to refer to God that does not fit into the definition of this GOD as defined in the OT and NT you ought to use:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_latin_word_for_god

Deus or deity to avoid consfusing your audience. Not doing this only offends the God of the OT and jesus can't help you then.

A simple analogy.....

If a astro-physicist writes a book about string theory intended to be an advanced peer-reviewed textbook, do you think that he would explain it in language that a poor dirt farmer would understand?

My point is that the New Testament contain some highly advanced concepts that in the wrong hands could be dangerous, and in the ill-informed make no sense at all. The parables and the directives are a clue. You could take the NT literal if you want, but you will have missed the message that is being taught. However, you have to be enlightened in the first place before you could even recognize the techniques being described and you'll never gain that if you insist on taking the Bible word for word.

[ToadBrother]

A simple analogy.....

If a astro-physicist writes a book about string theory intended to be an advanced peer-reviewed textbook, do you think that he would explain it in language that a poor dirt farmer would understand?

My point is that the New Testament contain some highly advanced concepts that in the wrong hands could be dangerous, and in the ill-informed make no sense at all. The parables and the directives are a clue. You could take the NT literal if you want, but you will have missed the message that is being taught. However, you have to be enlightened in the first place before you could even recognize the techniques being described and you'll never gain that if you insist on taking the Bible word for word.

I wouldn't say "highly advanced", I'd say "poorly enumerated". For instance, heresies like Arianism arose because the description of Jesus's divinity, particularly in John 1, was sufficiently vague that some chose to read that as meaning the Son was independent of the Father; in other words Jesus was not God, but rather an independent divine entity created by God.

In fact, the precise nature of Christ was the theological (though not the political) root of the Great Schism; the Filioque Controversy, which rested on fairly obscure arguments that the average Latin or Orthodox Christian probably still doesn't fully grasp.

Then we can enter the battles between the Protestants and Rome over the nature of salvation, and then debates between various Protestant churches over veneration of the Saints, the role of a priesthood (if there even is one), etc. While I will freely admit that some of the advocates of various positions had a pretty limited grasp of theology, and Protestantism has lead to all sorts of whacked out theological and dogmatic claims that rest upon the flimsiest of ground. But something like the Filioque Controversy was a battle between two groups both of which built in on venerable theological frameworks and included learned theologians and scholars. In the end, the solution to that problem was political, as the earlier solution to Arianism (convert the heretics, kill those that won't) was.

Of course, to the advocates of any of these traditions, it's the other guys that are reading the Bible wrong, or accepting or rejecting extra-Biblical sources, or whatever. The fundamental point is that the Bible, because it does not come right out and make certain doctrinal issues crystal clear, has made all sorts of trouble for Christendom over the last two thousand years. It's also opened the door to some pretty nonsensical and a few genuinely noxious beliefs in some traditions.

Edited January 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

Of course, to the advocates of any of these traditions, it's the other guys that are reading the Bible wrong, or accepting or rejecting extra-Biblical sources, or whatever. The fundamental point is that the Bible, because it does not come right out and make certain doctrinal issues crystal clear, has made all sorts of trouble for Christendom over the last two thousand years. It's also opened the door to some pretty nonsensical and a few genuinely noxious beliefs in some traditions.

I guess this is the reason why so many interpretations of the bible exist.

Charter.rights

A simple analogy.....

If a astro-physicist writes a book about string theory intended to be an advanced peer-reviewed textbook, do you think that he would explain it in language that a poor dirt farmer would understand?

There are some shows that dumb down string theory for the general public to understand. Even some of those are over my head, but the only way to know what they are really talking about is to learn all the material. Theoretical sciences are not for the weak minded. Vibrating strings of energy seem to be the smallest building block of all we see and understand. If god exists here, we will find him!

But if the farmer has the capacity to learn and understand, then once given the tools, (guidance is not necessary) the farmer can figure most of this stuff out for himself. But people's brains are wired different from one another, so some might understand the science, and some won't. That is just the way humanity is.

I personally suck at math, and did poorly in high school. But theoretical physics and the like fascinate me to no end. String theory is quite an awesome concept, and one day might prove to be the correct line of thinking. But it's still in the baby steps phase.

My point is that the New Testament contain some highly advanced concepts that in the wrong hands could be dangerous, and in the ill-informed make no sense at all. The parables and the directives are a clue. You could take the NT literal if you want, but you will have missed the message that is being taught. However, you have to be enlightened in the first place before you could even recognize the techniques being described and you'll never gain that if you insist on taking the Bible word for word.

Science almost always results in enlightenment. You are saying we should be enlightened first in order to understand the true meaning of the bible. Over the past few thousand years , man has clearly shown that he does not understand the bible, no matter what form it is in. Old Testament, New Testament, King James version ... or the couple books the Mormon's have !

But at least we agree that the bible should not be interpreted literally, no matter what version you follow.

[whowhere]

But at least we agree that the bible should not be interpreted literally, no matter what version you follow.

Deuteronomy 4 (King James Version)

1Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

3Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

4But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.

To take this literally, you would have seen personally what this God claims to have done and you would have been rewarded for being faithful to him. According to this, Being faithful is knowing his commandments. This is what this God has stated.

You people must have learned a different way to understand this. Is there some 3d glasses for this or do I need to burn some special incense, what's the secret to getting this highly advanced understanding?

As remarkable as this God's actions are, they are concrete abilities and miracles. Parting of the sea, Raining frogs, turning the river to blood. You can visualizse these things even if they are far fetched to being possible. There are plenty of passages that put the brakes on the exuberant. Some have a god complex and will use the bible to brainwash the sheep. Stay clear of the wolves who twist the words. As a life you are responsibile to enlighten yourself via self analysis and observation. It is your responsibility to heed all information.

Christianity is house made of Glass.

[charter.rights]

I guess this is the reason why so many interpretations of the bible exist.

Charter.rights

There are some shows that dumb down string theory for the general public to understand. Even some of those are over my head, but the only way to know what they are really talking about is to learn all the material. Theoretical sciences are not for the weak minded. Vibrating strings of energy seem to be the smallest building block of all we see and understand. If god exists here, we will find him!

But if the farmer has the capacity to learn and understand, then once given the tools, (guidance is not necessary) the farmer can figure most of this stuff out for himself. But people's brains are wired different from one another, so some might understand the science, and some won't. That is just the way humanity is.

I personally suck at math, and did poorly in high school. But theoretical physics and the like fascinate me to no end. String theory is quite an awesome concept, and one day might prove to be the correct line of thinking. But it's still in the baby steps phase.

Science almost always results in enlightenment. You are saying we should be enlightened first in order to understand the true meaning of the bible. Over the past few thousand years , man has clearly shown that he does not understand the bible, no matter what form it is in. Old Testament, New Testament, King James version ... or the couple books the Mormon's have !

But at least we agree that the bible should not be interpreted literally, no matter what version you follow.

No, I'm saying that enlightenment is required for any understanding of advanced concepts - including those contained in the New Testament.

You did miss the point however. An advanced astrophysicist creating a text for other scientists will not dumb it down. Since much of the Bible was used in the past to keep the dumber people from finding out what it really meant, the Church used to conduct all its masses in Latin and then the priests would interpret it for the people. Yet even today the Bible has gone under so many modern revisions and translations that it is getting harder to find the advanced concepts in modern versions. That is the way the heads of Churches prefer it.

However, on our own we are free to study and evaluate the meaning of the Bible without the prejudice offered by the Church. And having done that I can see much more than the average lay person, not only because I have been enlighten by the parables, but because I have had life-altering experiences that open my mind to the divinity in all things. Once that kind of enlightenment comes into mind, it is difficult (if not impossible) to fall into old assumptions.

So I will reiterate that the God concept (which I earlier defined as the interconnectedness between all things - that electron soup) and science are mutually compatible. God exists and scientific discoveries exist because it entertains us to explore the unknown and therefore it becomes God's will to see His Son happy.

[whowhere]

So I will reiterate that the God concept (which I earlier defined as the interconnectedness between all things - that electron soup) and science are mutually compatible. God exists and scientific discoveries exist because it entertains us to explore the unknown and therefore it becomes God's will to see His Son happy.

In the 90's new age books lined the shelves. That's where you are at. Unless you meet the God of the OT in a manner describe in the OT or you meet Jesus as he supposedly risen from the dead. Personally (overtly) or communicate with them via a dream or other mediums described in the OT You are not enlightened. Quit lying to yourself, and quit lying to everyone around you. Your diatribe only shows how twisted Christinity has become and how lost Christians really are.

[kimmy]

How so?

The same "quantum theory reality" that says there's no way of knowing exactly where my electrons are located also describes the probabilities of where they might be, and tells us to an almost infinite certainty that my electron soup and your electron soup have no probability of interacting no matter how physically close we might be.

Or, if I were to concede that the probability of my "soup" interacting with your "soup" while incalculably small remains non-zero, then we can describe this supposed interaction between our "soup" as a communications channel with an infinitely small signal-to-noise ratio. At which point we invoke Shannon's Law and discover that an infinitely small signal-to-noise ratio would result in an infinitely low data transmission rate-- the message would take literally forever to transmit. If a message takes forever to transmit, then no information is ever successfully exchanged, which precludes the idea that such "interaction" could be the basis of any form of collective consciousness.

-k

[Shwa]

This:

Quantum mechanics describes interactions of particles at the sub-atomic level. It is not neuroscience, and its effects are at such a small scale that it most certainly has nothing to do with macro-atomic systems like your brain (where "self" comes from).

Is now this:

Radiation has clear macro-atomic effects, mainly because it, well, screws with molecular bonds, and in extreme cases with atoms themselves.

I think you'd better actually read the article.

For what purpose? To understand that the principles from quantum mechanics have direct implications in the macro-atomic world? With the exception of "your brain" of course.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

This from a guy who wants to debate the merits of his massless brain faeries.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

...and tells us to an almost infinite certainty that my electron soup and your electron soup have no probability of interacting no matter how physically close we might be.

Body heat! (and then I am sure there are chemical reactions that occur between two people when they are physically close)

For a high school understanding, yours is good enough for me!; but I think we are off track a bit.

C.R made this statement:

Quantum theory reality suggests that you are not interacting with the universe but the universe cannot be separated from "self" and therefore we are all part of the same electron soup.

Therefore the concept of your self is delusional and ethereal. You don't exist apart from everything else.

Now to cheat a little bit, I selectively edit this to mean:

Quantum theory reality suggests that you...don't exist apart from everything else.

Now whether 'quantum' is the correct term or not, I see this point to mean that at one physical level or another, "we" are reduced to a point where there is no distinguishable material parts that would constitute an individual personality. "We" are all made of the same 'stuff' that everything else is made of and that this 'stuff' operates within an interactive system governed by laws and so on; that "we" cannot be removed from this system in the material sense in that the 'law must be obeyed.'

I am not so sure that C.R believes that individual thought is impossible, just that the thought we are some how separate from this "stuff" is delusional. I can see that.

Now we exist and interact with many systems - biological, ecological, weather systems and so on, and even in these systems there are actions you could take that could affect someone else. Does kimmie's fart in Alberta create the weather system that freezes Ontario in the dark? Someone else can do the Chaos Theory math on that, but I often wonder if there are elemental actions - direct or indirect - that influence other elemental actions within a given system. We know this to be true for some systems, but is it true for all systems? Sort of like a 'law of systems.'

[kimmy]

Body heat! (and then I am sure there are chemical reactions that occur between two people when they are physically close)

For a high school understanding, yours is good enough for me!; but I think we are off track a bit.

I have been restricting my comments to the "quantum" portion because that is the part that some people seem to be clinging to as the pseudoscience behind their mythical ideas.

However, I think the Shannon's Law argument I just presented is equally applicable to electromagnetisim, radiation, gravity, heat, or any other "real science" justification for some kind of spiritual bond between us and other humans.

C.R made this statement:

Now to cheat a little bit, I selectively edit this to mean:

If you reread the message I responded to way back then, C-R's message #539, I think you will have to agree that you are being overly generous to C-R. You've taken a big pile of pseudoscience and extracted one sentence that seems semi-sorta-plausible.

Here's the first paragraph of what she wrote:

There is nothing more to you than pure energy - electrons, protons and neutrons.

All of your thinking matter is energy.

And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

Your interaction with the universe is not real in the material sense, and so it is nothing more than a delusion.

Individual thoughts are merely delusions in which we pretend we are smarter, or faster, or more cunning than every other individual we perceive out there.

Quantum theory reality suggests that you are not interacting with the universe but the universe cannot be separated from "self" and therefore we are all part of the same electron soup.

Therefore the concept of your self is delusional and ethereal. You don't exist apart from everything else.

And all of that is either flat out wrong or is based on a completely unscientific interpretation of established scientific theories.

Now whether 'quantum' is the correct term or not, I see this point to mean that at one physical level or another, "we" are reduced to a point where there is no distinguishable material parts that would constitute an individual personality. "We" are all made of the same 'stuff' that everything else is made of and that this 'stuff' operates within an interactive system governed by laws and so on; that "we" cannot be removed from this system in the material sense in that the 'law must be obeyed.'

We may made of the same stuff as everything else, but our stuff is separate. The existing laws that govern this interactive system don't support any claims of a spiritual bond between humans, or between humans and material objects around them. We're a self-contained unit, not a node in a network.

I am not so sure that C.R believes that individual thought is impossible, just that the thought we are some how separate from this "stuff" is delusional. I can see that.

And again, I think your interpretation of her post is extraordinarily generous.

Now we exist and interact with many systems - biological, ecological, weather systems and so on, and even in these systems there are actions you could take that could affect someone else. Does kimmie's fart in Alberta create the weather system that freezes Ontario in the dark? Someone else can do the Chaos Theory math on that, but I often wonder if there are elemental actions - direct or indirect - that influence other elemental actions within a given system. We know this to be true for some systems, but is it true for all systems? Sort of like a 'law of systems.'

I don't know anything about Chaos Theory. However, I am pretty sure that "the Butterfly Effect" isn't the all-encompassing spiritual bond c-r is trying to express.

I suspect that the odds of my farts in my present BC location causing ice storms in Ontario are governed by entropy and thermodynamics.

-k

[Shwa]

OK, generosity is out. I wasn't trying to be generous, just succinct. So can his original assertion stand up in it's entirety? Let's look:

There is nothing more to you than pure energy - electrons, protons and neutrons.

wave-particle duality - "In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all energy (and thus all matter) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. Being a central concept of quantum mechanics..." (emphasis is mine)

So on this statement, he has a point yes?

All of your thinking matter is energy.

neuroelectic - "of or relating to the electrical phenomena (as potentials or signals) generated by the nervous system" (including the brain I add)

So with his first point, his second point makes sense. Remember though, this is at the level of quantum 'reality.'

And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea...

perception - "awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation"

So now, what are "sensations?" Well, the bottom line is that they are neuroelectric in nature right? Sensations are signals that are interpreted by the brain.

...one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

This could be problematic, but I choose to see this statement in terms of an overall system governed by rules. I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time.

Your interaction with the universe is not real in the material sense, and so it is nothing more than a delusion.

So I think the premise here is that any interaction - that is, a material separation of oneself in relation to another (people, place or thing) from this 'quantum reality system' is not possible. I presume this to be an extention of the social concept that 'no man is an island.'

"Individual thoughts are merely delusions in which we pretend we are smarter, or faster, or more cunning than every other individual we perceive out there."

This refers to categories-for-example (smarter, faster, cunning) that could reinforce the thought that we are separate from another on the quantum reality level.

Quantum theory reality suggests that you are not interacting with the universe but the universe cannot be separated from "self" and therefore we are all part of the same electron soup.

I think we both agree that we are all made of the same stuff. This stuff is connected (chemcial bonds) to other stuff - we call it water, air, land...which form other systems we are a part of in the larger scale 'reality.'

Therefore the concept of your self is delusional and ethereal. You don't exist apart from everything else.

This is what I find interesting, a sort of paradox. I cannot find anything to suggest that, at the quantum reality level, a concept such as 'self' exists. At the quantum reality level, "I" do not exist at all, let alone 'apart from everything else' because there is nothing to distinguish "my" stuff from anthing else. Perhaps the idea here is that, materially or on the physical level, we are all made of the same stuff, but have devised categories to distinguish the various components of this stuff. But even still, the thoughts of those categories - the physical processes, are still made of the same stuff as everything else.

So, even being ungenerous, there is something to what c.r says and what is written refers only to the material universe as far as I can tell. Where does c.r say anything about 'spiritual' bonds? I thought c.r was referring to chemical bonds actually.

[GostHacked]

So, even being ungenerous, there is something to what c.r says and what is written refers only to the material universe as far as I can tell. Where does c.r say anything about 'spiritual' bonds? I thought c.r was referring to chemical bonds actually.

Science only deals with the material universe. Science does not deal with spirituality.

[kimmy]

So on this statement, he has a point yes?

No. Referring to protons, neutrons, and electrons as "pure energy" is false, wave-particle duality notwithstanding.

neuroelectic - "of or relating to the electrical phenomena (as potentials or signals) generated by the nervous system" (including the brain I add)

So with his first point, his second point makes sense. Remember though, this is at the level of quantum 'reality.'

Your nervous system isn't a cloud of pure energy. Your nervous system, at the plumbing level, operates as ions, pumps, and barriers. The charges moving about in your brain aren't free electrons, they're ions. Your brain doesn't work at the "quantum theory reality" level, your brain requires those big chunky nuclei.

And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea...

perception - "awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation"

So now, what are "sensations?" Well, the bottom line is that they are neuroelectric in nature right? Sensations are signals that are interpreted by the brain.

...one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

This could be problematic, but I choose to see this statement in terms of an overall system governed by rules. I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time.

She (he? it?) is arguing that your ideas are fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas through "quantum theory reality".

Your belief that she might be referring to a wealth of knowledge built up over time and shared through social means is not inherent in anything she wrote.

You're basically looking at a Rorschach blot and seeing a bunny.

I think we both agree that we are all made of the same stuff. This stuff is connected (chemcial bonds) to other stuff - we call it water, air, land...which form other systems we are a part of in the larger scale 'reality.'

Of course. We interact with the world around us. At a range of ... well, touch.

This is what I find interesting, a sort of paradox. I cannot find anything to suggest that, at the quantum reality level, a concept such as 'self' exists. At the quantum reality level, "I" do not exist at all, let alone 'apart from everything else' because there is nothing to distinguish "my" stuff from anthing else. Perhaps the idea here is that, materially or on the physical level, we are all made of the same stuff, but have devised categories to distinguish the various components of this stuff. But even still, the thoughts of those categories - the physical processes, are still made of the same stuff as everything else.

It seems to me that physical location is a pretty good way of distinguishing the stuff that makes up "you" and the stuff that makes up "me" or "my coffee".

So, even being ungenerous, there is something to what c.r says and what is written refers only to the material universe as far as I can tell. Where does c.r say anything about 'spiritual' bonds? I thought c.r was referring to chemical bonds actually.

c-r has been arguing that the "quantum theory reality" is more or less The Force as explained by Yoda.

For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

-k

[Who's Doing What?]

For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

-k

Luke, I am your father.

[Shwa]

No. Referring to protons, neutrons, and electrons as "pure energy" is false, wave-particle duality notwithstanding.

How would you refer to protons, neutrons and electrons, wave-particle duality notwithstanding, on the quantum level?

Your brain doesn't work at the "quantum theory reality" level, your brain requires those big chunky nuclei.

So brain matter is exempt from the principles of quantum mechanics? How about the neuroelectrical signals? Are they exempt too?

She (he? it?) is arguing that your ideas are fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas through "quantum theory reality".

Could you explain to me what an 'idea' is, if there is no physical properties to it? Are you saying that ideas are supernatural in some way?

It seems to me that physical location...

Isn't "physical location" just another category? Do you think that if you had a microscope that could actually show two or more distinct atoms of carbon, you could distinguish between one that is yours and one that came from something else? Do your atoms have labels on them? How about your ideas?

c-r has been arguing that the "quantum theory reality" is more or less The Force as explained by Yoda.

Haven't seen that yet. Just some reference to a biblical passage.

[GostHacked]

How would you refer to protons, neutrons and electrons, wave-particle duality notwithstanding, on the quantum level?

Same as any other level, you refer to them as protons, neutrons and electrons.

So brain matter is exempt from the principles of quantum mechanics? How about the neuroelectrical signals? Are they exempt too?

What principles would you be referring to? Anyone in particular, specifically?

Could you explain to me what an 'idea' is, if there is no physical properties to it? Are you saying that ideas are supernatural in some way?

Idea is the result of electric signals in the brain. This is an area of study we are just starting to grasp and understand. Most of how the brain works is a mystery to scientists.

Isn't "physical location" just another category? Do you think that if you had a microscope that could actually show two or more distinct atoms of carbon, you could distinguish between one that is yours and one that came from something else? Do your atoms have labels on them? How about your ideas?

Carbon is carbon. One carbon atom is not indistinguishable from another no matter where they are or where they are from. Because carbon is a base element. And most of what we see and most of what lives on this planet is carbon based.

[kimmy]

How would you refer to protons, neutrons and electrons, wave-particle duality notwithstanding, on the quantum level?

How about "matter".

So brain matter is exempt from the principles of quantum mechanics? How about the neuroelectrical signals? Are they exempt too?

Exempt? No, just at a scale far too large for quantum mechanic effects to be of any significance. It's like wondering if I should consult relativity to see how much heavier I will become while I am jogging. I should become heavier while in motion... but my speed relative to the speed of light makes the difference probably not really worth calculating.

Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move sodium ions around in my brain is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might move a parked car.

Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move sodium ions across cell membranes in my brain is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might push a parked car uphill.

Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move a sufficient quantity of sodium ions across cell membranes in my brain to cause a neuron to fire is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might push millions of parked cars uphill at once.

If I seem quick to dismiss the idea that quantum mechanics could form the basis for some kind of mental telepathy, it's because the idea is utterly stupid.

She (he? it?) is arguing that your ideas are fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas through "quantum theory reality".

Could you explain to me what an 'idea' is, if there is no physical properties to it? Are you saying that ideas are supernatural in some way?

I did not claim that there are no physical properties to an idea. I claimed that they are not fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas. Not through "quantum theory reality", or quantum mechanics, or electromagnetic signals, or radiation, or gravity, or kinetic energy, or any other means of interaction known to real science.

I already justified that claim with my earlier argument involving Shannon's Law, which I think is very solid.

What is the physical basis of an idea? That's difficult to say for sure, but the answer certainly requires an avalanche of millions of sodium ions flooding across a cell membrane. And you can't provide me a convincing means by which ideas from someone else's brain could move even one sodium ion inside my brain, let alone millions of them at once.

Isn't "physical location" just another category?

It's a rather fundamental one, considering the topic.

Do you think that if you had a microscope that could actually show two or more distinct atoms of carbon, you could distinguish between one that is yours and one that came from something else? Do your atoms have labels on them? How about your ideas?

No, and no. However, that's completely irrelevant.

While I can't put serial numbers on my ideas to claim they didn't come from elsewhere, I can claim with complete certainty that they were not planted in my head by means of electromagnetic waves, radiation, gravity, quantum mechanics.

If there is an idea in my brain, it got there through one of two ways: either I thought of it myself, or I received it through my senses (saw it, heard it, touched it, etc.)

Haven't seen that yet. Just some reference to a biblical passage.

Her contributions to this thread have been in claiming a scientific basis for "God". She talked about our thinking matter all being energy that is connected through "quantum theory reality" to other peoples' thinking matter by way of concluding that individual thought is an illusion.

Same question to you: what did she write in this thread to support your assumption that she is actually talking about some kind of social sharing of ideas?

-k

[charter.rights]

Shwa, Its obvious. You are debating with someone who admits she hasn't a clue about quantum mechanics.

Edited January 29, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

How about "matter".

We've looped now. Recall this from the earlier reference from Wikipedia:

In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all energy (and thus all matter)

What do you suppose the author of this article means? For instance, what is matter made of? Classical physics right? You have no problem extending classic physics into the quantum mechanical world, but what about the rules of quantum mechanics being extended into the classical world? You know for such things as radiation, nuclear physics, chemistry...are you saying that there is a certain level of nature that quantum mechanics does not apply?

I guess you are saying this:

Exempt? No, just at a scale far too large for quantum mechanic effects to be of any significance.

But again, we are looping:

Thus, the current logic of correspondence principle between classical and quantum mechanics is that all objects obey laws of quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics is just a quantum mechanics of large systems

Suggesting that some sort of interaction...

Is that what is being suggested? Or is the suggestion more like elements in a system having influence on other elements? QM is much more than just stray electrons. Your examples are like using a car to describe all forms of transportation.

If I seem quick to dismiss the idea that quantum mechanics could form the basis for some kind of mental telepathy, it's because the idea is utterly stupid.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about telepathy except you. Is that how you identify this elemental interaction on the quantum level? Here is a cool theory, you should check it out. Here is the theory at the qm level.

I already justified that claim with my earlier argument involving Shannon's Law, which I think is very solid.

You justified that claim using electron interaction only. (you took the phrase 'electron soup' literally) But is your argument as solid with all the other elements in the system? For instance, I can see light that was generated thousands of years ago with my very own eyes. I can see the effect of that light on others. I have seen that light generate art, poetry and inspire myths. Fundamental interaction.

And you can't provide me a convincing means by which ideas from someone else's brain could move even one sodium ion inside my brain, let alone millions of them at once.

Television. Oops, I used electrons as an example. But I am sure, but the time you read this part, you get the idea.

I can claim with complete certainty that they were not planted in my head by means of electromagnetic waves, radiation, gravity, quantum mechanics.

Really? Then what you are actually seeing when you read this? Mere words on a screen?

Same question to you: what did she write in this thread to support your assumption that she is actually talking about some kind of social sharing of ideas?

I am not sure what you are referring to here.

[kimmy]

I don't recall anyone saying anything about telepathy except you.

c-r is talking about our individual ideas being inseparable from a collective consciousness:

"It most certainly can be used to prove the existence of God as I described - the universe of connectedness and collective consciousness. The Bible describes this as "The Christ" - the universal thread that flows through all of us."

All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

That sounds like "telepathy" to me, but call it what you wish.

Is that how you identify this elemental interaction on the quantum level?

That's how I describe the theories c-r is advancing.

Find a more generous description if you wish, but you'll just be putting lipstick on a pig.

You justified that claim using electron interaction only. (you took the phrase 'electron soup' literally) But is your argument as solid with all the other elements in the system?

I've said a number of times that the same argument is equally applicable to any means which could be used to convey an idea from one brain to the other without the means of the senses.

You're going to give me a bunch of stuff like this to dispute the notion...

For instance, I can see light that was generated thousands of years ago with my very own eyes. I can see the effect of that light on others. I have seen that light generate art, poetry and inspire myths. Fundamental interaction.

But it doesn't address my point. Does your brain perceive light directly? No. It doesn't perceive light at all. It receives electrochemical impulses from a highly refined optical sensor.

I'm not arguing that we can't share information through the use of our senses. I'm arguing that we don't (and can't) receive ideas directly out of the "electron soup". As I said in my previous post:

If there is an idea in my brain, it got there through one of two ways: either I thought of it myself, or I received it through my senses (saw it, heard it, touched it, etc.)

Television. Oops, I used electrons as an example. But I am sure, but the time you read this part, you get the idea.

Another fine example of how ideas can be received through the senses, but nothing to support the theory that our brains are physically connected to a collective consciousness.

Really? Then what you are actually seeing when you read this? Mere words on a screen?

Yet another fine example of how ideas can be received through the senses, but nothing to support the theory that our brains are physically connected to a collective consciousness.

I am not sure what you are referring to here.

I am asking how you got this:

I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time.

...out of this:

"It most certainly can be used to prove the existence of God as I described - the universe of connectedness and collective consciousness. The Bible describes this as "The Christ" - the universal thread that flows through all of us."

All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

-k

[whowhere]

All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas.

That sounds like "telepathy" to me, but call it what you wish.

Not really, an active brain is a storm of brain waves. These waves is your brain working. These waves can be picked up with electronic measuring instruments. Depending on the state and organization of your brain you could transmit waves. Depending on the state and organization of the recieving brain they could be interpreted accordingly. How often do people do things without thinking about it and go into automatic mode. How are they able to accomplish what they are doing operating this way. Science has labled this the subconscious mind. Look into the affects of sublimal messages put into advertisements. People were induced to go out and buy that product. The Power of suggestion at work. The fact is, you are reacting to the world around you both consciously and unconsciously. Brainwaves is energy, the human body puts out a 100 watts of power. Some of this power could be in the form of brainwaves.

[GostHacked]

Not really, an active brain is a storm of brain waves. These waves is your brain working. These waves can be picked up with electronic measuring instruments.

True, as long as those instruments are connected to the head of the person.

Depending on the state and organization of your brain you could transmit waves. Depending on the state and organization of the recieving brain they could be interpreted accordingly.

Or interpreted wrong, or not interpreted at all or completely ignored because not everyone's brain is made up the same way.

How often do people do things without thinking about it and go into automatic mode. How are they able to accomplish what they are doing operating this way. Science has labled this the subconscious mind.

Do something over and over and over and it eventually becomes second nature. I used to struggle at touch typing, but now I really don't even have to think about it at all. Why is that? Constant repetition. Practice practice practice. Or you could be predisposed to do a certain task that makes it easier to do said task. Different wiring of the brain.

Look into the affects of sublimal messages put into advertisements. People were induced to go out and buy that product. The Power of suggestion at work.

The power of suggestion is what advertisers use as a tool to sell the product. Ring that bell and the mouth waters. And it's all in the cadence, tone, pace .... hypnotists know these tricks as well. There really is no mystery as to how it works.

Here is another scenario : Many times I will dream about something that was mentioned in a passing moment, and only in that moment that day. And you don't really know what was said until the next day when you wake up from the really screwed up dream about what was said in that passing moment. It gets stuck subconsciously and the dream state purges that garbage. That has been my experience throughout my life.

The fact is, you are reacting to the world around you both consciously and unconsciously. Brainwaves is energy, the human body puts out a 100 watts of power. Some of this power could be in the form of brainwaves.

'Could be' being the operative term here. Now is it putting out AC ? DC ? Something different altogether?? Rock on.