The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[kimmy]

Bare in mind this is measuring brain activity and not the actual frequency of the thought itself.

This is an extremely important point, and one completely lost on those advocating "brainwaves" as a medium of mental telepathy.

Brainwaves are not thought coded into electromagnetic form. Brainwaves are a measurable result of thought, much like tailpipe emissions are a measurable result of an internal combustion engine.

However, I must disagree with this...

I say its sad because there is currently no devices such a radio to capture infrared waves for you to prove there is no information being projected on those waves and finding its way off of the planet earth.

There's this revolutionary technology that's going around that you might have heard of...

We can certainly measure infrared (and higher frequency light as well) using photodiodes. My TV is demodulating information from an infrared signal each time I change the channel.

Quantum mechanics happens to involve the Radiation of heat from the earth. Radiation are waves/frequencies. The earth is emitting frequencies of its own and these frequencies can be carrier frequencies (if the technology exists to make it happen) and information signals can be imposed on these signals. Transmission of thought could occur on these Radiated Frequencies. Sad for modern Technology as they are not quite able to detect these frequencies they are only able to take a picture of them along the same lines as an MRI. I am not really questioning what you are saying is plausible or not I am merely interjecting the fallacies of what you are argueing against.

The big problem with positing blackbody radiation as a means of communications (as I see it, at least) is: how is the signal being modulated? Your transmitter would need to be heating and cooling itself to move its radiant spectrum enough to generate a detectable modulation.

With blackbody radiation, you don't have a nice pure frequency output like you can generate in radio. You generate a spectrum that's a lot like a bell curve. Because the peak of the spectrum is so round and wide, you don't get much variation by moving the center of the curve just a little. Unlike radio, you have to move the spectrum around a lot to get a significant change in the peak. And all that heating and cooling would take an enormous amount of energy. We would detect those temperature shifts, and we would detect all that energy being spent.

-k

[kimmy]

The problem is, you are skipping over a significant portion of the "transmitted" part, likely the part about being converted to digital form and then moved electronically from one location to another. But it is sufficient that you can see how each 'layer' has a transmitting and reception portion. Can you see that aspect?

Certainly. What of it?

Are you certain? There appears to be some hesitation here. "Seems likely" "could be" These are speculative terms. For instance, did you view the painting in it's original size format? Was the opacity of the paint apparent? How about the overall construction including brushstrokes, colour selection, etc?

I said "seems likely" because I'm not sure that we have conclusive proof that the Mona Lisa looks the same today as it did when it was first completed. I said "could be" as a means of inviting discussion of the merits of that assertion.

Loss of brushstrokes and change of scale, these can again be discussed in terms of loss of signal or lower signal to noise ratio. Does it make a difference to my overall impression of the piece? Quite likely. Does it detract from my ability to discern the image as the sender intended? Not as likely. As I mentioned earlier, the flaw in this communication link isn't the physical channel, it's the receiver's ability to interpret the data.

It is not c.r's idea as I pointed out earlier when I supplied the links for 'collective consciousness' 'collective unconscious' semiosphere, logosphere, etc. Do you think this might be a case of "...unlikely that receiver has obtained message sender intended?"

I think I have acquitted myself well in this area. Repeatedly. What I see c.r talking about is that everything - all matter and energy - including any brain energy, thoughts, ions, etc. as existing in a reality at the quantum level which does not distinguish between any one set of thoughts with another. With the discussion about 'communication paths' I think we are establishing that even at the quantum level context is the distinguising factor.

The ideas you presented have little to do with the ideas c-r is advancing.

I am more interested in hearing you discuss the ideas you're interested in than I am in hearing you discuss what you think c-r is trying to say. She's had ample opportunity to speak for herself, has done so, and has demonstrated herself to be a stark raving fruitcake. Let's move on to something more interesting.

Nope. I think the physical connections to a collective are pretty apparent. No man is an island. You have already proved that any collective intelligence is physical in nature.

I have been using the word "social" because I want to differentiate the forms of communication-- speaking, writing, gestures, print, television, lately the internet, and so on-- that have formed the basis of human social interaction for as long as we have been a species.

I would like to distinguish these sorts of communications, which I've called "social" because I don't know what a better or more technical term might be-- from ideas being advance by c-r. You didn't care for the term "telepathy", so how about "extrasensory"? Some means of receiving information that bypasses the 5 senses could fairly be described as "extrasensory", right?

What is a collective intelligence formed from then if not some sort of intermediate, phsyical, means?

According to c-r, it's formed of electromagnetic waves from our brains travelling through the air and combining with other waves and forming thought that exists outside of the human brain.

Haven't you been reading along?

Analysis of what situation? You are putting words in my mouth, feelings in my nerves and thoughts in my mind to suit your own position. Yet none of those words, feelings or thoughts have anything to do with me. It's all you.

You chided me for not being "scientific" for not being open to the idea that our brains might be receiving information in the form of neutrinos.

Being "scientific" doesn't require me to be open to hypotheses that have glaring flaws. I pointed out what appear to be glaring flaws... do you disagree with with that assessment? If not, then what's the problem?

-k

[Oleg Bach]

One gentle devine soft kiss on the lips conquers science and religon...come to me baby let me show you God....It's not a big deal..humans have the power to melt the universe - with a kiss.

[charter.rights]

The ideas you presented have little to do with the ideas c-r is advancing.

Incorrect. Shwa gets it perfectly. You still don't.

According to c-r, it's formed of electromagnetic waves from our brains travelling through the air and combining with other waves and forming thought that exists outside of the human brain.

Incorrect. At the quantum level there is no separation between energy, brain waves, hard matter, or thought. They are all the same stuff.

Haven't you been reading along?

You might have been reading but are not yet capable of the comprehensions necessary to advance the discussions. Much of the jet lag has been trying to get you from blond to brunette.

You chided me for not being "scientific" for not being open to the idea that our brains might be receiving information in the form of neutrinos.

The radiation examples were provided in response to you saying that all thought was contained entirely within the brain an not affected by outside forces. You were proven wrong with the presentation that a brain exposed by nuclear radiation can have devastating effects on the brain.

The neutrino example was presented to to counter Toadbrother's assertion that nothing could penetrate rock and I cited the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory 1 mile below rock where neutrinos are being measured by passing them through a 12m sphere of heavy water. He was wrong just as you are wrong.

Being "scientific" doesn't require me to be open to hypotheses that have glaring flaws. I pointed out what appear to be glaring flaws... do you disagree with with that assessment? If not, then what's the problem?

There are no glaring flaws, just poor comprehension and your admittedly incomplete intelligence on the matter. If you took the time to actually read the cites provided thus far, and do your own independent study of the subject matter, you would appear less foolish. Although I do understand the quote the blonds do have more fun, I don't think you realize that it is often at their expense.

Edited February 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

According to c-r, it's formed of electromagnetic waves from our brains travelling through the air and combining with other waves and forming thought that exists outside of the human brain.

Haven't you been reading along?

I have. My impression is that c.r is saying that all thought, brain waves, brain matter can be decomposed into their constituent quantum particle parts and that at that level, there is nothing to distinguish one from another except through context.

You chided me for not being "scientific" for not being open to the idea that our brains might be receiving information in the form of neutrinos.

My reference to neutrinos was in relation to a medium for 'subspace radio.' My trekker geek was showing.

Being "scientific" doesn't require me to be open to hypotheses that have glaring flaws. I pointed out what appear to be glaring flaws... do you disagree with with that assessment? If not, then what's the problem?

I suppose another way to imagine it is synchronically at the quantum level and transpose meanings. If we can imagine that synchronic-self at the quantum level of understanding, we might simply exist as energy beings. If someone were to define 'spirit' as that physical energy that we exist as/exist in then I think that would be fair game. It certainly would give some concerte meaning to some esoteric terminology.

[GostHacked]

Incorrect. At the quantum level there is no separation between energy, brain waves, hard matter, or thought. They are all the same stuff.

I'll equate this to primordial soup. Everything is there, but in that form/state nothing useful seems to happen. Everything just is, but does not amount to anything and does nothing.

You might have been reading but are not yet capable of the comprehensions necessary to advance the discussions. Much of the jet lag has been trying to get you from blond to brunette.

Yeah this will get you points in a debate. You are pretty full of yourself it seems.

The radiation examples were provided in response to you saying that all thought was contained entirely within the brain an not affected by outside forces. You were proven wrong with the presentation that a brain exposed by nuclear radiation can have devastating effects on the brain.

Many types of radiation can do horrible things to the whole body and not just the brain. It can affect thought by destroying part of the brain that produces certain thoughts feelings. I still don't see it as a means of communication. It's why we call it a bio-hazard. It can affect your thought by simply destroying your brain. A hammer blow to the head also has the same effect. It does not influence your thought or transfer any thought information. It just kills it.

The neutrino example was presented to to counter Toadbrother's assertion that nothing could penetrate rock and I cited the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory 1 mile below rock where neutrinos are being measured by passing them through a 12m sphere of heavy water. He was wrong just as you are wrong.

Well, we don't fly Kirk's ship yet, and we have no huge deflector dish Geordie can modify with Data's help. TB also agreed with the fact that neutrino's can pass through everything. If they can pass through everything, it does not seem like it would affect our bodies in anyway. A non-charged particle with essentially no mass can pass through your body quite easily. How would that be used for communication when we only have a device that detects it. There is no way (at this time) to harness or control neutrinos.

There are no glaring flaws, just poor comprehension and your admittedly incomplete intelligence on the matter. If you took the time to actually read the cites provided thus far, and do your own independent study of the subject matter, you would appear less foolish. Although I do understand the quote the blonds do have more fun, I don't think you realize that it is often at their expense.

You sound like a mad scientist. But that won't win me any points in a debate.

[kimmy]

First off, my apologies, c-r. For some reason I've always been under the impression that you're female. I guess because I've seldom met males who are so whiny and so scientifically illiterate. Sorry.

I'll respond to Shwa and the rest of your message when I get home from work, but I just had to address this...

The neutrino example was presented to to counter Toadbrother's assertion that nothing could penetrate rock and I cited the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory 1 mile below rock where neutrinos are being measured by passing them through a 12m sphere of heavy water. He was wrong just as you are wrong.

Did ToadBrother actually say nothing can penetrate rock? Let's have a look at that.

Here's that exchange from earlier...

An important thing to remember here is probabilities. At the subatomic level, the probabilities of bizarre and exotic behaviors like tunneling, virtual particles and the whole array of quantum strangeness is very high. The probability of an electron tunneling through an extraordinarily small surface is very high, the probability of it tunneling through, say, a three foot brick wall, is all but impossible. So quantum effects simply cannot explain the things you want it to explain. Your just spouting pseudo-scientific word salads.

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

...and here's the thing, c-r:

Anybody who actually knows anything about Quantum Mechanics knows that when ToadBrother referenced Electron Tunnelling, he wasn't talking about penetrating rock!

The fact that such an obvious reference went right over your head has exposed how much you really know about this topic. At least I'm honest in my assessment of how much I know about modern physics. You sure aren't.

-k

[M.Dancer]

First off, my apologies, c-r. For some reason I've always been under the impression that you're female. I guess because I've seldom met males who are so whiny and so scientifically illiterate. Sorry.

-k

There's a reason why I always pay attention when Kimtastic writes. Now I must remember not to drink coffee at the same time.

Awesome signature btw...

[Shwa]

Anybody who actually knows anything about Quantum Mechanics knows that when ToadBrother referenced Electron Tunnelling, he wasn't talking about penetrating rock!

The fact that such an obvious reference went right over your head has exposed how much you really know about this topic. At least I'm honest in my assessment of how much I know about modern physics. You sure aren't.

OK, this is simply a confusion of terms, no need to get medieval!

electron tunneling [i′lek‚trän ′tən·əl·iŋ]

(quantum mechanics)

The passage of electrons through a potential barrier which they would not be able to cross according to classical mechanics, such as a thin insulating barrier between two superconductors.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

+

Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.[1]

So would it have been better for c.r to say electron neutrino tunnelling to refer to neutrinos passing through rock or heavy water, etc.?

[ToadBrother]

So would it have been better for c.r to say electron neutrino tunnelling to refer to neutrinos passing through rock or heavy water, etc.?

Could you at least read a book on elementary particles before you comment?

Neutrinos don't tunnel (quantum tunneling is a different phenomena). Neutrinos, being almost massless and chargeless, react only weakly with other matter. Tunneling is an entirely different effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

[kimmy]

One gentle devine soft kiss on the lips conquers science and religon...come to me baby let me show you God....It's not a big deal..humans have the power to melt the universe - with a kiss.

Is this like some kind of pick-up attempt?

There's a reason why I always pay attention when Kimtastic writes. Now I must remember not to drink coffee at the same time.

Awesome signature btw...

-k

[kimmy]

OK, this is simply a confusion of terms,

Good effort, but no. This wasn't confusion, this someone claiming to be knowledgeable completely failing to recognize well-known terminology of the field.

I certainly knew what Toadbrother was referencing, and I don't know much about quantum mechanics. How could an "expert" fail to recognize it?

I'm also perplexed as to why you're so determined to apologize for c-r's shortcomings. You ridiculed me earlier for allegedly trying to invoke Toadbrother as a "knight in shining armor". It seems to me that rushing to c-r's aid with such lame rationalizations for his mistakes makes it appear that you're trying to be exactly that. Why? Do you owe him cash or something?

no need to get medieval!

Medieval? Considering the tone of the comments that have been directed toward me, I think I've been quite restrained.

So would it have been better for c.r to say electron neutrino tunnelling to refer to neutrinos passing through rock or heavy water, etc.?

And this response has me becoming skeptical of your knowledge of this subject as well. I've been very forthright about my credentials in this area. Would it be unreasonable of me to ask you to do the same?

-k

Edited February 11, 2010 by kimmy

[M.Dancer]

Is this like some kind of pick-up attempt?

-k

Not me sweets..you're too far away, too young, too lippy and I am too far away, too old and too married.

but we can still be adversarial friends

[M.Dancer]

....oh...I mean lippy in the good way...

[M.Dancer]

..unless the reader is drinking coffee, then it's lippy in the bad way..

[kimmy]

I have. My impression is that c.r is saying that all thought, brain waves, brain matter can be decomposed into their constituent quantum particle parts and that at that level, there is nothing to distinguish one from another except through context.

Well, depending on what you mean by "context", I actually agree with this.

But there's the rub, because as far as I am concerned, that "context" would have to include all of the structure and organization that makes you what you are and makes me what I am and makes c-r ...well, whatever c-r is.

c-r clearly doesn't believe that "context" in that sense even exists.

I, on the other hand, feel that "context" in that sense not only exists but is essential to the discussion. If your quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc etc, aren't organized into the structures that they exist in, then you're not "you", you're not an intelligence or an entity, you could just as easily be a coffee table or a pile of sand or a cloud of plasma. As you said earlier, we're all made out of the same stuff as everything else. So what's the difference between you and me, or between you and a pile of sand? The organization, structure, or "context".

You already agreed that there is a physical component to a collective intelligence, and a physical component to communication. You introduced the OSI communications model to this thread, presumably because you believe we're talking about a multi-node communication model rather than a big amorphous cloud of Tao, yes?

Would you also agree that if there's no communication, there's no collective intelligence? Once we decide that, we'll have agreed what we're actually talking about.

My reference to neutrinos was in relation to a medium for 'subspace radio.' My trekker geek was showing.

The premise was how neutrinos might influence the human brain, not whether they could be the basis of a high-tech radio.

About the only possibility for neutrinos to influence thoughts would be if they were harnessed for a communications technology, but again I would put your radio into the realm of what I called "social" communications earlier.

I suppose another way to imagine it is synchronically at the quantum level and transpose meanings. If we can imagine that synchronic-self at the quantum level of understanding, we might simply exist as energy beings. If someone were to define 'spirit' as that physical energy that we exist as/exist in then I think that would be fair game. It certainly would give some concerte meaning to some esoteric terminology.

I'm not going to pretend to understand what "synchronically" means or what you're trying to express here. Perhaps you could explain it in more straightforward terms. You're talking to a blonde, remember?

-k

[kimmy]

Not me sweets..

Oh, I was referring to Oleg's generous, yet slightly creepy, offer to "show me God" and melt the universe with a kiss.

you're too far away, too young, too lippy and I am too far away, too old and too married.

but we can still be adversarial friends

sigh.... born just a little too late.

-k

[jbg]

First off, my apologies, c-r. For some reason I've always been under the impression that you're female. I guess because I've seldom met males who are so whiny and so scientifically illiterate. Sorry.

And geographically illiterate. That's why 125% of BC is s subject to the kind of land claims c-r advocates when he demands, in his signature, an Olympic boycott.

[ToadBrother]

The premise was how neutrinos might influence the human brain, not whether they could be the basis of a high-tech radio.

About the only possibility for neutrinos to influence thoughts would be if they were harnessed for a communications technology, but again I would put your radio into the realm of what I called "social" communications earlier.

It's hard enough even detecting the damned things, the likelihood that they would even interact with so much as a single synapse is pretty remote. Look at how damned big neutrino detectors are. To use them for communications, I can envision receivers having to be about the size of a planet to even get a moderately coherent message.

I don't think these guys quite get it. Neutrinos are nearly massless (maybe even massless), have no charge, and thus seldom exert any kind of influence on surrounding matter, even if that matter is a ball of rock 25,000 miles in diameter. Enough of them together (providing they have a rest mass), and you could influence other matter via gravity, but considering the speed they travel, it seems rather difficult to imagine a reasonable way of harnessing sufficient numbers to have any measurable gravitational effect. They were briefly considered a candidate for dark matter, but other than a possible small rest mass and their vast numbers, they are entirely unsuitable.

Edited February 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

We all - perhaps not all will travel between different dimensions of existance in our life time..some times while awake and other times while in the sleep state. Will not admit doing this myself --- well once..and sometimes you get stuck on a rescue mission and can't get home.

[Shwa]

Could you at least read a book on elementary particles before you comment?

Neutrinos don't tunnel (quantum tunneling is a different phenomena). Neutrinos, being almost massless and chargeless, react only weakly with other matter. Tunneling is an entirely different effect:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

I have read enough books on elementary particles in the various eras of human history to gain an understanding sufficient for the level of the discussion. If you want to do the math, please feel free.

My reference is to a confusion of terms where c.r was using the term 'tunnelling' to describe neutrinos passing through rock. That is a fair description.

I don't think these guys quite get it.

Of course not. Completely ignorant of the subject hand. And how could we be anything else when confronted with a person who has made science in their own image? I get the sense TB that yours is a static mind, all locked up with fixed ideas and very, very little actual learning going on. Or is it actually the capacity to learn that has degraded?

...it seems rather difficult to imagine a reasonable way of harnessing sufficient numbers to have any measurable gravitational effect.

And it seemed rather difficult for some scientists to imagine man breathing underwater, walking in space, calculating the speed of light or capturing neutrinos. I believe those were the scientists that were left behind.

[Shwa]

Light!

But there's the rub, because as far as I am concerned, that "context" would have to include all of the structure and organization that makes you what you are and makes me what I am...

Now we can see the same thing. We can "imagine" it.

c-r clearly doesn't believe that "context" in that sense even exists.

I am not sure. Theories and hypothesis develop, they move along. With c.r ideas, I see the medium, but I see problems with its use in the manner described. But not impossible problems, just hurdles.

...presumably because you believe we're talking about a multi-node communication model rather than a big amorphous cloud of Tao, yes?

Pretty close yes. But the notion of a stacked communication path is key I think.

Would you also agree that if there's no communication, there's no collective intelligence? Once we decide that, we'll have agreed what we're actually talking about.

I can tentatively agree, yes, in the sense that the meaning of communication could change. Lets put it this way - not sure what book, Broca's Brain or something, that described the unpredictable nature of how neurons fire throughout the brain. So the tentative aspect is that is it necessary to describe communication as a predictable phenomenon or a phenomenon that rests upon predictability?

For instance, we will likely agree that a predictable communication path at the quantum level is determined by context. This is a combination of what we know and what we agree upon. However, notwithstanding that I think our knowledge of the quantum 'reality' is in it's infancy, there is the problem of quantum noise and what effect that phenomenon has on a total communication path.

Now in the real world we use shielding on wires to prevent crosstalk and other interference. However - as an open ended question - is it possible that noise at the quantum level can be a signal carrier?

[Shwa]

I'm not going to pretend to understand what "synchronically" means or what you're trying to express here. Perhaps you could explain it in more straightforward terms.

Imagine someone in a frozen slice of time and not be concerned with what comes before or after. This is a analytical device only. So if you can imagine someone in a frozen slice of time, then decompose that person into the constituent physical levels from the 'real' world to the 'quantum' world.

This U of O prof has a drawing as an example.

[ToadBrother]

I have read enough books on elementary particles in the various eras of human history to gain an understanding sufficient for the level of the discussion. If you want to do the math, please feel free.

Clearly you have not, because tunneling and how neutrinos seem to pass through normal matter have nothing in common with each other.

My reference is to a confusion of terms where c.r was using the term 'tunnelling' to describe neutrinos passing through rock. That is a fair description.

Please save me the post hoc rationalizations.

Of course not. Completely ignorant of the subject hand. And how could we be anything else when confronted with a person who has made science in their own image? I get the sense TB that yours is a static mind, all locked up with fixed ideas and very, very little actual learning going on. Or is it actually the capacity to learn that has degraded?

I'm sorry. From a guy who has shown near total ignorance on the topics of quantum mechanics and elementary particles, this criticism doesn't exactly seem very biting.

And it seemed rather difficult for some scientists to imagine man breathing underwater, walking in space, calculating the speed of light or capturing neutrinos. I believe those were the scientists that were left behind.

As Carl Sagan once said:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Why would you even want to use neutrinos to communicate over large distances, when you have photons, which are far easier to discriminate and manipulate?

[Oleg Bach]

The deepest secrets are jealously guarded - what is worse is that these means of human control that are adhered to are out of date...What was science and fact and glorious mystic knowledge is now a mistake. It is much like those people that observe astrology....The planets are NOT where they were five hundred years ago - yet fools do not realize that time - that institutionalized concepts has moved on and those concepts are now damaging because they are out of sync.