…narratives and illustrations.
I had no trouble understanding the non-math links, there say the same thing the videos say that I linked. ???
I really didn’t want to discuss drugs, but you said pretty much what I believe about them. In some cases they may be indicated and especially where the individual will not help with the healing process. Drugs do not cure as you said and intensive knowledge must be taught if a cure will be effective. I have visited mental hospitals and worked for a brief time in one.
I hoped you would say something about the first part of my post about consciousness. OK. I just thought you would want to talk about it.
There is no test for mental illness, it is judgement only.
Them you didn’t understand those either.
Really? I hate to type this but, CITE?
That’s fine I don’t mind.
Maybe I can help you understand something. Math is a subset of the English language, without the language there is no math. My understanding of QM is fine, I have been reading about it for years.
Just to give you some background.
I am 72 years old, I have lived throught a lot of ups and downs.
When I was younger I turned down an invitation to join Mensa.
When I joined the Navy the Captain called me in and told me I had made the highest score on the Navy entrance exam he had ever seen.
When I was in high school my IQ was over 130.
I don’t claim to be any smarter than anyone else, But I sure as hell can understand what I read.
Math is unequivocally not a subset of the English language. Where did you come up with that little gem?
Mathematical concepts can be expressed using English (or German, or Mandarin, or whatever), but that doesn’t make math itself a language or a subset of one–and mathematics predates the English language by quite a few centuries.
Trees can be described in English, but they certainly aren’t a “subset of the English language.”
But you’re applying quantum mechanics to macro objects, and trying to apply it to spirituality, which clearly indicates that you don’t understand it. I suspect what you’ve been reading is books about quantum mechanics written by spiritualists rather than physicists.
And the only thing I have to say about your IQ-bragging is that your score on a high-school IQ test is not an indicator of your ability to understand specific concepts. It takes a lot of math and science background to understand quantum mechanics completely, and you’ve demonstrated in this thread that you don’t even know what science is (not to mention the fact that you don’t believe in science).
I have thought about it. There are clearly a set of things that are controlled by thoughts, and clearly some things that are not controlled by thoughts. That’s not in dispute.
You seem to think that thoughts are more spiffy-powerful than everybody else, at least when the absurdity of your position is not being explicitly pointed out to you (at which point you fall back over the uncontested control of limbs). I contend that beyond the stuff that everyone agrees we control with our thoughts, the rest of it’s bullshit that you and others with wild imaginations simply made up. Falling back on control of limbs doesn’t contest my view of things one bit.
That’s because you have said a dearth of things that can possibly be correct, and provided literally no evidence to support your position that isn’t riddled with inherent flaws.
Let’s be quite clear - your problem is that you have these molehills (a bad dream you had once, your own personal tendency to see and experience odd things), and wish they were mountains (NDEs everywhere are real and spiritually significant always, everyone everywhere is surrounded by real spirits that aren’t hallucinations). And the problem with this is, in order to make your molehills into mountains you make outrageously exaggerated claims and, worse yet, scoop in all sorts of other things that don’t support your theories, and then pile all this extra stuff on your molehills to make them look bigger.
Case in point: this XOR thing. It kills that research. I know it, and by now, you know it. But you’re not interested in whether the evidence is any good or even what it really means - to you it’s just more dirt to build your mountain out of.
Of course, the rest of us can see that your mountain is mostly made of air - little or none of the things you cite even support your theory! And frankly, the fact that you see no problem building your mountain out of air makes us suspect that your molehill is made out of air too, and that there’s really nothing there. After all, you demonstrably can’t tell the difference between evidence that supports your theory, and methodologically flawed woo-woo crap that doesn’t support anything. So why should we believe that you’re not making that mistake with everything, and just seeing things where nothing at all is there?
Seriously, if this spirituality stuff was real, you wouldn’t need to resort to bad science and ignorant claims about quantum mechanics to support it - you would be able to jettison all that dead weight and make a strong case based on good science and true statements.
I’m solidly anti-crap all the way. If you want to get me to believe in the spiritual, why are you only presenting crap? If it actually was real, there would be real science, and you would be as quick as I to dismiss anything proven bad (like with this XOR business) because bad science discredits a true theory.
I don’t believe you will. I believe you will continue pushing bad science and false claims about QM, because I believe you have nothing else to talk about, nothing substantive or real. And every time you present bad evidence instead of good evidence, you make me more certain I’m right.
You are trying to say only you and your kind can understand QM. Not so. It’s funny you say micro and macro work under different laws or principles. Micro is macro, but I think you know that. As for spirituality it is more real than you believe right now, but your mind will change when you run into it.
And, of course, if you don’t know some language first, numbers are useless to you. Physicists are what I read, guess you didn’t know psychology, physicists, and other fields of science are now investigating spirituality. Do you really believe science can do away with teachings that have lasted thousands of years. You are probably not old enough to know why. Someday you will be.
All you have to do is look back in time to see what you thought about and understand that’s why you are dealing with it now. In a few more years it will be clear to most all. Oh, yes, it’s bad science when you don’t agree with it, I understand. The record never changes, skeptics will believe anything that is anti-spiritual and nothing that is pro-spiritual. I understand, research don’t really matter.
No, I think he (he?) is trying to say that you, personally, don’t.
…and there’s one example why we think that. The phrase “micro and macro work under different principles” is a fundamental truth of quantum electrodynamics.
Ah. “Truthiness”.
Someday he will be old enough to know why he really believes science can do away with teachings that have lasted thousands of years? What?
No it isn’t, that’s why we have two different words for the two different states. They aren’t the same.
And why would you bother trying to understand QM? You don’t have any use for science remember?
Science has investigated spirituality claims since it became science. Overturning superstitious thinking was one of the things that got proper science going. Science then, it has found exactly squat supporting any claims of spirituality. It isn’t just starting now, science has been debunking spirituality for a long time now.
You mean teachings like ‘The sun revolves around the earth’? And ‘lighting is caused by $deity’? Teachings like that?
It’s bad science if it provably can’t have the result you say it does due to an XOR function inevitably wiping out any possible psychic effects. The fact that you cannot ever admit that any of this psychic research is bad, despite the clarity and starkness of the evidence against it, is very strong proof that you know as well as me that if you let in the slightest breeze to blow away the crap, your entire belief system would topple like a house of cards.
And the rest of this is babble, too. I look back and there are no spirits in sight. We’ve been giving it “a few more years” for the last ten centuries and things have progressively gotten less promising for spiritualism. And “skeptics will believe anything that is anti-spiritual”? Do you even listen to yourself? I don’t believe that pod people have replaced our government officials, either. It’s got nothing to do with spiritualism - it has to do with things being looney ideas that haven’t a shread of solid evidence to support them, only at best shoddy piss-poor research and outright lies.
Research matters. To us. To you, it’s got nothing to do with research - it has to do with if it agrees with you. If you can somehow use it to pile more dirt on your molehill. You say that skeptics will believe anything that is anti-spiritual and nothing that is pro-spiritual? Hardly - it is you who believes anything that is (or can be vaguely pretended to be) pro-spiritual and nothing that is is anti-spiritual.
It is not us that are filtering by results. It’s you.
What you are talking about is EEG activity, or the electrical activity of the brain which does change often under different conditions. I would like to point out that the electrical activity of the brain has not been proven to actually be consciousness. No memory, thoughts, emotions, etc., have been isolated in the activity itself. Due to current near death experience research that shows consciousness lives after the death of the brain I suspect that brain activity is only the footprint of consciousness, the effect of consciousness on the brain, and not consciousness itself.
[/quote]
Well, honestly, the kind of NDE research I cite doesn’t address any of that one way or the other. A good example of what is does is to define the subjective experience of an NDE according to agreed-upon criteria. That’s the Greyson scale, and it’s a reliable scale. It differentiates subjectively “genuine NDE’s” from experiences that people might think are NDE’s, but are actually organic brain syndrome, for instance, because those won’t meet the same criteria. Also, cardiac arrest in the controlled setting of a hospital can be defined as a standard condition most likely to produce a subjectively verifiable NDE. All of this is necessary in order to even begin discussing the unique neurobiology of an NDE. And this is something that’s really worth doing for a lot of reasons.
However, none of it has anything to do with whether consciousness lives on after the death of a brain, or whether NDE’s mean that there’s life after death, or whether they prove that God is going to come for us and we get to go to heaven if we can repeat the Nicene Creed correctly, or whatever. Maybe NDE’s really do mean that there’s life after death, and maybe they don’t. I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But research can’t answer that question, because it’s not a falsifiable question. Spirituality has no falsifiable question either. Nobody can say that if we can answer “no” to some specific question about it, then it can be disproven (which is my understanding, anyway, of a falsifiable question!) It’s not a subject for research. So why don’t we leave the weird need to mix in the world of research studies out of it and let it be what it is, which is a system of faith?
No, I’m not. I said exactly what I was trying to say. I never claimed that I understand quantum mechanics. I’ve studied quite a bit of math and science, and I don’t understand it yet (and I won’t get into an “I’m smarter than you” contest with you here, but I have decent basis for understanding, as I have a teaching credential in computer science, a patent on some of my work, and a long list of published works).
This statement alone proves that you don’t understand the basis behind quantum mechanics. Not even close.
Stop trying to move the target. You claimed that “mathematics is a subset of the English language.” That statement was incontestably false.
Certainly. Physicists have investigated spirituality way back to the days of phlogistons and beyond–but they’ve never managed to find any proof that it exists. Every single experiment has either been nonconclusive or has demonstrated that spirits were not at work in that case. Every single one.
Yes, it’s “he.” And yes, I’m saying that lekatt doesn’t understand it, isn’t trying to understand it, doesn’t want to understand it, and will refuse to understand it if his nose is rubbed in it.
Man…as I said before, I’ve been studying QM for YEARS and I’m just now BEGINNING to understand the implications of SOME of it. There is nothing in QM, no matter how thin you slice it, that has ANYTHING to do with spirituality. Nothing.
If you, lekatt, can show me one area where QM DOES prove that spirituality exists, I’ll come out to wherever you live and kiss your bare ass in the middle of the street at high noon.
Why can I say this? Because Quantum Mechanics has NOTHING to do with sipirtuality.
If you’re so damn smart, then why can you NOT comprehend something as basic as that?
He lives in Oklahoma.
Thanks Doc…I bet I could WALK there before I ever get any real proofs.
Well, honestly, the kind of NDE research I cite doesn’t address any of that one way or the other. A good example of what is does is to define the subjective experience of an NDE according to agreed-upon criteria. That’s the Greyson scale, and it’s a reliable scale. It differentiates subjectively “genuine NDE’s” from experiences that people might think are NDE’s, but are actually organic brain syndrome, for instance, because those won’t meet the same criteria. Also, cardiac arrest in the controlled setting of a hospital can be defined as a standard condition most likely to produce a subjectively verifiable NDE. All of this is necessary in order to even begin discussing the unique neurobiology of an NDE. And this is something that’s really worth doing for a lot of reasons.
However, none of it has anything to do with whether consciousness lives on after the death of a brain, or whether NDE’s mean that there’s life after death, or whether they prove that God is going to come for us and we get to go to heaven if we can repeat the Nicene Creed correctly, or whatever. Maybe NDE’s really do mean that there’s life after death, and maybe they don’t. I don’t know, and neither does anybody else. But research can’t answer that question, because it’s not a falsifiable question. Spirituality has no falsifiable question either. Nobody can say that if we can answer “no” to some specific question about it, then it can be disproven (which is my understanding, anyway, of a falsifiable question!) It’s not a subject for research. So why don’t we leave the weird need to mix in the world of research studies out of it and let it be what it is, which is a system of faith?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t do the research on near death experiences, I have just been reading about it for years. It is going on at about a dozen universities right now. I think it is as valid as any other research and it does show a separation of brain and consciousness. I didn’t dream this up, scientists did. I don’t think we can just ignore the whole thing especially since it was science that announced all things can be explained by natural causes which is true because anything can be explained in any way. That is not logical at all. You do realize that approx. 90% of the entire world does believe in spiritual things with millions of them having spiritual experiences. This is something that can’t be ignored forever.