Forums → WEPR → whats the difference?
| 183 | 43774 |
so,just about everybody has ruled out the possiblity of their being spcific Gods for a element.Such as the greek Gods,what is the difference however between believing in "mythology" and say for instance a Christan religion.Why is it more beliveable?Does anybody have a answer to why it is more believed that their is one God and not many? Why do people who believe in a God not realize that they are believing in the same thing that they also call rubbish?
- 183 Replies
well the first thing I would like to point out before you threw me off topic is the presence of a quantum consciousness.
prove me wrong on this and I will find more evidence
well the first thing I would like to point out before you threw me off topic is the presence of a quantum consciousness.
Great. How does that prove that their is an afterlife, exactly?
That is not proof. If I am trying to prove a zombie, as per my earlier example, I do not show a half eaten corpse. Sure, there is an extremely small possibility that the corpse was eaten by zombies, but it is equally as likely that the corpse was eaten by Santa Clause. A half eaten corpse is not proof of a zombie, so why would this be proof of an afterlife?
If I am trying to prove a zombie, I show you a zombie. If I can't get the zombie, I show something else that proves the zombie, like pictures of real zombies, or video footage of zombies under actual, non faked and non acting pretense. Why don't you show me something that actually proves the point you keep trying to make?
prove me wrong on this and I will find more evidence
That is not how science works... Find some actual evidence, please. Something that, if looked at, would say "There is an afterlife", even if a secular person looks at it. After all, if I show you a real zombie, even if you don't believe in zombies, then you would have to agree that it is a zombie once I show it to you.
I don't quite think you understand the scientific evidence
Zombies although could exist, do not
The quantum consciousness does exist (and has since the beginning of biological time)
for that matter due to certain laws of physics before the conscious everything both existed and was non-existent at the same time
I don't quite think you understand the scientific evidence
.....Ok?
Zombies although could exist, do not
So far so good....
The quantum consciousness does exist (and has since the beginning of biological time)
I would disagree with you there, but that is not what this is about. Biocentrism, what I think you are referring to, is pseudoscience...by a medical doctor. The theory has been disproven many times by actual physicist, but it is late and I am starting to get dizzy. Here is the link, find them yourself if you want.
Your post focuses entirely on that.
So where is the proof again? That proves nothing. You are jumping to conclusions based on little evidence. For example, lets say that a child died of a disease. We could say that that is just a naturally occurring thing, or we can say that it was caused by witches. The actual dead does not prove witches. Do you see what I am saying? Even if it was true, it does not prove an afterlife.
So where is the proof again? That proves nothing. You are jumping to conclusions based on little evidence. For example, lets say that a child died of a disease. We could say that that is just a naturally occurring thing, or we can say that it was caused by witches. The actual dead does not prove witches. Do you see what I am saying? Even if it was true, it does not prove an afterlife.
you need to watch this whole video I think you will enjoy it
you need to watch this whole video I think you will enjoy it
Did I mention it is midnight, I have work tomorrow, and I am dizzy? I am not sure how I stayed up this long.
I will watch it tomorrow if I find the time. I sleep now.
Did I mention it is midnight, I have work tomorrow, and I am dizzy? I am not sure how I stayed up this long.
I will watch it tomorrow if I find the time. I sleep now.
hey its all good don't worry about it, just watch it as soon as you can and when you do make sure you watch the whole thing
you need to watch this whole video I think you will enjoy it
You do realise that show presents sides from pseudo scientific sources?
You do realise that show presents sides from pseudo scientific sources?
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God, which in turns to it is illogical not to believe in the afterlife, or why else would he create us?
p.s. Please do not copy and paste the comments you posted on my profile.
So concerning the papers.. as far as I've understood with the abstracts and conclusions:
Paper 1 and 2 just try to explore the role of quantum mechanics in regular neurological activity, within the brain. Interesting but nothing spectacular yet.
Paper 3 is more in the direction of what you're trying to say, but it kinda assumes from the beginning that brain and mind are two different things, on the basis that one guy proposed that our consciousness cannot be explained by classical physics. One thing particularly bothering me: they say dendrons evolved to match the increased complexity of sensory inputs, and then psychons magically appeared and magically interacted with those dendrons (I quote: "evolved dendrons had the capacity for interacting with psychons that came to exist". Sounds too convenient to be convincing. I personally wouldn't quote that paper.
The fourth text (cannot call that a paper) kinda just tries to make quantum mechanics palatable, while the first two papers were already combining quantum mechanics in the processes of signal transmission. Here again, nothing supernatural about out-of-brain minds or such things.
Paper 5.. I will first quote this:
The functional interpretation
examined in this section is speculative in that
there is as little evidence for it as there is for the hypotheses
proposed for the vertebrate -waves.
And second, they make clear in Fig. 7 that they differentiate the information-carrying channels from the modulating channels, which are not carrying information but, as goes their hypothesis, merely coordinates different modules for better efficiency or something.
Paper 6 is about non-invasive neural imaging, nothing to do with our discussion.
Paper 7 is similar to paper 5 in that they also talk about modulating waves, but nothing about information-carrying waves. They say:
In more general terms it is proposed that consciousness is an intrinsic event modulated by the activity of the senses
That would mean that consciousness would be a pattern of interactions from brain modules, merely coordinated by certain waves. It is thus dependent on the brain. The waves alone make no consciousness and don't carry information.
___________________________
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God, which in turns to it is illogical not to believe in the afterlife,
There is nothing illogical in not making up things that aren't evidenced, thus rendering the second part obsolete.
You do realise that show presents sides from pseudo scientific sources?
which ones?
Paper 5.. I will first quote this:
I was trying to present the views of both sides of the argument
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God, which in turns to it is illogical not to believe in the afterlife, or why else would he create us?
you try and feed them that and you wont get anywhere, come up with some evidence so that I don't have to defend you anymore.
and I would like all of you to watch the video not just magegreywolf
Late day yesterday makes for early day today.
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God
BS. And you know it.
Wait, I thought the video was for me...Aww...
Before I watch it, now that I am more awake, I will link to some of the critics of Biocentrasism so we can both do some research.
Here is the first. With a notable quote at the top:
âIt is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.â
-Steven Weinberg
And Here is USA today.
There, that should keep you working while I spend the hour to watch and respond to the video. Keep in mind I did not actually get to read any of the links I posted, it will take me a second to do that after I finish your video.
Late day yesterday makes for early day today.
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God
BS. And you know it.
Wait, I thought the video was for me...Aww...
Before I watch it, now that I am more awake, I will link to some of the critics of Biocentrasism so we can both do some research.
Here is the first. With a notable quote at the top:
âIt is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.â
-Steven Weinberg
And Here is USA today.
There, that should keep you working while I spend the hour to watch and respond to the video. Keep in mind I did not actually get to read any of the links I posted, it will take me a second to do that after I finish your video.
Late day yesterday makes for early day today.
You do realize it is illogical not to believe in God
BS. And you know it.
Wait, I thought the video was for me...Aww...
Before I watch it, now that I am more awake, I will link to some of the critics of Biocentrasism so we can both do some research.
Here is the first. With a notable quote at the top:
âIt is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.â
-Steven Weinberg
And Here is USA today.
There, that should keep you working while I spend the hour to watch and respond to the video. Keep in mind I did not actually get to read any of the links I posted, it will take me a second to do that after I finish your video.
Issues with the forum coming up, hope this works...
Without even looking at the video:
scientists and spiritualist attempt to define what is consciousness
How can that end well...
Necromancy,
Story time!
The Odyssey
Story time again!
Roman neuromancers
Neuromancer being the title of a cyberpunk novel written in 1984.
If during those 43 minutes they switch between story telling and glorifying quantum mechanics, I'd rather not waste my time.
I was trying to present the views of both sides of the argument
No, you were trying to use quantum mechanics as an excuse to explain an afterlife.
Spiritual talk and phylosophical debates won't help us, really. And I still see some basic problems in the discussion:
Let's admit that quantum mechanics play an important role in the way our brain functions.
- This does not mean that those quantum mechanical processes are steered by a disembodied will of some sort.
- Same for that issue with the Neumann thingies that apparently some people cannot explain by classic quantum mechanics. Let's assume we don't know what causes them; does that mean we have a free ticket to jump to the conclusion that a soul did it and an afterlife exists? No sir. It means we don't know, end of story.
- generally, you're interpreting too much into all that. Even in the case that brain and consciousness are discrete units, it does not mean one can survive without the other. Even if they can, that does not mean the information will simply glob together and recreate the consciousness; it might just as well disperse in all senses, leaving our universe as a big mix of random informations. Or what prevents us from being victim to a quantum fluctuation causing our consciousness to explode/disperse/whatever?
You must be logged in to post a reply!