Sorry!

On the quantum level Newtonian physics fall apart and don't make sense.
Physics are only fact until proven otherwise. So we never truly understand physics and our understanding is constantly changing. That sounds a lot like a dream to me.

Just love it!!!

So crisp! So grounded!

Hi! right back 'Redy', good to read your refreshing, rich and grounded words.

Imagining, or 'scenario role play', might be nothing other than memory work with a certain 'distance'.

I think you might be more in agreement with 'Abra' than you suspect (IMO of course).

The actual discussion to which you refer, or 'action', in that context, may be nothing other than 'memory work' (imagining) in action, 'live' as you will, which in turn might just mean 'LESS DISTANCE', but imaginary just the same.

What, or whom decides that the 'actual discussion', or 'action', isn't also part of the bigger 'imaginary scenario'.

Nothing is really delivered 'cold', without any 'scenario' or memory work. If there is no playing it out, practicing it, or preparing it, before the 'elected action', the so-called 'cold' delivery still rests entirely on a mass of previous 'memories' or 'knowledge'.

Our neocortex, the reasoning, or thinking machine we are equipped with, is nothing other than a 'mirroring' or 'mimicking' machine.

It is coupled with the visual cortex which is even more so, a 'representing machine' of that which 'WE THINK' we see 'out there'.

The visual cortex only creates the most effective 'illusion' consisting of confusing perfectly that which we only imagine, as 'being out there 'as 'seen''!!!

As I think 'Abra' might be evoking, it has been demonstrated clearly the the visual cortex has no means of distinguishing what it imagines from what it apparently sees out there. If you imagine enough ('let go' enough) the 'out there' the 'illusion of 'out there'' dissipates, and the imagined is the only reality you are left with.

If not through voluntary means (shamanic practice), drugs or hypnosis will get you there.

There might only be the imagined; the picture of the picture, for all we know. Certainly, neither what we know about our visual cortex, or neocortex could lead us today to claim anything else.

Maybe there is nothing other than 'memory work' visiting different contexts; imagined perspectives as 'Abra' shared his 'owl flight'!!!

Our 'brain' (visual-neo cortexes here) do not distinguish the imagined experience from what we call the 'real' experience.

What say you 'Redy'?!?!?

That's very true. In fact, many of the laws of physics even on the macro scale are only valid under ceratain conditions.

For example, the gas laws of pressure, volume and temperature are only valid as long as the matter is in the state of a gas. Once the matter condenses into a liquid the laws change and we move over to a whole new 'set of equations' that describe the new situation.

Laws of phsyics are really nothing more than sets of equations that describe the quantitative properties of given situations. And if the situations change drastically enough, then so do the 'laws'.

When we get down to the quantum level all the laws of physics break down and we end up with nothing more than probablities that we can't explain.

No one can explain what gives rise to the quantum probablities. Science has reached a brick wall. Bang.

Here's the quote from the a man who won a Noble Prize for his work on quantum theory:


"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
--Dr. Richard P. Feynman


So there you go. Even the scientists who work on this stuff confess that no one knows how it can be like it is.

There is no explanation for why Quantum Mechanics works. It doesn't obey the 'laws of physics' as we know them!

In fact, it refutes them!

I've studied science all my life. I didn't quite because it was over my head. I quite because it's over everyone's head INCLUDING the people who are winning Noble Prizes for making observations.

In fact, Quantum Mechanics has been PROVEN to be impossible to explain using 'conventional physics'.

The only plausible explanations are to either give up the notion of locality (i.e. time and space), or to appeal to an infinity of parallel universes where every possiblity ultimately unfolds.

I personally favor the former solution since Einstein's Relativity is already pointing in that direction anyway.

But none the less, science is far from having the ulimate answer to anything.

We don't live in the Newtonian universe that we thought we did. The idea that we should only believe in what makes sense in a Newtonian world is ludicous because we already know that the the physical world is non-Newtonian.

That's already been well-established by science!

The so-called 'laws of phsyics' break down at the quantum level!

So we already know that the phsyics is only one facet of reality, and it's a very small and incomplete facet of it to boot.

The appeal to science for answer to reality is fruitless in the larger scheme of things.

It's great for learning how to build bridges, airplane, spaceships, and even nuclear power generators. But it hasn't gotten us one iota closer to the 'true nature' of reality.

The 'actuality' as Michael prefers to call it.

In fact, Quantum Physics has shown as that the 'actuality' of reality is far from the laws of physics as we know them!

Yes, I like the way you put that Voil.

If we had been placed in a coma or drug induced dream state from the time we were born we would preceieve that reality to be all there is to reality.

Then if we are awakened and brought out of that dream state we recognize the 'physical reality' that we all currently experience.

Well, this is precisely what these shamans (and Eastern Mysticism) has been suggesting all along. They are suggesting that life is just an illusion (a dream) and when we die we will wake up from the dream that we thought was 'reality' to experience yet another state of being.

But it goes both ways. Dying is one way 'out' of the physical world, but so is dreaming.

Dreaming is another state of being.

In fact, the mystics divide it up like so:

1. The unconscious dream state.

This is the state of sleeping where we either don't remember our dreams at all, or merely remember them in hindsight without truly being conscious during the dreams.

2. The conscious dream state.

This is what is referred to as 'shamanic journeying'. Entering into a dream state whilst retaining consciousness or awareness. They claim that very few people actually do this. In fact, the people who do it are called "Shamans". (although that word may be used to simply mean healer, or spiritual leader in some cultures).

3. The waking state:

That's the state we normally associate with 'reality'.

And then of course, the mystics believe that there are other states of being. They believe that when we die we awaken to yet another state of being where the "waking state" then appears to have been the dream.

I'm personally not concerned with what happens after I die.

Right now I'm more interesting in learning how to become more aware within my dreams. I think it's really cool.

What surprises me is that with little to no knowledge of how the brain works or computers use software and hardware you can make these kinds of assessments.

I think your looking for an easy progression from basic computing to the level of computation the brain works at, and sadly your not going to get it. First off, we program computers to do the things we cannot do well ourselves. There is no money "right now" in making computers have the type of relational mapping the brain does exceedingly well.

Computers do think, they do have thoughts, they work at the level of a retarded cockroach. Maybe in 50 years we will have a not so retarded cockroach. Granted a retarded cockroach that can bust out ridiculous quantities of basic operations in a single file line

2 things must happen for computers to come to where the level of sophistication to match the human brain.

1) We must pack Billions of transistors on a single chip at an affordable energy/heat level. We might be as close as 20 years off from this.

2) We must develop relational software that can map templates the way the human brain does. This is very sophisticated and has had millions of years of development via evolution, so it might take us a few more then 20 years (the time we have been at it so far . . . )

Billy,

Computers run programs, they don't think. There is no evidence that they can actually think as a conscious person thinks or even as a retarded cockroach thinks. If they demonstrate any memory at all it is only programing.

What baffles me is how you can make statements about "thought" that go in circles and try to pass your stuff off as "science" as if that is your bible.

I do have a basic knowledge of how computers use software and hardware and of how computer languages work.

But instead of addressing the point of my post, just attack my credibility and knowledge base.

I use my imagination. That's what I do. That is something that computers don't have, and something that scientists think is useless.

"JennieBean" quantum entanglement is only theory even fantasy ...that's why the laws of physics has to be applied to distingush reality from delusion

I am not going to say that this is not possible because is probably is. But a brain is simply a biological computer itself. It is not a conscious thinking sentient being.

If you did develop a computer to match the sophistication of a human brain, you would still need a human to direct it.

It is the same with a human brain. It still needs a thinker to direct it. If a brain is dead, it cannot think. In order to think it needs to be plugged into the life stream of consciousness.

Now if you can figure out how to make a computer alive, or plugged into the life stream of consciousness, then you can call it "alive" and conscious. Otherwise, it is still just a machine.

Well you can discuss that with Billy, he is the one who is always talking about "quantum entanglement."

Here is a good and very simple example of how my computer does not think or have a memory.

I changed a file name extension from eat400.jpg to eat400.bla (insert any three letters) and I get this message:




I choose Yes.

Now the computer does not know how to open the file. If you click on the file you will get this message:





Now if the computer could actually think or if it had a real memory it would be able to look at the contents of that file and discern what kind of file it is, or it could remember that you just changed the name of that file extension from .jpg to .bla.

But computers don't think and they can't remember anything unless they are programed to remember it and unless they are programed to look at the contents of a file and deduce what program made it.

What ever a computer does it has been programed to do. It does not think or imagine or have real memory.

Even if it was upgraded to being as good as a human brain, everything it does it has to be programed to do and it still needs a user to direct its activities.

It is the same with a brain. It needs a user to direct its activities. That user is the one who is aware and a unite of consciousness.

"JennieBean" ...it was you that brought it up ...besides if you apply the laws of physics to your statement of Quantum Entanglement it falls into the realm of theory not reality

Imagination is very important to scientist, it should be obvious, it appears your feelings are hurt by the plain truth. It should not be a real challenge to understand that you do not have the knowledge to make a determination on the capability of computer intelligence now, no less in the future.

Computer scientists have already made very specialized software that is adaptive and has a rudimentary imagination. It can produce results that where not programmed into it at development. It can learn on its own to do things NOT programed into it . . . .

We have been programming computers for 20 years, but have only recently tried anything like "imagination" or "learning"

It should come as no surprise that we have not achieved human levels of either yet.

JB it does not surprise me that you take this stance.

After all you are an artist. It probably tweaks your nose to think you are a computer with advanced relational association algorithms. That your imagination is nothing but the byproduct of taking a base line idea and expounding various possibilities based on this baseline, and as more and more information becomes available your able to make more and more relationships, and associations.

Your reading comprehension skills are also in question. I have already stated that it takes very specialized software (which is not what we run our computers on) to have any kind of adaptive intelligence, or "imagination".

AI is possible. Your opinion doesn't effect the reality of that statement. Its been done, and the retarded cockroach inst too smart, however it has already surprised many in the field, and shut up naysayers that at least understand the magnitude of the leap from dumb programing, to retarded cockroach AI.

Not being mean here, just realistic. I am not a computer scientist or a brain scientists so this goes for both us, the difference between you and me, is that my main interests lie in these fields and what you take for granted I do not.

I will see if I can find the article, not that it will effect your belief. After all we are just an illusion anyways huh lol.

Reality is pain and suffering, occassionally punctuated by two people connecting in a loving, caring relationship.

What I enjoy is that this is simple and yet far more poignant then 90% of the blather in this thread.

Thanks Rich!

so reality is speed dating at a sadomasochism bar

Actually that's not correct Funches.

Quantum Entanglement has indeed been experimentally verified.

Quantum Entanglement has now become recognized as part of the 'actuality' of existence as Michael calls it.

Just as time dilation has also been experimentally verified. Yet we still speak of the 'Theory' of Relativity even though the predictions of that 'theory' have been verified to be actual properties of the observable universe.

However 99.9999% of particles DO NOT demonstrate the properties of particles that are entangled. The spiritual woo woo that is the conclusion from science as usual leaves off all the important parts in order to make it apply.

It takes very specific conditions to get two particles to be entangled.

I see it all the time, new agers and spiritualists read about this phenomena then immediately say we are all connected via Quantum entanglement . . . blather.


You know Abra starting the thread in such a manner as calling out all atheists was kinda a big mistake.

Atheism is not a dogma, what we believe has nothing to do with our lack of belief in god. IT shows a profound ignorance to say that atheists believe this, or that. Or hold this philosophy or that philosophy. Its misguided at best, malicious more likely.

"Abracadbra" Quantum Physics can only be explain in theory ..the laws of physics has rules that the universe follows.. whether Quantum physics is theory or not you are still under the control of the laws of physics

look at it this way I will explain it using your logic..if you believe the laws of physics are an illusion then the fact that you are governed by them makes them reality

I disagree with your assessment on at least two counts.

First, there is nothing 'new age' about shamanism. It's the oldest spiritual belief on earth.

Secondly, you and I have already recognized that we use the word 'atheism' differently.

You use it to mean "agnostic". To simply imply that you are "without a theism".

Personally I feel that you're abusing the word to use it that way. If you're agnostic why not just say so?

From my point of view atheism is the contention that there is no spirit aspect to our existence. Anything less is 'agnostic' as far as I'm concerned.

My major point is to address the issue of things that are clearly outside of science yet we all experience on an everyday basis. Like love, or imagined encounters with other beings or 'spirits'.




That's totally irrelevant from my point of view. I'm not out to prove spirituality using science.

All that I require is that the scientific possiblity exists.

If quantum entanglement can occur, that shows it's possible. Period.

Who needs it to be occuring all the time?

Special conditions are fine by me. That would explain why mystics go through specific rituals to create the necessary conditions.