Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416894 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 11:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 04:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-22 22:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-04-23 14:23 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 14:17 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:07 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:31 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 23:11 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-04-23 10:14 -0600
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:43 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 20:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 19:56 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-04-23 16:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 12:35 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 13:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-23 23:38 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 21:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-23 22:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-24 06:02 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-24 16:55 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:09 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 19:37 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-24 10:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 12:03 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-25 00:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-04-25 17:42 +1000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:25 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 20:49 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:48 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 17:18 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-25 21:53 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-25 19:39 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-26 04:36 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:00 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 03:13 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 04:32 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 14:46 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 11:29 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-27 16:32 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:22 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 03:39 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:50 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:21 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:16 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:59 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:54 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 02:24 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:18 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:38 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:40 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 05:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-02 12:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-02 21:16 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-04 13:29 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-06 11:03 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-09 08:00 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:37 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:59 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 23:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-04 15:22 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:00 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-08 22:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:54 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-09 23:23 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 09:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 10:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Imagination The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-13 11:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-11 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 10:45 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-10 15:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-11 04:49 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 12:43 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-14 21:51 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-15 05:55 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-15 11:20 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 11:24 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 10:35 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 12:52 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-16 13:08 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:57 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-16 15:09 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:03 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-16 16:40 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-17 10:01 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-17 16:07 -0500
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-27 17:20 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 23:15 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 12:57 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-28 10:41 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-28 23:45 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 04:13 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-27 11:53 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-04-24 07:48 -0400
Re: The Speed of Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-24 20:36 +0200
Re: The Speed of Thought Lintervallen Ruther <rt@lweaevte.ri> - 2017-04-24 21:14 +0000
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 07:42 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 06:05 -0700
Re: The Speed of Thought John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-27 19:12 -0700
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog412l.402.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417395 |
benj wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > benj wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you > > > to check the entire universe for evidence. > > > > You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple > > to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample. > > > > Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit? > > I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart > as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove > something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I > don't think you've done that. I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it. > > > Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science. > > > > No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced? > > Statistical data *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing. > at least as good as that which justifies QM. Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification. > > What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised? > > Experimental data is not nothing. *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing. > Of course refusing to examine it means > it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes > the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not > there? You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide. > > > The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists > > > outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly > > > observed and sensed by everyone. > > > > Observed, yes. Sensed, no. > > Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense. Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the religion newsgroups. > > > Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies. > > > > Quit projecting, idiot. > > > > > > The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number. > > > > It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the > > > > mind of man, like Number. > > > > > > True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy. > > > > Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis > > for measurement and comparison. > > Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I > don't think so. Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron. > However, that > > > does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that > > > are part of the thought totality. > > > > What is that babble supposed to mean? > > Are EM fields "sensed"? No. > are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies? I donb't know. ----idiot misconstructions snipped---- > > > > > I don't because we are talking science not philosophy. > > > > > > > > You're not. > > > > > > You're not. > > > > No prizes for second, loser. > > Oh now it's Ad Homs. Pot kettle black. You started it. Get this into your pointy little head, maggot: if you want civil discourse, keep your own utterances civil. ALL of them. Furthewr idiot misconstructions of what I said treated as they deserve: ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59020e41$0$3538$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417417 |
On 04/27/2017 10:46 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > benj wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> benj wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you >>>> to check the entire universe for evidence. >>> >>> You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple >>> to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample. >>> >>> Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit? >> >> I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart >> as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove >> something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I >> don't think you've done that. > > I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you > to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it. I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind exiting in realms out side of biological brain. Note that this is evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe any evidence, but only proof. That isn't science. >>>> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science. >>> >>> No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced? >> >> Statistical data > > *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing. It't not my job to educate you. If you took some time to actually do a search on the subject and get some basic information there might be a discussion instead all you want is a political/religious debate. Obviously that is not science. >> at least as good as that which justifies QM. > > Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification. > >>> What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised? >> >> Experimental data is not nothing. > > *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing. do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can be no discussion. >> Of course refusing to examine it means >> it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes >> the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not >> there? > > You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide. So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas? You reject physics as lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true? >>>> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists >>>> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly >>>> observed and sensed by everyone. >>> >>> Observed, yes. Sensed, no. >> >> Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense. > > Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive > and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the > religion newsgroups. Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as his version of "science". Yeah real scientific. >>>> Kant isn't science. You just want to babble on with fantasies. >>> >>> Quit projecting, idiot. >>> >>>>> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number. >>>>> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the >>>>> mind of man, like Number. >>>> >>>> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy. >>> >>> Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis >>> for measurement and comparison. >> >> Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I >> don't think so. > > Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron. Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head) >> However, that >>>> does not mean that there might not be actually invisible phenomena that >>>> are part of the thought totality. >>> >>> What is that babble supposed to mean? >> >> Are EM fields "sensed"? > > No. > >> are tey phenomena or Kantian fantasies? > > I donb't know. > > ----idiot misconstructions snipped---- > >>>>>> I don't because we are talking science not philosophy. >>>>> >>>>> You're not. >>>> >>>> You're not. >>> >>> No prizes for second, loser. >> >> Oh now it's Ad Homs. Pot kettle black. > > You started it. Get this into your pointy little head, maggot: if you > want civil discourse, keep your own utterances civil. ALL of them. Wow! We independently both came up with the "pointy little head" slam! We are obviously both imperial thinkers on our way to a great new theoretical breakthrough! > Furthewr idiot misconstructions of what I said treated as they deserve: Deserve in your uniformed opinion. I suggest you retreat back to your Ivory Tower where science is done by political debate and majority vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog479f.9od.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417421 |
benj wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > benj wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you > > > > > to check the entire universe for evidence. > > > > > > > > You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple > > > > to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample. > > > > > > > > Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit? > > > > > > I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart > > > as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove > > > something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I > > > don't think you've done that. > > > > I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you > > to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it. > > I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind > exiting in realms out side of biological brain. That has just two problems: first, it's a mere asserion; second, it asserts a suggestion. > Note that this is > evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe > any evidence, but only proof. That isn't science. You have provided no evidence, only an assertion. Of a suggestion. at that. > > > > > Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science. > > > > > > > > No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced? > > > > > > Statistical data > > > > *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing. > > It't not my job to educate you. You've put forward a proposition. If you want it accepted, you have in fromt of you the job of showing cause to accept it. > > > at least as good as that which justifies QM. > > > > Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification. > > > > > > What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised? > > > > > > Experimental data is not nothing. > > > > *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing. > > do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are > real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can > be no discussion. Haven't seen them. Have seen multitudes of ESP "experiments" over the years. They're all fraudulent at best. I have no interest in wasting my time with more of the same. If you want what you're pushing to be accepted, show some evidence; don't just make assertions. > > > Of course refusing to examine it means > > > it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes > > > the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not > > > there? > > > > You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide. > > So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas? *What* "modern" physics ideas? > You reject physics as > lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true? That doesn't matter. What matters here is your need to state your proposition clearly and show cause to accept it. > > > > > The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists > > > > > outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly > > > > > observed and sensed by everyone. > > > > > > > > Observed, yes. Sensed, no. > > > > > > Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense. > > > > Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive > > and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the > > religion newsgroups. > > Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the > opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater > can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as > his version of "science". Yeah real scientific. I repeat: you're the one putting forward a proposition. If you can't show cause to accept it in physical terms try the whackoes in the religious groups. Their standards of "evidence" might suit you better. > > > > > > The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number. > > > > > > It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the > > > > > > mind of man, like Number. > > > > > > > > > > True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy. > > > > > > > > Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis > > > > for measurement and comparison. > > > > > > Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I > > > don't think so. > > > > Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron. > > Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head) Again, you don't get kudoes for copyvatting, dimwit. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 13:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <590228c5$0$61820$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417426 |
On 04/27/2017 12:32 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > benj wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> benj wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> benj wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>>>> Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" that allow you >>>>>> to check the entire universe for evidence. >>>>> >>>>> You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's dazzlingly simple >>>>> to prove that. All you have to do is produce a single counterexample. >>>>> >>>>> Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that ad hom bullshit? >>>> >>>> I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were half as smart >>>> as you pretend you are, you'd know that the only way you can prove >>>> something doesn't exist is to check all possible placed it might be. I >>>> don't think you've done that. >>> >>> I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's up to you >>> to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. Go for it. >> >> I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of mind >> exiting in realms out side of biological brain. > > That has just two problems: first, it's a mere asserion; second, > it asserts a suggestion. Not interested in discussion of ideas, only belief, I see. That's not science. It'e religion. >> Note that this is >> evidence, not proof. Go ahead and now tell us that you won't believe >> any evidence, but only proof. That isn't science. > > You have provided no evidence, only an assertion. Of a suggestion. at > that. So I'm supposed to "convert" you from your fundie beliefs? Not my job. >>>>>> Obviously if you refuse to look you never see any. That is science. >>>>> >>>>> No shit, sherlock. And what has your looking produced? >>>> >>>> Statistical data >>> >>> *What* statistical data. You've presented nothing. >> >> It't not my job to educate you. > > You've put forward a proposition. If you want it accepted, you have in > fromt of you the job of showing cause to accept it. This is not a political debate, bunky. >>>> at least as good as that which justifies QM. >>> >>> Idiot. QM is pure mathematics. It doesn't need external jusrification. >>> >>>>> What's that? Nothing? Why am I not surprised? >>>> >>>> Experimental data is not nothing. >>> >>> *What* experimental data. You've presented nothing. >> >> do you accept that that the series of "remote viewing" experiments are >> real and produced suggestive results? IF you deny them, then there can >> be no discussion. > > Haven't seen them. Have seen multitudes of ESP "experiments" over the > years. They're all fraudulent at best. I have no interest in wasting > my time with more of the same. If you want what you're pushing to be > accepted, show some evidence; don't just make assertions. And you assertion that they are all "fraudulent" is backed with what? Your opinion? An reasonable research into what has been done demonstrated that such claims are baseless and not even accepted among skeptics. So I won't waste your time with any discussion of facts when you have truth ready right from your imagination. >>>> Of course refusing to examine it means >>>> it doesn't exist, right? Just like sticking your head in the sand makes >>>> the world go away.(or was that nobody looking at the moon means it's not >>>> there? >>> >>> You're the lunatic off in la-la-land, you decide. >> >> So you do not accept "modern" physics ideas? > > *What* "modern" physics ideas? Observation needed to produce reality. Never heard of it? >> You reject physics as >> lunacy? Well, then what DO you accept as interesting or true? > > That doesn't matter. What matters here is your need to state your > proposition clearly and show cause to accept it. Yada yada yada. Yeah. you are king shit and everybody needs to bow and scrape and convince you that your religion needs to be adjusted. Sorry this is a science group and not a fundie meeting. >>>>>> The definition does not say time is quantized, it says it exists >>>>>> outside of sense. This is obviously false as time is clearly >>>>>> observed and sensed by everyone. >>>>> >>>>> Observed, yes. Sensed, no. >>>> >>>> Give your definition then of what you mean by Observe and Sense. >>> >>> Fuck you. You're the one trying to make something out of a primitive >>> and childish superstition. Maybe you should try posting in one of the >>> religion newsgroups. >> >> Oh look Muffy. Here's the college debate team demanding that the >> opposition provide total justification for any premise, but the debater >> can't be bothered to even define his terms and uses "name calling" as >> his version of "science". Yeah real scientific. > > I repeat: you're the one putting forward a proposition. If you can't > show cause to accept it in physical terms try the whackoes in the > religious groups. Their standards of "evidence" might suit you better. I have pointed out statistical data on ESP through remote viewing research. I"ve pointed out that it was published in IEEE. There are other well-known experimentalists none of which you deign to even look up. YOu just cross your arms and pout and say YOU make me believe that Jesus isn't my savior! Yeah this discussion is going to get for. NOT. >>>>>>> The reason for that is that its a noumenon, like Number. >>>>>>> It has no substance, like Number. It is entirely in the >>>>>>> mind of man, like Number. >>>>>> >>>>>> True for number. Numbers (and all math) are pure fantasy. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. They are objectively defined and provide an objective basis >>>>> for measurement and comparison. >>>> >>>> Defined yes, but objective, no. Is tinkerbell real and objective? I >>>> don't think so. >>> >>> Tinkerbell isn't a mathematical statement, moron. >> >> Whoosh! (the point flying over your pointy little head) > > Again, you don't get kudoes for copyvatting, dimwit. I have no idea what "copyvatting" is. You are simply too intellectual for me and you have run my worthless ass right out of this group as so many others have before you. You da man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 02:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog59f5.occ.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417432 |
benj wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > benj wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I forgot to take into account your "superpowers" > > > > > > > that allow you to check the entire universe for > > > > > > > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > > You also forgot that if such a statement's wrong, it's > > > > > > dazzlingly simple to prove that. All you have to do is > > > > > > produce a single counterexample. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why didn't you do that, wanker, instead of pulling that > > > > > > ad hom bullshit? > > > > > > > > > > I don't do that because I don't work for you. If you were > > > > > half as smart as you pretend you are, you'd know that the > > > > > only way you can prove something doesn't exist is to check > > > > > all possible placed it might be. I don't think you've done > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > I don't need to. You're the one asserting an existence: it's > > > > up to you to show evidence for it. Just one example, moron. > > > > Go for it. > > > > > > I already said that near death experiences are suggestive of > > > mind exiting in realms out side of biological brain. > > > > That has just two problems: first, it's a mere assertion; second, > > it asserts a suggestion. > > Not interested in discussion of ideas, only belief, I see. That's your position, liar. You're wasting your time and mine trying to progect your superstitions into me; though there are morons here gullible enough to be taken in by such idiocies, I am the only person it would do you any good to convince, and I'm`not one of them. > That's not science. It'e religion. Yes. It would be well if you stopped trying to push it in here. As I said earlier, go and bother the kooks in the religious groups. I note in buried in your drivel I've snipped from below your offer to cease wasting my time. I accept with thanks. Extend it to the groop, please. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59023BDA.FF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417279 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > benj wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > benj wrote: > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > You need to think about this a bit more, sylvia. While obviously the > > > > transmission speed of "thoughts" in organism is slow as determined by > > > > action potential timing and other factors. But that does not consider > > > > the OTHER question which would be given an ESP "remote viewing" is the > > > > speed of transmission of information limited by the speed of light. > > > > There are a number of indications and reports that might seem to > > > > indicate it is not, but there are additional problems in that there > > > > seems to be a certain looseness to time which could mean that > > > > transmissions are at c but you are sensing the future so there is the > > > > appearance of FTL transmissions. This is real science thought unlike all > > > > the religious atheist clowns here who are all convinced that thoughts > > > > occur ONLY within the brain cells. Feh. > > > > > > Rubbish. > > > > Obvious science jargon. > > It translates into the English term "rubbish". "rubbish" is not English...it is Englandish. spoon in the mouth talk, the language of a banana republic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 03:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <081ea091-57a8-4857-9866-270ac3094b11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417257 |
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > > accept your postulate. > > I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness. > That's not much of a postulate. It's not even a complete sentence. And "persistence of consciousness" certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate that "mind can exist apart from brain." My computer shows persistence of memory but that's because it contains billions of memory cells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary) INSIDE it. In the same way, I have persistence of consciousness because of internal memory. What the computer cannot do (I would postulate) is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust or experience the color of green or blue. or desire to play a video game. It can go through the actions, and make me believe it feels, because someone has programmed it to do so. But it does not feel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59023D8A.4583@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417289 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > > On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > > > Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > > > exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > > > accept your postulate. > > > > I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness. > > > > That's not much of a postulate. > It's not even a complete sentence. > And "persistence of consciousness" > certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate > that "mind can exist apart from brain." > > My computer shows persistence of memory > but that's because it contains > billions of memory cells > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary) > INSIDE it. > > In the same way, > I have persistence of consciousness > because of internal memory. > > What the computer cannot do > (I would postulate) > is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust > or experience the color of green or blue. > or desire to play a video game. > It can go through the actions, > and make me believe it feels, > because someone has programmed it to do so. > But it does not feel. There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. No mind or consciouness is necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 17:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <590260dd$0$60257$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #417437 |
On 4/27/2017 2:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>> On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >>>> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can >>>> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to >>>> accept your postulate. >>> >>> I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness. >>> >> >> That's not much of a postulate. >> It's not even a complete sentence. >> And "persistence of consciousness" >> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate >> that "mind can exist apart from brain." >> >> My computer shows persistence of memory >> but that's because it contains >> billions of memory cells >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary) >> INSIDE it. >> >> In the same way, >> I have persistence of consciousness >> because of internal memory. >> >> What the computer cannot do >> (I would postulate) >> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust >> or experience the color of green or blue. >> or desire to play a video game. >> It can go through the actions, >> and make me believe it feels, >> because someone has programmed it to do so. >> But it does not feel. > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... And the way you know this is? Ah, Superpowers. > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5902DE4E.62F0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417467 |
benj wrote: > > On 4/27/2017 2:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >> > >> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:40:02 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > >>> On 4/25/2017 5:53 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > >>>> Thought is a function of Mind. If you wish to assert that Mind can > >>>> exist apart from Brain, postulate it explicitly, and show cause to > >>>> accept your postulate. > >>> > >>> I postulate it. Persistence of consciousness. > >>> > >> > >> That's not much of a postulate. > >> It's not even a complete sentence. > >> And "persistence of consciousness" > >> certainly doesn't clearly demonstrate > >> that "mind can exist apart from brain." > >> > >> My computer shows persistence of memory > >> but that's because it contains > >> billions of memory cells > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_cell_(binary) > >> INSIDE it. > >> > >> In the same way, > >> I have persistence of consciousness > >> because of internal memory. > >> > >> What the computer cannot do > >> (I would postulate) > >> is experience frustration, contentment, pain, or lust > >> or experience the color of green or blue. > >> or desire to play a video game. > >> It can go through the actions, > >> and make me believe it feels, > >> because someone has programmed it to do so. > >> But it does not feel. > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > And the way you know this is? Ah, Superpowers. > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog6f4q.6cf.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417526 |
The Starmaker wrote: ----snip---- > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist. Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58d6fb90-52c3-4775-96e1-4127f1e9fef8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417546 |
On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 7:59:10 AM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist. > > Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum. Good enough for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5903803F.140F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417546 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist. > > Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum. Cogito, ergo sum???? You got two spoons in your mouth???? you're as bent as a nine-bob note.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog7lgq.ojp.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417571 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > There is no proof that 'consciouness' exist. > > > > Wrong. Cogito, ergo sum. > > Cogito, ergo sum? Yair, Some frog reckoned it sounds good, and I agree with him. Sure sounds better than "Je pense, donc j'existe". That "donc" makes it sound like he's talking about auto engines. > You got two spoons in your mouth? Do people get born any other way? > you're as bent as a nine-bob note. Bent over with laughter, you mean? Of course. You *are* rather funny, you know, even if it *is* accidental.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 02:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog59tv.occ.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417437 |
The Starmaker wrote: ----snip---- > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... In the sense proposed, correct. > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves awareness, and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly to what the trick cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". What most call "thought" occurs at both levels: at the level of perception it's fantasy; at the level of imprint it's dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5902DEC8.2497@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417506 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > In the sense proposed, correct. > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves awareness, > and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly to what the trick > cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". What most call "thought" > occurs at both levels: at the level of perception it's fantasy; at the > level of imprint it's dream. consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. don't you people know this stuff?..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog6ec1.6cf.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417527 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > > > In the sense proposed, correct. > > > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > > > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > > > Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves awareness, > > and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly to what the trick > > cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". What most call "thought" > > occurs at both levels: at the level of perception it's fantasy; at the > > level of imprint it's dream. > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. Don't be ridiculous. > don't you people know this stuff?.. If course not. One can not know that which is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59037E2E.BA9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417543 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > > > > > In the sense proposed, correct. > > > > > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of no > > > > consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process thought/information. > > > > > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > > > > > Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves awareness, > > > and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly to what the trick > > > cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". What most call "thought" > > > occurs at both levels: at the level of perception it's fantasy; at the > > > level of imprint it's dream. > > > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. > > Don't be ridiculous. > > > don't you people know this stuff?.. > > If course not. One can not know that which is not. There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is not....you're one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog7kml.ojp.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #417569 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > > > > > > > In the sense proposed, correct. > > > > > > > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > > > > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of > > > > > no consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process > > > > > thought/information. > > > > > > > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > > > > > > > Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves > > > > awareness, and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly > > > > to what the trick cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". > > > > What most call "thought" occurs at both levels: at the level of > > > > perception it's fantasy; at the level of imprint it's dream. > > > > > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > > > > don't you people know this stuff?.. > > > > If course not. One can not know that which is not. > > There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is > not....you're one of them. Nope. Knowing that something is not is not knowing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5904D1A4.F61@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #417605 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as 'persistence of consciouness'... > > > > > > > > > > In the sense proposed, correct. > > > > > > > > > > > you never heard of, "unconsciouness"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > When you sleep, ...you become unconsciouns to the point of > > > > > > no consciouness...then the brain contiunes to process > > > > > > thought/information. > > > > > > > > > > > > No mind or consciouness is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Crap. There are two levels of mind: perception, which involves > > > > > awareness, and imprint, which does not. They correspond roughly > > > > > to what the trick cyclists call the "conscious" and "unconscious". > > > > > What most call "thought" occurs at both levels: at the level of > > > > > perception it's fantasy; at the level of imprint it's dream. > > > > > > > > consciouness is spirtual, thought is physics. > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > > > > > > don't you people know this stuff?.. > > > > > > If course not. One can not know that which is not. > > > > There are a lot among us running around knowing that which is > > not....you're one of them. > > Nope. Knowing that something is not is not knowing it. Has the thought ever came to you? When did the idea came to you?? Do you understand the difference between You and where your Idea comes from? Where was your idea before it came to You??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web