[... load of subjective crap ...]

Typically blinded as usual.

At this level there is no point in engaging ...

[... load of subjective crap ...]

Typically blinded as usual. At this level there is no point in engaging ...

I see two people who are closed minded in their beliefs.

Greyhounder, your claims are not backed up by mathematical proof, and a solid scientific theory should be backed up by the maths to prove it. None of your articles have that.

On the other side of the coin if someone shows me the working I'm more than happy to accept those statements you made. I have a feeling 0BZEN sees your statements as religious fervour that can't be proven ever, so in a way you're both kind of closed minded to each others opinions :)

I'll remain on the fence for this very reason until someone proves conclusively...

[... load of subjective crap ...]

Typically blinded as usual.
At this level there is no point in engaging ...

Is this bizarro world? You are making assertions based off your own intuition as if this is the same as fact. That is called being subjective and arrogant.

e.g.

I posted it to illustrate the intangibility of the human spirit to medical science, once death occur. (that is why some people can be in a coma for an extremely long time and then regain consciousness, - the brain is not dead (healthy), the heart and body is healthy, but there is just no consciousness because of a spirit disconnect. Though many times unconsciousness could be because brain dead-ness )

This can be fully explained without the need to invent the untestable idea of a soul. Integrated information theory attempts to provide a model to measure substrates that could possible support consciousness -- or you could say, the potential of a lump of matter to act as a good antenna to pick up a soul. They've been able to categorize (correctly) long-term comatose patients into the vegetative and minimally conscious categories. i.e. by looking at their brain in a new way, even though it appears healthy, they've been able to measure it's potential as a consciousness-host.

You can create purely biological explanations for these conditions without resorting to new theories about the universe, or multiverse, or spirits. It's not required. And even if you do want to create a new spirit-centric hypothesis for unconsciousness, you don't get to proclaim it as being true without evidence and tests -- that's called closed minded dogma.

With your corn seed example, you're presenting a hypothesis, telling us that it's not possible for anyone to test it, but then presenting a conclusion as being true anyway. That is not rational. You don't get to do that. You can believe in the hypothesis - nothing wrong with that - but you can't claim that it's true without evidence.

As for some of your quantum links, they actually do bring us back to the man vs machine question. They're stating that the brain/body is nothing more than a quantum computer that acts as the host for consciousness-as-information. The substrate that manipulates the information is not important, which means you are not your body. Cool. One implication of this actually undermines some of your beliefs though -- the researchers that are proposing these models of consciousness are proposing a hypothesis in which a machine based on quantum computing could in fact host consciousness. So... you're citing sources that undermine your belief that humans are special when it comes to the ability to host 'souls'. As I said earlier - humans are machines, and these researchers are proposing the idea that our brains aren't just mechanical, chemical and electrical computers, but they are also quantum computers too.

Interestingly for 0BZEN to look into too -- one of these sources that greyhounder is citing is Orchestrated objective reduction, which, being real science done by real scientists, has changed it's position over the years in response to parts of it being demonstrated to be wrong, and has actually proposed testable experiments that people could carry out to disprove it.

Other articles that you've linked to are misrepresenting the research. e.g. Some of the life after death ones state that because you mind exists in multiple parallel worlds, your consciousness could "travel" to those other worlds. Well, no, that's bad science journalism. It's more like that your consciousness already exists in all of those parallel worlds, so when it stops existing in one of them, and your body there does die, it still continues to exist in the infinite other ones where your body is intact. Even though this makes your soul infinite, it still doesn't make your soul immortal though.

Other articles are philosophical ideas that can never be tested. These are great food for thought and should be pondered on to expand your mind... but you don't get to pick one that you like and declare it to be truth -- that's irrational, or religion...

And as for your conspiracy that science is blind to all this, and that you've got to be a "free thinker" to accept it... You are linking to science! All of this amazing modern philosophy is based on discoveries of modern science. e.g. since the discovery of quantum physics, thought experiments such as quantum suicide/immortality have appeared, and must have an answer -- but that answer is unknown to us as of now. Many of the links you've posted are actual scientists trying to legitimately work this stuff out experimentally, trying to find evidence for how this all works. And in the meantime, we can ponder different philosophies that are derived from different assumptions about the physics. If we assume one solution to the physics is true, that lets us develop philosophy A, if a different solution to the physics is true, we can develop philosophy B.

But what you don't get to do, as a free thinker, is to actually stop thinking, to pick one solution that you like, develop one philosophy from it, and fail to continue searching for other possible truths. That is not being a free thinker. That's... actually the opposite; Bizarro world.

Greyhounder, your claims are not backed up by mathematical proof, and a solid scientific theory should be backed up by the maths to prove it. None of your articles have that.

Good point,

though not all events can be classified as physical events that require mathematical proofs (and even some biological processes don't require mathematical proofs, these are logical processes in their own rights.) There are various classification of event and only a fraction are derivable by mathematical deduction. Most are by observations. For instance Immunologist don't use mathematics to deduct how antibodies work -they observe

So many other deductions can be arrived at by observations combined with intuition. Now if you expand your observation beyond the physical things that you can detect physically then you can also arrive at conclusions which may seem bizarre to those who only test and observe the physical world (including Electro Magnetic Forces). Although most of times these observations are impossible and so deductions are based on indirect observations (just like the discovery of dark energy and dark matter are based on indirect observations).

And as for your conspiracy that science is blind to all this, and that you've got to be a "free thinker" to accept it... You are linking to science! All of this amazing modern philosophy is based on discoveries of modern science. e.g. since the discovery of quantum physics, thought experiments such as quantum suicide/immortality have appeared, and must have an answer -- but that answer is unknown to us as of now. Many of the links you've posted are actual scientists trying to legitimately work this stuff out experimentally, trying to find evidence for how this all works. And in the meantime, we can ponder different philosophies that are derived from different assumptions about the physics. If we assume one solution to the physics is true, that lets us develop philosophy A, if a different solution to the physics is true, we can develop philosophy B.

But what you don't get to do, as a free thinker, is to actually stop thinking, to pick one solution that you like, develop one philosophy from it, and fail to continue searching for other possible truths. That is not being a free thinker. That's... actually the opposite; Bizarro world.

I can't disagree with any of your conclusions. In fact I fully agree

I'm not anti-science, in fact i'm 100% pro science, except that sometimes i thinks science is extremely arrogant in that it doesn't leave room for physics beyond our human-level physics.

Science: Matter never comes out of nothing, that's religion BS.

Science: But hey there is the big bang, before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing, no space, no time,**(see qoute below) no forces, everything just came flying out of nothing.

Free thinking observer: But according to science every 'cause' has an 'effect' and every 'effect' have a 'cause'. Thus for an explosion(BB) to occur, the effect which is lasting billions of years, there must have been a pressure building up

Science: Susssshhhh

Science: The Goldilocks principle, well its because there are multiple universes ***(see qoute below) and there is bound to be one where the conditions just suits life, where all forces are well balanced for life and matter to exist. And we happen to exist in that universe

Free thinking observer: Hey but you just said there was no time, no space and absolutely nothing before the big bang. Which space and time did other universes get banged out from?

Science: Susssshhh

Science: If your theories cannot be proven scientifically (by our human level science) then its BS

Free thinking Observer: But you just said there could be other universes where the physics is very different from ours, what if they are able to get injected to our universe and....(science getting seriously pissed off now interrupts and yells out....)

Science: HEY, STUPID GO KEEP YOURSELF BUSY WITH SOMETHING, JESUS!!!!

Free thinking Observer: So you believe in JE.....(now science looses it...)

Science: Now you are dead (takes out his gun....)

Edit:**

...In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole....

....

Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang.....

Edit:***

The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (seemultiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, we are, by definition, in a hospitable universe.

<lots of stuff>

A lot of the things you posted are not considered as factual by actual science. Many of the things you attribute to "science" actually sound like the kind of stuff highly speculative articles on science might write. Very, very few scientists knowledgeable in the subject of cosmology would claim "infinite universes" or would definitively say "before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing" and they definitely would not say all events have cause and effect (that goes against quantum theory).

Science: Matter never comes out of nothing, that's religion BS.
Science: But hey there is the big bang, before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no forces, everything just came flying out of nothing.
Free thinking observer: But according to science every 'cause' has an 'effect' and every 'effect' have a 'cause'. Thus for an explosion(BB) to occur, the effect which is lasting billions of years, there must have been a pressure building up
Science: Susssshhhh
Science: The Goldilocks principle, well its because there are infinite number of universes and there is bound to be one where the conditions just suits life, where all forces are well balanced for life and matter to exist. And we happen to exist in that universe
Free thinking observer: Hey but you just said there was no time, no space and absolutely nothing before the big bang. Which space and time did other universes get banged out from?
Science: Susssshhh
Science: If your theories cannot be proven scientifically (by our human level science) then its BS
Free thinking Observer: But you just said there could be other universes where the physics is very different from ours, what if they are able to get injected to our universe and....(science getting seriously pissed off now interrupts and yells out....)
Science: HEY, STUPID GO KEEP YOURSELF BUSY WITH SOMETHING, JESUS!!!!
Free thinking Observer: So you believe in JE.....(now science looses...)
Science: Now you are dead (takes out his gun....)

What was the purpose of this part of your post? It adds nothing to the discussion. Are you trolling now?

This is the largest, most immature straw man I've ever seen.

The only reason I am replying here is because it’s extremely offensive to let science be given this kind of injustice. Maybe you thought you would stroll into a place and spout out total non-sense bullshit and get let off the hook. Or you would be called out on it, lose every single ounce of respect you ever had, and look like an idiot in front of everyone. Because yeah, even if we disagreed in Donald Trump, I still had some respect for you.
Unlucky you, you’re being called out on it. Seriously what the fuck did you expect on a forum dedicated to scientists?

except that sometimes i thinks science is extremely arrogant

What a fucking stupid thing to say. Science isn’t an object, it is a process. We have a world and universe around us, and we aim to learn about it. We created a process of discovery we call science. And you call it arrogant. So…discovery is arrogant? Study is arrogant? Knowledge is arrogant? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Science: Matter never comes out of nothing, that's religion BS.
Science: But hey there is the big bang, before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing, no space, no time, no forces, everything just came flying out of nothing.
Free thinking observer: But according to science every 'cause' has an 'effect' and every 'effect' have a 'cause'. Thus for an explosion(BB) to occur, the effect which is lasting billions of years, there must have been a pressure building up

Except, matter does come from nothing. http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
Your whole proposed “conversation with science” is bullshit. It’s contrived to make your idiotic point, and this is what is most offensive.

Science: The Goldilocks principle, well its because there are infinite number of universes and there is bound to be one where the conditions just suits life, where all forces are well balanced for life and matter to exist. And we happen to exist in that universe
Free thinking observer: Hey but you just said there was no time, no space and absolutely nothing before the big bang. Which space and time did other universes get banged out from?

You are the idiot who said that. While offensively misappropriating science. Like an asshole. Like an asshole desperate to make a point he couldn’t make without misappropriating science.
Because you’ve got to stick words in our mouths or else you might just realize you are wrong.

<idiotic twist to support greyhounder’ ideology>

The rest of this conversation won’t include greyhounder, because greyhounder doesn’t know how to be an adult. I know I could probably communicate with greyhounder by throwing poop, but it takes so many washes to get that smell off my hands.


L. Spiro

[... insults and personal attacks...]

I shouldn't have been so surprised with this coming from L. Spiro, afterwards yesterday (or day before) when @Servant made a mild humorous post L Spiro misunderstood it and went over the top. Except that even this current one beats my imagination.

No.. I wouldn't follow suit and sink low with you,

instead I would just say recognize it when points are made in satire fashion. Like a satire comic artist would do. Which is what I tried to do and I thought anyone would easily recognize it.

BTW I made some edits in my previous post to include some links that back up the post, because even though the aim was just to convey the points with a sense of humour it was based on some genuine issues. True scientists don't repel criticism of their theories, in fact they welcome it. And some of the issues I raised are being raised by other scientists

If while trying to make my points with a sense of humour i offended anyone - I'm really sorry - that wasn't my intention (Even though i never and would never attacked anyone personally)

If as Nypyren stated its immaturely conveyed, then its inadvertently (maybe due to my complete lack of skills in being humorous)

instead I would just say recognize it when points are made in satire fashion. Like a satire comic artist would do. Which is what I tried to do and I thought anyone would easily recognize it.

Points should never be made in a fashion that can be misinterpreted, if you want to get a specific point across. Satire is risky. In discussions of this nature, it's difficult to grasp the intent behind what you said.

It turns serious discussions into guessing games.

...and I think we're done here.

L.Spiro, ease off, that was unnecessarily hostile.