The New Message for Atheists (Christianity, preacher, bible, church)

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them.

Most of which has been truly destroyed in rebuttal by numerous users including myself. Probably why you talk about it these days without actually linking to it - because it turned into a car crash of a thread for you. In fact most of this "synthesis" - especially the whole opening section - was shown to be nothing but you pouring praise on yourself - and disparity on those who disagree with you.

A "synthesis" that has to start off by offering insult at anyone who does not agree with the synthesis - is worth exactly what that implies it is.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem.

That is however blatantly untrue - when I reply to your posts I engage in no ad hominem. I either directly rebut what you have claimed - or I request further information by questions which - usually - you either whole sale ignore - or go on an ad hominem attack schedule of your own.

Again - what is your actual evidence that human consciousness survives the death of the brain? So far all you have offered us is that you think it _must_ be so because while meditating you feel a presence. Which is about as compelling as a bank hold up using a banana as a weapon of choice.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics.

Alas blatantly untrue. I have shown multiple times exactly how and why your analogies fail - and Misrepresentation was not required at any level or point in this process.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues.

Is that not _exactly_ what I just suggested? Twice?

I just suggested you try a different level - which is to ditch the failed analogies and directly support your views with actual evidence and reason. You appear to be unwilling to do so. You claim - for example - that the universe itself is conscious. Have you evidence for this claim other than feeling a presence while meditating? Anything at all we can evaluate and discuss like adults?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them.

Where you make directly scientific claims - I will of course respond in that context. Why would I not? One need not conflate things that are already the same thing.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem

See what I mean? You do not offer evidence. You offer baseless (and false as it happens) assumptions about the knowledge of people who simply question what you are selling without swallowing it wholesale.

I have asked you what evidence you have the human consciousness survives death - and you go off on some irrelevant diatribe about the planck length and the limits of human measurements. In other words - as with your appeal to dark matter - you are not offering evidence at all - but excuses for why you will not be doing so. I pretty much rest my case.

And all the while pretending that you are keeping science and your fantasies compartmentalised and separate. Yet you have just gone on an entirely irrelevant scientific screed that has nothing to do with the claim I asked you to evidence.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time"

Except there is no reason for this at all. You are - once again - postulating an energy unmeasured and unobserved - simply declaring that thiis energy is the explanation for conciousness - and leaving it at that.

Would love to hear more of energy being "molecular vibration" given that energy is not molecules. Do regale us more with this one.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by fishbrains

The earth?

You know that earth us a planet, right? We know how planets are formed. It has nothing to do with reproduction.

I guess I would have to change the wording a bit. When we go and teraform a planet to meet the needs of the type of life on earth we didn't "reproduce the earth's biosphere"?

Then work up and down if you like. lol, get it, the up-down. But anyway, look at what we are made of and then look at the pieces that are interacting to make "you" up. After that move "up" and into the universe and see how we, and everything else. is interacting to make the universe work. I am assuming a fair amount of formal science training so I don't have to write a ton on it.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

According to Helmholtz, time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. (This is extremely important to understand and think about its implications.) In all other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking. For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. That is why I refer to it as timespace . . . NOT spacetime.

what is time Mystic?

"time" rates change based on what space it doing at that point. simple enough. "time" is not a thing it is a human construct so that we can compare the states changes between different regions of space. When you say "between, or in quantum, time" are you saying consciousness formz in the "gaps" between times' quanta and/or in the packet of time?

which gets us back to what is time to you?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them. You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem. The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics. So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues. As is typical of your harangues, you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them. I will ignore such obvious distraction from the scientific rebuttal and deal with the bold in your post.

To observe or measure anything . . . we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of awareness from which we "measure" time . . . but are they? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe . . . establishes the parameters of the field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure . . . especially the speed of light and Planck length . . . which are what cause all the confusion about classical (measured) "time."

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem . . . (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) . . . adds to your current "confusion." One of the few relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of timespace should start to break down at the Planck length . . . which should be the shortest "measurable" length . . . analogous to the shortest "measurable" time interval . . . right? For example . . . in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Any bells going off yet?

All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" . . . (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds . . . which coincidentally, is the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . (no quibbling about units and other issues. I will deal with them shortly). This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as energy at the square of the speed of light and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as energy (E=hf) . . . a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal.

I reiterate for my analogy impaired critics: The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying reality substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration ("molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as vibratory energy (E=hf). I hope this quells any further nonsense about inappropriate use of the "speed" and "acceleration" analogies in my Synthesis.

OK . . . quibble time . . . about the "order of magnitude" of the formation of consciousness in "quantum time." The brain isn't a vacuum . . . so the speed of light will not be the same. Despite an apparently "warm, wet, and noisy'' intracellular milieu, this suggests that microtubules avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach threshold for "self-collapse'' (objective reduction) by a quantum gravity mechanism put forth by Penrose. Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only 10^-13 s (10^-26 sec^2). The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model would lengthen the decoherence time to approx 10^-5 s (10^-10 sec^2).

We would need to recalculate the appropriately scaled decoherence time after correcting for differences between the mechanisms likely to dominate the speed of light in a biological setting. Also, we would need to account for incoherent metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence . . . (which would counter decoherence effects in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). This would make the incident "order of magnitude" sufficiently comparable to the posited square of the speed of light (if not precise) . . . but probably way too technical for conversational purposes in a forum, IMO.

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time" as a composite at the square of the speed of light . . . it can be seen as essentially manifesting as a form of energy. Energy is eternal (barring the existence of anything that can transform consciousness energy into something else and I know of nothing) . . . ergo consciousness is also.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Most of which has been truly destroyed in rebuttal by numerous users including myself.

Not true, ever. Cite them. An ignorance about the use of analogies and the lack of a philosophical perspective on the equations as representations of the underlying structure and function of reality is rampant here. The "user-perspective" dominates. Neither I nor Gaylen seem able to penetrate the philosophical intellectual deficits of the critics.

That is however blatantly untrue - when I reply to your posts I engage in no ad hominem.

It takes huge brass ones to assert this in a post filled with ad hominem complaints about me and my presentations of the material . . . instead of substantive rebuttal of ANY content.

Again - what is your actual evidence that human consciousness survives the death of the brain? So far all you have offered us is that you think it _must_ be so because while meditating you feel a presence. Which is about as compelling as a bank hold up using a banana as a weapon of choice.

More conflating and distraction by focusing on the faith/belief CONCLUSIONS . . . instead of the scientific foundations and rationale presented to support the hypotheses on which the conclusions are based. This seems further evidence to me that you do not have a clue what constitutes a scientific rebuttal. You simply carp, disagree, and denigrate with copious ad hominem complaints.

Alas blatantly untrue. I have shown multiple times exactly how and why your analogies fail - and Misrepresentation was not required at any level or point in this process.

You have done no such thing. All you ever succeeded in doing was reveal your fundamental ignorance of the philosophical issues and the science.

I just suggested you try a different level - which is to ditch the failed analogies and directly support your views with actual evidence and reason. You appear to be unwilling to do so. You claim - for example - that the universe itself is conscious. Have you evidence for this claim other than feeling a presence while meditating? Anything at all we can evaluate and discuss like adults?
Where you make directly scientific claims - I will of course respond in that context. Why would I not? One need not conflate things that are already the same thing.
I have asked you what evidence you have the human consciousness survives death - and you go off on some irrelevant diatribe about the planck length and the limits of human measurements. In other words - as with your appeal to dark matter - you are not offering evidence at all - but excuses for why you will not be doing so. I pretty much rest my case.

Again . . . You keep framing your questions around the ultimate faith/belief CONCLUSIONS . . . instead of addressing the science from which the hypotheses derive and upon which the beliefs are based. You insist on dealing with conclusions and not the soundness of the scientific knowledge and rationale from which my hypotheses and faith/belief conclusions are derived. It is your schtick . . . and you expect your audience not to notice. It is the same tactic used by those who refuse to see ANY evidence SUPPORTIVE of the existence of God. They simply state this "not one shred of evidence" nonsense and then ask for the definitive proof of the existence of God . . . AS IF all arguments must be and are at that level. You have mastered that deceptive debate practice and I have no confidence you will ever abandon it for legitimate and honest intellectual discourse about the philosophical and foundational scientific issues. Asking for definitive proof instead of supportive evidence is simply one of many such deceptive practices used here.

And all the while pretending that you are keeping science and your fantasies compartmentalised and separate. Yet you have just gone on an entirely irrelevant scientific screed that has nothing to do with the claim I asked you to evidence.
Except there is no reason for this at all. You are - once again - postulating an energy unmeasured and unobserved - simply declaring that thiis energy is the explanation for conciousness - and leaving it at that.

I declare nothing . . . I assert the plausibility based on knowledge of the science . . . a very different thing. What you call irrelevant are the foundational and supportive evidence and rationale for the hypotheses I propose and the faith/belief conclusions I make from them. Your schtick of demanding the definitive proof of the faith/belief CONCLUSIONS BASED on the science fools no one except those predisposed to reject the existence of God anyway. Those with open minds will track the supporting science and rationale presented and make their own conclusions about how plausible it all is. That is something you and your ilk refuse to do and it is why it all seems irrelevant to you.

Would love to hear more of energy being "molecular vibration" given that energy is not molecules. Do regale us more with this one.

As is typical . . . you refuse to acknowledge that our reality is nothing BUT vibrational manifestations of the unified field. The common forms of these "vibrational manifestations" at the macro level are reflected in energy/mass/momentum equivalence. Molecular vibrations are manifestations at a macro level . . . while the "particle events" are packets of vibratory manifestations at the micro level. I used quotes around the use of the phrase "molecular vibration" for that reason . . . but the parallels should be sufficiently obvious to anyone with a truly open mind. The lack of philosophical perspective is what keeps many people from "getting it" . . . and missing the point of other analogous terminology.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by .EL.

Worst comment of the day: "There is actually no such thing as "nothing"." Please do not do leave comments like that. IAI (I Assume Intelligence) maybe you should as well.

I thought that was actually a very insightful comment.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Don't flatter yourself. Penrose's works have been central to my understanding of consciousness from early on. I use Synthesis because it is NOT a purely scientific work. It is an effort to summarize my views in easy to understand terms for a friend who wanted more details about why I believe as I do. It encompasses my knowledge AND my beliefs. I compartmentalize the science knowledge supporting my hypotheses away from the spiritual, faith and belief aspects based on my personal experiences and study of the "spiritual fossil record." Most of my critics seem not to understand that and conflate them.For the umpteenth and one time anything measured EXISTS in our reality. Energy is measured and it EXISTS in the state the component measurements indicate. The two sets of indices give a clear indication of the underlying state of the phenomenon we call energy . . . MC^2=hf. Once something is converted to energy whatever it was is transformed and EXISTS as substances at a higher frequency of "molecular vibration." You are used to thinking that whatever it was converted from is destroyed. I see it as merely converted to different forms and still existing within the universe in states as indicated by the component measures. You are not used to thinking of energy as substance because you are not using a perspective of the entire universe taken as the system within which it exists. You are not used to using the math measures as indices of the underlying structure and state of the reality you are measuring and manipulating. That is for philosophers whose agenda differs from the physicists. My critics routinely do not seem to comprehend this . . . as you do not.Except that the ONLY attribute of our sensory experience that directly corresponds to reality is time.. Everything else we sense is indirect. In Helmholtz's words,

. . . Events, like our perceptions of them, take place in time, so that the time relations of the latter can furnish a true copy of those of the former.

According to Helmholtz, time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. (This is extremely important to understand and think about its implications.) In all other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking. For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. That is why I refer to it as timespace . . . NOT spacetime.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

what is time Mystic?
"time" rates change based on what space it doing at that point. simple enough. "time" is not a thing it is a human construct so that we can compare the states changes between different regions of space. When you say "between, or in quantum, time" are you saying consciousness formz in the "gaps" between times' quanta and/or in the packet of time?
which gets us back to what is time to you?

The time we measure is a delayed manifestation reflecting the actual cosmic becoming in quantum time that underlies our reality. Our reality is continuously becoming. Our consciousness tracks that becoming in a delayed playback and is a true copy of cosmic becoming. The delay feature of our sensory experience and measurements is what causes all the confusion and misdirection at the quantum level.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Not true, ever. Cite them.

I already did. The original thread where you posted it for example is replete with rebuttals and the like. Anyone can find this.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

An ignorance about the use of analogies and the lack of a philosophical perspective on the equations as representations of the underlying structure and function of reality is rampant here.

Exactly. You have summarized your synthesis quite well here. And it was indeed rampant. As I pointed out for example the entire first section of it was basically structured to pour praise on yourself - while pouring disparagement on anyone who did not agree with you.

There was no actual arguments or evidence in that section about anything - just this pre ad hominem attack structure against those who disagree with you. An MO you maintain from there across most of your posts - including this one. Which I will highlight in the next quote section below.

And your failure with analogy has been highlighted by a number of people - myself included. Analogies are meant to highlight what you mean by an original point. False analogies that do not connect to the original - or are even themselves false - are failures to do this.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Neither I nor Gaylen seem able to penetrate the philosophical intellectual deficits of the critics.

As I just said above this is the MO you maintain. You do not support your claims - you just throw invective at those who do not agree with you. They are intellectually deficient. They are on some campaign against you personally. They are arrogant. The list goes on - but it is clear you prefer personal ad hominem and attacks over actually supporting your claims at all.

So the "brass ones" are your own and your own alone - to accuse others of things like ad hominem when it is you and you alone actually engaging in that level. Try - and fail - for example to find a SINGLE post in my ENTIRE time on this forum where I suggested someone not agreeing with one of my positions must lack perspective - be arrogant - be intellectually deficient - be on a personal campaign against me personally - or any of the other cards you play hard and often when conversation does not go your way.

And perhaps when you find such rhetoric entirely absent from my posting history - but punctuating your own with remarkable frequency - you might reconsider throwing false accusations at others before spending some time in front of the mirror.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

instead of substantive rebuttal of ANY content.

Which is where you stack the deck - because when someone does rebut the content of your posts - such as I have done numerous times on the thread about AI - you simply skip those posts and ignore them - so that you can pretend they never existed in the first place.

The lack of substantive rebuttal is merely an illusion you maintain by whole sale ignoring it when it occurs. I invite anyone reading this to go to the AI thread - look at my posts to you - and observe how you merely ignored them.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

More conflating and distraction by focusing on the faith/belief CONCLUSIONS . . . instead of the scientific foundations and rationale presented to support the hypotheses on which the conclusions are based.

It is impossible to ignore what is not there. Were you to present a scientific foundation for your claims - such as your claim that AI could never be conscious - that the universe itself is conscious - or that Jesus was more than human - or that human consciousness survives dead - then we could of course evaluate the science and accept it - or rebut it - as is warranted.

But since you are not offering any such thing - we can not ignore it if it is not there. You maintain the illusion that no one is rebutting your science - by simply not presenting any. So pedantically it is true we have not rebutted the science foundations for your claims. Not because we can not or will not. But because you have not actually _offered one to rebut_.

One can not rebut with substance - that which was offered without substance.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This seems further evidence to me that you do not have a clue what constitutes a scientific rebuttal.

More falsehoods which you maintain by not giving anything to rebut - coupled with your ad hominem attacks of pretending I do not understand - when you are not giving anything TO understand. You maintain more and more this MO of not offering anything - while commenting on the intellectual abilities of others to understand that which you are not presenting in the first place.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have done no such thing.

Yet I have. And anyone can find out which one of us is telling the truth merely by going to the search function - filter the search to my user name - put the keyword analogy in - and click the search button. They will quickly get to the truth of the matter of how many times I have corrected not just your specific analogies - but your general use of analogy as an art form in the first place.

Your MO of ignoring posts - then later pretending those posts never existed - is easily made transparent by a simple use of the search function. Inconvenient for you perhaps - but the truth tends to be it seems.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

your fundamental ignorance

Same as above. More invective and ad hominem without substance.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

instead of addressing the science from which the hypotheses derive

Present some then. Note - claiming you had a feeling one day while meditating is not a scientific basis for anything. At all.

What science basis have you EVER offered to claim the universe itself is conscious?

What science basis have you EVER offered to claim Jesus was something more than human.

What science basis have you EVER offered to claim that human consciousness - awareness - or subjectivity can survive the death of the brain - or operate without one.

What science basis have you EVER offered to claim that AI in machines is not attainable or possible.

Answer: None. It is your schtick and you expect your audience not to notice that you are making these claims - dropping phrases like "soundness of the scientific knowledge and rationale" into the diatribes - but not actually offering one. You appear to think you can make people think you have offered a "soundness of the scientific knowledge and rationale" by simply using the line "soundness of the scientific knowledge and rationale".

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

refuse to see ANY evidence SUPPORTIVE of the existence of God.

Just like one can not ignore what is not there - as I laid out above - one can not refuse what has not been offered. Where is your evidence supporting the existence of a god? So far all I have _ever_ seen you offer supporting this is your claim to have encountered one during meditation. That is quite literally it.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

ask for the definitive proof of the existence of God

I have seen people - most of whom you also appear to ignore the posts of - not asking for "definitive proof" at all - but any evidence which supports the claim in any way. You have not offered that either however. You have mastered that deceptive debate practice and I have no confidence you will ever abandon it for legitimate and honest intellectual discourse about the philosophical and foundational scientific issues.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Asking for definitive proof instead of supportive evidence is simply one of many such deceptive practices used here.

Quote me doing any such thing or withdraw your irrelevant nonsense.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I declare nothing

Except where you do - many of which I have highlighted. Again with the search function. Simply filter on my name - use keywords like declare - and find many posts where I have highlighted you doing this.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Those with open minds

And more of the same. Just like your "synthesis" you simply portray anyone who agrees with you as having the "open mind" - before then sometimes explicitly - sometimes by inference - suggesting the rest have not. So it is simply more of your disparaging with insult those who do not agree - which not giving them any evidence basis upon which to agree, something you and your ilk refuse to do in your Deepakity as it is called.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

you refuse to acknowledge that our reality is nothing BUT vibrational manifestations of the unified field.

I refuse to acknowledge anything declared without evidence.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Molecular vibrations are manifestations at a macro level

More deepakity of dropping in science sounding terms - in scientifically inaccurate ways - in order to lend nonsense credibility by proxy to fancy words.

But in reality we know what a molecule is. Energy is not made of or measured in molecules. Your use of "molecular vibration" which discussing energy and the nature of energy is simply nonsense constructed out of the language of science. It is just Deepak Chopra stuff of talking nonsense - but in a language that in and of itself conveys authority.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

obvious to anyone with a truly open mind.

Yet more of your usual MO. You do not support what you claim - but merely suggest that it be obvious to the open minded in the hope that those who want to be considered open minded will simply fall into line. But they do not. Your lack of philosophical perspective is what keeps many people from "getting it" I guess and missing the point of analogous terminology and how and where to use it.

This thread is about a new message for atheists but I think the new message is the same as the old one - which is that when someone is throwing out language without substance - it should confer less authority on them not more.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The time we measure is a delayed manifestation reflecting the actual cosmic becoming in quantum time that underlies our reality. Our reality is continuously becoming. Our consciousness tracks that becoming in a delayed playback and is a true copy of cosmic becoming. The delay feature of our sensory experience and measurements is what causes all the confusion and misdirection at the quantum level.

"time' is not a thing. it really is just state changes as far as we know. When the state change repeats and or moves "along" at regular intervals we call that a "tick". From there the clock. bla bla bla.

so now let's apply this "known" to your statement.

"The time we measure is a delayed manifestation reflecting the actual cosmic becoming in quantum time that underlies our reality."

Yes, everything we see is delayed. But this "delay" doesn't mean wrong. This "cosmic becoming" is mystic talk. While it is true "the becoming" better stated as, or understood as, the universe is a series state changes. Every "now" is just a fleeting moment of "the present state", or even a momentary "final", or "subscript two" state. I forget the guys name that called this notion "an unfolding". Spanoza?

"quantum time" is a slight misrepresentation of what is going on thus I think your interpretations are skewed just a bit. I think of this nation more as a possibility that state changes at the smallest scale may be quantized as the fabric of space may be quantized. That means a "jump". Think of moving along while in a screen.

This "delay" may not the cause of the "misunderstanding". If everything you see is "delayed" you can treat it as "now" to draw accurate conclusions on what happen in the past. I don't think we don't know enough to make this claim "time as the reason". Again I think you are using the wrong word here. "delay" may not be the right word. Think of a wave. You can't have 1/2 a wave. So if the universes fabric is oscillating in some way it will do so in whole number increments. think of it as opening and closing your eyes every 1/2 second. Things look quantized but they are not.

I think the "misunderstanding' (your word ... not really my word) is possibly due to not being on an absolute energy scale. It may be that what we call "zero energy" or "vacuum energy" is the result of not being on an absolute energy scale. We may exist on something like the surface of boiling water where 212F is what we call zero F. I say this because we are moving in space, 1000mi/hr, 66ooomi/hr, 250,000mi/hr, and unknown speed after that. E=MC^2. What is mass? so we can't be on an absolute scale really.

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by baystater

For me personally. I prefer to fill the gaps with sweet ricotta. The stuff they fill canolli with.

Mmmmmm......Cannoli .

Cannoli are fine, but may I have some biscotti instead, please?


Grazie.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

He saw things in a vision once, and it was really convincing.

No, I'm not joking.

I tend do believe that those experiences are real. Users of LSD and other drugs report altered states of consciousness all the time. Even alcohol can produce an altered state.

I once had a panic attack so severe that it felt like nothing was real. I actually wondered if I was dying or had died! Even the thought of "demonic possession" crossed my mind, probably as a result of my biblical literalist Christian upbringing. I was relieved when a doctor gave me the scientific explanation!

I think it's a mistake when people interpret bizzarre experiences as evidence for other worlds, the supernatural, the soul, the afterlife, etc.