Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you are now also proposing a new type of energy, which you cannot prove exists.
Then how do you know it is 95%? I thought you said that it was not measurable?
Hahahaha!
His nonsense is so nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Nonsense.
That's what you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Neurosynaptic firings form our consciousness and they exist in the EM spectrum.
We already covered this.
I explained to you the exact range of electro-magnetic frequencies produced by the chemical interactions in the brain.
I also explained to you that the heart produces electro-magnetic waves.
And, I explained to you that the EM waves produced by the brain are so weak they're barely able to penetrate the skull.
Additionally, I pointed out that the EM waves produced by the heart are so much more powerful than the EM waves produced by the brain, that the EM waves produced by the heart can be detected by placing an ECG electrode on someone's ankle.
An ECG electrode on someone's ankle will not and cannot detect brain waves, because the EM waves produced by the chemical interactions in the brain are far too weak and can barely penetrate the skull.
It is thus preposterous and absurd to suggest that the brain waves of Earthlings are interconnected or that they are connected to anything beyond Earth's atmosphere, even more so since the brain waves do not and cannot have the power to travel beyond Earth's Troposphere, much less Earth's Ozone Layer (which rests above the Troposphere).
So many errors....
Which appears to be the brain, despite your claims to the contrary.
A composite which you are positing, but cannot prove exists.
So you are now also proposing a new type of energy, which you cannot prove exists.
Then how do you know it is 95%? I thought you said that it was not measurable?
Actually, it is exactly like making things up. You seem to have made up four different things in one run-on sentence.
Dark energy and dark matter comprise 95+% of our universe and can not be measured directly only by their effects on what we CAN measure, just like our consciousness.
Dark energy and dark matter comprise 95+% of our universe and can not be measured directly only by their effects on what we CAN measure, just like our consciousness.
So we can measure the effects of dark matter/energy. Which means it is ... let me look for an appropriate word ... almost have it... got it! Measurable. The word is measurable.
So we can measure the effects of dark matter/energy. Which means it is ... let me look for an appropriate word ... almost have it... got it! Measurable. The word is measurable.
Make an effort to restrain your desire to mock long enough to at least pretend you comprehend. We do not know what comprises them because we have nothing that directly reflects their essence but we infer their existence from the effects they have on gravity and the expansion of the universe which is what we do with consciousness and its effects on our behavior and interactions.
Make an effort to restrain your desire to mock long enough to at least pretend you comprehend. We do not know what comprises them because we have nothing that directly reflects their essence but we infer their existence from the effects they have on gravity and the expansion of the universe which is what we do with consciousness and its effects on our behavior and interactions.
Exactly! I completely agree with the portion that I have noted in bold.
We do not know.
Those are very important words, and accurate, yet you insist on assigning specific qualities to something that we only infer exists. There is no reason to think, much less conclude, that dark matter or dark energy have anything to do with consciousness.
This is what I mean when I say you are making things up. You have absolutely nothing to support your assertions other than wishful thinking. That is a terrible reason to believe something. For all we know dark matter and dark energy are hostile to consciousness, however you define it. We certainly have no reason to think that they amplify and/or sustain it in any way.
Exactly! I completely agree with the portion that I have noted in bold.
We do not know.
Those are very important words, and accurate, yet you insist on assigning specific qualities to something that we only infer exists. There is no reason to think, much less conclude, that dark matter or dark energy have anything to do with consciousness.
This is what I mean when I say you are making things up. You have absolutely nothing to support your assertions other than wishful thinking. That is a terrible reason to believe something. For all we know dark matter and dark energy are hostile to consciousness, however you define it. We certainly have no reason to think that they amplify and/or sustain it in any way.
I agree "We Do Not Know" but despite that, your side insists on claiming the default. "We Do Not Know" means just that and nothing else. My use of their common status "Immeasurability" may not satisfy your standards for a "Reason to believe" but it more than satisfies mine. So your "No Reason" assertion is moot.
'We do not know.'
But, some people do.
I've read their books.
(They really all say about the same things ...written decades apart, some from diff countries...)
That is all that I was saying. You are making stuff up and asserting it as factual.
Quote:
but despite that, your side insists on claiming the default. "We Do Not Know" means just that and nothing else.
Agreed. The difference is what we do with that statement. I say that I don’t know, but if you provide positive evidence, I will believe you. Until that time, my response is simply that I do not believe assertions that do not have any supporting evidence.
On the other hand, you obfuscate and attempt to hide the fact that you do not know, then you make positive assertions as to what you would like to believe, and attempt to belittle people who do not agree with your fantasy.
One of us is intellectually honest, and one of us attempts to bully people into agreeing with him. Sorry, I think that being honest and treating people fairly is the better course.
Quote:
My use of their common status "Immeasurability" may not satisfy your standards for a "Reason to believe" but it more than satisfies mine. So your "No Reason" assertion is moot.
Ok, so you are content to believe for poor reasons. Why don’t you just say so?
That is all that I was saying. You are making stuff up and asserting it as factual.
Agreed. The difference is what we do with that statement. I say that I don’t know, but if you provide positive evidence, I will believe you. Until that time, my response is simply that I do not believe assertions that do not have any supporting evidence.
On the other hand, you obfuscate and attempt to hide the fact that you do not know, then you make positive assertions as to what you would like to believe, and attempt to belittle people who do not agree with your fantasy.
One of us is intellectually honest, and one of us attempts to bully people into agreeing with him. Sorry, I think that being honest and treating people fairly is the better course.
Ok, so you are content to believe for poor reasons. Why don’t you just say so?
Why do you insist on attributing negative and unethical motivations behind my deeply held beliefs and understanding of the implications of the science? What gives you the authority to evaluate MY reasons as poor? I am willing to assume you are genuinely and honestly holding your views without any negative motivation. Why the difference? What you call belittling is actually questioning the depth and extent of knowledge of those who oppose my views and the lack of philosophical understanding of the issues invalidating the reductionist materialism that forms the basis of atheism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
