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.
Which, there is no evidence or you would like to see the evidence you assert does not exist?
The problem is it is now behind a pay wall, but Sam Parnia linked to a paper that showed NDEs differ based on the cultural beliefs of the person having them. From UFOs to religious visions. This tells us they are a product of a brain undergoing trauma, or the brain trying to make sense of something it does not normally experience.
You said: NDEs is EVIDENCE your DMT/Ayahuasca experience. Obviously this evidence does not exist. Maybe you should do more research on DMT. The is not a product of the brain undergoing trauma.
This is just a theory that states that consciousness does not make its home in just one brain region. Instead, awareness degrades the brain’s modular function and substitutes an integrated connectivity in which widespread communication arises across areas of the cortex. This experiment does not prove consciousness resides in just one area.
Quote:
Yet you quoted me posting the evidence you claim are mere opinions. Contradictory experiences, cognitive bias.
Omega, have you learnt to spell?
I never said my experiences are evidence. Thanks for playing though.
OK. Then we can ignore your opinions because logically and mathematically they are most likely wrong.
Sure, if you would like to think they are wrong then that's perfectly fine. I never claimed that I had evidence to support my beliefs. I merely posted an experience that led me to said beliefs. Like I said that experience could just be all inside my brain.
I recall it was pointed out (By Matadora to Mystic as i recall) that matter and energy was the same thing. We tend to regard them as different because the stuff is doing different things or doing things that look different to us.
I believe that Mystic's liking for the Chophraesque word "Vibration" which should automatically discredit any argument made in anything context other than massage -gadgetry, pretty much debunks any claim he makes to be talking "Science".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have been telling people that matter and energy are the same things since I started posting here. They are manifestations of a field, and, Yes, they are vibratory. If you want to debunk Chopra be my guest, but it has nothing to do with me or my views. The most basic components in String theory are "vibrating strings" so any claim that it is somehow not scientific to talk about vibrations is nonsense. What you call "particles" are nothing more than packets of vibrations at specific frequencies. Either your ignorance about such things is increasing or your bias is driving you to more and more extreme false debunking claims.
The way I've tried to summarize it to laypersons (with myself being a layperson as well rather than a professional physicist), to try to make it understandable to them, is that everything in the cosmos (the word "cosmos" means the entirely of existence, whether "existence" consists of a singular universe or a multiplicity of universes), as far as physics deems it can validly state as factual, consists of energy. Even matter itself is energy (i.e, "matter" is a state-of-being" or mode or form that energy takes on when it manifests the property of "mass" . . . .with "mass" meaning atomic weight and structure). And matter can manifest itself in any of 4 states (solids, liquids, gases, and plasma). Often the state of matter of a substance may be changed by adding or removing heat energy from it. For example, the addition of heat can melt ice into liquid water and turn liquid water into steam . . . and vice versa (i.e., steam or water vapor, with the addition of cooling [the removal of heat] can turn water vapor or steam into liquid water and ultimately turn liquid water into solid ice).
The point is that "The Law of Conservation of Energy" (I prefer to call it the "The Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter" to be more explicit when trying to explain it) states that energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed but is rather ever-existent (always has been and always will be . . . as far is the "The Law of Conservatrion of Energy" explicitly and decidedly states). That is, energy/matter can or will, at times, change its form or configuration or manifestation in varied ways but it doesn't just come into outright existence from so-called "nothingness" (stated as "ex nihilo" in Latin) nor does it ever go utterly out-of-existence. This is saying that, even when it "appears" to our naked senses that it has gone "out of existence", this just indicates that it may not be in a form or state or mode directly perceivable to us by our naked senses but nevertheless it is there as another state of matter (i.e., most liekly gasesous matter) or as pure energy (i.e., "pure energy" means energy not exhibiting the perceivable characteristics of mass and hence not being "matter"). . . and always will be. After all, if science comes to call some put-forth proposition a "law" (as differs from a "hypothesis" or a "theory"), this means that it has been found to be evidentially true (provably so) over and over and over and over and over and to hence never fail to be shown as being a position point tha can be validly labeled as "true". . . or else science would not take it upon itself to call it a "law"). Calling something a "law" in science is a very reserved term.
In summary, this is saying that the entirety of existence (i.e., what has been called the "cosmos") has ALWAYS existed in one or another form(s) or state(s) of energy . . . which includes energy manifesting as having the properties of "mass" aka "atomic weight and structure" (otherwise known as "matter"). So when it is asked by some "How can something come from nothing?", the answer that physics appears to say is "It can't. There is no such thing as 'nothingness' in the realm of physic but only 'somethingness' . .. and that 'somethingness', at its base, is energy."
I have been telling people that matter and energy are the same things since I started posting here. They are manifestations of a field, and, Yes, they are vibratory. If you want to debunk Chopra be my guest, but it has nothing to do with me or my views. The most basic components in String theory are "vibrating strings" so any claim that it is somehow not scientific to talk about vibrations is nonsense. What you call "particles" are nothing more than packets of vibrations at specific frequencies. Either your ignorance about such things is increasing or your bias is driving you to more and more extreme false debunking claims.
its a classic "atheistic perspective" bumping up against "content" and losing again.
at least he won't be arguing from now on, but that's probably due to not wanting any "content" out there that thoroughly debunks a atheist's perspective. Its better to shun that type of stuff. time will tell.
The way I've tried to summarize it to laypersons (with myself being a layperson as well rather than a professional physicist), to try to make it understandable to them, is that everything in the cosmos (the word "cosmos" means the entirely of existence, whether "existence" consists of a singular universe or a multiplicity of universes), as far as physics deems it can validly state as factual, consists of energy. Even matter itself is energy (i.e, "matter" is a state-of-being" or mode or form that energy takes on when it manifests the property of "mass" . . . .with "mass" meaning atomic weight and structure). And matter can manifest itself in any of 4 states (solids, liquids, gases, and plasma). Often the state of matter of a substance may be changed by adding or removing heat energy from it. For example, the addition of heat can melt ice into liquid water and turn liquid water into steam . . . and vice versa (i.e., steam or water vapor, with the addition of cooling [the removal of heat] can turn water vapor or steam into liquid water and ultimately turn liquid water into solid ice).
The point is that "The Law of Conservation of Energy" (I prefer to call it the "The Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter" to be more explicit when trying to explain it) states that energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed but is rather ever-existent (always has been and always will be . . . as far is the "The Law of Conservatrion of Energy" explicitly and decidedly states). That is, energy/matter can or will, at times, change its form or configuration or manifestation in varied ways but it doesn't just come into outright existence from so-called "nothingness" (stated as "ex nihilo" in Latin) nor does it ever go utterly out-of-existence. This is saying that, even when it "appears" to our naked senses that it has gone "out of existence", this just indicates that it may not be in a form or state or mode directly perceivable to us by our naked senses but nevertheless it is there as another state of matter (i.e., most liekly gasesous matter) or as pure energy (i.e., "pure energy" means energy not exhibiting the perceivable characteristics of mass and hence not being "matter"). . . and always will be. After all, if science comes to call some put-forth proposition a "law" (as differs from a "hypothesis" or a "theory"), this means that it has been found to be evidentially true (provably so) over and over and over and over and over and to hence never fail to be shown as being a position point tha can be validly labeled as "true". . . or else science would not take it upon itself to call it a "law"). Calling something a "law" in science is a very reserved term.
In summary, this is saying that the entirety of existence (i.e., what has been called the "cosmos") has ALWAYS existed in one or another form(s) or state(s) of energy . . . which includes energy manifesting as having the properties of "mass" aka "atomic weight and structure" (otherwise known as "matter"). So when it is asked by some "How can something come from nothing?", the answer that physics appears to say is "It can't. There is no such thing as 'nothingness' in the realm of physic but only 'somethingness' . .. and that 'somethingness', at its base, is energy."
that's exactly right. some sects of atheism want to shut down any conversation like this because they feel that its stuff theist can grab onto and make atheism harder to sell.
or they just deny it out of hand, like theist, with "oh I don't believe that.". they don't understand its not about a "belief", its about what the data shows. and comparing claims to see what ones are more valid, less valid, or on equal terms.
Absolutely no evidence like you suggest. If there is any evidence, I'd like to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
What evidence do we have? You have shown none.
We can scan the brain before and after injecting a foreign substance. And we observe the effects that correlate with the chance in subjective conscious experience. That alone is evidence of a link between the drug - conscious experience - and the brain.
You have no similar evidence of anything operating external to the brain.
This is not just limited to drugs however. We can also compare and contrast the conscious experiences of "normal" people and people such as - say - synaesthetes. And we find patterns congruent in the brain in all of those synaesthetes that are entirely missing from those without synaesthesia. Once again evidence linking differences in conscious experience to the brain.
You have no similar evidence of anything operating external to the brain.
We can even target drugs at one particular part of the brain and the patient entirely loses consciousness. This is general anaesthesia. Once again a link being shown between conscious experience and the brain. In fact in 2014 scientists from the George Washington University published on the subject of a kind of "on-off" switch in the brain in an area called the claustrum.
You have no similar evidence of anything operating external to the brain.
The simple fact is that we have a lot of incomplete knowledge about consciousness and the brain. But the entirely of what we currently do know is linking consciousness to the brain. Nothing we do know shows any kind of disconnect - let alone of the type you describe. Science and evidence are not your friend in this topic I am afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
Again, you fail to specifically mention what you have had experiences with. If anybody is hiding anything, it's definitely you! You automatically think because they are similar to your experience you know exactly what a DMT/Ayahuasca experience is like.
Except I did not "fail to mention" any such thing. I in fact gave a list earlier. Your ignoring things I have said does not magically alter reality to be one where I did not say it.
Further one of your more glaring errors here is in your talking in phrases such as: "what a DMT/Ayahuasca experience is like". As if there is one definitive experience in the first place. The opposite is in fact true and people taking such drugs report varying experiences. And having one such experience yourself - assuming you ever have which I do not assume - does not mean that you know what anyone else's experience will have been like.
The only thing I can say is that so far you have not really described _any_ experience short of name dropping the word "Ayahuasca". But I can certainly attest that you have yet to describe anything - nor has our other resident self proclaimed mystic - that I myself have not experienced under the influence of the same, and other, drugs and influences.
Until such time as you do that - then are individual experiences are not some game of childrens "Top Trumps".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I cannot show you my experience. I can only tell you what my experience was like.
Well given that is exactly what you appear _not_ to have done so far - given that short of name dropping the name of a single drug you have not really elaborated all that much on it at all even when asked - the only option I have is to take your word for it. Which I do not.
If you do at any point want to elaborate on those experiences though - you are by all means welcome and invited openly to do so. Have at it.
You said: NDEs is EVIDENCE your DMT/Ayahuasca experience. Obviously this evidence does not exist. Maybe you should do more research on DMT. The is not a product of the brain undergoing trauma.
Nowhere have I mentioned NDEs in relation to DMT/Ayahuasca experience.
I DID mention NDEs to your comment "That something that happens after death could be nothing. Either something happens or doesn't. We don't know if something happens or does not happen. Nobody knows."
To which I responded "Work done on NDEs tells us that they are products of the cultural beliefs of the person having them. This is evidence that they are a product of the human mind trying to understand a situation that is not normal. This is not belief, this is actual scientific evidence.".
Maybe you should stop building straw people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
This is just a theory that states that consciousness does not make its home in just one brain region. Instead, awareness degrades the brain’s modular function and substitutes an integrated connectivity in which widespread communication arises across areas of the cortex.
This is more than JUST A THEORY. It is the evidence you claim we do not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
This experiment does not prove consciousness resides in just one area.
I know. That is why I posted the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I never said my experiences are evidence. Thanks for playing though.
Irrelevant to the point that I gave you evidence.
If you want to play, try responding to what people are actually saying.
We can scan the brain before and after injecting a foreign substance. And we observe the effects that correlate with the chance in subjective conscious experience. That alone is evidence of a link between the drug - conscious experience - and the brain.
What foreign substances are you talking about? Can you provide solid evidence?
Quote:
This is not just limited to drugs however. We can also compare and contrast the conscious experiences of "normal" people and people such as - say - synaesthetes. And we find patterns congruent in the brain in all of those synaesthetes that are entirely missing from those without synaesthesia. Once again evidence linking differences in conscious experience to the brain.
I've only seen hypothesis thrown around in regards to this. Can you provide solid evidence?
Quote:
We can even target drugs at one particular part of the brain and the patient entirely loses consciousness. This is general anaesthesia. Once again a link being shown between conscious experience and the brain. In fact in 2014 scientists from the George Washington University published on the subject of a kind of "on-off" switch in the brain in an area called the claustrum.
Nobody knows what happens to your consciousness when you are put under. If you have solid evidence for what happens to your consciousness I'd like to see it.
Quote:
The simple fact is that we have a lot of incomplete knowledge about consciousness and the brain. But the entirely of what we currently do know is linking consciousness to the brain. Nothing we do know shows any kind of disconnect - let alone of the type you describe. Science and evidence are not your friend in this topic I am afraid.
So basically just hypothesis
Quote:
Except I did not "fail to mention" any such thing. I in fact gave a list earlier. Your ignoring things I have said does not magically alter reality to be one where I did not say it.
you said "drugs" I asked you to be more specific and you just hid and deflected.
Quote:
Further one of your more glaring errors here is in your talking in phrases such as: "what a DMT/Ayahuasca experience is like". As if there is one definitive experience in the first place. The opposite is in fact true and people taking such drugs report varying experiences. And having one such experience yourself - assuming you ever have which I do not assume - does not mean that you know what anyone else's experience will have been like.
Agreed, not everyone has the same exact experience but many people have the reported the same experience.
Quote:
The only thing I can say is that so far you have not really described _any_ experience short of name dropping the word "Ayahuasca". But I can certainly attest that you have yet to describe anything - nor has our other resident self proclaimed mystic - that I myself have not experienced under the influence of the same, and other, drugs and influences.
I did post the experience briefly earlier in this thread but you must have forgotten about it. I talked about ego death, separation of body, communicating with entities, seeing colors and objects that are indescribable, experiencing no time and space, seeing how this world is held together, experiencing true reality, seeing every part of the universe. Alot of what was experienced can't be explained or understood by the human brain. Almost like trying to explain to someone the concept of infinity.
Last edited by Diesel350z; 12-13-2018 at 01:05 PM..
What foreign substances are you talking about? Can you provide solid evidence? I've only seen hypothesis thrown around in regards to this. Can you provide solid evidence?
There are literally thousands of well-conducted studies demonstrating the effects, both temporary and permanent, of mind altering substances on the structure and function of the brain. Enough that there are entire medical textbooks devoted to the topic (i.e., the evidence goes far beyond one person writing about their ideas in the pop-psychology laypress). Since I can't hand you copies from my library, try entering these in Google (without the quote marks):
"Studies showing effects of drugs on brain"
"PET scans effects of drugs on brain"
"Functional MRI effects of drugs on brain"
"How do drugs affect the brain?"
... and since this seems to be an area of personal interest, also see....
"Brain scans ayahuasca"
"Ayahuasca brain damage"
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 12-13-2018 at 01:36 PM..
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.
