Do Not Read This if You are Religiously Bound

reply to post by pexx421


Read my other freakin comments THIS IS NOTING TO DO WITH CONSIOUSSNESS, THIS IS ABOUT FREAKIN NDEs and GOD LIKE EXPERIENCES GODDAMIT

reply to post by pexx421


Read my other freakin comments This is noting to do with consioussness, this is about freakin NDEs and god like experiences [SNIP]



Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheBorg]

I have to freakin say this, this thread has nothing to do with the cause of consioussness or whatever, it is about nde and god like feelings, please i do not want to hear your opinions on consioussness. I am not saying every freakin thing is chemicals either, im saying emotions are caused by chemicals known as lignads, and so are these god trips, stop posting, err quantum mechanics bla bla bla, i already know about that, i have actually looked into it. And last but not least, i never said there is no such thing as a soul, the subject is, god like experiences and ndes, do not change it, i even got side tracked by trying to explain to yous how yous are misrepresenting and interpreting my statement bloody hell!!!



[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheBorg]

reply to post by pexx421


This is nothing to do with that, im saying that god like experiences, and ndes, are explainable by chemical reactions and drug trips, i never said, there is nothing outside of this body, so sthu about anything else and stay on hte freakin topic!! i am getting really annoyed at this.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheBorg]

Originally posted by badmedia
What is the special chemical combination that creates consciousness? Where in the universe do we find this "observiminum" element? Is it near the "feelium" element?

I'm not being a smart butt in the above, I realize it can sound like that, but what I am asking is how do you get the feelings and being an observer from chemcials?

Or what electrical signal is the correct one that gives consciousness? etc.

You can talk about how certain areas of the brain cause feelings, how the electrical signals travel through your body to let you know something is touching you. You can talk about how the eyes collect light and turn them into electrical signals that travel to the brain.

But you have said nothing of that which actually observes the image, nothing of that which feels things and so on. If the eyes collect light, turns it into an electrical signal which travels to the back of the brain, and is then converted into the image "you" see, then to what is that image being presented too? Chemcials? and other electrical signals? In which case leads us right back to the start.


What is of the flesh/physical/universe is of that. But that which is spirit, that which observes and feels is eternal and is not of this universe.

i was not talking about anything to do with that once again.

I am getting rather tired of this.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
There's back action, depending on the choice made, which shows that the photon isn't any "thing" until the choice is made, then it actualizes.

No. The photon is and always was a photon. It also is, and always was, a wave. How it appears in the detector depends on what detector you choose. It is as simple as that.

From the Wikipedia entry on Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment:

The fundamental lesson of Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is that the result depends on whether the experiment is set up to detect waves or particles.

And in Wheeler's own words:

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago ‘to be is to be perceived’.

Please note the words 'in a sense' in the last sentence. Wheeler does not mean to imply, as Berkeley stated, that existence is predicated entirely on perception; merely that the form in which an entity is perceived depends on the means whereby it is perceived.

What matters isn't which slit it goes through, but whether it manifests as a particle, or a wave, depending on the choice of the observer.

Absolutely wrong. See above.

I totally pwned that guy who was like, hey, no science for consioussness, when that is totally wrong.