Watching another video of this guy, I really love it. It fits gorski's sig perfectly. A guy emerging from immaturity on his own by rational thinking. It's a beautiful thing to watch if can get past the first minutes with the kind of comedic singing. He gets really serious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPqUkB-mVE
Sneaky, aren't you? You're trying to apply a peculiar case to general population, which is N/A. Not you and nor I have any idea of the trauma that woman went through the rape. So it's N/A to our case. We are talking about another topic... I value logic, never dismissed that. Are you able to provide LOGICAL explanation for big bang and "theory" of evolution? I highly doubt it, because even greater minds than yours failed miserably to do it. But if you think you can PROVE it, please do it. Remember, I asked YOU to prove it, not quote from any text book of copy-paste any equation. Good luck! Take a deep breath...relax. Aliens trained them!!! It is, but you're ego's in denial. Another atheistic prophet...the atheist church is training them well.
Nope it’s actually the pharmacology of THC in the CNS. It has nothing to do with Chemistry. I am quite familiar with Chemistry since I have studied it and I am just writing that from my lab where I am leading a practicum ATM. I am one of those scientists, lol. Anyway I have no issue. The observations (brain) you have posted are true, but there is another valid conclusion. The only thing that is real is the ‘subject’ the absolute spirit (absolute consciousness). This consciousness is creating the human brain so it can express itself through it. One cannot lose consciousness one is consciousness. When the brain gets damaged it cannot express itself through it anymore. I don’t have posted that to ‘be right’. I have posted it as a valid conclusion that matches the observations. (Besides of that it would explain the reincarnation stories and also how the Tibetans are finding their next Dalai Lama.) Your view isn’t capable of doing so. I guess you need to wait until scientists are able to transplant a brain. If you are right the personality (of the brain owner) would be transferred as well. You are not the brain (matter), you are consciousness. You (we) are aware of your (our) body, most animals are not. The next step is to become aware of consciousness itself before it 'becomes' (identified with matter/body). The posts contain assumptions/views, please do not ask for evidence or proof without to provide your own. Also 'pothead' or to name mental experiments as mental masturbation disqualifies you -actually- =somebody who tries to appear objective and 'scientific'.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... They have them, but keep them secret, otherwise "religious" people will realize atheists are "religious" too.
So where am "I" in a dreamless sleep? Why don't I perceive time in that state and why does it feel like I just wake up with seemingly no time passed? Why isn't every dream that I actually have a dream where I am fully aware that I'm dreaming? Why are there dreams where "you" are fooled into a seemingly different "reality"? Do you rather see this as a proof for that fantasy reality or as proof that "you" are just what your brain makes you to be? Which is more likely, that a reality exists that is somehow influenced by your past experiences and which you can visit, but only in your sleep? Or that everything you experience is simply a function of signals in your brain and that there are subconscious parts in your brain that control your thoughts and behaviour independently from your consciousness, which would fit right into evolutionary biology? Why do drugs work that change your behaviour? Think antidepressants and all that. How could they work if the underlying brain chemistry was not understood and wasn't what it is? Do you think you can randomly pick some herbs, process them into pills and have a specific desired effect without knowing exactly what is going on in the brain? It just doesn't make any sense to speak of an absolute consciousness in the face of what we know about humans so far. Also, why aren't we teaching your insight in schools? Where's your publications where we can read about all of this? If you're a scientist in the sense of what other scientists would see as a valid peer, where are your studies to read? Where is the peer review?
TCM, I hope I don’t bore you, I just find it polite to answer your questions more detailed... At the second part of my reply I post something scientific and about my work as well. To debate about absolute consciousness means to create issues. There is no separate determinable object to which one could relate to. Anyway to talk about requires even that. To debate about it one usually has an imagination of what it could be and to that one relates to. But it includes everything, the duality which appears in the debate does not exist. So it is useful to keep in mind what is actually possible when debating about. The dreamless sleep state is even that state. There is no time, because there is no one aware who could determine it. From this state anything emerges again when you wake up or enter dream sleep. This state is not nothing, also 'you' are not dead, it is NO interruption of life. It 'contains anything' it is the absolute consciousness. To become aware of the fact that time has passed you need to relate to a past event. This you do by having a look on your watch and compare it to your memory (of another time.) When you did it first, it has happened presently. When you are doing it now it's happening in the present. When you compare you are comparing now. When you change the state the idea of yourself, the identification with your body and anything which is not your body, the world with all its objects emerge. The difference of dream and awake state is the object of identification only. When dreaming you are identified with your 'dream-body' which has other Physics. To compare two conditions in aspect of reality makes no sense per se. Anyway people say the dream is not as real as the awake state. Both are as real as or as unreal as. In my personal reality coffee tastes fine, in yours perhaps not. The 'subject' your-self is here 'all the time' though. The next step is to become aware of consciousness itself before it 'becomes' (identified with matter/body). That does hardly work when trying in deep sleep. To do so people from different cultures have developed exercises, they are called meditation. Sense and purpose is to train awareness of the present. If that 'source' is present it must be present 'all the time', it is timeless. One becomes aware of the moment where 'things' emerge from that unmanifest all containing consciousness. This is happening now 'all the time'. Most people are distracted by thoughts. They think of the past or the future, they are identified with time. This can be called as possession, to think about the past, to imagine a future while they are not really aware of the present. Why is this no matter of intellectual subjects as science? One cannot think about the present and one cannot think about the subject. One can only be aware of it = be 'it'. I am, and not I am this or that. This also reasons why measures of science cannot be applied. It cannot be grasped by thoughts. It cannot be proven and it cannot be falsified. It cannot be found, because it is the 'searcher' itself. "Or that everything you experience is simply a function of signals in your brain and that there are subconscious parts in your brain that control your thoughts and behaviour independently from your consciousness, which would fit right into evolutionary biology?" It's about 'you'. You don't have consciousness you are it. To be aware means to be (conscious). You are no idea of yourself whatever it is. It is 'that' what has got the idea = is aware of it. Once again: Don’t even try to think about it. To get the power of now one has to be present. This means to make the effort to be aware of whatever you are doing now. Try it: Try to be aware of as many details of your present doing as you can. It won't take a long time until you have 'forgotten' to be present. You will notice that your focus has been lost. You find yourself in thinking again. Either about past events or imaginary future events. Become aware of it and move the focus back to your present doing....until you lose it again, lol. Why do I not publish it? It is available to everybody already, otherwise it wouldn't be real, it is 'you' and 'you' are 'your-self' 'already. Nothing can be 'More' real than that what is happening in the now. There are people who are constantly aware of it and were in history. The derogatory mentality comes from the inability to grasp it intellectually besides of the fact that people try to objectify it. The entire post becomes to that what one thinks of it. BS or whatever. To go after it one has to 'try'. I wrote: Everybody is trying more or less. It seems there is a force where 'reality' wants to become conscious of itself. But since it is timeless one cannot speak of to 'become'. That is the paradox of time. The scientific part. That what you wrote about drugs and antidepressants is right, there is nothing wrong. I have posted science applies there where it has its meaning. It is a great achievement without doubt humankind has got. I am not here to diminish that. The contrary is true my profession is organic Chemistry and I have fun with it. When I have got the chemical structure of a molecule (Educt) and want to create a new one, one which has never been synthesized on earth before I can apply organic Chemistry. I plan a synthesis sequence to get to there. I know for instance to substitute the Hydrogen of a phenolic OH group I can take benefit of its acidic character, add a base and an alkyl halide to substitute it with the alkyl-chain. I have studied the mechanisms and have done this 12 years practically. I synthesized ~600 new substances to find a new drug against Epilepsy, Alzheimer's disease and other CNS related diseases. Now I research for new phytochemical drugs. When it comes to pharmacology it looks a bit different. We cannot have a look at the structure and say: Well this one is against depressions for instance. Pharmacology has mechanisms. For instance one which is depression related is the assumption that a low serotonin yield between a synaptic slit is too low. So scientists developed a new generation of antidepressants, called the SSRI's. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. To find out if a substance is capable of a SSRI one has to test it, the structure alone is not sufficient. Even if I can say yes the substance binds to a special receptor it does not mean that it acts in vivo. The substance has to arrive there in human body. If there is like a first pass effect in the liver and it is metabolised too quickly, then you can forget it. Or it could be hepatotoxic. "Do you think you can randomly pick some herbs..." Believe it or not it is common sense to do so. We had collected a lot of herbs from the Amazons region and put them into sequential screenings to get results quickly. The action of a substance is tested firstly without to know what it is exactly doing in the human brain. One knows it when it interacts with it, but not at the first tests. It is a goal to know that of course and to publish it it is required to show up how it acts conform to scientific established theories. But there is still a lot of left to know. Some antidepressants help some people, at other people there is no effect. So one has to try another one, the scientific theory of action can cover only a part of it. I posted the scientific part as well (although simplified to keep the post as short as possible) even though I am tied to NDA to illustrate that I can have fun with both. Your comments like pothead indicates that you might think I am just an esoteric freak who has studied organic Chemistry and is average, or does not take it seriously. I can tell you both can coexist, there is no issue. We can talk about science where I am familiar on an intellectual level, but when it comes to the 'subject' one firstly needs to have the will to put intellectual means aside first. If you want to know what's 'behind it' you cannot think about, you need to practise. When thinking about it you categorize it as: It's boring. How can it gain 'something'? Give me something that is interesting, but....(intellectual objections) and the like. One knows about awareness when being aware, as much simple it sounds as difficult it is to realize. One breaks habits of how things usually are conceived. I don’t know you personally, but actually everybody had a moment in life where this came through. Some are just not aware of it and all what is left are memories, but not the present itself. Finally I have posted this for information, not to teach, not to convince. I can teach Chemistry, actually I am doing this recently. But when it comes to the subject there is nothing to teach, no content. One is oneself already. Sorry for OT and sorry for the very long post, never thought it would be that long when I've started.
Two examples to consider the false use of the term 'to exist' / and to prove 'some-thing's' existence. 1 People usually say the sky exists and point to it. But from the original meaning of to exist it does not. ('stand out'). When you lift off 'to the sky' 'when' have you reached it? The same applies to 'empty space', it does not exist. 2 When listening to the radio and the communication stops = communication is dead. What could have happened? The radio (device) has been damaged/broken The radio broadcast might have stopped. Analogue: Radio device/matter=brain Radio broadcast=consciousness. How to prove/disprove the existence/cause of 'consciousness' by thinking about the receiver????
Well, if you want to quibble about whether something exists, you need to define it first. What do you mean by "sky"? Any space not adjacent to earth? Any space that still has atmosphere? Any space outside the atmosphere? Any space above a certain height? Depending on your definition, you can clearly say you have "reached" "sky" at one point or another. If you wonder whether the radio is broken, you measure the voltages inside the radio. It's a pointless mind game to confuse the non-thinking. Edit: And on the existence of empty space or "nothing", I wouldn't be so quick on the definition of "nothing". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKnfgqO_1c Skip to 23:30 for example, but it's better to take the time to view it whole.
The Creator gave us MIND as a tool for creation and FREE WILL as an attribute of the MIND. What most people are scared of is FREE WILL, because FREE WILL comes with RESPONSIBILITY. Because humanity is chicken-s**t scared of RESPONSIBILITY, decided to give up FREE WILL and hide behind the MIND, thus the mind became a "shield" which turned into EGO... But the mind is still a tool of creation, that's why is so good of inventing all kind of useless s**t which turns out to be a vicious circle. The cardboard scientists and philosophers who beg with their hands for a penny know that "the hand that hasn't a story doesn't get a penny." The mind likes shiny things just like a puppy which likes to chase his own tail. This begging-trend started with "the illuminists", the self-proclaimed philosophers who were not able to wipe their own ass with their own toilet paper, but wanted another fresh roll. If one wants to be free must be "out of his/her own mind". This expression was trivialized by the cardboard-scientists and philosophers and now it means exactly the opposite. @TCM there's no sky, yet humans reach the sky every second of every day. If you don't believe me, take a plane trip. Your friends from the ground will see you...in the sky. The fact that your mind tries desperately to understand it shows the level of madness of the masses. Welcome...TO THE SKY.
I had posted this even to illustrate that there is a second reason (blue) why a debate has issues is the fact that probably the readers of the posts have own (different) definitions of the major terms used and that there are contradictions even when commonly used also in aspect of 'God'. 'to exist' I meant the original Latin origin extare = to outstand, to stand out, to stick out, to protrude. Empty space and the sky don't outstand or stick out. Empty space is what's left when any object is subtracted. It can only be perceived in relation to objects, but itself it does not exist. In science it is established to make everything even out of nothing (=to objectify), because 'nothing' cannot be a matter of science. One cannot study 'nothing' and one cannot make a dissertation about nothing. God also does not exist by this meaning, but empty space and the sky don't either. Affected terms Real, reality to exist, existence and the common: there is/are....... With the radio analogue I wanted to relate 2 statements and illustrate that to prove/disprove is actually impossible: "The brain creates consciousness and when the brain is damaged enough consciousness does not exist anymore = communication is dead" "The consciousness creates the brain and expresses itself through it. When the brain is damaged enough consciousness cannot express itself through it anymore = communication is dead"
Good. So you have deformed your definitions to the point where can say what doesn't exist. What does that prove again? If I take the first definition of existence I find ("Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence.") and then define sky to be all space with an atmosphere above x meters, then clearly, sky exists. And clearly, empty space can exist. Existence has nothing to do with physically sticking out, according to that definition. If you twist your definitions into whatever you want them to say, you can falsely claim anything. It's got nothing to do with reality, though.
I deformed nothing. I used the original Latin meaning, you used another. The quality of it is the word's own history, about yours (source) I know nothing. The purpose as mentioned is to illustrate 'issues' in a debate. It should be no issue when posting the used definitions so one can understand. Yes you are right it has nothing to do with reality, though. It are human definitions. Science uses definitions that people can relate to. For instance one took a piece of matter and defined it as one kilogram. To this piece of mass any other mass has to be related to and the relation to it determines its weight in kilogram. When using ounce one ounce (another piece of mass, defined by other humans) = 28,349523125 grams. You hardly can speak of reality here. It would be foolish to think about what is more real 1 kg or 35,27396195 ounces. The same applies to different definitions of to exist.