Quote :

"None of this has ever been proven, and I would wager any serious attempt has even failed."

most of the 'successful' folks and instances were/are quickly co-oped into the military usually...

they did some triple blind remote viewing test and it was mostly successful actually... (TLC or Discovery funded I think)

quantum entanglement and quantum interactions of the micro tubule skeletons of your neurons is, imho, the most likely 'source' of consciousness....

these internal structures are proteins and are manipulated in shape and form through biochemical reactions inside the cell as a result of DNA (intracellular signaling) and cell to cell neurotransmitter exchanges (inter-cellular signaling).

out of body experiences can result from the nifty fact that certain quantum interactions, once initiated can actually continue to exist and propagate separate from the initial material.

5/21/2007 3:31:38 PM

Quote :

"A scientist could tell you that stuff falls at 9.8m/s2 and you might believe him blindly because he's a scientist. That is faith. But, at any point in time you can conduct an experiment to test his hypothesis. This extends to all fields of science, but the amount of learning you would have to do changes greatly depending on what you're testing. But, you always have the potential to test that for yourself, to make it not blind faith anymore."

But if you never do said experiment, how is it any different? And what about all the theoretical physics about black holes and shit that there is absolutely no way to prove. You can argue oh the math proves it, but it might not. It might look like it explains certain phenomenon that will later be disproved. And yet no one says you're an idiot if you believe that. What about theories such as the big bang, that yes you can say the evidence seems to point to that, but by your arguing you have to be able to reproduce it. So would you agree belief in that theory is equally ridiculous?

Just playing devil's advocate, btw.

5/21/2007 3:39:42 PM

^ ^ that sounded really cool, however I am not smart enough to understand what it means.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : dfgd]

5/21/2007 3:40:26 PM

lol it is really cool, yeah you do have to know a bit about biology for it to make sense...


here is a picture of the 'skeleton' of a cell (every cell has something like this and it maintains cellular shape/dimensions



of neurons no less...

and of your run of the mill eukaryotic cell



^^ there are other observational effects that can only be explained by certain phenomena, they also happen to be mathematically proven, thus eliminating stupid answers like, a huge space turtle sneeze or something like that

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 4:09 PM. Reason : d]

5/21/2007 4:06:00 PM

Quote :

"i wish all you dumb motherfuckers would slip on a time portal and land in tower 2"

FroshKiller

Then, you could summon Neo to help us.

5/21/2007 6:03:22 PM

useful

5/22/2007 10:44:05 AM

Quote :

"But if you never do said experiment, how is it any different?"

It depends on the context. If you're talking about 2 clueless people arguing with each other, it's not different. If you're talking about the objective state of the points of view, it's very significantly different.

Quote :

" And what about all the theoretical physics about black holes and shit that there is absolutely no way to prove. You can argue oh the math proves it, but it might not. It might look like it explains certain phenomenon that will later be disproved. And yet no one says you're an idiot if you believe that. What about theories such as the big bang, that yes you can say the evidence seems to point to that, but by your arguing you have to be able to reproduce it. So would you agree belief in that theory is equally ridiculous?"

You can't say there is "absolutely no way" to prove those things. We have no way NOW but it is primarily a technological limitation. We can invent technologies that would allow us to prove things like black holes (although we've very, very certain about black holes now). There is no technology or even a theoretical model, that can prove god/religion (and arguably, models that can DISPROVE god/religion).

WRT other theories that are theoretical, the science community doesn't hold them as true, and provides means for people to prove or disprove them. In certain situations, believing in these things does require blind faith, but the difference to religion is that it has no potential to become dogmatic. A string theory scientist, if they are shown evidence that disproves string theory, will be able to move on past string theory. Religion on the other hand dictates that any evidence against it is a trick of the devil.

5/22/2007 12:59:40 PM

Quote :

"A string theory scientist, if they are shown evidence that disproves string theory, will be able to move on past string theory. Religion on the other hand dictates that any evidence against it is a trick of the devil."

I love string theory as much as anybody around these parts, but I think quite a few physicists would
disagree with you on this point. String theory like religion is so flexible it is essentially impossible to disprove. Its a theory of theories, more like a system of maths then a physical model.

5/22/2007 4:22:01 PM

You'd be hard pressed to find many scientist though that would actually stake anything on string theory. That doesn't in any way mean it's not worth studying, but scientist generally are skeptics.

5/22/2007 4:31:44 PM

^ Yeah, and if all our asses were really in trouble, that's who you'd prefer to call--a skeptic?

5/23/2007 10:38:52 PM

Define "really in trouble." What sort of trouble?

5/23/2007 11:31:05 PM

^^ Who would you call?

5/24/2007 1:48:12 AM

^^ Use your imagination. But I'm not speaking of anything biblical or religious if that's what you mean.

^ An optimistic, get-it-done, problem-solver. "Help! I really need help! Send me a skeptic--quick!"

5/24/2007 2:07:04 AM

There is nothing innate to a skeptic that means they can't be optimistic, or a problem-solver.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 2:11 AM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 2:10:51 AM

^ I'd wager that those you revere as skeptics are in many cases nothing more than cynics.

5/24/2007 2:39:48 AM