Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 11th November 2015, 05:39 AM   #565
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts. You referred to my synopsis of physics, or the aspects that indicate that we live in a multidimensional universe as "weird stuff".......OK. There isn't anything else I can say to something like that.
Yes, I paraphrased your presentation of that science as "weird stuff." You're smart enough to know the difference and gamey enough to try spinning it.



Originally Posted by Jodie
It has changed as a result of our conversations here, not specifically you, but from everyone as a whole. I think that our consciousness is multidimensional and that our physical brain acts as a type of lens. If that is the case, then there would be no need for my mother to tell me anything, my own higher self would know. Now whether I would be able to communicate with that extension of myself is debatable. How would it occur? Maybe some form of intuition? I don't know. I'm assuming it would have to be via some kind of thought form if the brain acts as a type of lens in this layer of existence.
That's fine. You are welcome to believe it all you like with no grief from me. What we are discussing here is the foundations of your belief; regardless how your belief itself modifies, your foundation remains non-existent while you claim it is solid.



Originally Posted by Jodie
How would one demonstrate that a dream was authentic? That's pure nonsense.
Admittedly there is no empirical way to verify that now, after the fact, but within the limitations of a forum there are ways to approach it. You have studiously avoided all those. This is made richer by the fact that you began by repeatedly insisting that we accept it as fact as opposed to something non-demonstrable.



Originally Posted by Jodie
I'm not sure how gaming could be applied to this or how stating a simple idea on a forum would be part of that. The only game going on here is when people attribute various motives for starting the discussion because they don't appreciate what's being said.
See the highlighted bit? That's you attributing various motives. When I do it -- and I absolutely do -- I am upfront about it. I am even upfront about it being speculation without real evidence.

When you do it, you pretend you are not. That's how it's gaming.



Originally Posted by Jodie
No, see the modified statement above. I would like to add that if consciousness exists on other dimensional levels as extensions of ourselves then it's possible that individual consciousness is just an illusion.
See my response above.



Originally Posted by Jodie
So someone stated, but you didn't read his paper or the math to come to that conclusion for yourself. I happened to read it from the links that Cosmic Yak included, Song left out time as a factor.
Ah. So you had not read it prior to reaching your conclusion. I still have not read it. If/when I get the chance I will do so.


Originally Posted by Jodie
My counter argument to that is that time would only be relevant here for the observer, not in other dimensional space since time wouldn't exist. I don't agree with Song's comments on evolution as they apply to our existence, we most definitely did evolve. However, evolution, or anything else related to our "now" is a matter of perspective of the past,present, future so the corrected equations would work in that respect.
So Song does not support your position?



Originally Posted by Jodie
I'm not certain why you would take issue with him. He simply tried to put the concepts in to a visual format for better understanding.
And you grandly miss the point. Even if I were to say "Bryanton is absolutely right," it would still be caveated with "But it has sod all to do with Jodie's claim."



Originally Posted by Jodie
He's studying the neural correlates for consciousness, how is this opposed to my idea? If consciousness is expressed through the brain one would need to understand the mechanism for how that happens.
I perform process analyses in regard to documentation and information flow for a living. This is not remotely in opposition to your idea. More importantly, it does not support your idea. That's the point.

Also to the point: Koch was in direction opposition to Song yet you posted both as if they support your position; that cannot be true. And Koch is in opposition to your idea because he posits consciousness as material while your idea relies on it not being so.



Originally Posted by Jodie
Not really, he didn't find what he was looking for but did find evidence that suggested that quantum processes are involved in energy transference.
And I found that when I perform my version of the zombie for children it gets more laughs to pretend to have the ball acting outside my wishes. My finding has as much relevance to your claim as does Tegmark's quantum findings.



Originally Posted by Jodie
Any of the physicists I listed have there own equations to support what they are saying. You asked for the equations to be reproduced here, that links weren't good enough. I don't have the keys on my laptop to do that but I explained what cosmological aspects might indicate multidimensionality, the "weird stuff" that you commented on.
Their math supports their conclusions. Their math does not support yours. It's that simple.

I could as easily say that Tegmark's math works therefore I have leprechauns in my desk drawer. It is as valid a conclusion as yours. You keep ignoring this.

It's like the intelligent design trial in which the witness was forced to admit under oath that accepting his evidence for intelligent design would require loosening the standards of evidence to the point that one would also have to accept astrology.



Originally Posted by Jodie
Equations for the Kaluza Hypothesis- expands Einsteins work to include the 5th dimension.
Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions.

These are specific for string theory but the equations build one upon another to describe a whole concept. You can't separate out one sequence and say,
" This is the equation that states other dimensions exist."
None of which relates in the slightest to your claim about your dream whether you think it was your mother or your own higher consciousness.



Originally Posted by Jodie
Koch was trying to identify specific neurons of the brain that are responsible for specific processes. He's looking at function, he's not looking at the brain as a receiver. Now take what Song and Tegmark say about quantum processes and apply that to the research Koch has done. If you can't replicate a human neural network to express consciousness, then it isn't strictly a matter of A+B+C do this...
None of which relates to your claim.



Originally Posted by Jodie
Of course there are people that have a better understanding of these concepts than I do. All I'm saying is that the loudest critics here probably aren't those people.
I have been very up front about my own limitations. Those limitations do not extend to the point at which I have to accept someone in effect saying "The sky is blue, therefore I have a higher consciousness."
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top