Im not doubting your science or the natural conclusions that can been drawn from this continues study. I dont think the advances make the subject more or less valid.
Alright; but I do wish to encourage careful and logical thinking. What could you possibly mean to actually say, however, with, 'I dont think the advances make the subject more or less valid
?' 'The subject
' (consciousness and mind)
' can be made more valid, or less valid a subject
' due to investigation and research into the subject?
If you are saying that consciousness has been definitely located i would like the scientific reference for that claim, please.
I'll tell you what I'll do then, xris
, I'll post as many of the major studies demonstrating such as I reason necessary, later on this evening, or tomorrow (or, at the worse, Tuesday evening...since some of my resource material is at the uni, and I'm at the house today [although I may chose to not cite that, for this very reason...if I post tonight]
) and I hope you will take to time to consider them, at least by carefully considering each title...I cannot
present all the abstracts, nor conclusions, even . . . this is simply not the medium for such
. Also, since my cataloging is not
up to date, it'll take some time . . . BUT
I am very willing to spend that time, xris
, for you.
I wont accept you have located the conscious ability and you will never accept the evidence of experience.
After all these months, xris
, you have somehow still not congealed the understanding; it is not...let me try to emphasize this
experience which I am not accepting at all, rather, it is the often attached claim that the experience is, or is of, an external, real fact, which fact is denied by mountains of evidence for its falsehood. I know Alan didn't die, even though he tried, on a couple of occasions to assert as much, and so I know his experience of meeting 'Jesus' was only an internal event, something that the brain that is him put together...just as it would in REM, or (on those much fewer occasions) SLW. He had a real experience, that I'd never deny, but the truth of the matter is, that it was all in the brain's functioning alone...not an external fact of nature of our world. Do you see what I am saying here, xris
, why are you now contradicting your statements above, in an almost 'premeditative' nature? (but that's just you, I'm kind of used to it, so . . . )
One thing I do object to, is this idea that I am pre programmed to require some type of belief in an after life. Is it something you have avoided? if so, why must you assume I'm not capable of realising this as weakness and accept it?
I think you have kind of missed the point again. We are built to survive, xris
, as ALL living things are, and that fact, along with the big brains we of the Homo genus had come up with having (and maybe especially the H. sapiens connectivity which stressed social bonding), has led, over several ten thousands of years, to the thus naturally derived 'intuition
' of the continuity of life without end, and eventually, theist-based religious belief systems. Of course life process has thus far only been completely found on our planet alone, and maybe, just maybe, on Mars (but hardly worth betting on at the moment, I'd argue). This means that while life does go on (and will until the sun expands and scorches the earth for good, some 50 billion years from now, or so), the life that is an individual at a particular moment, an extremely, almost totally unimaginable instantaneous spark on even the solar time scale, does not. That is the conclusion that the average of the best of all the evidence out there, ends up at.
The idea that remote viewing could be possible , widens and questions the view that we are isolated blobs of electrochemical activity. If the brain or mind is capable of receiving valid information by distant viewing then the EM field may be the key to answering this intriguing phenomena.
, the EM theory is dead; is a false assertion. If the excitable brain cells, especially the neurons, didn't have protein pumps and channels in the membrane there would be no depolarization. If there were no depolarization, there would be no local field potential, no local electromagnetic field, no hertz, no brain process, thought process, sensory process, at all, because the neuromodulators and neurotransmitters would not flow. It's not the fields, xris
, and this is a fact that is simply a fact...whether you are aware or it or not. Your efforts in making false assertions are unhealthy.
Then, when was the last time you have heard of 'remote feeling
' (although a seemingly so phenomena can occur from time to time, it does not reason out that it is because one person or animal is merging into the brain of another person or animal
), or 'remote olfactory sensing
,' or 'remote auditory sensing
?' Even if we were to hold that sensory perception could involve an element of space/time 'override' (as it were), we'd still not have it that mind is something which is beyond the necessary bounds of a fully functioning, living brain. Rather, we'd simply have to investigate how the sensory perception would be working.
Clocks placed near each other assume the same swing of their pendulum, they self synchronise.
Why might such a thing happen in particular cases, then? There is something happening, and have you studied up on that?
Our brain frequencies vibrate at virtually the frequency of the Earths electromagnetic field. Why should we doubt we are possible in tune with each others EM fields. It could be that we are not capable of screening out misinformation and tuning our EM field to what we are concentrating on. The brain is an instrument we are only just understanding, I dont doubt its secrets are more than we can envisage. If this possible then subtle ethereal influences are not beyond possibility.
You are spreading false claims again, xris
. All brains share similar wave lengths, be they human or mouse, or otherwise. However, your major error is again, as I have mentioned before, emotionally buying into a 'teaching' before, and without, firstly verifying the hard and fast details of the thing the concept depends on. For each time that you try to falsely claim, or assert, that it is the electromagnetic field which leads to, say, remembering what you said to your wife during that heated emotional exchange, and again 'reliving' that emotion along with the memory, I will correct you. It is the flux, reception of, and re-uptake of biochemical messengers, not the electrostatic-state alteration which thus naturally has an electromagnetic field, doing it !! Not at all !! This, xris
, is the truth of the matter, do you understand this? (I'm not asking if you wish to accept the truth of the matter, but am simply asking if you understand it)
OK, I'm gonna run over to my library and start pulling out those papers and reports and book points...it'll take some time.