It was one of the first books I read when I left JWs. **I knew it would come to me when I had my smoke 
**
The Celestine Prophecy
Novel by James Redfield
1 Like
Yeah, right. So you place some particles here and some particles there, arranging them, and TA-DA!!! An experience emerges seemingly out of nowhere. And then you claim that I believe in magic while asserting your rationality.
There is a point that perhaps I have failed to communicate, or perhaps you have failed to understand: your brain consists of subatomic particles, and all emergent properties are collective manifestations of their preexisting properties. This is why Bertrand Russell concluded that the ability to experience should arise from subatomic particles.
The brain is not a singular entity capable of experiencing anything, as it is not an individual subject. Rather, it is a composition of millions of elements, similar to the moon, a rock, the sea, clouds, galaxies, and the universe, among others.
The brain only exists as a reality for an external observer.
1 Like
Well, why do you assume that God cannot both lift and not lift a rock at the same time? Itâs merely a matter of quantum indeterminacy, which is not inherently impossible.
As usual, you presume that your inability to conceive something beyond a certain point signifies its impossibility.
In reality, you are merely deceiving yourselves.
1 Like
Carbon is god (or the 666 
). Both hydrogen and oxygen are carriers of âwetnessâ and doesnât hydrogen blow its stack when it feels heavy!
I can hardly wait for CERN to capture the wetness emergent âpropertyâ escaping.
anyway - that my take on the word salad above
Nope.
I do not accept this assertion.
Edited to add:
What happened to bye?
1 Like
You accuse us of deceit, yet you have been unable to demonstrate that which you assert.
1 Like
Yes. Because all evidence supports my position, and you have no evidence at all supporting the idea that a rock possesses consciousness. Your theory is dead until you demonstrate the rock in my hand possesses consciousness.
This is not the case at all. You are asserting that wetness is contained in a hydrogen atom. That wetness is contained in an oxygen atom. This is not the case. Wetness is an emergent property of H20. Whatâs even weirder is that wetness does not seem to occur until about 6 molecules are clustered together. A single molecule does not have the property âwet.â Wetness is an emergent property. You are demonstrably wrong.
You are wrong again. The brain is an organ and as such it is as separate a unit as the skin, the heart, the liver, or any other specialized body organ. It is separate from other organs based on its function.
The brain is not similar to a rock. I am holding a rock in my hand and I see no similarity at all. When I put the rock in an MRI it just sits there. When I measure it with an EKG there is no reaction. Your analogy is a serious FAIL.
What does not exist as a reality for an external observer? (What a weird sentence.) I know you think you said something but it is pure garbage to me.
2 Likes
Oh @cog - fuck I love you
But in reality itâs only because youâre a reflection of myself and I do love me 
1 Like
1 Like
Are you implying that âwetnessâ cannot be attributed to the fundamental properties of molecules? Are you suggesting that it has absolutely no connection to electromagnetic fields?
ÂŻ\__(ă)_/ÂŻ
I apologize, but I canât spend any more time on this type of debate. Itâs possible that my communication skills are to blame, but I have a significant amount of work to attend to. Iâm sorry
1 Like
Is this for real this time?
2 Likes
2 Likes
Iâm not interacting with Quim anymore but I will post this to point out the snow job:
Super-positions are composed of linear combinations of the non-zero probability outcomes. In other words: if A is a possible outcome and B is a possible outcome, then kA + jB is possible state; BUT IT IS NOT A POSSIBLE OUTCOME. You will NEVER measure that outcome; you will NEVER find the system in a the state A and B at the same time.
Also including god doesnât know something as part of a state is the end of omnipotence; because that would mean there is a non-zero probability that god does not know everything.
ps: To address why we will never measure a system to be in the state of kA + jB. There are lots of reasons; but a rather trivial one is k and j are complex number that often have non-zero imaginary components. Say A and B are physical locations; well my ruler donât have imaginary units on it so there is no way to measure an imaginary number. Measured outcomes of experiments must be real.
2 Likes
LOL⌠And good riddance.
1 Like
Sorry are you saying consciousness doesnât exist? Only in every single instance we observe consciousness it is in conjunction with a functioning brain, and it disappears at exactly the moment the brain dies. So if you are going to tack on unevidenced assumptions about unevidenced deities using inexplicable magic, then Occamâs razor is going to âneed a new blade soonâ.
Bertrand Russell as an outspoken atheist though, so how does this help your unevidenced assumption that panpsychism is a sound basis for believing in a deity?
Well, some brains seem singularly resistant to absorbing information of course, but not all.
I can take a shit, so presumably everything that makes that possible consists of subatomic particles, and all emergent properties are collective manifestations of their preexisting properties. So how come rocks canât shit? You are funny fair play.
Atheism is a lack or absence of belief, since it is not a claim how can it involve deceit? For that one would have to claim no deity exists, and since you are claiming a deity exists and cannot demonstrate any objective evidence that such a thing is even possible, the counter claim seems no more deceitful based on the same standard of offering subjective opinion, if I were inclined to do so.
Oh donât be too harsh, your claim that âevolution is incompatible with atheismâ and your consequent inability to see what that simple statement means, suggest there is no limit to the blame that can be attached to your poor communications skills. Though I donât think we should underestimate the contribution here of your inability to support your superstitious claims with any objective evidence, or the significance of your relentless use of irrational arguments.
Anyway, bye, again⌠
Read much do you? 
Only I am pretty sure we can gather objective evidence from other people without ever experiences it directly. If you bothered to read @Calilasseiaâs posts youâd know this of course.
1 Like
@Quim we know about those quantum phenomenas because they are predictable.
Adding probability to the equation doesnât mean that you loose predictability.
Nothing quantum supports your argument of universal consciousness. Perhaps because you donât understand either, but you do however have a preferred version of the outcome.
Biological functions of the consciousness are a âpush pullâ type, each action has activation and stop. Time delays are crucial for interventions of different parts of a brain.
It simply cannot be quantum!
1 Like
Work? Yeah right.
20 characters
1 Like
âSo, goodbye, yellow brick road⌠Where the dogs of society howlâŚâ
âGoodbye, stranger⌠Itâs been nice⌠Hope you find your⌠ParadiseâŚâ
âYou say goodbye⌠I say hello⌠Hello hello⌠I donât know why you say goodbye I say helloâŚâ
âGoodbye, Ruby Tuesday⌠Who could hang a name on youâŚâ
@Quim Damn, I wish you would make up your mind. Iâm running out of âGoodbyeâ songs.
3 Likes
This one might be the one you have been looking forâŚ
Never can say goodbye No no, no no now
1 Like