And how does a delusion manifest itself physiologically?
It is real and not a delusion but an altered state of consciousness
And how does a delusion manifest itself physiologically?
And how does a delusion manifest itself physiologically?
Huh?
Well does it or doesn't it? People here seem very certain that something has to exist before it can be measured. And yet, aren't you the same guy who showed me a link how we can get something from nothing, according to physics?
Has anyone studied oob experiences with physiological measures? Change in body temperature, eeg, ecg, change in BMR anything like that?
Can it be induced?
Did you actually read it?
If a scientist understands that the claims of believers in OOBE are unsubstantiated because it violates physical laws, what would give them reason to pursue the claim?
Yeah, have you changed your mind about it?
Would have to be a very strange scientist indeed who could reach conclusions without any evidence at all.
Um, right.Hi ,
I have often wondered if ghosts are not beings constructed out of neutrinos these particles interact with other matter so poorly that a light year of solid lead will hardly slow them down. Thus extrapolated ghosts can walk through solid wall effortlessly
First of all you'd have to define "soul".Hi Alan,
I know what you mean, infact I was thinking neutrinos can be perfect carriers of soul where they can transcend matter and space without getting affected by positive or negative energies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino.usually travels close to the speed of light
Did you read it? Yes or no?
Ah, so you didn't read it.
I did, I'm just intrigued that someone who can find a "physical" explanation for getting something from nothing is so close minded at the idea that consciousness could be transmitted.
After all, is there anyone here who has not sensed people watching them? Who has not felt the physical impact of another persons personality?
We already know that we can maintain a sense of self and consciousness over many changes of the biochemistry of the body.
While at its basic level they are all atoms carrying and emitting energy that is not sufficient to explain consciousness.
We know this sense of self is not inviolate since there are things like temporary and permanent amnesia and coma when people can be altered by external trauma.
Yet, that is the rare exception. In general, consciousness and the sense of self is quite fixed. How does physics explain that to you? Or don't you believe in these either?
(Q) said:Yeah, but that's WITHIN the mind.
First of all you'd have to define "soul".
And the fact that neutrinos barely interact with anything would be more a slight problem. Plus, how does a "soul" stick with a particular person since a neutrino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino.
The mind? Whats that? That stream of consciousness thingy which can only be detected by self reporting and other such methods? That mind? How does physics explain the mind?
First of all you'd have to define "soul".
And the fact that neutrinos barely interact with anything would be more a slight problem. Plus, how does a "soul" stick with a particular person since a neutrino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino.
What "higher monads"?But to higher monads to us we are just sleeping and dreaming entities from a lower realm of existence.
"Lower plane"?likewise we are called gods or angels by beings of a lower plane than we exist in.
These, I assume, fall under your rubric of "impossible to prove"? Or maybe even, completely unsubstantiated speculation.These lower order monads are affected by the dreams the have of entities of a still lower order than they are.
In other words you don't have a clue and you're using scientific "buzz words".You got me .. I don't have definition of soul but what I have is an understanding and personal belief of what soul can be - I feel a soul is something like a neutrino which has to have no charge - negative or positive and has to shed all the positives and negatives to be one with the other souls .. insert Karmic cycle here to understand the shedding of positives and negatives.
And how is wild speculation going to help find answers?Now again .. we all are here looking for answers and not here with all the answers.
What "higher monads"?
"Lower plane"?
These, I assume, fall under your rubric of "impossible to prove"? Or maybe even, completely unsubstantiated speculation.
In other words you don't have a clue and you're using scientific "buzz words".
And how is wild speculation going to help find answers?