How many GODS do you have?

[Arik]

Artistic vs analytical definition.  It is natural for a music prodigy to compose music ... we say it comes to them naturally, in a way it might not for you or me.  The analytical definition presupposes no interest in art, and presupposes materialism.

Actually i think that everyone is an artist.
We all create something that eventually become an art.
Even the desperate guy that collect butts to make a cigarette out of them is an artist in his own.
I couldn't imitate his art.

[Unbeliever]

You still don't get it UB, do you?

Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."

[Baruch]

Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."

Poor sexual hygiene and ... you will "get it".

https://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/big-trouble-in-little-china/character_373.html

I agree with "boil them until their flesh falls off" ... applied to Anti-fa in Portland.

[Arik]

Well, in the words of the great Lopan, "You are not brought upon this world to 'get it'."

Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?

[Baruch]

Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?

Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.

[Unbeliever]

Lopan who?

The psycho nut that wanted to dominate the universe?

David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!

I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.

[Arik]

Lo-Pan ... say it right or face bad things.

Gee, I didn't know that Lo-Pan was so so powerful.
Now I am all shaking and trembly.

[Arik]

David Lopan, a character in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. A great movie!

I don't know that he wanted to dominate the universe, he just wanted to live forever in a real human body, instead of the ephemeral ghost body he was having to tolerate.

To be a ghost is not very good so I wouldn't blame a ghost for wishing to get a human body so one day through the evolution process he too will be able to reach the goal of life and end this life of struggle.

[Baruch]

In eastern culture, hungry ghosts ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_ghost

Think invisible zombie ...

Korean TV is really big on hungry ghosts ... since their culture is shamanistic.  One of those shows my daughter loved (because it was a love story between two living people, but the young woman was a natural medium for all these needy ghosts).

[Hydra009]

Talking about natural I also believe in natural but there is huge difference between what I consider natural and the Atheists concept of natural.

Yes.  It's a flaw that you should correct.

[Baruch]

Yes.  It's a flaw that you should correct.

The grammar Nazis strike again?

[Unbeliever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdPo-soklY

What if the universe is self-aware?  Is there a cosmic superconsciousness? Could it be a giant brain?  There is a short but lazy answer, and there is longer but more intriguing answer.  The lazy answer goes something like this.  We humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us. 

This is the standard short answer to the question of a conscious universe. But could the universe have a consciousness separate from us or any other conscious being?  Could it be a kind of super consciousness?  This concept has a name.  It is called panpsychism.   

The concept of Panpsychism has been around for thousands of years. It is an essential aspect of many religions, from the Old Testament's omnipresent God to the Brahman of Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, in Buddhism, nothing exists except consciousness.

Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, the man who conceived of the Dyson sphere, embraced panpsychism and said that the universe not only operates through our consciousness but a consciousness of its own. 

Could this be true? 

First we have to establish what consciousness is. Neuroscientist and psychiatrist Giulio Tononi, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has proposed a way to measure how conscious a thing is. He proposes that consciousness has to do with how much control a being has over itself or things around it. He even invented a measurement unit called phi to label how conscious something is.

This theory separates intelligence from consciousness, which are two different things.  Super computers for example, which are highly intelligent, can routinely out-think humans and beat them at chess and Jeopardy, but they don’t have a will of their own.  The programmer controls it. So intelligence and consciousness are two different things. 

Based on this line of thinking we can say that a tree is more conscious than a rock. A worm is more conscious than a tree.  A cat is more conscious than a worm. A human is more conscious than a cat. And the ultimate consciousness could be the universe itself. 

If this is the way consciousness works, then the complexity of an organism’s brain has something to do with its level of consciousness.  And scientists do have good evidence that the seat consciousness resides in brains. If we are more conscious than all the other animals, as we appear to be, it surely is no coincidence that we also have the most complex brain.

Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of highly interconnected and communicating systems like the brain which is an interconnected network of neurons that can fire chemical and electronic signals. Consciousness is not a property of individual neurons but results from the interactions of many neurons.

And what are neurons? They are triggered by certain stimuli and can send signals to each other.  And large complex networks of these neurons seem to emerge into consciousness.  The more complex the network, the more conscious something appears to be. 

So is there some kind of network such that a “communication” of sorts might be happening at the quantum level between entangled pairs of particles. There is a humongous network of galaxies in the universe, many hundreds of billions of galaxies.  This is not dissimilar from the network of the billions of interconnected neurons in our brain.  The difference appears to be that each of our brain cells can communicate or at least fire a signal to other brain cells.  Do the galaxies have such a communication mechanism between them?

It doesn’t appear so, but you have to remember that at the center of almost all galaxies, there is a black hole.  It’s like the nucleus of a brain cell.  What’s happening inside a black hole?  We have no idea…because all our physics equations break down at the event horizon of a black hole â€" this is the point where time and space cease to exist and Einstein’s equations don’t work. 

Is it possible that something is happening here that we just don’t know about? The black hole could only be analogous to a brain cell if somehow they were connected to each other and could send signals to each other. 

If that was the case, a vast network of communicating trillion black holes would act like a gigantic information processor, and indeed be intelligent and possibly conscious. This would truly be a kind of super consciousness that could theoretically control not only our universe, but perhaps time and space itself. 

But I think I’m getting way too excited about a completely speculative possibility.  Practically, we have to ask, does the universe need to be conscious in order to arrive at its present state. In other words, does what we see around us need a consciousness to direct the events that lead up to what we observe, that lead to life?  Would what we see right now be any different if the universe was utterly without consciousness?

We humans are made of pieces of the universe. We are conscious, so the universe is conscious through us.

Yep, that's how I see it.

[aitm]

So's a cricket for all we know.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You are full of BS, are you?

Someone else knowledge obviously always help other people in their work but even in this case that so called external knowledge was in fact coming from within,

Stop.

Knowledge is about things. Unless knowledge is about something external to itself, it ceases to be meaningful and as such is not knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge that exists in a complete vacuum. Knowledge must refer to something to even be knowledge. Thus, it is a complete and utter absurdity for knowledge to come "from within" because the entire point of it is to refer to things without. If you have an idea that is unverified, it is not knowledge, period. It only becomes knowledge when you link that idea to some externality.

As such, knowledge can ONLY come from without because it is the external connection that makes an idea knowledge.

Einstein's General Relativity would only be a neat idea, and not knowledge, if it could never be linked to and verified by observing the universe that it is clearly about.

Now you play the expert engineer that know all the technical details about physical laws.

I don't need much engineering knowledge to be your superior in that account. You don't give the human body nearly enough credit. The human body is a thing honed through 3.5 billion years of evolution, since it's distant single celled ancestor. It has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. One of its tricks is being able to remodel itself in response to stress. I very much doubt that your breaking bricks videos are the very first time these martial artists have slammed their fists, feet and heads into something to break it. There was very much failed attempts to do so, resulting in injuries. But when the injuries healed, the body built it a bit tougher since it seemed to be getting unusually stressed.

You already came up with some similar stories about the people who insert hooks in their flesh without feeling any pain and explain how the hole close as soon as the hook is removed.

The pain bit is easy. Pain exists in the head. Your brain has natural chemicals that modulate the feeling of pain, called endorphins. It is not a great stretch to theorize that the gurus who do this are ignoring the pain through biofeedback. This is not "a story," but verified, real science.

Second, callus and scar tissue are not "a story." Again, if you insult a point on your body, it tends to respond by remodeling itself, and one of the characteristics of scar tissue is a relative derth of blood vessels. Your source would not be witnessing a green guru poking themselves for the first time. It would be a seasoned guru who already knows where and how to stab himself to do this trick. Furthermore, blood isn't just going to sit there and wait for the hooks to be pulled out. The clotting process starts immediately. So, if you leave the hooks in for long enough, all the severed blood vessels will be sealed off by the time you extract the hooks, explaining the lack of blood from the few blood vessels left.

As to "closing as soon as the hook is removed?" Unverified story. To my knowledge no medical examination has revealed that these holes actually close without a trace, and given the lack of sources to said medical examinations, you don't either. I don't need to explain what is not evident.

Story after story after story in a never end to all your BS.

Funny, all you have are story after story and unverified BS.

Oh, my God this one is a real pearl.

After braking hundred of concrete slabs with the head the skin on the head doesn't show any bruises just because the..........skin is springy, and filled with water...........oh, my God I must write this one for my friends to have a good laugh.....LOL

Which shows just how much of an ignoramous you are. Water is incompressible. Thus, when you smack it down (as it would when your fist contacts a slab), that force is spread out over the entirety of its container instead of just in the direction of force. Skin being springy means that it will give a bit when stressed. But force over displacement is energy, which means that springy flesh will absorb more energy than brittle stone before breaking.

And again, instead of finding out the mechanical details, you simply shit on my explanation. But even if it is bogus, it's still an EXPLANATION, using verified physical principles. The dirty little secret of your immaterial is that it doesn't help you explain why martial artists can do their feats, nor how gurus are able to hook themselves without apparent pain, nor NDEs. You simply think it's an explanation.

There is a very good reason why in permanent body death the same people do not come back in the same body.
Life is hard enough as it is.
If we could remember even the past lives our life would be a real hell.
Just imagine to add our present trouble to our previous troubles from previous lives.
We just could not concentrate in a positive manner and be able to go ahead.
In this way we can because our burden of trouble is limited to this life.

For all you complain about my bullshit, you spew a lot of your own. This is all unverified bullshit and ad hoc explanation. It also contradicts your notion that Beethoven got gud from experiences from previous lives. Beethoven is brilliant because of experiences in his past lives; but now you have it that they can't remember their past lives. Well, if they can't remember their past lives, then as far as NDEing consciousness is concerned, this is still the only life they get, so there's no compelling reason for them to go to the hereafter.

There is no operational difference between your above tripe and the materialistic explanation that sometimes the brain is too far gone to recover. And being far gone is a concern in your immaterialistic world as well, given your car analogy.

You are obsessed with biological evolution as the only evolution.

You have steadfastly refused to define any other. Why should I even think your evolution is a thing if you're so cagey about it?

Do you have ANY direct evidence for your consciousness as a thing existing as a separate entity? And yes, there should be because your consciousness manifestly interferes with the real world according to you. You cannot see unless you are able to interact with photons. You cannot hear unless you are able to interact with air vibrations. And your NDE consciousnesses are able to see and hear.

I have never seen anyone who is totally happy with what they got.

So? Nobody has owned an entire planet, lock stock and barrel.

Everyone strive to get more and more and this can only be achieved where the positive is not annulled by the negative.
Considering that in this physical reality the positive and the negative always go hand in hand then is easy to see the evidence that the finite is not able to satisfy anyone.

Unverifiable bullshit. You have not excluded truly obscene amount of material wealth, and furthermore, you have not explained people who are, actually, perfectly comfortable with their life. Your "positive and negative" do not exist except in very restricted contexts unconnected with the satisfaction of human beings.

People who in the past lived in the caves did not know who they were and why they exist at all.
These days we know a little bit more but not enough to understand the whole thing.
As we go further we will know more and more because our consciousness expand.

That's perfectly explainable by the fact that there is a continuity of culture that is able to teach young people their past as to not repeat it.

I know one thing man and that is that we are like seeds and the tree that generate these seed is the same for everyone.

Unverified tripe, because if it weren't true, we would still be very similar to each other just through the fact that we're human and stem from the same ancestors.

Don't you worry man.

You too will get there sooner or later.

Usually, that's the line of someone with no case. "God will reveal himself to you!" Boy, haven't I heard that often enough before.

At the end, all you have is unverified tripe and empty rhetoric. Demonstrate your immaterial with some sort of direct measurement of a disembodied consciousness and you'd have an actual case. So far, all I see is confidence. Well, that and a dollar will get you a Snickers ad the local K-mart.

[Baruch]

So's a cricket for all we know.

Which is smarter?  Never met at cricket I didn't like.