Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[bruto]

"This here apple is an onion"

If there is no reference why is it called anything? Why exactly is it called unconscious - the state of being unconscious? How can it be recalled if it cannot be remembered?

It is remembered as being something in which no thing happened.


But we can. We recall it as being a state where nothing happened. Nothing was experienced.
Unconsciousness was experienced. One was not conscious of experiencing nothing. Therefore one was not conscious.

No. It is not remembered at all. If it were remembered it would be something other than unconsciousness. We do not recall it. We know about it because someone told us about it, and perhaps on the basis of that we can reconstruct the event, but we cannot reconstruct experience if none was had. We do not remember not remembering. To remember something requires that memories occur, and if memories occur then consciousness is present in some form. Is this really so hard to wrap your mind around? If nothing is happening then there is nothing to remember. You do not experience the lack of experience. If you are not conscious of being unconscious, then you are not conscious. Not being something is not being that thing. No memory occurs. Nothing occurs. You do not remember this. You may believe it after having seen evidence of it. This is really pretty simple, I think. Nothing really is not something. If nothing were something then everything would exist even if it does not exist. Everything that is remotely possible in the universe would be true and it would be happening all the time.

The memory of experiencing nothing at all came when the individual regained consciousness.

No. The realization may come, but not the memory unless there was experience. Not experiencing is not the same as experiencing nothing or what seems like nothing.

Those external things are part of the process. We regain consciousness and thus we recall not being conscious. We don't regain consciousness and then have no idea we were unconscious - it is in the regaining process that we understand that we were unconscious.

I completely disagree. We do not recall not being conscious. We have the idea because we see signs that the event occurred or are informed of it. This is not the same thing as recalling the unconsciousness itself. If your unconsciousness were unobserved and without external signs, I do not believe you would have any idea that you had been unconscious. It certainly is not possible without external information to know the duration of unconsciousness.

We cannot describe unconsciousness as being anything other than 'nothing' because we have no memory of 'something' which is what 'unconscious' means.

Yes indeed, if we have no memory we cannot remember. Whatever we do to realize that we have been unconscious, remembering cannot occur.

However your rejection is based on your bias against things to do with 'god concepts' and those very concepts are most likely totally incorrect in the first instance - generated though Ego personalities with political agenda.

I am not viewing things from that perspective simply because they are likely totally off the mark.

Since I am able to view consciousness and intelligence in a far different light I am not subject to having to frame a wall of rejection around the notion and having to resort to denying the obvious. Evolution is an intelligent process and therefore a conscious one.

Human conceived god concepts are irrelevant in relation to that observation.





Human conceived god concepts are irrelevant in relation to the observation that the process of evolution is intelligent and thus conscious.

They are much the same as the concepts formed through Christians claiming the ideomotor effect is a tool of the devil or skeptics claiming introversion is not able to be scientifically examined. The concepts are inevitably incorrect.

I'm not sure just what that salad meant. You can call a guiding intelligence something other than God, but it's still not as obvious to us all as you think.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Thanks MuDPhuD - It's surprisingly difficult to summarise these things clearly and concisely.

Worth noting that my explanation is only my personal (and provisional) interpretation of the evidence I've seen...

It would appear that you and I have come to very similar understandings of our unconscious processes.

 

[Jodie]

Sean Carroll had a nice analogy here. When you know the basic rules of chess, it doesn't make you a chess player, and it doesn't mean you understand how to play positions, but you do know which moves are valid. If someone tries to move a rook diagonally, you know the move is illegal.

Disembodied consciousness is like a rook moving diagonally. We know enough about the physics of human scale interactions to know it's not a valid move.


Well we have located the missing mass, and we have measured it (indirectly, through its effects); we just don't know what it's made of.

Given the way you use the word, you don't seem to understand the concept of energy - can you explain precisely what you mean by it?


Yes, you can function with one brain hemisphere. It may well generate a sense of self, and seem relatively normal (at least for the verbal hemisphere), despite some limitations.

But I'm curious to read about these single hemisphere cases that have an unaltered sense of self - do you have a link or reference to the studies?

My understanding of energy is that technically everything is energy since it requires molecular bonds to hold it together whether it's organic or inorganic matter. If we haven't figured out what the missing mass of the universe is, exactly, why is out of the question that we missed something as small as consciousness?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/nueroscience/how-much-of-the-brain-can-a-person-do-without-17223085

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy

I didn't look for research, just copied links to the articles. They mention brain plasticity as if it was only present in children. I know that adults have it too from working on a brain injury rehab unit in the past.

 

[dlorde]

It would appear that you and I have come to very similar understandings of our unconscious processes.

It's interesting to observe one's own behaviour and realise just how little conscious volition appears to be involved in most activites. Even when the autonomous processes get it wrong (e.g. putting a teabag into the kettle instead of the cup), the error seems to be flagged by an autonomous monitor to attract my focus of attention to recruit & delegate other utility routines to undo the action and then continue appropriately.

 

[Aepervius]

It's interesting to observe one's own behaviour and realise just how little conscious volition appears to be involved in most activites. Even when the autonomous processes get it wrong (e.g. putting a teabag into the kettle instead of the cup), the error seems to be flagged by an autonomous monitor to attract my focus of attention to recruit & delegate other utility routines to undo the action and then continue appropriately.

You are lucky usualy it is my very autonomous SO which flag my errors and she does not delegate anything...

 

[bruto]

Do not be the pawn of the language illuminati who insist that words should not mean what they do not. Arise. You have nothing to lose but your yolk.

It seems that in the mystical mists of ontological proof, because we must name what we discuss, we make it something. Nothing is a kind of something, and unconsciousness is a kind of consciousness. Consciousness has consciousness, so of course it must have unconsciousness too. We remember that we do not remember, and experience the experience of not experiencing. We can believe in things unseen and unknowable, but it is not faith if we say it is not. Consciousness exists outside us and without us but we need not believe anything if we say we do not. Evolution is intelligent and conscious but as long as we declare it inevitable and obvious we need not name a god. In fact, we need not believe anything at all, because we can deny nothing except nothing itself.

 

[dlorde]

My understanding of energy is that technically everything is energy since it requires molecular bonds to hold it together whether it's organic or inorganic matter.

That's a confused and partial understanding.

If we haven't figured out what the missing mass of the universe is, exactly, why is out of the question that we missed something as small as consciousness?

That's a good question. The answer is a question of scale and range. We have thoroughly explored, in theory and by experiment, physics at the everyday scale of human interactions. The world and our bodies and brains are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, influenced by electromagnetism. The only other force that might be considered relevant at these scales is gravity, which is very weak and acts on us uniformly.

There may be unknown particles, fields, and forces at scales we haven't been able to thoroughly explore, such as the subatomic scale or the cosmological scale (e.g. dark energy, dark matter), but they are not relevant to everyday human scales. Their ranges of action are either too small (subatomic) or too large (cosmological), or they are too weak to significantly influence us. Yes, we can be damaged by non-electromagnetic radiation, etc., but it's not an everyday concern.

So we now know the basic rules of nature at the human-scale. If there was anything else that could significantly affect the protons, neutrons and electrons (and so, the atoms, molecules, and cells) we're made of, we'd know about it. Anything that influences our bodies & brains must interact with them. Electromagnetism is the only force that is relevant at these scales and we're swamped in electromagnetic radiation, from electric wiring, radio, wifi, light, microwaves, etc., and it has negligible effect - our skulls are good protection and we're not particularly sensitive to it (but don't put your head in a microwave oven).

There are no other fields or forces that can significantly interact with our brains, so disembodied consciousness is a non-starter, even before we consider all the baggage of thermodynamic impracticalities, interaction problems, problems of origin and evolution, accompanying such a speculation.

I didn't look for research, just copied links to the articles.

They do show how adaptable the brain is, even in adulthood. Nevertheless, damage to the areas concerned in generating sense of self is known to produce abnormal self-image, etc.

 

[Navigator]

Consider this radical thought: other people observe and remember when you went unconscious. They tell you.

Another: you have a wrist-watch. The gap is thus defined, but you can't remember what happened in it.

This is not salad origami.

Pay attention. I already acknowledged that was part of the process

Quite. You are a special pleader in your special palace, feeling special. You are not subject to the rules that bind us plebs.

On the contrary. I have gone where you choose not to go, because you believe it isn't scientific. That is not my fault. It only makes my choices different from your own.

How can you know if you are ever wrong?

I am not wrong about this. It matters not how many believers in whatever camp they wish to occupy who tell me I am wrong. My single subjective experience is correct. Your collective subjective opinions are incorrect.

Consciousness is more than both science and religion understand or believe about.

Of course. It all makes sense now. Literally. There's nothing that is not intelligent.

Of course there is. You are being smarmy.

I will rewrite your line more intelligently: Intelligence is an intelligent intelligent process of intelligence and therefore, which is really intelligent, a consciously intelligent intelligence.

Still smarmy

After a while one begins to see that even full stops are intelligent. See I just used one. And another! They're smart, the way they prowl among our posts.<---another!

Is that the best you've got?

I can't escape intelligence. Is that you Spock. Why is the air all purple. Have we crashed?

Whoa there! Get a hold of yourself.

 

[Navigator]

I trimmed out quite a bit for clarity.

So, you have not shared the details of your "investigation", thus we can not replicate your findings;

Correct. You would first need to replicate my method, which would be very time consuming.
You would also need to approach the whole thing with in mind you are interacting with consciousness and be willing to keep at it no matter how difficult and challenging this process might get.
You would need to understand what it is you are in the process of undertaking and be willing to set aside as much of your personal bias as possible.

your investigations are specifically not conducted scientifically; you insist you have discovered valuable and USEFUL data. ETA but you have no one to compare data with!

Is it my fault that scientist see no use in even attempting to examine thoroughly ideomoter effect or have not thought that the 'subconscious' aspect of individual consciousness is able to be communicated with, just as surely as you and I can communicate with each other?

For my part, I did not approach the use of ideomotor scientifically but was taught through the communication how to apply a scientific method to the process, albeit at the time I had no idea that was what was occurring.

I am frankly stunned at your lack of understanding of the most basic tenets of science, why mankind has found it so useful, why the scientific method has improved man's condition and increased his knowledge of the universe, and why any other method fails to produce useful results. Its like talking to someone who arrived here in a time machine from the stone age.

'we are not worthy!'

Well you seem to be implying that my view of the universe is not scientific. That is incorrect. What you claim as science is really groups of individuals who have bias about things and cannot see intelligence in the process of evolution and thus cannot acknowledge consciousness involved in that process.
Ideomotor is able to give the individual conformation that consciousness is indeed involved. Scientists are not interested.

Can you give examples of the valuable and useful data you have?

Yes. But why should I? Are you or anyone else who reads this going to thus work with ideomotor to see if you can replicate the same results?

You have developed some understanding of something, and no one else understands it. When you explain it to educated people they all tell you you are mistaken, and that there are plenty of qualified interested trained researchers who are investigating this something, but have come to other conclusions than yourself.
I predict you will persist in your own beliefs in spite of this, but I hope to make your failure here more clear to other readers who may follow.

Okay. Make a list of my failures and that way those readers will be greatly assisted.

This statement belies your complete lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. Its not really as simple as you think, and once again you clearly have a lot of reading to do to catch up.

No. What you say about 'reading' is no different from reading the opinions of other bias related types of groups.
Reading data on anything which has not fully investigated the ideomotor effect and come into contact with that aspect of consciousness is reading data which is insufficient and faulty for its assumptions made by its observations which lack that particular aspect of investigation.

Plants tracking the sun (phototropism) has been well studied and is well understood: you are simply ignorant of the results.
Here is a video which may explain it to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdA11OalmSQ

The 'results' will be opinion. The opinion will neglect the intelligence and consciousness behind the actuality. The opinion will steer away from this aspect because it forces the observer to acknowledge consciousness bigger than their self and even bigger than their collective back slapping head nodding group of selves. If that is science then science is rather lacking as a tool for discovery and understanding. It purposefully chooses what it will and will not investigate.

The evolution of symbiotic relationships is also a topic which has been discussed and investigated at length over many decades by well educated, well trained, and intelligent individuals,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317043/
none of whom suggest that "intellegence" or consciousness is involved in the evolution of these complex relationships.

Exactly! They ignore any avenue where this consciousness can be interacted with. Preferring the collective wisdom of their own opinions, opposed to anything which might threaten to upset their beliefs in their own wonderful intelligence and powers of observation.

I would be stunned at the lack of understanding about this basic communication device myself, only I realized this was the case a long time ago and so am quite used to it.

 

[Navigator]

I can't make enough sense of this to comment.

Read it in relation to your own.

 

[Jodie]

That's a confused and partial understanding.


That's a good question. The answer is a question of scale and range. We have thoroughly explored, in theory and by experiment, physics at the everyday scale of human interactions. The world and our bodies and brains are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, influenced by electromagnetism. The only other force that might be considered relevant at these scales is gravity, which is very weak and acts on us uniformly.

There may be unknown particles, fields, and forces at scales we haven't been able to thoroughly explore, such as the subatomic scale or the cosmological scale (e.g. dark energy, dark matter), but they are not relevant to everyday human scales. Their ranges of action are either too small (subatomic) or too large (cosmological), or they are too weak to significantly influence us. Yes, we can be damaged by non-electromagnetic radiation, etc., but it's not an everyday concern.

So we now know the basic rules of nature at the human-scale. If there was anything else that could significantly affect the protons, neutrons and electrons (and so, the atoms, molecules, and cells) we're made of, we'd know about it. Anything that influences our bodies & brains must interact with them. Electromagnetism is the only force that is relevant at these scales and we're swamped in electromagnetic radiation, from electric wiring, radio, wifi, light, microwaves, etc., and it has negligible effect - our skulls are good protection and we're not particularly sensitive to it (but don't put your head in a microwave oven).

There are no other fields or forces that can significantly interact with our brains, so disembodied consciousness is a non-starter, even before we consider all the baggage of thermodynamic impracticalities, interaction problems, problems of origin and evolution, accompanying such a speculation.


They do show how adaptable the brain is, even in adulthood. Nevertheless, damage to the areas concerned in generating sense of self is known to produce abnormal self-image, etc.

Maybe my understanding of energy is oversimplified but I do know the solidity of matter really is just an illusion.

I have no idea what implication this might have for consciousness, but you are wrong about larger cosmic forces that interact with the body.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427461/how-dark-matter-interacts-with-the-human-body/

And we are still not sure what everything in the brain actually does to promote consciousness to be making broad based sweeping statements about its function regarding NDE's. There are plenty of other research articles regarding brain injured patients and adaptive devices that allow them some interaction. They might not display self awareness in the vegetative state but it's there.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23034907

I also disagree with you in regard to disembodied consciousness, I say it is a possibility if the holographic properties of the universe are found to be correct.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2014/2-D-Hologram-20140826.html

 

[dlorde]

You are lucky usualy it is my very autonomous SO which flag my errors and she does not delegate anything...

 

[dlorde]

I can't make enough sense of this to comment.

Read it in relation to your own.

I did. I don't know what you meant by it. If you'd like me to comment further, please explain.

 

[Donn]

Pay attention. I already acknowledged that was part of the process

A rouge herring non sequitur. You imply agreement, chide me for ignorance - all while not answering the original accusation. A well-played foul ball.

You might see why I am becoming less than charmed by your posting style.

On the contrary. I have gone where you choose not to go, because you believe it isn't scientific. That is not my fault. It only makes my choices different from your own.

The more I turn the problem into the light, the harder you throw shadows.

Reality is not a choice. Try flying by doing the breath stroke into the air. Wish harder!

How can you know if you are ever wrong?

I am not wrong about this. It matters not how many believers in whatever camp they wish to occupy who tell me I am wrong. My single subjective experience is correct. Your collective subjective opinions are incorrect.

This reply proves you're missing the point.

I was asking you how you can know when you are (might be) wrong?
Is there no way you can catch possible errors you are making? Is there no way you can know that, "Oops! I did a silly thing."?

If there is no means by which you can be wrong, then you cannot know when you are right.

Consciousness is more than both science and religion understand or believe about.

Blithe truth. A deepity. You are saying it because you want the mantle of power: you alone have plumbed the depths of this arcana.

Of course there is. You are being smarmy.

Why, yes, I am. Imagine that.

What is an example of a non intelligent thing, then? Just so we can crack open a new can of odd.

 

[dlorde]

Maybe my understanding of energy is oversimplified but I do know the solidity of matter really is just an illusion.

No, the solidity of matter is real enough. Solid objects can't pass through each other; tables & chairs are not liquids, gases, or plasmas. This is due to electromagnetic forces. It is the popular naive concept of matter that's mistaken.

I have no idea what implication this might have for consciousness, but you are wrong about larger cosmic forces that interact with the body.

I did say, "Yes, we can be damaged by non-electromagnetic radiation, etc., but it's not an everyday concern". We can include occasional cosmic rays, dark matter particles, etc., in that, if you want to be specific.

These are occasional random particle effects, like background radiation, they are not significant or relevant to discussions of complex effects on the function of our brains or consciousness. They are not relevant or significant to claims of disembodied consciousness. In particular, dark matter, if particulate, must be - like neutrinos - weakly interacting; which means that the probability of any one particle interacting with ordinary matter is negligible.

Aside from that red-herring, are you claiming the existence of any cosmic forces that may be relevant to the consciousness discussion?

we are still not sure what everything in the brain actually does to promote consciousness to be making broad based sweeping statements about its function regarding NDE's. There are plenty of other research articles regarding brain injured patients and adaptive devices that allow them some interaction. They might not display self awareness in the vegetative state but it's there.

Yes, some patients in a vegetative state turn out to be 'minimally conscious'. What has that to do with the causes of NDEs?

I also disagree with you in regard to disembodied consciousness, I say it is a possibility if the holographic properties of the universe are found to be correct.

Please explain how that is in any way relevant to disembodied consciousness?

BTW, I notice you ignored my earlier question:

If you'd like to describe what functions of consciousness you feel are not dependent on the brain, we can address why we think they are dependent and the evidence for that.

For example, is personality independent of the brain? morals? tastes? emotions? attention? recognition? memory? sense of self? identity? focus? any others come to mind?

Do you really want to explore the idea of disembodied consciousness? you must have some idea of what you mean by it?

 

[Donn]

..
I have no idea what implication this might have for consciousness, but you are wrong about larger cosmic forces that interact with the body. .. dark matter link ..

Do you not see you keep making "science" of the gaps arguments for your predetermined idea? You have decided that you can fly and now all you need to do is dismiss all arguments against it and dwell on the hopeful vales of doubt between the cracks.

There are very few places you can retreat to. Dark matter? Guess what, science predicted it and then found it. What else can you try now?

What you should do is provide positive evidence for what you claim. Find and demonstrate a non-corporeal consciousness and you win the world's attention.

You're simply holding onto your favourite Bigfoot and finding him in every nook and cranny that you can imagine. It does not matter that science has shone light there, you may not even know about it. Still you find him there.

That face on Mars? An optical illusion. But no, you say! All your lenses are distorted to make it look like erosion. It's really a great face on a pyramid!

And we are still not sure what everything in the brain actually does to promote consciousness to be making broad based sweeping statements about its function regarding NDE's.

Some of the posts here have been extremely specific. All the evidence seals the deal. There is no "after" after death to experience.

You are doing the gap thing again. All it takes is dogged conviction and a good forgettery and you can keep pointing at gaps even if they've long been filled by science.

There are plenty of other research articles regarding brain injured patients and adaptive devices that allow them some interaction. They might not display self awareness in the vegetative state but it's there.

Minds that are running on brains that are being kept alive by machines is an argument for NDE? What?

I also disagree with you in regard to disembodied consciousness, I say it is a possibility if the holographic properties of the universe are found to be correct.

Nice! Another gap. Any more?

 

[steenkh]

The authority is my subjective experience in the experience.

Science has shown us that subjective experiences are unreliable.

You are saying that consciousness experiences clarity but details are missing when consciousness reviews, except sometimes, because recall is notoriously unreliable when the body awakens.

That was definitely not what I meant to say. Sorry, that it could be misunderstood. My real intention was to claim that perhaps all dreams are equally vague, and are fitted with details afterwards. When dreaming, the my consciousness accepts vagueness without question, and I believe that people who think that dreams represent more than random wanderings of the mind tend to fit their dreams with more retrospective details than others.

However, I have not seen any research on this, and I do not consider it unlikely that lucid dreaming could have more clarity than other dreams because the presence of self-consciousness might open access to some mind processes that provide clarity that normal dreams do not. Without research on the issue, I do not feel compelled to believe that there is anything special to lucid dreams.

As far as common connections between different experiences go, such as my case with the entity, did not occur through subsequent rationalization.

So how do you know this?

When did I make this assertion?

Well, you are talking about communication with "entities" that happens in your dreams as if it happened in reality, but you also seem to accept that not everything that happens in dreams is real.

Well according to some, every 'thing' in the universe is physical...they claim there is no such thing as 'non physical'.

Yes, people claim lots of things that they pull out of thin air. Why should we believe it?

So my questions regarding your assertion is 'since you clearly do not regard the process of evolution as a "thing", what then is it and does it really exist?

It is a natural process, and it can be shown to exist - as a process. That does not turn it into an object.

If it is something, how is it nothing?)

This is just a rhetorical prank. Try to stick to actual arguments.

Moving with the sun, smelling like rotten meat, looking attractive to bees etc are clear signs of intelligence, and intelligence clearly signals (implies) that consciousness is involved.

Other have already pointed out the silliness of this claim. I can only add that there is nothing that is signalled "clearly" here. A plant that attracts bees cannot decide to switch to flies. If it could, you might have had a case.

Every object is attracted to every other object, particularly to the ground, through gravity. To claim that this means that every object is conscious is just an empty, and useless claim.

 

[MuDPhuD]

I respond to your "I know u are but what am I" post only for the sake of other readers. I do not expect you to read it.

'we are not worthy!'

'You do not understand science, or the scientific method!'

Well you seem to be implying that my view of the universe is not scientific. That is incorrect. What you claim as science is really groups of individuals who have bias about things and cannot see intelligence in the process of evolution and thus cannot acknowledge consciousness involved in that process.
Ideomotor is able to give the individual conformation that consciousness is indeed involved. Scientists are not interested.

I am claiming your approach to investigating whatever it is you think you are investigating is the opposite of scientific. What I am claiming is science is the method of investigation which allows you and I to converse with one another across wires from thousands of miles apart.
The progress of science relies on replication of results by multiple investigators, preferably by critics of the original findings. Progress is made by one investigator attempting to disprove the findings of another. You will not allow this by hiding your methods and findings from view, thus you are specifically non-scientific.
Progress requires experimenters to control for humanities' intrinsic biases (YOU are the easiest person to fool!), thus the need for sham controls, blinding, and quantification. You appear to be utterly unaware of your intrinsic biases, will probably deny you have them, and claim scientific controls can not be used in your case. Thus your investigation is un-scientific.

For anyone interested in understanding better how science works try this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186

Yes. But why should I? Are you or anyone else who reads this going to thus work with ideomotor to see if you can replicate the same results?




Okay. Make a list of my failures and that way those readers will be greatly assisted.

vida supra

No. What you say about 'reading' is no different from reading the opinions of other bias related types of groups.
Reading data on anything which has not fully investigated the ideomotor effect and come into contact with that aspect of consciousness is reading data which is insufficient and faulty for its assumptions made by its observations which lack that particular aspect of investigation.

The 'results' will be opinion. The opinion will neglect the intelligence and consciousness behind the actuality. The opinion will steer away from this aspect because it forces the observer to acknowledge consciousness bigger than their self and even bigger than their collective back slapping head nodding group of selves. If that is science then science is rather lacking as a tool for discovery and understanding. It purposefully chooses what it will and will not investigate.

"That" which you describe is NOT science. It is your persecution fantasy, which arises because you stand alone, and in denial of a large body of well thought out, well controlled studies by multiple investigators the wolrd over over multiple decades.

Exactly! They ignore any avenue where this consciousness can be interacted with. Preferring the collective wisdom of their own opinions, opposed to anything which might threaten to upset their beliefs in their own wonderful intelligence and powers of observation.

I would be stunned at the lack of understanding about this basic communication device myself, only I realized this was the case a long time ago and so am quite used to it.

vida supra

 

[tsig]

A rouge herring non sequitur. You imply agreement, chide me for ignorance - all while not answering the original accusation. A well-played foul ball.

You might see why I am becoming less than charmed by your posting style.



The more I turn the problem into the light, the harder you throw shadows.

Reality is not a choice. Try flying by doing the breath stroke into the air. Wish harder!



This reply proves you're missing the point.[/B]

I was asking you how you can know when you are (might be) wrong?
Is there no way you can catch possible errors you are making? Is there no way you can know that, "Oops! I did a silly thing."?

If there is no means by which you can be wrong, then you cannot know when you are right.




Blithe truth. A deepity. You are saying it because you want the mantle of power: you alone have plumbed the depths of this arcana.



Why, yes, I am. Imagine that.

What is an example of a non intelligent thing, then? Just so we can crack open a new can of odd.

Not missing, ignoring the point.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe my understanding of energy is oversimplified but I do know the solidity of matter really is just an illusion.

Yes, the fact that thing stay together in objects is due to the EM force, but the atoms aren't touching each other by any stretch of the imagination, and most of all solid objects are empty space. You just can't see through them.

Energy, however, is mostly a mathematical concept.