OK....your DEAD....now what?

Feeble attempted insults side....Human ARE indeed a combination of matter and energy, but this new sideline you have brought into discussion does not deflect from your assertion that "Energy" in conscious. Rather than play the insult of education card on you, I simply point out your understanding goes against established reality and agreed upon data.

I will state clearly however, that if you and I were to be judged by that which we type.....my "Education" would be clearly superior.

 

You were the one that started down the path of arrogant insinuendo.

What goes against established reality ?

This is certainly not evidenced in your previous post where you were not able state your point in a coherent fashion.

Even if I try to correct what looks to be a typo - I can not figure out what you are trying to say.

You kind of repeat what I stated... That Humans - stated as being a combination of matter/energy - does not deflect from my assertion.

What my assertion is, however is not what you said was my assertion. "Energy is Conscious" was not my original assertion. I asserted this later but, not as part of my original argument.

My assertion is that some combination of matter and energy became aware that it exists.

 

The souls existed before there were bodies to occupy or they existed in bodies on other planes of existence. The souls didn't come from the bodies, they entered into them. There is a waiting line for bodies to occupy.

 

I agree.
The plan was to give man free will, not that he wrote us each a screenplay that we must follow.
Because He knows what choice we're going to make doesn't negate that we have free will.
Say Alpha is about to have dinner in a restaurant and is looking at the menu. I have a time machine that can travel forward 1 hour. I know what he chose from the menu even though he hasn't told the waiter yet. His meal choice is still his to make. My knowing what he's going to eat has no impact on his free will to choose it.

 

It's only a temporary condition..
Jesus said:- "All in the graves shall come out.." (John 5:28/29)

"Boiinng!"

 

Yes, we could call death the final step of human evolution, when we transform from squishy material bodies into purely spiritual life-forms-
"In the twinkling of an eye the dead shall be raised imperishable and we shall be changed" (1 Cor 15:52)

 

Our thoughts, our self awareness comes from information stored in cells called neurons.
http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html

Cells are matter. Matter comprises atoms.

Atoms are matter. Atoms are not energy!

You seem to be under the impression that the inside of your skull is just empty space with a bunch of photons bouncing around.

The argument holds only if you use the term "matter".

Wrong. The awareness exists in neurons, which are matter.

 

Last time I checked, part of an atom is "electrons" electrons have what is referred to as "wave-particle duality". Movement of electrons creates "electricity" and this is energy.

When you drill down to the subatomic level - things get even more strange.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...cs-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

From your link

A thought is not a neuron. A thought is the information transmitted by the neuron through electro-chemical signalling. A brain, without electrical activity, has no awareness - which is why we bury this person.

At some point, matter and energy assumed a structure that gained knowledge of it's own existence.

You can say "Thoughts come from the brain". Got it. Agreed.

This does not explain how thoughts came about to begin with. Those thoughts are not just matter. They are caused from some interaction of matter with energy.

You can ask the question - is it the matter than knows it exists ? This seems to be false as matter without energy (aside from the fact that this does not exist) does not have awareness. The energy has to exist - a specific kind of energy - in order for awareness to be present.

 

(my emphasis)

Let's backtrack a little...

Previously it was all about energy. Now you write (highlighted above):

So, now you are admitting that thoughts cannot exist in the absence of matter!

Earlier you posted...

How could "energy gain awareness of its existence" before it "manifest[ed] itself into physical reality [matter]" if thoughts cannot exist in the absence of matter?

Do tap dance. Don't deflect or evade. Just answer the question.

 

You are the one doing the tap dance of the disingenuously obtuse. I stated numerous times to you that matter and energy are interchangeable at the sub-atomic level and gave you a link stating that matter is energy.

I also told you that if you wanted -substitute matter/energy interaction for energy and it would not change the argument. This was done because you were not understanding concepts being presented as this would not change the central point - a point which you have yet to grasp.

I did not say that thoughts could not exist in the absence of matter. Now you are creating a strawman by claiming I said things I did not.

Once again. Regardless of whether you call thoughts "energy" or "matter/energy interaction = energy/energy interaction" we are still discussing energy as the interaction between the matter and energy is a function of energy.

This form of energy - however you want to envision it (as a matter/energy interaction, an energy/energy interaction, or just energy) gained knowledge of itself.

You are either lost in semantics, or the need to be right, the need to "win", or some other strange impulse.

What ever it is that you are lost in ... it is blinding you from understanding the concept being presented to you.

 

Yeah and Monkies might fly out of your butt!!! LOL!!

AA

 

I'm not convinced by the entire notion that you can treat thoughts as "energy" at all. Obviously brain activity involves both matter and energy, and without the two there can be no qualia. But I see no reason to say that qualia IS energy. Sounds like confusing equivocation.

 

I have no idea what qualia means. It does not matter whether thoughts are treated as energy or a combination of matter and energy.

At some point - some combination of matter and energy gained knowledge of its own existence.

.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...cs-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

Quit quibbling over what a thought is and try to understand the significance of what is written in bold above.

Call it matter, call it energy, call it some combination of the two, call it quantum entanglement, call it dark energy ... call it what ever you wish "BLANK"

At some point "Blank" assumed some a configuration where it gained knowledge of its own existence.

Agreed ?

 

Speaking of monkeys.....
we do seem to be making some improvements .......

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/reinee-pasarow.html#a08

 

In a very loose sense of speaking, sure. My problem is that I can't think of myself as some combination of matter and energy, anymore than I can think of myself as space and/or time.

 

Would "Flesh bone and energy" make things easier ?

 

First you said that energy became self aware and then "manifest[ed] itself into physical reality" (matter).

Then you said that thoughts require an "interaction of matter with energy".

P1 - There can be no self awareness without thoughts.
P2 - There can be no thoughts without energy/matter interaction.
C - Energy, by itself, cannot become self aware -> energy can not use its self awareness to create matter.

 

You are way too myopic and obtuse. I have also stated that matter is another form of energy and explained to you numerous times that these terms are interchangeable ... and further - that it does not matter to the argument which term you use.

Yet- you keep focusing on semantics rather than the central point.

There are no thoughts without energy. There is no matter - without energy. Matter is energy.

The question you want to quibble over is whether or not different forms of energy is required for awareness such as (matter/energy interaction).

The answer to this question has no bearing on the central premise - which I would like to discuss but you can not seem to get over semantics.

Any way you want to slice it or dice it .. some form or "forms" of energy gained knowledge of it's own existence.

If you would like to say this differently .. some form of energy and matter gained knowledge of it's own existence .. I am perfectly fine with this wording. What you can not do is take energy out of the equation. There is no "awareness" without energy.

The mechanism by which this occurred is a separate question. The fact of the matter is that it did occur.
The proof for this claim is that YOU exist. (I think therefor I am)

What is it that you continue not to understand ?

You keep wanting to question and nit pick at the definition of what you are made of.
When you come up with an answer to this question let me know.

What I am telling you is that the answer to this question does not matter. What ever it is that you come up with "I am made of Flesh and Energy" "I am made of Matter and Energy" "I am made of different forms of Energy", "I am made of energy" does not change the fact that at some point this configuration of (what ever you answered to the question) became self aware.

Can we agree on this much so we can move on to the next step in the argument ?

 

There, you said it again.

 

You don't want to discuss. You just want to debate, bash and troll.

 

I give up You win ...

 

You should take "debate" out of the last sentence. Bash, Troll, and revel in mind bending semantic nonsense and disingenuously obtuse denial.

 

No, the terms are no interchangeable.

It is not semantics. Matter is not energy. Like many in the world of woo, you take a valid scientific principle and twist it around to suit your own purpose.

Again, the words "matter" and "energy" are not interchangeable. It is true that energy is a building block of matter. It is not true that matter is a building block of energy.

I understand your central premise. I understand your central premise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

In the above you yourself make the distinction between matter and energy.
But let's substitute and see if it still works.

• Those thoughts are not just matter. They are caused from some interaction of matter with energy.
• Those thoughts are not just energy. They are caused from some interaction of energy with energy.
• Those thoughts are not just matter. They are caused from some interaction of matter with matter.

​

Pretty silly isn't it.

I never suggested taking energy out of the equation. You, on the other hand have tried, from the beginning of the discussion, to take matter out of the equation. When I pointed out that thoughts/self-awareness required neurons (matter), you tried to make the argument that energy and matter were one and the same. You continue to do that. It is wrong.

The mechanism by which this occurred is NOT a separate question. The mechanism by which this occurred is the heart of this discussion. You have stated that it occurred because:

1. Energy becomes self-aware
2. Self-aware Energy creates matter (manifests itself into physical reality)
3. Some forms of Matter become Neurons
4. Neurons are required for self-awareness

I do not understand how you can base your argument on what is clearly circular reasoning.
How can energy be self-aware before it creates matter which becomes neurons which are required for self-awareness?

I know what I am made of. I disagree with your concept of how I got here.

What matters is your wholly inaccurate statement:

I seriously doubt that you will agree that your argument is based on:

1. An intentional misrepresentation or misunderstanding of science
2. Circular reasoning

 

You are welcome to your belief that awareness is possible without energy. I just do not share this opinion and neither does Science.

 

dis·cus·sion
dəˈskəSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
   "the proposals are not a blueprint but ideas for discussion"
   • a conversation or debate about a certain topic.

de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun

1. 1.
   a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
   synonyms: discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue; More
2. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
   "the board debated his proposal"
   synonyms: discuss, talk over/through, talk about, thrash out, hash out, argue, dispute; More

You assert:

• I don't want to discuss
• I want to debate

You really should try to get a better grasp on the English language before you bash and troll.

My posts 582, 584, 592, & 598 are rather extensive and indicative of discussion and debate.