Blueyedlion

I admit i havent searched on the site for the exact peer-reviewed paper but after a minute of looking i found this - http://scsad.afterlifeinstitute.org/articles/mediums/firsthandaccount.html Im sure its there in some form to be looked at, use the search feature. Though if you watched the second video, he explains that the work is currently being conducted, its not complete to be reviewed yet. They're getting it all on film, so patients is expected. I think whats important is to show this community that there is such work currently being done, so you guys can have the opportunity to look into these scientists yourselves as the work is published. As apposed to not being aware of this at all and discounting such work simply because of the stigma attached.

Hi people of the sciences, after watching this interview with scientist Michael Roll, id like your opinion on the work that is being carried out http://www.scsad.afterlifeinstitute.org/articles/background/scientificproof.html http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/pearson/summary.htm Opening from first video - "Lou Bondi: Explain to me first of all how this idea of survival after death works? Michael Roll: Well, i'm presenting the scientific case for survival after death therefor it's very simple, it's got to be repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions backed up with a mathematical theory. That's all I'm interested in, i don't wan to know about beliefs, just stone cold scientific facts."

So i have an interest in information from mediums, whether you believe mediums are real or not is not up for debate, the information presented though is. That's why i felt it best to bring it here and see if you guys with the scientific backgrounds can make sense of it and actually get some new ideas from this or if it's just complete crap. Please don't respond with, 'it's spirituality so it's bs, im not even reading it' Just take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. This is a question and answer transcription between spirit in the afterlife and medium. ST: I mentioned spirituality as the environment of beings in non physical matter compared to existence on Earth in dense matter. Is this a good definition? C: Yes, but we must say that density of matter is not as limited as you see on Earth. Densities are seen within a range of vibrations. ST: Please explain density within ranges C: Smoke will pass through a screen. Imagine a three dimensional screen; a screen box, if you will. One meter along each side, squares inside the screens of 5mm (½ cm) and 200 screens arranged at 5mm between them, forming cubes throughout. Smoke still passes through easily. The matter of existence in a higher dimension passes through that of a slower vibration in this same way; the material of the upper range threads through the lower range’s vast space inside & between the atoms – the great majority of the space is within them, not between – without restriction, just as the smoke does through the screen box. Solid panels will be used to fly and hover and these concepts, of an energy of a higher vibration able to pass through a slower one, will be used to create anti-gravity and anti-drag capabilities. ST: How does this happen? C: The speeds are much different; the higher vibration speed “misses” the slower, goes around it. Imagine a motorcycle threading through slow cars in traffic. If there were a speed difference of 40 times or greater, this means at a car speed of 2 kph the motorcycle goes at least 80 kph (40 x 2). As long as the cars are a sufficient distance apart, the motorcycle can easily adjust course to avoid any car’s movement. ST: How far apart? C: Far is an Earth term; time is location. In this example, the cars would be approximately 100-120 metres apart from each other. The motorcycle can easily avoid vehicles 100 metres apart at 2 kph. The distances inside an atom are larger, yet this example is instructive. ST: What does this mean, time is location? C: These relative speeds of vibration require, within a range, movement to shift locations. The movement is what is perceived as time. Where movement occurs in a different way, time does not pass in a linear fashion and is not sequential. This means time can appear to pass faster or slower relative to other things. The sensation of time going slow as one falls down is an example, or making a trip in 10 minutes that normally requires 15, this another. In both time is altered. ST: How is this done? C: The relative vibration of your body and physical device, a bicycle or car, is accelerated relative to surrounding matter a few percent. You then move around – but not through – that surrounding material more quickly. ST: Why doesn’t it seem like I am travelling faster? Why does my watch read the correct time but somehow I arrived much earlier? C: The sensation of speed to which you refer occurs when the movement between locations involves vibrations of the same speed; when an object is accelerated above speed, yet remains within the vibrational range, it causes the slower vibration to flow around it. The higher speed object displaces the slower. An example is a ship in the water; its hull displaces the water and causes it to flow under and around the ship. Recall we said time is movement. You move the same distance, so it is the same amount of your “time”. The perception of the time is what you observe visually; the speed of light photons in your range is 300,000 km per second of your “time”. The increase in your speed to ½ faster is still so much slower than light, you do not notice. Imagine the view of the ground from an aircraft travelling at 800 kph at an altitude of 18,000 metres, glance at the Earth’s surface for several seconds and there seems to be no movement. Look at the surface this same way from a balloon at an altitude of 150m moving at 5 kph in a gentle breeze. Both give a sensation of relative stillness, yes? Which travels faster, the aircraft or the balloon?

Ok, how does one code hunger? thats a feeling, do did they symbolize an actually feeling in your stomach in code? Is there data showing one 'organism' with less hunger than others? How are they coding vision? seeing is to have an observer contrast light and dark, if there's no awareness how can there be anyone seeing anything? How are codes symbolizing the experience of black and white if nothing is actually being seen by anything? And touch, how is touch coded? how does the programmer know the program is feeling something physical if there's nothing physical to actually touch? How is that measured? How can one measure something as a physical interaction from something that's not physical? Do you see my point? Simulations dont mean anything, they have no value on anything in reality but concepts, because the data is based on the wrong information. You need real life vision, touch and hunger to see if something is doing these things. When you look at a crab that lives inside a mountain and has lost its need for eyes, and instead uses other senses, that is a real world measurement of a life form that you can analyze having vision or not. If the Crab was just a drawing on a wall, how do you assess if it has vision if it doesnt exist? It wouldnt coz its not real. So why would you ever think squiggles symbolizing a crab on a digital screen moving around would make a picture on a wall anymore real in any way at all?

Ok, so in these simulations, is there code representing physical senses? What aspect of the real world is trying to be simulated?

Trolling much? Yes, but what chemical arrangement is causing it. One causes life the other doesnt, why. Since atoms have a positive and negative charge, obviously there is an affect being felt between atoms on some level. Just because we have brain to realize the impact of electricity, doesn't mean the charge between atoms isn't some sort of primitive experience. For example, when we feel fire, you feel what fire is to your skin, so you know that outside of your skin's experience fire is hot on it's own. The fire is having an experience of heat on a very high level compared to our bodies. We already know that temperature exists within the flame, and so when we experience it, we feel what the fire is like. Why then do we say that the experience we are feeling of the heat, cant be felt as heat by the flame itself? Since it is the flame that's producing the heat. It's not like, the universe feels nothing, with all the suns bursting into super nova's and commits colliding, trillions of atoms reacting to each other, the suns heat hitting the sides of moons and planets. You think non of that is feeling some sort of experience? it's all just numb? Easy one. Let's say your feel the spark of electricity on your fingers. The FACT and feeling of the experience happened at the fingers and died there, a new copy of the feeling moves up through each cell to your brain, your mind creates a mental image of the experience afterwards, recalling the experience to tell the whole body experiencer that it just felt a jolt. The memory of it is in the past, the memory isnt the actual experience, the memory is not the fingers being sparked. When you have a thought that starts in your mind that's not triggered from a physical experience, you are just thinking, those thoughts are not the recall from feeling something that's just happened. And so in that mental representation, that is a real experience of your brain thinking to itself. that's real. But when it's simply reacting in thought to most provocations from it's external environment, the fact happened at the body feeling it, perhaps at the skin physically, the heart or gut emotionally, the brain mentally as it makes connections. But what is mental and what is brain are two different things, because the physical brain has electrical currents running throughout, connections are being made, but the brain is not really thinking, the mind is using the brain to think through. The brain is not using the mind to think through is it? That doesnt make sense. Otherwise we would be able to think from our subconscious brain as well, like thinking of how to make our heart beat etc we would be thinking from our spine and nerves throughout our body. The minds memory is just the recorder of the physical fact the body and the brain is having, but it is not the actual experience, the moment it happened is.

That's just variables the computer scientists didn't account for. Large data sets give a base in hierarchical computing to allow a certain amount of wiggle room. But that's still not thinking, that's actually the last thing you want as evidence of a consciousness. A computer that explains it's perceptions of reality as different from ours, is what one would define as conscious because it's not imprinting our human bias experiences and telling us how and what we already think. For example, when we label an animal as a cat, we are using divisive labels to distinguish between other kinds of things, other kinds of felines and other life forms. We are interpreting reality as different units of measurement, this from that - this shape of energy in the form of matter is different from the same type of energy but expressed in a different shape, and so they must be separate. When you look out into the ocean, where do the waves separate between each other? Where is the division? Are they not all just one ocean in many forms of waves? Is not every cat, atom, galaxy, car, human, just a wave we try to distinguish between others? Looking into this perspective, we are trying to tell the computer how it should recognize our labels for each wave as a cat or dog. This is not consciousness, self awareness, or thinking. I'll give you another example, what is a sound? You may answer this with further words, and as you do so you still never answer the question, because a sound is what is made when you MAKE a sound. Not the words describing it. The word is the symbol not the reality of it. If i handed you a match box and asked you what is was, you would say 'a match box' - incorrect. A match box isnt the word match box. The correct answer would be for you to take out a match and light it on fire. The reality of it's purpose is what it is, not the label we put on it. How is anyone going to code consciousness if that code is always the word matchbox? How is the matchbox/AI meant to know it's a matchbox if it never experiences itself as one? It is taught to sift through those millions of pages, it is performing a task set out by us, it's not doing it be choice. We are just giving it a less limited variety of data to choose from then usual but it cant give an answer that's not in the wealth of pages. Those pages are still the same thing as pre-choice. It's being told the options it can choose from. How is that consciousness in any form? What is freewill? The ability to choose outside of the choices given to you by another. They are your choices, not someone elses. Watson is not making it's own choice in anyway, it doesn't know it exists to make one. To be aware it has to feel something to know it's experiencing something. Ok good, now what is magic to you? Good point, im not a regular on forums, will have to learn more on these differences. Thanks This feels like a long side debate because i know full well that plants are conscious, if you like i'll link ya? What non conscious animals are you referring? Because consciousness has to be aware, and awareness has to be able to experience a feeling as some sort of energy whether be physical, emotional, mental etc Everything is energy so it has to be energy in some form to be a thing. Symbols dont exist outside of the human mind, they're just representations of our ideas we collectively agree mean something to us. What energy is a word made of? When you speak it with sound thats your mental energy giving memory experience to it and the physical affect your mouth makes, and the emotion you had that made you want to express it. A word, a symbol by itself has non of these unless we give it to it. A better question is, what is causing energy in one form like atoms to not be aware of it's experience, but when it becomes a cell, it becomes more aware, and when it becomes a fish, a dog, a person, the causation between itself it's environment is more awake/stimulated.

Molecules make cells so molecule must have some primitive specialized system that allows sense to exist. The arrangement of atoms that form molecules causes some sort of 'real experience' not a symbolic representation of code of a real experience. The question is, what arrangement is causing it. Otherwise the deeper question then, is are atoms the feelers?

I don't think you took in much of anything i've said. it doesnt matter how developed electronics become if the machine still has symbols telling it what do to. Symbols aren't consciousness. The brain operates from electrical sense data, not electrical symbol data. You know what else is in that component of study helping advance things like dna? The human being. The universe seems pretty slow until life evolves and the universe can feel and know itself, and then build upon itself much faster, then all these things seem possible. Leave the computer completely alone, and see what it can do... Computers do make studying dna possible, but you need a human being to know what it's seeing, and that knowing is a feeling. A bit silly that you claim i havnt made an argument, and then go on to say you've read many arguments that speak the contrary but dont list them. So what, neither of us are saying anything? Im pretty sure i've made the argument that to be alive is to be conscious. Consciousness has to be alive and to be alive is to feel. That 'magic' is simply stimulation. The computer can not feel the electrical signals of 01, we can feel the electrical signals of touch, thought, joy, temperature etc. The magic is us knowing what we're experience, no matter how many computations the computer does, it doesnt know what it's doing. It doesnt feel itself doing it. Im not going talk about mind body separation or the soul. Totally not relevant to this. A computer can't feel, that's one thing it cant do the brain can so....

I just watched this TED talk spoken by Sam Harris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_sSpPyruj0 And after writing an informed opinion in the comment section i thought it be a good idea to bring this opinion to the rest of you 'computer people' to help with your computer advancing efforts, since what I'm about to bring up has slipped most of your minds. In Sam's talk he speaks of the potential future demise of humanity by the hands of AI. What needs to be stressed, is robots will never turn on us because until they can feel something, they will never desire to do anything. To be aware is to feel as it is to think and every choice you make originates first from a feeling. You feel something, and then you think how you will go about it. Even the most coldest decision is based on some sort of desire which is based off a feeling. When ever you make a decision, it's always going to come down to 'what do i want to feel' So a machine will not be able to make a decision simply because it has no feeling of itself to act upon one way or another. Right and wrong are feelings first, logical problems to be solved secondly. Does the AI feel positive about itself? What is the logical answer in that? Without feeling, happiness does not exist, so the AI doesn't care about itself. No care no questions, no question no action. We humans have to give the AI the feeling of intention before it can do a thing. No computer will ever make a decision outside what it has been programed to decide because to think is to be aware of oneself, and that awareness has to feel itself, not just lines of code. Let's be clear here, code is a symbol that represents reality. A symbol is not reality. Code can never replicate reality when it is only symbolically representing our idea of it. How can a computer replicate it's own idea of reality when it's own reality doesn't exist in the first place? It has to experience reality, and that experience has to be based off some sort of feeling it gets from itself and the environment. Every life form has some form of feeling, it may not be as developed as ours but it does have it, even down to a cell. If you want to create artificial intelligence, you need to create life first - artificial life. So the question should be, how does one build something that has feeling? First it cant be a symbol of reality, such as code, it has to already be apart of reality. Which means there's no 'artificiality' you're just creating an additional from of life from the ground up using what's already alive as a base. Which means if you want truly create life that has self awareness besides your own child then you'll have to get into some field of biology, perhaps molecular biology, but not computing. Sorry guys, you're in the wrong field Can anyone counter this argument? or are all AI efforts a waist of time?