andrewcellini

that's much too simplistic and vague, and moreover quite wrong. "life" in biology, though not completely well defined, is a property assigned to organized and compartmentalized systems like cells which have the capability to regulate their internal environment at a constant state (ion concentration for example), as well as having the ability to transform energy sources into usable forms to maintain such a state (glycolysis to make pyruvate for the krebs cycle) and response to stimuli in many ways from simpler reactions to ion concentration (such as plasmolysis in cells in a hypotonic solution) to cell signaling processes. i don't think you could call magnets alive in this sense.

i'm fairly sure you're referring to Acts and not to the epistles of Paul.

there is no evidence that personality is a fundamental property. it seems to be emergent. i don't understand the rest of your post. how could the "properties of water" be related to "the personality of humans" aside from the biological necessity for proper function for such patterns to emerge? what properties are you talking about?

they are both properties. that's about it. you redefined personality to make a cheap fit with energy. personality is not merely your vague "characteristics, attributes, mechanisms" or "nature." personality is the collection of cognitive, behavioral and emotional patterns.

haha i like that anology. it seems like those who misunderstand it think there's a magical rope tying everything together and there is some sort of evidence of miracles or mysticism. it also seems common for new agers or practitioners of eastern mysticism to use this misunderstanding to "prove" their beliefs, like deepak chopra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_holography - i just recently came across this and it also seems related and is a form of holography somewhat similar to your 3rd option. note however that like wavefront holograms like have a medium from which the virtual image is projected.

how does this program "know" or "learn" from input to input? how does it mimic? edit: i guess i should really be asking what is the algorithm for mimicry?

all you're showing is your misunderstanding of quantum physics. i don't understand quantum mechanics very much either, but i can tell from your post you're misunderstanding the meaning of quantum entanglement and the observer effect. it would help to not have a pop sci understanding of these concepts. you also presume, again, that there exists spirit.

astrology is a science like hopscotch is a sport. i also don't understand how you concluded that the "fibonacci spiral" is the symbol "of the building blocks of conscious creation." care to expand on that?

as a pices i'm gall dern offended.

it's not that there's anything wrong with what you say or have the program say, it's the repetition of these phrases without provocation that makes this program not so fun to interact with. if i for example said "what's up?" and it said "not much buddy" there would be no problem. it shouldn't say "what's up buddy" for any given input. do you have the original code to this version? did it work in a similar way to your current version?

world news daily is a satire website. i was looking for a study regardless. - http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/ just because neurons share similarities in appearance with the universe in that picture does not mean they act or are the same in any way. okay, yes i know what a torus is, but saying there is a "torus" around everything is vague because this is a shape and says nothing about what actually is "around everything." that picture is not an explanation. what does it mean for an idea to reach critical mass? how does this cause an idea to be "introduced in the minds of others?

i assume you mean collective consciousness, which is the sociological concept that there are shared beliefs and ideas in a society. as durkheim put it "The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness." this isn't an object but a description of the uniting capabilities of a shared belief system among members of a society. i couldn't care less what the ancients tell us unless they actually had evidence of such. do you have the supposed german study that proves life after death? i don't know what that's supposed to mean. could you please expand on that? this also needs clarification. Bruce Lipton is a crank biologist who also believes that we can use our mind to alter our genetics to prevent illness with no evidence of the sort. He also misrepresents not only mainstream biology but quantum physics, a field he has no experience in.

this theory presumes a soul exists and that there is any validity to the new age idea of a universal consciousness. consciousness seems to be a property of certain systems in the universe but not of the entire universe. it also seems to be a property that depends on a system like a living brain. is there evidence of this "frequency spectrum of consciousness?"

http://cocoadevcentral.com/d/learn_objectivec/ - a blog discussing objective c with tutorial https://www.codeschool.com/courses/try-objective-c - this site offers a free course in objective c

that is an incredible stretch, and i don't think the creators of these stories and characters had "quantum information" or "the laws of physics" in mind at all.

you repeatedly call each other big dog and guy even out of context? that's what your program currently does. i think it's more of a low end chat bot than an intelligent agent. maybe with improvement this will change. how are you programming this? what is the code?

i'm not so sure, holograms don't play around with how we perceive things to be, rather they have an underlying physical explanation as to how the light interference pattern is recorded and projected as a virtual image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Physics_of_holography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_image edit: this isn't to say there isn't an explanation as to how pepper's ghost and the like works, just that in principle it's much different.

you haven't presented any evidence to conclude this is "plasma, plasma like, alive, responsive to light" etc, what do you expect everyone else to do? these videos are the only evidence you have presented, and your explanations of them are not explanations; they are merely statements of belief followed by tangents about the scientific method. do you want discussion about the validity of your claims or do you want to have a discussion about all the possible fictitious properties of our little ufo friends? this can only be said so many times before it becomes redundant. surely you have somehow tested to conclude these are not merely balloons, or birds, or rc vehicles, how did you do this?

what observations led you to this formula?

you keep saying they look like plasma. that's hardly an explanation. your posts are just conjectures with these videos. there is nothing dogmatic about not accepting your explanation when it comes with no evidence. how is it that you can conclude that they are plasma? i'm not looking for "because they are plasma like." i don't even know what that's supposed to mean or how these videos show that.

i don't know much about holography myself, it's just this seems a lot like this illusion, at least your final option does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost i believe i read they used a sort of angled glass screen at coachella for projecting the tupac "hologram" though i could be mistaken on that.

how does the field control where a photon is projected? how stable are interference patterns in this field? also i believe this should be in the physics section. more importantly how is this related to holography at all?

certain medications can stimulate neurogenesis and new connections, but this isn't as controlled of a process currently. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452205003374 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/6/1374.short

have you tested to seem if the balloon explanation is insufficient? how about any other more rational explanations? with such low resolution photographs i don't know how you could conclude really anything. they still appear to be like a bunch of balloons at least in the first two frames. i'm not saying they are, i'm saying they look like. i don't think from these videos you could conclude this is a plasma based life form. i'm really interested in how you could have concluded this. you have a bunch of videos of something you claim is plasma anomaly and zero experiments to test if you actually see what you think you've seen.