/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10368078]

>tik tok tik tok
>time is running out
>have you yet considered cryonics?
>oh you so you're a poor NEET who can't afford it?
>well that's too bad, sniff sniff braaaap*

[Anonymous No.10368090]

>>10368078
>tik tok tik tok
faster pls

[Anonymous No.10368091]

>>10368078
>can't afford it?
But cryonics is affordable to anyone who can afford life insurance.

[Anonymous No.10368096]

>>10368091
This.

[Anonymous No.10368103]

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/11/cryonics/
I was reading about this the other day. Any of you got it set up?

[Anonymous No.10368111]

Just become a robot. There’s no afterlife.

[Anonymous No.10368116]

>>10368111
Consciousness is the continued experience of stimuli, even when you're asleep, you experience stimuli in terms of dreams, or subconsciously, like REM (and the associated brain waves).
In fact, you don't stop experiencing this continuum until you are brain dead.
This is why transferring consciousness is a nonsense term.
Think, if you had a genetically identical clone, and could by some theoretical means give that clone a 1 for 1 copy of your memories, it still isn't "you", it is a copy of "you". But you don't share the same consciousness.
That silicon will have your memories, but it wont be you.

[Anonymous No.10368129]

>>10368116
>Consciousness is the continued experience of stimuli, even when you're asleep, you experience stimuli in terms of dreams, or subconsciously, like REM (and the associated brain waves).

Wrong. Consciousness ends during sleep by definition.

>In fact, you don't stop experiencing this continuum until you are brain dead.

There is no continuum. “You” stop existing multiple times per second. The perceived continuum is just an illusion.

>This is why transferring consciousness is a nonsense term.

No one used that term here but you.

>Think, if you had a genetically identical clone, and could by some theoretical means give that clone a 1 for 1 copy of your memories, it still isn't "you", it is a copy of "you". But you don't share the same consciousness.

And I don’t share the same consciousness with me when I first started typing this. We know. And?

>That silicon will have your memories, but it wont be you.

Literally what happens multiple times a second.

[Anonymous No.10368133]

>>10368129
Transferring your consciousness is the same as making a copy, it wont be "you" living on.

[Anonymous No.10368142]

>>10368133
I don’t “live on” past this second. And?

[Anonymous No.10368146]

>>10368142
Yes, but you still perceive the same "stream", that's probably due to the fact that there is constantly activity in your brain. That's probably the basis for "self".
If made a copy, it wouldn't be the same "stream" .

[Anonymous No.10368165]

>>10368146
That “stream” is broken by comas and dreamless sleep all the time, or just by being knocked in the head really hard. The next instance inherits the accumulated memories either way. If there just ends up being two of me, that sounds awesome and we’d probably get along well.

[Anonymous No.10368169]

>>10368165
>tfw because you have no memory of it it didn't exist
last time i checked your brain didn't literally stop functioning during those moments

[Anonymous No.10368170]

>>10368165
I really struggle with the concept of a perfection carbon copy, with the same memoris, but a different "entity".
That truly means you're locked within your body.

[Anonymous No.10368192]

>>10368169
>last time i checked your brain didn't literally stop functioning during those moments

There are conditions, often induced on purpose for surgery, in which the neurons are literally inactive, not performing action potentials. I also don’t believe that neurons firing necessarily equates to subjectively experiencing.

>I really struggle with the concept of a perfection carbon copy, with the same memoris, but a different "entity".
That truly means you're locked within your body.

Locked within the brain, perhaps. You could conceivably do something like the RoboBrain from Fallout where an actual organic brain operates an otherwise entirely robotic corpus, or extend the brain into new substrate like putting up trestles for your tomato plants.

[Anonymous No.10368197]

>>10368078
Have you considered therapy?

[Anonymous No.10368208]

>>10368192
m8 knocking people out with nmda antagonists does not fully shut down the brain hence you come back after the drug wears off. ketamine literally doesn't kill people and end your "stream" as i've tried it

[Anonymous No.10368219]

>>10368208
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest

[Anonymous No.10368224]

>>10368219
alright but how does this edge case relate back to your point of comas and "dreamless" (misconception based on nobody remembering their dreams) sleep

[Anonymous No.10368233]

>>10368224
>comas

Comas are literally defined as unconscious. They may dream for periods of time but whatever ongoing brain activity is bare minimum maintenance like homeothermy and breathing, and some don’t even do that.

>"dreamless" (misconception based on nobody remembering their dreams) sleep

Sleep is not continuous dreaming. There are periods during which no dreams take place.

[Anonymous No.10368235]

>>10368224
Comas can also be so extreme that action potentials don’t take place.

[Anonymous No.10368251]

>>10368224
Sorry if I seem antagonistic. I quite enjoy the rare pleasant discussion.

[Anonymous No.10368257]

>>10368078
there is zero ZERO proof that freezing your brain preserves consciousness and I dare you to find some

[Anonymous No.10368260]

>>10368233
indeed bare minimum but still there which is completely gone with DHCA. and yeah sleep isn't dreamless but again your brain is still running or you'd just stop breathing and your heart would stop beating if everything turned off
>>10368235
do you have a source for this
all i could find is this
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918180246.htm

[Anonymous No.10368262]

>>10368078
>atheists fearing death
>implying

[Anonymous No.10368266]

>>10368078

[Anonymous No.10368286]

>>10368078
>>tik tok tik tok

[Anonymous No.10368295]

>>10368257
That depends. If the neurons aren’t destroyed by the process, you may very well preserve consciousness. Chilling the brain is how https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest works. Neurons take much longer to decay if cooled to low temperatures.

>indeed bare minimum but still there which is completely gone with DHCA. and yeah sleep isn't dreamless but again your brain is still running or you'd just stop breathing and your heart would stop beating if everything turned off

Of course, but does even stuff like that count as “conscious” to you? It’s just, figuratively speaking, keeping the lights on when no one’s home.

>do you have a source for this
all i could find is this
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918180246.htm

Yes, that was what I was referring to. Action potentials can still fire even after temporary periods of non-activity.

[Anonymous No.10368300]

>moments away from death
>scientists freeze brain
>tfwstillalive.jpg
>hover over the cryonic tank and see my lifeless frozen body
>see dead relatives welcoming me
>notice an ugly demon rushing my direction
>it jumps into the lifeless frozen body
>1000 years later
>body gets successfully unfrozen
>it goes into a killing spree
>great great great... grand kids will remember me for being a serial killer
>sheeeit

[Anonymous No.10368303]

>moments away from death
>scientists freeze brain
>tfwstillalive.jpg
>hover over the cryonic tank and see my lifeless frozen body
>see dead relatives welcoming me
>notice an ugly demon rushing my direction
>it jumps into the lifeless frozen body
>1000 years later
>body gets successfully unfrozen
>it goes into a killing spree
>grand kids will remember me for being a serial killer
>sheeeit

[Anonymous No.10368307]

>>10368303
>doesn't know about the 3 shells

[Anonymous No.10368311]

>>10368307
The human body is just a vessel. The brain is a transmitter receiver for the soul. The soul is whats conscious, not the brain. The human body will not animate without a soul.

[Anonymous No.10368343]

>>10368311
Let’s see some proof of that amazing claim.

[Anonymous No.10368389]

>>10368343
>https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worm-brains
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

[Anonymous No.10368412]

>>10368389
>>https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worm-brains

Aside from your own implication that flatworms have souls ( you better be vegan), I’m going to actually quote the authors of the paper.

“We suggest that some trace of memory is stored in locations distributed beyond the brain (since the place conditioning association survives decapitation). A straightforward model implies that information acquired during training must be imprinted on the regenerating (naïve) brain in order to result in the observed subsequent recall behavior. Future work must investigate the properties and mechanisms of such instructive interactions between remaining somatic organs and the regenerating CNS. However, two additional possibilities must be considered.
First is the possibility that the memory is executed entirely by the peripheral nervous system, not involving the brain in learning or recall. Given the similarities between the planarian brain and that of higher animals (in terms of structure, biochemistry, and complex ethology (Nicolas et al., 2008; Oviedo and Levin, 2008; Rawls et al., 2011; Sarnat and Netsky, 1985)), and the fact that worms exhibit no behavior prior to the regrowth of the brain, it is most likely that the planarian brain indeed drives behavior. A pivotal role for the brain is also supported by the need for the Savings portion of the paradigm, and the complexity of the behavior that is very unlikely to be implemented by receptor sensitivity and reflex modifications only (e.g., Fig. 2P and Movie S1). However, if true, this would suggest a remarkable capacity for integration of complex information in the peripheral nervous system of an animal that normally has access to an efficient brain, and thus would suggest a research program into the untapped information- processing abilities of the PNS in other advanced organisms.”

[Anonymous No.10368415]

>>10368389
Second is the possibility that the new brain is regenerated as a Tabula Rasa and is not imprinted by any traces of the previous memory. Instead, on this model the familiarized worms’ PNS (which would have been modified and tuned, e.g., increased/decreased receptor sensitivity to a given stimuli during the training phase) is retraining the new brain: “burning” the association into the new CNS, during the short “Saving” session (which suffices because it is more efficient than in the unfamiliarized worms, due to the modified PNS sensitivity). We believe this scenario is less likely, because of the behavioral complexity of the learned task (Fig. 2P & Movie S1). Experimental and control worms were fed with liver during the entire procedure, and the liver odor would be everywhere in the dish – this means the worms did not have to rely on the rough texture to know that food was somewhere in the vicinity, and both the trained and control groups could have developed positive associations to the smell of the liver. As can be seen in Movie S1, the behavior does not resemble a simple reflex modification but rather the whole environment that makes trained worms initiate feeding sooner. We cannot completely rule out the possibility that the modifications in the peripheral nervous system contribute to change in feeding latency.

Not once do the authors of the paper propose a “soul” is responsible. If you’re claiming that, make another study, cite that study, and show that souls are somehow the culpirate.

[Anonymous No.10368418]

>>10368389
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

From your own citation.

“MacDougall stated his experiment would have to be repeated many times before any conclusion could be obtained. The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis.[1] The case has been cited as an example of selective reporting. Despite its rejection within the scientific community, MacDougall's experiment popularized the concept that the soul has weight, and specifically that it weighs 21 grams.“

Wow. /x/ is really bringing out the big guns.

[Anonymous No.10368423]

>>10368418
>>10368415
>>10368412
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4EztGUHnbs
Remember, this happened to many others too.

[Anonymous No.10368430]

>>10368423
Pam Reynold’s NDE experience was explained decades ago by the wider scientific community. What she observed actually took place during her period of anesthesia, and that’s not remarkable at all.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799110/m2/1/high_res_d/vol25-no4-203.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305500256?via%3Dihub

[Anonymous No.10368439]

>>10368430
>the wider scientific community
((((((((((scientific community)))))))))))
>What she observed actually took place during her period of anesthesia, and that’s not remarkable at all.
omfg if anesthesia teleported someone's consciousness onto the hospital roof or down the block to east drop on relatives, then the military will be putting people down to get intel.

[Anonymous No.10368448]

>>10368439
>((((((((((scientific community))))))))))

Not an argument. If you’re going to start implying Jews are involved, back to /pol/.

>omfg if anesthesia teleported someone's consciousness onto the hospital roof or down the block to east drop on relatives, then the military will be putting people down to get intel.

But that’s not what happened in Pam Reynold’s narrative. Please provide a citation detailing a verifiable instance of something like that occurring.

Also, near-death experiences are rarely reported by people that experience cardiac arrest, and an even smaller number of those result in OBEs, and no OBE has been verified to have provided information only an incorporeal entity could discover, so I’m afraid to say Trump would be better off spending money on more Lincoln logs for his model of the wall.

[Anonymous No.10368450]

>>10368146
>Yes, but you still perceive the same "stream", that's probably due to the fact that there is constantly activity in your brain.
Nope. We perceive it as a continuous stream thanks to memory. Consciousness is completely halted during most of our sleep and if you ever passed out then you know.
If we transplant our memories to another body they'll perceive it as a continuous stream of me.
It's also one aspect of the movie "The Prestige". Who's the original? The teleported or the one which stayed in place? It doesn't matter because both perceive themselves as the original.

[Anonymous No.10368461]

>>10368430
That explanation is just a cop-out. She saw things that only could have seen by being president after anesthesia, when the surgery got more complicated than expected:

>Pam Reynolds described seeing events, from an elevated location, that could not have been perceived or inferred by auditory means. Initially, Sabom was very skeptical when he first listened to Pam’s description of a bone saw that “looked like an electric toothbrush” with “interchangeable blades.” But he was shocked at the accuracy of Pam’s description when he received a user manual from the Midas Rex Company in Fort Worth, Texas. Photographs from the manual show a tool that resembles an electric toothbrush, with interchangeable blades that are stored in what Pam described as a “socket wrench case.”

>Pam reported that shortly after part of her skull was removed, she heard a female voice say “something about my veins and arteries being very small,” and the medical records indicate that words to this effect were indeed spoken. At the time, Pam’s ears were blocked by small molded speakers inserted to monitor the auditory nerve center in her brain stem. The speakers continuously played 100 decibel clicks into her ears at a rate of 11.3 per second (100 decibels is about the level a symphony orchestra plays at full volume. Prolonged exposure to sound more intense than 85 decibels will cause hearing loss).

And there are a more details. Also, this is just one case of hundreds. It acquired notoriety because it was basically the first perfect case: she was dead, cold, had no brain activity (neither cortex nor stem), her ears and eyes were tapped shut, and she was able to describe multiple people and events that only occurred after she was "unconscious".

[Anonymous No.10368462]

>>10368450
Empty individualism is the only concept of the self consistent with what we currently understand about neurology.

[Anonymous No.10368467]

>>10368448
>no OBE has been verified to have provided information only an incorporeal entity could discover
I know of at least nine cases. You just haven't searched properly.

[Anonymous No.10368479]

>being asleep is the same as brain death
Genuine brainlet on our hands boys

[Anonymous No.10368481]

>>10368448
>near-death experiences are rarely [remembered] by people that experience cardiac arrest [and are resuscitated], and an even smaller number of those [remember the OBE stage], [according to a Dutch study]
fixed that for you

>The researchers found that sixty-two patients (18 percent) reported an NDE, which forty-one (12 percent) described a notably deep or a “core” experience

but cardiac arrest isn't the only way to come close to death:

>in one study it was found that, among 130 patients who had been close to death, 120 (92 percent) reported that their sensory and cognitive functioning had been either normal or enhanced, despite their seriously impaired physiological condition. We have also seen that the OBE is fairly commonly reported, by about 57 percent of Western subject

[Anonymous No.10368483]

>>10368479
Is there any evidence that our brain is capable of simulating a universe (dreamworld)? The assumption rests on the premise that it could only be the brain, so it's circular logic.

[Anonymous No.10368486]

>>10368483
Not really. Your brain is alive while you sleep. If your brain isn’t alive you are dead.

[Anonymous No.10368492]

>>10368486
>if your brain isn't alive, you are dead
Proofs?

[Anonymous No.10368497]

>>10368461

>>Pam Reynolds described seeing events, from an elevated location, that could not have been perceived or inferred by auditory means. Initially, Sabom was very skeptical when he first listened to Pam’s description of a bone saw that “looked like an electric toothbrush” with “interchangeable blades.” But he was shocked at the accuracy of Pam’s description when he received a user manual from the Midas Rex Company in Fort Worth, Texas. Photographs from the manual show a tool that resembles an electric toothbrush, with interchangeable blades that are stored in what Pam described as a “socket wrench case.”

“state of consciousness. And although he did not give the exact date of the operation, Sabom reported that the procedure took place in August 1991. He later told us that he interviewed Reynolds for the first time on November 11, 1994 (Sabom, 1998). That left more than three years between the dates of Reynolds's NDE and Sabom's interview, plenty of time for memory distortions to have played a role in her report of the experience. So there is nothing remarkable about this particular observation.
Second, there was her description of the bone saw. But the very observation that provided the greatest potential for supporting the notion that she actually left her body during her OBE actually tended to count against that hypothesis. As Sabom recounted,
Pam's description of the bone saw having a "groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle" was a bit puzzling. ... [T]he end of the bone saw has an overhanging edge that [viewed sideways] looks somewhat like a groove. However, it was not located "where the saw appeared to go into the handle" but at the other end.
Why had this apparent discrepancy arisen in Pam's description? Of course, the first explanation is that she did not "see" the saw at all, but was describing it from her own best guess of what it would look
and sound like. (1998, p. 187)”

[Anonymous No.10368498]

>>10368448
>no OBE has been verified to have provided information only an incorporeal entity could discover

Remote viewing is similar and the CIA has been using it for a long time: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000300110001-8.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPHqQV_izl4
So how can a physical brain get precise details of a target without actually being there nor told anything about it?

[Anonymous No.10368502]

>>10368461
>>Pam Reynolds described seeing events, from an elevated location, that could not have been perceived or inferred by auditory means. Initially, Sabom was very skeptical when he first listened to Pam’s description of a bone saw that “looked like an electric toothbrush” with “interchangeable blades.” But he was shocked at the accuracy of Pam’s description when he received a user manual from the Midas Rex Company in Fort Worth, Texas. Photographs from the manual show a tool that resembles an electric toothbrush, with interchangeable blades that are stored in what Pam described as a “socket wrench case.”

>
[S]he knew no-one would use a large chain saw or industrial angle cutter to cut the bones of her skull open. ... Pneumatic dental drills with the same shapes, and making similar sounds as the pneumatic saw used to cut her skull open, were in common use during the late 1970s and 1980s. Because she was born in 1956, a generation whose members almost invariably have many fillings, Pam Reynolds almost certainly had fillings or other dental work, and would have been very familiar with the dental drills. So the high frequency sound of the idling, air-driven motor of the pneumatic saw, together with the subsequent sensations of her skull being sawn open, would certainly have aroused imagery of apparatus similar to dental-drills in her mind when she finally recounted her remembered sensations. There is another aspect to her remembered sensations - Pam Reynolds may have seen, or heard of, these things before her operation. All these things indicate how she could give a reasonable description of the pneumatic saw after awakening and recovering the ability to speak. (Woerlee, 2005, p. 18)

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799110/m2/1/high_res_d/vol25-no4-203.pdf

[Anonymous No.10368505]

>>10368502
>>10368497
Occam's razor. Instead of some massive "well, she just guessed because she was born in 1957 and blabalbla", maybe she just shaw it.

[Anonymous No.10368507]

>>10368502
>>10368497
Occam's razor. Instead of some massive "well, she just guessed because she was born in 1957 and blablabla", she just saw it.

[Anonymous No.10368509]

>>10368461
>>Pam reported that shortly after part of her skull was removed, she heard a female voice say “something about my veins and arteries being very small,” and the medical records indicate that words to this effect were indeed spoken. At the time, Pam’s ears were blocked by small molded speakers inserted to monitor the auditory nerve center in her brain stem. The speakers continuously played 100 decibel clicks into her ears at a rate of 11.3 per second (100 decibels is about the level a symphony orchestra plays at full volume. Prolonged exposure to sound more intense than 85 decibels will cause hearing loss).

“Unlike the other elements of her NDE, we can precisely time when Reynolds's OBE began because she did accurately describe an
operating room conversation. Namely, she accurately recalled com
ments made by her cardiothoracic surgeon, "Dr. Murray," about her "veins and arteries being very small" (Reynolds's words) (Sabom, 1998, p. 42). Two operative reports allow us to time this observation. First, in the head surgeon's report, Robert Spetzler noted that when he was cutting open Reynolds's skull, "Dr. Murray performed bilateral femoral cut-downs for cannulation for cardiac bypass" (Sabom, 1998, p. 185). So at about the same time that Spetzler was opening Reynolds's skull, Murray began accessing Reynolds's blood vessels so that they could be hooked up to the bypass machine that would cool her blood and ultimately bring her to standstill. Second, Murray's operative report noted that "the right common femoral artery was quite small" and thus could not be hooked up to the bypass machine. Consequently, Murray's report continued, "bilateral groin cannulation would be necessary. This was discussed with Neurosurgery, as it would affect angio access postoperatively for arteriography" (Sabom, 1998, p. 185).

[Anonymous No.10368512]

>>10368502
>Pam Reynolds almost certainly had fillings or other dental work
nice guesswork you got there, this isn't science

[Anonymous No.10368513]

>>10368461
>And there are a more details. Also, this is just one case of hundreds. It acquired notoriety because it was basically the first perfect case: she was dead, cold, had no brain activity (neither cortex nor stem), her ears and eyes were tapped shut, and she was able to describe multiple people and events that only occurred after she was "unconscious".

It’s actually shaping up be quite a shitshow of absolutely nothing as I kill every point you make.

>>10368467
Let’s see those papers.

>>10368498

>Remote viewing is similar and the CIA has been using it for a long time: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000300110001-8.pdf

Discussion of how to test it, not a peer-reviewed paper saying it actually works.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPHqQV_izl4 [Embed]
So how can a physical brain get precise details of a target without actually being there nor told anything about it?

A YouTube video. Nope.

[Anonymous No.10368515]

>>10368507
Occam’s Razor says she guessed, actually, not that there’s a magical soul, unless you’re implying she saw it afterwards or before. She may very well have, since she didn’t give Sabom her story until three years after the experience.

[Anonymous No.10368516]

>>10368513
You didn't kill any point though. You just posted someone's guesswork of how she could have maybe guessed it.

[Anonymous No.10368520]

>>10368512
>nice guesswork you got there, this isn't science

“Guesswork” is assuming someone has gone to the dentist in their life, apparently.

[Anonymous No.10368522]

>>10368515
Souls aren't magical. They're the very fundamentals of existence.

[Anonymous No.10368523]

>>10368516
Yes, and? “She guessed it” is quite a better explanation than paranormal spooky spooks.

[Anonymous No.10368524]

>>10368520
I never did, and I have perfect teeth. Some people are just blessed. It is just shady guesswork.

[Anonymous No.10368525]

>>10368522
No, that’d be things like quarks.

[Anonymous No.10368526]

>>10368523
You're right that Pam's story alone isn't enough evidence, just suggestive. But we have the entire field of ESP with lot of statistical work to assess just how likely it is to acquire information without your "five" senses.

[Anonymous No.10368528]

>>10368524
>I never did, and I have perfect teeth. Some people are just blessed.

Lovely personal anecdote.

>It is just shady guesswork.


“Shady guesswork”

Your guesswork invokes magic.

[Anonymous No.10368530]

>>10368526
>You're right that Pam's story alone isn't enough evidence, just suggestive.

It suggests absolutely nothing about spooky ghosts and souls.

>But we have the entire field of ESP with lot of statistical work to assess just how likely it is to acquire information without your "five" senses.

Let’s see those peer-reviewed papers. Double-blind, I assume?

[Anonymous No.10368532]

>>10368525
Particles are ultimately waves of probabilities before they collapse. This introduces a dualistic element into quantum theory. You're probably acquainted with the idea that macroscopic elements make waves collapse. But Von Neumann correctly noted that this doesn't solve what made the macroscopic elements collapse in the first place, and he proposed consciousness as the only dualistic element that has been observed. Ultimately, consciousness is fundamental, as Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck and Schrodinger noted. This is a valid alternative interpretation of the quantum equations that many scientists take over the traditional macroscopic explanation.

[Anonymous No.10368533]

>>10368530
Triple-blind too.

[Anonymous No.10368534]

>>10368532
Wavefunction collapse is caused by being smacked with other particles.

Go to school.

[Anonymous No.10368537]

>>10368533
You’re not very ashamed of Gish galloping, are you?

[Anonymous No.10368539]

>>10368534
What made the other particles collapse? This paradox, the Von Neuman chain, is what led people like Von Neuman, Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck and Schrodinger to take the alternative and more consistent view that consciousness is fundamental.

[Anonymous No.10368541]

>>10368129
>There is no continuum. “You” stop existing multiple times per second.

how?

[Anonymous No.10368543]

>>10368537
Read http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AFA751635BB6E9CBD0EB7FDBAF4A870B

If you remain unconvinced after that, be my guest. I could walk you through the history of these studies, how skeptics got destroyed at every turn, increasingly moving the goalposts and asking for tighter and tighter protocols, always crying about outlandish guesswork theories (which ultimately derived in the ultimate skeptic protocol, the Ganzfeld protocol, the modern standard, after which they just stopped proposing protocols).

But I don't sense good faith.

[Anonymous No.10368547]

>>10368539
There is no paradox, since macroscopic objects don’t follow quantum mechanics.

>>10368543
>Book

[Anonymous No.10368550]

>>10368541
Action potentials are very fast.

[Anonymous No.10368551]

>>10368547
>macroscopic objects don't follow quantum mechanics
Holy brainlet

[Anonymous No.10368552]

>>10368551
>quantum

>macroscopic

Holy brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10368554]

>>10368547
>book
Where else are you going to get the correspondence between skeptics and researchers to know what they really think beyond what they publish in public?

[Anonymous No.10368557]

>>10368554
I don’t really care what they have to say outside of the papers they publish.

[Anonymous No.10368558]

>>10368552
I guess macroscopic objects are made up of magic fairy dust that doesn't obey quantum mechanics, lmao, who's proposing magic now?

[Anonymous No.10368560]

>>10368208
How would you know it didn't end?

[Anonymous No.10368564]

>>10368558
>quantum

>macroscopic

Maybe you’re really bad with words but those aren’t compatible.

[Anonymous No.10368568]

>>10368558
Here, I’ll make this really easy for you.

Demonstrate a basketball to exhibit wave-particle duality like a buckyball or electron can.

[Anonymous No.10368569]

>>10368557
Would you trust the paper of a person that was previously exposed rigging the numbers to diminish an effect he didn't like?

[Anonymous No.10368571]

>>10368569
Papers are retracted when found to be falsified.

[Anonymous No.10368573]

>>10368564
What are macroscopic things made of?

>>10368568
There is actually a quantum equation to describe a basketball, it's just the probability of collapsing where you see it is almost 100%, with a very small, almost 0 chance, of it collapsing negligible distance from where you see it

[Anonymous No.10368576]

>>10368571
That wasn't my question. Would you still trust that person's future research?

[Anonymous No.10368578]

>>10368573
>What are macroscopic things made of?

Irrelevant. You’re rapidly exposing your lack of understanding of physics now as well.

>There is actually a quantum equation to describe a basketball, it's just the probability of collapsing where you see it is almost 100%, with a very small, almost 0 chance, of it collapsing negligible distance from where you see it

Wave function collapse is caused by interaction, not by “seeing things”. Show me a basketball exhibiting wave particle duality. C’mon.

[Anonymous No.10368581]

>>10368576
Sure, unless it’s found to also be falsified. I’m not sure journals let you publish in them again if you do that.

[Anonymous No.10368589]

>>10368578
Are you retarded? The odds of it exhibiting wave behavior are so low as to be effectively zero, but not zero, and they can be described by quantum equations. Quantum equations rule over everything, macroscopic included. The effect is negligible but not literally zero. It's just zero for practical purposes.

[Anonymous No.10368591]

>>10368539
an overlap with the first particle

[Anonymous No.10368593]

>>10368591
What made the first particle collapse? An overlap with the zeroth particle?

[Anonymous No.10368598]

>>10368078
>cryonics

holy shit brainlet detected, are you stupid, unironically consider your own self-projection, you utter failure

[Anonymous No.10368600]

>>10368589
There we go. Got you to reveal your lack of knowledge about quantum mechanics you exploit to push woo from /x/.

Basketballs don’t exhibit wave particle duality because they exceed the Planck mass.

[Anonymous No.10368601]

>>10368578
>Quantum equations also apply to mechanical objects like the trampolines. Their quantum noise equates to oscillations the size of the diameter of a single atom and are extremely difficult to observe.
Sorry bud

[Anonymous No.10368607]

>>10368593
There was no “first particle”. This is Kent Hovind shit now.

>>10368601
...................................atoms are well within the quantum scale.

[Anonymous No.10368610]

>>10368607
But he brought up a "first particle", read before jumping like a schoolgirl

[Anonymous No.10368612]

>>10368607
Trampolines are not. They are fairly large.

[Anonymous No.10368616]

>>10368600
>Basketballs don’t exhibit wave particle duality because they exceed the Planck mass.
This is your brain on wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.10368619]

>>10368600
This notion (wave-particle duality) is fairly outdated; nowadays physicists just think of particles in terms of their wavefunctions

As objects get larger, their associated de Broglie wavelengths shrink rapidly, so that a massive molecule just nanometers across has a de Broglie wavelength under 1 picometer across - but never zero

So yes, a basketball does have a wavefunction

[Anonymous No.10368631]

>>10368612
“oscillations the size of the diameter of a single atom”

Not a trampoline.

>>10368619
A tiny one that doesn’t affect reality.

[Anonymous No.10368633]

>>10368631
>a tiny one
Thanks for conceding. gg no re

[Anonymous No.10368641]

>>10368513
Here is a scientific version: >http://farsight.org/SRV/SRVManualByCourtneyBrown.pdf
Non youtube example:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

[Anonymous No.10368654]

the dumb fucks who give Alcor all that money so pedro can forget to lock the fridge and let your brain spoil. that's already happened a couple of times haha.

[Anonymous No.10368659]

>>10368641
A government project that didn’t work and was shut down and a website that claims Atlantis exists.

/x/ supersoldiers are truly unstoppable.

>>10368633
Nope. Never said basketballs didn’t have wavefunctions.

[Anonymous No.10368681]

>>10368659
>A government project that didn’t work
Yes it did work because they successfully gathered data. Can modern science explain an individual being able to describe an object with just random numbers associated to the object?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSrm5EeRnSo

>Atlantis exists
prove that it didn't... you have no evidence to disprove Atlantis compared to the evidence that proves it existed.

Anyone can remote view, so give it a try:
http://www.greaterreality.com/rv/instruct.htm

[Anonymous No.10368691]

>>10368681
>prove that it didn't... you have no evidence to disprove Atlantis compared to the evidence that proves it existed.

Okay you got me. Good troll.

[Anonymous No.10368702]

>>10368078 >>10368090 >>10368286
>>10368691>>10368681 >>10368659
>tik tok tik tok

[Anonymous No.10368715]

>>10368691
The only thing that is 100% real to you is your consciousness. Everything else is backed up with evidence. There is more evidence out there that proves than disproves of an advanced ancient civilization before this one.
>500,000 Year-Old Spark Plug
>20,000 year old Romania Aluminum part
>400 million year old London hammer that had an impossible iron-chlorine lattice structure...

[Anonymous No.10368732]

>>10368715
>>500,000 Year-Old Spark Plug

1920’s champion spark plug surrounded by accreted material.

>>20,000 year old Romania Aluminum part

Me 262 landing gear

>>400 million year old London hammer that had an impossible iron-chlorine lattice structure...

The rock is four hundred million years old, but the concretion surrounding The hammer isn’t. The hammer itself is an 1800’s hammer.

>>10368715
> an impossible iron-chlorine lattice structure...

I’d love to know which lab determined this and how.

[Anonymous No.10368748]

>>10368732
Aluminum may also just be an excavator tooth. Impossible to confirm since it was kept in a storeroom for years before being reported on.

[Anonymous No.10368757]

>>10368732
>The hammer itself is an 1800’s hammer

>was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994)
>a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy"
>the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained "corrosion-free" in over 60 years
>the wooden handle was turning into coal

But naahhhh, was just made by some old wanking blacksmith in the 1800's, right?

[Anonymous No.10368784]

>>10368757
>>was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994)

What journal did they publish this research in? A brief google search turns up a self-published book.

>>a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy"

Source is the above book, and can’t be verified. I’d also note that I found the website you lifted that from, and it’s very critical of what you’re claiming. You omitted the author’s later quotes for obvious reason.

“from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.”

“Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.”

“Lines (1996) noted that the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained "corrosion-free" in over 60 years, and some creationists have suggested this indicates some unique or mysterious attribute. However, as long a metal object is kept dry and clean, this would not be unexpected, and the bulk of the head already in a somewhat rusted condition would be expected to oxidize somewhat faster than the scratched mark.”

[Anonymous No.10368789]

>>10368757
>>the wooden handle was turning into coal

From your source that disagrees with you that you accidentally revealed you’re quoting by including “Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy".

In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians "were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure," and that the "partly coalified" condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was "under pressure with water and volcanic action." However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any "volcanic" action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)

I’m convinced you’re being dumb on purpose.

[Anonymous No.10368795]

>>10368757
it's the hammer that was used in the crucifiction obviously. but how did it end up encased in a geode in the united states?

[Anonymous No.10368845]

>>10368795
Alee-yums flying in golden pyramids

[Anonymous No.10368890]

>>10368784
>>10368789

>A brief google search turns up a self-published book... Source is the above book, and can’t be verified

The hammer was analyzed at the Battelle laboratory in Columbus Ohio. Also:
>"they discovered that the iron the Hammerhead is 96.6% iron 0.74% sulfur and 2.6 percent chlorine. You can't do that, you can compound chlorine with dust particles of iron but not with a lattice of iron. Whoever fabricated this instrument had knowledge superior to our best physicists of the day"

>coal...
no need to pull last minute attempts from your ass because you do know that the wood on the handle was turning into coal which means it should be at least 250 million years old.

>I’m convinced you’re being dumb on purpose.
what makes you think I'm making it up?

Its okay to take this information in slowly, don't rush and take your time, soon you will realizes that the truth is stranger than fiction.

[Anonymous No.10368905]

>>10368890
>The hammer was analyzed at the Battelle laboratory in Columbus Ohio. Also:

From your own source.

“In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians "were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure," and that the "partly coalified" condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was "under pressure with water and volcanic action." However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any "volcanic" action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)”

>>"they discovered that the iron the Hammerhead is 96.6% iron 0.74% sulfur and 2.6 percent chlorine. You can't do that, you can compound chlorine with dust particles of iron but not with a lattice of iron. Whoever fabricated this instrument had knowledge superior to our best physicists of the day"

Who said that? In what peer-reviewed paper?

>no need to pull last minute attempts from your ass because you do know that the wood on the handle was turning into coal which means it should be at least 250 million years old.

No, part of the handle had carbonized, something you could do by simply burning it a bit, and the rest of the wood appears quite young.

[Anonymous No.10368920]

>>10368078
>pay 50k to get frozen
>company goes out of business because there's not enough rich nerds who want to do that shit
>body gets dumped in a landfill

[Anonymous No.10368961]

>>10368905
>No, part of the handle had carbonized, something you could do by simply burning it a bit
There was no indication of burning and the handle was fossilized.
>Who said that? In what peer-reviewed paper?
Battelle laboratory in Columbus Ohio
https://youtu.be/xeCYPCOzdIk

[Anonymous No.10369012]

>>10368961
>There was no indication of burning and the handle was fossilized.

Carbonization is a pretty big indication of burning. If you burn wood, it turns into black carbon. If the hammer is fossilized, that’s amazing, since carbon dating of the hammer gives it an age between 0 and 700 years and it looks about as fossilized as my grandparent’s chairs.

Are you aware that coal forms from peat deep underground, not fossilized or petrified wood, which it is neither, right at the surface?

>https://youtu.be/xeCYPCOzdIk

There is no actual evidence this analysis took place, nor does even a formal report exist. I would suggest contacting the laboratory yourself and publishing actual documentation of this online.

“Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)”

[Anonymous No.10369014]

>>10368961
>Battelle laboratory in Columbus Ohio

Not actually a peer-reviewed paper or even analysis report, by the way. “Some people tested this and this is what they found” is meaningless until it can be determined they actually did that thing.

[Anonymous No.10369050]

>>10368197
Yes

[Anonymous No.10369154]

>>10369012
>since carbon dating of the hammer gives it an age between 0 and 700 years
false without evidence, it into the trash it goes
>it looks about as fossilized as my grandparent’s chairs
Are your grandparents as old as dinosaurs?
>There is no actual evidence this analysis took place, nor does even a formal report exist. I would suggest contacting the laboratory yourself and publishing actual documentation of this online...
hell, if you find it hard in believing in videos and texts, pay a visit to the hammer and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10369192]

>>10369154
>false without evidence, it into the trash it goes

There’s so little self awareness here that you must be trolling.

“Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago." No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this. Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided "graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances." However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error.”

I do indeed agree that there’s no evidence this test happened, but if it did, it doesn’t line up with your claim that it’s fossilized.

>Are your grandparents as old as dinosaurs?

Helfinstine and Roth, a source YOU cited, claimed that the wood actually appeared relatively recent, and I agree. It looks no different from any other bit of old wood.

>hell, if you find it hard in believing in videos and texts, pay a visit to the hammer and see for yourself.

Me looking at the hammer is not an analysis from a laboratory. You are a troll.

[Anonymous No.10369262]

>>10369192
There was evidence for the wood turning into coal (not same as charcoal) and it takes millions of years for organic matter to turn into coal yet your source says it only took 700, not scientific and false.

>Me looking at the hammer is not an analysis from a laboratory.
You could analyze it in your laboratory, if you have one, to see and believe it.

[Anonymous No.10369274]

>>10369262
Really?
He would give him the hammer?

[Anonymous No.10369310]

>>10369262
>There was evidence for the wood turning into coal (not same as charcoal)

false without evidence, it into the trash it goes

:^)

Oh, what peer-reviewed paper is this evidence in? Let’s see the analysis reports at least. Link me the DOI, pubmed, ScienceDirect, or whatever.

>your source says it only took 700, not scientific and false.

No, an associate of Baugh claimed decades ago that someone, somewhere, tested some sort of sample from inside the wood and reported a range of present to seven hundred years old, and himself believes that this date is faulty and the sample has been contaminated, and we don’t know if this test actually happened anyway. We know coal doesn’t form in seven hundred years, and also that it forms from peat under compression, not isolated bits of wood near the surface, so I do agree, that date is bullshit if the handle has actually magically turned into coal in places.

>You could analyze it in your laboratory, if you have one, to see and believe it.

I think we both know Baugh wouldn’t want to ruin his little scam by letting others analyze it. But, according to you, someone DID, so please email staff that work at Batelle laboratories and find out if such an analysis ever actually took place there.

You’re a really funny troll, and provide me much amusement. This is like farming Level 1 goblins in an MMO.

[Anonymous No.10369323]

>Cryonics
>thinking the money will still be there to keep the cryostats full over the centuries necessary (prob optimistic estimate) for advent of nanomachines to revivify your frozen corpse
>thinking cultural upheaval won't lead to the facility being burned to the ground by hungry scavengers
>thinking the future might not want a relic like you, and thus dump your popsicle out for the buzzards.

[Anonymous No.10369366]

>>10368116
You can do it the buddhist way, replace your brain with electronics bit by bit.

[Anonymous No.10369391]

>>10368116
1. connect brain to computer
2. setup joint brain+computer mind
3. migrate parts of your mind to computer bit by bit
4. after each step brain adapts to new structure
5. move last parts of your mind to computer
6. leave brain empty and disconnect

[Anonymous No.10369401]

>>10369391
I like this idea because it’d cure my autism.

[Anonymous No.10369412]

>>10368103
I'm going to roll it into my life insurance, literally a blue collar wage cuck here and I can still afford it. Gonna do my wife and kids too.

[Anonymous No.10369422]

>>10368233
>Sleep is not continuous dreaming. There are periods during which no dreams take place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-non-rem.amp

[Anonymous No.10369433]

>>10369310
>muh peer-reviewed
Instead of relying on peer-reviewed papers most likely written by shills being paid to cover up true history, pic related is about the closest you will get to it. And Of course the Battelle Institute would deny they did tests on the hammer just like another mainstream institute under a cabal's thumb would do. Scientists will always attack anything that threatens their based understanding and jeopardizes their position/income, politics are everywhere.
also to consider:
>300 Million Year Old Screw Inside The Rock form china
>Antikythera mechanism (4 million years old)
>2.8-Billion-Year-Old Spheres from in South Africa

[Anonymous No.10369544]

>>10368078
1) Cryonics is literally horseshit and the gullible tossers who fall for it deserve to lose their money.
2) Why would atheists fear death? Atheists are the ones who acknowledge reality - that when we die, our bodies simply rot into the ground. There is no heaven or hell, of course. So there is nothing to fear. When you die, your consciousness will simply cease, of course, since electrical activity in the brain ceases. And then your body will rot into the ground. Hopefully you will have left behind kids by this point, otherwise you will be an evolutionary failure. A literal failure of evolution. Lmao.

[Anonymous No.10369569]

>>10369433
>>300 Million Year Old Screw Inside The Rock form china
>>Antikythera mechanism (4 million years old)
>>2.8-Billion-Year-Old Spheres from in South Africa
Haha. I bet you think this is a million year old alien artifact encased in stone, not a 1920s Champion sparkplug in a carefully drilled out rock.

[Anonymous No.10369656]

>>10369569
could be, but the artifacts are overwhelming, more:
>Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa
>williams enigmalith
>morozov microchip
>600 million year old bell

[Anonymous No.10369832]

>>10369656
>williams enigmalith
Literally an XLR audio connector in a piece of rock even more lazily done than the coso sparkplug. Any audiotard or band member knows what an XLR is - maybe it was sent back a million years so Ugg the caveman could hook up his mixing board.

[Anonymous No.10370007]

I'll ask here since you guys are talking about foot prints.
What's up with all the giant footprints people claim to find?