This guy explains the quantum myth better then I do:

Victor Stenger The future of naturalism interview

It can be found on you tube its 30 minutes.

what if this "universal conciousness" or whatever, exists in the distant or near future?? I mean, you can argue that we have no real soul, and nothing concious guiding us..but what about out future than?? what we are to become? what is to be of conciousness and technology?..I dont need to look back for an origin, thats too linear for me anyway..sometime I like to look forward to a time when humans will build god.

Seems like an interesting topic. I haven't read it all, but I agree with the first post that the new age spiritualism of creating your own reality is crap.

I don't fully agree with the materialist perspective though.



I've combined smoked DMT with monoatomic gold, and during that experience, I had no trip or anything like DMT normally gives, but I saw through my eyelids apparently. My eyes were closed. And I saw. I saw my surroundings, everything, like my eyes were open. Now you say imagination of your surroundings, a good hallucination of familiar surroundings.
It lasted 30 seconds, during which I walked around with closed eyes seeing like with open eyes.
Then it faded, and came back later that day, to fade again, and come back one more time.
That last time I was in a car, totally *unfamiliar surroundings*. And I still saw.

Strange thing was, the way this time it ended (I think it lasted longer than 30 seconds that time), is that I saw like a haze of black light obstructing my sight. Yes black light, I saw this blackness as light. It was like a cloud almost or something. I could still make out the shapes of people but they were made of this black haze. Then it faded I think. There also was a white light similar to this black light that obstructed my sight, but I don't remember which was first, the white or the black. Both came, then my seeing through closed eyes disappeared.

That night I had my first lucid dream too. I just woke up consciosly in my dream like fully conscious realizing I was in it. It was pretty cool.


I don't understand how it works, but I think it's related to the monoatomic gold.
Ancient lore says this stuff is edible light.

I have thought it could be something like when this is in the body, you produce light from the inside out, instead of needing to rely on light as coming from the sun or a light source outside uhm, the observing... yeah well I don't know, it's just that I think it's related to producing light from oneself.


I have had other experiences with this gold, probably, that made me think physics is not correct.

I've had an overheating experience end 2006/begin 2007, that was probably 'kundalini energy' related. I'm not going to go into that as I don't know how this energy can be objectively measured and shown to exist, but I will say at times it felt like magnetic bands of energy you can control with your will (but sometimes it was real hard).

Either way, what happened one day, is that I started to feel inner heat, like a dry heat with rising blood pressure similar to what mushrooms give. Except this came and went in a cyclical manner. Coming for an hour, going for two hours. And it always became stronger. The longer this continued, the hotter and drier I felt on the inside, and I got an unsatiable thirst. I drank water, but this didn't seem to help.

It got so bad that I needed cold air to cool off.

In fact my brother drove me to the airport after a day or three, and when in the car, the car heater burned my skin. Literally the hot air felt like it burned. I was going at like 120 km an hour in mid december in the cold, and with the window open, the ice cold wind, felt soft and good on my skin.

You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me.

I'm not sure it's a 'spiritual' thing but it definitely seems related to physics.

I had a dream at that time too that said I was radioactive.
I woke up with blood at my palate.
I turn on my pc, to look up radioactivity, and as a first thing I read that blood at the palate is a sign of radioactivity damage in the brain. I was totally unaware of it and not looking for info related to the blood I had at the palate.

Radioactive elements send out particles or rays? Emit energy? Maybe this was related to the heat I experienced.

It's probably related to the gold I took, as I read in an alchemical book from the 80s, that an alchemist tested her 'stone', and claimed even though it was made from gold, that it tested as a radioactive substance. It was also a very heavy powder.


The most intriguinig I found seeing with closed eyes. This violates physics as we know it I think. Light should be blocked by flesh no?

All I am saying is there is not two seperate objects interfering. I don't see whats so wrong with that. I never said that one photon was not interfering with itself which is a way of looking at it. However when you fire one photon you get one dot. When you keep firing them you get the interference pattern. I don't see what's wrong with that? Thats been confirmed by modern experiments.

Like I said I am not talking about the traditional double split experiments done by Thomas Young. Regardless my point was that the wave particle duality doesn't confirm spiritual beliefs about us creating reality because the idea is a bit of a misnomer. Light is photons.



I know that. I admit I am probably not explaining it well.




My point is that these subjective experiments or experiences are meaningless. They confirm nothing without objective analysis.



Throwing a rock in a puddle is fine explanation. You don't need science to figure it out. But you can use it if you want to describe it. You don't need science to know that you need to eat for example. I don't agree with this statement.



If consciousness has any interaction with matter or is a result of matter (as I am claiming) then it MUST be measurable. Don't people understand that?

We measure certain aspects of consciousness all the time. I am getting tired of people saying we don't because we do.




Sorry yes. How can you even begin to deny that?

When certain parts of your brain are damaged or stimulated you can make certain aspects of human consciousness appear or go away. This is VERY WELL KNOWN in neuroscience.



Exactly life the universe everything has no meaning. It is only mind language and culture that gives it meaning. Which we make up.

Brainwave activity is not synonymous with consciousness but it is a wave of measuring that the brain is doing something and may be in some conscious state or another. Anyway its not an old argument. Its still the best model we got. Your conscious experience is a result of a bunch of chemicals and there is NO SINGLE PIECE OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that sais otherwise.

You all claim your subjective experience is that proof but I am telling you its not because if it is then something about consciousness is interacting with you with your matter. If it is we must detect it. We do detect it actually we know that psychedelic and mystical experience are also a result of chemical reactions in the brain. I am not making this up. This is how your brain seems to be working.



This may one day be possible. But anyway yes you can now with brain imaging technology for example hook someone up and show pictures of someone they love (like family love) and see the flashes going off in the parts of their brain involved in love. You can also show them something to make them feel lusty and see other parts going off. They do this kind of experiments all the time now with all kinds of behaviors and emotions.



Human beings made up the idea of ethics. We can study why we did and how it benefits or harms us but the words benefit and harm are also things humans made up.

I don't want to regress into pointless philosophical arguments about ethics. It sais nothing about us having or not having a soul.



I would say its mostly subjective minus instincts. But it doesn't matter. So what science can't dictate morals? I never claimed it should. It counters nothing about my original argument.

Are you smoking gold particles? Isn't that dangerous?

Not smoking no. (Now that you mention it... that would be cool!)

Universal consciousness would require information to travel faster then the speed of light. If that really is not possible then its not going to happen.

Who knows what we will become. If we continue to evolve we will have to adapt to our changing earth and also adapt better for space travel because our star will die. This is our only hope for survival.

Wheteher you can reduce counsciousness to just brain-activity is just what's being debated here and thus you cannot say without stating your position in this entire debate first, that any other position is a false one.

^^poly I agree and I am not saying the other view point is out right false I am just saying it lacks much needed evidence and that the material view point has an explanation for all these things.

No worries fiashly I don't see this as insulting at all. I expect this issue is quite sensitive for most people so I respect anyone who takes it this far. I also don't mean to be offensive but if I am note its not intentional.


Concerning the quantum mechanics issues. Since I can't explain it any clearer let me give you a link to an article that completely explains what I was trying to say about quantum mechanics. Its written by a physicist. Its short and has references to further material. The author has also written quite extensively on the subject of the myth of quantum spiritualism.

http://www.colorado.edu/...QuantumConsciousness.pdf

If you dispute with what he sais then we can discuss the specifics of that but for now lets put that issue aside.



I don't consider myself a nihilist. What I mean when I say life has no meaning is that no external force prescribes my life meaning. There is no god who sais "you live to do this" there is no human mind idea that sais "you must live for the state and society" that I follow. There is no spirit that sais "you must find inner peace".

That leaves my life open for me to prescribe it meaning as it does for every other individual who chooses to ignore dogma. I love my friends and family and the work that I do. That's all the meaning I need and I hope to spread that through having children one day. To me this way of looking at it is more open more free and more satisfying then any religious of spiritual viewpoint that someone else came up with.

I hope you can see why I then do not consider myself a nihilist. By the way I can't stand philosophers like Nietze and all those other nihilist materialists. I think they were fools.


So we are dealing with two issues:

Is everything within the realm of science?

Is consciousness strictly a result of brain activity?


Science can say that the human being feels ethics and guilt for an evolutionary purpose and I think that is why we have these emotions and ideas. Science can explain why one person feels guilt and some people have no guilt. The are wired differently or grew up with different experiences which wired them differently.

I can't think of things that are outside the realm of scientific analysis? I really can't. But just because scienctific analysis is used doesn't mean it will find the answer. But I don't understand why some things are just outside the realm of science. Maybe certain aspects are but I don't see how something like ethics is. Ethics are fully analyzable. Science doesn't decide of dictate ethics but it can study them. Its up to the individual to decide their ethics. But I believe in individual freedom so I would never ever claim science should dictate ethics.



Actually there are some very specific kinds of damage that lead to some very specific kinds of loss of consciousness type behavoirs. Such as visual neglect.

But I do not think or claim each part of consciousness is in a specific physical region of the brain. Its too spread out and interconnected for that.




Yes consciousness does exist in my world view. You just can't get over the fact that it might all be a result of your brain chemistry. Most people can't get over that. Most people can't even begin to fathom that's all there is. I have and I am quite comfortable with it.



Actually there are experiments being done on exactly this kind of awareness. They can be found in any modern neuroscience text.



I said something that is true about meaning and where it comes from. YOU GIVE YOUR LIFE MEANING. Nothing else can force that on you no matter how brutal your government or family or friends or priest are. Most people just give an accept. You obviously have found your own meaning and that's good but you think that meaning comes from some spiritual realm when I am saying it comes from you, your life, your experiences.



Ok now your just ignoring what I am saying. Your ignoring all the experiments and data we have that prove aspects of what I am saying are correct. Do you want more specific examples of more specific experiments?



Again its not that specific. Its spread out an interconnected. But yes we can tell when you are paying attention too and observing the squirrel as opposed to day dreaming. There is a CLEAR difference in neural activity.



Right and wrong is 100% subjective. I think certain things most people could never stomach. Like mass murder rape etc. We are wired and brought up to see those things as bad. But there are some people who can and who engage in things and who do not care about others. Just look at certain animal behaviors. Male bears go around and kill female bear cubs and then rape the female. Is that right or wrong? You can't say whether it is right or wrong. Its nature. We are part of nature.




I don't believe in the spirit realm. I do not think it exists. I think it is a construct of the human mind which is a result of brain activity. So no nothing you have said has changed my mind. That doesn't mean I don't feel compassion or love for people. That doesn't mean I don't care about my life. It just means I don't believe in things that aren't real. I don't believe in faries for the same reason.

hey vlad, you said
"You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me."

I constantly feel like I am exploding from the inside. I am always working on suppressing it's intensity. What did you do to overcome this?

It went away. I don't remember exactly how, but I think it stopped and things all went horribly wrong after I took mushrooms during while I experienced this intense heat (which had been lasting for weeks already).

Science is good but is based on laws of the physical world. It explains the physical world in a good way. But it doesn't cover things beyond that.

And before saying the spirit or spiritual experiences are not real, people need to define what's real. And if your definition of real is that only things that fit into the laws of the physical world are real, then that only tells me that your mind is limited to the physical world.
For me spiritualism is just a word for the next level of awareness. Awareness of the higher dimensions. Which science has no explanation for because it's based on the laws of the physical dimension. Only string theory and quantum physics are anywhere close.

I know what's real for me And reality for me is sooooo much more than reality for most people And I'm quite happy with my reality. It is fukkin awesome and exciting

That is common and documented after the heat and burn comes the light bla bla bla.............. the bardos ,limbo ,bla bla bla

There is no reason what so ever to consider this common event to any mystical thing. Its deserves no discussion in todays world.
Yeah its me straight from hell to spread the kind word

PEACE/TRUTH
MV

In short: our description of reality is not the reality we are trying to describe.

We define what love is. We define what happiness is. That is done through our language and culture. We say that when we feel love it feels a certain way. We try to describe it. We notice that it brings us close to someone or others etc. But we made the word love. If no one ever told me the words for emotions I wouldn't be able to describe them I would just feel them and attach no word or description too it. But its still real and its still a result and cause of brain chemistry.

Neurochemically when we feel what we describe as love there is a specific set of chemical reactions going on. There is also a different neurochemical set of reactions going on in lusty type love and in long term family type love. We know this. This doesn't mean love is not real. It just means that this is what goes on in your brain when you feel love. Also its important to realize that its not just the chemical reactions and neurotransmitters spilling into the synapse that creates consciousness. Consciousness is the SUM of that activity.


Science is not built on faith thats the big difference with science and religion/spirituality. The assertion that science is built on faith is wrong.



Materialistic science can explain why you have spiritual experiences without having to add on any higher levels of awareness or other dimensions or whatever else people claim explains these experiences.

This is an important point that I want to cover.



The human brain is capable of free will. Human beings are both rational and irrational beings. I completely believe in free will and do not think it contradicts anything modern neuroscience says about how our brain and consciousness works in fact I think it confirms it.



Its not all deterministic.

Ok so then I see what you mean though. That I don't need science to tell me what love is. But science can still analyze and describe love. No big deal again.



I think science is now ready to prove that these experiences are nothing more then the circuits in your brain misfiring. In fact in many cases it already has just look as psychosis and schizophrenia. We know its brain mistakes.

Your brain puts a lot of effort into making your picture of reality. Drug or excercises or damage that change this have a profound impact on your perceptions.




I think maybe it was Carl Sagan who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations.

You are not giving any explanation except the "spirit world" for your extraordinary claims. I am giving an explanation that is FULLY backed by scienctific evidence and reasoning.



Your sucking me into a circular argument that's going nowhere. I already explained we don't need science to say "I am in love" (emotions). Or "I don't like to hurt people" (ethics). But science can analyze why we feel all those these. So what I am saying is nothing is outside the realm of scientific analysis NOT all knowledge must be science based.

Therefore your claim that consciousness is the fundamental to the make up of the universe is subject to scientific analysis and it fails dead in the water. The universe does not require consciousness to exist. We know this because the universe exists before we or any other conscious life form on this planet.

Where did you hear or read about this connected to bardos etc? I'd like to know. Never heard of this connection. I'd like to look it up and read more about what they say about it.

I don't fully agree with this and with the statement that the universe is not conscious. I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying it could be, and might be, intelligent.

See I've experienced constant hallucinations, of electric entities, annoying me with stuff.
Some of the things they did showed super intelligence.

Brain misfiring is a simple explanation to account for this extreme display of intelligence that the hallucinations show.

And also one time during these events, I got a sensation like I had a feeling/urge to drink an electric
drink. Now when I say electric drink, I don't mean a drink that tastes like battery or holding your tongue to a battery or touching electric wires (has no taste that anyway). Literally I *knew* by the reminiscence of the sensation experienced, that it was an electric drink, just like you know it when you feel like drinking a coke, that it's a coke. It was real strange. I don't think that drink exists as I know it. I never heard seen tasted it, anything like that, that I recall.
Where did that sensation come from? Pretty strange if you ask me.
I don't think it was a random misfiring of my brain causing me to feel a sensation to drink this.
It was last summer during a period in which I saw entities doing things like telling me 'our coke' when I drank from a coke, and then taking another sip ignoring these entities, feeling NO FIZZ at all.
I can keep on giving examples like this. This can hardly be called misfiring of the brain. There is intelligence displayed that can understand humans emotions and behaviour. From all I experienced, it seems like it is a battle between the experiencing consciousness or individual, and maybe, the brain as AI, over control/domination.

Big up to Burnt for starting this thread, it's a juicy one!


I'll believe it when I see it! Or when the people who tell these stories offer some scientific proof. Until then I'll remain sceptical and keep in mind that faith healers/shaman profit from continuing superstitious beliefs.


Hmm or she just made the story up to make herself appear important. Or already knew where the vine was if it was staged. Or maybe it really happened. Giving my experience of human nature, I'd have to guess the former unless presented with conflicting evidence.

Belief without proof is the scourge of mankind, it creates much war and suffering.


Haha the 'even' in there made me chuckle!


It's great to hear someone admit that. A lot of religious belief is delusion... hence why priests have those periods where they 'struggle with their faith'.


I am an atheist, and actually I now think the opposite and strongly disagree. One can fall into nihilism because as a child you're told the Tooth Fairy exists, and Father Christmas, and God... as you get older, you realise one then the next is just a story.

But if you can get past the disappointment, the fact that there is no designed 'meaning' to life is immensely liberating... because it is YOU that gets to decide your meaning. If nothing matters, then you decide what matters... and with us all deciding what matters, suddenly things matter! And the meaning of life becomes enjoyment, and the best way to achieve that is for us all to respect each other's right to enjoy our fair share of life. Hence we all 'do as we will when it harms no other'. Charitable deeds are done, because it makes society better so makes us happier indirectly, but also the very altruistic act makes us feel good directly too. No need to have an agry bearded guy demanding we behave if people are schooled in psychology instead of religion. ENJOY!

Ayawaska, DMT, Sally D and mescalito did not sway SWIM from atheism, but completely swayed him from nihilism. Why is the universe any less amazing and beautiful without the imaginary bearded guy lording it over us?! The universe IS amazing, and scientific explanations are more wondrous than naive religious stories! Want to call something god? Call existence god then! You, me, the huge soup of chaotic energy that we are a part of, that amazingly forms ordered complexity from chaos in anarchic beauty! THAT's awesome to me in the true sense of the word. I see psychedelic hallucinations as a metaphor for existence itself- beautiful complexity out of nothing. Haha maybe in the same way existence could be seen as just one big 'mind', one big programme forming complexity just like the computer we call the mind forms these beautiful psychedelic visions.

And science does not say there is no life after death... it just says "we don't know". Perhaps consciousness is a separate dimension, perhaps it's a product of matter, perhaps our essence lives on in some way when no longer confined by our primitive brains, perhaps infinite recurrence occurs and echoes the concept of reincarnation. Who knows? The scientists don't yet.


Yes I'm generally on your side of the spectrum Burnt, but I do think this is a comment you would do well to heed. Fiashly made a similar comment later. I have noticed with our political debates (which in contrast to quantum physics is something I can debate on) that you yourself fall prey to belief without proof, which although you are more scientific about what you choose to believe in, nevertheless you are still deciding to believe in at least some things that the jury should still be out on if you want to be truly scientific. If you want to preach science, you need to ensure that you act accordingly to retain your scientific integrity.


Yes Neitszche was the first to warn that science is the new religion. But still the scientific method makes it a big step up from the old religions... if only all scientist were taught philosophy too during their training to get them out of their own continuing beliefs, then I think our knowledge could advance a lot faster.


Exactly. Their beliefs are no more stupid to the one that some guy was crucified and now lives on answering our prayers! Or even that only everything science has already discovered is all there is to existence. People are stupid animals, we all are, anything short of a complete understanding of the universe is still at least partial ignorance. I really hope our species survives to understand it all, that would astounding to have all that knowledge.

Correct, there's been a lot on linguistics in philosophy in the last century. Language constrains our understanding, contains significant biases, and meanings are constantly changing.

Actually, evolutionary psychology says that honesty and compassion are generally (GENERALLY) more beneficial to survival for humans, us being pack animals and all. What benefits the group generally benefits the individual. Soldiers have to trust their comrades for the unit to succeed, for example. Of course there are times when lying etc is necessary for survival, probably why we have the capability. Sometimes lying is morally justified, especially when dealing with unreasonable people, like if you're in a situation surrounded by neanderthals where you might get beaten up for expressing the wrong opinion etc. Or white lies to save feelings. But serious deceipt will only benefit someone in the long term if they are VERY clever and also lucky enough to not get found out, so it's not really a gamble worth taking. Introducing Evolutionary Psychology by Icon/Totem Books is a fun primer.

Actually I feel like you've skirted over Fiashy's claims about the observer's role actually determining the outcome. Just stating that he's 'wrong' doesn't prove it to me or anyone else that he's wrong, especially with such a mystifying subject. How do we know you're right to just declare him simply wrong, you both sound well informed? Which bits exactly are false, and can you prove them to be false to us with quotes etc pleeease? Battle of the quantum titans, Burnt vs Fiashly, who's right?! I can't tell... but Fiashly is currently sounding more convincing to me when talking about quantum... continue to battle please!

This seems oversimplistic, there are all manner of other possibilities here. For example... consciousness as a property of matter, or consciousness as a force with influence over matter, etc (the first things to pop into my head).


Well there kind of is- psychology and philosophy cover these areas. They've been separated from what we now term 'science' because they currently require different methods, but the spirit of scientific scepticism SHOULD still be followed within these disciplines too, and is to varying degrees... sometimes in philosophy the scepticism even exceeds that of a scientist, while sometimes with people like Freud things become pseudoscientific unfortunately. These disciplines could do with a clean-up, but still they're academically ahead of conventional religion and the collage of superstition that we term 'new-age'.

Yeah Burnt answer the question please!


I'll try to answer this. But in doing so I'll show how the question is not detailed enough to be able to give a black and white answer. Ethics always depends on the situation.
-If no-one catches you, which has been stated as the outcome already, then if you go on to benefit from your cheating in the long term then to cheat could have been the right decision. You successfully cheated, and that shows a level of skill above your competition, albeit skill in a different area!
-If you cheated and got caught then it was the wrong decision! You are now in shit.
-If you cheated, didn't get caught, but were unhappy or useless in the job the test got you, then it was the wrong choice too.
-If your cheating meant that the next Einstein didn't get on the course, and failed to go on to make an amazing discovery that benefited you much more than your personal benefit from cheating (like curing cancer?), then you made the wrong decision. Unlikely, but possible!
As you can see, dishonesty is a gamble that rarely pays off, but can pay off. Generally, it probably just isn't worth cheating in the test if you look at it like this, weighing the probabilities and weighting outcomes in terms of risks and rewards. The more serious the dishonesty, the larger the odds are generally stacked against you. For example, a rapist risks years of prison and a lifetime of social exclusion just for 5 minutes of selfish pleasure. Therefore rape is a very bad decision, without even getting into the ethics of the act (ethics being the rules we need to stick to for a society to function at all- people generally stick to the rules because most of the rules provide us with stability).

Whereas religion tells us stuff like don't have sex with men! Is it bad for gay men to bum each other? No, it makes them happy! So 'scientific ethics' as a science would say that gay sex is ok, as long as you use a condom to protect yourself from disease, and the odds are against a lynchmob murdering you for your activities! Seems to me that while 'scientific ethics' as I'm dubbing it exposes some uncomfortable truths about our nature, it actually ends up advising us better than any religion.

Only stupid people get brainwashed into fulfilling such ends in the imposed 'social contract'! Know when to refuse society's orders, because you never got a say in signing this imaginary contract anyway- live by your own contract, or 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. The pacifists will stay at home and survive when everyone else marches off to wage war and die for their wealthy masters.

Hmmm... this scientific way of looking at ethics seems like a better informed version of how many people already make decisions in life- through reason.

Why would the nature of the machinery rob consciousness of meaning? It makes no difference to me whether it works by chemistry or 'magic'... what was once considered magic (potions) is now considered chemistry anyway. Science is meant to lift the veil to sort the truth from the superstition.

No, the rights and wrongs become personal and situation-specific. Every situation has a right and wrong choice scientifically, but some of the variables are dependent on the person making the choice. And the right choice is not the one that a person THINKS is right, that's just their guess at what really was the right choice... hence why generalised concrete laws are necessary for whenever an individual isn't able to easily compute the right choice themselves. They're the default, to be broken only in exceptional circumstances.

(P.s. I do actually believe in one 'right' specific ethical framework, despite all this talk that approaches cultural relativism, it being the 'do as you will when it harms no other' that I'm always banging on about, but I only believe in it because I think it balances fairness and personal freedom best, and is therefore best for both society and the individual in general.)

Killing yourself just for 5 minutes of fun means you miss out on a lifetime of other fun things... obviously.

Of course it's measurable- we can all do it in most situations! I'd guess that there is some indicator of consciousness that could be discovered one day, some kind of analysis of the type of brain activity/ exactly what programmes are running in there etc.

No it's regret, or guilt, and we know it is learnt from the wealth of studies of neglected children etc. After reading Nietsche I slowly deprogrammed myself and no longer feel much of either. Of course I still get bummed out if I make a wrong choice and suffer because of it! But I wouldn't wallow or worry. And I don't do anything wrong enough to truly weigh on my 'conscience', which helps. However, I would kill someone who had already set out to try to kill me though (even then feast on their carcass if I had to to survive!) and I'd feel no regret for doing so, because I believe that in that situation I was justified and I don't believe that a guy with the beard in the sky would be angered by my actions.

Nietsche was not a nihilist, that's a cliched misconception! And he'd probably think you're a fool too so you're quits

[qoute=Burnt]Is everything within the realm of science?[/quote]
Yes, it just depends on your definition of science.


If you mean consciousness as we know it, as in personality, then yes probably, based on what we know now about the effects of brain damage and drugs etc affecting the brain and hence personality. But we can't say for sure that all consciousness is a result of brain activity. And what if the brain was just a conduit rather than the creator of consciousness, such that when it was damaged or the chemistry altered we were unable to tap into consciousness so well... or something! The jury is still out on the nature of consciousness.

Please give us this evidence, don't just tell us you have it! Honestly, I'd like to hear about it, because if it's true then it's groundbreaking.

Burnt- haha you can sound like a bit of a nihilist reductionist sometimes though, smoke a little bit more DMT or eat a little bit more mescalito!

Thanks all for the brain food, and sorry for the huge post My final thought, agreeing with DMTripper: when you are awake, you may think reality is real, and when you are dreaming and tripping you may think the same. It doesn't matter if it's real or not, it matters that it's FUN!

Oh also kids, don't eat gold. It might not be good for you!

It's a heavy metal after all and I hear too much of them is bad (at least, definitely some of them, like lead, but people do seem to be pointing fingers at 'heavy metals' often). I also heard that the gold flakes in Goldschlager cut up your insides, but that could be an urban myth. Do lots of research before eating anything that does not have a long history of being eaten, and even then only eat it if it is necessary! I don't personally see the potential benefits of eating gold as outweighing the potential negatives whatsoever.