40 Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret Is Almost Out

[lisagurl]

I wasn't aware that it required a label.
'Paranormal' will do.

Define "Spiritual Feelings", as I have not idea what you are talking about

The mind is a wonderful creator. Have you ever felt deja vu? It is something you know is not the physical reality but a mind reality.
Such is spiritual feelings although they are rare in some people. The ability for the mind to dream and also be conscious of the physical world at the same time.

Also some studies show that a part of the brain on the right in the back gives you your sense of self. When you reduce the blood flow to that area according to an fMRI scan you get the feeling of oneness with the universe like an out of body experience.

[Vexing]

There is no evidence that 'deja vu' is a spiritual experience.
It has been suggested that it is your non-dominant eye seeing the same thing before your dominant eye, creating the mental illusion that you have been in that situation before.
Dreaming is not spiritual; it is the subconscious processing of events and problems from the recent past.

It's all chemicals and electrical impulses.
Nothing 'spiritual' about it

[NicholeW.]

There is no evidence that 'deja vu' is a spiritual experience.
It has been suggested that it is your non-dominant eye seeing the same thing before your dominant eye, creating the mental illusion that you have been in that situation before.
Dreaming is not spiritual; it is the subconscious processing of events and problems from the recent past.

It's all chemicals and electrical impulses.
Nothing 'spiritual' about it

I think Lisa was agreeing with you, Vexing. And giving a suggestion as to how the process takes place.

Nichole

[Vexing]

I think Lisa was agreeing with you, Vexing. And giving a suggestion as to how the process takes place.

Nichole

Thanks for being patronising

[NicholeW.]

Thanks for being patronising

Hmm, you take offense rather easily for someone who seems to dish it pretty well. 

Nichole

[Vexing]

Examples, thanks.

[lisagurl]

Examples, thanks.

Some things are difficult to explain. Feelings are only particular to an individual. Art for example is experienced differently by each person. Being in a church with all the tradition and music is suppose to encourage some of that spiritual feeling. As people get experienced at it like biofeedback they learn to create that more easily in their mind.

I agree with you that there is no evidence that a Deity is creating that feeling. The quantum mechanics of the brain is far from being understood and could be affected by something unknown , say another dimension. All this is far fetched and is only speculation not fact.

However the world around us effects how we perceive and adjust to it. The individual feelings are communicated the best that people can. Groups are formed on a basis of agreeing to the proprieties of those feelings and to the beliefs accounting for those feelings.

[Vexing]

Some things are difficult to explain. Feelings are only particular to an individual. Art for example is experienced differently by each person. Being in a church with all the tradition and music is suppose to encourage some of that spiritual feeling. As people get experienced at it like biofeedback they learn to create that more easily in their mind.

The tradition and music assist in self delusion. I've felt that as a child, then kicked myself for doing it afterward - trying so desperately hard to believe that something is real that you actually manage to convince yourself for a while.
Humans are very practised at self deception.

I agree with you that there is no evidence that a Deity is creating that feeling. The quantum mechanics of the brain is far from being understood and could be affected by something unknown , say another dimension. All this is far fetched and is only speculation not fact.

The brain isn't a quantum pehenomenon; it opperates on a biomechanical level - electricity and chemical. "Quantum mechanics of the brain" is at best a misinterpretation. At worst, pseudo-intellectualism.

However the world around us effects how we perceive and adjust to it. The individual feelings are communicated the best that people can. Groups are formed on a basis of agreeing to the proprieties of those feelings and to the beliefs accounting for those feelings.

You mean like the Nazis?

[NicholeW.]

The brain isn't a quantum pehenomenon; it opperates on a biomechanical level - electricity and chemical. "Quantum mechanics of the brain" is at best a misinterpretation. At worst, pseudo-intellectualism.

OK, this is seriously puzzling to me. Quantum mechanics deals with very small quanta and their interactions with one another.

Matter is all composed of those quanta on a very basic level.

Why would there be no possibility that the small quanta and their interactions wouldn't have an effect on large quanta and eventually/or directly on electrical impulses and chemical compounds within bodies?

Nichole

[Vexing]

A tractor is likewise composed of matter.
You might as well claim that tractors opperate on a quantum level.
While the energy states that compose the overall tractor structure functional according to quantum properties, the tractor itself opperates under conventional, understandable, engineering principles.

[NicholeW.]

A tractor is likewise composed of matter.
You might as well claim that tractors opperate on a quantum level.
While the energy states that compose the overall tractor structure functional according to quantum properties, the tractor itself opperates under conventional, understandable, engineering principles.

Really, what are those called? I'd never heard that before!

I think that perhaps the supposition before was simply that "there are more thing under heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The fact that we cannot establish relationships at this time hardly rules out their never being established at any time.

Scepticism is often a positive quality, but understanding what one maybe doesn't know because she hasn't yet the capacity to understand everything doesn't seem like a bad quality either. Especially for a sceptic.

N~

Nichole

[Vexing]

I am entirely skeptical that there is a teapot suspended in space, exactly halfway between the core of our galaxy and the core of the Andromeda galaxy.
I am open to the posibility, but all rational indicators point to "there is no such teapot".
All conventional theory suggests that our brains opperate on a biochemical level, not a quantum one.
While I am open to the possibility of our brains having a 'quantum' component that is important to the overall function (beyond the obvious interactions of base energy states), all rational and logical indicators point to no.

We opperate, day to day, on useful, real information.
We don't plan a trip to a specific supermarket based on the chance whether or not a Hellmouth will open under it and consume us while we are chosing which brand of cereal to eat.

[NicholeW.]

I am entirely skeptical that there is a teapot suspended in space, exactly halfway between the core of our galaxy and the core of the Andromeda galaxy.
I am open to the posibility, but all rational indicators point to "there is no such teapot".
All conventional theory suggests that our brains opperate on a biochemical level, not a quantum one.
While I am open to the possibility of our brains having a 'quantum' component that is important to the overall function (beyond the obvious interactions of base energy states), all rational and logical indicators point to no.

We opperate, day to day, on useful, real information.
We don't plan a trip to a specific supermarket based on the chance whether or not a Hellmouth will open under it and consume us while we are chosing which brand of cereal to eat.

And there ya go. We all do operate that way, but operating in the "real world" and making rather farfetched examples of why you are sceptical still doesn't change the possibility that her choice of using quantum physics as perhaps effecting the electrical currents/chemical structures in one's brain/body is not a possibility, regardless of how sceptical any of us may be.

Sophistry is hardly a replacement for understanding that the "full & complete knowledge" of generations past has again and again been found to be less than complete.

N~

[Vexing]

Let's stop equivocating:
She is claiming that the brain opperates on a quantum level.
Without any evidence to support her theory.

"But it might!" I hear you cry?
"But it might not," I counter "And all conventional, believable, current, peer reviewed theory states otherwise."

Let me propose a theory:
The brain operates acording to secret codes hidden in combinations of angelic script which are revealed when it is written out as a recipe for ginder snaps.
Y/N?

[NicholeW.]

Let me propose a theory:
The brain operates acording to secret codes hidden in combinations of angelic script which are revealed when it is written out as a recipe for ginder snaps.
Y/N?

As answer I'll refer you back to my last comment on sophistry. A matter you seem well-versed in. It may be funny, but it is never more than comic.

All I said was that we don't always know it all no matter how many "modern" eras have aspired to knowing all truth. And claimed to have known that in their times.

You wish to be a sceptic? Then act like one, be sceptical most of all of your own povs.

Someone might argue that someone desiring to use her "schlong" and keep it is not TS at all. In fact, the point has been made rather frequently and by more than just a few angry people. Yet, how does one know any more than we know that your decision doesn't preclude you from being TS? Are the parameters of that condition somehow set in stone as fact or are they speculative and just beliefs by some people? I'll opt for beliefs and speculations.

That you may not believe something to be true, that I may not hardly makes that something untrue. It may simply be beyond our capacities to know. Lisa is a rather sceptical person. I've known her for years; and I don't find her much given to pipe-dreams.

She doesn't always write in ways that most might read as what is written is definitely there in her intention though. She may well agree with you about the "quantum mechanics of the mind" and have been making her own attempt at humor. Hard to say.

But if you leave nothing at all open to the fact that you would have no way of knowing in the short time you've been around her that she does such things .... Well, let's just say that you'd lack understanding in that area, no?

I appreciate your confidence, or at least what appears confident. Actually fairly nice to see among those who are often very unconfident. But dismissing all things you don't agree with as being absurd isn't confidence, but dogma. Not much different in kind from the dogma that might actually give some credence to your notion of angelic scripts and the secret being revealed through ginger snaps.

Nichole

[Vexing]

As answer I'll refer you back to my last comment on sophistry. A matter you seem well-versed in. It may be funny, but it is never more than comic.

And...?
I'm not sure what your point is.

All I said was that we don't always know it all no matter how many "modern" eras have aspired to knowing all truth. And claimed to have known that in their times.
You wish to be a sceptic? Then act like one, be sceptical most of all of your own povs.

We are not questioning my views; I'm pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that the brain functions on a quantum level.
I'm skeptical of the unlikely. My skepticism is low for things which are likely (like the brain being an organ that runs on biochemical processes).

Someone might argue that someone desiring to use her "schlong" and keep it is not TS at all. In fact, the point has been made rather frequently and by more than just a few angry people. Yet, how does one know any more than we know that your decision doesn't preclude you from being TS? Are the parameters of that condition somehow set in stone as fact or are they speculative and just beliefs by some people? I'll opt for beliefs and speculations.

Sorry, was that supposed to be about me?
If so, it's woefully inaccurate.
FAIL.

That you may not believe something to be true, that I may not hardly makes that something untrue. It may simply be beyond our capacities to know. Lisa is a rather sceptical person. I've known her for years; and I don't find her much given to pipe-dreams.

My belief is based on evidence.
A quantum-brain is fantasy, supported by ZERO evidence.

She doesn't always write in ways that what most might read as being there always is there though. She may well agree with you about the "quantum mechanics of the mind" and have been making her own attempt at humor. Hard to say.
But if you leave nothing at all open to the fact that you would have no way of knowing in the short time you've been around her that she does such things .... Well, let's just say that you'd lack understanding in that area, no?

Oh, I see. I'm incapable of going through her posts and reviewing her online mannerisms.

appreciate your confidence, or at least what appears confident. Actually fairly nice to see among those who are often very unconfident. But dismissing all things you don't agree with as being absurd isn't confidence, but dogma. Not much different in kind from the dogma that might actually give some credence to your notion of angelic scripts and the secret being revealed through ginger snaps.

Dogma is blind belief without evidence.
My perception of reality is based purely on evidence.
Again, fail.

[lisagurl]

My perception of reality is based purely on evidence.

You perception is based on your senses and your experience with those senses. Look at a plate from an angle. You see an oval disk. A plate is round but the evidence tells you it is oval. Look at the wall it is different shades of a similar color. But the wall is painted one color your senses are tricking you or your brain is living outside your head in the environment from a certain vantage point.

Humans can only perceive from moment to moment and focus on a small piece of the evidence. Memories are faulty and change each time we think of them.

[Vexing]

You perception is based on your senses and your experience with those senses. Look at a plate from an angle. You see an oval disk. A plate is round but the evidence tells you it is oval.

We have more than one sense.
Also, measurement and mathematics determine the size and shape of the object.
A masspectrometer can tell what it is made of.

Look at the wall it is different shades of a similar color. But the wall is painted one color your senses are tricking you or your brain is living outside your head in the environment from a certain vantage point.

Testing with light and chemical analyses will prove that the wall is painted with a single pigment.
I don't rely on singular points of evidence, but multiple points.

Humans can only perceive from moment to moment and focus on a small piece of the evidence. Memories are faulty and change each time we think of them.

That is why peer review and information sharing is an imortant part of the scientific process.

[NicholeW.]

Well now, that last little screed certainly was enlightening and more than a little funny. 

Your sensory perceptions, conditionings and emotional mental inclinations amount to "truth" and "fail" occurs because you reject something? 

Yep. that certainly qualifies as sceptical alright.

I think I can rely on the fact that your "scepticism" is mostly composed of having no acceptance for anything that fails to suit your notion of "what is" while rejecting out-of-hand other possibility.

That's pretty common actually. Read the Church Fathers and a myriad other folk who've lived through the ages.

And, ftr, the non-op possibility wasn't directed toward you personally, sorry I used the general "you" and you took it personally. 

Spoz you fit in pretty well.

Have a good evening.

P.S --

Oh, I see. I'm incapable of going through her posts and reviewing her online mannerisms.

Certainly not "incapable" although I don't get the sense you're much inclined to go through much of anyone's previous posts anywhere, putting together a more complete view of their posting behaviors.

[Vexing]

Well now, that last little screed certainly was enlightening and more than a little funny. 

Your sensory perceptions, conditionings and emotional mental inclinations amount to "truth" and "fail" occurs because you reject something? 

No, evidence amounts to truth.
I don't believe in things which lack credible evidence; for example, Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Yep. that certainly qualifies as sceptical alright.

Strawman.
You presumed a set of behaviours which I do not possess.

I think I can rely on the fact that your "scepticism" is mostly composed of having no acceptance for anything that fails to suit your notion of "what is" while rejecting out-of-hand other possibility.

Speculation.

That's pretty common actually. Read the Church Fathers and a myriad other folk who've lived through the ages.

If I set 'The Chruch Fathers' (a book I presume?) I'll be sure to pick it up and have a look.

And, ftr, the non-op possibility wasn't directed toward you personally, sorry I used the general "you" and you took it personally. 

I did?
Looking at the post, it seems more like I querried whether or not it was about me. There was no insistence that it was about me.
However, you did quote my use of the word "Schlong", which is what seeded the possibility - I can't see why you would quote me otherwise