File 167923877016.jpg - (151.29KB , 850x1290 , __hitoshura_and_pixie_shin_megami_tensei_and_1_mor.jpg )

>>15254
>>15256
No

File 16795604984.png - (57.96KB , 1138x521 , 167955989747.png )

>>15197
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144613/
>One of the investigators (PNJ) drew an image in the presence of other investigators [HRN, BNG, and GVS]. Figures ​Figures 1A and ​and 2A were the images drawn by PNJ for the “mentalist” and the control subject while both were seated in separate rooms.
>Both the subjects were right-handed and possessed Master's Degrees.

There is a massive amount of strict ESP research that yield the same kind of results. Out of all possible ways you can draw a picture, without knowing anything about it, there is an amazing similarity.

>>15262
That's based off of a map of the sectors of the brain.

They both would have seen that image regularly in school

I did not read the article at all and can tell you they coaxed this drawing out of them, and it is hilariously entirely dissimilar yet

>>15263
I don't think you understand how rigid the controls are in ESP research. You need independent observers that make sure you can't influence the subjects. Also, the patterns are really similar: the rectangular frame and the pattern is similar and the only thing that's missing is the circle and that's 2/3. Your objections are cute but they're born out of cope.

>>15149
Matter is physical, consciousness is what operates unseen behind matter so no one can physically measure it's effect on matter. Even chemical reactions are just physical manifestation of the conscious operations behind the chemicals.
My work works in similar manner, I can program skills like football, singing, dancing and skills like them into humans using a computer. I am currently testing an eternal life product, by the time I see results most of you may be old. Since it's expensive your payment for me giving you eternal life on Earth is to serve me for the rest of your life.
Money can not buy such stuff, I will then give you any skill you want to earn a living eternally. But to be eligible for my work, you must not take the covid vaccine and obey the ten commandments of God plus the other two that Christ gave.

File 167985430560.jpg - (804.73KB , 1026x725 , Fresh green.jpg )

>>15262
I think those kinds of results are fascinating. Even a materialist physicist like Gerald Feinberg would classify that as a form of precognition. He hypothesized that there are waves that travel into the future and reverberate backwards in time.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000100130003-6
>PRECOGNITION - A MEMORY OF THINGS FUTURE?
>G. Feinberg
>Department of Physics
>Columbia University
>For example, suppose someone were going to observe an earthquake at noon, and become aware of it precognitively at 11:45. He could write out the sentence "There will be an earthquake at noon", and show it to other people. The recording of this sentence would then itself become a new stimulus, which could be recognized precognitively sometime before it was real, or ideally, more than the 15 minutes warning gained by the imagined precognition. This process could be repeated indefinitely, and so the warning time increased indefinitely.

>>15269
Speaking of precognition.

I've once played css on the comedown of a pretty strong (like 1 mg) acid trip and I never played this well before unless just really lucky but in that particular case it was like I knew where someone's head would be before it was there and it would all happen so fast, but I legit had like half a second of precognition in that fractally de_dust2 and I admit I played with average players (a decade ago average was actually pretty fucking skilled), but I surprised myself by how insanely "lucky" I was.

Just a fun story of precognition. Bye

Presuming these findings were true, wouldn't have major implications. A new field of study would probably be established, eventually allowing us to partially control reality?

File 168036558211.jpg - (66.42KB , 685x1000 , Key.jpg )

>>15270
There is actually some ESP research done by a man called Andrija Puharich that involve substance altered consciousness. He gave a test subject a dose of Amanita muscaria (Fly Agaric mushroom) and let him do a MAT test.

Quoted from pic related:
>He mumbled that he felt very, very drunk. Then he looked straight ahead and said that he felt he could see through the wall of the laboratory. He said that everything seemed so clear on the other side of the wall. I asked him what he saw, and he gave me an accurate description. But I also knew that he had prior knowledge of the other side of the wall and this could well be imagination. Therefore I delayed giving him the atropine in order to do one quick test of his seeming clairvoyance. I hastily blindfolded him, urging his co-operation, and placed him before the covered MAT test. I begged him to try to do one test. Aldous and I watched him closely. His hands fumbled over the picture blocks for about a minute. He just couldn't seem to make his hands follow his will power.
>I spoke sharply and commanded him to begin the test. He pulled himself together and completed the entire series of matching ten sets of pictures in about three seconds. He literally threw the two sets of picture blocks together. I took the cover away from the blocks, and was amazed to find that he had scored ten correct matches. The statistical odds against getting this score by chance alone were such that he would have had to do this test a million times before such a result would occur once. This was the most remarkable demonstration with the MAT test that he had done up to this date.

>>15274
Muscarine seems to be a mysterious substance.

>>15283
I once did acid so much that I'd become my voice whenever I spoke. Just like REMEMBERING..

>>15170
Good point. The same thing can be said about the mind. How do you know the mind is material when it can't be measured? What is the weight of a thought?
Another thing is that if you suggest a simple idea to several people (green cat on a blue table) how do you assemble those forms and colours from neurons and electric impulses? What quantities of components in the brain do you need to construct the exact same image in every single person without deviation? If you can't standardize the mind it is quite clear it isn't dependent on the brain itself.

>>15305
We simply don't have access to the brain on that level yet. It's yet to be confirmed whether thoughts are irreducible but from what i've seen the answer is no, they are reducible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cell
Pretty much every area of neurology has interesting things documented that call into question what's going on in your mind

File 168861883813.jpg - (65.90KB , 480x608 , 103.jpg )

>>15312
>they are reducible

In your mind they are reducible but in reality they aren't.

>>15315
If you don't know who Karl Lashley is the whole story is like this: Karl Lashley systematically tried and failed to find how memories are stored by ablating cortical tissue at varying locations in rats after maze-learning, and concluded that “This can only mean that the retention of the habit is conditioned by the total amount of functional tissue in the cortex and not, primarily, by the inherent properties of the synapses themselves” He destroyed tissue in different parts of the brain and realized that no matter where he destroyed the tissue the function remained the same. He couldn't find the actual memory itself and where it is stored.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19286560/
>Memories are thought to be encoded by sparsely distributed groups of neurons. However, identifying the precise neurons supporting a given memory (the memory trace) has been a long-standing challenge. We have shown previously that lateral amygdala (LA) neurons with increased cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element-binding protein (CREB) are preferentially activated by fear memory expression, which suggests that they are selectively recruited into the memory trace. We used an inducible diphtheria-toxin strategy to specifically ablate these neurons. Selectively deleting neurons overexpressing CREB (but not a similar portion of random LA neurons) after learning blocked expression of that fear memory. The resulting memory loss was robust and persistent, which suggests that the memory was permanently erased. These results establish a causal link between a specific neuronal subpopulation and memory expression, thereby identifying critical neurons within the memory trace.

>suggests

The funny part about this study is that they claim to have erased a memory by altering chemicals in the brain when in reality they removed a fear response. Fear is not the same as memory. You can't think to yourself that "now I will become afraid!" and as a result you experience fear. Fear is attached to danger. Fear of death when you see a bomb, a starving white shark, a poisonous snake or a man with a gun in his hand is not the same as the memory itself. If you remove fear from a memory you remove a feeling and not the experience. The shark is still there, the snake is still there, the bomb is still there and the man with the gun is still there but you lack fear. They don't even explain what a memory consists of and how you construct a specific memory from scratch.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22441246/
>A specific memory is thought to be encoded by a sparse population of neurons. These neurons can be tagged during learning for subsequent identification and manipulation. Moreover, their ablation or inactivation results in reduced memory expression, suggesting their necessity in mnemonic processes. However, the question of sufficiency remains: it is unclear whether it is possible to elicit the behavioural output of a specific memory by directly activating a population of neurons that was active during learning. Here we show in mice that optogenetic reactivation of hippocampal neurons activated during fear conditioning is sufficient to induce freezing behaviour. We labelled a population of hippocampal dentate gyrus neurons activated during fear learning with channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) and later optically reactivated these neurons in a different context. The mice showed increased freezing only upon light stimulation, indicating light-induced fear memory recall. This freezing was not detected in non-fear-conditioned mice expressing ChR2 in a similar proportion of cells, nor in fear-conditioned mice with cells labelled by enhanced yellow fluorescent protein instead of ChR2. Finally, activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned in a different context, suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific. Together, our findings indicate that activating a sparse but specific ensemble of hippocampal neurons that contribute to a memory engram is sufficient for the recall of that memory. Moreover, our experimental approach offers a general method of mapping cellular populations bearing memory engrams.

>activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned
>suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific

Same thing with this study. They see mice freeze due to a fear response but they never explain what the memory itself is made of. They can measure activity within the brain and see that mice react to stimulus but they have been conditioned to react to light in a fearful manner so this doesn't prove that memories are stored in a specific part of the brain and that you can somehow affect the actual memory since they haven't explained what a memory actually is. There is only physical action and reaction and nothing more.

>>15325
Interesting.

File 169376195211.jpg - (71.43KB , 600x600 , Who be when.jpg )

>>15333
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-in-the-octopus/
>Learning in the Octopus
>The animal cooperates readily in laboratory experiments. Tests of its capacities before and after brain surgery lend support to the idea that there are two kinds of memory: long-term and short-term

Another man called Brian B. Boycott did similar research like Lashley except in octopuses. He removed tissue inside the octopus vertical lobe and found that the memory, quite paradoxically, is stored both everywhere and nowhere.

>>15337
I think this ties in with previous posts in this thread. Clearly thoughts and memories aren't tangible in a physical sense since you can't trace them to a source.

File 170083830346.jpg - (279.57KB , 1457x2000 , crystals.jpg )

Quoted from "Crystals and Crystal Growing" (pic related):
>About ten years ago a company was operating a factory which grew large single crystals of ethylenediamine tartrate from solution in water. From this plant it shipped the crystals many miles to another which cut and polished them for industrial use. A year after the factory opened, the crystals in the growing tanks began to grow badly; crystals of something else adhered to them as shown in Plate 11, something which grew even more rapidly. The affliction soon spread to the other factory: the cut and polished crystals acquired the malady on their surfaces.
>Enough of the unwanted material was collected to make a supersaturated solution of it. Since crystals of both materials, the unwanted and the wanted, would grow in that solution, the unwanted substance must contain the desired substance. And since crystals of both would grow in a pure solution made from the desired crystals, the unwanted crystals could not be the result of an impurity which had crept into the solution during the manufacturing process.The wanted material was anhydrous ethylenediamine tartrate, and the unwanted material turned out to be the monohydrate of that substance. During three years of research and development, and another year of manufacture, no seed of the monohydrate had formed. After that they seemed to be everywhere.

One thing chemists and physicists never have explained adequately is how a certain substance just randomly form in the exact same way without any contact with the original contaminated solution. It is especially weird because the desire substance is totally free from water while the defective substance contains water.

File 17034475296.jpg - (386.16KB , 1052x514 , piezolectric crystal.jpg )

>>15355
I did some reading and apparently in multiple factories no where near the American one the EDT crystals were being turned into hydrates for no reason whatsoever and it was then impossible to make a pure EDT crystal, despite EDT research never making a hydrate until that point.
What this means in terms of physics is that any substance, independent of point of origin, can appear anywhere on Earth and without contact with the primary source.

Really interesting and quite surreal because this just shows us that physical causality isn't necessary for something to happen.

>>15347
This is an interesting and possibly very valid concept

>>15269
Backward causation is trippy.

File 17099367852.png - (752.19KB , 609x789 , phallic.png )

>>15375
Retrocausality means that you ignore the multiplicity of possibilites inherent in perceived randomness.

File 17126609334.gif - (120.36KB , 580x580 , Pathways.gif )

>>15381
It also implies that there are pathways you follow your entire life.

File 171526189084.jpg - (44.04KB , 771x592 , gigantic.jpg )

>>15385
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4124164/
>Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains
>A chain of 149 amino acid residues with two rotatable bonds per residue, each bond probably having two or three permissible or favored orientations, would be able to assume on the order of 4^149 to 9^149 different conformations in solution.
>The extreme rapidity of the refolding makes it essential that the process take place along a limited number of "pathways"

I've never understood what "random" actually means. As far as I know it's just a mathematical construct used to conceptualize a vast number of possibilities that never happen. Simply by looking at protein folding one can see that there is nothing random about it and it happens so fast that there is no room for deviations. In fact there is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences and yet it's highly controlled and rigid.
Randomness as an idea is something you can refer to when something is not happening in accordance with your expectations.

>>15399
It's funny how scientists say that protein folding is an "emergent property", which basically means you can't explain it when you look at the individual parts. They're afraid to admit they have no idea how it works or why it works the way it does.

>>15425
Same thing can be said about consciousness. Materialists say it is a byproduct of the brain's chemical and electrical activity but no one can pinpoint where it resides in the brain and I have never seen any adequate explanation from chemists or electrical engineers on how to infuse chemicals and electricity with awareness.

File 172268980298.jpg - (107.85KB , 772x551 , Look at them.jpg )

>>15510
The brain is only a vessel with various components that are controlled by will. The strange thing is that this will cannot be quantified.

>>15572
because it isnt there.
i strongly disagree with your baseless assertion.
theres no free will, some components of our minds ensure we are constantly doing, saying, thinking, and feeling in ways other parts of our psyche would rather we not.
we often claim that we desire free will to hold ourselves to account, but in practice i see us using free will to justify making judgements of others for their actions, while we make excuses for our own.
free will is unnessacary and is in fact a harmful belief within our society, we can make much better models on the basis of pragmatics and pursuit of preferable outcomes, but the myth of free will keeps a status quo in place that none of us thinks is satisfactory.

File 172526315752.jpg - (344.17KB , 1000x1000 , Firm titties.jpg )

>>15399
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01620-3
>The long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has become a cornerstone in evolutionary biology that researchers continue to mine for insights. During their 75,000 generations of growth, the bacteria have made huge gains in their fitness — how fast they grow relative to other bacteria — and evolved some surprising traits.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15
>The LTEE isolation of Cit+ mutants has become a textbook example of the power of long-term evolution to generate new species. But, based on our results, E. coli arrives at the same solution to access citrate in days versus years, as originally shown by Hall. In either case, genes involved in the process maintain their same function but show expanded expression by deregulation. Because of this, we argue that this is not speciation any more than is the case with any other regulatory mutant of E. coli. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.

Materialists think that biology somehow determines how you act and behave but in reality there is no evidence for this other than assumptions.

File 172546687530.jpg - (460.48KB , 1012x1232 , □.jpg )

>>15624
I don't think anyone can explain why bacteria would develop consciousness or how it produces awareness step by step.

>>15622
>free will is unnessacary and is in fact a harmful belief within our society, we can make much better models on the basis of pragmatics and pursuit of preferable outcomes, but the myth of free will keeps a status quo in place that none of us thinks is satisfactory.


Free will isnt really free. You do have control over your faculties but its not absolute. I do agree free will is philosophically abuses for scientific racism/race realism

File 173062864923.png - (717.55KB , 1536x1544 , longest and thickest.png )

>>15572
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.41.2295
>The quantum Zero effect is the inhibition of transitions between quantum states by frequent measurements of the state.

The very act of observing atoms is enough to prevent them from fluctuating in a probabilistic manner and maintain a definite state of being. What is interesting about this is that the mind has supremacy over something physical but clearly you cannot measure the mind itself. What components in the brain is it that controls the state of atoms? I have not seen any explanation from physicists anywhere in any research paper.

>>15631
Because there is no scientific answer to that question.

>>15742
this is dumb and shows you don't have a grasp of what "observation" really is.
it's not just "looking" at an atom with the naked eye and it magically changes.
it's measuring it, which requires an interaction with it.
there's something called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", which is that you can't simultaneously know *certain* physical properties of an atom with precision at the same time.
the issue is measuring one of those measurements requires an interaction with another of the measurements.
for example, if i wanted to know the precise height of a kid that's running across the road, i can't also measure their velocity at the same time.
the kid's ankles will be at an angle that isn't flat, they'll likely be leaning in a way that isn't completely upright, and they may be slouching a bit as well.
while i could measure their velocity, i would need to stop the velocity (therefore preventing knowing it) in order to know their height.
likewise, measuring an atom requires altering its state, energizing or removing energy from it or some other manner of alteration, which in the sense of something on the scale of atoms changes it at unimaginable magnitudes compared to a kid.

>>15827
evolution exists. it's complicated, but not that complicated.

>>15830
Did you even read the abstract in the link? It says they used a Penning trap.

>>15831
Wow, nice. Simply asserting something is true must mean it is true.

>>15832
yes, in other words, observing it still causes the collapse.
they examine the collapse often enough to make it *more* predictable.
it's still not precise.
it does not "prevent" the atom from changing, and as a matter of fact, it deliberately causes its state to collapse.
does it help predictability? sure.
does it overcome the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? no, it literally uses it.

and no, science and observation proves evolution is true.
the mechanics behind it might be a bit cloudy, but that changes nothing.
their "step by step" assertion is so vague that the goalposts may as well be a hyper, adolescent deer on a frozen lake.

>>15833
You obviously didn't read the abstract and definitely not the entire paper.

The more measurements they made with their laser beam, the greater the number of atoms that remained unaltered. The very act of observing the atoms stopped them from changing state, regardless of the effect of the radio pulses. It's not a matter of the laser beam preventing the experiment from progressing or directly interfering with the changes in atomic state. Observing a particle causes it to attain a definite point in space and time.

>>15834
>the very act of observing
god, this is the most simplistic and retarded thing...

yes, the quantum zeno effect is a real thing.
it’s basically when you measure an atom so often that you "freeze" it in its current state.
but “measuring” in quantum mechanics is never just about staring at something really hard, you have to *physically interact* with the atom, like shooting it with a laser or using a detector.

think of it like a photographer who keeps taking rapid-fire photos.
if your subject was an atom, the subject you're photographing would "reset" them to the same position every single time, because they're getting zapped by a laser (actually hit with photons from laser beams).
that's what's happening to the atom.
it’s not your mind that’s holding it in place, it's the constant measurements.

so when that paper talks about "inhibiting the transition of atoms," they mean that frequent measurements attempt to "lock" the atom in a certain state.
they're not saying your thoughts magically control the atom.
they're saying that shining the laser (or whatever detection method) on it over and over keeps it from moving to another state as often as it would without all those measurements.

the heisenberg uncertainty principle still applies here.
by measuring one thing (like the atom's position) constantly, you lose track of something else (like its momentum).
you don't get a definite measurement, because you're just focusing on one aspect so much that it locks the system into that aspect.

bottom line:
"observation" in quantum physics = physical interaction with the system.
you're not just “seeing” it and commanding it with your mind.
you're poking it with lasers or detectors, and that's what keeps it from changing states as quickly.

there's nothing mystical about it. hitting atoms with photons from the laser (aka the light itself) is like a car hitting a utility pole.
once the collision happens, you can no longer observe the car's momentum.
it's stopped or altered—but you can measure its size, shape, or other details in that moment.
the catch is, unlike a car, an atom doesn't stay still.
it almost immediately starts moving again, so if you want more information, you have to keep slamming it into poles (or in the case of atoms, bombarding it with photons). each time, you get a snapshot of the state, but again, each time a photon hits it, it cranks it back up and moves again.

File 173532676450.jpg - (56.66KB , 500x500 , autism overdose.jpg )

>>15836
Let me break it down for you since you are only able to write wall of texts like an autist:

>heat beryllium with radio waves
>measure isotopes that form
>radio waves convert one isotope to another
>laser beam display the results (atoms in their original state would emit light but altered ones will not)

Observing the particles made them become fixed in space and time.

File 173533345710.jpg - (54.75KB , 750x738 , FuWSOCWaQAArlgd.jpg )

>>15837
aaaand you're still wrong.

your conclusion about particles being "fixed in space and time" is a very elementary and wrong interpretation.
the laser beam doesn't magically lock particles in place.
it interacts with them, causing unaltered atoms to emit light.
this isn't about freezing their position, but about how their quantum state determines whether or not they emit photons under those conditions.
the laser isn't just passively observing and displaying results, it's an active part of the process, influencing the system through interaction.

in quantum mechanics, observation always involves interaction.
measuring a particle *collapses* its wave function into one of its possible states, but it doesn't fix it in time or space.
it (with an obscene lack of a better word, because it happens in damn near planck time) *momentarily* locks the system into a measurable state, influenced by how the measurement itself disturbs the particle.

it's less about "freezing" and more about taking a snapshot, while also nudging the system in the process, which is completely unavoidable at this scale, because a laser beam of light to an atom is a fucking hale storm of photons.

>>15839
>it interacts with them, causing unaltered atoms to emit light.

It says in the paper (that you haven't read) that the laser doesn't affect them. That's why they use radio waves to alter the isotopes and not the laser. The laser only makes them emit light because you can only see something if it emits light. You have no clue what you are talking about.

>>15840
cite the part of the paper you're yapping about instead of "heh i guess you didn't read--".

>>15841
Or you could actually try to read the paper instead of pretending that you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to spoon-feed you when the link has already been posted.

File 173536001562.jpg - (107.22KB , 1074x892 , FuWRra4XsAIuPLl.jpg )

>>15843
"i'm not going to prove my argument, you have to do it for me"
you're a retard who can't defend the nonsense they're spouting. got it.

>>15844
You're the one that's arguing against established physicists. You're the one that needs to prove your argument. Read the paper you lazy autist.

>>15846
nigger, your interpretation of the paper is wrong.
the paper doesn’t say anything about "heating beryllium with radio waves" or "measuring isotopes."
it talks about beryllium ions in a Penning trap being manipulated with radio frequency transitions between quantum states.
the laser isn't "displaying results" either.
it's used for cooling the ions and detecting their states.
and no, the particles aren't magically "fixed in space and time" any more than a fucking photograph fixes a person in space and time.
the paper describes how rapid measurements inhibit state transitions, not some sci-fi nonsense about freezing atoms in place.
maybe you should *stop* reading the fucking papers, since you don't understand them and are making yourself look retarded.

>>15847
>doesn’t say anything about "heating beryllium with radio waves"

Yeah it does. They use a 320.7-MHz radio frequency field. Why would they use laser cooling if there was no heat generated in the experiment? You're scientifically illiterate, you dumb autist.

File 173570243927.png - (810.88KB , 2313x837 , isotope.png )

>>15847
>doesn’t say anything about "measuring isotopes."
>it talks about beryllium ions

>he doesn't know that Beryllium-9 is an isotope
>he doesn't know that an ion is any atom that has an electrical charge

Your logic:
>if you electrify a metal rod it isn't a metal rod anymore!