Hacker News Reader

Comment by gadf | Hacker News Reader

Stop pretending. You have NO idea what consciousness is or isn't. You speak these words as if they are truth, "it can no more", but you are not god. You don't decide. You're trying to limit the reality of existence to your own limited and biased experience of it. Fine, OK. Do that if it's too scary for you to look outside that shell, but don't you dare - EVER - try to call people crackpots liars and deluded because they think different and have experienced different to you. See your own bias, and exist within that if that's what you choose. But don't persecute others or impose your priors as if they're truth. You think it's fair game to attack people whose stories you don't believe as liars, crackpots and deluded? Well I'm here to push back on you. Do you get it? I'm here to tell you it's not fair game, focker. Do you get that?

View on HN

This is getting borderline abusive on your part.

I will simply note that I am merely stating what is the current understood scientific consensus, and my personal belief. Obviously everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but I am also free to think they are entirely wrong and explain why.

It's already abusive if you were an innocent here, but as it stands it's the commensurate response to your abuse, and that's the point, you're getting back what you gave, and it's justified because because you're the primary aggressor. You started it but try to disown your responsibility. You're still blind to the that.

If you'd stated your opinion in this respectful way differential to the opinions of others initially then there would have been no issue. It was your arrogance and abusive language that led to your downfall here.

even if you're unable to publicly admit your responsibility here, nor acknowledge your mistake and admit your guilt, hopefully you learn that now for yourself. That would be good.

On this thread, I did state my opinion in a clear and respectful way. I did not accuse the GP of anything at all, and I responded to their definite assertion (that consciousness can travel non-materially at infinite speed) with a definite assertion of my own (that consciousness is a physical process and subject to special relativity as much as other physical processes).

"This thread" is still here with your totally disrespectful "This paper lends absolutely no credence to the various crackpots and deluded people who claim they have met aliens."

And you think this is respectful "Your consciousness is a physical process happening in your body (especially your brain). It can no more travel the universe than your digestion can manifest in another galaxy" Again your speaking for someone else, "your consciousness", "can no more", as if you are setting the limits.

If you'd said, "I think," or even better, "my consciousness..." or even better, "I've never experienced..." If you'd showed curiosity...or asked to learn more. That is respectful.

But you assert these things as if they're irrefutable truths, and talk of science. But you haven't considered the science of consciousness and remote viewing. Search the Central Intel Agency archives for this or join an online community and try for yourself if you're going to speak with such absolutism about things which you do not know anything at all. Educate yourself first, otherwise you'll get a part of the picture but think you know everything to deny all other parts, like this attitude: https://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/06/18/scandinavian-schools-...

The poster above also stated their beliefs as absolute truths, by your standards: "You don't need to travel physically when you can do it instantly with your conscience.". My tone is perfectly identical with theirs - we are both plainly stating our opinions of how the world works.

Of course, you are again wildly off base with your reading of my replies. "You" in both my post and the post I was replying to were not referring to someone in particular, they are obviously the rhetoric "you". They weren't telling me that I, personally, am able to travel instantly with my consciousness, and I wasn't telling them that they, personally, were not allowed to do so.

Then, adding "I think", "I believe" etc is generally just noise - obviously everything I say is a personal belief or thought. Saying "my particles can't travel with speed greater than c" or "I've never experienced something traveling faster than c" would be needlessly specific - my belief in the theory of special relativity only works if it applies to everything, so that is the belief I stated.

At best, if I wanted to be quite pedantic, I could have added an "According to special relativity,".

You're really quite offended by basic speech and physical facts...

You haven't offended me. You've offended yourself, and the decency of the people you spoke to on here. You limited yourself, and disrespected them and I saw you doing that and pushed back. And you complain and now try to prove you were mostly OK all whole time. You're offended here, isn't it?

So...basic speech and physical facts, huß? So you read it as I'm offended by these things hmm, that's interesting. I suppose reading it that way you can more easily dismiss or try to minimize to yourself what I'm saying, tell yourself it's just emotional or irrational and something you don't need to learn form.

Do you know how I feel about it? If you really know then tell me? You don't know. You're just pretending, to suit yourself.

The difference with the other posted is they are not imposing limits, but you are. You might think it's symmetric, but it's not. It's more likely that things are more abundant than you know, than that you have already discovered everything that's possible, so you should be more respectful and modal when expressing restrictions.

You say adding qualifiers like "I think" and "I believe" is noise, but it's about respect and empathy and the tactic acknowledgment that you don't have all the answers, other people's ideas are valid, and what you are saying comes with that openness and curiosity to learning more. It makes sense that you read those things as "noise" given the low quality of your responses and low respect and empathy with other's opinions here: ie your totally disrespectful language pretending people who don't share your narrow view are "crazy"

It's good you reveal your thinking about it. I think you are missing the point that you're not just writing down a verbatim statement of the facts like a dry mathematical treatise or policy document you are communicating with other human beings. Trying to come off like that, will do you much better, and I think you have much to learn.

You'll definitely be able to do that if you make the effort it. That's why I spent so much time on you.

I believe you can, please do the effort and have a good one.

"Scientific consensus" seems a little bit like a dogma. The science of the mind and the philosophy of life on nowadays hegemonic culture is so in daipers that I wouldn't try to take it so seriously. I won't talk about your beliefs, they're yours and nobody is entitled to question them. The thing about scientific consensus though... Not so much.

Still, if consciousness can pass physical barriers and disconnect from the body, and interact with matter or other consciousnesses, we should be able to scientifically test this with relative ease, at scientific standards of reproducibility.

You could argue that we just lack the mental technology to achieve this, just as some string theorists argue we lack the physical technology to detect supersimmetry, and then we are each left with our beliefs until such a time as these mental/physical technologies are developed.

Psychoenergetics experiments were done that, among other things, provided successful access to information through mental means only by a viewer in a submersible 140 m and more below the surface of the ocean, and also viewers were able to see eclipses of the moons of Jupiter and that information was verified 80 minutes later by astronomers. Jupiter is 80 light minutes away. That indicates that it operates faster than the speed of light. there's other known phenomena that do, information exchanged via entanglement is thought to operate faster than the speed of light. As far as could be determined these consciousness abilities could not be shielded and were not electromagnetic in nature.

Could you cite some of these studies? I would be honestly curious to read them.

Note that entanglement, while non-local as a process in most interpretations of QM, is mathematically proven to be unable to transmit information any faster than the speed of light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com