Topic: If 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced in just 1 year, what are we? - page 3. (Read 5718 times)
June 03, 2016, 05:24:12 PM
On the soul, read https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-im-an-atheist-1424793
June 02, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
Quote
what are we?
I may be able to answer this thanks to my researches into The Mandela Effect and so-called Glitches in the Matrix.
You see, when a TME changes something like Steven Segal's last name changing to Seagal the changes are retroactive; once the change occurs all instances of Segal in this case are changed, even old photographs etc. There are however a few things that can't be changed because they exist in a state of superposition outside of the universe; one of those things is human memory. If you search you can still find autographs signed "Segal". This is known as "TME residue"; because it's done from memory and artistic in nature there's no entanglement to the name and it remains unchanged.
My conclusion: the Bible is right yet again, we are an eternal soul.
May 21, 2016, 08:09:36 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
What if we're infinite?
You are blowing my mind.
May 21, 2016, 05:06:30 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
What if we're infinite?
May 21, 2016, 05:04:26 PM
A river.
δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης
δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης
May 21, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Our souls, memories, and thiughts are still the same
May 21, 2016, 11:04:04 AM
An artificial intelligent assistant teacher gave support to about 300 students of an AI course for weeks on the course forum without any of them being able to figure out that "she" wasn't human.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509101930.htm
"She" was based on the IBM's Watson platform (yes, the one that won Jeopardy):
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/what-is-watson.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)
We are not talking about basic low paid jobs. These A.I.'s are going to be serious competition to many people.
Of course, they are still way far from us or for being able to help us understanding our own brains.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509101930.htm
"She" was based on the IBM's Watson platform (yes, the one that won Jeopardy):
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/what-is-watson.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)
We are not talking about basic low paid jobs. These A.I.'s are going to be serious competition to many people.
Of course, they are still way far from us or for being able to help us understanding our own brains.
May 11, 2016, 06:34:20 PM
The first generation of stars were rather the corps that fertilized life. The heavy elements that they created, that are necessary to form planets and our bodies, only were expelled to space with their destruction.
It's like having the heart of someone and calling him daddy.
Forget Jesus, it was the stars that had to die for us to live (Lawrence Krauss).
Anyway, saying romantically that we are made of "star dust", like if that was something special, forgets that the most banal stone is also "star dust".
It's like having the heart of someone and calling him daddy.
Forget Jesus, it was the stars that had to die for us to live (Lawrence Krauss).
Anyway, saying romantically that we are made of "star dust", like if that was something special, forgets that the most banal stone is also "star dust".
May 06, 2016, 08:49:37 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there?
"What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood.
By the way, I am not mean-spirited.
It does take a long time to find the answers to the question "What am I not?", but if you don't try, you'll never get the answer (you have to discover the answer yourself).
To get an idea what I'm talking about, see Vipassana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81
Interesting read but I think it would take me longer to attain enlightenment through Vipassana nana than to consider all the things I am not. Maybe I'll take it up when I retire
May 06, 2016, 05:54:44 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there?
"What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood.
By the way, I am not mean-spirited.
It does take a long time to find the answers to the question "What am I not?", but if you don't try, you'll never get the answer (you have to discover the answer yourself).
To get an idea what I'm talking about, see Vipassana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81
May 06, 2016, 04:10:17 PM
We are the children of stars.
The stars are the nannies of the universe. 
They are certainly the creators - taking elemental hydrogen and fusing it up the periodic table to uranium.
May 06, 2016, 08:42:01 AM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there?
"What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood.
By the way, I am not mean-spirited.
I think a person can be self-centered without being mean-spirited.
I may be argumentative but I am not self-centered.
May 06, 2016, 08:40:17 AM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there?
"What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood.
By the way, I am not mean-spirited.
I think a person can be self-centered without being mean-spirited.
May 06, 2016, 08:38:14 AM
We are the children of stars.
The stars are the nannies of the universe.
May 06, 2016, 08:31:07 AM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there?
"What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood.
By the way, I am not mean-spirited.
May 06, 2016, 08:13:24 AM
We are the children of stars.
May 06, 2016, 08:06:10 AM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere.
It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena.
May 05, 2016, 07:46:00 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are.
May 05, 2016, 05:41:51 PM
What is even more astounding is, the substance of the electrons is being replaced constantly as they move in their orbits around their atoms.
May 04, 2016, 12:35:51 PM
It's in our nature: if we don't like what we are, our imagination will make us something different: with an immortal soul, with a heaven waiting for us, with an invisible omniscient and omnipotent friend (I wouldn't call friend an invisible being that says if you don't believe me and love me back, I'll send you, your children, your grand children, your great-grand children and also their children to a place where you all shall be burned alive forever and ever), etc.
Jump to: