hyperion1is

I don't refute the mind and brain connection, or to say that the mind is separated from the brain. Everyone can experience this without complex experiments, through sleep deprivation. If you stay awake for 72 hours lets say, it's not only about the fatigue you experience but also you notice that you no longer can sustain the same mental processes in the same way that you were able before. So let's leave it to that. I never claimed that the mind can exist without the brain. I'm not trying to develop a new kind of "science". That is enough. That is actually what I trying to do. And I don't contradict mind=brain. My only concern is about people coming with "evidence" of the brain, without having a hypothesis or theory about the brain to dismiss parts of my theory, even though the brain is still an enigma for us. This is why efforts are still being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project_(EU) Like Benjamin Libet test which supposedly was made to shed some light on Free will without a definition or explanation of Free will. Free will has definitions and explanations in philosophy. You need to have Free will defined and explained by the brain theory (that you say that it exists) and then test for it. But you can't import a definition from philosophy and then test for it. If this is Science then it seems to overpass me. But look where is Psychology in the hierarchy of Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science . I hope is not because of mistakes like this. Anyway, if we have a problem, because I don't refute mind=brain, I can answer the rest of your questions. It's just a matter of integration. Think of the Human body component as a distinct process inside the brain that will explain to the brain the human body. Just because the brain is in the body and a part of it that doesn't mean that is enough for the brain to "make" operations regarding the body. The brain needs a process to explain the body to the brain. And an "analog" understanding is not enough. This is the view in my theory. Wrong right, remains to be seen. So not really a duality here. I thought you refer to a possible duality from the fact that the components in the system can work individually as well as together. I'm not there yet. At designing tests or to make comparisons between humans and animals. I stated that before. Considering the role of the Human mind component "find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items" you can infer some test from that. Ie. Regarding correlations between items a test will be to determine how well or how poor an animal manages in new locations or situations for which it has no prior experience and how it reports to an unknown element. But related to that you are bound to make all kind of assumptions. Like what is considered "normal" for people. In the view of my theory a lot of us are in a pathologic state, more or less, depends on the person, because of Belief system/Values systems (mainly). What is there in the Values system placed in Conciseness component dictates almost everything about an individual. If you tell an individual (and make him believe it) that is a monkey he/she will behave like a monkey (what is known for the individual about the monkey behavior). Anyway, I have a lot of debunking here. I will finish my theory, and later I will publish results. For now, I will refer it just as a problem for the individual to communicate with himself. The Human mind components can make simulations, make deductions and so on. In a scenario where: "You say goodbye to a loved one as it leaves with his car (to work let's say) and later on you have the feeling that something wrong happened. You make a call and that person tells you that he had a car accident but is fine." Rolling back you noticed a mechanical problem with the vehicle, a loose wheel if you will. The Human mind made simulations, in parallel about you and about the other person, and predicted an outcome: a type and a possible time for it. After you make the call you notice that the predictions was right. But the "I" may not know from where he received the information and starts searching for different sources. This way you may arrive to the conclusions like telepathy and so on when is not the case. Is not a matter of what "I" knows or not is about the fact that we like to take credit for everything. It's about the fact that the Human mind doesn't work with moral concepts and religious aspects makes us denied it "Don't trust it because it can lead you astray". It's about the fact that we like to consider ourselves intelligent. Intelligence defined as "To find solutions with the least of informations available" belongs to the Human mind component. Are you comfortable with the idea that intelligence it's of a component within your self and not directly yours, in a manner of speaking? This what makes the study of the mind highly subjective. Hard for people to analyze themselves.

Our discussion appears to be fruitful in the sense that we agree on certain aspects and disagree on others. But I think we should first agree on what is science and what is not. I don't dismiss the brain. It's just not the central focus of my theory. But is included. In my theory we have Human body component. Even if is defined as an interpreter of the body that's OK because it lets you infer informations or properties of the body in a context. You can view it as a study from "inside out" (outwards). I don't dismiss the brain in the same manner that I don't dismiss my leg and to think that I can walk, move around, without a leg in the same manner that I could with it. So, let's not make confusions. I only didn't wanted to have a biased start by assuming that all that I want to find out about the mind I will find it in the brain. I will explain further. If you make a study about just one thing it will result in non-sense. It's a problem of principle. From chemistry point a view if you want to determine proprieties for the Hydrogen atom (or molecule) for instance it's difficult if not impossible from the Hydrogen alone. If you were to make an experiment: H+O=H2O you can deduct some proprieties, but even so you won't be able to tell what proprieties were of Hydrogen, which were of Oxygen and which you can put it on something else, if possible. You might want further to put the Hydrogen in reaction with every other substance and what remains, what is common, is of Hydrogen. And the problem that arise here is the same with "All swans are white" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductivism You will encounter at least one black swan to mess with your hypothesis. Hydrogen in the periodic table is something else because at least it provides context. The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't put all the processes that you observe about the mind on the brain. The brain is not suspended in aether and you have to study the interactions between the brain and environment, if possible and determine what the brain is and what is not - to make it falsifiable. You can't find all the proprieties you need in just one place. About your prediction from neuroscience. That only demonstrates that the world that we know of works with rules. From that experiment one can postulate that the brain is the link of the mind with the body. I'm not saying that but there are some that view it this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton And your prediction is not really a prediction. First you don't have an hypothesis/theory about the brain. I asked about that. Any hypothesis even if is "The brain is a technological device, even if biological in nature". Without a hypothesis you only have observations, which you can interpret it in which way you want. You can agree with me that without a theory/model about the brain 5 different scientists can draw 5 different interpretations related to an experiment? How this is helpful? "the brain is the mind". If that is the case then the brain should explain anything you need to. Once you say brain=mind and vice-versa you can't resort to different theories about the same thing anymore. For instance explanations from Behavior theory must be explained by the brain theory. In which way possible, even if: "The nervous impulses that travel on this path and not the other is what is causing this and that.." Just guessing here. I don't have intimate knowledge about neuroscience, this is why I'm asking you. But let's stick to logic. If you come with 2 different interpretations to explain something (brain theory if you will, if it exists, and behavior theory) is considered "cheating", you have to stay inside of only one theory at a given time. To combine 2 will result in this:"All terms that are used in ways that have not been strictly defined elsewhere should be defined. If they aren't defined then everyone could be using separate definition and any discussion will be meaningless." So, I refute that as a prediction without a model. Without that is the same as my analogy with the rock in the water. If I throw a rock in the water and makes ripples I can deduct that the water got upset with me and the ripples is it's way of communicating that with me. And about predictions: Someone predicted that or was the other way around, this was first observed and later the conclusion. What predictions neuroscience can make about things that weren't observed yet?

I wasn't here for a while. But I see that you totally missed the river analogy, in the sense that was about reading and not something else. But that's not the point. I noticed more and more that you like to attack the person instead of an idea. To discredit someone doesn't make your idea any more valid. And I can't see what is the gain here. To have an idea validated without the scrutiny of other persons. This is actually an important aspects of posting in a scientific forum: Scrutiny. If you don't like other people input why do you post? You twisted the river analogy to fit your propose, whatever that propose is. The river analogy was only relevant between swansont and me. It was in layman terms for which swansont didn't needed to make this effort, to talk to a laymen. But if he did, I don't think is a reason for punishment. PS. swansont, thank you for your effort but I think you missed my idea a bit. My point was/is, you can't have more that one cycle for time. This is the problem when we interpret this time as linear and is hard to "brake" out of it.

That's OK Ringer. Thank you for taking the time. First of all let me start with this: Me, in the first post "So, I have worked on a theory for some time now, but I’m stuck because I don’t know what are the scientific methods to validate a theory, or to apply math to a model." Maybe the word "theory" is a bit pretentious but actually I stated on what I'm working on. It's not finished and not a theory yet. If it was I would probably tried to publish it in a scientific paper. The reason that I posted here was for other people to tell me what they think so far and what is needed for this work to be deemed scientific. 1. Predictions. I got that, my theory will have to make testable and falsifiable predictions. 2. Maybe the terms? I revise now my work, in the sense that I noticed on my own that I didn't defined and stated all the fundamentals terms. For fundamentals terms definitions through description is accepted and after that all the other terms related to this field would have to be generated from the model/theory so you don't end up with thousands of terms and interpretable definitions. I'm I wrong? This is why I posted here. For people to point that to me. Is in the work. As some stages: I will have to finish the theory (in the sense to be a theory, coherent), the theory to make predictions, to research on previous observations and to design tests and applications. I'm not there yet. Yes, it seems so. How I state it, I start with the study of the Human and later I will compare it to the animal behavior/brain. And not the other way around, to make observations of animals and then to try to extrapolate them to human. From my point this approach may result in errors due to non-proper correlations. But to continue with your idea. Yes is correct. Right now I think that only humans have this Human mind component. Also, don't forget related to this begs the question: The "I" being an emergent of the four, the "I" is present in animals? If yes, in what form, without the Human mind component in the system. Not sure that I follow. I can admit that a duality can be derived but how can be proven demonstrably unnecessary. Just curious if you seen something that I didn't. I don't mind to change my model. In fact I did it over time. The first time the "I" component wasn't included. I attributed the decision making process to the Self. I can't specify the evidence for that, it was only that I couldn't find any "activity" attribute in the Self that was needed for decision making. Now the "I" is part of the model/theory and is not an artifact to "force fit" some observations. I'm happy to change the model than to interpret the observations in a "convenient" manner. Which I know is wrong. And finally: Your quote from "Brain, a decoded enigma": "This theory is in a total opposition with all the actual sciences associated with the functions of the brain. The present sciences, associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single fundamental model. In this way, as my theory will be accepted, all what it was already written in the actual sciences associated with the functions of the brain, have to be re-written or forgotten." I value your input and you may be right. But I didn't noticed the problem here. "The present sciences, associated with the functions of the brain, are not based on a single fundamental model." He is wright or wrong? Because I wondered about that. It is a current working hypothesis at least or theory about the brain? Neuro-science makes any perditions about the human brain? And re-running observations doesn't cont. I don't have a problem with neuro-science per say. It's a step forward to make some observations. But if it doesn't make any predictions how I can compare my predictions of my theory with those? This is a fundamental aspect. Because without that you just have some blinking lights under MRI. By analogy, without a hypothesis or theory about water for istance, I can trow a rock in a lake and make any interpretations in which way that I want. I might be wrong this is why I value your input on this. According to your profile you have more experience in this. "As Richard Feynman said, if your model disagrees with experiment it is wrong. Luckily that part was in the very beginning so I didn't waste too much time." What experiment? P.S. sheever, thank you that is interesting .Some missing fragments there in their "theory". It's about speculations from a filed that even they don't understand it well enough.

I think we should resort to some definitions for space and time and methods of measurement here, especially if they differ from current physics. Note: I don't dispute that time exist, I only don't know on what definition is working right now. And what I dispute is the concept of linear time, which I find it to be a non-sense. Linear time is an invented notion since the first "clock" (calendar and so on). We should bring that into discussion. I stated that above because otherwise can lead to confusion. Until now what I understood from Daniel Forman is that in he's view time doesn't exist. Daniel in the above examples are you trying to confirm space using time? It's a bit confusing for me, other that I didn't missed something in your posts. Without definitions and reference frames some tries to disprove space and some tries to disprove time. And apparently they are both wrong. Maybe there are both with different definitions. Apparently some dispute perception as a considered factor here. But I will try still to exemplify something. Daniel gave an example of space with a table at a distance. How far is that table away from you Daniel? I will bet you will look at the floor. Experiment: Although some may view it trivial because I will refer at a video game, I find it somehow conclusive. If you find this as being a simulation. In a video game I was in a shuttle and started from a (small) space station to another far apart from each other. As I moved away from the first station I noticed it moving away from me, only for a while. After a time I couldn't notice any movement of my shuttle in respect with 2 to stations, I had only the noise from the thrusters. That indicated for me that I would reach the next station (otherwise..). After I reached the 2 station things got back to normal. What I'm saying is that for me there was space 10 meters away from any station and in between "a medium" with different proprieties than the one I left. In that "medium" neither time or space exist. Link between the two (different mediums) ? Recorded data. Without data to record our brain "behaves" differently in respect to something and doesn't import importance to something it can't record, investigate. So, with point of references and "links" between object, even if that link is the floor, you have space. In empty space you have nothing. Also, when you think at your past (the way we see it right now) and try to recall something, you will always recall events (and different recorded data). What will not find is time between them. Surely you can't refer to some time between 2 events. You can remember seeing a calendar on a wall, with the year on it), hearing someone saying the year you can "pinpoint" a time reference. Other than that you only have sort order. In our understanding of cause and effect you can have what event was first and what was later. My point being, that if our brain doesn't work with these conception of time and space, as viewed currently, how we suppose to work with that (and understand something), having just one kind of brain. If like I was to stat that I can work with mathematical equations even if my brain doesn't support that. I have no comment on that, how you might determined from me not responding. The only thing that I thing you notice is that "ideal". Anyway, is not about semantics here. My point was about such a thing as a "partial reading". To refute linear time, it's possible for me to make an analogy to the cesium reading as the water circuit in nature (here on earth)? If I were to stay on a shore of a river I will see that river go only in one direction. Or, relatively speaking I can be on that river and the water flows in only one direction. That is all I know. If would know more, like water reaching the ocean then evaporate, fall back on the ground, and then spring again and back into that river (closing the circle) I will not call or refer to time as linear, don't I? So, what I'm asking is, are you sure that we are not reading that Cesium from a river shore? I only mentioned (the possible) cesium decaying as part of a possible circuit. Can a cesium atom decay and re-emerge sort of speak ? I hope you got my idea even if viable or not.

Are you sure is stable and doesn't brake ever? Or this is just a relative term. And, if the above is the case, my point was the opposite. How you measure the decay of a isotope (resorting to a time frame I suspect) when that isotope "gave" you time. It's a issue here, I think about the cause and effect? Who determined who? Anyway, if it's really stable, I have no comment on that. Also "The definition of the second was later refined at the 1997 meeting of the BIPM to include the statement This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K." What is at rest in this world? We have only local time?

From what I know Cs-133 is decaying "over time".

Daniel it's nice to have you back. From the point of being this topic starter I mean (which may be relevant in this discussion). "but the point at which motion changes direction, tick, tock, tick, tock" Interesting concept. If I got it right there is only one point (of reference) which makes a reference frame? A sort of back and forward ? If so it will be a self-explanatory notion. Otherwise (and even so) an Human observer (if there is another kind, I don't know of it: aliens, etc) is in discussion. Because to talk about time and such without the entity who has the perception of time, distance etc seems pointless. Also to talk about motion without a point of reference, seems pointless to me. If I go along with that motion? About Big bang it's a nice theory but filled with holes from my point of view. There can be many arguments here, but one: it uses the current state of the Universe and reminded back until.... and it assumes that figured out the right order of events in the Universe. Concerning inflation(there is a If here also): the Universe might inflate and deflate and inflate again without reaching 2 Big bang theorized "moments". Anyway, that's a little off-topic. Concerning time, currently an undefined perception, I think it can be a viewed as an interval between 2 symmetrical states.

I didn't cached which of which. Are you saying that the meter is valid because it was properly defined and the second not, because the oscillation is not a defined unit? Maybe I misread your post. I don't know which of which but: "Since 1983, it has been defined (the meter) as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre So, "An oscillation is not" then what that tells us about the second and implicitly about the meter?

How, I said before. we can't define time, it seems; not that easy. Interesting though, that any attempt in our part to define and measure time is by using cycles, even if it involves planets, atoms, or quasars, and we work with a concept of linear time. And I always had problems with this definition for second: "The time needed for a cesium-133 atom to perform 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations". The second is defined by it's measurement. It like I'm saying: "For me the meter is that unit that I managed to divide it into 100 smaller units(cm)." And that second defines time. I'm curious, with what definition of time the scientific community is working.

Except we don't have a working hypothesis for centaurs, as we do for space-time. According to your metaphor I can expect for tomorrow to find all the matter scattered arbitrary throughout the Universe. And I can't rely on anything to give me different expectations. Potatoes - tomatoes. And what idea are you really entertaining in your post? That from an evolutionary perspective "mother nature" gave us some features that are pointless but pretty? (no correspondence in real world?)

This is what I don't understand about space-time. The equation, if I'm not wrong is If t here is established conventionally how can we make an accurate representation of space-time? Wave expands radially? Across t axis also no? In space-time the distribution of matter is made across t dimension also. If we haven't experienced that matter yet this doesn't mean that is not there. ------ Concerning time consider this thought experiment. We will use marks such as stone, three but they are just marks. If I'm in point A (I have a rock at my feet) I have 4 possibilities to choose from: forward, backward, right, left. This is state A. I make a decision and after that I move to point B. Let's say that I decide Forward. Here I have a tree. State B. I have to decide between taking an apple from that tree or not. After this decision I can't revert to state A, I will arrive to A'. Let's say that I revert to state A. I have the 4 possibilities as before, but this time, instead of forward. I choose to make a right, and I will end up to state C. How much time did it passed?

The distance from the Real particle (point-like particle) to the Observer when taking this reading is the same (to be considered the same, when making observations). Which means that is a Universal and doesn't not depend on the relative position of the Observers (in classical world). Meaning that an Observer on Earth making these observations will be the same as those of an Observer or Moon (if he has the equipment). Or, for ease: if the equipment were to be a magnifying glass, 2 Observers back to back looking through the magnifying glass (opposite line of sight) are actually looking at the same thing.

In the Light section: "Most scientists’ opinion is that Light shines on and over objects, and that everything is lit up within and because of the presence of Light (Waves & Particles). In reality, Light does not exist until one or more Crealites hit a surface and displays the object itself." So let me see if I got it right, he replaced "photons" with "Crealites" and describes the same thing, only that is not calling it Light anymore (something old), he calls it "Electromagnetic Energy" ("something new"). "In reality, all empty space is entirely taken up with Electromagnetic Energy in the form of Crealites and other wavelengths of Electromagnetic Energy traveling at speeds of up to 186,000 miles per second." I'm not trying to disprove anything. I will try to read about those Crealites ; just out of curiosity.

@ gabrelov Sorry, I missed your post. Your post is interesting, I still didn't understood which applies (from my assertions), but how I see it, we all have a problem with time

At least people considers this. You being one? I don't want to break the rules of this forum; I will just say that I'm working at it. With which success... well. I'm a child in physics. I admit. A hobby, not a preferred area anyway. But people can distinguish patterns.... or became delusional.

How I said, I will post back with observations from quantum mechanics. But is not that easy to study quantum mechanics . Anyway, what I got so far. Again, not the best representation. Again in Paint. I'm considering switching to Autocad. I made some modifications there but it's like the following: The thickest black line = Observer. The blue vertical line = Projection screen - we see things behind the Real particle. The observation is made across the purple thick line (horizontal). In this view all particles only have particle like behavior (considered static). On the vertical is wave; is a split observation. In the center is what I called Real particle. It appears as a zero-dimensional particle with particle-wave behavior. It's not truly zero-dimensional, it appears this way to us because we can't make observations beyond a certain point/threshold. Such constitutes as a blind-spot. Red particle: a particle seen beyond a refractive medium as split in two. I don't know the class of particles in relation with the distance to the Real particle, but it can be like this: higgs boson split into 2 quarks. Correlation may not be right but if you got my point. All observed particles are to be considered massless. This is what I got so far. Later edit: Again no math yet. I will try to present some math also. Also: this is considered a fixed Observer. But if the equipment fiddles a little along t axis, you will see quarks "dancing" in and out of existence. This is an observation in quantum mechanics?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but because the predictions are probabilistic this doesn't necessarily means the the nature (even on microscopic scale) it's probabilistic. The nature may be very "fixed" but because we don't see it as it is we make probabilistic predictions on whatever pattern we can distinguish. We don't have/we can't see all the data. Use an imaginary square and look at the sky. You will see the moon now and then, inside your square (that with just one "body";imagine many). The same with quantum mechanics.

Maybe the person wasn't ever interested in altitude or orbit. You have only one question for him, really?

Your reasoning has some gaps. Who can see the future? You can't change the future but the future changes you? And in my point, there is no past, there is no future. Only "memories" of last states and predictions of next states.

Something new, or maybe Something old. I wrote something about the importance of the Observer in "Light, Spacetime, Observer(s)" topic in observing our "Observable Universe". This is another take at this. I read about Special Relativity for instance and there the Observer is just a point of view, for taking measurements. So, the Observer is reduced to basic trigonometry without studding the nature of the Observer (as it may be important). From Special Relativity to General Relativity to Quantum mechanics this shifts a little, but in circle. Anyway, I won't talk about the exactly the same thing, here I will talk a little about the nature of the Observer from an angle point of view, like some people like it. Projections, or Projecting. The basics, or observations if you will. Our brain interprets Reality through nervous impulses which travels from receptors (sense, detector) to a "central" point in the Brain where they get "mixed" up, a phenomenon called Perception. The short version. In other words, our "home" is there in the brain , we get the data at "horse mouth" but we don't interpreted it, "see" it there but instead we are projecting "at a distance". If I see a wall at 3 meters in front of me, actually the brain "puts" the reflected light there so when I go on I touch it , I acknowledge as being accurate. Now related to physics. Hypothesis: If wall that we see are projections through different dimensions? I will explain. Consider this: there are Real particles (where they really are) and there are Virtual particles (where we see the projection of a Real particle). See pic. That may not be the most accurate representation, is made in Paint, not Autocad. But it illustrates a bit my hypothesis. Legend: O = Observer; Rp = Real particle; Vp1, Vp2 = Virtual particles projected on a virtual wall. This is the main concept. The Real particle is not observed right where it is (0 dimension) but instead a bit further. And we have 2 Virtual particles (the Real particle is viewed from different angles, consider Real particle non-homogeneous). The 2 virtual particles appear as 2 different particles (like 2 particles with opposite spin). This is using 2 dimensions. It a bit harder to imagine with 11. Why 11? Well this is a little bit of stretch. Even if hard to "imagine": if each sense of ours represents a dimension? Even if this is true is hard to pinpoint how many senses we have and which is to be considered as senses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses In my other part of the topic I was describing senses as being detectors for a principal detector (only that I used 5). If the 11 detectors are aligned (converge) on a single phenomenon (if we can think at a particle) there are 11 signals coming from 11 different directions. These has to be converged back to the principal detector. Much like a kaleidoscope if you will http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1578&bih=941&q=kaleidoscope&oq=kaleidoscope&gs_l=img.12..0j0i24l9.2659.2659.0.3558.1.1.0.0.0.0.119.119.0j1.1.0....0...1ac..24.img..0.1.118.KQ5j3ghtddE Is basic optics. If we can think at those 11 signals as being all light signals. I will post back with observations from quantum mechanics. The importance of this? It's more important for those who actually knows how to work out the math. On importance: The simplest way of put it: If we see a single particle in 11 different possible places (at least 11 different virtual particles), how many particles are there? Something new, or maybe Something old; how I started. The Higgs boson may be such a Real particle. I don't know which discovers has been made since then, but the nature of the Observer is important, in Observations like I do. Productive or pointless? I don't know.

I couldn't read all your article. " Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem)" I'm learning now about the scientific method, but there is no so things as proof, only predictions which can be proven false or true. A totally different thing. Follow my logic: According to a Logic fundamental (which math obbeys): - If you start from a True Statement through logic operations you will come to a True Statement. - If you start from a False Statement through logic operations you will come to a False Statement. So, no certainty there. Regarding God whatever he exists or not there will be always 50/50, that if you have to make decisions that is. One is knowing the path and another is to walk on the path (from Bible, rephrased maybe). Knowing something doesn't help you much because when you have to make decisions it will present to you with uncertainty. And our decisions (people among people) can't be always the same. For instance let's consider there is a book on a table next to us. We have to decide who gets the book. If we don't fight for it and consider so solve it rationally, we have if you take the book: You have to make the decision "I have the book and you don't have it", and I have to make the decision: "I don't get the book, you get it." Even if it seems to you to be same decisions because it leads to an outcome, actually they are opposites. The same with you and God. Even you and God want the same thing you can't both make the same decisions (always). Anyway, the search for a proof regarding God is futile. You have to ask yourself, why do you want to know. If God exists you will live a righteous life (whatever that is) ? And if He Doesn't exists you will go into bars, enjoy yourself at maximum no matter the "sin" before you die? and you can't make up your mind until you don't find out if God exists ? Really now. There will always be 50/50 regarding proofs. The questions is what constitutes for you as proofs.

sheever what you say it's interesting, but it's part of philosophy (maybe) or other area. There is nothing wrong with philosophy but this is not I'm trying to achieve here.

So, baby steps: For more serious, and in detail I think we can resort to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method In the above picture it seems that I'm at the second step. "Form a hypothesis". Actually I'm at the 3'th step but I don't know what experiment to perform. Now, I don't know what accounts as observations (what is accepted). Introspection can be used for collecting data in this study? I think that introspection can be used but not on it's own because of the high level of subjectivity in this method. So, introspection can be used along with the data collected from other people. I can state about my self that "I exist", "I fell" and so on, and it's has a meaning, in the sense that I can process that information. It's not "blind"; you can describe it as a "reflexivity" if you will. If I collect data form other people they report the same thing. The collection of data can be un-biased in the sense that you don't need to ask: "Can you state about your self something?". You can observe how people include themselves in a construct: "I go to market". And that "I" has meaning to them, because if prompted to identify the "I" in that construct they can do it. This has been tested before, in a variety of test like "the mirror test". (if it's valid or not I don't know, but It's an interesting test.) If you try to find a word for that would be "Self-consciousness" (technically speaking that is an effect). So you start to find an explanation for that. Different explanations had been proposed some of them even philosophically but without validity: "Self-consciousness is an illusion". But by the definition of the "illusion", the illusion belongs to someone or something. Anyway: 1. You go in circles in order to find an explanation. You can give a definition by description, but doesn't make it scientific. 2. You go in circles even more if you try to exclude the effect "Self-consciousness". You can't find an alternate explanation of the observation so, for me this remains a fundamental. So, I tried a scientific approach. (not philosophical or words game etc). I formed an hypothesis: "There is a part of us that allows us to say I"; or if you prefer "There is a part of me that allows me to say "I". Me, being the same as other people. That "part of us" I named "I" (suggestive) and being a "part of" I asked my self "Is a part of what exactly"? Part of a system. How do I test my hypothesis? What can be accepted as evidence for peer-review? What experiment should I do? I see on this forum that are some people that are accustomed with the scientific method, maybe more than me. Can they help me debug this?