Some interesting data where many in science fear to tread
"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer
Published on Jun 13, 2014
Since 1981, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been researching morphic fields - his hypothesis about form-giving, immaterial fields which serve as a kind of blueprint for creation. Although he succeeded to find more and more evidence supporting his case, his hypothesis has been mainly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. In his lecture "The Science Delusion", Sheldrake points out several scientific dogmas which prevent science from overcoming its materialistic world view...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog
Topic: Consciousness and Quantum Physics - page 2. (Read 11994 times)
I am not asking you to respond, I am asking you to think about it.
Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
The ORMEs alter consciousness at a fundamental level.
Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
The ORMEs alter consciousness at a fundamental level.
Hey, the closest I ever came to getting high was about 8 bottles of beer one night. And I drove home without any trouble.
I am not asking you to respond, I am asking you to think about it.
Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
The ORMEs alter consciousness at a fundamental level.
Why is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
The ORMEs alter consciousness at a fundamental level.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
The revolution is here, you can even see it in science. The world already has the www.quantumconsciousness.org/ website."The old enemy of religion and philosophy is science. But in fact, science will serve up the confirmation and science will be the one to bring this to the world.
Religion has tried to do it for 2000 years and has failed miserably. The world is no durned good, people are no durned good, they are greedy and selfish. The capitalist system has worn out, because it is based on the selfishness and greed of man. But science can take this to the world in 4 to 5 years. Once it is accepted and understood by scientists, the breakthroughs will be astronomical."
http://ormusforum.com/david-hudson.php#.VGPGXTTF8q4
Quote
Hameroff and Penrose are saying that in order to avoid "seeing" multiple universes at the same time, the quantum coherence created in microtubules by some material (we think the m-state/ORMEs materials) must collapse. What if the quantum coherence did not collapse and we became aware of multiple universes?
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.htmlWhy is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
Because it's a forum, and either the rules are not strict enough, or the moderators don't care to enforce them.
Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.
Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
Well, not really. If you were to contract say, bubonic plague, you would find that modern medicine would cure you rather quickly. If you were to use voodoo magic instead, you would find that your survival rate is about the same as it would be if you did nothing. See the difference?
Let me put it in another way. Say you contracted bubonic plague. Would you rather be located in say, Mass General in Boston attended to by physicians using modern medicine gleaned from the scientific method, or some village in India where a "modern day witch-doctor" performed some traditional incantation? Don't answer, it's rhetorical and we all know the answer.
Yet, modern science finds it difficult to cure malaria, although they can do it. Yet drinking a simple bleach and water mixture cures malaria in one day.
http://mmsnews.is/
EDIT: I'm betting this would cure bubonic as well.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
The revolution is here, you can even see it in science. The world already has the www.quantumconsciousness.org/ website."The old enemy of religion and philosophy is science. But in fact, science will serve up the confirmation and science will be the one to bring this to the world.
Religion has tried to do it for 2000 years and has failed miserably. The world is no durned good, people are no durned good, they are greedy and selfish. The capitalist system has worn out, because it is based on the selfishness and greed of man. But science can take this to the world in 4 to 5 years. Once it is accepted and understood by scientists, the breakthroughs will be astronomical."
http://ormusforum.com/david-hudson.php#.VGPGXTTF8q4
Quote
Hameroff and Penrose are saying that in order to avoid "seeing" multiple universes at the same time, the quantum coherence created in microtubules by some material (we think the m-state/ORMEs materials) must collapse. What if the quantum coherence did not collapse and we became aware of multiple universes?
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.htmlWhy is the thread filled with rhetoric rather than study and discussion of the Orch OR hypothesis and the ORMEs?
The only time science will start to prove its worth in the religion direction, is when it starts to become evident that scientific living is saving people from death - people living healthy lives to 200 and 300 years. So far, there is evidence that people from some scientifically backward lands live just as long or longer than people from scientific lands (Hunza, Vilcabamba).
It is a well established fact that through various techniques of modern medicine all gleaned from the scientific method, people live substantially longer and healthier lives than at any point in history before (excepting of course, the people who do not have access to such medicine). This is simply a fact and really I'm not sure how you can even debate it.
As far as right living goes, science and engineering has provided much of the world with modern conveniences - hot running water, cook stoves, electronics communications. Yet, all of these, just like religions, are at times used to make life worse for the people than better. So, right living isn't necessarily centered in modern conveniences.
Will science do any better through quantum entanglement?
Will science do any better through quantum entanglement?
Naturally, we all have a choice. You *could*, if you wanted to, forgo all modern technologies and ignore everything science has done for you. You could do this if you chose to, and you would choose to do so if you honestly felt you would be better off. And yet, you do not. You sit there in your house, with heat, and electricity, and internet, writing on a computer, etc. Why is that? I would posit that despite all your protestations to the contrary, you rather like what science has done for you and enabled you to do. Ironic, isn't it, that without modern science you would not be able to share your anti-science rant with all of us!
Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.
Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
Well, not really. If you were to contract say, bubonic plague, you would find that modern medicine would cure you rather quickly. If you were to use voodoo magic instead, you would find that your survival rate is about the same as it would be if you did nothing. See the difference?
Let me put it in another way. Say you contracted bubonic plague. Would you rather be located in say, Mass General in Boston attended to by physicians using modern medicine gleaned from the scientific method, or some village in India where a "modern day witch-doctor" performed some traditional incantation? Don't answer, it's rhetorical and we all know the answer.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
The revolution is here, you can even see it in science. The world already has the www.quantumconsciousness.org/ website."The old enemy of religion and philosophy is science. But in fact, science will serve up the confirmation and science will be the one to bring this to the world.
Religion has tried to do it for 2000 years and has failed miserably. The world is no durned good, people are no durned good, they are greedy and selfish. The capitalist system has worn out, because it is based on the selfishness and greed of man. But science can take this to the world in 4 to 5 years. Once it is accepted and understood by scientists, the breakthroughs will be astronomical."
http://ormusforum.com/david-hudson.php#.VGPGXTTF8q4
Quote
Hameroff and Penrose are saying that in order to avoid "seeing" multiple universes at the same time, the quantum coherence created in microtubules by some material (we think the m-state/ORMEs materials) must collapse. What if the quantum coherence did not collapse and we became aware of multiple universes?
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.htmlReligion hasn't exactly failed. Why not?
Religion has two purposes. One is to find a method to save people from death. The other is to offer people methods for right living. Bible religion fulfills both, although the salvation part is yet to be proven.
The only time science will start to prove its worth in the religion direction, is when it starts to become evident that scientific living is saving people from death - people living healthy lives to 200 and 300 years. So far, there is evidence that people from some scientifically backward lands live just as long or longer than people from scientific lands (Hunza, Vilcabamba).
As far as right living goes, science and engineering has provided much of the world with modern conveniences - hot running water, cook stoves, electronics communications. Yet, all of these, just like religions, are at times used to make life worse for the people than better. So, right living isn't necessarily centered in modern conveniences.
Will science do any better through quantum entanglement?
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
The revolution is here, you can even see it in science. The world already has the www.quantumconsciousness.org/ website."The old enemy of religion and philosophy is science. But in fact, science will serve up the confirmation and science will be the one to bring this to the world.
Religion has tried to do it for 2000 years and has failed miserably. The world is no durned good, people are no durned good, they are greedy and selfish. The capitalist system has worn out, because it is based on the selfishness and greed of man. But science can take this to the world in 4 to 5 years. Once it is accepted and understood by scientists, the breakthroughs will be astronomical."
http://ormusforum.com/david-hudson.php#.VGPGXTTF8q4
Quote
Hameroff and Penrose are saying that in order to avoid "seeing" multiple universes at the same time, the quantum coherence created in microtubules by some material (we think the m-state/ORMEs materials) must collapse. What if the quantum coherence did not collapse and we became aware of multiple universes?
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.html The United Nations, New York - September 11, 2008 - Consciousness Without Brain Activity: Near Death Experiences - Dr. Bruce Greyson
Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness
An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be
The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1
Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4
Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness
An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be
The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1
Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4
This is the exact reason that science has avoided the idea of consciousness. Scientists don't have any kind of a handle on it, yet.
The further we get into the quantum state of consciousness, the further we get away from a concrete, real-life understanding of it. But, we just may get some kind of a handle on it.
Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.
Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.
When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."
The United Nations, New York - September 11, 2008 - Consciousness Without Brain Activity: Near Death Experiences - Dr. Bruce Greyson
Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness
An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be
The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1
Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4
Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness
An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be
The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1
Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4
Aristotelian ontology retarded us so much...
Consciousness is within, not without. There is nothing outside.
Consciousness is within, not without. There is nothing outside.
I addressed this topic from a logical point of view earlier in this thread. Now I'm gonna sidestep into the metaphysical realm 
You should maybe reconsider your last question/(wish?). If we take quantum physics to be a figment of consciousness (the grounds for this assumption [debatable] is that humans thought up the theory), then you're actually seeking to give a figment power over your very existence. The implications are far-reaching and should not be taken lightly. How does becoming a slave of your own creation sound?
is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?
You should maybe reconsider your last question/(wish?). If we take quantum physics to be a figment of consciousness (the grounds for this assumption [debatable] is that humans thought up the theory), then you're actually seeking to give a figment power over your very existence. The implications are far-reaching and should not be taken lightly. How does becoming a slave of your own creation sound?
How can we investigate if we don't already have some idea of what we're looking for?
Preliminary scientific aim: "find X" where X is consciousness.
But I've always had some rudimentary a priori knowledge that I'm an "experiential being".
So then I want to "learn more about X".
And so the process seems continuous.
There is a difference between saying "let's find X, and I bet it has abc properties" and "let's find x, which we know for a fact has abc properties".
The first is a demonstration of a rudimentary scientific hypothesis. We expect it to have abc characteristics, but are willing to discard them if we discover we were mistaken.
The second is an example of psudeoscience. We have decided it has abc characteristics, and if we discover it does not, we discard the contrary evidence and maintain that it does in fact have abc characteristics. That is what an assumption is, assumed to be true. This is why any fact based study tries to avoid them whenever possible.
Eventually we get to: "find other instances of X".
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.
That is a very poor example of what peer review is. To continue with that analogy, you feel the elephant's toe and describe it as a certain way. Everyone else then feels the exact same toe and either confirms your feeling, or says no you're nuts it feels like this. The whole point is that everyone is testing the exact same thing, so that if you came to an erroneous conclusion we are much more likely to find it.
Not to derail the topic but the Scientific Method is just a modern-day bible. It's an adjunct to reason, a cookbook that lays down a history of scientific findings, lists best practices and acceptable ways to approach certain types of problems. It's not a substitute for reason or the curious inner child that wants to explore and experiment.
Not really. The scientific method is evidence based. In my experience the people who tend to have most trouble with the scientific method are adherents to things like astrology, numerology, mythology, various pseudosciences, etc. In other words, things for which there is no repeatable evidence. Obviously, if you have no evidence to support your claims you will take issue with a methodology that requires evidence. As for the "inner child" you mentioned, well I mean, what it comes down to really is that the scientific method works. We know this, as virtually all of our great discoveries were made following it. I can't think of a single instance where a person abandoned the scientific method and just let their "curious inner child explore and experiment" and discovered anything of any use.Well, I didn't mean disparage the aeons of cooperative development that went into creating today's scientific method from the ground up.
I loosely define consciousness as the 'ego' or the "first person experience" - the something that imagines all that stuff that we're aware of when we're awake or dreaming. Right off the bat it's difficult for the scientific method because it focuses on empiricism as the dominant way of doing things.
Ah, but see, this is exactly what I was just talking about. You have already decided, before conducting any sort of investigation, just what all these things are and how they work (albeit perhaps not precisely). No need to investigate really, if you have already decided what the conclusion will be regardless of the evidence discovered.Preliminary scientific aim: "find X" where X is consciousness.
But I've always had some rudimentary a priori knowledge that I'm an "experiential being".
So then I want to "learn more about X".
And so the process seems continuous.
Eventually we get to: "find other instances of X".
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.
“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.
Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.
Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?
I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.
How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?
I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.
On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?
Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5. However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.
The fact that people all over the place ask the question, what is it that makes quantum effects random, shows that there is cause and effect behind quantum? Why? Because people in their minds, souls and spirits act quantumly. Yet they ask the question.
“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.
Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.
Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?
I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.
How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?
I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.
On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?
Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5. However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.
Consider this:
Recent experimental evidence would suggest that the elusive zero point energy (ZPE) vacuum fluctuations can be detected using an electric field.
How would you describe Consciousness with an equation?
Well I wouldn't. Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want.
Well I wouldn't. Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want.
No, consciousness is not just a word. It has been the subject of extensive study and definition. This is within the domain of "cognitive psychology."
Not to be pedantic but it IS just a word. The "thing" the word describes is what has been the subject of extensive study. The word itself is just a word. We could just as easily discard the word and choose something else to call it, and the underlying "thing" it describes would still exist, unchanged.
Just like "reality",
"consciousness" is a philosophical concept.
But reality itself is not a concept.
Reality is
(--and we won't give it a name)
Jump to: