Non-Local Consciousness

Why are you bashing cults and yet defending a cult leader?

Reference the studies that were posted if you want proof. Clearly you can't read.

I actually do have practical experience.

I think I'm done listening to or addressing anymore of your blabber.

Speaking of being attached, even in the face of repeated studies, you still can't accept what's shown.

 

[SIZE=medium]I wanted to mention in the last thread where we were all discussing this that it was mentioned that it is the action of oxytocin being released in the brain that makes someone horny.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Well I am here to set that straight----when I am with my wife, and we get frisky--it is Jesus that makes me horny. When I am in a Motel 6 with a hooker, it is Lucifer that makes me horny. There is a clear and present difference. However, when I am in a Motel 6 with my wife and a hooker, it is both Jesus and Lucifer that makes me horny...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]But ok, maybe Jesus and Lucifer release the oxytocin in my brain. But let's consider this for a moment. The implication is that I have no free will in the matter---that oxytocin is released and suddenly I am horny (and let me tell you---that excuse did not work very well with my cousin, and apparently someone told her that, no means no, and well, anyway the police were... It's not important...)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Anyway there is the question of free will here. So let's say that I am alone and bored, and in a purely hypothetical situation let’s say that I decide to jerk off. This is purely hypothetical, not that I would ever do that, but I hear that guys do this (not me of course). So out of complete boredom, like a monkey in a cage (…no, that might be a bad analogy), I decide to go over to that there youporn site (I’ve never been there, I’ve just heard that there is such a site—I wouldn’t know anything about it). Now the question is, was it the oxytocin that made me do this? Or was it my own free will of something to do while sitting lonely and bored on the public library computer? -----I’m not asking for myself, I’m asking for my friend—he’s about my same age and height.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium](Yes ladies, I don’t do such terrible things to myself. So if you were thinking of sending me nude photos, I certainly would not defile them in such a crude and objectifying manner. I would only use them for scientific or medical purposes. In fact, and I am being totally honest here----I do have a t-shirt that says, “Trust me, I’m a Doctor.” (…and they don’t sell those to just anybody. For example, you have to have like $7.99 plus tax). Besides, I only like your photos for the articles---err, uh, e-mails, or private messages, or whatever…)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Anyway, the problem with neuroscience, which falls into the same dogmatic traps as science itself, is that in regards to consciousness it presents a case that is still wrapped up in epiphenomenalism---a long-ago discarded Cartesian philosophy that said that consciousness is really an illusion, and that all our choices are predetermined by chemical responses and other biological processes. In this way there is no free will. There is no true conscious choice.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So, like I was sitting in Starbucks the other day looking at youporn, and the next thing I know, I started jerking off uncontrollably---I mean…! No! That wasn’t me, that was… Oh crap---ok, but I only do it when I am alone, at my table… Besides----what choice did I have?----It was chemical responses, and once that darned oxytocin was released I no longer had any control over my actions.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]…I guess I never did have control-----I just thought I did…[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium];-) [/SIZE]

 

People get so defensive in these threads that question the materialist or idealist, scientific or spiritual, assumptions.

Yet clearly there is great dogma on both sides, and neither side has all the answers. There is a serious problem in this country with antiscience (it could have something to do with that one Bible verse: "And the Lord did speak to Zebediah, saying, Man did not evolve from the lower forms of apes for I did create them of my own image, except for those lesser races whose ancestors do not speak my language. And lo, Zebediah did understand that it was English that was the Lord God's language.") On the other hand, science does not provide the philosophical answers that many people need in regards to their own sense of well-being and mortality, and therefore it alone cannot provide meaning to our culture. (It could have something to do with that one and only question on the final exam in Science 101--the prerequisite for all college students wanting to pursue a science major: 1.) Does God exist? (Note: Failure to answer correctly will deem you as having failed this course and you will not be able to continue in this Major. However, in such case, you are welcome to change to one of those loser humanities majors.).)

No matter how controversial, there is plenty of peer-reviewed research that demonstrates that at least some of those things we assume to be supernatural, do indeed take place. Despite all the standards of scientific integrity and the assumed acceptance of validated empirical data, and sound scientific theory, the severity of the dogma and the unrelenting adherence to outdated and traditional beliefs is felt by any scientist or researcher who tries to break free from the established mould or attempt to truly think outside of the box.

If I talk to a Christian or any other religious or spiritual person, and they immediately become angry or defensive as soon as I say something that challenges their beliefs, then I am fairly certain that there is a repressed question or doubt in their beliefs. They are not as confident or as secure in their beliefs as their ego tries to tell them they are. Any time people act that way, you know you are touching upon a shadow element. Whether they know it or not, the same is also true with people who believe themselves to be very rational scientifically minded people.

It is true for both science and religion that if we don't push the boundaries, no progress can be made--which will only lead to decadence (decay). In this world that has become seriously nihilistic, it is more critical than ever that we push the boundaries and explore such things.

 

You are coming off as an asshole. It's like you expect people to be impressed with your experiences, yet you have no practical use for them. You seem frustrated and insecure.

 

very well written - this is consciousness

 

thanks dude

 

as a final word (right now) i felt that op had a mishmash of websites from similarities of ritual and acupunture, to physics, and a whole bunch of shit - i was a chef for 20 years and i can tell you (since i live in new orleans) that you don't do nouvelle by wrapping one shrimp in bacon with a balsamic gastrique, on the same plate with a tournado with diane sauce, and also a chunk of guiness fondue in a baguette.

nor do you mishmash intelligence
or you get the state of the usa today

 

Maybe you didn't realize we were all part of a discussion Karen J started but then closed. China is just picking up where he left off, and we were going off topic in that conversation as well. Out of context, I think you're reading more into this thread than what is really there. I don't think China is trying to sell us anything. He's genuinely just interested in this conversation. This never-ending hipforums consciousness conversation that spans many threads, some closed and some still open.

 

In that thread I also suggested the idea of setting up a Science-Magick or what you could call a Quantum Magick experiment where they had someone intend whether they wanted to see a quantum object show up more often as a wave or as a particle. It's pretty similar to this experiment that was posted in the OP. They should have him/her meditate and do a ritual on a certain desired result in a quantum experiment and then be there to observe the results and see what the results are. Both experiments would regard Quantum intention, and both would regard getting in touch and interacting with the Non-Local Consciousness AKA "Quantum Consciousness".

 

No one criticizes Goswami's credentials in QM. What is questioned is his interpretation, which mirrors Hindu metaphysics. For critiques, see Sobottka http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_11.htm and Stenger http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/

 

My own philosophy places great emphasis on the individual, nonetheless there is clearly a phenomenological experience of a collective consciousness. For example, if you examine the dynamics between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War from a Jungian perspective you will find classic examples of shadow projection between the two countries, and shadow repression domestically within the countries. The case of racism today in the US is also an example of shadow repression, though with all of the developments with police shootings, friskings and so forth, it is rather hard to deny its existence anymore. But certainly over the past decade or so, racism has been repressed to the point that we have been able to lie to ourselves that it no longer exists, and yet, when we are not looking, it raises its ugly head.

 

obviously i couldn't know this was a continuation of a thread
i also am jaded here
we get alice bailey pseudotheosophists from the claire prophet cult trying to sell hinduism
heinsenberg doesn't speak to the probability of either a wave form or particle form
but rather to the point that both exist at once but we don't have the means to measure both at once

i apologize for being dumb
forgive me please

i have a problem with posts with one line nonsequiturs and a page of links
i understand now that op was continuing a thread with someone else

 

heinsenberg doesn't speak to the probability of either a wave form or particle form
but rather to the point that both exist at once but we don't have the means to measure both at once

I have considered this too. Seems to make sense that it would be both simultaneously, but that the observer is simply locking it down to one or the other at that particular time. Kind of like how the same water can either be temporarily a wave or just sink back into the depths of the ocean depending on which time of the day that you observe it. Or a cloud can be white and fluffy at one time observing it and then later on is filled with rain.

 

the schrodingers cat paradox is usually the referent for the idea that a subatomic particle falls into one state or another based on timely observation - that interpretation is known as the copenhagen something?! - but there are other interpretations of the pussy paradox and you might like what's called the 'relational' interpretation, especially as based on the op

uh furthermore schrodinger's cat is not even a theorem - just an analogy as based in 'theoretical' quantum physics - little actuality has been 'proven' or configured as immutable 'laws.'

 

As Arthur Koestler once put it:[SIZE=12pt]" the apparent absurdities of quantum physics . . . make the apparent absurdities of parapsychology a little less preposterous and more digestible". [/SIZE]I think the experiments by Goswami, Grinberg-Zillerbaum,Thaheld, Tait, Wackerman ,etc., provide confirmation of a genuine phenomenon of quantum consciousness non-locality--another example of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". So far, the results seem to be correlational, they fail three-quarters of the time, and when they work seems unpredictable. I hesitate to go off the deep end with Hindu metaphysics, as Goswami seems to do. His view of reality is colored not only by his scientific background, but also the cultural influence of Hinduism and his "aha" moment resulting from an encounter with the mystic, Joel Morwood after a lecture by Krishnamurti[SIZE=12pt], where he came to realize that "in quantum nonlocality, transcendent heaven—the kingdom of God—is everywhere". But we do not see it. I'm reminded of my own moment of clarity influenced by the Gospel of Thomas saying 113: "The kingdom of the Father is everywhere around us and we do not see it." So I'm not knocking aha moments or metaphysics; just saying that continued caution is warranted.[/SIZE]

 

Sorry. Stupid of me to assume you were aware of that other thread.

 

I'm judging Goswami not just on the information presented here but in the context of his other writings, especially The Self-Aware Universe and God is Not Dead.. He goes far beyond his level of expertise as a physicist, and gives us Brahman in quantum clothes. To me, the basic fallacy of his approach is to assume that the quantum phenomena described at the sub-atomic particle level apply equally at the atomic/macrocosmic level,.

 

Doesn't the Fibonnaci Sequence showing that the Universe is a Fractal and that microcosm and macrocosm go by the same principles?

I just don't understand what is so outlandish about thinking that subatomic and macrocosmic would be highly interlinked and similar. The reason that we separate Physics and Quantum Mechanics is because we are missing a perspective that would tie them together. It just reflects the modern day Ego of human consciousness, which is based on separation.

 

Once again, I feel like I'm discussing this in two parallel universes. Let me replicate the response that I posted on another thread and take it from there.
Far be it from me to dispute quantum probability. However, we go about our daily lives in a world in which the indeterminacies at the subatomic level seem to average out into more or less predictable regularities, making the subatomic quantum phenomena seem bizarre to us. Physicist Victor Stenger(The Unconscious Quantum, 1995), has shown that in order for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must approximate Planck’s constant (h). “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger points out that the mass and speed of neural transmitter molecules are about twice too large for quantum effects to be significant. I think Stenger is spot on in his conclusion: "Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics." And "no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe...The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function." It's certainly possible that Goswami has it right, but the fact that he quantum leaps so readily from the data to the doctrines of the Hindu religion makes me suspicious. He was inspired by Capra (The Tao Of Physics), and shows much the same readiness as Capra to overgeneralize from the data.

Goswami's writings go well beyond the facts of QM into the realm of quantum mysticism, which most scientists consider to be pseudoscience. For example, in the Self-Aware Universe, he argues that the moon wouldn't exist if there was no observer to see it. "Quantum physics says no. When we are not looking, the moon’s possibility wave spreads, albeit by a minuscule amount. When we look, the wave collapses instantly; thus the wave could not be in space-time. It makes more sense to adopt an idealist metaphysical assumption: There is no object in space-time without a conscious subject looking at it.” I used to date a girl who believed that stuff. I remember telling her not to go down a certain street for fear of being mugged, and she said not to think such things because my negative thoughts would bring the muggers about! Gimmie a break! In his cameo role in the film What the #$*! Do We Know?! Goswami tells us:“The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies.” Michael Shermer then challenged him to put his conclusions to the test by jumping out the window. http://www.michaelsh...antum-quackery/ I don't think Goswami obliged. I told the same thing once to a poster of Goswami's persuasion on these forums, and never heard from him since. I've always felt kinda guilty about that! I hope the poor soul didn't take my advice seriously!

Now about those EEG experiments on non-locality. Goswami makes much of the experiments by Professor Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The research was published in Physics Essays, a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and replicated by other scientists, so I'd say it's scientific. But what does it show? at best it might show ESP or PSI activity involving some kind of non-local instantaneous connection between human minds. It might not show even that, because interpretation of the correlational results might be inflated by errors in statistical analysis of the data, and the "the declaration of an anomaly is the only valid statement that can be made." E.C. May et al.,http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/CorrelationFinal.pdf This is not conclusive support for Goswami's theory of quantum consciousness. Quantum phenomena aren't necessarily involved, although the results are consistent with it. The results are also consistent with other possibilities dear to the New Age, like the so-called Akashic field or ESP. So I'd agree with Mr. Writer that more is required before we go generalizing about the moon disappearing, collapsing wave functions, Magyck, etc. Unfortunately, Grinberg-Zylberbaum is no longer continuing these experiments, owing to his mysterious disappearance in 1995. He may have been getting too close to something big!