Religion Vs. Philisophy

here's another Science study that will be rejected on this forum:

http://pimvanlommel.nl/files/Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf

 

Would you be willing to admit that Consciousness is non-local in the face of more and more evidence?

Keep in mind that Copernicus, Plato, and Newton were all highly astute students of Hermeticism.

 

That link seems interesting, I'll read it when I have an opportunity, the other one is the obviously a biased source, I am not going to entertain as credible.

 

I removed it. I'll try to only post the most non-biased posts as possible from now on.

 

The way you phrase the question makes it a loaded question, it's going on the assumption that that view is accurate.

I already showed on the last page I read a book that suggests Consciousness is non-local, there are some interesting points but I am not persuaded. What evidence would it take you to consider that the brain produces consciousness?

 

Not exactly, I said that Hawking said that, which is part of why we are facing this Post-Modern Crisis, and culture-wide nihilism. Though to clarify: Hawking said philosophy is dead---I hope I made it clear that I believe that philosophy is in a state of crisis---just as it was when Kant came out and tied the pieces together to give it new life. Effectively, it is dead.

But we need to give it new life, we need to rediscover meaning. Science may give meaning to many people, but just like religion, science as it is, wrapped in its own materialist dogma, cannot give meaning as a culture-wide unifying truth.

 

It's already been pounded into my head my entire life that the brain creates consciousness, and yet I've always still been intuitively not convinced, which has led me to Quantum Physicists such as Amit Goswami.

The fact that Physics and Quantum Mechanics are two completely separated worlds of Science already shows the obviousness that something isn't quite right with our paradigm.

 

I think a lot of people today find unifying truth in subcultures, which I don't see anything inherently wrong with, although I have not really explored other cultures to maybe understand better what you mean by unifying 'truth'. For instance, for me the Rave Scene really meant something and I saw a distinct nature of 'rite of passage' into the technologically driven culture, but a few of those experiences in particular had a unifying quality to them that is really ineffable and I felt meant SOMETHING and showed me Something about the nature of being human.

To someone not open to it, the exchanging of candy bracelets, frivolous hugging, circle dances, staying up until the sun, etc. may seem kind of like hedonistic escapism and it can certainly become that with the frequency of the events but regardless I found meaning there that I have not experienced by any other means or medium.


I had a Anthropology teacher back in school actually invite the class to participate in a Native Ceremony, I don't recall for what tribe but I didn't end up going. I think I had responsibilities to attend to but I probably wouldn't go out of my way to do something like that without someone else I could discuss it with going as well.

 

Yeah, you joke about it... If we're talking about deep truth, you could say it and truly mean it, and it would be meaningful to someone to hear you say it. Just as meaningful as saying, "You're beautiful."

Who is using folk wisdom? I'm making the clear point that the brain doesn't seem like consciousness, and that you're going to have an impossible time looking at the brain and proving that nothing novel is being created. It doesn't matter how many associations you can find between the brain and human activity. It still on the face of it doesn't prove that consciousness is completely synonymous with brain activity. There's nothing about the physical brain that makes it seem like it is. Not even being able to cut bits of it off and stop certain experiences from happening.

No, you wouldn't assume that it was Microsoft Windows. And you shouldn't. It might be Linux for all you know. So why should we look at the processes of the brain and say, "Ah! It's consciousness!" There is no feasible way to prove that the billions of neurons firing in our brain don't essentially create some aspect of existence that can't be reduced to the brain alone.

I know it's a problem that's been tackled, which is why I'm disappointed that guerillabedlam called me stupid for making the argument. It's perhaps the most important thing to be aware of if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty of the discussion.

Yeah I was thinking about this comment and I may have been a little off base. Female sexual arousal does give me an erection, though, but oxytocin being released in a female's brain doesn't give me an erection. I guess the point is that female sexual arousal is much more than oxytocin being released in the brain.

But I'm making the same points over and over again. In order for two things to be said to be the same, they have to seem the same, and there's nothing about the physical brain to suggest it seems the same as the full, rich world of consciousness.

 

Just in case people are doubting the validity of Goswami and are throwing him into the "kooky" exception of Scientists, his book "Quantum Mechanics" is a primary textbook used in many universities regarding the study of the subject.

http://jeffkobermeditation.com/2012/06/dr-amit-goswami-and-non-local-consciousness-june-4-2012/

"In trying to understand certain of his life experiences, Professor Goswami began to seek answers in that place where science and spirituality seem to meet.

In the documentary Professor Goswami describes an experiment he witnessed, that since has been replicated by at least four other researchers, in which there seems to be scientific proof of what he calls ‘non-local consciousness,’ consciousness as the unified field, something that connects us all. It is what Jungians might call the collective consciousness, what Vedantists might call Self.

In this study, two people are brought together to meditate for 20 minutes with the intention that they communicate non-locally, directly, without any exchange of signal. Then they are separated and put in electromagnetically impervious chambers to ensure that no signal may be ‘sent’ from one brain to the other. The subjects are asked to maintain that meditative state of intention. Now their brains are connected to individual EEG machines, electroencephalographs, which will record the brain wave patterns of each subject. One subject (and only one subject. They do not switch back and forth) is shown a series of light flashes. This causes brain wave activity which is recorded by the EEG. From that information a potential can be extracted called evoked potential. Potential evoked by the light flashes. This extracted potential can be charted as a very specific brain wave pattern.

The other subject in the meantime is just meditating, but the EEG machine connected to the brain of this second observer who doesn’t see light flashes, who is never shown light flashes, consistently depicted transferred potential, the brain wave pattern of which was very similar in both phase and strength to the evoked potential that the first observer’s EEG gives us.

What does this mean? It means that electrical activity is being transferred from one brain to another without any electromagnetic connection. Without any signal. Through intention, the two brains have become correlated non-locally. There is no other way of understanding this result, according to Professor Goswami, and this understanding is to him proof of non-local consciousness. Oneness. Self, with a capital ‘S.’"

 

Gorgeous article


http://granta.com/invitation/

 

chirp chirp from the skeptics in the face of hard evidence...

 

Chirp chirp at work all day ...

It should be irrelevant to your post content but these rush to judgements I see you frequently make I think influence my views regarding your credibility and claims of magick and some of the stuff that seems like fluff on the surface.

 

I don't really care that my vibe is persuading your opinion of these subjects that easily. I'm providing evidence for non-local Consciousness and also for how this Consciousness can have a Quantum effect on material reality which in turn is a huge Scientific argument for Magick. Take it or leave it.

 

... Still at work by the way.

 

Oh for fucks sake ChinaCat, if you're going to say your posting hard evidence, learn how to research and post an actual study instead of posting a blurb about a study from an actor who doesn't even source the study he is regurgitating.

 

Amit Goswami wrote a whole book about it, entitled The Self Aware Universe. The latest study, which has been repeated, only elaborates on it.

Could you be any more in denial?

 

:rofl:

 

Enough already! Damn.