Science.

Prove it.

 

Mystics can know, but only if they get the knowledge from science. Before science these things were not known to any human beings. Not Krishna, not Buddha, not Jesus.

Some scientists study the brain, and it's a very interesting field of research, which is coming along in leaps and bounds these days. Maybe the research will lead to new insights about the nature of consciousness.

'Inexplicable knowing' may be a fact of experience, but it can't tell us much about most of the things science studies.
The simple fact is that no other method has given us so much information about the universe in which we exist.
And there are some scientists , such as the English biologist Rupert Sheldrake(who in fact is using science to investigate 'Inexplicable kinds of knowing), who argue for a new paradigm in science, which is not based on a purely materialist type of view. Consciousness could be a whole new major field of study for scientists in the future. This has already begun.

 

Gina can’t prove it because it’s a belief and a philosophy espoused by such noted scientists as biologist Rupert Sheldrake, best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory.

He worked in developmental biology at Cambridge University, where he was a Fellow of Clare College. He was then Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute in Hyderabad, India. and the Director of the Perrott-Warrick project, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge.

He believes the source human consciousness lies outside the brain

Hotwater

 

NG=empiricism wins. Tested the theory thrice! Much to my immediate dismay.

 

The experience of conscious awareness of oneself (consciousnes) is hard for me to understand but I am beginning to understand it better little by little. It is very mysterious.

I think our thoughts can actually cause events to happen (or not happen). Call it synchronicity if you like but some things are more than coincidence I belive.

I was watching "through the wormhole" on science channel last night and he was talking about things such as synchronicity. He went on to explain how every decision we make creates a fork in the timeline of the universe. Basically by making a decision a new parallel univere is created. In the one you reside in you made a certain decision..in the rest of the parallel universes in which you exist is a you that made a different decision (all possible decisions).

He also explains how if you were to brush with death (almost got hit by a car, hit by car and survived, got shot and survived etc) that in one (or maybe some) parallel universe you would die, and in others you would live.

Very interesting, I'd like to say more about this but don't know how to put it into words except I have come close to death before.

I was in a car and bullets were fired at the car. One bullet went through the window, through the steering wheel and into the dashboard. Still not sure if the bullet that went through the steering wheel is the same one as the one that went through the dash but the trajectory of the bullet should have gone through my head.

The thing about this tho was everyone else was in a panic state, but I was not the least bit shook. In fact I didn't even realize what had occurred. I noticed the windows was missing the glass and assumed somebody threw a rock or something. Then I noticed the bullet holes. I never heard the gunshots that were shot at the car, but they told me there were several gunshots fired at the car. Glad I don't live that kind of lifestyle anymore, I'm lucky to be alive.

So maybe this created a new branch of time, a new parallel universe. One of them I died, the other I lived...but it was like maybe as soon as I died in that universe my consciousness was instantaneously transferred to me in the universe where I survived.

Makes me questions what happens to human consciousness when one dies? Does that conciousness die too, or does it persist in a universe where the person is alive?

 

'He who is wise, let him remain wise
He who is ignorant, let him remain ignorant'.

 

Science is the observation of the universe, of course observation and dedicated study and accumulation of knowledge across centuries is the best way to understand the universe. If you can appreciate the universe for the miracle it is, then science is for you.

Science is humanity at it's best, most curious, most compassionate for others, and most able to accept new solutions when they become available.

I find criticism of sciences that I hear are never academic well thought out treatises on specific needs for change. They're always just idiots. But I can't really get into pop scientists like Dawkins debating creationists or whatever either.

 

it would still make sense then to look inside the brain for the "receiver" of consciousness.

unless you are like gina and just KNOW.

...if you just "know" something, and can articulate it well for others, but you don't have any evidence ....that just kinda smells like bullshit to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ"]Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real - YouTube

 

Through the wormhole is an excellent show, and the theory of alternate realities/parallel universes which offers up the notion that “everything that can happen, does happen” has profound implications on our view of the universe. Every choice that we make, every decision, every thought, forms the basis of a new reality.

Hotwater

 

So does that mean I should stop looking for funding to explore this further?

 

There is plenty of evidence that the brain is the primary mode of consciousness with humans.

Drugs, brain injuries, cognitive tests, etc.


Also, there are varying viewpoints about consciousness, some scientists Think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, so they wouldn't be trying to find consciousness in the brain, just what areas are responsible For what aspect of consciousness.

 

Science is great, and then there is philosophy, for dealing with subjects that science can't measure or analyze from evidence. Both are useful for different purposes, not to be used against each other.

Around where I live, when somebody (especially a redneck) starts a sentence with "Everybody knows...", you know you're about to hear something that isn't true.

 

Consciousness may arise from processes in the brain. I think consciousness probably operates at the quantum level. Quantum entanglement and such could explain psychic phenomenon such as ESP.

 

There's a lot of cross over these days between science and philosophy. Philosophy of science is a discipline in itself.

What we have to guard against I think is the anti-scientific rhetoric of religious fundamentalists. Philosophers tend to be more objective and open minded.

'What everybody knows' is a kind of expression of the herd mentality.

It was Robert Anton Wilson who said 'think how dumb the average person is, then remember half of them are dumber than that'.

 

Science and philosophy do share one thing in common and that is reasoning.

 

So how would particles get read in an analogous way in ESP via quantum entanglement like neurons being transmitted across axons to locations in the brain to provide the mind with info?

 

If two particles become entangled at any point, changing the state of one affects the other. They were probably very close at first, produced by the decay of a more massive particle or something like that. One their entangled, it doesn't matter if they are light years apart, the interaction takes place instantaneous.

Read up on quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement, it's quite hard for me to wrap my head around, much less explain. It is a very mysterious thing in the universe.

 

hmmm,
then by extrapolation, if the big bang theory is correct, theoretically all particles in the known universe are entangled.