Evidence That the Human Body is a Projection of Consciousness

originally posted by: middleeasterndude
Interesting !

, but i have a question, so you say , that if our bodes are projections of our consciousness , in a non related manner , can we for example , imply on our bodies certain things , just by believing ? like , for example i believe i can get taller , then i get taller ? excuse me if i had it wrong , but please clarify for me .

thanks !

That's exactly what this article pretends

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

abyss.uoregon.edu...

How does the role of the observer effect the wave and particle nature of the quantum world? One test is to return to the two slit experiment and try to determine count which slit the photon goes through. If the photon is a particle, then it has to go through one or the other slit. Doing this experiment results in wiping out the interference pattern. The wave nature of the light is eliminated, only the particle nature remains and particles cannot make interference patterns. Clearly the two slit experiments, for the first time in physics, indicates that there is a much deeper relationship between the observer and the phenomenon, at least at the subatomic level. This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence.

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the
collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral
power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward
the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced
attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data
contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on
average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4.36, p=6·10-6). Another 250 control
sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures
for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0.43, p=0.67). Variables including temperature,
vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast,
factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of
focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly
correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results
appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement
problem. © 2012 Physics Essays Publication.

Professor Anton Zeilinger again:

www.dailymotion.com...

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: sled735

"One of the key principles of quantum physics is that our thoughts determine reality. Early in the 1900′s they proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt with an experiment called the double slit experiment."


The quantum world behaves based on our decisions.

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence that confirms this. The double slit experiment is not about decisions of the observer, it is only about the observer's capacity to know an outcome.

Decisions have little to do with quantum physics (as we know it).

I don't doubt that a conscious being's thoughts may have a direct effect on outcomes, but there is no scientific evidence that suggests this. This is a misinterpretation of experiments like "the double slit experiment" and "the quantum eraser experiment". Those experiments only suggest that the observer's ability to know "which path" information causes a wave to decohere into a path based on probability, which in the case of the double slit experiment, would be 50/50.

You evidently do not understand the quantum theory of measurement. How the observer decides to observe the quantum object (particle or wave) determines what he measures. And the infamous "delayed choice" version of the double slit experiment demonstrates that a quantum object seems to know whether to behave as a particle or as a wave as it passes through the double slit LONG BEFORE before the experimenter has decided whether it should be observed as a wave or as a particle. That conflicts with all classical notions of causality and has no known explanation.

The quantum world behaves according to the form of intervention that has been decided upon. Paradoxically, the wave/particle nature of light from the distant universe can be determined millions of years before it reaches the laboratory on Earth and the decision then made whether to observe it as waves or as a stream of photons.

Decisions have EVERYTHING to do with quantum physics. That's why no one understands the quantum world. It behaves in a non-local way.

a reply to: micpsi

And illustration of the delayed-choice experiment:

henry.pha.jhu.edu...

A replication of the experiment:

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

Wave-particle duality is strikingly illustrated by Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment, where the configuration of a two-path interferometer is chosen after a single-photon pulse has entered it: Either the interferometer is closed (that is, the two paths are recombined) and the interference is observed, or the interferometer remains open and the path followed by the photon is measured. We report an almost ideal realization of that gedanken experiment with single photons allowing unambiguous which-way measurements. The choice between open and closed configurations, made by a quantum random number generator, is relativistically separated from the entry of the photon into the interferometer.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Now THAT is much better than the crap from the article. The article even claimed this:

One of the key principles of quantum physics is that our thoughts determine reality.

Early in the 1900′s they proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt with an experiment called the double slit experiment

It's funny, it says it proved, early in the 1900, and without a shadow of a doubt, that consciousness determine reality.

That's of course BS.

The reality, which is what you posted and can bee seen in the study, is that:

3 previous studies tried to find proof of the influence of consciousness over light. They took place in the nineties.
1 found no correlation
1 found a non-significant correlation
1 found a significant correlation

So basically three different opinions.

Also these experiences were testing how consciousness influences the collapse of a wave function, NOT that consciousness creates matter! That's clearly another claim.

So now we have this fourth study from the Institute of Noetic Sciences (so unfortunately they are not truly unbiased :/ ) which says they also found a correlation.

But what does that mean. Because it's one thing to quote a study, it's another to explain the meaning. And neither the article neither you did it. I think it's misleading to post such a study without explaining it and claiming it's a proof.

I mean, did you even read and understand it? 90% of it are statistics and hypothesis, and it's very easy to make statistics say what you want. I prefer a direct access to the experience readings.

Hopefully they shared one too:




Here was their hypothesis

a differential drop in the
spectral ratio R during focused-attention periods relative
to no-attention periods

The attention period are indicated by the square function (-1 attention, 0 no attention) and the result of the experiment is the blue line.


So basically, if consciousness influence significally the experience, you would see the blue line following the variations of the square line.

I have to admit that the above results in the image are underwhelming. Sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes not.

It seems mostly random. Not significant at all for me. Now of course, by using probabilities you can later twist and turn this randomness and spout complicated figures and hope no one will question your conclusion (that's unfortunately happening a lot of time).

But here, as much as I find the experience fascinating, as much as I have to admit that the results are really not what I expected. There is no significant correlation to be seen, and it confirms my fears based on the previous experiences which were mitigated too.

So basically, what these experiences are showing at best are "it seems that with conscious attention participants are able to get non random result 5% of the time.

We are not talking 100% or even 50% of the time here, but really a lame figure.

So I'm not sure quoting these studies "prove" in any away that consciousness can "control" reality. At best it shows that there is a slight, non null influence but nothing to be enthusiast about.


That's what I hate about these sensationalist sites like the one in the OP. They will post studies they don't understand, twist their meaning and hope the majority of people are too stupid to even understand what it's all about.

That site is like "news of the world" but for noetics.





Yet thanks for the study, it was interesting. But unfortunately it confirmed my fears, we are really talking about marginal effects. I mean if I have to try 20 times to affect a photon with my mind for it to happen 1 time, I don't really consider that a useful nor usable power As a reminder, matter is not composed of one particle but billions of it.

I let you calculate the probability of influencing billions of particles based on the result of the experience. It's of course 0

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: sled735

"One of the key principles of quantum physics is that our thoughts determine reality. Early in the 1900′s they proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt with an experiment called the double slit experiment."


The quantum world behaves based on our decisions.

Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence that confirms this. The double slit experiment is not about decisions of the observer, it is only about the observer's capacity to know an outcome.

Decisions have little to do with quantum physics (as we know it).

I don't doubt that a conscious being's thoughts may have a direct effect on outcomes, but there is no scientific evidence that suggests this. This is a misinterpretation of experiments like "the double slit experiment" and "the quantum eraser experiment". Those experiments only suggest that the observer's ability to know "which path" information causes a wave to decohere into a path based on probability, which in the case of the double slit experiment, would be 50/50.

You evidently do not understand the quantum theory of measurement. How the observer decides to observe the quantum object (particle or wave) determines what he measures.

Nope. How the observer decides to observe? What does that even mean?

"How the observer decides to observe" (whatever that means) would make no difference. Intention has nothing to do with the decoherence of the wave. Out of two slits to go through, the wave will "collapse" through both with a 50% chance of going through the other. You can "choose to observe" it however you like, you're not going to change the 50/50 chance it has to go through one or the other.

I will say it is true that what you choose to measure determines what you choose to measure, however.

Biocentrism fails in my opinion. To say consciousness is the cause of reality seems absurdly solipsistic. It's taking "the tree in the forest" and giving it steroids. Yes observation collapses the wave function, but to me that proves validity in the multiverse if anything. It is just a superposition of multiple states without observation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a slippery slope, but so is solipsism.

I have often used the argument put on a blindfold and blare some music and start walking in a random direction, you will quickly find reality exists regardless of consciousness.

TheBandit795, I mean no disrespect to you but there's something that bugs me and I would like some clarifications from you.

Do you really understand the studies you posted? Do you really understand quantum physics, the differences between the double-slit experiment, the uncertainty principle and the observer effect? Because all these things are different and you seem to confuse them.

I'm familiar with the experiments of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and to be true they are not trying to prove that consciousness projects reality. What they mostly seem to show in their studies is the existence of a universal consciousness, and how everyone and everything is connected through this consciousness and can tap into it.

But NOT that consciousness creates reality!

Actually, I don't even question the existence of a universal consciousness because it's my philosophical belief.



But when I see you posting these studies in the context of the thread, and how so many on ATS take them for granted, I have to ask myself if it's an attempt to mislead or truly a misunderstanding from your part?

Nothing in the study you posted supports the claim of the article (consciousness CREATES reality, rather very slightly influencing a photon, or that consciousness has COMPLETE control over the body) so I really don't know why you would post them?

I sincerely hope it's only a misunderstanding from your part, because you have to realize that the majority of people on ATS won't understand these studies so they would think they prove the OP, when they do nothing as such.

They only go -maybe and very slightly- in the direction of an universal consciousness, which is a completely different topic!

I hope you understand my questioning.

Thanks!

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

"What they mostly seem to show in their studies is the existence of a universal consciousness, and how everyone and everything is connected through this consciousness and can tap into it. "



what???????

As beautiful as that sounds...
It seems your question "Do you really understand the studies you posted?"....is a projection.

originally posted by: kauskau
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

"What they mostly seem to show in their studies is the existence of a universal consciousness, and how everyone and everything is connected through this consciousness and can tap into it. "



what???????

As beautiful as that sounds...
It seems your question "Do you really understand the studies you posted?"....is a projection.

I wasn't talking about that study in particular, but the studies done by the Institute of Noetic Sciences in general.

noetic.org...

The Science of Interconnectedness:
How does consciousness interact
with the physical world?

This program investigates the physical and psychophysiological bases of interconnectedness; noetic states of consciousness including nondual awareness, intuition, and presentiment; the effects of intention and attention on the physical world, including inanimate and living organisms; and human capacities that appear to extend beyond the conventional boundaries of space and time. By studying these phenomena, we seek a more comprehensive understanding of noetic experiences, the relationship between subjective and objective states, the nature of consciousness and the self, and the fabric of reality. Most of this work is conducted in our laboratory.

And not even that I agree with the way they conduct their experiences, because I don't.


Exemple of experiments they do:

• Global Consciousness Project
  
• Double-Slit Experiment (the one quoted)
  
• Psychophysiological Correlates of Nondual States of Awareness
  
• Seeing the Future
  
• Gaia's Dreams
  
• FRED A software application to collect data from random number generators for "field consciousness" research.
  
• Psychophysiology of Spiritual Transmission
  

etc...

They explore various topics but historically they have always been very invested in this : Global Consciousness Project, and many of their studies revolve around it.

But maybe you have a different view of their researches and in that case I would gladly hear about it.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

my view is simple: quantum physicists are not really talking colorful about the implications and possibilites of some studies..because there is still a kind of "ridicule" that happens, when you start to talk about the possibilities in a way that could sound spiritual (bringing spirit/consciousness into the equation)

Thats why they make it sound as abstract/cold/bloodless as possible )...


At the end they still do not understand why things on a quantum level are the way the are..they are just seeing that they con not "observe" without "observing" the "observation" itself...

originally posted by: kauskau
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

my view is simple: quantum physicists are not really talking colorful about the implications and possibilites of some studies..because there is still a kind of "ridicule" that happens, when you start to talk about the possibilities in a way that could sound spiritual (bringing spirit/consciousness into the equation)

Thats why they make it sound as abstract/cold/bloodless as possible )...


At the end they still do not understand why things on a quantum level are the way the are..they are just seeing that they con not "observe" without "observing" the "observation" itself...

The Institute for Noetic Sciences ARE quantum physicists and ARE NOT afraid of talking about spirituality, global consciousness and prescience.

So I don't really get your point.

They study exactly that and their studies conclusion are far from being undisputable of significant influence of the mind over reality.

If even the most fierce proponents can't provide successful conclusions, I don't think we will get anything better than that.

And I say that despite wishing they would. It's just not the case, sorry.


I have a very open mind and I want also nothing but proofs of the supernatural, but I'm also trained to be critical and I can admit it when reality doesn't conform to what I wish.


Most of the people supporting the claims in the OP don't do so because they think it's true but because they WANT it to be true.

It's not healthy and the path to delusion (beliefs influence subjective reality, remember?)

Listen you may have your beliefs and I respect it. I have mine too, I believe in spirituality and I'm a pantheist.

But I also have scientific training so if people start using studies to prove their points, I talk as a scientist.

And if someone claims the studies of the Institute of Noetic Sciences prove the OP, I have to say first that it's not true, and secondly that, unfortunately and to my dismay, they never managed to prove anything significant.

Now you can talk beliefs all you want, but if people start to post studies as "proofs" we have to start talking science. There are plenty of spiritual scientists and they are not afraid of ridicule. The catholic church is full of doctors in physics and yet they are able to separate beliefs and observable facts.

I don't like it when some people assume I'm trying to debunk or to deny the paranormal. I just try to remain critical which is something that is lacking for many here.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
TheBandit795, I mean no disrespect to you but there's something that bugs me and I would like some clarifications from you.

Do you really understand the studies you posted? Do you really understand quantum physics, the differences between the double-slit experiment, the uncertainty principle and the observer effect? Because all these things are different and you seem to confuse them.

I think I understand bit about it. I'm no expert though. But the double-slit experiment does show the observer effect, does it not?

I'm familiar with the experiments of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and to be true they are not trying to prove that consciousness projects reality. What they mostly seem to show in their studies is the existence of a universal consciousness, and how everyone and everything is connected through this consciousness and can tap into it.

Yeah, I understand that's their main point of study, plus other kinds of studies.

But NOT that consciousness creates reality!

Then why are they (R C Henry for example) strongly advocating the notion that reality is mental (that it's based on consciousness?)

Actually, I don't even question the existence of a universal consciousness because it's my philosophical belief.

It's mine too.

But when I see you posting these studies in the context of the thread, and how so many on ATS take them for granted, I have to ask myself if it's an attempt to mislead or truly a misunderstanding from your part?

Never was, never will be.

Nothing in the study you posted supports the claim of the article (consciousness CREATES reality, rather very slightly influencing a photon, or that consciousness has COMPLETE control over the body) so I really don't know why you would post them?

Because in my opinion, these experiments/claims can be used to support similar notions.

I sincerely hope it's only a misunderstanding from your part, because you have to realize that the majority of people on ATS won't understand these studies so they would think they prove the OP, when they do nothing as such.

They only go -maybe and very slightly- in the direction of an universal consciousness, which is a completely different topic!

I hope you understand my questioning.

Thanks!

No problem.

a reply to: sled735

Hopefully I'm not arriving to the thread too late...

I'm fairly certain after much of my investigating the evidence of consciousness and quantum materials, that we do not CHOOSE or DECIDE to place a wave into a particle, but we merely collapse superstates by observing them consciously. With this article you state we are "choosing" to form our "physical" bodies, but yet the experiments only show that this would be the result of the phenomena between observing and superstates. There is not choice going on anywhere. When Schrodinger's cat is in the box, we do not choose whether it is alive or dead, it is both alive and dead - and this superstate collapses upon contact with our conscious observation to whatever happens.

I can still see how this can be a projection, but describing these things as direct choice doesn't sound accurate to me. We don't just get to observe a tree and watch it grow into an airplane because we chose so. I do think our thoughts have significant effects on our health though, and this is based off of the possibility of our chemicals being able to positively or negatively affect our bodies based off of our emotions and which hormones trigger from the act of worrying or enjoying. I still don't believe choice affects anything at the quantum level, short of deciding we want to observe something

I am open to the possibility that reality is a product of our creative imagination, but it's pretty simplistic to think that if you believe you're healthy, you will be healthy. And if I believe I'm totally healthy then catch the flu, you can say I just believe in my health strongly enough.

This sounds a bit like the "secret" that Oprah and others were franchising...if you think good thought, good things will just come to you...think about money and money will come....Really?

The world and our perception of reality is very complex, composed of genetic predispositions to certain disease and emotional responses, not to mention behavioral constructs from parents, teachers, peers....every moment is a unique collection of all these elements.

To think we can control the whole shebang with positive intent is very naive...although a person can influence their health and well-being by using their creative imagination to take care of themselves, and maybe others!

a reply to: smithjustinb

the observer effect is real. Even seen in the real world for those who choose to see things for what they really are. Thoughts are energy, and so that energy takes on waveform. The constructs of reality are based on energy and waveform. All matter is energy.

If you want to see how belief and the observer effecting the experiment is in the real world. Just take a look at the historical example of Roger Bannister and running the 4 minute mile. In those times it was believed it was impossible for a human to run a 4 minute mile or faster. It was even suggested the person would die from it because of the strain put on the body and organ systems.

And one day a man named Roger Bannister broke ran faster than a 4 minute mile in 1954. He broke the belief of what was possible, and many witnessed it and read about it. And a month later, there were dozens of people doing it. Where previously no one had been able to do it.

Its a suggestion that beliefs limit what is possible and reality. So it also suggests what limiting beliefs and dogmas taught to people in the world may be doing to them, in terms of what is possible, and in terms of general happiness and joy. Look at the world and how negative it is. Even look at the religious systems that teach an angry punishing god and how people are unworthy. Is it no wonder the world is in the condition it is in, where the belief leads to people living lives of anger, hate, separation and unhappiness and negativity from the false beliefs they are taught to keep them under control. And this hate and separation from themselves, other people, and God, leads to violence and wars, and they justify it under the false pretenses of a God who humans have manipulated for self serving means. What this means is the Ego which lives in your left brain, controls you and also the world because it is in all of us. This Ego which most people believ is them, which religions refer to actually as Satan or the Devil in us all. Until you begin to become aware of it, and begin the separation game from the Ego, which is not you, and begin to dissolve it away. The process begins with no judgement, for as long as you are in judgement, you are in Ego. It is why we live in good and evil consciousness.

There is no false interpretation to a phenomenon until the population for that phenomenon is in discovery. It is unscientific as to refer to a phenomenon as solved until everything about is known.

A pseudo-scientific response is to suggest the problem has been solved or that it is silly to claim anything outside a particular opinion. In this particular situation one can cite based upon the opinion of scientist this is what is presented......

Altogether besides David Bohm there are several Nobel Laureates that did present findings to the effect in support of quantum mechanics as related to consciousness.


Claims that either side are not really scientist are irrelevant as the collegiate requirements have been met by these
individuals.

Claims either side are part of some conspiracy is irrelevant as these people who are well educated are well payed.

They can do as they see fit and often do.

I feel it is important to remember that everything we feel, see, hear, taste and smell is the result of internal representations.

Meaning that the entire Classical Perspective is in reality a projection that only exist in our brains.

This of course includes results from particle accelerators.

It is not hard to understand the rather interesting articles offered in this thread. As an interpretation of a frame of mind that acknowledged the very real fact that the existence of solid objects. Is the result of a false conclusion, based inherently upon the fact that everything we observe with the senses is literally in our heads.

Quantum Mechanics presents that outside of that frame of references there is inherently another orientation to Reality.

Science when practiced appropriately addresses the need to "Rule Out", reasons a phenomenon exist. For example a patient presents a certain set of symptoms and the Physician considers a certain Diagnosis. The point is to rule out that diagnosis by preforming the appropriate tests that provides the results of the patient (also a population).

The idea that any data not matter how small regarding a phenomenon that relate to the human condition is inappropriate. Please understand that any positive response to a life threating disease, that kills 100's of millions of people every year. is a positive response that needs to e investigated. And that is the really weird part in relation to spontaneous recovery.

In an earlier response I pointed out that we have in the United States a small percentage of people who spontaneously
remit from cancer.

Despite this there is no comprehensive research into the potential/determination of that this could potentiate a cure.

The problem with such an opinion is that when it comes to a virus is the CDC had 130 people that had survived the disease, Researchers would be "flocking to these individuals like drones".

That is not the case here and I submit that the real reason is because in relation to the Minimalist Scientific conclusion. It is a matter of they being unable to understand it.

So when it is brought up there is this procession of those who say it is wrong to think that way.

Based upon what?

Any thought?

Check out “Kirlian Photography” in your search engine. It’s very interesting.

Whats that have to do with the OP?

That has NOTHING to do with our body being a hologram. You know the same thing happens if you play video games all day right?

a reply to: TheBandit795