Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


You should cite when you borrow from other works.
Your source material makes for some interesting reading and it would be wise if more people gave pause to consider just how similar their own ideas are to the opposite of that. If we view reality as a continuum we can always find all things do connect at a certain point otherwise how could reality be a zero-sum game if all things that came from it didn't entropy back to the source?

It's ashame so many people feel the need to employ tortured logical arguments and bad science to make this very simple point.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Awesome video!


I agree with everything he was saying because he says he's a scientist and he is talking about sciencey stuff and sounds smart with his accent!


No, but seriously, thanks. That did lighten the mood a bit, I got a kick out of that one. lol



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Awesome video!

I agree with everything he was saying because he says he's a scientist and he is talking about sciencey stuff and sounds smart with his accent!

No, but seriously, thanks. That did lighten the mood a bit, I got a kick out of that one. lol


haha, man that video still makes me laugh and I must've watched it 20 times now. His facial expressions are absolutely priceless. Best part has to be,

Without light there exists only three shapes: square, triangle and circle. So imagine there's no light. Imagine we have no sun. That would mean we're all shape men of sorts. We're all triangles, circles, and squares!



There are some other trailers with similar material, but that one is by far the best.


[edit on 23-12-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mahajohn
 


Well, I read about the technical definition of heat, and it seems to say energy. Are you saying that heat requires air molecules for us to be able to feel it as heat? In other words, energy cannot exist as heat, without the air molecules?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradox.
 


You percieve your own reality. And in your one you distance the measurment problem from the rest of quantam physics.

In your reality you also spell experience wrong.

www.youtube.com...

Watch this


[edit on 23-12-2009 by GallopingFish]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Both me and my grandfather existed in this reality at one point. About three years ago he died of complications with his health and yet despite his death, this same reality that we both existed in when he was alive is still here in which I continue to exist within it. Irregardless of him not being here to see that it is still her, it is indeed still here.


I don't think you get the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to ask does reality exist after your conscousness ceases? While you and your grandfather exist, you are there to see reality, but after you cease to exist there is no such thing as reality. To assert that reality still exists even when you are not there to see it is a belief. It is logically possible that your entire experience of reality, including your grandfather was a dream and that dream ends as soon as your consciousness ceases.

You have no way of testing whether there is a reality as soon as you cease to exist. So to make certain statements that there definitely is one after you exist is not a statement of reason, but a belief.

The point of the exercise is to show that you only believe there is a reality that can exist independent of you - you have no proof of it.


Now that I think of it, the question itself is utterly ridiculous and moot to the point. As you've now clarified that in your opinion it is your concept of God who observes reality, then inherently reality will still exist regardless of us individually living or not. As long as something is in a state of being, there will always be a universe, accordingly by your own biased opinions.


Now let us complicate reality a little, as you now understand my concept of god. Yes, you are right, there is a reality that willl continue to exist even at the death of the body - but not if conscousness ceases. Humans share a reality that they can agree on, but this is because they have similar minds that access reality in the same way. However, not all creatures have the same mind as us and will access reality in the same way. If a human looks at a chair they will see something different to what a bird sees. If you were capable of seeing atoms, you would see something completely different.

Therefore something does indeed exist, but it is not independent of us, but appears in relation to how we observe. It is then by definition not a real something, because realism is the philosophy that there are things out there that are independent of us. However, in actuality, nothing is independent of us but depends upon our observation of it.

Now let me complicate it further. You know now that I am saying that the real observer is god. Does this mean there is one supreme observer and many human observers? No, because there is no such thing as a human obsever. If you try to define personal identity you will find it is a changing complex depending on memories, names, beliefs, values, social interactions, body etc. Thus the human personality is not a real being or a real thing. It is an illusion of self. Therefore there is only ONE observer and it is not the human. This observer is eternal. Therefore the death of the human personality does not mean the end of consciousness.

If you have followed the reasoning up until now you will be able to draw the conclusion that there is no reality without consciousness. This consciousness cannot die, because it is never born. It is the beingness and it is eternal and infinite. It is due to this consciousness that there is any reality at all.


OK, fine I will concede that we are all philosophical zombies that possess no consciousness at all, that we only act as if we do.


You are closer than you think. Yes, the human is the living dead. Insofar as the human identifies itself as a thinking thing, it is not really. The human is not the real thinker. It is not the real self. It is just a personality complex that changes from moment to moment. As soon as you allow your consciousness to become misidentified with this personality complex you become the living dead.

The personality complex is just one part of a complex mental structure. The personality complex dies at death along with body, but your mind continues on in another plane of reality in a subtle-body. Much like your dream-body in dream.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Yes, the source.

The miniority of my information should be cited, but I tend to put alot of it into a more simplistic version in my own words.

Some interesting reading:

llresearch.org...



Scientist argue indefinitley about existence when really there is only one simple answer and that is that all is One Infinite Intelligent being creating and creating itself in perpetuity.

The first of existence is infinity, infinity is existence. It is everything and imagine the word everything a single word, a single being.


Although I believe the majority of extraordinary claims to be contrary of an authentic approach to foundating an awareness of our place in the universe, I have learned not to use as much logic and reasoning but instead the small voice that does not speak with words but with feelings. It is this small voice that humanity has almost, unknowingly, abolished with extreme rational and physical-illusionary thinking. Humanity needs to "think" with it's "heart". If love is used as a foundation of thoughts than the thoughts will not be corrupt for all is based upon love.

Namaste.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I just dropped in to say "HELLO MY FELLOW LOGICAL FALLACIES!"

Play nice. I love you all. Merry x-mas. Thanks for pondering about existence.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Force carriers are virtual particles, which means they don't even exist. And when they exist, we can only measure their effects, i.e their energy and momentum.

The term particle is pretty misleading in that it implies something solid, when it can be broken down as some energy exerting a force.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 



Force carriers are virtual particles, which means they don't even exist. And when they exist, we can only measure their effects, i.e their energy and momentum.


Can you please cite sources?


There is not a definite line differentiating virtual particles from real particles — the equations of physics just describe particles (which includes both equally). The amplitude that a virtual particle exists interferes with the amplitude for its non-existence; whereas for a real particle the cases of existence and non-existence cease to be coherent with each other and do not interfere any more. In the quantum field theory view, "real particles" are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are detectable only as forces but not particles.
source

Essentially, they are temporary particles but only their interactions as forces are detectable because if any measurement is done on the particle itself then it's existence is prolonged and thus becomes a real particle. Where and how they pop in and out of reality is still unknown, but they do exist.


The term particle is pretty misleading in that it implies something solid, when it can be broken down as some energy exerting a force.


Are you purposefully ignoring the cited sources on page three? All force carriers are mediated by particles, all energy known to science thus far is a function/property of matter.

Now, are you going to answer my inquiry or just leave it as an empty claim?

"Can you show me one form of energy that is not a function or property of matter and please cite sources for me to review."

-Just felt the need to repeat the question... Again.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


Yep, matter does not actually really exist. What we call matter is fluctuations from a virtual field which cluster together to form the illusion of a solid when under observation.

Here is an exercise for everybody to follow. It is similar to what a meditator does when he goes "inwards"

Begin from an empirical point of view and categorize what you see.
You will have a plural of categories such as metals, liquids, gasses, animals, minerals, plants, mind, space, time, trees etc etc. You could probably number the world into hundreds of categories.

Now, take a rational point of view and analyse everything into its logical properties. You will now have a duality of categories: consciousness and matter. These are logically irreducible. One is qualitative and one is quantitative. One is non-measurable and one is measurable.

Now, take an experential point of view. Now you have only one category: Your field of consciousness or awareness. Everything you can label now is just a name within your field of awareness. There is no such thing as matter anymore. Matter no longer matters


Ultimately, a meditator discovers that reality is really just an awareness-field existing across a spectrum of consciousness levels. They learn to tune into other stations to so to speak and experience other realities. Trust me, if you are stuck in your current reality and think there is nothing beyond it, you are missing out



[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by np6888
 


"Can you show me one form of energy that is not a function or property of matter and please cite sources for me to review."


I just want to point out here energy and matter are interchangeable, but it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter. Even ignoring that hurdle this is still difficult because ...


... in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.(1)



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This is to much conjecture to take as fact. Listen people there is a huge problem with the measurment problem and the observer effect.

The problem is the observer itself. We cannot prove that it takes an Observer to create matter out of superposition. Its really quite a perplexing problem but in my opinion it makes no difference.

The problem is you must have an observer to make a measurment. This is akin to the tree falling in the woods. . . if nothing observes it did it happen. . . . the answer is yes and no according to Heisenberg.

The falacy lies in the fact that we are barred from knowing how the event would happen without the observer present. The act of placing an observer (which by the way does not have to be a person or even something alive) changes the system in some way.

Since it cannot be proven that an event would happen differently or not at all if it weren't witnessed the idea of the observer being crucial is safe. But it is untrue. The event will happen with or without being measured. Its just impossible to predict a certain outcome without making an observation.

This is nothing more than "down the rabbit hole" rambling. These people all neglect to tell you that an observer does not have to be concsious. Its pseudo-science philisophical garbage. Its no more varifyable than string theory or religion. The act of injecting an observer into a system may cause a quantum phase change but reality doesn't depend on the measurement nor is the universe conscious.

The universe has givin rise to consciousness in order to understand itself. Its called anthropic reasoning and it makes alot of sence. The universe birthed conciousness not the other way around. People automaticaly think Man or Sentient being when they think observer, but the universe was here long before sentients.

Givin enough time any quantum possibility will occur. So here we are. consiousness is one of these probabilities. It just so happens that we are here.

It only seems like concsiousness changes erality because your allowed to choose to change the system. You also have a perception different from anyone elses. In that sence you can create your own reality. This does not mean however that your required.

"What The Bleep do We Know?"

Apperantly less than we pretend to



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   


I've already shown that the claims in this one clip are sensationalized garbage way back on page one. There is no 'understatement' going on, but there is sensationalized garbage being applauded as science.


...................



I've already shown that the claims in this one clip are sensationalized garbage way back on page one. There is no 'understatement' going on, but there is sensationalized garbage being applauded as science.


You cited a source that's ignorant to the concept of a universal consciousness.



No such thing to my knowledge has ever been documented nor has any substance labeled as 'mind power' ever been observed, measured or experimented upon. You need to get your head out of your ass and stop watching mindless sensationalized garbage. Go look at the science itself, look into the claims before you applaud it without merit.


.....................




The Global Consciousness Project, also called the EGG Project, is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others. We collect data continuously from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites around the world. The archive contains more than 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second. Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network data show meaningful departures from expectation. This is a powerful finding based in solid science.


Source



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Read about virtual particles on wiki. You're still under the illusion that they actually see these things. No, they can only measure their energy or momentum, and assume that they are particles.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The problem is that these people are passing off one interperatation of quantum mechanics. The theory itself does not say any of the garbage these people are passing off.

David Albert has said more than once that in these films he's been edited to death to obscure his true feelings on the subject.


I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.


salon.com...

I guess my real point is that people take this stuff at face value without having any real knowledge of the subject. Before you go spouting all this stuff as truth on a board where there are people who really know their stuff one should first seriously brush up on the facts of the subject.

Watching one docu doesn't make you an expert. And just because a subject ahs a docu doesn't mean its true. I guess it's just an "inconvenient truth

the presenters of these films don't care if they are lies. They are looking out for their pocketbooks.

While your believing everything you see why don't you read the bible plant some magic beans climb the beanstalk out of pergatory, mount your tri-star pegasis and go for a horse back bigfoot hunt.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Yes it does. Are you familiar with the founder of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger? He resolved the Schrodinger's cat problem by introducing consciousness.

Ahem, perhaps you should look at this video to look at what a quantum physicist is saying: www.youtube.com...



[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GallopingFish
 


Please don't pull out any more children's videos on quantum physics. I apologize for making a spelling mistake I understand how discrediting it can be. That was merely the wave particle theory. Let's skip the basic knowledge and just get right into wave function collapse. If you know what I'm talking about, and I doubt that. Now, when the little eye observes the electron, it behaves differently (In your children's video). Some may argue the observer determines the result of the experiment. But many physicist speculate that the electron behaved differently because of quantum decoherence. (Interaction with environment) My theory, yes I have looked into this extensively- Is the fundamental forces present at the beggining of our universe/reality alter values within systems. Such as Gravity, Speed of Light etc effecting the values. Even pressure on Earth is always changing constantly in all locations by infinitesimal scalars. So before you pull your quantum mind control theory out again, why not take a look at the other possibilities that unfortunately cannot sell as many books? Thankyou.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Paradox.]

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Paradox.]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Yes it does. Are you familiar with the founder of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger? He resolved the Schrodinger's cat problem by introducing consciousness.

Ahem, perhaps you should look at this video to look at what a quantum physicist is saying: www.youtube.com...



[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]


actually shroedingers conjectures came from an interest in Hinduism. He used religion to interperate quantum mechanics.

You should try these books on for size

"Quantum Gods"

"Physics and Psychics"

both by Victor Stenger


"The public understanding of modern physics is seriously out of whack, thanks largely to pop junk like The Secret and What the BLEEP Do We Know? [that] promote a bogus version of quantum mechanics—the belief that 'you create your own reality' by controlling the laws of physics with your mind…," said Geoff Gilpin, author of The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality. "The world has needed a book like this for a long time. If you care about scientific literacy, Quantum Gods is not optional."


Throughout the book Stenger alternates his discussions of popular spirituality with a survey of what the findings of twentieth-century physics actually mean. Thus he offers the reader a useful synopsis of contemporary religious ideas as well as basic but sophisticated physics presented in layperson's terms.

New Scientist says, "In this much-needed book, physicist Victor Stenger isolates and then debunks the claims of two kinds of "quantum belief"… With Stenger in charge…we are on sure ground. He adds even more value by weaving a thorough beginner's course in quantum physics into his debunking exercise… Even though he skips rather dizzyingly between traditional religious beliefs, quantum spirituality and quantum physics itself, Stenger is a pleasure to read. And, pleasingly, the title Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos And The Search For Cosmic Consciousness sounds just crackpot enough to attract those readers who will benefit most."


www.eurekalert.org...



Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

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.

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, 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. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.


www.csicop.org...

[edit on 23-12-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



I don't think you get the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to ask does reality exist after your conscousness ceases? While you and your grandfather exist, you are there to see reality, but after you cease to exist there is no such thing as reality. To assert that reality still exists even when you are not there to see it is a belief. It is logically possible that your entire experience of reality, including your grandfather was a dream and that dream ends as soon as your consciousness ceases.

You have no way of testing whether there is a reality as soon as you cease to exist. So to make certain statements that there definitely is one after you exist is not a statement of reason, but a belief.

The point of the exercise is to show that you only believe there is a reality that can exist independent of you - you have no proof of it.


Again, the exercise would be a moot argument. If one ceases to exist, then one can not report on existence itself for obvious reasons. Yet when taken into context of reality itself and whether reality continues to exist or not, the entirety of all who are able to perceive reality as still existing must be taken into account on the existence of reality after the non-existence of ones self. Just because YOU can experience reality due to your non-existence does not invariably imply that reality ceases to exist for all thing's in reality. If such were true, then I pray I never die for the sake of my children.


Now let us complicate reality a little, as you now understand my concept of god. Yes, you are right, there is a reality that willl continue to exist even at the death of the body - but not if conscousness ceases. Humans share a reality that they can agree on, but this is because they have similar minds that access reality in the same way. However, not all creatures have the same mind as us and will access reality in the same way. If a human looks at a chair they will see something different to what a bird sees. If you were capable of seeing atoms, you would see something completely different.


We do not consciously agree to perceive reality the way it is perceived. There is no scientific evidence to support this assertion at all. New age media lies to you about science and I did indeed demonstrate this on page one as well as dispel other common new age myths that muddy the science they discuss. Ignore the evidence at hand all you want, all that demonstrates is an act of purposeful ignorance with a twinge of arrogant pride in belief.


Therefore something does indeed exist, but it is not independent of us, but appears in relation to how we observe. It is then by definition not a real something, because realism is the philosophy that there are things out there that are independent of us. However, in actuality, nothing is independent of us but depends upon our observation of it.


Nothing has been shown to be dependent upon conscious observation in order to exist, and certainly not human consciousness. You still are not listening to what the observer effect actually states, I've already cited a source for review. If you still wish to claim the contrary is true, then you are required to cite sources that prove it to be true, or else this is just unfounded conjecture.


Now let me complicate it further. You know now that I am saying that the real observer is god. Does this mean there is one supreme observer and many human observers? No, because there is no such thing as a human obsever. If you try to define personal identity you will find it is a changing complex depending on memories, names, beliefs, values, social interactions, body etc. Thus the human personality is not a real being or a real thing. It is an illusion of self. Therefore there is only ONE observer and it is not the human. This observer is eternal. Therefore the death of the human personality does not mean the end of consciousness.


This is more unfounded conjecture without any evidence backing it. I honestly don't care for empty claims of truth.


If you have followed the reasoning up until now you will be able to draw the conclusion that there is no reality without consciousness. This consciousness cannot die, because it is never born. It is the beingness and it is eternal and infinite. It is due to this consciousness that there is any reality at all.


I have followed the reasoning, an unfounded act of wishful thinking based upon a belief that a sensationalized report of science is more truer than what the actual science has to say about what it has discovered.


You are closer than you think. Yes, the human is the living dead. Insofar as the human identifies itself as a thinking thing, it is not really. The human is not the real thinker. It is not the real self. It is just a personality complex that changes from moment to moment. As soon as you allow your consciousness to become misidentified with this personality complex you become the living dead.

The personality complex is just one part of a complex mental structure. The personality complex dies at death along with body, but your mind continues on in another plane of reality in a subtle-body. Much like your dream-body in dream.


Are you just going to continue on with spouting about unfounded conjectures or are you eventually going to back up these baseless claims of reality with actual evidences? I'm just genuinely curious here. You make a ton of claims, but never cite sources for me to review that contain evidence for these claims.





new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join