It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future ideas and experiments to prove the existence of non-local consciousness?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks

They would place no mystical qualities to such an experience.


Are we meant to assume that a neuroscientist knows something about mysticism? I mean, other than what pop-culture "teaches" us in movies, music, comics, TV, tabloids, etc.

Does becoming a neuroscientist require any religious credits? Do they study comparative mysticism? Comparative religion? Comparative mythology? Esoterica? Parapsychology?

Or do they just decide that all the pop-cultural baggage associated with the M-word that they pick up throughout their lives is good enough to substitute for scholarship, and don't need to actually have a mystical experience before they can make mystical pronouncments while wearing the hat of a neuroscientist?


edit on 23-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


The proof was in the experiment posted by another member, directly above my post...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by openlocks

They would place no mystical qualities to such an experience.


Are we meant to assume that a neuroscientist knows something about myticism? I mean, other than what pop-culture "teaches" us in movies, music, comics, TV, tabloids, etc.

Does becoming a neuroscientist require any religious credits? Do they study comparative mysticism?

Or do they just figure that all the cultural baggage associated with the M-word is somehow reliable enough so that they don't need to be familiar with actual scholarship and don't need to actually have mystical experiences before they can make mystical pronouncments?



Are we meant to assume that a neuroscientist does not know something about mysticism? Does being a neuroscientist automatically designate you as not being able to study or be interested in religion or mysticism?

Or does your dogmatic baggage associated with the N-word make you jump up and say ridiculous things?

Just because I said science would see an OBE as non-mystical, does not mean, in no way of form, I am saying science is against mysticism. C'mon man, what is your real issue with science. Don't hold back your true feelings here.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


I'll take that as a yes.

22nd line


edit on 23-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by openlocks
 


The proof was in the experiment posted by another member, directly above my post...



Well, I just ran a quick check through some research databases and there is over 58 critiques of Dr. Pim Van Lommel's theory. Many are saying his experiments were flawed in many ways, namely his presuppositions contaminated his testing methods and ultimately his findings. That is a classic flaw in many of these outlandish theories. Also, there seems to be a number of studies that tried to replicate his findings and could not, which is never good for a scientist's claims. Nonetheless, I will read his research paper and a few of the critiques and get back to you.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
In quantum experiments, because of entanglement, prior to choice the mind of the one who chooses must also be a non-localized phenomenon, according to many quantum physicists. This resonates with mystical traditions when they speak of a non-particularized, interpentrating oneness wherein there is no distinction between the observing self and the objective reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


There's this weird thing. When a person dies, at the moment of death there body loses something like 16 grams of weight. (INSTANTLY). They say thats' the soul leaving the body and or the spirit dying. I tend to agree with this. Therefore I think that conciousness is held in the body. But we are not our mind. Our mind is tool we use, but we are not our mind. It's good to be able to turn off the mind so you can just be in the moment and be fully conscience without always being caught up in thought patterns.

As for anything beyound it's all specualtions. God could show you things that seem out of the body. So could the devil. Doing it on your own, no way, that's gonna be assisted by demons most likely. Just a trick to get you to think that you have magic powers of like that thing they did in MK ultra. I can't remember what's it called, when you're able to look at things around the world and see what's going on just by meditating. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. That to me likely is a demon assisting in that. Most of those people are pretty messed up when they go off on that tangent. And rightly so when you're allowing outside forces to show you stuff. The bible talks about this and says it's from the devil and not God. If God shows you then you know it's from God and not just yourself.






posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Consciousness, or rather the soul/spirit body, has weight; when people die they lose about an ounce of weight. See here:

Soul Weight

This gives us a way to measure something, if not the soul, leaving the body. Now, if there happens to be a similar drop in weight when a person steps out of his or her physical body, I'd say we'd be on to something.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I don't think god has anything to do with it. As for "demons," they tend to be malicious entities and not really "demons," per say. The gods created in man's image are not true gods; there is a creator, or rather a force of creation, but it does not have a gender, nor does it want your money or your faith.

If you've ever channeled before, you may have encountered some malicious entities or "demons." It's a very bizarre and haunting experience.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


I'm with you on that. I had the same experience, I was dying from an allergy from my meds. After identifying the problem and the cause of the allergy I started to study everything I could find. I never liked lying, I was bad at it because of my conscience, and now I detest even the smallest lie and try not to intentionally lie. I even went so far as to study 12 hrs a day for years so I don't unintentionally tell a lie. Much of what we are let to believe is real is three quarter truth and one quarter lie. The truth cut by occam's razor to make it fit into the world no matter what the reasoning is still a lie.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 




OOBEs have been shown to be nothing more than lucid dreaming in research studies done about it and can be done consistently and repeatedly with practice

Can u post these studies?

Thanks



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by dominicus
 

Just so we're clear, death is permanent.

Just so we're clear, permanent does not mean forever without change.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 



What I would caution you from doing is attributing this sensory experience to something mystical or other-worldly, "God" as you stated, because that is the definition of dogma.

I beg to differ. First off, how can an experience of something be dogma? That's impossible. Are you saying when you go to work, as a direct experience, and then tell others using the label "work" that this is dogma? Of course not because that would be preposterous.

However we use the word "God", a loaded word in itself, and we get the most ridiculous reactions known to man. I can say that I have experienced the source of my subjective awareness. I have also remembered pre-existed as awareness prior to the body, and this awareness has popped out of the body on many occasions. These are direct experiences and have nothing to do with dogma. In fact, I've gotten, stares, looks, and been kicked out of a church for speaking out about remembering pre-existence ...which dogmatically most Christians don't believe it. Believe shmalieve, I've experienced it!!!!!


You have had an experience and you have attributed causation to that experience with no evidence or validation. That is dogma by its very definition.

my experiences are valid because they were the result of an experiment. I found all these testimonies and blueprints to reach the Absolute Beingness, I tested them, and just like the blueprints said, they resulted in direct experience, so it is complete evidence and validation to me.

Also some experiments in science will naturally have as their result a subjective direct experience by the sole observer of that experience. That does not make it not valid, but creates a situation where the rules of science or limited. If a test results in each individual having similar experiences then that is evidence and validation.

Now if we have a group of people who scoff and don't believe in all these "blueprints", (especially when a large portion of the field is the scientific community) well then it's going to take a while to catch up.

Last and not least, the scientific method itself is flawed because it requires repeatable, observable, and objective results. Any good philosopher will tell you, and some already have, that there is a flaw in that premise and that results in what science calls anomalies. You see, many experiments will always end in non-repeatable results, which to you guys is an anomaly so it's put on a shelf somewhere and left alone, when in fact the scientific method should be updated and these anomalies should be restudied.

There always be results that are non repeatable, non-observable (we need more sensitive instrumentation) , and not objective (but subjective). Hey I love science as much as the next guy and because of various health problems, I'm kept alive because of science. But it still has a long way to go in uncovering things about existence, that are already true and already there.

Mysticism is basically the direct experiences of divine realities. To me, while they are special and not experienced by the majority, they are of a realm and substance that is always there and intertwined with our reality. The super natural is perfectly natural. Unfortunately, science was rigidly stuck for a long time in material and 5 sense based science and is only in the last decade breaking those old chains and thinking outside the box.

However, I would bet all my chips, house,car and savings, if I was a betting man at a casino, that somewhere done the line in the future science will completely prove the super natural, after life and soul to be true and then we will REALLY PROGRESS. I already imagine digital consciousness interfaces that will allow us to speak with those who have died and speak from the afterlife filling us all in on all types of wonderful mysteries



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erbal

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by dominicus
 

Just so we're clear, death is permanent.

Just so we're clear, permanent does not mean forever without change.


How come no one told me the definition changed? I better check:



permanent |ˈpərmənənt|
adjective
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely : a permanent ban on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea | damage was not thought to be permanent | some temporary workers did not want a permanent job.
• lasting or continuing without interruption : he's in a permanent state of rage.
noun
a perm for the hair.



(New Oxford American Dictionary)

It looks to be the same.

I suppose we are...

( •_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

...unclear?




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 



For instance, neuroscience believes the mind is a derivative of the brain, and yet its location is not necessarily confined to the brain. In other words, the mind arises out of neural events within the brain but is then projected out "into the world". So things like out of body experiences are totally plausible from neurosciences perspective. However, and this is where I ask you to also put away your dogma hat, a neuroscientist would most likely consider such an experience a mere perceptual experience within the brain. They would place no mystical qualities to such an experience.


OBE in the truest sense... that one could literally be aware of the external world in a different location i.e body in one room and the consciousness in the next room?

In this context you mean mystical as the mind being non-derivative of the brain? Hypothetically (really hypothetically
) if the mind was actually derivative of some natural (within the physical universe) source external to the brain, and the brain hardware was more of a 'filter' for lack of a better term, would you call that mystical?

Random, but I heard the human heart has neurons... is the mind derivative from the heart and the brain?

Can you check out this old thread and tell me if it has any implications towards neuroscience?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.


Some comments from the thread:


So you may wonder why it is that your muscle cells just produce muscle tissue. It all has to do with cell signalling and certain transcription factors being turned on or off in the cell. This is where homeotic cascades come in. Theoretical gene cascades allow for the rapid deployment and implementation of transcription factors (protein building; tissue creation and morphogenesis) because one small change initiates a cascade of rapid changes.

These scientists have now taken a video using dyes of the electrical impulses that precede all of this action.

Where does the energy come from?



It's just a cell, and the bioelectric field is creating the illusion of what the embryo should/will grow into. If they disrupt the molecules which create this field (but not disrupt the DNA), then the embryo grows with deformities. This means that the bioelectric field is somehow important in telling the cells how to grow properly.

But no one has any idea where the information displayed in the bioelectric field comes from. It's the beginning of a major Paradigm Shift for the fields of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, just to name a few.


So if this electric field is external to the cell, perhaps the mind is external from the brain too? :/ Please bare with me I am obviously out of my comfort zone

edit on 23-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
topics that essentially have no known answer are both so very addictive and at the same time mind crushingly infuriating. I like to think about things from all different angles presented by different people, because i don't know the truth so have to think of things from all different perspectives.

I believe consciousness is sort of like lightning or as someone else said radio signals, everything derives from one singular point, like a radio picking up a signal, what happens when you turn your radio off? the signal still exists but was all along part of one huge signal, not millions of separate signals, turning off your radio doesn't change a thing, it just stops picking up what is always there, so as soon as we die do we stop being "unique" and essentially die anyway as we return to being part of one collective "consciousness"?

but the idea of the mind coming from the brain but being able to project out is also interesting, the major thing that strikes me is how people experiencing NDE seem to say that they were able to (in some cases) both SEE and HEAR, so does that mean that we are able to see without eyes and hear without ears? how are they able to see and hear, does it mean we should be able to figure out how to manipulate the human body so that deaf people can hear and blind people can see? are blind people only blind because the mind is trapped inside our skull and if we figure out a way to let it escape the skull and be out in the open then blind people will see again?

so many things are so interesting and amazing to think about, but the fact that we can't know 100% and explain it 100% will always drive me to the point of mental exhaustion, but the trip to exhaustion is quite fascinating, exciting and enjoyable.

For a while i've imagined our brains as just receivers but then the questions still remain of where does the signal originate from? and what the hell happens to us after we die? Do we float around in space trapped? do we go to another brain and who or what determines where our "consciousness" goes and what it becomes, is every person who ever existed a unique signal or do we die anyway as we return to a singular signal? Perhaps that is why we can't remember past lives because essentially, every time we are "reborn" we are not exactly 100% what we were before.

I also find it fascinating that our (well certainly my) first ever memory was from about 2 or 3 years of age i think, why does nobody actually remember being born or living in a womb, at what exact point of brain development does the "signal of consciousness" connect with the brain? Could they study babies for significant changes and try to find the exact point when a basic brain "activates" to become a fully functioning "conscious brain" if that proof at all that your mind and your brain are separate? the fact that your brain works for a couple of years in one way and only becomes able to "remember" after a period of time or when it reaches a certain state?

scary thoughts really.... i just wish we knew arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

edit on 23-8-2012 by Equ1nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 




I beg to differ. First off, how can an experience of something be dogma? That's impossible. Are you saying when you go to work, as a direct experience, and then tell others using the label "work" that this is dogma? Of course not because that would be preposterous.


That is obviously not what I was talking about.



Last and not least, the scientific method itself is flawed because it requires repeatable, observable, and objective results. Any good philosopher will tell you, and some already have, that there is a flaw in that premise and that results in what science calls anomalies. You see, many experiments will always end in non-repeatable results, which to you guys is an anomaly so it's put on a shelf somewhere and left alone, when in fact the scientific method should be updated and these anomalies should be restudied.


To be honest, and I mean this constructively, I don't think you truly understand what the scientific method is. If you did, I assure you that you would not be so angry and hostile towards it. There is absolutely nothing flawed about it. Maybe certain scientists are flawed, but the method is definitely not. You see, it is a never ending inquiry, everything is up for questioning and testing, so real science can never be dogmatic or stale.

An anomaly is just something that falls outside of current understanding. Science is based on the study of anomalies. So I guess I am confused by what you mean. If something cannot be shown to be verifiable, then yes, it is set aside until someone else is able to show it is verifiable. I don't see how anyone could be mad at that, lol. If you feel something needs to be studied then why not do it your self? No, instead you armchair pseudo-talk about things that no one has verified to be true, which again is the definition of dogma. Just because science hasn't shown something to be verifiable doesn't mean science believes it isn't true, it is just not yet verified, so to go around acting like it is, is insincere and ultimately unscientific.

As for the rest of what you said, I don't really have much to say. If you want to believe in a soul, in a god and in universal consciousness, that is fine. I don't feel the need to hold such beliefs. Right now I am fine with being open minded about all possibilities.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by dominicus

So what we need to do is come up with some super sensitive instruments that might be able to detect this kind of non-local consciousness that could be measured outside of the body.


For the sake of argument, lets say you succeed in coming up with instruments like that. Let's say you use them to produce some evidence of non-local consciousness.

Then what?

Skeptics come forward. They want to try. They use your instruments the same way you did and...

...nada. They get nothing.

What happened?

You say they did it wrong. They say you are a fraud. Back and forth it goes.

Skeptics can't replicate these kinds of things. Without replication, no amount of evidence will convince them. The 'part' of God that wants to live life asleep as a skeptic won't allow it. The unconscious psi of a skeptic won't allow it... and skeptics will never acknowledge their own psi so as to account for its causal influence in experiments. Catch-22. After all, non-local consciousness is in them too. Their beliefs direct it, their desires aim it, even though they aren't consciously aware of it.

There will always be an 'out' for skeptics. There will always be a trickster archetype pattern in the collective unconscious. There will always be a sheep-goat effect. At least, in this age there will be.

There is already more than enough evidence out there for non-local consciousness. When a skeptic is ready to wake up, they will be led to it or to something else that will wake them. If a skeptic isn't ready, then a little more evidence will make no difference.





edit on 22-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



Give me a skeptic and ill give him some dimethyltryptamine through a 4 foot ROOR.. end of of argument..

immediate mind body disconnection...

not necessarily sayin there is a god.. but there is definitely a "god frequency" which the human mind/body can resonate at in divine circumstances..

someone said once... that the body is a reflection of the mind.. and reality is a reflection of the mind.. and the mind is also a reflection of your body and your reality...

everyone has the ability to manifest their own reality's... once this is realized you can then, more successfully, "affect reality".. rather than so much "be affected by reality"

human body's are like satellites, which can be tuned to whichever frequency you desire... but instead of choosing their own frequency to resonate... they allow themselves to be manually tuned by society.. a society which has an underlying purpose, through manipulation.. to prevent you from realizing your true manifestive capabilities

Why do you think the elite take part in such ritualistic ceremonies... it's because they have a secrete religion that acknowledges the divine power of the mind to manifest based on a powerful concentrated belief in something/anything...

at the end of the day.. we're all from the same planet.. but we are all from different worlds...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Last and not least, the scientific method itself is flawed because it requires repeatable, observable, and objective results. Any good philosopher will tell you, and some already have, that there is a flaw in that premise and that results in what science calls anomalies. You see, many experiments will always end in non-repeatable results, which to you guys is an anomaly so it's put on a shelf somewhere and left alone, when in fact the scientific method should be updated and these anomalies should be restudied.

There always be results that are non repeatable, non-observable (we need more sensitive instrumentation) , and not objective (but subjective). Hey I love science as much as the next guy and because of various health problems, I'm kept alive because of science. But it still has a long way to go in uncovering things about existence, that are already true and already there.



I agree with everything you say regarding the limitations of the scientific method. You are correct in saying that many great philosophers have casted doubt on it (Russell, Hume, Nietzsche, all non mystics). But as of now, it is the best we have within the limits of language to describe and explain what is actually going on. That's all it is, a more superior explanation of what is going on.

When man couldn't fly through the clouds, we imagined a god and a heaven were there. When we could experience it first hand, we found no god and no heaven. Benjamin Franklin invents the lightning rod and there is no more need to assume God is tossing the lightning at us. It seems that so far, a more superior explanation is growing in the wake of the scientific method.

When we come to a mystical explanation, we see complete abstraction of real things and real events. It seems as if its become a "who can write more poetically" competition. I adore much of this writing, for example Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote so beautifully I quickly forgot that I had no clue what he was talking about. The man seemed so noble and kind that his essays on the soul and God were easy to digest.

On the other hand, I'd like to understand what I'm allowing into my stream of thought.



However we use the word "God", a loaded word in itself, and we get the most ridiculous reactions known to man. I can say that I have experienced the source of my subjective awareness. I have also remembered pre-existed as awareness prior to the body, and this awareness has popped out of the body on many occasions. These are direct experiences and have nothing to do with dogma. In fact, I've gotten, stares, looks, and been kicked out of a church for speaking out about remembering pre-existence ...which dogmatically most Christians don't believe it. Believe shmalieve, I've experienced it!!!!!

my experiences are valid because they were the result of an experiment. I found all these testimonies and blueprints to reach the Absolute Beingness, I tested them, and just like the blueprints said, they resulted in direct experience, so it is complete evidence and validation to me.


You say you pre-existed as awareness prior to the body. I can't even attempt to believe an assertion like that, not because I'm wicked or ignorant, but simply because it has no context. Nothing can pre-exist without existing, there is nowhere in the entire human history of anything existing as awareness and then remembering existing as awareness. There's no context here I can use to even fathom what you're getting at. Absolute Beingness, or anything divine has zero context I can see. I cannot relate. I'm sure we don't even know what these things mean. They are all abstractions, and abstractions are dangerous because they may get confused with real things.

Every mystical explanation carries no meaning or context. It can't be understood and thus accepted objectively. I do believe that you experienced something that you find profound; and I would think that you would never lie about something like that, because that would be dreadful, but your explanation of your experience isn't as convincing as a more scientific one would be.

If you could explain it in words and meaning we can all relate to then we might understand. Describe what you saw, what you felt, what you heard, what you did etc. Don't call yourself awareness or Absolute Being-ness. We don't know what those are. Help us to understand.

I would love to understand mysticism. But I cannot. As an onlooker and former spiritual seeker myself, I see it as vanity. Every mystic I've met had no problem telling me about his mysticism, to the point of insisting on doing so. And the track-record of disgraced mystics, Uri Geller and Peter Popoff for example, should make anyone skeptical.

Cheers.
edit on 23-8-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by dominicus

I would love to understand mysticism. But I cannot. As an onlooker and former spiritual seeker myself, I see it as vanity. Every mystic I've met had no problem telling me about his mysticism, to the point of insisting on doing so. And the track-record of disgraced mystics, Uri Geller and Peter Popoff for example, should make anyone skeptical.

Cheers.
edit on 23-8-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)


Me, you, and my ROOR.. should kick it...




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join