It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by openlocks

and so it cannot measure or account for direct experience. Yet you yourself are calling for science to measure direct experience?

in a nutshell, science depends on "objectivity" to confirm proofs. Individual experience is subjective.

If something is subjective then it won't be counted necessarily as proof of anything, but some proofs may be limited to subjective experience.

As far as "immateriality" ....sure there are theoretical, relational, and mathematical aspects that point to such states, for example the quantum state in the Bose/Einstein condensate and other possibilities. But tying this all into an afterlife/prelife state will take some time. I'm saying that is all already there, and will take a while for science to prove so (hence the reason I bring up consciousness interaction devices).

The Buddha, and Lao Tzu, said the Absolute cannot be conveyed through language and any attempt to do so will not describe the Absolute.

YESSSS!!!!!! Ineffable, like arguing colors with a blind man. In this case, majority is blind and small tiny minority has seen color.

Do you then propose that we all just sit in silence and not move for the rest of our lives? Does this mean we should just do away with any attempt to understand our surroundings? If you feel that way, why are you using a computer, why are you wearing clothes, why are you eating food grown through argricultural knowledge? Why not just strip naked and forage for your food?

Of course not and I never proposed that. Science keeps me alive w/ meds due to chronic conditions. We've been living, growing, eating long before science came into the picture, and besides it's not necessarily discoveries but uncoveries(new word?).

You are going to an extreme that the Buddha did not call for. He taught the Middle Way. He taught the end of perpetual self caused suffering. Even the monks I am friends with embrace science. Sure, it has the potential to become dogmatic if it thinks it can figure out the Absolute reality of human experience, but it does not claim to do that. It seeks to understand the observable world to help find solutions for the problems and dilemmas humanity is facing, much like the Buddha did. In many ways the Buddha was like a scientist, and in many ways scientists are like Buddhas.

My experiences came to me by logic and reason. I reasoned that science will not give me enlightenment and the answers of Life that I seek, such as why am I here. If I go to science for that answer, then I come from monkies and everything randomly happened to bring us to where we are today.

If I go to the mystics, they say to go within, find the true self, meditate, etc ....and perhaps you might find the answer. I tried it, and I did find my answer. 1 of them being that there is purpose and reason for everything and that I am pure soul, having existed prior to the body and will continue to exist once the body die. So I know for sure I am not just body and brain and relative cultural programming. I found the real transcendent part of myself, and coincidentally there was an aspect of Grace involved, something hidden helping me from beyond what the senses could fathom.

Going through these things was a spiritual evolution, so I am completely open to physical evolution as well, and once these Mystical experiences happened, ....I literally fell in Love with Quantum Physics/Mechanics, Cern, Unitive Theories, Infinite Math (see signature), and so forth. To me science is just uncovering the brilliant works of the Infinite and everything from cells to Universes, seems as brilliant designs ......yet all of this is being uncovered with a "group think" phenomenon of the aforementioned blind men (while a small minority have seen colors)

So I try my best to go down the middle path, but honestly see science as still a looooong way off to catch up to what Mystics have already known for thousands of years. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but I honestly think it will happen by those who embrace Mysticism and are not hindered by "group think"

That's all I wanted to say. Nothing against you, science, or anyone else.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:21 PM
As I always do and always will say in posts such as this, the evidence is already out there. The experiments have already been done, not that we can't continue with even more advanced technology as time passes.

Experiments were done 40 years ago which preceded the founding of the Monroe Institute. Look up the objective experiments done by Bob Monroe, Thomas Campbell and Dennis Mennerich. Statistical analysis proved LONG AGO that consciousness DOES NOT NEED the body to exist. I'm not sure why this post that I've made a thousand times in the past gets completely ignored when everyone could do themselves a favor and simply look this information up easily online and find more than enough evidence to satisfy their curiosities about this subject. Read the books (Journey's Out of Body and My Big T.O.E) and about the experiments done. If you don't do anything else, read My Big TOE (theory of everything) by Thomas Campbell. All the answers to any question you can think can be gleaned from that book, a book about a theory that is different than any other theory of reality because it includes consciousness into the equation. Look up Tom's lectures on youtube. Any of them.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by spacemanjupiter

Thanks for bringing up Dr. Campbell. I have never heard of him, but am listening to a lecture by him now, and looking for some more information on him and his research. Not finding much, besides a bunch of new agey type blogs with the same review. Kind of wondering why no one else has reviewed his work? Science is a big field, with a lot of open minded people. You'd think if his research is credible there would at least be some reviews. Also kind of wondering why he hasn't ever published his research? He has the credentials, and I mean 35 years? That is a long time researching a TOE and not seeking an accredited review. I read an explanation by him stating, "I want to get this information out to the public, not the scientists." That is a real turn off for me though. I mean c'mon, can you imagine if Einstein would have done that!?

I am going to look into it some more. But one thing that is undeniable, within every field of science, is that if you want to bring more public awareness to your hypothesis's, you publish your research everywhere you can and allow other scientists to pick through it and pull it apart to see if it holds up. If it holds up, or even a portion of it holds up, it WILL be expanded and built upon further by others. Not all scientists are in on some institutionalized conspiracy to keep radical ideas out, not even a majority.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:05 PM
Just wanted to say, I've been doing some studies on Dr. Thomas Campbell's materials and T.O.E. and all I have to say is HOLY SH!* !!!!!!!!!!!! Someone did it ...exactly what I'ven saying for the last 10 years, he took it and ran with it.

Hey Openlocks ....what I wanted to say and what I meant with this whole thread is = All of Campbell's material.

Whoever re-investigates his work, has some credentials that count, peer reviews, and gets it in some journals will finally break some serious ground. His work is what will prove what I've been trying to say and is where science needs to jump into head first ...

WOW !!!! thanks for that new info spacemanjupiter. more fuel for the fire

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in