Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
All they are doing is laying a hypothetical groundwork of "quantum physics" in order to prep the Godless for acceptance of the "the 12th Imam, the Mahdi" who will supposedly


...bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening....

....come to return all children of Adam irrespective of their skin colour to their innate origin....

....come and he will cut through ignorance, superstition, prejudice by opening the gates of science and knowledge. He will establish a world brimful of prudence and he will prepare the ground for the collective, active and constructive participation of all in the global management....

....purify our thoughts.....
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


This is what these "scientists" are doing, giving a scientific sounding argument for eastern mysticism, enlightenment, the promise that this knowledge will open eyes to be as "god". Hameroff's numerous quotes on Buddhism and it's vast similarities to their theory just underscores it. As the President of Iran sits in his parliament designed as a giant pyramid with 33 windows, watching the world suck down this preparatory "groundwork" in order to bring about the "collective consciousness" and "enlightenment", I'm saddened at how few people can see it.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Hameroff is a very interesting researcher; I first discovered his theory a year or two ago, & it sounded like a solid theory/start.


edit on 31-10-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Im2keul
 


Ehhhh?


Isn't that kind of what my post intended?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The simple fact of the matter is this:

This will never, ever, ever be allowed to stand by skeptics or mainstream science. No matter how convincing the evidence or how much it makes sense.

A semi-rational explanation for a common human concept is not what many of these people want after so many have argued so vehemently about how stupid and childish the very concept is. If you've run into some of them, you know that some of them are every bit as dogmatic as a religious fundamentalist.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Interesting hypothesis.
So, lets say its correct. hit the nail on the head. What does it mean?

Could we then create some sort of equiptment that would allow for quantum resonance containment and transfer souls from one container to another? (download your soul so to speak)

Would it be possible to bring back other identities/souls that long since passed on?

Anyhow, its a fascinating subject. I suspect there is more to life than what is known already..which is why religion annoys me, This is the right step...prove a soul, then once its absolutely proven, measured, etc..and can then be used for whatever purpose, then we can start the next step of finding its function in the universe (aka, religion).

But ya...this can end up being a very exciting field of research if it bears fruit.

I have long since suspected any advanced species wouldn't be in body or robot form, but rather as nearly atomic information packets due to eons of streamlining..wouldn't it be interesting to find out that we are actually very ancient beings that chose to sort of tuck ourselves in a new primitive meat shell in order to feel "young" again (cosmically speaking).



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 



result of quantum gravity effects


How many times have I pointed to quantum gravity and said, "The answer lies here!"

If you find my post on the Collective Consciousness ("What is Collective Consciousness") you'll see that that's exactly where I pointed. And yes, collective consciousness is pretty much a network of souls.

Gah! =.=
edit on 31-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Thats were your wrong. Roger Penrose is an EXTREMELY well respected and well published physicist. That is what its going to take. Real research, done by educated professionals.

I personally avoid the word consciousness like the plague when discussing quantum mechanics. In usually gets the pseudos all riled up.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
The simple fact of the matter is this:

This will never, ever, ever be allowed to stand by skeptics or mainstream science. No matter how convincing the evidence or how much it makes sense.


I disagree.
There is nothing supernatural or spooky about this hypothesis.
Here is the deal. a skeptic doesn't dismiss rain...they are skeptical about it being created from a angry deity sitting in a cloud.
It is the presentation (the religion) of the concept that most scientists/skeptics hammer on.

This is something the religious seem to not understand...hense why they assume atheists have a belief in nothing verses a non belief in something..not a play on words, but a very different view of the world.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Just Chris
 


Ryan's comment negates nothing; all life: plant, mineral, organism, has a soul. Rosicrucian and relative texts confirmed this over 100 years ago.


That's true, minerals, plants, organism all have souls this I read also somewhere. However, minerals and plants soul is much lower in the hierarchy and thus they are fit for consumption as food or items of daily use. Eating animals and above is wrong as their souls are much higher levels nearly equal to the humans. The article also thus confirms the term 'reincarnation' of the eastern religions. Hinduism and Buddhism adhere to these principles.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just Chris
Just to add,

A comment from a chap called "Ryan" on the article page:

"experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules" I thought microtubules were found in all cells of the human body. The sperm cell is pretty much a head with a nucleus, and a long microtubule tail. Plant cells also have microtubules. Does the quantum theory of conciousness apply to these cells as well or only cells found in the brain? How about the brain of a mouse? It's an interesting hypothesis but this news article doesn't give much. Peer review study please~"

Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.

He mentions the sperm cell containing microtubules, and it makes sense if you've ever wondered how it would be possible for our children to have a SOUL of their own when in practice, it's been created by the parents.

Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion or not?
edit on 31-10-2012 by Just Chris because: (no reason given)


Definitely relevant. The animals/microbial life vs. us issue always throws a wrench into eternal soul theories, imo. Without reincarnation including transitions to/from other lifeforms, it just never seemed fair to be a snail forever, fish, or amoeba forever. Yeah, they wouldn't know what they're missing, and yes, being a fish may have it's perks, but I doubt most entertained and well-fed humans would want to trade places...
edit on 10/31/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


Souls is a very dogmatic term. You should probably say vibrational frequencies, because that's what it is. A soul is a vibrational frequency given off by energy that is produced by quantum gravity. Every single thing that is made of matter has this kind of frequency due to the fact that since quantum gravity has bound its energy into a cohesive shape, the vibrational frequency of the various elements will, in tandem, give it a specific set of qualities.

However, living things are able to enhance themselves in various ways in order to channel or access more energy from other planes. The pineal gland is our organic remote. But that's a whole other topic.

If it has energy, it has the makings of a soul. Whether or not it is actually a soul depends on how the energy functions.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Just Chris
 




Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.


Is that supposed to disprove the theory? Of course these creatures have souls. People just think they don't because they couldn't imagine what it's like to be a mouse and still have a soul. Hmm, I don't know, try being a baby!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Frankly, I've had people insult my intelligence for even considering the idea of the paranormal. Anything paranormal. And more than once.

I'm really confused as to why you're explaining what an Atheist is. Belief in the concept of a soul and so on does not automatically necessitate a belief in a god, even though many of the Atheists that I run into that mock me for considering the paranormal seem to think that.

Thing is, it seems to be the popular thing amongst skeptics and a lot of outspoken scientists to be actively opposed to even the concept of considering the idea of the paranormal.

I experienced a lot of vitriol and dogmatism from fundamentalist Christians growing up, I have found a similar mindset amongst some skeptics that I have come across, and see a similar spirit in some scientists. This is where my skepticism comes from.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


"American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose developed a quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells. "

So, since my beautiful wife has brain damage after a car accident, does that mean she has lost part of her soul? Or what about those people who are still functioning after having one of their hemispheres removed, do they only have half a soul? I think I'll stick with my original concept. The idea of a soul is wishful thinking by a group of emotionally primitive individuals. Fancy having enough grey matter to become a physisisst but lack the emotional maturity to be able to accept that living things exist for a while then return to be part of the universal goo.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


Sounds like they are mistaking soul with consciousness, which is only part of the soul - in my most humble opinion, of course.
edit on 31-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Just Chris
 




Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.


Is that supposed to disprove the theory? Of course these creatures have souls. People just think they don't because they couldn't imagine what it's like to be a mouse and still have a soul. Hmm, I don't know, try being a baby!


What gives you the impression this is trying to disprove the theory. It backs up what the article is claiming....



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Frankly, I've had people insult my intelligence for even considering the idea of the paranormal. Anything paranormal. And more than once.

I don't really like the term "paranormal" (even though I do use it as a descriptive term now and then). Simply put, if something exists, it is normal, just not understood yet. If people insult your intelligence because you consider "paranormal" ideas, you can safely insult back suggesting they think they know everything.



I'm really confused as to why you're explaining what an Atheist is. Belief in the concept of a soul and so on does not automatically necessitate a belief in a god, even though many of the Atheists that I run into that mock me for considering the paranormal seem to think that.

Many people (self proclaimed atheists included) have no understanding of what an atheist is. It is as you said, a simple non-belief in one or many deities. There is no other stance relevant..be it not believing in ghosts, aliens, or that pizza is better with pepperoni.

What a lot of former religious people do is become a sort of anti-pararnormalist and call that atheist...aka, they substitute one system of beliefs with another..this is not skepticism, this is not science, this is just them being jackasses and using any term they can to pretend they are clever.
But they aren't a atheist..a atheist would never say matter of factly that there are no god(s), and certainly not there are no souls, ghosts, etc...
Now, a skeptic (proper) has a predisposition to want proof before -believing- in it, but nothing keeps a skeptic or atheist from pondering and considering tons of stuff (including deities).

I may simply be overexplaining myself to you, but perhaps more for some others benefits that seem a bit lost.



Thing is, it seems to be the popular thing amongst skeptics and a lot of outspoken scientists to be actively opposed to even the concept of considering the idea of the paranormal.

I experienced a lot of vitriol and dogmatism from fundamentalist Christians growing up, I have found a similar mindset amongst some skeptics that I have come across, and see a similar spirit in some scientists. This is where my skepticism comes from.


I am a agnostic-atheist whom is a bit of a spiritualist. I don't know the answers, I do want to find out, and the first people to ignore are people that say they have the answers with nothing to back their claim up. I have experienced "paranormal" things also, and that made me wonder many things..and reject a bunch of other things.
Skepticism flows both ways..but its usually a good idea to go with the most plausable until evidence proves or disproves otherwise.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   


A semi-rational explanation for a common human concept is not what many of these people want after so many have argued so vehemently about how stupid and childish the very concept is. If you've run into some of them, you know that some of them are every bit as dogmatic as a religious fundamentalist.


That's very true, lol. I'm sure many would rather cease to exist than be wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I think the question is, would you accept the evidence if it were provided, or would you look for any possible reason - no matter how small - to say, "This is fake" or "This proves nothing".

Many people say if shown evidence, they would believe in what the person has to say. But when they say, "Show me evidence," they're really saying, "Give me a brick to scrub my face on and I might consider the validity of your thesis."

In other words, you have to rub their face in two dozen different kinds of proof before they begin to reconsider their stance. Is that who you are?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I think the question is, would you accept the evidence if it were provided, or would you look for any possible reason - no matter how small - to say, "This is fake" or "This proves nothing".

Many people say if shown evidence, they would believe in what the person has to say. But when they say, "Show me evidence," they're really saying, "Give me a brick to scrub my face on and I might consider the validity of your thesis."

In other words, you have to rub their face in two dozen different kinds of proof before they begin to reconsider their stance. Is that who you are?

Evidence is evidence. It doesn't paint the full picture, but it brings a closer look at what could be.
Once evidence is tested and retested, then you sort of have to accept it. Gravity doesn't care if you accept its proof or not, it won't let you fly if you think really hard and try to dismiss the evidence..it simply is.

So, I will accept truth in nature, no matter how strange it is. But, proof requires a lot of evidence and tests..
and right now, we are at the scientific hypothesis stage (took 20k years of civilization to finally get to this point)





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join