It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by undo
I watched all five videos and I think these savants process data a different way, but I think the process is purely a physical brain function. As evidenced with the Japanese children learning to calculate using the abacus, then without it, but still visualizing it; a process, a method.edit on 16-11-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)
Sorry man , but the thing that bugs me about these statements is the sheer ignorance shown toward the fact that the human brain decays after death ........ i agree with "some" people that the brain will dream away immediatley after death , but once the decay starts I seriously doubt there is anything left of the "person" or mind after that crucial stage , even dreaming is far fetched without oxygen etc. Science is taking a dump on religion and refusing to flush it .
reply to post by Harte
what i'm saying is, whatever is in the recording device that collapses the wave function, is also present in human brains. the idea being that it takes some kind of specific type of atomic/molecular flow, related to collecting and storing data, to trigger the effect. the human brain is geared for this. so are animals and insects, germs too. anything that can collect and store data.
everything being recorded stored up in a landscape outside of the material brain-mind.
"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not achieved by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."
~ Meher Baba
"God has created your spirits with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom. How pitiful would it be then if you were to lob off your wings by your own hand and suffer yourselves to crawl like vermin upon the earth?"
~ Kahlil Gibran
That gave me a chuckle to imply that 2010 was old. His ideas are much much older and more primitive than that, some preceding the advent of science, which even Deepak Chopra's glowing review admitted:
I was kinda hoping for something more ground-breaking, but then the publishing date is 2010, so I guess I should've known better. Oh well.
Don't forget some "ancient wisdom traditions" had virgins being sacrificed to appease the rain gods to make it rain, so just because something was believed in ancient wisdom traditions doesn't mean they are good ideas. In fact the bad ideas outnumbered the good ideas, so saying it's based on "ancient wisdom" is more of a negative than a positive despite Chopra's effort to put a positive spin on it though new agers love woo statements like that so it should help sell the book.
Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra stated that “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world.
That idea was around in primitive times but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny today. Just one example of that is, look at the instruments we have built to look at the universe in parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans have no ability to perceive (radio, microwave, infrared, x-ray, gamma ray). The idea that our perception is based on animal observation through senses, like visible light may have actually once been true, but it's far from true now, as is Lanza's hypothesis.
Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson. He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Good point that claim does not equal proves.
In what language does "claim" equate to "proves"?
A claim is a "theory" is it not?
What is it that is hoped for 'after' life? More life!!
Then there is no 'after' - it is just aliveness.
There is an assumption that there is something other than what this is but has anyone actually discovered what this is?
Has there ever been any edges found to this?edit on 17-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
The Bardo body, also referred to as the desire- or propensity-body, is formed of matter in an invisible and etheral-like state and is, in this tradition, believed to be an exact duplicate of the human body, from which it is separated in the process of death. Retained in the Bardo body are the consciousness-principle and the psychic nervous system (the counterpart, for the psychic or Bardo body, of the physical nervous system of the human body) [Eva60]. Due to its nature, the Bardo body is able to pass through matter, which is only solid and impenetrable to the senses, but not to the instruments of modern physics; and the fact that the conscious self is not embedded in matter enables it to travel instantly where it desires. Flights of the imagination become objectively real, the wish comes true.
I am interested to know if patients, who were pronounced clinically dead and then who came back to life (so to speak), who claimed they had an out-of-body-experience while dead were aware of certain objects strategically placed on the ceiling by the researchers, but which could only be viewed from positions on the ceiling and not from the ground.
Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed... In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount.
Unfortunately despite obvious interest in this area nobody has yet been able to propose a plausible
biological mechanism to account for how the brain may give rise to the mind or consciousness[1,3].
The “easy problem” and “hard problem” of consciousness are more meaningfully described as the scientific questions and philosophical questions of consciousness. The context of my prior article was the scientific question – what causes consciousness. The materialist hypothesis – that the brain causes consciousness – has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated. Every single question that can be answered scientifically – with observation and evidence – that takes the form: “If the brain causes the mind then…” has been resolved in favor of that hypothesis.
For example, if the brain causes the mind then: there will be no documented mental function in the absence of brain function; altering the brain biologically will alter the mind functionally; mental development will correlate with brain development; and mental activity will correlate with brain activity (this holds up no matter what method we use to look at brain activity – EEG to look at electrical activity, PET scanning to look at metabolic activity, SPECT scanning to look at blood flow, and functional MRI to look at metabolic and neuronal activity).
This evidence cannot be dismissed as the “easy problem” nor as mere correlation. Brain function correlates with the mind in every way we would predict from the hypothesis that the brain causes the mind. From a scientific point of view, the mind is a manifestation of the brain.
Evidence to back up the conventional theories above come from the clinical observation that speciﬁc changes in function such as personality or memory are associated with speciﬁc cerebral lesions such as those that occur after head injury. This is further supported by the results of cerebral localisation studies using functional MRI and PET scanning, in which speciﬁc areas of the brain have been shown to become metabolically active in response to a thought or feeling . However, the above studies, although providing evidence for the role of neuronal networks as an intermediary for the manifestation of thoughts, do not necessarily imply that those cells also produce the thoughts .
As I have discussed previously, one way to dodge the obvious conclusion from this evidence is to confuse the question of how the brain causes the mind with the question of does the brain cause the mind. We certainly have much to learn about exactly how the brain functions to produce all mental phenomena, but this in no way diminishes the fact that the question of whether or not the brain causes the mind is settled – it does.
This indicates that traditional cognitive and neuroscience models, which are largely based on classical physical concepts, are incomplete. We speculate that more comprehensive models will require new principles based on a more comprehensive physics. The current candidate is quantum mechanics.
reply to post by NorEaster
Kudos to you for being able to slog through the book in spite of finding so many flaws with it. I can only get so far before it becomes like nails on a chalkboard, and then I just can't stand the complete lack of logic and evidence any more.edit on 17-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
We can start with everything visual that is currently being perceived around us - this book you are holding, for example. Language and custom say that it all lies outside us in the external world. Yet, we've already seen that nothing can be perceived that is not already interacting with our consciousness, which is why biocentric axiom number one is that nature, or the so-called external world must be correlative with consciousness. One doesn't exist without the other. What this means is that when we do not look at the Moon, the Moon effectively vanishes - which subjectively, is obvious enough. If we still think of the Moon and believe that its out there orbiting the Earth, or accept that other people are obviously watching it, all thoughts are still mental constructs. The bottom-line issue here is if no consciousness existed at all, in what sense would the Moon persist, and in what form?
excerpt - Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
To begin with, let’s see if we can establish a working definition of the term existence. And when I say existence, what I mean is physical existence. I'm going to see what my favorite quick reference source says about the term.
The word existence comes from the Latin word existere meaning "to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be", but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex — being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the Latin verb stare, meaning "to stand").
source - en.wikipedia.org...
So, if something physically exists, then it physically "stands out" from whatever it is that isn't it. But, what does this actually mean? Apparently, it's not all that clear when applied to the actual effort to define what is real. In fact, there are many conflicting views, even though the requirement itself — to stand out — seems fairly straightforward.
At one end of the philosophical divide concerning the nature of physical existence are claims that nothing exists unless it's being actively observed. That the mind itself creates existence. In its most extreme manifestation, this belief in the primacy of self is called Metaphysical Solipsism.
Metaphysical Solipsism is the "strongest" variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, Metaphysical Solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing Reality and that all other Reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence
source - en.wikipedia.org...
While Solipsism does seem to suggest that a robust sense of self is possessed by its adherents, does this notion square with the requirement that the physically existent something physically stand out relative to whatever it is that isn't it? Does the act of observing something cause it to actually stand apart from all that is not it if there is nothing else that is intrinsically unique about it? No, of course it doesn't. To be observed as being unique and separated requires (at the very least) that the separation already be in place and available for observation. After all, while it may be argued that observation affects the relationship between what is being observed and the broader contextual setting that hosts it, it can only affect that relationship if that relationship is already in existence.
It’s pretty rare to run into a true Solipsist. Most who embrace this mind-projecting-Reality notion (primarily those who embrace a westernized version of Buddhism) simply declare that unless something is observed, it cannot be said to exist. This watered-down version of Solipsism is actually more troublesome than the version noted and referenced above, since the observer concedes to the existence of the observed something, while insisting that it must not exist while not being observed.
The sheer effort involved to require everything (from that which sits directly before such an observer, to whatever it is being potentially observed in the farthest reaches of the remote corners of the universe itself by who knows what sort of observing mind it is that exists to observe it) to relentlessly come into and go out of physical existence in direct and immediate response to the notice (or lack of notice) of any one of countless observing observers, seems to be exactly the sort of absurd entanglement that Occam’s Razor was established to slap down as an example of completely irresponsible intellectualism. Hell, at least the hardcore Solipsist is cutting Reality a break by demanding that it only respond to his (or her) instants of observation.
excerpt - The Whole of the Moon
If I'm not mistaken one scientist committed suicide over quantum physics because he could handle what he was finding