Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

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.

addendum to my post above:

which is why i thought daniel tammet was an example of tapping into a massive recording device that surpasses
anything we know of so far, other than perhaps a quantum computer. i'm going with the idea that leonard susskind suggests, that the universe is a hologram, being generated from super massive black holes in the centers of galaxies. and all life, or anything capable of collecting data from the hologram, creates the 3d effect. in other words, collapses the wave function into particles that create 3d

InTheLight
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)

unfortunately that doesn't explain his ability to learn new languages. he knew nine before he learned icelandic. where's he storing all this data and how does he retrieve it so quickly. PI to 35,000 places, that's just crazy. as they said in the video, it's like he's reading it off a paper, but all he's doing is moving thru a landscape in his mind, reading the numbers from shapes that are also specific colors, with emotions connected to them as well.

tammet is like the anomalie in the matrix.

reply to post by undo

The Synesthesia Battery
Re: the spatial-numbers guy- That's synesthesia, and a major example of it. I've got a form called grapheme-color synesthesia, & grapheme-personification as well. You are correct as far as I know, about it happening when the "combing out" of neuronal networks occurs. The University of Texas at Austin used to have an online test for some versions of synesthesia, called The Synesthesia Battery.
Imagine to have a rare type which causes the sensation of touch upon hearing a chord (or any sound), or tasting something upon feeling a texture!
The location of respective areas of the brain which handle the nerve relays has something to do with it, I believe, which is why there's more grapheme-color synesthetes than touch-sound (whatever it may be termed)- I guess the areas which decipher graphemes and catalogue a naming system for "color" are nearer than those of hearing & the area of the brain where a specific memory of specific sensations are stored.

Sorry for the wordy response, I guess I haven't paid mind to synesthesia in awhile and got all jazzed about it! Thanks for reminding me.

EnemyOfTheSane
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 .

Unless there is a tangled hierarchy within a monistic idealist framework (consciousness, not matter is primary) in which case nothing is ever lost from the POV of the fully informed Akashic Field/Record or Zero Point Field, which is this immense, radiant (eletromagnetic spectrum) informational processing matrix of the entire cosmos (and multiverse?) itself, even as a record of everything that has ever happened and will ever happen, ever, maybe even "and then some" if nothing of value was/is ever lost.

So it's not a matter of $hitting ON anyone, really.

In fact, all the crap is flushed down the drain, while everything that is of value is stored up, yes in Heaven as a higher domain wherein consciousness, even self awareness (as a reserved prior freedom) has been preserved. It may even be enhanced, as each "shell" passes away and is discarded, being already fully informed in eternity, even NOW. It would therefore be safe to forget our-SELVES and be rediscovered, in God ie: to go through a sympathetic, evolutionary "death and resurrection" and become, reborn (at some level).

The idea of a "winnowing fan" comes to mind here where the wheat is separated from the chaff while the spirit is freed from corruptible mortality, which is either something to look forward to and to embrace, or to fear, depending on the degree to which we've absolutely deluded ourselves that we know who's $hitting on who, and where.

Perhaps this is why it is best not to judge, lest we be judged, and to show mercy that we might also have mercy shown us.

You won't find me thumbing my nose at heaven and giving the finger to the God of love, and as to my fellow man I pray that God might have mercy on you for your willful ignorance and inability to grasp the first thing about timeless, spaceless, non-locality, driven by nothing other than a strong atheist bias against the possibility of God. Forgive them father for they did not really have the first clue about the nature of the truth and the life and the reality, forgive them for proclaiming themselves and everyone else nothing but a "thing" or a "meatbag" separate from the world and from you who made the world so that it be possible to find our true place in your eternal frame.

It would be nice to know, imho, that bull$# walks, while heaven talks.

Otherwise we're left with a meaningless absurdity promoted by the mindless hoards, now there's a horror even one in the making may God save us from ourselves and our own vanity and pride, and willful ignorance, and ingratitude, myself included.


Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by kkrattiger


wow, interesting!
will go read the link
well the link is not coming up. not sure why

undo
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.

One aspect of what he's saying in the OP video is that there is no cumulative epiphenomenon of matter capable of collapsing the wave of probability, which requires choice, or the freedom to choose which by it's very nature must therefore be a non-localized phenomenon, or if he didn't say that he ought to have.

What's his name, the physicist Amit Goswami, he has a lot of talks about this, and about downward causation from a tangled hierarchy, which satisfactorily resolves all the quantum paradoxes by killing the materialist monist framework which is unworkable and outmoded, and adopting instead a monistic idealism which states that consciousness and not matter is primary where indeed the brain is a quantum holographic phenomenon interfacing with a non-local "substrate" aka the Akashic (which means Radiance) Record or field or Zero Point Field.

When Penrose's an "Emporer's New Mind" demonstrating that mind is a quantum phenomenon, is considered in this context then it becomes very clear that the brain is itself just a node with everything being recorded stored up in a landscape outside of the material brain-mind.

Freedom to choose comes from above.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

everything being recorded stored up in a landscape outside of the material brain-mind.

yes this is what i thought daniel tammet's savant abilities demonstrated nicely but to me, it seemed more organic, like cell tissues or dna structures. in other words, it fit my own theory that it was his quantum entangled perfected body, also known as your higher self or your incorruptible body. it's like his brain here, is accessing his perfected brain there, if you get my meaning.

reply to post by undo


Here's another way of approaching it, which begins with the presupposition of a prior freedom as a "humor of understanding" and the basis of all creativity or play, which in a non-local "monistic idealism" frame of reference is the type of playful, humorous creativity that is both simultaneously of the merriest and most joyful and, of the gravest or most serious, kind, which takes God seriously (as our true condition) and the self, lightly.

(I realize the sound recording isn't that great)

"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

I realise that this has little or nothing to do with your savant, who might have memorized all those numbers, although there have been human computers capable of performing fantastic computational feats. Nevertheless I wanted to post something that might help people gain access to the non-local domain of consciousness where all freedom, humor and joy lives without end, as a type of home and in fact the only place where a person can really live safely and comfortably regardless of the conditions of the particularized world, so it's prior to judgement, or after in the case of an absolute, radical trasformative forgiveness (see how humorous it is?).

It's the cynic, and the atheist who says there's no such domain, and notice that he's never truly happy or pleasing when he or she makes these proclamations, as if they have something against the eternal and would tear it apart and destroy it if they could, which is nothing more than fear of something that we all know instinctually is true, because our ongoing experience continually suggests it, but that we dare not speak of, because we have yet to fully live in that far-off country where we really and truly belong in our innermost heart of hearts, where the treasure is and can be stored up, even held in reserve as a pleasant unexpected surprise (even better than we might have hoped for).

Materialist monist atheism, offers nothing of value, and is hurtful not helpful, nor is it in the least bit congruent with the truth and the reality as it really and truly IS, so that's the last lie really, that we are imprisoned in matter within an absurd and meaningless random occurrence and that our own truth and reality only goes.. "skin deep" (isn't that hilarious?!).

"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

Arbitrageur

NorEaster
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.

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:

Biocentrism

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.

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.

Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[6] 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.

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.

edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

What I meant by my statement is that I've already had my own dealings with this general notion concerning a mind-projected Reality construct and have already found the entire notion to be so thoroughly infected with logical flaws that I was unable to intellectually entertain any of Lanza's presentation beyond the level of its existence as yet another book deal that yet another guy with a popular science platform successfully pursued. The timeless existence of individual consciousness (which is a requirement for this general notion to be and remain functionally viable) presents logic schisms involving the co-mingling of absolute and relative being states, infinite regression within and between multiple existential planes, and the ultimate requirement to embrace a "god" presence of some sort that sits at the very basis of whatever it is that you've decided to be the primordial structure of Reality. Not to let the clearly indefensible assertion that allows the physical existence of an observing mind that is necessarily unobserved (since it is the only thing that can ultimately exist if all that exists is the intellectual projections of that observing mind), since that's this notion's primary failure.

I'm actually reading the entire book right now and am in chapter 7 (When Tomorrow Never Comes). I'm highlighting the passages that I find the most logically torturous, so that I can refer to them as I rewrite and edit my own long-form ToE presentation. I'm working hard to NOT rely on the expedient abuse of logic and deductive inference, even as I work without a devil's advocate (which would otherwise prevent me from doing so). This book is really helping me see the negative impact of being sloppy in my explanation and/or interpretation of well-known scientific assertions, since this is what seems to be Lanza's principle vulnerability within this particular presentation.

Maybe in a little while I'll post an example of what I'm referring to, along with my own critique of where Lanza's treatment of the logic, inference, or implication went astray - whether by mistake or design. After a half-dozen of these obvious failures to accurately describe what can be (or what has even been roundly assumed to be) gleaned from widely discussed research, I'm now reading this book with an eye on learning what NOT to do as I present my own case for an alternative Theory of Everything. It's being really instructive in that sense, so I'm glad I went ahead and bought it.

Morning,

The title of this thread is misleading:

"Quantum Physics proves there IS an afterlife"

Yet in the VERY first line of the OP you clearly state:

"Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism..."

In what language does "claim" equate to "proves"?
A claim is a "theory" is it not?
So, aren't you jumping the gun a little...scratch that...a lot?

-Peace-

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?

Eryiedes
In what language does "claim" equate to "proves"?
A claim is a "theory" is it not?

Good point that claim does not equal proves.
However, a claim is not a scientific theory unless there is a lot of evidence to support it.

In this case, there isn't sufficient evidence, so "hypothesis" would be more appropriate.

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.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Agreed.
I stand corrected.

-Peace-

Itisnowagain
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)

These researchers are attempting to prove the existence of consciousness, but haven't yet released their final results.

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.

www.horizonresearch.org...

Throughout human history, many have believed there is existence after physical death...here's a belief that makes me think of quantum entanglement with perhaps an invisible and etheral-like energy, yet undiscovered;

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.

www.monroeinstitute.org...

InTheLight

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.

www.horizonresearch.org...

This paper is scientific. Not only was it published in a non peer-reviewed journal but the journal explicitly states:

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.

The actual body of the paper contains no pertinent citations, only conjecture. That's not how science works. Not only that but the paper is riddled with errors and falsehoods. For example:

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].

This is an appeal to ignorance. Not knowing the exact specifics of how consciousness arises in the brain does not disable us from black box testing the correlation and causation of consciousness and brain activity. As Steven Novella states:

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.

theness.com...

This paragraph in particular is disingenuous:

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 [13]. 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 [14].

Again, Dr. Novella sums up the argument nicely:

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.

And on the paper goes, offering no plausible mechanism for dualism and presenting no supporting evidence. This paper is little more than a glorified blog post.

reply to post by 0bserver1


If I'm not mistaken one scientist committed suicide over quantum physics because he could handle what he was finding. I think Chuck Missler mentioned something about him.
Yes anyone who has thinking that goes beyond one dimension will see there has to be an afterlife, and besides we have a supernatural guidebooks called the Word of God, or Bible and God himself taking on the form of man and entering what he created for our sake.

reply to post by GetHyped


I would like to see researchers perform new types of studies by connecting neurobiology and quantum mechanics, and perhaps add to that mix etheral studies (e.g. ESP), which may offer a platform whereby these researchers can offer us (collectively) their best educated guess as to what consciousness may actually be, or dream up new types of instrumentation to measure new theories or hypotheses.

I was more interested in highlighting the OBE after physical death tests because we all know that neuroscience is still in it's infancy. So, I will wait for the final results because if the patient was clinicially dead on the table, how then would they be able to be aware of an object on the ceiling that would not be visible from the ground? As well, we really don't know which other journal may pick up their research once it is complete, as well I wonder if any of their peers have actually performed these specific tests, if not, how could they review it?

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.

deanradin.blogspot.ca...

Arbitrageur
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

Well, it's more work than fun, but I like my work, so...

Here's a direct excerpt from the book itself.

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

I'm going to post an excerpt from my own effort to take on this Solipsistic notion within the confines of my own ToE presentation. Fair enough, I figure.

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

The whole mind-projection of Reality issue is the primary problem with Lanza's ToE, but he does have other serious failings that litter this book as he struggles to defend his scientific presentation of a Solipsistic philosophical framework. One that struck me as particularly amusing was his effort to present a skyscraper as being as individually projected an illusion as a rainbow, by minutely detailing the illusory nature of the rainbow (which is true) and then rapidly (and in a fleetingly offhanded manner before ending that specific examination) likening that rainbow to the physical presence and structure of an entire skyscraper, as if the rainbow example can be inductively used to prove the non-material nature of that skyscraper.

One wonders how he'd explain the deaths of those trapped in the WTC towers on 9/11 to their loved ones. I don't know. Maybe you can debate the issue, but Reality is a lot more definitive and structurally established than Lanza's ideas present it as being. I wouldn't have ever felt comfortable attaching my own name to that book.

reply to post by Kaboose

If I'm not mistaken one scientist committed suicide over quantum physics because he could handle what he was finding

That would be a great addition to the thread if you could find some links about that news?