Scientific explanation for Near Death Experiences

The time is upon us where ignorance will not be allowed as acceptable refutation to things like Near Death Experiences.

These things can simply be explained by Quantum Consciousness because entanglement isn't bound by classical space-time.

When a near death experience occurs, the Quantum Mind is experiencing pure superposition. This is why people feel free and more aware. They're no longer bound by the classical mixed state of the human brain.

There's several theories of Quantum Consciousness. One of my favorite is Hammeroff/Penrose Orch Or. I don't think the final answer has been found because there needs to be more research and new theories of Quantum Consciousness but we're definitely on the right track.

Here's a video that explains the science behind Quantum Consciousness.



Here's another video that talks about Experimental Studies on a Single Microtubule and Topological Qubits. One of the key factors in Orch-Or.



Quantum Consciousness will not only explain Near Death Experiences, but psychics, telepathy, premonitions, life after death and more because entanglement isn't bound by classical space-time.

So it's easy to explain when a psychic has a sketch drawn of a criminal before the police have a suspect and that sketch is put on the news and leads to the capture of the criminal. The psychics Quantum Mind just becomes entangled with the victims Quantum Mind and the psychic can see what the victim saw.

It's not magic or anything supernatural, it's Quantum Mechanics.

The day is quickly coming upon us when ignorance or Incredulity to these things will not be accepted refutation of the obvious. Things like "that's just wishful thing" you just want to believe in the supernatural" "that can't be true" and others will no longer be tolerated by thinking individuals.

The questions that will be asked is how can science explain these things not blind ignorance and Incredulity everytime one of these things is mentioned.

Quantum consciousness?

That sounds vague and doesnt really explain much.

Id have to say it still sounds religious as a result.

reply to post by muzzleflash


What?

You have to be joking. Entanglement has been verified and studied for years. There's nothing vague about. Experiments show that entanglement isn't bound by classical space-time so the same goes for Quantum Consciousness.

There's nothing religious about it. Again, people us these silly refutations because they can't refute the actual experiments and theories.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Quantum consciousness?

That sounds vague and doesnt really explain much.

Id have to say it still sounds religious as a result.

Calculus sounds vague and really doesn't explain much, but that's because you have to open the book and read if you want to learn anything. This stuff doesn't just come to you, you have to look for it.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

There's nothing religious about it. Again, people us these silly refutations because they can't refute the actual experiments and theories.

How true! You cannot refute a theory because the definition of theory is indeed - fact. How many theories have we conceptualized through since the dawn of consciousness? Amazingly they are all correct and have never been dis-proven.

Heres a brief snippet from my website about my own thoughts about the Science/Religion aspect of the quantum consciousness argument. I wont post the link yet, cos Im new round here, and I guess its not the done thing. But it is my own work and is a brief extract from a small ebook Ive written.

Albert Einstein maintained that

Religion without Science is blind whilst Science without Religion is lame.

The incredibly profound nature of this comment may be better understood when we look at the way our reality actually works, since the quote appears to act as an uncannilly precise metaphor for this.

Just as in the Academic world we have the contrasting disciplines of Science and Religion, We now fully understand that in our physical universe, it’s almost as if there are two similarly contrasting systems in operation.

Representing the ‘Scientific system’

we have the physical model of the Universe where everything acts in a determinable fashion based on established laws of physics and nature, which span all the known dimensions of our physical reality.

Representing the ‘Religious system’

we have the quantum model of the Universe, where everything is in constant interaction, both non-locally and instantaneously, which spans all of the known dimensions of our physical reality.

Whilst none of this quantum activity might make any sense to us, given that we cannot explain it in any rational fashion, its existence nonetheless simply cannot be denied. (This in itself is a reasonable definition of faith.)

Therefore, whether we like it or not the quantum model of our Universe sits at the very foundation of our existence, since whilst all of this non-local, quantum activity appears to take place exclusively within the ‘small particles’, it is these very same quantum particles which make up the bigger ones, which ultimately make us and everything around us.

In short, rather like the Academic disciplines of Science and Religion themselves, both of these confirmed Universal models also appear to be polar opposites, and yet they stand side by side, mysteriously interconnected throughout the entire known fabric of our physical existence.

Infusion of the concept of our physical world as an emanation of Infinite Consciousness would permit the similar integration of the opposing disciplines of Science and Religion in the Academic world.

reply to post by neoholographic


I love science and the discoveries they have made in this age. But I'm also a believer too in the supernatural (to a point) - so I have to wonder. In 20-30 years time when scientists have debunked all our spiritual beliefs and credit it all to "mental illness" or how the brain functions - just how many of us will wind up in mental institutes for believing in the supernatural?

At the risk of being committed myself, I'd like to keep an open mind to all possibilities.

Interesting stuff. After death, what does the "mind" become entangled with? God? All the other minds on earth? It's got to be entangled with something.

Anyway, to your post.

The time is upon us where ignorance will not be allowed as acceptable refutation to things like Near Death Experiences.

There's several theories of Quantum Consciousness. One of my favorite is Hammeroff/Penrose Orch Or. I don't think the final answer has been found because there needs to be more research and new theories of Quantum Consciousness but we're definitely on the right track.

So, we're ignorant of which current QC theory is accurate, but it doesn't matter, because we're also ignorant of what the needed, new, theories will be.

But whatever the new theory is, it's obviously true.

Seems like the announcement may be a trifle pre-mature. Can we just say that this is an interesting field of study?

Science is the Illuminati Religion and mind control tool for the masses.

All of it is a ruse and one massive lie (see sig).

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all collages and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

With the control of science in their hands, and the discouragement of seeking new findings they took it a step further. Next, the Robber Baron flunkies of the Illuminati used their ill-gotten gains, under the guise of philanthropy, to establish “Foundations” and “Societies” such as the National Geographical Society and the

Smithsonian Institute “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men,” but in reality to help cover-up and hide away anything that doesn’t fit the accepted theories."

Secret Societies - Who Controls Knowledge?

They Cast No Shadows by Brian Desborough

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

"Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues. "Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated."

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

Quantum consciousness can explain how ideas could be manifested in people's minds so that many people could see the same things and this could lead to the idea that those things are objectively real. But how does quantum consciousness explain the concept of good and evil? Right and wrong? Cause isn't that really the heart of religion, at least the Christian religion? And I don't see how that reality is explained by this. And it seems to me people who would latch onto q.c. would do so out of desire to be free of God. And I can see that. But there seems to be a dimension that this doesn't address.

One of the areas that I believe displays the most complete connection between two minds is the possibility that identical twins who can sense each others pain over great distances just might be caused by quantum entanglement initiated in the womb just as the single zygote splits in two to form identical twins.

This leads to the distinct possibility that there is a quantum mind separate from the physical brain but anchored to it as long as there is life in it.

Here is a link two the ARTICLE on the quantum connection between identical twins that may shed some light on the possibility of the quantum mind.

reply to post by happykat39


Quantum consciousness.....very interesting concept. The very idea that the consciousness could find itself in superposition is exhilarating to contemplate.

Originally posted by neoholographic
What?

You have to be joking. Entanglement has been verified and studied for years. There's nothing vague about. Experiments show that entanglement isn't bound by classical space-time so the same goes for Quantum Consciousness.

There's nothing religious about it. Again, people us these silly refutations because they can't refute the actual experiments and theories.

It's not entanglement that sounds religious, because there's proof of that.

It's quantum consciousness that sounds a little bit religious, because there's no proof of that; you said so yourself.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What?

Did you even read my original post? I showed evidence and experimental studies that support Quantum Consciousness.

Secondly, there's nothing religious sounding about Quantum Consciousness. That's just silly. Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness has been studied and debated for years. You have fields of Quantum Biology emerging, does that sound religious?

People say these things to try to belittle the subject matter because they can't debate the issue.

Again, there's nothing religious sounding at all with the term Quantum Consciousness just like there's nothing religious sounding about Quantum Biology.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What?

Did you even read my original post?

Yes I read this:

I don't think the final answer has been found because there needs to be more research and new theories of Quantum Consciousness but we're definitely on the right track.

You said the answer hasn't been found. It hasn't. Both you and the videos are making unconscionable leaps in logic, which means "woo" in my book, if you don't like word "religion"

Stuart Hameroff

This more developed version of their ideas was also widely attacked, and notably by the physicist Max Tegmark, who calculated that quantum states in microtubules would survive for only 10^−13 seconds, too brief to be of any significance for neural processes (Tegmark, 2000)[6]. Hameroff and the physicists Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski (Hagan, Hameroff & Tuszynski, 2002)[7] replied to Tegmark arguing that microtubules could be shielded against the environment of the brain. To date, there is no experimental confirmation of these proposed methods of shielding, but Hameroff has proposed tests that could falsify the theory...

Hameroff appeared as himself in the documentary film What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? (2004). He also participated in the first Beyond Belief conference, where his theories were sharply criticized by Lawrence Krauss, among others.

That entire movie "What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!?" Did exactly what you, Hameroff and some other woo-masters like to do, which is cite some real science, throw in come kooky ideas not supported by a shred of evidence, and then accuse their critics of rejecting the science. It's not the science we reject, it's the woo added to it which has no scientific foundation which is rejected.

The symptom of your difficulty is stated in the review of that movie in which Hameroff appeared:

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

"Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided,"

You my friend, are susceptible to being misguided, since you apparently can't tell where quantum physics ends and quantum nonsense begins. Even one of the apparent supporters of quantum consciousness in the movie is actually against it:

David Albert, a philosopher of physics who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."

Randi is more blunt and gets closer to the truth:

Skeptic James Randi described the film as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[18] Eric Scerri in a review for Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense," where "science [is] distorted and sensationalized."[19] A BBC reviewer described it as "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible."[20]

According to Margaret Wertheim, "History abounds with religious enthusiasts who have read spiritual portent into the arrangement of the planets, the vacuum of space, electromagnetic waves and the big bang. But no scientific discovery has proved so ripe for spiritual projection as the theories of quantum physics, replete with their quixotic qualities of uncertainty, simultaneity and parallelism." Werteim continues that the movie "abandons itself entirely to the ecstasies of quantum mysticism, finding in this aleatory description of nature the key to spiritual transformation. As one of the film’s characters gushes early in the proceedings, “The moment we acknowledge the quantum self, we say that somebody has become enlightened." A moment in which "the mathematical formalisms of quantum mechanics [...] are stripped of all empirical content and reduced to a set of syrupy nostrums".

This whole topic is woo central for quantum mysticism.

But I think I like Dawkin's quote best of all:

Richard Dawkins stated that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us", concluding that the film is "tosh."

Unfortunately, as bad as the reviews are of that what the bleep movie, the "evidence" you've posted in the OP is even worse. It's woo for people that don't have a clue where quantum mechanics ends and quantum nonsense begins, and unfortunately, we are bombarded by quantum nonsense from all kinds of purveyors of woo, which you seem to want to spread. Maybe you should study quantum mechanics so you can tell what claims are real?

Arbitrager.

Its all well and good to diss, what the bleep, if thats how you feel, but then to support it by quoting James Randi?

Thats not terribly scientific, right there. Its a bit like asking George W. Bush for some serious, honest political analysis. That is to say, both are revered by many as specialists, due to their standing within their respective fields, but neither are terribly reliable, to put it politely.

Since , rather like Bush( to name one such politician), Randi himself is a fake and liar of the highest order - And getting to the bottom of the truth about that is far easier than getting to the bottom of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by markatUCR
Randi himself is a conman and liar of the highest order. And geting to the bottom of the truth about that is far easier than getting to the bottom of quantum mechanics.

The difference is, Randi admits he is doing things to fool us with his magic, so that doesn't really make him a con man. The con man doesn't admit he's fooling you. And I happen to agree completely with Randi's opinion, though I didn't form my opinion based on what he said, but by watching the movie, and by studying quantum mechanics.

If you disagree, you of course are entitled to a different opinion, but please note I quoted 8 different sources. If you don't like Randi see what the other 7 have to say.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The difference is, Randi admits he is doing things to fool us with his magic, so that doesn't really make him a con man.

I'd love to see any evidence you have for that comment. Can you help me, please ?

As fort the rest, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree

reply to post by markatUCR

I thought everybody knew this but magicians don't really do magic, they are called illusions. So that woman isn't really getting sawed in half, it just looks that way.

And I suppose they are "con men" if you stretch the definition to magicians since they do make it look like the woman is sawed in half, but I think we all know she really isn't. Randi suggests here that learning how to fool people can help you understand when you're being fooled yourself (though perhaps not always, but he thinks it helped him):

www.forgoodreason.org...

James Randi talks about how learning magic tricks may lead to adopting a more skeptical point of view about supernatural and paranormal claims.

And he doesn't deny being a trickster:

James Randi

Randi was once accused of actually using "psychic powers" to perform acts such as spoon bending. According to James Alcock, at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller, a professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said, "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery."...

The thing is, real con men never come out and tell you they are fooling you like that. But if one was to argue that charlatans are better at recognizing charlatans than the average person is, I would find that argument persuasive, since they know the tricks of the trade.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You know it's bad when people go to quoting James Randi.

Your post is basically an attack against the Film What The Bleep when it has nothing to do with the conversation. It's sad that your so closed minded that you can't even see that saying words like "woo" or "quantum mysticism" are meaningless.

You say these things to try and belittle the subject matter because you can't debate the issue. I really do find it sad when people resort to this. I think most people see it for what it is now though. Everytime a topic comes up that the pseudoskeptic can't refute or debate they yell "woo" because for some reason they think just saying "woo" means something.

You said:

You said the answer hasn't been found. It hasn't. Both you and the videos are making unconscionable leaps in logic, which means "woo" in my book, if you don't like word "religion"

Of course the final answer hasn't been found yet. This is early in this field of study and it would be silly to assume that. This is why I said their need to be more research and more theories because this is what happens in science. I also said their on the right track based on the theories and the experimental studies that I showed in my original post.

You then say videos are making unconscionable leaps in logic. Specifically, what leaps in logic? Again, you make these blanket statements and personally I doubt you even watched the videos. So specifically, what unconscionable leaps in logic do the videos make?

You then mention Tegmark. Tegmark based his calculations involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smaller separations of 2-8 nm of Orch-Or. We're talking about the sub units of microtubules.

We also see science looking at more ways that nature uses Quantum Mechanics like in bird migration, DNA, photosynthesis and more and Quantum Biology is becoming a very exciting field.

Here's an article about European robins.

European robins may maintain quantum entanglement in their eyes a full 20 microseconds longer than the best laboratory systems, say physicists investigating how birds may use quantum effects to “see” Earth’s magnetic field.

“How can a living system have evolved to protect a quantum state as well — no, better — than we can do in the lab with these exotic molecules?” asked quantum physicist Simon Benjamin of Oxford University and the National University of Singapore, a co-author of the new study. “That really is an amazing thing.”

To put this in perspective, Benjamin introduced an exotic molecule called N@C60, a geometric cage of carbon with a nitrogen atom inside. This molecule is one of the best-known laboratory systems for maintaining entanglement. “The cage acts to shield the atom, which is storing the information, from the rest of the world,” Benjamin said. “It’s considered to be quite a sexy, interesting, promising molecule.”

But at room temperature, even N@C60 only holds entanglement for 80 microseconds, or four-fifths of what birds appear to be doing.

“I think this is a very nice paper that attacks the problem from an interesting angle,” said Schulten, who was not involved in the work. “They use a hugely simplified model, but they make an interesting point. Entanglement could stay protected for tens of microseconds longer than we thought before.”

“The bird, however it works, whatever it’s got in there, it’s somehow doing better than our specially designed, very beautiful molecule,” Benjamin said. “That’s just staggering.”

www.wired.com...

So nature may have figured out how to hold quantum states longer than expected and in condition that scientist years ago said were not possible. This is more evidence that supports Penrose/Hameroff because it refutes claims that the brain is too warm and wet to hold a quantum state long enough. Here's more.

However, these quantum states are notoriously fragile. Even in laboratory systems, atoms are cooled to near–absolute-zero temperatures to maintain entanglement for more than a few thousandths of a second. Biological systems would seem too warm and too wet to hold quantum states for long, yet that’s exactly what they appear to do.

For years some have said consciousness is an emergent property of the brain without a shred of evidence as to how this occurs or how it's even possible. The reason some object to this so fervently because they realizes Quantum Consciousness will explain things like near death experiments, telepathy, premonitions and more.

So now, simple Quantum Mechanics is called woo. So you can say woo and click your heels 3 times and it still will not help your argument. I think most people realize that whenever a subject matter comes up that the pseudoskeptic can't debate they yell woo or quantum mysticism or some other nonsensical term.