Why didn't you bold the words like "presented as". Way to embellish the parts you think are important, but actually aren't.
A huge conference was held at Caltech by REAL scientists and philosophers debunking this entire movie. They misrepresent the science and use perverse philosophy to try to tie it all up into a neat magical bundle, using that "magical thinking" they admit to in what you posted. It's all bullshit. Dr. Emoto is not a scientist, nor do his results follow scientific method, none of the "presented as" people are neuroscientists or quantum physicists, they pretend to know something about it, but they all share in common the fact that they are newage followers of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It's junk science and it's propaganda.
I am saying that THEIR base premise is one of science and spirituality, whether what they assert is true or not. Within that context, their logic is perfectly sound.
You said the premise was about the physical brain. If their premise WAS about reality being purely--or "ONLY", as you said--a product of the physical brain, your critique would be accurate. However your critique is inaccurate because it's based on your premises, and not the actual premises and intentions of the movie makers who are intending to weave in magic and metaphysics, God and religion.
For the record, I completely agree with what they have done, and the holistic soundness of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am saying that THEIR base premise is one of science and spirituality, whether what they assert is true or not. Within that context, their logic is perfectly sound.
You said the premise was about the physical brain. If their premise WAS about reality being purely--or "ONLY", as you said--a product of the physical brain, your critique would be accurate. However your critique is inaccurate because it's based on your premises, and not the actual premises and intentions of the movie makers who are intending to weave in magic and metaphysics, God and religion.
For the record, I completely agree with what they have done, and the holistic soundness of it.
All the "science" is brain related. 80% of the science is irrelevant if consciousness collapses wave-functions and manifests reality. Which they have no evidence for, it's wild speculation. Wishful, or magical thinking. I.e. BULLSHIT.
You obviously religious believe in htis holonic bullshit and are unwilling to hear any criticism of it. If you were, you'd know it's bullshit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
“The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in fairy books - charm, spell, enchantment. They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.”
~G. K. Chesterton~
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
~Albert Einstein~
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Congratulations Angelica, you can quote scientist opinion. It doesn't mean shit, it doesn't reflect fact, it only reflects their intuition. FYI Einstein believed in predeterminism, so there is no way he believed in the shit this movie tries to push, nor did Einstein believe in the Christian God. Actually learn something about what the quote means first.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That movies website quotes a lot of scientists, like Stephen Hawking, who also believes in destiny and no individual choice. Both of them, in-fact half of the quote authors on that website believed in destiny, they believed that consciousness was at the mercy of physical matter. Completely the opposite of what that religious organization tries to make them say.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
All the "science" is brain related. 80% of the science is irrelevant if consciousness collapses wave-functions and manifests reality. Which they have no evidence for, it's wild speculation. Wishful, or magical thinking. I.e. BULLSHIT.
You obviously religious believe in htis holonic bullshit and are unwilling to hear any criticism of it. If you were, you'd know it's bullshit.
My concern, here, has been with the distorted perceptions you have asserted, and that you have stood behind about the premise of "What the Bleep". I wanted to present the inaccuracy of such an assertion, which I've done.
I think the part that you don't get is that for these spiritual views, the "observer" is considered to be Spirit that lives through us, so there is a difference between the observer and the brain that you did not factor in, seemingly.
As for the rest, it's been very obvious for a very long time that you and I have vastly different views. I am perfectly fine with that. (see my signature for further understanding)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My concern, here, has been with the distorted perceptions you have asserted, and that you have stood behind about the premise of "What the Bleep". I wanted to present the inaccuracy of such an assertion, which I've done.
I think the part that you don't get is that for these spiritual views, the "observer" is considered to be Spirit that lives through us, so there is a difference between the observer and the brain that you did not factor in, seemingly.
As for the rest, it's been very obvious for a very long time that you and I have vastly different views. I am perfectly fine with that. (see my signature for further understanding)
The opposite of truth is not truth. That's a stupid claim.
This is all stupidity. The movie in no way presents a case for an 'observer' or that the collapse of wave-function has anything to do with observation. They misrepresented the double-slit experiment by presenting the detector as a giant eye-ball, it's silliness, stupidness. They present no case what-so-ever for anything, it's wild speculation, and remember the basketball court scene where they talk about altering reality with your mind... right... bullshit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The opposite of truth is not truth. That's a stupid claim.
This is all stupidity. The movie in no way presents a case for an 'observer' or that the collapse of wave-function has anything to do with observation. They misrepresented the double-slit experiment by presenting the detector as a giant eye-ball, it's silliness, stupidness. They present no case what-so-ever for anything, it's wild speculation, and remember the basketball court scene where they talk about altering reality with your mind... right... bullshit.
Hey, I still love you Angelica. You know that. I just wish you'd stop listening to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff and listen to some more realistic theories.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hey, I still love you Angelica. You know that. I just wish you'd stop listening to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff and listen to some more realistic theories.
I love you, too, Ahnimus.
It's the inner beauty that radiates within and about everything that has me spellbound. I have no idea who Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I dunno, I leave you kids alone togerther for 5 mins and you start fighting again.
Are you paying attention , Kat ?? This is why I meandered off topic the other day. Someone has got to keep these kids playing nice !!
The topics and agreements/disagreements come and go, lucy, for they are impermanent. Beneath the fluctuations is the natural harmony and peace Ahnimus and I have. The logic and the debate is but an illusion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The topics and agreements/disagreements come and go, lucy, for they are impermanent. Beneath the fluctuations is the natural harmony and peace Ahnimus and I have. The logic and the debate is but an illusion.
Jeez, one day peeps are gonna realize just how flip I am. I wus mainly having a dig at Kat !!
I'm still trying to work out WTF "collapse the waveform" is supposed to mean. Sounds like pretentious mumbo-jumbo to me !! Tee hee !!
i am not my body.
i am the energy
to animate my body.
i am not my mind.
i am the awareness
to witness my thoughts.
i am not my feelings
who change like wind.
i am not my name
or the stories of my life.
I Am the sound of silence
in a constant and
deepest mystery.
~awesome stuff, as posted on baraka's myspace "comments"
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Jeez, one day peeps are gonna realize just how flip I am. I wus mainly having a dig at Kat !!
I'm still trying to work out WTF "collapse the waveform" is supposed to mean. Sounds like pretentious mumbo-jumbo to me !! Tee hee !!
It's like this, in quantum physics there is something called particle-waveform duality. Quantum particles (electrons) appear to behave as wave functions, but when an electron detector is used in the experiments they appear to "collapse" and behave as regular matter, like a ping-pong ball as opposed to a soundwave. The theory put forth by "What the BLEEP do we know?" and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and mathmatical physicist Roger Penrose, amongst others, is that Consciousness as an ethereal self-sufficient force collapses the wave-function and creates reality. As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..
It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's like this, in quantum physics there is something called particle-waveform duality. Quantum particles (electrons) appear to behave as wave functions, but when an electron detector is used in the experiments they appear to "collapse" and behave as regular matter, like a ping-pong ball as opposed to a soundwave. The theory put forth by "What the BLEEP do we know?" and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and mathmatical physicist Roger Penrose, amongst others, is that Consciousness as an ethereal self-sufficient force collapses the wave-function and creates reality. As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..
It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.
so reality creates itself then?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There is a fundamental difference between making a truth statement or claiming that something is true and disproving a truth statement. So if a person claims God created the universe. That is a truth statement. First of all in order for us to disprove the claim it must have a null hypothesis a possible way out of the claim. The claim must also provide some epistemic evidence to support the claim. The claim must also explain something useful.
If we consider the claim There is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. We can disprove this simply by the fact that there is no end to a rainbow that we can not already see and know there is no pot of gold. That does not mean that there is something else at the end of a rainbow, it just means there is no pot of gold.
So, simply because the quantum mind theory is wrong, does not mean that a different truth claim is therefor true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..
It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.
According to Existentialism, we humans face existential dilemmas, or problems to be solved regarding our personal existence. By solving these problems, we expand our awareness, which has a biological correlate. When we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place, that is when we struggle and come to expand our very consciousness to newer and newer levels. By doing so, we expand our brain functioning. Within the context of evolution, this is the human contribution of it.
“Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos...” ~ Terry Pratchett
I also create my day every day. It is something very simple, where one focuses on one's intentions for the upcoming day. By doing this, one sets their conscious filters to an awareness of what will meet one's existence needs at that time. By doing so, one also sets their filters to let go of the pettiness of life that can be distracting. By doing this, one stays on track with their inner purpose, and intent, rather than being tossed about on the winds of fate. This is disciplining the mind. For example, one of the intentions I regularly set is that I am going to tap into the larger reality, beyond my own personal needs while still intuned to my personal needs, to the greatest good of all involved. Another "creation" I would do is to set my intentions to tap into the right information I will need for the writing of my book. By doing this I tap into the awareness I seek and my actions and natural responses tend to flow from this perspective. This works.
Again, just because you don't understand the validity of a complementary view does not mean it is not valid. As a matter of fact, Ahnimus, I said awhile back that it's obvious that you are coming into an "existential" period. I said this because you regularly seem to use the word "absurd". You are running up against the subjective aspects of nature that continue to challenge your objective view. This developmental stage follows the objective/logical one. In this phase, if you progress well, you will come to learn the validity of all individual existential views/problems, and learn to integrate that with the objective views. You've already started by understanding the validity of the various "maps" of the world that people hold. However, when you are so caught between the dichotomies of "right/wrong", in terms that what you see is correct, and what others see as innacurate, you continue to indicate that you have not yet resolved the objective and the subjective levels of development. Which is perfectly fine. However, that is why your opinions are merely that, and not representing understanding of the larger picture. If you can learn to suspend your judgment a little bit, you can come to a much higher level of awareness than the average person (who does not hit this phase), by integrating the existential which is not your strength, in with your natural strengths, which lie in the objective. You can then use this potential balanced awareness to serve the purposes of your agenda of objectivity. There are many people on this board who are at the existential phase. You can benefit others here who are integrating objectivity within the existential, but who do not have a natural preference towards objectivity. Therefore many of us can benefit from the information your natural tendencies bring to this level. This is why we all are all connecting here.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You cannot battle fate, it's not fate if you can do anything about it. See that's not what the definition of fate is. Fate can not be disproven by a theory of existentialism. What you need is evidence for any theory to have validity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You cannot battle fate, it's not fate if you can do anything about it. See that's not what the definition of fate is. Fate can not be disproven by a theory of existentialism. What you need is evidence for any theory to have validity.
It's natural that cognitive dissonance will cause you to not resonate to what you have not yet integrated. However, it's clear you are heading into this phase, regardless of your conscious intent. The thing is that by coming to this board, and facing the challenge here, you are being bombarded by that which is dissonant to your view, and you will continue to use your problem solving skill to meet challenge upon challenge against your "opposites" and thereby are integrating this whether you consciously see it or not. Did you know that as we personally grow, each stage of growth contradicts the last? For example, we see one way, and then as we grow, we start to flip to see the opposite way. Ultimately, the second flip in the progression brings us back to seeing the first way, only with more complexity, and so on. We only get to the next level by learning to understand both sides of the level we seek to rise above. The alternating stages mirror each other, with progressive awareness, while side by side stages oppose each other. If we plan to align with our own natural evolution, awareness of this makes it much easier.
"The greatest personal limitation is to be found not in the things you want to do and can't, but in the things you've never considered doing" ~ Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP
I agree you cannot battle fate. We can consciously align with it, and use our conscious awareness to create alongside it. NLP is all about doing so, Ahnimus.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's natural that cognitive dissonance will cause you to not resonate to what you have not yet integrated. However, it's clear you are heading into this phase, iregardless of your conscious intent. The thing is that by coming to this board, and facing the challenge here, you are being bombarded by that which is dissonant to your view, and you will continue to use your problem solving skill to meet challenge upon challenge against your "opposites" and thereby are integrating this whether you consciously see it or not. Did you know that as we personally grow, each stage of growth contradicts the last? For example, we see one way, and then as we grow, we start to flip to see the opposite way. Ultimately, the second flip in the progression brings us back to seeing the first way, only with more complexity, and so on. We only get to the next level by learning to understand both sides of the level we seek to rise above. The alternating stages mirror each other, with progressive awareness, while side by side stages oppose each other. If we plan to align with our own natural evolution, awareness of this makes it much easier.
"The greatest personal limitation is to be found not in the things you want to do and can't, but in the things you've never considered doing" ~ Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP
I agree you cannot battle fate. We can consciously align with it, and use our conscious awareness to create alongside it. NLP is all about doing so, Ahnimus.
No, Angelica. You cannot align with fate. Fate is not a pathway that we either align with or don't. It's not like that at all.
It seems you don't fully grasp the concept of destiny.
Here is how I prefer to present the case. We have something which we would like to understand, we want an explanation for it. That is human behavior. Why is it that we want to understand human behavior? Mainly, because there is variance in the way humans behave. If we all behaved the same way, then it wouldn't need explaining. So what we are looking to explain is variance in human behavior.
Now, rather than saying free-will/indeterminism/dualism or any other theory is the default position, let's just look at them all as theories for explaining the variance in human behavior.
Indeterminism. The fundamental problem with indeterminism is that it doesn't explain any variation. It simply says that there is a black box that we cannot know the contents of. If that black box was the same for every human, as some claim it is, then it is not the cause of variance in human behavior. Just like adding a null variable to an equation does not change the outcome of the equation. Some claim that the black box (free-will) is different for every human, and thus displays a variance that needs explaining to reach our goal of explaining the variance in human behavior. It should also follow that this variance is a determinant in the variance of human behavior and does not bring us any closer to our goal.
Dualism is very similar. Except that dualism takes what we do know about human behavior in a causal manner and acknowledges it. That is the most logical approach to any behavior which we do understand. However, dualism then attributes the black-box of free-will to any behavior which we don't understand and makes no progress in explaining it.
Determinism does not fill-in the unknown with any black-boxes, it simply presumes there is an explanation to be had and determinists attempt to discover the explanation. Never will a determinist resort to using the free-will black-box because it doesn't explain anything.
I think it's absurd not to view determinism as the best theory for explaining the variance in human behavior. The black-box of free-will only achieves one goal and that is self-gratification and depracation. As stated above, the fundamental fallacy of free-will is that it either makes no difference in the deliberative process or explains nothing. Just like God, it's only purpose is a place-holder for the unknown that has moral implications. Not a good policy for anyone to have.
Thus, Voltaire says "The theory contrary to destiny is absurd".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, Angelica. You cannot align with fate. Fate is not a pathway that we either align with or don't. It's not like that at all.
It seems you don't fully grasp the concept of destiny.
Here is how I prefer to present the case. We have something which we would like to understand, we want an explanation for it. That is human behavior. Why is it that we want to understand human behavior? Mainly, because there is variance in the way humans behave. If we all behaved the same way, then it wouldn't need explaining. So what we are looking to explain is variance in human behavior.
Now, rather than saying free-will/indeterminism/dualism or any other theory is the default position, let's just look at them all as theories for explaining the variance in human behavior.
Indeterminism. The fundamental problem with indeterminism is that it doesn't explain any variation. It simply says that there is a black box that we cannot know the contents of. If that black box was the same for every human, as some claim it is, then it is not the cause of variance in human behavior. Just like adding a null variable to an equation does not change the outcome of the equation. Some claim that the black box (free-will) is different for every human, and thus displays a variance that needs explaining to reach our goal of explaining the variance in human behavior. It should also follow that this variance is a determinant in the variance of human behavior and does not bring us any closer to our goal.
Dualism is very similar. Except that dualism takes what we do know about human behavior in a causal manner and acknowledges it. That is the most logical approach to any behavior which we do understand. However, dualism then attributes the black-box of free-will to any behavior which we don't understand and makes no progress in explaining it.
Determinism does not fill-in the unknown with any black-boxes, it simply presumes there is an explanation to be had and determinists attempt to discover the explanation. Never will a determinist resort to using the free-will black-box because it doesn't explain anything.
I think it's absurd not to view determinism as the best theory for explaining the variance in human behavior. The black-box of free-will only achieves one goal and that is self-gratification and depracation. As stated above, the fundamental fallacy of free-will is that it either makes no difference in the deliberative process or explains nothing. Just like God, it's only purpose is a place-holder for the unknown that has moral implications. Not a good policy for anyone to have.
Thus, Voltaire says "The theory contrary to destiny is absurd".
Thanks for sharing your point of view. There is no debate here--there is your view and there is my view. Both exist side by side in complete harmony in the natural world and on this board.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Thanks for sharing your point of view. There is no debate here--there is your view and there is my view. Both exist side by side in complete harmony in the natural world and on this board.
No they do not. You really aren't making an effort to understand. It's written out so obvious that indeterminism or acausality do not explain anything. They are a self-gratifying concept only. At least you could admit that is all that the theories offer, they offer no further explanation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I have something I'd like you to consider, Ahnimus. You could potentially stop short in your evolution. People do this all the time. They decide to dig in at a particular developmental stage and that's where they reside for the rest of their lives. Essentially, they begin the process of dying, of closing down.
You can at any time start spending all your time amongst predominantly science oriented types, and find validation for all your ideas/views. It's a completely valid choice. You will have all the support you need. What I see, though, is that you are naturally progressing past that. You are here, where there is much opposition. If you continue to challenge yourself outside the box, you will continue to evolve in terms of these stages, and ultimately, it's possible for you to become self-actualized, having harmonized all opposites.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have something I'd like you to consider, Ahnimus. You could potentially stop short in your evolution. People do this all the time. They decide to dig in at a particular developmental stage and that's where they reside for the rest of their lives. Essentially, they begin the process of dying, of closing down.
You can at any time start spending all your time amongst predominantly science oriented types, and find validation for all your ideas/views. It's a completely valid choice. You will have all the support you need. What I see, though, is that you are naturally progressing past that. You are here, where there is much opposition. If you continue to challenge yourself outside the box, you will continue to evolve in terms of these stages, and ultimately, it's possible for you to become self-actualized, having harmonized all opposites.
It's more likely that I will become insane.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I am saying that THEIR base premise is one of science and spirituality, whether what they assert is true or not. Within that context, their logic is perfectly sound.
You said the premise was about the physical brain. If their premise WAS about reality being purely--or "ONLY", as you said--a product of the physical brain, your critique would be accurate. However your critique is inaccurate because it's based on your premises, and not the actual premises and intentions of the movie makers who are intending to weave in magic and metaphysics, God and religion.
For the record, I completely agree with what they have done, and the holistic soundness of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
All the "science" is brain related. 80% of the science is irrelevant if consciousness collapses wave-functions and manifests reality. Which they have no evidence for, it's wild speculation. Wishful, or magical thinking. I.e. BULLSHIT.
You obviously religious believe in htis holonic bullshit and are unwilling to hear any criticism of it. If you were, you'd know it's bullshit.
~G. K. Chesterton~
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
~Albert Einstein~
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My concern, here, has been with the distorted perceptions you have asserted, and that you have stood behind about the premise of "What the Bleep". I wanted to present the inaccuracy of such an assertion, which I've done.
I think the part that you don't get is that for these spiritual views, the "observer" is considered to be Spirit that lives through us, so there is a difference between the observer and the brain that you did not factor in, seemingly.
As for the rest, it's been very obvious for a very long time that you and I have vastly different views. I am perfectly fine with that. (see my signature for further understanding)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The opposite of truth is not truth. That's a stupid claim.
This is all stupidity. The movie in no way presents a case for an 'observer' or that the collapse of wave-function has anything to do with observation. They misrepresented the double-slit experiment by presenting the detector as a giant eye-ball, it's silliness, stupidness. They present no case what-so-ever for anything, it's wild speculation, and remember the basketball court scene where they talk about altering reality with your mind... right... bullshit.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDIqNTDi96I
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hey, I still love you Angelica. You know that. I just wish you'd stop listening to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff and listen to some more realistic theories.
It's the inner beauty that radiates within and about everything that has me spellbound.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
They are the main advocates of Quantum Mind.
http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2003/March2003/03-03_blazer_penrose.jpg
http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2003usa/stuarthameroff.jpg
Are you paying attention , Kat ?? This is why I meandered off topic the other day. Someone has got to keep these kids playing nice !!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Jeez, one day peeps are gonna realize just how flip I am. I wus mainly having a dig at Kat !!
I'm still trying to work out WTF "collapse the waveform" is supposed to mean. Sounds like pretentious mumbo-jumbo to me !! Tee hee !!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i am the energy
to animate my body.
i am not my mind.
i am the awareness
to witness my thoughts.
i am not my feelings
who change like wind.
i am not my name
or the stories of my life.
I Am the sound of silence
in a constant and
deepest mystery.
~awesome stuff, as posted on baraka's myspace "comments"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's like this, in quantum physics there is something called particle-waveform duality. Quantum particles (electrons) appear to behave as wave functions, but when an electron detector is used in the experiments they appear to "collapse" and behave as regular matter, like a ping-pong ball as opposed to a soundwave. The theory put forth by "What the BLEEP do we know?" and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and mathmatical physicist Roger Penrose, amongst others, is that Consciousness as an ethereal self-sufficient force collapses the wave-function and creates reality. As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..
It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.
so reality creates itself then?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There is a fundamental difference between making a truth statement or claiming that something is true and disproving a truth statement. So if a person claims God created the universe. That is a truth statement. First of all in order for us to disprove the claim it must have a null hypothesis a possible way out of the claim. The claim must also provide some epistemic evidence to support the claim. The claim must also explain something useful.
If we consider the claim There is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. We can disprove this simply by the fact that there is no end to a rainbow that we can not already see and know there is no pot of gold. That does not mean that there is something else at the end of a rainbow, it just means there is no pot of gold.
So, simply because the quantum mind theory is wrong, does not mean that a different truth claim is therefor true.
“Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos...” ~ Terry Pratchett
I also create my day every day. It is something very simple, where one focuses on one's intentions for the upcoming day. By doing this, one sets their conscious filters to an awareness of what will meet one's existence needs at that time. By doing so, one also sets their filters to let go of the pettiness of life that can be distracting. By doing this, one stays on track with their inner purpose, and intent, rather than being tossed about on the winds of fate. This is disciplining the mind. For example, one of the intentions I regularly set is that I am going to tap into the larger reality, beyond my own personal needs while still intuned to my personal needs, to the greatest good of all involved. Another "creation" I would do is to set my intentions to tap into the right information I will need for the writing of my book. By doing this I tap into the awareness I seek and my actions and natural responses tend to flow from this perspective. This works.
Again, just because you don't understand the validity of a complementary view does not mean it is not valid. As a matter of fact, Ahnimus, I said awhile back that it's obvious that you are coming into an "existential" period. I said this because you regularly seem to use the word "absurd". You are running up against the subjective aspects of nature that continue to challenge your objective view. This developmental stage follows the objective/logical one. In this phase, if you progress well, you will come to learn the validity of all individual existential views/problems, and learn to integrate that with the objective views. You've already started by understanding the validity of the various "maps" of the world that people hold. However, when you are so caught between the dichotomies of "right/wrong", in terms that what you see is correct, and what others see as innacurate, you continue to indicate that you have not yet resolved the objective and the subjective levels of development. Which is perfectly fine. However, that is why your opinions are merely that, and not representing understanding of the larger picture. If you can learn to suspend your judgment a little bit, you can come to a much higher level of awareness than the average person (who does not hit this phase), by integrating the existential which is not your strength, in with your natural strengths, which lie in the objective. You can then use this potential balanced awareness to serve the purposes of your agenda of objectivity. There are many people on this board who are at the existential phase. You can benefit others here who are integrating objectivity within the existential, but who do not have a natural preference towards objectivity. Therefore many of us can benefit from the information your natural tendencies bring to this level. This is why we all are all connecting here.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You cannot battle fate, it's not fate if you can do anything about it. See that's not what the definition of fate is. Fate can not be disproven by a theory of existentialism. What you need is evidence for any theory to have validity.
"The greatest personal limitation is to be found not in the things you want to do and can't, but in the things you've never considered doing" ~ Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP
I agree you cannot battle fate. We can consciously align with it, and use our conscious awareness to create alongside it. NLP is all about doing so, Ahnimus.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, Angelica. You cannot align with fate. Fate is not a pathway that we either align with or don't. It's not like that at all.
It seems you don't fully grasp the concept of destiny.
Here is how I prefer to present the case. We have something which we would like to understand, we want an explanation for it. That is human behavior. Why is it that we want to understand human behavior? Mainly, because there is variance in the way humans behave. If we all behaved the same way, then it wouldn't need explaining. So what we are looking to explain is variance in human behavior.
Now, rather than saying free-will/indeterminism/dualism or any other theory is the default position, let's just look at them all as theories for explaining the variance in human behavior.
Indeterminism. The fundamental problem with indeterminism is that it doesn't explain any variation. It simply says that there is a black box that we cannot know the contents of. If that black box was the same for every human, as some claim it is, then it is not the cause of variance in human behavior. Just like adding a null variable to an equation does not change the outcome of the equation. Some claim that the black box (free-will) is different for every human, and thus displays a variance that needs explaining to reach our goal of explaining the variance in human behavior. It should also follow that this variance is a determinant in the variance of human behavior and does not bring us any closer to our goal.
Dualism is very similar. Except that dualism takes what we do know about human behavior in a causal manner and acknowledges it. That is the most logical approach to any behavior which we do understand. However, dualism then attributes the black-box of free-will to any behavior which we don't understand and makes no progress in explaining it.
Determinism does not fill-in the unknown with any black-boxes, it simply presumes there is an explanation to be had and determinists attempt to discover the explanation. Never will a determinist resort to using the free-will black-box because it doesn't explain anything.
I think it's absurd not to view determinism as the best theory for explaining the variance in human behavior. The black-box of free-will only achieves one goal and that is self-gratification and depracation. As stated above, the fundamental fallacy of free-will is that it either makes no difference in the deliberative process or explains nothing. Just like God, it's only purpose is a place-holder for the unknown that has moral implications. Not a good policy for anyone to have.
Thus, Voltaire says "The theory contrary to destiny is absurd".
~Robert A. Heinlein
This quote is apropos in a thread about comparative belief.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No they do not. You really aren't making an effort to understand. It's written out so obvious that indeterminism or acausality do not explain anything. They are a self-gratifying concept only. At least you could admit that is all that the theories offer, they offer no further explanation.
You can at any time start spending all your time amongst predominantly science oriented types, and find validation for all your ideas/views. It's a completely valid choice. You will have all the support you need. What I see, though, is that you are naturally progressing past that. You are here, where there is much opposition. If you continue to challenge yourself outside the box, you will continue to evolve in terms of these stages, and ultimately, it's possible for you to become self-actualized, having harmonized all opposites.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's more likely that I will become insane.