Comparative Religion: Godmen

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The problem is with "inner resolutions" or intuition. Is that reality is often times counter-intuitive.

You have at least partially misunderstood what I meant here. An inner resolution is when you resolve your own inner contradiction, inner conflict or problem and come to a higher level of understanding within, which resolves issues in your life. It's learning. It is not "intuition".

For example, I'll use my situaiton with you. My chaotic relationship and conflict at the beginning with you has led me to resolve some of my own personal inner issues, and it has resulted in my resolving outer issues with you. This is not "intuition". This is learning and growth. People solve their issues of existence or their problems all the time. It's our evolution within our lifespan. This growth is indicated by the solution working in terms of the individual's purposes. In this sense, it is very much in synch with reality.

gue_barium

Golden waves only occur at sunrise and sunset.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

This is an astute point.

I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........

What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.

Do you like beisbol?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Consciousness is not homuncular, it's dispersed in different regions of the brain.

Our awareness of consciousness is in it's infancy. You are talking of physical correlates of consciousness and what we know about physicality does not determine what happens beyond physicality.

I wanted to demonstrate that although there are numerous reputable, scientific interpretations of the collapse of the wave function, and how consciousnessness plays a role, you've pigeon-holed yourself into one, and are willing to demonize other reputable theories with personal judgment.

angelica

Ahnimus, it seems obvious that you only accept determinate systems.

I accept both determinate and indeterminate systems in harmony.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

.

No one has ever demonstrated an ability to alter matter with their thoughts.

Maybe not.

I've experienced that thing in the Matrix, where, in my field of vision, 24 hours later, actions repeated themselves, like a videotape recording.

7 years before that movie came out. It kinda freaked me out that that was in the movie.

Maybe I shouldn't have told anyone that.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, it seems obvious that you only accept determinate systems.

I accept both determinate and indeterminate systems in harmony.

I accept bonobo monkey fucking.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

Our awareness of consciousness is in it's infancy. You are talking of physical correlates of consciousness and what we know about physicality does not determine what happens beyond physicality.

I wanted to demonstrate that although there are numerous reputable, scientific interpretations of the collapse of the wave function, and how consciousnessness plays a role, you've pigeon-holed yourself into one, and are willing to demonize other reputable theories with personal judgment.

Our awareness of time is in its infancy. Consciousness is nothing.

Ahnimus

I like Michael Shermer

"First we should make sure something is not within this world, before we go looking outside of this world."

I found a good article on the movie

Don’t believe me? You don’t have to because David Albert, the professor from the Columbia University physics department who was featured in the film, is quoted in Salon.com saying:

I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.

This article explains most of what is wrong about the film. I.e the science.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Maybe not.

I've experienced that thing in the Matrix, where, in my field of vision, 24 hours later, actions repeated themselves, like a videotape recording.

7 years before that movie came out. It kinda freaked me out that that was in the movie.

Maybe I shouldn't have told anyone that.

Ahnimus?

This happened.

Angelica?

I experienced time like few others have.

Totally drug and alcohol free, btw.

I was driving.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Ahnimus?

This happened.

Angelica?

I experienced time like few others have.

Totally drug and alcohol free, btw.

I was driving.

If you are stating this honestly, I believe you. I've had odd time experiences, too, and therefore don't take time in the same way the average person does. I think it's an illusion.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I like Michael Shermer

"First we should make sure something is not within this world, before we go looking outside of this world."

I found a good article on the movie



This article explains most of what is wrong about the film. I.e the science.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html

I understand there are numerous ways to look at the movie, and that you and I, largely due to processing preference, see it differently.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

If you are stating this honestly, I believe you. I've had odd time experiences, too, and therefore don't take time in the same way the average person does. I think it's an illusion.

I think time is the mystery. Time, in a way, is the higher power.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Ahnimus?

This happened.

Angelica?

I experienced time like few others have.

Totally drug and alcohol free, btw.

I was driving.

Our experience of time is kind of dependent on consciousness, right?

Like when you sleep you don't experience time?

I've had black-outs when I was younger and performed behaviors without my conscious awareness. It seems that time jumps passed everything, but that's simply not the case.

Likewise if I am waiting the last hour of my work to go home, it seems a lot longer than the first hour. Because of the behavior of my access consciousness.

Subjective experiences like this are evidence for the fallaciousness of consciousness, not some fanciful explanation of time.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I understand there are numerous ways to look at the movie, and that you and I, largely due to processing preference, see it differently.

I deal with the goal of obtaining truth, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be. I'm not about to believe this shit, it ignores known facts.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

This article explains most of what is wrong about the film. I.e the science.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html

He also points out a key aspect in all fairness:

"The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts...This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory [edit--of quantum physics] because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too)."

It looks like this person is admitting the interpretation of the observer aspect of "What the Bleep" may well be true, but that it's not scientifically proven because it cannot be--it's beyond the parameters of science.

Art, as in movies, is entitled to take license with possibilities, and does so all the time. And all art ideas are meant to expand the human perception of what is possible, which precedes what we find is scientifically accurate. As a matter of fact, art generally challenges fixed closed-ideas. Fiction, even, constantly challenges our ideas of what is possible. Look at the example of Star Trek--note that since that show aired decades ago, it has inspired the advent of the personal computer and "telecommunicator-like" cell-phones. "What the Bleep", again, does not claim to be hard science, but rather to weave in an interpretation of science* with the wholeness of life, which is how it exists in reality. All of life does not flow from science.

For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.



*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

He also points out a key aspect in all fairness:

"The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts...This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory [edit--of quantum physics] because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too)."

It looks like this person is admitting the interpretation of the observer aspect of "What the Bleep" may well be true, but that it's not scientifically proven because it cannot be--it's beyond the parameters of science.

Art, as in movies, is entitled to take license with possibilities, and does so all the time. And all art ideas are meant to expand the human perception of what is possible, which precedes what we find is scientifically accurate. As a matter of fact, art generally challenges fixed closed-ideas. Fiction, even, constantly challenges our ideas of what is possible. Look at the example of Star Trek--note that since that show aired decades ago, it has inspired the advent of the personal computer and "telecommunicator-like" cell-phones. "What the Bleep", again, does not claim to be hard science, but rather to weave in an interpretation of science* with the wholeness of life, which is how it exists in reality. All of life does not flow from science.

For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.



*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.

Maybe I've held back too long, I dunno. I think you're a mind control freak.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I deal with the goal of obtaining truth, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be. I'm not about to believe this shit, it ignores known facts.

It ignores known facts in the same way Star Trek ignored the fact that we did not yet have personal computers or tiny cell-phones back in the sixties.

Just like the book I'm writing ignores the basic known psychiatric and psychological facts about mental illness.

You told me yesterday to stop following the theories of those dudes re: consciousness. I don't follow their theories. I've been shown these concepts spiritually. I know they exist. I don't know whether facts/details etc are always accurate--for that I must rely on science. I understand some universal truths in the way the average person does not, and I am writing a book to challenge prevalent thought, so that people, including the mental health care field, when exposed to expanded thought, expand their horizons and our awareness of what is possible. I well know--like the makers of this movie--that I can dramatically affect people by influencing the masses. This is how our evolution works. Certain people bring new thought to the masses.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

It ignores known facts in the same way Star Trek ignored the fact that we did not yet have personal computers or tiny cell-phones back in the sixties.

Just like the book I'm writing ignores the basic known psychiatric and psychological facts about mental illness.

You told me yesterday to stop following the theories of those dudes re: consciousness. I don't follow their theories. I've been shown these concepts spiritually. I know they exist. I don't know whether facts/details etc are always accurate--for that I must rely on science. I understand some universal truths in the way the average person does not, and I am writing a book to challenge prevalent thought, so that people, including the mental health care field, when exposed to expanded thought, expand their horizons and our awareness of what is possible. I well know--like the makers of this movie--that I can dramatically affect people by influencing the masses. This is how our evolution works. Certain people bring new thought to the masses.

You aren't one of them.

Get used to it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.


*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.

I actually disprove free-will and propose determinism as the best theory.

As I stated before, if free-will is the same for everyone it cannot be the source variation in human behavior. If it is different, then the variation must be explained and such variation would be caused by something external to the free-will and thus would not be free. The theory of free-will does not work.

Fred Alan Wolf is but one person, and to say that it "is accepted within physics, by physicists" is factually wrong. As stated above, one of the most prominent Physicists in the film was misrepresented. If it was such an accepted interpretation, they would not need to misrepresent, or lie about it.