Without further ado, I present to you, straight from an article on "Metaphysics" shared on Facebook , the clear and undeniable evidence that our personalities can exist independently of our physical brains(never mind that if our brains become traumatized or diseased that we can't recognize people we've known our whole lives....so, shhhhhh) .....
(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of quantum objects. Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object and brings it to a state of particle existence. When not observed, it smears out through space as a non-local wave. It is only once a conscious observer comes along does this wave-form collapse into a particle, and even THEN it can only be measured as probability.
Wow! Did you hear that?!?! He/she/they, said, "Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object" And not only that, but then it, "brings it to a state of particle existence"!!!!
My first concern would be, I wonder if this was cut 'n pasted, or if it's in the author's own words. If it's the latter, then I wonder what he/she/they have as a source, besides a YouTube video of a cartoon guy named "Dr. Quantum" illustrating the double-slit experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
The author goes on....
(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour and thoughts of other people. Not only does conscious intention effect individuals through what is called "remote influencing", when enough people get together and focus on one idea, it effects the social and psychological behaviour of entire cities and states. Mass meditation has been proven to even reduce crime rates in the cities the meditation is happening in.
Yes, "remote influencing", such as when the religious come together and "pray", we know that their collective "conscious intention" effects the target of their "prayers" with perfect success(except when it fails).
(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on):The flow of electrical currents. Collective consciousness has a provable and repeatable effect on the flow of electrical currents within random-number generators (REGs), as proven numerous times at Princeton university and published in peer-reveiwed journals time and time again:
I wonder if it was reviewed as well as the spelling was reviewed, above? Oh, well. Let's not nit-pick. On other hand, let's not accept Facebook pages as the "peer-reviewed" part, either.
(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of biology and DNA. Spiritual healing and the sending of conscious intention has had effects on plants, human DNA, and even animals. And no, this is not because of placebo. Animals do not know that positive healing energy is being sent their way, and neither does isolated DNA in a test tube:
And the evidence for this? Well, of course.....it's a pretty picture.....
(click or copy link into browser if you really want to see the unmistakable evidence)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=248998745240364&set=pb.171274739679432.-2207520000.1368586239.&type=3&theater
Well, I guess that settles it, doesn't it?
(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): Self-healing and disease through shift in consciousness (placebo). You think you are going to get healed, move into the space and attitude of being healed, and then you end up undergoing biological and psychological transformation:
Positive thinking and power of suggestion, depending on the extent/severity of the ailment, can produce a positive effect on the subject. Tell them they're taking a sugar pill? Kiss those results goodbye. 'Nothing "metaphysical" going on.
What does this all tell us about the nature of mind? It tells us that consciousness can NOT simply be the software of the brain. It cannot be derived from chemical and mechanical processes if it has causal effects on the external world. Consciousness is a non-local field that gets filtered through our brains and nervous systems, and that all of creation and matter arises out of.Spoken like a true disciple of Deepak Chopra...i.e....throw in a few fancy, scientific-sounding words..e.g..."non-local", "quantum", and voila, meaningless "woo" for.... I don't except that this life is all there is, damn it!
And finally there's......
You don't have consciousness. You ARE consciousness.
Yes, you ARE consciousness! Well, unless you're unconscious.
16 comments:
I really do think Quantum Physics is very interesting and I like the idea of it, but after almost 20 years of trying to make things what they were clearly not (i.e. Christianity), I decided not to do it again with this.
Hi, Alice, thx for visiting : )
As you probably know, deconverting from the Xian faith doesn't happen over night as many believers erroneously assume. For many, me included, throwing the "baby" out with the bath water wasn't an option. I entertained "Universalism" and the "Church of Unity" for a while(i.e..all paths lead to God, yadda, yadda), and then when that stopped making sense, the "New Age" stuff, such as what Chopra and Wayne Dyer are selling (and making a killing), sounded appealing. Scratch beneath the surface of that stuff, and while it sounds alluring, it just doesn't stack up, at least, not for me.
This all sounds very familiar. I love the power of positive thinking idea and I think it is healthy, to a degree.
It's when that doesn't always work and one has to start making excuses why that it becomes just another religion.
How long were you a Christian?
"I love the power of positive thinking idea and I think it is healthy, to a degree."
Agreed. I don't know where you draw the line, but I draw it where positive thinking (or a positive mindset) can affect objective reality. IOW, I have zero problem accepting that our thoughts can affect our perception of reality, but I disbelieve that our thoughts affect reality, itself, and the available evidence (or lack thereof) seems to support this, albeit, that doesn't preclude people from having opinions to the contrary, as you probably know.
"It's when that doesn't always work and one has to start making excuses why that it becomes just another religion."
Precisely, and I'm all too familiar with the excuses that the religious and their "New Age" counterparts make when trying to square-up their beliefs with the times that those beliefs fail them.
"How long were you a Christian?
Well, to even begin to try to give a precise amount of time, I'd need to know exactly when I started being "a Christian". If you're like me - that is, if you were indoctrinated as a child with the belief that Christianity and its bible are "Truth" and that "Jesus loves you!" - then it's hard to pinpoint exactly when I accepted those things. But if we start at the indoctrination, then roughly 35 yrs. You?
I wasn't indoctrinated as a child, thankfully. Mom was was a pretty private believer and Dad was agnostic. It was in my early 20's that I had a "religious" experience and started believing. I'm almost 41 now, so a little under 20 years.
Lucky for you. The earlier this stuff is ingrained in us, the longer it takes to discard it. This isn't to say that it was easy for you. It's never easy to dismiss experiences that we firmly believe are real. I thought I was bargaining with "God" and that he'd hear my most inner thoughts (prayer), when I later learned that I was bargaining with myself and talking to the flippin' ceiling fan. Confirmation bias is integral to holding mistaken beliefs.
LOL, now I see grey font on black background -- arghh. This site must be meant for young folks or those blessed with good genes. :-)
I laugh to see people clamor after quantum stuff to justify their New Age stuff, their Christianity or their Buddhism. It is so fricken pathetic. Heck, people run after it, as you say to justify their theory of mind and more. Humans are so desperate -- we can't rest in a place of unknown -- we need answers, stories, analogies and all sorts of security. It is such a scary world.
You may enjoy this sacrilegious pic I made of a Quantum Jesus, and here is one of Buddhists doing the same damn thing.
ooops, forgot to follow
I've viewed my blog on several different PCs, and while the background is, yes, black, I don't experience problems reading the text, whether it's white, red, or grey.
really -- so glad for you.
And that is the only part of my comment you respond to -- tell tale.
Mr. Lantz,
Why the snark? At the moment I read that you were having trouble reading my blog, I got distracted by that for the time being. Who's to say I wouldn't have come back at a later time to talk more about this subject?
And BTW, what's "tell tale"?
@ boomSLANG,
You seem very satisfied with your explanations.
It is a tell-tale satisfaction that results in an argumentative style that I'd rather not spend much time with.
I wish you well.
@ Sabio,
If I recall correctly, your opening remarks to me on another blog that we both frequent were that you liked the way I express myself[paraphrased from memory]. This, of course, is not to say that you'd have to agree with every single explanation I give in order to say such a thing, but I thought we were off to a pretty good start, and while we discussed a point of contention that you raised, I don't really see how you now conclude that my style, while admittedly straight forward, is "argumentative", simply because I held my ground. I read every single word that you wrote and I tried very hard to see/understand where you were coming from, even telling you that there was a chance that I might not be able to word my point to your liking. We are not sitting across from each other over coffee; we are stuck behind PCs trying to discuss things with the limitations of text and with no facial expressions or body language. Moreover, when the topic is politics or religion, which usually involve our core-beliefs, there is always the risk of things getting heated. This just comes with the turf.
But all of that aside, of course I'm satisfied with my explanations. However, let the record show that this is in a provisional sense. Trust me, the last thing that I want to do is sit here and defend my errors. I did that in the latter part of my days as a Christian. Towards the end, I listened intently to what both sides had to say, and what I found was that my previous explanations of my faith were not stacking up. In fact, they were failing miserably.
So, ultimately, I changed my mind. Why? Because the explanations of agnostics/atheists were better than my own. IOW, I changed my mind once, and I'm open to changing it again under the right circumstances.
So, maybe (hopefully) you now have a better understanding of me and we can continue to discuss the issues. If not, fair enough, and I wish you well, too. And good luck with the new bass, BTW.
You know where to find me.
I'm sensing that you're incensed that I immediately addressed the potential problem w/my blog while not getting into your comments, above. I'm also sensing that there's nothing I can do/say to change that, but I'll make some remarks, nonetheless....
I don't see many Christian proponents taking up "New Age" stuff because many of them are taught that things like "meditation" are "evil", albeit, I see some Christians bandying about scientific terms..e.g.."quantum", "space-time", etc., when trying to convince me that the existence of the universe, itself, is evidence of an "Intelligent Designer" and that it couldn't have come about naturally.
As for the article/pic, cleverly done---and I can see why you'd want to "up-chuck" reading some of that.
"It is a tell-tale satisfaction that results in an argumentative style that I'd rather not spend much time with."
I'm still curious as to if there is a definitive, hard line between being "argumentative" and plain ol' disagreeing, or if there is some grey area there. I mean, I guess the mere fact that I've responded could be "argumentative" to some, when I could just let it go. And then to some, if I let it go, I've run away and/or surrendered by default
It seems one is damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Post a Comment