Peter Russell is a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, of The World Business Academy and of The Findhorn Foundation, and an Honorary Member of The Club of Budapest. At Cambridge University (UK), he studied mathematics and theoretical physics. Then, as he became increasingly fascinated by the mysteries of the human mind he changed to experimental psychology. In this video he talks about the inability of science to explain consciousness.

Thanks....
Noetic Sciences are the Bomb......

Your very welcome magamud




Intelligent Evolution
by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD

Is the belief in God something only to be accepted on faith? In his new book, Schwartz suggests that some kind of grand organizing principle is revealing itself in physics, statistics, computer science, and even parapsychology.

Download "intelligent Evolution" by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD

IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC PAPER “God Particle to Consciousness- Life Science, Neuroscience and Nonlocal Science hold the Key”.

Following the announcement of near-discovery of Higgs-Boson at CERN Laboratory on 4th of July, 2012, people began to questions "How this discovery is related to consciousness research? How Higgs-Boson is related to ‘life’? Will consciousness research turn into a vestigial endeavor following triumph of this material science? " Professor Dr. A. K. Mukhopadhyay, recently presented a paper to 800 scientists at the Indian Institute of Science, at Bangalore to wild applause. Read the paper...

Man will continue to use science to find god, when just his perspective is needed.

Isn't that the problem -- man's obsession to give meaning to his existence? I say "man's" in this case, as it does seem to be a bit more of a male problem than a female problem. Are there any other species that do this, or are humans the only one? Could it be another form of deviant psychology, like sociopathy, only with the numeric proportions reversed?

Now that's a scary thought!

How about "Wholly Science"?





What really jumped out at me near the end of this video is that Johan Odenkamp does not understand evolution, which leads him to erroneous conclusions regarding the differentiation of species. This calls into question his understanding of other subjects, and suggests the possibility of "cascading errors" that call his whole belief system into question. Note that this is the case for every one of us regarding our own belief systems!

Just as we must question everything, we can dismiss nothing. Odenkamp's ideas may have more merit than our questioning suggests. They should be carefully considered but without forming emotional attachments to them. The danger there, of course, is that it may not "feel" right.

Therein lies the typical human conundrum.