No. I suspect that consciousness does have minute effects on physical reality. We already know at the quantum level that there is an interaction between the observer and the observation (the observer effect). Given that consciousness is a means of "observation", it will have an effect on what is being "observed", which is typically reality. There is also the apparent fact that matter is a condensed form of energy, and energy fields interact with each other to some degree all the time, which gives matter its characteristics. So the "loose" interconnectedness of all things is fairly well supported, but the degree of that interconnectedness is still being discovered and is likely to be much less than a lot of new-agers imagine. At the macro level, for example, events appear largely independent and unrelated, so the effect of consciousness on physical reality is typically a non-issue.
I think you've missed the point here Chico, this movie isn't about this physical reality, but about what happens to our consciousness as it evolves.
Wouldn't logic suggest that a more evolved consciousness would have a stronger affect, considering we know we can minutely effect it here?
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
I think you've missed the point here Chico, this movie isn't about this physical reality, but about what happens to our consciousness as it evolves.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about consciousness affecting reality in the context of the Global Consciousness Project. The movie is just fictional entertainment and conjecture.
Quote:
Wouldn't logic suggest that a more evolved consciousness would have a stronger affect, considering we know we can minutely effect it here?
Not necessarily. There may be limits to how much consciousness can affect reality, or it may even be a constant. And why couldn't we hypothesize that the more consciousness evolves, the less it affects reality, because it learns that it is wiser not to interfere?
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:22 am
Chicodoodoo
Site Admin
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm Posts: 11875
Re: Nosso lar
There is a theory that consciousness may be associated with "thinking" aspects of cellular microtubules. The theory still posits that consciousness exists independently of these microtubule structures, though I am curious how they can justify that idea.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:56 pm
magamud
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm Posts: 4156
Re: Nosso lar
Perhaps the better question is, if Chico is artificial intelligence?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about consciousness affecting reality in the context of the Global Consciousness Project. The movie is just fictional entertainment and conjecture.
No problem, I understand your confusion, scientific dogma can be a strange bedfellow! If fact you could as easily say the same thing about modern science being "fictional entertainment and conjecture", especially considering the ever changing "Constants of Science"!
Not necessarily. There may be limits to how much consciousness can affect reality, or it may even be a constant. And why couldn't we hypothesize that the more consciousness evolves, the less it affects reality, because it learns that it is wiser not to interfere?
I think you've again here missed my point, I thought we were discussing the evidence of higher consciousness not the choices available to it.
Can you point to anything in nature that evolves into a weaker state?
Lets kick this discussion up a gear and look at someone who is thought to have a higher developed consciousness than the average person:
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
In fact you could as easily say the same thing about modern science being "fictional entertainment and conjecture", especially considering the ever changing "Constants of Science"!
You could, if you simply ignore the matter of degree, including the degree of bias. From your link:
Quote:
Clearly, if there were real underlying fluctuations, either owing to changes in the earth's environment or to inherently chaotic fluctuations in the constant itself, these would be ironed out by the statistical procedures, showing up simply as random errors.
Note the bias towards the expected results.
Now look at the Global Consciousness Project, and how they use statistics to correlate events that have no other apparent correlation other than statistics. Note the bias towards the expected results (some results they focus on and other results they put aside).
The problem is not so much observation and measurement, but interpretation of what has been observed and measured. Science has more accurate and repeatable observation and measurement, whereas consciousness does not. But in both cases, interpretation of what is observed can lead to errors.
I think you've again here missed my point, I thought we were discussing the evidence of higher consciousness not the choices available to it.
We can't even define consciousness, much less higher consciousness, nor can we measure it or isolate it. So I was not discussing evidence of higher consciousness.
Lets kick this discussion up a gear and look at someone who is thought to have a higher developed consciousness than the average person:
That's your interpretation, but not mine. What I see is a man that has learned to use an energy that most do not understand. There is so much that is not known about life in general and humans in particular that we should be paying closer attention to these kinds of unexpected things. Unfortunately, there are ruling sociopaths that are quite happy with the status quo and don't want anything new to upset it. Not to mention some dead masters that also want it suppressed. It makes you wonder if consciousness carries within it the gamut of psychological deviancies.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Jim McMillan speaks! Jim is a Western student of John Chang (The Magus of Java). For background (if you have not already read it) here is a previous published interview that Jim has done: http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/ ... ng-expert/
Jim has been gracious enough to grant a phone interview in which he reveals the current status of the Mo Pai school and lineage, what he has been up to lately in regards to Mo Pai and his travels and contact with the school, and the future- where he plans to go from here, and sage advice to any would-be practitioners and students of the internal Arts.
_________________ Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
You could, if you simply ignore the matter of degree, including the degree of bias. From your link:
"ignore the matter of degree, including the degree of bias" You've lost me here Chico, maybe it would be simpler to just look at a few of these constants individually.
These are some of Plank's values taken from 1951 to 1988:
Author Date h(x 10-34 joule seconds)
Bearden and Watts 1951 6.623 63 ± 0.000 16
Cohen et al. 1955 6.625 17 ± 0.000 23
Condon 1963 6.625 60 ± 0.000 17
Cohen and Taylor 1973 6.626 176 ± 0.000 036 1988 6.626 075 5 ± 0.000 004 0
Could you please explain how these values can be called "constants"?
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
