Is there one?
Why not?
I would think some radical off the wall brainiac genius scientist of some sort would at least come up with something.
Anyone?
Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical body
Moderator: Moderators
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #31
[Replying to post 22 by TSGracchus]
"These 25 lectures..." Ha! yeah right! Can you give me a synopsis, expound your statement "response to the environment"? Thanks!
"These 25 lectures..." Ha! yeah right! Can you give me a synopsis, expound your statement "response to the environment"? Thanks!
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Re: Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical bod
Post #32[Replying to post 25 by Guy Threepwood]
Ok, go on...explain further what you are saying please. Thanks!
Ok, go on...explain further what you are saying please. Thanks!
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #33
[Replying to post 27 by William]
Ooo yes, the river is the consciousness and the ripple is the brain. That's what the Hindu's would say!
Ooo yes, the river is the consciousness and the ripple is the brain. That's what the Hindu's would say!
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical bod
Post #34[Replying to TSGracchus]
Not being able to understand how something works, does not make it 'magic'
If the choice was between a leprechaun and the FSM, (flying spaghetti multiverse), my money is on the little green guy - being the less far fetched explanation!Or maybe it was leprechauns! We don't need to postulate anything "spiritual" to explain real phenomena.
sure, the results of which would have seemed 'supernatural' to people 100 years ago.What humans did was set up a physical way to transmit information. That "cloud" is actually real, physical machines and networks, operating under laws of physics.
Not being able to understand how something works, does not make it 'magic'
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #35
[Replying to post 29 by TSGracchus]
But what about this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-quantum-pa ... t-distance
If separated particles can communicate at a distance, maybe some sort of consciousness particle can be aware of itself once its separates from the body. Can you try to combine your scientific knowledge with some creativity for a second? Just try to see where it could, might, maybe fit if only just as a game
But what about this:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-quantum-pa ... t-distance
If separated particles can communicate at a distance, maybe some sort of consciousness particle can be aware of itself once its separates from the body. Can you try to combine your scientific knowledge with some creativity for a second? Just try to see where it could, might, maybe fit if only just as a game
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Post #36
Ok, well, I read the full article and the comments:
"Ultimately, one just needs to apply the rules of quantum mechanics to the simple two particle entangled state that appears above to retrieve all the strange possibilities. Nowhere in the state description, nor in the fundamental equations of quantum state evolution is there an instantaneous action at a distance term. The experiments just access a common causal past.
In summary, there is no communication between entangled particles. There is just a quantum correlation. It just happens that quantum correlations are stronger than classical correlations and that is now being seen as one of the most fundamental characteristics of quantum mechanics. Hence there is a lot of buzz in the quantum mechanics community, but it is really nothing new, just a new appreciation of a property that’s been there since the beginning."
But when he says "all the strange possibilities", my mind just goes there, it goes to that place of QM somehow supporting this theory I'm looking for.
"Ultimately, one just needs to apply the rules of quantum mechanics to the simple two particle entangled state that appears above to retrieve all the strange possibilities. Nowhere in the state description, nor in the fundamental equations of quantum state evolution is there an instantaneous action at a distance term. The experiments just access a common causal past.
In summary, there is no communication between entangled particles. There is just a quantum correlation. It just happens that quantum correlations are stronger than classical correlations and that is now being seen as one of the most fundamental characteristics of quantum mechanics. Hence there is a lot of buzz in the quantum mechanics community, but it is really nothing new, just a new appreciation of a property that’s been there since the beginning."
But when he says "all the strange possibilities", my mind just goes there, it goes to that place of QM somehow supporting this theory I'm looking for.
-
SeaPriestess
- Student
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am
Re: Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical bod
Post #37[Replying to post 28 by William]
True! But I would just think that there might be some ambitious scientist out there who might come up with some theory even if it seemed "outlandish". I thought scientists were known to do that. You know, the "mad scientist"!
True! But I would just think that there might be some ambitious scientist out there who might come up with some theory even if it seemed "outlandish". I thought scientists were known to do that. You know, the "mad scientist"!
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical bod
Post #38[Replying to post 36 by SeaPriestess]
there are laws against that sort of thing in academia!True! But I would just think that there might be some ambitious scientist out there who might come up with some theory even if it seemed "outlandish". I thought scientists were known to do that. You know, the "mad scientist"!
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical bod
Post #39[Replying to post 36 by SeaPriestess]
).
There are many people involved in study - even individuals like myself who have experienced alternate realities, and of course one has to consider all explanations, but scientific methods are not easily applied to such, and 'the brain did it' is giving the brain way too much credit. I suspect the brain actually helps to block such experiences so that a stable environment in which to work with is created for consciousness while within the experience of being human.
I also suspect that the brain can be trained by the individuate consciousness (IC) and neuron paths and bridges can be built, or existing ones strengthened, by the IC and that skeptic individuals could learn to trigger OOBEs for themselves over time with practice and perseverance, but sadly most seem to just want to demand such 'evidence' - to be handed to them - and assume the position which expresses comments of 'woo' and 'brain damaged' etc as the most convenient manner in which to proceed re 'explanation'.
Some people are born with these paths and bridges already well built and accidentally discover this about themselves.
Physicist Tom Campbell is a good example of this. While at university he read a notice encouraging students to learn to meditate and the thing that attracted him was that there was free food offered as part of that. Poor students like free food.
So he took up the offer and joined the group and as he followed the instructions he quickly went into the state of alternate experience and has never looked back.
Decades later he is still encouraging people to learn how to achieve this for themselves and teaching them what he has learned. He understands that mainstream science is not interested as it is ill equipped and not the best medium through which to study OOBEs.
Personal experience is the best method of study re this.
There are scientists researching NDEs - (I answered your post in that thread and gave you a linkTrue! But I would just think that there might be some ambitious scientist out there who might come up with some theory even if it seemed "outlandish". I thought scientists were known to do that. You know, the "mad scientist"!
).There are many people involved in study - even individuals like myself who have experienced alternate realities, and of course one has to consider all explanations, but scientific methods are not easily applied to such, and 'the brain did it' is giving the brain way too much credit. I suspect the brain actually helps to block such experiences so that a stable environment in which to work with is created for consciousness while within the experience of being human.
I also suspect that the brain can be trained by the individuate consciousness (IC) and neuron paths and bridges can be built, or existing ones strengthened, by the IC and that skeptic individuals could learn to trigger OOBEs for themselves over time with practice and perseverance, but sadly most seem to just want to demand such 'evidence' - to be handed to them - and assume the position which expresses comments of 'woo' and 'brain damaged' etc as the most convenient manner in which to proceed re 'explanation'.
Some people are born with these paths and bridges already well built and accidentally discover this about themselves.
Physicist Tom Campbell is a good example of this. While at university he read a notice encouraging students to learn to meditate and the thing that attracted him was that there was free food offered as part of that. Poor students like free food.
So he took up the offer and joined the group and as he followed the instructions he quickly went into the state of alternate experience and has never looked back.
Decades later he is still encouraging people to learn how to achieve this for themselves and teaching them what he has learned. He understands that mainstream science is not interested as it is ill equipped and not the best medium through which to study OOBEs.
Personal experience is the best method of study re this.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #40
[Replying to post 30 by SeaPriestess]
Well, you might try Neuroscience for Dummies, Neurology for Dummies, or Brain Science for Dummies. Perhaps you will find those are designed for you. But you would still have to read.
Seriously, if you could get the material in a tweet, Dr. Sapolsky would not have had to deliver 25 lectures. Some subjects are just to big for small human minds to grasp all at once. It takes an effort to learn.
Well, you might try Neuroscience for Dummies, Neurology for Dummies, or Brain Science for Dummies. Perhaps you will find those are designed for you. But you would still have to read.
Seriously, if you could get the material in a tweet, Dr. Sapolsky would not have had to deliver 25 lectures. Some subjects are just to big for small human minds to grasp all at once. It takes an effort to learn.
Last edited by TSGracchus on Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
