|
|
|
|
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/22/2008 8:29:08 AM |
science has failed our world
Brace yourself, you might have to defend this statement. Good luck
why can't science explain consciousness? because consciousness is what created science
Intrinsic in Scientific Methodology is empirism, in other words - what it requires is proof, or more precisely a "defining measurment" which is as it should be.
In order to validate a concept science requires a measurment, something that has mass and volume, or it simple doesn't exist.
The issue here is that "consciousness", at this moment, is unmeasurable with the tools at our disposal. What our near sighted friends fail to see is that it hasn't been but about a hundred years since quantum theory was developed and only much more recently have we gained the technology to see the molecular world.
The interesting thought here (you'll need to pardon the pun) is that all of these
technological advancements didn't just show up out of thin air,
 they had to be imagined first. Someone had to think about them in order for creation to occur.
This isn't a debate about which came first the chicken or the egg, most assuredly thought came first, and before that the "mind", which thinks the thoughts that create reality.
Without this process, nothing exists - only potential.
"Consciousness + Energy = The Nature of Reality"rse | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:38:30 AM |
You beat me to it. I've yet to find any decent research that backs any of it up. It gets you thinking about the significance of perspective, but any decent Psych 101 class should. Other than that I smell a weed marathon that ended in a movie being produced.
I smell a brainwashed college student!
 | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/26/2008 12:13:53 PM | QUOTE: “I know of no disease of the soul but IGNORANCE, a pernicous evil, The darkener of man’s life, the Disturber of his reason, and common confounder of truth.” Ben Johnson.
I borrowed that quote from a another forum on a thread about the ignorance required to believe in the whole Jesus fable. Cant remember if it was Brian flemmings or Jordan maxwells.
They pretty much proved for me that the bible is just a plagerized compilation of myths thousands of years older than the bible itself.... same characters but the names have changed. BUT ARE THEY MYTHS?
Keeping in mind the connection between matter and energy.
Eastern hindu/buddhist schools of thought have been teaching consciousness before 'christian' time. Christian History ... far as I can tell never existed.
IN FACT and Im not even going to bother schooling anyone on how I'd connected those dots but "jesus" was probably about TEACHING those eastern philosophies/belief systems/spirituality, call it whatever you want.
Put the whole thing in that childs game "telephone" and 3500 years later you come up with the bible....
What I get from buddhism is completely different who fully understands the purpose behind it all.
Same with Hinduism. With all the western sciences Ive grown up learning theres a new learning curve in trying to understand what the eastern spiritual school of thought has been up to for the last 10k+ years.
Something lacking in the critiques Ive read in this thread so far.
So they'll dismiss it. Being closed to the idea of actually researching and actually learning it Doesnt make it bogus either.
Just like a christian wouldnt DARE bother taking the time to learn about the origins of their 'religion' or belief system.
Keeping in mind that religion and spirituality are two totally different animals too.
Having said that So are the differences between spirituality/QM.
Calling them "PSEUDO" anything doesnt meant the possibilities dont exist.
I THINK thats why we HAVE science, just to find these things out in a way its demonstrable where somebody can teach the possible new 'theory'.
I got that feel about the movie as well, that the viewer was being fed a commercial in a way to sell a book, BUT I found the whole concept interesting the same way I found the principles behind the books wallacewattles,elronhubbard, napoleanhill,andrewcarnegie,ogmandino ALL wrote about before the 'secret' came out.
Only the movie is a newer idea trying to connect the dots from one 'science' to another.
It might be 'pseudo' science RIGHT NOW to anyone not familiar with the sciences involved... 20 yrs from now who knows.
Im sure the bible included smoking large amounts of weed as well to come up with the 'pseudo reality' western schools of thought are still trying to pull itself out of.
Learning is great.
Limiting yourself to one view limits your own potential.
great thread tho.
Ive had the movie for a few years now and this is the first discussion about it that I've come across.
I just love the subject content, perception changes everything if you open yourself up to bending your paradigm enough to accept the concepts involved..  | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:49:32 AM | Yes clearly if someone dismisses something it's because they're closed-minded rather than having the sheer nerve to ask for consistent and verifiable evidence. I like that still nobody has bothered to respond to my earlier question.
If the film indeed was honest, why did they have to manipulate a scientists words and twist them around? Why are you comfortable being lied to? Why are you comfortable with biased experiments? Why has nobody actually refuted any of the anti-bleep arguments posted (some found in links posted), merely parroting "well keep an open mind" and chiming in about Eastern Philosophy? But go ahead, toss out comments about brainwashed students or "science fanatics"; posting only an ad hominem argument and only an ad hominem shows that you have no genuine argument to make.
Would you particularly welcome a politician who took quotes out of context to try to win your vote?
About the only thing that makes sense from the opposition is the statement that it was a movie and they didn't have time to go too indepth. It's precisely that sort of thing that should set off a warning light, cause you to put your belief in what the film says on hold and do some independent research, examining both sides of the argument.
"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."
-Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/27/2008 4:05:16 PM |
"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."
-Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism
pretty much anything is possible.....even God.....but whether something is probable....that is another matter. Some people are content with the acceptance of some things...on faith alone...others require evidence before they can be convinced of a proposition as being true or real. Most people get through life by using measures of both faith and evidence, the proportions of which depend on the issue being examined.
What the Bleep raises some interesting issues, the truth of which....needs to be examined critically before taken on board as fact or discarded as junk science. I do like the animations though....the film does have some entertainment value, spoiled by all the talking heads unfortunately.  | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/27/2008 6:49:56 PM | | Haha, where do you think everything else came from? Out of thin air? The real reality isn't the man made structures you see before you. That all came out of man's imagination in order to make things more "pleasant" for himself. Which means at the root the world I'm sure you live in is imaginary. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:10:55 PM |
It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science. It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects. It uses "quantum" when it really means magic.
Yep, I am sick of hearing teenage girls running around talking about how "reality is an illusion" because they read that goddamn book, thinking they are super smart.
If the book doesn't have footnotes, it's not even worth a glance. Try Fabric of the Cosmos or even A Brief History of Time for crying out loud. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:33:17 AM |
I like that still nobody has bothered to respond to my earlier question
Perhaps it is because you preach the same tired old rhetoric. Read on please before you respond if you feel I have impugned upon your honor because you might find some answers along the way. And remember, keep an objective mind
There are certainly those who say that scientists won't discount a possibility, but I think they're forgetting that scientists also use Occam's Razor, and try to achieve the simplest
As the concepts explored in the movie are new to the sciences of today (the belief that consciousness effects matter is thousands of years old) there will of course be scepticism from those minds that believe their knowledge is as good as it gets.
I suppose I can look forward to being called a close minded conservative or some such nonsense
People who only see their world as black and white, up or down or right and wrong are indeed closed minded. The possibilities of the quantum world is only beginning to be explored and these potentials need to be explored. Many current scientists are exploring the conection to the quantum world and consciousness.
Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose asks, Is Quantum Mechanics Relevant To Understanding Consciousness?
A Stanford .edu site discusses the philosophy of the quantum and consciousness.
Henry Stapp's book Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics is reviewed on this site
psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp
and might help you to understand that research in this science has been ongoing for many years.
A short quote:
"The exclusion of consciousness from the material universe was a hallmark of science for over two centuries. However, the shift, in the 1920's, from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics marked a break with that long tradition: it appeared that the only coherent way to incorporate quantum phenomena into the existing science was to admit also the human observer (Stapp, 1972). Although the orthodox approach of Bohr and the Copenhagen school was epistemological rather than ontological, focusing upon "our knowledge" rather than on any effort to introduce consciousness directly into the dynamics, other thinkers such as John von Neumann (1955), Norbert Weiner (1932), and J.B.S. Haldane (1934) were quick to point out that the quantum mechanical aspects of nature seemed tailor-made for bringing consciousness back into our conception of matter."
There are many more. Why don't the skeptics do the research as well, you might just learn something.
After all, if the film was genuinely truthful, why was Professor David Albert misquoted and misrepesented? Just look at what he has to say.
"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.
Perhaps Professor Albert doesn't see the link between consciousness and the quantum, or doesn't understand it, but if one were to look and see that indeed there are many schools researching this new science and this isn't going to go away. Classical Science deals with only the measurable, only that which is defined by the senses; does it have volume and mass. Quantum theory reopens the door to factor in consciousness and we are seeing only the beginning of that potential.
Why has nobody actually refuted any of the anti-bleep arguments posted (some found in links posted), merely parroting "well keep an open mind" and chiming in about Eastern Philosophy? But go ahead, toss out comments about brainwashed students or "science fanatics"; posting only an ad hominem argument and only an ad hominem shows that you have no genuine argument to make
Does the parroting door swing both ways? Classical science rhetoric can be parroted as well - with the zeal of a religious fanatic blind to any other possibilities.
Classical science isn't seeing the potential that quantum physics and consciousness aspire too, at least not yet. What has been mentioned before in other msgs is that many arguments (not just on this thread) that have to deal with science are contested mostly by people with only enough information in the sciences to formulate an opinion, but not enough to give the facts. And when doing research they convienently omit research on the opposite side of the discussion.
So as not be a hypocrite I'll resubmit an opposing review:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
The argument here seems to deal mainly with the connection between the quantum and consciousness, but we've seen nary a peep about the physiological aspect of the movie. The connection of the brain (neuro-endocrine system) and quantum is also implied here as well. For anyone who disputes the suggested potentials of this movie, all you argue for are your own limitations.
And from there we can go into the misinformation of religions on the masses! | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:07:07 AM | Oh so it's ok to lie to your audience if it supports your view because the other guys are just "limited". I didn't know that that was what keeping an open mind was about; I thought perhaps it was about accepting you could be wrong, too, something which we've been arguing against because of the films many flaws, as detailed in the very review you link. You accuse others of omission of fact, but the film does this itself, and have you considered that the very reason some research gets looked over is because it's done in a very improper manner? Again, the very review you pointed to looks at the research the film relies on (such as the ice crystals and the crime-meditation) and shows the issues with it.
However I suppose twisting other peoples words, performing biased experiments and outright lying about other experimental results is a-ok.
I'll say it again: misrepresentation and outright lies are not acceptable if you want to discuss science.
Indeed the fact that anybody is arguing that scientists refuse to let go of their beliefs is ridiculous, because the very process of science is to take a theory, experiment with it (independently verifiable, unbiased experiments, mind), and revise, revise, revise, and if necessary (such as if a better fitting theory arrives), abandon. But I suppose life is more interesting if you imagine a cabal of lab-coated old white men conspiring to keep your mystic insight down.
My whole point is this: if a film such as this wishes to persuade me, it can start by not having deceitful sequences. And according to http://www.mig81.com/archives/001038.php, the makers of the film continued their out-of-context quoting, making a negative review by Roger Ebert look complimentary. How can you be comfortable being so willingly lied to? | |
|
ivanr
|
Joined: 4/25/2008
Msg: 35 | |
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:43:20 AM | I actually liked the movie, not because I agree with its' message but rather because I think it does provide a layman with an understanding of why quantum mechanics is so "weird".
The scope of Quantum theory and its applicability to the observable world is still not well understood. In this sense to claim that the movie is "complete bunk" is premature. On the other hand to present the paradoxes as observable paradoxes is overreaching.
My point is, I liked the movie and I recommend it to friends, not because it is completely accurate but rather because it provides the layman with enough information and confusion to ask reasonable questions about quantum mechanics and its' applicability to our classical world. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:40:24 PM | Is there any chance that you checked out the sites listed showing research on quantum physics and consciousness?
Doesn't look like it.
Checked out this site, http://www.mig81.com/archives/001038.php, nothing credible, and a little biased wouldn't you say?
Maybe all you want to do is argue about something you don't understand.
misrepresentation and outright lies are not acceptable if you want to discuss science.
And arguing for your limitations is acceptable when talking about science.
Science is about opening doors not closing them.
If you actually read the post you'd see my points are for potentials, not absolutes.
There are many Universities researching the effects of consciousness on matter especially on body physiology. If you are interested google: Consciousness and quantum physics/mechanics or Psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) or Cognitive science. all are related.
Check for edu. on the address as those are generally credible research sites.
Good luck | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:40:58 PM | | Oh, thanks, you just accidentally reminded me the name. I just love the movie!!! It was so great!!! ...rented when I watched it and later wanted to buy it, but did not remember the full name. Probably web would be the best to find that movie for sale at this point. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/29/2008 7:09:02 AM | This movie presents many of the same arguments found in metaphysics, and tries to offer a scientific theory for a reason that "positive thinking" should have "positive results."
If we could REALLY change "reality" simply by thinking differently, there would be no war, hunger, pain or death. "The greatest Zen master still does not step in front of a moving bus."
Whereas there would seem to be evidence to support the idea that our lives are shaped by our choices and perceptions, it overlooks the fact that others have alternative perceptions and make contrary choices. That Zen Master may have been hit by the moving bus because he chose to step out in front of it, but the driver of the bus had made a choice to start the engine. No moving bus and there is nothing to step out in front of, and this diminishes the choice TO be hit by a bus.
I'd like to see a scientific experiment wherein a billion people concentrate on moving a marble 1 foot, and see if the marble moves at all! | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/29/2008 9:37:22 PM |
I'd like to see a scientific experiment wherein a billion people concentrate on moving a marble 1 foot, and see if the marble moves at all!
I haven't seen an experiment exactly like that, but here is one that you might find interesting. This experiment was done in June of 99 and the results were interesting.
http://www.alltm.org/pages/crime-arrested.html
I'm curious to see if there are any other extenuating factors involved, none the less it is an interesting site. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 6/12/2008 9:17:43 AM | I dont see why peple have dismissed this out of hand really. A connection between quantum mechanics and conciousness has been severly considered by most researchers of this field. Others beleive quantum mechanics collapses due to decoherance. he snag with this theory is that the light experiement (where alot of natural "decoherance" would occur) does NOT caue the wave function collapse.....only observing it seems to which strongly suggests conciousness is the trigger.
What the theory is doing is simply developing this to suggest that conciousness preceedes matter (rather than the reverse). Thier argument is in fact quite logical:
If conciouness collapses the wave function, then how could all the stars, planets, galaxies, animals, us etc have formed without this porcess as without conciousness, no collapse could have occured and no reality could have formed therefore conciousness preccedes reality (rather than conciousness witnessing reality). This is how the researchers based their conclusions.
If decoherance causes the collapse, then why would light ever be observed as travelling as a wave (rather then simply seen as a photon)? wouldnt the surrounding particles cause this collapse anyway? course they would: thats why researchers such as einstein concluded that conciousness seemed to be the trigger (and why he was so disturbed by it too!) | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 6/12/2008 9:39:57 AM | The fact some people dismiss this shows how close minded they are. Plenty of science today, in the past, was considered a crock, then fast forward 25 years later and its become reality.
Fact of the matter is we are naive to many things. Saying something hasnt been proved and then saying its impossible because of that should be considered a stupid remark and without intelligence.
Its funny how scientist say "if it cant be proven we cant except it". Maybe they should work the opposite way...if they cant disprove a theory it should be considered a potential possibility....imagine what we could learn with an open minded mentality such as that?
Our closeminded attitudes towards learning is what stunts our growth, the ability to keep an open mind and seek all possibilities is one of genius. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:25:37 PM | I don't think anyone really cares what I think anymore but I found the movie absolutely wonderful. Considering that everything discussed was basically a take off of an Eastern philosophical point of view, and they have been around for approximately 5000 years, I don't think the discussion about matter and the fact that it may or may not exist is too far distant of a point of view that the eastern point of view teaches on a dail basis, and has become a way of life...
When I lived in a Zen Buddhist monastery
After studying religion and theology for 17 years, there was a certain amount of mandatory meditation and art that you had to do during the course of your 19 hour day, typically the art that you studied were shared on a 50-50 basis with meditation and each person got to study, the art that they chose, which was in fact the art that shows them...
In the event that any of you have ever done this I am quite certain that you would agree with the movie in principle if not in totality, however for the people of this world that have never actually spent 12 hours a day on their knees in silent meditation for months on end it would be very difficult for you to understand the underlying and fundamental concept that is trying to bring about...
To those of you, who do not comprehend what enlightenment is, it would be difficult for you to understand the enlightenment...
FORUM BLOOM I believe certainly understands the concept and has chosen to live a life of seclusion because she was just fed up with the everyday nonsense that permeates us on a daily basis...
I have chosen the other path to live in life, but I do so on an island, where life is a lot simpler than big-city life, and certainly a lot more conducive to creative projects that I enjoy immensely, along with my scuba diving and snorkeling...
I think what I am trying to say is that there is more to the movie than many of you can comprehend and that is sad.
To those of you who make comments about Star Trek being a fictitious type of entity on the television I will say this...
if you will go back into the data banks, of the original Star Trek series from 1966, and look at some of the technology that the ship itself had, you would be amazed to find out just how much of Star Trek actually came to fruition in the last 42 years
Originally there was a computer that you could speak to and it would speak back to you... by the way,,, we have those,,,!
There was also something called I think it was a phaser,,, my friends,, we have those!
They had the ability to see, from space to the planet,,, we have that,,,!
There was the ability to sense, and although they didn't call it infrared scanning,,, we have that,,,!
We can sense things on the other side of a mountain, with one of the new technologies that we have there been infrared rays over a hilly terrain, just as they did in Star Trek!
We don't have phasers,
Or some other sick form of destructive device, that the United States military feels it must have in order to save our country from ruin... as if this gas crisis isn't enough to do it in and of itself....
Anyway for those of you who don't see this movie as a possibility, and you Star Trek and all the other wonderful space programs and their technologies as nothing but a bunch of hocus-pocus,,, I would suggest that you go back and look at the original Star Trek series and see just how many things that are in that was series that we actually have right now...
This is the link h to the movie itself in case you didn't copy at them the first time
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4431006927936421876
Try looking at it from my perspective that it is real, rather than it is on real, and perhaps your mind will expand just that much more...
I could go on and on and on t trying to explain to you how narrowminded I really think that you are h but what would be the point e!?
? keyzguy369 | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 6/14/2008 7:49:15 AM | Simply not accepting something because it lacks any actual evidence is not brainwashing.
It's simply being reasonable. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:04:28 PM | I have watched the whole movie I found it interesting, it touched on a lot of intersting concepts namely the nature of reality.
Being a philosophy enthusiest, I was already famimliar with the idealism\materialism debate.
The thing to consider is that the whole quantum therory of our minds creating our realities is still just that an abstract theory.
To prove it's point the movie does reference some water exeriments where it apparently showed some water crystals shapes had been influened by the emotions of the persons that had handled the water.
That experiment has been debunked has bad science and subsequent repeats of the experiment did not yield the same results.
How ever back to the nature of reality that is very much an unending debate.
My feelings on the matter are in aggrement with Einsteins statement, " I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it".
I obviously cannot prove my case beyond a shadow of doubt but I like you have chosen my side based on my own unique experinces. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
