Future ideas and experiments to prove the existence of non-local consciousness?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

In this context you mean mystical as the mind being non-derivative of the brain? Hypothetically (really hypothetically ) if the mind was actually derivative of some natural (within the physical universe) source external to the brain, and the brain hardware was more of a 'filter' for lack of a better term, would you call that mystical?

No. I did not bring up "mystical", others did.

Random, but I heard the human heart has neurons... is the mind derivative from the heart and the brain?

Neurons are nerve cells. So they are throughout your body. It is how the brain can send and receive information throughout your body. Neurons connect from the brain to the heart, which regulates your heart beat. So it is like a bunch of wires hooked up to your central nervous system, being your brain. That is why I said the mind is a derivative of the brain, but its location is not necessarily confined to the brain.

Can you check out this old thread and tell me if it has any implications towards neuroscience?

It definitely has implications for neuroscience. Actually, I just wrote (almost finished) a thread about morphogenetics and morphic fields which goes into this stuff pretty thoroughly. I don't know if I'll finish it though, as according to most of the really in depth threads I make, no one seems to care for them. That stuff takes a lot of time man!

Here is a really cool fact though: the human organism is made in the image of a cells. A cell has skin like you, the ability to sense and read the environment around it, it has a digestive system, a respiratory system, a nervous system, a reproductive system, even an immune system. Every function your body has, so does every cell that makes up your body. Cool huh!? This really gets into morphogenetic fields and stuff. Maybe I will finish that thread now, LOL!

Originally posted by SUBKONCIOUS

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by dominicus

I would love to understand mysticism. But I cannot. As an onlooker and former spiritual seeker myself, I see it as vanity. Every mystic I've met had no problem telling me about his mysticism, to the point of insisting on doing so. And the track-record of disgraced mystics, Uri Geller and Peter Popoff for example, should make anyone skeptical.

Cheers.

edit on 23-8-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

Me, you, and my ROOR.. should kick it...

Don't worry. I know all about it.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

I agree with everything you say regarding the limitations of the scientific method. You are correct in saying that many great philosophers have casted doubt on it (Russell, Hume, Nietzsche, all non mystics). But as of now, it is the best we have within the limits of language to describe and explain what is actually going on. That's all it is, a more superior explanation of what is going on...

Here is the problem of "objective" science-based arguments -- they too often adopt a very condescending attitude towards other methods of inquiry.

When we come to a mystical explanation, we see complete abstraction of real things and real events. It seems as if its become a "who can write more poetically" competition.

Abstraction is an inherent part of gaining knowledge -- data is abstract, whether you get it from poetry or organic chemistry. If you do not understand a piece of knowledge, it is because you lack the context to understand it, not that the data lacks a context. IE if you don't understand organic chemistry, it's probably because you have not learned about it, not because organic chemistry is bologna.

Here is a link to a page about people with hyrdrocephalus, which is a condition where the skull is filled with liquid. Some of these patients' skulls were 90% liquid (10% brain) and still functioned normally. I'm sure this will not convince the nay sayers for non-local consciousness, but it's still cool to check out.

www.flatrock.org.nz...

If people have not had a truly spiritual experience, I cannot really expect them to really appreciate the subjective reality of the non-locality of consciousness.

The Source Field Investigations is a good book that collects a huge number of scientific studies that support this idea. It's a good read.

Have yet to read through the other replies, but was thinking it could maybe be along the lines of this:

Eyes developed to perceive/receive light. Where there is no light, there is no need for eyes (as some dark-dwelling creatures can attest). Maybe the brain developed to perceive/receive consciousness? Just a thought.

Also, on a semi-related note, I'm currently reading St. John of the Cross's "Dark Night of the Soul" - which is an account of his mystical experience. Fascinating stuff,

The four forces accepted by current physics are gravity, electromagnetic, and the two nuclear forces strong and weak.

Much is still unknown, and if consciousness is found to exist beyond the physical neurological functions of the brain, it may be discovered as a fifth elemental force.

From Science Daily, an interesting read on the possibility of yet undiscovered forces. Is Unknown Force in the Universe Acting on Dark Matter?

Excerpt:

Dr. Benoit Famaey (Universities of Bonn and Strasbourg) explains: "The dark matter seems to 'know' how the visible matter is distributed. They seem to conspire with each other such that the gravity of the visible matter at the characteristic radius of the dark halo is always the same. This is extremely surprising since one would rather expect the balance between visible and dark matter to strongly depend on the individual history of each galaxy."

As far as deliberate experimentation, the only thing I can think of is recording as much anomalous mental activity as possible and try and extrapolate. If this discovery is to be made, I'd guess it to be more probably the result of an accident. Something like a botched experiment resulting in a new material/substance that is conductive to thought. Many fundamental shifts in science happen in such a way.

Measure something that isn't physical? Science can't do that.

The anti-god concept that exists in something like 98% of research scientists is basically a result of science being unable to say one way or the other about it and the idiocy they see religious people; when they should be unbiased, an attitude and position is accumulated, amounting to "group think".

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I side closer with Sam Harris who thinks consciousness may never be understood or found. Read what he has to say on the issue: www.samharris.org...

As far as fields, I would say the next field to be verified by science will the morphic field. Look up Rupert Sheldrake for more information on it. I think his arguments have some real validity, and he is close to sealing it up as a credible theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by openlocks


Yeah, we're probably a long way off from truly understanding any of this stuff. But I think it's not unlikely that consciousness science could be progressed over the next hundred years in the same way physics was during the previous.

Reading the articles now, thanks

Originally posted by openlocks
This really gets into morphogenetic fields and stuff. Maybe I will finish that thread now, LOL!

I really hope you finish it and post it! I would love to read it. I think maybe lack of interest in threads like that isn't so much a lack of interest as it is a lack of people comfortable contributing? Maybe? Either way if one mind is enough you have mine

I side closer with Sam Harris who thinks consciousness may never be understood or found. Read what he has to say on the issue: www.samharris.org...

Funny I have never looked into Sam's neuroscience side, but I have watched every debate of his with theologians/religious. Read two of his books as well. I'm gonna check out that site, very cool.

Originally posted by wagnificent
Abstraction is an inherent part of gaining knowledge -- data is abstract, whether you get it from poetry or organic chemistry. If you do not understand a piece of knowledge, it is because you lack the context to understand it, not that the data lacks a context. IE if you don't understand organic chemistry, it's probably because you have not learned about it, not because organic chemistry is bologna.

That is exactly what I was saying. But organic chemistry can be put into context because it can relate to actual things and events. The idea of non-local consciousness, Absolute Being, pre-existing before existing, cannot. Therefore it is difficult, even impossible, to understand clearly any mystical explanation.

I understand that language is one entire abstraction, but I was using the classical definition of the term. An apple pertains to any actual instance of an apple and so forth. What does consciousness pertain to? The only meaning I can derive from the term is a being that is conscious. Without that physical being, there is no being to be conscious. I am having trouble abstracting the meaning any further than that. I cannot even grasp the concept of consciousness on its own. Therefore it isn't consciousness, it must be something else, something that isn't abstract, or nothing at all.

I hate talking about myself, but I've had many spiritual experiences, but they usually involve snowboarding down sheer mountains, surfing massive waves, mountain climbing, fishing, learning, living in the woods, suffering, loving, living. I practice spirituality everyday by thinking. Indeed I may think too much.

Thanks for the chat and information Wag.

reply to post by openlocks

To be honest, and I mean this constructively, I don't think you truly understand what the scientific method is. If you did, I assure you that you would not be so angry and hostile towards it.

if it's this:

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

then how do I not understand? I've been literally spewing "mystical experiences" for the last decade, considering I was a hard line skeptic materialist atheist once upon a time and knew the ins/outs of every argument imaginable, include the scientific ones. To me science is beautiful, it is basically the intricacies of existence which is inherently linked to God, as an Infinite Consciousness interpenetrating all of reality (not some bearded guy w/ lightning bolts or rainbows on a cloud)....that can be directly experienced by anyone, if you know how to tune in the proper dial.

There is absolutely nothing flawed about it. Maybe certain scientists are flawed, but the method is definitely not. You see, it is a never ending inquiry, everything is up for questioning and testing, so real science can never be dogmatic or stale.

well then your going up against some pretty big names in philosophy who say otherwise, and some posters who sided w/ me that "it's not perfect." I do agree it's the best we got thus far, but far from perfect and still has many limits to overcome. Also as you apply to the "method" and it's a never ending inquiry, so too is the spiritual path, which becomes a sort of experiential laboratory and the results are shown subjectively to you only. By your own definition, the mystic should qualify as a spiritual/supernatural scientist who brings back experiences to be discussed and prodded.

If you feel something needs to be studied then why not do it your self? No, instead you armchair pseudo-talk about things that no one has verified to be true, which again is the definition of dogma

because I don't have all your phd's and lab access Uni key cards. You do. But what I have done that you perhaps haven't yet, is made my own consciousness a lab and investigated it, and continue to do so, thoroughly, and found things there there direct experience, things which have been written about thousands of years ago waiting to be re-discovered.

Even the precious Atom was first theorized by a Mystic named Kanada thousands of years ago, who through meditation, gained wisdom and insight into the nature of physical reality and it took how many years before science finally caught u to serious investigations and searching for the atom? Just saying

If you want to believe in a soul, in a god and in universal consciousness, that is fine. I don't feel the need to hold such beliefs.

It is impossible for me to believe these things because I experience them daily. It's like in science, which rather have a theory, or the results of an experiment that show that theory to be true or false? Obviously an intellectual would rather choose the experimental proof. So here I am, seeing, tasting, experiencing these things to be true, prior to what the mind thinks about them, and have nothing to do with beliefs(which are all imagined and conceptual).

I'm sure you would agree, scientifically, that all of reality happens prior to what the brain can make sense of it. So to it is with the experience I refer to, many of them ineffable, so there is always a loss in translation due to language ...however the experience itself beckons us all. It's something that's always there

reply to post by dominicus


Dear dominicus,

So what we need to do is come up with some super sensitive instruments that might be able to detect this kind of non-local consciousness that could be measured outside of the body. In these instances we have 3 groups we can test on. The womb of a pregnant woman, those who can leave the body at will, and those on their death beds.

I had an NDE, there is no way to measure it. LOL. The four things you mentioned cannot be measured. If you did then it would prove nothing. Science, this world we believe in, says that merely observing a thing changes the outcome. Here is what science has proven, the brain has no electrical energy after so many seconds of dying, yet, people have continued to have thoughts and experiences well beyond that time limit. Many have even told of things that they could not have seen or heard. The soul or mind continues; but, that does not prove that other minds exist at all, it could all be an illusion. Here is a better question, if we continue then self awareness continues, God exists in the universe. The self awareness of the universe is God. Now, either you are God or there are other self aware beings. If you believe there are other self aware beings then whether there are or not is meaningless. You would be God putting on a lot of effort to make believe he was many, with all that effort, why would you try and disagree with yourself? Why would God create the Matrix and then not play along?

reply to post by dominicus


Sir, please do not lump me in with whatever dogmatic materialists you seem to be portraying me as. Beyond the statements I have already made on this site about the many failures of science, which you have quoted yourself in the OP, I have just as much "spiritual" inquiry "under my belt". I have spent months living in caves and forests doing vipassana meditation and living like a monk around all monks on the other side of the world. I have entered into week long samadhi's and have experienced OBE's and telepathy. I am very familiar with feelings of non-local consciousness. Some of these experiences can be replicated and studied, some of them cannot.

Things like deep states of consciousness where one enters into a samadhi, can and have been studied and shown to have major alterations in neural activity. Yet the point of these studies is not to verify IF something is happening, rather WHAT is happening. I could say entering into samadhi is becoming one with God, or tapping into universal consciousness, because it feels so amazing. But those are just poetic expressions and do nothing to actually describe what is happening. What is God? What is universal consciousness? I can say these are factual things I experience everyday but in reality that means nothing, these are just words, just ideas about experiences I cannot explain. Maybe all these thoughts and images are just perceptual illusions created by my culturally/socially/intellectually conditioned mind. Maybe it is just an amazing feeling of neurons firing and wiring in different (maybe even more symmetrical/coordinated) patterns. What use is talking about any of this in absolute terms if I don't truly know though? For me there is none. Which is why I look for confirmation in observable and testable terms.

Now this doesn't mean I need to stop experiencing samadhi's just because I can't prove they exist how I imagine them to exist. It's just I accept I don't really know what is happening, beyond a powerful feeling. I refuse to accept what the Buddhist monks and yogi's told me it is, why would I do that? They could of told me I was tapping into the butthole of a giant yogic centipede that oozes tranquility. It is the same as telling me I entered into a realm of nirvanic bliss, or became one with god. No clue what any of that means in definitive terms.

And you don't need a PhD to create and conduct experiments. You don't need money or big machines. Not for an experiment to be taking seriously. All you need is a hypothesis and the know how of how to conduct a solid experiment and anyone can do it. If someone wants to verify telepathy is true, set up a double blind test and show how it can be replicated. You want to show how "universal consciousness" is true, think of a way to do it. Otherwise you ARE just spouting cultural and religious dogma. Again, I have experienced what I BELIEVED to be telepathy, but I cannot replicate it in a way that verifies it is true. What use is it to say it is real then? It very well could just be a giant mistake in perception, or a coincidence, or maybe not. I can't explain it or replicate it in a credible manner though nor can anyone else. That is why I am interested in theories like morphic field theory, because it could possibly be a solid explanation for how these things happen. That has science and math to back it up, not just a bunch of passionate words wrote by someone having a cool experience.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by Erbal

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by dominicus

 

Just so we're clear, death is permanent.

Just so we're clear, permanent does not mean forever without change.

How come no one told me the definition changed? I better check:

permanent |ˈpərmənənt|
adjective
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely : a permanent ban on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea | damage was not thought to be permanent | some temporary workers did not want a permanent job.
• lasting or continuing without interruption : he's in a permanent state of rage.
noun
a perm for the hair.

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

It looks to be the same.

With all due respect, I don't see where that Oxford definition says permanent means forever without change, or everlasting. Indefinitely also doesn't mean forever.

Permanent simply means you don't know when it will change or it's not expected to change.
Temporary simply means there is a short or limited time before change.

If you have a permanent job you keep showing up to work until you quit or get fired. A forever job would mean you never stop receiving paychecks no matter what (I want one). A temporary job means you come into the job knowing it's intended to be for a limited amount of time.

So yes, death is permanent even when it doesn't last forever, except when you happen to be copying the movie Flatliners.

reply to post by dominicus

check out Goswami's theory on downward causation. the world is made of consciousness

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by dominicus

 

check out Goswami's theory on downward causation. the world is made of consciousness

edit on 24-8-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Thank you. That video is very relevant to my worldviews.

reply to post by Erbal

mine too

glad someone got something out of it

I liked the documentary on tv about children who remembered past lives. One boy mentioned his prior life sister was now a fish. Apparently she was kidnapped by some thugs and taken on a boat and dropped into the sea with a weight tied to her.

So since she died under the water she reincarnated as a fish. So we have to die on land to be reincarnated into human again. There are a few kids who remember past lives and they had facts to prove it. Information no kid would know.

I dont believe we truly have free will. The dead who havent reincarnated can effect this world and help you, or they can do things against you. We've got centuries of data to back that up. Also chemicals can be used against you to effect your brain and make you do things. I can pump you up with saltpeter/fluoride and get your sexual device to stop working. You'll try thinking really hard to get it to work...many then start looking at little kiddies to get their sexual device to work....not knowing chemicals were used against them.

We dont truly have free will. Even after we leave this world we will face other energy life forms who will work against us.

We are just about to the point we can use medical imaging devices and record you down to the very last atom. Maybe in 20 years we would be able to reconstruct you down to the very last atom. Would you come back to life? No, some other energy life form (soul) would be able to pop into your re-created body, maybe with full memories of their prior life since they are not entering here into a newborn with reduced brain memory storage.

I think that is key why some kids who are born remember past lives. They were born late and the brain was more developed allowing them to step in to the new body with some memory retained.

reply to post by openlocks

Sir, please do not lump me in with whatever dogmatic materialists you seem to be portraying me as.

im not lumping you into anything. ATS'er Turq1 said it best and put 1 of my points best in his nutshell:

Measure something that isn't physical? Science can't do that. The anti-god concept that exists in something like 98% of research scientists is basically a result of science being unable to say one way or the other about it and the idiocy they see religious people; when they should be unbiased, an attitude and position is accumulated, amounting to "group think".

FYI I originally posted one of your quotes to start of this thread because you urself are in the scientific field and yourself see the dogma and "group think" that exists and limits the field, plus your open to the spiritual aspect of things. I'm not here to judge you, just to point out problems and salutions with fields of study

Maybe all these thoughts and images are just perceptual illusions created by my culturally/socially/intellectually conditioned mind.

funny you say that, because if you would know aspects of Buddhism and Nonduality, you would know that they say in order to reach experientially the Absolute truth, all thoughts, perceptions, conditioning, illusion, and mind stuff must be discarded. Once all of that is let go of, then the direct experience of the Absolute shines through crystal clear prior to any of the aforementioned "things" you quoted above.

And you don't need a PhD to create and conduct experiments. You don't need money or big machines. Not for an experiment to be taking seriously. All you need is a hypothesis and the know how of how to conduct a solid experiment and anyone can do it.

in your line of work, unless I have phd next to my name and a Uni backing me, I'm pretty much on deaf ears.

You want to show how "universal consciousness" is true, think of a way to do it.

can't do it right now because it only pops up a s a direct experience. Sure a brain scan might reveal some things and that experiment has already been done, been then there's the question of whether the section in the brain that lights up when this happen is what is causing this experience, or is observing and experiencing this experiment.

Other than that it would have to be some super sensitive instruments that are still out of our reach

That is why I am interested in theories like morphic field theory, because it could possibly be a solid explanation for how these things happen. That has science and math to back it up, not just a bunch of passionate words wrote by someone having a cool experience.

And yet there has to be someone that says they are experiencing something like this in order for scientists to scratch their heads and take it upon themselves to look into whether or not these things are real. You see, someone's gotta say something about it, and yet all words fail to describe something ineffable.

That's why my life doesn't rely on science but on direct experience, since all of life is direct experience including finding scientific answers to things incovered that have always been. We should be studying direct experiemce

reply to post by dominicus


I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are saying. You say science can never measure or account for anything immaterial, which it CAN through relationships (electromagnetic field theory, gravitational field theory, quantum field theory...), and so it cannot measure or account for direct experience. Yet you yourself are calling for science to measure direct experience?

Anyways, I agree partially with what you are saying. No experience, be it "spiritual" or jumping into a cold ocean, can be absolutely conveyed through language, or perfectly observed by science. The Buddha, and Lao Tzu, said the Absolute cannot be conveyed through language and any attempt to do so will not describe the Absolute. Yet all experience is the Absolute. So any attempt to think about or speak about any experience is the "illusion". Do you then propose that we all just sit in silence and not move for the rest of our lives? Does this mean we should just do away with any attempt to understand our surroundings? If you feel that way, why are you using a computer, why are you wearing clothes, why are you eating food grown through argricultural knowledge? Why not just strip naked and forage for your food?

You are going to an extreme that the Buddha did not call for. He taught the Middle Way. He taught the end of perpetual self caused suffering. Even the monks I am friends with embrace science. Sure, it has the potential to become dogmatic if it thinks it can figure out the Absolute reality of human experience, but it does not claim to do that. It seeks to understand the observable world to help find solutions for the problems and dilemmas humanity is facing, much like the Buddha did. In many ways the Buddha was like a scientist, and in many ways scientists are like Buddhas.