This man essentially proves the existence of God, it takes a semi-intelligent mind to understand why. http://youtu.be/Fqdcdky9wR4
Anybody who looks at this like proof of God is utterly fucking retarded.. Now I won't deny the health benefits of meditation, can't have a completely sound body without a completely sound mind and vice versa. But let's get into why this doesn't prove shit, unless you're retarded and brainwashed.. First, this is just a theory that relies on the unified field theory. If you watch, he talks about infinite universes and such which I kind of agree on. I believe in an infinite universe, but that could also mean an infinite amount of different types of energies. I don't believe there will ever be just one field that encompasses them all, that's narrow minded in terms of the possibilities of the universe. A single unified field has never been proven nor do I believe it will be, not with the complexity of the universe. Even if we believe we've found a unified field, there is a possibility that there are types of energies out there we have yet to discover that wouldn't subscribe to this field of unity. This guy is basically taking one theory and saying that it's true before it's been scientifically proven and building a theory off of that that adheres to his personal belief with the power of meditation, as well as making connections that aren't there with the level of physics and level of consciousness.. He also goes into his "study" of meditation reducing crime.. I searched his study and the only place I could find that has any kind of data pertaining his study reducing crime is from his website. It was a study of 4,000 people and supposedly reduced the crime rate in DC just by meditating.. His study was only from 2 months, far from enough time to get a proper, scientific result. If it was a successful study, it would been continued for more than 2 months.. and it took place back in 1993 too! 20 years ago, before you were even born PP. If this was a proven thing, there would of been more of a push with legitimate findings to back up continuing the project up until present day. Only "information" I could find on this project, his words about his project.. http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/ Ask yourself, if this is unified consciousness is true and having a large group of people meditate in an area is scientifically proven to help the area, then why was there only one serious attempt at it 20 years ago? Also ask yourself, if you believe atheists go about their non beliefs dogmatically in terms of science, then what the fuck are you doing when you try using science to back up a claim that isn't falsifiable? If this is all part of the real you, I honestly hope you find the help you need before you completely lose touch of reality man..
I don`t disagree with you man . I thinks most things, if not all things are debatable or subject to the observer. What I don`t particularly agree with is that your using the fact of a lack of funding / information as a reason why the theory is not plausible. 20 years back there were no funding / information available on marijuana except the propaganda saying it`s devils food or whatever . I think any information that would lead to people becoming more spiritual (in whatever way that may be) would be suppressed by the very corporate system we get our information from . Why is marijuana being suppressed? (allot of reasons) why are psilocybin mushrooms suppressed? (allot of the same reasons) you`ll find the same is true for most things that drives you away from a distracted consumer . The information may me plausible or not , I for one am just glad people are giving an interest to something "spiritual"
In cognitive science nonlocality uses it at the neuronal level where a particular function is distributed across the brain region as opposed to having it all in one spot , like how a computer will store it's memory in the hard drive, so it's local . The memory is not stored in one spot , but all over the place. So if I perform a small lesion on your brain you lose little to no memory , as the lesion becomes larger you'll lost more memories , since they are stored in the connections. We know the mechanisms works in the brain such as action potential. now from wiki we get this definition physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism. similar,but different uses of the word. Also it's rather obvious the brain does not perform at the quantum level.
I'm kind of disappointed that you would think this way, but it is what it is. You seem so against the idea of God, that you don't understand that the concept of God is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, the scientific one being that the unified field itself is God, as some religions make it out to be. Dogmatism has no place in science, so there is no need for your harsh words, they betray a lack of unbiased and collected mind. I don't place too much weight in the large scale meditations, although the data is there. If the people running the study were dishonest, then nothing is to be done, but are we sure of this? The study displays the results plainly, some might call it an imaginative correlation, but I see it, and I'm sure you see it as well. Another thing, the unified field theory is something that major contributors to science have attempted to prove, the reason behind this is that it is an entirely valid theory that creates a proper working model of the universe and explains much. In other words, it is very likely this thing exists, we simply haven't figured out how it all fits together, such as gravitational force, which is something that science is yet to understand. Now there are many theories in regards to gravity, but many of them are outright rejected or ignored by the scientific community. The fact is that these 4 force fields have some sort of harmonious working relationship, it is without a doubt that this unified field exists, whether what is currently understood on the matter may divulge the idea that not enough evidence was provided to suggest such a thing, there are many who believe otherwise. where D is the relativistic density, E is the energy of the unified field, c is the velocity of light, G is the universal gravitational constant, and the last part of the equation, / A[SUB]2[/SUB]*, will be explained below. D and E are tensors with eigenvalues and quantum states associated therewith. http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/Original_Dec99/#List Of Validations And/Or Applications This is a unified field theory that shows the relationship between all 4 forces, although it doesn't really talk about what I think is most important. Take away your bias my friend, it is unbecoming of a man of science.
It is not obvious that the brain doesn't operate at the quantum level, in fact many would say otherwise.
There's no evidence. And the "many" you suggest are probably untrained scientists who don't understand physics or neuroscience. And if they are they are an extremely minuscule portion on the field of their expertise . As I've said you're misuse the definitions between two fields as I've shown that the definitions of non locality are different. take deepak for example he misuses non locality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1cqAZgSRcM during the question session a theoretical physicist who worked with stephen hawkings even says he misuses it. Unless you're going to say you know more about quantum physics then them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z17sIJyQ3oY
The scientific interpretation of God? Retarded.. Here's the deal, your thought process (lack of) about science and God is a personal belief. You're the type of person that if God were a color, you'd be looking at life through God-colored glasses. Meaning anything that comes in is going to already be tainted by the concept of God.. and you have the nerve to talk about being biased? Retarded. Since you insist on bringing your retarded spiritual belief into the science section, I am going to bring in my personal belief that you are retarded for doing so.. You're taking the idea from a theory that has yet to be proven and labeling it as God, that is retarded. If it needs to be called anything, call it the unified field and don't be a dumbass and try to sell your retarded belief every fucking chance you get.. You really think because someone is using harsh words that that automatically means they're under the spell of dogmaticism and being biased? Again, retarded.. Picking up the trend yet? Retarded is your theme in case you missed it. The harsh words come from you posting retarded shit and thinking it's real science.. Stop fucking doing it and I won't think you're a retarded waste of life. If you want to talk about science, take your own advice and drop your biased belief about God, I'd even settle for you shutting the fuck up about anything God related while trying to discuss science.. but you can't do that because you've permanently attached your God-colored glasses to your dense skull, which was a retarded thing to do.. If you honestly think that a 2 month study in one city is enough to get a proper reading of data, then you should wipe out any hope in a career in science you may have. That in no way is anywhere enough data to prove it as a fact.. Not only that, if it were fact, don't you think it would of been reproduced more than once since before you were born? All kind of events could have taken place in those 2 months that could have had that effect.. Not only that, they only really show you data from those 2 months. If they were serious about their approach, they would have listed some data from before the study and after, not just during. Chances are if they did that, you would have seen that the crime rate spiked up and down and they could of pretty much picked out any time frame where there was a decrease in crime.. In other words, these people are claiming to be able to reduce crime rates, but don't give a shit enough to do it more than once in one city.. That's if you were suckered, real reason they're not doing it anymore is because it didn't actually work. I never said it wasn't valid, but valid or not, it's still a theory.. Just because they appear to have a harmonious balance doesn't mean they were cut from the same cloth, very narrow minded view point. We have yet to figure out exactly how gravity works and very well could operate outside of a unified field. It's unbecoming of a man of science to assume one theory is correct just so they can form another theory to center around their personal belief system.. Luckily you're just a man of God and not science, no matter how much you claim otherwise. You've demonstrated that you only care to make use of science for your personal agenda.. God. Now if you still want to post retarded shit like this and you post is in the science section, I am going to continue acting as I am.. You're more than welcome posting it in Pandora's, philosophy, or religion and I won't be an ass to you, but if you bring your spiritual belief into the science section and try to debate it philosophically, I am going to treat you like your worth, which is a half a bag of shit.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, you've twisted the concept of God so that you could never include it in everything, my concept of God is one that can exist and does exist, yet you do not understand it. In fact, you choose not to understand it due to some emotionally reactive nature and honestly I'm surprised to see such ignorance and hate. I took you for an insightful man who simply had circumstances in your life that perverted your concept of God so you remained weary of even contemplating the idea, but now I see you for a short sighted reactionary man. There are many intelligent Theists whom you are insulting in your own arrogance. I don't really care though, I have every right to post this topic in this section. I see you for what you are and I'm sorry for you. I'm not going to treat you like shit, because no one is worthless, every man is priceless, no matter their failings, none are perfect.
I don't hate the concept of God.. I hate people like you who think their concept is such a solidified concept that it has a place in science, which it doesn't. It's completely retarded to think it does if you want to take science and the search for answers seriously. You obviously don't.. You're more than welcome to continue posting your God-fag shit in here, but I will continue to call you a retard for doing so, because it is retarded. If you notice, you're only one of a few people I am a complete asshole to.. It's because you're dense, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that you're dense to being dense.. You keep yourself blinded with your God-colored shades, and to me that is a disgusting trait for humans, even more so for those who claim to want to know the truth. And I don't think anyone is worthless, not even you. If you re-read, I think you're worth a half a bag of shit.. Technically that's not worthless, it's worth a half a bag of shit.
Deepak does not misuse the concept of non-locality, there was no evidence given that he was, except random claims of him being "woo woo" there was nothing to suggest he was. There was nothing real being discussed here, one man presented his ideas with very little evidence or reasoning behind it, and others said he was wrong, again with very little reasoning behind it. This was just a bullshit convention, no real discourse of any kind. Even the man in the second video doesn't say anything other than that Deepak was wrong. These two videos were a waste of time, I'd rather this thread would be kept to real scientific discourse.
The problem is that you hate in the first place, you are falling into the fallacy of dogmatism by saying God has no place in science. God absolutely has a place in science, for you to be unable to comprehend it's place is a lacking in your own self. Don't worry, you scurry along now.
Oh and the guy in the video I posted in the beginning. \n I'm sure he's just a pseudo-scientist though.
Philosophy is a crucial element in the existence of science, for without philosophy, one could not determine the things one could from the products of science. Here is something that may help some in understanding the phenomena of consciousness. http://youtu.be/yCii726A4Jc
The connections pervasive within reality, whether local or nonlocal, are never going to be fully understood by a rigid empiricist such as yourself. No matter the amount of ways science can come to describe our universe, dogmatic science will never answer, or even be able to answer, the most important question - why? Why is there something rather than nothing? And why does this something manifest in one way and not another? Basically, empirical science will never have explanations, only limited descriptions (limited because it's coming from the perspective of a very limited creature- that of man's).
I'm glad we agree on something. I've provided you 2 definitions of nonlocality. A neuroscience and theoretical physicist explained why he's wrong and all Deepak did was constantly blurt out his conclusions rather then explanations. I should had guessed you'd agree since that's your style or extremely tenacious. Btw you still didn't provide evidence that the brain works on the quantum level. Show me a paper from a respectable journal. let me reiterate a quote “There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet who think they know a lot of physics but it [SIZE=15.199999809265137px]doesn't[/SIZE] work like that.†Noam Chomsky.
Get out of the science section if you're going to disagree with science. And that picture was probably one of the most superficial connections you can make. It's at the level of a conspiracy theorist. While scientists continue to better the world and make new discoveries, you can continue to blow hot air and and inflate your ego in the process.
Well since God is everything, and hate is a part of the everything, then hate is a part of God.. What's the problem? Besides you having intelligence on par with a 5 year old with Down syndrome.. Unless you honestly believe God can be proven through science, then he has no place in it. Same reason God doesn't (well shouldn't) have any place in education and politics.. The only people who do think he does are fucking idiots who are trying to push their personal, biased belief system. He wasn't the retard who labeled the unified field theory as God.. Granted labeling it as consciousness is just as bad, consciousness isn't God unless you label it as such. It's consciousness.. nothing spiritual or mystical about it. He did what you always do, went into it with a personal belief limiting his absorption of real knowledge. Reason it was personal is because the unified field theory is still just a theory.. It's not complete, nor can they figure out how to get gravity to fit the unified field theory. Yet he is going about it like it's true because that's his personal belief.. He is basically a scientist who lost his way, which is better than being a half a bag of shit who's done nothing for the scientific community and believes he is helping by sitting on his ass and meditating to/for God. That's like trying to build a 50 story building but using old and busted up, incomplete building material for the 1st story.. It'd be retarded to do so because it would crumble.
The Fallacy of Classical Thought Quoting: "My big problem with the idea Walach expresses is that he points out, correctly, that light is always light, but depending how you measure it it's physical properties vary. This is fundamental to quantum mechanics." Actually this isn't fundamental to quantum mechanic but is the fallacy of classical Newtonian physics. What was once old is new again. One of the things to consider when labeling quantum mechanics “weird†and taking about classical (Newtonian) physics as accepted, is that from the very beginning the theories haven't been able explain all that happens in the physical world. So by the end of the 19th century, a compromise was made between particle theory and wave theory and physicists agreed that energy and matter were separate things. However, they did so only in respect that it depended upon what you want to “look†at which theory and therefore mathematics you invoked. However, it was less than 30 years after that, less than 1/10th of the time that Newtonian physics exited to that point, that quantum mechanics began to be discussed. Heisenberg came up with the Uncertainty Theory which was obvious by the fact that neither particle nor wave theory could explain. <br/>The language (math) of explaining became too difficult for it to be discussed by most. However, most theoretical physicists accepted it. It was only because of the three physicists who happened to be better known in the popular media that non-locality became generally unaccepted in the public eye. Those physicists being Einstein, Podolosky, and Rosen. And it clearly became too complicated to think of non-locality and the mind for scientists. However, non-locality of the mind has had more acceptance for so much longer than any physics, going back 2500 to 3500 years being the premise of Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism. Even in the era of Newton, the scientists of the times (philosophers) questioned whether the realty we experience isn't some apportionment of our unconscious, the most famous being Descarte. “So I suppose that all the things I see are false. I assume that nothing my mendacious memory represents really is the case. Thus, I have no senses; body, figure, extension and place are chimeras....So from the fact that I judge that I walk, I may validly infer the existence of a mind which makes this judgment, I cannot infer the existence of a body that walks†(Descartes, 1641).†In that same era John Locke took this further consider that perhaps the non-locality of consciousness is the true reality and this (rapping on a table) is at best an agreed upon reality “So that if any one will examine himself concerning his notion of pure substance in general, he will find he has no other idea of it at all. We accustom ourselves to suppose some substratum wherein they do subsist and from which they do result, which therefore we call substance†(Locke, 1690)†George Berkely argues against the proof of the physical, saying, “The ideas of sense are more strong, lively and distinct than those of the imagination.†So given the historical precedence of a non-local consciousness and the lack of purported “classic†physics to explain the real world any better, I turn the tables on the skeptic and say prove to me your position. Don't just ask me to accept it because it is popular belief. Popular belief also would have us believe in Friedmanesqure Free Market theory, but the current global economic crises shows otherwise. As for the inability to replicate phenomenon which has centuries of precedence, I refer to Tao Te Ching: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name..†(Lao Tzu, 600BC)
There you go again. Ignoring the fact that the definition of non locality is different between the disciplines, which means you can't make the connection between the disciplines based on non locality. It's as if you didn't transcend your ego. edit: you know what? I'm going to issue a challenge. go on http://www.physicsforums.com/ . Post that video and give the argument why it is so that the video is valid And try convince a sci advisor . If you do that you'll transcend the super ego.