The past year Ive been studying quantum physics and particle physics. Lately Ive been very interested if memory can be stored outside the human brain. Also Interested if consciousness can exist outside the human brain as well. I'm a very scientific person, not religious; yet spiritual in the sense of Buddhism. Buddhism makes sense and holds scientific understanding where as most religions are misinterpreted and belittle the brilliance of life. Any sort of divine being is not necessary. I understand that when we die our body and mind cease to exist, yet our energy moves on. Like many individuals believe as well. Ive been wondering if consciousness moves on to another host, like reincarnation. The problem I face is that since our consciousness is contained in our brains and we are self aware. If our energy/consciousness moves on will it be self aware or even have memory? like how some people can have past life regressions. I never understood how memory could exist outside our brain. I wondered if the building blocks of all that is; particles can contain consciousness or memory. I came across this website -http://www.dapla.org/conscious_particles.htm It makes me believe that it is true that particles can be consciousness, but just not self aware. So this means that all matter and energy contains some form of consciousness? Many blades have had this idea before, I just want to understand it scientifically if it is probable. Particles are aware of their environment and can change accordingly? They can also store small amounts of memory? The Physical-Etheric Nucleus is kinda confusing me too. Many of you may of already known this, but for me its new material. Is it real material or just nonsense? I want to hear opinions or have experienced blades explain this to me. One major goal I have in life is to learn and understand all that I can. Hopefully I'm not all over the place with this post. It feels like I am, don't know why. I can talk about it aloud better than typing it out. I can understand it better if I had bud, but I don't. Trying to find a new job, don't want to screw that up. I welcome a discussion, not a rage war; so if you can help me out it would be much appreciated.
That article you linked is well into the realm of pseudoscience. All the tell-tale signs of woo are there such as misrepresenting quotes from famous scientists, a complete misunderstanding of quantum theory, and certain buzzwords such as "vibrations". For example: Actually, anyone who knows even rudimentary high energy physics will tell you they don't. In the standard model, and in all quantum field theories in general, anything that isn't outlawed explicitly by the fundamental laws of nature is destined to happen. This well established notion is in complete contradiction that elementary particles possess a degree of "intelligence". Unless, of course, they happen to take the inherently probabilistic nature of these particles to be a form of "intelligence", then they couldn't be any further from the actual reality. At this time, there is no scientific reason to believe that particles are conscious. It is an emergent phenomena i.e it is a phenomena that is not equal to the sum of its parts. Because elementary particles are the most fundamental building blocks (they have no "parts), it is quite meaningless to ask about the "consciousness" of a particle. It's equivalent to asking about the temperature of an individual particle or if it is superconducting.
Thanks for the reply, when I read that website I wasn't sure if it was going somewhere or just false Info. It doesn't quite make sense how a particle can be conscious and know its environment. What about the memory part? Can particles contain memory?
"The problem I face is that since our consciousness is contained in our brains" I think the main problem of your problem is the fact that you think it's a problem. Why do you think it's contained, i.e. limited to, our brain? Because we have a lot of specialized sense organs attached to our skull? Because neurons are heavily concentrated within the skull? When it comes to physical reality, we can use language arbitrarily to communicate and say "this easily identifiable mush right here is going to be called our pituitary gland and it's yay big, starts here, ends there, is composed of this, and secretes that". But when we start talking about the intangible nature of consciousness.. how do can you measure where it starts and ends without being arbitrary/subjective? In my opinion, to be aware of your feet, your feet have to be conscious. You can argue that your feet are nothing but flesh and bones that contain some receptors that send messages to your brain where your consciousness is, but if that's all your feet are, then what makes the brain special? Do special 'conscious' neurons exist in the brain that don't exist anywhere else in the body? To me, if your feet aren't conscious, then neither is your brain, unless I'm unaware of special cells that are exclusively conscious. But then again, it could be contained within the brain. This topic has been discussed for ages, in countless cultures. If it is in the brain, the best arguments that I have come across were arguments that either the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness or the gateway between differentiated consciousness (i.e. subjective consciousness) and collective consciousness. It's a tricky topic because it's limited by our language, sense organs, tools of measurement, and subjective perspective - so we'll never know what consciousness is until we're completely conscious. As far as memory goes, that's an even trickier topic. How do you explain past-life regression? What about when people consume a potent dose of a psychedelic and perform an ancient dance that they have never been exposed to? If you are interested in memory OP, but especially consciousness, I suggest this book: Stanislav Grof conducted and overlooked thousands of legal LSD therapy sessions before the global ban. What's fascinating about LSD compared to other psychedelics, or to any molecule period, is that it's an unspecific and interactive drug, i.e. it does not produce any invariable pharmacological/medicinal effects. There are 'common' effects, but that's all they are - 'common'. There's not one effect of the drug that is experienced absolutely. He claims that LSD is to psychiatry and psychology as to what the microscope is to biology or the telescope to astronomy.
p.s. OP I like your original post because you're grooming your mind to think independently instead of dependently. Keep studying, keep asking questions, keep an open mind, and think for yourself.
In my opinion, to be aware of your feet, your feet have to be conscious. If it is in the brain, the best arguments that I have come across were arguments that either the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness or the gateway between differentiated consciousness (i.e. subjective consciousness) and collective consciousness. The argument, put forward by Descart, who had no knowledge of what he spoke, is known to be false. Also, Strassman lied about it in 'The Spirit Molecule'. It's a tricky topic because it's limited by our language, sense organs, tools of measurement, and subjective perspective - so we'll never know what consciousness is until we're completely conscious. The scientific study of consciousness is not limited to subjective perspective, that's metaphysics, hence why metaphysics is a pseudo-science that has found and proven nothing. As far as memory goes, that's an even trickier topic. How do you explain past-life regression? Easily, it doesn't exist. I write about and teach hypnosis; regression is a co-operative fantasy constructed by the subject and the hypnotist. There is no such thing as a hypnotic state, just compliance. Read about 'leading' in hypnosis, you can make someone 'remember' anything you want whilst they believe they are hypnotised. A famous case in point was famed professor J Mack, who led hundreds of people in the US into thinkng they had been abducted by aliens. (see Whitley Streiber's books). If you'd truly like to learn more about what memory really is, please go to ScienceDaily.com and type in memory and neurons to see how far we have come in our understanding of what memorys are and how they are stored. What about when people consume a potent dose of a psychedelic and perform an ancient dance that they have never been exposed to? Do you also think it strange that people who are drunk also have the same body movements as each other? MelT
And you have proof that past-life regression does not exist? You brought up one example - hypnosis (which like you said, may very well be placebo, at the very least some of the time). Have you met everyone that has claimed to have a past-life regression - every single person? And you experienced their consciousness during their 'experience' of a past life? Whether you want to believe it or not, that logic is identical to a person knowing that god exists. Even though you don't have a sound proof, you, the observer who is limited to your sense organs, is 100% sure of knowing all the events that have ever happened, in all the places across the universe, at all times. Forget knowing god exists, you're claiming to be god. You can use or not use whatever word you want; at the end of the day, we're all limited in observing the universe via our sense organs, span of existence (both space and time), tools of measurement, etc. Drunk people? I fail to understand the refute.
I don't have proof that it does or doesn't; like you said, it could be lies. The Bible could be a lie. The stories of the Egyptians could be a lie. People lie - that we know to be true. And knowing that I only experienced what I have, I have never made any claims to know anything outside of what I could prove. I've been exposed to a lot of ideas, hypothesis, theories, anecdotal evidence, but I nonetheless don't claim that any of them are true, and which is why I mostly ask questions or use the words "could", "probably", "may", etc. And yes, you're right - there is some miscommunication on my part. I was using the term 'past-life regression' to any incidence of anyone experiencing a past life, hypnosis or not. By a quick search on google, it's limited to hypnosis. Nonetheless to claim that you know what someone experienced is illogical. Like I mentioned, we're limited to our sense organs and tools of measurement. At one point in time, western scientist knew that we revolved around the sun, thanks to the telescope, but were not aware what DNA was because a lack of a tool. To say we know most there is to know is to imply that very little progress is left for us to make. We can barely observe our own solar system at this point in time, how can we say that we are on the verge of knowing everything there is to know, past and present? From the speech, 'Culture and ideology are not your friends'; "Every culture in history in every time and every place has operated from the assumption that it had it 95% correct and that the other 5% would arrive in 5 years time." -Terence McKenna-
I don't have proof that it does or doesn't; like you said, it could be lies. The Bible could be a lie. The stories of the Egyptians could be a lie. The Egyptians lied about themselves? Why? And yes, you're right - there is some miscommunication on my part. I was using the term 'past-life regression' to any incidence of anyone experiencing a past life, hypnosis or not. By a quick search on google, it's limited to hypnosis. Nonetheless to claim that you know what someone experienced is illogical. As you'll see, I haven't claimed to know what anyone has experienced as far as reincarnation is concerned, but in the case of hypnosis I certainly do, and can say that hypnotic regression is simply leading the subject. Like I mentioned, we're limited to our sense organs and tools of measurement. No, that's still the same lie in a different form. Man is limited, science isn't. It will get better and better too. To say we know most there is to know is to imply that very little progress is left for us to make. Who said that we did? Science didn't, I didn't, why say it? So, now your argument will go along the lines of, 'well, if science doesn't know everything that means there's a chance that my theory on X might well be true!!' Faulty logic. A gap in current knowledge does not mean that anything is then possible. We can barely observe our own solar system at this point in time, We can photograph galaxies forming in the past at a time when the universe was a fraction of its age, and at physical distances far, far greater than the size of our paltry solar system. Have you not read the threads here on the Mars Rover, or the pictures we have of the Sun and the planets? How do you not know that we routinely see beyond not only our own solar system, but our own galaxy too? Do you see how illogical discussions with you are, when you want to make various claims and yet not ever have tried to find out what hte real facts are? how can we say that we are on the verge of knowing everything there is to know, past and present? Again, not quite sure why you think anyone has claimed that we do? MelT EDIT: a very quick way to resolve this. Your OP said: but for me its new material. Is it real material or just nonsense? I want to hear opinions or have experienced blades explain this to me. It IS nonsense. Do a search here and you'll find that the same question has been asked here a number of times and answered in the same way by members of GC who have real experience of physics and cosmology. It's bunk, you don't need to waste your time on it. Okay?
I know that we've observed and what we haven't, but when I say barely, I mean out of the life span of Homo sapiens, we've barely been observing our solar system. Even when we find planets outside of our solar system that may contain life, that's all we know about it - it may contain life. Sure we can measure how fast galaxies are moving by measuring their electromagnetic radiation, but we're an infant when it comes to universal knowledge. Despite this being a federal organization within the United States, this statement by NASA should sum up where we're at as human beings. While I don't know what is or what isn't true (outside of mathematics), nor do I have an egotistical desire for any single probability to be true, I enjoy all the probabilities that limited Homo sapiens have come up with, regardless of their probability of being true. As I switched majors twice, I've taken courses in all three major fields of science and some of their sub-fields. Open up any biology, chemistry, or physics based textbook and you'll find "probably, maybe, may have, most of the time, typically, etc.". Calculus, Algebra, and Trigonometry on the other hand, that is nothing but the truth and I can literally prove it to you - because that is what math teaches, finding the absolute truth. Why are Egyptians an exception to the fact that humans lie, other than a personal bias? What field of study helped you come to this conclusion? It's weird how, despite not having proof, you know who lied and who didn't in history. Is that how science is conducted? I'm failing to see the science in your refute. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
You misunderstand NASA's statement and take it out of contex with the rest of scientific achievment, and it really doesn't 'sum up where we are as humanbeings'. That we don't know what X or Y is - yet - does not negate the millions of things that we do know about the universe with absolute certainty. Even your statement that man has only been observing the solar system for a short time is untrue. "probably, maybe, may have, most of the time, typically, etc." Your agenda keeps showing. I have US course books here, could you tell me which ones use the terms above to excess, as you imply? You talk above about the courses you've taken, and yet you still keep making gaffs and using wrong terms, why? Why make the statements you did about Egypt very stridently, when you have no knowledge of the subject? I'll tell you why, just as others have done, you've made the mistake of thnkng that just because we're tokers here that we're stupid and that you can make generalisations you learned in a woo book and kick up a fuss in a science forum. You have to realise that many people here are experts in their fields, and you're fooling nobody trying to bluff your way into keeping this thread going by being passive-aggressive. Why are Egyptians an exception to the fact that humans lie, other than a personal bias? What field of study helped you come to this conclusion? It's weird how, despite not having proof, you know who lied and who didn't in history. Is that how science is conducted? I'm failing to see the science in your refute. Let's see why you are asking this question. You would like the Egyptians to NOT have written anything about the pyramids and their use of the blue lotus, because what they say on these subjects negates your argument. So, rather than saying that you are wrong, you choose to define the whole of the Egyptian population, over a period of nearly two thousand years, as liars? LOL! Do you not see how silly that sounds? There's something of an air of desperation in your arguments. You've been out of your depth in all subjects since you got here, and you pretend to be here to learn, but in fact, every time you've been given the information you require you say that it's wrong. This makes you, just like Boats and PP are a troll. Do a search on GC to see how many times your and their arguments have been shot down here, seriously, you are just one of a long line of fails and it is getting old. MelT
I dunno if memory can be stored outside the brain, but the link you gave seems like a typical misunderstanding of certain concepts in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is mind-blowing and learning it will completely change the way you see the universe, but some people like to exploit it by pushing ideas that come from a misunderstanding of QM like "consciousness changes reality" or "particles are conscious" to make money selling books, or even worse, selling "quantum healing medicine".
I completely agree with you, it doesn't mitigate what we have done, but I am aware of how little we can observe at the moment. How long have Homo sapiens been evolving? 200,000 years? How long have they been actively studying the universe and making objective observations of it, outside of "sun. good. dark. bad."? Western Science discovered Pluto in 1930. If you do the math, 83/200000 is a rather small fraction of time of how long we have been aware of X amount of our solar system. And by 1930 we still didn't know what elements Neptune or other planets were made out of. Our knowledge of the solar system is a fraction of our existence, even for a person that believes the earth was created 10,000 years ago. To excess? I said you'll find. Have you not read any of those text books? What field of study are you in?
I was on the fence about that website, that's why I wanted to make a thread to have the experienced blades explain it. I know its not true, It bothers me that they used quotes by scientists to suggest false claims. Quantum mechanics is confusing enough. I love learning about it, so many questions.
I completely agree with you, it doesn't mitigate what we have done, but I am aware of how little we can observe at the moment. How little compared to what exactly? What is it that you are making this judgement based on? We have observed and catalogued millions of heavenly bodies, know of the composition of clouds light years away, etc. and have learned so much about the nature of the universe that it would make a sane person's head spin. So, that's 'little'? Could you tell us precisely what it is you think we can't see? Now we can talk about the subtext of what you're saying here. You're skirting around saying 'because we don't know absolutely everything about the universe, that means there is a gap for me to put my idea in and you have to accept it'. With all due respect, that it is bullshit. It's the old 'you can't prove my purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist' argument. It's tedious and the last bastion of a failed argument. Science does not know everything, nope, but it knows much more than religiona nd metaphysics. How long have Homo sapiens been evolving? 200,000 years? How long have they been actively studying the universe and making objective observations of it, outside of "sun. good. dark. bad."? A minimum of nine thousand years. Recording and measuring one aspec of the heavens or another. As most of your responses, how exactly is that relevant to your statement 'how little we can observe?' We can obseve much. To excess? I said you'll find. Have you not read any of those text books? 'I said you'll find'? What does that mean? Have you missed out a couple of words? You said that the textbooks you read were, and I paraphrase, ful of words such as 'possibly' not facts. If you'd care to look back at my post you'll see that I'm asking you exactly which textbooks you are referring to, so you must understand that your response, above, doesn't make any sense. As I asked earlier, all you have to do is give me the titles so I can check them. MelT