A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

You are spinning off pure fluff.

More ad hominem.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, as a matter of fact, the Quantum Physicist, Amit Goswamii, had a hand in the Jacobo-Grinberg experiment referred to in the video at the University of Mexico.

Why did you put "peer review" in quotes? To imply that it is not legitimate? It was published in Physics Essays. The experiment demonstrated nonlocal communication between two entangled human brains. Is that not both landmark and breakthrough?

"Physics Essays is an international journal dedicated to theoretical and experimental aspects of fundamental problems in physics and, generally, to the advancement of basic knowledge of physics...

...Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers.

About the Journal - Physics Essays Publication

Other versions of the original experiment have been carried out around the world since then. I gave you a partial list in a previous post, which you chose to ignore out of your ignorance and recalcitrance. I put the truth right under your nose, and you dismiss it as insignificant. What's wrong with you?

The video and peer-reviewed paper in Physics Essays both explain the experiment, which you apparently failed to comprehend. As mentioned, the renowned physicist, Amit Goswami, was a part of the experiment, lending even more credibility to it. In fact, it is upheld as valid even today.

Sorry, but everything I have heard about Amit Goswami is that he is no better physicist than Michael Behe is a biochemist, both used their science (respectively, physics and biochemistry) to write pseudoscience literature.

The majority of physicists and astrophysicists considered Amit Goswami to be a quantum quack, with his Self-Aware Universe, listed under as Quantum Mysticism.

Sorry, but quantum mysticism is not real science, just as Behe's Irreducible Complexity is not real scientific theory in biology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, strangely enough i googled "The first king of Aragon" instead of Ramiro and Ermasinda, but holy crap, there Ramiro showed up at the top of the Wikipedia list with a portrait turned up at the top of a list of the kings of Aragon, Spain, First one. The listing also had Ermasinda's name as his wife. Now i should have been freaked out at how i got those two names, but i completely forgot about that detail for 4 and a half months as something else in that portrait had taken my attention. I was expecting someone who looks something like King Ferdinand who sent Columbus over here. Instead, i got ....oooohhhh....(!)
"This cannot be true, this is not going to pan out, i'm just being craz-..."
I held up a mirror to my computer screen after magnifying king Ramiro's head to approximately the size of my own head reflecting in the mirror right beside the screen and again, another huge blow to my physical reality i thought i knew so well. I dropped the mirror, couldn't hold back the tears at that point and said outloud "WHAT in the HOLY **** is THAT doing there?!" After regaining dryness i said "Well, at least i know what i'm gonna look like when i'm around 65 to 70. I felt very tired after that for the rest of the day. When i remembered How i got the two names 4 and a half months later, i realized how glad i was to have forgotten about it for that long. I still had not adjusted fully to seeing everyday physics and statistical likelihood being smashed and trashed by spooky coincidences and highly unlikely alignments of coherent information. I knew this just shouldn't be happening so i checked myself for mental illnesses and personality disorders that might cause someone to experience such things, but NOTHING came even close to describing what i was experiencing. I checked for delusions, magical thinking, confirmation bias and reviewed again and again the scientific method and just stuck with. Once i had a good sized collection of physical occurrences and evidence to suggest that i had spent enough time studying this alternate reality , i realized that i could trust my observations, tests and even crude measurements of it to more easily accept that it was a real thing. Once i had established that for myself along with word for word reports from several other people who have described their own experiences that matched my own along with my reactions to it, i was satisfied with my efforts and results. It's not really peer review, but matching information between dissociated non related points is still matching information.
This is somewhat frustrating for me because i so seldom can find the words to report and describe this, then it all comes out at once, so keep asking questions and eventually, we'll get this all down.
To answer your questions,
King Ramiro was born in 1007 ad, died 1068 ad.
My first contact with all and any of this occurred in 2011 when i lived in Denver CO. I encountered some folks whose lineage went right to a village bearing their last name in Spain just south of the Pyrenees. There's no way I'm gonna post their name here or anywhere, but they showed me a side of life 180 degrees off from everything i thought i knew. it was like walking though a mirror into the reflection and when i came back i retained the ability to see everything from the opposite point of view. I seldom if ever agree with what i perceive from that point of view, but it allows me to enter the mindset of others enough to make some pretty accurate predictions about what someone will do and Why they're doing it. This ability alone far exceeds anything i know of my ability before any of this happened. It also allows me to find solutions to some difficulties by being more understanding and compassionate of others and what they're going through. I never cared before like i do now.
As far as i know King Ramiro and most in his region were Christian. At the time of Ramiro's death, the Moors were being driven back from the foothills of the Pyrenees, later to be routed out of all of Spain. The Pyrenees along with the entire north of Spain were partially invaded, but never
conquered by the Moors or 'Umayyad Caliphate'. You will notice a difference in some of the music from northern Spain as it retains many elements of European music from Celtic times through the middle ages, some of which was picked up as hymns and church music. The music from the rest of Spain sounds somewhat similar to some Arabic music for a good reason. It kind of is, even though the Umayyads were only there for around a hundred years.
Now the folks in Colorado had an ability to read a person accurately by sensing the person with their ...appeared to be their whole body and mind at once, maybe their entire energy fields. It was rather strange because you could actually feel it in a way. They also had an odd physical appearance to their eyes, a very lucid, aroused appearance, but it's not from arousal, it's something else. Since the eyes had a consistent appearance across several family members i looked for anyone else with that same appearance, as it was a physical clue i could follow just like the family surname. I googled the surname, to see if the same physical trait could be seen in others with the same surname. HIT!, HIT!, HIT! Now i had not yet actually had the experience that told me about king Ramiro, but it was only a day or two later that i had the story that got me to look him up. There again was that strange appearance to the eyes, but King Ramiro is not discernibly related to the folks in Colorado, just the long ago king of the region their ancestry is from.
Important to note however, that the surname is closely associated with the royal families of Spain fro a long time as administrators and other occupations in service of the kings/royal families. (Learned that from researching the surname to its origin.)
Now to this day i have no odd interactions with anyone EXCEPT people from that very same region and people from there who closely match the folks in Colorado in physical appearance and origin. To this day i cannot pass smoothly by anyone fitting this information. They always look at me intently as if they know me when i know damned well they DON'T.

(Do they?)

Very interesting RBL, your story resonates with my own general understanding of the principles at work in this area. If you do not mind, I will elaborate. I mentioned Rupert Sheldrake in an earlier post and his research into morphogenetic fields. I suspect he is on the right track and that you are observing a common physical trait that is due to a linage linked to the Ramiro and Ermesinda bloodline.

I spent most of my working life in radio communications, one job involved satellite remote sensing data acquisition and processing. The tech involved processing visible and ir light em spectral and spacial resolution to determine the type and health of plants anywhere the satellite passed over. The processing allows for the inventorying of all plant types based on their reflected spectral resonance. I mention this as an example of a working application using the principle of bio-resonant fields. Sheldrake takes it a lot further and I am sure the intelligence/security systems are all over it, though the science is not in the public domain.

There is another aspect to your story that should be addressed and that is the reincarnation angle. Reincarnation is definitely a reality, but probably nothing like the common understanding. The doctrine of reincarnation and karma is a study in its own right, and I suggest it should not to be dismissed by ignoring the possibility.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but everything I have heard about Amit Goswami is that he is no better physicist than Michael Behe is a biochemist, both used their science (respectively, physics and biochemistry) to write pseudoscience literature.

The majority of physicists and astrophysicists considered Amit Goswami to be a quantum quack, with his Self-Aware Universe, listed under as Quantum Mysticism.

Sorry, but quantum mysticism is not real science, just as Behe's Irreducible Complexity is not real scientific theory in biology.

You may disagree with that part of his view, but that does not negate the fact that he is a bona-fide Quantum Physicist, who not only taught it for years, but wrote a textbook on the subject. It is the standard scientific approach that he utilized in working with the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment, so you have no argument as to negating the validity of the experiment. As for the rest of Goswami's content, you simply haven't matured to the level he is on to have any inkling of insight. He is a giant compared to you.

Behe IS a quack, and a poor comparison to Goswami, a brilliant physicist and teacher. Too bad you just don't get it. Those who criticize Goswami just have their noses pressed against the window pane, on the outside, looking in, and haven't a clue. To really get a glimpse into the world of Quantum Physics, one must have at least a certain amount of intuitive insight.

Now if you have some facts that negate the experiment I provided, both in video and peer-reviewed format, then please bring it to the table so we may examine what you consider to be a flawed experiment. Otherwise, just admit that even though you find it difficult to believe that the results of the experiment are what they are, one cannot refute the scientific facts: brains are capable of non-local communication as proved by the researchers in question, which include Professor Goswami, a man ahead of the curve, and which is the real reason he is considered a 'quantum quack' by those who still cling to the materialist paradigm IN SPITE of what Quantum Physics has revealed, choosing instead to be hypnotized by those dancing, alluring and safe cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but everything I have heard about Amit Goswami....*snip*.

Amit Goswami
Biography
Mini Bio (1)
Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is a retired professor from the theoretical physics department of the University of Oregon in Eugene, where he had served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science called "science within consciousness".

Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world. His two volume textbook for nonscientists, The Physicist's View of Nature traces the decline and rediscovery of the concept of God within science.

Goswami has also written many popular books based on his research on quantum physics and consciousness. In his seminal book, The Self-Aware Universe, he solved the quantum measurement problem elucidating the famous observer effect while paving the path to a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness.

Amit Goswami - Biography - IMDb

So once again, I pose the question (which to date no one here has answered): Where does your consciousness leave off and The Universe begin?

 

[godnotgod]

Then why bother linking to the paper as as response? Simple, you either hoped to bamboozle gnostic and me or you actually believed it was relevant, in which case it's you who failed to understand it.

I provided you with a brief synapses of the paper, a post that apparently pushed your panic button and now you are resorting to ad hominem to cover your base backside.

I demand nothing, only honesty.

The original question, dearie, has to do with consciousness beyond the brain, which gnostic refutes. I answered his query by posting both video and paper. The rest of your post is pure poppycock and fabrication.

BTW, that's 'synopsis', and not 'synapses':


syn·apse
ˈsinˌaps/
noun

1. a junction between two nerve cells, consisting of a minute gap across which impulses pass by diffusion of a neurotransmitter.

*****

syn·op·sis
səˈnäpsəs/
noun
noun: synopsis; plural noun: synopses

1. a brief summary or general survey of something.
   "a synopsis of the accident"
   synonyms: summary, summarization, précis, abstract, outline, digest, rundown, roundup, abridgment
   "the synopsis was so intriguing that I just had to buy the book"
   • an outline of the plot of a book, play, movie, or episode of a television show.

 

[godnotgod]

More ad hominem.

No, pure fluff, as in:

"You implied it by quoting the destruction of a tv set in response to gnostics post, then providing an irrelevant video and scientific paper as a rouse, in pretense of validating your nonsense"

If it is not pure fluff, then support these false claims with facts. Fact is, you're just spinning off make believe made up crap, clutching at straws in light of the facts I presented as demonstrated in the experiment on nonlocality. You're just sending up a smokescreen diversionary tactic finger pointing at me, without substance, to hide the fact that you just won't admit that you're just plain wrong. Brains are capable of non-local communication. Now what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, pure fluff, as in:

"You implied it by quoting the destruction of a tv set in response to gnostics post, then providing an irrelevant video and scientific paper as a rouse, in pretense of validating your nonsense"

If it is not pure fluff, then support these false claims with facts. Fact is, you're just spinning off make believe made up crap, clutching at straws in light of the facts I presented as demonstrated in the experiment on nonlocality. You're just sending up a smokescreen diversionary tactic finger pointing at me, without substance, to hide the fact that you just won't admit that you're just plain wrong. Brains are capable of non-local communication. Now what?

I feel for you gng, ChristineM is not interested in understanding what is being actually said to her, rather she relentlessly insists on misrepresenting what is said in order that she does not have to concede a genuine point, which results in much wasted time and thread bandwidth. Oh and btw, be careful on correcting her poor spelling, that's a no no...

 

[gnostic]

You may disagree with that part of his view, but that does not negate the fact that he is a bona-fide Quantum Physicist, who not only taught it for years, but wrote a textbook on the subject.

So what.

Michael Behe is a qualified biochemist and professor at his university too. That doesn't mean his paper on Irreducible Complexity is "scientific". And it doesn't mean Behe's direct involvement with Discovery Institute and their Intelligent Design are not pseudoscience.

Being a quantum physicist and professor doesn't give him a free pass, where everything he write are automatically elevated to "scientific theory". Science don't work that way.

And his books on The Self-Aware Universe, Quantum Creativity and The Book of Everything aren't quantum physics, rather they are pseudoscience mysticism.

They are like those on the popular science shelves of bookstores that include all sorts of pseudoscience rubbish, masquerading as science, but books written to make quick cash from the scientific illiterates.

That you would keep writing "renowned quantum physicist" just show how really desperate you are to win already lost argument. Goswami may be a physicist, but writing books like those, also make him a quack.

 

[ChristineM]

The original question, dearie, has to do with consciousness beyond the brain, which gnostic refutes. I answered his query by posting both video and paper. The rest of your post is pure poppycock and fabrication.

BTW, that's 'synopsis', and not 'synapses':


syn·apse
ˈsinˌaps/
noun

1. a junction between two nerve cells, consisting of a minute gap across which impulses pass by diffusion of a neurotransmitter.

*****

syn·op·sis
səˈnäpsəs/
noun
noun: synopsis; plural noun: synopses

1. a brief summary or general survey of something.
   "a synopsis of the accident"
   synonyms: summary, summarization, précis, abstract, outline, digest, rundown, roundup, abridgment
   "the synopsis was so intriguing that I just had to buy the book"
   • an outline of the plot of a book, play, movie, or episode of a television show.

Yes dreary, it seems you ignored my brief summary.

And still you have not attempted to explain wtf it has to do with a tv set.

 

[ChristineM]

No, pure fluff, as in:

"You implied it by quoting the destruction of a tv set in response to gnostics post, then providing an irrelevant video and scientific paper as a rouse, in pretense of validating your nonsense"

If it is not pure fluff, then support these false claims with facts. Fact is, you're just spinning off make believe made up crap, clutching at straws in light of the facts I presented as demonstrated in the experiment on nonlocality. You're just sending up a smokescreen diversionary tactic finger pointing at me, without substance, to hide the fact that you just won't admit that you're just plain wrong. Brains are capable of non-local communication. Now what?

That is exactly what happened and it seems you don't have the nuts to admit to your own posts

A Universe from Nothing?

A Universe from Nothing?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes dreary, it seems you ignored my brief summary.

And still you have not attempted to explain wtf it has to do with a tv set.

Sorry, but the metaphor/analogy speaks for itself. If you don't get it, go back and try. Maybe it will dawn on you.

 

[godnotgod]

That is exactly what happened and it seems you don't have the nuts to admit to your own posts

A Universe from Nothing?

A Universe from Nothing?

Bottom line: the experiment (along with subsequent others) in question proves nonlocality of the brain, in response to gnositc's protest that consciousness does not exist outside the brain. Protest addressed; Story end. Anything else? C:\___________

 

[ChristineM]

Bottom line: the experiment (along with subsequent others) in question proves nonlocality of the brain, in response to gnositc's protest that consciousness does not exist outside the brain. Protest addressed; Story end. Anything else? C:\___________

So no tv signals then, thanks for being so honest

 

[godnotgod]

So no tv signals then, thanks for being so honest

LIKE TV signals, which do not originate INSIDE the TV set, consciousness does not necessarily originate within the brain, as Emergent Theory tries to implicate. Damage the TV set, and signal is absent or compromised, just as the brain's ability for consciousness also is absent or compromised when damaged. Get it?

 

[ChristineM]

LIKE TV signals, which do not originate INSIDE the TV set, consciousness does not necessarily originate within the brain, as Emergent Theory tries to implicate. Damage the TV set, and signal is absent or compromised, just as the brain's ability for consciousness also is absent or compromised when damaged. Get it?

Methinks you have things assuppards, consciousness originates in the brain, the experiment suggests it may be transmitted to ANOTHER brain.

Damage a brick wall it becomes a damaged brick wall... Get it?

 

[Britedream]

Interesting view:

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LIKE TV signals, which do not originate INSIDE the TV set, consciousness does not necessarily originate within the brain, as Emergent Theory tries to implicate. Damage the TV set, and signal is absent or compromised, just as the brain's ability for consciousness also is absent or compromised when damaged. Get it?

Perhaps Christine could provide a quick synopsis explaining how damaged synapses would compromise the brain's consciousness...

 

[gnostic]

LIKE TV signals, which do not originate INSIDE the TV set, consciousness does not necessarily originate within the brain, as Emergent Theory tries to implicate. Damage the TV set, and signal is absent or compromised, just as the brain's ability for consciousness also is absent or compromised when damaged. Get it?

You and Guy got the whole tv analogy all wrong. The TV set is not consciousness, it is the antenna.

TV sets received tv signals from broadcasters, they themselves (tv sets) don't transmit the signals.

And it is the antenna that receives the signal, whether that antenna be built-in to tv or tv is connected to aerial antenna via cable.

As comparison to the brain, the antenna would be like the eyes and ears connected to brain via the nerves, while the TV set itself is like the brain that process the visual and sound that human can understand.

Just as the antenna capture the signal from transmission of the broadcaster, it is the antenna that conscious of the signal, not the TV itself.

Likewise, it is the eyes and ears that make us aware (hence the conscious parts) of the visual and audio, while the brain process what we see or hear.

Damage the tv, and it will not recognise or process the signal received from its antenna. That would be like a person who is brain damaged, are unaware what they can still see or hear.

But if you were to damage the antenna or disconnect it, then it would be like blinding a person or cause deafness.

Since Ben worked with radar and radio communication, he should understand what I am saying about the roles of antenna and tv.

It is not tv itself that receive the tv signal, but the antenna. The antenna is what provide the interface for the tv. So the antenna acts like the eyes and ears of a person, while tv process the signal it get from the antenna, just like the way human brain process the the visual and audio from our eyes and ears.

I don't think either you or Guy understand the tv analogy , because you don't understand the technology.

 

[godnotgod]

You and Guy got the whole tv analogy all wrong. The TV set is not consciousness, it is the antenna.

TV sets received tv signals from broadcasters, they themselves (tv sets) don't transmit the signals.

And it is the antenna that receives the signal, whether that antenna be built-in to tv or tv is connected to aerial antenna via cable.

As comparison to the brain, the antenna would be like the eyes and ears connected to brain via the nerves, while the TV set itself is like the brain that process the visual and sound that human can understand.

Just as the antenna capture the signal from transmission of the broadcaster, it is the antenna that conscious of the signal, not the TV itself.

Likewise, it is the eyes and ears that make us aware (hence the conscious parts) of the visual and audio, while the brain process what we see or hear.

Damage the tv, and it will not recognise or process the signal received from its antenna. That would be like a person who is brain damaged, are unaware what they can still see or hear.

But if you were to damage the antenna or disconnect it, then it would be like blinding a person or cause deafness.

Since Ben worked with radar and radio communication, he should understand what I am saying about the roles of antenna and tv.

It is not tv itself that receive the tv signal, but the antenna. The antenna is what provide the interface for the tv. So the antenna acts like the eyes and ears of a person, while tv process the signal it get from the antenna, just like the way human brain process the the visual and audio from our eyes and ears.

I don't think either you or Guy understand the tv analogy , because you don't understand the technology.

You are missing the point, which is simply that consciousness may not originate from within the brain, as you believe, and may actually originate from outside the brain, as TV signals originate from outside the TV set, and not from within the TV set. The experiment I posted proves the brain is capable of nonlocal communication with other brains.