If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding

[Ben Dhyan]

Perhaps this research has potential, unfortunately Dr Bryan has passed on. Though I am sure there is follow on research.

Conscious Control of an Electron | Bryan | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Conscious Control of an Electron​

Ronald Bryan

Abstract​

I consider the possibility that the electron, not a human observer, precipitates the collapse of the electron's wavefunction when it is detected. This would seem to endow the electronic wavefunction with an elementary consciousness. If so, then perhaps a human consciousness could interact with the electronic consciousness to flip its spin. I propose an experiment to test this possibility, namely one in which the electron is the single valence electron of a magnesium ion immersed in a 50-gauss magnetic field. A dye laser shines on the ion and is tuned to bring about laser induced fluorescence (LIF) at a wavelength of 280 nm. The LIF is so strong that if the ion were shining in the visible range, it could be seen with the naked eye. Instead it is shining in the near ultra-violet, and a photomultiplier is used to detect the light. If a person can now lower the electron's energy minutely, then this will flip the electron's spin and the LIF will cease. If the person can succeed in flipping the electron's spin once again by raising its energy, then LIF is restored. By initiating LIF for long and short periods, such a person could send a lengthy International Morse Code message which could be read by anyone observing the ion’s output. We would see if a person succeeding in this task could send a message from increasingly distant points. If so, then the person's control could not be mediated by any fields currently known to physicists: electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational. We would hypothesize a new kind of controlling field which does not weaken with distance, nor be attenuated by obstructions. Such a field might mediate distant healing and remote viewing. It might be identified with Chinese qi. We hypothesize that this conjectured field propagates in higher dimensional space-time to avoid obstructions, and converges on the target to avoid weakening. In this space, the field might travel faster than light does in the lower four dimensions of space and time.

 

[Nakosis]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

The article title is not very descriptive. To avoid TL;DR, focus on the CIA review and hopefully read it. What he said "CIA program" is not correct, but what the CIA was involved with was deciding whether or not there was something real and if it was of use to gather intelligence. The report itself is to me a classic example of what is needed when examining findings such as they did. The key finding is:
View attachment 82541

The detail: He started with this perspective:

I always came back to the same conclusion. Humans could rationalize that life is meaningful to us, but in the grand scheme of things, there was no meaning. The people who told themselves there were just comforting themselves, I thought. I believed science was moving us beyond religion and superstitions about life after death.

But then: Scientific proof convinced me that psychic phenomena is real

I looked at documents from a CIA program where people were asked to send their thoughts — using just their minds — to others. The program concluded that there was a "statistically significant" success in doing this.
...
I've come to believe in non-local consciousness, or consciousness that originates outside our physical bodies and outside our brains. To me, this is the most scientifically sound explanation.

I often think about what skeptics would say. I used to be one of them. There's a tendency to try to push aside anomalies that don't fit into our understanding of the world, just the way I did with anecdotes about the unexplainable.
...
I believe there is something spiritual in the universe, beyond our typical senses. I don't choose to believe that because it's comforting, but because that's where the scientific evidence has pointed me.
...
But one thing I feel certain about is that there's more for science to discover.

Until they have something more empirical, it's not enough to change my understanding.
This is not "proof", it is just a statistical anomaly.

 

[sun rise]

Until they have something more empirical, it's not enough to change my understanding.
This is not "proof", it is just a statistical anomaly.

Fair enough. The study is in the extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof arena.

 

[FredVB]

There were studies on effective prayer. Are these studies different? God may be assumed to be answering them. But if it is not God, that does not remove God being the explanation for all things known to exist, which had a beginning, and nothing else explaining how their existence was brought about. God is not local. Our own perceptions are not like those of God, we are limited with those. I am sure a soul we would have does not though occupy a space like a body of matter will.

 

[sun rise]

There were studies on effective prayer. Are these studies different? God may be assumed to be answering them. But if it is not God, that does not remove God being the explanation for all things known to exist, which had a beginning, and nothing else explaining how their existence was brought about. God is not local. Our own perceptions are not like those of God, we are limited with those. I am sure a soul we would have does not though occupy a space like a body of matter will.

That's a different topic.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

To me in rational logic and through the faith of Abraham real consciousness is from created, transformed, and transfigured intelligence and the mind of God In the person of Jesus as the Christ in all mankind becoming the image of the creator God for the Father.

To me rationally and in logic, What’s always been alive before creation was ever created was even created is the intelligence that manifests without failure.

In rational logic and through faith, God exist as three separate persons in being and equal in power, and together as one God in being to deliver created life, from the Father transformed life from the Son and transfigured life from the Holy Spirit, life eternal.

In logic, The Trinity of the Godhead leads to the trinity of the body, where the Father creates and the Son transforms, and the Holy Spirit glorifies and transfigures all mankind united together as a one in being into the image of the creator God for all mankind.

To me and logic, It’s referred to as the Word and basically it is the intelligence of creation as a spirit.

To me and logic, the “RI” real intelligence is what becomes and is the intelligence that will never fail in all of creation and no artificial intelligence “AI” is allowed.

For God to not be alone, is to create flesh, and have it become immortal in the intelligence of creation to become again transfigured into the image of the creator God for the Father to have love.

If the logic follows, God gave us the choice, Adam and Eve chose it, we all would’ve done the same thing and all mankind becomes eternal fulfilled love.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

Legitimate good recent academic research based on objective verifiable evidence would be sufficient to change my mind,

The article title is not very descriptive. To avoid TL;DR, focus on the CIA review and hopefully read it. What he said "CIA program" is not correct, but what the CIA was involved with was deciding whether or not there was something real and if it was of use to gather intelligence. The report itself is to me a classic example of what is needed when examining findings such as they did. The key finding is:
View attachment 82541

The detail: He started with this perspective:

I always came back to the same conclusion. Humans could rationalize that life is meaningful to us, but in the grand scheme of things, there was no meaning. The people who told themselves there were just comforting themselves, I thought. I believed science was moving us beyond religion and superstitions about life after death.

But then: Scientific proof convinced me that psychic phenomena is real

No scientific evidence to support this

I looked at documents from a CIA program where people were asked to send their thoughts — using just their minds — to others. The program concluded that there was a "statistically significant" success in doing this.

This is bogus. Need good reference.

...
I've come to believe in non-local consciousness, or consciousness that originates outside our physical bodies and outside our brains.

Yes this is a subjective belief.

To me, this is the most scientifically sound explanation.

Science cannot remotely falsify anything outside the physical.

I often think about what skeptics would say. I used to be one of them. There's a tendency to try to push aside anomalies that don't fit into our understanding of the world, just the way I did with anecdotes about the unexplainable.

As long as it is a physical phenomena anomalies are not a problem, but anecdotes about the unexplainable. are definitely unexplainable,

...
I believe there is something spiritual in the universe, beyond our typical senses. I don't choose to believe that because it's comforting, but because that's where the scientific evidence has pointed me.

OK this is your belief. Scientific evidence cannot point without objective verifiable evidence.

...
But one thing I feel certain about is that there's more for science to discover.

Obvious as the sky is Carolina blue on the4th 0fJuly at noon. This does not support your argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough. The study is in the extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof arena.

. . . which is lacking. Science does not prove anything.

 

[sun rise]

Legitimate good recent academic research based on objective verifiable evidence would be sufficient to change my mind,

I'm all for more trials based on the findings from the CIA paper that there is a "statistically significant" effect but that there is no proven causal relationship.

This is bogus. Need good reference.

What exactly is bogus about the CIA paper? Can you site specific issues with the reviewers background or the evidence they considered?

To focus a bit more - the first question was whether or not the evidence was statistically significant. If you object to the conclusion, what's your objections to the methodology of the review? By dismissing the CIA report out of hand, you are among other things, dismissing Dr. Jessica Utts, a Professor of Statistics at the University of California/Davis and Dr. Lincoln Moses, an Emeritus Professor at Stanford University who "provided statistical advice" and Dr. Mumford holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Georgia. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association's Division 5, Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm all for more trials based on the findings from the CIA paper that there is a "statistically significant" effect but that there is no proven causal relationship.

What exactly is bogus about the CIA paper? Can you site specific issues with the reviewers background or the evidence they considered?

I have no specific reference for the whole paper At this point an over interpretation of confidence in the paper is highly questionable.

To focus a bit more - the first question was whether or not the evidence was statistically significant. If you object to the conclusion, what's your objections to the methodology of the review? By dismissing the CIA report out of hand, you are among other things, dismissing Dr. Jessica Utts, a Professor of Statistics at the University of California/Davis and Dr. Lincoln Moses, an Emeritus Professor at Stanford University who "provided statistical advice" and Dr. Mumford holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Georgia. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association's Division 5, Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics.

Statistical significance is a serious question.

 

[Tomef]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

The article title is not very descriptive. To avoid TL;DR, focus on the CIA review and hopefully read it. What he said "CIA program" is not correct, but what the CIA was involved with was deciding whether or not there was something real and if it was of use to gather intelligence. The report itself is to me a classic example of what is needed when examining findings such as they did. The key finding is:
View attachment 82541

The detail: He started with this perspective:

I always came back to the same conclusion. Humans could rationalize that life is meaningful to us, but in the grand scheme of things, there was no meaning. The people who told themselves there were just comforting themselves, I thought. I believed science was moving us beyond religion and superstitions about life after death.

But then: Scientific proof convinced me that psychic phenomena is real

I looked at documents from a CIA program where people were asked to send their thoughts — using just their minds — to others. The program concluded that there was a "statistically significant" success in doing this.
...
I've come to believe in non-local consciousness, or consciousness that originates outside our physical bodies and outside our brains. To me, this is the most scientifically sound explanation.

I often think about what skeptics would say. I used to be one of them. There's a tendency to try to push aside anomalies that don't fit into our understanding of the world, just the way I did with anecdotes about the unexplainable.
...
I believe there is something spiritual in the universe, beyond our typical senses. I don't choose to believe that because it's comforting, but because that's where the scientific evidence has pointed me.
...
But one thing I feel certain about is that there's more for science to discover.

Panpsychism a possible contender mebbe.

 

[sun rise]

I have no specific reference for the whole paper At this point an over interpretation of confidence in the paper is highly questionable.

I should have made the paper reference more obvious. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf

 

[shunyadragon]

I should have made the paper reference more obvious. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf

It will take a little time to review this. Be back soon.

 

[shunyadragon]

Panpsychism a possible contender mebbe.

Mebbe, but not maybe. This view requires anthropomorphic interpretations of the physical which is lacking in objective evidence.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Non-local consciousness is the idea that consciousness is not limited to specific points in space or time. Some say that nonlocal consciousness is a common feature of consciousness and spiritual experience.

To me the logic follows, The first spirit consciousness is manifested from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being. The first, failed and corrupt spirit manifested is through choice and powered by the sun and is the manifestation from the spirit through flesh for the soul of the being in the Body.

In genetics, a hypostatic gene is a gene whose phenotype is altered by the expression of an allele at a separate locus. 75. The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person.

Logically, the Non-local conscience is manifested from, through and for. Logically, from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being in the Body, logically. Truthfully, logically we see the story never changes, yet becomes from created becoming again united in being.

And to me in logic and fulfilled faith, we become The fulfilled creation Universal Order Powered Creation Will from the Power of the Holy Spirit being and the spirit will becomes fulfilled with no chance of failure and void of internal temptations and void of any chance of failure and undefiled becoming statically unfailing, nature becoming unfailing and able yet dynamically to love only, and will be Powered by The Holy Spirit through The Son of God eternally manifesting the becoming of immortality and incorruptibility becoming again glorified transfigured life eternal, logically and rationally and faithfully.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding ​

I would then understand that science now also understands that non-local conscience is real.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Classic, Ben, someone with true, superior virtue acts naturally and spontaneously, without consciously thinking about or striving to be virtuous.

So true and in your same right off the cuff and to your spot on, spontaneous and virtuous answer, Ben Dhyan, thanks, you wow! all, when you say, "I would then understand that science now also understands that non-local conscience is real."

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

Non-local consciousness is the idea that consciousness is not limited to specific points in space or time. Some say that nonlocal consciousness is a common feature of consciousness and spiritual experience.

I believe non-local consciousness refers to "beliefs" that consciousness is property and may refer to a "Source" outside human consciousness,

To me the logic follows, The first spirit consciousness is manifested from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being. The first, failed and corrupt spirit manifested is through choice and powered by the sun and is the manifestation from the spirit through flesh for the soul of the being in the Body.

Again this is not logic itself, but your use of circular logic to justify your religious beliefs. You have a tendency to repeat the same thing in post after post.

 

[shunyadragon]

If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding ​

I would then understand that science now also understands that non-local conscience is real.

No, it remains an unverifiable "belief."

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,


"I believe non-local consciousness refers to "beliefs" that consciousness is property and may refer to a "Source" outside human consciousness,"
Your statement here is so true in the logic I see as:
To me in logic the outside source is the manifested new being in the fulfilled intelligence of creation becoming unfailing.

Thanks again Shunyadragon, your post suggest thought beyond the normal sciences of earth to me and to me seems what is required to understand the logic of the Becoming Again Kingdom.

To me logically and faithfully, the outside ource you may be referring to is the New Spirit becoming through Jesus as The Christ in all mankind. From the cross Jesus leaves the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Will of The Father and the logical and rational and real intelligence of Creation for all to share as one in being, in logic and rationality and through the Faith of Abraham.

If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding​

to me is an exercise in logic following the Faith of Abraham and The Father of Faith using only logic and rationale, and in determining fulfilled creation that to me the weak and limited finite disciplines of poor failed mortal earth can never explain. To me logic can explain salvation, becoming again, so even a child can understand truthfully. To me in logic, I can see the truth better again using only logic which follows the created to the becoming in the intelligence of fulfilled creation order, to me. Thanks again for any input for resolution.

Peace always,
Stephen