10 Scientific Studies Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World

Maybe like this?

I would have to say, well played sir, well played.

Dear Lyn,

I do appreciate your use of the velvet hammer as opposed to this!

^{Contrary to conjectures expressed, I am neither a masochist nor a dumb blonde. Peace, love and Hare Krishna}

That song has always left me agreeing with Rose and Valery (though I don't feel compelled to scream it from the gallery), 'Maxwell must go free'.

.

It seems pretty obvious by the end that someone is using Maxwell's own hammer to frame him (not that kind of framing, the other kind). How in the world would Maxwell, standing before the judge, about to be sentenced, possibly be able to, at the same time be sneaking up behind the judge to hit him with the hammer.

.

I suspect Sgt. Pepper, who purportedly had access to the evidence locker, where Maxwell's Silver Hammer should have been safely in custody.

I'm done cutting wood, and I think I may have come up with the crux of the problem, in regard to this thread.

I can appreciate the fact that while you acknowledge your belief that all religion is based in fantasy and delusion, you think that Buddhism is a good one, because it has done good. I'm guessing that you use some sort of scale to judge the world's religions from good to bad...and from that, the people that practice them.

I also like Hinduism, which has as it's primary focus, varying states of consciousness...which, according to you, would be equally delusional, but maybe good.

Given that, I think that if we were to admit that there is a possibility of consciousness being separate from our regular blood and guts, and despite the evidence that that might be the case; admitting the possibility, would open the door to lending credence to religious thought and belief systems having merit...and that is simply unacceptable.

Since there is such an overlap between consciousness and religion, it may be that we will never be able to study consciousness objectively. But, like you said, PEAR did a good job of it....right before they were shot down as fringe lunatics.

I gave that stuff up after my Haight Ashbury days. Now in retirement the only energy I want is that needed to lift a 12 oz bottle/can, frequency is that of a good "oldies" FM station and vibration is my massage chair where I lift the 12 ouncer's. Frequency is also how many times I have to make a pit stop on the way to the refrigerator for another cold one.

Telsa to most of use here at CR4 is a guy who made a coil. Don't slander his name with this 19th century saint Ramakrishna stuff.

Good Luck, Old Salt

That is why it is referred to as 'the difficult problem of consciousness'. The very least of the problems about its study are vexing, for example, how does one intentionally devise an experiment that is sufficiently removed from consciousness to insure objectivity?....and that is hardly even on the map as far as difficult problems are concerned.

You wrote, "how does one intentionally devise an experiment that is sufficiently removed from consciousness to insure objectivity?"

I can only guess that this is where attorneys and politicians come in as lab experiments?

I think those test subjects would probably be a good choice where the requirement would be for a total lack of: morality, ethics, net positive value, rational budgeting, useful insight, or the ability to utter consecutive truths...They seem conscious, though perhaps they are experiencing a completely different world.

"In today's Bogus News Journal, lead scientists have stated that all major institutes will begin using lawyers instead of lab rats for esperiments. The reason for the shift is threefold:

"1) There are more lawyers than there are rats.

"2) The researchers do not get emotionally attached to the lawyers like they do to the rats.

"3) There are some things a rat just won't do.

What consciousness and quantum mechanics have in common is that nobody really understands either one. It doesn't necessarily mean that the two are related.

Well, that may not be quite true.

There was a variant of the double slit experiment that cleverly tested for wave collapse in a non-causual manner.

The double slit experiment shows us that the act of observing an electron collapses the wave function into a tangible particle.

I wrote the following on this subject about a year and a half ago that seems to elude to consciousness impacting matter…

The closest I know of with mixing consciousness with science is in quantum physics with the double slit experiment and it derivatives where particles exhibit bot wave and particle attributes.

Most fascinating is the act of observing a single photon changes the results of the experiment in a time-retro way.

One experiment uses a beam splitter (50%) and a laser to emit a single photon. One path is of the splitter is longer than the other. If the only detector employed is at the target we see an interference pattern, which tells us the single photon appears to travel through both slits, not as a particle, but a wave.

However, when you place detectors just before the slits the same experiment yields no interference pattern, just a single photon goes through only one of the two slits.

It gets even screwier. The next experiment imparts a spin on the photon just before the two slits (after it has already passed through the beam splitter). The left slit device imparts a spin in one direction and the other slit imparts the spin in the opposite direction. This way we can tell which slit the photon takes by virtue of detecting its spin.

The only detector is at the target screen. What do we get? No interference pattern. only photons with a spin that represents which slit it passed through.

Now the real twist. If another device is placed on the target side of the slits (just before the target) that undoes the spin on one slit so that it matches the spin of the other slit and we turn that device on, we get an interference pattern again!

In the final experiment we have tagged each photon with a unique spin depending on which slit it enters and after it passes through the slits we then scramble that tagging so that it is impossible to determine the particle path, undoing what we did before the slits.

The question is how does a change in the photon's spin after it has passed through the slits affect the results on the target (presence of an interference pattern or not).

The spooky action here is that even though we have changed the photon spin behavior after history was already written (either a particle enters through one of the slits or a wave passes through both slits) we seem to have rewritten history.

Remember that all of these changes to the photon also take place after it has already passed through the beam splitter. If the photon passed through the beam splitter as a wave, then that wave exits in both directions. If it passes as a photon (particle), then it can only take one path, as proven by its spin.

The photon can not "know" which behavior to take on (wave or particle) when it enters the beam splitter because the tagging has not yet been performed and the scrambling of the tagging has not been done or even if it will be performed.

It is as if there is some temporal link between past and present that creates a paradox.

I believe the rendition you describe and those similar are referred to as quantum eraser experiments.

The idea that things can be measured partially is fascinating and yet another good reminder that intuition can be completely in the wrong.

I'll have to admit QM makes no sense to me. How could it possibly be that way. Maybe some day someone will see the rest of the picture and it will fall together.

Maybe we are living in a computer simulation and QM is a software bug!

or a clever distraction...

It seems now that instead of talking about "collapse of the wavefunction by an observer", the idea is "decoherence" or interaction with the environment. This would require something as simple as a Ag+ ion and have nothing to do with consciousness.

The "quantum eraser" doesn't seem so odd when you consider light an electromagnetic wave. Polarizing the light (photon spin) in opposite directions for each slit would destroy the interference and repolarizing one slit to make them match would reestablish the interference pattern. So if you go back to Maxwell and forget about photons, it isn't a puzzle.

The puzzle, as always, is how can a spread out wave have a quantized amount of energy and concentrate it on a single Ag+ ion or photosensitive cell, and thus create an interference pattern one photon at a time.

A better link than your other one on black holes, but have you considered that your source is flawed.

A website that promotes ads for psychic readings, religion and dating sexy Thai women should NOT be considered a reliable source for impartial scientific information.

One outta three ain't bad....

How is a drunken shortstop like the Ancient Mariner?

I have seen "Free Energy" somewhere in the text.

Thats all said!

I'd agree. As you can see from the responses, a lot of people simply don't want to hear about these things, despite the fact that prayer and meditation have been used for thousands of years, with well documented results.

Science is scared of things it can't explain:

http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientific-experiments-prove-thoughts-intentions-can-alter-physical-reality/

The power of prayer has been documented also, but the mechanism can't be easily explained.

http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm

There are real studies though:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/

To a point.

When science begins to overlap into areas that can't be logically explained, like in my links, many scientists tend to react like some of our members. New Age crap!!!

There is a tendency to run from things that don't fit conventional scientific wisdom, regardless of how long they have been successfully employed.

http://www.healthy.net/Health/Article/Scientific_Evidence_in_Support_of_Acupuncture_and_Meridian_Theory_I_Introduction/1087

Like the rice experiment in the link, regardless of how many times it's repeated, lots of "scientists" will insist that one sample was contaminated.

Don't make me get into AGW, as proof of scientific irrationality.

You have proven yourself irrational before, and now again with this statement,

"Don't make me get into AGW, as proof of scientific irrationality."

You can't prove anything when it comes to AGW. You can speculate and quote articles that parrot your point of view. Proof? Not by miles!

AGW is an example of scientists, and others, attempting to "will" something into existence, and it's not working. So I guess it could be offered as evidence that consciousness cannot alter the physical world.

I am not sure about this! By the time we are having hot discussions about AGW we might have introduced a component of "conciousness altering the physical world" and created heat where there was none before!

I think we are going in circles here!

That would be crop circles?

I hate to participate at such illogical discussions but I am obliged to make you understand why your example is not the right one.

The information travels along nerves as en electric pulse. At the connection between two neurons (synapses) it jumps as molecules (acetilcohlin if I am not wrong) from one extremity to the other. These changes the electric potential and generates a new pulse in the connected neuron. This transmission is not by continuity but by contiguity.

The long connections (axons) are embedded in a kind of insulation so that if a needle is some where in the neighborhood the electric charge can be deviated and the signal intensity can be modified. For instance if the signal is a "pain signal" a lower intensity will lead to less pain.

This is NOT the only "information" which travels in our body and the presence of a needle some where can have an influence for instance in a control-loop feed-back (which can be positive or negative as effect) and help to heal a disease.

This was developed by Chinese by a cut and try approach over centuries. Now when the process was explained by physics and biological phenomenon it is accepted and used in the west as well on a large basis. In fact you do not know how many died till the knowledge reached the right level!

Physicians are not afraid but as long as they do not understand they fear to do it wrong and harm the patient.

A short time ago it was thought that only neurons are the active cells in the brain now it is more and more accepted that the rest of the tissue is even more active in several directions. This is evolution of knowledge.

If you want as is appears to believe in the power of thought its up to you but you will not convince thinking people if there is no proof by SERIOUS experiments which have been DUPLICATED by other labs with equivalent results.

It is amazing how often illogical themes are discussed with arguments without any scientific basis. I would very much appreciate to see such an intense activity for other more technical and nearer to the CR4 activity themes but for those the effort is most of time to have a good search on Google!

That link goes back to an article in 1996, and before western medicine began to understand and accept acupuncture, it was scoffed at as nonsense.

The article continues into Meridian theory and Chi. I honestly haven't kept up with western medicine's treatment of these concepts. Has that been accepted as well?

Even if certain things are not understood, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to dismiss them.

http://www.bergen.com/health_beauty/health/Channeling_Chi_Acupuncture_advantages_complement_Western_medicine.html

"When science begins to overlap into areas that can't be logically explained…"

That would seem to be M-Theory. :-)

Okay.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

So 30 years of research with the PEAR project at Princeton, is heresy, because we don't know the "why", correct?

They used the scientific method; the only thing that's missing is a formula to explain it....and that sends "would be" peers, running for the hills. Any conversation that attempts to deal with consciousness as independent from the physical brain, scares the hell out of them.

For sure, not everyone is cut out to explore quantum physics and consciousness...it can get pretty strange.

I can't speak to that specific research, but the first question that comes to mind is if this is another case of pathological science like N-rays or Cold Fusion.

I am not saying that it is, but it when something fulfills Langmuir's definitions:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

… then it most likely is pathological science.

I don't know about Langmuir, but the PEAR link is pretty interesting. They took great measures to insure that the experiments followed scientific method.

That's not to say that I blame people that insist on concrete, tangible answers, from dismissing it. Things that can't be explained by what we already know, are frustrating.

One of the things that bugged people about Tesla, was his lack of book knowledge, and knack for yanking ideas out of the ether.

I didn't realize being 'bugged...about Tesla' was that common. I realize that given a large enough audience everyone will eventually amass a group of detractors (some much more efficiently than others, some more deservedly than others as well), but I haven't heard anything notable about groups of Tesla-haters.

.

Related to the PEAR experiment, this seems like a very professional effort with respect to almost all the requirements of good science. I'm not sure the hypothesis they seem to be testing qualifies as a good scientific hypothesis.

.

PEAR seems to be suggesting that a statement of the type, 'A phenomena of correlation exists between intention of people nearby, and the output of random number generators in the vicinity' is a reasonable hypothesis that meaningfully assists in the explanation of a correlation between intention of nearby people and the output random number generators.

.

To me that doesn't meet the requirements of a good scientific hypothesis. It is merely a verification that the phenomena exists. It doesn't verify much at all in the way of direct causality. It doesn't clarify anything in the way of mechanism of influence.

.

The testing and results are riddled with what one could call amorphous un-probe-ability.

.

How much intention was it subject to? What was the intensity of this intention? What is the usual effectiveness of such intention? What specific calibrations has this particular intention wielder been subject to immediately before and after such tests?

.

The results are described as very small (as in you might notice if comparing sets or 10,000 or more heads/tails coin flips), spread uniformly over the entire distribution of results, and not in a particular direction.

.

There is also some self-inconsistency in they way they describe the experimental set up: if the hypothesis is true (as non-utilitarian as it may otherwise be) then the shielding of the machine cannot be completely effective. If the shielding were completely effective then nothing, mind tricks or otherwise should be able to infiltrate to affect the machine. A more useful thing to look for would be shielding that actually does shield the machine from the minute effects.

.

The correlation is indeed curious, and PEAR seems to have done a very good job of thoroughly documenting the existence of this faint phenomena. I'm not sure it necessarily provides much proof about 'intention' being a direct cause. It could just as well be 'invisioning', hoping', 'obeisance', 'rooting', 'disbelief' (which would account for some of the 'beginners luck' described), or any number of other things not all of which might be from the test subjects head.

but I haven't heard anything notable about groups of Tesla-haters.

Really?

"Tesla earned a spot among the great minds of the early electrical era, but, despite his genius, he ended up ostracized from the science community and died impoverished."

The hatred and jealousy toward Tesla is pretty well documented. The smear campaigns were also quite successful.

Here's a really quick history; there's lots more on the web.

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/12/nikola-teslas-life-in-under-3-minutes/#!AH0AC

You should contact them with your thoughts on the results being something other than focused intent.

Interestingly, it gets stranger. There are other documented studies that involve "focused intent", in the form of prayer. Quite intriguing.

http://onlinesurgicaltechniciancourses.com/2010/25-intriguing-scientific-studies-about-faith-prayer-and-healing/

It seems odd, and maybe scary; but then, consider the fact that we prescribe antidepressants almost to the point of being an epidemic, and we don't know what causes depression, nor how the prescribed drugs work.

http://www.webmd.com/depression/how-different-antidepressants-work

"In fact, most drug companies will freely admit they don't really know how these drugs work in treating depression. For example, recent research show that despite their name SSRIs, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, may actually work by affecting levels of glutamate, not serotonin."

http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/dlp/treating-depression/depression-medication-drugs-how-it-works/

This is a pretty interesting and balanced perspective. It is actually a link found within the second link you provided above.

.

Here is the concluding sentence: '...Reflecting a recent shift toward delegitimizing studies of intercessory prayer, recent commentators in the medical literature concluded: "We do not need science to validate our spiritual beliefs, as we would never use faith to validate our scientific data."...'

One point in scientific experiments is repeatability, other groups should be able to set up a copy of your experiment and get similar results.

Have other groups been able to reproduce the results of your experiments? Have you been able to repeat earlier experiments and get the same result? If test group A scores a 90% success rate, and test group B scores a 30% success rate, can you bring both groups in for a second round and have the same results, group A does well, group B does poorly? If so, have you explored the differences between groups A and B to try and determine factors that would make one group better at the tests than the other?

It'd be interested in seeing what the MRI scans of persons succeeding at influencing the random number generator look like when compared to scans of persons trying and failing to influence the RNG, as well as scans of persons at rest.

There are things we can measure, and often those can be used to quantify things we cannot directly measure.

Even something as common as an old 'swing needle' electrical multimeter can only measure one thing directly, the current through the meter coil, but by placing other components around it, we can make that curent proportional to something we cannot measure directly, like the voltage drop across two points, or the resistance of a network.

Measure what we can, correlate those measurements to the results, and see if any patterns develop that let us indirectly measure or detect the 'psychic force.'

Good question.

The strength of our conclusions rests largely on a well-designed methodol-ogy and replication of our findings. Although our results did not replicate the findings reported by Jahn and his colleagues in normal subjects (Jahn et al.,1987a, 1997), they support their claims that intentionality can alter the output of a random event generator. Furthermore, our findings suggest that patients with frontal lobe lesions may serve as a good model for future studies of the effects of consciousness on random physical events.

I don't think they used MRIs during testing, but still interesting.

More to come:

http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/owscly09.pdf

Which is the UNCERTAINTY of each experiment ?

The experiment result can be biased by an unknown variable which was neglected when the experiment was defined.

From all times man dreamed about mind power from the most ancient tales and myths what some do today is to continue this historical trend.

That Princeton follows such a research is quite normal but this does not mean that results are convincing. Historically speaking several times scholars defended ideas which were proved false years later when knowledge allowed a better analysis.

The experiment result can be biased by an unknown variable which was neglected when the experiment was defined.

You just described a possibility that exists with every experiment ever performed by mankind.

The links in post 50 ran of thousands of tests. How many is enough? Millions? Trillions?

Based on your comment, there are no valid experiments, because unknown variables are, well, unknown.

(PLOS One) Why Most Published Research Findings are False

Also, the 2012 Ig-nobel Prize for Neuroscience.

NEUROSCIENCE PRIZE: Craig Bennett, Abigail Baird, Michael Miller, and George Wolford [USA], for demonstrating that brain researchers, by using complicated instruments and simple statistics, can see meaningful brain activity anywhere - even in a dead salmon.

So, what are the p-values published by the Princeton researcher?

Okay, so was prayer, meditation, or some other form of intention responsible for images like this ending up ending up in places like this:

Probably so. Another brilliant post!

Here's some more on Tesla. It's pretty funny, but much like what we see people get slammed for on CR4, it was the promise of free energy that did him in. Good thing he wasn't able to join our little group...we would have stopped him in his tracks long before he dreamed up AC power.

http://www.viewzone.com/tesla.free.html

Well, Tesla came up with AC power before he came up with the 'global wireless energy' idea. He was well on his way to finishing the prototype in Wardencliffe Tower when he and his backer, Mr. Westinghouse, had a falling out.

Westinghouse said six words that proved that he and Tesla could never see eye to eye on the project. Those six words were: "How do we charge people for it?"

Tesla wanted energy to be free, like air, and there is still a lot of solid science behind his ideas, it's just that no corporation wants to work on a project with no ROI.

I almost forgot. GA from me buddy!

In general, people are prone to take weird or irrational theories for granted instead of believing in the methodology of science.

Interesting quote from Tesla. I am certainly not a physicist, but there is much, as a species, that we do not and maybe cannot understand. We are limited by our senses and intellects, so how do we "physically" prove the "non-physical"? Perhaps there are "physical" answers that we are simply incapable of understanding. This is the basis of faith.

There is no basis in that, however, which is a serious problem.

Here's a short video that was linked in post 21. While some scientists have proven that consciousness can alter things in the material world, it's the attitude of the majority that will prevent us from ever really knowing why it's possible.

http://vimeo.com/4359545#at=0

Bad analysis. Even if there were such a majority at the moment, they could never prevent valid results from eventually becoming widely known.

Still burning up your OT finger eh?

I believe senility is creeping in; it appears you are incapable of even comprehending the thread title.

Would you say that Princeton is a school of new age witchcraft and hoaxes?

You should write them a letter.

Of course consciousness can alter the physical world.

Your consciousness uses your body to make the alterations. We are the slaves of our thoughts.

For example...

A beer will not end up in your gut unless your consciousness directs your body to make it so....this is proven by the simple observation that unconscious inebriates stop consuming beer.

Another blithering idiot that should never be taken seriously...

http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Freeman-Dyson/31

Undeniably a smart man, but being smart doesn't make you infallible. Take this excerpt:

.

'...Whence comes our knowledge of good and evil? These mysteries, and a hundred others like them, are beyond the reach of science. They lie on the other side of the border, within the jurisdiction of religion....'

.

This is a very common claim, but it doesn't stand up well to close scrutiny. Most religious texts do not provide what most reasonable people today would consider to be great instruction on what is good and what is evil, either by example or by explicit instruction, except very limited selections many with questionable interpretation.

.

The idea that ideas about good and evil are outside the realm of science, indicates a lack of imagination on that particular subject and possibly an unwillingness to consider things that might have been presented.

The first experiment posted in the article is Dean Radin's Double Slit. I have participated in this and so can you. It is on-going and is housed at IONS which was founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell (Apollo). It is in Petaluma California, a few miles away from me, but Participation is through the internet.

Dean Radin did many experiments while at Princeton with Mind-over-matter, many of which resulted in unexpected results. The biggest was the global random "egg" generators. Whenever there was about to be a major event of global significance, the globally distributed random number generators would begin to synchronize their output! The most significant data came a couple of hours before 9/11.

This stuff seems hocus pocus only tho scientists of the last century. To all the scientists before then, including Newton, It was and is becoming again, very main stream. The reason is the mysteries that are still with us after abandoning the concept of the "aether".

"Where" is the dark energy?

What medium can account for the link between quantum entangled particles?

What medium can account for the structure of galaxies and the structure of galactic clusters when the speed of light is grossly inadequate for the distances involved?

The answer to these questions lays in the study of the non-physical "aether"! Tesla knew this.

Well, then, how to you suppose we go about testing for the presence of an energy than connot be detected by any means, and yet can affect the physical world in unpredictable ways? Wait, don't post it here, just use the ether to send your answer directly into our minds, that'll provide conclusive proof, won't it?

Lets just call it "Dark Energy"!!!!

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Ok smart guys,

98% of the "mass" of the universe is the dark energy, so "Where" is it?

Is a black hole physical? How do you know? Black holes have NEVER been directly observed, only their influence on the space.

You have conscious control of a body that is mostly empty space at the atomic level, yet you do not find it plausible that you may have conscious influence outside that body? Why? By what logic and scientific reasoning? Who is controlling what and how?

You can make hocus pocus jokes all day long and all it proves is your own closed mind. If you consider these questions seriously, you may find they lead to uncomfortable or non-main-stream conclusions, but, like Tesla said, greater understanding.

All three examples cited have answers. Number one is still an open issue, but entanglement is now shown to be because of a mini-wormhole between paired particles.

As for the positions of galaxies relative to each other, it has already been shown that the inflationary period of the very early universe is the cause for this degree of separation.

While nothing can be accelerated faster than light, there is no corresponding physical restriction for how fast space expands (as it did during the inflationary period, which ended about 10^32 seconds after T0) or contracts for that matter. So no mystery there, either.

Your premise that non-physical aether is supported by these points is not held up. I think that points 2 and 3 are adequately explained by modern physics as we understand the driving mechanisms well enough. The mystery of point number 1 is still unsolved, but just because it is unsolved (at this point in time) it will not support the theory you propose (or any other).

"...entanglement is now shown to be because of a mini-wormhole between paired particles."

That is news to me. Can you provide a link?

Here

From your link:

"Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein's laws, it acts to "bend" and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension."

poppycock & wishful thinking.

Another link from Scientific American.

If you really find fault with their work, perhaps you could debunk it and become famous.

More scholarly links on the subject:

Cornell Library link #1

Cornell Library Link #2

I wasn't speaking as much about the wormholes as about the statement that gravity is in the 5th dimension because it bends space-time. I've never heard that before. Just because an article is in Scientific American is no indication that it is the prevailing theory. Leonard Susskind has put out some far out things. He is very very far from the norm. All 3 of your links are from him. Please show how this is the prevailing theory if you can.

I think my choice of words were not a good one. Let's use recent or whatever.

I don't think that the 5th dimension is gravity, either. However, I think is used as an abstraction tool for modeling purposes.

I should point out that the theory and the research work cited in the links I listed probably hold significantly more weight than the 10 studies that prove consciousness can alter the physical world.

I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. I have believed in the "placebo effect" for some time. However, it involves our own bodies, and that is more likely to be explainable (by internal mechanisms of the body).

Then again, 'the best lie holds a kernel of truth.' mentioning the Placebo Effect with the other supposed abilities lends legitimacy to the other claims.

Exactly...As an Engineer friend of mine is often wanton to say, "How do we know the speed of light is such and such? When a radar gun is set at 100mph, it catches everything at or BELOW that speed…. and when someone blows by at 250mph, how do you know how fast it was going? Need to build a new radar gun! But that gun will only be built by someone who feels there is a NEED for such a gun. Similar logic in trying to "Measure" that which is unable to be measured" , AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Maybe we'll get some better ways to calculate more Phenomena in the future. But to just dismiss unexplained phenomena is not very "Scientific, " IMHO..

"What medium can account for the link between quantum entangled particles?"

The book The Age of Entanglement says that Entangled particles are mathematically described in 6 dimensions where single ones take only 3. I have previously proposed (as a possibility) that entangled particles are in constant contact in 1 or more dimensions.

The prevailing theory now is that quantum entanglement is actually a wormhole between entangled particles.

I prefer this type of wormhole, thank you.

Those remind me of the damage carpenter bees do...

.

....Which incidentally provides an improvement on the normal derogatory term 'a-hole', removing the recipient from any association with an 'a-list', yet retaining enough familiarity to ensure the meaning is instantly obvious; 'b-hole'.

I think everyone's reading the quote wrong, except me.

If you interpret Tesla's statement of "non-physical phenomena" as being things we can't see, touch or weigh outside of a particle physics lab, then he's exactly right. It all boils down then to electromagnetism, gravity, relativity, etc., not this vague thing called "consciousness," prayer, telekinesis or any other mystical claptrap.

This is backed up by the rest of the statement: energy, frequency and vibration.

His conclusion about more progress being made is not too far off.

"the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration."

"Energy, frequency and vibration" are the concerns of physics. The rest of the piece is about metaphysics and has nothing to do with physics.

It is possible to change one's brain chemistry/arrangement with brain exercises just as we can change other parts of our bodies with exercise. If we work on being cheerful, we develop that action and things look better, if we concentrate on the miserable, we will see miserable. I am not just thinking of the filters we use to seek the cheerful or the filter for misery, but actual changes in perception.

What I'm trying to say is that prayer or its equivalent can change the happy/sad perception of the universe while not affecting it's physicality.

'...What I'm trying to say is that prayer or its equivalent can change the happy/sad perception of the universe while not affecting it's physicality....'

.

You make a good point, but I don't think the claim that things are not affected physically is that sound. Things like meditation, prayer, and exercise can all result in more positive perceptions and mood, but these changes do not occur devoid of changes in the brain. Each of those behaviors can affect neuro-chemistry, as well as activity in different potion of the brain.

.

It is also important to make a distinction between physical process of meditating/ praying, and the meaning of the things that one concentrated on during that time.

.

Kind of like with running, your health did not improve because every day you ran the 5 mile loop clockwise, instead of counter clockwise, or because everyday you ran east 2.5 miles to the community college and back, instead off 2.5 miles west to the high school and back. The improvements in health are not related to the specific goal in mind of getting to a certain school. The school that is your goal is arbitrary. The benefit comes from the fact that you are running.

.

It isn't difficult to understand that is it likely the same for prayer. The fact that meditation provides similar effects is testament to the idea that it isn't the fact that your thoughts are being directed to some wonderful floaty being in the clouds that is important.

.

.

Hey, on a related note, dualnback is a game that has peer reviewed studies documenting an improvement in working memory and fluid intelligence. It is the only one I know that has that distinction, and it is free.

I did mean that the brain changed physically, I meant that the rest of the universe didn't change but only seemed to because of the brain change.

I absolutely agree with you on this: Things like meditation, prayer, and exercise can all result in more positive perceptions and mood, but these changes do not occur devoid of changes in the brain. Each of those behaviors can affect neuro-chemistry, as well as activity in different potion of the brain. I meant that the world outside the brain wasn't changed by the meditation etc.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I just misunderstood what you were saying initially. Thanks for the clarification.

We'll obviously get nowhere with this thread.

Just a little food for thought...

Practicing Shamans regularly move from this world to another, and there is no question as to whether the "non-physical" exists; they move back and fourth between the two, on a regular basis.

Buddhism adheres to the concept of a universal consciousness.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_buddhism_offers_science/

Modern scientists and engineers scratch their heads and can't understand how the ancients were able to accomplish marvels like the pyramids. Even though the pyramids and other ancient works, tie directly into the religion of those cultures, modern scientists and engineers write off the religion of these people as "stupid", without considering the idea of them being possibly being able to enter a higher state of consciousness...maybe even to the point of manipulating the physical world, and gaining knowledge about the universe that way beyond their time.

Maybe one day all of the really smart people can join together and finally rid the planet of the stupid idiots that believe there is something more than what we can see or measure. Maybe we should burn them.

http://www.mindandlife.org/about/hhdl-mli/

I didn't say anything about God. Nor do I think we will "figure out" how ancient people were able to make precision cuts in stone, (some that remain almost impossible today); as well as being being able to align so many things, with such precision, with stars and galaxies that they shouldn't have really been even thinking about.

Throwing away the spiritual aspect of life, is something that has happened in the last 100 years, and I don't think that quantum physics will ever be complete without recognizing that something exists beyond our 3 dimensional physical existence.

We pretty much "know" that dark matter and dark energy exist...we just can't prove it. Sounds like BS to me.

While I can understand the dismissal, the seething hatred has me perplexed. The Dalai Lama loves science, and rather than make an attempt to learn something, science is ready to slit his throat.

Whatever. I think you guys should stick with your comfort zone....like there's any chance you would leave it.

It was metaphorical, and based on the prevalent notion that any and all religious belief is based in delusional fantasy, and practiced by fools.

Tibetan Buddhism almost doesn't qualify as a religion.

You're a funny guy...and a total hypocrite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

I would argue, that despite the fact that humans have managed to poison certain religions at certain times, (in the quest for power/control), overall, religion in general has been a positive influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

As we've seen throughout history, evil people will use any means at their disposal to spread their evil; including religion.

Tibetan Buddhism almost doesn't qualify as a religion. The positive influences in has in the world overwhelms the clearly negative influences it foists upon the world in a ratio that sets it apart from other world fantasy belief systems.

Just..........WOW!!!

Do you believe in lower Gods and reincarnation, too?

Hypocrite? Perhaps this is another one of your unfortunate 'metaphors'? If not, please be more specific in your criticism. (Remember being a hypocrite involves something like ridiculing a person on a suggestion that they might believe in something like a 'lower god' while at the same time believing in a supposedly 'greater god'. "Do as I say, not as I do".)

.

I think Buddhism is a great example of what other religions should aspire to be, and that most other religions have significant records of harm that they have a long way to overcome before they might be compared favorably to Buddhism. That doesn't mean I accept the myths of Buddhism as anything more than fictional stories.

.

Notice that I said 'almost doesn't qualify'. I did not say that Buddhism isn't a religion, only that it is sufficiently different that it almost deserves a different classification.

Got it.

While all religions are based in delusional fantasy, some are better than others....as determined by Tinac.

Dude. You are a riot. Thanks for getting me into a gut laugh to start my day.

Buddha would approve.

Glad to improve your day. Mind returning the favor and explaining your logic behind calling me a hypocrite?

I don't feel like going through all of your posts, but you are maintaining that Buddhism is a good religion that has done good in the world, and I gave you a GA for one of your posts that mock the entire notion.

Remember?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/1009849/Re-10-Scientific-Studies-Prove-Consciousness-Can-Alter-Our-Physical-Material-World

You have a habit of getting caught in your own webs. I'll catch up this afternoon; I have to go cut wood and finish putting my fuel system in my truck back together.

Got it.

Buddhism is a good religion, because even though it is based in fantasy delusion, it passes muster according to Tinac.

Thank you wise one.

Since all religion is delusional, do you think that a profession of religious faith, should preclude a person from entering public office?

and if so...

Should we use those same professions of delusion to remove those currently serving?

Why or why not?

Despite any possible good, it seems dangerous to allow self admitted delusional sufferers from holding public office.