10 Scientific Studies Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World

No, Kramarat. Bad, Kramarat.

.

That religious-style of information gathering is inherently flawed. Accept what I say merely because I say it doesn't benefit you in this instant beyond having this one better reasoned answer. You have to evaluate the data, think for yourself and question authority.

.

Realize that no one has vision 100% correlated with reality from every perspective all the time (for example, your complete inability to provide any legitimate reason or support for calling me a hypocrite must have you wondering if you might have made that call without the best view of reality).

.

As far as removing politicians from office for professing belief that ancient, poorly written collections of fiction are literal truths, well, it is tempting, even just for the reason of being able to sweep almost every one of them out and get a clean start. But ultimately I would probably decline your offer. I don't like arbitrary restrictions on the will of the people, including on the person they choose to represent their interests in government. That isn't to say that I might not be persuaded to support some legislation that required filing the most recent two tax returns and actually paying more taxes in that credits received, in order to be eligible to vote, but that is a different topic all together.

.

While my opinions on such things apparently captivate you (I don't fault you for this), perhaps now is a good time to redirect your focus to bring about the same kind of clarity to the pertinent questions about yourself that you have left glaringly unanswered:

.

Things like explaining why you called me a hypocrite;

.

Things like explaining why you think it is appropriate to recommend (and link) to CR4 participants an article that you admittedly didn't think was valuable enough to spend more than 15 seconds reviewing yourself;

.

Things like why you feel the need to misrepresent (and then ridicule the misrepresented position you have assigned) the views of those who disagree with what you claim;

.

Things like the vastly different standards of proof you require to hold something as 'true' depending on what seems to be arbitrary assignment to various broad classifications.

You sound like you are suggesting that we don't currently have the technology to build things more demanding than the pyramids today.

.

If you are suggesting that by simply giving more reverence to religious ideas that we could bring our technological know how to a level equivalent to the most advanced civilizations a couple thousand years ago, I don't think you are entirely wrong, but it would take a lot of devotion to set us back that far.

.

At any rate, if you have some non-scientific religious way of building things that reliably produced significant advantages, we would love to see a demonstration. If not, then your suggestion that people lack knowledge of technology of ancient cultures and that the lack can be blamed on adhering to strict requirements of logic reason and proof (science) isn't a very strong argument.

.

'...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....'

.

Actually some people do question the existence of the other worlds and the 'non-physical'. Why would anyone take it n faith that such things exist?

"...Whew! Glad they're gone...."

.

Oh, come on! I'm not sure if is an example of pollyannaism or a delusion of excessive optimism, but either way it isn't factual. It isn't nice to falsely get people's hopes up like that.

.

The fact that some 'documentary' was able to find a person would had employment history as a stone cutter who admits he doesn't know how they did it and doesn't think modern technology capable of a similar feat, is extremely poor support for that argument.

.

Most of the pyramids are constructed mostly of limestone. Some of the pyramids also include granite. Limestone is no problem to cut. Granite is more difficult and time consuming, but not impossible and certainly does not necessitate 'lasers' unavailable today. Furthermore, the cuts that were made are not noted as very smooth, but rather quite rough.

.

You seem to enjoy suggesting that if we don't believe ancients has superior technology that we must think they are idiots, or alternately that if we don't respect their belief in their myths that we must believe they could not have been skilled artisans. Those are unfounded suggestions, and also a pretty strange thing to derive pleasure from suggesting. You know that it is not a valid criticism. You know that we know it is not a valid criticism. What drives you to continue to use obvious mis-characterization of the opposing viewpoint as if it were legitimate criticism? Don't you have any valid criticism of the actual opposing view?

I don't know where (or if) you found information that supports your idea that he sought out 'mentors of consciousness' because they also happen to be 'men of religion', but the idea seems pretty silly.

.

Religion holds no monopoly on consciousness. I would hope that you aren't interacting with a mentor when they are unconscious. Beyond that, there is no need to believe in dusty fairy tales to study consciousness.

.

I think it is strange that you confer so much perfection to Tesla. He was indeed a brilliant inventor, he was not infallible. Perhaps you will be interested in a description of some of Tesla's religious beliefs by much more of an authority than you or I:

.

'... science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul" or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise...'

-N. Tesla

Everything from ICR is garbage.

You seem very focused on 'GA' numbers. It seems to come up frequently when you are in disagreements, both making note of the GA count others have as well as suggesting that certain members are actively conspiring to lower your own GA count.

.

When I do look at my GA count (most often as a result of you making some comment about GA count) it seems to be pretty average, running in a range between 3% and 5% of total comments....just like you....and like a lot of other frequent contributors. I have noticed people like AH and Old Salt receive many more GAs as a percentage of their total comments, which makes sense given the time and thought they put into their typical comments. Overall, I don't think it is something worth the angst it seems to cause you. Perhaps you could just ignore the GAs?

.

On a related topic, one of the great things about evaluating information on a scientific basis instead of a dogmatic basis, is that it allows for the possibility that the ideas a certain person holds probably include valuable ideas and ideas that aren't worth so much. There is no need to judge all ideas that originate from one person as all great, or all not so great.

.

You seem to like finding an example of a noteworthy scientist who happens to also profess a belief in a god, or in various incarnations of pseudoscience, and then attempting to use their favorable reputation as some sort of bludgeoning tool, by making the accusation that others who disagree with some of your viewpoints must hate that scientist and/or believe that scientist to be a fool. I have pointed out the fallacy of this tactic more than once in the past. Your continued return to this style of accusation suggests perhaps you think all ideas from a person must be of the same value or quality, that someone cannot both have ideas with merit and ideas that are not well founded.

.

Regardless from where this regrettable tactic originates, it certainly doesn't benefit the argument you are trying to make. The overwhelming effect is a suggestion that you don't have any logical, well founded rebuttals left that might support your original contention, but you are unwilling (or unable) to change your mind/expressed stance, and so resort to these attacks of decrying the words you put in other people's mouths.

.

People are complex. Great heroes are no exception. I believe Newton's accomplishments are sufficiently worthy of celebration that I choose to celebrate his birthday on December 25th (even though that date corresponds with the Julian calender. It still provides far more certainty about being grounded in reality than the alternate celebration that day).

.

This does not mean I believe Newton was infallible. He had many great ideas, but he also stubbornly promoted ideas that mislead science well after his death. His influence in the field of optics is a pertinent example.

.

Newton also had many character traits that were far less than admirable/desirable. Newton invested heavily (and lost heavily) in the slave trade. He was known, by more than a few, to be spiteful, duplicitous, and downright vengeful. .... but maybe he was just trying to emulate the behavior of the god of the myth he professed belief in.

.

The point I am getting at here, is that the contributions of Newton are extraordinary and wonderful. This does not make Newton any less of a man or any less capable of flawed behavior and flawed beliefs. The beauty of science is that none of the ideas are sacred, so that eventually the ideas with merit are kept and those lacking merit are swept aside. This allows an appreciation of what is truly worthwhile without having to compromise and add in ideas that aren't worthwhile.

.

So when I say that Newton is one of my heroes, I'm not referring to every idea he ever championed. In fact, the Newton that is one of my heroes, is not a very complete person, but just the admirable qualities of one remarkable person.

.

Kramarat, please try to understand that when someone takes issue with some of your ideas, that does not necessarily mean you are being castigated. I like some of your ideas very much, with others I have trouble understanding how the cognitive dissonance doesn't fracture your skull. Although I don't have access to a count, I suspect I have given more GAs to your answers than OTs. Understand that I am rating the comments you made, not you. The value of an idea you present should be able to be questioned without automatically suggesting your value as a person is being called into question.