Mod+ 260. MIAMI ATTORNEY REY HERNANDEZ SUPPORTS UFO CONTACTEES

#82
Actually, one of the hurdles is getting past "going public". Some examples:
-This sort of stuff makes my family feel uncomfortable so they don't want to talk about it.
-My arrival at this point in my life (over 5 years) has also involved having psychosis in 2009 and some residuals of that. So that is another "taboo" subject mixed in with this.
-The problem is worse with some friends (some are OK). For example, there is a group of friends who are basically drinking buddies. So is tricky to tell them - "Hey, back in 2009 I was in a mental hospital because I thought about UFOs too much (maybe, bit more complicated than that) and then I discovered it was God. While I am sane now I still wonder if God has intervened in my life and I am vaguely thinking of becoming a Quaker because Quakers are cool though I am not sure about their peace testimony (still working that out - I am sympathetic to it but not sure I can sign up 100%). Oh, and by the way, I have the Quakers as a client since February and I kind of wonder if that is a coincidence."

Part of me wants to come 100% out of the closet but I don't also want to be thought of as the "mentally ill UFO nut". Still, probably wouldn't be that bad... Anyway. That's enough moaning!
With respect, when it comes to the opinions of others, remember that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can give gratitude to the horse for helping to bring you to the water; you can love the horse for its companionship and the history you've developed together along the way. However, if it doesn't want to drink, then by golly it's not going to do drink. The best you can do is kneel to the riverbank yourself and quench your own thirst; demonstrate to the horse how good the water tastes and how it's giving you strength, and if then the horse still refuses, well, that's its responsibility, not yours.

Since paranormal phenomena constitute a significant part of your identity, and you feel so strongly about sharing your knowledge with others, I believe keeping a lid on your feelings would be harmful to yourself, and to someone else eventually if and when you burst. That being said, from my own experience I'm compelled to advise you that there are some issues which reveal who your "true" friends and family are, so not only should you take considerable care in the approach you take, you should brace yourself for the likely possibility that those who know of your past mental issues will use it against you (unless they've had a similar background), and the much-smaller-but-still-noticeable possibility that you'll find none of your friends or family support you. You may, of course, discover some in and out of your circle who are not only open to your interests but embrace them. Hold on to them for dear life!

Also, I very much admire your willingness to admit your past challenges on a public, anonymous forum. It really demonstrates humility and honesty, which is a rare thing to see on the Internet.
 
#83
With respect, when it comes to the opinions of others, remember that you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can give gratitude to the horse for helping to bring you to the water; you can love the horse for its companionship and the history you've developed together along the way. However, if it doesn't want to drink, then by golly it's not going to do drink. The best you can do is kneel to the riverbank yourself and quench your own thirst; demonstrate to the horse how good the water tastes and how it's giving you strength, and if then the horse still refuses, well, that's its responsibility, not yours.
Agree 100%.

An interesting aside is this. The types of topics covered by Skeptiko are important to me. They are interesting. My views about the world have changed as a result of considering this. That said, I am not sure it has done me good. I have drank deeply of this water but sometimes I think it is a poisoned well... The blue pill has a lot going for it...
 
#84
I am not sure it has done me good. I have drank deeply of this water but sometimes I think it is a poisoned well... The blue pill has a lot going for it...
I understand. Before you try to do anything to Morpheus, though, here's an interesting article I found today from the American Psychological Association, essentially talking about some benefits of having taken the red pill. (link)
 
#85
Some of the papers on the website are jokes when it comes to describing the actual claims about physics.

See for example, Rudy Schild's paper "Modern Miracles and The Quantum Hologram". He might be physicist (see here), but his explanations are jokes. Worse: non-existent. I am looking for an explanation of what actually is the "quantum hologram" they all talk about (Mitchell, Lewells, Schild). I see Schild's paper has a last subsection entitled 3. What, exactly, is the Quantum Hologram? At last an explanation, I thought! But no! He waffles on about dark energy, imaginary parts to dimensions, and UFOs. But he never mentions 'holograms' again! Does he even know? Apparently not! How sad.

Mitchell, in Nature's Mind: The Quantum Hologram (p. 3), keeps on talking about the "discovery of the quantum hologram", but his main reference is to very preliminary work in 1991 by Schemp (pages 383-467 of this book) who has some wave analyses which might be applied to quantum theory, but all of whose demonstrations involve entirely classical wave motions. He has much speculation, almost as much as Peter Marcer's weird speculations in the 1990s when I knew Peter. Mitchell says (p. 11) that "Quantum Holography (QH), which we have alluded to several times above, is a recently discovered attribute of all physical matter and has been validated by experimental work with functional magnetic resonating imaging (fMRI). In his work with MRI tomography, Schempp (1999) used a mathematical formalism to expand quantum information theory." There is no evidence given for quantum holograms actually being physical. This makes me think he does not show any idea of whether a quantum hologram can actually exist in present-day experiments, or even what one actually is should it exist (I hope I am wrong here).

Swanson seems to think that if all physical processes are coherently synchronized, then that is sufficient so that consciousness 'can interact across parallel dimensions' (p.38).

I wonder if these 'quantum holograms' are really what the aliens had in mind when they told Rey about quantum mechanics being a connection between all the kinds of parapsychological and paraphysical processes!

(more later)
Ian, When they talk about the Quantum Hologram aren't they borrowing the concept from Gerard t Hooft/Leonard Susskind' s Holographic Principle? I've read and seen Dr. Susskind explain his theory based on string theory concerning quantum gravity and the event horizon of a black hole. We are all really 2 dimensional constructs painted along the edge of this universe and only appear to be 3D on a macroscopic level. Hence, the terms quantum and hologram. Please correct me, if I'm not accurate and explain with your expertise why he holds this idea as a plausible explanation of physical reality. This is deep string theory stuff and I don't know how one ties it in with consciousness.
 
#86
Ian, When they talk about the Quantum Hologram aren't they borrowing the concept from Gerard t Hooft/Leonard Susskind' s Holographic Principle? I've read and seen Dr. Susskind explain his theory based on string theory concerning quantum gravity and the event horizon of a black hole. We are all really 2 dimensional constructs painted along the edge of this universe and only appear to be 3D on a macroscopic level. Hence, the terms quantum and hologram. Please correct me, if I'm not accurate and explain with your expertise why he holds this idea as a plausible explanation of physical reality. This is deep string theory stuff and I don't know how one ties it in with consciousness.
When Mitchell and Schild talk about the quantum hologram, they appear to refer to something 'human sized' that might interact with neurons and the brain. That is, nothing to do with gravity and string theory, which are on scales much smaller by 10^-30 !

But really, my beef is that they seem to be referring to some specific idea, but never say what! It is fair, of course, to speculate about quantum physics and mind, but they have to bring home the goods. They should give us not just a name, but the beginnings of a causal explanation. Otherwise we are just distracted by chaff.
 
#87
"But really, my beef is that they seem to be referring to some specific idea, but never say what! It is fair, of course, to speculate about quantum physics and mind, but they have to bring home the goods. They should give us not just a name, but the beginnings of a causal explanation. Otherwise we are just distracted by chaff."

Hey thanks Ian, I found some time to look some stuff up and went to the source, Karl Pribram. So here's some theory behind the idea of brain as a Quantum Hologram.
http://www.danceyourlife.eu/sourcesofbiodanza/KarlPribram.html
Dr Mitchell's blog about this is here for examination and discussion.
http://edmitchellapollo14.com/dvdan...oint-field-and-the-quantum-holographic-model/
During the podcast with Ray, he reported getting a video download from presumably ET. He says quantum physics, but referred to quantum hologram as the essence that tied everything together. It seemed, to me, one of the significant revelations ET wanted us to know about.
 
#88
Thanks Dmitch. I was expecting, however, that if I looked at your links, I would see an explanation (or at least a description) of what in fact is a 'quantum hologram' (QH). However, I find nothing: only strange analogies and literature bluffs. It turns out no-one as ever seen or demonstrated a quantum hologram, only ever ordinary holograms with light. If there are to QH in the brain, then they must be possible with the quantum wave functions of particles, not just of photons in light. That, however, has never been demonstrated!

Let's look at detail at what Mitchell says:
the quantum hologram was discovered and experimentally validated by Professor Walter Shempp in Germany while working on improvements to magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology. He discovered that the well known phenomenon of emission/reabsorption of energy by all physical objects at the quantum level carries information about the history of that physical object. The mathematical formalism used by Shempp is the same formalism used in holography, thus the name quantum hologram (QH). Similar to interference patterns in laser holography, the information is carried in the phase relationships of the emitted quanta. An additional important property to the QH is that it is nonlocal, meaning that it is not located in space/time, but carries the information instantaneously and everywhere.
This writing is full of flaws:
  1. He says Shempp "experimentally validated" the QH, but only because the math used by Shempp was the same as in holograpy. That is not an experimental validation! It is a theoretical extrapolation.
  2. He says Shempp Shempp discovered that "emission/reabsorption of energy by all physical objects at the quantum level carries information about the history of that physical object." But this is in the same sense that reflected light from an apple carries information about what that apple was a moment ago in history. This is not like memory of the distant past, such as minds have.
  3. "Similar to interference patterns in laser holography, the information is carried in the phase relationships of the emitted quanta. " This is true.
  4. "An additional important property to the QH is that it is nonlocal". This is true.
  5. "meaning that it is not located in space/time," This is not true. The nonlocality is just within the range of the quantum wave function, and that is just within the size of a few molecules (unless, like modern optics physicists) you make special long-distance wave guides to prevent decoherence when there is interaction with a thermal environment)
  6. "but carries the information instantaneously and everywhere." Completely false! A extremely wild extrapolation, however often it may be repeated.
Quantum holograms may in fact be possible according to current physics, but I am still looking for a demonstration of that. So far, it remains pure speculation with not even any details of what is being supposed to exist, and how. (Can you find any details anywhere?)

During the podcast with Rey, about the 'ET download', listen again to what he says around 40:00 - 40:30 "I needed to form an organization discussing the relationship between ETs, the spirit world, and quantum physics." (not in the transcript).

Note that there is no mention of quantum holograms there at all, only 'quantum physics' in general. The QH came only when he started talking to Mitchell, who has had such ideas for many years, after Pribram. Pribram says, for example, (in the Brain and Mathematics article linked from where you pointed) that "The quantum hologram is the first energy phenomenon that directly links all macro-scale matter with the quantum world. Pribram (ibid) talks of a "quantum hologram that resides in the zero-point field", but never gives any detail that we should expect, if it is already in standard quantum physics.

Personally, I think that quantum physics should be used in other ways to understand ETs and the spirit world. In fact, I believe, that is because consciousness and spirits are not just "macro-scale matter" (as Pribram suggests), but a different kind of substance altogether. Hence the changes in our thinking to understand quantum physics are only the very first step in an extremely long chain toward understanding the spirit world. The spirit world is not itself fully physical, so you cannot get there by physics alone. We have to go well beyond quantum physics, even if we do use more of the kinds of steps similar to what we used to understand quantum physics.
 
Last edited:
#89
Thanks Dmitch. I was expecting, however, that if I looked at your links, I would see an explanation (or at least a description) of what in fact is a 'quantum hologram' (QH). However, I find nothing: only strange analogies and literature bluffs. It turns out no-one as ever seen or demonstrated a quantum hologram, only ever ordinary holograms with light. If there are to QH in the brain, then they must be possible with the quantum wave functions of particles, not just of photons in light. That, however, has never been demonstrated!

Let's look at detain at what Mitchell says:

This writing is full of flaws:
  1. He says Shempp "experimentally validated" the QH, but only because the math used by Shempp was the same as in holograpy. That is not an experimental validiation! It is a theoretical extrapolation.
  2. He says Shempp Shempp discovered that "emission/reabsorption of energy by all physical objects at the quantum level carries information about the history of that physical object." But this is in the same sense that reflected light from an apple carries information about what that apple was a moment ago in history. This is not like memory of the distant past, such as minds have.
  3. "Similar to interference patterns in laser holography, the information is carried in the phase relationships of the emitted quanta. " This is true.
  4. "An additional important property to the QH is that it is nonlocal". This is true.
  5. "meaning that it is not located in space/time," This is not true. The nonlocality is just within the range of the quantum wave function, and that is just within the size of a few molecules (unless, like modern optics physicists) you make special long-distance wave guides to prevent decoherence when there is interaction with a thermal environment)
  6. "but carries the information instantaneously and everywhere." Completely false! A extremely wide extrapolation, however often it may be repeated.
Quantum holograms may in fact be possible according to current physics, but I am still looking for a demonstration of that. So far, it remains pure speculation with not even any details of what is being supposed to exist, and how. (Can you find any details anywhere?)

During the podcast with Rey, about the 'ET download', listen again to what he says around 40:00 - 40:30 "I needed to form an organization discussing the relationship between ETs, the spirit world, and quantum physics." (not in the transcript).

Note that there is no mention of quantum holograms there at all, only 'quantum physics' in general. The QH came only when he started talking to Mitchell, who has had such ideas for many years, after Pribram. Pribram says, for example, (in the Brain and Mathematics article linked from where you pointed) that "The quantum hologram is the first energy phenomenon that directly links all macro-scale matter with the quantum world. Pribram (ibid) talks of a "quantum hologram that resides in the zero-point field", but never gives any detail that we should expect, if it is already in standard quantum physics.

Personally, I think that quantum physics should be used in other ways to understand ETs and the spirit world. In fact, I believe, that is because consciousness and spirits are not just "macro-scale matter" (as Pribram suggests), but a different kind of substance altogether. Hence the changes in our thinking to understand quantum physics are only the very first step in an extremely long chain toward understanding the spirit world. The spirit world is not itself fully physical, so you cannot get there by physics alone. We have to go well beyond quantum physics, even if we do use more of the kinds of steps similar to what we used to understand quantum physics.
 
#91
When I was on my desk top, most of the good stuff on Dr. Pribram's hologram theory was available only by purchase. On my iPad, all sorts of stuff has appeared. Here's a technical treatise by Jeff Prideaux. Starting with a explanation of holograms and how the brain may process external stimulus as a holographic system
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Consciousness_12.pdf#page10
You might be familiar with Matti Pitkanen. Here he elaborates on the how quantum physics applies to macro-biosystems.
http://www.emergentmind.org/pitkanen_III.htm
 
#93
When I was on my desk top, most of the good stuff on Dr. Pribram's hologram theory was available only by purchase. On my iPad, all sorts of stuff has appeared. Here's a technical treatise by Jeff Prideaux. Starting with a explanation of holograms and how the brain may process external stimulus as a holographic system
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Consciousness_12.pdf#page10
You might be familiar with Matti Pitkanen. Here he elaborates on the how quantum physics applies to macro-biosystems.
http://www.emergentmind.org/pitkanen_III.htm
The first link is to a talk by Jeff Prideaux that explains the basic ideas of holograms (good), and then Pribram's ideas about how holograms could be part of brain function (more speculative). At the end, there are standard statements about how quantum physics gives an uncertainty principle (good). Then there is even more of Pribram's speculation about how dissipative processes may allow the brain to approach the quantum limit.
Nowhere is there any discussion of how quantum physics has any role in brain functioning.

The second link is to a paper by Matti Pitkänen, which goes into a lot of speculative detail about multiple sheets of spacetime, and how the brain may be able (in one of these 'sheets') to exploit the different physics laws there to do things that are not normally possible in the ordinary physical spacetime sheet. This is supposed to provide a theory of consciousness.

I pleased to say that this Pitkänen work is closest I have ever come to any actual theory (!), after starting to reading papers prompted by the Rey interview. It is, however, a theory that is a long way from standard quantum physics. No experiments to support quantum physics could by any means be taken as support of Pitkänen's theory: so much more work would be needed to do that, that it is a long way from being even conceived, let alone started.

I am not at all sure, therefore, that Pitkänen's theory is what Pribram, Mitchell, Schild, et al had in mind when they talked about the 'quantum hologram'.
 
Last edited:
#94
The first link is to a talk by Jeff Prideaux that explains the basic ideas of holograms (good), and then Pribram's ideas about how holograms could be part of brain function (more speculative). At the end, there are standard statements about how quantum physics gives an uncertainty principle (good). Then there is even more of Pribram's speculation about how dissipative processes may allow the brain to approach the quantum limit.
Nowhere is there any discussion of how quantum physics has any role in brain functioning.

The second link is to a paper by Matti Pitkänen, which goes into a lot of speculative detail about multiple sheets of spacetime, and how the brain may be able (in one of these 'sheets') to exploit the different physics laws there to do things that are not normally possible in the ordinary physical spacetime sheet. This is supposed to provide a theory of consciousness.

I pleased to say that this Pitkänen work is closest I have ever come to any actual theory (!), after starting to reading papers prompted by the Rey interview. It is, however, a theory that is a long way from standard quantum physics. No experiments to support quantum physics could by any means be taken as support of Pitkänen's theory: so much more work would be needed to do that, that it is a long way from being even conceived, let alone started.

I am not at all sure, therefore, that Pitkänen's theory is what Pribram, Mitchell, Schild, et al had in mind when they talked about the 'quantum hologram'.
Why don't you shoot Dr. Mitchell an email through his website http://noetic.org/about/contact/ or message him on his FB page. He may at least refer you to his best possible source, but Pitkanen may be as close as you get to a technical theory on the quantum hologram idea. You never know, being a inquisitive physicist, you may find it rewarding. Maybe your being directed too. : )
 
#96
I sent an email to the contact at http://www.quantrek.org/contact/contact.htm .
Ed does not have contact details listed at IONS as active, only a founder.
Dear Ian, Please excuse me if I continue along this path. Do you remember Dr. Jean Burns Skeptiko podcast number 7. http://www.skeptiko.com/9-the-universe-isnt-pointless-dr-jean-burns/. Dr Burns is a theoretical physicist and was elucidating on the alternative explanations of the collapse of the wave function including the Copenhagen interpretation with Alex. Back in 2007 she felt pretty much as you do but did not go too far into the physics of consciousness. I wonder where she stands now. Has she gone a little further down the path?
Dr. Edgar Mitchell has a FB page and he does post stuff. Probably checks his messages too. I'm kinda hoping it will lead somewhere. I agree with you that it's one thing to push the theory of quantum hologram. It's another when the basic physics used to explain it has factual errors. They need to be corrected or removed. Why push nonsense.
 
#97
The first link is to a talk by Jeff Prideaux that explains the basic ideas of holograms (good), and then Pribram's ideas about how holograms could be part of brain function (more speculative). At the end, there are standard statements about how quantum physics gives an uncertainty principle (good). Then there is even more of Pribram's speculation about how dissipative processes may allow the brain to approach the quantum limit.
Nowhere is there any discussion of how quantum physics has any role in brain functioning.

The second link is to a paper by Matti Pitkänen, which goes into a lot of speculative detail about multiple sheets of spacetime, and how the brain may be able (in one of these 'sheets') to exploit the different physics laws there to do things that are not normally possible in the ordinary physical spacetime sheet. This is supposed to provide a theory of consciousness.

I pleased to say that this Pitkänen work is closest I have ever come to any actual theory (!), after starting to reading papers prompted by the Rey interview. It is, however, a theory that is a long way from standard quantum physics. No experiments to support quantum physics could by any means be taken as support of Pitkänen's theory: so much more work would be needed to do that, that it is a long way from being even conceived, let alone started.

I am not at all sure, therefore, that Pitkänen's theory is what Pribram, Mitchell, Schild, et al had in mind when they talked about the 'quantum hologram'.
Does this have anything to do with the concept of pregeometry?

Maybe I have read some of this incorrectly. The hologram is a physical geometry that when in the presence of light exhibits interference properties which grant a holistic informational property. I thought that the physical hologram was an analogy. It sounds in some of the talk that there is some actual quantum "object(s)" that have holographic properties?

Are quantum holograms an abstract analogy or a physical structure?
 
Last edited:
#98
Does this have anything to do with the concept of pregeometry?

Maybe I have read some of this incorrectly. The hologram is a physical geometry that when in the presence of light exhibits interference properties which grant a holistic informational property. I thought that the physical hologram was an analogy. It sounds in some of the talk that there is some actual quantum "object(s)" that have holographic properties?

Are quantum holograms an abstract analogy or a physical structure?
That is exactly my initial problem! I am trying to find somewhere, anywhere, an unambiguous definition of what a quantum hologram actually is. And failing.
 
#99
Dear Ian, Please excuse me if I continue along this path. Do you remember Dr. Jean Burns Skeptiko podcast number 7. http://www.skeptiko.com/9-the-universe-isnt-pointless-dr-jean-burns/. Dr Burns is a theoretical physicist and was elucidating on the alternative explanations of the collapse of the wave function including the Copenhagen interpretation with Alex. Back in 2007 she felt pretty much as you do but did not go too far into the physics of consciousness. I wonder where she stands now. Has she gone a little further down the path?
Dr. Edgar Mitchell has a FB page and he does post stuff. Probably checks his messages too. I'm kinda hoping it will lead somewhere. I agree with you that it's one thing to push the theory of quantum hologram. It's another when the basic physics used to explain it has factual errors. They need to be corrected or removed. Why push nonsense.
About Burns: I have been reading her works, and making a list of them at http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Burns/Burns-Pubs.html (copying from http://www.mindspring.com/~l.o.v.e.r/Burns-Pubs.html, and putting in some missing papers). I have 4 more recent publications that I should add to the list: will do that later today.

When I read this stuff (by Burns or Stapp or others), I am always disappointed that they say they want a theory of how minds interact with physics (eg in measurement), but they have no idea what minds actually are! They know the physics side, but the existence and psychology of minds is completely obscure to them.
 
When I read this stuff (by Burns or Stapp or others), I am always disappointed that they say they want a theory of how minds interact with physics (eg in measurement), but they have no idea what minds actually are! They know the physics side, but the existence and psychology of minds is completely obscure to them.
I would love to follow a thread titled "what minds actually are!". I suggest there will be lively opinions at Skeptiko.

Stapp does well when he referenced A. N. Whitehead in some of his papers.

In the story where there is blind but tactile observation of an elephant, no one speaks of the elephant's point of view. When addressing theories of mind, Whitehead's treatment of its ontologies, is always tantalizing. I suggest that the elephant (a reification of mentality in this case ) was made the most uncomfortable by the intimate gropings of Whitehead. When I read him - it seems he always has something almost in hand.

Here is Stapp gleaning ideas from Whitehead
What we need is an understanding of (1) how and why these thoughts cling together in “streams of consciousness” that have the internal structures that they appear to have, and (2) why these streams of consciousness have the kinds of relationships to other such streams of consciousness that our conversations with other persons suggest they have. These two kinds of properties need to be explained, of course, but they are to be understood not as properties of “matter” as matter was classically conceived, but rather as coordinated properties of dynamically related collections of “actual entities”
.
Whitehead draws a basic distinction upon which his ontology is based: “continuous potentialities” versus “atomic actualities” (PR, p. 61): “Continuity concerns what is potential; whereas actuality is incurably discrete.” Another Whiteheadian precept is that actual entities decide things (PR, p. 72): “Actual entities ... make real what was antecedently merely potential.” And (PR, p. 43): “Every decision is referable to one or more actual entities ... Actuality is the decision amid potentiality.” Moreover (PR, p. 24): “Actual entities are the only reasons.”
my bolded emphasis
 
Top