Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

[J Randall Murphy]

Have you watched RVing the Future? Then you'd know Mr. Schwartz combined viewing data from thousands of RVers. I'm aware that the future is a pretty fluid state, so that's why I liked the input from so many viewers.

The more input, the more chances that something will eventually match something else.

In re: to rebirth, the data is overwhelming. Over 2,000 verified cases of detailed experiences from past lives recounted by children. There are adult cases as well, but these have not been as systematically studied as the kids'. The unverified cases are probably in the thousands as well, so to some extent the data can just be said to be incomplete.

The problem is that correlations alone don't prove the hypothesis that people can "remote view" into the future. For example, their could be some unknown and undetected third party involved that becomes aware of the data and then makes it happen at some future point.

Rebirth, to me, is the most profoundly fair & loving way to ease living beings along on their individual journeys. It, like near-death experiences, teach us that the Almighty forgives & loves always, our choices are our own, & we learn at different rates. Admittedly, there are some strange, unexplained things, but that is there to keep our lives & wonder active.

The world is definitely a stranger place than a lot of people want to admit. I'm not going to get into a discussion here about "the Almighty". I will only say that being "mighty" is not the same as being good, honest or intelligent. Those all tend to get tacked-on after the fact on the assumption that they're true — without any supporting evidence other than various scriptures, virtually all of which contradict those claims.

The after life or the in-between life offers even profounder mysteries, but far too many exalted beings have gone to great trouble to reassure their commoner spirit-brothers & sisters that they are watched over, forever guided, & eternally loved. Love & wisdom is the guiding Light in the vast darkness.

Maybe — but whatever "you" thinks it exists in whatever "afterlife" there might be, is not really you. The best it can be is a copy.

You might get some fascinating info from Walter Semkiw, MD, on rebirth, just for a start. You can find him on UTube & w/ Jeffrey Mishlove's New Thinking Allowed. There's an anthropologist whose name escapes me now, but he's on Mishlove's list as well. I'll let you know if I find it. Good Journeying to U!

Thanks, but I've been down this path a hundred times. I don't need to revisit the same concepts to evolve my thinking on it. I either need someone to provide coherent reasons why my current conclusions are in error, or references to other people who recognize the same problems and are working on finding new explanations for the experiences and phenomena associated with them. In recent years there's been a little bit of evolution along those lines, but most people's paradigms are still stuck in tradition and superstition.

 

[Robbedigital]

My premise rests on what seem to be typical notions of personhood and afterlives. The idea that each of us has a hundred million persons within us is far from what I'd call a typical belief. In fact I've never heard it suggested before — ever. So if that happens to be the case, then it still means that my initial premise is true. What people typically think afterlives are cannot be the case.

That being said, I would also argue that the word person is singular — not plural, and therefore changing the parameters of my claim to nullify it is not valid counterpoint. If you want to claim that we are each more that one person at any given time, then you'd have to make that case, and we'd have to evaluate it accordingly. On it's own, it doesn't constitute an argument for or against anything.

I think I’m getting it now. Your contention and deliberation is with the model of Human dying and re-appearing elsewhere with another body-mind, and you’re aimed to dismantle the idea that the “re-appeared” being could carry and re-assemble the totality of the initial beings components without making a new person.

So that would also apply to the Star Trek transporter. And also to any future of uploading consciousness into a computer.

I bet the ST transporter is the best example, because the show doesn’t (to my memory) insist on consciousness being an independent factor, rather just the body is transported and the viewers are to assume that the consciousness is part of its makeup.

I’ll have to do a better job of connecting the dots when you’re in the middle of dismantling that conception. And as mentioned before, my belief is that there’s a at least some independent component of transient personhood which survives death. And I agree it would be false to refer to it as “the person” from your angle, or generally/scientifically…. surely at least until more is learned.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I think I’m getting it now. Your contention and deliberation is with the model of Human dying and re-appearing elsewhere with another body-mind, and you’re aimed to dismantle the idea that the “re-appeared” being could carry and re-assemble the totality of the initial beings components without making a new person.

So that would also apply to the Star Trek transporter. And also to any future of uploading consciousness into a computer.

I bet the ST transporter is the best example, because the show doesn’t (to my memory) insist on consciousness being an independent factor, rather just the body is transported and the viewers are to assume that the consciousness is part of its makeup.

I’ll have to do a better job of connecting the dots when you’re in the middle of dismantling that conception. And as mentioned before, my belief is that there’s a at least some independent component of transient personhood which survives death. And I agree it would be false to refer to it as “the person” from your angle, or generally/scientifically…. surely at least until more is learned.

You're absolutely on the same track, and the Star Trek Transporter is one example that has been discussed in regard to the idea. I suppose that there could be a loophole in the transporter analogy if we assume that the matter-energy conversion process uses the exact same bits of energy to reassemble the matter as those that the original materials were turned into. Then at least we might be able to argue that continuity is preserved.

The issue with afterlives is different in that we know that the deceased person is just ashes in an urn, or decaying in a grave. So there is no continuity. At best there might be some sort of afterworld copy, and in most cases where witnesses report that they've encountered them, they're not even very good copies. They're often ethereal and translucent, sometimes appearing more like a hologram than an actual person.

So I'm not saying that people don't have experiences that make them think traditional notions about afterlives are true. I believe they do. I'm just saying that logically, such notions must be misinterpretations, and therefore something else is really going on. So we need to be able to set the biases aside that make us feel better about our own mortality and the loss of those we love, and start looking for the real answers.

 

[Kim]

I don't think remote viewing reflects any objective reality except tangentially or by coincidence. It's a purely subjective experience created by the minds of the viewers — and minds are very powerful, so we should expect that whatever experiences they generate will be in some way correlated with their experiences of the world. In other words, seeing a house during a remote viewing session certainly means that houses exist, but it doesn't mean that the house that is seen by the remote viewer corresponds to a house that exists outside the mind of the remote viewer.

Also, reincarnation as most people think of it is impossible. Same with typical notions of afterlives. So what the "data" says cannot possibly support the hypothesis — In other words if there is anomalous data, it doesn't mean that there isn't an anomaly. It means that people's assumptions that there is a connection between their pet hypothesis and the data, must be faulty — the cause has to be something else. Virtually every example in the interview is explainable as a combination of extrapolation through intelligence and imagination.

Hey, J R Murphy! I found that other researcher who's done a ton of reincarnation investigation: James G. Matlock, PhD. His discussions on UTube covers things like gender (will you come back the same sex or not), differences in time between rebirths (how that appears to be influenced), geographical influences, & much more.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Hey, J R Murphy! I found that other researcher who's done a ton of reincarnation investigation: James G. Matlock, PhD. His discussions on UTube covers things like gender (will you come back the same sex or not), differences in time between rebirths (how that appears to be influenced), geographical influences, & much more.

Sure — I've been through so much of this that even if the case studies are different, the basic premises are still the same. There is no "you" that "comes back". At best all there is, is some sort unexplained memory transfer to a completely different person.

 

[Enrique Vargas]

A Russian mathematician "AI" expert and creator of internet uncensored platform Bastyon Daniel Sachkov: "it's all hype. It's NOT artificial intelligence, there CAN'T be artificial intelligence, intelligence is creative, so-called "AI" only can analyse and calculate, but not create anything uniquely its own". This is a circus created by clandestine world elites". His interview for Russian speakers.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

A Russian mathematician "AI" expert and creator of internet uncensored platform Bastyon Daniel Sachkov: "it's all hype. It's NOT artificial intelligence, there CAN'T be artificial intelligence, intelligence is creative, so-called "AI" only can analyse and calculate, but not create anything uniquely its own". This is a circus created by clandestine world elites". His interview for Russian speakers.

Can AI Create True Art?

 

[Enrique Vargas]

Can AI Create True Art?

A perfect example of the Agitprop media creating the "AI" hype Sachkov is talking about.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

A perfect example of the Agitprop media creating the "AI" hype Sachkov is talking about.

There's some good points in the Scientific American article that are directly related to the claims in your post. It's not just "hype". Anyway, this getting off-topic. Intelligence and consciousness are two separate concepts. Some AIs can think and create things on their own.

How does AI think?

"Peter Koo, an assistant professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Long Island, US, has developed a new method – described today in PLOS Computational Biology – that quizzes an AI to figure out what rules it has learned on its own, and whether they’re the right ones."​

However that doesn't mean AIs have any conscious experience. Science has yet to figure that one out. It may never figure it out. That's why we cannot safely jump to conclusions about Radin's "Quantum Consciousness" experiments. Before any claims can be made about consciousness being a causal factor in "quantum" experiments, we need to establish what consciousness is on the same level that the "quantum" experiments are operating on.

Consequently, if its assumed that consciousness can be detected by something "quantum", then consciousness must be as "physical" as every other "quantum" thing. Conversely, if consciousness is not "quantum" — then Radin's "quantum" experiments aren't causally connected to the concept of "quantum" anything, and therefore any "quantum" level conclusions drawn about it are logically in error.

 

[David Bailey]

This guy may have a more promising approach to consciousness:

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

This guy may have a more promising approach to consciousness

Federico is pretty fuzzy around the edges — I prefer David Chalmers. However it's a pretty good interview. It's a little weird with the synthetic voice doing the interviewing ( Natalia Vorontsova ).

I may have mentioned before that on the last forum I frequented, we went through literally hundreds of pages of discussion on consciousness and ironed-out these issues. by that, I don't mean that we solved the problem of consciousness, but we got to the point where all these issues had been thoroughly explored, discussed, and debated. In the end I came out of it on the border between naturalism and mysterianism.

 

[mantenna]

Does anyone know Radin's criteria for causation versus correlation? Is it outrageous for him to assert that the deaths/health issues and vax jabs are merely correlations, and "disinformation" that is preventing folks from "saving themselves?"

Just wait until the “hive mind” pushes people around in their own heads, preventing them from “saving themselves” with their own processes and self-healing.

Imagine this: a young man, sensitive to the pressures of the world finds retreat into himself. Years of social pressure to be around people build up as he wanders down his own path and finds a way to much needed quiet and solitude. Switch on the hive mind and that sometimes-sad person has other people messing around with his peace of mind and doesn’t appreciate his stance on, let’s say, consensual emotional therapy services. Years go by and the hive mind tries to make him apologize to himself and the universe for something in the past that, as it turned out, helped him smile and walk a little taller.

Anyone can lather, rense, repeat, all day and perhaps find topics that might test their ethics, but with life as it is for so many people dealing with their own traumas whilst having to navigate this strange and wonderful place, forcing this kind of shift on humanity just isn’t right.

 

[mantenna]

I totally agree with you. To me, it seems that power hungry fools are trying to conflate higher consciousness with technocratic bullshit. I was going to say "technocratic enslavement," but it is worse than enslavement. Let's forget about all the quantum nonsense and everything else that is pushed by the mainstream. Doesn't it seem a little bit suspicious that all these nut cases rest on a fundamentally flawed conclusion? - That being that we can come to the entire truth of who we are through telescopes and microscopes? They quickly forget that if we were looking through all these different kinds of light bending machines, then we are not doing so from our everyday ability to actually live and experience life with our divine given perspectives.

Well, as established science, quantum physics has proven that when an experiment is observed, the observer biases the outcome. Add this to any hive mind model and if the hive mind can perceive its own constituents, the actions and experience of that constituent will change.
Picture this: you’re part of the hive mind. You go about your life, possibly bolstered from time to time with a sense of community. It may be positive or feel like a safety net. You see a food truck on the corner. You want tacos. Really bad. The smell, the sound, EVERYBODY wants tacos. Do you get the fish? The beans? After far too long, you go for the deep fried cauliflower tacos. 2 of them. Extra cilantro and some tomatillo salsa (hey, it’s California or Delaware, or North Carolina or wherever after all. Make it all about the flavours). That was delicious but you have more room, so you get a sweet potato taco and a fish taco. More of the same exceedingly great tummy love. As you’re walking away, another urge hits. Barbacoa. Nah, I’m feeling a bit full…BARBACOA!
You sheepishly turn back and grab another. EXTRA HOT SAUCE. But no beer. (What?) it goes down, you make a point to savour it, unlike the fish taco that was a dream of texture and aromas. The hot-and-heavy taco hits the last spot in your belly that was previously minding its own business. You stretch your arms above your head and exhale, your stomach squeezing its contents like an auntie’s hug during the holidays and you feel that burning fire of habanero love charge your gastrointestinal tract. You feel it all afternoon, a kind reminder. Memories of the moments flood back to you from beyond. For hours. You can barely concentrate on your work, which is rough because you’re an accountant (or something) and your attention is critical to your clients’ general economical wellbeing…or safety if you’re an engineer or an architect. Hours of this. Just as you give in and start typing a Yelp review (the hot sauce wasn’t THAT hot…) it’s time. Your mind and body tell you that they’re making room. No space for freeloaders.

So it’s off to the “back office”. You turn on the exhaust fan and realize that it’s been years since you had true solitude and privacy. A thought saunters by: “you’d understand if you had children”…

The microscope is nothing compared to what’s out there that connects with us directly and the non-duality of the mind prevents an observer from being able to connect fully and understand. Twisting this around and putting people into a multiplicity would surely wreak havoc, even if it weren’t apparent to anyone but the guy wishing he hadn’t eaten that last taco.

Life Is a Carnival

The Band
You can walk on the water, drown in the sand
You can fly off a mountaintop if anybody can
Run away, run away--it's the restless age
Look away, look away--you can turn the page
Hey, buddy, would you like to buy a watch real cheap
Here on the street
I got six on each arm and two more round my feet
Life is a carnival--believe it or not
Life is a carnival--two bits a shot
Saw a man with the jinx in the third degree
From trying to deal with people--people you can't see
Take away, take away, this house of mirrors
Give away, give away, all the souvenirs
We're all in the same boat ready to float off the edge of the world
The flat old world
The street is a sideshow from the peddler to the corner girl
Life is a carnival--it's in the book
Life is a carnival--take another look
Hey, buddy, would you like to buy a watch real cheap
Here on the street
I got six on each arm and two more round my feet
Life is a carnival--believe it or not
Life is a carnival--two bits a shot

 

[Alex]

The microscope is nothing compared to what’s out there that connects with us directly and the non-duality of the mind prevents an observer from being able to connect fully and understand. Twisting this around and putting people into a multiplicity would surely wreak havoc, even if it weren’t apparent to anyone but the guy wishing he hadn’t eaten that last taco.

Great post. thanks.

In defense of Dean we already have quite a diversity of " hive-minded people"

But I sure as heck wouldn't be getting in line for the jab

 

[mantenna]

Great post. thanks.

In defense of Dean we already have quite a diversity of " hive-minded people"

But I sure as heck wouldn't be getting in line for the jab

I think you’d be prepared for it, Alex.