Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
Can thought influence physical reality?
Krishna, I think you're a bit confused about quantum mechanics there. Our consciousness has nothing to do with the mechanical state of a particle. Rather, it remains as a super-position of states until observed. Understand what the act of observation means though: to observe you have to send at least one photon to interact with the particle. This photon carries momentum disturbing the particle as dictated by the uncertainty principle, which is the rock of quantum mechanics. It's not magic, it's just beyond our intuitive understanding of how the world behaves, as we have experience only on the macroscopic scale.
Yes, that's right. It's pretty weird. Even solid objects aren't solid. What you're detecting when you touch a "solid" object is the electron cloud surrounding each atom. This gives some peculiar properties to matter. For example, if you keep a container of liquid helium cold enough (just above absolute zero), the helium can leak through the 'solid' container. The slow moving helium atoms pass by the atoms of glass (e.g.) as if they weren't there!
John wrote: "Yes, that's right. It's pretty weird. Even solid objects aren't solid. What you're detecting when you touch a "solid" object is the electron cloud surrounding each atom. This gives some peculiar p..."It's amazing isn't it? To think that solid objects aren't even solid! If you'd told that to people centuries ago they would've locked you up in a mental asylum...
Therefore, decades or centuries from now, I wonder what new things science will prove that'll make our current scientific understandings a joke compared to what science evolves to.
James, well let's not get too carried away! At the beginning of the 20th century there was no relativity or quantum mechanics, but they may well be the last great theories. Relativity there includes General Relativity, which is really gravitation, whereas special relativity is more dynamics near the speed of light. My guess is that further science developments will be in applied areas such as genetics and chemistry which with computers can exploit the "modern physics" theories. Coming back to the point of this thread, I don't think it's a matter of brain waves affecting objects directly. It's more that devices can detect brain waves and can then get other devices to act on them. No real leap of understanding there. The original work is rigorous I'm sure, but journalistic interpretation is as always somewhat fanciful.
Regarding Krishna's last comment, we shouldn't reject them, no, but we have to be vigilant towards so-called "weird ideas". Current quantum mechanics understanding did not arise overnight. It was built up over a period of time with evidence of cause and effect at each step. Any idea that is not based on a proper sequence of events deserves to be ignored. For example, if 200 years ago some of the current quantum ideas were put forward then they would have deserved to be ignored. Ideas have to be supported at every step of the way by relating to observation and theory, otherwise we are no better than the ancient Greeks who eschewed experimentation in favour of "beauty". Perhaps the latter is a bit like religious dogma and explains why the so-called developed nations developed mobile phones, but the muslims did not!
Very cool links. Thanks James.It would be interesting to see what the big casinos know about this. That is a real-world example of where you have large groups of people all wishing for a particular outcome - to beat the bank. If the PEAR effect were in force, these combined thoughts would influence the outcome a little, and the bank would win slightly less often than it statistically should. The casino would notice this right away - they'd be taking less money over time than their own models would predict. If it's real, they'd have to acknowledge it and build it into their business models, or even deploy counter-thinkers to counteract it!
John wrote: "James, well let's not get too carried away! At the beginning of the 20th century there was no relativity or quantum mechanics, but they may well be the last great theories..."You could well be right, John.
On the other hand, there was a major scientist (whose name escapes me) who boldly and infamously said in the early 20th Century that science has already discovered everything there is to know...
And look how many discoveries we have had in the 20th and early 21st Centuries...We may well find there are far more discoveries in the 21st Century than there were in the 20th...
My gut instinct tells me science is infinite and in the bigger picture modern scientists have only discovered the tip of the iceberg.
There are amazing things to come, my friend. :)
Luke wrote: "Very cool links. Thanks James.It would be interesting to see what the big casinos know about this. That is a real-world example of where you have large groups of people all wishing for a particul..."
There has been some (limited, small-scale) research surrounding thoughts and casinos. Very interesting stuff.
According to some of the more advanced and forward-thinking scientists I know, a lot of these mind influencing matter results relate to superluminal (faster-than-light) particles in the brain - which apparently modern science is still yet to fully understand.
If interested in this subject, I recommend a book by my friend Japanese scientist Dr. Takaaki Musha 'Superluminal Particles and Hypercomputation: Theory and Its Applications to Brain Science & Technology' published by LAMBERT Acacemic Publishing: https://www.lap-publishing.com/catalo...
James said " ...science has already discovered everything there is to know..." Lord Kelvin said something to that effect. seems like it was a common thought, though. I think it's fascinating that with the right vibrations, we can affect matter...I don't understand it very well, but I'm assuming it is the atoms "bouncing" off course...and perhaps as a consequence becoming a part of a different atom...it's my thinking far off?
Luke wrote: "Very cool links. Thanks James.It would be interesting to see what the big casinos know about this. That is a real-world example of where you have large groups of people all wishing for a particul..."
Beyond Belief: The Ultimate Mind Power Instructional Manual is one book that talks about limited studies (albeit in a corporate not scientific private research group) concerning the brain's potential influence on outcomes at casinos.
Lisa wrote: "Lord Kelvin said something to that effect. seems like it was a common thought, though. I think it's fascinating that with the right vibrations, we can affect matter...I don't understand it very well, but I'm assuming it is the atoms "bouncing" off course...and perhaps as a consequence becoming a part of a different atom...it's my thinking far off? ..."
Lord Kelvin made about the most inaccurate prediction a person could ever make.
Re your question: I have no idea and not being a scientist I'd be completely stepping out of school if I even attempting to answer it...I'm still trying to work out why 1+1 = 2 :)
Hopefully some of the scientists or otherwise scientific minds in this group might be able to answer your question.
Thanks for those extra links James.I'm still divided on this one. I'm open to the idea of this kind of thing being possible, as so little is known to science about the brain that it can be considered 'magic' to all intents and purposes. I also want it to be true as I grew up with Star Wars and the idea of The Force :) I haven't come across anything yet that has convinced me that it's real, though. Even the Princeton PEAR stuff, after a little extra digging, seems to have been discredited - this is from the Wikipedia article on the programme:
"The program had a strained relationship with Princeton University and was considered an embarrassment to Princeton. PEAR’s activities have been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics [...] PEAR’s results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR’s results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results. An attempt by York University’s Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR’s results."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeto...
I read the first bit of Beyond Belief, but it's nowhere near rigorous enough to be credible, in my opinion - it reads like a self-help book. The Takaaki Musha book looks more interesting. I haven't read his work, so am not qualified to comment on it (I'll try and get around to reading it), but from the synopsis it seems predicated on the existence of superluminal particles. These are, at present, purely hypothethical, so any work that uses their existence as a premise has to be regarded as theory. For the moment, I'm going to stick with The Force :D
At first glance, the PEAR programme work seemed to provide that evidence. But it doesn't appear to have been reproducible elsewhere...
Some more articles I've come across lately about other scientific research on mind-over-matter and whether it's true or not...How the Power of Intention Alters Matter by Dr. William A. Tiller - http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/m...
How your brain can heal your body: Astonishing new research reveals the brain's ability to rewire itself can conquer pain - and overcome 'untreatable' illnesses: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art...
UCLA study shows we consciously exert control over individual neurons http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/min...
Was the discovery of Higgs boson actually the world's most successful experiment in the power of conscious intention? http://www.naturalnews.com/036428_con...
Mind over matter can really change the world claims Russian scientist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6NIU...
Also The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World is worth a read. Although written by a non-scientist and being Self-Helpy and New Agey, it does list scores or hundreds of experiments conducting in independent science labs and universities that provide evidence of the human mind does consistently influence physical reality somehow.
Also thought this article here was worth running in full as it mentions a lot of other research on this subject:http://www.collective-evolution.com/2...
Science Proves That Human Consciousness and Our Material World Are Intertwined: See For Yourself
March 8, 2014 by Arjun Walia
Nikola Tesla said it best, “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.” Swami Vivekananda influenced Tesla’s work, an Indian Hindu monk and chief disciple of the 19th century saint Ramakrishna. Tesla was also influenced by other Vedic philosophies.
Science works best when in harmony with nature. If we put these two together, we can discover great technologies that can only come about when the consciousness of the planet is ready to embrace them, like free energy.
Intention of This Article.
I want to make it clear that my intention of presenting this information is to demonstrate that thoughts, intentions, prayer and other units of consciousness can directly influence our physical material world. Consciousness can be a big factor in creating change on the planet. Sending thoughts of love, healing intent, prayer, good intention, and more can have a powerful influence on what you are directing those feelings towards.
The Science
For quite some time now, physicists have been exploring the relationship between human consciousness and its relationship to the structure of matter. Previously it was believed that a Newtonian material universe was the foundation of our physical material reality. This all changed when scientists began to recognize that everything in the universe is made out of energy. Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vorticies of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating. Matter, at it’s tiniest observable level, is energy, and human consciousness is connected to it, human consciousness can influence it’s behavior and even re-structure it.
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Niels Bohr
“The hypothesis of modern science starts from matter as the basic reality, considering space to be an extension of the void. The phenomenon of creation of stable cosmic matter, therefore, goes beyond the scope of present science. The theory also neither pinpoints the source of cosmic energy that resides in the structure of matter, nor can it explain the cause of material properties that are experienced with the behavior of matter. These are, in brief, the limitations of modern scientific theories at the most basic level of the physical phenomena of nature. When a scientific theory cannot cope with the question of the very origin of the universal matter and energy, how could it ever grasp and explain the phenomenon of consciousness which is evident in living beings?” – Paramahamsa Tewari (0)
The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, but instead comes from an entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, amongst others.
1. The Quantum Double Slit Experiment
The quantum double slit experiment is a great example of how consciousness and our physical material world are intertwined. One potential revelation of this experience is that “the observer creates the reality.” A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays explains how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality. (2)
In this experiment, a double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave-function. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double slit spectral power to its single slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. The study found that factors associated with consciousness significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double slit interference pattern.(2) For visual demonstration of this experiment, click here.
“Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.” (2)
“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (R.C. Henry, “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) (1)
2. Government Sponsored Psychokinesis Experiments
Psychokinesis, also known as PK, encompasses the possible influence of human consciousness on the behavior of physical or biological systems or processes, and comprises several loosely related classes of effect characterized by different scales of energy, forms of manifestation, replicability and statistical behavior. (3)
In 2004, a United States Air Force research project declassified a paper titled Teleportation Physics Study, authored by Eric Davis, Ph. D., showing that psychokinesis and other parapsychological phenomenon have been subject to rigorous research and documentation by several researchers and institutions. (4)
One particular example was the work of professional aerospace engineer Jack Houck, along with Army Colonel J.B. Alexander. They were responsible for holding a number of PK sessions, where attendees were taught the PK induction process and how to initiate their own PK events using various metal specimens like forks and spoons. Individuals were able to completely bend or contort their metal specimens with no physical force being applied whatsoever. (5)
These events were held for government science advisors and senior military officials. They took place at the Pentagon, at officers’ and scientists’ homes, and at U.S Army Intelligence & Security Command locations all over the world. Commanding generals, colonels and more were always in attendance. What was witnessed by all was spontaneous deformation of mental specimens, which caused “a great deal of excitement” amongst those present. (4)
“We will need a physics theory of consciousness and psychotronics, along with more experimental data, and discover the physical mechanisms that lay behind the psychotronic manipulation of matter.” (4)
3. The Global Consciousness Experiment/Random Number Generators
The global consciousness experiment is an international, multidisciplinary project between multiple scientists and engineers.(7)(8) It originates from Princeton University, in conjunction with the Institute of Noetic Sciences. It collects data constantly from a worldwide network of physical random number generators located all over the planet. The data is transmitted to a home base, which now has more than 15 years of data stored in it.
“Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We hypothesize that there will be structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events that engage our minds and hearts.”(7)
RNGs are systems created by Princeton researchers that are sensitive to and respond to the intentions of individuals, in other words, the influence of consciousness. They also respond to marked shifts in attention occurring in their environment. Peaks of order are commonly recorded during moments of shared attention and emotions. RNGs also responded, and had the largest effects ever recorded by the Global Consciousness Project during major world events, like 9/11. (6) Other large recordings have occurred on presidential inaugurations, tsunamis and the deaths of public figures. These findings stirred deep questions about the nature of consciousness and it’s connection to our physical material reality.
You can read more about RNGs here
4. NSA/CIA Remote Viewing Experiments In Conjunction With Stanford University
Remote viewing is the ability of individuals to describe remote geographical locations up to several hundred thousand kilometers (even more) away. This concept has been proven, demonstrated and documented a number of times.
In 1995, the CIA declassified and approved the release of documents revealing its involvement in the program that lasted for more than 25 years. (10) (9)
Ingo Swann, one participant in this experiment was able to view specific rings around Jupiter before NASA was about to take pictures of it with their pioneer 10 craft. This was documented in the research. Individuals were also able to view objects and people in separate rooms that were completely blocked off from their present physical location. The fact that some have/ had the capability to project their consciousness elsewhere from their present physical location is quite amazing.
These projects occurred for decades, while some of the mainstream world continued to view them as “pseudoscience,” the Department of Defense takes them extremely seriously, and keeps them extremely secret. This program was part of a program called “STARGATE” and was unexpectantly shut down. (11)
Here's part 2 of the same article:5. Thoughts and Intentions Alter The Physical Structure of Water
Experiments over the past four decades have investigated whether human intention alone affects the properties of water. (12)
This question has been around for a while in the alternative medicine realms, because the human body is made up of approximately 70% water. According to the Institute of Noetic Sciences, researchers have suggested that intentionally influenced water can be detected by examining ice crystals formed from samples of that water. Consistent results commonly point to the idea that positive intentions tend to produce symmetric, well-formed, aesthetically pleasing crystals, and negative intentions tend to produce asymmetric, poorly formed and unattractive crystals. (12)
If thoughts and emotions can do this to water, just imagine what they can do to us.
Many people point out that this experiment was a fraud, but it’s been conducted multiple times and replicated by some highly respectable individuals in the field of science. The paper I am citing here is from Dean Radin, who has published multiple research papers in peer-reviewed journals. The experiment was conducted at the Institute for Noetic Sciences and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Psychology at Sonoma State University. (12)
You can read more about this experiment here
This also correlates with a study that examined the role of intention and belief on mood while drinking tea. It explored whether drinking tea “treated” with good intentions by monks would have an effect on mood more so than drinking ordinary tea. The study was done under double-blind, randomized conditions, and results proved positive. (13)
6. The Placebo Effect
It’s been well documented that we can change our biology simply by what we believe to be true. The placebo effect is defined as the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered. It suggests that one can treat various ailments by using the mind to heal. Many studies have shown that the placebo effect (the power of consciousness) is real and highly effective.
A Baylor School of Medicine study, published in 2002 in the New England Journal of Medicine, (1) looked at surgery for patients with severe and debilitating knee pain. Many surgeons know there is no placebo effect in surgery, or so most of them believe. The patients were divided into three groups. The surgeons shaved the damaged cartilage in the knee of one group. For the second group they flushed out the knee joint, removing all of the material believed to be causing inflammation. Both of these processes are the standard surgeries people go through who have severe arthritic knees. The third group received a “fake” surgery, the patients were only sedated and tricked that they actually had the knee surgery. For the patients not really receiving the surgery, the doctors made the incisions and splashed salt water on the knee as they would in normal surgery. They then sewed up the incisions like the real thing and the process was complete. All three groups went through the same rehab process, and the results were astonishing. The placebo group improved just as much as the other two groups who had surgery.
– See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2...
A Baylor School of Medicine study, published in 2002 in the New England Journal of Medicine, (14)looked at surgery for patients with severe and debilitating knee pain. Many surgeons know there is no placebo effect in surgery, or so most of them believe. The patients were divided into three groups. The surgeons shaved the damaged cartilage in the knee of one group. For the second group they flushed out the knee joint, removing all of the material believed to be causing inflammation. Both of these processes are the standard surgeries people go through who have severe arthritic knees. The third group received a “fake” surgery, the patients were only sedated and tricked that they actually had the knee surgery. For the patients not really receiving the surgery, the doctors made the incisions and splashed salt water on the knee as they would in normal surgery. They then sewed up the incisions like the real thing and the process was complete. All three groups went through the same rehab process, and the results were astonishing. The placebo group improved just as much as the other two groups who had had surgery.
Another great example of the placebo effect came from the United States Department of Health and Human Services in 1999. The report discovered that half of severely depressed patients taking drugs improve compared to the thirty-two percent taking a placebo. Don’t forget about all of the side effects and dangers that have been associated with antidepressants every year. Don’t forget that the ‘depression industry’ alone is a multi-billion dollar one.
A 2002 article published in the American Psychological Association’s prevention & treatment, by University of Connecticut psychology professor Irving Kirsch titled, “The Emperor’s New Drugs,” made some more shocking discoveries(15)(16). He found that 80 percent of the effect of antidepressants, as measured in clinical trials, could be attributed to the placebo effect. This professor even had to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get information on the clinical trials of the top antidepressants.
For more on the Placebo Effect, click here.
7. Teleportation
“It became known to myself, along with several colleagues both inside and outside of government, that anomalous teleportation has been scientifically investigated and separately documented by the Department of Defense.”
A paper published in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in September 1981, in the journal Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal)tilted “Some Experiments on the Transfer of Objects Performed by Unusual Abilities of the Human Body” (Shuhuang et al., 1981) reported that ‘gifted children,’ were able to cause the teleportation of small, physical objects from one place to another.(4) Objects included watches, horseflies, other insects, radio micro-transmitters, photosensitive paper and more. The participants never touched the objects beforehand. The experiments were done under both blind and double-blind conditions, and the researches involved came from various colleges and sectors of the Department of Defense. This is an exceptional case, because it was deemed necessary that an unclassified Intelligence Information Report be prepared for public viewing.
More research was done by the Aerospace Medicine Engineering Institute in Beijing, in July of 1990. It was published in the Chinese Journal of Somatic Science (Kongzhi et al., 1990: Jinggen et al., 1990; Banghui; 1990). This study reported several experiments involving high speed photography video taping, which was able to capture the transfer of test specimens like nuts, matches, nails, pills and more through the walls of sealed paper envelopes, sealed glass bottles and tubes, sealed plastic film canisters and more without the walls of any of these containers being breached. All of these experiments reported using gifted children and adults to cause the teleportation of various materials. (4) You can read more on teleportation here
8. The Science of The Heart
The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field produced in the body. Researchers have analyzed the spectrum analysis of the magnetic field that’s produced by the heart, and results have shown that emotional information is encoded into this electromagnetic field. So, by shifting our emotions, we are changing the information that is encoded into these electromagnetic field that are radiated by the heart. This can impact those around us. When we are feeling emotions of compassion, love, gratitude and understanding, the heart beats out a very different message.
9/10 And Beyond
There are numerous studies documenting how consciousness and our physical material reality are intertwined, in so many different ways, with many different examples like the ones listed above. I am going to leave you with a long list of selected peer-reviewed journal publications on Psi research. This involves anomalous processes of information or energy transfer, telepathy and other forms of unexplained phenomenon that have observable, repeatable outcomes in the lab.
Sources:
(0) http://www.tewari.org/Books/Spititual...
(1) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.U...
(2) http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files...
(3) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1...
(4) http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/telepor...
(5) http://www.jackhouck.com/pdf_files/pk...
(6) http://boundarytech.com/bi/articles/F...
(7) http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
(8) https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/#stha...
(9) http://www.scientificexploration.org/...
(10) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1...
(11) http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/media/air_...
(12) http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files...
(13) http://deanradin.com/evidence/Shiah20...
(14) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/...
(15) http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main....
(16) http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
Lisa wrote: "...science has already discovered everything there is to know..." Lord Kelvin said something to that effect...."You're right, Lord Kelvin did say something like this. In the late 1800's actually! His and other scientists comments along these lines should serve as a firm warning to anybody in the modern era as I think we're starting to see a return to extreme arrogance from many sectors within the scientific community. Many aspects of scientific academia just cannot be challenged at the moment and dogmatism is rife.
I found this great article which quotes a number of scientists saying similar things to Lord Kelvin (but also many other scientists warning against such arrogance):
Science is at its end, all the important things
have already been discovered! W. Beaty
It seems that every so often, a fairly large group of scientists begin to assert that science is just about complete, that the vast unknown is gone, and that all the really major research can stop because we now know everything except the details.
For those who fall under the spell of this sort of belief, be aware that a similar belief seemed to have taken hold at the turn of the last century. This was just before Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appeared on the scene and opened up new realms for exploration.
From 1874:
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
From ca. 1875:
"Sometimes I really regret that I did not live in those times when there was still so much that was new; to be sure enough much is yet unknown, but I do not think that it will be possible to discover anything easily nowadays that would lead us to revise our entire outlook as radically as was possible in the days when telescopes and microscopes were still new."
- Heinrich Hertz as a physics student
From 1888:
"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
- Simon Newcomb, early American astronomer
From 1894:
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
- Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894
From 1900:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin
From a bit earlier:
"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - Spanish Royal Commission, rejecting Christopher Columbus' proposal to sail west.
Just because the size of the 'Unknown' in the world seems small, we shouldn't assume that it in fact is small. The size of the Unknown is just a guesstimate. The true size of the unknown is... UNKNOWN!
Just when all the sensible researchers become convinced that a field of science is exhausted, an unexpected new discovery can reveal the existence of a vast and unexplored territory which up to that moment had been invisible. The history of science contains many examples. But hindsight doesn't help, and try as we might, we cannot become the next Einstein just because we try to be.
And so we should steer clear of any self-centered reasoning which holds that, "since I personally cannot see numerous new realms needing exploration, then such realms must not exist!"
I perceive two main paths to progress in science. One path is to push forward into a diminishing group of well recognized but as yet uninvestigated areas. The other path is to search for new areas whose existence is not even suspected.
To pursue the latter, look to Nature. Search for phenomena which cannot be explained using current theory. Note that this invariably involves going against the opinions of the majority. It means that you must give more weight to reported events which any rational researcher would dismiss as being impossible. Any discoveries which would significantly alter the current theories are ALWAYS impossible when viewed in light of those current theories. To make revolutionary discoveries, you'll have to break away from the herd and march to the beat of a different drummer.
Also, listen to the voices of the small minority of researchers who are already exploring unsuspected new realms, but who have been ignored by the wider scientific community because of their unconventional interests. Yes, sometimes there are unseen new realms still awaiting the first discoverer. But at other times the new realm has already been discovered by one or a few, yet its existence is being denied by the majority on the grounds that the new realm is pseudoscience, that it's are forbidden by well-tested theories, or that it's just too crazy to be true. If Science holds various "unexplained phenomena" in contempt, grouping it all together with Bigfoot and UFO abductions, then this forms a barrier against free exploration. Also, it almost guarantees that interesting things yet lie preserved beyond the barrier of disbelief.
It's the conceit of every age to believe that scientific advancement has at last reached it's pinnacle, while future explorers will have very little left to do. So, in order to open the way to revolutionary discovery, you must reject this conceit.
More food for thought:
"In real life, every field of science is incomplete, and most of them - whatever the record of accomplisment during the last 200 years - are still in their very earliest stages." -Lewis Thomas
"I have begun to feel that there is a tendency in 20th Century science to forget that there will be a 21st Century science, and indeed a 30th Century science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe may appear quite different than it does to us. We suffer, perhaps, from temporal provincialism, a form of arrogance that has always irritated posterity. - J. Allen Hynek, letter to Science magazine, August 1, 1966
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
"I think it is a kind of intellectual chauvinism to assume that all the laws of physics have been discovered by the year of our meeting. Had we held this meeting twenty or forty years ago, we would perhaps have erroneously drawn the same conclusion." - Carl Sagan, 1971
"On any Tuesday morning, if asked, a good working scientist will tell you with some self-satisfaction that the affairs of his field are nicely in order, that things are finally looking clear and making sense, and all is well. But come back again on another Tuesday, and the roof may have just fallen in on his life's work." -Lewis Thomas
"No matter how we may single out a complex from nature...its theoretical treatment will never prove to be ultimately conclusive... I believe that this process of deepening of theory has no limits." - Albert Einstein, 1917
"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936
Today we can smirk about those who declared science to be finished a century ago. Shouldn't we take this lesson to heart, and be careful not to repeat the same mistake? Will scientists of future centuries find great humor in "informed" contemporary declarations that Science is near its end?
Another good one:“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
― William Shakespeare, As You Like It
Luke wrote: "Another good one:“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
― William Shakespeare, As You Like It"
Good one, Luke.
And also one last one from me on this subject:
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -Socrates
Surely one of the greatest examples of thought creating reality is Masaru Emoto's discoveries that molecules of water are affected by our thoughts, words and feelings. I'm amazed that anyone can refute his findings, to be honest.Hidden Messages in Water
Here's a short video collection of images:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzs...
And it's worth remembering that the vast majority of ourselves and the planet is water. If kind words can affect water molecules into forming beautiful geometric shapes, then think what effect goodness and kindness could have on us if we all treated each other that way!
Thanks Harry, will investigate.There are definite examples of mind over matter - it could be argued that moving our arms and legs is an observable example, and, moreover, one that science cannot fully explain. The placebo effect (from the links in one of the posts above) is another, and one that a good chunk of the pharmaceutical industry is based on. Science cannot explain that, either, although it can observe it.
I think the contention arises when the observations themselves are questionable, not the fact that there are no explanations for them. There are plenty of easily observable everyday phenomena that defy scientific explanation - consciousness being an obvious one. Thousands of years of philosophy, medicine and biology have failed to come up with even a basic hypothesis for the mechanism of consciousness, yet we all walk around every day being conscious, so we can observe it for ourselves. Once we recognise that we are unable to explain something that fundamental and observable, then mind-over-matter becomes much less far-fetched than it seems.
In the case of the exertion of the power of the mind over things outside the body, or telekinesis, I'm not aware of any phenomena that are similarly easily observable. Thus, when people claim to have observed it, they often get called crackpots, just as is the case with observation of UFOs and other such things. When people start disputing observations, you have to look at whether their motives are suppression of the knowledge (maybe the case with UFOs in many cases), or whether the observations really don't stand up to scrutiny (such as with the PEAR research... according to Wikipedia!).
This is why I approach claims of observations of telekinesis (even at the molecular scale) with measured scepticism - it's simply because I don't see a motive or a means for the suppression of this knowledge, and if the observations were cast-iron, I don't think they'd be disputed, even if they couldn't be explained.
Now to investigate... :D
In the words of Isaac Newton (who better?!), and in keeping with the trickle analogy, although not numerically absolute:“What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.”
Luke, you make some good point here, but I wouldn't call consciousness "fundamental". If it were fundamental all living things would have it. It is not really observable either. If so, name an instrument which you could construct to detect it. That is presumably why thousands of years of philosophy has not revealed its origin. My thoughts are that consciousness is an advanced evolutionary achievement. It is (in my opinion) an emergent property of a complex system. We see emergent properties in mathematical systems. For example, a computer model which predicts the weather or climate when boiled down is a sequence of instructions which describe the laws of physics on a rotating Earth. The weather forecast is an "emergent property". It was not coded in, it just came out.
Regarding biological systems, they can be boiled down to a collection of neurons. Get enough together and you create an insect. But I don't think an insect has consciousness. As you go up the evolutionary chain, more neurons are needed in the brain and eventually, the system becomes what we call conscious. That still doesn't define consciousness, though, in an objective way. Nor does it define where the boundary is. However, we might come to some general agreement as to which complexity of organism is conscious and which is not.
By the way, does anyone know what a soul is?
Hi John, I don't think that consciousness has a boundary - rather, it is a continuum. I would say that insects reside at the lower end of the scale, more complex beings like dogs or dolphins further up, and humans further up still. I don't think human consciousness defines the upper threshold. It is possible to conceive that evolution could produce creatures more conscious than humans - imagine, as a fairly extreme example, a being that was aware of all events occurring within a five mile radius of itself, simultaneously. In fact, in certain contexts, many animals are more conscious than humans: dogs in relation to interpretation of the world through sense of smell; elephants in the context of long-distance communication using ground vibrations, and so on...Even within our lifetimes we move up and down the continuum of consciousness - we are more conscious when awake than when asleep, and more conscious when we are adults than when we are small children (or is it the other way around? hehe).
Luke wrote: "Hi John, I don't think that consciousness has a boundary - rather, it is a continuum. I would say that insects reside at the lower end of the scale, more complex beings like dogs or dolphins furthe..."Yep, what Luke said.
John said: "By the way, does anyone know what a soul is?" Yeah, I know mine only too painfully well. It bleeds when you're at the bottomest most bottom, it glides when love, luck, friends and creativity come knocking and it remembers a little of the world beyond this one. Unfortunately what it can't be is: put into words very well.Music seems to contain soul pretty well though. :)
Luke wrote: "Hi John, I don't think that consciousness has a boundary - rather, it is a continuum. I would say that insects reside at the lower end of the scale, more complex beings like dogs or dolphins furthe..."Great summary, Luke!
Luke wrote: "When people start disputing observations, you have to look at whether their motives are suppression of the knowledge (maybe the case with UFOs in many cases), or whether the observations really don't stand up to scrutiny (such as with the PEAR research... according to Wikipedia!)...."
Luke, I looked up Princeton University's research program PEAR on Wikipedia that you mentioned. Unfortunatley, the Wiki entry is very slim - one of the smallest Wiki pages I've ever seen and I therefore doubt many Wiki users have contributed to that page.
Also, as to be expected with any radical experiments that challenge academia and appear to push the limits of science, the Wiki entry mentions the program was controversial and not universally accepted by leading scholars. Again, that's all to be expected, as with any new scientific research in areas difficult to prove. But controversy and certain tests not being reproducible is a long way from the entire body of PEAR's extensive research being debunked.
Another thing to keep in mind is PEAR's research has inspired much other research in this mind influencing matter field...including many of the dozens of similar and more recent scientific research I included in earlier posts in this thread - and some of that later research has been conclusively proven and/or shown to be reproducible.
Not saying I have studied PEAR's program enough to know what percentages of these scientific anomalies will one day be conclusively proven to be true, but I just think we should not write off 28 years of extensive research at Princeton over certain wrong conclusions, human errors and outright failures in certain tests. After all, PEAR's research was arguably investigating some of the hardest theories to prove beyond doubt and any scientific research lasting 28 years will naturally produce loads of "results" that cannot be repeated elsewhere (for various reasons).
A lot of Princeton's anomalies research will remain purely theoretical for some time as PEAR was a long way ahead of its time. For example, I found a recent article in a science journal which said: "Princeton's Engineering Anomalies Research Lab has long maintained that the Internet might one day act as a global consciousness, unifying planetary outpourings of emotion."
Now something like that cannot be proven, but it cannot be debunked either.
All I know is many respected scientific journals still refer to PEAR's research and a lot of Princeton's research is yet to be researched further by any other scientists.
In saying all this, I have edited this discussion thread's heading by adding a question mark at the end!
Edward wrote: "They've gone about as fer as they can go..."All these excerpts from history, which I was not previously aware of, are starting to reveal that humans have been predicting for centuries that science and industry have "gone about as fer as they can go"!
Amazing finds and hopefully we are not repeating history...
so many links to read before I make a somewhat intelligent comment. But before I go to bed, I just have to say that knowledge is like glitter. You think you got it all cleaned up, but no matter how hard you try, there's always some damn glitter left that you didn't get.
Lisa wrote: "so many links to read before I make a somewhat intelligent comment. But before I go to bed, I just have to say that knowledge is like glitter. You think you got it all cleaned up, but no matter how hard you try, there's always some damn glitter left that you didn't get..."Agreed - these things seem to be limitless and infinite.
I didn't mean to imply that consciousness has an explicit boundary, any more than life itself has a boundary. [If you think about that for a moment, is a virus alive?] However, if you think that some living things are conscious and others are not, doesn't that imply a sort of fuzzy boundary? Regarding Lord Kelvin's remark about science (if that's who it was), he was clearly misquoted or not paying attention. For example, despite attempts to measure the speed of the Earth through the so-called aether, nobody had succeeded. It is a small thing, or at least it may have seemed like it at the time, but in a few decades it led to the theory of relativity. I'm sure 19th century scientists were also in a quandary over radiation, which once resolved led to quantum theory.
You should not let journalists, who know nothing about science, provide apocryphal stories about science that fit their own prejudices.
John wrote: "You should not let journalists, who know nothing about science, provide apocryphal stories about science that fit their own prejudices. ..."Oh right - all those scientists (the dozen or so I posted with near identical comments to Lord Kelvin) were misquoted by journalists, you say? And all those I didn't post (yes there are MANY more) were misquoted too, you'll probably say?
Maybe the truth of the matter, John, is the other way around - maybe we shouldn't listen to one-eyed scientists who try to creatively excuse arrogant and dogmatic quotes from leading scientists of the past and present to suit their own prejudices...
The uncomfortable fact is that certain aspects of science and the academia that supports it is now soooooo rigid that it's often very slow to change and adept when presented with new evidence. Unfortunately, the level of dogma is religious-like in some realms of science, probably more extreme than the era of those quotes I posted earlier in this thread. I am not a scientist but I know several leading scientists around the world (a couple of which belong to this group) who have enlightened me on how extreme the dogma now is in the world of science. The stories they've told me are eye-opening.
Lastly, John, would you mind mentioning your credentials? You don't have to, but the reason I request this is you seem to be repeatedly speaking "on behalf of science itself" in this group and claiming to have the ultimate answer on everything scientific even though some of your viewpoints contradict other comments from renowned scientists. So maybe I'm missing something and maybe you won the Nobel Peace Prize for science or something, but it'd just be good to know how you can be so sure everyone else with differing opinions to you is always wrong...
This is spicing up - I like it!As one with a scientific background, but who likes to focus on what science doesn't know, hopefully I can build a bridge. For me, the aims of science and of the Underground Knowledge group coincide - to establish the truth. It's just that science alone is not always sufficient to do this (a fact that it is often very reluctant to admit), so forums like this are good for pushing the boundaries. They can also assist the scientific cause in, for example, helping to uncover genuine scientific knowledge that has been suppressed, for whatever reason.
Experimental observation, one of the pillars of scientific method, is probably the best means that we have at our disposal for collecting reliable data - but it is just data, it doesn't provide explanations. Take gravity as an example - this is a very well described part of science. Through observation of massive bodies interacting we can now predict very accurately the outcome of those interactions based on our theoretical description of what is going on. Fine. As to where that gravitational force comes from, science has absolutely no idea. All it does is describe what gravity does, it can't explain its origins. On that basis, science doesn't even understand gravity.
It's the same with relativity and quantum theory. These are just the best working theoretical models that we have in the current day. They do not explain why things are as they are, they just describe them. Neither are they perfect in doing that - relativity falls down at the very small scale, which is why there is a need for quantum theory at all. It may fall apart elsewhere, too - physics is predicated on the assumption that the laws that govern it remain constant at all points throughout the universe. But this finding (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...) demonstrates that this assumption is probably not correct. Too often, people misrepresent theories such as relativity and quantum by holding them up as fact, or as understanding, but this is incorrect - they are descriptions. Good descriptions, but far from perfect. Sometimes the problem is that so much is personally invested in these theories by scientists that they will often get very defensive if they are challenged.
In short, we need science to help explain things, but there is a lot that present-day science is just not suited for. An illustration of this was your comment, John, that consciousness is not easily observable, as it difficult to measure. I would contend that, if anything, consciousness is the only thing that is 100% reliably observable, as all other observations come through the filter of our senses and are therefore liable to distortion. This was the basis of the immortal quote by Descartes: "Je pense, donc je suis". The fact that he was conscious and could think was the only incontrovertible truth, in his view.
In the case of the PEAR research, I'm putting it in the category of 'disputed observations'. I agree that the Wikipedia article was surprisingly short (though it did seem well referenced), and that Wikipedia can be fallible. Why the PEAR observations would be disputed after 28 years of apparently credible work at a famed institution (politics? suppression? genuine shortcomings?) I don't know - that is the really interesting thing about this case.
Apologies for the essay!
Excellent essay Luke.Disputed observations sounds like a very fair description of Princeton's scientific anomalies research. Polarising would be another.
Anyway, I am enjoying learning from you scientists and science buffs. I thank you guys for sharing your vast knowledge.
And to clarfy: I'm extremely pro science and believe all scientists deserve support. Many are unsung heroes.
I just react to absolutism or being told I'm stupid for questioning currently accepted theories.
Interesting discussion & I must say there are some extremely intelligent people among this group. Way too smart for me I'm afraid. I think I'll just stick to the side lines & read :)
Irene wrote: "Interesting discussion & I must say there are some extremely intelligent people among this group. Way too smart for me I'm afraid. I think I'll just stick to the side lines & read :)"I agree Irene, it's amazing how bright the membership of this group is (myself excluded). Some really amazing people have joined and they have a lot of "underground knowledge" to share...
I'm also enjoying reading all the comments.
Reality and the Extended Mind -- Scientists discuss extrasensory perceptions & Psi Phenomena https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8743...
Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey might be worth reading on this subject. It's written by the founders of Princeton's PEAR laboratory.When Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne first embarked on their exotic scholarly journey more than three decades ago, their aspirations were little higher than to attempt replication of some previously asserted anomalous results that might conceivably impact future engineering practice, either negatively or positively, and to pursue those ramifications to some appropriate extent.
But as they followed that tortuous research path deeper into its metaphysical forest, it became clear that far more fundamental epistemological issues were at stake, and far stranger phenomenological creatures were on the prowl, than they had originally envisaged, and that a substantially broader range of intellectual and cultural perspectives would be required to pursue that trek productively.
This text is their attempt to record some of the tactics developed, experiences encountered, and understanding acquired on this mist-shrouded exploration, in the hope that their preservation in this format will encourage and enable deeper future scholars to penetrate more deeply into the ultimate Source of Reality.
Robert G. Jahn is Professor of Aerospace Sciences and Dean, Emeritus of Princeton University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, founder and director of the PEAR laboratory, and Chairman of ICRL.
Brenda J. Dunne holds degrees in psychology and the humanities, was the manager of the PEAR laboratory from its inception in 1979, and is currently President of ICRL.
New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter ~ Dean Radin Ph.Dhttps://www.goodreads.com/videos/1093...
When Science Looks Like Magic: The New Science of the Paranormal https://subtle.energy/when-science-lo...Quite like this quote from the article:
“Studies of the so-called ‘psi phenomena’ indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Furthermore, psi research demonstrates that we can mentally influence—at a distance—physical devices and living organisms (including other human beings). Psi research also shows that distant minds may behave in ways that are nonlocally correlated, i.e. the correlations between distant minds are hypothesized to be unmediated (they are not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (they do not degrade with increasing distance), and immediate (they appear to be simultaneous). These events are so common that they cannot be viewed as anomalous nor as exceptions to natural laws, but as indications of the need for a broader explanatory framework that cannot be predicated exclusively on materialism.” -Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science
Defined as the aggregate of parapsychological functions of the mind including extrasensory perception, precognition, and psychokinesis, the scientific study of psi phenomena has been underway for more than 100 years. According to Mario Varvoglis, Ph.D., “Psi is actually the 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet and first letter of the word “psyche.” It is the term parapsychologists use to generically refer to all kinds of psychic phenomena, experiences, or events that seem to be related to the psyche, or mind, and which cannot be explained by established physical principles.”
Dr. Claude Swanson was educated as a physicist at MIT and Princeton University. During those years he worked at the MIT Science Teaching Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory and a Virginia cyclotron in the summer. At Princeton he received the National Science Foundation Fellowship and Putnam Fellowship. His Ph.D. thesis at Princeton was done in the “Gravity Group,” which focuses on experimental cosmology and astronomy, and was headed by Dr. Robert Dicke. His thesis advisor was Prof. David Wilkinson, who later became chairman of the physics department.
For the last fifteen years, interspersed with his conventional professional career in applied physics, Dr. Swanson has pursued investigations into “unconventional physics.” His principal interest has been unified field theory, the so-called “Theory of Everything” which could explain the universe at the deepest possible level. This has led him to investigate many aspects of the paranormal, which appear to be completely real phenomena which violate our present science. Paranormal phenomena, which have now been proven in the laboratory in many cases, offer a window into the deeper universe, the mysteries of consciousness, and unlock new forces and principles which conventional science has only begun to glimpse.
Among paranormal phenomena which are now known, it has been found that signals can move much faster than light, and the human consciousness and even human influence, can move backward and forward in time. Science fiction concepts such as teleportation and levitation seem to occur in reality in paranormal events, and offer powerful evidence that this will be the new frontier of science.
At the same time, thousands of out-of-body and near-death experiences show that other dimensions and other realities do exist. This has been the domain of speculation by theoretical physics, but OBE and NDE cases indicate that parallel realities and dimensions are in some sense real. And finally, paranormal research suggests that the human soul, the center of human consciousness, can survive death and is apparently an energy form which can move and exist independently of the body. Science is discovering that, in the words of the pioneer Robert Monroe, “we are far more than our physical bodies.”
Dr. Swanson has conducted extensive research in these areas, including research of the scientific literature, interviews with scientists in these fields, attended and spoken at conferences, and conducted experiments and investigations, to better understand how such paranormal phenomena can be incorporated into modern science.
This research has involved underwater archaeology in Bimini, scientific measurements in haunted houses, experiments in remote viewing and psychokinesis, and testing of new devices which can measure these strange forces. His book, The Synchronized Universe, summarizes some of the new discoveries of this emerging science.
In this video, physicist Dr. Swanson (MIT/Princeton) shares his research on the paranormal and reveals the new science of magic: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1134...
" but journalistic interpretation is as always somewhat fanciful"Indeed. Best remark I see in the first half of the thread
I'm deeply dubious about any headline which says,
'Science PROVES that etc etc etc"
I've said it elsewhere and I don't mind repeating it: science doesn't really work that way. One researcher working on his own--by the way, working for whom?--claims to have proven something; okay. Well, he can say whatever he wants. It's a free country. That doesn't mean the whole body of the world's scientists back him up or go along with his results. It doesn't mean science has been turned on its head. Science is an industry. It doesn't do 180 degree u-turns.
The damage is done by these horrible 'science feature' articles or 'Yahoo Science column' type of science-as-news. Newspapers and syndicated news feeds, realize that the lay public doesn't want to read tedious, dry arguments of the type found in scientific quarterlies and journals. So they get pop science. The announcements of 'amazing finds' seem completely unchallenged and accepted. Yeah, because they're not seeing any doubts raised by the rest of the scientific community. The whole report is being written by ...a cub reporter; and enthusiastic little Jimmy Olsen is naturally trying to write 'entertaining' and 'appealing' click-bait.
The other thing that happens a lot more lately is that scientists are increasingly becoming aware of the power of media to help them get funding. It wasn't possible before the WWW. But now, if they can make some kind of 'showy' discovery, if they can get a book deal and gain some celebrity? Fame often means money for their institution or their department or their project.
James wrote: "You could well be right, John. On the other hand, there was a major scientist (whose name escapes me) who boldly and infamously said that science has already discovered everything there is to know..."But James, you can't suggest that once we fully understand the atom, that there is still another world of atoms underneath that, which we would still have to discover and conquer. There are 'plateaus' in science which --once reached--remain static. No other 'layers' of info to peel back. Molecules lead to atoms--great--but where else can you go after that? Speculate on 'string theory' all you wish, but our world is finite in scale.
James wrote: "And look how many discoveries we have had ..."
Hmmm, is that really true, though? Like what? What recent discoveries are truly essential? Or egalitarian? Or frugal?
For all practical purposes, the human condition is exactly the same as it was in the medieval era. We have advanced in only one area: medicine. Otherwise this is still very much a Roman society. Bread and circuses. (No, automobiles and televisions do not represent 'positive' change or 'progress'. They are each in their way, wasteful disasters.)
In the Dark Ages, clerics dazzled villagers with debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. In our era, scientists prattle about how many electrons can whirl around a nucleus. What does it ultimately matter? People all over the globe still suffer from hunger, war, disease, poverty. The earth simply has finite resources: jungle law and self-interest will always rule.
Another clue that science is 'running low on new frontiers': you can see that history doesn't produce any more 'renaissance men'. Hasn't for a long time. When science was young, renaissance men could emerge. Leonardo, Bacon, Liebnitz, Wren. But as science has matured, it has gotten specialized into hundreds of narrow sub-disciplines. Its physically impossible for a man to master more than one or two fields anymore. [Sure, it's just an 'indicator', but a very telling one: and it suggests that whatever happens, no new discoveries will span more than one tiny subfield at a time. So how can some 'iceberg' come along which would compare to the amazing leaps of a Leonardo, when its bound to be confined to some tiny little offshoot? Food for thought]
James wrote: "My gut instinct tells me science is infinite and in the bigger picture modern scientists have only discovered the tip of the iceberg...."
For this kind of optimism, there will fortunately always be 'science fiction' to fuel your fantasies! :D
Science can't make us more human, can't help people love one another more, can't increase our charity or humanity, can't eliminate sadness and loss, can't resolve hatred or evil. Really, what good is it? Its quite useless, when it comes right down to it.
And science itself, is also just as often as dehumanizing and as dangerous as it is salubrious. (Bio-Weapons, anyone? Robots? Drugs?)
The merciful reality is that the universe is naturally boring; and nothing much ever happens in it. That's the way it ought to be. We don't need a world which constantly 'entertains us' as if we're babies. We certainly don't want a world filled with explosions, lasers, bangs, pops, or whistles.
Human life is nasty, brutish, and short. After your four-score- and-ten, you die and get a six-foot-by-four-foot-hole assigned to you. The dead certainly aren't excited by science fiction. They don't yearn to come-back-to-life for comic-books; they yearn to return for a kiss, a hug, a handclasp, smiles. To gaze into the eyes of their loved ones. Feelings! That's what human life is about!
Yep. For true excitement, look within your own self and spirit while you're fortunate enough to breathe fresh air and enjoy warm sunshine. Look around yourself, enjoy the world of your fellow men. Reach out to them. Do something for others. Be great of heart. That's what we all need.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Feliks wrote: "For this kind of optimism, there will fortunately always be 'science fiction' to fuel your fantasies!..."For that kind of pessimism, there will always be that certain type of scientist around who states or writes "science now knows everything there is to discover".
And if you need me to tell you what crucial scientific discoveries have been made since the late 1800s (that was when that physicist made that bold but ridiculous claim that all major discoveries have already been made - now laughed at by the scientific community at large), then you're in trouble mate :)
Science can only do so much for social conditions. We have enough for all 7 or 8 billion of us to live in splendor. It's not because of science that that is not the case.There's still plenty of reason to study particle physics. Moore's law it about to reach its end point and we won't be able to shrink integrated circuits much more. We need to find the next thing if we want to keep increasing our computational power. Not to mention new approaches to propulsion, materials science, and probably things I can't imagine. Before quantum theory, no one could have imagined most of what we use every day.
VIDEO: Mirroring Collective Consciousness: An Amazing App called Entangled (Spiritual Technologies 2.0) https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1151...John Dupuy talks to Adam Curry, inventor of Entangled: The Consciousness App, a radical new technology to explore the power of consciousness and the nature of reality.
Adam M. Curry is an inventor and tech entrepreneur in San Francisco. He thinks the idea that consciousness and reality may be interconnected is really cool. He was fascinated enough by the idea to organize the project. Technology advances by trying something new, and he’s very excited to explore the horizons of “consciousness technology.”
He was the recipient of the MIT Ceres Connection Prize at 17, for an invention that converted electro-gravitational phenomena into signals that can help forecast seismic events, such as earthquakes. Adam has been featured in the Discovery Channel’s Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, and is on the board of the Society for Scientific Exploration. He has worked at the Princeton’s PEAR Lab and Psyleron.
Innovations: Entanglement App: http://consciousness-app.com/
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1151...
Cancerous Tumor Cured in 3 Minutes in Medicineless Hospital in China (Chinese footage presented by US author/scientist Gregg Braden) https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1175...
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Noetic Universe (other topics)Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality (other topics)
Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe (other topics)
The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (other topics)
Supernormal: Science, Yoga and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Dean Radin (other topics)Joe Dispenza (other topics)
Gordon White (other topics)
In fact, Princeton University's Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) ran a 28 year study on this very subject.
Here is a quote from a press release they put out as they closed the project down.
"The research staff focused on two major areas of study: anomalous human/machine interactions, which addresses the effects of consciousness on random physical systems and processes; and remote perception, wherein people attempt to acquire information about distant locations and events.
The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality."
"We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates.
There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over."
------------------
Here are a series of links where you can learn more about this astonishing work:
http://www.energeticforum.com/energet...
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Maybe psychic abilities are in everyone and are not unusual or weird...
Princeton's PEAR studies reveal strong evidence to support the theory that thought can directly influence physical reality.