Scientific proof of a collective consciousness (light, psychic)

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The "cant be explained" approach is fallacious. I very strongly advise you watch this video here even if you only watch it up until 2:55.

The point of the video you will see is that asking someone to explain an event that the "mark" does not have independent access to is a bad idea.

This video is talking about supernatural explanations. I'm not talking about that at all here. There's nothing supernatural about the idea that a magnetic field could act as a pool for all of our thoughts, which are known to be affected by magnetic fields.

It could, but so could invisible elves pulling strings in his ears. Just because something could explain it that does not mean that explanation has any credence at all. Credence is also not added by pointing out things such as "Scientists dont know everything".

The idea I am proposing in this thread is nowhere near as far out as "elves pulling strings" etc. The idea I'm proposing as possible has a lot of credence to it. I think you're just h.ll-bent on proving that I'm "so far out" because of our past interactions, Nozz. Treat this thread as an individual thread--don't let your replies here be colored by our past interactions.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Noses indeed can smell over long distances. I can tell who's been in the room based on smell alone. They don't need to be in the vicinity

Again that is not smelling over "long distance" though. It is a reaction by your nose to the particles that person left behind when they passed through the vicinity.

The point is that the nose only smells what is literally right in front of it. The question is how do those particles get from the source to where your nose is so those particles can get inside the nose.

The mistake people make is thinking that when they smell something, their nose is somehow sensing what is happening at the point where the smell is actually emanating, without anything happening in the medium in between.

The same is true of "seeing". When you look at an object you are not "seeing" the object. You are seeing light which has come from that objects position and is now inside your eyes.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I disagree. Open-mindedness means you're open enough to an idea before you have proof of it

Then you do not disagree because that is exactly what I am saying!

The problem is recognising the difference between being open to an idea, and actually accepting the idea as true or even plausible.

For example I am open to the idea there could be a god. I am however open to the idea while recognising there is literally no reason on offer for me to think there is a god.

The issue therefore is that people think being "open" to an idea is equivalent to accepting it either in whole or in part, without sufficient cause to do so and it is THAT definition of "open mindedness" I reject.

In short nothing I said says I am not open to the "possibilities" so even though you said "I disagree" you in fact did not. At all.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Again that is not smelling over "long distance" though. It is a reaction by your nose to the particles that person left behind when they passed through the vicinity.

The point is that the nose only smells what is literally right in front of it. The question is how do those particles get from the source to where your nose is.

The same is true of "seeing". When you look at an object you are not "seeing" the object. You are seeing light which has come from that objects position and is now inside your eyes.

Semantics. I misunderstood--I thought by "smelling over long distances" you were just indicating the ability to perceive things over a great distance. Smell, along with sight and hearing, are considered our three "long-distance" senses because we can perceive signals that originate from great distances, whereas with taste and touch, the signal has to originate in contact with our body (and in the case of taste, it also has to be dissolved in water). In other words, even though the action is happening in contact with our body, the signal can have originated from a great distance.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Then you do not disagree because that is exactly what I am saying!

The problem is recognising the difference between being open to an idea, and actually accepting the idea as true or even plausible.

For example I am open to the idea there could be a god. I am however open to the idea while recognising there is literally no reason on offer for me to think there is a god.

The issue therefore is that people think being "open" to an idea is equivalent to accepting it either in whole or in part, without sufficient cause to do so and it is THAT definition of "open mindedness" I reject.

In short nothing I said says I am not open to the "possibilities" so even though you said "I disagree" you in fact did not. At all.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Well it was your post so I am entirely unsure who would be better to ask. If your post had a point it is entirely opaque to me. Maybe you can clarify. Probably you can not. I do not know. Adumbrate your point a little for me if you're willing.

What's the point of nit-picking over people's grammar and spelling? What purpose does that serve other than to be rude?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

What's the point of nit-picking over people's grammar and spelling? What purpose does that serve other than to be rude?

I did not even mention his grammar. I included a grammar related link in my post which I thought might be helpful to him however, which he can follow or not follow as he wishes. I made a point of not mentioning, let alone nitpicking, his grammar as it was off topic entirely and I do not like posting entirely off topic things... a qualm you clearly do not share given you did.

The actual content of my post was the important part and it was about his post and asking what his point in that post was because I literally have no idea. Nothing at all to do with his grammar.

Maybe you can read the post in question and see if it is any less opaque to you because I have no idea what his point was and.... as seen when I asked him.... he apparently does not either.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Semantics.

Yes. I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I myself said it was a pedantic point. Twice.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

This video is talking about supernatural explanations. I'm not talking about that at all here.

Irrelevant. The particular example in the video was applied to a supernatural context but it does not have to be so for the same advice to hold. The video could equally have given a non supernatural context example. Focus on the advice itself not the example and you'll be better off.

The advice is still the same, and the context identical... in that it fits the following pattern:

1) One makes a claim
2) One describes an anecdote to which the "mark" has no independent access
3) The "mark" is clearly unable to offer a valid explanation therefore.
4) The "marks" inability to answer is then used as if it constitutes support for 1)

So in the case of this thread it could be like:

1) Make some claim or other about magnetic fields.
2) Talk about "Why did my dog go mad"
3) The "mark" has no way to explain your dogs behaviour.
4) Act like this somehow therefore lends credence to the comment about magnetic fields.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

The idea I am proposing in this thread is nowhere near as far out as "elves pulling strings" etc.

Nor did I claim it was! My point was merely that pointing out something "could" be the explanation is pretty much to say nothing at all. There are a million or more things that "Could" be the explanation. Picking one and saying it "could" be that one literally says nothing.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I think you're just h.ll-bent on proving that I'm "so far out" because of our past interactions, Nozz. Treat this thread as an individual thread--don't let your replies here be colored by our past interactions.

This "you are out to get me" paranoia adds nothing. My point is valid and has nothing to do with any "past" interactions we may have had. In fact I quite often reply to posts without looking at who posted it, replying only to WHAT they posted and I have no idea what "past" interaction you feel might be relevant here today but I can not think of one at all, let alone one that affects me in the way you propose. Perhaps you are one for holding grudges and allowing them to color your future posts. Thats fine. Just do not assume I operate in the same manner simply because you do.

If you have any issue with our past interactions I am unaware of it and I wish you look dealing with it. It is not my problem however and it certainly does not allow you to invent biases or vendettas for me that I do not hold in order to derail a thread.

It has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with saying something "could" be the answer being a bad comment to make because it adds nothing, says nothing, and is equally applicable to anything else you want to swap in. That point stands apart from any personal biases you want to imagine and go on a tangent about.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I did not even mention his grammar. I included a grammar related link in my post which I thought might be helpful to him however, which he can follow or not follow as he wishes. I made a point of not mentioning, let alone nitpicking, his grammar as it was off topic entirely and I do not like posting entirely off topic things... a qualm you clearly do not share given you did.

The actual content of my post was the important part and it was about his post and asking what his point in that post was because I literally have no idea. Nothing at all to do with his grammar.

Maybe you can read the post in question and see if it is any less opaque to you because I have no idea what his point was and.... as seen when I asked him.... he apparently does not either.

Linking to it every single time your/you're appeared instead of just linking it once is just an undercut way of nitpicking.

Yes. I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I myself said it was a pedantic point. Twice.

Okay.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Nostradamus was far more accurate than anything in the Bible. Having said that, if you believe in collective consciousness finally making it to humans, you should know that that kind of consciousness has been seen in animals and birds. So much for all the talk about "consciousness".

Absolutely. When I was deep into my post-post-grad biology stuff, one of my erstwhile colleagues was carefully and thoroughly studying the behavior of bird flocks, to the point that blackbirds (in this case, around airports, where they often get "incorporated" into a jet's engines, often in huge massed numbers) are obviously capable of turning together, seemingly with a common mind. My pal, with ultra-high-speed filming (this was back in the '80s' no digital video back then!), was able to verify that this was done in a very high speed "wave", across the massed flock.

So, nope. Not a uniform, simultaneous movement representing what was thought at the time (esp. by the woo-woo set...) to be an avian cosmic consciousness. Especially, as Mickiel will confirm, with a bunch of low-intellect, "lesser" birds. Of all the nerve of them, huh?

As well, George Noory on Coast to Coast AM radio (yeah, even I listen to him from time to time; I can always use a good late-night laugh... ) has indulged his woo-hoo audiences with massed consciousness prayer "experiments" which, sadly for this OP, ALWAYS FAIL. Except when George or others read into the results.

I mean, if such things were possible, we'd be able to turn back Hurricanes (as George tried to achieve one evening last year), or stop earthquakes, or cure large-scale disease plagues... or... or... or.... But sadly for our overall cosmic advancement, nope. Dunn't happun.

Originally Posted by Mickiel

In Gen. 1:26-27 God reveals that he made man in his image, his image means consciousness. God had already created all other things in the universe, including animals, before he made man. Clearly nothing else created before man was given Gods image, or given consciousness. Then God gave humanity " Rule over all the other things created." This is significant because it means that human consciousness is then superior over anything else in the material and physical world.

And when whole groups of people start seeing it, thats a leading toward a collective. Which I think is one of the goals that God has for humanity. We suffer in a collective right now, thats no strange thing, everyone is experiencing it.

Not only will we begin to think on a collective, but will see on a collective. And oh I can show some scripture on that. Vision is our distance receptor " Par Excellence!" Its our sense of space in a way that no other modality can even approach. And it is that spatial quality that is the very ground and fabric of Consciousness.

Yup-yup! Very Sci-Fi, and yet simultaneously wishful! Good Luck, Big M!

Boxcar makes some very fine points here, which bear repeating:

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

√ If the consciousness is the soul, why do we lose conscious when adminstered drugs by an anesthesiologist, take a hard bump to the head, or even go to sleep at night?

√ Consciousness is a product of the electro-chemical reactions in your brain.

√ You can't see without eyes,
You can't walk without legs,
You can't think without a brain.

It's not that complicated anymore...

Originally Posted by lee9786

Sure it is. Do you know everything? What if you haven't learned yet that the eternal soul does exist? That the soul is the exact same thing as what's being talked about here? What if the absence of the existence of the soul is all in your head?

Well, how on this Earth can you claim otherwise in the absence of any verifiable supporting evidence other than what you so desperately hope for?

to wit: Countless studies have failed to produce any evidence, and eventually we must give up wasting our precious research time on such woo-hoo improbables. We have far bigger and potentially more productive fish to fry, like, let's say, controlled fusion reactions. Or DNA mapping to produce huge new medical gains. Or getting our species off this planet into space so when the Big One really is inbound, we can possibly survive as a species. Along with some frozen DNA samples of all the tens of millions of other species we might chose to bring along with us (no mosquitos though OK?)

Originally Posted by Djuna

Sorry, we can actually test forms of energy. We can split an atom, one of the smallest forms of energy known. There is no evidence a soul exists.

Well stated, and in just 3 sentences. I'm jealous! Congrats, Djuna!

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

If that were true then the soul wouldn't be sapient, because no known energy is sapient without out conductive material to interact with.

And if it's like electriciy, why wouldn't it disappate? Why wouldn't the charge reduce over time?

How would energy on it's own be able to see, hear, or talk? What keeps it in the body? Is it effected by gravity?

Energy alone doesn't not perform like the brain does. All the attributes ascribed to the soul are actually occuring in the brain.

Another simply-stated post well worth repeating for it's obvious clarity. In case yah missed it...

Originally Posted by Djuna

The problem is, without definitions you can't debate facts either. Otherwise we'd all be like Mystic or Mickiel, off on a tangent making up stuff as we go along saying "Believe this is the truth because I said so".

Luv it! I couldn't rep yah right now, Djuna, but you've got that one sooo very right! The imaginative creativity of those who need [must have!] a detailed explanation for their deep beliefs, even when logic fails them, is legendary. The degree to which some will creatively delve, into the darkest regions of the improbable, the ambiguous and the indescribable, is awesome I'll admit. Our past-president of the improbable, our PhDr, used his hyper-language to surpass our own obviously limited thinking and/or imaginations to describe things that, really now, simply weren't in evidence.

But still; if'n you use enough multi-syllable words and fuzzy-logic concepts, or ill-placed adjectives like "clearly".... then perhaps you've got a new and defensible paradigm, right?

Originally Posted by DrummerBoy

I am of the opinion that, just as there are gifted athletes, musicians, writers, and artists in this world, there also exists persons gifted with a "sixth sense"; be it in the form of precognition, sensitivity toward the spirit world--like mediums--or even mental telepathy.

Now, while I'm a believer, there is one fact about all this that gives me pause. And that is the "Randi Challenge." Maybe you're familar? Former magician-turned-debunker has, for many years now, offered a $1 million dollar prize to anyone who can exhibit psychic ability in a neutral clinical, controlled setting. And in all these years--over 20 I believe--no one has even come close to winning the money. (Randi has a website that documents all the attempt if you'd like to check it out yourself).

I just can't help but be imbued with a bit more skepticism when I think of this.)

Thanks for this. Of course, such hard factual testing is not mentioned by the believers here.

Originally Posted by Blue Hue

I have a little trick I can do thats related with this subject. You all can try it if you like.

Etc. etc. I've tried this one, and frankly, it does not work. Not repeatable, nor is it unambiguous, one of the prime requirements for any such test. But, just for fun, I'll do it again today, when I'm at a scheduled meeting this afternoon. I'll concentrate on someone a long ways cross the room, where they are otherwise focused on the meeting's speaker, and where my "cosmic" attentions will not be noticed by anyone else. Yah wanna bet on the outcome?

PS: if you stare at someone long enough, yuppers, statistical probabilities tell us, predictably, that eventually their head WILL move. But this has to happen within, let's say, 1 - 2 minutes or so. BTW, does this mental wave transmission take time, like a pot of tea, to simmer in the target person's head, or is it instant? It should be instant if it indeed does exist.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

This whole thread isn't intended to be "see--proof!" It's intended to just be food for thought. If you never conceive of something, how can you even discover it? Einstein had to conceive of relativity in his head before he could even come up with experiments to find evidence for or against it. I am just throwing out possibilities here that some scientists have already thought of and some people have thought of as well, as things to consider.

That said the scientists associated with all the experiments are already included in the video so you can search yourself if you want to go more into detail. I posted the video just to raise questions and get people thinking, not to write a CD dissertation.

It all comes down to this: how can you know something is not true or not real if you're not even willing to consider it?

Who says we have not examined and considered this stuff? It has been worked on, reviewed, pursued, considered, re-considered and tested for literally tens of decades, because it is potentially interesting. But sadly, in the vast majority of those tests, and in particular the ones done with care & attention to the technical details, nothing happens. So, as I said above, after a while we say "Why pursue this one again and again?

It's like that guy in the famous old B&W film clip who straps some wings to his back and confidently leaps off the building, only to crash into the ground, Kah-Thuddo!


Early Flight (b&w, silent, 16mm) Vintage Films - YouTube

So...should they keep on trying, or can we all reasonably conclude that these particular avenues of design are all "no-fliers" and be done with it? For good?

Just because a new crop of wanna-believers comes along, with an obvious lack of logical training in scientific design or evidence evaluation, this does not mean the possibility suddenly re-opens, like some cosmic gateway, only to be rebuked yet again.

For some, this sort of re-re-re-evaluation is fun. For others, it's a waste of otherwise precious time, given that, as we atheists know, there's a limited supply in each of our lives.