Topics

[Update]

There's a really sweet deal available right now where you can get a free copy of pzizz, a normally $40 Mac/Win application that helps you fall asleep with audio. It's not binaural beats, but definitely high quality. I'm confident it could help everyone, either with AP and meditation, or just generally getting a good rest.

What you do is vote at mydreamapp.com for what you think are good application ideas. You'll have to sign up, but that's just to prevent fraud, so you won't have to worry about spam.

Also - I'm one of the contestants! My application idea is called "iVlog." It's a video journaling application and I specifically intend it for dream journaling.

It's so hard to be a good dream journler. It takes a lot of diligence, writing, and time. With video journaling though, you can just talk and that's it. You'll even be able to look at your emotional reaction on your face, which provides for a much better mnemonic. I know for me this would cut down the difficulty of dream journaling immensely. It would even record in nightvision, so you don't even have to turn on a light.

Okay, go vote quickly, because the offer ends sometime tomorrow night.

Remember, if iVlog wins, I'll be intimately involved with the development of the app, and so will you, because you can send us your ideas. Let's make the perfect video dream journaling app.

Update: After the first few hours of voting, I'm actually in danger of elimination. So, if you really want to help, just vote for iVlog only and don't risk other apps edging me out. Of course, it's up to you.

Update: They've extended voting into Saturday.

Spiritual knowledge is more valuable when you pay for it.

That'll be $20, please.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

52 episodes of scientific goodness. All you have to do is sign up!

This ain't your garden variety science television. Prepare to learn calculus. And more calculus.

Good lord has anyone seen this yet?

http://print.google.com/

I had heard a year ago they were planning to do this but I didn't know it was live yet. It says it's still in beta, but, hey, everything in Google is perpetually in beta. I bet it's some kind of joke they have.

Anyways, a quick search of "lucid" or "lucid dream" or anything like that brought up a whole ton of books I've never seen before. They'll even allow you to read some of them - but not all, of course. Still, what can be read is still potentially very good.

In your Barnes and Noble bookstore, you might notice a section of small cardboard-colored books, titled "Get a Grip on _______" with something filled in the blank. I saw one on Physics and another on Philosophy, thinking it would be nice if they had one dreams. And... there it was!

The paper has a texture like that of a brown paper bag, and is marked in a haphazard artistic manner to suggest to that it is old, has been broken-in, almost like it could be rubbish. Odd that it has a kind of warm, homely effect. Although the thought would be nice, I've seen no stamp to indicate that it was made from recycled paper, which usually creates this brown effect.

To my pleasent surprise, I found this a very reliable and scientific book. It espouses no particular view, theory or interpretation of dreaming, and is clear on what ideas came from where.

I actually found this book to do what its title says. If you are confused by the many airy new age books and foggy reference materials on dreaming, this book will "set you straight," while opening your eyes to other interpretations of dreaming, including those throughout history as well as some of the post-Jungian ones.

However, it is far from being indispensible. As long as you know that no harm can come to you in dreams, I firmly believe that reading material won't help you very much. What's infinitely more important is your active participation in dreams, which can be done just as well without books.

Also, I am disappointed by the large focus it has on "dream interpretation." Although I am impressed by the objective viewpoint, by offering diverse and conflicting theories and methods of interpretation, I am personally uninspired by the entire exercise. The last half of the book is sort of compendium of interpretations on various common dreams (teeth falling out, flying, etc.). But if you're turned on by that sort of thing, then I'd recommend this most highly, for you'll probably discover facts that you didn't know. For instance, did you know that even the ancient Greeks had dreams of being naked and embarrassed in public?

Last, but not least, the author admits to never having a lucid dream. After mentioning Stephen LaBerge's claim the people can learn to have lucid dreams, she inserts a small statement, saying that, try as she might, she hasn't been able to teach herself. I respect that, but I wonder how the book might have been different if she had succeeded.

Perhaps it's best that she hadn't, though, for the "self-help" urge might have diverged. This book is very thorough in its scope and very succinct in its information - a remarkable feat for any topic - and very down to earth. The historical-cultural treatment of dreams is especially interesting, as well as some facts on medical knowledge. You will not be disappointed by questionable claims of chakra stimulation or energy work or be distracted by affirmations saying that you're infinite... If you, like me, have been flying so much in your lucid dreams that you've forgotten how to come back down, this book will assist you.

It's $5.98 American and shelved somewhere close to the bargain section.

[I posted this in the middle of one of the many threads asking if it was dangerous to OBE. Unfortunately, the thread ended up not being about the dangers of OBE at all, and I don't think it reached many readers. So I reproduce it here in the hopes that those worried about being harmed in OBE's are inspired to reveal the incredible weaknesses in whatever they perceive as dangerous during their experience, and realize, by contrast, their incredible strength.]

I posted this in the middle of one of the many threads asking if it was dangerous to OBE. Unfortunately, the thread ended up not being about the dangers of OBE at all, and I don't think it reached many readers. So I reproduce it here in the hopes that those worried about being harmed in OBE's are inspired to reveal the incredible weaknesses in whatever they perceive as dangerous during their experience, and realize, by contrast, their incredible strength.


I haven't had much concrete success in my endeavors, but readers of this thread may benefit from a retelling of an attempt to diagnose my inability to achieve certain objectives. One unanswered question I focused on was, "how and why do I dream?" Not understanding the mechanics animating any reality means not understanding the reality. That is the intention behind the following experience (probably PF3, as the "feeling of the air" resembled my shoecrutch experience).

I phase-shifted and found myself in a dream, at first very weary and lethargic. I stumbled, intending to ask important questions about dreaming. More lucid, I found myself standing next to a simple wooden chair, a table, and across the table sat a popular New Age author (actually, aren't they all?). He smiled his a-course-in-miracles-love-binds-the-universe-buy-my-book-to-be-happy smile, saying, "how can I help you?" Reflexively, I was about to sit down and ask a question.

Then I said, "No," getting up and turning away. I despised this author. This was why I was dreaming in first place. I wouldn't be here if I thought I could find answers in a book. "I'll ask the dream."

After a pause, I looked slightly upward, and asked the dream, "how is it that I dream?" In tandem, "Why (do I dream one dream and not another)?" It was a loaded question, but I was prepared for anything.

The dream cleared with that lucid glow, while the walls around me changed. I was in a castle, perhaps, medieval wood furnishings and illuminating by torch light. In front of me was an inviting circular staircase. As I walked upwards, I noticed a change in air, as if the castle was on a large mountain and I was ascending up through the clouds.

An older-looking man sat near a fireplace in a humble sort of chair, but plush with hay. I walked over to him and started to sit, waiting for him to say something. Nothing. Except perhaps a little rumble; a low vibration moving the dream. What kind of answer is this, I thought.

"Are you listening?" he said.

Noticing I was momentarily distracted, I felt I missed a lesson.

"No. I am sorry. But I'm listening now."

Then the rumbling grew louder, gradually stronger, and closer, it focused behind me. I turned around and stepped back quickly. A short young woman in a black robe, with goth-ish hair and features, displaying a sinister animalistic being, approached the old man.

I waited to see what he would do. If he was any at all wise, he would defeat her in some clever way, and then we would get on with the lesson. She hissed scathing, and he looked surprisingly frightened. Quickly, she began to eat him, horrifically. He didn't even have time to scream, her ingestion was so efficient. Then she turned towards me.

Although never afraid for my well-being, knowing it was a dream, I was still shocked. In truth I was afraid of something far worse - that of not learning something, or not being able to learn something, for this was really a genuine attempt for wisdom. And if I did not leave with something, I would be very sad.

Perhaps if I did not provoke her she would not attack. I waited.

Then she lunged at me. I flew back and up, and flung a force wave upon her. She fell back to the floor. As she was getting up for another lunge, growling, I noticed her intense hunger. She was weak. Here she was, after devouring a man almost twice her size, and she was still starving. She even looked thinner than before, more impoverished and in more pain, like a ragged child of a homeless family.

Evil had such a sight of weakness.

Showing her blood curdling fangs, she lunged at me again with more force. But I raise my knee and struck her devastatingly, my shin in her face, spinning her like a rag doll as she fell to the floor again, gasping.

Before she could get up again, I grabbed the rims of her clothes, and flung her out of the castle firmly and decisively. As she descended through the clouds, I flew after her, and sped her fiercely towards the ground faster than gravity alone would allow. I stopped, and like a bullet, she smashed through the rough terrain, pulverizing the soil, her body sunken deep into the Earth.

I landed on terra firma immediately thereafter, and awoke in my bed, completely serene. Every evil and every danger had such incredible weakness.


Mactombs and I shared an interesting discussion afterwards, but pointed out that I really hadn't receieved an answer to my question. Since then, I've thought that perhaps I received the first part of the answer. We dream because we are powerful. And powerful beings do powerful things, like inhabit worlds of their own effortless and natural creation, at least every now and then. And since you are so powerful, there is no danger to you there. Why we dream of one thing and not another, I suppose, is the next part...

Please feel free to write or link to your own experiences of realizing that there is no danger while lucid dreaming.

I know this is a rather late post... he's going to be on in about 20 minutes.

(right now that damned Richard C Hoglan is on with someone else saying that Hurricane Katrina was possibly manufactured by the government as a weapon... I just don't understand the sickness of some people)

LaBerge is supposed to be joined later by another guy who is going to talk about dream telepathy. I will try to record it, but since unfortunately sharing it will be illegal, I will try to summarize main points.

(oh this talk about Katrina is just sick... I can't believe I'm listening to this program)

[less than a 50%]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

(Emphasis mine)

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

This website really lays everything out very cleanly... quarks, leptons, force carrier particles, bosons, fermions, etc.

I'm really taken aback by the way many of you claim to know quantum physics so well because of your spirituality and the nontechnical books you've read. The arrogance of that...

So here's a link for those of you who still feel the need to learn something.

http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/particleadventure/frameless/index.html

I haven't done a good channel in a while. I figured it was about time I use my talents for the good of mankind of solve an ancient riddle about the prime numbers, whilst demonstrating the efficacy of spiritualism.

Ahem.

David Hilbert, are you there?

Hallo?

Es tut mir leid, Herr Hilbert. Sprechen Sie Englisch, bitte.

Yes, of course. I was just giving you extra evidence that it was me. You could be speaking to a fraud who wasn't born in Germany.

Or a fraud who was born in Germany?

Punkt genommen.

Yes, well...

Has the Riemann hypothesis been proven?

No! That's what I came to talk to you about.

Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen!

Yes... but, don't you know the proof?

Why on Earth would you ask that?

Well, on Earth we don't know the proof. But in the afterlife...

The afterlife is filled with dead people from the Earth... people who also did not know the proof.

So learning does not continue into the afterlife?

Well of course it does. But I can't tell you how. You have to die first, see.

Right. Okay. But this learning does not include the proof to the Riemann Hypothesis?

Mathematics isn't much of a subject here, I'm afraid.

Well, haven't you been working on a proof?

In order to answer that question I'd have to tell you about afterlife stuff, and I'm not allowed to go beyond fuzzy wuzzy topics like Lieben, Baumumarmen...

That's disappointing. I was going to offer my services to channel the proof to Earth for you.

I suppose you'd like to know where the Higgs-boson is too...

... you... you know where that is?

Oi vay.

If I hug a tree, will it give me a Higgs boson?

...

Herr Hilbert?

Make your time.

Eh?

Rainbow Power!

Rainbow Brite... is that you?

We are spiritual Reptilian. All your cow are belong to us.

You should go back in time to prehistoric eras. There's much larger game there.

Fool! How do you think we evolved?? We are the... wait a minute. That's actually pretty good idea. You wanna go, guys? Thanks for the idea, Telos. Our time machine is in the Earth, if you ever want to use it.

In the Earth?

Yeah, the Earth is hollow.

No kidding. Can you give me some coordinates...?

See ya in a million years! .... *zoom*

Wow. Eh... Anyone? Is anyone out there...?




I assume that Herr Hilbert was interrupted by malicious forces who wanted to use my mind for their evil schemes. Rainbow Brite then came to fight off these forces of darkness. And then those wacky Reptileans came.

So, I didn't get the proof to the Riemann Hypothesis. But look on the bright side, I sent the Reptiles back millions of years into the past! But then that might mean that they'll become even more super evolved once they reach present day again...

Shoot.

I've been looking at popular questions employers give for job interviews and this one hit me. I've been asked it before in other job interview and I wasn't prepared for it... I said something really cheesy that probably wasn't honest.

But the recognition of our greatest weakness can help us. We see, fix some of it, then go on to our next greatest weakness, fix some of that, and so on. So I ask this question in the hopes that it may help you (and perhaps prepare you for a job interview, if you are in the market).


It occurred to me this morning, as I was waking up, that my biggest weakness is my tendency to go after things that are impossible by our present standards. The number of examples I can think of is shocking. But what's even more shocking is their effect on my life, particularly when I don't succeed. I'm sure I needn't elaborate for you to understand.

But perhaps I can change this by taking these impossible things and breaking them down into possible chunks. You see, before when I thought "anything is possible," I thought it's possible to do anything in a day and anything in a second, without supposedly "required" inputs. So I rejected chunk thinking. Don't blow me chunks and say anything is possible. Of course anything is possible given enough chunks!

So in other words I have neglected the supposed magic of chunks. God I hate saying it like that, but I'd hate saying it any other way...


What about you guys?

http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html

I think some here will be more interested in the applet that shows the probability function for electrons in the hydrogen atom. Extremely fascinating.

I must admit, I don't understand what some of the others mean. This is a great learning opportunity for all of us, since as dreamers we have strong visual minds.

Last night I died again. Gosh, it must be almost a thousand times now that this has happened to me in dreams... as I'm sure it has to many of you.

This latest one was quite adventurous and dramatic. I had a sort of false awakening from a lucid dream into a reality where I was becoming psychic, due to my close study of dreaming. Images would flash at me and they would soon happen as expected. Naturally, I became an escort to the president of the United States, and foresaw suicide bombing attacks on him and prevented them. Horribly, I was with him when he was about to speak with what appeared to be a women's rally. Suddenly, I foresaw a pregnant woman rushing towards the president, except she was not pregnant. Instead she was packed with enough explosives to blow half the arena. No, I thought. I would not shoot down a pregnant woman... I doubted my psychic ability. Just as soon as I had brushed it aside, she came... I saw her a mile away and she exploded next to me.

As I died, I wondered... was there some special transit to the afterlife for a psychic person who screwed up? For someone who allowed others to die through negligence? Was my precaution worth anything? Why was it such an inescapable Catch-22? Would I carry my knowledge into the afterlife in some unique way? And what was the afterlife like anyways? Was my psychic ability just a shadow of that existence? Did I know anything? Was there someone waiting for me? And then I thought, finally death has come, but will I suffer for welcoming it? Should I feel guilty that I accept death so easily? What kind of raw, special punishment awaits me?

And then I awoke!

Is my continually waking up paying for sins committed while dreaming?

Then a few minutes go by... and what was this intense shuddering of eminent death becomes a trivial event. The real world is now in front of me, clearly speaking its importance... its homework, its natural demands, its judgments, its needy humanity... so that intense feeling of death, was so unimportant? A passing phantom of existence?

I do not ask these questions to hear your answers, so please do not offer them. Rather, I'm interested, for those of you who have had death dreams... what goes on in your thoughts as it happens? What kinds of questions? How many questions? When you awake to the real world - are you disappointed? Or do you find it amusing?

I have died so many times. I'd like to hear a fresh perspective on the subject. ;)

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68216,00.html

You "mind creates reality" guys will like this a lot. However, please pay attention to the critical statements and do not brush over them, thinking you know better.

[become an early riser]

First some biological context:

I have been getting very little sleep these passed few days. I was trying to become an early riser by waking up and staying up at 5 AM each day. Following the advice in that article, I went to bed only when I was reasonably tired. Consequently, I would only get 4 or 5 hours of sleep each night.

I was also very busy with a group project for one of my business classes, and those are always stressful. I finished it yesterday and the thought that it might be my last school group project ever offered me some serene (if possibly unrealistic!) comfort.

Finally, this entire experience happened while I was sleeping on my side, resting on my cheek. My mouth was open some and the inside of my cheek was pressing in between my teeth. Aggravating and irritating, as I'm sure many of you know, but this is what I'm referring below if I mention "my cheek."

    • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

(you do not have to read this entire thing... to go straight to the "beyond the transition" part, feel free to skip this part and start reading after the next line of dots)

Waking

I started napping at around 3 PM, a few hours after getting home from class. About an hour later, literally on the onset of a potential conscious phase-shift, my mom walked into my room to use my computer to pay a bill. I cannot tell you how aggravating this is, and how often it seems to happen. Not only is my room very small, but there's another computer that's meant for the family that's not in my room! But my computer is a Mac and the other is a Windows, and she just likes using mine better. The fact is, my mother still has trouble using the Mac, and it takes her 20 minutes to an hour to pay one bill, something that most people get done in 30 seconds. Some days she has spent 6 or 7 hours in my room. The whole thing reminds me about how my father, a true to life systems administrator, doesn't communicate with his wife at all about buying a computer or about using it - and how they don't respect each other, and how they don't respect me. I will refrain from further making this a rant, but let me also add that she's loud and talks out loud to herself.

After 20 minutes I got tired of waiting for her, even though she says she'll be quick, she never is, she never accepts my help... I got up and left for a bit, went to the bathroom, walked around. Eventually she left and I went back to my bed, just wanting sleep...

Dreaming

And, unbeknownst to me at the time, I dreamed. From my perspective I "woke up" at somebody else's house. There was a party going on with friends of my sisters and other family members, and I was groggy and dizzy. What on Earth happened to transport here?

I got up. Someone came near me, I think it was an older sister, and grabbed my arm, "come join the party already." This was a regular feeling. Parties of people who were much older than I was, who saw my presence mostly for the aesthetic of younger person, a cute addition to their night, perhaps making them feel like they were not as old...

"Where am I?? Who brought me here? What's going on?" I said feverishly.

"Don't say you don't know where you are. Just come on..." she said. I really didn't know where I was! I was so dizzy, my head spinning... Assuredly, many people thought I was drunk and raised their drinks to me. At one point I passed a bar, and I was hurrying so that I tripped someone and fell over along with them. I apologized so many times, disoriented. Yes, they definitely thought I was drunk.

"No! Did you bring me here? Did you actually carry me here in my sleep?"

She looked at me quizzically. "Well, you weren't getting up. We had to do something!"

I tried to find out where I was so that I could leave and maybe walk home, find someone to give me a ride, or even find a place to just sleep... I was so tired. I saw my dad. Unbelievable. "Did you drive me here?" I asked. He said yes and I became very angry. Please note that I am not an angry person. Scathing, perhaps, but that is when it appears that one is listening. I suspect anyone would feel raw being hauled places without your consent. It is a familiar thing for me. Here, though, it was expounded 100-fold.

My father was angry as well, but at me, saying that I was an ungrateful brat, and then offered to drive me home. Typical of him - condemning people for not accepting what he forcefully "gives," and then making them feel bad for accepting something else! I have tried to point out this behavior in him for years but he never does anything about it.

I yelled at him fiercely, "Did you think you were picking me up from my cradle, feeling justified in placing me wherever you wish?? Do you just fail to see that other people are human and deserve respect!!" My father is a self-proclaimed racist and a misogynist, so such a question would not reach him. In all of my 22 years of life he has championed the superiority of the pure white male. You never get used it. You just want to forget someone could be so pathetically pig-headed.

I realized my questions did not hit him. After he grabbed my shoulder, I hit him, very hesitantly, for I would not do such a thing in real life. Punching him in the face, my knuckle grazed the corner of his eye. He wears contacts and was immediately subdued, stopping to check and make sure one hadn't fallen out, or trying to put it back in place. After that he just walked away, got in the car, and left me there. Not a problem. I felt it just if he would get into a car accident from his blindness. Then he'd probably stop pretending that he could see clearly.

Lucid dreaming

As I started walking home, wherever that might be, I noticed that my cheek was perpetually lodged into the side of my mouth. I was still tired and dizzy. These things seemed to go together. Was I dreaming? I stopped.

I intentionally did not do any dream tests or attempt at all to become lucid. I wanted to see... if this is a dream, would I be able to intrinsically tell the difference of this particular dream from real life? What is it that makes this a dream, aside from my tiredness and my cheek, or other bizarre subject matter?

I looked around. Nothing changed. Everything seemed very real and solid. Gravity and mass were very apparent. Even my knees were weakening under the force of my body trying to walk around disoriented. The cars and the city looked devastatingly real. I live in Milwaukee, the most racially segregated city in the US. In order to walk home from the city I had to walk through the black district, or the "ghetto." A white person stands out and gets stared at - many white people are "afraid" to walk through the area, but honestly I can't blame them for not wanting to look at the trash and devastation of a poor area. So I had many black faces glancing at me. Nothing at all out of the ordinary.

Interestingly, I have been accosted by several black people just for being white and walking through their neighborhood to go college. Aren't I rich enough to own a car, they ask me. Daddy not get me one for my birthday? Comments like those are easy to laugh at, they're so absurd. But there was no use just staying around that neighborhood. I flew off the ground and soared out into the country hills.

(This account is becoming longer than I had intended... I will skip over some parts for now)

I had been having trouble flying, since I was still bent on trying to see exactly what differentiated the dreamworld from the real world intrinsically Yes, yes, people can fly and all that stuff... but everyone seems to think that it's possible to fly in the real world, and do any sort of other magic. What makes the dream world different? That you can do this stuff easier? No way. That's a total nonstarter. Then the real world was purposefully made to be difficult! Let's find something a little more substantial theory.

My problems in flight were immediately fixed, not by saying "this is a dream" and affirming my powers, but focusing my attention more. I looked at an area around the sky and focused my attention on it, until I just moved towards it as if on a rail. Straight as an arrow. I suspected I could do just about anything without affirming "this is a dream" as long as I just focused on it appropriately.

Anything. Well I might as well go to Primary Focus 4! I focused purposefully and intently on going "beyond the transition" as Frank had suggested many months ago, but I was never motivated enough to do. This time I felt assuredly like I could do it, even though I had no guide.

    • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

"Beyond the Transition"

Everything shook. I'm certain that I shall fail to describe this inner quake. It was not a rumbling, oscillation, or vibration per se, because I've certainly felt intense vibrations all throughout the body, even the frightening shocks like lightening, while having what some would all an OBE. But this was different.

Consider the term, "out of body experience." One imagines a spirit, consciousness, or energy body floating around and looking at stuff. Now consider an "out of energy body experience." I had never even imagined such a thing before today!! Mainly because I never bought into the whole energy body thing (and still don't, actually), but that is exactly how I would describe it, metaphorically speaking.

I say this because after I felt that I was on the tail-end of this gargantuan transition, I remembered what Frank had said about everything being very difficult to describe, so I was extra attentive. I saw, I suppose, a very general "shape" of a body. It was not as much a shape as it was the thought of a shape. It had no color to it at all. It was more like an afterimage that one might see behind their eyelids, continuously elusive to definition. I was gradually moving "away" from this "shape," or it was coming more into view.

I'd say that this was the "body" in which I was dreaming! But it was not exactly there. As I said, it was not a body but more like the afterimage of a body. Imagine something floating on the surface of a pool, and you pick that something up, no matter how carefully, there will be some waves in the spot where the object once was, and the water will tremble for some time in that location.

Like I said, I still don't believe in the energy body. I think the whole notion is very silly, and that this experience quite confirms it. How silly is it, really, to have an out of energy body experience? I was already having an out of body experience, and then I had an out of out body experience? Out of out? Well that's exactly what I had, should you use such terms!

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

"Conclusion on Experiment of Intrinsic Differences"

I was so bowled over by it that I shortly transitioned to a series of false awakenings. Luckily, I had a few more chances where I experimented by not becoming lucid. When I finally awoke from the entire experience, something was immediately obvious. There was a much, much much greater complexity in sound in the waking environment then there was in a non-lucid dream. I have never analyzed sound extensively in lucid dreams, but I have already significantly experienced its connection to the onset of lucidity. Again, I am referring to the complexity of sound - the combination of street of cars, planes, work tools, people talking, etc... even the sound of air or a soft wind. Actually, I'd say especially the sound of air or soft wind. Non-lucid dreams may be differentiated from reality by their lack of complex sound, whereas they cannot be differentiated by complexity of the other senses, as far as I can discern. Nor can they be discerned by bizarre subject matter, if one persists, as many of you do, in attempting to bring telekinesis, magic, and other bizarre subject matter to reality.

Does anyone here contribute to Wikipedia? If so, which articles? It can be an arduous and sometimes unforgiving process, but the collaborative effort of everyone who visits along with the "neutral point of view" policy could create a nice and accessible reference material for raw information the subject.

Some of the articles are okay but others are very empty. The following are just a few examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnogogia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dreaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Bruce&redirect=no

The last one in that list is the article for "Robert Bruce," normally a redirect to "Robert the Bruce" of Scotland. The Robert Monroe article is pretty dismal.

Given the sparse and scattered information on these individuals and AP in general, I extend an invitation to those of you with a literay knowledge in these areas to create and expand on the information already provided. I spent almost the last hour rewriting the lucid dreaming introductory paragraphs and I feel beat! So do not take this lightly. (still, even minor contributions are welcome!)

Also, please read the policies and guidelines page. Most of it is common sense, but some of it is particular to encycolpedic information and the like. Thank you for your consideration.

[Edit: Oh yeah, my username is Slac, so if you find me rewriting your hard work, you'll know who to get angry at ;)]

As I read this I am just flabbergasted - utterly flabbergasted that I have not encountered this book in my schooling. It was written by an influential figure in the democratic revolution, who is perhaps one of the most integral powers that helped ensure the liberties many of us in the free world enjoy today. Now more than 300-years-old, it does not seem to have lost any meaning... or edge. Thomas Paine was probably 400 years ahead of his time.

I don't understand how a work like this, written by an author so powerful, so long ago, could go so ignored by so many?

An excerpt:

But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born — a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun, that pour down the rain, and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?

Why are there so many New Age authors, when all this time we've had Thomas Paine?

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

When I journal my experiences I inevitably have too much to say. I simply can't write fast enough to record everything I remember before I forget it it. So then I use a computer. However, something is lost in not using the tactile sensation of writing. I find that when I leave the computer I don't feel as if I've actually aided my ability to remember the experience.

This is where shorthand comes it. I suspect that if I learn how to write in an alphabet or language that is conducive to writing quickly, I'll be able to retain the benefits of both writing and typing. But learning a shorthand seems like an arduous and time-consuming ordeal.

Does anyone here know a shorthand? If so, which one? Has anyone here created their own shorthand devices? Do you use them for recording dreams? If so, how does that work for you?

Thank you for your replies.

(for some information and examples of shorthand, see the following page)

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/shorthand.htm

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]

Please, pretty please... anything to make me feel like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was based on a true story.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/06/22.html

I always thought it was hypocritical to take someone who committed suicide - someone who potentially reached the lowest point of life possible - and then tinkle on their grave with condemnation. In other words the fanatics who say suicides are evil mortal sinners seem to take delight in pointing out the suffering of people and saying, "yes, indeed they are suffering, shame on them."

But I digress.

I just heard word of someone my age committing suicide. I thought, "good for him!" Obviously, I bite my tongue in real life, but not here.

Suicides are  nothing new. But why do I always hear it buttressed with debasing highfalutin snobbery... that the person was "mental", "screwed up" and "not right." Regardless of your religion or personal ethics or the actual mental health of the individual... why are we so quick to make such scathing assumptions about a person who is (quite literally) already down? Why beat a dead horse, except to make yourself feel an illustion of strength? It's dead.

Nevermind that question.

I just want to know. Is there anyone who is happy? Isn't there anyone who has faith that the universe, God, the soul, or whatever powers that be are good and will work things in everyone's favor? Is there no one who has an unshakable optimism?

I almost want to celebrate.

[Edit: Please refrain from making the token New Age statements about suicide. I know what you think and I know who you are, Mr. "earth is a school" and Mrs. "it depends on the fear and negative energy of the soul at the time of death"  etc...]

I was just listening to public radio and they had a guest on from the Global Exchange, a notoriously anti-global NGO. While some of their views are legitimate, they can get kind of kooky. No big deal. That's their right, after all. But the guest said something that I, as an economics student, found extremely fascinating. He said, and I'm paraphrasing:

"People who watch television are not the consumers of television. We are the product. The advertisers are the consumers. They are purchasing access to our attention and our minds. They get more return on their investment if we are not critical and instead absorb what we're watching. It follows, then, that content on television, including the news, will be designed to put us in a mindset where we are not critical."

Let me say again I am heavily paraphrasing. Certainly, similar things have been said about the passive nature of television, but I've never heard it in the language of economics. I've been taught to view economic participants as active, dynamic and powerful individuals. But this is turning it all upside down. He's right. Advertisers purchase our attention, but not from us. Television studios draw our attention in and then sell it. We are neither the producer nor the consumer. We're the product. The more passive we are about the process, the better.

From this all manners of conspiracy and other kooky conclusions can come, but I'm trying to see this from the point of view of the participants.

The basic economic model of supply and demand says this is only possible if we actually demand the passive experience. This is confounded because no one purchases the experience of being passive. It's a decision that is independent of income. The only thing we "spend" watching TV is our time. This breaks the classic economic model because inputs are no longer uniform, and not longer is restricted to two parties (producer and consumer) but three parties (supplier, producer and consumer). I'm hurting my head... sorry to bore you with this.

To solve the problem, however, the guest from Global Exchange basically said we should all go online and visit websites and form strong local communities, support your local farmers, etc. My dad was nearby and he said that that same kind of talk was around in the 60s - minus the "online" part of course.

The issue I'd like to present for discussion this: what good is using the Internet to focus on local communities when the Internet's strength is in connecting people from all over the world?

Similar questions from the original topic: Who are the real consumers of the Internet? Is it still the advertisers? Who/What are the real producers? The products? You're really thinking like an economist if you can answer these questions. ;)

From Coast to Coast AM's description of last night's show.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/04/01.html#p

Papal Prophecy Update
During his 3/16/05 appearance on Coast, Father Andrew Wingate shared prophetic visions regarding Pope John Paul II. On that show, Wingate predicted the Pope will be cured of a serious illness.

Despite the recent reports coming from the Vatican of the Pope's failing health, Wingate believes the Pope's death is not imminent. During the first hour of Friday's show, he said the Pope would be cured by a group of mystics who will travel to Rome and become important figures in the church. If the Pope does pass away, however, Wingate said he would "have to reevaluate many things."

Maybe Fr. Wingate was doing an April Fool's joke?

The Pope died the next day!

Once again, a journalist does not fail to seize the opportunity to headline the words "sixth sense," in order to attract attention.

Since the "sixth sense" is arguably a non-biological sense (spiritual) it has been aptly applied to new senses that are and will be given to us by technology.

http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2005/03/kurzweil.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/death_of_a_prodigy

He started reading as a toddler, played piano at age 3 and delivered a high school commencement speech in cap and gown when he was just 10 — his eyes barely visible over the podium.

Brandenn Bremmer was a child prodigy: He composed and recorded music, won piano competitions, breezed through college courses with an off-the-charts IQ and mastered everything from archery to photography, hurtling through life precociously. Then, last Tuesday, Brandenn was found dead in his Nebraska home from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head.

He was just 14. He left no note.

"Sometimes we wonder if maybe the physical, earthly world didn't offer him enough challenges and he felt it was time to move on and do something great," his mother, Patricia, said from the family home in Venango, Neb., a few miles from the Colorado border.

I find this particularly important:

Brandenn was home schooled. By age 6, when many little boys are learning to read, he was ready to tackle high school. He enrolled in the Independent Study High School in Lincoln through the University of Nebraska, taking most of his courses by mail.

....

"He set the pace," she said. "We only did what he wanted. (We might say) 'Instead of taking three classes, why don't you take one?' We let him make his own choices from the time he was an infant. ... He always made good choices."

We should give children more choices.

I don't know about this one. Fr. Wingate has had to take back some of his predictions because "heaven was testing his vigilance."

Oh well. This should at least provide some entertaining reading. It's the recap of Fr. Wingate's appearance on Coast to Coast as written on their website.

Prophecy: The Invasion of America
Father Andrew Wingate returned to share his prophetic visions, which he says come to him from "heaven," and are confirmed with a group of other mystic priests, before he announces them.

Here is a timeline of events that Wingate laid out: The Pope will be cured of a serious illness, but shortly after that he will go into exile for eight months, though the world will be told he has died. During this period he will "bilocate" and communicate with various religious communities. Around the time of the exile, the United States will be invaded by a united Russian and Chinese army, aided by additional communist forces. The US will already be fighting a war on three fronts when this happens.

He outlined the devastating consequences of the invasion, which he expects to take place no later than four years from now: Around 30% of the US population will die before the invaders are stopped outside of Omaha, with some of the greatest losses occurring in Texas and the southern half of the country.

Wingate predicted that the assassination of the leaders of France and Germany would precede the U.S. invasion. He also described a vision of an airborne bacteria that would take many lives, though he did not specify a time frame for this.

I wanted to say that I think the boundaries between dreams and reality have never been more blurred, for me. Last night I had vivid dreams all through the night (not just getting gradually more vivid at the night went on). Some were musical, others cinematic, and still others like video games - all of them could've been created a few years ago, or a few years from now. It was like viewing art that was out of the context of the reality that created it.

Anyways, I do have an experience to share. I was at a really awesome club/bar. Very few people, incredibly elegant architectural design and lighting, until I noticed that it was "art out of worldly context." I wasn't thinking those words at the time, but I suppose that's how it felt. It was like...

"Wait, did you just say...? Oh my goodness, this is a dream isn't it." The people around me smiled, as if they understood my realization. But the place was already too vivid, already too real. I looked at the architecture of the club... did I create this? How could I have created something so beautiful, without even knowing it?

I asked my new friend, a girl I had been talking to, "who created this place?" There was a thought drifting somewhere in my feelings that reminded me of LaBerge, that this is all imagination just being created by the brain, and that therefore I was the creator, but I was missing something... how did I have this ability to create without intention? Or at least, without lucid intention?

She didn't seem to understand the question at first, because she wasn't answering. "Well, do you know?" I said to her gently. She smiled in a way that told me she thought I was just being silly, but also recognized that there was a genuine piece to my question.

"The ownership," she said.

"Well, who's the owner?" I said.

She shook her head, maybe upset that I longer seemed interested in her, "Brad?"

"Where is he?"

"Over there."

The owner was a tall stocky man sitting behind a desk, looking at financial sheets. I was disappointed. I was expecting some kind of oversoul experience or something... something that would elevate my understanding of what it meant to create reality. I walked over to him.

"Do you know the owners of other establishments?" I said.

"Sure. I know the owner of Disney. Would you like me to take you to them?"

"Sure," I said. Whatever, I thought. Maybe they would prove to be more enlightening.

The club opened up into another building, like a shopping mall, and we walked across the way to another part and down a corridor. He picked up a phone on the side of a door and said something. And we waited. It must've been 5 or 10 minutes. Other goofy-looking people (with no apparent relation to Goofy himself) walked passed us, reminding me of people I used to know in school.

I was frustrated and awoke.

It's really obvious to me now. I was the owner of my experience until I subjected it to someone else, and I built that place. It is still a mystery to me how, but that's how it is, nonetheless.

http://www.physorg.com/news3394.html

This article is actually about an article in Nature, but the actual Nature article is still too new for it be up on their website. It's very short, so I'll paste it all right here.

The first realizations of 'cluster states' and cluster-state quantum computation are reported in Nature this week (10 March issue, pp169-176). This represents a significant move from theory to reality for an alternative approach to quantum computing first proposed in 2001.

Anton Zeilinger and colleagues (University of Vienna, Austria) take Robert Raussendorf and Hans Briegel's ideas for computing, based on highly entangled clusters of many particles - in this case photons - and demonstrate that modifications to the entangled photons in such a state allows them to perform certain computing tasks. The entangled photons allow the system to encode information before computations begin and imprint a quantum logic circuit on the state, destroying its entanglement and making the process irreversible. Hence the name 'one-way quantum computing' for the system.

This article reports the first experimental demonstration of the one-way quantum computer, which radically changes how we think about quantum physics and opens up exciting possibilities for the experimental implementation of quantum computation.

It's just stuff like this that orients me back to thinking that quantum mechanics really is mechanical.

I have never seen a book like this.

Some of you may have heard of Penrose for his leadership in the theory of quantum consciousness via microtubules. However, you may be surprised that this same person also thinks that string theory and similar "theories of everything" are actually quite... well, let's just say this book is NOT about a theory of everything. ;)

"The Road to Reality" is a massive tome. Spanning 1,047 pages, this book takes the reader into the heart of physics. Amazingly, and in my opinion refreshingly, you will find bounteous examples of math. There is so much math in this book that the author spends the first 16 chapters just on mathematical principles so that the reader will have an easier time engaging the complex quantum mechanical calculations described later. In the preface Penrose discusses his decision to make this primarily a math book, saying that one simply cannot fully appreciate the beauty of the physical universe without recognizing the beauty of the mathematical formulae that physicists use to describe it. He recognizes the drop in potential readership that this decision entails, but he also recognizes some of the reasons people shy away from math in first place. He is very detailed and very open about educating the mathematical principles of physics to the populace.

I know I probably shouldn't have started this post, because I have very little on which to write a review. I have only read the intro and the preface, but I am deeply excited for this book. The diagrams look beautiful and the math presentations take the reader seriously. I want to take my spirituality to the next level by bringing it to the Earth level, and I want to know exactly how physicists see this universe. I want to know what basis physicists have for saying the universe has extra dimensions, if it is not a spiritual basis. I doubt I will be able to fully digest this book before the end of the year, but it will be nice to finally elevate my left brain alongside my right.

I hope others in the new age community dare themselves to take the same challenge.

The overarching lesson that has emerged from scientific inquiry over the last century is that human experience is often a misleading guide to the true nature of reality. Lying just beneath the surface of the everyday is a world we'd hardly recognize. Followers of the occult, devotees of astrology, and those who hold to religious principles that speak to a reality beyond experience have, from widely varying perspectives, long since arrived at a similar conclusion. But that's not what I have in mind. I'm referring to the work of ingenious innovators and tireless researchers – the men and women of science – who have peeled back layer after layer of the cosmic onion, enigma by enigma, and revealed a universe that is at once surprising, unfamiliar, exciting, elegant, and thoroughly unlike what anyone ever expected.

Many of you know Brian Greene as the author of "The Elegant Universe," and host of the NOVA television mini-series of the same name. You know him because of his affiliation with string theory, a theory that supposedly confirms our extra-dimensional spirituality by its predictions of extra spatial dimensions. However, you don't know him for his affiliation in discoveries about space itself. That Brian Greene claims to entertain questions beyond the ken of spirituality, even beyond the scope of imagination itself. And that is the Brian Greene who has written this book.

Other reviews have mentioned the topic of this next paragraph, but I will as well, because it really does set the tone for the book. And it is especially important for us new age types, as Greene places the meaning of life in firm context. In the introduction, Greene recounts an experience he had as teenager reading a book in his father's bookcase. It read, "There is but one truly philosophical problem, and that is suicide." And it continued, "Whether or not the world has three dimensions or the mind as nine or twelve categories comes afterward." It was the "Myth of Sysiphus," written by the existentialist Albert Camus, and it had a somewhat profound effect on Greene's life, for he decided that you cannot answer the question of the meaning of life without understanding the arena in which life takes place. As new age-types, we tend to answer it the other way around, don't we?

This book is a very clear and lucid read with absolutely no math (except for the interested reader who will find some in the notes). And it is filled with questions. Prepare yourself for a complete reorientation to how you think about space. No longer can you think of it as just possibly having extra dimensions or integration with time, but extra properties as a "thing."

Admittedly, I downloaded the first portion of the audio book (illegally) so I have a huge head start in reading it. However, the audio version just made the book sound so understandable and engaging that I had to delete it and buy a copy. I apologize and beg forgiveness from whomever will give it.

This book will spark your curiosity about space as an entity, even if you are a Hindu monk and think you already know. :)

The following article was written by a former New Age author who was a spiritual leader and healer for nearly 30 years.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html

I keep wanting to quote from it, but I think every sentence is important. Please read every sentence and give it your full and open attention. This article is a call to action for both sides to work together.

---

I asked to have this thread moved from the News and Media section because I believe it's integral to advancing our understanding astral consciousness.

How does the article express that? Well, it doesn't specifically... but there is the appearance of a great divide in our consciousness. Astral studies deserve their place in science, but they currently do not have that place.

Why? Instead of casting blame at one side, I'm sure that together we can figure out why, and unite with our other half.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/science.html

I found this while just perusing the back issues of "Skeptical Inquirer." Before you go any further and accuse me of being a skeptic - this article is on our side. It advocates a new field of inquiry on "the cultural applications of science," namely to help us answer spiritual questions, which has traditionally been one of the responsibilities of culture.

What do you think? Is CSICOP on our side with this one?

Plato, you're a fan of dialogues.

Correct.

I am concerned about so called "new age" philosophy and would like your opinion on it.

Einstein was right.

Pardon me?

Einstein, the founder of what you term the new age movement...

You must have some mistake...

I pardon you for your mistake, but only on the condition that you overcome it. The learning and knowledge that you have, is, at the most, but little compared to that of which you are ignorant.

Of course. That's why I'm turning to you.

Then hold your tongue and let me speak. Einstein was right. No man can feasibly travel to other star-systems at sub-light speeds. Within your physical reality, it is impossible for you to reach even the speed of light itself, let alone pass it. In order to travel to other places in the universe, you will have to commune with species of higher dimension. I know this from personal experience, but it should be obvious to the true philosopher.

When you refer to experience, you are referring to death?

Yes.

What is death like?

You should know.

I should?

The learning and knowledge that you have, is, at the most, but little compared to that of which you are ignorant.

You already said that.

And you were ignorant of it.

Am I ignorant of death?

You say, "am I ignorant of death?" after you say, "what is death like?" Do you not notice a contradiction?

I notice an uncertainty.

Rather, you are ignorant of your certainty.

How?

You ask, "how?" because you are ignorant of how. If I tell you how, it will make no difference, for you will still choose to remain ignorant.

Please speak. I will listen.

You choose to not see perfection. You continuously choose substance over form.

What is substance? And what is form?

Substance is graspable by your senses. Form is graspable only by your mind.

What of dreams?

Not all that is graspable by the mind is Form. One can grasp formless air such as you.

I understand. Thank you, Plato.

Thank yourself.

This is yet another case where I projected from a dream without knowing it was a dream in the first place, which leads me to a conclusion regarding my methods of AP study. But first, the experience.

I was dreaming of being in a classroom and listening to a classmate's speech about plants. It was extremely lengthy, filled with pauses, and would have been engaging if I had not already known most of it. For the record, the classmate was no one I knew in physical life, neither was anyone else for the entire length of the dream/AP. So, I decided to try for a projection, while sitting in my chair.

I was beholden how immediately successful I was at attaining a conscious projection. Since I had been wishing I was somewhere else (like home) instead of that classroom, I found myself floating around the side of my house. Considering my success, I completely neglected to ask for any guides, and decided to try integrating into F27. I flew upwards towards the sky, and for the purpose of experiment, I inverted myself - so that the sky would appear like the ground and I would "fall" towards it.

After some intense feeling, I closed my eyes and felt a transition. I fell gently into a large green pasture, surrounded mostly by forrest. There were an incredible number of clovers, decorating the texture of the ground. The sky was somewhat grey and cloudy, like it had just rained or it was going to rain, similar to pictures I have seen of the British Isles.

I looked around for people. There was a large group of children, joyously running past me and lining up near the trees. Were they going to play a game? I looked at the ones lining up first - all boys, somewhere between 6 and 9 years old. I looked behind me again, and the girls were catching up, although some of them were walking along with an adult male, happily enamored with him. Of course, it reminded me of a class and their teacher on some kind of "field trip." This made implicit sense to me, for what better field trip would their be than to the Elysium Fields?

"Hey!" I said over to the teacher, trying to get his attention. He was busy with his students, so I felt kind of bad to bother him. He recognized me and yelled back, saying it was good to see me.

So as to not illicit a confirmation bias, as in a normal dream, I asked him an open-ended question. "What is this place?"

He spoke, as if giving a lesson in history. "This was a battlefield."

A what?

"Against who?" I said.

He laughed. "The other side!"

I was terribly confused. I most certainly could not have been in the Elysium Fields if violence once occurred here. He proceeded to give a small lecture to me on the tactical situations, motioning his hands over the boundary of the forrest, as if this "other side" attacked from the other side of the forrest. He spoke very comfortably and serenely. I stopped listening because I was just too confused. Elysium Battlefield? That doesn't make any sense.

I shortly "awoke" back in the same dream I was having previously. The dream environment then shifted as dreams normally do and I was completely oblivious. The characters remained the same. A classmate of mine giving a long speech about plants, and everyone being very tired. Of course, most of them started to shift as well.

--------------

It may be unrelated, but afterwards when everyone was leaving (it was night) I noticed my classmate walking alone. I did not notice it on a conscious level, but she was the only one who had remained the same throughout the entire dream. In this particular dream, she was not a classmate that I was friends with, but I went to go speak with her anyways. "Are you okay?"

"Nobody liked my speech."

"That's not true," I said. I wanted to tell her that I still liked what she had been saying, even though I already knew it. I also very much wanted to tell her what a profound effect her speech had on me - it was my first immediately conscious projection. Something in the speech must've been stimulating me in the right way. I wanted to tell her about the Elysium Fields, and how her life is actually so beautiful and very wonderful. But I did not know how to communicate this simply.

The dream fluctuated in some other fashion. A car accident or something. "I better get home," she said. And that was that. I never even knew her name.

--------------

Anyways, regardless of the authenticity of the "Elysium Battlefield," I no longer think I should be attempting wake-induced projections, even during the night. They just conflict too much with the experience of doing it in a dream, which otherwise seems real. In order to further my knowledge of wider reality and its implications for physical reality, I'm just going to back to my regular old lucid dream studies.

[Edit: fixed a modal error... damned modal demons]

[Ultrafinitism]

Ultrafinitism (or ultraintuitionism) is a philosophy of mathematics that denies the infinite set N of real numbers, because this set is not a completed infinity.

So many self-help and new age books rely on the words "infinite potential" to market their ideas. It's sexy and powerful. However, I think those words are dubiously vacuous together. Potential is ability that has not been actualized (or "has not been completed"). Upwards infinity is also incomplete. They are really saying "incompleted incompleteness." And those words are not sexy.

New age spirituality strives for completeness, at-one-ment, and to actualize one's potential. To say one has infinite potential denies their right for completeness.

Someone over at KurzweilAI.net posted this "Hi-Range" IQ test.

http://www.etienne.nu/flashtest/

It's untimed, so don't be in any hurry. However, all the questions contain motion, so be advised. If you get sick now it's your own fault.

Seriously, I'm still dizzy.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2005/split/722-2.html

The entire article is short enough to be quoted here.

First evidence for entanglement of three macroscopic objects has been seen in a superconducting circuit built at the University of Maryland. By examining an electrical circuit operating at temperatures near absolute zero, the researchers have found new evidence that the laws of quantum mechanics apply not just to microscopic particles such as atoms and electrons, but also to large electronic devices called superconducting quantum bits (qubits).

While researchers have previously created superconducting qubits, and other groups have entangled two macroscopic objects (Update 558), this research is the first to observe the quantum interaction of three macroscopic components: a niobium inductor-capacitor (LC) circuit plus a pair of Josephson junctions, each a sandwich of two superconductors separated by an insulator. Remarkably, all three macroscopic devices seem to act, when cold enough, like huge atoms. The LC circuit coupled the Josephson junctions in such a way as to transfer quantized oscillations of current in one junction to the other junction. The LC circuit was more than a simple connector; its condition depended upon the two Josephson junctions in a way defined by the laws of quantum mechanics.

The researchers obtained evidence of the entanglement indirectly, through the use of microwave pulses that probed the Josephson junctions; future experiments will seek to directly control the junctions and obtain evidence more directly. Superconducting circuits such as this one provide a promising route towards a practical quantum computer, which would require the entanglement of many qubits.

Scaling up superconducting devices to many-qubit systems should be possible once single superconducting qubits are perfected, according to team member Frederick Strauch, (now at NIST, 301-975-5159, Frederick.Strauch@nist.gov). The challenge will be to fabricate sufficiently high-quality circuits so that the superconducting qubits achieve the very low noise levels necessary for quantum computing. (Xu et al., Physical Review Letters, 21 January 2005)

Although the evidence was obtained indirectly, it shows that macroscopic objects, particularly electronic devices, can be entangled under highly specialized (and very cold) conditions.

The implications are obvious for quantum computers, but what are the implications for Quantum Metaphysics?

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7036

Once again, I have the feeling that a journalist is using the word 'sixth sense' liberally in order to gain attention, but this is pretty interesting.

A new theory suggests that the anterior cingulate cortex, described by some scientists as part of the brain's "oops" center, may actually function as an early warning system -- one that works at a subconscious level to help us recognize and avoid high-risk situations.

So, this 'sixth sense' only works after you've made a mistake. Unlike a genuine sixth sense that seems like it shouldn't need to make mistakes - or should it? Did our other 5 senses evolved through the material process of learning from our parents when we were babies? Is this also why we can't remember much sensory information from when we were that young? Maybe!

This is why people like Randi are so skeptical. Someone can be a really good poker player and claim that they can read minds with a high degree of accuracy, but there might actually be a whole ton of complex memory patterns organizing to just make you feel as though you're psychic.

Be sure to read on about the implications for mental illness.

"Our results suggest how impairment of the ACC mechanisms in schizophrenia can lead to breakdowns in the early warning system, so that the brain fails to pre-empt or control inappropriate behavior," Brown said. "On the other hand, in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, the ACC might warn of an impending problem even when no problem is imminent."

"Interestingly, we also found evidence that the same neurotransmitter involved in drug addiction and Parkinson's disease, namely dopamine, seems to play a key role in training the ACC to recognize when to send the early warning signal," he added.

But this next bit I found especially interesting, and actually very familiar, because it reminds me of the feelings I have when I make bets at a craps table.

Known to be an important component of the brain's executive control system, the ACC is believed to help mediate between cold, hard, fact-based reasoning and emotional responses, such as love, fear or anticipation.

"For a long time we've been interested in how the brain figures out how to integrate cognitive information about the world with our emotions, how we feel about something," Brown said. "For many reasons, people think the ACC might be the brain structure responsible for converging these different signals. It seems to be an area that's involved in deciding what information gets prioritized in the decision-making process. It seems able to link motivational and affect information - things like goodness or badness - and to use this information to bring about changes in cognition, to alter how we think about things."

So, what do you think?

I hope that information like this makes others see the absolutely integral relationship between emotion and learning, and someday change school systems to allow students the emotional pleasure of openness and freedom with regards to their academics, no doubt providing a superior learning process.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p01s03-usgn.html

"If intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, then, absolutely, plants are intelligent," agrees Leslie Sieburth, a biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

For philosophers, one of the key findings is that two cuttings, or clones, taken from the same "mother plant" behave differently even when planted in identical conditions.

"We now know there's an ability of self-recognition in plants, which is highly unusual and quite extraordinary that it's actually there," says Dr. Trewavas.

I'm reminded of the finding that people who sing to their plants have better success in maintaining their growth. Maybe the plant is responding to a basic emotional stimuli communicated through the harmonious oscillations of song? Who knows! But this is very wonderful and opens the doors to many relationships in biology and ecology.

[Edit: I just thought of something. In your mind, does this elevate plants to a closer position with humans? Or does this reduce humans to a closer position with plants?]

I'm not trying to stir up trouble with you guys, but it's good to hear the other side once in a while.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

What do you think?

[tran·scen·dent]

More than a year ago, I read "Revolution in Common Sense," (RCS) a paper about the spiritual implications of quantum mechanics (QM). I found it an enjoyable read. I especially liked its integral approach of combining different theories into one proposal. It was like a nice bowl of candy. Unfortunately, after I finished reading (and rereading) the essay, I was unable to apply it to my life, especially over the long term. I therefore submit this criticism not as a skeptic, but as an experimenter who has found these claims delusive in practice, and possibly intellectually dishonest.

Our common sense is not a reliable basis for correct judgments.

This is true. Our common sense has been overturned in the past. As the article mentions, it was once common sense that the Earth was the center of the solar system. In a more concrete example, it also used to be common sense that heavier objects fell to the Earth faster than lighter objects. Even Aristotle regarded these two statements as true because they were common sense. It took the "uncommon sense" of the scientific method to experiment and measure the veracity of these claims.

One has the feeling that, after reading this introductory sentence, this essay will inform the reader about a tried and tested truth of science that will challenge his or her own personal assumptions about the universe.

There is no common sense on which all people agree.

And then you read something like that. "Common sense" by definition requires no specialized knowledge. So, there really is no generalized knowledge on which we all agree? Doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as a common sense?

Instead of overlooking it, let's consider that statement. I don't want to over-analyze it, but this statement primes your mind to more readily accept what is to follow by making you question everything you think you know – including everything you think you know about you. Is this a valid statement? No, it's not.

The most common examples you can think of can be overruled by harsh examination. "The sky is blue," may be common sense for you, but it is not common for people who are colorblind. "Water is wet," is more a more difficult one, but it is possible to have no sense of touch all over, although it usually means you are paralyzed all over and are therefore a vegetable. "Common sense" seems it like it should only be applicable for people who have the capability for sense in the first place, so we can not rightfully include those who are born severely invalid and paralyzed into the population of people who can agree on common sense.

Aside from the often overlooked common sense wisdom of statements like, "water is wet," there is a whole other arena of sense that we all commonly agree on, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, and academic background. That arena is mathematics, and can be as common sense as:

1 + 1 = 2

Naturally, mathematics as a written language is a system of symbology, there are probably no symbols that are common sensically known. However, mathematics as a simple system of quantitative relation is extraordinarily common. What human being does not intuitively know that one apple and one other apple together are more than one apple alone, making two apples? And that one extra apple is more than two, making three apples? If so, then it is doubtful they have the capability of sense, and cannot be included in an example where people are asked to agree on common sense.

This may sound trivial, but it is not - not by any means. The ability to count and measure is the basis for so much understanding. Because of this capability, early humans were able to regulate how much food they needed to eat, and therefore how much seed they needed to sow for the planting season. And, of course, this capability allows us to understand the universe enough to make computers that allow the discourse that we are engaging in right now. And I mention it especially here because mathematics is not considered a topic of spirituality. However, it is intimately entwined with QM. So when you divorce QM from mathematics, you're not left with very much.

RCS contains absolutely no mathematics to speak of. This is not unusual for a work on QM aimed at a general audience. The popular book from Brian Greene, which spawned the NOVA program, "The Elegant Universe," also contains no math. However, it's understood that the theories proposed in "Elegant Universe" have a strong mathematical basis. The strings in string theory have explicit variables in equations that physicists attempt to relate to variables we already know and can measure (the force of gravity, for instance). However, in RCS, it is not apparent at the theory of the "holon" has any measurable basis, or any basis to things which we already know and measure.

To be fair, JoWo states that he is not trying to present a new mathematical theory, but to challenge the interpretations of already existing knowledge.

We are not talking about disputing true scientific facts, it is the interpretation of these facts that is up for discussion. Through habitual repetition, interpretations are often accepted as if they were facts, and it is difficult to detect the difference.

Ironic, as JoWo proceeds to repeat (almost as if by habit) his holon interpretation alongside facts, making it difficult to tell the difference.

But before doing that, he first supports it with the sly assumption that there are more than 4 dimensions in our universe. His reasoning is that, before, our common sense view was that the world contained only 3 dimensions. However, after Einstein's discovery of relativity, we supposedly find ourselves in a 4-dimensional universe. According to JoWo, once the step from 3 to 4 is made, it is not unreasonable to make the jump to 5, 100, or 1,000.

We have only mentioned 4-D space so far, but once one accepts the idea that reality is not limited to three dimensions, then there is no logical reason to assume that it is limited to four or any other number.

But making the step from 3 to 4 dimensions is not as simple as it sounds. Arguably, no such step needs to be taken. JoWo's words in the above statement are so convoluting that to me they border on dishonesty.

First, let's consider the "common sense" view of time as a dimension. Our common sense tells us that time is a dimension. Even in Aristotle's time, long before Einstein, people made appointments with one another using 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time). "I'll meet you at the top of the stairs of the southern side of Parthenon at sunrise tomorrow." Pretty agreeable stuff. In that sense, it is questionable that any revolution in common sense needed to be made.

Second, let's reconsider the ways Einstein's discoveries challenge our common sense perception of time as a dimension, and the ways  that they don't. According to Einstein's "twin paradox" thought experiment, it's possible to travel into the future by traveling close to the speed of light. Regardless of the common sense fact that we always seem to be traveling towards the future anyways, Einstein shows us we can do it at a faster rate relative to another's frame of reference. This has been demonstrated many times over using satellite equipment – the GPS satellites would not work if they did not correct for this effect. This definitely challenges our common sense. However, Einstein does not challenge our proverbial common sense notion that it's impossible to travel into the past (proverbial because we've "put the past behind us"). Einstein's laws of relativity do not show by any means that it is possible to travel in both directions of time, as we are able to travel in both directions of all of the 3 other spatial dimensions. In this sense, the 4th dimension cannot be categorically grouped with the other 3 as a pure extension of spatial ordinance. However, you can for the purposes of theory still have a mathematical dimension and only go one direction on it, so we group it in a model of 4-D spacetime.

The jump in the understanding of reality as having more than 3 dimensions to 4 dimensions was in the area of applied mathematical models of physics. Not in common sense experience! Because people always incorporated time as a dimension in their life anyways.

This brings me to another problem I have with JoWo's piece, and other pieces from authors who use the word "dimension" in the experiential context. This is severely problematic. We used the concept of "dimension" for mathematical purposes, exclaiming that we have three of them in the material world, along with another one of time that only moves in one direction. We can use the word as a metaphor for other things, but is highly mysterious and poetic to use it in the context of something that cannot be numerically measured.

Although we can not experience M-D environments directly, the great enlightened religious leaders and mystics must have been able to do so (27). For Buddhism and Hinduism, specifically Yoga, the primary goal is to attain an ever more transcendent state of mind, and to perceive directly higher dimensional realities. In contrast, the Western World has pursued the development of rational thought. It allows us to understand the laws that govern reality, without perceiving the reality directly. So we understand for instance that the earth rotates around the sun, although we cannot see this directly. In the same manner it is possible to penetrate M-D reality. We can learn to understand it, though we cannot perceive it directly.

JoWo, your statement that we cannot directly observe the earth rotating around the sun is puzzling, because it is glaringly inaccurate. The Apollo astronauts had a more direct view of the Earth as it rotated around the sun, and we have a distinctly more direct view with the use of cameras from satellites and probes. Your application of that example to higher dimensional realities is extremely dubious.

In the above quote, you endorse the world religions of Buddhism and Hinduism as reliable methods for experiencing reality. I am confused by your use of the word "transcendent," because you define it for your own purposes, incorporating the word "dimension" into its definition. Actually, that's what you make to mean entirely. Transcendence = more dimensions.

Transcendent: Having more integrated dimensions. Higher order.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com, so you can see how I might be confused. (I do not intend to mince and parse definitions like a schoolchild, but to try and find some consensus on how we can use the word and in what it means in certain contexts).

tran·scen·dent adj.

1.   Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2.   Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).
3.   Philosophy.
  a.   Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
  b.   In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4.   Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

As you can see, transcendent can mean many similar things in the same context. It has always seemed to me that transcendence is either movement along the extremes of an already existing dimension (metaphorically, as in dimension of thought or dimension of skill or dimension of beauty etc. - as in definition 2) or a complete surpassing of dimension as a material construct (definitions 1 and 4).

To quickly sum up, I don't think you present much usefulness in grounding spirituality to quantum mechanics and its theories of extra spatial dimensions.

Unless you can use your spiritual powers to help researchers observe a graviton, or something similarly demonstrable, I don't think you have any basis for comparing quantum mechanics and spirituality. In my opinion, I don't think that this is a bad thing, for I think spirituality is probably better off, because quantum mechanics is too "uncertain of itself."