Who Understands Quantum Metaphysics?

[Adkha]

I think quantum metaphysics tells us that everything is connected with everything. It tells us that humans have limited thus physical  minds.

I have never had an OBE so I cant tell for sure that our mind extends beyond the physical....but I believe the manys stories I have read...

A question: How does the human mind stands in the whole picture of Quantum metaphysics??

[Adkha]

I think I wasn't really clear....I mean...with our physical minds(the whole physical sensing system;eyes, ears etc.) we cant observe what is beyond the physical. But as many forum visiters and Robert Bruce claims...our mind can project itself into a higher body/mind so we actually CAN observe beyond the physical.

[Ryu-Kanjin]

Yes our physical minds are very limited but its when we reach the point when we can tap into the collective conchese(sp) of humanity is when we get the full vew

[Nick]

Thank you for this topic JoWo. I agree with your observations and also would recommend to everyone your excellent book. I did post a review on it in June: http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4930  as I found it to be an exceptional work. Further, I have ordered a second copy, as my first has found its way over to some friends.

(By the way, this topic has been made a 'sticky' so the information you presented above remains more readily available.)


All the best,
Nick

[JoWo]

Thank you, Nick,

How can we get more forum members interested in the most dramatic issue of our time? How can we get the point across that each one of us must gain a better understanding of spirituality in order to avoid the demise of humankind?  Quantum Metaphysics addresses this issue head on and provides the answers.  

I wrote the book "Understanding the Grand Design, Spiritual Reality's Inner Logic" to help individuals "see the light" and thus empowering them to help themselves to create a brighter future for themselves and simultaneously for humankind.  The book is written so that it can be understood without much prior schooling.

Yet, there was only a meager response when I initiated this topic aimed at the most important issue of our time.  What does it take to make people aware that human civilization is rapidly getting more 'uncivilized' with a clear danger of self-destruction?  Should not each individual be eager to embrace an offered opportunity to participate in saving our future?

This is what "Understanding the Grand Design" is all about, because once you see the "big picture", you know how to get out of this mess.  And once enough people see it, they form a "movement" away from impending disaster. You can make the difference in swinging the majority.  Remember how just a few individual Florida votes swung the pendulum of the United States' destiny.  This time, the stakes are even greater, much greater.  This time we vote with our minds, entering our votes miraculously and automatically into the all-pervasive super-computer of spiritual reality, as described in my book.

I'll make it easy for you.  Send me an e-mail to jo@quantum-metaphysics.com and I'll send you a copy of "Understanding the Grand Design" free of charge.  In return, you must promise to read the book and discuss it here in this forum.  I'll donate seven books, first come first serve.  All you have to do is to send me your name, forum member name, and your mailing address, together with your promise to read the book and participate in its discussion.

So, let us focus on what matters most in our times, let's understand how we form our own destiny and how we participate in forming humanity's destiny.  Then let us do what it takes to create the future we want.  Let's do this together and experience how our new beliefs can move mountains.

Jo.

[mustang]

Jo Wolf are you related to the physicist and science writer Fred Alan Wolf?

Also what about all the particle physicists who are opposed to a holistic/mystical interpretation of QM such as Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg etc? A case of not seeing the wood for the trees and perhaps mistaking personal materialist philosophy for scientific evidence?

[JoWo]

Hello mustang,

No, I am not related to Fred Alan Wolf.  
About the particle physicists who do not accept a holistic point of view, Max Planck, the famous Nobel Prize winner in physics said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Jo.

[volcomstone]

first off Im not sure if this belongs in philosophy or here. I sorta wander

I've become torn between the decision to ask for healing, for myself, and for others.  I don't know if its selfish or not. I don't know if it's even possible for someone else to heal another completly.
im sure you can push them on the right path to recovery..
I know you can heal yourself, but it's harder to do.

"Is it selfish to ask for help"?
and "is there even something known as "giving" (ie, getting NOTHING, in return"

I don't see how its possible to not get something in return, which comes to balance, and how we will continue to suffer without a balance.  

Which brings me to another point, is it better for ONE or MANY to balance it out.  Everyone wants to achieve greatness, but how is it moral for the one to eliminate "pain" and "suffering"? especially if you believe that each reality is tailored to its spirit.

but, how could anyone want suffering? does there HAVE to be pain?  
yin and yang is cool and all, but why must there be an opposite?  

is the whole greaer than the sum of the parts? would our lives be as just as fulfilled if we never experience pain? suffereing?
would the sweet taste so good if there was no bitter? would we be truly happy if we where never sad?

and who dictates the administering of these things? ourselves?
how constant heaven would be, without pain, without emotion.
do the gods "destroy" themselves for "pleasure"?  self-sacrifice as a path to perfection? do we reside on earth , simply to pass eternity? to live in the moment?

or to attempt harmony? to create more gods? how does it all work out?is it just a coincidence that EVIL is LIVE backwards?

as I sit here staring blankly at the screen, I wonder how many times Ive done this before, and infinite other questions flood my mind. how can I never find the answers if the questions cannot be asked?

[JoWo]

Hello volcomstone,

There must be better sites in the Astral Forum that deal with healing.  Perhaps you ask one of the forum moderators.  It also depends on what kind of healing you need.  You may want to use private e-mail.  In any case, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with asking for help if you feel the need for it.  'No man is and island', and we all need help sometime in our lives.  Don't worry about being selfish, you may do more harm, or you may inconvenience others more, if you don't get needed help.  And yes, many people will be glad to give help without expecting anything in return.  They understand that unselfish giving enriches their heart.  

You mentioned 'balance', volcomstone, and I assume that you mean compensation for good deeds.  In the end, everything balances out automatically.  If you feel the urge, you can speed up the balancing by helping others when the occasion arises.

I don't understand your next paragraph that starts with "Which brings me to another point".  Could you please elaborate?  The rest of your post opens up deep questions that require many pages to be answered adequately.  I have explained these matters in my book "Understanding the Grand Design", but I don't want to sound like I am trying to peddle it to you.

I send you my best wishes, volcomstone, and I hope that you put away your qualms about getting help.

Jo.

[mactombs]

quote:Also what about all the particle physicists who are opposed to a holistic/mystical interpretation of QM such as Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg etc?

Richard Feynman is great. I admire him, and his book "Adventures of a Curious Character" is one of my all-time favorite books. "Ideas and Opinions" by Einstein is great, too, with good moral lessons. Another physicist, Lederman ("The God Particle") would also probably disagree completely with a holistic model of quantum physics.

Nevertheless, science and beliefs are two different things. Many scientists prefer to believe one thing, but the reason they are good scientists is because they know the difference between their beliefs and science. Science changes, self-corrects. The Latin phrase "Ad-hominim" (to the man) is used as an example of a bad criticm of an idea just because it came from a certain person. All ideas are equal, no matter who came up with them.

So to say, well, "Feynman the great physicist and all-around great man, and Carl Sagan, so on and so forth would completely disagree with quantum metaphysics" is not actually a critique of metaphysics. It's a cop-out.

Unfortunately, very few people (including myself) posess the mathematical skills to understand current quantum theory. As such, it's easy to defer to someone's opinion who does understand it.(But as Niels Bohr said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.") As a medium, I'd suggest reading accessible books such as John Gribbin's "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat".

I haven't read "Understanding the Grand Design: Spiritual Reality's Hidden Logic", so I can't say how it compares. But I'd submit that it probably isn't all that far-fetched. Consider the back to "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" (and it's in the Science section):

"It is so shocking that Einstein could not bring himself to accept it. It is so important that it provides the fundamental underpinning of all modern sciences ... Now John Gribbin tells the complete story of quantum mechanics, a truth far stranger than any fiction. He takes us step-by-step into an ever more bizarre and fascinating place -- requiring only that we approach it with an open mind ... "

I agree with JoWo, at least as far as the importance of learning about quantum mechanics. You can't really understand today's world without it. The best way to form an opinion is to read more about it, rather than speculate on the opinions of others.

[mustang]

mactombs writes

quote: I agree with JoWo, at least as far as the importance of learning about quantum mechanics. You can't really understand today's world without it. The best way to form an opinion is to read more about it, rather than speculate on the opinions of others.

QM (or a holistic interpretation of it) may help us make sense and give us a sane and transcendent view of the universe and our role in it, but it is not at all necessary. It is an additional tool to our understanding of ourselves and the unity and interconnectedness of all things, and the essential mystery and value of all life. But it is not necessary to know anything at all about QM to come to a mystical/holistic understanding of life and its implications to our lives.

Let me put it this way:
What did Siddhartha know about QM, or Christ, or the writers of the Vedas, or the Siberian shamans, or Black Elk and Rolling Thunder and the other Native American medicine men whose traditional knowledge and wisdom they learned from, or Socrates, Plato and Heraclitus, or the Hebrew Zaddiks, Wordsworth, William Blake etc etc?

QM tells us that the mystics, shamans etc intuitively knew the workings of the universe, its essential unity and the illusory nature of seeming permanence and solidity in outward things and appearances, as well as understanding the true nature of time and space, and their interconnectivity etc. They knew themselves and so understood the universe as a consequence, and they understood it better than even the brightest particle physicists who share their view of the universe including such giants as Niels Bohr and David Bohm. It doesn't matter that they had never heard of an electron or an Eigen Function, or Bell's Inequality Theorem etc, it doesn't matter - it is all extraneous. More importantly such mystics, poets and shamans understood in their heart of hearts the unity and beauty and compassion written into the very structure of life and the universe and LIVED ACCORDINGLY. In other words they knew what lies behind QM intuitively. QM offers scientific evidence of the truth of "pure mysticism" uncluttered by superstition, not the other way around.

Imagine a scenario where David Bohm (and anyone sympathetic to a holistic interpretation of QM must read his classic Wholeness and The Implicate Order) had a conversation with a genuine mystic from the 10th century, everything that Bohm would say about a hologram-universe in language understandable to the mystic would be greeted by the mystic with approval and understanding, along the lines of "Yes I know all this", even though the mystic would never have heard of a hologram and QM. And better to be in the mystic's position then Bohm's, by Bohm's own admission, simply because the mystic is living what he knows whereas with Bohm his knowledge is only theoretical and not a practical knowing and living. Surely this recognition on Bohm's part (a genuinely humble and good man, but not a free man), the contrast between theoretical knowledge and its practical applications in his own life, is what probably contributed to his deep depressions in his twilight years.

In closing, QM, like parapsychology, and the natural sciences (the staggering, enormous complexities of all living organisms in every way and at every level from DNA and cellular functioning to organs and bodily systems, to ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole); reveals an obvious hidden and Divine Hand in the workings of nature and the universe, obvious to any open-minded person, but the last people for the most part to see this, ironically enough, are the scientists themselves. Yet all of this is an adjunct (albeit important in its way) to a practical and pragmatic self-knowing and none of the scientific knowledge we garner can replace or substitute for this self-knowing.

For our scientific knowledge of itself (and by this I mean a holistic interpretation of our scientific data) cannot ever on its own make us better and wiser people, and by implication the world a better place. Only following the wise dictum to "Know Thyself" can do that.

[mactombs]

quote:QM (or a holistic interpretation of it) may help us make sense and give us a sane and transcendent view of the universe and our role in it, but it is not at all necessary. It is an additional tool to our understanding of ourselves and the unity and interconnectedness of all things, and the essential mystery and value of all life. But it is not necessary to know anything at all about QM to come to a mystical/holistic understanding of life and its implications to our lives.

This is not what I meant. From my point of view, what I mean by "you can't really understand today's world without understanding QM" is materialistic. Things such as lasers, microchips, etc. and scientific view.

quote:QM tells us that the mystics, shamans etc intuitively knew the workings of the universe, its essential unity and the illusory nature of seeming permanence and solidity in outward things and appearances, as well as understanding the true nature of time and space, and their interconnectivity etc. They knew themselves and so understood the universe as a consequence, and they understood it better than even the brightest particle physicists who share their view of the universe including such giants as Niels Bohr and David Bohm.

I disagree. Mystics', shamans' etc. views of the universe have never understood the universe better than the brightest particle physicist's, they have simply understood in differently. What they have understood most is themselves. I believe to know something is given equally to all, but to describe it in language or mathematics or mortal terms is better done by some than by others. And not everyone speaks the same language.

Another point is the usage of QM. You use it as a broad definition of the workings of the universe. QM is quite different than this mystical interpretation. What it intends to be is a description by which means one might use it as a tool. It's akin to arguing that mystics intuitively knew algerbra. I think my disagreement comes mainly in your definition of QM.

quote:In closing, QM, like parapsychology, and the natural sciences (the staggering, enormous complexities of all living organisms in every way and at every level from DNA and cellular functioning to organs and bodily systems, to ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole); reveals an obvious hidden and Divine Hand in the workings of nature and the universe, obvious to any open-minded person, but the last people for the most part to see this, ironically enough, are the scientists themselves. Yet all of this is an adjunct (albeit important in its way) to a practical and pragmatic self-knowing and none of the scientific knowledge we garner can replace or substitute for this self-knowing.

Again, I disagree. Show one man from one background and belief system one thing and he will see something different than another. It is of frustration that some will say the depictions of the universe by science reveal an obvious Divine Hand. It is not obvious to all, and to claim that those for whom it is not obvious are short-sighted is itself a short-sighted view. Like all short-sighted views, it prefers to stick to its own and label those different errant and short of the truth, rather than to seek empathy for the differed view, and reconcile them.

Perhaps the universe is merely infinity experienced in infinite different ways?

Much here depends on your interpretation of both science and the Divine Hand.

quote:For our scientific knowledge of itself (and by this I mean a holistic interpretation of our scientific data) cannot ever on its own make us better and wiser people, and by implication the world a better place. Only following the wise dictum to "Know Thyself" can do that.

I agree. No material thing can make us better or wiser. Science, like all material things, has no inherent good nor evil (if in a universal light these are even valid terms). We are responsible for our interaction with the universe and how it reflects in us.

I think that I agree with what you have to say as a whole, just not in all the details.

[JoWo]

Hello matcombs,

Referring to your 14 May post, I believe that you misunderstood my prior posts.  I was talking about quantum-metaphysics, not quantum mechanics.  I was emphasizing the urgent need to understand spiritual reality in order to halt humankind's slide toward anarchy. Since spiritual reality is still denied by many scientists, quantum-metaphysics provides a desirable means to reverse this trend.

Hello mustang,

Mactombs' quote at the beginning of your 17 May post may misinterpret my own opinion.  I agree with you that knowledge of quantum mechanics is not necessary for understanding spiritual reality.  However, in today's society, where scientific opinion is still biased against a holistic world-view, it is advantageous to understand the intimate relationship between modern physics and spiritual reality.  This is the purpose of what I call "quantum-metaphysics", described in my website www.quantum-metahysics.com and in my book "Understanding the Grand Design, Spiritual reality's Inner Logic".

Greetings!
Jo.

[mactombs]

quote:I was emphasizing the urgent need to understand spiritual reality in order to halt humankind's slide toward anarchy. Since spiritual reality is still denied by many scientists, quantum-metaphysics provides a desirable means to reverse this trend.

I can't see how you can divorce quantum mechanics from quantum- metaphysics so easily, unless you really mean "metaphysics", or just plain "spiritual theory". Spiritual reality is not denied by scientists, it simply does not exist in science. Science is an explanation (a language) of reality in clear and certain terms, an attempt at pure objectivity. Spirituality is the exact opposite, and it means most when it has personal meaning, thereby being entirely subjective. Certainly both may coexist, but blend and become both?

Secondly, given that a spiritual side does exist, and that all of humanity does have a Higher aspect to each and every individual, what makes you so certain that a cataclysmic slide into anarchy is even in the deeper nature of humanity? Or that on a universal level, such an event is "evil" or even undesirable?

Also, isn't the spiritual path embarked on by the individual, and a path of personal discovery? Seeing the deeply intimate nature of spirituality, I don't see how that can be so broadly defined into a "new science".

quote:However, in today's society, where scientific opinion is still biased against a holistic world-view...

Considering the objective stance of science, I would think that this is merely your subjective view of science. I see no such bias.

quote:...it is advantageous to understand the intimate relationship between modern physics and spiritual reality

Here I agree to a point. It is advantageous to understand science. It is advantageous to understand spirituality. The relationship between the two, however, I believe is entirely subjective, and best left to the explorations of the individual on their own path. This doesn't mean, however, that no one would benefit from reading your book. I'm sure it may help in the forming of personal view of that relationship.

[JoWo]

mactombs,

Apparently, you have some catching up to do.  I suggest that you get better informed about this forum.

[mactombs]

I don't quite understand what you mean to get better informed about this forum. I also think you are misinterpreting my remarks as being purely adversarial. Nevertheless, I agree that I might be more constructive being better informed about your side of the topic. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of your book and go from there.

[drinsomno]

hello everyone... greetings.

well jowo i am in the process of getting your book at the moment.  

i hope the book will clear some things up for me i am good with my quantum physics but i never looked into metaphysics you have inspired me to do so.
i will be watching this to see where it goes well toodles for now
[][][8D]

[mustang]

mactombs writes

quote:Considering the objective stance of science, I would think that this is merely your subjective view of science. I see no such bias.

This is inadvertently very funny, science is objective like politics is honest. If you had an inkling of the history of science and what goes on in science you would know that science is anything but objective. I suggest you start with Thomas Kuhn's classic THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION, and then come talk on the forum about the so-called objectivity of science. Science is carried out by scientists (who are often very dim-witted despite what you and others may think), who are human beings and therefore a fortiori subjective in their conclusions and findings.

Also science itself gives evidence that science is anything but objective, in fact Quantum Mechanics itself gives more evidence of this than any other scientific discipline! Maybe as Wolf suggests, mactombs - you familiarise yourself with the QM forum here, and QM itself, before you talk about objectivity in science. In QM there is the Observer Effect remember? - associated with the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum Paradox, extended by Eugene Wigner and others; and later Evan Walker's Quantum Tunnelling; all of which translates to a subjective universe!! There are lots of problems here (Einstein was understandably upset over all this and didn't accept such implications, hence the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen model). But if you knew so much about QM mactombs, you would know that this is one of its most startling findings; that the observer is not separate from that which he observes - so much for objectivity!

Also in perception, one perceives with the mind/brain first and foremost; not the eye, ear, skin, nose, tongue ie the senses, but with the mind/brain's interpretation of sensory data; which is not objective but dependent on numerous subjective factors including mental conditioning, emotional states, psychological expectations, physical health etc. The evidence for this is not only in biophysics and neuroscience but in practical spheres like hypnosis. Also language, where different concepts in language translate to a different perception of the world - but in our increasingly homogenised society this is increasingly no longer the case. Also regarding the ingestion of psychotropic drugs altering human perceptions reveals that an altering of brain chemistry affects and alters our perceptions considerably. There are numerous other examples, but I would be going on forever if I fleshed all of this out here. One may object that this has nothing to do with objectivity in terms of scientific data, but the point I am making is that our perception of the world is not completley objective, but at least partially subjective - and this very much extends to scientists who themselves are only human.

Scientists pass off philosophical materialism for science and don't even know it. Philosophical materialism and scientism (know what that is without doing a google for the word?) is so deep-rooted and pervasive in the scientific community, that it is second nature. Scientists are constantly fitting round pegs (scientific data) into square holes (scientific materialism) and calling it "objective findings".

Scientists chase after the money like most everyone, they have huge egos and are often most interested in securing tenure (which means pleasing your professors often at the expense of scientific truth) and getting grant money and research money (which means pleasing some giant multinational Bio-Tech or government department or both). In order to get a paper published in the relevant journal one needs to get past peer-review (and if the people sitting on peer review are nitwits who are biased against anything but conventional and orthodox explanations [and they almost always are] and your paper runs against the grain, you can forget about publication no matter how important or groundbreaking your paper may be).

If science is objective please explain the very hostile and often irrational disputes among socio-biologists and naturalists re the mechanisms of  neo-Darwinian evolution. The arguments between paleontologists and biologists re extinction of species, and among biologists and paleontologists themselves in this respect is heated to put it mildly. Neurologists are divided between the monists and dualists regarding the mind/brain controversy (a clue - if you are partial to astral travel and remote viewing you are a dualist).

Any geologist or astronomer who spoke of catostrophism in the earth's past (repeated cataclysms and upheavals in the earth's natural history) were ridiculed and dismissed, that is until about 25 years ago and since when neo-Catastrophism is now accepted as the norm.

Go talk on the objectivity of science to Dean Kenyon (a prominent microbiologist fired from San Fransisco State for going against the materialist grain on the Origin of Life aka OOL controversy even though his conclusions were based entirely on the scientific data, not on any religious agenda, he was re-instated after legal action was threatened; Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ who pioneered the work on remote viewing at Stanford Research Institute and the (unscientific) abuse they received from the scientific establishment; Thomas Lee, an archaeologist fired for merely pointing out that arrow points in North America go back further than we think (and therefore human habitation in N America).Virginia Steen-McIntyre lost her job with the US Geological survey for a similar reason.

What about Rupert Sheldrake, the biologist whose anti-materialist and unconventional but ground-breaking theory of formative causation (morphic resonance/morphic fields) and the mistreatment and abuse and ridicule he has faced from the scientific establishment, to this day. Nature called for his groundbreaking work A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE to be burnt...in 1981!

He is by no means alone, but a typical example of any scientist who dares to go against the scientific establishment and the conservative reductionist mindset it embraces.

There are so many examples - the Wright Brothers were being called frauds by Scientific American a full 5 years after their inaugural flight from Kitty Hawk and were hounded out of America and were forced to go to France for funding. Thomas Edison was repeatedly called a fraud and a liar by scientists themselves. So many other pioneers and geniuses in science were called the same thing, and still are. I could go on and on with so many other examples. It is all unfortunately much the norm.

In the controversy on genetic engineering, do you think it is objective? There is a lot of money involved, a lot of careers and a lot of reputations. GMOs are a disaster and the scientists who lie through their teeth saying it is safe are working for the Monsantos and Duponts and Novistos (giant Bio-Tech companies) who have invested millions of dollars into transgenics or they are working for the government departments who these Bio-Techs control and are very much in bed with; or they are just very stupid thinking you can mess with nature and not pay a heavy price. We know so little about genetics that we have no idea what the costs of GMOs is going to be long-term. There is also what is called subjective validation - scientists, being people, will see what they want to see and disregard the rest. One thing is certain, it is a huge mistake. So what objectivity?

In the medical sciences it is even worse and probably worst of all. Medical science is completely controlled by Bio-Techs and Pharmaceuticals. The medical journals are often just advertising for Glaxo Smithkline, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Abbot Labs, Merck, Bristol-Myers Sqibb etc. Fraud in medical trials and studies is routine. I'm not going to trust the scientists (full-time PR bullshitters) working for such companies to be telling the truth about the supposed safety and efficacy of their drugs. The editors and those doing peer review for med journals are often very buddy-buddy with senior management in the Pharma industry. Medical science is the most corrupt and damaging of all the sciences, a huge multi-billion dollar a year industry, where all those "objective" scientists are driving round in BMW's and getting big share options in greedy rapacious Pharmaceuticals concerned only with the bottom line, not any body's health I promise you.

Objective, my butt; rapacious and ruthless and worse - killers.  Know how many people die from iatrogenic (look it up) murder every year? In South Africa it is very bad, where largely the poor serve as guinea pigs for the Pharmas in their experiments in medical incompetence, stupidity and murder (yes murder) in serving the interests of the shareholders and management at Glaxo and the rest. Newsflash - doctors are just clueless drug salesmen. People have been killed in their tens of thousands and continue to be so; being killed by "Medical Science" and the media who blindly do their advertising. I am barely hinting at something here but am not going to come out and say it clearly and loudly, because this is not the thread for it and I don't want to thread-jack too much.

I will say this though - there is a fiasco and the mother of all blunders going on in medical science unlike anything seen before in its history (including the Thalidomide horrors, Swine Flu vaccine idiocy - a deadly vaccine that killed and maimed thousands developed to prevent the spread of a disease that turned out not to exist - swine flu - all this in 1976 in the US!; and the use of arsenic and mercury as a "tonic" by the medical profession to "cure" syphilis and scurvy and even mercury poisoning!! in the not too distant past) and because of censorship and special interests hardly anybody knows what is going on, and South Africa and its people are paying the heaviest price for it.

People tend to get their info on science and medical science from clueless scientifically illiterate journalists who don't know anything about science (the blind leading the blind). I have met journalists writing about Aids who naturally can't tell me what a retrovirus is or what Koch's Postulates are (the rules for infectious diseases) or anything basic about pathology and pharmacology. Imagine taking your car to a mechanic and telling him that you think you've got something wrong with your carbeurattor and the mecahnic replies "what's a carbeurattor?" You would drive your car straight out of there, right? But when it comes to much of the scientific data, the general public are getting their info (spin really) mainly from journalists, the vast majority of whom don't have a clue about what they are writing. This is something of an open secret in the scientific community, of which the general public is largely ignorant.

As far as parapsychology goes - here because science is ruled by scientific materialism ( more than 70% of scientists who are members of the most prestigious organisation of scientists in the world - the US National Academy of Sciences [NAS] - in a recent survey reported themselves to be atheists) - those doing research in this area and their findings in this field are always subject to routine abuse, ridicule and ad hominem attacks and completely unsubstantiated accusations of fraud and deception. The vast majority of scientists refuse to even look at the data on telepathy, psychokinesis, remote viewing etc and simply dismiss it on a priori grounds. They have to, otherwise they would be opening up a Pandora's Box and their whole world-view will come crashing down. They would be forced to re-evaluate everything that they think they know, they would be subject to a mental breakdown!

On a previous post on this astralpulse forum, I have briefly made mention of Brian Inglis, namely his writings on parapsychology and the 'New Inquisition' it is subject to. See his THE HIDDEN POWER.

Scientists, being human, are as subject to cognitive dissonance as everybody else and thus are anything but objective. Know something about Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger's Syndrome) and you know objectivity in science or in human affairs in general can only be a pipe dream. Remember science is practised by human beings and human psychology and sociology are thus integral to scientific affairs.

Hope there are people out there who actually bother to read this and this post does not just go out into the cyber-ether.

[mactombs]

Mustang, you can be sure that at least I have read your post. I've been wondering about the "other side" of science (not much about it out there), so I will be reading through your post more than once. I've heard arguments like yours before, just without any details or specifics, so this is something of a boon for me (although unfortunately your response is a bit angry-slanted).

I suppose I might have come across quite naive to say "the objective stance of science", on the other hand, as I understand it, this is what science strives to be (even if it's not possible).

I'm also well aware of the Observer Effect, and definitely aware of the politics in science.

Maybe I was naive to call science objective. (Oh the difference between an ideal and a reality!)

This also says something about the psychology of belief in science. Just like you mention about Einstein ...

Anyway, perhaps I will have more to say after I have digested your post.

[clandestino]

Hi Mustang !

Science is objective by definition ! This cannot be debated. I do agree though that the process of scientific exploration often appears very subjective, as you have pointed out above.

Just wanted to raise a few points re. your post (which was pretty informative.)

quote:that the observer is not separate from that which he observes - so much for objectivity!

The crux of quantum mechanics....as deduced by scientists. However, the laws of sub-particle physics are not obeyed in our day to day living. Only quantum physics posits that the observer affects the observed....no other line of science backs this up.

I'm not trying to denigrate quantum physics here...all I'm saying is that QM is not representative of science as a whole. It is merely a branch of science. As such, it shouldn't be used to suggest that objectivity in science is a fallacy !

quote:If science is objective please explain the very hostile and often irrational disputes among socio-biologists and naturalists re the mechanisms of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Well, subjectivity becomes objectivity when the majority of people agree with it ! This, IMO, is the problem with these terms. Science has always worked along simple lines.....come up with an idea, prove that it is correct to other people, apply that idea in innovative practice. You mentioned the Wright brothers who were often ridiculed, yet this is a perfect example of how science works...Once that plane was up in the air, science was re-written. The question of subjectivity & objectivity is not relevant - the Wright brothers demonstrated that they were right and the scientists were wrong.

Kind regards,
Mark

[JoWo]

Hello Mustang,

Thank you for your very informative post about "scientific objectivity".  The very concept of objectivity pre-assumes that a reality of objects exists outside and independent of the human mind.  Yet, this basic belief is being contested by quantum physics.  True, other scientific branches have not followed yet, however it is a scientific axiom that a single proven contradiction to a prevailing assumption requires a revision of that assumption.

Collaborating your many examples of lacking objectivity in science is a postscript in Michael Crichton's book "Travels", where he describes many cases of scientific prejudice. For instance, geology experts rejected Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift for forty years until it was finally accepted.  Also, hypnotism was discredited for more than two hundred years.

[mustang]

Hello everybody

Firstly mactombs,

Thanks for your response. Sorry if you thought my anger in my post was directed at you, it wasn't but at the "New Inquisition" that call themselves scientists. I'm just trying to let people here know that they should not be so trusting of an authority ruled by dogma, careerism and in some cases, profiteering; and that hides behind obfuscatory jargon and inspeak that nobody understands (often not the scientists themselves) in order to intimidate and impress the layman. When you look behind the clever jargon, there is often nothing there - all smoke and mirrors like the Wizard of Oz. In other words a lot of naked emperors.

clandestino writes:

quote:Science is objective by definition ! This cannot be debated. I do agree though that the process of scientific exploration often appears very subjective, as you have pointed out above.

When I wrote above about science not being objective, I really meant what scientists often pass off for science, namely scientism and materialism and wishful thinking etc, not science per se. clandestino is correct in pointing out my improper use of the word "science", I should have written "scientists" for "science". Although I do think my meaning was clear in the context of what I wrote. Science is wonderful, unfortunately it is not always practised by scientists themselves esp in medicine where the ethics of mafia gangsters (although this is not quite fair on the mafia) is the norm. Remember science does not occur in a vaccuum, it is not given to us complete by the gods themselves or omniscient aliens but all too fallible human beings who are not in any way removed from their cultural and sociological background and the conditioning that it represents.

Wolf, thanks for your response. I am aware of the hostility that Wegener received, also the tragic Anton Mesmer and his successors re hypnotism. Mesmer of course gave his name to mesmerism. The paranormal phenomena often associated with hypnotism (eg telepathy, community of sensation, remote viewing/clairvoyance) though is still not accepted by the mainstream obviously.

Actually there are so many Wegeners and Mesmers out there today, facing ridicule, the loss of funding, blackballed and censored by the scientific journals and mass media and even risk their jobs for daring to contradict and contest the status quo. Things are actually far worse than they have ever been in this regard.

Btw when I write "New Inquistion" I am in no way exaggerating, in Medical Science this is truly and terribly the case. They are killing people for profit and the protection of tens of thousands of careers, and they call what they do life-saving! And they probably believe it too. Coton Mather and his fellow witch-hunters had nothing on the US National Institute of Health, the FDA and their fawning sheep around the world, since thanks to the moron media they have more power and influence than a Thomas de Torquemada could have even dreamed possible. He didn't have a fawning CNN, BBC, Newsweek and Time etc to sell his Inquisition to all corners of the globe.

The 3 blind mice -
1 Government departments, UN, NGOs: NIH, FDA and their ilk around the world, WHO, UNICEF, Health GAP, Medecins Sans Frontieres aka Doctors without Brains etc etc  
2 corporate thugs -the Bio-Techs and Pharmaceuticals
3 the media

Let me repeat, I am only hinting at something here. Something far more terrible than any of you can even begin to imagine is going on,  a FIASCO unprecedented in the history of medicine and even science. If anybody wants to really know what I am talking about, they can PM me or they can do their own investigation - SOUTH AFRICA and AFRICA is a big clue. Here's another clue - by fiasco I mean a MYTH passed off as science.
Because of censorship and intimidation and blatant deceit by vested interests and those whose reputations and careers are on the line, the internet is your only friend here, but use it wisely and with discretion.

And most importantly, go into it with an open mind, prepare to be shocked and don't respect any authority, no matter how clever and seemingly impressive the jargon that they employ that you don't understand. Don't be impressed by PHDs (there is a saying -"you have to have your PHD before you don't get it") or the sheer huge number of scientists who propagate a particular orthodox viewpoint - respectively the argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) and the argument from consensus (argumentum ad numerum). Both arguments are unscientific and fallacious, neither have anything to do with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Or don't bother at all.

Lastly - There is an error in my previous post above, I write about the Bio-Tech 'Novisto', there is no such Bio-Tech - I meant to write 'Novartis', not 'Novisto'. Sorry about the error.

Oh and mactombs thanks for your very interesting link, I will get back to you on that but I am so very busy of late that I have really zero time for myself and private affairs, and will only be able to give you a proper detailed reply when I have the time, and I have no time at all for now. But I promise I will PM you back with a detailed reply as soon as I can, the same goes for anyone else who PM's me. I will not be able to reply for quite a while, but unless I drop dead in the next few weeks will reply to all PMs eventually.

Cheers
mustang

[JoWo]

Thank you, Mustang, for your important contribution.  You wrote:

quote:Let me repeat, I am only hinting at something here. Something far more terrible than any of you can even begin to imagine is going on, a FIASCO unprecedented in the history of medicine and even science.

Your description of a major breakdown in medicine is only one example of a general trend in humanity's toying with disaster.  It is brought about by a decrease of consideration for others. The behavior of children is a good barometer of society's psychological climate.  Who would have ever dreamed of school children gunning down their teachers and classmates?  Only an emotional disconnect from other people makes this possible.  But we can't blame the children.  Adults are even worse.  For decades, nations have developed terrible weapons of mass destruction – napalm, massive nuclear arsenals, poison gas, and biological weapons.  Any one of these is capable of killing vast numbers of innocent people.  Terrorism is only the visible indicator of how much humans have lost contact with their inner source and with each other.

On the industrial front, powerful corporations exploit and deplete natural resources. In 1998, the oil industry projected "optimistically" that the world's natural oil reserves would last about 40 years at present rates of consumption, according to Thom Hartman's well-researched book, "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight".  However, world oil consumption is rapidly increasing with the population growth and industrialization of Eastern countries.  China is now the number two oil consumer after the USA.  Yet, no credible effort is being made to solve this problem.  Imagine society running out of crude oil, our main energy source and the basis of vital products such as plastics!  Can you picture the havoc in our world economy when oil prices skyrocket as oil reserves are exhausted?  The present oil prices are nothing compared with what's ahead. And don't assume that corporate leaders won't let this happen!

Another well known trend is global warming and the loss of the protective ozone layer.  In a January 2001 United Nations conference in Shanghai, hundreds of scientists from around the world unanimously agreed that man-made pollutants cause global warming.  Their report predict widespread drought, floods, and violent storms caused by a rapid temperature increase. The Earth's average temperature could rise as much as 10.4 degrees in 100 years – the most rapid change in 10 millennia. Advanced computer models predict melting of the ice caps and the rise of sea levels up to 34 inches!  The resulting floods will displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas.  Worldwide drought will lead to extended wildfires and will scorch farmlands, resulting in unprecedented famine.

Another reckless activity that directly threatens our survival is the unscrupulous elimination of the rain forests that produce the oxygen we all need to breathe. Thom Hartmann reports that 38 million acres are being destroyed every year.  At this pace, rain forests will not survive in our children's lifetimes.

The gap between the rich and the poor has increased dramatically.  ABCNEWS.com reported that the world's three richest families own more than the 43 poorest nations combined while tens of thousands of people die every day of starvation and related diseases.  On the medical front, antibiotics are being used with careless abandon, for livestock as well as for humans.  As a result, bacteria are being groomed that are increasingly immune to antibiotics.  

The Parents Television Council reports that "filthy language, graphic sexual raunch and mindless violence on prime time TV has tripled in the last decade."  The Council considers TV shows sleazy, violent and anti-family and feels that this influence will lead our nation's children "down a moral sewer."  The list goes on and on: overpopulation, mass starvations, extinction of animal species, fish stock depletion from over-fishing, uncontrolled dissemination of nuclear material etc., etc.

The trend is clear and pervasive.  We will continue down this road unless we make a conscious effort to change direction.  We claim to be an advanced civilization because of our technological achievements, but we are spiritually under-developed.  Humankind is like an immature teenager who is speeding down the highway without a driver's license.  The root cause of society's unfortunate behavior is ignorance.  If we would understand how we hurt ourselves as we hurt others in pursuit of our own advantage, we would think twice.  

Quantum Metaphysics provides a clear, logical explanation of how we are all tied together in multi-dimensional reality, and how we hurt ourselves if we hurt others.  Unless there is a general awakening and understanding of this automatic feedback, we'll keep roaring down the path to disaster.

Jo.

[kifyre]

quote:Originally posted by JoWo
Quantum Metaphysics provides a clear, logical explanation of how we are all tied together in multi-dimensional reality, and how we hurt ourselves if we hurt others.  Unless there is a general awakening and understanding of this automatic feedback, we'll keep roaring down the path to disaster.

Jo.

Jo, Everyone,

I think we all agree that horrible things are going on in the world. And the question is, what to do? What to do? I think it's important to note that human beings move through stages of consciousness. The general trend, supported by a vast amount of research, is a person's consciousness moving from egocentric, to ethno-centric, to world-centric. This is a slow process. Everyone starts off at square-one, ethnocentric, and, throughout their lives people move to a wider and wider embrace. But there's no guarantee that any individual will make it to world-centric consciousness. You can get stuck at any point. For example, a huge percentage of the world's population is stuck at roughly ethno-centric consciousness. You might say that the center-of-gravity, the average of the world's consciousness is ethno-centric. People only care about their families, or their communities, or their countries. Oh, people feel bad about what's happening in the world, but not bad enough to *do* anything. That haven't made it far enough to world-centric to feel a gut-level drive to break the habits of their lives and reach out, band together to help others. Recycling, AIDS awareness, donations, all these external structures are essential, but they don't stick without a corresponding change in consciousness.

So, again, what to do? Well, books like Jo's are a start. They provide an intellectual framework to grow into, and permission to begin to seek higher and wider realities. But ideas aren't enough. Until your embrace spans the globe, until the suffering of others cuts as deeply as your own suffering, until through-and-through--intricacy to emptiness to radiance begins to shine through you, until you begin to see your own Self looking back at you as you gaze at the world... You won't be moved to emancipate and empower yourself. You won't be moved to seek like-minded souls to network change, little-by-little.

Ideas are a start, but they aren't enough. How then might we begin to not just believe we are connected, but to feel it radiantly, in our bones, to know it like we know our face in the mirror? We must work on ourselves, reach up to helping hands, and reach down to those that are searching below us. Books like Jo's are a part of this.

Ideas aren't enough, but practices transform. Practices like meditation, for example. This is the crux of the matter: practices transform. Peak experiences, grace, sudden knowing of connectedness can happen at any time. These experiences can change you forever, but they are fleeting, leaving only feeling and memory. To live it, in every moment, little by little you can either let life experience slowly raise you up, or you can  do things like meditate to accelerate your growth. For further reading about stages of consciousness I recommend Boomeritis by Ken Wilber (heavy reading, heavily researched, but still a novel), and for practices to accelerate the evolution of your consciousness I recommend Essential Spirituality by Roger Walsh.

Mark

[mactombs]

Mustang, thanks for your consideration. I will patiently await your response. Also, I'd like to add that not all scientists are bad. I know quite a few very humane scientists - but as a general rule, it seems on an individual level you find goodness, but on an instiutional level, there's rarely any such thing.

quote:Ideas aren't enough, but practices transform. Practices like meditation, for example. This is the crux of the matter: practices transform. Peak experiences, grace, sudden knowing of connectedness can happen at any time. These experiences can change you forever, but they are fleeting, leaving only feeling and memory. To live it, in every moment, little by little you can either let life experience slowly raise you up, or you can do things like meditate to accelerate your growth.

My personal experience agrees very much with this. The turn in the direction I am now moving was started with an attempt at meditation.

quote:To mactombs: What kind of a "medium" are you? (I'm a large myself!). Personally, reading most of the stuff by professed mediums and channelers, makes me ill. Most, not all, of it is to my mind one's "muse" going out of control into subconscious wishful thinking or amplification of negative neuroses.

Here you are thinking too Eastern. I meant "neutral", or more likely relatively so. Maybe, more accurately, luke-warm in my thoughts. Between. If I were to claim to be the other type of medium, I would be much more vague and refer to someone with a "V" or "Z" in their name. In any case, I'm glad of your input, as I've been wondering about the topic recently...

[/serious]As Vaza the Enlightened Being speaks: Venus interdicts between the Mother Sun and Earth in the second week of the six month by mortal time. This will bring an increase of energy and be a dawn of changes on the physical plane! These things I have spoken of many times in my book brought upon this mortal plane, and this special time you will be prepared for if you have read it. [)]