Hijack from Universal Consciousness

[Strange]

Being a Nobel laureate doesn't make you immune to crackpottery. If anything, it feels like they are more prone to it. But that could just be that they're more likely to have their ideas publicise.

[Dave Moore]

To Eise: I don't understand. I am not claiming Montagnier is right. Could you please show me where I claimed that?

So you have commented based on what you thought I said. You must learn to slow down. Stop jumping to conclusions.

We all know it's a lot of fun for hard materialists to dismember woo-woos. The Amazing Randi has made a career of it.

But you're making a weak start if you want to find out what I'm saying.

I said what Montagnier did, not what is true in your reality . That isn't my reality either. Reality is subjective. That can be proven, but not with empirical information, which doesn't exist. That would be rather foolish. How could empirical information yield anything worthwhile if reality is subjective?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

your first sentence "To Eise.... where I claimed that?" - valid reasonable question. (ANS - you claimed he was no fool or charlatan - if he made a bogus claim - what is he then? Also, why put it forward as an example if you don't believe it?)

 

You second sentence "You commented based on.... stop jumping to conclusions". - totally superfluous, condescending and insulting.

 

QUOTE"I said what Montagnier did, not what was true in reality" - if he didn't do it in 'reality' then he didn't do it at all now did he?

[Dave Moore]

Strange, if you read my last comment you will show once again that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Obviously, this is a simple thing to understand. However, you are personally unable to imagine what subjective reality would imply.

You continue to insist that subjective reality be proven by empirical data.

I am saying it is axiomatic, and requires no objective proof.

Your insistence that the only way one could prove or disprove subjective reality by objective means is extraordinarily illogical.

Maybe it's too difficult to wrap your mind around?

Nothing I can do there.

DrP, I understand that it seems contradictory. You also can't imagine what subjective reality would imply. Simply imagining it is impossible for you. If you did manage to imagine it, you would see what I meant.

Give the question some serious thought---- how would you talk about such people as luc Montagnier if subjective reality (no common universe) were true?

Just because you don't believe in dragons doesn't mean you can't imagine a story about dragons, right?

 

I was wrong to say that Montagnier was no charlatan. by my own rules, he could very well be one. I am assuming, nut let's just say that I have no reason to say he is, unlike you, who assume he must be. I apologize for that assumption of mine. it was unfair.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

I am not assuming he is a nut - I have a list of possibilities as to why he would make such claims. How would I talk about him if subjective reality were true? - well it isn't so I wouldn't. There has been nothing put forward to suggest there is - where do we draw the line? If someone turns up saying that if they concentrate hard enough they reckon they could shoot laser beams from their eyes, should we even give that credence?

 

I can imagine dragons... and I do not believe they exist (beyond what we have in nature, sea creatures that look just like dragons and the like)... I can imagine them yes, but why would I draw upon that imagination to back up a totally different argument that has no connection. Science site yea? Why bring the guy up at all? It didn't add any weight to weight to your argument. If what he did was somehow proved, THEN that would be an argument in your favour as it would be an example of someone who was laughed out but turned out to be right. But he wasn't was he. There are then about a dozen other example you list (Like Bigfoot etc)... How many of them do you believe to be true and how many do you know to have been PROVEN untrue through research and testing... there are several on your list that I know to have been debunked before through independent testing, so why bring them into the discussion to support your argument?

PS - just to clarify - One of the 'possibilities' regarding Montagnier on my list is that he was right and everyone else was wrong... it isn't impossible, but I do not believe it to be true. Just as it is possible that I am wrong about the kid who claims he can shoot lasers from his eyes... I suppose he could be telling the truth and I need to keep more of an open mind... but I have never met anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes to this day and I 'know' as far as I can tell from what I have observed about reality that no-one can shoot lasers from their eyes by concentrating really, really hard. Why can't he do it under observation?

Edited March 30, 2017 by DrP

[Dave Moore]

DrP, you amuse me. How would you talk about Montagnier if subjective reality is true? Come on!

I think you must have known my meaning regarding dragons. Okay, not dragons, but say, three-headed dragons.

You just don't get what I meant, do you?

I am NOT asking you what you believe. I am asking you if you can use your imagination and pretend for a moment that subjective reality is real. What questions arise? Like, (holding your hand here), "Wouldn't there be paradoxes?", or, "How could science work effectively?", or anything but, "But I don't believe in subjective reality."

Come on, you can do it!

 

P.S. Why do you go to extreme lengths and post script that you are so open minded that you suppose that there's a very tiny chance that Montagnier is right and everyone else is wrong?

I know you think that. I'm no different. One must discriminate. I agree. You are obviously not reading my posts.

I am asking you this:

 

Can you imagine subjective reality, and if so, what immediate questions arise?

And if you answer, "there is no subjective reality!" one more time, I will assume you lack the intellectual capacity to answer the question I continue to ask again and again and again.

This must be amusing to those reading this!

Edited March 30, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

Why would I even entertain it as an idea? I could ask what you think about the kid who thinks he might be able to shoot lasers from his eyes... What do you say about him?

[Dave Moore]

Because if subjective reality were true, that would explain all metaphysical phenomena. It would explain UFOs, Digfoot, Human levitation, Miracles, Hypnosis, Observer effect, Telekinesis, Meaningful coincidences, and on and on and on.

Laser eyes would not.

 

Hundreds of words. Skirting the question, making excuses. Thread title: "Universal Consciousness". Not "Human Super Abilities?"

Edited March 30, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Ten oz]

, learned men all seemed to agree that blacks were a lower form of life, and almost all agreed that they ought to therefore be slaves, bought and sold like cattle. Smart people like you. Smart people like Washington and Jefferson.

It seems so strange to people today. It seems like people back then were blind to some things, even while they could do math, or design a bill of rights and be considered wise men.

 

 

This is a very poor example and I feel it reflects a large error in you overall view analyse evidence, "mumbo jumbo".

 

The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Evolutionary Biology was more akin to philosophy during Washington and Jeffersons who died decades before legitimate research into species begun. "Smart people" in the period you are referencing didn't have structured disciplines to weigh race (black vs white). Jefferson and Washington aren't examples of people who were educated (smart) on the subject. Mentioning their racism isn't​ proof of anything useful to this discussion. Additionally "learned men" of the time "all" didn't agree that whites were superior. Black astronomer Benjamin Banneker was a "learned man" and he wrote several letters to Jefferson pleading justice for slaves which he published in addition to his other published works.

[Dave Moore]

Yes, it was a bad example. Good work.

 

And I don't suppose, getting back to the subject, you could imagine subjective reality either.

Anything but the topic. Are all of you the same person using different names? Because you all attack everything but what I am claiming, which is that reality is not objective, but subjective.

Don't bother me any more if you have nothing to say about consciousness.

Attack my ideas. Crucify the ideas.

But you can't. it's beyond you and we both know it.

 

Next? My spelling?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Dave Moore

[DrP]

Because if subjective reality were true, that would explain all metaphysical phenomena. It would explain UFOs, Digfoot, Human levitation, Miracles, Hypnosis, Observer effect, Telekinesis, Meaningful coincidences, and on and on and on.

Laser eyes would not.

 

 

It might explain it - but there are already plausible explanations for all of these things. Hypnosis is a real thing, so are UFOs. Bigfoot - probably not going by the presented evidence,I've seen reviewed. Telekinesis - no evidence it is even possible beyond undemonstratable claims and scenarios which can be explained in other ways. . Human levitation (and firewalking), explained and undemonstrated beyond what is possible within the laws of physics for a human body anyway. Then there are dome things we just can't explain.

 

Lets try to find some common ground. Is there anything that you don't believe in? Like the tooth fairy or laser eyes for example? Or something that we both believe works, like the placebo effect? We can all say that these things are real or not real based on the evidence we have all seen right?.I get that a persons subjective reality might be the driving influence behind the placebo effect, although I'm not sure there are tests on that. We can go back to that other thread to talk about that one. The point I am making is, not everything is to do with subjective reality. We can actually test things that are the same for everyone whatever they believe and the results are always the same. We have to take each example one thing at a time and dissect it objectively to see if it is real or not. Somethings are not real, like the laser eyes. They are not real because 1, no one has ever reported using them or seeing them, 2 there is no part of the eye that generates the power for a laser, 3 I made it up a while back.....there are many other reasons. You see? No amount of arguing is going to make us believe in laser eyes unless you get shot with them or they get reported on the news as a surgical breakthough. If you hypnotise the whole world to really believe that laser eyes are possible and we all believed it suddenly, we still would not be able to shoot lasers from our eyes outside of our imaginations. (sorry for this deliberate strawman argument here, it has a purpose).

 

One case at a time. Objective analysis. We can tick these off as known to be true, unknown if true or know to be untrue as far as reasonably possible for "UFOs, Digfoot, Human levitation, Miracles, Hypnosis, Observer effect, Telekinesis, Meaningful coincidences, and on and on and on" as you listed above. How subjective thinking effects any of them at all is an individual conversation for each imo. I think that subjective thinking and self belief could effect the outcome of a miracle request for example (by having a placebo effect), but it won't make a bigfoot pop into existence. I can't prove that the placebo effect is improved by believing harder and I can't remember if there is anything that suggests if it is true or not. It could be tested by doing trials on believing types and skeptics in another group maybe to see if there was a difference - there probably would be, although you couldn't tell the participants that the trial was taking place or it could further effect the out come. I don't know.

 

DrP, I understand that it seems contradictory. You also can't imagine what subjective reality would imply. Simply imagining it is impossible for you. If you did manage to imagine it, you would see what I meant.

Give the question some serious thought---- how would you talk about such people as luc Montagnier if subjective reality (no common universe) were true?

 

IF by actually believing in something harder or truer actually had an increase on percentage of the positive results produced by a placebo, then on a homeopathic test you might see an increase in positive results from a test if the people who took part in it believed in it fully. So. Montagniers transfer of the homepathic magic through the air or however it is supposed to be done, should actually work, because the people at the other end of the line get the placebo effect. That doesn't give credence to the experiment any further than claiming that any homeopathic result is just a placebo effect. Yes, of course it works.... only in so far as homeopathy 'works'. Anything can work by placebo, it doesn't explain or prove the mechanism to be sound.

[Dave Moore]

I certainly don't believe in Bigfoot, though I can imagine they are real to those who report them--- the honest ones.

So I am gathering that your belief in metaphysical experiences is conditional or full blown belief in the case of Bigfoot and UFOs at least.

Is this because you have seen both?

In any case, I would say that imagination is not imagination if it is felt by the person to be reality. People considered insane, in my view, are simply 'allowed" to experience subjective reality openly. I would conjecture that either because of a desperate need to survive at an early age or by some trauma,, They began to accept their own reality over the supplied one, that is, by acceptance by the status quo.

If that acceptance isn't there anyway, the subjective reality can diverge tremendously.

A young man I know was badly neglected as a child by a heroin-addicted mother. As a child, he was forced to steal her food stamps to survive before she sold them to buy cigarettes.

He began to hear voices in his head, called schizophrenia, as a teen or a bit before. Through explaining to him that the voices were not prophetic or meaningful, but would serve to analyze his own psyche, the voices began to diminish eventually.

He understands the concept of subjective reality very well, and today it serves him to maintain his sanity.

Mixing subjective and objective realms doesn't make sense. Full blown subjective realty would live quite well alongside of science.

The reason is that the scientific process simply reflects an almost ironclad belief in objective reality. That belief, exactly like the belief that promotes self-healing by placebo, manifests as an extension of expectation. In ordinary life, expectation, force, desire, and non-expectation all play a role in manifesting or not, otherwise called the observer effect.

Proof, or supposed truth, can never be trusted. I agree that Montagnier has failed to prove his work. on the other hand, I understand completely that his own reality has allowed such manifestations.

So you can see how I might confuse you and others. I have no language to describe these things in terms that could be easily understood.

I'm saying that there is absolutely nothing outside of perception save other perception. That belief that others are aware is my one belief (as opposed to knowledge). That is, I believe my son is real and he has awareness, and he isn't different from me in that respect. I am that close to solipsism. I admit it. I have no proof but I still want to believe enough to leave that question alone.

It is very simple to understand subjective reality, and how it is always engaged in every situation. Once one gets over the idea that the lowest energy manifestations are the ones that the greater consensus offers, it can be understood how proof of their beliefs will always arrive. In subjective reality, however, everything is proof, based on the assumption that one is experiencing a representation or sample of a larger reality.

 

But if all we experience are samples, we could easily go through life convinced that those samples can be extrapolated.

In other words, if subjective reality means projection that manifests, and those manifestations are an extension of our beliefs, then we are dealing with expectation fulfillment. Add determinism, and we have a scripted reality that always appears to make sense.

We can't change the outcomes, but we end up experiencing "agreements" along the way. These are not proof that we are sharing an exact duplicate of another's reality, just one that is a close enough description of he same thing.

Determinism would guarantee that in retrospect, all would be seen as believable.

It should be noted, too, that if perception is all we have (and that is true), anything beyond perception is outside of our range to know it is actually apart from our perception. The objective world, therefore, is only a theory.

You could build any machine, any telescope, any computer, and yet you have to assume it even exists beyond your own senses.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Dave Moore]

If subjective reality means that we project our manifestations, the content of those manifestation arise from our beliefs.

But we do not know entirely what we believe, do we? Or to what extent?

A belief isn't just a religion or a scientific fact, it is a compendium of all we have ever accepted as real. What color is the sky, and what is the word for that? And things like, what does the cat represent to us personally? What does a door mean, and how is it spelled?

Much is taught, and much is personally experienced as true. So as we project, the features of our world arise as totems and archetypes of the feelings and meanings associated with the symbology we see before us. In other words, in a subjective universe, our subconscious is not located in some hidden recess of our mind---- it is displayed in that objective seeming world we assume has nothing to do with us, and in memories and dreams of that world we retain when we are in thought.

Many of those symbols are common to the culture we live in.

And so science has served a wonderful purpose in organizing those symbols by causal interconnection. If we begin to analyze that observed world, we see parallels with the dynamics and inner workings of our own minds.

Delayed choice tests represent the application of free will (or the assumption of it). The wave becomes associated with the right hemisphere of the brain. The particle, the left hemisphere. Perhaps DNA represents the expectations thrust upon us even before we were born Our traits, of skin color, physique, a tendency to particular diseases, all expectations of our culture. No more.

All of these are cultural or personal, depending on experience alone.

Science, or anything at all need not be non-paradoxical to function. The litmus test of final proof (Grand unified theory) never need arrive (nor can it). And I am always speaking of perceptions of the individual, not the greater culture.

The famous observer effect shows us that we are indeed manifesting our world.

Energy is involved. Energy each of us possesses to one degree or another, and it is finite. With this energy, we apply intent, a means to manifest against a resistance (like I'm doing right now).

Belief is like a very heavy weight. If we expect a diffraction pattern to show on a screen, then we do not need energy because we do not need to "move" our belief. If we expect something else, like the ability to send DNA information through the internet for reconstitution like Luc Montagnier claims, we find that we must shift that enormous weight of our current beliefs and we cannot do it. The resistance is enormous. Montagnier in turn fails to prove his work. His inability to convince is energetic as well. He could manage it perhaps when combined with the energy of a thousand researchers like himself who believe in water memory.

It can easily be seen that each person involved is applying his energy to manifest and the net outcome involves the energy of each to manifest, and further, the energy of those who will witness the outcome second hand, namely you and I, to the extent our own beliefs are involved.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Ten oz]

@Dave Moore, you are inviting us all to prove a negative. That isn't the way evidence is logically assembled. To prove anything there must be accurate points one can research and build upon. The reason ghosts, UFOs, god(s), bigfoot, and etc can't be disproved is because nothing accurate exists is discussing them. Your idea is built on what ifs which you seem to think collectively create something more precise but that isn't how reasoning works. If you study Bayesien Statistics a little you quickly realize that uncertianty dimishes likelihood. The odds that several pieces of questionable anecdotal evidence are correct is far worse than the odds of any individual one being correct. Because of that you only make your argument worse by continuing to add on unverifiable bit after unverifiable bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

 

The foundation of your idea seems to be that awareness/consciousness is more that just biology (meat you called it). The evidence for this you insist is "obvious" and is known self evidently by everyone their our minds. That assertion, in my opinion, hasn't been supported by you in this thread. Challanging us to see things your way notwithstanding. What proof is there that the brain is anything but biology? We have dissected brains, put pieces under microscopes, we operate on living brains, etc, etc, etc. In a very provable and tangible way we know it is biology (meat).

 

Awareness, which you have referrenced, is uniquely influenced by the biology of the brain. That is why pharmaceutical companies can design medication to that influence emotion. Because it is all chemistry. It is why when parts of the brain gets damaged people loss their ability to see, hear, move, remember, learn, and etc. Our consciousness is directly attached to our brains. Change the brain and consciousness is changed.

 

You also seem to be loosely speculating that what one dreams, hallucinates, whatever other mentally manifests of the mind can be real provided they are real to the individual. That is redundant. You are basically saying that people are able to believe what they believe. Yes, people can believe anything. I can write down 10,000 predictions for the future and then when one of the 10,000 predictions comes true I can believe I am able to see into the future. That is why in science information is peer reviewed and experiments must be repeatable. We know how easily one can convince themselves of something that isn't real. What is your standard for real?

[Dave Moore]

Answer: That which I experience.

 

I think you are mistaken in your thinking. assuming things you have read are empirically true.

You must therefore throw out other things that you deem empirically false.

This is entirely assumption.

I only know to be true those things I know to be true. For example, I know what energy is. It is that which I feel when I win the lottery. This isn't a paper definition. It is axiomatic truth. I assume that your definition is more accurate? That energy is something one could plug into a formula?

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Ten oz]

Answer: That which I experience.

 

I think you are mistaken in your thinking. assuming things you have read are empirically true.

You must therefore throw out other things that you deem empirically false.

This is entirely assumption.

I only know to be true those things I know to be true. For example, I know what energy is. It is that which I feel when I win the lottery. This isn't a paper definition. It is axiomatic truth. I assume that your definition is more accurate? That energy is something one could plug into a formula?

I don't view the euphocric feeling one receives when winning a prize to be energy, no. It is dopamine being released in the brain. I asume you know that. So what is the real question you're asking; why does the brain release dopamine at that moment?

[Strange]

Answer: That which I experience.

 

 

But we know that many things we experience are not real or true. For example optical illusions. And false memories. And ...

 

That is why science has been successful, because it removes those sort of hitman biases and foibles.\

 

 

 

I think you are mistaken in your thinking. assuming things you have read are empirically true.

 

But it is not just an assumption. Many of us have actually tested the things we read. I don't just accept everything I read as true. I apply critical thinking and look for confirmation.

 

 

 

For example, I know what energy is. It is that which I feel when I win the lottery. This isn't a paper definition. It is axiomatic truth.

 

You can call that energy. But that has nothing to do with the concept used in science.

[Dave Moore]

Strange, enough. I get it that you can't wrap your head around this stuff.

 

This is a thread about consciousness. Science knows nothing about the subject.

I stand by with what I said.

It is truer to say that energy is that which can be proven axiomatically than to say, "I read it in high school".

Your first mistake is your insistence that what is taught is more real than pain or opleasure, for example.

I say, you have lost the ability to discern what true reality is.

If you cannot, don't bother talking about it, I can see even imagining it is beyond your abilities.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[StringJunky]

If there is no theoretical or actual possibility of demonstrating that an idea could be wrong, aka falsifiability, it's not scientific.

[Dave Moore]

Dopamine? You too have no idea how to approach this subject. What if I say that you learned about dopamine by reading about it? Yet, you know one feels energized when happy, and that is far more real than something you believe because you read it.

It is a complete waste of time talking to you if you can't see that.

 

Do you believe in free will?

[Strange]

This is a thread about consciousness. Science knows nothing about the subject.

 

 

Science knows quite a lot about the subject.

 

 

 

It is truer to say that energy is that which can be proven axiomatically than to say, "I read it in high school".

 

And energy, in the scientific sense, can be demonstrated, measured, tested, etc. (Note that nothing is "proven" in science. And axioms are not proven by definition.)

 

And it is silly to make accusations about "I read it in high school" in response to the statement that many of us HAVE DONE THESE TESTS OURSELVES, in other words we didn't just read it.

 

 

 

Your first mistake is your insistence that what is taught is more real than pain or opleasure, for example.

 

I never said that.

 

1. I never said anything about what is taught.

 

2. I never said anything about pain or pleasure.

 

If your only tactic is to argue against things that were never said (a "straw man" argument) then you don't have much of a case.

[Dave Moore]

String Junky, why are you on a consciousness thread? You guys, all of you, think what you've "learned" is not falsifiable, but insist that what you experience is falsifiable.

The only real energy you will ever know is the energy you feel. Know, not assume. FEEL, not read about.

Are you guys just kidding me?

And regarding tests you do yourself--- from the mouth of the one who insists we often experience illusions!!

A bit of cognitive dissonance, say I.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Ten oz]

Strange, enough. I get it that you can't wrap your head around this stuff.

 

This is a thread about consciousness. Science knows nothing about the subject.

I stand by with what I said.

It is truer to say that energy is that which can be proven axiomatically than to say, "I read it in high school".

Your first mistake is your insistence that what is taught is more real than pain or opleasure, for example.

I say, you have lost the ability to discern what true reality is.

If you cannot, don't bother talking about it, I can see even imagining it is beyond your abilities.

As the one attempting to state that which was imagined in your own mind the onus is on you to explain it. Why you think anyone would be able to wrap their heads around your private interpretation of reality which explicitly rejects what is commonly taught or known is absurd. You dismiss education as beneath the experiencing of feelings (pain and pleasure are feelings) yet are using text which means you were taught to read and write. You have your own definition for energy but bother to stay with english as taught to you to complain which shows you understand that one can't purely manifest whatever they want. You must follow the rules of language to post.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Ten oz

[Dave Moore]

I gather each of you believe in free will.

Read and write, Ten oz. Not right. Not just a jab. We all tell on ourselves through riddles and paradoxes.

 

I am redefining energy. Obviously, to use standard scientific vernacular is an assumption only. I have often said, "I feel energized." Or, conversely, "I feel my energy is low today."

 

That definition is also in the dictionary. Why the insistence that I ought to use a scientific definition? Why not a commonly understood one?

Edited March 31, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

You guys, all of you, think what you've "learned" is not falsifiable

 

 

 

Er, no. The whole point is that the science we have learned(*) (and actually done) IS falsifiable. That is what makes it science.

 

The stuff you re convinced is true because you believe is. Is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific.

 

(*) Not sure why people like you think that learning things is somehow a bad thing, and throw out things like "read a book" as if it were an insult.

 

 

 

The only real energy you will ever know is the energy you feel.

 

Again, you can call that "energy" if you want. You can call it "chocolate" or "pumbleflutz". I don't care.

 

But you are not talking about the concept called "energy" in science, so it is irrelevant.

 

 

And regarding tests you do yourself--- from the mouth of the one who insists we often experience illusions!!

A bit of cognitive dissonance, say I.

 

Not sure why. It is the fact we can test things that tells us that we experience illusions. For example, I expect you think that the squares labelled A and B are different colours:

 

But they are exactly the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

 

So you can choose to trust your instincts over reality, but you will sometimes be wrong.