Lekatt’s NDE in his own words My NDE, quick to read. read it and you’ll see he was in bed, at home and there was no evidence of a heart attack.
Oh I have. The fact that you think they prove anything only indicates your near complete lack of ability to think critically. Just because you write it down somewhere, or make a little video with a few special effects, doesn’t mean it’s true. All you have is empty assertions, no evidence.
Consciousness moves through the brain via microtubules. It’s a lot like the Internet that way.
Is that the same, or different, from saying that consciousness is created in/by the brain via interactions of neurons as influenced by their chemical environment (it’s a lot like a circuitboard that way)?
This is still being investigated, and Penrose-Hameroff is not widely accepted. If this changes, great. Until then, trying to apply QM to consciousness, especially the whole ‘you can change reality by thinking’ bullplop is speculative at best.
QM is not speculative, it was discovered by research.
Just doesn’t fit into a skeptics belief system.
Holy shit. If that’s your standard for “evidence” (or “research”), I guess there’s no point offering counter-cites.
Lekatt would you mind describing or summing up the video? I’m on dial-up for the time being and videos take hours to load and play.
This statement, as it appears, is true. However, nothing you have said in this thread has anything to do with QM. QM, does none of the things you attribute to it. You quite clearly do not understand it, and are just slapping the name onto something you believe in an attempt to get some form of legitimacy.
Once again, you’re posting empty assertions and horribly mangled interpretations of QM. This video is crammed full of weapons grade balonium, and contains as much accurate information about QM as lawn gardening tips involving moles.
Oh it does, we have lots of evidence leading us to believe that it’s garbage.
“QM” is not synonymous with ‘you can change reality by thinking’.
I was thinking less Penrose-Hameroff and more Ted Stevens here.
I may have inadvertently whooshed myself.
Research was done to discover if thought had any effect on water, and then research was done to discover if thought had any effect on random generators.
Distilled water was used and exposed to a heavy metal concert, when the water was frozen the water crystals were fragmented into various odd shapes.
Then water was exposed to a classical music piece, when the water was frozen into well-formed crystals that looked somewhat like snowflakes.
The only difference was the music.
Then the water was tested with negative thoughts that showed the fragmented crystals, and positive thought that showed the well-formed crystals.
The tests were repeated several times with the same results. Therefore thought did influemce.
Then they tested whether thought could influence a random generator putting out 0 and 1. They found that a group of people thinking positive thoughts could influence the generator to put out more 1s. The larger the group of people the more the influence.
Then they have set up random generators at places all over the world. They found when a major world event happened it would influence the generators.
I think that is a good summary.
No, there isn’t the research is too good.
No, QM is much more than that. But the observer changing the observed is one part of it.
I don’t care what you believe.
Yep, that about sums it up quite admirably. This is what you think of as serious research?
What’s a negative thought to water? We don’t like you, you’re all wet? Words fail me.
I know you don’t understand why, but thoughts are very important, they determine your future. Spiritual people know this and use it everyday to live better lives.
Words may fail you, but your thoughts will never fail you.
Aldiboronti Please check your message box.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. The ‘research’ you’ve tried to cite is completely non-scientific. Nothing was controlled for, it wasn’t even single blind, and the conclusions were preconceived.
For example, in the water experiment, the person doing the shape interpretation knew what was being thought at the water, and was free to interpret it that way. No guidelines were given ahead of time, so anything could be interpreted any way at all and then later decided to be bad or good. This is very non-scientific practice, and gives completely non-objective results.
None of the studies you’ve mentioned have any scientific credibility in at all, and are in fact widely criticized by actual scientists. Nothing you’ve offered gives even one bit of actual objective evidence.
Okay, I watched your video (ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back) and it didn’t do anything to correct the glaring issues that are present even in your summary of it. (Though you did neglect to mention how amazed we should be that matter is mostly made up of empty space. Woooo.)
Okay, about the water freezing - what, precisely, is the difference between heavy metal music, and classical music? (I’ll note that the video did not state that an actual concert was occurring, so likely it was just recorded music.) It’s not going to be that the rock musicians were consumed with hatred or something at the time they played and the classical musicians were filled with love - there’s no reason to think that’s the case. More likely, they were simply both occupied with professional interest in doing a good job. Is it the fact that the music had different frequencies? But neither are pure tones; all performed music is a collection of overlaid and variously jaggy frequencies (which is why it doesn’t sound like the beeps from a Commodore 64). In either case there is nothing about the two types of sound itself that will be materially different to the water.
In fact, there is only one quantifiable difference between the two sounds - the twit setting up the test thinks that classical music isn’t boring or that rock music doesn’t have a good beat we can dance to. There is, of course, no reason to think that water has similar bad taste. Or even that all water in the universe happens to agree with that particular twit. So if there’s somebody preferring one music and not the other, it’s not the water, it’s the ‘scientist’.
Which leads us to conclude one of several things, depending on various factors:
-
The twit was polluting his experiment with his own errant thought waves, and is so bad a scientist he didn’t even realize this could happen and control for it. (Of course, if he’s this bad a scientist, there’s not reason to think he didn’t botch something else up too, like say…)
-
The twit was applying a confirmation bias to his observations.
Personally I would be unsurprised to learn that all water always froze with some orderly sections and some disorderly sections. After that it all comes down to which parts you decide to notice based on the results you expected.
Regarding random number generators: The thing to note is that these generators apply an XOR function to the resulting data stream. (You pretty much have to, to eliminate calibration bias and avoid getting three times as many 1s as 0s all the time). What this means in practical terms is that after all the quantum activity is done, every alternating bit is reversed, from a 1 to a 0.
The thing to note about this is that this not only eliminates calibration bias, it also unavoidably eliminates ‘happy thought’ bias! Even if the magic power of happy thoughts had the ability to make the white-noise generators return more ones for a while, the XOR function would promptly take half of the ones and turn them to zeros, completely wiping out the happy thought effect completely. There are only two ways to avoid this: 1) calibrate your happy thought waves to completely reverse their effects in perfect synch with the system inside the random number generator box, and not just in synch, but knowing if it’s on a flip or a no-flip bit, all without any way of telling the difference (yeah right) … or the bias could be applied after the XOR function is applied.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Absolutely nothing happens on the quantum level after the XOR effect is applied. Nothing. Nada. Zero. It’s as rigid and unalterable a process as going through a sentence and cApItAlIzInG eVeRy OtHeR lEtTeR. The only thing that is subject to anything that the human mind could possibly influence is…wait for it…interpreting the data.
The numbers did two completely unrelated notable things “over an hour before” and “roughly eight ours after” the planes hit things on 9/11? What the crap is that? Could it be…the people were like, “oh, this was a big emotional event, let’s look for number fluctuations somewhere around it? Oh, hey, if we tilt our head and squint our eyes just right, there’s one!”? Why, yes, I think it could!
These REGs are great! They work exactly as their scientists expect - picking up the feelings the experimenters expect them to get, even when the people doing the feeling are “on the opposite sides of the planet”, and presumably there are millions of other people closer to the devices feeling other things! And there were “clearly recognizable patterns in readings” around every event they looked at! Fancy that!
Of course, you can probably find some clearly recognizable pattern four or five times every day, if you’re looking for it and you’re not picky. Kind of like how you can find “predictions” by arranging the letters of Mody Dick in a grid and looking for them. Humans are pattern recognizers - whether they’re looking at streams of random numbers, or arrangements of frozen water molecules. It’s just what we do.
There is one last thing worth noting - it is specifically noted that these things responded “differently, yet consistently” to the various stimuli. Which apparently even included introducing the water to the written word! (What - water can read now?) I’m sure this is correct - the results were undoubtedly consistent. Because there was one thing consistent about all the experiments - the desires of the people interpreting those results. Some people truly do see only what they want to see - regardless of what’s true.
Not that these pesky facts will effect you - you may deny having religion, but you have a belief system that is impervious to reality nonetheless. Still, this is the website for fighting ignorance, and you’ve brought us a weapons-grade example of it here.
You don’t have a damned clue what QM is, if you think that video doesn’t grossly misrepresent it.
And water and random number generators don’t care what we think, either.
Good, I am glad they are widely criticized by mainstream scientists. Tbat means they are good science. All breakthrough discovers were widely condemned by mainstream science. That is just human nature fighting change.