• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monroe Institute

dlorde said:
The anesthesiologist said she had "no blood in her system"? Are you sure you remember that correctly?

If so, next time you see him/her, please ask if that's really what was meant - I mean, did they just replace her entire blood volume with saline? if so, why?
Click to expand...
@jfish - please don't bother to answer that, I realise I was being pointlessly pedantic - due to being, as the politicians have it, 'tired and emotional' :rolleyes:
 
marplots said:
How would a hard-to-detect OBE-EM field keep from getting absorbed by all the surrounding "clutter?" I don't see how it can simultaneously be low level and still remain coherent... unless -- the FCC has a restricted band for OBEs!
Click to expand...

I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't that Stargate nonsense cost the taxpayers something like 10 mildo?
 
dlorde said:
I assume the implication is that the field or force is not EM, but something unknown to science, which is why we can't measure it. This amazing unknown-to-science force can somehow support and maintain consciousness independently of the brain, allows it to move around - even pass through solids, to perceive visible light as if through physical eyes, yet does not absorb light (or it would be seen hovering over the operating table). It physically (yet undetectably) interacts with the brain, while (crucially) having no other detectable physical effects whatsoever (or we would have noticed them). And it does all this without measurably using any energy from the environment or the body. Surely supporting consciousness can't be its only role, so who knows what other undetectable properties it has...

It's totally spiffing stuff, and you'd think government and military scientists would be working feverishly to discover more about it, but no - the blinkered fools spend their money on conventional science.
Click to expand...

I'm in. If it's OK with you, I'll just steal liberally from your post when I am writing the ad copy. Would it violate any consumer protections if I just went ahead and called it, "low-cal" or should I stick to the weaker, "sugar-free"?
 
marplots said:
I'm in. If it's OK with you, I'll just steal liberally from your post when I am writing the ad copy. Would it violate any consumer protections if I just went ahead and called it, "low-cal" or should I stick to the weaker, "sugar-free"?
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Just let me know when you have a usable saleable product.
 
Keep in mind that if the program was working, they would announce that it was not working, and shut it down and take it in a black hole.

Or based on standard governmental procedure, if it wasn't working they would still be blindly pouring money into it. You know the drill: if it doesn't work, it needs more funding.

Perhaps Stargate found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
 
Rugby said:
Keep in mind that if the program was working, they would announce that it was not working, and shut it down and take it in a black hole.

Or based on standard governmental procedure, if it wasn't working they would still be blindly pouring money into it. You know the drill: if it doesn't work, it needs more funding.

Perhaps Stargate found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The government solution to a black hole is to keep throwing money in it till you fill it up.
 
Consciousness separate from the brain

It seems that we all may agree that the crux of our discussion deals with the idea or concept of consciousness existing outside of the body. In fact this may be key to many things discussed in this site. I am not convinced that we are merely chemical processes.

"[T]he apparent contrast between the continuous onward flow of associative thinking and the preservation of the unity of the personality exhibits a suggested analogy with the relation between the wave description of the motions of material particles, governed by the superposition principle, and their indestructible individuality."

-Niels Bohr

This is currently the direction I am investigating. Is anyone here familiar with quantum mechanics?
 
I don't have a strong background in quantum mechanics (no formal schooling beyond some entry level physics classes in college). I've read a bit about it as a possible foundation for understanding some of the experiences people report. The main point I get from it is Newtonian physics is no longer the only basis for understanding reality. I suspect that quantum physics won't be the only alternative we'll uncover either. If we could look forward 100 years, I'd bet we would be just as astounded as someone 100 years ago would be over the state of science today.
 
Rugby said:
It seems that we all may agree that the crux of our discussion deals with the idea or concept of consciousness existing outside of the body.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the crux. It doesn't.

This is currently the direction I am investigating. Is anyone here familiar with quantum mechanics?
Click to expand...
There are several working physicists on the forums, though they're more likely to be found in the Science section.

But before you begin, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, and vice versa.
 
jfish said:
I don't have a strong background in quantum mechanics (no formal schooling beyond some entry level physics classes in college). I've read a bit about it as a possible foundation for understanding some of the experiences people report.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's a lot of that. It's all garbage.

The main point I get from it is Newtonian physics is no longer the only basis for understanding reality. I suspect that quantum physics won't be the only alternative we'll uncover either. If we could look forward 100 years, I'd bet we would be just as astounded as someone 100 years ago would be over the state of science today.
Click to expand...
Unlikely. A hundred years ago - well, say, 120 - we didn't know how the Sun worked. And we knew that we didn't know. We didn't know how the Earth's core could still be hot, or why the orbit of Mercury was the way it is. And we knew we didn't know. And we knew that the answers would contain surprises.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics didn't come out of nowhere; they were the answers to specific scientific questions. There are far fewer questions like that today - still some, but not so close to home and not with such great significance.
 
PixyMisa said:
But before you begin, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Google the quantum enigma or Schroedinger's Cat. When you can explain that to me then perhaps I will agree with your reductionist approach. (You would also merit consideration for a Nobel prize.)
 
I'd be interested in any comments about how we know that there are far fewer questions of great significance today. Doesn't that require knowing what we don't know? Is it possible we learn the most when we have a healthy scepticism about how much we think we know?
 
Rugby said:
Google the quantum enigma or Schroedinger's Cat.
Click to expand...
There is no quantum enigma.

Schrodinger's Cat is an examination of interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't change the actual physics, and the actual physics tells us that quantum effects are irrelevant to consciousness, and consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects.

And we know, beyond any sane question, that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and occurs within the brain. Simple as that.

When you can explain that to me then perhaps I will agree with your reductionist approach. (You would also merit consideration for a Nobel prize.)
Click to expand...
Explain what?
 
jfish said:
I'd be interested in any comments about how we know that there are far fewer questions of great significance today. Doesn't that require knowing what we don't know?
Click to expand...
Yes. Which is exactly what I pointed out.

In the late 19th century there were major problems for physics close to home. How did the Sun keep shining? Why was the interior of the Earth still hot? Why did Mercury orbit the Sun in that particular path?

These questions gave us Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

There are still plenty of things we don't know, but they're simply not the same sort of gaping holes to be filled by revolutionary theories.

Is it possible we learn the most when we have a healthy scepticism about how much we think we know?
Click to expand...
Yes. And we do.

But you have to have an actual basis for skepticism. If you just make stuff up because it feels good, you not only don't learn anything at all, you actually unlearn stuff you already knew.
 
PixyMisa said:
There is no quantum enigma.

Schrodinger's Cat is an examination of interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't change the actual physics, and the actual physics tells us that quantum effects are irrelevant to consciousness, and consciousness is irrelevant to quantum effects.

And we know, beyond any sane question, that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and occurs within the brain. Simple as that.


Explain what?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part. You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom