What's new

Longest Thread Ever

why the interest in this subject. Well, I just downloaded an unpublished book written by a friend, who I think hopes I'll read it and offer a few comments.

His thesis is that human consciousness is "entangled" in the general universe and linked by a general theory of quantum mechanics..... you know, the general theory that eluded Einstein.....
 
So all you objective materialists listen up... [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] and the hangers-on with the fully discredit Marxist/Socialist renditions of materialism and the associated but discoherent invocations of some mythical historical determinism and other baseless sociological theories....
 
why the interest in this subject. Well, I just downloaded an unpublished book written by a friend, who I think hopes I'll read it and offer a few comments.

His thesis is that human consciousness is "entangled" in the general universe and linked by a general theory of quantum mechanics..... you know, the general theory that eluded Einstein.....

"Consciousness creates the universe" is a common line for mystics and other con-men who don't understand QM, but like to use its concepts because it makes them sound smart.
 
****. Forgot that Red is a spiritualist! Babe and red should get along a lot better.
 
Talking about consciousness there is an interesting field of study on past lives...


Apparently there's A LOT of evidence of people being able to recall their past lives.


[video=youtube_share;0AtTM9hgCDw]https://youtu.be/0AtTM9hgCDw
 
Thank you all for your contributions. I am pretty busy, but have taken some time to read through Red's link, partially.

I relate to it, and could add my own extraordinary experiences.
 
****. Forgot that Red is a spiritualist! Babe and red should get along a lot better.

A spiritualist?? Ya mean like Quija boards, table raps, and ectoplasm? Lol, I don't think so.

I was prone to out of body experiences beginning in my teens and into my early 30's. And it did influence how I viewed the structure of reality, but, no, not Spiritualism per se. Interestingly, Spiritualism in America did originate in the same "burned over" district of upstate New York that gave birth to Mormonism.
 
A spiritualist?? Ya mean like Quija boards, table raps, and ectoplasm? Lol, I don't think so.

I was prone to out of body experiences beginning in my teens and into my early 30's. And it did influence how I viewed the structure of reality, but, no, not Spiritualism per se. Interestingly, Spiritualism in America did originate in the same "burned over" district of upstate New York that gave birth to Mormonism.

Every now and then I find a little bit of independent information on that place and time. A lot of folks think that anti-Masonic sentiment might have given rise to some parts of the Book of Mormon, though Joseph Smith apparently joined the Masons himself.

According to the LaRouche associate Anton Chaitkin, a lot of British influence was peddled through the Masonic movement. I gave his book "Treason in America" a read, and it is the philosophical basis of some of my views.

I have lately been reviewing British society and since the history of England is essentially my own roots, I am not as enthusiastic as the French "LaRouche" view for downing the Brits, really.

But, yes, Sydney Rigdon was an associate of the Campbellites before he came out of the closet, so to speak, to embrace Mormonism. A lot of anti-Mormon folks have figured he must have written the Book of Mormon and sought out the gold-digger Joe Smith to front his scam.

The LDS historian office defends Rigdon's innocence by detailing some facts about Parley P. Pratt, an early convert and one of the first apostles, who had been associated with Rigdon, and sought him out to bring him the Book of Mormon, or so it is represented. Not much of Rigdon's writings are available so it is difficult to assess his particular beliefs before embracing Mormonism.

Archeologically, there appears to be huge amounts of evidence from the Mound-builder civilization that early settlers found, including gold buried in those mounds, and silver, and a lot of copper artifacts, and all kinds of implements of war. And enough bones in some places, according to the diggers of the Erie Canal to fuel speculation or lore about genocidal wars, or wars of extermination, on scales similar to what is described in the Book of Mormon.

Yes indeed, there was a civilization of hundreds of thousands of folks who build forts and houses of wood and buried their dead in mounds, which was exterminated circa 400 AD by their enemies.


With all that lingering in the area, spiritually, I could wonder if there is not some extraordinary impact on the general wave equation of the Universe that sensitive humans might be influenced by.
 
"Consciousness creates the universe" is a common line for mystics and other con-men who don't understand QM, but like to use its concepts because it makes them sound smart.

Well, I'd call that sheer quackery myself. Religions like Christianity simplify the Creation to something like that.... "God spake, and the world came into being" and such. Mormons don't believe that.... well, at least at one point they considered the elements eternal, existing or co-existing in some form perhaps even before "God" became a "God".

Joseph Smith wrote Mormon scripture, saying "The elements are eternal, and cannot be created or made" and called "spirit" a kind of material of such a character that we could not detect it with our material senses or tools. He also theorized that "intelligence" or the core character of the human soul, is eternal. All the further "creation" is working with the materials at hand.

My friend, a rather humble intellectual who covers all the bases with appropriate terms of limitations, speculations, and understandable caveats of all kinds, puts forward a sort of math that theoretically provides operators like the Hamiltonian familiar with material quantum theory.

You do realize, mathematically, that there are more allowed forms of "existence" than we can see or call "material", I hope.

So under a broader definition of "material" defined as mathematical realities, his is an attempt to generalize everything under the same system....

I'd say "intelligence" acts on stuff willfully to organize things in some considered beneficial way. "consciousness" of stuff is inherent in specific respects in all things, considered somehow to have some non-zero residual "intelligent" value.

Joseph Smith was a bit of an animist, maybe a bit of a Buddhist. The Great Reality that is Existence had the capacity for joy and sorrow in itself. Worlds could weep, and Rocks could shout praise for the Messiah. Or should I just say Christianity has some conceptual relations to Eastern religions that pre-existed Moses by thousands of years..... as well as to Quantum Theory.....

The Russian geochemist Vernadski worked the same idea into Marxism, to please his overlords, into the general theory of Progress under Marxist determinism.... showing how on a global scale "Life" has been a force acting beneficently throughout geologic time....

But the thing about Jesus that I like better is the value placed on humanity generally, though horrible miscreants calling themselves "Christians", or "Moslems", have always been supple enough to abuse the claims of religion in disposing of their particular foes.... as have socialists, generally....especially materialist ideologues.....

I suppose the earliest humans did one another in for a scrap of meat, or a cave, or a fruit tree, or just because.....

I have recently been amazed to discover my Viking roots......

So, anyway, V.I. Vernadsky's observations make rocks look more humane....
 
Last edited:
"Consciousness creates the universe" is a common line for mystics and other con-men who don't understand QM, but like to use its concepts because it makes them sound smart.

I took enough math to do the calculations of QM, but never believed some of the popular representations of what it means. Old concepts of waves and particles under constraints/circumstances scientifically/mathematically displaced in some respects does really cast some doubt on the universe I think "materialists" like yourself envision.

Of course I'd be a stretch to show you some ghost or another, or conjure up say Balaam's *** for you to converse with, but really you demonstrate little willingness to actually address the point of how perception by any kind of "real intelligence" entity could be "entangled" in the complete universe which includes material existence at least, if not any other kind of real things.

What does "entanglement" mean as the scientists who are speculating on this phenomena could intend it to mean.

It means, basically, that when being carried in a current of real things, a sentient person/entity might have some sense of the motion he/it exists in. This is one of the roots we could call "consciousness".

However, I'm sure artificial intelligence is enough for you.
 
The book develops as a sort of "Gnostic" revelation, a confession of a sort, in believing things intuitively.... or "directly" as a sort of radio or TV broadcast picks up a signal and converts it to sound or pictures, with the individual being inherently "equipped" to receive and interpret inputs from other people, places, or the universe itself.

Gnosticism was an early Christian, some say "apostate Christian" line of doctrine about how the Holy Ghost informs or directs the believer, and how manifestations of the Holy Spirit connect the believer with "God", or for that matter, "The Cosmos".

It sort of downplayed the role of facts, experience, sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste.... in claiming another "sense" that was spiritual.

For some, it devolved into various forms of mysticism.....
 
It is a huge leap of faith for a scientist to try to develop a coherent, mathematical notion of "knowing", of "understanding", of "intelligence", or the still higher faculty of "consciousness".

It is a huge labor of research for a religious believer to try to develop a scientific basis for "faith", or any kind of knowing stuff not directly and materially in evidence.
 
Last edited:
It is a rather astonishing development that some "materialist" believers, fronting an assertion that there is nothing but a "material" or demonstrable reality fully in evidence before us, would without blinking, assert the virtually unlimited powers of automation, computer programming and such, leading towards a superior kind of intelligence called AI... Artificial Intelligence.

Pretty much one of the starkest self-contradictory notions imaginable.
 
It is a rather astonishing development that some "materialist" believers, fronting an assertion that there is nothing but a "material" or demonstrable reality fully in evidence before us, would without blinking, assert the virtually unlimited powers of automation, computer programming and such, leading towards a superior kind of intelligence called AI... Artificial Intelligence.

Pretty much one of the starkest self-contradictory notions imaginable.

You have a pretty narrow grasp of materialisms. Basically, the only materialists that would fit into your characterization are those that have no idea what the unconscious is or how perception and memory operate. FYI, every contemporary materialist worth his/her salt knows that stuff pretty damn well, so you're throwing stones at dumbasses and people from the 18th century +/-.
 
You have a pretty narrow grasp of materialisms. Basically, the only materialists that would fit into your characterization are those that have no idea what the unconscious is or how perception and memory operate. FYI, every contemporary materialist worth his/her salt knows that stuff pretty damn well, so you're throwing stones at dumbasses and people from the 18th century +/-.

So tell me more about contemporary materialists.

I think everyone tries to get on whatever bus (intellectually) is trendy. Without thinking it through, really.

OK, it's like some folks who go around from church to church, joining them all, to make sure they're covered for the next life. WE grab every trendy idea, regardless of how inconsistent it may be with what we already have.

My comment was a "troll" [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION], to see how he might respond. My rather dismissive note here might, I imagine, apply more to you than Siro. Siro, IMO, is extremely self-consistent and good on the basic premises of science in his views.

Surprise me with something I don't know, please.
 
So tell me more about contemporary materialists.

I think everyone tries to get on whatever bus (intellectually) is trendy. Without thinking it through, really.

OK, it's like some folks who go around from church to church, joining them all, to make sure they're covered for the next life. WE grab every trendy idea, regardless of how inconsistent it may be with what we already have.

My comment was a "troll" [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION], to see how he might respond. My rather dismissive note here might, I imagine, apply more to you than Siro. Siro, IMO, is extremely self-consistent and good on the basic premises of science in his views.

Surprise me with something I don't know, please.

lol.

babe still one of the best on JFC
 
I'm gonna wait to see if [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] is willing to step up to the plate and take a swing at my stones (ouch???)that you say I'm throwing at "dumbassess and people from the 18th century". If so, here's the "heads up" in case he didn't see that coming.

Siro, apparently, is not willing to accept the dictates of the 8th century ideological paradigms of Islam any more than the first century paradigms of Christianity or the twelfth century BCE paradigms of the chosen race. On that scale, living in the theoretical constructs of early twentieth century scientific theory might look progressive, except to folks who have literally no consistent logic at all like our present crowd.

I confess to belong to an outdated philosophical era, the one before we decided there was actually no self-existent truth.

If I give any credence to "spirits" or immaterial elements of reality at all, I make it clear I'm dealing in hypotheticals or materially untestable hypotheses.

Accordingly, I don't actually believe in chemically-induced perceptions such as I imagine come from peyote in Kiva ceremonies, or drugs. I would consider them to be intrinsically false or delusional. I would consider many anoxic NDEs similarly delusional. If I'm gonna give credence to the possibilities of an afterlife, I stipulate the necessity of valid observation or experience and the very best of the human mind..... a critical evaluation of the validity of data is a fundamental issue in science.
 
I don't follow this thread, and I totally forgot that I threw some jabs at mysticism and spiritualism on here. There is some interesting discussion going on, and I'll stop by over the weekend once I've had some time to read and respond.
 
Top