The universe may be conscious.

[midniterider]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So do you think there's a connection between the round about idea of a conscious universe and the practice of magic? If magic were possible I would think that it would somehow have to trace back to issues of consciousness, as opposed to ordering literal supernatural entities to carry out some order or request. The person doing a ritual, for instance, is focusing on something. The sacrificing of animals and other fluff seems more a tool for a type of mental focus and direction that anything else. And the focused mind is then the bigger issue in an act of magical practice, from this view, instead of spooky supernatural forces. 

 

I say this because I have an Aunt near Cassadega who runs with the mystics and fortune tellers over there. She's a witch, basically. And a guy that I surf with got caught up into Santeria for while. So I've spent some time focusing on what I thought they were doing. It's easy to just dismiss the whole thing outright. But for the sake of argument, and in the event that the Randi style skeptics are actually wrong, then where does that leave us? 

 

I think the consciousness explanation ought to be at least kept on the back burner as a way of trying to logically explain things like magic and any mystical acts, in the event that these acts are shown to be really happening. 

 

I like the ideas that come from chaos magic authors that say our subconscious is all-powerful, or nearly so, but that you just have to correctly tap into it. So, yes I think we are all part of a universal consciousness. It's just fun to pretend we aren't. Magic practitioners say belief is an important component so whether you pray to Osiris or employ a pseudoscientific explanation about how your magic works, you have that base covered. Emotion and an altered state are two other components. And of course, 'focus'. Magic can be done without a deity.

 

[Not sure if this is relevant but it popped into my head ] If Randi is wrong and magic is real then I believe it is a talent like other arts. One argument against magic I've heard is "If it's real, then everyone would be doing it." Well, playing the piano is real, welding is real, singing is real, but not everyone has the ability to do these things. Or they may have limited talent. The other part of my rebuttal (edit: knocking down my own strawman -haha) is if you feel magic is BS , please tell me how many years you have practiced it? None? I cant play the piano either ... never taken one lesson though.

 

Part of a serious magician's tools is to document a magical working and then document the result. Another 'tool' is actually casting the spell instead of just thinking about it or thinking to himself, "But would it work? Nah, I don't think it'll work." 

 

Some of the pagans I have spoken with aren't necessarily hardcore believers in deity. A variety of books I've read on the subject indicate that the magical power is inside you, though your practice may include  a deity. The deity is you. The power is you. The universe is you. The magic is all about you.

 

I think consciousness is primary and creates everything moment to moment. A number of scientists feel that way as well.

 

Something to consider is that if you feel drawn to materialism you can find a bunch of books on that subject to bolster your conviction that everything has a material explanation. And if you feel drawn to magic you can find a bunch of books on that subject that will bolster your conviction that magic is indeed real. It all depends on your interest. The world still seems to spin no matter what my philosophy is.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Yes, magical does not automatically equal the supernatural. It’s good to know that most of these magicians realize that. They wouldn’t be proving gods or anything like that, by proving magic.

 

I get what you’re saying about natural talent. If consciousness is primary - as the formal theory suggests - then it’s also natural. And the ability to use your sub conscious mind to affect a greater web of primary universal consciousness interconnecting everything, would then be a natural type of talent. 

 

If paranormal issues were to have cross over validity, then psychic and other abilities, if true, would represent other areas of natural talents in the same way, I’d assume. 

[Bhim]

Fake news alert guys!

 

The appeal to the quantum double slit experiment to prove that consciousness affects the universe has been around since at least that "What the %$*(# do we know?" documentary from almost a couple decades ago. The description of the experiment is probably mostly correct, but the conclusions they draw from it don't make any sense. Sort of reminds me of creation science in that they hide their claims behind layers of obfuscation.

 

I haven't bothered to watch these videos or read the articles. If someone really wants me to spend the time doing this, I will. But it sounds to me like a fairly familiar combination of pseudoscience and pseudo-Hinduism.

[disillusioned]

9 hours ago, Bhim said:

Fake news alert guys!

 

The appeal to the quantum double slit experiment to prove that consciousness affects the universe has been around since at least that "What the %$*(# do we know?" documentary from almost a couple decades ago. The description of the experiment is probably mostly correct, but the conclusions they draw from it don't make any sense. Sort of reminds me of creation science in that they hide their claims behind layers of obfuscation.

 

I haven't bothered to watch these videos or read the articles. If someone really wants me to spend the time doing this, I will. But it sounds to me like a fairly familiar combination of pseudoscience and pseudo-Hinduism.

 

No need to watch if you're not interested Bhim, but the video presents a modified double slit experiment. It isn't just the usual mumbo jumbo surrounding the mystery of the quantum.

 

Essentially, a standard double slit apparatus was set up, and candidates were asked to visualize a photon going through a particular slit in their mind's eye while the experiment was run. The attempt was to see if they could collapse the wavefunction using only their consciousness. They were separated from the apparatus. The results were surprisingly statistically significant, particularly for test subjects who were practiced meditators.

 

Obviously, much verification should be done, but this is interesting nonetheless.

[Bhim]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

No need to watch if you're not interested Bhim, but the video presents a modified double slit experiment. It isn't just the usual mumbo jumbo surrounding the mystery of the quantum.

 

Essentially, a standard double slit apparatus was set up, and candidates were asked to visualize a photon going through a particular slit in their mind's eye while the experiment was run. The attempt was to see if they could collapse the wavefunction using only their consciousness. They were separated from the apparatus. The results were surprisingly statistically significant, particularly for test subjects who were practiced meditators.

 

Obviously, much verification should be done, but this is interesting nonetheless.

 

Hi D, thanks for the cliff notes version.

 

It's not so much a question of interest. What I meant is that since physics is my field of expertise I could look into this and comment professionally if anyone would like. Otherwise, I'd caution against getting into this stuff as it leads down some pseudoscientific rabbit holes. A statistically significant result from a scientific study could be published in a journal rather than on YouTube. After all, even the Bible Code has been published.

 

The problem with stuff like this is that the results are usually vague enough that someone needs to spend a lot of time analyzing the study in order to find out what the specific claim even is, in order to then debunk it. This sounds like something that's in the same realm as creation science.

[midniterider]

 

42 minutes ago, Bhim said:

The problem with stuff like this is that the results are usually vague enough that someone needs to spend a lot of time analyzing the study in order to find out what the specific claim even is, in order to then debunk it. This sounds like something that's in the same realm as creation science.

 

The scientific method is to debunk prior to looking at the evidence? Or to debunk after looking at the evidence? I guess it doesn't matter as long as we debunk this stuff.

 

 

[disillusioned]

7 hours ago, Bhim said:

A statistically significant result from a scientific study could be published in a journal rather than on YouTube. After all, even the Bible Code has been published.

 

It was.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments

 

7 hours ago, Bhim said:

The problem with stuff like this is that the results are usually vague enough that someone needs to spend a lot of time analyzing the study in order to find out what the specific claim even is, in order to then debunk it. This sounds like something that's in the same realm as creation science.

 

Could be. I haven't read the article I just posted yet, but I will be. I went into the video thinking it sounded like pseudoscience, but was pleasantly surprised. We'll see.

[Bhim]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

It was.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments

 

 

Could be. I haven't read the article I just posted yet, but I will be. I went into the video thinking it sounded like pseudoscience, but was pleasantly surprised. We'll see.

 

Thanks, I'll check out the journal article!

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

Thanks, I'll check out the journal article!

 

Premature on the fake news call? 

[Bhim]

14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Premature on the fake news call? 

 

No, I think at the moment this is still the right call. I wanted to withhold comments until I'd completed reading and studying the article. However I should say at the outset that "Physics Essays," while peer-reviewed, is generally known for entertaining fringe ideas. I guess you could think of it as a place to discuss potentially wrong propositions in an open setting. Which is all the more reason that publications from this journal probably shouldn't be making it into the mainstream. If anything, this should call for stronger classification as fake news.

[disillusioned]

7 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

No, I think at the moment this is still the right call. I wanted to withhold comments until I'd completed reading and studying the article. However I should say at the outset that "Physics Essays," while peer-reviewed, is generally known for entertaining fringe ideas. I guess you could think of it as a place to discuss potentially wrong propositions in an open setting. Which is all the more reason that publications from this journal probably shouldn't be making it into the mainstream. If anything, this should call for stronger classification as fake news.

 

Bhim, if you have read the article, I'd be interested in your comments on the content. This is a topic that I want to treat very seriously, which means that I want to be very careful about it. Anything specific comments you might have regarding the experimental methodology, potential errors, etc would be welcome to me. No pressure if you're busy though.

[Bhim]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Bhim, if you have read the article, I'd be interested in your comments on the content. This is a topic that I want to treat very seriously, which means that I want to be very careful about it. Anything specific comments you might have regarding the experimental methodology, potential errors, etc would be welcome to me. No pressure if you're busy though.

 

Sure thing! I've read most of it, but I'm also trying to see what other literature I can find on the topic. I'll comment once I'm a bit more well versed on the topic.

[Bhim]

All right, I've through this article, but I want to track down some citations. Or rather, I want to see if any citations in mainstream journals exist, since the one's linked on ResearchGate (which I presume are automatically generated) are from journals I've never heard of. I would also like to scrutinize it in more detail. I have done so with the section describing the experimental setup.  Here are my preliminary thoughts.

 

The quantity being measured here is a ratio R of the spectral power from the expected double slit interference pattern to the spectral power that would arise due to Fraunhofer diffraction from a single slit (since the slit width is larger than the wavelength of the light. It's not clear to me whether or not the presumed diffraction pattern occurs from a single slit identical to each of the two, but centered between them, or if they mean something else.

 

Basically they have the meditators (and some non-meditators) try to collapse a wavefunction in their mind and then stop doing so with a 15 second duty cycle while measuring R. I need to look at their statistics in more detail (I suspect this is where the bodies are buried, but I'm not sure yet). To their credit they do compare the distributions of R values from (mental) collapse and non-collapse time periods using a z-statistic. One key question here is: do they sufficiently show that the difference in R values during the two epochs is statistically significant. I'll have to delve into the statistics in more detail to find out.

 

Here are the glaring issues I see so far:

• What would really help their case is an R timeseries (like what's shown in figure 4) but without any meditators present. Indeed, they did 34 such calibration sessions, but I see no corresponding R timeseries. Am I missing something?
• The meditation is synchronized using a computer voice to instruct the meditators. During the aforementioned calibration sessions, the people are absent and the speakers are muted. They should have not muted the speakers. Because of this, we don't know that the variation in R isn't just caused by some electronic interaction with the speakers.

 

Anyway, more opinions to follow once I continue reading! I will say that they at least seem to be rigorous in their analysis and presentation of the experimental setup.

[disillusioned]

Thanks @Bhim. I'm going to read through the paper more closely in the next couple of days. Your preliminary thoughts will certainly be helpful in telling me what to look for.

[Joshpantera]

On 6/1/2018 at 10:12 PM, Bhim said:

All right, I've through this article, but I want to track down some citations. Or rather, I want to see if any citations in mainstream journals exist, since the one's linked on ResearchGate (which I presume are automatically generated) are from journals I've never heard of. I would also like to scrutinize it in more detail. I have done so with the section describing the experimental setup.  Here are my preliminary thoughts.

 

The quantity being measured here is a ratio R of the spectral power from the expected double slit interference pattern to the spectral power that would arise due to Fraunhofer diffraction from a single slit (since the slit width is larger than the wavelength of the light. It's not clear to me whether or not the presumed diffraction pattern occurs from a single slit identical to each of the two, but centered between them, or if they mean something else.

 

Basically they have the meditators (and some non-meditators) try to collapse a wavefunction in their mind and then stop doing so with a 15 second duty cycle while measuring R. I need to look at their statistics in more detail (I suspect this is where the bodies are buried, but I'm not sure yet). To their credit they do compare the distributions of R values from (mental) collapse and non-collapse time periods using a z-statistic. One key question here is: do they sufficiently show that the difference in R values during the two epochs is statistically significant. I'll have to delve into the statistics in more detail to find out.

 

Here are the glaring issues I see so far:

• What would really help their case is an R timeseries (like what's shown in figure 4) but without any meditators present. Indeed, they did 34 such calibration sessions, but I see no corresponding R timeseries. Am I missing something?
• The meditation is synchronized using a computer voice to instruct the meditators. During the aforementioned calibration sessions, the people are absent and the speakers are muted. They should have not muted the speakers. Because of this, we don't know that the variation in R isn't just caused by some electronic interaction with the speakers.

 

Anyway, more opinions to follow once I continue reading! I will say that they at least seem to be rigorous in their analysis and presentation of the experimental setup.

 

I see that you're not an atheist, but rather list the Hindu Gods as your preferred beliefs. Does it seem very surprising to you that consciousness may go all the way down, as a Hindu? I assume that Brahman has some meaning to you, as a believer. A transcendent, all pervading energy consciousness which is the ground of all being and non-being, not excluding the entire host of Hindu gods. 

 

So there's some added depth to your perspective here. Do you believe in the Hindu gods, but not really believe? Because not believing in a fundamental level consciousness would seem to discredit the entire belief system. And, make one an atheist, a non-believer. I just find your skeptical attitude somewhat odd coming from a believer in Hinduism. From an atheist, sure, it would make a lot of sense. So I'd like to look at the religious aspect of the discussion as well, since, we are in the spirituality section after all and that's a primary focus here. 

[Bhim]

2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I see that you're not an atheist, but rather list the Hindu Gods as your preferred beliefs. Does it seem very surprising to you that consciousness may go all the way down, as a Hindu? I assume that Brahman has some meaning to you, as a believer. A transcendent, all pervading energy consciousness which is the ground of all being and non-being, not excluding the entire host of Hindu gods. 

 

So there's some added depth to your perspective here. Do you believe in the Hindu gods, but not really believe? Because not believing in a fundamental level consciousness would seem to discredit the entire belief system. And, make one an atheist, a non-believer. I just find your skeptical attitude somewhat odd coming from a believer in Hinduism. From an atheist, sure, it would make a lot of sense. So I'd like to look at the religious aspect of the discussion as well, since, we are in the spirituality section after all and that's a primary focus here. 

 

Hi Josh. Really great points you raise here. It's interesting to reflect on what I believe and what the label of "Hindu" means to me as my time as an ex-Christian goes on. I've been an ex-Christian for almost a month over eight years now, and as you know my rejection of Christianity entailed a rejection of Jesus, but not the idea of God itself. Every few months I read my self-described beliefs, "Hindu God/gods." I consider updating this, and ultimately decide not to. To me, calling myself Hindu is as much about culture as religion, I suppose, and even if I were to utterly reject theism, I would not reject the label. Anyway, I believe I owe you an answer to your query. It comes in two parts.

 

First, if my time as a Christian has taught me anything, I have learned that religion must not inform physics (in the classical sense of the word, i.e. knowledge of the physical world) in cases where better observational evidence exists. So the Mahabharata may tell me that a field called Kurukshetra exists. OK, I'll believe that's true, but if modern historical methods tell me that this is an anachronism, then my religious belief must be subordinated to the observational evidence. But in the realm of metaphysics, I think religion has far greater reign. Observation can still tell us something about metaphysics, but here I would say that religion is on more equal footing to offer contravailing points. Now Hinduism does teach that Brahman, loosely understood as a sort of absolute reality, is the substratum upon which the rest of the universe is built. This is a basically metaphysical claim, and doesn't offer any predictions which can be confirmed by scientific means. If the research detailed in this paper were to pan out, it would give us an extended understanding of that religious claim. If it doesn't pan out, then it can place constraints on the real world implications of the religious belief without subverting the belief itself.

 

Second, as to my odd behavior, I do not deny that it is odd. Eight years after shaking the dust off my feet, I suppose I am no closer to figuring out what positive claims I do believe than I was at the beginning. I'm not much of an "it's the journey that matters" kind of guy, so I do wish that I had made greater progress in this regard. But I hold to the Hindu label because being a Christian has taught me how valuable the Hindu label is. In the same scientific spirit of following the evidence where it leads, so to do I attempt to follow my belief in Hindu gods to its logical conclusion. Maybe I'll end up right at the door of atheism, I'm not entirely sure. But like you say, we're in the spirituality section of ex-C. Since this particular topic is scientific in nature, a discussion on science and statistics is unavoidable. But I'm not here to tell anyone that spirituality is invalid, and therefore that is an aspect of this discussion that I intentionally avoid.

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, Bhim said:

First, if my time as a Christian has taught me anything, I have learned that religion must not inform physics (in the classical sense of the word, i.e. knowledge of the physical world) in cases where better observational evidence exists. So the Mahabharata may tell me that a field called Kurukshetra exists. OK, I'll believe that's true, but if modern historical methods tell me that this is an anachronism, then my religious belief must be subordinated to the observational evidence. But in the realm of metaphysics, I think religion has far greater reign. Observation can still tell us something about metaphysics, but here I would say that religion is on more equal footing to offer contravailing points. Now Hinduism does teach that Brahman, loosely understood as a sort of absolute reality, is the substratum upon which the rest of the universe is built. This is a basically metaphysical claim, and doesn't offer any predictions which can be confirmed by scientific means. If the research detailed in this paper were to pan out, it would give us an extended understanding of that religious claim. If it doesn't pan out, then it can place constraints on the real world implications of the religious belief without subverting the belief itself.

 

This is something I question. Brahman is pure consciousness from what I understand. Consciousness only exists in the physical world, because of this metaphysical consciousness. So the materialist concept of consciousness spontaneously arising in unconscious matter, only upon the evolution of a physical brain, seems to completely undermine any truth to the existence of Brahman. Because there would be a break in the line of consciousness. A metaphysical consciousness, pause, then physical consciousness unconnected, the two isolated and discrete. In Hinduism the metaphysical consciousness and physical consciousness are interconnected, and not discrete. Leading to Advaita Vedanta and the claims, "tat tvam asi," or you are that, you are Brahman: http://pluralism.org/religions/hinduism/introduction-to-hinduism/brahman-and-atman-that-art-thou/

 

Hoffman has put forward a formal theory of consciousness called Conscious Realism. The pdf with all of the math is linked below: 

 

 http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

 

This is just as key here as the double slit experiment, if not more key to the situation. The only religion that I think would benefit from this type of falsifiable, real scientific theory, is Hinduism. And if the double slit experiment does pan out, it's probably only because of the relation to Conscious Realism I would imagine. Because there has to be some back ground on why the meditating can have any affect at all. 

 

14 hours ago, Bhim said:

Second, as to my odd behavior, I do not deny that it is odd. Eight years after shaking the dust off my feet, I suppose I am no closer to figuring out what positive claims I do believe than I was at the beginning. I'm not much of an "it's the journey that matters" kind of guy, so I do wish that I had made greater progress in this regard. But I hold to the Hindu label because being a Christian has taught me how valuable the Hindu label is. In the same scientific spirit of following the evidence where it leads, so to do I attempt to follow my belief in Hindu gods to its logical conclusion. Maybe I'll end up right at the door of atheism, I'm not entirely sure. But like you say, we're in the spirituality section of ex-C. Since this particular topic is scientific in nature, a discussion on science and statistics is unavoidable. But I'm not here to tell anyone that spirituality is invalid, and therefore that is an aspect of this discussion that I intentionally avoid.

 

Yes, this does involve science and religion. That's fair game. I think these questions of mind to mind or mind to matter interaction are interesting. And they don't depend on belief in literal gods. Even in the event of a correspondence between Brahman and real time consciousness as a part of the natural world, Brahman is impersonal. It's not like belief in a personal god. 

[Joshpantera]

 

[Joshpantera]

Margee's TED video wound up having some relevant crossover to these discussion on the primacy of consciousness, Hoffman's work on evolution conditioning us towards fitness over truth (left hemisphere dominance over right hemisphere dominance?) specifically: 

 

 

 

This all goes into our perceptions of an external reality of various energy which we interpret, usually left hemisphere dominant, inside of our minds. Hinder or take away the left hemisphere and it all starts to melt together, so to speak, and looses individuality. And that may be closer to a 'truth over fitness' perception, following behind the content of Donald Hoffman's presentations. And possibly cross over into the altered states of consciousness experiences issue too. 

 

 

[midniterider]

That's a fascinating TED talk.

[Margee]

So nice to sit here and read after a busy summer. I love this thread. I've watched the documentaries. And the greatest joy I would experience in my older years is to find out just how special we humans are with our brains. I do feel at this stage that the whole universe seems to be conscious. Whether that is just a big jumbled mess that seems to be able to bring about and create a life here on earth or whether it is from some higher consciousness, I don't know.

 

Could it be so simple (as this video below says)  that every living creature on this earth has some form of consciousness....even to the insects who run mostly on instinct?? Is 'instinct' a form of being conscious to the ant or the frog or the bee? Most living things build their version of houses, protect their loved ones, give birth the same way, we all eat, drink, pee and poop?  (even the insects)  Maybe, we evolved our brains for survival and somehow humans eventually seemed to invent language as a form of communicating ideas? Our 'grunts' turned into enough words to form a whole dictionary. It is pretty smart.

 

Maybe humans just developed a much more complex brain so we could build and build and build to the point of maybe....no return and become our own destruction? Maybe, it's as simple as evolution? I don't want to be a 'Debbie Downer' here because I would love nothing more than to find out 'something special and magical' is running this show and we are all part of a big game. I love magic and I love the study of consciousness.

 

But maybe it is just all about evolution? 

 

Listen to this guy's simple answers. Tell me what you think. ((hugs)) to all of you

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

17 hours ago, midniterider said:

That's a fascinating TED talk.

 

So here's what I'm thinking, the issue between spiritual minded people and non-spiritual minded is probably this simple. The mix of right and left hemisphere input or experience must be different for different people. When I came across the pantheistic philosophy, interconnection, oneness underlying diversity, it came at me like a common sense understanding that clicked immediately upon exposure. I didn't know why. It's foreign to western thinking, and yet it clicked. It didn't make a god believer out of me, but it changed my perspective. When I finally got around to close focusing on consciousness, and awareness as primitive to complex, that clicked to. I tend to think now that our hard core materialists are simply participants in a left dominant experience of reality. And it could be next to impossible to see any other way, considering. 

 

This opens a lot of questions. 

 

 

[midniterider]

12 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So here's what I'm thinking, the issue between spiritual minded people and non-spiritual minded is probably this simple. The mix of right and left hemisphere input or experience must be different for different people. When I came across the pantheistic philosophy, interconnection, oneness underlying diversity, it came at me like a common sense understanding that clicked immediately upon exposure. I didn't know why. It's foreign to western thinking, and yet it clicked. It didn't make a god believer out of me, but it changed my perspective. When I finally got around to close focusing on consciousness, and awareness as primitive to complex, that clicked to. I tend to think now that our hard core materialists are simply participants in a left dominant experience of reality. And it could be next to impossible to see any other way, considering. 

 

This opens a lot of questions. 

 

 

 

Enlightenment may just be the ability to give the left brain a nap.

[Margee]

11 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

 

This opens a lot of questions. 

 

 

 

Indeed it does. So let's start with a living being that isn't human. How does a bee get to be queen? Does this bee have some sort of evolved brain as opposed to all the other bees?  And does she know she's the queen? 

[florduh]

20 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I tend to think now that our hard core materialists are simply participants in a left dominant experience of reality.

 

And they are just as important to the equation as Judas was to Jesus in the Bible story.