My Physics, Chemistry And Biology Teachers Dismiss Research On Consciousness That Relates To Science

[Beyond Words]

Robert Lanza is a medical doctor. If my memory serves me, he's a Biologist. Those of you who are subscribed to Leo's book list will know that one of his books is on the list - [deleted until Leo's approval. It is the one by Lanza]. My teachers said that he misinterpreted Quantum Physics because he hasn't researched Physics sufficiently. Is that the case? 

Additionally, I found this Physics experiment that examines the effects of consciousness. I was astonished by the findings; however, my Physics professor said that Dean Radin is a outspoken advocate of parapsychology and other pseudoscience, that he is not taken seriously by the scientific community. The professor said that no reputable physicist still holds the view that quantum mechanics might play a role in consciousness. Are most scientist just unable to properly research consciousness and therefore dismiss such research, or is this quantum mysticism?

To the point, how can we objectively determine whether the research presented on consciousness through science isn't pseudoscience, quantum mysticism etc? What if the research and findings are misinterpreted? I want to major in something that could potentially relate to consciousness, and all this uncertainty over how to interpret this disagreement is making choosing a major very difficult.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Beyond Words
Questionable leak

[Martin123]

@Beyond Words Not to be nittygritty here... but u just leaked a content one of his paid products. I for example have not yet purchased the Book list.
=DD

ed: If a moderator delets the post delete this as well plix.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Martin123

[cetus]

@Beyond Words

[Beyond Words]

1 hour ago, Martin123 said:

@Beyond Words Not to be nittygritty here... but u just leaked a content one of his paid products. I for example have not yet purchased the Book list.
=DD

ed: If a moderator delets the post delete this as well plix.

I'm only mentioning the name of a book. Since it is on the list, does it mean I can't discuss the book? How can we discuss any of the books if we don't know which ones we're talking about? It's important to know that it is on the list as Leo is listing it as one of his top books (there are others which I would question in an equal manner about their credibility).

Let me know if you see an alternative, as I would especially like Leo's input since he's the one running this whole thing.

[hundreth]

I would be careful trusting new age gurus / teachers relating consciousness and quantum physics. This reminds me of Deepak Chopra embarrassing himself at CalTech:

 

Inquiry from a physicist:

 

Bonus:

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by hundreth

[Beyond Words]

57 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Beyond Words

Hey, from my direct experience and deductions I definitely do agree with what we're all saying about reality. However, as we obtain new ideas from research on consciousness etc it is important to verify the validity of our assumptions, e.g. "this book is undoubtedly true." Sure, we can directly experience the truth, but I plan to have a meaningful impact on the world so how can it possibly be done if such revolutionary work (let's assume the research is true) is readily dismissed by the common people? If it is all seen as pseudoscience, how will the frontiers of science expand? Is the core of science just fundamentally flawed such that a proper understanding of consciousness can't be integrated?

[AlwaysBeNice]

The double slit shows collapse occurring by the apparatus. Many then conclude that it's solved because the apparatus makes the collapse and not consciousness, however, the apparatus and all things exist out of quantum particles themselves, what makes the first collapse?

But then, to blow all doubt out of the water, you have the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment which shows collapse of the wave function through just knowing  which path information, and there's no apparatus involved in making the measurement before it hits the detectors. 

Now that should convince your professors, but since they probably have a vested interest in being right against their student, want to fit in in mainstream science and their colleges, simply can't belief reality is actually pointing clearly to unity consciousness they probably will deny it.

By the way, noble prize winning scientists who agree include: Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Eugene Wigner, Niels Bohr and Wolfgang Pauli.

More evidence for the soul: www.evidenceforthesoul.weebly.com

[Leo Gura]

This is an important issue that I will address in a video.

For now, suffice it to say that your teachers have not experienced higher state of consciousness, and so are stuck in a naive realist paradigm.

It's not important to justify consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics, so don't get hung up on that. But if you actually look into quantum mechanics you will clearly see that the ramifications of it basically say: there is no such thing as physical reality.

Many people who know about quantum mechanics don't realize that throws naive realism under the bus. This isn't appreciated nearly enough by modern society. We still collectively believe in a physical, external reality, which has long ago been shown not to exist. And altered states of consciousness can convince you of this.

The trap to avoid here is trying to justify or predicate consciousness upon quantum mechanical explanations. As if quantum mechanics is somehow a threat to consciousness, like evolution is a threat to creationism. That's not the case here because consciousness is not a model or a belief system.

[Joel3102]

My whole life from a young age I've always been suspicious of the idea that dead matter arranged in a certain way can produce consciousness. It just doesn't seem possible. 

[cetus]

Every scientific finding that has ever been found was within consciousness.

Edited November 30, 2016 by cetus56

[cetus]

8 hours ago, Beyond Words said:

If it is all seen as pseudoscience, how will the frontiers of science expand?

It won't. Not fully. Take "spooky action at a distance" as one example. One particle "knows" what the other particle is doing regardless of distance between the two. But physicists won't call it consciousness so until than it will remain "Spooky" to them. Arrogant bastards!

[cetus]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

We still collectively believe in a physical, external reality

@Leo Gura. I agree, but why do we collectively share the same illusory physical reality for the most part?

[WelcometoReality]

7 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Leo Gura. I agree, but why do we collectively share the same illusory physical reality for the most part?

Could it be because there is one consciousness, so it makes sense that the most of the illusion is shared. The rest which is not shared is because consciousness is filtered through human vessels and those differentiate from each other?

[Leo Gura]

@cetus56  Cause reality seems to unfold in certain patterned ways. There are boundaries. An unbounded collection of boundaries.

[cetus]

David Bohm did a thought experiment on the nature of folding and unfolding. He put a drop of ink in vortex of liquid and the droplet dispersed evenly throughout. Than said, "now if you run that backwards, the dispersed ink will return again to a single droplet".

[hundreth]

5 hours ago, cetus56 said:

It won't. Not fully. Take "spooky action at a distance" as one example. One particle "knows" what the other particle is doing regardless of distance between the two. But physicists won't call it consciousness so until than it will remain "Spooky" to them. Arrogant bastards!

Let's take one of the greatest mysteries of our universe that has baffled some of the greatest minds and slap the label "consciousness" on it. Problem solved!

Yet, they are the arrogant ones. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by hundreth

[hundreth]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is an important issue that I will address in a video.

For now, suffice it to say that your teachers have not experienced higher state of consciousness, and so are stuck in a naive realist paradigm.

It's not important to justify consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics, so don't get hung up on that. But if you actually look into quantum mechanics you will clearly see that the ramifications of it basically say: there is no such thing as physical reality.

Many people who know about quantum mechanics don't realize that throws naive realism under the bus. This isn't appreciated nearly enough by modern society. We still collectively believe in a physical, external reality, which has long ago been shown not to exist. And altered states of consciousness can convince you of this.

The trap to avoid here is trying to justify or predicate consciousness upon quantum mechanical explanations. As if quantum mechanics is somehow a threat to consciousness, like evolution is a threat to creationism. That's not the case here because consciousness is not a model or a belief system.

Totally agree with you about dropping the need to justify consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics. Consciousness stands on it's own two feet.

What I'm having trouble with is this notion that simply because his teachers are skeptical of studies relating the two, they must have not experienced higher states of consciousness. Sam Harris, while being somewhat of a rationalist, has lived abroad in India, where he studied meditation with Buddhist and Hindu religious teachers, including Dilgo Khyentse for several years. As witnessed in the videos I posted above, he too is skeptical of these claims. 

I think it's a bit shortsighted to conclude those who don't agree with us haven't been exposed to the same teachings or experiences. That they are somehow of a lower spiritual echelon /  level of consciousness. 

[cetus]

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

Let's take one of the greatest mysteries of our universe that has baffled some of the greatest minds and slap the label "consciousness" on it. Problem solved!

Yet, they are the arrogant ones. 

Everything is happening within consciousness. Everything is consciousness. Particles, the whole universe. If you don't agree that's fine with me. No need to get yourself all upset about it. But it makes me wonder what your doing here on this forum where consciousness is everything.

[hundreth]

12 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Everything is happening within consciousness. Everything is consciousness. Particles, the whole universe. If you don't agree that's fine with me. No need to get yourself all upset about it. But it makes me wonder what your doing here on this forum where consciousness is everything.

I agree with you that consciousness is everything. 

That says nothing about the topic of this thread though, which is using quantum entanglement as a scientific foundation for consciousness. I'm not upset by anything you've said, just pointing out the hypocrisy in calling them arrogant while you've claimed to have the answer to a very hard problem with little to no investigation. 

In terms of why I'm on this forum, I'm interested in spirituality and consciousness just as everyone else is here. My perspective about this specific topic happens to differ from yours. This forum is for constructive dialogue is it not? If we all simply agreed with each other this forum wouldn't be very fun now would it? I'm sure you've found this to be true in your studies of non dualism. The illusion of dualism (maya) is just for fun. Say thank you. 

[cetus]