Entangled Minds

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:42 am

Well this certainly strikes another cord. The Will to Disbelieve. The Perception you impose on your own brain does effect your ability to change paradigms from Newtonian Mechanics to Quantum Medicine.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1218&start=15

The Will to Disbelieve

The Los Angeles Times carried an article recently by Chris Woolston, entitled "Holiday Hokum? The lowdown on 5 supposedly healthy gifts." One of those gifts was Intentional Chocolate, which readers of this blog know that I was involved in testing. That experiment employed a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind protocol, which is the gold-standard in medical testing, to see whether chocolate exposed to the good intentions of advanced meditators would make a difference in the mood of people who ate that chocolate, as compared to the same chocolate not exposed to such intentions. The study, a pilot test involving 62 participants, showed that it did indeed make a statistically significant difference.

I admit that I was surprised at the outcome of this test, but data are what they are. The whole purpose of conducting an experiment is to ask questions about how the world works, regardless of our prejudices. And the strength of empiricism is that data always trumps preconceived ideas. If this weren't so, then we'd all still be living in damp caves eating grubs for dinner.

I published the results of this experiment in Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, a peer-reviewed medical journal from Elsevier, one of the world's top publishers of scientific journals. Explore focuses on complementary and alternative medicine, therapy, practices and theories.

The LATimes journalist apparently didn't know or care about any of this. Instead he took the cynical party line:


"It would take far more than a small study in an obscure journal to convince Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. 'There's nothing in the way that we understand the universe that would explain how a group of people could influence the well-being of others by blessing their chocolate,' he says. 'Besides, he adds, if chocolate could be blessed, it could also be cursed.' Think about that before you bite into your chocolate Santa."


Sloan is well known for his negative opinions about alternative medicine. The problem is that Sloan's opinion on this matter displays a tendency unfortunately common among some scientists -- he can only believe something if he already knows how to explain it. This attitude is unfortunate because cognitive and perceptual psychology has clearly shown that the old saying, "I'll believe it when it see it," is actually backwards. The saying should be, "I'll see it when I believe it," because we are all biased not to see if we don't believe, or at least have a reason to believe based on theory or prior experience.

Scientists have to continually strive to counter this kneejerk tendency to disbelieve, otherwise existing knowledge quickly collapses into dogma. Unfortunately, existing knowledge almost always congeals into comfortable habits, which is what led physicist Max Planck to lament that despite the scientific ideal, in reality knowledge advances by funerals, and not by the appearance of new evidence or theories.

But besides dismissing results of an empirical test, Sloan's remark (assuming he is quoted correctly) might betray an underlying reason why he'd rather avoid the whole topic. It is quite true that if intention can influence something positively, then it undoubtedly can also influence something negatively. And that is indeed a scary thought. But does that mean it isn't true? Do some scientists strongly resist these ideas because they don't like the implications?

To be fair, this was a pilot test, and long-held beliefs probably shouldn't change based on a pilot test. But this is not the only such experiment indicating that intention influences the physical world; there are many others (I refer readers to my books for details). There are two ways to respond to surprising outcomes of pilot tests. One way is to say, hmmm, that's curious, let's try it again. The other way is to say, that can't possibly be true because the universe doesn't allow for such things.

In another article reporting an experiment studying mental influence of a distant person's nervous system, I responded to Sloan's failure of imagination as follows:


Sloan and Ramakrishnan have asserted that “Nothing in our contemporary scientific views of the universe or consciousness can account for how the ‘healing intentions’ or prayers of distant intercessors could possibly influence the [physiology] of patients even nearby let alone at a great distance.” Is it really true that nothing in science suggests the presence of connections between apparently isolated objects? Quantum entanglement, a far from common sense effect predicted by quantum theory and later demonstrated as fact in the laboratory, shows that under certain conditions, elementary particles that were once connected appear to remain connected after they separate, regardless of distance in space or time. If this property is truly as fundamental as it appears to be, then in principle everything in the universe might be entangled.


And from that arises the concept of entangled minds and matter, which I need not go into here

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/12/w ... lieve.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:15 am

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/12/will-to-disbelieve.html wrote:Sloan and Ramakrishnan have asserted that “Nothing in our contemporary scientific views of the universe or consciousness can account for how the ‘healing intentions’ or prayers of distant intercessors could possibly influence the [physiology] of patients even nearby let alone at a great distance.” Is it really true that nothing in science suggests the presence of connections between apparently isolated objects? Quantum entanglement, a far from common sense effect predicted by quantum theory and later demonstrated as fact in the laboratory, shows that under certain conditions, elementary particles that were once connected appear to remain connected after they separate, regardless of distance in space or time. If this property is truly as fundamental as it appears to be, then in principle everything in the universe might be entangled.


And from that arises the concept of entangled minds and matter, which I need not go into here


Quantum mechanics, as a particle theory, is completely incapable of explaining *why* two entities can affect each other from a distance. The *observation* of entanglement simply states that they do, and the mathematical formalism correlates this observation well.

The rope hypothesis, on the other hand, explains why quite simply and naturally. The EPR "paradox" is childishly simple under the rope hypothesis.

If the study mentioned here was done with the utmost scientific integrity then it is the responsibility of scientists to investigate the findings further. The attitude expressed by Sloan and Ramak are what have kept science in the dark ages as far as explaining *why*. A rational scientist with integrity must recognize that findings like these (among a multitude of others) indicate that the universe cannot possibly consist of particles, and the standard model must be finally laid to rest.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby mague » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:23 am

altonhare wrote:
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/12/will-to-disbelieve.html wrote:Sloan and Ramakrishnan have asserted that “Nothing in our contemporary scientific views of the universe or consciousness can account for how the ‘healing intentions’ or prayers of distant intercessors could possibly influence the [physiology] of patients even nearby let alone at a great distance.” Is it really true that nothing in science suggests the presence of connections between apparently isolated objects? Quantum entanglement, a far from common sense effect predicted by quantum theory and later demonstrated as fact in the laboratory, shows that under certain conditions, elementary particles that were once connected appear to remain connected after they separate, regardless of distance in space or time. If this property is truly as fundamental as it appears to be, then in principle everything in the universe might be entangled.


And from that arises the concept of entangled minds and matter, which I need not go into here

The rope hypothesis, on the other hand, explains why quite simply and naturally. The EPR "paradox" is childishly simple under the rope hypothesis.


Childishly simple ? "Gawd, its even worse" said the one-eyed to the blind.

Science has no problems with 3rd, 4th dimension. Actually they have no problem with theories about up to 12 dimensions. If i stop to observe infinity and "turn around" my mind i see 2nd and 1st dimension. 2nd dimension flatland gives me a good idea how the whole universe is a picture. And the 1st dimension definetely urges me to see how everything is one and the same thing. Me thinks that is even mathematically correct. There is no 4 without a 1 at the beginning of the row. One universe is one universe. Universe is a word to describe a container that contains all. Universal is universal eg. fits all. So its linguistic-logically true too.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:12 am

[QUOTE]
There are many Bell test experiments hitherto, e.g. those of Alain Aspect and others. They all show that pure quantum mechanics, and not Einstein's "local realism", is acceptable. Thus, according to Karl Popper these experiments falsify Einstein's philosophical assumptions, especially the ideas on "hidden variables", whereas quantum mechanics itself remains a good candidate for a theory, which is acceptable in a wider context.

But apparently an experiment, which would also classify Bohm's non-local quasi-classical theory as non-acceptable, is still lacking.

Implications for quantum mechanics
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding locality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is usually understood that instantaneous wavefunction collapse does occur. However, the view that there is no causal instantaneous effect has also been proposed within the Copenhagen interpretation: in this alternate view, measurement affects our ability to define (and measure) quantities in the physical system, not the system itself. In the many-worlds interpretation, a kind of locality is preserved, since the effects of irreversible operations such as measurement arise from the relativization of a global state to a subsystem such as that of an observer.

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.

Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.

Mathematical formulation
The above discussion can be expressed mathematically using the quantum mechanical formulation of spin. The spin degree of freedom for an electron is associated with a two-dimensional Hilbert space H, with each quantum state corresponding to a vector in that space. The operators corresponding to the spin along the x, y, and z direction, denoted Sx, Sy, and Sz respectively, can be represented using the Pauli matrices: Planck's constant divided by 2π.
[/QUOTE[
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:12 am

There are many Bell test experiments hitherto, e.g. those of Alain Aspect and others. They all show that pure quantum mechanics, and not Einstein's "local realism", is acceptable. Thus, according to Karl Popper these experiments falsify Einstein's philosophical assumptions, especially the ideas on "hidden variables", whereas quantum mechanics itself remains a good candidate for a theory, which is acceptable in a wider context.

But apparently an experiment, which would also classify Bohm's non-local quasi-classical theory as non-acceptable, is still lacking.

Implications for quantum mechanics
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding locality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is usually understood that instantaneous wavefunction collapse does occur. However, the view that there is no causal instantaneous effect has also been proposed within the Copenhagen interpretation: in this alternate view, measurement affects our ability to define (and measure) quantities in the physical system, not the system itself. In the many-worlds interpretation, a kind of locality is preserved, since the effects of irreversible operations such as measurement arise from the relativization of a global state to a subsystem such as that of an observer.

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.

Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.

Mathematical formulation
The above discussion can be expressed mathematically using the quantum mechanical formulation of spin. The spin degree of freedom for an electron is associated with a two-dimensional Hilbert space H, with each quantum state corresponding to a vector in that space. The operators corresponding to the spin along the x, y, and z direction, denoted Sx, Sy, and Sz respectively, can be represented using the Pauli matrices: Planck's constant divided by 2π.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby altonhare » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:08 am

mague wrote:Childishly simple ? "Gawd, its even worse" said the one-eyed to the blind.


I don't understand, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

junglelord wrote:They all show that pure quantum mechanics, and not Einstein's "local realism", is acceptable.


Actually, one can either reject "local realism" or reject the assumption that no signal can be transmitted faster than c. Since the former involves rejecting identity, we choose the latter. It's easy to justify rejecting the latter:

__

Let's say this line is a continuous object that is .001 angstroms long (~3.336E-22*c). An object hits the right side of this continuous rectangular prism such that it moves, as a single piece, at 0.9*c. Further suppose there is another such continuous object located .001 angstroms to the left of the first:

__ __ <--- Incident object

The left side of object 1 will hit the ride side of object 2 in how long?

3.336E-22*c/.9*c = 3.7E-22

The incident force is a distance of 0.002 angstroms from the right side of object 2. This means the force was transmitted at:

6.672//3.7 = 1.8*c

We can imagine arbitrarily small distances between objects 1 and 2 and arbitrarily large lengths for these objects, carrying this argument to its logical extreme when we talk about a light-year long continuous object or whatever. Note that the object itself does not have to exceed c for another object to be affected by it in a time shorter than would be allowed by c. This is strictly a phenomenon of length and distance of continuous objects.

For two such objects moving away from each other, however, they obviously cannot collide in order to produce this effect (they're moving away from each other). The Bell tests, then, indicate that the two objects cannot be physically separate. They must be somehow attached/interconnected so that they may interact to produce the observed behavior.

So we need not reject local realism. All we need to reject is the arbitrary limit of c and the discrete/separate particle hypothesis. Thank you Bell for helping to eradicate such nonsense.

But this conclusion is not drawn by most physicists, who seem to want with all their heart to believe in "c". They want to believe it even more than they want to believe that something is what it is (local realism). This just goes to show, modern "science" is more obsessed with fantastical and "weird" explanations that corroborate already-established theories (like the upper limit c) than with formulating new, more rational and parsimonious, theories.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby mague » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:30 am

altonhare wrote:
mague wrote:Childishly simple ? "Gawd, its even worse" said the one-eyed to the blind.


I don't understand, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?


I do agree. Sorry for the weird sarcasm.

However you want to look at it. Be it god or the universe, it isnt elitist. Its there for all. No matter how smart or intelligent you are. Its there for simple and complex organism's. Therefor it has to be as simple as possible and accesible by everything existing without any prerequisites.

In common terms this is soul. The connection of everything in the 1st dimension. This is the most simple solution i can think of at least. What you describe as ropes is a connection of all in a single point. I think its almost the same, just a different point of view. If you look from 3D on it you need ropes to span the distance. From 1D perspective there is no space and you need no ropes. The ropes/universal network is the single point source unfolding in 3D. Just a matter of perspective, but most probably describing the same.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:38 am

mague wrote:From 1D perspective there is no space and you need no ropes. The ropes/universal network is the single point source unfolding in 3D. Just a matter of perspective, but most probably describing the same.


From strictly a scientific and practical perspective, this "1D perspective" is useless because nobody can imagine it. Nobody can visualize in 1D. What good is an explanation if nobody can actually visualize and imagine it? Scientific theories are 3D so that people can actually imagine it, look all around them, and apply it.

altonhare wrote:So we need not reject local realism. All we need to reject is the arbitrary limit of c and the discrete/separate particle hypothesis. Thank you Bell for helping to eradicate such nonsense.


Now that we see that speed limits are arbitrary, we need to explain the observation that nothing seems to move faster than c. If the object hit does not move all as one, but rather compresses first, then expands this can explain the apparent behavior.

The question is no longer of arbitrary speed limits, but rather of the fundamental compressibility of matter.

Rope theory says that the fundamental constituent, the rope, is indeed compressible/flexible. In this theory the scenario I outlined is not applicable, but rather it is visualized like this:

__________________________________.... and on to connect to itself.

Any movement along this rope compresses the rope next to it and on down the line. It just so happens that the fundamental compressibility of the rope is such that a motion at one end is not perceived at the other end until after a time consistent with c. Gravity is different, however, Gravity is not a result of motion (dynamic) in rope theory though, but rather of tension (static):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

Chain theory disagrees. The assignment of some flexibility to continuous objects is not much better than the assignment of an arbitrary speed limit. Chain theory says that Bill's rope is actually a bunch of discrete objects as in the first example, but these objects are permanently interconnected as in a ball/socket joint or links of a chain. Each link is continuous and incompressible, consistent with the definition of continuous. Now when one link moves its ball must traverse a distance in its socket before hitting the inside of the socket and moving the other link. The scenario looks more like:

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-... and on to connect to itself.

Gravity is an interaction between atoms. Under the chain hypothesis the atom consists of a shell of chain looped around a "dandelion" or "sea urchin" of chain. This is not any different than the rope hypothesis atom other than the replacement of the continuous rope by a discontinuous interconnected chain. Here is a better explanation of the H atom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

In chain theory the loops of chain comprising the outer shell of the atom consist of links with balls rattling in their sockets. In such a loop of rattling links the shell is seeking to expand, to straighten itself. But every other atom is doing the same. In this way every atom pulls on ever other atom, resulting in gravitation.

Why the observation that objects do not move faster than light appears to propagate? The simple answer is that we haven't done enough observing yet, although the bird brains of QFT do think they have either observed or theorized a FTL "particle" called a tachyon. All they're observing in their accelerators are strands of chain seen from various angles and in various circumstances. If you agitate the H atom hard enough the shell can expand about as far as you want it to. With such an expansive shell there are plenty of gaps between chains to bombard the nucleus. The "electron" never actually leaves the atom, though. Agitate this nucleus enough and the strands of chain that are wrapped around each other start to come apart and spread out in a big web. This is consistent with the data collected in accelerators, where researchers see long string-like images on their photographic plates/screens. They interpret it as the trace of a particle, when really it is the effect of a long length of chain. All their equations are doing is correlating the arrangement of all the countless (~1080 maybe?) threads of chain within the atom or neutron.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:19 am

However you want to look at it. Be it god or the universe, it isnt elitist. Its there for all. No matter how smart or intelligent you are. Its there for simple and complex organism's. Therefor it has to be as simple as possible and accesible by everything existing without any prerequisites.
In common terms this is soul. The connection of everything in the 1st dimension. This is the most simple solution i can think of at least. What you describe as ropes is a connection of all in a single point. I think its almost the same, just a different point of view. If you look from 3D on it you need ropes to span the distance. From 1D perspective there is no space and you need no ropes. The ropes/universal network is the single point source unfolding in 3D. Just a matter of perspective, but most probably describing the same.

Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). :shock: Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby mague » Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:31 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). :shock: Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.

Or it is our brain tricking us. If you try to imagine 1D it shrinks and shrinks. No matter how much you concentrate on it, it schrinks. Our brain is used to "halucinate" a background. A sheet of paper the shrinking dot is paintet on. But it is 0D indeed. Non existent in the 1D world. Its easier to imagine if you try to imagine it from inside. The peaceful zero point we are often looking for is rather the eye of the cyclone. The center of the mandala where the rotation is almost not existing.

But its better to leave it for a while and look at 2D. 2D much more understandable. You read a lot and i guess your brain is highly trained to take photographs. Means it most probably works with visuals. I just recently learned that in egypt the hiroglyphes where holy and it was not allowed to use them in everydays live. They had a 2nd set of glyphes to write down shopping lists or other trivial stuff. Those 2D snapshot pictures exist and give a better idea about the underlying 1D.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:28 pm

DMT is the key to dreams and telepathy, not the limibic system, however the limbic system may or may not be the reason why the autistic savant or even someone with synesthesia like myself, who also has a brain injury has certain abilities.

The DMT while awake may be it, that is my hunch. I also believe that the pictures that one aquires from objects is something that to me is clearly an entanglement issue. I am not sure how, but last week I knew, 40 minutes before I saw my friend Jen, that I was going to see her, and I had not seen her since before may accident in aug 2003. When I walked past her, I exclaimed, Jen! I KNEW I was going to see you today! I said I must be psychic since my accident. It seems that way. She told me to play the lottery.
:lol:

I do not play the lotter, nor do I have a gift for that in the first place.
However the gift of seeing in your minds eye, is beyond words, is total knowledge, and is a vision from somewhere...

Psychic Phenomena & ESP
Psychiatrist Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell
http://www.dianehennacypowell.com/
discussed her work validating psychic abilities & ESP. Such research tends to be a career killer for scientists who find if they pursue topics outside of the mainstream paradigm they could be risking their tenure-- the late Prof. John Mack faced tremendous difficulties because of his unconventional research subjects, she noted. Yet, it's important to look at the data, beyond one's mindset, otherwise science stays stagnant, she continued.

Telepathy has its highest incidence in dreams, and this could be associated with increased activity in the brain's limbic system, which is lessened when we are awake, she said. The newer, more evolved parts of the brain may actually get in the way of psychic activity, Powell added. But autistic savants have this higher activity in their limbic system when awake, which could relate to their ability to perform astonishing feats such as with numbers. Perhaps they are psychically tapping into an information field, she suggested. The book Thinking in Pictures chronicles Temple Grandin's autistic perspectives.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307275655/ctoc

Interestingly, head injuries can lead to psychic abilities, Powell has found. She cited the case of well known psychic Peter Hurkos, who first gained his abilities after an accident.
http://www.peterhurkos.com/peter_biography.htm

Genetics can also play a role-- psychic gifts often run in families. She also touched on animals' psychic abilities, noting Rupert Sheldrake's work on dogs and their owners.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 pm

We are all Savants.

the greatest challenge to
the current model comes from research on scientifically
accepted phenomena that are raising questions with no
easy answers.An example of such research concerns “the
savant syndrome.”

Savants demonstrate remarkable abilities that are not
understood by conventional theories about consciousness
and the functioning of the brain.These skills can appear
and disappear suddenly and without explanation.Their skills
are all the more remarkable because the savants lack the
education and cognitive abilities normally associated with
their talents. Many of these skills involve their amazing
memories, which are so profound that they have difficulty
forgetting anything.

Daniel Tammet, a 26-year-old autistic savant, can speak
seven languages, recall the constant pi to 22,514 decimal
places, and figure out cube roots as fast as a calculator.Kim
Peek, the man on whom the movie Rain Man was based,
can read two books simultaneously—one with each eye—
and recite in detail the 7,600 books he has read. Leslie
Lemke is a blind savant who played Tchaikovsky’s Piano
Concerto no. 1 after he heard it the first time. Like most
musical savants, he never had a piano lesson. Stephen
Wiltshire is an artistic savant who drew a highly
accurate map of the London skyline from memory after a
single helicopter trip.

The twins in Oliver Sacks’s bookThe
Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat
amused themselves by calling out
six-digit prime numbers that just
appeared in their minds; they also
had calendar-calculating skills that
spanned over 8,000 years.

No one has understood how the savants perform their
feats, but an important clue lies in the fact that the savant
syndrome is vastly over-represented in autism. In fact, the
savant syndrome is over 100 times more prevalent in
autism than in other forms of mental retardation or
mental illness; almost 10 percent of autistic individuals
have some savant skill(s).What is it about autism, which
otherwise severely impairs functioning, that can lead to such
seemingly superhuman abilities?

One approach to answering this question has been to
look at the second-by-second activity of brain regions
in autistic subjects, using functional MRI (magnetic
resonance imaging). In two studies, autistic individuals
and IQ-matched controls were given identical memory and
attention tasks. Both groups performed at equal levels,but
they used different sections of their brains.The controls
activated several areas of their left and right neocortices
in an integrated fashion, whereas the autistic subjects
preferentially activated a small portion of their right
neocortex and/or both sides of their visual cortex.

What is the significance of these studies? The current
model of brain functioning had led to the expectation
that individuals with savant skills would have greater or
more complex connectivity within their brains’ circuitry.
However, rather than having more connectivity, these
studies show that they have less. In fact, Rainman’s
Kim Peek has no corpus callosum, which is the band of
fibers that connects the left and right brains.This may be
why he is able to read two books simultaneously. Also,
because the left brain inhibits the right brain through the
corpus callosum, this finding suggests that savant skills
might be assisted when the left brain can’t interfere with
the right brain.

Other evidence that damage to the neocortex—the
evolutionarily newest region of our brain—assists savant
abilities comes from another neuropsychiatric disorder:
fronto-temporal dementia (FTD). Musical talents and
artistic gifts have arisen de novo in patients with FTD
who had no interest or talent in the arts prior to the
deterioration of their frontal and temporal lobes.

More clues to the savant puzzle were provided by
Temple Grandin, the high-functioning autistic professor of
animal science who coauthored Animals in Translation
(Scribner, 2004). The recent neuroimaging findings fit
what she tells us about the inner experience of people with
autism. For example, the preferential use of the visual
cortex for processing information that was found in
the studies is consistent with Grandin’s description that
she “thinks in pictures.” Her statement that she doesn’t
“abstractify” the way nonautistic people do could be due
to the underfunctioning of her neocortex. She states that
when people think abstractly, they see what they expect
to see rather than what actually is.They form concepts of
reality and respond to those rather than consciously
processing all of the details.

Animals, for example, can use
the subtle differences between trees to aid in their
navigation. Humans generally just see “trees” and need to
physically create their own trail markings in order not to
get lost.The research findings on autism and savants have
far-reaching implications, suggesting that we all have the
capacity for savant-like abilities that we don’t experience
or develop because our neocortex gets in the way.
http://www.noetic.org/publications/shif ... Powell.pdf
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:10 am

Entangled Minds
Collective consciousness and the inauguration
Image
This is a plot of odds against chance for data from the Global Consciousness Project
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
on the evening before and day of the Obama inauguration. The red arrow points to the moment when the oath of office was being recited. This is an exploratory analysis, so it shouldn't be regarded as persuasive as a preplanned analysis would be. But still, the coincidence in time between what was arguably the single most anticipated moment by hundreds of millions of viewers during the inauguration, and the spike in odds at the same time, is quite striking. Further analyses of this event will eventually be posted at the GCP site.
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/01/t ... e-for.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby dejavouz » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:03 am

Entangled minds. Surely, the only way to explain this phenomena is to accept that particles are part of the perception "phenomena" and that locality is a sense. Entangled and interconnected minds and feelings are certainly not to palatable for some people because it erases their perfect little material world.

Just a random thought?
dejavouz
Guest
 

Re: Entangled Minds

Unread postby StevenO » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:05 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). :shock: Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.

0D is actually not the value 'zero'. It is the value 'one'. Much better starting point IMHO too. We would'nt have much of a universe if the starting point would be zero.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests