2. Cosmic Consciousness-the experimental evidence

This is a follow up to my previous OP  Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?

There seems to be some confusion regarding the causes of collapse of wave function(which seems to creates reality) whether a conscious observer can collapse the wave function ONLY or can a designed robot/computer perform the same role. Instead of pointing out the facts, I’d like “the seekers of truth” to do it for themselves. Since apparently ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, I attach 2 videos that cover 2 breakthrough experiments in the understanding of well known double-slit experiment and the implications of collapse of wave function by an observer on the nature of reality…

Things to watch for in the second video: At 13 min and 15 min mark the experiment identifies the difference between robot/Linux systems and humans’ effect on the double-slit experiment. At 32 min mark we can see the implications of the experiments on reductive materialism and materialistic philosophy as well as why the obvious change is necessary that resisted by the scientific community…

Things to watch for in the first video: At 2:30 min mark it is explained what exactly causes the collapse of wave function. Does an act of observing alone cause the collapse of wave function? Or rather, does the knowledge of which path determined by a conscious observer or knower do that?

The last part of the second video talks about  implications of the experiment that are so mind boggling that I’m going to leave them out for another OP. For those who have curious minds, please pay a close attention to “behavior” of 2 entangled particles which either involves their knowledge of the future or we fully do not understand the concept of time…

463 thoughts on “2. Cosmic Consciousness-the experimental evidence

  1. The support you’ve got here comes from a software guy and a Noetic ray guy. You want to call that science, fine, but as I said to mung, you should not be surprised at the ridicule that follows.

  2. fifthmonarchyman: What is wrong with quoting the word of God?

    God’s word should have extra added weight when discussing God’s nature don’t you agree?

    I would certainly take your words in to account when discussing your nature.

    peace

    Fmm and his beloved question-begs. You should think of starting a blog as The Question-Beg Master!

  3. First blog:

    Where Noetic rays come from (and not just the rays–the institutes that study them!!!)

  4. walto: Fmm and his beloved question-begs.

    It’s not begging the question it’s just starting from a different place. 😉

    Just as it’s not question begging when I begin with the assumption that dazz and walto exist and they communicate with me despite their never having proved this to be the case.

    peace

  5. dazz: The word of who? I said the bible

    The Bible is the word of God.
    I know this because God says so 😉

    And not just in the Bible but directly as well. (It’s called the testimony of the Holy Spirit).

    peace

  6. walto: No. I’ve already responded to that.

    I’m really late to the party.

    Are you claiming to have an objective criteria for determining who is an “actual” scientist?

    peace

  7. Never underestimate the power of prayer and quantum effects via the cosmic consciousness. It is so great it can effect outcomes 4-10 years in the past!

    Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

    BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1450 (Published 22 December 2001)
    Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:1450

    Abstract
    Objective: To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes.

    Design: Double blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial of a retroactive intervention.

    Setting: University hospital.

    Subjects: All 3393 adult patients whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital in 1990-6.

    Intervention: In July 2000 patients were randomised to a control group and an intervention group. A remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group.

    Main outcome measures: Mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever.

    Results: Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4). Length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).

    Conclusions: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.

    What is already known on this topic

    What is already known on this topic Two randomised controlled trials of remote intercessory prayer (praying for persons unknown) showed a beneficial effect in patients in an intensive coronary care unit

    A recent systematic review found that 57% of the randomised, placebo controlled trials of distant healing showed a positive treatment effect

    What this study adds

    What this study adds Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4–10 years after the infection.

    Powerful stuff.

  8. Oh wait. Might want to read this as well.

    BMJ. 2004 Dec 18; 329(7480): 1444–1446.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1444
    PMCID: PMC535973
    PMID: 15604179
    Retroactive prayer: lots of history, not much mystery, and no science

    a snippet:

    The claim that quantum mechanics implies that human consciousness can control physical reality can be traced to a misinterpretation of wave-particle duality.12 Popular, non-technical literature often reports that quantum mechanics shows that an object is either a wave or a particle, depending on what you measure. If you measure its wavelength, then it is a wave. If you measure its position, then it is a particle. Since measurement is an act of human consciousness, then the implication is that thought processes in fact determine reality. Human consciousness is also often invoked as the mechanism for the so called collapse of the wave function when a measurement is made. Again we can find no basis for this in quantum theory, where some formulations do not contain wave function collapse or even wave functions.

  9. fmm, the first paragraph of your cite sums up prayer study results quite nicely:

    A LOT of studies on intercessory prayer have been published in recent years. This research has returned mixed results. Some studies conclude that prayer improves health, while others show no effect—or suggest that prayer may lead to worsening health.

    thanks for the ‘review’ article, fmm.

  10. fifthmonarchyman: The Bible is the word of God.
    I know this because God says so

    And not just in the Bible but directly as well. (It’s called the testimony of the Holy Spirit).

    peace

    All that circular shit is also a reason why my understanding is more valid than yours.

  11. PeterP: thanks for the ‘review’ article, fmm.

    you’re welcome. Thank you for having an open mind and reading till the end 😉

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman: you’re welcome. Thank you for having an open mind and reading till the end

    did you read any of the studies referenced in your ‘review’ strike?

    I read the first two. The results are quite underwhelming. Is this really the caliber of stuff you hang your hat on?

    peace

  13. dazz: All that circular shit is also a reason why my understanding is more valid than yours.

    What circular s**t? I have no Idea what you are talking about.

    God speaks to me in one way and lets me know that another medium contains his written words.

    That is not circular that is how communication is done

    Is it circular s**t to take your written testimony here as evidence that you actually exist and could communicate in other ways if you chose to?

    The only evidence I have that dazz exists are the pixels I see on the screen in front of me from time to time.

    I have absolutely no way of verifying that you actually exist or that what is purported to be your words are actually from you.

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: I’m really late to the party.

    Are you claiming to have an objective criteria for determining who is an “actual” scientist?

    peace

    Go back and read it.

  15. PeterP: I read the first two. The results are quite underwhelming. Is this really the caliber of stuff you hang your hat on?

    peace

    I’ll answer for him here–Oh yeah. That’s the stuff.

  16. fifthmonarchyman: What circular s**t? I have no Idea what you are talking about.

    God speaks to me in one way and lets me know that another medium contains his written words.

    That is not circular that is how communication is done

    Is it circular s**t to take your written testimony here as evidence that you actually exist and could communicate in other ways if you chose to?

    The only evidence I have that dazz exists are the pixels I see on the screen in front of me from time to time.

    I have absolutely no way of verifying that you actually exist or that what is purported to be your words are actually from you.

    peace

    Do you think it follows from the fact that you can sometimes (if only very occasionally) write something that is not circular that you never write anything that is? What you wrote above that dazz and I criticized was obviously question-begging. What you just wrote may not be, but so what?

  17. PeterP: I read the first two. The results are quite underwhelming.

    The article was not about individual studies but about the overall methodology we should use.

    How does it feel to be so closed minded that you miss the entire point that was being made?

    peace

  18. walto: What you wrote above that dazz and I criticized was obviously question-begging.

    Why exactly ?? You need to be specific. What question am I begging?

    peace

  19. walto: Go back and read it.

    Sorry I just don’t have the time right now.

    I will just have to assume that you either have a criteria that you won’t share now or that you don’t and you are just spouting off here.

    peace

  20. fifthmonarchyman: Is it circular s**t to take your written testimony here as evidence that you actually exist and could communicate in other ways if you chose to?

    I’m Rocco Siffredi, you now have my written testimony

  21. fifthmonarchyman: The article was not about individual studies but about the overall methodology we should use.

    How does it feel to be so closed minded that you miss the entire point that was being made?

    peace

    fmm, I didn’t miss anything in the article. I didn’t notice any outline of any methodology. Perhaps, as you suggest, I missed it. Why don’t you do a copy/paste of the ‘overall methodology’ that should be used.

    I know you won’t because it doesn’t exist in the article you posted a link too. Perhaps you didn’t bother reading the article and you are just projecting your inadequacies onto me.

    Of course the article based its claims on the references the author cited in the article. Why do you think the author bothered to cite references if not to bolster their argument.

    I’ll take your response to mean that ‘No, PeterP, I did not bother to read any of the cited references. Not surprising in the least.

  22. dazz: I’m Rocco Siffredi, you now have my written testimony

    I’m confused

    1) Do you consider that sort of thing circular s**t or just insufficient evidence for your claim?

    2) Is the fact that you can possibly lie mean that I shouldn’t trust anything you say or even that you exist.

    peace

  23. PeterP: Why don’t you do a copy/paste of the ‘overall methodology’ that should be used.

    Are you really this dense or are you just being argumentative for sport?

    It was not about offering some new canonical methodology.

    It was about the importance of paying attention to the methodology used in studies of this nature before we evaluate the results.

    peace

  24. PeterP: Why do you think the author bothered to cite references if not to bolster their argument.

    geeze

    The argument is only that in studies of this nature the results we see often depend on the methodology we use. That why the author offered studies that had seemingly conflicting results.

    Relax, the world wont end if you let your atheist guard down for a second.

    Just because it’s often difficult to impartially evaluate the effectiveness of prayer does not mean you have to get baptized. 😉

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: Are you really this dense or are you just being argumentative for sport?

    It was not about offering some new canonical methodology.

    It was about the importance of paying attention to the methodology used in studies of this nature before we evaluate the results.

    peace

    that isn”t what you said, fmm. Perhaps you forgot:

    The article was not about individual studies but about the overall methodology we should use.

    So now you contradict your earlier claim (above) of yours about it not being about the individual studies and now you insist that it is about the individual studies which, of course, contains the references the blog author cited. Which apparently you haven’t read.

    Get your story straight, fmm. You are contradicting yourself and then accusing me of being dense. At least I read a couple of the referenced articles, along with your blog post cite, to exam the methods used in those studies as well as the results and conclusions drawn from those results. Something you should try before you go and make yourself look foolish by accusing me of being dense.

  26. fifthmonarchyman: geeze

    The argument is only that in studies of this nature the results we see often depend on the methodology we use. That why the author offered studies that had seemingly conflicting results.

    Remember, fmm, I read the first two referenced articles. The conclusions were similar not conflicting. Try reading the studies instead of trying to bluff your way through this it will make the conversation much more productive.

    Relax, the world wont end if you let your atheist guard down for a second.

    It isn’t a question of atheism or theism it is a question of scientific rigor and what meaningful conclusions can be drawn from any study or group of studies. Try not to let your religious bias get in the way of this endeavor.

    Just because it’s often difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of prayer does not mean you have to get baptized.

    sure count the hits and ignore the misses. cold readers and other con artists, and their scams, depend on the type of gullibility you’ve just expressed.

  27. PeterP: So now you contradict your earlier claim (above)

    So apparently you are being argumentative for sport.

    There is no contradiction, Saying an article is about overall methodology does not entail that a canonical methodology must have been offered and defended.

    at least not in the world most of us inhabit.

    peace

  28. PeterP: sure count the hits and ignore the misses. cold readers and other con artists, and their scams, depend on the type of gullibility you’ve just expressed.

    geeze

    I’m not counting hits or misses. Not everything is a contest.

    Are you even paying attention??

    Sometimes it’s more important to understand the process instead of always keeping score.

    peace

  29. PeterP: It isn’t a question of atheism or theism it is a question of scientific rigor and what meaningful conclusions can be drawn from any study or group of studies.

    Do you even read what you write???

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman: So apparently you are being argumentative for sport.

    There is no contradiction, Saying an article is about overall methodology does not entail that a canonical methodology must have been offered and defended.

    at least not in the world most of us inhabit.

    peace

    Right, fmm, no mention of any specific methodology or even a critique of the methods used in the referenced studies outside of some vague reference to ‘apples and oranges’ with no regard to specific criticisms of any of the cited study methods. Way to go, fith, top notch!

  31. fifthmonarchyman: geeze

    I’m not counting hits or misses. Not everything is a contest.

    If you are assessing the strength and weaknesses of a study, or group of studies, then what else is that but a contest. If you are using methodology as your criteria then bad and flawed methods lose the contest while robust and well designed studies win. marginal ones get placed under further review. Don’t know how you read the scientific literature, on any topic, but this is how I, and most everyone I know does it. It is a contest.

    Are you even paying attention??

    first I am dense, then I am not paying attention. Bless your heart, fifth.

    Sometimes it’s more important to understand the process instead of always keeping score.

    If your only point was that the methods section of an article contains key and critical information you’ve expressed yourself very poorly.

  32. PeterP,

    I’m on record as saying that I believe it is impossible to ever prove that any other minds even exist. Let alone prove that they listen and respond to our pleading.

    That goes for everyday minds like you and me let alone minds that are as controversial as God.

    My point is that it’s equally impossible to prove that minds don’t exist or respond to our pleading that goes for every day minds as well as God.

    Peace

  33. PeterP: If you are using methodology as your criteria then bad and flawed methods lose the contest while robust and well designed studies win.

    What would be a well designed study to establish the existence of other minds?

    What would be a well designed study to establish that a person pays attention to the request you make to her?

    peace

  34. fifthmonarchyman:
    PeterP,

    I’m on record as saying that I believe it is impossible to ever prove that any other minds even exist. Let alone prove that they listen and respond to our pleading.

    That goes for everyday minds like you and me let alone minds that are as controversial as God.

    My point is that it’s equally impossible to prove that minds don’t exist or respond to our pleading that goes for every day minds as well as God.

    Peace

    What does this attempt at special pleading have to do with evaluating the credibility, or lack thereof, of articles we read?

  35. fifth:

    What is wrong with quoting the word of God?

    walto:

    Fmm and his beloved question-begs.

    He manages not only to beg the question, but to insult God in the same breath by blaming him for the Bible.

  36. PeterP: What do you think was difficult about assessing the credibility of the study you posted above?

    for starters many of the things the skeptic found to be objectionable are the very things that typify intercessory prayer as it is understood and practiced in the Christian community.

    peace

  37. walto: Who is trying to prove that other minds don’t exist?

    God is another mind. in fact he is the prototypical mind.

    Peter thinks that “prayer studies” somehow count as evidence against his existence.

    peace

  38. PeterP: What does this attempt at special pleading have to do with evaluating the credibility, or lack thereof, of articles we read?

    It’s not special pleading.

    How can you hope to study God’s response or lack of response to requests made to him when you can’t even effectively evaluate those of another human.

    The point is that any study of this sort dealing with consciousness/responsiveness is bound to be fraught with difficulty and making the sort of blanket statements like “hits and misses” is naive.

    peace

  39. fifthmonarchyman: for starters many of the things the skeptic found to be objectionable are the very things that typify intercessory prayer as it is understood and practiced in the Christian community.

    peace

    If you ignore the, quite well established, placebo effect from conditioning exercises as outlined in the methods section, then you are only letting your religious bias interfere with an assessment of the study.

    the criticisms made are quite valid and are similar to the ones that developed in my mind as I read the methodology of the study. The flaws are very obvious.

  40. PeterP: Who is trying to prove that other minds don’t exist?

    Yeah, what he said!

    quote:
    They want to believe, so they believe. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.
    end quote:

    peace

  41. Peter thinks that “prayer studies” somehow count as evidence against his existence.

    PeterP thinks that prayer studies reflect on the effects of prayer. A god or gods may exist and just not give a crap.

    Maybe you are just projecting again and ‘prayer studies’ give you pause on the existence of a god.

  42. PeterP: If you ignore the, quite well established, placebo effect from conditioning exercises as outlined in the methods section, then you are only letting your religious bias interfere with an assessment of the study.

    What you call the placebo effect is actually a mental thing. Aren’t these studies trying to evaluate the effects of the mental on physical health?

    By excluding the placebo effect you are only letting your materialist bias interfere with an assessment of the study.

    Then there are other things like the laying on of hands that are not about the placebo effect but are actually about the importance of empathy and sharing in the suffering of those you pray for

    Excluding those sorts of things means you are not evaluating prayer as it is illustrated in the bible and practiced in the Christian faith.

    That is what is meant by apples and oranges

    peace

Leave a Reply