- Thank you received: 0
These Message Boards Are Dead, or Terraform Forums
22 years 1 week ago #3747
by Cherekon
Replied by Cherekon on topic Reply from
For those of you who may be questioning the relevance of consciousness to physics at this time, and may be unfamiliar with the I offer the site below. More deeply yet, the matter of unification, so vital to an understanding of gravitation, is well know to be inextricably entwined with the seeming paradox offered by consciousness itself. As G.F.Chew, author of "Bootstrap: A Scientific Idea?" remarked on what the issue of 'bootstrapping' space-time (to enlarge the hadron bootstrap) and the inclusion of human consciousness in a role well beyond the conventional framework of science:
"Such a future step would be immensely more profound than anything comprising the hadron bootstrap; we would be obliged to confront the elusive concept of observation and, possibly, even that of consciousness. Our current struggle with the hadron bootstrap may thus be only a foretaste of acompletely new form of human intellecctual endeavor, one that will not only lie outside of physics but will not even be describable as 'scientific'."
I disagree with this conclusion myself, and foresee only a dramatic expansion of physics as a result. I will of course, attempt to offer an explanation shortly.
www.princeton.edu/~pear/
<u>Engineering and Consciousness</u>
"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. Since that time, an interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists has been conducting a comprehensive agenda of experiments and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. "
"Such a future step would be immensely more profound than anything comprising the hadron bootstrap; we would be obliged to confront the elusive concept of observation and, possibly, even that of consciousness. Our current struggle with the hadron bootstrap may thus be only a foretaste of acompletely new form of human intellecctual endeavor, one that will not only lie outside of physics but will not even be describable as 'scientific'."
I disagree with this conclusion myself, and foresee only a dramatic expansion of physics as a result. I will of course, attempt to offer an explanation shortly.
www.princeton.edu/~pear/
<u>Engineering and Consciousness</u>
"The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. Since that time, an interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and humanists has been conducting a comprehensive agenda of experiments and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. "
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 6 days ago #3818
by Patrick
Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I have an intellectual tool I've devised that I'd like to introduce that seems entirely appropriate for a list titled, "paradoxes resolved, origins illuminated." This pertains to the resolution of paradoxes wherever they are found, so I think any number of you may find this useful. I recently completed what I will assert to be the first completely integrated theory of economics. This has not yet been published anywhere as yet, but if anyone is curious, I will be happy to send them a PDF of this theory, titled (of course) Post Paradox Economics. --aparadox@mctcnet.net. Just write 'paradox' in the subject line.
I requested this document and found it <b>EXTREMELY</b> insightful. I highly recommend it. What a fresh and unique observation.
Thanks! Colin <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
I requested this document and found it <b>EXTREMELY</b> insightful. I highly recommend it. What a fresh and unique observation.
Thanks! Colin <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 6 days ago #3978
by Cherekon
Replied by Cherekon on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I requested this document and found it <b>EXTREMELY</b> insightful. I highly recommend it. What a fresh and unique observation.
Thanks! Colin <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Thank you very much, Patrick! A generous review indeed. Now... if only I can get a Nobel committee to say the same thing.....<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>
I requested this document and found it <b>EXTREMELY</b> insightful. I highly recommend it. What a fresh and unique observation.
Thanks! Colin <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Thank you very much, Patrick! A generous review indeed. Now... if only I can get a Nobel committee to say the same thing.....<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 4 days ago #3822
by Cherekon
Replied by Cherekon on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
G. Harry Stine has written a book on Psychotronics since 1992 "Mind Machines You Can Build". The subject is of great interest and has attracted the attention at the highest (national security) level, in many countries.
I could not see the term being used at the Pirnceton site, maybe I missed it.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I think perhaps 'psychotronics' may not be a term in common use, and perhaps even coined by Stine himself. I believe his 'mind machine' concepts are based largely on pendulums, divining rods and pyramids, while the Princeton group's stated purpose is "to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes <i> common to contemporary engineering practice</i> (italics mine).
The pressure to maintain credibility betwixt the crushing forces of peer review and funding increases in direct proportion to how near one may be to the fringe. Even my own immediate response was, "pendulums and pyramids?" though I immediately reconsidered and pondered the possibilities. Clearly, it's my own common practice to offer ideas that appear no less probable at first glance. For example, I have reason to suspect that consciousness and gravitation are closely allied, and perhaps even one and the same "force" in a fundamental sense. I'm not immediately prepared to defend this conclusion, but perhaps in a few weeks, since this is intimately related to my latest exercise in explanations.
As long as I'm at it, I may as well also publically speculate that gravity may be spectrally layered --as is of course "time", based on observations related to those I made earlier here regarding the nature of dimensionality.
One thing is certain however. The methods of investigation, --and more deeply yet, the <i>mode of perception </i> -- as practiced by conventional science has run its course, and, I believe, wrung itself dry of any truly meaningful progress in the realm of unification. It's time for an entirely new paradigm; one that integrates the observer and the observed and truly explains the meaning, for example, of such things as the Uncertainty Principle.
G. Harry Stine has written a book on Psychotronics since 1992 "Mind Machines You Can Build". The subject is of great interest and has attracted the attention at the highest (national security) level, in many countries.
I could not see the term being used at the Pirnceton site, maybe I missed it.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I think perhaps 'psychotronics' may not be a term in common use, and perhaps even coined by Stine himself. I believe his 'mind machine' concepts are based largely on pendulums, divining rods and pyramids, while the Princeton group's stated purpose is "to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes <i> common to contemporary engineering practice</i> (italics mine).
The pressure to maintain credibility betwixt the crushing forces of peer review and funding increases in direct proportion to how near one may be to the fringe. Even my own immediate response was, "pendulums and pyramids?" though I immediately reconsidered and pondered the possibilities. Clearly, it's my own common practice to offer ideas that appear no less probable at first glance. For example, I have reason to suspect that consciousness and gravitation are closely allied, and perhaps even one and the same "force" in a fundamental sense. I'm not immediately prepared to defend this conclusion, but perhaps in a few weeks, since this is intimately related to my latest exercise in explanations.
As long as I'm at it, I may as well also publically speculate that gravity may be spectrally layered --as is of course "time", based on observations related to those I made earlier here regarding the nature of dimensionality.
One thing is certain however. The methods of investigation, --and more deeply yet, the <i>mode of perception </i> -- as practiced by conventional science has run its course, and, I believe, wrung itself dry of any truly meaningful progress in the realm of unification. It's time for an entirely new paradigm; one that integrates the observer and the observed and truly explains the meaning, for example, of such things as the Uncertainty Principle.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #4257
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Long thread, read some but not all. If I duplicate here, sorry.
My comments address the "Spooky" FTL, particle entanglement issue.
I view this as a phenomena of the Chiral Condensate. It is a super solid carrier but apparently in another dimension so to us it appears as "Void" or space.
The view I am starting to get is that this super solid can take in for an example "an electron" if the frequency, energy or whatever the requirements are to interact, and absorb it, releasing another electron down the line instantly at a point that is harmonically acceptable to "Pauli's Exclusion".
Likewise if it is solid and you vibrate or push this end the other end vibrates and/or moves instantly, even if the solid rod is 1,000,000,000 ly long.
Mac
My comments address the "Spooky" FTL, particle entanglement issue.
I view this as a phenomena of the Chiral Condensate. It is a super solid carrier but apparently in another dimension so to us it appears as "Void" or space.
The view I am starting to get is that this super solid can take in for an example "an electron" if the frequency, energy or whatever the requirements are to interact, and absorb it, releasing another electron down the line instantly at a point that is harmonically acceptable to "Pauli's Exclusion".
Likewise if it is solid and you vibrate or push this end the other end vibrates and/or moves instantly, even if the solid rod is 1,000,000,000 ly long.
Mac
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.335 seconds