Good Video on Evolution...

[Rockhopper]

I know I'm preaching to the converted here but this video explains what we know and how we have learned it.



Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

The Island Atheists believe if the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies.

Think again you godless people!

The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.

[Rockhopper]

Back again RC/VM/Omega/ LGR!

What you have posted is a concept and is not science. There is no evidence empirical or tangible to back it up.

Tim.

[Agartha]

I have actually read many of Dr. Lanza's articles on his website, and I am a big fan ( LINK ).

I agree with his idea of Biocentrism. He says space and time are product of our perceptions and I agree:  we all see colours differently and we all feel time differently. We could spend a whole day in a room and whilst I saw the walls as being blue, you saw them as being green. I could feel the day went really fast whilst you felt it was dragging endlessly. And I also believe we have a consciousness that colour the world that surrounds us.

The problem I still have with his theory is that he doesn't really say exactly what consciousness is.... he explains what it does, but not what it is, and I am yet to find an answer that satisfies me.

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Stirky]

What if the world we live in in fact does not exist in reality (well in reality as we perceive it to be), but only in our consciousness?

[Agartha]

What if the world we live in in fact does not exist in reality (well in reality as we perceive it to be), but only in our consciousness?

^^ The Matrix?


VM, I don't have time to watch a long video, what does it say?

[Monk (in hiding)]

Consciousness survives physical death. Materialistic views cannot comprehend this. Our brains are like TV antennas.


Findings

Schwartz's findings showed that the mediums he studied had an 85 percent accuracy rate, well above the 36 percent rate logged by a control group of university students — a difference of almost 50 percentage points.

Schwartz's study of the mediums and their interaction with sitters led him to what he describes as a “scientific” conclusion that the mediums he observed were actually communicating with the dead, and that life after death was therefore proven.

The conditions in which Schwartz conducted his experiments were stringent — in one experiment, mediums Laurie Campbell, Suzanne Northrop, and John Edward had to interact with sitters who were not allowed to talk to them — and their results supported the conclusion that the mediums involved were more than just hucksters or skilled cold readers.

“I can no longer ignore the data and dismiss the words,” Schwartz wrote in The Afterlife Experiments. “They are as real as the sun, the trees and our television sets, which seem to pull pictures out of the air.”

Schwartz's experiments, and their conclusions, have stirred up considerable debate. While the academic world was able to dismiss similar conclusions by less well-pedigreed academics, Schwartz's credentials have compelled the academic world to take his findings seriously.


http://www.netplaces.com/evidence-of-the-afterlife/science-seeks-an-explanation/the-afterlife-experiments-gary-schwartz-phd.htm

[Kaere]

That may be a good post to put in the Spirituality forum

[Monk (in hiding)]

Move it?

[Rockhopper]

I suspect so Ka. It's in the realm of Metaphysics not science. I am not suggesting that it's wrong though.

This Gary Schwartz:
He received a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University in 1971 and was an assistant professor at Harvard for five years. He later served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, was director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic, before moving to Arizona in 1988. He works at the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science at the University of Arizona, which he directed for four years.[1]
[edit]Criticism

Schwartz is well known for his book The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death (2003) cowritten with William Simon and Deepak Chopra. (emphasis mine) The experiments described in the book have recieved criticism from the scientific community for being inadequately designed and using poor controls.[2]
[edit]Allegations of Fraud

Schwartz claims to be a medium. In one case he claimed to contact the spirit of a 25 year old man in the bathroom of his parents' house and it was alleged he attempted to charge the family 3.5 million dollars for his mediumship services.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

Also check on Deepak Chopra.

Doesn't that ring alarm bells?

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

No, just his take on how consciousness survives physical death. Some Buddhist Monks claim to remain conscious through death and rebirth. Who knows?

[Rockhopper]

No, just his take on how consciousness survives physical death. Some Buddhist Monks claim to remain conscious through death and rebirth. Who knows?

Exactly VM/RC who does know? The question is how can it be tested to find out if it is true or not. In science things MUST be testable by others and get the same result.

Tim.

[Kaere]

No, just his take on how consciousness survives physical death. Some Buddhist Monks claim to remain conscious through death and rebirth. Who knows?

Exactly VM/RC who does know? The question is how can it be tested to find out if it is true or not. In science things MUST be testable by others and get the same result.

Tim.

I feel that while that may prove something empirically, peoples spirituality is held close to their hearts and empirical proof is not necessary or required. It comes across as very hard hearted so far as I have seen. I don't think such things need to be tested or proven at all... do they bring comfort? Strength? Questioning and personal growth? If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then by default, it is REAL and that's all that matters.

[Rockhopper]

No argument from me there Ka. Spirituality like religion is a concept and means something different to each person. But if it can't be tested then it's not scientific.

The author that RC/VM posted is in the business of selling his books on the subject and not in testing his theory properly. That doesn't do any favours the those who are trying to test it properly and fairly and brings all experiments on this kind into disrepute.

There are some really genuine people working on this subject but they often don't get the publicity they really deserve.

Tim.

[Kaere]

But if it can't be tested then it's not scientific.

So?

Who says something has to be scientific or proven in order to be valid? Not every theory has to be proven and in fact not every theory can be proven imo.

You obviously feel that something must be scientific and quantifiable, as do many other people. But I do find great value in just discussing random theories, provable or not... different ideas and approaches can be fun and interesting to explore. All the what ifs and wouldn't that be cools... perhaps it's just curiosity and imagination but all theories start there, don't you think?

[Rockhopper]

Nothing to do with validity Ka. Science is provable or it's not science that's all. That is how we have gained so much knowledge about the world around us. We don't need confusion with all the woo that is put out there. Schwartz and Chopra both are in the business of making money by selling their books and tours to gullible people. Chopra charges people hundreds of dollars just to hear him.

It's that gullibility that science seeks to protect by testing and checking everything to do with the theory. Schwartz and Chopra did not do their research properly but in a very suspect way. That does not further their theories and or advance the knowledge. They came up with a hypothesis and then made the research fit around it and contrary to the thoughts of some, that is the complete opposite of how scientific method works.

Now, I am well aware of how Bhuddist monks think and act but Bhuddism is a Religion not a science. It may turn out to have some scientific basis but until it is researched properly and fairly using recognised methods it never will be. Schwartz and Chopra have not done it any favours by doing what they are doing.

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Like I said, I cannot scientifically prove my Past life memories, nor that I tend to travel when I put this shell to sleep. All a sleep study of the second concept will show is how much brain activity occurs during such time and if it does, it will be claimed as simple "dream activity" If when out of the shell they record nothing, that may show I am not "home"

Of course I expect no one to believe me as I cannot prove it, but also, it is difficult to disprove what I speak of, although I will discuss for free, no 300dollar seminars or attempted book sales at 50bucks a book.

[Agartha]

You know I looove science and I do question all the stuff I read, but there are things that cannot be proven.

Last summer this elderly patient showed me something that had not explanation and I was a first hand witness, no hearsay here. At 7am she told me and another nurse that her husband had died, that he came to visit her. And he had, in the middle of the night but her family had not called the hospital or told her on the phone, she was too frail to bear the news and she loved her husband very much. Her family came later on in the morning and told us first and then their mum.
How did she know?
How can we scientifically prove that?

We can't..... there is still so much that we don't know

[Monk (in hiding)]

Who's smarter?

[Sponsored content]