|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 9:50:25 PM
|
Hi All,
Stuart Hameroff, M.D., co-author of the Penrose-Hameroff theory of Quantum Consciousness (and Professor Emeritus of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona) has done some fascinating research on overall consciousness which may be of interest to the AYP community.
For those who want to spend an hour digesting some of the most amazing research and conclusions to date in these areas (perception, consciousness, quantum physics, quantum consciousness, meditation, etc.) - please check out Dr. Stuart Hameroff, M.D. on Quantum Consciousness.
(He's a good speaker, and distills some very deep science in a way a layperson can understand ... but be forewarned  ... it's a very science-geeky video ..... he's literally speaking to a group of Google engineers; however, if terms such as "cellular microtubules" and/or "quantum superposition" don't cause your eyes to glaze over ... .. it's an amazing video!)
A couple of interesting conclusions (discussed in the video) --
*Long-term meditators show significantly higher levels of Gamma Synchrony (Brainwaves in the 40hz-90hz range) both while meditating and while *not* meditating, than non-meditators or early stage meditators ... highlighting the fact (for what it's worth ... to objective-only science, and the people who feel it's the "end all be all" of reality, it's worth a lot) .. that meditation literally physically changes and enhances the brain.
*Users of the entheogen Ayahuasca (popular in exotic regions of the world such as the Amazonian rain forest, and California ) have higher levels of Gamma Synchrony than the average person, whose consciousness in non-entheogenically augmented at the time.
As some of you may know ... Ayahuasca is also used, along with Ibogaine and psylocibin mushrooms to potentially, radically (in a single treatment) cure people of addiction to opiates and/or alcohol (specifically, per neurological factors related to those two addictions). Obviously, this approach is controversial, and is not universally acknowledged to be advisable or effective -- though it does have some basis in empirical results and research.
This approach (along with the data, above, on Gamma Synchrony) dovetails with the work of Dr. Stanislov Graf & Christina Grof with entheogens and holotropic breathwork (pranayama).
Why would all these things equate?
They *all* contribute to the "cessation of mind modifications" as the Yoga Sutras states it (Yogash Citta-Vrtti-Nirodhah -- Yoga is the cessation of mind-modifications, Yoga Sutra I.2), by enhancing Gamma Synchrony, and therefore harmonizing mental processes ... which appears to neutralize (or largely so) disturbances in mind/memory processes, included conditioning held in body-memory --- such as the ego.
As many of us here know, even temporary ego cessation can be life-changing.
Are there any other ways to facilitate this Gamma Synchrony and ego-cessation?
Yep.
AYP -- And other "A ccurate U seful M aps"  from the wisdom traditions of the world.
Heart Is Where The AUM Is,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Aug 24 2009 10:34:27 PM |
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 10:57:51 PM
|
Devil's advocate:
Does it matter what science says are the Hz of a meditator's mind? Isn't the unification of yoga beyond the perceptible world?
I agree that meditation changes the physical body a lot. Just wondering if it has more to do with biology than "quantum consciousness." Doctors already acknlowledge the effects of stress on the body, as well as the effects of happiness. Ultimately the mind is beyond the ken of science. We have to stop outsourcing our intuitions and wisdom to so called scientists.
I've swallowed my share of psychedelics. I find it hard to believe they lead to the cessation of mind modifications. More like they lead to the hyper-stimulation and multiplicity of mind modifications.
However, I will agree that psychedelics have their rightful place on the path of awakening. It must be approached with extreme caution. The value of the visions is largely dependent on the karmic merit of the user. It can take years for a person to come to terms with the cosmic gestalts. The risk is gross imbalance. However, the upside, if one has developed oneself enough, is that one can receive a demonstration of ultimate wisdom. |
 |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 11:07:39 AM
|
Great post Kirtanman and thanks for posting a google.video!!!! This will be one I can watch (as opposed to youtube videos)....can't wait to get into it later today!
Osel....
quote:
Does it matter what science says are the Hz of a meditator's mind? Isn't the unification of yoga beyond the perceptible world?
No it doesn't matter what science says the Hz are of a meditator's mind...but it DOES matter that science is now starting to take an interest in scientifically verifying That which we as yogi already Know through experience.
quote:
We have to stop outsourcing our intuitions and wisdom to so called scientists.
Who's outsourcing? I think it's probably the other way around....there are so many people going through profound biological changes due to a meditation practice that scientists are desiring to study conciousness of their OWN accord....they can't deny what is happening all around them anymore.
This is also a very "us vs. them" kind of way of looking at Life. Why can't a meditator be a scientist....why can't a scientist be a meditator? Why does it matter what the "title/label" of a person is? Why are "scientists" so "bad"? What exactly is a "scientist"?
quote:
I've swallowed my share of psychedelics. I find it hard to believe they lead to the cessation of mind modifications. More like they lead to the hyper-stimulation and multiplicity of mind modifications.
Then either you are using the wrong psychedlics or you haven't used them with proper intention in the proper setting. Go to Peru and eat ayahausca with a Peruvian shaman and then we'll have this discussion ....or go to Gabon Africa and eat Ibogaine with the Bwiti and THEN tell me that psychedelics only lead to hyper-stimulation and the multiplicity of mind-modifications.
quote:
The value of the visions is largely dependent on the karmic merit of the user. It can take years for a person to come to terms with the cosmic gestalts. The risk is gross imbalance. However, the upside, if one has developed oneself enough, is that one can receive a demonstration of ultimate wisdom.
I agree that psychedlics should be approached with caution, and I even agree that it can take years for a person to understand one evening of their lives (or a week in the case of Ibogaine), BUT everything happens for a reason. Nothing happens by mistake. If a "trip" puts someone into a spiral of imbalance there is a reason for it. Even if it is just so that they can come out of it with some specific experience. Everything that happens is a life lesson....especially the mistakes we make. It may be a mistake to eat a huge handful of mushrooms one day....but that mistake will lead to growth in one way or another, in this lifetime or the next. Best not to focus on judging so much and focus on doing the best we can with what we have at the moment. Just my opinion.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Aug 25 2009 11:48:42 AM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 2:16:27 PM
|
Carson, Very very true. Actually, my last shroom trip was a profound vision of Vajradhara, Avalokiteshvara, cosmic impermanence, time as suffering (like a fire), interdependent activation, nonduality, and the union of compassion and emptiness. This was before I knew about these things, and basically put me on the course I'm on. The end of the vision was sat/chit/ananda.
My last trip was Salvia. Whoa... Achi woke me up asked me to come with her. Milarepa picked me up, put me on his shoulder and I melted into his hair. That was before, I knew about either of these things, and basically was the pre-cursor to all my meetings with the Kagyu lamas.
All I'm saying is watch out. Shake Shake Shake. For a few months after that, I was pretty spacey.
RE Science. The more I practice, the less I care about science and tech. My practices keep me healthy and strong, with little need to consume energy from the world. Even my power bill dropped almost to zero. I don't think I care to have a supercollider figure out why. The internal world hold those answers. How else did the Buddha figure out that atoms are impermanent composites? He used his mind. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Aug 25 2009 2:23:17 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 2:21:59 PM
|
I'm not saying that folks should go out and do drugs, please don't get me wrong. All I am saying that is if you DO make the mistake of doing drugs, don't judge yourself over it, learn from it. Take the consequences in stride as well as the benefits. All of life is a lesson.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 5:16:21 PM
|
Just finished watching the video.....
Conclusion?....
As above so below
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
seekingthelight
Australia
21 Posts |
Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 11:38:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
RE Science. The more I practice, the less I care about science and tech. My practices keep me healthy and strong, with little need to consume energy from the world. Even my power bill dropped almost to zero. I don't think I care to have a supercollider figure out why. The internal world hold those answers. How else did the Buddha figure out that atoms are impermanent composites? He used his mind.
This may be true for a long-time meditator, but I find that there are those who need to be inspired by science to look inside. Science, believe it or not, can produce a lot of bhakti. |
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Apr 25 2010 : 10:53:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Stuart Hameroff, M.D., co-author of the Penrose-Hameroff theory of Quantum Consciousness (and Professor Emeritus of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona) has done some fascinating research on overall consciousness which may be of interest to the AYP community.
While I am generally skeptical of any comparison of consciousness and quantum physics since experts in the field dismiss this as junk science, there are indications that maybe there are some quantum effects that can have macro effects in the human body at room temperatures. Added to the brain stuff (which is debatable), a recent article on this is how QM explains how muscles produce force.
Of course, doesn't matter in sadhana, but interesting.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2010 : 9:52:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jo-self
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Stuart Hameroff, M.D., co-author of the Penrose-Hameroff theory of Quantum Consciousness (and Professor Emeritus of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona) has done some fascinating research on overall consciousness which may be of interest to the AYP community.
While I am generally skeptical of any comparison of consciousness and quantum physics since experts in the field dismiss this as junk science, there are indications that maybe there are some quantum effects that can have macro effects in the human body at room temperatures. Added to the brain stuff (which is debatable), a recent article on this is how QM explains how muscles produce force.
Of course, doesn't matter in sadhana, but interesting.
Hi Jo-Self,
Interesting article; thanks for posting. Interestingly, one of the major reasons that certain scientific materialists in the field of quantum physics dismiss the connections between quantum physics and consciousness as "junk science", is that they feel that quantum activity cannot take place at temperatures anywhere near room temperatures, nor at the macro level -- both ideas that are shown to be incorrect, in the article you linked to.
In my experience, the "experts" in the field of quantum physics who dismiss the possibility of connection between quantum physics and consciousness are a relatively small group of close-minded scientific materialists who are not willing to acknowledge not only the actual, obvious connections, but the inherent necessity of consciousness as the means of collapsing the potentialities of quantum super-position to the perceived actualities of manifestation-perception.
Consider: fundamental, accepted tenets of quantum physics, such as the observer affected the observed phenomena (Is light a wave or a particle? Neither - it's in the super-position of being both, until the observer creates the quantum collapse which makes that determination) ... highlight the inherent involvement of consciousness in the process of so-called quantum collapse.
If you have a spare hour, check out this amazing overview of the blindness of modern science, and the reasons why Science & Contemplative (yogic, mystical, advaitic, tantric, kabbalistic, Buddhist, etc.) traditions may be on the cusp of an entirely new era .... together -- VIDEO: B. Alan Wallace Speaking at Google HQ.
Who is B. Alan Wallace? I've posted about him recently, but for any who may have missed it ... here's his bio. Among other things, he's a long-time translator for the Dalai Lama, for the Mind & Life sessions, a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science and Religious Studies, and President of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies. Oh .... and he has an undergraduate degree in Physics.
Basically, quantum physics *is* the study of the area of interface between consciousness and physical phenomena, between mind and life (as some would have it), between past (physical) and future (potentiality of mind).
Certain quantum physicists simply don't know it yet, and/or refuse to acknowledge it due to their adherence to scientific materialism.
Many of the earliest pioneers and most respected names in quantum physics acknowledge the connection between consciousness and quantum physical states and events.
"Other features of quantum theory, which were found attractive in discussing issues of consciousness, were the concepts of complementarity and entanglement. Pioneers of quantum physics such as Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Pauli (and others) emphasized the various possible roles of quantum theory in reconsidering the old conflict between physical determinism and conscious free will."
~From The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
And I agree ..... not important for sadhana.
However, important, perhaps, to share insights and understanding which might help those involved in both science and the contemplative traditions to see the connections, too .... and to join with us in ushering in a new era of a happier, suffering-free, liberated family of human kind.
Enlightenment consists solely of engaging in replicable activities to produce awareness of our inherently fulfilled consciousness.
It's a solely scientific endeavor, which is being clarified more and more via sites such a this, and others.
It's not a small deal; we're quite possibly on the cusp of the biggest scientific revolution ...... ever.
Consider: what if the Grand Unified Theory being sought for, for decades, is fulfilled by factoring in the reality of consciousness as the fundamental force? Everything changes --- spirituality, physics, biology, psychology --- and quality of life for billions of people.
What if the living proof of this theory consists of the experiencing of fulfilled consciousness which results from breathing through our spines and reciting mantra a couple times a day?
What if?
As far as quantum physics goes ... to show you how advanced quantum physics is, currently .... what's an electron? (Yes, a lepton ..... but what *is* it; what's electricity, for that matter? And why do the definitions vary so greatly from on-the-street textbooks to leading scientific journals? <-- Where no one can agree, to this day, what an electron or electricity is).
Have you ever heard the process of nuclear fission described? In it, there's a description of a nuclear chain reaction. Sound familiar? It's a basic part of the description. Only problem ..... there's not only no such thing ..... there can't be any such thing. Chain reactions are mechanistic, not quantum. In quantum physics, nuclear fission occurs when the potential for certain interactions become actuality via acausal realization of various potentialities, non-sequentially appearing to happen in sequence; probably.
How about consciousness?
Do you know the scientific definition of consciousness?
It's okay if you don't ............ no one else does either.
Neuroscientists don't know what consciousness is .... but many of the more scientific-materialism oriented among them are sure it arises from the brain.
{RiiiiIIIIIIiiiiight!!!}
Many of the leading scientists of the age are waving torches around and screaming at shadows .... and dutifully noting their prejudiced-derived discoveries ("as everyone knows, mind arises from brain activity" <--- Often stated as scientific fact; it's not even an hypothesis; it's a guess ... and one that has been arrived at, and codified into conventional wisdom for no other reason than that it syncs up with the dubious philosophy of scientific materialism which governs allegedly scientific thought).
And many of these leading scientists are known as "experts".
The only beings who really know the ocean are those who live there.
Ditto the only beings who really know consciousness.
A few centuries ago, there were some people who figured out how to grind lenses to make them telescopic. That technology, plus some detailed observation and good math ... led to the current understanding that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around.
Currently, there are people who are figuring out how to connect the dots between the operations of all levels of consciousness, and the physical world, both macro and quantum, via direct, ongoing experiencing.
And they are sharing this experiential knowledge with the world on an ongoing basis.
And everything is changing now, forever.
These people are known by a very specific term; you may have heard it .....
"Us".
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- For an example of how easily leading scientific thought concerning quantum physics and consciousness is refuted based on simple logic and common sense alone, check out this PDF article by B. Alan Wallace, rebutting some dubious claims made by two of the leading scientists researching consciousness: Illusions of Knowledge Response to “Quantum Mechanics and the Brain” by Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp (Nature, Vol. 440/30 March 2006).
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Apr 26 2010 10:00:29 PM |
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2010 : 11:28:28 PM
|
Kirtanman:
I read the Illusions of Knowledge you referred to. Interesting as is also the reference as to how our greatest QM scientist of the past inferred about consciousness.
But, philosophy is not science. Astrology is not Astronomy. I'm reminded of how people continue to quote Einstein about God. He did not believe in God and thought it childish superstition. Likewise, quoting other scientists about QM and consciousness. Bottom line, it's a mystery. Mysteries are good, gives us the challenge of learning.
Another thing, why equate QM with mind (to whatever level). QM is a theory and the fact that Gravity and QM cannot be reconciled shows that both are not descriptions of true reality. Maybe the paradoxes of both QM and Relativity are side effects of making the math work out, the real true reality will not have these. As Einstein said, God does not play dice.
I think the ultimate proof will be the demonstration of the siddhis. When someone starts to actually levitate and fly. With no pole conveniently standing nearby as in the old Fakir magic tricks. Until then, scientist will continue to reduce mind to ordinary neural firings, just as in the basic simplest creatures. They found that planariums or some kind of bug make decisions too.
Interesting discussion.
|
Edited by - Jo-self on Apr 26 2010 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
|
krcqimpro1
India
329 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2010 : 12:43:09 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman, Onchok and others
What is your take on "The Holographic Universe theory?
Krish |
Edited by - krcqimpro1 on Apr 27 2010 11:52:26 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2010 : 9:48:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jo-self
Kirtanman:
I read the Illusions of Knowledge you referred to. Interesting as is also the reference as to how our greatest QM scientist of the past inferred about consciousness.
But, philosophy is not science. Astrology is not Astronomy. I'm reminded of how people continue to quote Einstein about God. He did not believe in God and thought it childish superstition. Likewise, quoting other scientists about QM and consciousness. Bottom line, it's a mystery. Mysteries are good, gives us the challenge of learning.
Well, I would say that context applies here. For instance, Einstein was emphatic that he was using the term "God" as a general, conventional expression ("God does not play dice with the universe.") .... and that anyone who was interpreting theistic faith from this statement was effectively willfully misunderstanding him.
And yet, as you point out, people still do (misinterpret Einstein's religious inclinations, per that statement). Ironically, Einstein was actually indicating a general unwillingness to acknowledge the randomness evidenced by quantum physics (both theoretically and experimentally), and spend the rest of his life trying to show that such randomness was not the underlying structure of reality. He never did, and quantum physics-related experimentation continues to confirm it (that Einstein was incorrect in his assertion).
This is a perfect example of the type of "expert" I'm referring to: a brilliant person, who still manages to let belief occlude what scientific method is indicating to be the case (or not the case, as the case may be).
quote:
Another thing, why equate QM with mind (to whatever level). QM is a theory and the fact that Gravity and QM cannot be reconciled shows that both are not descriptions of true reality.
QM is a theory, yes .... but the most experimentally verified theory in the history of ..... well ...... theories, actually.
I respectfully disagree that that the fact that QM (Quantum Mechanics, for any who may not know) cannot be reconciled with gravity shows that "both are not descriptions of true reality".
Descriptions of "true reality" are inherently partial, anyway ... primarily because descriptions are inherently partial and limited to objective realms (the "objective only" limits of reality posited by scientific materialism are something that many of us here experience as incorrectly limited (per the effects of practices that we experience); B. Alan Wallace {mentioned in my last post}, is doing some excellent work in pointing out both the issues and opportunities that are connected with this dynamic).
What dynamic? That many people confuse science and scientific method, with the philosophy of scientific materialism.
For instance, the guess that mind arises from brain activity is based on the philosophy of scientific materialism, not experimentation using scientific method.
Using scientific method, a direct connection between brain and mind has never been found.
An analogy I heard recently that I liked is: "the brain and mind appear to have roughly the same relationship as a phone number and its owner."
And yet, scientists currently take it as a given that the phone number "causes" the person to arise from it (heck, you can even call the person, and experimentally verify this for yourself!! )
And, as Einstein showed via Relativity - the very nature of gravity is, at minimum, far different than the centuries-long tradition of Newtonian mechanics would have it.
(As In: maybe we're on the cusp of a paradigm shift that is potentially as great, and are doing ourselves a disservice by adhering to any philosophical views ... and doing ourselves benefit by comparing notes on experimentation and understanding .... and by "us", I mean everyone reading this, as well as scientists, yogis and other spiritual practitioners ...... "everyone involved in the greater dialog and effort", basically).
quote:
Maybe the paradoxes of both QM and Relativity are side effects of making the math work out, the real true reality will not have these. As Einstein said, God does not play dice.
But, "per above", Einstein appears, rather glaringly (per subsequent decades of QM-related experimentation), to have been wrong about that.
However, if you're into mathematics, there are some very progressive yet still logical mathematicians out there (for instance Sir Roger Penrose, co-author of the Quantum Consciousness Theory).
In The Road To Reality -- A Complete Guide To The Laws Of The Universe, Penrose writes:
"Calculus-- or, according to its more sophisticated name, Mathematical Analysis-- is built from two basic ingredients: differentiation and integration. ... The remarkable fact, referred to as the fundamental theorem of calculus, is that each one of these ingredients is essentially just the inverse of the other. It is largely this fact that enables these two important domains of mathematical study to combine together and to provide a powerful body of understanding and calculational technique."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is quite possibly one of the most important paragraphs ever written, in the entire history of mathematics.
Why?
Differentiation is concerned with rates of change, and is local.
Integration is concerned with areas and volume and things of a general nature, and is non-local.
Sound familiar?
Egoic consciousness is concerned with rates of change, and is local.
Original awareness (aka enlightened or realized consciousness) is of a general nature, and is non-local.
And they are essentially the inverse of one another.
The One, from the angle of multiplicity is, the All.
It's the only way the math works.
quote:
I think the ultimate proof will be the demonstration of the siddhis. When someone starts to actually levitate and fly. With no pole conveniently standing nearby as in the old Fakir magic tricks.
I respectfully disagree with this, solely because I have no sense that physical siddhis of the type you mention above actually exist, nor that the original descriptions refer to physical siddhis, in the first place.
(And so, I don't see siddhis as being pertinent to this conversation, but this is just my opinion; if you, or others here, consider siddhis of the type you mentioned above to be physically real, I respect that view, of course.)
quote:
Until then, scientist will continue to reduce mind to ordinary neural firings, just as in the basic simplest creatures. They found that planariums or some kind of bug make decisions too.
But again: reducing mind to neural firings is something that is posited, but not proven; the actuality of the connection has not been experimentally verified, even once, ever.
Sure, bugs make relative "decisions", in the same way that Deep Blue "decides" a certain chess move, or that ego-mind "decides" to leave a certain relationship.
These are not functions of consciousness, but of the bio-psychic programming called "limited mind".
Limited mind in humans is different than limited mind in paramecium, but this is a matter of degree, not of type. Limited mind is not conscious; ego is reaction.
Again: differentiation / integration. Limited mind is all about differentiation ... of time, of space, of I, Me & Mine; of Good & Bad, of Pleasure & Pain; not so different than a paramecium or a hydrogen atom.
Awareness-Consciousness is all about integration-wholeness; it is the field in which all else takes place.
It can focus in apparent differentiation, but when it crosses the line to confusing differentiation (aka objectivity, aka physical reality) with the totality .... that's Maya, Samsara, unenlightenment.
Differentiation occurs within the Integral.
Egoic consciousness occurs within the Oneness, but it is not separate, any more than your computer is different than the space it occupies, or than your thoughts are different than your computer (both are objects in awareness, yes?)
I'm not connecting consciousness with QM in the same way that one might try to connect Astrology and Astronomy (both have their uses; the former, primarily subjective, the latter, primarily objective).
I'm connecting consciousness with QM, because they are inherently connected .... the effects of the observer on the observed have been posited and experimentally verified in the disciplines of QM from day one.
Scientists such as Schrodinger, Pauli, Bohm and others did not equate QM with consciousness in the same way that Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe"; they stated their views very directly and clearly, and without a lot of room for interpretation.
"Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind."
~Erwin Schrodinger
Profound, yes?
Check this out:
"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world.
The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.
Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).
To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical."
~Erwin Schrodinger
(Yes - THAT Erwin Schrodinger).
One of the founders of Quantum Physics, he contributed the primary equation .... yes, the Schrodinger Equation, concerning quantum Wave Mechanics, heralded as one of the greatest scientific achievements. Ever.
And he had a few other comments related to consciousness, if anything about his views as quoted above are unclear:
"Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge. It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion."
And how optimistic is Herr Schrodinger, concerning our ability to figure it all out, using the tools of objectivity alone?
"Our mind, by virtue of a certain finite, limited capability, is by no means capable of putting a question to Nature that permits a continuous series of answers. The observations, the individual results of measurements, are the answers of Nature to our discontinuous questioning. "
And so, is quoting Schrodinger about consciousness similar to quoting Einstein about God, as if Einstein meant an actual, theomorphic God?
"Maybe not so much."
And, as for the possibility of discovering and defining "true reality", or of "true reality" being a benchmark which can be applied to Quantum Physics/Quantum Mechanics, I'll leave it Erwin Schrodinger to describe the likelihood of this:
"Conditions are admittedly such that we can always manage to make do in each concrete individual case without the two different aspects leading to different expectations as to the result of certain experiments.
We cannot, however, manage to make do with such old, familiar, and seemingly indispensable terms as "real" or "only possible"; we are never in a position to say what really is or what really happens, but we can only say what will be observed in any concrete individual case.
Will we have to be permanently satisfied with this...? On principle, yes. On principle, there is nothing new in the postulate that in the end exact science should aim at nothing more than the description of what can really be observed.
The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself."
~Erwin Schrodinger, The Fundamental Idea of Wave Mechanics, Nobel Lecture, December 1933
And, of course, there's Eugene Wigner (1963 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, for his contributions to symmetry principles, vis a vis atomic structure) ...
"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
~Eugene Wigner
Or Pascual Jordan (who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. He contributed much to the mathematical form of matrix mechanics, and developed canonical anticommutation relations for fermions; the creator of Jordan algebra) ...
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."
~Pascual Jordan
And of course, the classic quote from Niels Bohr (1922 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, for foundational contributions to Quantum Mechanics)
"Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it."
~Niels Bohr
Indeed.
And just in case the widespread view of the leading minds in Quantum Physics concerning consciousness and the subatomic realms haven't been made quite clear enough, this from Bernard d'Espagnat (world renowned theoretical physicist; close associate of Enrico Fermi and Niels Bohr) ...
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
~Bernard d'Espagnat
Yet, as Schrodinger outlines in a fair amount of detail ..... Quantum Physics is nothing new; it is simply Advaita Vedanta from another angle.
Reality is reality.
And so are we.
Very probably.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- If anyone feels like "geeking out" on yet more Quantum Physics and Consciousness quotes (the reliable kind, not the pseudo-scientific/faux-spiritual kind) ... check out this quote page at the Quantum Enigma site.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Apr 28 2010 10:57:13 PM |
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2010 : 12:06:52 AM
|
Howdy:
Kirtanman, brilliant and illuminating response. Too much for me to respond to, and really I'm not an expert in a field which is very capable of accounting for itself.
I remain unconvinced, not that QM and Consciousness (or for ease of typing I call mind) being linked, my intuition says it is. But, rather the use of QM to argue for esoteric philosophies. Today QM, yesterday it was electromagnetic waves, tomorrow it will be the String Resonance Reality Self-Knoting Theory. But, more to the point, I don't accept the argument that "conscious" observation is important in QM. A mechanical detector can be part of the Schrodinger Cat experiment and the cat will be found dead or not.
On AYP, skeptic and debunker urls are not allowed so I can't post a wonderful interview with Chopra who argues for the new age talking points about QM and how professional skeptics just make mincemeat of it. Very funny. What is weird is that I agree with much of what Chopra said, he just takes it too far. This is lampooned in the post entitled "Would Deepak Chopra exist if no one looked at him?" The post quotes Chopra as saying:
quote:
When you see an object, the moon being the example you chose, your eyes are not really “seeing” the moon. Your eyes are responding to photons that follow all the rules of wave-particle duality. […] There was no moon till it was an experience in your consciousness.
How funny is that? I pick on Chopra just as an example. "What the bleep do we know" or other "The Secret" revelations are just as similarly bogus.
As to consciousness from brain matter. I'm not sure what you mean by this, almost daily there are reports of experiments on the interaction of brain and mind and action. There are even attempts at brain/computer interfaces. Drugs effect brain which effects mind. Many things. Sure, these don't indicate the foundation for mind and what are thoughts, but that is not the point of those researches.
As to expert scientist who scoff at QM as applicable to New Age philosophies (or actually based on those very old when volcanoes were thought to be gods), they are just people too. It turns out that most do not give this a moments thought, but if asked or pressed will give the most rational opinions on it. Ask a QM or String theorist on this and they will poo poo it. I met one and asked. They would think your an idiot for confusing science with that. Just as bad as Creation Science.
I'm not a good writer as evidenced above. My take is simply this by way of example, is Astrology real? That is, does science support it? If you follow the QM type of New Ageism, you can say that modern science allows it, there is room for all the QM strangeness to create a possibility that the arrangement of stars (I know there is more to it, btw) can be used to do what astrologers do. If your pragmatically scientific you'll say that's crap. I say its crap.
Oh about that blog post about whether Chopra would cease to exist, the author ends the post with this:
quote:
(Sigh.) Anyway, back to the original question raised in the post title - if we all ignored Deepak Chopra, would he cease to exist, would he disappear in a soup of teaming teeming quantum uncertainty? Although we might perhaps wish this to be true, I have to say that, no, even if we all ignored him, Chopra would still exist to spew out more quantum drivel tomorrow, the next day, and the next day ad infinitum. At least it gives me something to blog about.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2010 : 7:59:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jo-self
Howdy:
Kirtanman, brilliant and illuminating response. Too much for me to respond to, and really I'm not an expert in a field which is very capable of accounting for itself.
Thanks for the compliment, and no worries (on the "too much to respond to" aspect); I just post information as it flows to do ... and the information in my last post just seemed germane to the overall discussion, is all.
And, I'm far from an expert in QM, either (and per a couple of the quotes in my last post ..... who is, or could be?? )
I've just been interested in overall, possible connections between various aspects of science (QM being a big one, per info I've posted in this thread and others) and various aspects of internal science .... aka yoga /contemplative traditions / esoteric wisdom / scientifically-derived psychology (i.e. Jungian), and so on .. and so, was just sharing some of the information I've found over the last few years.
My postulate (to sound "all scientific" about it .... ) is very simple:
There is no inherent conflict between science and spiritual traditions; there is only conflict between misunderstandings of science, and misunderstandings of spiritual traditions.
("Misunderstandings" including things such as incomplete knowledge, prejudices, views derived from bias of one type or another, and so on.)
If science and contemplative traditions both address the ways things actually are, and if they both actually do so in ways which are verifiable via scientific method, it shouldn't be that difficult to "connect the dots", once all related prejudices are dropped, and scientific method is simply followed.
There's no reason that replicable experimentation related to the nature and operations of the full range of human consciousness (up to and including the fulfilled, original awareness known as "enlightenment") can't be structured, conducted and verified.
One of the biggest reasons this hasn't been done to date is that:
Most people don't experience the full range of consciousness / fulfilled consciousness; they feel that rational thought is the extent of the natural operations of mind, consciousness, awareness and self (obviously spiritual practitioners know, and experience, differently).
It's difficult to postulate the reality of liquid water if all the evidence you've ever learned or experienced in your life, including the reports of scientists all over the world, tell you that H20 is a solid, known as ice.
Those of us who experience liquid water can help teach the rest of the world how to replicably melt.
quote:
I remain unconvinced, not that QM and Consciousness (or for ease of typing I call mind) being linked, my intuition says it is. But, rather the use of QM to argue for esoteric philosophies. Today QM, yesterday it was electromagnetic waves, tomorrow it will be the String Resonance Reality Self-Knoting Theory.
I'm with you 100% on this point.
Pseudo-science benefits no one.
Scientifically connecting experimentally replicable conditions, whether via QM experimentation, or yoga/meditation-related experimentation, benefits everyone.
In our current times, we feel that we are "advanced" scientifically and technologically, in comparison with older/ancient societies, or with respect to indigenous people and traditions.
With respect to external/objective science, this is obviously true.
With respect to internal/subjective science, the world's wisdom traditions contain the advanced technologies.
There's no reason that external and internal science can't be connected in ways that benefit everyone.
All that needs to change is:
A. The lack of understanding for the possibility (among both scientists and spiritual practitioners).
&
B. Prejudices on either side, held by people who feel that the "other side" has nothing of value to offer.
Actually, there is no "other side"; there's just wholeness, conceptually sub-divided by human minds. As with Differential and Integral Calculus ... the Differentialists (Scientists) and Integralists (Spiritual Practitioners), just need to acknowledge the fundamental theorem of Human Knowing:
That Differentiation (Science) and Integration (Spirituality), are essential the inverse of each other, and are both suited for certain tasks and understanding, but that neither is complete in and of itself, and that neither excludes the other .... they're both "about" (and both operate within), the same field of actuality.
There may be a "Grand Unified Theory" some day, but for it to be useful, and reasonably deserving of that title, it has to include mind/subjectivity .. only the bias of scientific materialism could or would say otherwise.
quote:
But, more to the point, I don't accept the argument that "conscious" observation is important in QM. A mechanical detector can be part of the Schrodinger Cat experiment and the cat will be found dead or not.
What's the basis for this view?
Certain people, respected quantum physicists among them, have concluded otherwise.
If you're interested, please visit http://quantumenigma.com/
quote:
On AYP, skeptic and debunker urls are not allowed so I can't post a wonderful interview with Chopra who argues for the new age talking points about QM and how professional skeptics just make mincemeat of it. Very funny. What is weird is that I agree with much of what Chopra said, he just takes it too far. This is lampooned in the post entitled "Would Deepak Chopra exist if no one looked at him?" The post quotes Chopra as saying:
quote:
When you see an object, the moon being the example you chose, your eyes are not really “seeing” the moon. Your eyes are responding to photons that follow all the rules of wave-particle duality. […] There was no moon till it was an experience in your consciousness.
How funny is that? I pick on Chopra just as an example. "What the bleep do we know" or other "The Secret" revelations are just as similarly bogus.
I agree enthusiastically, and 100%.
I was blown away and duly impressed by the mincemeat-making skills of the "science" side, specifically those of one Sam Harris, Ph.D.
And, so, while skeptic or debunking sites may not be welcome here (and rightly so), general-interest spiritual discussions, related to certain respective views of philosophy and/or spirituality and/or science, which are directly applicable to this thread, fortunately, ARE.
VIDEO: ABC News Nightline Discussion "Does God Have A Future ?"
I was fully prepared to "side" with the spiritual side, and came away just kind of shaking my head (with all genuine respect to Deepak Chopra and the good work he's done, public debate is .... not his ..... strongest venue, in my opinion).
quote:
As to consciousness from brain matter. I'm not sure what you mean by this, almost daily there are reports of experiments on the interaction of brain and mind and action. There are even attempts at brain/computer interfaces. Drugs effect brain which effects mind. Many things. Sure, these don't indicate the foundation for mind and what are thoughts, but that is not the point of those researches.
There's obviously interaction, between brain and mind. Just as the activity of cycling (mind) requires a bicycle (brain) .... mind, on the physical plane at least, appears to require brain.
My entire point was that certain scientists state that mind arises from brain activity, when this has never been experimentally proven; that's all. This seems contrary to pure scientific method, which is solely about hypothesis, experimentation and verification (or falsification).
This attitude of certain scientists, who state that mind arises from brain as though it is a verified fact, is the exact corollary to spiritual practitioners who equate certain scientific disciplines (i.e. quantum mechanics), with certain spiritual views (i.e. consciousness, as understood by specific spiritual outlooks).
When I speak of the connections between consciousness, energy and matter, I am not speaking spiritually, but rather, scientifically, in the same manner that the founders of quantum physics quoted in my last post equate consciousness, energy and matter.
I just see some of us who have ongoing experience with some of the deeper and more complete aspects of consciousness (as all of us can; "practice, practice, practice{s}" ... ) ... as being in a position to help others (in the disciplines of science and the disciplines of spirituality) to clarify what's actually going on.
And I'm not saying that we "know", per se. What I'm saying is: much of the confusion between science and contemplative tradition emanates from the fact that hardly anyone involved in the discussions and research has direct experience with the more comprehensive states of consciousness, which are directly applicable to some of the "big questions" (the nature and operations of consciousness, the influence of consciousness, vis a vis quantum mechanics, and so on).
This would be much like astronomy being practiced almost entirely by those who had never looked through a telescope.
Those of us who look through high-power telescopes daily, even if we are not astronomers, can provide useful information to astronomers, and other telescope-viewers .... and potentially, help to connect the dots between the information held by the telescope-free scientists, and the astronomical education free telescope-viewers.
Differentiation is blind.
The Integral (aka "the All") is lame (literally; "lame as in can't walk" .. not "lame as in stupid". <-- American and possibly-elsewhere-too slang).
Uniting them, produces the power to both see and walk.
quote:
As to expert scientist who scoff at QM as applicable to New Age philosophies (or actually based on those very old when volcanoes were thought to be gods), they are just people too. It turns out that most do not give this a moments thought, but if asked or pressed will give the most rational opinions on it. Ask a QM or String theorist on this and they will poo poo it. I met one and asked. They would think your an idiot for confusing science with that. Just as bad as Creation Science.
My point was: not all of them.
Please re-read the quotes from Erwin Schrodinger in my last post. He's one of the great minds of quantum physics; one of the founders, and he was a lot more directly Vedic in many of his statements, than I've ever been, and if he's not the person in the greatest position of authority, scientifically, to make those statements as he deemed fit, he's certainly equal to those with the greatest authority. Schrodinger contributed some of the fundamental formulae of QM (most famously, the Schrodinger Formula, iteself); he's one of the designers of the system of Quantum Mechanics, as well as an obvious student of the Vedas.
If he wants to equate spirituality and quantum physics, I would say it's reasonable for him to do so.
And I've never read of anyone saying "That fool, Schrodinger! How could he connect ancient Indian philosophical thought with modern science!"
Probably because most scientists, or anyone, then or now, figured that if Schrodinger said it ...... he probably knew what he was talking about.
"This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance.
This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you.
Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”
~Erwin Schrodinger
quote:
I'm not a good writer as evidenced above. My take is simply this by way of example, is Astrology real? That is, does science support it?
You're fine as a writer, but I must take respectful exception to your logic, per the statement above.
Why do you define real as "does science support it?"
There are states of consciousness-being experienced by many of us here today that science doesn't support .... yet we still experience them.
A few years back, I probably would have accepted your analogy as a good point, but I've learned a lot about spiritual systems in the intervening time, including astrology.
Astrology is as valid in its domain as astronomy is in its.
Astrology, however, is a subjective science (results are experienced and verified via internal experience).
Astronomy is an objective (i.e. seemingly external to subjective self, verified by consensus).
"Subjectivity" is often equated to "doubtful personal experience", in modern usage, but that's not what the term means.
Subjectivity refers to phenomena as they occur from the standpoint of the self, as opposed to Objectivity, which refers to phenomena from the standpoint of the objects or objects observed.
I use the term science, whether Objective or Subjective, to refer to phenomena which are replicable.
For instance, most AYPers who engage in daily practices for a certain period of time experience similar results.
That's an example of subjective science: personally experienced, but as replicable, as say, exercise physiology, where results are verified via (so-called) external measurement.
quote:
If you follow the QM type of New Ageism, you can say that modern science allows it, there is room for all the QM strangeness to create a possibility that the arrangement of stars (I know there is more to it, btw) can be used to do what astrologers do. If your pragmatically scientific you'll say that's crap. I say its crap.
And I'll support you, and say it along with you.
Just because pseudo-science makes connections between spirituality and QM seem laughable, this doesn't mean that real connections don't exist.
Materially-biased scientists and spiritually-biased pseudo-scientists will never agree.
However, scientifically (aka open to accepting results of replicable verification) minded people in the discipline of science and in the contemplative traditions, have much to offer each other, without "new age-ism", or any other flavor of pseudo-science entering into the picture (thankfully).
To give you an idea of the type of potential available via valid discussion between consciousness-centric research (i.e. yoga, esoteric paths, etc.) and quantum physics, check out this video.
And this site:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Apr 29 2010 8:05:52 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2010 : 9:55:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by krcqimpro1
Hi Kirtanman, Onchok and others
What is your take on "The Holographic Universe theory?
Krish
Hi Krish,
If you mean the theory as outlined in the well-known book by Michael Talbot, I don't know much about it, though I understand he built on work started by (Quantum Physicist) David Bohm and (Neuroscientist) Karl Pribram.
I'm more familiar with Bohm's general thought, but not really the holographic piece, in particular.
Related to Bohm, though, I came across this quote:
"Bohm uses his idea of the implicate order, the deeper and non-local level of existence from which our entire universe springs, to echo this sentiment: Every action starts from an intention in the implicate order.
The imagination is already the creation of the form; it already has the intention and the germs of all the movements needed to carry it out.
And it affects the body and so on, so that as creation takes place in that way, from the subtler levels of the implicate order, it goes through them until it manifests in the explicate."
Source: David Bohm articl at Space and Motion.com
If I understand this, his view as a physicist is analogous to non-dual thought, and with experience, both of which confirm awareness as inherently non-dual.
Consciousness manifesting as and through conditioning creates subject-object duality ..... Self and World.
Because the All Is All T/here Is, it can't really be sub-divided; division only applies to limited mind, which is the very cutting tool designed for that purpose.
And so, in that sense, yes, the Universe, or any piece of it, could be said to be hologrammatic.
More importantly, though, I feel are Bohm's views on super-symmetry, also indicated in this quote shown above.
Basically, he's saying that self and world arise from the same place ... and they certainly do: original awareness itself.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Jul 13 2010 : 3:37:53 PM
|
And for those who like to entertain alternatives to established science, there is the blog called Rebel Science News.
In one of his theories he relates ancient beings, Seraphin, to elemental physics:
quote:
At first, I thought that an LP (lattice particle) should use three wings at a time in order to move in the lattice, depending on its absolute direction of motion. I played with that false assumption for years with no breakthrough. I would have never made any progress beyond that had I not made another amazing discovery. I found out that John was not the first one to write about those strange six-winged creatures. An Old Testament prophet by the name of Isaiah had written about them centuries earlier. Only, Isaiah called them Seraphim (the burning or shining ones) and described two additional features missing in John’s account: the symbolic creatures also had feet and used only two wings at a time to fly.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 13 2010 : 9:33:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jo-self
A new book that also presents the physics and esoteric philosophy connections. I did not read it, so don't know if its any good.
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Dimens..._at_ep_dpi_9
I read it.
It's great.
I *highly* recommend it, for anyone interested in the junctures between external science (aka science) and internal science (aka contemplative traditions).
The author, B. Alan Wallace, I've mentioned before, and he's a fairly credible guy, in this realm (the junctions points between external and internal science).
To learn a bit about the author, please see:
http://www.alanwallace.org/
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Meditation & Latest Quantum Consciousness Research
