Consciousness, a Quantum Physics Perspective

It's a John Hagelin lecture at Stanford and it's on YouTube. Here's a brief description.

"Renowned quantum physicist, John Hagelin (PhD, Harvard), presents the thesis that consciousness is a unified field that contains nature's programming code and transcending through meditation is a pathway to hack / access consciousness."

It's a long watch, about 1 1/4 hours, but in my opinion well worth the watch.

[Empowers]

Thank you for this. I love watching physics lectures and will watch this one tonight. I've been looking for someone to acknowledge the connection, if the lecture is anything like the description :)

<3

Originally Posted by Empowers

Thank you for this. I love watching physics lectures and will watch this one tonight. I've been looking for someone to acknowledge the connection, if the lecture is anything like the description :)

<3

I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Another good one is "The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell - Full Version"

"Peter Russell proposes that mind is more fundamental than matter. He explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and argues that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings."

[r6r6]

JustASimpleGuy--"Peter Russell proposes that mind is more fundamental than matter. He explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and argues that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings."

....Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space....

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego, are a resultant of occupied space interactions/interference and not the other way around.

Metaphysical-1 is concepts of Space not an actual space ergo not an occupied space phenomena.

Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) { occupied space }, and

Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )( { occupied space }, have not been quantified nor quantised yet we know of their occupied space existence indirectly via their effects on other occupied space phenomena.

This latter above is not true of Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

i = ego ergo metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept and is outside{ beyond/meta } the bisected/cross-section torus I have presented above and here below.

....Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space....

Originally Posted by r6r6r

....Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space....

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego, are a resultant of occupied space interactions/interference and not the other way around.

Metaphysical-1 is concepts of Space not an actual space ergo not an occupied space phenomena.

Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) { occupied space }, and

Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )( { occupied space }, have not been quantified nor quantised yet we know of their occupied space existence indirectly via their effects on other occupied space phenomena.

This latter above is not true of Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

i = ego ergo metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept and is outside{ beyond/meta } the bisected/cross-section torus I have presented above and here below.

....Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space....

That's way above my pay grade.

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Russell or Mr. Hagelin.

[Busby]

If QP is right the the 'Big Bang' would have to have been observed by 'a consciousness carrier' otherwise it would not have taken place.

Originally Posted by Busby

If QP is right the the 'Big Bang' would have to have been observed by 'a consciousness carrier' otherwise it would not have taken place.

The measurement problem? No one understands its true nature, hence multiple interpretations of collapse, and they are only interpretations. Much of physics is hopping on-board the Many Worlds interpretation. Sir Roger Penrose has a very unique take on it, a variation of the the Copenhagen interpretation, and it's part of the basis of Orch OR combined with Stuart Hameroff's work with microtubules.

Dean Radin's also carried out some interesting double slit experiments, but mainstream science considers his work and conclusions strictly woo. I can't comment on the validity of his work, but at the very least it shouldn't be dismissed outright.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That's way above my pay grade.

Pathways of rational, logical common sense, no more, no less.

.............Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space............

A big bang is just one of ocurrence of perhaps an infinite set i.e the big bang was not the creation of an eternally existent, occupied spaceUniversenor can a big crunch be the destruction of occupied space Universe.

There exists no cosmic source{ @ }, only local ignorance { *^* }.

https://www.sciencealert.com/penrose...clic-cosmology

'No the train wont stop rolling, no it wont slow down'....Ian Anderson Locomotive Breath LINK

----\/\/\/\/----> Arrow-of-Time { occupied space } is one way and that means we cannot return to the womb.

Consciousness at minimum is two, with line{s}-of-relationship adjoining the two (o)(o) ergo otherness and awareness that is at minimum, positive shaped geodesic Gravity and negative shaped geodesic Dark Energy.

I.e geometrically diametric opposite phenomena, that, we identify as occupied Space ( )( )

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Pathways of rational, logical common sense, no more, no less.

Math just isn't my thing. Never has been and likely never will be.

When I was fascinated with IQ testing during my less secure years I self-administered a bunch of tests and always did well and especially with language and spatial relations. There are many different ways or aspects of knowing,

During Air Force basic training I was one of two people in my flight of 48 who scored well enough on a language battery to be offered a choice to get out of my guaranteed contract for computer programming and enter the Defense Language Institute for either Russian or Chinese. Computer programing was considered a critical need in 1980 but apparently language was more critical.

I stuck with computer programming, mainly because the preliminary DLI training was 52 weeks whereas computer programming was only 11. I've been a mainframe computer techie since (1981). Oddly enough my greatest strength in the field isn't my technical expertise, which isn't anything to sneeze at, but a very intuitive approach to the task at hand.

So no disrespect intended but what you posted is all Greek to me.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

So no disrespect intended but what you posted is all Greek to me.

My mother used that phrase a lot. My father just called me ..'you big dummy'....

...."Pathways of rational, logical common sense, no more, no less."....

Ive been a jack-of-all-trades and master of known most of my life i.e. Ive had many various types of jobs over my lifetime.

Maybe 50 differrent fields of learning, practice and execution ergo more of a generalized comprehensive learning approach rather than a specialist type.

My foray into geometry in recent post above were just touching the surface and rather simple expressions. Spherical trig is where things get tough and Ive barely touched that in my own life as I flunked out in 9th grade general math.

To get my GED I did buy a math study book specifically for that test. Must of worked because I passed. I had one job as helper installing those large satelite tv dishes. The owner told my wife, that I was lacking about 6 months of regular education.


Jack-of-many-trades, master of none, thats me.