Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Laboratory on Human Consciousness

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Laboratory on Human Consciousness

    Gary Schwartz once came to the aid of the Amazing Randi when Randi was sued for fraud or something related to his constant idiotic behaviour which defies any reason. Randi and Shermer once attended this lab setting and the study of J. Edwards and found no scientific protocols were overlooked and they had no suggestions as to how better ascertain the actual results. Despite that they said it must have been wrong or somehow faked. I say if these giants of stupidity could not see anything - would that not mean something was in fact happening, which falls outside normal paradigm thinking?

    Why is it that people like Carl Jung, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Socrates, J. Krishnamurti and his friends Joseph Campbell, Vivekananda and David Bohm and almost every quantum physicist can be so universally accepted as good scientists or philosophers and yet their observations about psi are almost thrown out?

    "Responsibility to Truth

    LACH has a straightforward position concerning various controversial questions in consciousness science and their implications for understanding advances in consciousness and health:

    If it is real, it will be revealed; and if it's fake, we'll find the mistake. {Which saved Randi in the court.}

    Please read more about our Responsibility to Truth as the Heart of Science...

    Our universal or meta hypotheses include...
    Consciousness exists and can be investigated scientifically.
    Consciousness is in a dynamic state of change and evolution.

    The term evolution is defined broadly and generally here to refer to "developing and unfolding changes over time."
    Evolution is used by LACH independent of any hypothesized explanations or mechanisms of evolution.
    Potential mechanisms of evolution include Darwinian, Lamarckian, Self-Organizing, Random, Intelligent, and Intentional Evolution.

    Please read about the philosophy of World Hypotheses...

    Research Programs

    LACH includes eight specific consciousness research areas that are controversial in society as well as in mainstream scientific disciplines, including psychology:
    Evolution of Consciousness and Understanding (Universal Hypotheses and Post-Materialism)***
    The Role of Consciousness in Health and Healing***
    Survival of Consciousness After Death***
    Quantum Holographic Consciousness
    Group and Global Consciousness
    Animal Consciousness
    Other Worldly / Higher Spiritual Consciousness***
    Universal Intelligence Hypothesis

    The areas marked with *** are currently featured in the laboratory."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-09-2016 at 01:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I understand many people who have not been involved in the research of psi and the whole mind body or soul research that they will think there is little hope for a proof which will be quantifiable and replicable. I also know it does not matter - if it is observable in an outside of probability calculation - and I know that is the case by a significant margin. The Military and government as well as religions have not wasted money on their research. Consciousness study and artificial intelligence are coming closer together all the time. The field of life extending research alone will see huge profits from these insights with applied epigenetics in the very near future, I think.


    Schwartz and colleagues have proposed that to understand (1) the evolution of science and medicine, and (2) the integration of conventional, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), it is essential to consider at least eight universal implicit meta-cognitive hypotheses. According to Pepper (1942), these implicit "world" hypotheses can be applied in every discipline of science. The present paper reviews the eight world hypothesis and proposes an additional hypothesis, termed the Nonvisualizable or "Nth" world hypothesis (adopting the mathematical concept of "N"; for example, as in N dimensional space). Drawing on contemporary mathematics and quantum physics, we propose that certain theories and data - by their inherent nature - cannot be visualized, and therefore may seem "impossible" (if not "unbelievable) even though they are real. Certain seemingly anomalous observations in mind-body and energy medicine, including areas historically labelled as parapsychology or spiritual energy healing, often elicit strongly skeptical and dismissive reactions. We propose that these skeptical and dismissive reactions to purportedly impossible (yet logical) theories and seemingly unbelievable (yet replicable) data can be tempered when the Nonvisualizible (Nth) world hypothesis is understood and incorporated. Integrity in evidence-based science and medicine may require that scientists and non-scientists alike develop comfort and humility in accepting the human mind's restricted ability to envision certain nonvisualizable - yet fundamental and real - concepts and effects, as illustrated in contemporary physics and CAM."

    What does the Journal of Consciousness Studies add to our investigations?

    Here is a small portion of one file going back almost a decade.

    "Donelson E. Dulany

    How Well Are We Moving Toward a Most Productive Science of Consciousness?

    Commentary on the Toward a Science of Consciousness Conference, Tucson 2008

    This will be a commentary on TSC 2008, not a summary, so I should say something about the perspective I bring. Consciousness is, after all, the medium in which we live our lives — the very subject of the founding of a science psychology, rejected by behaviourists on irrelevant metaphysical fears, and then treated only gingerly in the computational and information processing metatheories that have dominated much of the discipline and beyond over the last half century (Dulany, in press). For that matter, I can say this of studies I read in a range of psychology journals, including those submitted to me in my 20 years as Editor of the American Journal of Psychology: it seemed rather clear to me that conscious states and contents of the experimental subjects were centrally and causally involved in the production of their experimental effects — consistent, by the way, with a mentalistic metatheory I have presented (e.g. Dulany, 1997; 2004). In an increasing number of studies those effects are specifically investigated. Shouldn’t a most productive science of consciousness focus on what consciousness explains — on what it permits in mentation and in action? With the symbolic contents of conscious states we represent events out there in perceptions, in the past in remembrances, even of our own conscious experience, and in a future as expected or wished

    {Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No. 12, 2008, pp. 75–98
    Correspondence: Donelson E. Dulany, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois Email: [email protected]}

    or intended or feared or only imagined. These are contents carried by well-known modes of consciousness that can quantitatively vary. Some of these contents are propositional, some non-propositional, and they appear in mental episodes, some deliberative and some associative, with states interrelated by nonconscious operations. We would examine the lawful relations among these contents of consciousness within mental episodes, and their lawful relations to prior conditions and actions in the mental phenomena we consider significant. Examples? Mental episodes of remembering that are a recollection or only a belief or just a ‘sense of’, whether correct or false. Conceptual judgments and learning of those concepts — and learning in general. Problem solving and reasoning of various kinds, especially the causal and explanatory reasoning we need in science. Beliefs about and momentary senses and feelings of self, as well as that conscious sense of the possession of a conscious state. Perceptions of others and with what they can vary. Recognition and subjective meaning of linguistic forms. A subjective but variable sense of well-being. The automaticity that can express what is conscious and also activate it. Sources and consequences of various attentional phenomena. Counterfactual thinking. Reflections upon and control of thought. Anticipations and evaluations that lead to intentions and actions, as well as to later reflections that can range from regret through satisfaction to exhilaration. Even Freud believed that emotions were conscious states. The list is only a selection, drawing on phenomena already widely investigated in the mainstream psychological literature, but too often with too little focus on the role of conscious modes and contents. What of the search for neural correlates? Those correlates would take a valuable place in this strategy to the degree they are identified with sufficient specificity and validity to enter into lawful relations with specific conscious states — and thereby enrich the theoretical networks we need for understanding how consciousness functions in these significant mental phenomena. We also need an understanding of the non-conscious neural networks activated in conscious remembering, explicit or implicit, as well as in the sensory and motor transduction that precedes and follows those mental episodes. Philosophers can also bring deeper and broader conceptual analyses undistracted by the demanding needs of working in the data world. As we better understand what consciousness explains, wouldn’t that in turn provide the better explanation of consciousness — its evolutionary adaptive value in those significant mental phenomena?


    ‘Explaining consciousness’ would not be the futile attempt to ‘explain it away’, and it would be more than identifying its neural correlates. Correlation, as we remind our first-year graduate students, does not in itself explain a correlate — and NCCs are consistent with any classical position on the mind-brain question. Within common theoretical networks, brain states and conscious states would together provide theoretical explanations of those significant mental phenomena. Earlier reviews of conferences in this series, and even this meeting’s program (Hammeroff et al., 2008) ask ‘Are we there yet?’, and the enduring title of this meeting implies a ‘No, it’s off beyond the horizon somewhere’. As you can see, my emphasis will not only be on how far along we are, but also on what does or doesn’t seem to be on a road toward what I believe would be a most productive science of consciousness. At this meeting, I believe I saw four dominant themes under which the plenary sessions fall, and still another theme running throughout, that search for neural correlates. With so many speakers describing so many studies in such detail throughout five days — over and above the pre-conference workshops and the numerous concurrent sessions and poster boards, I will only try to extract the essence of the plenary claims and then comment, often raising questions.

    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-09-2016 at 09:54 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    From above

    "1. Is Consciousness Epiphenomenal for Perception and Action?

    Indeed one of the questions raised in the meeting’s program asks whether consciousness is an epiphenomenon — as in the computational view of mind, with cognition running like a program in the brain and consciousness only sometimes exuded. That fundamental question seems to animate some experimental tests for a dissociation of mental states or actions from consciousness.
    Attention and consciousness Early in the cognitive ‘revolution’ consciousness was identified with an attentional subsystem within a working memory system, on a reassuringly physical computer metaphor. All three of these speakers challenge this claim of a perfect association, although in somewhat different ways.

    Christof Koch recognized a close relationship between selective attention and consciousness, but he presented data interpreted as providing for a double dissociation. In the absence of top down attention, conscious attention may nevertheless go to some particular object or aspect of a scene. On the other hand, subjects may give top down attention to stimuli said to be ‘invisible’, through one of several techniques — most often with masking but also with flash suppression, or other techniques — yet nevertheless they present evidence interpreted here as unconscious processing indexed by fMRI. This topic was earlier elaborated in a workshop conducted by Naotsugu Tsuchiya and Koch. The work reported by Stanislas Dehaene focused on the tracking of neural activation, with an emphasis on the neural locus of what is conscious and what not within a global neuronal workspace model, a version of Baars’(2003) model. On this view, consciousness occurs in that limited work space, with the activation of a distributed parietoprefrontal system together with top-down amplification of relevant posterior networks. Considerable processing is said to occur non-consciously. The reported experiments used stimuli that were presented masked or in a psychological refractory period (or during an ‘attentional blink’ or with a secondary task), with high density ERPs and high-temporal resolution fMRI used to track the loci of what were interpreted as non-conscious and conscious stages of processing. In essence, those processes that interfere with attentional identification of the stimulus were found to interfere not only with reports of awareness, but also with the expected brain imaging indices, fMRI for parietal and prefrontal areas, and the P3 component of ERP for those areas as well as ventral temporal regions. Earlier activation was said to be ‘subliminal’ (a measurement claim) or ‘preconscious’ (a theoretical claim). Michael Tye also argued for a dissociation of attending to and seeing a thing in the sense of being conscious of that thing. The classical Sperling (1960) experiments (and many that followed) convincingly demonstrate that briefly presenting a display (e.g. 50 ms) with three lines off our letters is more than can be fully attended, although the letters must be ‘seen’ in some sense, a literal representation, if a line of letters randomly selected within 300 ms or so can be attentionally identified. Furthermore, the subject gives top-down attention to the full display (with what Charles Eriksen called the ‘internal eyeball’), even if unable to ‘see’all letters with a 50 ms exposure in the sense of being perceptually identified. ‘See’ is a vernacular term that can be applied to conceptually different conscious states. There was also discussion of Dan Simons’ change blindness experiments, with the reasonable interpretation that awareness of change could only occur with fallible inference from attentional identification of both the original and changed aspects of a scene."

    The fMRI and other non-invasive or dangerous (Like CAT scans) technology in mapping the brain has produced a great deal of confirmation. We can actually see the part of the brain Yogis use to reach altered states.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    There is a paradigm in religion that super-imposes itself over the one mentioned here. It has laws and states in it's grasp and the funding for it's initiatives including war and spreading it's influence (Proselytizing) is immense when you consider all aspects of media including parents who still BELIEVE garbage or cultural norms. I also am not enamoured with Kuhn who I think promoted the soul-less paradigm or a paradigm where religion and the god "within" every animate energy (even inanimate) is defined in archaic terms. A good debate on humanistic alternatives in science is begun in a book called Darwinism Evolving by MIT scholars.

    "What has science to do with consciousness? Very little. Consciousness is a troublesome subject. It cannot be pinned down and measured as a material thing; and the uncertainties of subjective experience interfere with our efforts to arrive at universal truths. So science has, by and large, deliberately excluded consciousness from its considerations.

    What has science to do with God? Even less. Whereas we have to accept the existence of consciousness, bothersome as it may be, God has no place at all in the scientific world-view. Modern science has looked out into ‘deep space’ to the edges of the Universe; back into ‘deep time’ to the beginnings of creation; and down into ‘deep structure’ to the most basic constituents of matter. In each case it finds neither place nor need for God. The Universe, it proclaims, functions perfectly well without God.

    This has been the traditional view. But today things are changing. Old boundaries are dissolving, and science is beginning to expand its scope.

    The Super-Paradigm

    When considering the limits of contemporary science, it is important to remember that we are talking of the current paradigm, not science as an endeavour. A scientific paradigm is the set of assumptions within which a particular science does its business. Quantum theory, Darwin’s Theory of evolution and the psychoanalytic theory of the unconscious mind are all examples of paradigms.

    Over time paradigms change. For nearly two thousand years Plato’s belief in the perfection of circular motion dominated the science of mechanics. In the seventeenth century Newton’s Laws of Motion became the paradigm. Today, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are regarded as a more accurate description of how matter moves in space and time.

    Unfortunately—as Thomas Kuhn showed in his masterful exposition, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—paradigms do not change easily. They are so deeply embedded in the scientific and wider social culture that they are seldom questioned. Evidence that contradicts the current view is overlooked or rejected; or, if it cannot be so discarded, incorporated in some way, often clumsily, into the existing model. Believers in the old paradigm would rather die than give up their assumptions about the nature of reality. And they often do. New paradigms arise in a culture, not because people change their minds, but because the adherents to the old die out.

    The current scientific world-view holds that matter and physical energy are the primary reality. When we fully understand the functioning of the physical world, we will, according to this view, be able to explain everything—including the human mind. This is more than just a paradigm within a particular field of study; it is a belief common to almost every branch of science. It is more of a super-paradigm.

    To question this super-paradigm is to question something really big. Little wonder then that any evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, healing, prayer, or any other phenomenon that suggests consciousness is not so dependent on matter, is either ignored or ridiculed by the establishment. Within the accepted world-view, it simply cannot be true.

    What is consciousness?

    If, as the current super-paradigm holds, consciousness arises from matter, it is natural to ask when it first arose. Is an animal such as a dog conscious? As far as we know, dogs are not self-conscious as we are, they do not think to themselves in words, and they probably do not reason as we do. But does that mean they have no subjective experience, as Descartes conjectured?

    As far as I can tell, my dog experiences the world around. She clearly feels pain when hurt. And when asleep, she appears to dream, feet and toes twitching as if on the scent of some fantasy rabbit. To suggest that she is not conscious, but some insentient biological mechanism with no interior world, seems absurd—as absurd as suggesting that my neighbour across the street is not conscious.

    In dealing with such questions, it is helpful to distinguish between two broad but distinct senses of the term ‘consciousness’. First, there are the various subjective phenomena and events that we experience—our perceptions of the world around, our thoughts, our ideas, our beliefs, our values, our feelings, our emotions, our hopes, our fears, our intuitions, our dreams and our fantasies. These I call ‘the contents of consciousness’.

    Distinct from all of these is consciousness as a faculty: the faculty of having an inner mental world within which these experiences take place. The contents of our consciousness may vary widely—we see different things, think different thoughts, feel different emotions, hold different values—but common to us all is the fact that we are aware. Without this faculty there would be no subjective experience of any kind.

    We might draw an analogy with a painting. The picture corresponds to the contents of consciousness; the canvas on which it is painted corresponds to the faculty of consciousness. An infinite variety of pictures can be painted on the canvas; but whatever the pictures, they all share the fact that they are painted on a canvas. Without the canvas there would be no painting.

    Where dogs differ from us is not in the faculty of consciousness but in what they are conscious of—the contents of their consciousness. Dogs may not be self-aware, and may not think or reason as we do. In these respects they are less aware than we are. On the other hand, dogs can hear higher frequencies of sound than we do, and their sense of smell far surpasses our own. In terms of their sensory perception of the world around, dogs may be more aware than humans.

    Origins of Consciousness

    If dogs have the faculty of consciousness, then by the same argument so must cats, horses, deer, dolphins, whales and other mammals. If mammals are sentient beings, then I see no reason to suppose birds are any different. Some parrots I have known seem as conscious as dogs. And what about reptiles and fish? There is nothing particular about their nervous systems to suggest they do not have their own interior world of experience.

    So where do we draw the line? At vertebrates? Insects have senses and nervous systems; why shouldn’t they also have some corresponding degree of inner experience? The picture that is painted on the canvas of their minds might be very different indeed from ours—less rich, much simpler—but I see no reason to doubt there is a picture.

    It seems probable to me that any organism that is sensitive in some way to its environment has a degree of interior experience. If a bacterium is sensitive to physical vibration, light intensity or heat, who are we to say it does not have a corresponding degree of consciousness? The picture that is painted might be the equivalent of an extremely faint smudge of colour—virtually nothing, compared to the richness and detail of human experience, but not completely non-existent.

    How far down do we go? Would the same apply to viruses and DNA? Even to crystals and atoms?

    The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead argued that consciousness goes all the way down. He saw it as an intrinsic property of creation. From this perspective, what has emerged as life has evolved is not the faculty of consciousness but the various qualities and dimensions of conscious experience—the contents of consciousness. As living beings evolved eyes, ears and other sense organs, the pictures that were painted in consciousness became increasingly richer. To process and use this information nervous systems evolved, and as the nervous systems grew more complex new qualities emerged—free-will, cognition, intention and attention. With the appearance of human beings, consciousness gained an entirely new dimension—thinking."

    Peter Russell at

    Pretty good thinking, I think therefore YHVH!
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-09-2016 at 11:50 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Some single sites would take an interested knowledgeable person forty hours a week a long time to gain everything therein. The first link here takes you to many links the second one takes you to one person (with his wife) who took a lifetime to learn a little of what has become a whole new science. When I was involved with a person in his circle she told me how the Navy used her to communicate with submarines below the reach of the then existing radio or sonar technology. They used a card system leading to a coded battery of results.

    Drilling into the first link and looking for consciousness studies I happened upon one organization dealing with Chaos Theory - a very old adepthood name going back at least 13,000 years. What follows is a little of that one source (Dr. Seuss anyone?). It addresses work in a top down environment such as most of our present paradigm is - including families which often alienate each member and create a psychic drain directed at one member - often the mother.

    "Kevin J. Dooley, Arizona State University L. Douglas Kiel, University of Texas, Dallas A. Steven Dietz, Texas State University, San Marcos

    Fluctuations in Work Motivation: Tasks do not Matter! José Navarro, University of Barcelona, Spain Fernando Curioso, University of Barcelona, Spain Duarte Gomes, University of Coimbra, Portugal Carlos Arrieta, School of Psychology, University of Costa Rica Mauricio Cortés, Universidad del Valle, Colombia

    Previous studies have shown that work motivation fluctuates considerably and in a nonlinear way over time. In the present research, we are interested in studying if the task at hand does or does not influence the presence of these fluctuations. We gathered daily registers from 69 workers during 21 consecutive working days (7036 registers) of task developed and levels of motivation, self-efficacy beliefs and instrumentalities perception. These registers were then categorized into a list of labor activities in main tasks and subtasks by means of three judges with a high level of agreement (97.47% for tasks, and 98.64% for subtasks). Taking the MSSD statistic (mean squared successive difference) of the average of motivation, self-efficacy and instrumentality, and using hierarchical regression analysis we have found that tasks (β = .03; p = .188) and subtasks (β = .10; p = .268) do not affect the presence of fluctuations in motivation. These results reveal instability in work motivation independently from the tasks and subtasks that the workers do. We proceed to find that fluctuations in work motivation show a fractal structure across the different tasks we do in a working day. Implications of these results to motivational theory will be discussed as well as possible explanations (e.g. the influence of affect in work motivation) and directions for future research are provided.

    The Complexity of Organizational Change: Describing Communication during Organizational Turbulence Philip Salem, Texas State University, San Marcos

    Organizational researchers and practitioners have been interested in organizational change for some time. Historically, they have directed most of their efforts at improving the efficiency of planned top-down change. These efforts were strategic attempts at altering parameters leading to transformational change. Most efforts failed to meet their intended purposes. Transformational organizational change has not been likely. The legitimate systems have been robust. There has been little systematic investigation of the communication occurring during these efforts. The purpose of this essay is to describe results of a mixed methods research project answering two research questions. (a) How do organizational members communicate during a time of turbulence? (b) What features of this communication suggest the potential for or resistance to transformative change? Comparing the results at the beginning of the period to other periods, gives insight into how social actors communicate and enact the organization during a threshold period where transformational change was possible. Results reveal identifiable patterns of communication as communication strategies, parameters, or basins of attraction. The overall pattern explains how micro communication patterns intersect and how the accumulation of these patterns may resist or accomplish change at a macro level."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-10-2016 at 09:16 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Did Carlos Castaneda de-materialize or simply mind-fog the paparazzi and journalists who would wait in the building of his publisher to talk and take photos of him? He would duck into a stairwell and people coming up and down in that stairwell who were willing to spend many hours for many months would not see him. Is this connected to dimensional or quantum jumping? Carlos wrote about the Impeccable Warrior which I think is applied Magian Law. Specifically it is just one of the three Magian Laws and the one I have spent studying for over 50 years - Right Thought = Right Action. The following excerpt says shamanism began in Siberia - if they were referring to the Ainu and DNN I would like that but I am certain Eliade would agree with me - it began millions of years before they existed. It also says you can be immortal if you follow their path. I tend to think Carlos was not becoming immortal but he may have become more aware of the collective his consciousness was part of and thus his immortal soul retained an element of personal memory that normal people do not take with them.

    ""Shaman" is a word with many meanings. A shaman is a seeker of Knowledge who works in alignment with Spirit – not only the knowledge of what we think of as "the real world" but the deeper knowledge traditionally associated with other dimensional planes, and the realm of the Immortal – or, more accurately, the realm of the eternal being. Shamans are found in all cultures, and though the purpose of this site is not to serve as a history of shamanism, it is widely believed that the first shamans came from Siberia, and that the word itself translates loosely to “self-healed madman.” That healing is the process of gathering one’s personal cohesion, and evolving toward Wholeness within the infinite.

    The word "Spirit" as it is used here is not intended to convey any extant deity, but instead the always-moving, sentient universe which George Lucas undoubtedly intended when he wrote of "the force" in his Star Wars saga.

    However we label it or attempt to categorize it, there are systems of knowledge which may be gleaned directly from the universe itself through a process called gnosis. Inside all of us is the code, the spirit, if you will, which some mystics have called "the right way to live." I'm not speaking of morality within our human society, for much of what we think of as right and wrong are only agreements within the consensual continuum – and therefore subject to change depending on our culture of the time period in which we live.

    For example, here in the western world, we have been taught that monogamy is right and polygamy is wrong – and yet that is only a cultural agreement, with which many other cultures on this earth would strongly disagree. Instead, the right way to live is an inherent, living force which permeates the universe, and communicates with shamans, sorcerers, magicians, warriors, and all seekers of Knowledge directly. It is through that living force that we find our connection to the infinite.

    Of course, learning the right way to live is only one small segment of a much larger system of Knowledge. Don Juan, a Yaqui Indian serving as mentor to Carlos Castaneda, called this system of knowledge sorcery, though that is a word much misunderstood and much maligned. Others have called it "applied gnosis." Still others refer to it as "scrying the mind of the gods." No matter what we call it, it is a natural part of our human ability, and though we have been programmed through traditional belief systems to think it doesn't exist, or indoctrinated with the dogma of religions to view this Knowledge as forbidden, the simple truth is that it is the very key to our personal survival beyond death, and it is accessible to any of us willing to make the long and difficult journey of self-Realized evolution.

    This is the shaman's journey, for the shaman is someone who has seen the world for what it is, someone who has fallen into its traps and its illusions, only to finally – through will and Intent – heal herself of the madness by embracing and realizing the power of the Whole Self.

    To some, shamanism is a calling, a natural instinct. To others, it is embraced by choice and may actually be learned on an intellectual level until such time as it permeates the Self and becomes an intrinsic way of life. Shamanism does not belong exclusively to any culture, and it is not a religious practice in that it does not rely on faith or belief, but instead on direct personal experience and interaction with the realms of Spirit.

    Now, with the arrival of quantum mechanics, we know we are not merely insignificant entities watching the universe go by. We are literally part of it through our consciousness, our perceptions, and the very molecules of which we are made. We are co-creators of reality, yet only when we begin to understand the awesome power within ourselves will we be able to evolve beyond our primitive belief systems which enslave us to the dust even though we've had the stars at our fingertips all along.

    Within the very fabric of the universe itself – not only around us, but within us, down to a molecular level – there exists a non-local web of information which literally houses all the collective Knowledge of all that has ever been or ever will be. It is that wellspring of information which has been traditionally tapped by mystics, seers and prophets, yet it is available to any of us who are willing to go out on a limb and peer down into the abyss to confront the simple truth that our lives and our entire existence are nothing like what we have been taught to believe.

    The quantum shaman, then, is someone who seeks Knowledge from the Olde and the Knew, someone who seeks to Realize their full potential by obliterating the illusions and misconceptions of ordinary life in order to become aware of and empowered through the cohesion of the Whole Self. This is the nature of spiritual evolution – where a single, continuing point-of-view is maintained into eternity.

    The quantum shaman is within each of us.

    Immortality itself is within our grasp."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    In the final analysis we are on a path which only WE can determine.

    There are (of course) many threads this link gives input to.


    The human psyche is a living ecosystem of flowing psychic energy and is conceived as a bipolar system embracing a series of opposites, eg anima / animus, light / dark, conscious /unconscious. These opposites create a tension, which is the source of psychic energy that needs to flow unimpeded to create a smooth flowing dynamic system. If this flow is impeded when one of the opposing forces is repressed an unresolved tension grows in the psyche. This creates disease within the individual and also in society in general.

    In today's civilization the vast majority of people are dominated by the unconscious so that disowned modes of behavior and thought are unconsciously acted out in terms of dogmatic thinking and inflexible attitudes towards religion, sex and human interaction in general with plans for globalization based on fear, control and scarcity. These projections are sustained by adhering to blame and victim-consciousness rather than looking within and healing their own personal hologram.

    The number of successfully individuated or self-realized people is remarkably few and is one of the main walls of the matrix. Things that prevent individuation include - lack of community; people in separation, focus on materialism, lack of introspection / meditation, overuse of medication to maintain egoic consciousness and lack of teenage rites of passage or initiations so that the process is often delayed until later in life when the neuroanatomy is less able to undergo structural change.

    Psychiatric Drug Facts -

    Psychiatry: An industry video -

    Bruce Levine -

    Is Psychiatry a Scam - - ("

    DNA - Gateway to Scalar Energy based Healing -

    1. DNA emits and absorbs light (information) : Low-level light emissions are a common property of all living cells with up to 100 photons of light emitted every second for every square centimeter of area - equivalent to the intensity of a candle at a distance of about 10 kilometers. DNA is the source of this photon emission.

    6. DNA produces wormholes in space:

    Wormholes are tunnel connections between different areas in our time-space universe and between our time-space universe and parallel universes, through which information can be transmitted outside of the constraints of space and time. DNA can cause magnetized wormholes in vacuum space. These wormholes are microscopic equivalents of the Einstein-Rosen bridges that appear in the vicinity of black holes. Quantum tunnels (which are similar in concept to wormholes) enable objects to pass through barriers that are impassable according to Newton’s classical laws of physics.

    DNA accesses information via these wormholes, passing it to 'consciousness', so enabling one to gain access to information that is outside one’s knowledge base. {I call this dimensional contact and genetic information transfer of a very high level.} This process is known as hypercommunication. Inspiration, intuition, telepathy, and channeling are manifestations of activated hypercommunication.

    In nature there are many examples of hypercommunication...

    There are many strange potentials in the following and some probably have validity.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-22-2016 at 11:38 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    A good video to watch.

    "I set forth with the zest of my twelve years (though time has never dimmed my delight in new scenes and strange faces). Reaching Benares, I proceeded immediately to the swami’s residence. The front door was open; I made my way to a long, hall-like room on the second floor. A rather stout man, wearing only a loincloth, was seated in lotus posture on a slightly raised platform. His head and unwrinkled face were clean-shaven; a beatific smile played about his lips. To dispel my thought that I had intruded, he greeted me as an old friend.

    “Baba anand (bliss to my dear one).” His welcome was given heartily in a childlike voice. I knelt and touched his feet.

    “Are you Swami Pranabananda?”

    He nodded. “Are you Bhagabati’s son?” His words were out before I had had time to get Father’s letter from my pocket. In astonishment, I handed him the note of introduction, which now seemed superfluous.

    “Of course I will locate Kedar Nath Babu for you.” The saint again surprised me by his clairvoyance. He glanced at the letter, and made a few affectionate references to my parent.

    “You know, I am enjoying two pensions. One is by the recommendation of your father, for whom I once worked in the railroad office. The other is by the recommendation of my Heavenly Father, for whom I have conscientiously finished my earthly duties in life.”

    I found this remark very obscure. “What kind of pension, sir, do you receive from the Heavenly Father? Does He drop money in your lap?”

    He laughed. “I mean a pension of fathomless peace—a reward for many years of deep meditation. I never crave money now. My few material needs are amply provided for. Later you will understand the significance of a second pension.”

    Abruptly terminating our conversation, the saint became gravely motionless. A sphinxlike air enveloped him. At first his eyes sparkled, as if observing something of interest, then grew dull. I felt abashed at his pauciloquy; he had not yet told me how I could meet Father’s friend. A trifle restlessly, I looked about me in the bare room, empty except for us two. My idle gaze took in his wooden sandals, lying under the platform seat.

    “Little sir, don’t get worried. The man you wish to see will be with you in half an hour.” The yogi was reading my mind—a feat not too difficult at the moment!"

    The Gnostics are traceable to at least the builders of the Great Pyramid which the Septuagint (Greek Bible) intimates when it says the family of Jesus and Joseph were "arch-tectons" or architects. This was the hardest thing to confirm from the writings of Conor MacDari along with the fruit of 'direct cognition' which comes from this harmony. This video gets it right about 'direct experience'.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-16-2016 at 12:34 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts