"For a true magician there is no very clear line between what lies inside the mind and what lies outside it. If you desire something, it will become substance. If you despise it, you will see it destroyed. A master magician is not much different from a child or a madman in that respect. It takes a very clear head and a very strong will to operate once you are in that place. And you will find out very quickly whether or not you have that clarity and strength."
"When we do magic, we do not wish and we do not pray. We rely upon our will and our knowledge and our skill to make a specific change to the world."
(I know, I'm on vacation... What can I say? When the spirit moves you, you gotta go with the flow. ;)
Just a quick post to say 'hi' to a new 5-dimensional friend. Welcome to the super-elite club!
Of course welcoming you to the super-elite club also means that I'm going to talk about your interpretation of the 5th dimension. As your interpretation bears a striking resemblance to my own, I'm just going to insert a key quote from your article before we move on to the part wherein we fight - er, politely disagree.
"Any situation that you have not yourself observed actually exists as a collection of possible outcomes in the Fourier realm... These things are undetermined , and until you experience them, there are many possible outcomes for each. The many possible outcomes of your future are what make up the fifth dimension." (my emphasis)
Well said. But now your article swings into something called Spiritual Mind Treatment (?), and you equate the Fourier realm with God. I'm not sure why. Don't get me wrong... I don't believe that I have complete conscious control over my trajectory through this realm, but my versions of the Higher Power(s) (that explain why I don't have complete control) are the Power of the Collective (the effects of other observers) and the Power of the Future (retrocausal influence of information/events in the subjective future). (FWIW, here's my two cents on free will.)
You state: "I don't believe we can control or manipulate the Fourier realm." At all? I would urge you to re-examine that belief in light of a range of data about human experience. Review psi experiments, the Global Consciousness Project, magick, or even a modest book on prayer called The Isaiah Effect, which deals with specific techniques for praying 'successfully'. Even your own descriptions of 'expecting' synchronicity bear closer examination. Just what is 'expectation', why is it critical, and are you really monitoring how your expectations are constantly changing?
"For me, prayer is a dance with physics, a give and take that allows me to guide my car with certainty to an 'as yet unknown' parking spot, appropriate for me." For me, it's no longer necessary to call this practice 'prayer'. 'Letting go and letting God' has another name - one that's well-known in the psi literature: 'release of effort'. Similar 'release' practices are discussed in magickal literature. Calling it 'God' at this stage of the game just seems to confuse things.
I enjoyed your article, and I hope that you, as a physicist, will find your way to taking that next step towards ownership of this natural aspect of the human condition. Namaste.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
When the Sleeper Wakes
"We have a rule... we never free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It's dangerous, and the mind has trouble letting go."
"It is not good to overwhelm another person with argument even when he is wrong and you are right. Yet it is also not right to give up easily, saying 'I am wrong,' when you have every reason to believe you are right. The best way is to drop the argument naturally, without pressing the other person or falsely admitting that you are wrong. If you don't listen to his arguments and don't let them bother you, he will do the same and not become angry. This is something to watch carefully."
"Do not try to satisfy your vanity by teaching a great many things. Awaken people's curiosity. It is enough to open minds: do not overload them. Put there just a spark. If there is some good inflammable stuff, it will catch fire."
(For T, who keeps trying to understand this all because it's me who's doing it.)
Had a wonderful conversation yesterday about consciousness, the nature of reality, and modeling experience in 5 dimensions. By 'wonderful conversation' I don't mean that I 'won the day', but rather that it was gratifying to engage someone who was willing to challenge his (fairly well-entrenched) ideas about the universe. Mind you, this person watched The Primacy of Consciousness talk that I mentioned earlier, and concluded "I've decided that I believe in an objective reality." Okay.
How interesting to come upon you now reading Reading the Enemy's Mind, which is a substantial tome about the Stargate remote viewing project. The seeds of many previous conversations are germinating, perhaps, eh?
The major challenge for this person (and, I assume, for a great many others) is reconciling these ideas with the Bible. [Editorial Aside: You cannot productively engage a person of religious faith about things which appear to challenge that faith unless you are familiar with the faith and its doctrines.] Fortunately for this conversation, abilities like this are discussed in the Bible, so we are not sidetracked by disputing the reality of the abilities (according to the Bible), and are free to move onto the implications of such abilities. What do these things tell us about the nature of God, the nature of time, the nature of the universe?, etc. Though irrationality (in the form of accepting the Bible as primary/absolute truth) was present, the conversation was ultimately more productive than what one could have with a die-hard skeptic, whose irrationality is failing to see the implications of the records of these abilities that have existed throughout human history. Neither party has (presumably) had direct experience with such phenomena, but based on a few words in an old book, one of them is willing to engage the idea, while the other clings to dogma of a different kind...
I decided long ago that, for my own sanity, this would have to be a Johnny-Appleseed endeavor. Plant a seed if the ground appears fertile, foster it if the opportunity presents itself, but move on if nothing appears to be growing. Sometimes something does take hold, and blossoms when you least expect it.
"It is not good to overwhelm another person with argument even when he is wrong and you are right. Yet it is also not right to give up easily, saying 'I am wrong,' when you have every reason to believe you are right. The best way is to drop the argument naturally, without pressing the other person or falsely admitting that you are wrong. If you don't listen to his arguments and don't let them bother you, he will do the same and not become angry. This is something to watch carefully."
"Do not try to satisfy your vanity by teaching a great many things. Awaken people's curiosity. It is enough to open minds: do not overload them. Put there just a spark. If there is some good inflammable stuff, it will catch fire."
(For T, who keeps trying to understand this all because it's me who's doing it.)
Had a wonderful conversation yesterday about consciousness, the nature of reality, and modeling experience in 5 dimensions. By 'wonderful conversation' I don't mean that I 'won the day', but rather that it was gratifying to engage someone who was willing to challenge his (fairly well-entrenched) ideas about the universe. Mind you, this person watched The Primacy of Consciousness talk that I mentioned earlier, and concluded "I've decided that I believe in an objective reality." Okay.
How interesting to come upon you now reading Reading the Enemy's Mind, which is a substantial tome about the Stargate remote viewing project. The seeds of many previous conversations are germinating, perhaps, eh?
The major challenge for this person (and, I assume, for a great many others) is reconciling these ideas with the Bible. [Editorial Aside: You cannot productively engage a person of religious faith about things which appear to challenge that faith unless you are familiar with the faith and its doctrines.] Fortunately for this conversation, abilities like this are discussed in the Bible, so we are not sidetracked by disputing the reality of the abilities (according to the Bible), and are free to move onto the implications of such abilities. What do these things tell us about the nature of God, the nature of time, the nature of the universe?, etc. Though irrationality (in the form of accepting the Bible as primary/absolute truth) was present, the conversation was ultimately more productive than what one could have with a die-hard skeptic, whose irrationality is failing to see the implications of the records of these abilities that have existed throughout human history. Neither party has (presumably) had direct experience with such phenomena, but based on a few words in an old book, one of them is willing to engage the idea, while the other clings to dogma of a different kind...
I decided long ago that, for my own sanity, this would have to be a Johnny-Appleseed endeavor. Plant a seed if the ground appears fertile, foster it if the opportunity presents itself, but move on if nothing appears to be growing. Sometimes something does take hold, and blossoms when you least expect it.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Primacy of Consciousness
"Among scientists are collectors, classifiers, and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics."
With the current level of chatter on paradigm shifts, artificial brains/AI, etc. being what it is, it seems like a good time to throw this excellent talk into the mix. It was originally given at a Physics of Consciousness conference in 2004. (How did I miss that one?) It's worth watching in its entirety; don't cut corners and watch the edited versions. ;).
Go on and watch it. I'll update this post with discussion points later.
With the current level of chatter on paradigm shifts, artificial brains/AI, etc. being what it is, it seems like a good time to throw this excellent talk into the mix. It was originally given at a Physics of Consciousness conference in 2004. (How did I miss that one?) It's worth watching in its entirety; don't cut corners and watch the edited versions. ;).
Go on and watch it. I'll update this post with discussion points later.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Catching the Light
"If you are a physicist, you won't find it unusual to be confronted with a problem much too difficult for you to solve..."
"For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is!"
(This one's for PR and BJ.)
Some time ago I mentioned that I wanted to post all the questions that I had accumulated during the process of trying to explain certain experiences. But in the end there were really only a few questions that stood out. To me, they represent the crux of understanding the connection between mind and matter, and how mind emerges from matter and/or matter emerges from mind, as well as explaining the experiences that prompted my query in the first place. These questions reflect our/my current state of knowledge about the correlates of consciousness; the most substantial correlates that we've currently identified are specific energy dynamics within the brain, therefore it makes sense (to me) to focus on units of energy and their behavior. Most of my other (physics-related) questions can (currently) be subsumed under one of these over-arching themes.
What is the relationship between entanglement and the Pauli exclusion principle? (I'm currently trying to make sense of this, this and this, among other things, like boson-fermion correspondence.)
What enforces the dynamics underlying the Pauli exclusion principle, and what, if any, relationship does this have to certain dynamics of conscious experience that appear to forcibly exclude specific states?
Here's a special question for the psi-entists... Why is there still a time-dependent element in certain interactions that we like to label 'non-local'? Our understanding of entanglement is presented largely as 'spooky action at a (spatial) distance' in (essentially) zero time. But unless I've missed something, the unification of space and time suggests that entanglement should also occur across a temporal distance in (essentially) zero space. What would that look like? How would it show up in conscious experience?...
DISCLAIMER: Occasionally I'm tempted by the idea of information as a primary unit, and certainly information-transfer dynamics are a large part of what I look at, but I have a hard time ignoring the idea of a substrate upon which information is stored/transmitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER: As much as I'd sometimes like to throw up my hands and give in to some kind of mystical proclamation that 'everything is light expressing itself', I'm not ready to do that either. I think that there are very real dynamics that can tell us important things about exactly how we are connected to each other, and how to use those dynamics in beneficial ways. I think that those dynamics are worth exploring. In detail.
"For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is!"
(This one's for PR and BJ.)
Some time ago I mentioned that I wanted to post all the questions that I had accumulated during the process of trying to explain certain experiences. But in the end there were really only a few questions that stood out. To me, they represent the crux of understanding the connection between mind and matter, and how mind emerges from matter and/or matter emerges from mind, as well as explaining the experiences that prompted my query in the first place. These questions reflect our/my current state of knowledge about the correlates of consciousness; the most substantial correlates that we've currently identified are specific energy dynamics within the brain, therefore it makes sense (to me) to focus on units of energy and their behavior. Most of my other (physics-related) questions can (currently) be subsumed under one of these over-arching themes.
What is the relationship between entanglement and the Pauli exclusion principle? (I'm currently trying to make sense of this, this and this, among other things, like boson-fermion correspondence.)
What enforces the dynamics underlying the Pauli exclusion principle, and what, if any, relationship does this have to certain dynamics of conscious experience that appear to forcibly exclude specific states?
Here's a special question for the psi-entists... Why is there still a time-dependent element in certain interactions that we like to label 'non-local'? Our understanding of entanglement is presented largely as 'spooky action at a (spatial) distance' in (essentially) zero time. But unless I've missed something, the unification of space and time suggests that entanglement should also occur across a temporal distance in (essentially) zero space. What would that look like? How would it show up in conscious experience?...
DISCLAIMER: Occasionally I'm tempted by the idea of information as a primary unit, and certainly information-transfer dynamics are a large part of what I look at, but I have a hard time ignoring the idea of a substrate upon which information is stored/transmitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER: As much as I'd sometimes like to throw up my hands and give in to some kind of mystical proclamation that 'everything is light expressing itself', I'm not ready to do that either. I think that there are very real dynamics that can tell us important things about exactly how we are connected to each other, and how to use those dynamics in beneficial ways. I think that those dynamics are worth exploring. In detail.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Back From the Future
"Half my life I sacrificed
But I only came to party tonight."
"The idea was that ripples of the measurements carried out in the future could beat back to the present and combine with effects from the past, like waves combining and peaking below a boat, setting it rocking on the rough sea."
Those of you playing along at home might want to take a look at the April 2010 issue of Discover magazine. It highlights the work that Jeff Tollaksen and Yakir Aharonov have done on isolating/quantifying the effects of information from the future on the present.
If the arrow of time "may be not just an illusion but a lie," is it really so hard to believe that a mind, properly trained, can recognize subtle differences in its own states that reflect/reveal the influence of the future? Retrocausation is not a new idea (Aharonov himself has been 'pushing it for four decades'), and neither is the idea that a mind, adept at pattern recognition, might see (and exploit) the same types of correlations between past and future within itself. "This isn't airy-fairy philosophy - these are real experiments" applies to psi research as well as quantum physics.
"It is upsetting philosophically... All these experiments change the way that I relate to time, the way I experience myself." Amen, brother.
But Tollaksen manages to keep free will alive in the process - "You simply have to put it down to random error in your apparatus." "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Aharonov. I've got to think a bit more about that one...
But I only came to party tonight."
"The idea was that ripples of the measurements carried out in the future could beat back to the present and combine with effects from the past, like waves combining and peaking below a boat, setting it rocking on the rough sea."
Those of you playing along at home might want to take a look at the April 2010 issue of Discover magazine. It highlights the work that Jeff Tollaksen and Yakir Aharonov have done on isolating/quantifying the effects of information from the future on the present.
If the arrow of time "may be not just an illusion but a lie," is it really so hard to believe that a mind, properly trained, can recognize subtle differences in its own states that reflect/reveal the influence of the future? Retrocausation is not a new idea (Aharonov himself has been 'pushing it for four decades'), and neither is the idea that a mind, adept at pattern recognition, might see (and exploit) the same types of correlations between past and future within itself. "This isn't airy-fairy philosophy - these are real experiments" applies to psi research as well as quantum physics.
"It is upsetting philosophically... All these experiments change the way that I relate to time, the way I experience myself." Amen, brother.
But Tollaksen manages to keep free will alive in the process - "You simply have to put it down to random error in your apparatus." "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Aharonov. I've got to think a bit more about that one...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Time Enough At Last
This is either the start of something big, or the end of something beautiful.
Having lost my protected status as 'society's asset', I'm beginning to look for a home for this research. There just isn't time enough right now to do all the things that need doing (like reading somebody's new book on time). Ironically, this search has forced me to confront the fact that theoretical modeling is neither my forte, nor a great source of enjoyment for me. (It is, however, what scientists are supposed to do after they run their experiments. Test and refine.) Me? I tend to get too hung up on what doesn't work, rather than celebrate what does work.
What I am really good at (and what I actually enjoy) is teaching/training. I've done it in a variety of settings and subject areas, so I know that it's not so much the topic as it is the process. (And not everyone has the special kind of patience needed to deal with wayward students. ;) So I'm looking to land somewhere that can provide excellent teaching/training opportunities.
The other thing I'm good at is asking questions. For some time now, I've wanted to collect and post all the questions I've come up with along the way. Had I 350 years, I might have a shot at answering them all, but more than likely the answers are obvious to someone who has a different background. And now that blogger has enabled jump breaks, I can post all the questions in this blog, and update the list on a regular basis. Look for that post to appear soon.
[Confidential Aside: Don't get too excited; you still haven't accounted for a critical aspect of the actual experience. But I will try to celebrate a minute or two of vindication for/with you. ;) ]
Having lost my protected status as 'society's asset', I'm beginning to look for a home for this research. There just isn't time enough right now to do all the things that need doing (like reading somebody's new book on time). Ironically, this search has forced me to confront the fact that theoretical modeling is neither my forte, nor a great source of enjoyment for me. (It is, however, what scientists are supposed to do after they run their experiments. Test and refine.) Me? I tend to get too hung up on what doesn't work, rather than celebrate what does work.
What I am really good at (and what I actually enjoy) is teaching/training. I've done it in a variety of settings and subject areas, so I know that it's not so much the topic as it is the process. (And not everyone has the special kind of patience needed to deal with wayward students. ;) So I'm looking to land somewhere that can provide excellent teaching/training opportunities.
The other thing I'm good at is asking questions. For some time now, I've wanted to collect and post all the questions I've come up with along the way. Had I 350 years, I might have a shot at answering them all, but more than likely the answers are obvious to someone who has a different background. And now that blogger has enabled jump breaks, I can post all the questions in this blog, and update the list on a regular basis. Look for that post to appear soon.
[Confidential Aside: Don't get too excited; you still haven't accounted for a critical aspect of the actual experience. But I will try to celebrate a minute or two of vindication for/with you. ;) ]
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Flashforward (Pt III)
It's not about watching the egg unbreak itself. It's about erasing/overriding the memory of having seen the egg break in order to observe the egg in another (unbroken) state.
(This one's for P, who broke her leg today.)
Over the years I have told you many stories. And I've waited and waited for somebody to get it. Because when it finally clicks, you'll realize that the applications go way beyond what I could tell you six posts into this story.
We have repeatedly discussed memory as the anchor of a particular outcome/observation - the thing which enables consistency in/of experience. I've discussed the idea of undoing an outcome that you don't like. I've vigorously tested these ideas, and am now waiting for someone else to do the same. Occasionally I grow impatient because I see possibilities that I need help in testing and exploring. For example...
Imagine a future where first responders to an serious injury are able to administer drugs that block the patient's encoding of the permanent/traumatic memory the incident. (Not necessarily that drug, but you get the picture.) Of course, blocking the patient's memories is not enough to ensure s/he is not seriously injured, but the patient's memory is the most likely (and probably the strongest) anchor to the injured state/outcome. First responders would also be trained in the kind of progressive information acquisition and framework selection that facilitates state selection, thereby giving them the best chance to choose the best possible outcome. They can also employ a deliberately-fuzzy encoding of their own observations - one that is more easily overridden if it presents information that conflicts with a desired outcome.
I've talked about the medical applications of this theory before, and I hope you'll think about this post the next time a skeptic whines about how 'prayer' has never helped an amputee regrow a limb. While I certainly don't claim that that is possible, I'll take any edge I can get on reducing the probability of a serious injury/illness. And I happen to think that the best time to exercise that edge is in the first observations relating to the injured state.
(This one's for P, who broke her leg today.)
Over the years I have told you many stories. And I've waited and waited for somebody to get it. Because when it finally clicks, you'll realize that the applications go way beyond what I could tell you six posts into this story.
We have repeatedly discussed memory as the anchor of a particular outcome/observation - the thing which enables consistency in/of experience. I've discussed the idea of undoing an outcome that you don't like. I've vigorously tested these ideas, and am now waiting for someone else to do the same. Occasionally I grow impatient because I see possibilities that I need help in testing and exploring. For example...
Imagine a future where first responders to an serious injury are able to administer drugs that block the patient's encoding of the permanent/traumatic memory the incident. (Not necessarily that drug, but you get the picture.) Of course, blocking the patient's memories is not enough to ensure s/he is not seriously injured, but the patient's memory is the most likely (and probably the strongest) anchor to the injured state/outcome. First responders would also be trained in the kind of progressive information acquisition and framework selection that facilitates state selection, thereby giving them the best chance to choose the best possible outcome. They can also employ a deliberately-fuzzy encoding of their own observations - one that is more easily overridden if it presents information that conflicts with a desired outcome.
I've talked about the medical applications of this theory before, and I hope you'll think about this post the next time a skeptic whines about how 'prayer' has never helped an amputee regrow a limb. While I certainly don't claim that that is possible, I'll take any edge I can get on reducing the probability of a serious injury/illness. And I happen to think that the best time to exercise that edge is in the first observations relating to the injured state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
