If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding

[Brickjectivity]

A bit, or a lot, of "wait and see" beats
jumping onto every bandwagon.

Yes, that is a good point when we are talking about cosmic questions. If it is some other topic such as relationships then I may not have time to wait and see. If its about coworkers then I err on the side of caution. If it is about food then...

 

[sun rise]

You and I possess the capacity to embrace this truth, that we are more than flesh.

It is all up to us, if we want ro search for and use that capacity.

Regards Tony

Tony,

This thread is focused on science not on religion/spirituality. Remote viewing to me has nothing necessarily connected with spirituality. Personally psychic phenomenon are a distraction outside of whatever science can discover or disprove.

 

[sun rise]

Makes sense. It would be out of character
for any religion.

It's not out of character for the Dalai Lama. It's not out of character for those that follow Meher Baba who indicated "All-sided progress of humanity can be assured only if science and religion proceed hand in hand."

It is out of character to those who disbelieve in science, are attached to a "God of the gaps" and those who are captured by confirmation bias and can't consider new information.

 

[Audie]

It's not out of character for the Dalai Lama. It's not out of character for those that follow Meher Baba who indicated "All-sided progress of humanity can be assured only if science and religion proceed hand in hand."

It is out of character to those who disbelieve in science, are attached to a "God of the gaps" and those who are captured by confirmation bias and can't consider new information.

You misunderstood. I left out the last
word I intended. "....any religion, though"

 

[danieldemol]

So has anyone explained what "non-local conciousness" is in this thread yet?

 

[Audie]

So has anyone explained what "non-local conciousness" is in this thread yet?

Any thread tutle that starts with " science prove"
doesn't even need an undefineable subject to
be dead on arrival.

 

[wellwisher]

It's not out of character for the Dalai Lama. It's not out of character for those that follow Meher Baba who indicated "All-sided progress of humanity can be assured only if science and religion proceed hand in hand."

It is out of character to those who disbelieve in science, are attached to a "God of the gaps" and those who are captured by confirmation bias and can't consider new information.

Statistical modeling, in science, is essentially whims of the gods in the gaps. It is based on a black box to create a foundational ignorance. Then they consult a math oracle. Missing links in evolution are explained via gods of the gaps. These science gods of the gaps are acceptable, due to politics in science, which also depends on its version of gods of the gaps.

Has anyone heard of a bluetooth connection between electronic devices. Human have a blue tooth connection, but few know how to turn it on or use it. Science assumes consciousness needs to be wired by the five senses to work. Advanced Human language is not that old in terms of human DNA. How did people communicate before modern language? It was sort of like blue tooth thought transfer. With the development of advanced language this became obsolete, since it was not as specific, as advanced spoken language; complex sound transfer.

I have two small dogs. Often when I am quietly thinking about new ideas and get internally enthusiastic, I trigger the two dogs to start barking. They then run to the door, like there is someone at the door. There is no one at the door. They are not exactly sure where the stimulus source comes from, but they assume from behind the door. To them, the blue tooth transfer appears to be delocalized, but it is actually coming to them from the inside; their inner self, via an inner self to inner self blue tooth or sometimes an air drop hook up.

If you consider a mob of people, that become like a single organism. How do you think this gets hooked up, since language is not specifically being used to coordinate this. It comes as an inner feelings that are reinforced by the events, that appear to be occurring outside; cause and affect, cause and affect, cause and affect.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'll worry about it when we get there.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Has anyone heard of a bluetooth connection between electronic devices. Human have a blue tooth connection, but few know how to turn it on or use it. Science assumes consciousness needs to be wired by the five senses to work. Advanced Human language is not that old in terms of human DNA. How did people communicate before modern language? It was sort of like blue tooth thought transfer. With the development of advanced language this became obsolete, since it was not as specific, as advanced spoken language; complex sound transfer.

I would assume that they used the grunts and other noises that so many other primates might use now, apart from the other indications of communicating such as touch and other such actions.

I have two small dogs. Often when I am quietly thinking about new ideas and get internally enthusiastic, I trigger the two dogs to start barking. They then run to the door, like there is someone at the door. There is no one at the door. They are not exactly sure where the stimulus source comes from, but they assume from behind the door. To them, the blue tooth transfer appears to be delocalized, but it is actually coming to them from the inside; their inner self, via an inner self to inner self blue tooth or sometimes an air drop hook up.

They are probably going to fetch the doctor - assuming that you are in distress in some manner.

If you consider a mob of people, that become like a single organism. How do you think this gets hooked up, since language is not specifically being used to coordinate this. It comes as an inner feelings that are reinforced by the events, that appear to be occurring outside; cause and affect, cause and affect, cause and affect.

Not really, given that one usually knows why one is in a crowd, often with similar aims or beliefs, and hence why we often react the same as to events affecting such crowd. What's the difference between mob violence and a rock concert?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

The article title is not very descriptive. To avoid TL;DR, focus on the CIA review and hopefully read it. What he said "CIA program" is not correct, but what the CIA was involved with was deciding whether or not there was something real and if it was of use to gather intelligence. The report itself is to me a classic example of what is needed when examining findings such as they did. The key finding is:
View attachment 82541

The detail: He started with this perspective:

I always came back to the same conclusion. Humans could rationalize that life is meaningful to us, but in the grand scheme of things, there was no meaning. The people who told themselves there were just comforting themselves, I thought. I believed science was moving us beyond religion and superstitions about life after death.

But then: Scientific proof convinced me that psychic phenomena is real

I looked at documents from a CIA program where people were asked to send their thoughts — using just their minds — to others. The program concluded that there was a "statistically significant" success in doing this.
...
I've come to believe in non-local consciousness, or consciousness that originates outside our physical bodies and outside our brains. To me, this is the most scientifically sound explanation.

I often think about what skeptics would say. I used to be one of them. There's a tendency to try to push aside anomalies that don't fit into our understanding of the world, just the way I did with anecdotes about the unexplainable.
...
I believe there is something spiritual in the universe, beyond our typical senses. I don't choose to believe that because it's comforting, but because that's where the scientific evidence has pointed me.
...
But one thing I feel certain about is that there's more for science to discover.

Would I trust anything coming out of the CIA? No. Some independent science perhaps.

 

[George-ananda]

I think these results really doom the materialist hypothesis. But however there seems to be this odd disconnect between materialists and so-called paranormal phenomena including experiments done under scientifically controlled conditions. Somehow this data just gets ignored as if it is beside the point. How can it be beside the point?

In my opinion the Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical models of thought and consciousness best explain the data that materialists seem to prefer to believe does not exist.

 

[sun rise]

So has anyone explained what "non-local conciousness" is in this thread yet?

I don't understand the question. "non-local" is remote not local. It's a hypothesis that someone can be aware of something not in their immediate surroundings (technology gadgets of course not involved).

But however there seems to be this odd disconnect between materialists and so-called paranormal phenomena including experiments done under scientifically controlled conditions. Somehow this data just gets ignored as if it is beside the point

There are some who dismiss scientific studies in the same way as young-earth creationists do. It does not fit a belief so it's automatically rejected. It is not only creationists who are closed minded.

 

[McBell]

How long has the CIA been using there techniques?

 

[danieldemol]

I don't understand the question. "non-local" is remote not local. It's a hypothesis that someone can be aware of something not in their immediate surroundings (technology gadgets of course not involved).

So I'm aware that my wife is at work during business hours. Does that count?

 

[Unfettered]

"If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding?"

My understanding would find an additional support.

 

[Audie]

I don't understand the question. "non-local" is remote not local. It's a hypothesis that someone can be aware of something not in their immediate surroundings (technology gadgets of course not involved).

There are some who dismiss scientific studies in the same way as young-earth creationists do. It does not fit a belief so it's automatically rejected. It is not only creationists who are closed minded.

No. It's you auto- accepting.

Like RJ Reynolds with tobacco research.

Worse, you buy in, for personal reasons,
( see " fit a belief")
to scanty inadequate data, rather than
adopting a wait- and - see attitude.

And insult those who apply that kind of integrity
as closed minded.

It's particularly important to be cautious in
accepting as FACT a conclusion drawn from
some weak statistical data, a conclusion of
truly vast implications on the entire nature
of reality.

The person doing that is the one operating
with a creo- brain.

 

[exchemist]

I don't understand the question. "non-local" is remote not local. It's a hypothesis that someone can be aware of something not in their immediate surroundings (technology gadgets of course not involved).

There are some who dismiss scientific studies in the same way as young-earth creationists do. It does not fit a belief so it's automatically rejected. It is not only creationists who are closed minded.

What you overlook is that we do not come to these studies with a vacuum of information. We come to them with well developed models of physics, chemistry and biology, all of which predict that telepathic remote sensing of the sort under discussion should not take place. So it comes down to the hoary old cliché about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence in support. We are perfectly entitled, bearing in mind our models of physics, chemistry and biology, to be sceptical until such time as the evidence is incontrovertible.

 

[Audie]

How long has the CIA been using there techniques?

Maybe Art Bell could tell you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

Yes...to consider it. I have had some strange experiences such as sensing a phone call before the phone even rings and sensing the direction someone is in without seeing them. These are not typical experiences though.

If nonlocal cognition is the cause of these kinds of things then it suggests we are influenced by the thoughts around us. Therefore a town or building could really have a good or bad feeling to it.

 

[sun rise]

How long has the CIA been using there techniques?

Why ask us if it lied in that paper? Do you think we have access to top secret information because one of us is a senior official in the CIA will full clearance?