kyrani99 wrote:I am going to answer the rest later as I am too tired now, I've been cooking the sausages for the bush turkeys and it's 2:30 am. Also I want to try and think of some way to prove to shrunk and everyone that the mind and consciousness are totally different things. Good night.

Nighty night.

You could try and define Mind and Consciousness, that would be a good start.

Kyrani's to do list.

1. Cook Sausages
2. Succeed where 2500 years worth of philosophers and theists have failed miserably.
3. Put cat out.

The brain & consciousness are two different things. One arises from the operations of the other. Does that help?

kyrani99 wrote:Also I want to try and think of some way to prove to shrunk and everyone that the mind and consciousness are totally different things.

That's actually rather peripheral to the present discussion (by which I refer to the larger discussion of whether mental activity can result from anything other than brain activity, and not just this particular thread.) The primary issue there, as I see it, it to demonstrate clear instances of mental activity occurring in the absence of brain activity. Absent that simple demonstration, all of the abstruse philosophizing in the world is of no use.

kyrani99 wrote:I am going to answer the rest later as I am too tired now, I've been cooking the sausages for the bush turkeys and it's 2:30 am. Also I want to try and think of some way to prove to shrunk and everyone that the mind and consciousness are totally different things. Good night.

Really, can't wait to see your list of peer-reviewed papers on this.

chairman bill wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:... which we can verify in the subatomic level using quantum mechanics but that still does not help us understand on the macroscopic level.

Could you please explain how we can verify this at the subatomic level?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili
At about 6:33mins speaking about a single electron he says: “somehow seems to have been aware of there being two slits not one because it's given rise to this interference”
And at the end he says: “Quantum entanglement is the idea that particles, however far apart they are, still somehow their fates remain intertwined. They are still aware of each other’s existence.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment Thomas Campbell ex NASA physicist.
Showing that even if you allow the detector running but don’t collect the data you still get the same result as if you had switched it off.

This one is old but makes some valid points using bird and fish behavior. In the birds and fish described I would explain this by saying there may be a leader and that leader is linked telepathically to all of the rest of the birds or fish in the flock of birds or school of fish. It shows that that telepathic signal (if that is what it is, is instant).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxHlFB65ims
(1938) The Non-Locality of Mind

There is some simple math but this guy explains it fairly well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance

Not all scientist agree about non-locality. Here is another interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlIlkn3OxMI
Murray Gell-Mann on Quantum Mechanics and Nonlocality

I know this guy is a Nobel Prize winner but I disagree with him and side with some of his colleagues, who also disagree with him. The reason is this. It seems farfetched to me to say that if you measure a property of a particle a thousand times you will always happen to get it right, i.e., you will always see the property that you chose to observe. And if you measure a second property you’ll see what you chose to measure again getting it right.

But there is another reason too. Particles are not even considered to exist until you measure /observe them. They are only a field of possibilities so they can even be said to have particular properties until observed. For these reasons I think his reasoning to discredit non-locality is not on sound ground, if we are to accept the finding of quantum physics. Quantum physics has been tested thousands upon thousands of times and found to stand up to every test.

I think non-locality is real but there is no energy or information going from one to the other. I think it shows that all the information is contained within the nothingness/non-physical /Universal Mind, which is really a singularity spaceless and timeless etc.

There is also tests done on DNA that show similar results.
Published in: Proceeds of the International Forum on New Science, Denver, CO.
October, 1996 EFFECT OF CONSCIOUS INTENTION ON HUMAN DNA
INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON NEW SCIENCE, INC. is a business created in Colorado and is a Nonprofit Corporation under local business registration regulations.
http://www.item-bioenergy.com/infocente ... nondna.pdf

chairman bill wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I have seen on the cellular and some at the sub-cellular level that cells and even their sub units are conscious but not in the sense that we normally think of as in subjective experience. The reason I say that is because when I was investigating cancer in my body I found that stem cells were affected by ideas as to develop into cancer stem cells. Then when I understood the hoax I noticed that they began to reverse the changes so they must have been affected by my changed insight.

Fascinating. Could you elaborate? I'm particularly interested in how you monitored the change from stem cells into cancer stem cells, and then (presumably) back again, in particular because you seem to be suggesting this happend in vivo.

I am saying that stem cells to cancer stem cells to cancer stem cells and other cancer cells back to stem cells and ordinary cells happens. The apoptosis that takes place only removes the excess cells. I never saw any cancer cells killed or destroy themselves.

I am confident because:
I saw cells change in appearance compared to other cells around in the same tissue. Then some of those cells replicated asymmetrically, i.e., the two daughter cells looked different to each other. So cells had made initial changes and then replicated into various types. This can only be done by stem cells. And they didn't take years, in some cases they took only hours from about 8 hours to 24 hours to form a mass the size of an orange seed. The new cells had to be cancer stem cells.

Then as the mass was disappearing the cells all looked similar to those in the surrounding tissue. I never saw any cancer cells nor cancer stem cells be killed or self destruct but that doesn't mean that there may not have been. I had 5 separate occasion in different types of cells and I never saw them killed. I saw the mass cell look like surrounding cells and then cells died as the mass reduced.

Sometimes there was inflammation in an adjacent area but the cells that transformed themselves were not involved in or affected by the inflammation.

chairman bill wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:II later discovered that I could use mental prescriptions to drive those changes faster so that the cancer stem cells had reverted back to normal stem cells and normal cells. I was also able to affect the apoptosis processes to keep the newer cells in preference to older cells and hence use the opportunity to regenerate and rejuvenate the organs affected. I could not have done any of this without there being conscious cells and cell parts.

Wow. Could you expand on this too, please? I'd love to understand the mechanism by which you were able to monitor these effects.

I used Vipassana or insight meditation. It takes years to master to some reasonable level. But it is really no different to say observing your hand. You can look more and more closely, but that of course depends on the limitations of the eyes. With insight there is infinite movement to observing more and more detail. I learnt this from U-Pandita (not a name but title of reverent teacher) that is how we addressed him. He was a Burmese Buddhist master.

First we were given a stretch of around 20 feet and told that we had to walk it in no less than 2 hours. This is hard. At first I found it difficult to walk it in more than 10mins. Good thing the Burmese Buddhists didn't hit you with a stick like some Zen masters do and some of my aikido teachers too.

Then you start at a very basic level by observing your leg as you take a step, so first you observe feel lightness in the leg, lift the leg, swing the leg through the step, place the foot on the ground, feel the pressure on the bottom of the foot and finally shift your weight and so on. When you can do that without distraction you go on to observing a whole muscle.

Then you move to observing a calf muscle or thigh muscle. You observe the whole muscle action to begin with, so tighten, pull on tendons and then release tightening pressure and relax the muscle. When you can do that without distraction you go on to observing a small group of muscle cells and finally a single muscle cell. This can take a long time.

From there you can observe the details of a cell both on the surface and interior. I can see reasonably well on the surface but the interior is still rather fuzzy, although I can distinguish the nucleus and some structure in the cytoplasm. So I can move from one cell to another much further away and compare them broadly.

kyrani99 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment Thomas Campbell ex NASA physicist.
Showing that even if you allow the detector running but don’t collect the data you still get the same result as if you had switched it off.

That's a claim I haven't heard before. Photon detectors in place and working but no tape in the data logger and interference patterns result.

The claim is here ~2:30 https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E?t=2m18s

Any physics types here know what that's about?

[ETA]
This topic on Physics Forums suggests the calim is bunk:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:That is exactly what he did. He had not ideas that he knew would stick. He had ideas. Then they were tested. And when they did stick they become part of the foundations of physics. But there was no guarantee that they'd stick.

No. Just no. You've basically just handwaved away what I said in favour of maintaining your deluded little fantasy.

Handwaving???? You tell me how a person has an idea which is verifiable?

Philosophers (who include mathematicians) come up with ideas. For example Democritus back in the 5th century in Greece had the idea that it would be possible to cut matter up into smaller and smaller pieces until one would have a piece too small to cut any further. He called it an atom from the Gk a= not and atomos = to cut. And his idea was useful of another 2500 years but now we know that an atom is made of subatomic particles so the idea was not verified in the end. He could not have thought up the idea as being verifiable. Verification comes with more knowledge and the means to give evidence for it or reject it. Einstein did the same.

kyrani99 wrote:
Mathematical physics is not 'foundation in science'. Mathematics is not science, it is philosophy.

Sendraks wrote:And so you stamp your little feet and try to change the definitions to suit your argument. A rational mind would perhaps give pause to think about whether this tactic had ever worked before. And if not, why not?

Mathematics is based on setting up rules and ideas (eg the number line is dense) and philosophical reasoning based on those rules or ideas (eg if the number line is dense then there is as many numbers between 0 and 1 as there is between 0 and infinity). Then you can make a proof, which is not falsifiable.
Science is based on experimental observation and from the findings hopefully developing a theory. It is based on evidence not proofs. The theories are falsifiable.

kyrani99 wrote:
You have only to look through some of those prestigious medical journals to find a mountain of theories/ ideas put forward, especially in correlations as supposed causation and they are all BOLLOCKS! And they don't hide. They are in full view. And the light never comes.

Sendraks wrote:Yes, that is the great thing about science, it doesn't cover up past mistakes and pretend they never happened. The bollocks is there for all to see. That you think this is a problem is entirely consistent with the lack of understanding of science displayed in your posts..

It can hardly cover up past mistakes because they are all published in the journals. But there is plenty of science where the evidence is covered over or peer reviewed by fraud as to appear false. That is where the bollocks is.

GrahamH wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:
You can tell that, once a person has an experience, they then trawl through the internet searching for similar experiences with which to confirm their own experiences. The confirmation bias can be astonishing, as in the case we are now witnessing.

When it comes to the paranormal, any confirmation from a comparison with others becomes confirmation bias, dirty words.

But scientists do this too. If they make a discovery they want to see if others have come up with the same findings, to confirm their own or that they be confirmed by other in other experiments. Call this confirmation bias too. If it is good for one it's good for the other.

No, the idea of science it to test an idea by working out what would happen if it were true then looking to see that happens or not. If not the idea is wrong. If it happens the idea might be right. It is vital to count the cases which contradict the idea.

What do you mean by count the cases which contradict the idea?
If you find evidence then that is what is important. It may be that sometime later other evidence is found that falsifies the theory. I don't see the case of counting cases that contradict.

You all just knew bullshit based on misunderstandings of quantum mechanics was coming up, didn't you? I'm actually surprised it took this long.

kyrani99 wrote:What do you mean by count the cases which contradict the idea?
If you find evidence then that is what is important. It may be that sometime later other evidence is found that falsifies the theory. I don't see the case of counting cases that contradict.

The way this works is that you state a hypothesis that can't be mistaken for another hypothesis. Your hypothesis makes a prediction that can't be mistaken for the prediction of an alternate hypothesis. Then you do an experiment that you can describe how to do (so that somebody else can try it), and compare the results of the experiment with the predictions of the hypothesis.

See? You know how to do this. Now just fucking DO it. If your experimental result does not come within a football pitch of the prediction, then your hypothesis is wrong, your methodology is fucked up, or the rest of the world is nuts. You pick the last.

Cito di Pense wrote:
The way this works is that you state a hypothesis that can't be mistaken for another hypothesis. Your hypothesis makes a prediction that can't be mistaken for the prediction of an alternate hypothesis. Then you do an experiment that you can describe how to do (so that somebody else can try it), and compare the results of the experiment with the predictions of the hypothesis.

See? You know how to do this. Now just fucking DO it. If your experimental result does not come within a football pitch of the prediction, then your hypothesis is wrong, your methodology is fucked up, or the rest of the world is nuts. You pick the last.

You can understand though, that obvious exceptions to doing real science should sometimes apply. Because, what's important is that people "believe" they are right despite the absence of any evidence and having to methodologically confront the fact that you might be very, very, very wrong, really isn't what this is all about.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I am NOT a proponent of non-local consciousness. That is what I tried to explain in earlier posts. I believe there is a universal Mind, a personal mind and individual consciousness. And I tried to use this model to try and explain my interpretation.

"Universal Mind" = non-local consciousness. You are a proponent of non-local consciousness.

no. "Universal Mind" / Mind NOT EQUAL TO consciousness, neither local nor non-local. Mind and consciousness are two different things."

Consciousness is part of the mind, and does not exist apart from it. So you remain a proponent of non-local consciousness. You might as well just own up to that. It's hardly the most problematic part of your, er, "theory." "

There is no evidence that consciousness is part of the mind. And there is no evidence that either the mind nor consciousness are generated by the brain. It is only suggestion.

kyrani99 wrote:I make a distinction between a functioning brain, even with minimal function and a brain that is in the death process,which may be registering some activity because I reject the notion that that activity constitutes "functioning."

Shrunk wrote: I know you make that distinction. The reason you do so is that your argument depends on that distinction existing. All evidence, however, points to the non-existence of that distinction. So you are then forced to take the ludicrous tactic of saying that evidence is irrelevant to any claims you might make. All that matters is "personal experience."

kyrani99 wrote:No that is not the reason. I make the distinction for two reasons.
1. there is no evidence that consciousness arises in the brain. We can point to sensory processing and motor processing and so on but we cannot point to anywhere in the brain that is a control centre and we cannot point to anywhere where we can say this is where subjective experience arises.

Shrunk wrote:Which is not necessary in order to demonstrate that consciousness arises in the brain. Here's an experiment. Remove your brain. Have a friend puree it in a food processor. Are you still conscious? No? There's your evidence that consciousness arises in the brain."

My brain is part of my physical garment. Even if the lot was puree, I will still be conscious. I won't be conscious through the body, so I won't have a physical experience but I will continue to be conscious because I know that consciousness is a quality of being. I may not be able to prove it to you or show evidence but that doesn't change anything for me.

kyrani99 wrote:2. The reports that are made are very involved. They take in vision, hearing, memory, recognition etc., and these cannot be accounted for by some minimal brain activity, even where there is brain activity. They can't be accounted for where there is an EEG flat line.

Shrunk wrote: So kindly provide an example where it can be said with certainty that such things were perceived during a period of absent brain activity. That's not really possible, of course, because no one ever survives brain death, so anyone reporting such experiences was not brain dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QE7B2S ... L1HDXUQn3B
Dr George Rodonaia - An Atheist Scientist and Psychiatrist had a Near Death Experience his account starts at 43secs and ends at 7mins 27secs The early and late part of the video has some Bible bashing.
This guy is a psychiatrist from Russia. I don't know how credible his story is because he claims he was in a freezer in the morgue for 3 days and woke up when doctor had begun cutting him open for organ harvest.

And there are a lot of other videos in this series of NDEs that were experienced by doctors.

What is brain dead? I think there is a problem with the definition. There may be some definition that suits organ harvest because organ transplantation is big business, some organ transplants can earn a surgeon $100,000 so even one a day could fetch a yearly income of 15 to 25 million. The whole question of what is death and what is life is invoked. Is cessation of all activity for a time constitute death? Can cells that have no activity be returned to living? What makes the difference between living and dead? Is it being infused by consciousness?

kyrani99 wrote:
There is no evidence that consciousness is part of the mind. And there is no evidence that either the mind nor consciousness are generated by the brain. It is only suggestion.

Blind counterfactual assertions do not evidence nor reasoned argument make.

Agrippina wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:There is no "we are all one" bullshit.

Who are you to say that is wrong?

if someone understands and KNOWS that we are all one by personal experience, then why can you say it's bullshit? You have no more idea than anyone else has.

No this is not said from personal experience. Dr Pim van Lommel and others have tries to interpret the results that they have found from their studies. Other scientists in other areas have made the same assumptions. They assume that the mind and consciousness are the same thing. They are not. I can't show scientific evidence as yet but I will find a way to do the necessary experiment in physics.

So the mind and the consciousness are not the same thing. This sounds like "when I die, my body, which contains my brain, and thereby, my mind, will also die, but my consciousness will live on."

Is this what you're saying? If yes, then please show the evidence for that. If no, then explain why you say the mind and consciousness are not the same thing. What happens to the consciousness when the mind dies in the dead body?

IMO the Unified Field has to do with physical manifestation and that which gives rise to the physical manifestation. From quantum physics we have:

1. what they are calling "physical nothingness", which is a field of potentiality. I don't see this nothingness as physical but let's not get concerned about that. It is still all information at a singularity (spaceless and timeless).

2. physical manifestation, which is brought about when information is selected and observed, has both time and space and has matter and energy.

This are the conclusions we have from quantum physics.

What is not observed does not really exist, it is only in states of potentiality. Only when observed does something exist. Where there is no observation there is no physical manifestation. So for example your kitchen doesn't exist when you are not in it (or when there is no one in it to observe it). It and everything in it exists only as a field of potentialities, which when observed become your kitchen.

IMO this is also true of the personal mind and Universal or shared Mind. Only when information is selected and/or perceived and upheld can it exist as "ideas in mind". Where there are no thoughts, there is no mind. In deep meditation, where there are no thoughts, there is no mind. Learn to meditate and verify this for yourself.

There needs to be an observer for both the physical manifestation and the mind/ Mind ( field of potentiality ) to exist.
So who is the observer? This is the question. Who am I?

The observer has the quality of consciousness. The observer is being, which is outside of the physical/non-physical existences.
The observer cannot be inside that which only comes into being when selected and observed. So it is outside of what is brought into being through observation.I know most physicists would reject that but it is the only a valid interpretation of the findings of modern physics.

What it means is that the universe/ creation / the manifest material world is a hologram or simulation, which doesn't arise out of some accident but is created through conscious intent. And this is consistent with the reality that all we can KNOW is that we exist.

What is it that knows that it exists? What makes that thought?

So when a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it doesn't make a noise. Right.

Bingo! Aggi.
If I close my eyes all them houses across the street disappear and if I open them I can make them magically re-appear.

Amazing.

Gives me a sense of real power...

Alan B wrote:Bingo! Aggi.
If I close my eyes all them houses across the street disappear and if I open them I can make them magically re-appear.

Amazing.

Gives me a sense of real power...

Indeed. Funny how you wake up in the morning to find the bedroom right where you left it, even though it wasn't there when you were sleeping, and dreaming about being lost in a castle, with a man in a home made dress chasing you, telling you to "confess your sins!"

Fallible wrote:Kyani believes consciousness is something extant and separate from individuals, to be drawn down from, like a big lake. However she also thinks it exists outside the universe, but seems reluctant to consider the problems this causes her in terms of how it can be drawn down from by individuals. To get around this, she says that it can be accessed during meditation, at the point where the personal self vanishes (she thinks the personal self vanishes during meditation), and one (which one with no personal self?) stops thinking to merely observe. One (which one?) is then experiencing pure consciousness without the use of the bodily senses. How this experiencing is henceforth recorded, enabling it to be made sense of and then translated to other personal selves, remains insufficiently accounted for or explained.

note:my emphasis.

My explanations.
Warning: I cannot explain without bringing up "spiritual" discussion.

Your imagery of "drawn down from a big lake" has some merit.
There is a Universal Observer (not to use the word "God").
The Universal Observer is:
1. Changeless Truth / Absolute Being,
2. Pure Consciousness and is the source of all consciousness but it is not all consciousness combined) and
3. Supreme/ Absolute Bliss.

The Universal Observer has brought into existence (note: spiritual existence is a quality that is independent of an observer) separate conscious beings, you might want to call them spirits or souls but these words have all manner of connotations that have been attributed to them.

All of this is outside of the created realm, i.e., the universe. It is in the spiritual realm. From my experience there are separate conscious beings because enlightenment is in a sense about "awakening in the Presence". It does lead to "being one with the One". So consciousness is not "drawn down from" by individuals. Rather each individual is a spiritual being, which means it has consciousness. And that consciousness was separated out from the "Big Lake" in bringing it into existence.

Now personal self is the idea of a doer. The body is only an illusory entity, which was brought into being when you as conscious being selected to observe it. The body is in a sense the same as putting on a virtual reality glove and visual screen glasses to enter into a virtual reality. You become a doer in that reality, when really you are merely an observer/ perceiver.

In deep meditation and more so at the point just prior to enlightenment, the personal self vanishes.
I will use my virtual reality to explain this.
In my analogy this disappearance is the same as the observer/perceiver suddenly turning away from the avatar/ personal self that they are in the virtual reality and remembering who they really are. While engrossed in the virtual world they believe themselves to be the personal self, but when they are no longer distracted by the virtual reality they realize the virtual world is not real and that they have true existence in an Ultimate Reality. They realize that they are the one that experiences pure consciousness, which means they realize that they are a conscious being and not the avatar /personal self in the virtual reality. The personal self is made conscious through the conscious being. Through the personal self/bodymind, conscious being is able to have physical experiences, i.e., experiences in the virtual reality, though the senses.

Your last question
"How this experiencing is henceforth recorded, enabling it to be made sense of and then translated to other personal selves"
is very significant.
If there was only conscious beings bringing manifestations into being through observation then there would not be a shared physical reality. Only by a Universal Observer can a single, shared physical reality be brought into existence. This means that there is a huge matrix of information/knowledge that is selected and observed, otherwise there cannot be any manifest universe or universes. This matrix or field of information/knowledge is the Universal Mind (dare I use the words of physicist Paul Davis and say "The Mind of God"). This field of information/knowledge enables inter-connection between personal selves. Where the personal selves are related there is entanglement and that entanglement exists within this field of knowledge. Every event, change, experience is recorded in this field and can be accessed, with some limitations. Your personal knowledge, that which you do not want to share, comes under your free will to maintain private or share.

I know you will not like me saying this but all paranormal experiences occur due to the existence of this field of knowledge, the ability of individuals to connect, become aware of knowledge and relate through this connectivity and knowledge and especially where there is entanglement.

This field of knowledge cannot be erased but it can be appended. One piece of evidence for this is that when a person has lost a limb or some body part, they are still aware of it as if it still exists. If they make some perception of it being gone, then they no longer have that perception. This does not mean that the information is lost, only that the part of the matrix/ field that describes /is selected for in bring the limb or body part into being has been appended to include new information that the limb is no longer physically manifest.

I think that it is possible to regrow a limb or body part if this can be utilized. I believe that because cancer comes into being precisely because of appending this field and can again be reverted back to normal cells by again appending the field of information. So as this is the manifest process, then stem cells can be influenced to grow a new limb. Newts can and do just that.