louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
I can see that it's easy to transfert from one mytth to another.Men are mythomane.Homo religosus.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
1st June Show with Dr. Bernard Haisch
- Thread starter Bluntman
- Start date
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
Dr haicht rejects neuro physiology .chemistry without any arguments.That's what i call dogmatism
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
Dr Haitch said that universal counsciousnous is created by a kind of quantum effect.,and later said that the observer can change the reality of the observation.So wich one is true?the quantum or the observer reality?
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
When David Biedny speaks of his experience, he does not speak of the emotion of listening to music,he said he was playing like a virtuose and can not identify himself as this capable musician.he felt he was somebody else or somebody else was playing for him.
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
If the observer create reality,what quantum consciousness has to do in the picture?
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
before I leave I want to say I had many times the feelings of David and I call it the alian in my brain, like friend.
WhiteNoise
Paranormal Novice
I've just recently started listening to the show and haven't been compelled to post into this forum until now. Basically, I am new to paranormal topics in general but the topic of the program on June 1st is one I have spent years looking into. Overall, I don't disagree with the views presented in the God theory. In contrast to what many people have posted in this thread, it is the state of the world and my life experiences in general that lead me to the conclusion that this theory is probably close to correct. The sense described in this thread by some that there is "something wrong" seems to me to be an egocentric view(as one person has already stated).
The idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature is not new and is a hot topic these days in philosophy and physics forums alike. This idea that the material universe is a manifestation of "God" evolving to express "its" potential is so much more than just the human experience and how much TV is being watched. If you're going to start with the assumption that consciousness is fundamental then it is hard to not conclude that everything must have some level of consciousness. That includes rocks in your back yard and the keyboard your typing on. So the subjective experience of nature exists throughout the entire universe and everything in it. I would imagine that human beings watching television is a very, very small portion of this. (And besides, if you've ever seen the credits at the end of a movie or program, you see that there are a lot of other experiences that go into making TV, many of them very creative.)
As for the show, I did enjoy it and have 2 thoughts. I do not believe that science can be reconciled with spirituality. I found myself wishing Haisch would word this differently. I do believe there can be reconciliation between scientists and spiritual thinkers, however. Science is based on multiple, consistent observations to obtain objective evidence about the physical world. It is not equipped to change form this materialist paradigm. Science can never explain what a peach taste like nor can it prove that any one reading this thread loves their mother. And I'm sure all of you love your mother!
These things are features of the universe whether science likes it or not. And science has little to say about them. The true "Theory of Everything" will never be a materialists scientific theory because such a theory can never explain the things I've mentioned above. Scientists, however, can recognize that science is good for explaining some parts of nature; just not all. To try to change science to make it adapt and explain everything would ruin a good method for understanding the physical. So the change and reconciliation that needs to take place is not to change science but to have scientists accept that science is not sufficient for providing information about the subjective aspects of nature. Which appear to be as fundamental as anything else. I agree with Haisch that research on consciousness could be the thing that facilitates this happening.
Something else to think about. In the show it was mentioned that from the perspective of light, light doesn't move anywhere nor does it exists in time. Yet we perceive light as if it is moving at 186K miles a second from our frame of reference. One idea I've run across about this is that since light has no mass and doesn't move anywhere from it's own frame of reference then the perception of light moving is simply a construct of our consciousness. This would explain why we get weird results when we try to figure out whether light travels as a particle or a wave. So the thought is that perhaps 186K miles a second is not the speed of light but rather is the rate at which our consciousness creates space and time. In other words, space and time are constructs of consciousness and consciousness creates space at 186K mile for every second of time.
Sorry for the long post.
The idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature is not new and is a hot topic these days in philosophy and physics forums alike. This idea that the material universe is a manifestation of "God" evolving to express "its" potential is so much more than just the human experience and how much TV is being watched. If you're going to start with the assumption that consciousness is fundamental then it is hard to not conclude that everything must have some level of consciousness. That includes rocks in your back yard and the keyboard your typing on. So the subjective experience of nature exists throughout the entire universe and everything in it. I would imagine that human beings watching television is a very, very small portion of this. (And besides, if you've ever seen the credits at the end of a movie or program, you see that there are a lot of other experiences that go into making TV, many of them very creative.)
As for the show, I did enjoy it and have 2 thoughts. I do not believe that science can be reconciled with spirituality. I found myself wishing Haisch would word this differently. I do believe there can be reconciliation between scientists and spiritual thinkers, however. Science is based on multiple, consistent observations to obtain objective evidence about the physical world. It is not equipped to change form this materialist paradigm. Science can never explain what a peach taste like nor can it prove that any one reading this thread loves their mother. And I'm sure all of you love your mother!
These things are features of the universe whether science likes it or not. And science has little to say about them. The true "Theory of Everything" will never be a materialists scientific theory because such a theory can never explain the things I've mentioned above. Scientists, however, can recognize that science is good for explaining some parts of nature; just not all. To try to change science to make it adapt and explain everything would ruin a good method for understanding the physical. So the change and reconciliation that needs to take place is not to change science but to have scientists accept that science is not sufficient for providing information about the subjective aspects of nature. Which appear to be as fundamental as anything else. I agree with Haisch that research on consciousness could be the thing that facilitates this happening.Something else to think about. In the show it was mentioned that from the perspective of light, light doesn't move anywhere nor does it exists in time. Yet we perceive light as if it is moving at 186K miles a second from our frame of reference. One idea I've run across about this is that since light has no mass and doesn't move anywhere from it's own frame of reference then the perception of light moving is simply a construct of our consciousness. This would explain why we get weird results when we try to figure out whether light travels as a particle or a wave. So the thought is that perhaps 186K miles a second is not the speed of light but rather is the rate at which our consciousness creates space and time. In other words, space and time are constructs of consciousness and consciousness creates space at 186K mile for every second of time.
Sorry for the long post.
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
Neuroscientists have dicovert recently that light is perceived one tenth of a second before it is seen.
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
Oberdoing:so whath? It 's more basic than that.dont'i Overdo your capacity,please.
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
to white noise:i did't listen to TV for 4 years.If you want to use TV as a reference, I'm out of it.
louis belanger
Skilled Investigator
To white noise : when you are giving conscienciouness to rock, everybody should start praying the rock in their garden and then what??
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
I was unable to listen to the show until tonight, and honestly, I was glued to the speakers pretty much the entire time.
This is the best episode yet!
I loved the in depth, no holds barred questions and discussions!
I'm going to listen to it again because there was just way too much to absorb the first time around.
Kudos to you guys (Gene, David, and Dr. Haisch) for an excellent show!
This is the best episode yet!
I loved the in depth, no holds barred questions and discussions!
I'm going to listen to it again because there was just way too much to absorb the first time around.
Kudos to you guys (Gene, David, and Dr. Haisch) for an excellent show!
Unable? I'm curious.
Why?
Why?
S
schticknz
Guest
So ... after hearing this episode, I have to ask some questions in my strange-and-rambling-off-the-cuff sort of way:
If 'God'/or whoever it is ... is an entity that is outside space and time as we know it, what are UFOs, ghosts and other 'paranormal' things to this ultimate super-being?
Are they just a way to make us poor lower rung beings go "what the F%%* is that?" so that this perfect being (which has never felt anything like this before, of course (?) ... and so feels it has to contrive something like UFOs etc to create this feeling in man and other lower form beings) can experience "shock", "wonder", "surprise" etc ??
And if it is a perfect being, of some sort, why does it have to feel the need to feel such concepts anyway?? By being perfect shouldn't it understand such concepts already??
The idea that the universe is fine tuned for our and other being(s) is a bit of an old and in my mind fairly silly idea as well.
If this universe didn't exist, well we wouldn't be here to look at it ... so we can only exist in such a universe as this. There are probably many other universes that don't have quite the same conditions to create life as we know it. So maybe we were just incredibly lucky.
Quantum mechanics (which is still in its infancy in my mind and I think still has some major holes in it) runs on the mathematics of probabilities ... maybe we were just incredibly lucky to roll a 6 and exist rather than a 3 or a 2 and not exist. I really don't see the need for some being to create the universe around us (and even it did, where the hell did it come from in the first place anyway?)
And what does Dr Haisch think about the meta-verse idea? Does his all perfect intelligence cover all the other (hypothetical?) universes and parallel realities as well?? If it does ... well to quote my cat, Ming, "he/she/it must be a hell of a big bugger then".
schtick ... who expected a bit more from this episode but felt in the end that it was a bit ... (struggling for the right word but will just resort to using these words for the moment) waffly and underwhelming ... really
If 'God'/or whoever it is ... is an entity that is outside space and time as we know it, what are UFOs, ghosts and other 'paranormal' things to this ultimate super-being?
Are they just a way to make us poor lower rung beings go "what the F%%* is that?" so that this perfect being (which has never felt anything like this before, of course (?) ... and so feels it has to contrive something like UFOs etc to create this feeling in man and other lower form beings) can experience "shock", "wonder", "surprise" etc ??
And if it is a perfect being, of some sort, why does it have to feel the need to feel such concepts anyway?? By being perfect shouldn't it understand such concepts already??
The idea that the universe is fine tuned for our and other being(s) is a bit of an old and in my mind fairly silly idea as well.
If this universe didn't exist, well we wouldn't be here to look at it ... so we can only exist in such a universe as this. There are probably many other universes that don't have quite the same conditions to create life as we know it. So maybe we were just incredibly lucky.
Quantum mechanics (which is still in its infancy in my mind and I think still has some major holes in it) runs on the mathematics of probabilities ... maybe we were just incredibly lucky to roll a 6 and exist rather than a 3 or a 2 and not exist. I really don't see the need for some being to create the universe around us (and even it did, where the hell did it come from in the first place anyway?)
And what does Dr Haisch think about the meta-verse idea? Does his all perfect intelligence cover all the other (hypothetical?) universes and parallel realities as well?? If it does ... well to quote my cat, Ming, "he/she/it must be a hell of a big bugger then".
schtick ... who expected a bit more from this episode but felt in the end that it was a bit ... (struggling for the right word but will just resort to using these words for the moment) waffly and underwhelming ... really
Schticknz, perhaps “complete” would be a more useful term than “perfect” in describing God - and YOU are the experience of “It” (as your waking identity) exploring in great detail, just a small, specific part of Its completeness. Your will is your personal guide.
An essential aspect of consciousness, but not directly discussed on the show, is that consciousness must be conscious of SOMETHING in order to BE consciousness. And in the absence of anything else to be conscious of, SELF-consciousness would have to be it’s first and most elemental nature - allowing all else to proceed from there - since self-consciousness is One thing assuming two simultaneous vantage points: the observer and the observed.
The Big Question: Are you the central character in a dream of your own making, or just an insignificant figure in someone else’s? Newtonian physics would suggest the latter view, Quantum, the former.
But if you are a “self,” a major clue to the source of your world is probably found by looking within, since that’s where the source of ANY perception would have to stem from.
As radical as the idea may sound, consider that your “senses” may not actually be perceiving a world “out there,” but constructing one (to include your so-called physical body as the lens).
You already know you have this ability to make worlds and “other” characters, because you do it all the time in the sleep state.
And if that’s the means for making a world in ANY case, perhaps it is ultimately the ONLY means. After all, if the “substance” of consciousness could be called light, would it not follow that all its subsequent evolutions and variations would also be but manifestations of that only thing: light?
Where the hell did it all come from in the first place, you ask?
I propose a simple theory:
“nothingness,” in a perfectly ABSOLUTE sense, (I’m not talking about empty space, which is a thing) and therefore being completely self-negating as a state, must, by default, EXCLUDE and result in the appearance of it’s opposite, “everything.” Seemingly from nowhere, and yet inevitably unavoidable. Ok, just a theory, and it sounds like a play on words, but think about it.
The question has been raised on the Paracast that maybe the appearance of UFOs, and other weird phenomena, is to make us think. That purpose is probably no differently inherent, though, than in ANY of our experience, when one considers that our interpretation of anything always rests on who and what we think we are at any given time.
So maybe in the opportunity a perception offers us to see ourselves differently, lies its meaning, and our connection to it.
An essential aspect of consciousness, but not directly discussed on the show, is that consciousness must be conscious of SOMETHING in order to BE consciousness. And in the absence of anything else to be conscious of, SELF-consciousness would have to be it’s first and most elemental nature - allowing all else to proceed from there - since self-consciousness is One thing assuming two simultaneous vantage points: the observer and the observed.
The Big Question: Are you the central character in a dream of your own making, or just an insignificant figure in someone else’s? Newtonian physics would suggest the latter view, Quantum, the former.
But if you are a “self,” a major clue to the source of your world is probably found by looking within, since that’s where the source of ANY perception would have to stem from.
As radical as the idea may sound, consider that your “senses” may not actually be perceiving a world “out there,” but constructing one (to include your so-called physical body as the lens).
You already know you have this ability to make worlds and “other” characters, because you do it all the time in the sleep state.
And if that’s the means for making a world in ANY case, perhaps it is ultimately the ONLY means. After all, if the “substance” of consciousness could be called light, would it not follow that all its subsequent evolutions and variations would also be but manifestations of that only thing: light?
Where the hell did it all come from in the first place, you ask?
I propose a simple theory:
“nothingness,” in a perfectly ABSOLUTE sense, (I’m not talking about empty space, which is a thing) and therefore being completely self-negating as a state, must, by default, EXCLUDE and result in the appearance of it’s opposite, “everything.” Seemingly from nowhere, and yet inevitably unavoidable. Ok, just a theory, and it sounds like a play on words, but think about it.
The question has been raised on the Paracast that maybe the appearance of UFOs, and other weird phenomena, is to make us think. That purpose is probably no differently inherent, though, than in ANY of our experience, when one considers that our interpretation of anything always rests on who and what we think we are at any given time.
So maybe in the opportunity a perception offers us to see ourselves differently, lies its meaning, and our connection to it.
schticknz said:
It's an old idea but my understanding is that most of the modern arguments for it revolve around the cosmological constant, tuned to 120 decimal places.
Excellent show. Excellent guest.
If you enjoyed this show and haven't already seen it I would recommend watching the 3 part series What Still Don't Know:
Part 1-Are We Alone?
Part 2-Are We Real?
Part 3-Why Are We Here?
It is pretty sophisticated for tv.