Blog powered by Typepad

« Of Dungeons & Dragons and life after death | Main | Weinergate »


windbridge is down the street from me, I should do something with them at some point...

If we wont to understand Parapsychology ,
we must understand how our brain works.
What is the material basis of Quantum Consciousness ?
Will Physics explain Consciousness?
At what step does consciousness begin?

Our brain works on dualistic basis:
a) consciousness , b) unconsciousness
In his last autobiographic article, Einstein wrote:
" . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form"
In book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ Michael Talbot
on page 160 explained this situation in such way:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain ’
In our terrestrial world the Information ( some basis of Consciousness)
can be transfer to you only by Electromagnetic waves.
Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Therefore I say,
only Electron can be the Quantum of Information / Consciousness.
We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
Now nobody knows what the Electron is.
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ One physicist /
Evan Walker wrote:
"... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics."
In my opinion it means that to answer to the question
‘ where the consciousness come from?’
we must understand not only the brain but electron too.
Once again.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons ). It can only mean
that the state of neurons in these two situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows.
Therefore I say:
we must understand not only the brain but electron too.
And when we understand the Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such cells.
And therefore the human brain has only one Electron.
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
As the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form.
They do not know My transcendental nature and
My supreme dominion over all that be.
/ Chapter 9. Text 11./
Keynote, Luc Montagnier,
Nobel Laureate, Pasteur Institute,
‘ The transfer of biological information (!) through
electromagnetic waves and matter.’
Book: Quantum physics meets biology.
/ By Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral /
Michael Brooks:
‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.’
/ Book ‘ The big questions’. Page 195-196. /
Where is the root of consciousness?
At what step does consciousness begin?
The consciousness begins on electron’s level.
An electron (quantum of light) has its own initial consciousness.
This consciousness is not rigid, but can develop.
The development of consciousness goes
“from vague wish up to a clear thought” / Veda./
================== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

If we want to understand Parapsychology , we must understand how our brain works. What is the material basis of Quantum Consciousness ? Will Physics explain Consciousness? At what step does consciousness begin?
socratus, I interpret the brain as a dualistic function referring more to Right-Side-Creative/Left-Side-Analytical rather than Conscious/Unconscious, and stating that we must understand how the brain works to understand Parapsychology somewhat comes across to me as stating that we must know what the bio-chemical/bio-physical-processes are behind Brain-Function in order to get an understanding of the Para-Normal side of consciousness.

I cannot really come to a logical-from-personal-accumulated-experience/knowledge conclusion that it`s that simple. Probably, I think based on what data/research that I`ve accumulated, some more-accurate/precise or on-target questions would be to ask:

  • From where do thoughts and emotions originate ?
  • What are the energetic bases for conscious-manipulation of material ? (Our bodies are an example of biological-material in which we seem to manipulate the muscle-motors/motions with some for of our own consciousness)
  • What are the consistent ways to be able to control or self-control these thoughts-and-emotions if any ?

I do feel that those questions are getting closer and closer to being specifically approached as more and more people research and study para-normal phenomenoae. That Evan Walker person seems to be the closest to this disposition amongst all of the quoted material. I don`t know if it`s technically the same thing and the semantics just aren`t synchronised with my interpretations though...

Sadly you have to be in the US to take part in this study. I would have loved to take part .

excluding all people who have lost someone close definitely adds a selection bias to the study. It could very easily help with non-psychic cold readings.

Due to their quadruple-blind studies, cold reading is immposible in those circumstances.

ok, not cold reading per se, but we know these sitters have never lost anyone they loved or were close to and that fact alone predisposes to a higher probability of certain a demographic and psychological profile.

Just between sips of coffee I can imagine that the sitter is young and relatively optimistic towards what the future holds. This then branches into some generalities; like they are going to embarking a exploration of a career........going to meet a romantic interest....

seems like some real hard thinking went into the study design, sounds real scientific, like exclusion criteria and stuff. no kidding there, if like the dead show up then its for real. kinda real convincing and scary and stuff.

and the mediums the institue is linking to. like with level and such. and they also sell stuff from their websites, which is helpful for people like me who need help.

so I like your blog.

btw I am not like psychic and such but, hey, I have seen things that made me kinda wonder.

Way too much for me to comment on all of it but a few high points:

1) The Einstein quote and the Talbot quote seem to be saying entirely different things -- Einstein was saying that the formal rules of logic do not apply to discovery, which has nothing to do with whether or not they are produced by the physical brain.

2) I'm not familiar with the Lorentz discovery you mention. Since it is contrary to both Maxwell's equations and the standard model (which says that there is no EM field without the photon and that the electron is just one of any number of charged particles), then these results have been determined to be incorrect. There are lots of examples of good physicists who have made claims that were later rejected.

2) E=MC^2 is just Einstein's famous equation for any any kind of mass or energy. -E=MC^2 contradicts it, and Dirac never said anything of the kind (there has been some speculation about negative mass but then it is associated with negative energy so the equation remains the same).

3) "e" in the Sommerfield equation is the elementary unit of charge (which is the charge of the electron), while "E" (more specifically "E-sub-e") is the energy associated with the mass of the electron. So these are formula for different properties of the electron. What Dirac did say was that there were two solutions to the Sommerfield equation which, along with some other similar relations, implied that there were two kinds of electrons -- the other identical (including both energy and mass) but with a positive charge. When such a particle was discovered a few years later it became known as the anti-electron or positron.

4) That leaves us with two formulas for the rest energy of an electron relating them to different quantities. In fact, neither are specific to the electron, and apply to any massive body whatsoever. They imply a relationship between the quantities on the right-hand sides of the equations, specifically that an object with mass M can also be considered to be a wave with frequency f = M c^2 / h.

5) The Pauli exclusion principle does not even faintly say that an atom cannot have two electrons. It says that two electrons in an atom cannot have the same "state", which essentially means that they cannot have the same energy and spin axis. Un-ionized helium, which has two electrons, in no way violates the Pauli principle, and neither does ionized H- hydrogen which also has two electrons (but is unstable). Application of the Pauli principle to macroscopic systems, it says, basically that two physical objects cannot occupy the same place -- e.g., you cannot walk through a wall without breaking the wall. It applies only to systems of Fermions (matter like things like electrons, atoms, people, walls) but not to systems of Bosons (energy like things like photons, beams of light, gravitational fields) which can occupy the same location at the same time.

6) The phrase "x is the Quantum of Light" doesn't really mean anything. Quantum means a discrete step -- it applies to quantities not to things, so we could talk about the quantum of the energy of a beam of light, or of its frequency. All the discreteness of light's properties can be formalized as consisting of a particle -- the so called vector boson of the electromagnetic force -- but that particle is the photon (a boson) not the electron (a fermion). While the electron has a frequency it is not the frequency of EM radiation. The frequency of the photon however is exactly the frequency of the light (or other EM radiation) it is associated with.

Attacks on the current understanding of physical laws, attempts to find contradictions within them, and extrapolation of them to new principles are not only worthwhile, but what science is. However, no snarkiness intended at all, but you really need to get the laws that you are playing with right for the results to mean anything at all. You can't simply change the laws as necessary to imply the results you want.

Off topic, but interesting:

to Topher Cooper:

'ye cannae change the laws of physics captain!'
(Scotie - Star Trek).

Despite what the Scotsman says, he proceeded to break it every week! Or did he...

I really don't think the exclusions are necessary for this particular kind of research. It seems as tho the only respondants they will get will be about 12. We have all by that age lost someone in our familes or circle of friends, even a beloved pet. I am just not sure how having the dead drop in will skew the results.

Will this research and study going to help in identifying if psychic reading is actually possibly scientifically?

The comments to this entry are closed.