what are peoples opinions on this subject if you have any atall?, i have some doubts in this theory, but im open to it as a possibilty its not to far out there considering the infinity of the universe and all,

anways what do you people think?


peace

well Empty, yer should havfe introduced it.....given an overview or someting.

i have read Quantum Psychology by RA Wilson

anyway, pleasetell us why you ask, and summarize it please?

well Empty, yer should havfe introduced it.....given an overview or someting.

i have read Quantum Psychology by RA Wilson

anyway, pleasetell us why you ask, and summarize it please?




sure man, ok well instead of me typing it all out because its complex, i will post a link.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness



basically its about a link between the concious physical and the eternal conciousness in a 5 dimentional plain of existance and each brain projects a gateway interconnecting the 2 planes, (i think thats correct im still learning about it myself so sorry if that wasnt correct)



peace,

I think that naturally occurring carbon nanotubes in the brain can do quantum computing at body temperature. These structures keep the noise out while allowing the electrons inside to move to the states they need to.

you simply cannot pin down consciousness. you cant measure it or label it. it is like water, you cant grab it with te arms as its will seek ways to flow out as is its natural nature

Quantum teory has been a really radical move away rom te mechanical paradigm set in science since Descartes:

"The following key notions establish quantum theory as a paradigm-breaker pr excellence.
'Energy comes in quanta'. whereas relativity theory presents a view of te universe a a continuous matrix of spacetime, quantum teory paradoxically describes a physical world of matter-energy that is NOT continuous. The central concept [is that] eergy come in discrete "bundles" on indivisible packets called "quanta" - with 'noting in between'. In te quantum universe, the world is full of "gaps". But these are strange "gaps". They form the quantum void,a infinite sea of quantum potential, of probability waves which when 'observed'
collapse to form te world of actualities......The cosmos is a verb, not a noun. The universe is "quantuming" or "cosmosing"
If, as both quantum and relativity tell us, events, processes, or durations lie at the heart of reality, then reality cannot be wholly objective, cannot be wholly mechanistic--cannot be made up of "dead" matter' ((Radical Nature, Christian de Quincey, p.26)
so this quantum world is pretty weird to say te least. a private email communication wit physicist, Nick Herbert, where he told me that even tho physcists USe quantum mechaniics, and create all te technology we are familiar with, they DON'T understand it... !

in Empty's link we read that David Chalmers ('the Hard Problem), believes that it is a misconeption to believe that since both quantum and consciousness are both mysteries that this means they must be related--which he terms "minimization of mysteries"
whati think he meaans is that--in the definition of de Quincey's 'energy talk'--when you try and say consciousness IS someTHING like 'quantum' consciousness, ten you are trying to pin it down onto another mystery. De Quincey calls it 'energy talk- when you attempt to define consciounsess as energy......that YES, consciousness is always WITH matter/energy yet ISN@Tmatter/energy, it is wilt but distinct as consciousness cannot be measured. it is e 'inside feeling' of matter energy

you simply cannot pin down consciousness. you cant measure it or label it. it is like water, you cant grab it with te arms as its will seek ways to flow out as is its natural nature

Quantum teory has been a really radical move away rom te mechanical paradigm set in science since Descartes:

"The following key notions establish quantum theory as a paradigm-breaker pr excellence.
'Energy comes in quanta'. whereas relativity theory presents a view of te universe a a continuous matrix of spacetime, quantum teory paradoxically describes a physical world of matter-energy that is NOT continuous. The central concept [is that] eergy come in discrete "bundles" on indivisible packets called "quanta" - with 'noting in between'. In te quantum universe, the world is full of "gaps". But these are strange "gaps". They form the quantum void,a infinite sea of quantum potential, of probability waves which when 'observed'
collapse to form te world of actualities......The cosmos is a verb, not a noun. The universe is "quantuming" or "cosmosing"
If, as both quantum and relativity tell us, events, processes, or durations lie at the heart of reality, then reality cannot be wholly objective, cannot be wholly mechanistic--cannot be made up of "dead" matter' ((Radical Nature, Christian de Quincey, p.26)
so this quantum world is pretty weird to say te least. a private email communication wit physicist, Nick Herbert, where he told me that even tho physcists USe quantum mechaniics, and create all te technology we are familiar with, they DON'T understand it... !

in Empty's link we read that David Chalmers ('the Hard Problem), believes that it is a misconeption to believe that since both quantum and consciousness are both mysteries that this means they must be related--which he terms "minimization of mysteries"
whati think he meaans is that--in the definition of de Quincey's 'energy talk'--when you try and say consciousness IS someTHING like 'quantum' consciousness, ten you are trying to pin it down onto another mystery. De Quincey calls it 'energy talk- when you attempt to define consciounsess as energy......that YES, consciousness is always WITH matter/energy yet ISN@Tmatter/energy, it is wilt but distinct as consciousness cannot be measured. it is e 'inside feeling' of matter energy






yes but quantum theorys hold alot of good points, and especially black holes wich could be entrance tot he gaps, because the energy and matter must go somewhere after as you know energy cant be destroyed,


peace

yes but quantum theorys hold alot of good points, and especially black holes wich could be entrance tot he gaps, because the energy and matter must go somewhere after as you know energy cant be destroyed,


peace
never said it didn't hold good points. i am just trying to say that consciousness is really im-measureable, and is how indestrctable matter/energy FEELS....hence we are in for SOMe suprises...hooold onto yeeer hats, this is gonna be a multidimensional riiiide

hvingsaid that....the leaf at dawn...look closely, with the fresh morn air tearing eyes....look at the pearls of dew on the veined leaf. what could be more amazing than this??

Quantum consciousness seems to me to be trying to explain what R M Bucke theorized as Cosmic Consciousness.

Quantum consciousness seems to me to be trying to explain what R M Bucke theorized as Cosmic Consciousness.
...for example...??

As a mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body that transcends the normal senses in essence the whole body has a quantum event.

I think the word "quantum" is very appealing to pseudoscientific types who want to appeal to the esoteric and that which is on the fringes of legitimate science. Pseudoscience, remember, is the act of making an unsupported/unsupportable claim sound scientific by adding scientific terms.

"Quantum consciousness" has no real support -it isn't a hypothesis that lends it self to testing but, rather, one that lends itself to New Age quackery.

Deepak Chopra (1993) goes on and on about "quantum healing" and other nonsense. He says, "the physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world (p. 5)" and he thinks we can "think" ourselves better from illnesses as serious as cancer. Chopra believes that illness and aging are simply two conditions that exist in our minds (never mind the preponderance of data that exists to show otherwise) and that by thinking in the right way we can achieve "ageless body, timeless mind" by the sheer force of consciousness."

There are so-called "quantum mystics" who perceive quantum wave function as a some sort of "vibration" felt by the entire universe as if it were a sound wave heard by the the universe itself and if it were some sort of omniscent being. "One could then conclude that Being, in its physical analogue at least, had been "revealed" in the wavefunction..." (Kafatos and Nadeau 1990,124).

A wave function is a mathematical quantity used to compute the probability that a particle will be found at a particular position at a given time. Once the position of the particle is known with any accuracy, the wave function is said to "collapse."

There is no compelling evidence that "quantum consciousness" exists or that quantum mechanics plays a significant part in our consciousness at all. Quantum mechanics as a branch of physics is a materialistic and reductionist science, consitent with that which can be observed scientifically. I'm sure that statement will be much to the chagrin of duendy, but other than observations of the material world, there simply isn't any other way to conduct science with any reproducible consistency. His "anti-materialist" rhetoric is well heard but un-defined in these forums...

Chopra, Deepak (1993). Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old. New York: Random House.

Kafatos, Menas, and Nadeau, Robert (1990). The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.

As a mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body that transcends the normal senses in essence the whole body has a quantum event.

Which is new age poppycock and certainly NOT anything that can be tested or observed.

thats not very scientific of you now is it?.

to dismiss things that are possible without testing, or giving it any thought other than, "new age poppycock" when it actually has roots from thousands of years ago, many philosophies have simular concepts, you shouldent dismiss anything unless it is proven to be false properly,

as einstein said, "the imagination is greater than knowledge",

peace

you shouldent dismiss anything unless it is proven to be false properly
So you are willing to entertain the idea of a pink unicorn roaming accross the empty space between stars? Certainly it hasn't been proven false yet.

to dismiss things that are possible without testing, or giving it any thought other than, "new age poppycock" when it actually has roots from thousands of years ago

That's odd. I was under the impression that quantum theory was a relatively recent discovery.

thats not very scientific of you now is it?.

to dismiss things that are possible without testing, or giving it any thought other than, "new age poppycock" when it actually has roots from thousands of years ago, many philosophies have simular concepts, you shouldent dismiss anything unless it is proven to be false properly,

An appeal to the ancients doesn't equate to legitimacy. The Maya believed, "thousands of years ago" I might add, that it was appropriate to offer blood sacrifices of themselves by piercing their penises with sharp objects until they lost enough blood to see visions. I don't see you lining up to take part in this age-old practice of communing with the universe.

Candy said, "[a]s a mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body that transcends the normal senses in essence the whole body has a quantum event."

There isn't ANYTHING TO SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVE. Therefore, it is poppycock. New age. "The whole body is a quantum event?" Candy obviously believes this could be so, but also has no apparent knowledge of what a "quantum event" truly is.

It is a pseudoscientific buzzword when misapplied to anything but the physics laboratory, where real, observable, and materialistic, reductionist observation is taking place. Quantum this and quantum that applied to 'consiousness,' alternative healing, etc is poppycock. Poppycock because it isn't testable. The woo-woo's LOVE the untestable, becuase they can always fall back on the argument that religious nutters use: you can't prove it isn't true.

as einstein said, "the imagination is greater than knowledge",

The woo-woo's also love appeals to authority. Imagination is fine, even fun, until you try to pass off everything you imagine as reality. At that point it becomes poppycock.

I was thinking in terms of entaglement phenomenon but then again that area of quantum study maybe just new age poopycock.

Is it not strange that a great thinker like Einstein could embrace the concept of intuition but others just will not think outside the box. They will never know what they are missing with their funnel vision blinders on.

oh .......poppycock is your middle name, shucks. it wont go away Skin...hehe

check this http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/media/quantum.html

I was thinking in terms of entaglement phenomenon but then again that area of quantum study maybe just new age poopycock.

Quantum entanglement most certainly is NOT what you were referring to. If so, perhaps you could explain what part of quantum entanglment includes a "mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body?"

What is the forumula for this?

Is it not strange that a great thinker like Einstein could embrace the concept of intuition but others just will not think outside the box.

"Thinking outside the box:" another psuedoscience buzz word. Thinking out of the box is fine. But making claims based on those thoughts alone amounts to nothing more than fantasy. Face it, Candy, you subscribe to the fantastical not the real. You want to believe in that which cannot be proven rather than that which has potential for falsification. You're a mystery-monger, addicted to the significance of spurious correlations and fantasies like "quantum consciousness." Ironically, Einstein really didn't like quantum entanglement and called it "spooky action at a distance."

Nice link, duendy. Now let's see you comment on it in your own words.

you want a revIEW? tHAT'LL BE 10 bucks..? thankyou
ok, wherehe ov erviews David Chalmers ideas is alright till he seems to suggest consciousness creates reality/matter .....i am not happy with tat interpretation. i am happy with the ard Problem where it stresses the problem of scientifically understand subjective consciouness, but to speculate that from ther tat consciousness makes matter is to me too much like te dualist Eastern beliefs, Advaita Vedanta, which is Ideaism, AND/OR 'EMNATIONISM'--ie., the idea that matter is some form of 'solidified' version of consciousness

at the mjoment i am clickin wit Christian de Qunicey's teories--which are commensurate with anceint primal animism, where matter/energy and consciousness are both realities not one better than te oter. why? cause they are ALWAYS rogther YE disctinct, like the substance and shape of a tennis ball

if you posit eithe matter or consciousness as being THE primary source is when you fall into the trap of dualistic thinking....Advaita Vedana can be termed 'sibtle dualism' becauseits exponents are unaware OFits dualistic premises

An appeal to the ancients doesn't equate to legitimacy. The Maya believed, "thousands of years ago" I might add, that it was appropriate to offer blood sacrifices of themselves by piercing their penises with sharp objects until they lost enough blood to see visions. I don't see you lining up to take part in this age-old practice of communing with the universe.

Candy said, "[a]s a mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body that transcends the normal senses in essence the whole body has a quantum event."

There isn't ANYTHING TO SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVE. Therefore, it is poppycock. New age. "The whole body is a quantum event?" Candy obviously believes this could be so, but also has no apparent knowledge of what a "quantum event" truly is.

It is a pseudoscientific buzzword when misapplied to anything but the physics laboratory, where real, observable, and materialistic, reductionist observation is taking place. Quantum this and quantum that applied to 'consiousness,' alternative healing, etc is poppycock. Poppycock because it isn't testable. The woo-woo's LOVE the untestable, becuase they can always fall back on the argument that religious nutters use: you can't prove it isn't true.



The woo-woo's also love appeals to authority. Imagination is fine, even fun, until you try to pass off everything you imagine as reality. At that point it becomes poppycock.




yes im aware of how many mistakes humans make, thats why ive learned to never believe in anything atall, not even what i see with my own 2 eyes, for all i know conciousness and everything is not even real, i just keep an open mind and take everything as a possibility, and this is possible,


ok and as you and science seem to know it all, would you please explain to me and give answers to all the questions i wanted answerd, i wasnt aware we had all knowing biengs among us, do you reallt think we can explain everything with modern science, we have to create theorys, and philosophies, we have to wonder and imagine, some things we can never know as physical human biengs, dont rely on science to answer everything, for all you know a little old man living in ancient china/tibet could hold more correct answeres to the universe than all of science put together,

who really knows anything atall?

yeah the ball is blue and it bounces really high, but colours for you, and is there really a sky,?

peace

Skinwalker, I did mean entaglement phenomenon. It is perhaps the word mystical that in connection with the entaglement phenomenon that bothers your world view but it is the best word I can think of to describe the phenomenon two particles where an action on one is manifested as well on the other. It is also what happens when the energy field of a human concsiousness expands to be part of (that is to have oneness with) the greater energy field that transcends the known physical world. There is simply a whole lot that science does not know how to explain.

Jung sumed up this obession that science knows it all best when he stated "Those who say such things merely express an age-old 'misoneism' - a fear of the new and the unknown"

If I were to make a prediction about science it would be that a some time in the future science will measure a fourth force to go with the gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces that have been measured that will possibly reconcile some of the disparities between relativity and quantum and lead to a better understanding of what we now think of as unexplained phenomenon.

If I were to make a prediction about science it would be that a some time in the future science will measure a fourth force to go with the gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces that have been measured

That's a postdiction, surely. Haven't you heard of the strong and weak forces?

It is also what happens when the energy field of a human concsiousness expands to be part of (that is to have oneness with) the greater energy field that transcends the known physical world.

New age mumbo jumbo. It means nothing. An 'energy field of human consciousness' that 'expands to be part of the greater energy field?'

New agers are always going on about "energy fields" and the like. This is the reason why new age nutters like the word 'quantum,' because its so mysterious. Moreover, its pretty clear that you haven't even a working understanding of quantum mechanics much less how it might relate to disciplines outside of particle physics.

Also, your entire post was:As a mystical experience being an expansion of the energy field that floods the mind and body that transcends the normal senses in essence the whole body has a quantum event.No where in it do we see anything that remotely resembles quantum entanglement. So you might have been thinking it, but you certainly did not imply it with that post.

ok and as you and science seem to know it all, would you please explain to me and give answers to all the questions i wanted answerd, i wasnt aware we had all knowing biengs among us, do you reallt think we can explain everything with modern science, we have to create theorys, and philosophies, [i]blah, blah, blah

Quit bitching & crying. Nobody said they "know everything." This is such a typical response when those that believe in the supernatural get faced with the demands of science: they accuse anyone who rejects their beliefs (fantasies in this case) as being "know it alls." If science "knew everything," it wouldn't need to exist. But I don't need to "know everything" to be pretty sure you don't have a live gorilla in the trunk of your car. I only need to know a little. Additionally, your "who really knows anything at all?" argument smacks of postmodernist humbug. Going through life thinking everything is possible must make you a salesman's dream.

New age mumbo jumbo. It means nothing. An 'energy field of human consciousness' that 'expands to be part of the greater energy field?'

New agers are always going on about "energy fields" and the like. This is the reason why new age nutters like the word 'quantum,' because its so mysterious. Moreover, its pretty clear that you haven't even a working understanding of quantum mechanics much less how it might relate to disciplines outside of particle physics.

Also, your entire post was:No where in it do we see anything that remotely resembles quantum entanglement. So you might have been thinking it, but you certainly did not imply it with that post.



Quit bitching & crying. Nobody said they "know everything." This is such a typical response when those that believe in the supernatural get faced with the demands of science: they accuse anyone who rejects their beliefs (fantasies in this case) as being "know it alls." If science "knew everything," it wouldn't need to exist. But I don't need to "know everything" to be pretty sure you don't have a live gorilla in the trunk of your car. I only need to know a little. Additionally, your "who really knows anything at all?" argument smacks of postmodernist humbug. Going through life thinking everything is possible must make you a salesman's dream.




that was harsh,

ok i will stop bitching and wipe my eyes dry from all te crying, are you done bieng aggressive now?,

and how is it a typical response? you were dissmissing my theorys, and trying to tell me your theorys are better basicaly, i am open to what your beleifs are, im not closed minded atall, you seem to be closed to my philosophies and theorys, you were talking as if you know you are right, when your in the same boat as me, you dont know that much about anything, human ego including science and religion truely clouds the judgement, because your mind gets trapped into thinking, the latest knowledge is truely right 100%, the universe is a constant flowing energy, and we can never know it all we have to philosophise all the time,


yes its part of the dao's scripts roughly, mystic mumbo jumbo so if anybody knows any taiji, or is buddhist, or taoist, or believes in ghosts spirits or auras, they cant be spoken to with respect because they are nuts new age blah blahs, :)

just because one is open to something as a possibility, dosent mean he believes it to be true,

peace my dissrespectfull brother,

you were dissmissing my theorys, and trying to tell me your theorys are better basicaly,

Theories? You mean those things in science that consist of tested hypotheses? Tell me: what hypotheses did you test? I have no theories regarding quantum physics. None appear to exist regarding 'quantum consciousness.' One or two speculations exist. Many more fantasies exist. But no "theories (http://college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html)."

i am open to what your beleifs are, im not closed minded atall, you seem to be closed to my philosophies and theorys, you were talking as if you know you are right, when your in the same boat as me,

I have only the vaguest idea what your "philosphies and theorys (sic)" are. But what, exactly, in the my post you quoted at the top of this page did you find that indicated I'm a "know it all" or that I'm closed-minded? Because I don't blindly accept as probable the notion of quantum consciousness? Why should I accept that any more than the 800 pound gorilla in your trunk? Both are possible. Indeed, the gorilla is more probable, since we have evidence of the existence of gorillas. I'd say that you and I are in two quite different "boats."

just because one is open to something as a possibility, dosent mean he believes it to be true,

Of course not. I don't recall ever using terminology that excluded possibility. I called it poppycock. Its humbug. Its new age mumbo jumbo. Sure its possible. Its just more probable that with your next flat tire, a gorilla will hand you the jack.

peace my dissrespectfull brother,

Pseudoscience deserves no respect. However, if you found my remarks personally offensive or disrespectful, I offer my apologies. But you surely aren't the first to use those same fallacious arguments and I probably took them to be equally offensive based on that and the ignorance that seems to go with them.

Besides, you *did* ask what peoples' opinions were on the subject.

Theories? You mean those things in science that consist of tested hypotheses? Tell me: what hypotheses did you test? I have no theories regarding quantum physics. None appear to exist regarding 'quantum consciousness.' One or two speculations exist. Many more fantasies exist. But no "theories (http://college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html)."



I have only the vaguest idea what your "philosphies and theorys (sic)" are. But what, exactly, in the my post you quoted at the top of this page did you find that indicated I'm a "know it all" or that I'm closed-minded? Because I don't blindly accept as probable the notion of quantum consciousness? Why should I accept that any more than the 800 pound gorilla in your trunk? Both are possible. Indeed, the gorilla is more probable, since we have evidence of the existence of gorillas. I'd say that you and I are in two quite different "boats."



Of course not. I don't recall ever using terminology that excluded possibility. I called it poppycock. Its humbug. Its new age mumbo jumbo. Sure its possible. Its just more probable that with your next flat tire, a gorilla will hand you the jack.



Pseudoscience deserves no respect. However, if you found my remarks personally offensive or disrespectful, I offer my apologies. But you surely aren't the first to use those same fallacious arguments and I probably took them to be equally offensive based on that and the ignorance that seems to go with them.

Besides, you *did* ask what peoples' opinions were on the subject.




well i think by calling it all poppycock and mumbo jumbo, that is dissmissing it, and mocking it, looking down and judging,


you speak as if you know quantum physics in its entirety,


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm


this is an interestiing summary of theories,


peace,

The thread topic wasn't quantum physics. It was the alleged "quantum consciousness."

I call it poppycock & mumbo jumbo because that's what it is. Show otherwise and I'll gladly revise my position. But, to date, no one has demonstrated a quantum 'consciousness' and certainly no one has demonstrated that nonsense candy was going on about that he/she later said he/she meant quantum entanglement.

You asked for opinions. "Quantum" is a word that new agers just love because it has a built-in "uncertainty." They depend upon uncertainty, particularly scam artists like Deepak Chopra who want to make money from it.

And I hardly know quantum physics "in its entirety." I don't even know it with any significant partial amount. But I know it enough to understand that this thread isn't about quantum physics. Its about pseudoscience.

ahhhh good. you err humbly admit not knowin quantum physics in its entirity. let us meditate on tos e words of Skins ........(((((((((((^))))))))))).........
ahhhhhhhhh, that feels good. so let us keep that in mind all the time. Skin doesn't understand the quantum world. what can tis mean?

i hasten to bet that you Skin ALSo dont know CONSCIOUSNESS in its entireity?....am i correct in that assumption?

There is no 'quantum consciousness' ... its pseudoscience. Prove otherwise and I'll revise my position.

There is no 'quantum consciousness' ... its pseudoscience. Prove otherwise and I'll revise my position.
see? you are jumping to conclusions regarding what i may mean.....no here did i say 'yes quantum consciousness is real' did i?
what i DID say was --reading you, highlight as a meditation , te fact that Skin said he did not know quantum physics in its entireity. yeah?

THEn i asked you, do you know CONSCIOUSNESS in its entireity? ......well? do you?
if so, can you explain what you mean by knowing consciousness in its eniteriety, please?

Duendy, I'm really not all that smart to begin with, so its safe to say that there probably isn't anything I know in its "entirety."

Duendy, I'm really not all that smart to begin with, so its safe to say that there probably isn't anything I know in its "entirety."


exactly,


so beleiving anything is truely real cant be done, the only one real thing is the dao, everything is a branch of the 1 tree, that tree might not have ever been planted, it may not exist,


peace,

So now in skinwalker's reality Deepak Chopra is a scam artist.

That would imply that in your reality Caroline Myss is also a scam artist.
I assume that in your reality Edgar Cayce was also a scam artist.
Sylvia Browne has come up with an interesting response to your attitude that is basically that they have healed a lot of people; who have you healed?

They claim that they see the auric field and that is how they can diagnose illness and suggest remedies. The remedies have worked so I take them at their word. Please note that Myss has worked with MDs who check her readings with the tests available and they have shown her readings to be accurate. So to convince me that you are correct you will have to provide evidence that proves these people to be scam artists.

Theoretical physics is just that theorectical. Quantum mechanics and quantum phenomenon are very different in that the phenomenon do not always abide by the mechanics.

So now in skinwalker's reality Deepak Chopra is a scam artist.

That would imply that in your reality Caroline Myss is also a scam artist.

Yes. She is a scam artist. Actually, "artist" would be a bit complementary. But she is a con and a sham nonetheless.

She provides no proof of her alleged "abilities" other than testimony. You say she "worked with MDs" but I say, where are the peer-reviewed publications of these MDs. Indeed, what were their names? Were is the evidence beyond her own allegation?

She has "PhD" on her jacket, but makes no mention of her academic qualifications. Where? What field? Who certified? In the end, she is unable to show any evidence of her claims. Assholes have been taking people for money in this fashion for hundreds of years. She's a scam, but not much of an artist.

I assume that in your reality Edgar Cayce was also a scam artist.

Edgar Cayce has been demonstrated to be a complete fraud time and time again. That people overlook his failures and the evidence against him and cling to the belief that he was legitimate is testimony only of the ignorance and gullibility of those that believe his nonsense.

Sylvia Browne has come up with an interesting response to your attitude that is basically that they have healed a lot of people; who have you healed?

I'd like to see the evidence that EVEN ONE PERSON HAS BEEN HEALED OF ANYTHING. None of the assholes mentioned above have ever been able to produce any. Indeed, everything I wrote about Cayce applies equally, or more so, to Browne. She has been demonstrated a fraud many, many times. But her books still sell.

Perhaps some fence-sitter will read my words and decide to examine the evidence for his/her self. If so, than I've "healed" one more person than either of those assholes.

Why do I use "asshole?" Because there simply isn't any other term that aptly describes or labels individuals such as they more effectively in one word. They intentionally and knowingly con (or conned in Cayce's case) money from the gullible. Much like the guy who created the Cardiff giant and prompted PT Barnum to exclaim, "there's a sucker born every minute."

They claim that they see the auric field and that is how they can diagnose illness and suggest remedies.

The key thing here is: "they claim." Only fools, the ignorant and the gullible take that at face value. I realize that offends many people, but it is true. The good news is, the foolish can become wise, the ignorant can be educated, and the gullible will only be taken so many times.

The remedies have worked so I take them at their word.

Of course you do.

So to convince me that you are correct you will have to provide evidence that proves these people to be scam artists.

Of course I would. Why should devout believers demand anything else? I mean, why would a devout follower of cult figures like those above dare to question their WILD CLAIMS? Why hold the notion that extraordinary claims require some sort of evidence or that the burden of proof would be on the claimant? That would all be counter-intuitive to the believer.

This is a "science forum." It follows that a "pseudoscience/parapsychology" sub-forum is one of two things: 1) a dumping ground for the kooks & woo-woo's; 2) a place for those that subscribe to the scientific process to discuss pseudo/para sciences as problems endemic in society.

I choose the latter. If I were to choose to discuss poppycock ideas and the paranormal with the perspective that they were factual, I'd find a woo-woo board to inhabit.

Theoretical physics is just that theorectical.

Theoretical is derived from the word theory. Theory, in sciences, refers to explanation(s) arrived at from tested or testable hypotheses. In the woo-woo world it refers to any half-baked idea or speculation. This is a science forum. Guess which definition is relevant?

Quantum mechanics and quantum phenomenon are very different in that the phenomenon do not always abide by the mechanics.

Really? How so? What's the math behind either? Quantum entanglement is simply the idea that one atom going into superposition will cause another to do the same. Quantum superposition is the notion that an atom has equal probability of being excited as at rest.

Now, if you don't mind, what's the definition of "quantum phenomenon?"

As it relates to pseudoscience, I say it is the casual and frequent use of the term quantum (which, essentially, means a tiny unit or amount) with esoteric social constructs.

sure man, ok well instead of me typing it all out because its complex, i will post a link.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness



basically its about a link between the concious physical and the eternal conciousness in a 5 dimentional plain of existance and each brain projects a gateway interconnecting the 2 planes, (i think thats correct im still learning about it myself so sorry if that wasnt correct)



peace,

Funny. This is basically the theory I've been coming touting on my own for some time now. Didn't know I could read about it on wikka. Sheez.

SkinWalker is an ignorant fool

Quantum Consciousness is a protoscience, not a pseudoscience, meaning not enough experiments have been conducted to verify it be true or false, but which otherwise fits into science reasonably. For instance, even the String theory is a protoscience.

I personally believe that "Quantum Consciousness" is almost true, but not quite true. Incurable diseases cannot be cured by simply having good thoughts. Incurable diseases are caused by repressed negative thoughts, it's your unconscious trying to tell you something that you're not confronting. And if you never confront it, it will remain there. And please, do not say this is unreasonable because there is much correlation between health and the mind.

SkinWalker is the type of person who has no independant mind of his own believes whatever conclusions the top, accepted scientists come to.

Myss' first book was written in collaboration with the MD she worked with. Can't remember his name. Her PhD is in theology I think. Mona Lisa Schulz is a MD/PhD who does readings via the phone and recommends that you doctor follow up with diagnostic tests to confirm her readings. The good intuitives all want people to seek traditional medical treatment as part of the healing process.
While some of Cayce's predictions have not come to be others have and his health readings were very accurrate.
Personally I am not a believer in reincarnation but I would never bash someone because they do believe.

Myss' first book was written in collaboration with the MD she worked with. Can't remember his name.

It was C Norman Shealy, a neurosurgeon who started the Holos University Graduate Seminary and has deep roots in the pocket-books and purse strings of those willing to pay for "hollistic" and "alternative" medicine. Another shuckster.

Mona Lisa Schulz is a MD/PhD who does readings via the phone and recommends that you doctor follow up with diagnostic tests to confirm her readings.

What part of "people are greedy and willing to con others" don't you believe? Why do you believe people who claim to be educated but say what you want to hear and not the many, many more who are educated and challenge those beliefs on the basis of NO EVIDENCE. Show me the evidence of their claims.

What part of the fact that the "alternative" medicine does work do you not understand?
Peer review is not what makes something work. When it works it produces positive results no matter what conventional science may think is true. You can not convince me that "alternative" remedies wil not work because I have used them sucessfully when conventional treatments were not working to control my allergies that is the best proof for me. When it works it works whether or not science can explain why. Science does not have all the answers. Accept that the unexplained (the mystical) is still here. Science is not a god; it is merely technology.

"Alternative" medicine isn't medicine, it's belief. There may be some so-called alternative practices that work, but there are very, very few that have been demonstrated to work with any empirical success. Echinacea, for instance, has long been held to be effective but actual double-blind testing reveals it is not. The problem with "alternative" practices is that they include a wide range of treatments that vary from herbs to homeopathy to nonsense like reiki.

While some herbs have some demonstrable effect, many others have none at all. There are also herbs that are far less effective than scientifically created and tested drugs. There are even herbs that have contraindications with drugs and other herbs. And so on. No one is suggesting that "science has all the answers." Science is a process, not a repository. But I will assert and maintain that nonsense like you are standing by has little to know real answers at all. It has only belief. And it is that belief that kills people every year. Dumbasses keep talking about the importance of 'alternative' remedies over the 'establishment' of medicine and create believers who DIE FROM NEGLECT.

The "unexplained (the mystical)" is still here because people are gullible and refuse to use critical thinking. And science is not technology, either, which further demonstrates your ignorance. Technology is a product of the process of science.

If there is even ONE SINGLE THREAD OF TRUTH to your claim and the claims of the assholes you mentioned above to be true, please cite the evidence that these methods are effective. If you cannot, its all just snakeoil and hot air.

Since the "snakeoil and hot air" are doing the job I could careless what science thinks.

Except you cannot prove they are "doing the job." You can only say it and/or believe it.

the fukin NERRRVE of 'medicin' and how your attitude is sychophantic towrds it...

you should look into its history...begining male-dominatedly with te Church. what do you think much of the Inquisition was about? it was te systematic rabid male persecuion of women, many of whome cured with herbs etc

you also very conveniently accues alternative medicine of 'murdering' peple when many many more die from allopathic medicine every year

millionsof aimal victims are tortued and murderd just to the big drug companies, and thus whole medical profession can push its expaning drug market. need i mention big fukin evil pharma with their 'meds'?

all patented drus. all other forms of natrual herb like cannabis prohibited,een to man peple can only find relief FROM. many seriously ill people have been thrownin jail

all of that you leave out of the BIGGER picture. Nature patented by te medical establishment, and the savagely sprtead mean propaganda and CRUSH opposition, even vitamins.....so please. leave out the hypocrisy, IF you can?

mistyped "millions of animal victimes are tortured and murdered' for the sake of 'medicine'......it is a business. it WANTS illness!....dig. it isn't an industry for health but forillness. that's how it makes its dosh and keeps its power

NO i am not demonizing all of medicine. of course it has a place. but not as some fascist establishment tat totally refutes other formsof healing..........most doctues are so specialized they dont even have time to study THE most important contributer to health. Nutrition!..they will rathr push their drugs. most of which have side effects?

Medicine works. It has been tested. Herbal nonsense rarely works. Some of it does, but even then, medicine is more effective and better understood in its relationship to other substance (contraindications).

If anything else is more effective, I invite you to prove it. Show the evidence or STFU.

Medicine works. It has been tested. Herbal nonsense rarely works. Some of it does, but even then, medicine is more effective and better understood in its relationship to other substance (contraindications).

If anything else is more effective, I invite you to prove it. Show the evidence or STFU.
oh you lot. your middle nameis 'show me ze evidence'....thats it. you sit back pontificating your materialistic values and like lord and ggentry 'demaaaand evidence'.....not one of my powerful points haveyou even superficially acknowledged......so, what kind of a debate is this?......how can one reason with a blind and dumb person?

You points aren't powerful and its ironic that you speak of reason yet refuse to acknowledge the value of empiricism. This is a science forum, duendy. If you don't like people demanding the scientific method with discussions of wild, and speculative claims, I suggest you find another board. There are probably a hundred places where you would get an immediate pat on the back for your anti-science attitude.

You points aren't powerful

me)))))WHY aren't they 'powerful'?

and its ironic that you speak of reason yet refuse to acknowledge the value of empiricism. This is a science forum, duendy.

me))))it is a forum. itis open fpr all inquiry. itis not a fundamentalist materialist science group forum/ science is much broader tan you and your comrades seem to realize. you are a dying breed. hopefully!

If you don't like people demanding the scientific method with discussions of wild, and speculative claims, I suggest you find another board. There are probably a hundred places where you would get an immediate pat on the back for your anti-science attitude.
same to you. if you cant even be arsed to KNOW about the challenges i bring to your 2D debate, then go learn!....all you do in actualiy i go 'boo hu...i am right. where ze evidence'.....thats its level!

I see now challenges of debate from you on this subject, duendy. Only wild speculation that is completely unfounded.

I see now challenges of debate from you on this subject, duendy. Only wild speculation that is completely unfounded.
....LIke..???

The only "evidence" I require is the reality that with the "scientifically" approved perscriptions I could not stop the runny nose and itchy eyes and eventually would have to use prednisone or risk brain swelling. Desenation therapy caused a systemic reaction. I do not look good in yellow especially when it is my skin and eyes. I found alternatives that work.

The biggest scam going is that the drug industry hides behind "scientific studies" when the truth is the research is all about what can be patented.