Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
3-Year-Old Remembers Being Murdered In a Past Life And Leads Adults To Proof
A young boy in the Golan Heights claimed that he knew how he died in his past life, and despite some skepticism, he was apparently able to help bring the murderer to justice.
According to the Epoch Times, a 3-year-old boy living in the Golan Heights, on the border of Syria and Israel, told others in his village that he was murdered with an axe in his past life.
The story was told by a witness to German therapist Trutz Hardo, who went on to author a book about children and reincarnation. Hardo says that Dr. Eli Lasch, who witnessed this particular situation, told him about it before he died.
The boy allegedly told others that he had been killed by a man with an axe in his past life, and because the people in his community took claims like that very seriously, they asked him what else he knew about that life. The boy reportedly took a group of people to the village where he was born, identified his killer, and even led them to the murder weapon.
The 3-year-old apparently remembered the killer’s name, and when they confronted him, the killer reportedly turned white.
To make this story even stranger, the 3-year-old allegedly led the others to a body that he says was his past one. While that may seem a little far-fetched, villagers say the skeleton had a wound in the same area that the young boy had a birthmark.
He was born with a long, red birthmark on his head. The Druse believe, as some other cultures do, that birthmarks are related to past-life deaths. When the boy was old enough to talk, he told his family he had been killed by a blow to the head with an axe.
Dr. Eli Lasch recalled this story to Hardo, who wrote about it in his book, and while some believe that it may not be true, others say it could provide some powerful proof into just how intuitive young children are.
PEOPLE WITH HIGHER IQ’S ARE MORE LIKELY TO USE ILLEGAL DRUGS… AND HERE’S WHY
Lara Starr
Researchers have found that those with high childhood IQs are more prone to illegal drug use as adults. But what does this correlation really mean?
Lara Starr
Researchers have found that those with high childhood IQs are more prone to illegal drug use as adults. But what does this correlation really mean?
Two major papers have found a positive correlation between high childhood IQ and adult drug use.
The first was published in 2011 (Intelligence across childhood in relation to illegal drug use in adulthood: 1970 British Cohort Study). The second was published in 2012(Intelligence quotient in childhood and the risk of illegal drug use in middle-age: the 1958 National Child Development Survey).
Both were co-authored by James W. White PhD and all of the data for both research papers comes from The Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS), a research council operating from the Department for Quantitative Social Science, Institute of Education, at the University of London.
Perhaps it is the concept of intelligence that needs to be reconsidered in order to answer the question; IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity.
The cohort is that group of 17,000 people. The CLS has done several such studies: in 1958, in 1970, another in 1989, and the Millennium Cohort Study of 2000-2001. All of these studies are, by definition, ongoing.
The CLS has provided data for publications on the most disparate topics: from the visual acuity of a national sample (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology) to The Role of Breakfast Cereals in the Diets of 16-17-year-old Teenagers in Britain (Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics). Thus far, only the two aforementioned papers investigate a direct link between drug use and intelligence.
The 1958 cohort consists of 3,509 males and 3,204 females. All of the participants underwent cognitive ability testing at age 11. The test consisted of 40 verbal and 40 nonverbal items, created by The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, and was tried against other testing methods for validity.
Cognitive ability scores were then “transformed into IQ equivalents to give a cohort mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.” At the age of 42, participants were asked to complete a drug questionnaire. The questionnaire inquired about the use of cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, LSD, amyl nitrate, psilocybin mushrooms, temazepam, ketamine, crack, heroin, methadone, and the fictitious drug semeron to identify false claims.
Adjustments were made for socioeconomic background, material disadvantage, and antisocial behavior, though the study claims that “associations between IQ and most drugs were materially unchanged after these adjustments.” For men and women, one standard deviation increase in IQ scores (15 points) was associated with an increased risk of using all drugs with the exception of cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and temazepam in men; ecstasy and temazepam in women.
While the strengths of this study are the size of the sample and the length of participant contact, there is limited data on the actual patterns of drug use. The 1958 cohort study lists a number of other studies which claim a correlation between IQ and generally good health practices such as lower rates of smoking, greater levels of physical activity, and increased intake of fruits and vegetables, which makes the link between IQ and drug use very curious: “These findings suggest that, in contrast to most studies on the association between childhood IQ and later health, a high childhood IQ may prompt the adoption of behaviors that are potentially harmful to health (ie, excess alcohol consumption and drug use) in adulthood” (1958 Cohort Study).
The 1970 cohort study differs slightly from the 1958 study in methodology. The 1970 study is the largest to date to examine childhood IQ and drug use, with 3,818 male participants and 4,128 female. At the age of five, researchers went to the participants’ homes and administered four tests of cognitive function: the Human Figure Drawing Test, a Copying Designs Test, the English Picture Vocabulary Test and the Profile Test. Scores were calculated and transformed into the IQ distribution (mean=100, SD=15). Intelligence was assessed a second time, at the age of ten, using a modified version of the British Ability Scales, and transformed into the commonly used IQ distribution.
At 16, participants reported on their level of psychological distress using a 12-item General Health Questionnaire, as well as their drug use, by way of simple yes or no questions. For example, “Have you ever tried taking cannabis?” The drugs on the questionnaire, street names included, were cannabis, cocaine, uppers, downers, LSD, heroin, and the fictitious semeron.
At the age of 30, participants were tested again on psychological distress and drug use. They also answered questions on educational achievement, salary, occupation, and social class. As in the 1958 cohort study, adjustments were made to account for psychological distress and socioeconomic background. It was discovered at the ages of 16 and 30 that both male and female participants who reported using illicit drugs had significantly higher childhood IQ scores.
Men who had used cannabis by age 16 had a mean IQ score of 109.65, men who had not had a mean IQ of 103.86. Men at 30 who had used multiple drugs within the previous 12 months had a mean IQ score of 104.72, men who had not had a mean IQ score of 101.69.
Women consistently showed greater correlation between IQ score and drug use. Women who had tried cannabis by age 16 had a mean IQ score of 107.74, women who had not had a mean IQ score of 101.42. Women at 30 who had used multiple drugs within the previous 12 months had a mean IQ score of 108.85, women who had not had a mean IQ score of 100.31.
The study suggests that greater intelligence is associated with novelty seeking, “A possible pathway that emerges from the literature on personality is that high IQ individuals have also been shown to score highly on tests of stimulation seeking and openness to experience.”
Though no specific studies are cited linking intelligence and stimulation, it isn’t difficult to find literature that supports these claims. Stimulation Seeking and Intelligence: A Prospective Longitudinal Study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2002, asserts that it is the first study to show a link between between stimulation seeking and intelligence, hypothesizing that stimulation seekers are looking to create an enriched environment for their cognitive development.
If it is true that higher intelligence correlates with stimulation seeking behaviors, the question that follows is why. Some evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain the motivation behind the desire to grow intelligence through stimulation and novelty, claiming that it was an evolutionary imperative to be able to solve new problems, and thus people with greater intelligence are drawn to the novel. One evolutionary psychologist has made a name for himself online making such claims.
WHY DO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE USE MORE DRUGS?
Satoshi Kanazawa is an author and evolutionary psychologist at London School of Economics. He is also the controversial character who was dismissed from Psychology Today for writing the insubstantially supported article Why are Black Women Less Physically Attractive than Other Women. He wrote Why Intelligent People Use More Drugs for the Psychology Today website, arguing The Savanna Principle, which he developed.
The principle is built upon the evolutionary psychology concept of EEA — environment of evolutionary adaptedness. EEA states that human evolution occurred mainly in the Pleistocene era, which ended about 12,000 years ago. The argument is that human brains are wired to deal with life as it would have been during the Pleistocene era.
Kanazawa’s Savanna Principle asserts that human development evolved during the Pleistocene era on the African Savanna, and that any reasonable hypothesis about human behavior must incorporate the EEA. Although the link can be made between IQ and drug use, given the cohort studies; and the link can be made between IQ, drug use, and novelty given the cohort studies coupled with the longitudinal study published in 2002; the link cannot be reliably made between novelty seeking behaviors and evolutionary progress.
However popular Kanazawa’s theory that intelligent people use drugs because drugs are recent stimuli in respect to human evolution, it is unproven and according to critics of evolutionary psychology, untestable. While the EEA argument applied to novelty and drug use cannot be dispelled, it also cannot currently be proven, and seems somewhat dismissive of the myriad of socioeconomic and cultural variables, that, try as the researchers might, cannot be eliminated from intelligence testing, and/or the world in which people take illicit drugs.
THEORIES FOR THE CORRELATION
Several other theories on why high childhood IQ can be linked to drug use in adolescent and adult life have been posited by both the authors of the cohort studies as well as those who report on their findings. Clinton B. McCracken’s emotional opinion piece, Intellectualizing Drug Abuse, details his very real experience as a high functioning professional whose life is undone by drug use.
McCracken cites the high rates of drug use amongst healthcare professionals, first noting their access to illicit materials, second their ability to intellectualize their drug use. Intellectualization differs from rationalization and denial (the latter two are often regarded as common attitudes towards substance abuse, unaffected by education or training) in that it relies upon training and knowledge. McCracken was a biomedical scientist well aware of the criteria required to deem one an addict; careful to stay away from textbook examples of abuse and criminal behavior. This is how the intellectual maintains the illusion of control or mastery.
He states:
“The transition from my drug use having no apparent negative consequences, to both my personal and professional life being damaged possibly beyond repair, was so fast as to be instantaneous, highlighting the fact that when it comes to drug use, the perception of control is really nothing more than illusion.”
While intellectualization of drug use seems reasonable, it too is just a theory. Perhaps something as simple as boredom and isolation could provide the answer. Studies have long since linked extremely high IQs and social maladjustment (Factors in the Social Adjustment and Social Acceptability of Extremely Gifted Children, Ohio Psychology Press, 1994).
Is it possible that isolation makes one susceptible to substance abuse? If you’re a rat, it does. Researchers at the University of Texas found that isolated rats show greater preference for drug rewards and higher addiction rates than the non-isolated rats. The isolated animals are more sensitive to reward and become more malleable, and more easily addicted than their non-isolated counterparts.
While it seems possible that the isolation of those with higher intelligence may create a more dependent mindset, two flaws in this argument arise when using it to explain drug use and high IQs. The loneliness and isolation apparent in gifted children generally appear in those with an IQ of 170+, which is so far outside of the mean that it hardly applies to the data of the British cohort study. Second, we aren’t rats.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
If not overconfidence, if not isolation, what drives highly intelligent people towards drug use? Perhaps it is the concept of intelligence that needs to be reconsidered in order to answer the question. IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity. Emotional intelligence was defined and popularized by Daniel Goleman in his book Emotional Intelligence — Why it can matter more than IQ (1995).
It is said to encompass impulse control, perseverance, diligence, motivation, empathy and social skills; the ability, competence, and skill set to cope with challenges and achieve success. There is a significant amount of research linking low emotional intelligence with drug abuse (Low Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor of Substance-use Problems, Journal of Drug Education, 2003).
Although there is a tendency to regard a high IQ as a precursor to success and achievement, nowhere within the IQ score is contained the assessment of the ability to make good decisions, or to use common sense. Although low emotional intelligence is linked with drug abuse, the British cohort studies contain no data regarding patterns of drug use and it would be difficult to make a definite link between high IQ, low emotional intelligence and drug use and/or abuse.
IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity. Nor does it measure cultural impact on learning, adaptation, or identity. Critics of IQ testing note the lack of cultural variability within the tests. While the tests are meant to serve as a tool for assessing intelligence across all cultures, the disparity in scores between ethnic groups cannot be explained without adding the element of culture.
We are complex organisms, we live in an interdependent world. To isolate intelligence from other factors is to alter reality. We learn holistically. Our intelligence is elastic and works when there is an environment for it to work within. While the data may be statistically significant, and those who score higher on standard ability tests are more likely to use drugs, perhaps we should consider the culture that these novelty seekers exist within. There has been some discussion on culture and drug use, though usually with such a macro lens on society, government policy, and social trends, that more subtle factors are missed.
“Most culturally distinct groups have used and abused alcohol and other drugs throughout the ages, and they have established codes of behavior in their approach to drugs and alcohol” (Culture and Substance Abuse: Impact of Culture Affects Approach to Treatment, Psychiatric Times, 2008).
A culturally distinct group can be a nation, or a culturally distinct group can be motorcycle gang, a rowing team, a gaggle of freaks. Each group has their own codes of behavior and the way to show loyalty to a group is to adhere to that behavior. It is intelligent to adapt.
Drug culture of the 1960s would certainly have affected the participants of the 1958 cohort, just as rave culture in the 90s would have an impact on the attitudes of participants of the 1970 cohort. Surely social movements, their celebrities, and use of drugs in popular culture influence the intellectual drug user.
So, whether novelty, intellectualization, isolation, or aestheticization, something drives intelligent people to seek thrills, escape, or identity in illicit substances on a statistically significant basis.
A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“ has stirred up the internet, because it contained a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.
BEYOND TIME AND SPACE
Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before, he had been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.
But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.
Lanza points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, implying intelligence existed prior to matter. He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.” meaning that when the shell comes off (space and time), we still exist.
The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle.
In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.
Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe. This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely. It’s almost like a cosmic Russian doll afterlife effect.
MULTIPLE WORLDS
This hope-instilling, but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters, not just mere mortals who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are the physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes.
Multiverse (multi-universe) is a so-called scientific concept, which they defend. They believe that no physical laws exist which would prohibit the existence of parallel worlds.
The first one was a science fiction writer H.G. Wells who proclaimed in 1895 in his story “The Door in the Wall”.
And after 62 years, this idea was developed by Dr. Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically posits that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar fashion. In some of these worlds you may be present: reading this article in one universe, or watching TV in another.
The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.
In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev’s Institute of physics, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained: Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.
The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists have created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic relic background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe. They also found that the universe has a lot of dark recesses represented by some holes and extensive gaps.
Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the North Carolina University with her colleagues argue: the anomalies of the microwave background exist due to the fact that our universe is influenced by other universes existing nearby. And holes and gaps are a direct result of attacks on us by neighboring universes.
SOUL
So, there is abundance of places or other universes where our soul could migrate after death, according to the theory of neo-biocentrism. But does the soul exist? Is there any scientific theory of consciousness that could accommodate such a claim?
According to Dr. Stuart Hameroff, a near-death experience happens when the quantum information that inhabits the nervous system leaves the body and dissipates into the universe. Contrary to materialistic accounts of consciousness, Dr. Hameroff offers an alternative explanation of consciousness that can perhaps appeal to both the rational scientific mind and personal intuitions.
Consciousness resides, according to Stuart and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary sites of quantum processing. Upon death, this information is released from your body, meaning that your consciousness goes with it. They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
Consciousness, or at least proto-consciousness is theorized by them to be a fundamental property of the universe, present even at the first moment of the universe during the Big Bang. “In one such scheme proto-conscious experience is a basic property of physical reality accessible to a quantum process associated with brain activity.”
Our souls are in fact constructed from the very fabric of the universe — and may have existed since the beginning of time. Our brains are just receivers and amplifiers for the proto-consciousness that is intrinsic to the fabric of space-time. So is there really a part of your consciousness that is non-material and will live on after the death of your physical body?
Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormholedocumentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large.” Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe.
If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”
He adds: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”
This account of quantum consciousness explains things like near-death experiences, astral projection, out of body experiences, and even reincarnation without needing to appeal to religious ideology.
The energy of your consciousness potentially gets recycled back into a different body at some point, and in the mean time it exists outside of the physical body on some other level of reality, and possibly in another universe.
Robert Lanza on Biocentrism:
[video=youtube;zI_F4nOKDSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zI_F4nOKDSM[/video]
Sources:
http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2225190/Can-quantum-physics-explain-bizarre-experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html#axzz2JyudSqhB
http://www.news.com.au/news/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fnenjnc3-1226507686757
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
http://www.hameroff.com/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html
BEYOND TIME AND SPACE
Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before, he had been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.
But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.
Lanza points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, implying intelligence existed prior to matter. He also claims that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding. Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us “like turtles with shells.” meaning that when the shell comes off (space and time), we still exist.
The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle.
In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.
Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe. This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely. It’s almost like a cosmic Russian doll afterlife effect.
MULTIPLE WORLDS
This hope-instilling, but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters, not just mere mortals who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are the physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes.
Multiverse (multi-universe) is a so-called scientific concept, which they defend. They believe that no physical laws exist which would prohibit the existence of parallel worlds.
The first one was a science fiction writer H.G. Wells who proclaimed in 1895 in his story “The Door in the Wall”.
And after 62 years, this idea was developed by Dr. Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically posits that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar fashion. In some of these worlds you may be present: reading this article in one universe, or watching TV in another.
The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.
In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev’s Institute of physics, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University. Linde explained: Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.
The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists have created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic relic background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe. They also found that the universe has a lot of dark recesses represented by some holes and extensive gaps.
Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from the North Carolina University with her colleagues argue: the anomalies of the microwave background exist due to the fact that our universe is influenced by other universes existing nearby. And holes and gaps are a direct result of attacks on us by neighboring universes.
SOUL
So, there is abundance of places or other universes where our soul could migrate after death, according to the theory of neo-biocentrism. But does the soul exist? Is there any scientific theory of consciousness that could accommodate such a claim?
According to Dr. Stuart Hameroff, a near-death experience happens when the quantum information that inhabits the nervous system leaves the body and dissipates into the universe. Contrary to materialistic accounts of consciousness, Dr. Hameroff offers an alternative explanation of consciousness that can perhaps appeal to both the rational scientific mind and personal intuitions.
Consciousness resides, according to Stuart and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary sites of quantum processing. Upon death, this information is released from your body, meaning that your consciousness goes with it. They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
Consciousness, or at least proto-consciousness is theorized by them to be a fundamental property of the universe, present even at the first moment of the universe during the Big Bang. “In one such scheme proto-conscious experience is a basic property of physical reality accessible to a quantum process associated with brain activity.”
Our souls are in fact constructed from the very fabric of the universe — and may have existed since the beginning of time. Our brains are just receivers and amplifiers for the proto-consciousness that is intrinsic to the fabric of space-time. So is there really a part of your consciousness that is non-material and will live on after the death of your physical body?
Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormholedocumentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large.” Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe.
If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”
He adds: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”
This account of quantum consciousness explains things like near-death experiences, astral projection, out of body experiences, and even reincarnation without needing to appeal to religious ideology.
The energy of your consciousness potentially gets recycled back into a different body at some point, and in the mean time it exists outside of the physical body on some other level of reality, and possibly in another universe.
Robert Lanza on Biocentrism:
[video=youtube;zI_F4nOKDSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zI_F4nOKDSM[/video]
Sources:
http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2225190/Can-quantum-physics-explain-bizarre-experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html#axzz2JyudSqhB
http://www.news.com.au/news/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fnenjnc3-1226507686757
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
http://www.hameroff.com/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html
What Doctors Don't Know About the Drugs They Prescribe (TED Talk)
(Video wouldn’t embed…here is the link)
[video]http://on.ted.com/Goldacre2012[/video]
Doctors need the results of clinical trials to make informed choices, with their patients, about which treatment to use. But the best currently available evidence estimates that half of all clinical trials, for the treatments we use today, have never been published. This problem is the same for industry-sponsored trials and independent academic studies, across all fields of medicine from surgery to oncology, and it represents an enormous hidden hole for everything we do. Doctors can't make informed decisions, when half the evidence is missing.
Most people react to this situation with incredulity, because it's so obviously absurd. How can medics, academics, and legislators have permitted such a huge problem to persist? The answer is simple. This territory has been policed -- and aggressively -- by the pharmaceutical industry. They have worked hard to shut down public discussion on the topic, for several decades, with great success.
They say, for example, that the problem is modest, and that critics have cherrypicked the evidence: but this is a lie. The best evidence comes from the most current review of all the literature, published in 2010. It estimates that half of all completed trials are left unpublished, and that trials with negative results are about twice as likely to be buried.
Then they pretend that the problem is in the past, and that everything has been fixed. But in reality, none of these supposed fixes were subjected to any kind of routine public audit, and all have now been well-documented as failures. What's more, they all shared one simple loophole: they only demanded information about new trials, and this is hopeless. Anything that only gets us the results of studies completing after 2008 does nothing to fix medicine today, because more than 80% of all treatments prescribed this year came to the market more than ten years ago.
We need the results of clinical trials from 2007, 2003, 1999, and 1993, to make informed decisions about the medicines we use today. This isn't about catching companies out for past misdemeanors, it's a simple practical matter of making medicine optimally safe and effective.
The arguments go on, with ever more red herrings: industry spokespeople pretend that information about trials -- such as Clinical Study Reports -- can't be released without breaching the confidentiality of individual patient participants. But in reality, the EU Ombudsman has already forced the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to release hundreds of these exact same documents. He stated clearly that the administrative burden of removing any individual patient information is minimal.
Next, they claim the cost of sharing trial information is prohibitive: but both the EMA and GSK have committed to releasing all the Clinical Study Reports that they have, and the EMA has already shared millions of pages of documents, quite happily. Sometimes industry people even claim -- in hugely patronizing tones -- that it's better for only regulators to see trial results, behind closed doors, because the public would panic if exposed to dissenting views.
There's more. Sometimes they pretend that the academic journals are the bad guys, for rejecting papers with negative results, when the evidence shows this was barely ever an issue, and, in any case, there are now endless open access journals, specifically designed to accept negative results. Then there are the hole-pickers: people who pay lip service to the problem, with a brief claim that they are "on your side," then expend all their worldly effort trying to pour cold water on the problem, pretending that things aren't so bad after all.
Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan, once laughingly told me that every page of my book Bad Pharma was infused with paranoia: that he could tell I'd been made furious by having the same argument about missing data, over and again, with chancers; that I had resorted to obsessively covering every exit in the argument with snipers, to hem the enemy in, across hundreds of pages.
I admit I am obsessed, and I hope you'll share those details: if not by reading the book, then at least by inhaling the eight page briefing we have produced for our campaign, at alltrials.net.
Because this is where I have to confront my inner grouch, and cave in to the optimism of TED. I have to tell you about the successful campaign for trials transparency that has grown since this talk first went up.
In the UK, last October, almost as soon as Bad Pharma was published, there were questions on withheld trial results in parliament, including a Prime Minister's Question (which David Cameron simply dodged). This led to widespread editorials, comment pieces, and news coverage in the London Times and elsewhere.
A group of us, myself and some properly eminent UK medics, had a meeting with the Health Minister. The UK parliament's Health Select Committee called on the GMC, NICE, and the pharmaceutical industry to address the problem of missing trials; the Public Accounts Committee are looking at the withheld data on Tamiflu; and the Science and Technology Committee have now commenced a formal parliamentary inquiry into the problem of withheld results more widely.
In January, the science writer Simon Singh grew frustrated at my whining that things weren't moving fast enough, and gave a generous donation to the campaigning charity Sense About Science. This kickstarted some more traditional lobbying.
We teamed up with the great and good -- journal editors, academics, and a knight -- to form the alltrials.net campaign.
AllTrials asks people to sign up to two simple things: firstly, recognize that this is an ongoing problem; and secondly, call for the release of basic information (including brief summary results, and the long "Clinical Study Report" where available) for all trials, on all treatments currently in use, whether past or future.
This has grown almost faster than we can. Over 40,000 individuals have signed up, and over 200 organizations. More than a hundred patient groups have committed their support, recognizing that it's their members who participate in trials, and take medicines based on their results. We are now supported by almost all medical and academic professional bodies in the UK -- the Royal Colleges, the Societies and Faculties -- not to mention the National Physicians Alliance from the U.S., and the European Public Health Association.
The outsider position in the UK is now not supporting the AllTrials campaign.
In February, GlaxoSmithKline, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, signed up, and committed to publicly release all their Clinical Study Reports, going back to the beginning of the company. More companies are discussing signing, and if these promises are delivered, they could finally add an interesting new element to the game: for the first time ever, I believe there will be commercial incentives to transparency.
Imagine that there are two treatments, both with apparently equal benefits. One is made by a company that shares all its results, but the other is made by a company that publicly mocks and derides the very notion that doctors and patients should dare to ask for such a thing. Which treatment do you want?
I think the answer is clear, but we need more than this. We need public engagement on the issue, and wider recognition among policy makers, to get on with concrete solutions. That's why I hope you'll sign up to alltrials.net, and if you're a member of a professional body anywhere in the world, then please get them to sign too. If you're from a company, then we are very happy totalk informally -- and confidentially -- about any anxieties you may have, but please, save your reputations, and sign.
The current state of affairs is absurd. We can spend tens of millions of dollars on just one trial, hoping to ensure it is free from bias, and trying to accurately detect tiny differences between one treatment and another. And yet we let all those biases right back in, by allowing people to bury half the data. Future generations will look back at our tolerating this bizarre situation in astonishment, the same way that we look back on medieval bloodletting. The time is now, to fix it forever, easily.
Just because I miss my Dad…
(he was a good-looking guy)
(he was a good-looking guy)
I have to wonder how those solar panels will be made. Not all solar panels are created equal as they require doped silicon, and there are myriad ways to dope silicon. Some of them are cheap but inefficient. Others are expensive but efficient. And others are toxic (cadmium)
I have a feeling we will never see this come to fruition…I hope we do, I mean, that would be wonderful! If the tech were there…(it’s there, but I mean economical, not toxic as you pointed out, and practical) and we actually were able to convince our governments on all levels to implement it. Then we would have to fight the push-back from the oil companies, the power companies….etc.
Overall though…it is a great idea…light up lines and symbols on the road…slightly heated as to melt ice…if there were an accident ahead it could even give a warning and detour you.
Yes. Additionally, electric companies are not going to stand for powering the road at night for free. Who is going to pay? The road?
It would obviously have to be taxed or something. This is an issue with solar powered homes already that upload power to the grid during the day. The owners of these homes get credit from the electric company for this power that ends up going back over the electric companies lines, so they're paying somebody else to use their equipment. This certainly doesn't go over well.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
I had thought this thread was dead after the invasion of the zealots. Good to see it's still going.
It worked. I took on a sexier form.
So true. You need to take all that anger and hatred out on other people. Glad Buddha agrees.
There's truth to this and I agree open minded skeptics and open minded...new agers (?) have no need to be antagonists. However, the fact is that science has been the focus of numerous attacks by pseudosciences and religions. There are many groups which seek obfuscation of truth. If science is willing to pursue knowledge on their terms, these groups will have a better chance of dismissing the results and keeping people in the dark.
That said there are many scientists who take such a narrow minded view of other forms of investigation. People like Richard Dawkins who are closed off to all, but what is purely proven and observable. I was especially disappointed with Neil deGrasse's recent dismissal of philosophy. He's well known by both the scientific community and the public in general and his beliefs influence others.
It worked. I took on a sexier form.
So true. You need to take all that anger and hatred out on other people. Glad Buddha agrees.
There's truth to this and I agree open minded skeptics and open minded...new agers (?) have no need to be antagonists. However, the fact is that science has been the focus of numerous attacks by pseudosciences and religions. There are many groups which seek obfuscation of truth. If science is willing to pursue knowledge on their terms, these groups will have a better chance of dismissing the results and keeping people in the dark.
That said there are many scientists who take such a narrow minded view of other forms of investigation. People like Richard Dawkins who are closed off to all, but what is purely proven and observable. I was especially disappointed with Neil deGrasse's recent dismissal of philosophy. He's well known by both the scientific community and the public in general and his beliefs influence others.
Heh, interesting. Because of this thread I just learned that the Danish word "makaber" derives from the French word "macabre". Today the word means something sinister and repulsive. It's often connected to death and disease.
Well actually...the road would supply it's own power for the lighting at night...especially if they were LED and didn't take too much juice.
As for the rest of the electricity they create and the power companies...that would be a huge battle...I think they would fight it tooth and nail.
I had thought this thread was dead after the invasion of the zealots. Good to see it's still going.
It worked. I took on a sexier form.
So true. You need to take all that anger and hatred out on other people. Glad Buddha agrees.
There's truth to this and I agree open minded skeptics and open minded...new agers (?) have no need to be antagonists. However, the fact is that science has been the focus of numerous attacks by pseudosciences and religions. There are many groups which seek obfuscation of truth. If science is willing to pursue knowledge on their terms, these groups will have a better chance of dismissing the results and keeping people in the dark.
That said there are many scientists who take such a narrow minded view of other forms of investigation. People like Richard Dawkins who are closed off to all, but what is purely proven and observable. I was especially disappointed with Neil deGrasse's recent dismissal of philosophy. He's well known by both the scientific community and the public in general and his beliefs influence others.
The zealots can't stop me....lol.
There are several very interesting speaches...(I will dig them up for you...I have posted them in this thread somewhere) about the taboo of Psi and paranormal...the evidence is solidly there, but mainstream science readily dismisses it for various reasons.