Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong
-
@AoD said
"The intermingling of polarities in creating geometric structures ( which these chemicals are too ) demonstrates the beauty and simplicity of the Tao, the dance between the two."
Yes. It's in the fabric of the universe for sure, even scientifically.
"At the core everything has the potential to be either or. As you build out from the core, preferences are asserted and layers built upon based from that. As an example, sometimes I want to be the dominate one, and other times I want to be dominated. Do you have a preference for me (rhetorical)?"
I totally agree. And the True Will is this growth and evolution.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Frater 639 said
"I totally agree. And the True Will is this growth and evolution."you mean evolution as in man becoming superman and will to power? Please guys, don't start discussing the pineal gland and the coming race
"If you understood (comprehended, got, grokked) the content that statement was made in, you'd recognize that it was personal evolution that was being discussed.
-
I am happy to be a pine nut. Pine nuts are good to eat. Eat me.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I am happy to be a pine nut. Pine nuts are good to eat. Eat me."
I love pine nuts. Hey Jim, check the three active neurotransmitters pic and how the colors correspond to the Queen Scale. Isn't THAT interesting?Btw - wish I could make it to Oakland. Good luck!
-
Slight side track from the brain chemistry discussion, but stemming from the sacred geometry thread and definitely furthering "everything you think you know is wrong":
www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physic
-
Quotes that resonate with me re: the current discussion:
"The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality [the notion that particles can interact only from adjoining positions in space and time] and unitarity [the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical interaction must add up to one].
“Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things... Both are suspect.”"
"In keeping with this idea, the new geometric approach to particle interactions removes locality and unitarity from its starting assumptions. The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry. The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct."
"Using a few mathematical tricks, they managed to simplify the 2-gluon to 4-gluon amplitude calculation from several billion terms to a 9-page-long formula, which a 1980s supercomputer could handle. Then, based on a pattern they observed in the scattering amplitudes of other gluon interactions, Parke and Taylor guessed a simple one-term expression for the amplitude. It was, the computer verified, equivalent to the 9-page formula. In other words, the traditional machinery of quantum field theory, involving hundreds of Feynman diagrams worth thousands of mathematical terms, was obfuscating something much simpler. As Bourjaily put it: “Why are you summing up millions of things when the answer is just one function?”"
"But their simplicity was mysterious.
“The terms in these BCFW relations were coming from a different world, and we wanted to understand what that world was,”"
"“They are very powerful calculational techniques, but they are also incredibly suggestive,” Skinner said. “They suggest that thinking in terms of space-time was not the right way of going about this.”"
"Beyond making calculations easier or possibly leading the way to quantum gravity, the discovery of the amplituhedron could cause an even more profound shift, Arkani-Hamed said. That is, giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry.
“In a sense, we would see that change arises from the structure of the object,” he said. “But it’s not from the object changing. The object is basically timeless.”"
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Slight side track from the brain chemistry discussion, but stemming from the sacred geometry thread and definitely furthering "everything you think you know is wrong":
www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physic"
Very interesting! I'd love to hear more about this and how it relates to magick for you. Also, those quotes are fascinating...
Thanks for sharing this stuff.
-
Well, the simple broad-stroke answer is that I came into this whole thing a polar opposite of the path Los recently claimed on our sister thread: I began my journey as an unflinching naturalist (somewhere around age 8, this was) and it took a lot of work for me to acknowledge that the rules of common sense and the known laws of nature were not necessarily the best tools to use for measuring reality. Heisenberg (Werner, not Walter), Leary, Wilson, and Bell (among others) were the gurus on that path who most effectively knocked me out of my surety.
To take just the example that most closely relates to this article, Bell's Theorem and its implication that information can travel faster than the speed of light, effectively meaning that two non-adjacent particles/points-of-energy can exchange information over vast distances instantaneously just by virtue of having once been in contact blew out certain circuits in my brain that still haven't been fixed. When a mind as inquisitive as mine comes across mathematical proof of clairvoyance (at least between particles/points-of-energy) the potential ramifications for consciousness tend to run away with my imagination and go frolicking in the sunshine somewhere.
Not to say I believe any of them... but I no longer disbelieve them out of hand. And the possibilities abound.
So, when theories like this pop up, with mathematical proofs and elegant multi-dimensional geometries to boot... my amygdala gets all tickled and I start constructing new and interesting possibilities of how consciousness exists as a somehow real but non-physical factor in a universe that is eternally existent which may or may not be a hologram on the membrane between two other multi-dimensions...
How can one not have magickal thoughts?
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Not to say I believe any of [the potential ramifications for consciousness]..."
Well, depending on what "ramifications" you have in mind, I'm pretty sure that we share in common the fact that we don't believe them (that is, don't yet accept them as true).
"but I no longer disbelieve [these ramifications] out of hand."
Neither do I. I'm willing to be convinced -- there's just not compelling evidence yet, so I don't believe.
"How can one not have magical thoughts?"
Thoughts aren't the issue. Sound thinking, based on evidence, and beliefs...those are the issues. To give you one example of a place where I think you're making a mistake, you say that your thoughts about the "ramifications for consciousness" arise from "mathematical proof of clairvoyance (at least between particles/points-of-energy)."
But that's an extremely disingenuous way to describe the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. There's absolutely no reason to think that "information" is being transferred (in the sense that "information" consists of data encoded and deciphered). What appears to be happening is some kind of causal connection that works in a different way on the quantum level than it works on the level in which our day-to-day interactions happen. That's curious, but that's not "information," it's certainly not communication, and it's definitely not anything even remotely like what some people describe as "clairvoyance."
It certainly doesn't suggest that anyone is any more likely to be able to communicate information through extrasensory means. And while it's fine for you to speculate all you like about the "ramifications" for consciousness -- and while you definitely can experiment all you like with testing out these supposed superpowers -- there's nothing about this quantum mechanics stuff that make these super powers any more likely to be real.
You say you don't believe in these "ramifications" (which I would assume includes clairvoyant abilities), and you're correct not to believe in them on the basis of that evidence. But it's incorrect to conclude that the evidence makes them any more likely to be real.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Well, the simple broad-stroke answer is that I came into this whole thing a polar opposite of the path Los recently claimed on our sister thread: I began my journey as an unflinching naturalist (somewhere around age 8, this was) and it took a lot of work for me to acknowledge that the rules of common sense and the known laws of nature were not necessarily the best tools to use for measuring reality. Heisenberg (Werner, not Walter), Leary, Wilson, and Bell (among others) were the gurus on that path who most effectively knocked me out of my surety."
Me too. Explaining QP is about as magical as it gets right now.
We're on the brink of new models...that's all there is to it. But we have the old guard trying desperately to squelch the information by burying it with sensationalism and keeping everyone away from proper education.
"To take just the example that most closely relates to this article, Bell's Theorem and it's implication that information can travel faster than the speed of light, effectively meaning that two non-adjacent particles/points-of-energy can exchange information over vast distances instantaneously just by virtue of having once been in contact blew out certain circuits in my brain that still haven't been fixed. When a mind as inquisitive as mine comes across mathematical proof of clairvoyance (at least between particles/points-of-energy) the potential ramifications for consciousness tend to run away with my imagination and go frolicking in the sunshine somewhere."
Yes. I have a few models that I'd like to discuss, if you're game. But, let's just throw some stuff out there for fun -- how would you propose one brain could communicate with another without contact or a physical communication device?
"So, when theories like this pop up, with mathematical proofs and elegant multi-dimensional geometries to boot... my amygdala gets all tickled and I start constructing new and interesting possibilities of how consciousness exists as a somehow real but non-physical factor in a universe that is eternally existent which may or may not be a hologram on the membrane between two other multi-dimensions...
How can one not have magical thoughts?"
There are all sorts of possibilities. All we can do is experiment. Mundane science isn't even close to catching up to what is commonly known in initiatic circles via experiment and data collection.
Here's some good ones.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9051169/?i=2&from=/1353653/related
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1353653/?i=1&from=/1353653/related
Two-way communication is now done through electromagnetic fields via cell phones. Does the human body have electromagnetic fields?
Oh, and let's leave the Bill O'Reilly of Thelema out of this discussion, shall we?
-
"-- how would you propose one brain could communicate with another without contact or a physical communication device?"
The same way my iPad finds some magic remote signal being broadcast around me that I can't receive, but it can.
signal broadcast.
Receptors have to be activated, created, turn on ect.Also getting rid of the thought "without contact". Because we know everything is connected so those words just trip one up.
-
@Angel of Death said
"Also getting rid of the thought "without contact". Because we know everything is connected so those words just trip one up."
Yep. Exactly. I meant without [physical] contact...
You bring up an awesome point. Anybody that has these "projection/reception devices" activated knows how great it can be when there IS physical contact.
-
@Los said
"
Thoughts aren't the issue. Sound thinking, based on evidence, and beliefs...those are the issues. To give you one example of a place where I think you're making a mistake, you say that your thoughts about the "ramifications for consciousness" arise from "mathematical proof of clairvoyance (at least between particles/points-of-energy)."But that's an extremely disingenuous way to describe the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. There's absolutely no reason to think that "information" is being transferred (in the sense that "information" consists of data encoded and deciphered). What appears to be happening is some kind of causal connection that works in a different way on the quantum level than it works on the level in which our day-to-day interactions happen. That's curious, but that's not "information," it's certainly not communication, and it's definitely not anything even remotely like what some people describe as "clairvoyance."
It certainly doesn't suggest that anyone is any more likely to be able to communicate information through extrasensory means. And while it's fine for you to speculate all you like about the "ramifications" for consciousness -- and while you definitely can experiment all you like with testing out these supposed superpowers -- there's nothing about this quantum mechanics stuff that make these super powers any more likely to be real.
You say you don't believe in these "ramifications" (which I would assume includes clairvoyant abilities), and you're correct not to believe in them on the basis of that evidence. But it's incorrect to conclude that the evidence makes them any more likely to be real."
Los, everything you say above is true. Fully and completely...
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time coming to terms with one of the bedrock concepts of Thelema (and modern physics) but that is the truth. From your perspective. Until you get that through your skull, you are going to be trapped in your rut of "because".
"there's nothing about this quantum mechanics stuff that make these super powers any more likely to be real."
Case in point: these "super powers" either are real or they aren't. You have decided that they aren't. I allow that they may be and, from that perspective, "this quantum mechanics stuff" allows for suggestive possibilities for how they might work.
And, from my perspective, that is useful. I am a writer, a creator. I use these suggestive potentials in order to create visions of how the world could be. How it might be. That's what artists do. And then critics like you come along and tell us that we're wrong. That our visions don't align with reality.
Now, I want you to take a serious look at the history of mankind and tell me which of those two perspectives has a better track record on predicting the future discoveries of science. Is it the dreamers/visionaries/creators/writers/innovators? Or is it the critics/limiters/realists/average user? Are you in camp Galileo or camp Vatican? Apples have always fallen off of trees, but it wasn't until Newton stepped out of the consensus reality magical-thinking of "that's just the way god made it" that an invisible/undetectable force could be theorized and experiments could be designed to start detecting it.
The title of this thread was specifically chosen. Everything you think you know is wrong. The only question is how long it will take for any one reality map to be replaced by a better model.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Los, everything you say above is true. Fully and completely...
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time coming to terms with one of the bedrock concepts of Thelema"
And is that objectively a bedrock concept of Thelema? Or is it just a bedrock concept of Thelema from your perspective?
"these "super powers" either are real or they aren't. You have decided that they aren't. I allow that they may be and, from that perspective, "this quantum mechanics stuff" allows for suggestive possibilities for how they might work."
No, they don't allow for "suggestive possibilities." I've already granted that these powers could theoretically be possible, but I've correctly explained how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement does not "suggest" -- even a little bit -- that these super powers are any more likely to be real.
You can have a go at responding to my explanation and making a case for how this phenomenon actually does make it more likely that these super powers exist, but just baldly suggesting that this phenomenon does make it more likely that these powers are real isn't going to get you anywhere.
"And, from my perspective, that is useful. I am a writer, a creator. I use these suggestive potentials in order to create visions of how the world could be. How it might be. That's what artists do. And then critics like you come along and tell us that we're wrong. That our visions don't align with reality."
Being a good writer isn't contingent on believing in magic. You can write just as well without being gullible enough to buy into this stuff.
"Now, I want you to take a serious look at the history of mankind and tell me which of those two perspectives has a better track record on predicting the future discoveries of science."
I'm not denying that thinking creatively is useful for science. I'm objecting to actually accepting that these things are real or more likely to be real without sufficient evidence.
-
@Los said
"And is that objectively a bedrock concept of Thelema? Or is it just a bedrock concept of Thelema from your perspective?"
We've already litigated this on another thread.
@Los said
"No, they don't allow for "suggestive possibilities." I've already granted that these powers could theoretically be possible, but I've correctly explained how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement does not "suggest" -- even a little bit -- that these super powers are any more likely to be real."
Why don't you give Brian Clegg's "The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon" a read and then get back to me on that one.
@Los said
" just baldly suggesting that this phenomenon does make it more likely that these powers are real isn't going to get you anywhere. "
Just baldly suggesting that anything doesn't make it more likely that these powers are real isn't going to get you anywhere either.
@Los said
"Being a good writer isn't contingent on believing in magic. You can write just as well without being gullible enough to buy into this stuff."
You seem to be the only one in this thread hooked on "belief". We've been discussing the current bleeding edge of science and the possibilities that it suggests. Being a good writer is contingent on manipulating the possible, not on regurgitating accepted "belief".
@Los said
"I'm not denying that thinking creatively is useful for science. I'm objecting to actually accepting that these things are real or more likely to be real without sufficient evidence."
Again, you seem to be having that argument with yourself. This is a thread that is attempting to share and discuss the data of current scientific inquiry with specific focus on the bits that don't fit in with current consensus reality. I'm sorry that modern physics doesn't mesh with your Newtonian perspective but that has nothing to do with "belief" or "gullibility"... at least not on the part of modern physics.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Los said
" just baldly suggesting that this phenomenon [of quantum entanglement] does make it more likely that these powers are real isn't going to get you anywhere. "Just baldly suggesting that anything doesn't make it more likely that these powers are real isn't going to get you anywhere either."
I didn't baldly suggest it: I gave a solid explanation above that indicates exactly why quantum entanglement doesn't make clairvoyance any more likely to be real. Namely, quantum entanglement isn't the transfer of information or communication (in the sense that it isn't data being encoded and deciphered). It's causality working in a weird way on the quantum level, something we don't entirely understand. It's nothing like clairvoyance in any way, and it's a mistake to use it as "evidence" that clairvoyance is any more likely to be real.
That's not a "bald assertion." That's a well-supported explanation. You can have a go at trying to explain why you think quantum entanglement does make clairvoyance more likely to be real, but just saying no, no, no, no, no isn't going to be very convincing.
"
@Los said
"Being a good writer isn't contingent on believing in magic. You can write just as well without being gullible enough to buy into this stuff."You seem to be the only one in this thread hooked on "belief". We've been discussing the current bleeding edge of science and the possibilities that it suggests. Being a good writer is contingent on manipulating the possible, not on regurgitating accepted "belief"."
Ai yai yai. I use "belief" to mean "accept as likely true." You were implying that being a good writer is somehow connected to thinking that these superpowers are likely real. It's not. Being a good writer has to do with having talent, having an imagination, and having a grasp of the mechanics of writing. It has nothing to do with accepting claims about clairvoyance.
-
@Los said
"I didn't baldly suggest it: I gave a solid explanation above that indicates exactly why quantum entanglement doesn't make clairvoyance any more likely to be real. Namely, quantum entanglement isn't the transfer of information or communication (in the sense that it isn't data being encoded and deciphered). It's causality working in a weird way on the quantum level, something we don't entirely understand. It's nothing like clairvoyance in any way, and it's a mistake to use it as "evidence" that clairvoyance is any more likely to be real."
Um... If that's how you define "solid explanation", then I see where our discussion is going off the rails. That is your assertion of your (incorrect) understanding of quantum entanglement. There is no "explanation" in this or your prior post, just assertion. And, for someone who doesn't believe in clairvoyance, you seem to hold your own understanding of how it works in pretty high esteem. Did you ever consider that, perhaps, the traditional/folk/pick-your-derogative explanation of these phenomena on which you're basing your dis-belief might be the problem and that a finer understanding of the underlying science might illuminate a different, legitimate means to the end?
@Los said
"That's not a "bald assertion." That's a well-supported explanation. You can have a go at trying to explain why you think quantum entanglement does make clairvoyance more likely to be real, but just saying no, no, no, no, no isn't going to be very convincing."
Once again: Brian Clegg's "The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon". An actual experimental physicist writing about actual research into the actual effects of quantum entanglement. In other words: an actual well-supported explanation.
@Los said
"Ai yai yai. I use "belief" to mean "accept as likely true." You were implying that being a good writer is somehow connected to thinking that these superpowers are likely real. It's not. Being a good writer has to do with having talent, having an imagination, and having a grasp of the mechanics of writing. It has nothing to do with accepting claims about clairvoyance."
Where did I "imply" this? It seems as if you are once again inferring meaning in order to find goblins posessing everyone around you.
-
Alright... back on topic.
Did a bit of (armchair) research into norepinephrine which led to some thoughts:
- Norepinephrine is most responsible for vigilant concentration thus, to map it to Great Work type paradigms, would be the chemical we are trying to naturally increase through practices of Raja Yoga.
- If we look at the experimental/theoretical exploration of norepinephrine, signal detection theory gives us a theoretical framework on which to gauge bias in practices of vigilance.
- There seems (to me, at least) to be a pretty simple parallel to draw between the pre-scientific practice of dharana on an object and the experimental controls put in place to reduce bias. As long as the yogi is methodical in hir practice, not attaching "meaning" to anything but simply engaging in the work.
- Selective and controlled use of amphetamines or other NRIs could assist in this process if and only if they are taken at a dose that improves attention/concentration without also increasing physical energy, if this is at all possible.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Alright... back on topic.
Did a bit of (armchair) research into norepinephrine which led to some thoughts:
- Norepinephrine is most responsible for vigilant concentration thus, to map it to Great Work type paradigms, would be the chemical we are trying to naturally increase through practices of Raja Yoga.
- If we look at the experimental/theoretical exploration of norepinephrine, signal detection theory gives us a theoretical framework on which to gauge bias in practices of vigilance.
- There seems (to me, at least) to be a pretty simple parallel to draw between the pre-scientific practice of dharana on an object and the experimental controls put in place to reduce bias. As long as the yogi is methodical in hir practice, not attaching "meaning" to anything but simply engaging in the work.
- Selective and controlled use of amphetamines or other NRIs could assist in this process if and only if they are taken at a dose that improves attention/concentration without also increasing physical energy, if this is at all possible."
Some of this is empirically testable; for example it's easy enough to measure neurotransmitter activity in someone adept in Raja Yoga.
As far as I know amphetamines are not conducive to any kind of meditative calm. Quite the opposite: on amphetamines one often has "racing thoughts", not single-pointed concentration to the exclusion of other mental activity.
Here's a peer-reviewed scientific study of the actions of neurotransmitters during meditation:
www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~pineda/COGS175/readings/Newberg.pdf
It presents empirical data that shows that norepinephrine production is decreased during meditation. Amphetamine use actually increases the concentration of norepinephrine in the brain and blood.
"Vigilant concentration" is not the same as deep meditative concentration. From the article cited by the Wikipedia article on norepinephrine, which uses the term you used ("vigilant concentration"):
"[Norepinephrine] is the hormone and neurotransmitter most responsible for vigilant concentration" (Wikipedia article on norepinephrine)
"
The functional role of NE [norepinephrine] might be illustrated by imagining the experience of walking alone in the woods. As the sun begins to set, you suddenly hear an abrupt crack, the sound of a stick being broken by an unseen object moving several yards away. Immediately your senses burst alive -- your head turns in the direction of the sound, your heart begins to race as you seek to determine the origin of the noise. Your thoughts quickly seek to discern the object and determine, Is this opportunity or danger? Is this going to eat me or am I going to eat it?
" -
Thanks for the meditation paper, soz. Exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. I'm gonna give it a once-over in the next few days before I post any more thoughts.
As to amphetamines, the "racing thoughts" phenomena has been my experience but amphetamines are prescribed for ADHD (Adderal being the most obvious) to help with attention. It's because of that that I'm wondering if perhaps at doses lower than a normal "recreational level" in a brain that is not contending with ADHD, maybe a slight bump in norepinephrine might help focus attention without the unwanted speed-y side-effects.