Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong
-
@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.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"- 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."
@soz said
"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)"
Thanks guys for keeping this thread alive and not letting it fall victim to the True Scientist's uneducated blatherings. He seems like he tries to bury real scientific information for a misinformation agenda like an episode of the 700 Club.
So, yes. Norepinephrine is a chemical that "binds" communication/synapses in the brain. This is where the combination happens. Norephinephrine is partly responsible for concentration -- but it is only an aspect of it. We need to qualify what type of meditation. And this is where we get into more "passive/inhibitive" types (asana) - reduced limbic system byproducts and then more "active/excitatory" types (bhakti) - increased limbic system byproducts.
This study shows that "Aum" meditations decrease limbic system output (including norepinephrine):
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3099099/
Focus or attention does not have to be "passionately pushing" which is what I consider to be more excitatory. Sometimes it can be more of a "flow" or "allowed." Using intuitive practices or "reception/passive/inhibitive" practices can be extremely attentive or flowing. Suppressing the "Ruach" so to speak...
Quieting the mind is very attentive, but as the study shows, the limbic system (norepinephrine) is suppressed. These are the chemicals involved with emotions, FWIW. I believe we start to suppress the norepinephrine and start to engage the acetylcholine (dream chemical) when we go into certain deep meditative states. Which is why I think the AIM model that was shared earlier is so important.
In any event, norepinephrine helps to bond the thoughtforms together - we can recall faster because it strengthens the synaptic highway (neural pathways) that happen when something is "perceived" or "thought of" or "brought to mind." They help to create the memory - which is why it is hard to recall dreams for most people (because their "attention" chemicals are very polarized). It is the "glue" that fastens the memory or "image" to the brain. So, it is involved in vigilant concentration, but to say it is the only component would be not exactly accurate.
Long story short, we aim to control the CNS (central nervous system) and the prefrontal cortex - the executive/rational function, what we WANT (WILL) TO BRING TO MIND, but in order to do this, we need to obtain control over the FUEL (the passion behind the Union - to starve it and feed it at will, basically reprogram it) - SNS and the PSNS (the older parts of the brain mentioned earlier - sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system) - which are directly wired to the limbic system (adrenal/norepinephrine is part of this system).
Funny how the more reptilian parts of the brain is the snake that needs to be tamed? The Nechesh is also the Messiach! (358). Isn't the so-called Kundalini a serpent as well?
From Liber HHH...
"These are the watery reflexions of the three enthusiasms; those of Apollo, Dionysus, and Aphrodite. The whole star is Nechesh and Messiach, the name "AHIH" joined with "YHVH"."
AHY(I)HVH = 32
32+61=93What is 61?
And once these chemicals can be controlled, we can dose ourselves with norepinephrine (and other neurotransmitters) in conjunction with USEFUL thoughtforms (a chosen aspect of Nuit) at will. Willed neuroplasticity or brain change via chemicals.
Meditation can be described in two distinct categories (and possible others). Here is a paper on it:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250078/
It seems to break it into more dharana (FA) and samadhi (NDA). One sees difference, the other there is "no difference" between inside/outside, within/without, intrinsic/extrinsic.
What does this mean to meditation? And what happens when we start to put these chemicals together with fixed attention?
But, the best part is, if we focus on certain thoughtforms (possibly in Liber O), with this increased chemical flow, what begins to happen to the mind-body? Especially if it is willing the neuroplasticity (brain growth) in certain directions?
Eventually, I'd like to share my findings with brainwaves and electromagnetic fields when these inhibitive/excitatory practices are introduced. They are measurable and you're absolutely right -- We are starting to amass data regarding them. I personally guarantee that two-way communication via information fields (including electromagnetic fields outside the body) will be proven in our lifetime scientifically.
I'd love to keep this conversation going on scientific lines and not unintelligent rhetoric...thanks again for the dialogue.
And Happy New Year!!
-
The association of those chemicals with the three Alchemical qualities would be a big piece toward arguing that psychological archetypes stem from a biological source.
I don't know if I'm only stating the obvious or what. But it goes quickly to the universality of the Cube of Space in the human psyche, one tradition of interpreting and idealizing its archetypes being expressed in the trumps of the tarot.
-
As to the chemical association, it could answer the question of how and why the archetypes of the human unconscious do seem to be universal enough to argue for a collective human unconscious.
-
I had previously only been relating them to the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and central nervous systems. This seems an even more concrete link. Am I assuming too much correlation between the nervous systems and the chemicals presented?
-
@Legis said
"The association of those chemicals with the three Alchemical qualities would be a big piece toward arguing that psychological archetypes stem from a biological source."
Absolutely. I think that psychological archetypes *stem *from a biological source, but the DNA is pliable in the way it reacts to the environment.
Neuroplasticity provides proof that we're plastic psychologically/physiologically/anatomically. Epigenetics shows that we are pliable genetically.
What do you think about this?
"I don't know if I'm only stating the obvious or what. But it goes quickly to the universality of the Cube of Space in the human psyche, one tradition of interpreting and idealizing its archetypes being expressed in the trumps of the tarot."
Yes! Awhile back I took Hobson's AIM model and related it to the Cube of Space - I had to dig this out of a really old MR. Haha I guess I wrote it down for some reason:
(A) - Activation level (which I believe to be Love - the "attention" chemicals that bind) - I attribute this to the Force side of the TOL which is the axis of Jupiter/Venus -
(I) - Input - Internal/External gating of phenomena - I attribute this to the Mars/Sun axis - Mars being where the "Universal Will" (Geburah) meets the individual "Will" (the Sun).
(M) - This is the overall Modulation between waking and sleeping states - Mercury/Moon - Mercury being Air and the rational mind/the Lunar consciousness being represented by the Moon.The center being the totality of existence perception or Understanding (the Universe - Earth/Saturn = Matter/Motion = Space/Time)
So the Cube of Space is laid out a bit differently than the AIM model - you have to rotate it a bit - but you can see what I mean. It's was a fun exercise to put these two models together. What do you think? Where would you put the attributions?
http://psychedelic-information-theory.com/upload/img/AIM.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3gV5aMXP0dU/URJMW5rk2eI/AAAAAAAAAS8/awksFgKProw/s400/Cube+of+Space2.png
@Legis said
"As to the chemical association, it could answer the question of how and why the archetypes of the human unconscious do seem to be universal enough to argue for a collective human unconscious."
I agree with this. There is a universality to how the chemicals directly affect the mind-body "objectively," which can be measured quantitatively through experiment and data collection. Also, it can map the human consciousness individually with what chemicals correspond with which neurobiological states ("energies" or even "spirits" when we consider it collectively) - possibly even with currently accepted collective consciousness states like mob psychology and memes.
How do you think it could help answer the questions? I feel like you have more to say about this...I'd like to hear it.
@Legis said
"I had previously only been relating them to the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and central nervous systems. This seems an even more concrete link. Am I assuming too much correlation between the nervous systems and the chemicals presented"
Yes, I think so. Because they are so interrelated, it is hard to isolate the processes to just the CNS and the ANS alone. I think we can break it down further to the neurotransmitters, chemicals, and combinations thereof. Also, the brain states have so much to do with the consciousness taking place, which directly influences perception, the reaction to the "environment," and subsequent brain/epigenetic change.
I'd like to take these models further and relate them to the TOL and any other "magical" systems of codification as well, if you're interested. Sounds like a lot of work, but it could be fun...
Happy New Year btw.
-
Although this post is, in some ways, a response to this one about Bell's Theorem and clairvoyance,
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13304&p=89454&hilit=+ramifications+#p89454">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13304&p=89454&hilit=+ramifications+#p89454</a><!-- l -->
and the end will be in the spirit of this one,
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13323">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13323</a><!-- l -->
I've decided to post it here because I like the way this thread is evolving. I also really like this interconnected web that's forming between various live threads and am excited to see how further questioning of "everything you think you know" will mutate the discussion in the future. A thread on alchemical neuro-chemistry. Quantum telepathy. Gravitational levitation.
Anywho... I decided to finish reading Timothy Leary's Info-Psychology before the end of the year and Cosmic Coincidence Control Center decided to throw me one last curve-ball before we put this arbitrarily-decided 365-day revolution to bed. Near the end of the book, as he's discussing the speculative possibility of atomic intelligence, he quotes at length from some un-attributed source by Nick Herbert. For anyone who doesn't know, Herbert is one of a group of "hard scientists" who, along with Elizabeth Raucher, George Weissmann, Jack Sarfatti, Saul-Paul Sirag and others, were the Fundamental Fysiks Group, founded at Berkeley National Laboratory in the 70s. Basically, this was a think-tank of some of the best and the brightest (and turned-on) to discuss the philosophical possibilities and ramifications of quantum theory. Additionally, as I discovered while trying to track down the source of the quote, Herbert is from Pittsburgh... where I grew up.
@Nick Herber said
"Some ideas of the essential strangeness which underlies the quantum level is provided by the recent theorem due to J. S. Bell's theorem which says, essentially, that if quantum mechanics gives correct results, the subquantum world must be "non-local"--connected together in an intimate way in an instantaneous web of relationships. In this view, once two particles have interacted, they are in some sense connected forever on the subquantum level... Once we have interacted with something or someone, are we forever connected to them? What does Bell's theorem have to say about psychometry, about the interpenetration and "stickiness" of personalities? Should we guard our hair and nail clippings against magical misuse by enemy sorcerers? How can we experimentally foster these strange linkages; what is the relative effectiveness of palmistry, massage, sexual union in increasing Bell-type interconnectedness? How about sitting together in a hot tub?... It may be that for reasons similar to those advanced against a hidden-variable theory of consciousness that Bell's astonishing theorem does not play any part at all in human affairs... The unflinching contemplation of what Bell's theorem really has to tell us about separateness may act as a kind of spiritual exercise to bring about a similar delocalized state in the mind/world of individual scientists. For those who come to understand it, Bell's theorem can act as a powerful image reminding us of Nature's ability to casually surpass our naive notions of what must be so."
Thank you all for some great and challenging discussions this year. I wish each of you wonderful figments of my digital imagination, another trip around Ra that is full of non-local interpenetration and overflowing with magickal "coincidences".
-
@Frater 639 said
"Funny how the more reptilian parts of the brain is the snake that needs to be tamed? The Nechesh is also the Messiach! (358). Isn't the so-called Kundalini a serpent as well?
From Liber HHH...
"These are the watery reflexions of the three enthusiasms; those of Apollo, Dionysus, and Aphrodite. The whole star is Nechesh and Messiach, the name "AHIH" joined with "YHVH"."
AHY(I)HVH = 32
32+61=93What is 61?
And once these chemicals can be controlled, we can dose ourselves with norepinephrine (and other neurotransmitters) in conjunction with USEFUL thoughtforms (a chosen aspect of Nuit) at will. Willed neuroplasticity or brain change via chemicals."
Great thoughts for future meditation.
Also, the paper that soz posted offered some really good/clear insights into the parallels between "normal" brain function and the functions created by the addition of specific psychedelic/narcotic substances (i.e. specifically which receptor sites are affected and which natural brain chemicals they relate to). I knew that the tryptamines were cognates to typical neurotransmitters but it was a surprise to me to find that our brains produce an opiod that is naturally found working the neural pathways. My quick google search to teach myself what acetylcholine is pointed out that it works the same receptor sites as deadly nightshade and amanita muscaria.
I haven't yet acquired a copy of 776 1/2 but, if there isn't yet a column for naturally occurring neurotransmitters... it looks like one might be building itself here.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Frater 639 said
"Funny how the more reptilian parts of the brain is the snake that needs to be tamed? The Nechesh is also the Messiach! (358). Isn't the so-called Kundalini a serpent as well?From Liber HHH...
"These are the watery reflexions of the three enthusiasms; those of Apollo, Dionysus, and Aphrodite. The whole star is Nechesh and Messiach, the name "AHIH" joined with "YHVH"."
AHY(I)HVH = 32
32+61=93What is 61?
And once these chemicals can be controlled, we can dose ourselves with norepinephrine (and other neurotransmitters) in conjunction with USEFUL thoughtforms (a chosen aspect of Nuit) at will. Willed neuroplasticity or brain change via chemicals."
Great thoughts for future meditation.
Also, the paper that soz posted offered some really good/clear insights into the parallels between "normal" brain function and the functions created by the addition of specific psychedelic/narcotic substances (i.e. specifically which receptor sites are affected and which natural brain chemicals they relate to). I knew that the tryptamines were cognates to typical neurotransmitters but it was a surprise to me to find that our brains produce an opiod that is naturally found working the neural pathways. My quick google search to teach myself what acetylcholine is pointed out that it works the same receptor sites as deadly nightshade and amanita muscaria.
I haven't yet acquired a copy of 776 1/2 but, if there isn't yet a column for naturally occurring neurotransmitters... it looks like one might be building itself here."
Yes. There isn't one yet. We can definitely take brain waves and apply the elements to them as well. I think Crowley would have been all over it. Part of my research involves subtle energy fields (using a method not unlike the study here) and correlating brain states using an EEG. I then experiment with invocation and chart the brain and subsequent energy fields.
I saw this article and thought of you since you seem interested in remote communication. In the following journal's context, the "communication" is healing. This study is very well researched and is credible enough to be referenced in many medical studies.
Enjoy!
www.cihs.edu/whatsnew/Reconnective%20Healing%20research_ISSSEEM%20Journal%20Vol%2021%202.pdf