Mod+ 276. DR. ALAN HUGENOT, IANDS AND THE FUTURE OF NDE RESEARCH

I recall a correcting lens had to be fitted to the Hubble Space Telescope. I dare say after that was fitted the telescope was able to better experience the universe, independent of its own mind.
It occurs to me to wonder are the objects photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope quantum mechanically created by its taking the photos?
Or is it the photos are quantum mechanically created by the scientists who look at them?
I guess we could work it out probabilistically......bearing in mind that every permutation might indicate a parallel possible universe
We would then have the problem of figuring out which of those possible probable universes we are in
And if we are all even in the same one!
I mean, how can I know that the world that my looking generates is the same as anyone else’s?
Thankfully we have the Hadron Collider to answer these questions for us...eventually
Etc
 
I mean, how can I know that the world that my looking generates is the same as anyone else’s?
If you can casually interact with another agent, thing, event or process, the pragmatic determination is that you share a world.

If your "lookin" changes real-world probabilities for your future actions; or for those responding to your importing of information as perception, then interaction has taken place. "It's a small world." - presumably a quote from W. Disney
 
Alex gets quite het up about science. I disagree with his dismissal of Parnia’s experiments. I’m only sorry they did not yield a positive result. But I would say keep going with the experiment. How can it hurt to do it? and what difference can it make what Parnia believes philosophically? Either someone eventually confirms the objects or not. Personally I can see no issues at all with scientists who are philosophically monist materialist doing NDE research. If they are setting out to explain how the brain creates NDEs so what? Data is data; so long as the studies are done properly, what can the problem be?

I don’t agree with the stuff about quantum mechanical idealism either. I am convinced it is mistaken.

The notion that it is either the case that the brain creates consciousness, or consciousness creates the brain, is also not correct. Both the brain and consciousness may be real. In my philosophy the brain is created by what we call the biosphere. It evolved as all living matter does. As conscious spirits we incarnate into these biological bodies to experience life in this realm. We incarnate into the body of the living earth. What we call mind is produced by the interface of spirit (pure consciousness) and the central nervous system; and the experience is holographic. Not in the sense that the realm is a hologram, but that our experience of it is holographic (using the term in a more or less metaphorical sense).

It does not require any consciousness to enforce the laws of physics. The laws of physics emerge spontaneously from the nature of matter and space.
It is just the way matter and space is.
 
“When you die you’ll see Jesus and be full of love and compassion…if your father tells you that then you’ll see Jesus.”
You'll say they'll see Jesus if you are so sure of your theories that you ignore the emperical evidence:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/3h5pcj/buddhist_near_death_experience/
I was raised catholic and I had a near death experience in where I saw a light that I thought was God. This light turned into a four armed cross legged figure instead of jesus or anything like that. I was confused and looked a lot into meditation and buddhism and it made so much sense to me. It came so easily to me like it was obvious.
 
Top