Always Record Interviews Tom Campbell on his Big TOE

#1
If you like Tom Campbell's work specifically, and thoughtful discussions generally, many of you might enjoy this more recent episode of Always Record from SBR:



10.17.14 Episode 98: Big TOE (with Tom Campbell)

Tom Campbell of
my-big-toe.com tells us about his Theory of Everything, including: the world as virtual reality, astral projection, double-slit experiment, entropy, love and chaos, reincarnation, "Maybe Logic", and life as classroom. Alan and John are also joined by Guillaume Samard for this conversation.

http://thesyncbook.com/alwaysrecord#Ep98

 
Last edited:
F
#5
The sound quality of the recording is maddening. Tom's Skype appears to cut out every 5 seconds.

When I first started watching the Tom Campbell videos I was intrigued by the way he talked about the delayed slit experiment. So I started digging deeper and eventually what I found out is that he is talking about a "virtual" experiment. How it would be if the experiment were actually able to be done.
 
#7
They are more like priests quite frankly. If those are the people that run his forum. Don't go there and think about questioning anything Tom says. Smack down.
How long have you spent on this forum exactly? I have no idea what you're talking about or referencing here. Sounds like you've suffered some PTS at the hands of some Tom Campbell fans. I can't really help that.

The sound quality of the recording is maddening. Tom's Skype appears to cut out every 5 seconds.
Thanks for all your encouragement...

Gentlemen: If this is your general approach to conversation/dialogue, please find another thread (or better yet a different forum) to use as your dumping ground.
 
F
#8
How long have you spent on this forum exactly? I have no idea what you're talking about or referencing here. Sounds like you've suffered some PTS at the hands of some Tom Campbell fans.



Thanks for all your encouragement...

Hint for both of you: If this is your general approach to conversation/dialogue, please find another thread (or better yet a different forum) to use as your dumping ground.
Sorry to get off on a sour note in this thread, John. I've been on the forum for a couple of years. New ID since the mods banned me last week for sockpuppeting. How I would do that with one ID is beyond me. I mean I may be schizoid, but I don't think that counts as sockpuppeting. Anyway. New ID.

The sound quality is OK. But there is a distinct periodic sound drop out. Maybe it was related to Tom's mic or something.

In the first part of the interview Tom goes through his usual schtick on the physics double slit stuff. The last experiment he talks about involves not looking at data on a screen. Do you think you can find an actual scientific paper that describes that exact experiment? Because when I looked and I went to the physics forums and started asking about it, they said there was no such thing. Then I went back to the MBT forum with that information and people just started displaying the typical kind of cognitive dissonance that you expect when someone's dearly held beliefs are challenged. For the people on the MBT forums what Tom says is the word.

So can you point us to a scientific paper that details the experiment that Tom is talking about?

Thanks.
 
#9
Sorry to get off on a sour note in this thread, John. I've been on the forum for a couple of years. New ID since the mods banned me last week for sockpuppeting. How I would do that with one ID is beyond me. I mean I may be schizoid, but I don't think that counts as sockpuppeting. Anyway. New ID.

The sound quality is OK. But there is a distinct periodic sound drop out. Maybe it was related to Tom's mic or something.

In the first part of the interview Tom goes through his usual schtick on the physics double slit stuff. The last experiment he talks about involves not looking at data on a screen. Do you think you can find an actual scientific paper that describes that exact experiment? Because when I looked and I went to the physics forums and started asking about it, they said there was no such thing. Then I went back to the MBT forum with that information and people just started displaying the typical kind of cognitive dissonance that you expect when someone's dearly held beliefs are challenged. For the people on the MBT forums what Tom says is the word.

So can you point us to a scientific paper that details the experiment that Tom is talking about?

Thanks.
Thanks for meeting me halfway here. Much appreciate it.

Good point about the experiment. Maybe that's true, because the particular set-up of the double-slit he references I've never looked into verifying it much myself. I mean, as far as I know, the "delayed choice" set-up/experiment is already a decent experimental argument for "consciousness creating reality", but I still believe that almost all quantum measurements/experiments to-date are inherently ambiguous, and we still don't know whether consciousness "creates" all this "material" shit around us or there's something else that's primary like Bohm/DeBroglie's Pilot-Wave and/or Everett/DeWitt's Many Worlds. I don't "believe" any one interpretation wholeheartedly, though I'm certainly partial towards Bohm/DeBroglie. I will say that Bernard Haische in his book the Purpose Guided Universe makes a decent case for the primacy of consciousness in quantum measurement, though the book is sort-of pedestrian otherwise.

If/when I turn something up on the matter I will post it up.
 
#10
Just had a look at his site and the approach he states makes the ongoing mistake of viewing the methods of materialist science as being applicable to all areas of research.

demanding high quality repeatable, empirical, evidential data to separate what's real (exists independently and externally) from what's imaginary or illusory; Campbell has scientifically derived this general model of reality.
And given that there is nothing which exists independently he's barking in the "wrong forest."
 
F
#11
Thanks for meeting me halfway here. Much appreciate it.

Good point about the experiment. Maybe that's true, because the particular set-up of the double-slit he references I've never looked into verifying it much myself. I mean, as far as I know, the "delayed choice" set-up/experiment is already a decent experimental argument for "consciousness creating reality", but I still believe that almost all quantum measurements/experiments to-date are inherently ambiguous, and we still don't know whether consciousness "creates" all this "material" shit around us or there's something else that's primary like Bohm/DeBroglie's Pilot-Wave and/or Everett/DeWitt's Many Worlds. I don't "believe" any one interpretation wholeheartedly, though I'm certainly partial towards Bohm/DeBroglie. I will say that Bernard Haische in his book the Purpose Guided Universe makes a decent case for the primacy of consciousness in quantum measurement, though the book is sort-of pedestrian otherwise.

If/when I turn something up on the matter I will post it up.
Cool. I would appreciate that. Tom always presents it as if it has been done exactly as described in a physical lab. It is a little misleading. I think he means that is how it "should" happen. Or maybe even "would" happen. He used to talk about the results being in an envelope. I noticed during the AR podcast that he changed it to output being on a screen.

I appreciate Tom's talk about everything being a model and that nothing we know is fundamental.
 
#16
Actually listen to the podcast. He says as much several times. He says that he is specifically talking about a model of reality based on the behaviors that he can determine. He does not claim to know what lies underneath the model.
??? Look. He has a description on his site. That's what I'm using. If you can show me where based on that description I'm making an error please do so. If not - go tell him. It's not my business to investigate whether he's not being accurate about his aims/methods in what he posts on his ow site.
 
#17
Is your entire exposure to Tom Campbell from looking at his web site this AM? Because if that is the case, then please shut up.
Sorry but you don't get to dictate what and when I post. Your defensiveness is both puzzling and pathetic. One of your heroes is he? Yet you seem to have issues with what he states about his aim and process. You're attacking me for simply posting his own words.

My point is clear and so far you have offered nothing sensible in response. If what the man posts about himself is incorrect then as I keep repeating - go tell him.
 
F
#18
??? Look. He has a description on his site. That's what I'm using. If you can show me where based on that description I'm making an error please do so. If not - go tell him. It's not my business to investigate whether he's not being accurate about his aims/methods in what he posts on his ow site.
No thanks. I'll leave navel gazing nit picking to you.
 
F
#20
Sorry but you don't get to dictate what and when I post.
Your favorite chestnut after someone points out your inevitable obtuseness.
Your defensiveness is both puzzling and pathetic. One of your heroes is he? Yet you seem to have issues with what he states about his aim and process. You're attacking me for simply posting his own words.

My point is clear and so far you have offered nothing sensible in response. If what the man posts about himself is incorrect then as I keep repeating - go tell him.
Actually I think Tom Campbell has basically been repeating the same relatively un-profound understanding of the nature of reality for decades. But I'm still willing to listen to a couple of hours of a podcast with him given that the people doing the interview are people I admire and think are pretty sharp.

What I'm not going to do is comb someone's website looking for some contradiction that I can point to repeatedly like a child who has noticed that Coca Cola has somehow made a mistake printing some cans and wants someone to notice.
 
Top