Mathematics and numbers are symbolic representations. They are not entities with independent qualities. They do not have the properties ascribed to angels and demons. Information is physical. We know it as one's and zeros. It is also part of thermodynamics. It is part of the concept of entropy. I do not believe your examples prove the existence of nonmaterial things.
@@EWKification he says objects, entities that live in an independent fashion. My point being numbers are not objects or entities living in a nonhuman independent environment.
Absolutely fantastic interview, I like this guys philosophy and hypotheses for understanding this real phenomena for some people. Your 1st explanation for experiencing a non physical body experience is usually the 1st weird thing to happen. If you let this thought of experience evolve, meditate on it and explore it, then you are manifesting true energy. I have experienced both as well as unconditional love in this vibration. So there is so much more..seek and you shall see if it takes your interest.
Psychic abilities don't prove "non-physical" just that we need to expanded current physics which Non-locality for which Anton Zeilinger received Nobel Prize certainly already did As to "because Telepathy exist there must be also an immortal soul" ah... I see now logical chain. It's not necessarily wrong but I think that while science can study Psychic phenomena, Angels or Gods are far less certain than Telepathy between people (we know that other people are real all Right we don't know it about angels) and certainly less scientific. Parapsychology also strangely is so anthropocentric given bird navigation or Rupert Sheldrake proof of dogs exciding human in sensation and levels of Counsciosness
It is convenient to bear in mind in this discussion that as long as we do not know what Life is, it makes sense to make a distinction between "the dimension" in which Matter exists, and "the dimension" in which Life exists. In turn, it is clear that Life "colonized" the world of Matter, resulting in Life Incarnate in Matter. In turn, it must be taken into account that Matter only exists in the Present, while the actions of living beings involve the administration of Information that concerns the Present, the Past and a possible Future. We do not know what Matter is. We don't know what Time is. We do not know what the Information is. Let us respect our ignorance.
_it makes sense to make a distinction between "the dimension" in which Matter exists, and "the dimension" in which Life exists_ Why? _Why_ does that make sense. _it is clear that Life "colonized" the world of Matter_ Huh? I'm not sure you're really respecting our ignorance. :)
@tanon Think of the number........27. Is that number 27 to be found anywhere in your brain? If the number 27 was in a computer game on a screen for example then somewhere in the computer game code you could find 27. But when you think of it and visualise it.......is the actual 27 to be found anywhere in your brain even if it could be dissected.
@tanon Electrical impulses are only one of the necessary components of the self-aware functioning of a mind. To reduce the product of a conscious mind (a story) to "electrical impulses" is even more reductionist than declaring that a car is a liquid because it runs on gasoline, and that it can't travel. Electrical impulses are not conscious. Do you agree? The brain is conscious, and we are taking about a state of self-awareness, not isolating one of the properties that make such a state possible. Now, when you can understand that a state of self-awareness is not the same thing as an inert material, you can graduate to grappling with the concepts within a self-aware state of consciousness being ethereal. If you can't comprehend why a concept is not a physical object, I dare say any intelligent discussion on the topic is impossible, and you can only troll to waste other people's time.
Envy, selfishness, hatred and stupidity rule the world, but we do not have pills against these qualities, the consciousness does not come from the matter that we know.
Objects are material when they are perceived without understanding their relationship with the whole. Physical objects have enough detail to reveal form based on sensations. They are not exactly interchangeable concepts.
Would immaterial, non physical need something more than science to look into? Is psychology part scientific and part something else to investigate non-physical? What is non-physical study called?
Are There Things Not Material?? Oh yea! I prefer to say that all things REAL can be either tangible or intangible. If it is tangible, then it has mass(or equivalent mass - like energy). Examples of intangible include things like information, patterns, thoughts, dreams and actions.
I like it, let's see if I can parse it... The wave function is REAL so is intangible. 'GOD' is REAL so is intangible. Flesh is not real, its made of waves that only become particles when you measure them, then it EXISTS and has mass so it is tangible. A unicorn is not real nor does it exist so tangibility does not apply. What about consciousness?... Consciousness is REAL and so is intangible. Consciousness EXISTS because we are measuring it with the minds eye. The neurons have mass.and are tangible but the revelation of consciousness is interpreted by the 'I' and therefore is intangible like thought. So consciousness is REAL, it EXISTS but is intangible, like god and the wave function of the universe. Seems fine :)
@@micronda _The wave function is REAL so is intangible._ Um,... _what_ wave function? Actually, perhaps you should define "real," because you don't seem to mean "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
@@Bill_Garthright Sorry, I mean 'The wave function of the universe' (the fields and their energy). It is REAL but it is intangible. I assume REAL here to mean it can be treated as fact. 'The wave function of the universe' obeys the Schrodinger equation. I would say it does NOT EXIST because it can't be detected by the 5 senses. It is waves that only become particles when you interact with them. Its outcome DOES EXIST because it can be sensed. The REAL electron passes through two slits as a wave but only in the instant, when the outcome is detected on the screen, can the electron now be said to have come to EXIST. After that it reverts back to REAL but does NOT EXIST as it orbits in its new atom wave function. Based on the above, only impressions EXIST ultimately as perceived by the minds eye. I think? How strange?
In terms of science or physics as it is known, we study a disciplined idea of the physical nature of life around us, in us, above us and beneath us, as being a construct of finite, physical substance. This is the basis of all scientific endeavours. But if we look at it rationally, or scientifically to be precise, the scientific community - as distinguished and celebrated as it legitimately is, is rooted in an understanding of reality which has absolutely no scientific basis at all. Yes, we do have ideas but these change from time to time and so far scientific ideas (like the "Big Bang" theory) are established in stark contrast to the elementary foundations of "physics." In other words, we have no idea how or why the whole universe as we know it came about in the first place. At best, the greatest minds can only posit plausible ideas or theories.
A thing and a thought. A thing is material and the thought is not. The seen and the unseen. The physical and spirit. Sometimes we use the word "thing" for none material as an object of reference.
In my out of body experience I didn't have pajamas lol! I remember looking down and seeing the top of my own head. I could think via an internal monologue like normal, I was about 2 feet above myself, I only had monocular vision, no other senses besides sight and sound. I had no control of my body but it was moving and responding to stimuli; my state was not influenced by changes to the body. When leaving and entering the body, I saw many crystals of light all around me smoothly lifting upwards.
That must have been weird! Of course, there's no evidence it was real, right? Dreams seem pretty weird sometimes, too. Our minds can imagine lots of crazy stuff! (And scientists can even induce OOB experiences in the lab now: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm ) Afterwards, well, our memories aren't very reliable, either. When we remember something, we rebuild it in our minds, and those memories can change over time. Typically, favorite memories can get more and more elaborate, as we add details just through the power of imagination. That's not deliberate, of course. But it's why you'll frequently find someone's stories getting 'better' the further away from the event you get and the more often they've told it. That's just natural. I've got memories from decades ago that I'm almost certain didn't actually happen, but... it's really hard to tell. :)
@@Bill_Garthright it was actually the first time I tried weed lol; seemed over the top for just weed! Didn't happen again unfortunately. I've seen that article you linked to, fascinating stuff!! Love reading science daily and phys.org. Just like lucid dreaming, I wrote down as many details as I could as soon as possible afterwards. I think that makes the memories more accurate by constraining any new thoughts and also "jogging the memory".
@@kylebowles9820 _I wrote down as many details as I could as soon as possible afterwards. I think that makes the memories more accurate by constraining any new thoughts and also "jogging the memory"._ Absolutely right. That doesn't make it accurate, necessarily, but it certainly helps. Of course, I'm not sure how much trust you can put in a drug-induced hallucination, anyway. Heh, heh. (Note that you can get strange chemicals in weed, sometimes. At least, you could 50 years ago. I don't live in a state with legal weed, so maybe it's different now, I don't know.) But weird things happen sometimes. And they can be quite amazing, too. I saw a "ghost" once. And I can't emphasize enough how real it seemed at the time. It was just _incredibly_ real. (But it wasn't. If you're curious, here's the full story: garthright.blogspot.com/2010/11/ghost-story.html I don't blog these days, but I wrote it up some years ago.)
The abstract Quantum wave-field and the abstract wave-functions of probabilities and possibilities from which all particles - the "building blocks" of the material universe, emerge and manifest into physical reality, are not "material".
The wave function doesn’t do anything because it’s only a mathematical object If you’re adding up the number of apples and you wrote down 2+2=4, you’d understand that the numbers aren’t real things, but instead are a representation or a model of what is real (the apple)
@@biblebot3947 Hold on a minute: First you say that wave-functions don't do anything because they're nothing more than mathematical objects. Now you're saying that they do in fact act as building blocks. What exactly are you trying to say? Explain yourself more clearly.
Unconscious bias is one of the biggest issues in so many aspects of our life more generally from science, to human relationships to buying goods at the supermarket. Not sure about the angels and demons lol 😂
He looks so "professorial" these days, not like the old days hanging with Dr. Tim, John C. Lilly, Carlos Castaneda, and all the other crackpots I thought had substance back in the 1970's, he's one of the last one standing, guess that makes him and expert.
@@EWKification It seems we have trouble dealing with the reality we see. So have too make up shit too make us look important to what ever is going on. Yet, everything we have learned. Puts us farther from being important at all.
What we humans perceive as reality is different than what bats, for instance, perceive as reality so it’s possible that reality itself is quite malleable.
Hey Looking for Truth... I like your observation. I never thought of reality in that fashion. For humans, do you think reality involves such things as emotions, and concepts such as numbers? How about "meaning to life"?
John Brzykcy Reality may not be physical at all. It may just be a construct of consciousness. As far as a meaning to life, I think it’s purely subjective.
@@bjlyon615 Yes I've heard recently that reality may just be "a construct of consciousness." It's difficult for me, as I'm sure for many, to comprehend that idea. Have you read any books on that subject? Regarding "meaning to life", I agree it is subjective but I believe some objective things, taken from history, philosophy, psychology etc, can determine our subjective experience and belief. What do you think about that idea ?
John Brzykcy Biocentrism by Robert Lanza has influenced my way of thinking. As far as there being an objective meaning of life, it may be just as difficult to prove that as it is to prove the existence of God. Peace.
@@bjlyon615 I agree with you. I think that the existence of God and the meaning of live certainly must go together. But as you said previously, these beliefs are very subjective.
"non physical"? Hm,A Nobel's Winner Rev.Plato in 5th cent.BC discovered a principle: changeable things cannot be explained without the existence of sth unchangeable and eternal non-material like those things( a la reference system in science, IDEA. Is it this now the planet of apes? The term "truth" is ..a material? "Relation" is...a matter.
Ill posed question IMO. It is really meaning to ask - are there things supernatural? The term "material" conjures an image of matter with mass in lay people's mind. We already know light, space and time are not material. big deal. Some sophisticated people may include energy, radiation, abstract ideas, space, time and current known laws of physics and future laws of physics. But Robert is really intending to ask are there things outside all of the above.
I agree, but I don't think that "supernatural" really helps there. After all, how do we define "natural" and "supernatural"? How do we tell the "supernatural" apart from the "natural" that we just haven't discovered yet? How do we tell that the "supernatural" exists _at all?_ Maybe you've got good answers to all of those questions, but to me, "supernatural" is a very fuzzy term.
@@Bill_Garthright I think supernatural here is meant to mean, something that can in principle will not be explained, ever, using natural sciences like. I think a lot of people strongly wish that be the case, because they wish for some theistic explanations and existence of sole and dualism or idealism to be true.
@@SandipChitale _I think supernatural here is meant to mean, something that can in principle will not be explained, ever, using natural sciences like._ It doesn't have to be real, then? I mean magic leprechauns may never be explained using natural sciences. :) And another problem is that... how can we tell that something will never _ever_ be explained? The Sun was once thought to be supernatural, and indeed, those people _couldn't_ explain it using natural sciences. But if they'd thought it could _never_ be explained naturally, they were wrong. I agree with the rest of that, and I'm not arguing with _you._ I just have a longstanding problem with that term, "supernatural." As I say, it seems like a very fuzzy word. :)
@@Bill_Garthright Actually the word real is more fuzzy to me. Is the concept behind number 1 real? I think so. but there does not exit a single the number 1 somewhere. Similarly concept of magical leprechaun is real. But the magical leprechauns are not real and IMO no matter how much science makes progress it it likely they will not be really found to be real. I think when people argue against materialism, it is really a shorthand for pro theism arguments, which I claim is desire/wish for supernatural. I consider those things that can in principle explained in future as natural. In any case I am not arguing with you like you said. Was simply clarifying.
Hmm? The fully grown tree ....Is transferred to the brain! But the tree does not move or lose mass! Something non physical is there to be intercepted, when the Perceiving instrument is ready or not! To me that beauty is non physical. Which equates to why we are here. The question should be “Does the tree also participate in that perception process?” Some can see, some can see when shown, others will never see.
@@1SpudderR Aren't you supposed to call me "grasshopper," or something? "Grow, as you choose, grasshopper"? :) Sorry, but that really _did_ seem like word salad.
Sounds like nonsense Maybe go study some actual science - quantum mechanics says multiple worlds exist, cosmology says infinite universes with radically different properties probably exist - why aren't these fantastic enough? Why do we have to cling on to these ideas of afterlife realms etc. when actual science has fantastic alternate realms?
@@biblebot3947 Actually, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a mathematically sound interpretation, as sound as any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you believe in QM then you can't refute the soundness of the many worlds interpretation. Like, these "many worlds" are, mathematically speaking, literal.
@@ajeetgary2706 I said that the MWI hasn’t been proven yet so using it is pointless All of the interpretations held by physicists are sound, but that’s not the problem. The problem is the lack of evidence
@@biblebot3947 I think you misunderstand MWI - the mathematics of QM says that there are different possibilities in superposition before an observation collapses the wave function down to one; the MWI says that all the possibilities happen in un-reachable parallel worlds, which is consistent with the math. The math part has been throughly tested, and the interpretation is unfalsifiable past the math, it's just a way of thinking about it, and since it's mathematically sound it's a fine way of thinking about it. MWI says itself that these other worlds can't be reached, so what is there to find evidence for?
Always surprises me when an obviously intelligent person chooses to spend their career chasing something like this metaphysical hooey. I guess it sells books.
Robert, you seriously accept the example of existence or non-existence of Warsaw as equivalent to other concepts in this discussion? please tell me no. Then why it only matters if you have been to Warsaw in the past? If Warsaw is not in front of your eyes right now why should you think it is there. Even if you are viewing the scenes from Warsaw in real time on a video monitor the video display is local to you. Warsaw may not be actually there. This is absurd equivalence and you should have pushed back. existence of Warsaw does not require violation of any known physical laws. Anyone can book a flight and go and see Warsaw, no special talents required. In any case, most of our scientific knowledge of objective reality is not based on direct human perceptions. We use microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, CO detectors and so on to study and observe natural phenomenon that our humans senses cannot perceive directly. In fact our senses are very limited and as optical illusions and magic shows show are not reliable.
I like how he completely ignores any explanation other than culture and jumps straight to the absurd. Obviously people can have similar experiences that are driven by biology and evolution rather than supernatural ghosts...
Shhhhh!!!!! Don’t disturb their DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS those are SACRED Also, they won’t listen. Religious people tend to be indoctrinated from a young age then try to justify their beliefs. Pointing out their incorrect justification won’t do anything because the justification isn’t why they believe.
...... or .... Jesus, Buddha etc do exist in some post-physical state and the ‘appearing’ figure is the one that ‘chooses’ to meet the catholic or buddhist. Or, the non-physical contains self-aware conscious-forms and these are capable of selecting the most suitable presented symbolism or metaphor for a context of the engagement they choose. How could conscious forms do that? Perhaps they’ve developed over billions of years and are just superior to humans; light years ahead of what man can imagine. Why couldn’t they be billions of years old? Do they have a body to wear out or some other structured form that would erode? Perhaps their extent of awareness is on the scale of galactic super-clusters; perhaps their awareness of time is framed in revolutions of a galaxy; not a human second. Maybe they manipulate material/non-material at a supra-galactic level as people build furniture out of wood they manipulate unformed energy not yet functionally described in physics; the archetypes of physical form itself; inventors of Pythagorean geometry . Are they gods? Likely that is just the idea a human would leap to when becoming aware of the truly celestial - a mindblower. Are they a projection of our mythological thinking? Perhaps it’s the other way around; Celestials stooping down to mankind’s primitive level to convey themselves in basic metaphors or simple stories man could absorb when he was first inventing the wheel. . Perhaps they’ve taken hundreds of thousands of years to cultivate an awareness in man that might someday understand them; using crude images mankind or dumb apes might understand. Perhaps all Mankind and our star system is nothing more then mere spent’ star dust wherein mankind has an over-inflated ego-centric illusion of himself. These guys aren’t being very creative in considering other superior forms of consciousness
Yeah, I agree. When all you've got is imagination, you really should be more imaginative, huh? :) But I have the same problem with fantasy fiction. All you really need to write fantasy fiction is an imagination, since none of it has to match up to reality in any significant way. So why is there so much cookie-cutter fantasy fiction? So many fantasy authors seem to have no imagination _at all._ In science, you need *evidence.* But not in this stuff. In this stuff, you can seemingly imagine whatever you _want._
Bill Garthright ....distinct from fantasy or fiction, non-physical conscious collectives, or even cultures, need only be a valid construct or correlation to be real.
@@wanderingquestions7501 Sorry, but that doesn't seem to answer my question. Then again, maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. I can't say I understand the point you're trying to make here.
Non physical things? Numbers. Mathematics. Information. Start with those...
Yes.... I agree 100%
Agreed .
Mathematics and numbers are symbolic representations. They are not entities with independent qualities. They do not have the properties ascribed to angels and demons. Information is physical. We know it as one's and zeros. It is also part of thermodynamics. It is part of the concept of entropy. I do not believe your examples prove the existence of nonmaterial things.
@@penultimatename6677 Ones and zeros aren't material things. They are concepts. Concepts are immaterial.
@@EWKification he says objects, entities that live in an independent fashion. My point being numbers are not objects or entities living in a nonhuman independent environment.
Something I like about all these videos; the locations. They could have their own series.
Absolutely fantastic interview, I like this guys philosophy and hypotheses for understanding this real phenomena for some people.
Your 1st explanation for experiencing a non physical body experience is usually the 1st weird thing to happen. If you let this thought of experience evolve, meditate on it and explore it, then you are manifesting true energy.
I have experienced both as well as unconditional love in this vibration. So there is so much more..seek and you shall see if it takes your interest.
Psychic abilities don't prove "non-physical" just that we need to expanded current physics which Non-locality for which Anton Zeilinger received Nobel Prize certainly already did
As to "because Telepathy exist there must be also an immortal soul" ah... I see now logical chain. It's not necessarily wrong but I think that while science can study Psychic phenomena, Angels or Gods are far less certain than Telepathy between people (we know that other people are real all Right we don't know it about angels) and certainly less scientific.
Parapsychology also strangely is so anthropocentric given bird navigation or Rupert Sheldrake proof of dogs exciding human in sensation and levels of Counsciosness
I like this guys thoughts process. Especially about the bias. Very obvious, yet many people are blind to it.
It is convenient to bear in mind in this discussion that as long as we do not know what Life is, it makes sense to make a distinction between "the dimension" in which Matter exists, and "the dimension" in which Life exists. In turn, it is clear that Life "colonized" the world of Matter, resulting in Life Incarnate in Matter.
In turn, it must be taken into account that Matter only exists in the Present, while the actions of living beings involve the administration of Information that concerns the Present, the Past and a possible Future.
We do not know what Matter is. We don't know what Time is. We do not know what the Information is. Let us respect our ignorance.
_it makes sense to make a distinction between "the dimension" in which Matter exists, and "the dimension" in which Life exists_
Why? _Why_ does that make sense.
_it is clear that Life "colonized" the world of Matter_
Huh?
I'm not sure you're really respecting our ignorance. :)
This comment is a fantastic read when stoned.
@@BugRib
I suspect that it was fun to _write_ while stoned, too. :)
A thought is not material.
@tanon You can locate and measure electrical impulses, but you can't isolate a thought, measure it, locate it, etc.
@tanon Think of the number........27.
Is that number 27 to be found anywhere in your brain? If the number 27 was in a computer game on a screen for example then somewhere in the computer game code you could find 27. But when you think of it and visualise it.......is the actual 27 to be found anywhere in your brain even if it could be dissected.
Yes, thought is not material, and consciousness as well.
@tanon The electricity is material, the thought isn't, just as the book is paper and ink, but the story isn't.
@tanon Electrical impulses are only one of the necessary components of the self-aware functioning of a mind. To reduce the product of a conscious mind (a story) to "electrical impulses" is even more reductionist than declaring that a car is a liquid because it runs on gasoline, and that it can't travel.
Electrical impulses are not conscious. Do you agree? The brain is conscious, and we are taking about a state of self-awareness, not isolating one of the properties that make such a state possible.
Now, when you can understand that a state of self-awareness is not the same thing as an inert material, you can graduate to grappling with the concepts within a self-aware state of consciousness being ethereal.
If you can't comprehend why a concept is not a physical object, I dare say any intelligent discussion on the topic is impossible, and you can only troll to waste other people's time.
Envy, selfishness, hatred and stupidity rule the world, but we do not have pills against these qualities, the consciousness does not come from the matter that we know.
Objects are material when they are perceived without understanding their relationship with the whole. Physical objects have enough detail to reveal form based on sensations. They are not exactly interchangeable concepts.
Would immaterial, non physical need something more than science to look into? Is psychology part scientific and part something else to investigate non-physical? What is non-physical study called?
_Would immaterial, non physical need something more than science to look into?_
Only if it's just imaginary.
"85. And they ask you about the Spirit. Say, “The Spirit belongs to the domain of my Lord; and you were given only little knowledge.” [Quran 17:85]
Are There Things Not Material?? Oh yea! I prefer to say that all things REAL can be either tangible or intangible. If it is tangible, then it has mass(or equivalent mass - like energy). Examples of intangible include things like information, patterns, thoughts, dreams and actions.
How about all things imaginary? Those are _all_ intangible, right? :)
@@Bill_Garthright Yep!
I like it, let's see if I can parse it...
The wave function is REAL so is intangible.
'GOD' is REAL so is intangible.
Flesh is not real, its made of waves that only become particles when you measure them, then it EXISTS and has mass so it is tangible.
A unicorn is not real nor does it exist so tangibility does not apply.
What about consciousness?...
Consciousness is REAL and so is intangible. Consciousness EXISTS because we are measuring it with the minds eye. The neurons have mass.and are tangible but the revelation of consciousness is interpreted by the 'I' and therefore is intangible like thought.
So consciousness is REAL, it EXISTS but is intangible, like god and the wave function of the universe.
Seems fine :)
@@micronda
_The wave function is REAL so is intangible._
Um,... _what_ wave function?
Actually, perhaps you should define "real," because you don't seem to mean "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
@@Bill_Garthright Sorry, I mean 'The wave function of the universe' (the fields and their energy). It is REAL but it is intangible.
I assume REAL here to mean it can be treated as fact.
'The wave function of the universe' obeys the Schrodinger equation.
I would say it does NOT EXIST because it can't be detected by the 5 senses. It is waves that only become particles when you interact with them.
Its outcome DOES EXIST because it can be sensed. The REAL electron passes through two slits as a wave but only in the instant, when the outcome is detected on the screen, can the electron now be said to have come to EXIST. After that it reverts back to REAL but does NOT EXIST as it orbits in its new atom wave function.
Based on the above, only impressions EXIST ultimately as perceived by the minds eye. I think? How strange?
In terms of science or physics as it is known, we study a disciplined idea of the physical nature of life around us, in us, above us and beneath us, as being a construct of finite, physical substance. This is the basis of all scientific endeavours. But if we look at it rationally, or scientifically to be precise, the scientific community - as distinguished and celebrated as it legitimately is, is rooted in an understanding of reality which has absolutely no scientific basis at all. Yes, we do have ideas but these change from time to time and so far scientific ideas (like the "Big Bang" theory) are established in stark contrast to the elementary foundations of "physics."
In other words, we have no idea how or why the whole universe as we know it came about in the first place. At best, the greatest minds can only posit plausible ideas or theories.
A brief exploration of The Amazing Randy would be enough to dissuade anyone from believing in psychics or remote viewing.
A thing and a thought. A thing is material and the thought is not. The seen and the unseen. The physical and spirit. Sometimes we use the word "thing" for none material as an object of reference.
" EXCELLENT "...... thanks 🙏.
I think if you host a Muslim scientists there will be an good addition to the topics
In my out of body experience I didn't have pajamas lol! I remember looking down and seeing the top of my own head. I could think via an internal monologue like normal, I was about 2 feet above myself, I only had monocular vision, no other senses besides sight and sound. I had no control of my body but it was moving and responding to stimuli; my state was not influenced by changes to the body. When leaving and entering the body, I saw many crystals of light all around me smoothly lifting upwards.
That must have been weird! Of course, there's no evidence it was real, right? Dreams seem pretty weird sometimes, too. Our minds can imagine lots of crazy stuff! (And scientists can even induce OOB experiences in the lab now: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm )
Afterwards, well, our memories aren't very reliable, either. When we remember something, we rebuild it in our minds, and those memories can change over time. Typically, favorite memories can get more and more elaborate, as we add details just through the power of imagination.
That's not deliberate, of course. But it's why you'll frequently find someone's stories getting 'better' the further away from the event you get and the more often they've told it. That's just natural. I've got memories from decades ago that I'm almost certain didn't actually happen, but... it's really hard to tell. :)
@@Bill_Garthright it was actually the first time I tried weed lol; seemed over the top for just weed! Didn't happen again unfortunately.
I've seen that article you linked to, fascinating stuff!! Love reading science daily and phys.org.
Just like lucid dreaming, I wrote down as many details as I could as soon as possible afterwards. I think that makes the memories more accurate by constraining any new thoughts and also "jogging the memory".
@@kylebowles9820
_I wrote down as many details as I could as soon as possible afterwards. I think that makes the memories more accurate by constraining any new thoughts and also "jogging the memory"._
Absolutely right. That doesn't make it accurate, necessarily, but it certainly helps. Of course, I'm not sure how much trust you can put in a drug-induced hallucination, anyway. Heh, heh. (Note that you can get strange chemicals in weed, sometimes. At least, you could 50 years ago. I don't live in a state with legal weed, so maybe it's different now, I don't know.)
But weird things happen sometimes. And they can be quite amazing, too. I saw a "ghost" once. And I can't emphasize enough how real it seemed at the time. It was just _incredibly_ real. (But it wasn't. If you're curious, here's the full story: garthright.blogspot.com/2010/11/ghost-story.html I don't blog these days, but I wrote it up some years ago.)
For example gluons.
Where is the evidence?
The abstract Quantum wave-field and the abstract wave-functions of probabilities and possibilities from which all particles - the "building blocks" of the material universe, emerge and manifest into physical reality, are not "material".
The wave function doesn’t do anything because it’s only a mathematical object
If you’re adding up the number of apples and you wrote down 2+2=4, you’d understand that the numbers aren’t real things, but instead are a representation or a model of what is real (the apple)
@@cosmichappening1712 the wave function doesn’t act as a building block like how 2+2=4 isn’t a building block
@@biblebot3947 Hold on a minute: First you say that wave-functions don't do anything because they're nothing more than mathematical objects. Now you're saying that they do in fact act as building blocks. What exactly are you trying to say? Explain yourself more clearly.
@@cosmichappening1712 or you could just read my comment.
How do you misread one sentence?
@@biblebot3947 Like I said, explain yourself more clearly.
Mind, consciousness to name a few
Without the brain no consciousness.
Unconscious bias is one of the biggest issues in so many aspects of our life more generally from science, to human relationships to buying goods at the supermarket. Not sure about the angels and demons lol 😂
maybe a bias against angels and demons? who knows?
They surely are physical, but exist in other "dimensions" (i.e. other superselection sectors of the superstring landscape)!
“Have you ever been to Warszaw?” Lol
Upon close examination, all material things reduce into the immaterial as they don't have any independent existence.
That's not a concrete observation
How you guys all hold on the metaphysical bullcrap🙄🤣
He looks so "professorial" these days, not like the old days hanging with Dr. Tim, John C. Lilly, Carlos Castaneda, and all the other crackpots I thought had substance back in the 1970's, he's one of the last one standing, guess that makes him and expert.
Well, when you have a bunch of crackpots, one of them has to be the last one standing _eventually,_ right? :)
Photons are non-material.
so are space and time, abstract concepts such as numbers.
They have mass, take up space, and have other properties. What is non-material about them
More proof our imagination is way stronger than our grasp on reality.
More likely the opposite is a problem. People lack sufficient imagination to grapple with reality. Much more likely, I should say.
@@EWKification
It seems we have trouble dealing with the reality we see. So have too make up shit too make us look important to what ever is going on.
Yet, everything we have learned. Puts us farther from being important at all.
What we humans perceive as reality is different than what bats, for instance, perceive as reality so it’s possible that reality itself is quite malleable.
Hey Looking for Truth... I like your observation. I never thought of reality in that fashion. For humans, do you think reality involves such things as emotions, and concepts such as numbers? How about "meaning to life"?
John Brzykcy Reality may not be physical at all. It may just be a construct of consciousness. As far as a meaning to life, I think it’s purely subjective.
@@bjlyon615 Yes I've heard recently that reality may just be "a construct of consciousness." It's difficult for me, as I'm sure for many, to comprehend that idea. Have you read any books on that subject?
Regarding "meaning to life", I agree it is subjective but I believe some objective things, taken from history, philosophy, psychology etc, can determine our subjective experience and belief. What do you think about that idea ?
John Brzykcy Biocentrism by Robert Lanza has influenced my way of thinking. As far as there being an objective meaning of life, it may be just as difficult to prove that as it is to prove the existence of God. Peace.
@@bjlyon615 I agree with you. I think that the existence of God and the meaning of live certainly must go together. But as you said previously, these beliefs are very subjective.
"non physical"? Hm,A Nobel's Winner Rev.Plato in 5th cent.BC discovered a principle: changeable things cannot be explained without the existence of sth unchangeable and eternal non-material like those things( a la reference system in science, IDEA. Is it this now the planet of apes? The term "truth" is ..a material? "Relation" is...a matter.
Ill posed question IMO. It is really meaning to ask - are there things supernatural? The term "material" conjures an image of matter with mass in lay people's mind. We already know light, space and time are not material. big deal. Some sophisticated people may include energy, radiation, abstract ideas, space, time and current known laws of physics and future laws of physics. But Robert is really intending to ask are there things outside all of the above.
I agree, but I don't think that "supernatural" really helps there. After all, how do we define "natural" and "supernatural"? How do we tell the "supernatural" apart from the "natural" that we just haven't discovered yet? How do we tell that the "supernatural" exists _at all?_
Maybe you've got good answers to all of those questions, but to me, "supernatural" is a very fuzzy term.
@@Bill_Garthright I think supernatural here is meant to mean, something that can in principle will not be explained, ever, using natural sciences like. I think a lot of people strongly wish that be the case, because they wish for some theistic explanations and existence of sole and dualism or idealism to be true.
@@SandipChitale
_I think supernatural here is meant to mean, something that can in principle will not be explained, ever, using natural sciences like._
It doesn't have to be real, then? I mean magic leprechauns may never be explained using natural sciences. :)
And another problem is that... how can we tell that something will never _ever_ be explained? The Sun was once thought to be supernatural, and indeed, those people _couldn't_ explain it using natural sciences. But if they'd thought it could _never_ be explained naturally, they were wrong.
I agree with the rest of that, and I'm not arguing with _you._ I just have a longstanding problem with that term, "supernatural." As I say, it seems like a very fuzzy word. :)
@@Bill_Garthright Actually the word real is more fuzzy to me. Is the concept behind number 1 real? I think so. but there does not exit a single the number 1 somewhere. Similarly concept of magical leprechaun is real. But the magical leprechauns are not real and IMO no matter how much science makes progress it it likely they will not be really found to be real. I think when people argue against materialism, it is really a shorthand for pro theism arguments, which I claim is desire/wish for supernatural.
I consider those things that can in principle explained in future as natural.
In any case I am not arguing with you like you said. Was simply clarifying.
@@SandipChitale
_Actually the word real is more fuzzy to me._
Good point. Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page here.
Hmm? The fully grown tree ....Is transferred to the brain! But the tree does not move or lose mass! Something non physical is there to be intercepted, when the Perceiving instrument is ready or not! To me that beauty is non physical. Which equates to why we are here. The question should be “Does the tree also participate in that perception process?” Some can see, some can see when shown, others will never see.
Maybe I'm one of those who will never see, because that just sounds like word salad to me.
Bill Garthright Hmm? Grow........as you choose, maybe discover the before of Acorn or Oak. Regards
@@1SpudderR
Aren't you supposed to call me "grasshopper," or something? "Grow, as you choose, grasshopper"? :)
Sorry, but that really _did_ seem like word salad.
Bill Garthright Hmm? Some play tennis, some play squash, there are others who just watch! Bye Bill....
@@1SpudderR
Some argue effectively, some argue ineptly, some just spout nonsense. Bye.
Sounds like nonsense
Maybe go study some actual science - quantum mechanics says multiple worlds exist, cosmology says infinite universes with radically different properties probably exist - why aren't these fantastic enough? Why do we have to cling on to these ideas of afterlife realms etc. when actual science has fantastic alternate realms?
Many worlds is just an interpretation, not a fact. While your comment’s essence is true, your examples aren’t
@@biblebot3947 Actually, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a mathematically sound interpretation, as sound as any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you believe in QM then you can't refute the soundness of the many worlds interpretation. Like, these "many worlds" are, mathematically speaking, literal.
@@ajeetgary2706 I said that the MWI hasn’t been proven yet so using it is pointless
All of the interpretations held by physicists are sound, but that’s not the problem. The problem is the lack of evidence
@@biblebot3947 I think you misunderstand MWI - the mathematics of QM says that there are different possibilities in superposition before an observation collapses the wave function down to one; the MWI says that all the possibilities happen in un-reachable parallel worlds, which is consistent with the math. The math part has been throughly tested, and the interpretation is unfalsifiable past the math, it's just a way of thinking about it, and since it's mathematically sound it's a fine way of thinking about it. MWI says itself that these other worlds can't be reached, so what is there to find evidence for?
Thats an scietist that can destingues between his religios belief and from the objective reality.
Pneuma
Whatever happened to the bean burrito gal?
Gravity could be the only thing
I don't think we can apply any scientific analysis to "near death" experiences. They are either made up, or they are dreams.
Farts are non material.cant see it 😄
You can see farts with an electron microscope
@@SumNutOnU2b 😄can you see what i ate yesterday in the farts😄
@@tanjohnny6511 farts don't contain food. Farts come from gas buildup caused by microorganisms in your colon.
@@SumNutOnU2b just having a light moment.just is short.😄
No worries. I get that
Always surprises me when an obviously intelligent person chooses to spend their career chasing something like this metaphysical hooey. I guess it sells books.
Robert, you seriously accept the example of existence or non-existence of Warsaw as equivalent to other concepts in this discussion? please tell me no. Then why it only matters if you have been to Warsaw in the past? If Warsaw is not in front of your eyes right now why should you think it is there. Even if you are viewing the scenes from Warsaw in real time on a video monitor the video display is local to you. Warsaw may not be actually there. This is absurd equivalence and you should have pushed back. existence of Warsaw does not require violation of any known physical laws. Anyone can book a flight and go and see Warsaw, no special talents required.
In any case, most of our scientific knowledge of objective reality is not based on direct human perceptions. We use microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, CO detectors and so on to study and observe natural phenomenon that our humans senses cannot perceive directly. In fact our senses are very limited and as optical illusions and magic shows show are not reliable.
Wait, I know this, Mystical influences Logic form Physical!!!
I like how he completely ignores any explanation other than culture and jumps straight to the absurd. Obviously people can have similar experiences that are driven by biology and evolution rather than supernatural ghosts...
Shhhhh!!!!!
Don’t disturb their DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS
those are SACRED
Also, they won’t listen. Religious people tend to be indoctrinated from a young age then try to justify their beliefs. Pointing out their incorrect justification won’t do anything because the justification isn’t why they believe.
So many, darkness, silence e.t.c
...... or .... Jesus, Buddha etc do exist in some post-physical state and the ‘appearing’ figure is the one that ‘chooses’ to meet the catholic or buddhist. Or, the non-physical contains self-aware conscious-forms and these are capable of selecting the most suitable presented symbolism or metaphor for a context of the engagement they choose. How could conscious forms do that? Perhaps they’ve developed over billions of years and are just superior to humans; light years ahead of what man can imagine. Why couldn’t they be billions of years old? Do they have a body to wear out or some other structured form that would erode? Perhaps their extent of awareness is on the scale of galactic super-clusters; perhaps their awareness of time is framed in revolutions of a galaxy; not a human second. Maybe they manipulate material/non-material at a supra-galactic level as people build furniture out of wood they manipulate unformed energy not yet functionally described in physics; the archetypes of physical form itself; inventors of Pythagorean geometry .
Are they gods? Likely that is just the idea a human would leap to when becoming aware of the truly celestial - a mindblower. Are they a projection of our mythological thinking? Perhaps it’s the other way around; Celestials stooping down to mankind’s primitive level to convey themselves in basic metaphors or simple stories man could absorb when he was first inventing the wheel. . Perhaps they’ve taken hundreds of thousands of years to cultivate an awareness in man that might someday understand them; using crude images mankind or dumb apes might understand. Perhaps all Mankind and our star system is nothing more then mere spent’ star dust wherein mankind has an over-inflated ego-centric illusion of himself.
These guys aren’t being very creative in considering other superior forms of consciousness
Yeah, I agree. When all you've got is imagination, you really should be more imaginative, huh? :)
But I have the same problem with fantasy fiction. All you really need to write fantasy fiction is an imagination, since none of it has to match up to reality in any significant way. So why is there so much cookie-cutter fantasy fiction? So many fantasy authors seem to have no imagination _at all._
In science, you need *evidence.* But not in this stuff. In this stuff, you can seemingly imagine whatever you _want._
Bill Garthright ....distinct from fantasy or fiction, non-physical conscious collectives, or even cultures, need only be a valid construct or correlation to be real.
@@wanderingquestions7501
How do you define "real"? Apparently, it doesn't have to match up to reality in any way?
Bill Garthright “We” could use the term “real” in our recognition of them as long as they are composed of valid constructs.
@@wanderingquestions7501
Sorry, but that doesn't seem to answer my question. Then again, maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. I can't say I understand the point you're trying to make here.
Try DMT.
First