Interesting 7-part video - The Primacy of Consciousness

[padma norbu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8AXmJdmzfM

One of those times when I feel like other people really are (again) talking about the same thing in different words.
It gets perhaps most interesting in parts 5 - 7.

I fell asleep around part 4 or 5 last night and rewatched 4-7 this morning in installments because I kept falling asleep.

[padma norbu]

I never heard of this guy before, but here's his Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell_%28author%29

and his bio page from his site: http://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php

[padma norbu]

btw, I didn't actually WATCH it. I just set up a playlist so it would play all 7 continuously and then lay down and listened to it like a radio show.

[catmoon]

btw, I didn't actually WATCH it. I just set up a playlist so it would play all 7 continuously and then lay down and listened to it like a radio show.

With trepidation, I ran the first segment and was hooked. It looks like Russell has found something of a bridge between science and the mind. If you have a little knowledge of physics, at say the undergrad level, this is a bit of a mind-blower!

Adding in some supplementary net searches, I am now 2 hours behind in my daily scan of the board. Back to the salt mines.

[edearl]

btw, I didn't actually WATCH it. I just set up a playlist so it would play all 7 continuously and then lay down and listened to it like a radio show.

With trepidation, I ran the first segment and was hooked. It looks like Russell has found something of a bridge between science and the mind. If you have a little knowledge of physics, at say the undergrad level, this is a bit of a mind-blower!

Adding in some supplementary net searches, I am now 2 hours behind in my daily scan of the board. Back to the salt mines.

His hypothesis is interesting, not the only possibility, and not the same as my personal hypothesis. His references to physics were, as far as I can tell accurate, but he use them, IMO unsuccessfully, to validate his hypothesis. IMO, his references to physics were an appeal to authority. (See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/). Neither his nor my hypothesis can be proved or disproved at this time, maybe never. Physics describes the interaction among particles as action-reaction. You hit a baseball with a bat, just right, and it files out of the ball park. Quantum mechanics describes two kinds of action-reaction, one similar to hitting a ball with a bat (a local interaction) and one that occurs faster than light (non-local). His reporting that our mental image of the cosmos is nothing like reality is true. Scientists say quantum mechanics is not intuitive; I say it is weird, but I am not an expert.

[padma norbu]

Let me know what you guys think of parts 4-7. The only real problem I had with it was that he used the term "God" toward the end, but this is a very common problem and I don't want to get hooked on that word since obviously what he is talking about is very different than a Creator deity. Other than that, I kept thinking about Dzogchen and checking if it contradicts... I found that if it did, it was very subtle, I think, and hard to verify exactly if it is a real contradiction or just a slightly different choice of words which are open to interpretation. I certainly agreed with it more than the ideas expressed by Vedantist / scientist Amit Goswami in "The Quantum Activist," for example.

I have been thinking along these lines for several years, so it was really nice to see this guy's very thorough presentation. Thinking about how consciousness arises has literally almost driven me mad a few times when I would just keep thinking about it and not letting it go... and I think it actually did drive a friend of mine mad (he is now schizophrenic).

Glad someone else watched it! Thanks for giving your feedback.

PS - Several years back, I fell into some new age beliefs about Quantum Physics way before "What the Bleep" and "The Secret" came out, but when I went to science forums to ask about it, I was met with extreme hostility from the scientists there. I became thoroughly convinced I was duped and, disheartened, I have always read about quantum physics with some weariness. However, lately, I've started to come to the conclusion that the scientists that reacted that way and continue to are really just lying about the facts. That is not to say I agree with "What The Bleep" or "The Secret" to any degree whatsoever. In fact, quite the opposite: I never agreed with either. The stuff I was reading was along the lines of Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality," who is in fact a quantum physicist. I read the book and thought, "wow!" This is the book many new agers began using to make all sorts of claims, but Herbert's book is pretty scientific, I think. Of course, the scientific community didn't like it. http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-B ... 353&sr=1-1
Anyway, atheist materialist scientists combine classical physics and quantum physics and argue from that materialist perspective, regardless of how much they have to skew the facts to fit their current models. I think this guy's presentation is probably an equally true a presentation of quantum physics as you are likely to find from an atheist materialist quantum physicist, just postulating different theories based on the facts whereas the atheist materialist would postulate (invent) 14 dimensions and all other manner of things before he might concede the possibility that the consciousness does not arise from electrical signals in the brain.

[edearl]

...
... atheist materialist quantum physicist ...

is an odd phrase.

You should reconsider your view of quantum mechanics (physics). Scientists are jealous people, who censure each other ruthlessly, and one caught in a lie about physics might loose their job and their reputation would be damaged.

Quantum physics is knowledge may be studied by anyone and verified mathematically and logically consistent. If you study quantum mechanics, you can verify for yourself all the observations. But, it is weird.

Max Plank who is considered to be the founder of quantum physics, was spiritual bud did not believe in a Christian or personal God.

Erwin Schrödinger was reared Christian, but later in life was extremely interested in Hindu Vedanta.

Max Born was born Jewish and converted to Lutheran.

John von Neumann was agnostic.

Dr Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winner, believes in parapsychology and directs the Mind–Matter Unification Project. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCqpmqyvrZ4)

Graham Smetham, who is not a physicist, authored Quantum Buddhism, for his biography, see the following:
http://www.bodhicharya.org/manyroads/20 ... smethurst/

Also, see The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSa ... re=related

[padma norbu]

...
... atheist materialist quantum physicist ...

is an odd phrase.

Why? Buddhists are typically described as spirtual atheists. A materialist atheist does not believe in anything other than materialism and the quantum physics does nothing to dissuade him from this view.

You should reconsider your view of quantum mechanics (physics). Scientists are jealous people, who censure each other ruthlessly, and one caught in a lie about physics might loose their job and their reputation would be damaged.

I think you just misunderstand me. What do you think my view of quantum mechanics is?

Max Plank who is considered to be the founder of quantum physics, was spiritual bud did not believe in a Christian or personal God.

Erwin Schrödinger was reared Christian, but later in life was extremely interested in Hindu Vedanta.

Yes, I know. Ever read his "My View of The World?" Interesting.

Max Born was born Jewish and converted to Lutheran.

John von Neumann was agnostic.

Dr Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winner, believes in parapsychology and directs the Mind–Matter Unification Project. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCqpmqyvrZ4)

Graham Smetham, who is not a physicist, authored Quantum Buddhism, for his biography, see the following:
http://www.bodhicharya.org/manyroads/20 ... smethurst/

Also, see The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSa ... re=related

What is your point? As I said, I think you simply misunderstood me. There is nothing I need to reconsider based on your observations, which I am already aware of, one and all.

I specified atheist materialists quantum physicists, I was not labelling all quantum physicists as atheist materialists. I thought that was pretty obvious by the language "atheist materialist quantum physicist," but also by the fact that I mentioned Amit Goswami who is a quantum physicist strongly advocating that this qm proves Vedanta. There's a movie streaming on Netflix about him called "The Quantum Activist," if you haven't seen it. It is pretty lame, though.

[edearl]

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[padma norbu]

Dang it. I was actually kind of hoping I was misunderstanding something!

I am glad to see we have open-minded people responding here so far!

[catmoon]

...the fact that I mentioned Amit Goswami who is a quantum physicist strongly advocating that this qm proves Vedanta. There's a movie streaming on Netflix about him called "The Quantum Activist," if you haven't seen it. It is pretty lame, though.

It would have to be lame. The idea of proving vedanta (or any other doctrine) through quantum mechanics is ludicrous, and any attempt to do so will only lead to acrimony.

[padma norbu]

It would have to be lame. The idea of proving vedanta (or any other doctrine) through quantum mechanics is ludicrous, and any attempt to do so will only lead to acrimony.

And the guy is so deadly serious about it, too. With that, you know, good-natured whimsical smile that you would expect. About as deadly serious as a quantum physicist adamantly preaching vedanta can be, I suppose. If you have Netflix, see how much you can stand. It's somewhat interesting. But, you could probably do something more productive like clean the fridge or polish some silverware.

Were you able to watch all 7 parts of The Primacy of Consciousness?

[catmoon]

Were you able to watch all 7 parts of The Primacy of Consciousness?

Yes I watched it straight through. Part 7 got a bit weird, but as you say, he is using a highly modified God concept.

[padma norbu]

great! I wasn't sure if you just got sucked in a little bit or if you watched the whole thing.

It's a very good point, really, and one both sides (buddshists vs. materialists) tend to take for granted: where does consciousness come from? It's funny to me how I just take for granted that mind exists outside of the confines of some fatty tissue in my skull whereas materialists everywhere take it for granted that it's some weird byproduct of electromagnetic biophysical random mutation... and they think I am an the crazy one!

btw, I read somewhere that if you presented any researcher with a small slice of a human heart, they would not be able to decipher whether or not it was brain tissue or heart tissue. This I find very hard to believe since heart is muscle and brain is mostly fat, but when I read it, of course the first thing I thought of was Tibetan ideas and "heart mind."

Couldn't find anything about this at the moment, but I found this:
http://www.edutopia.org/richard-davidso ... rain-video
http://www.mindfulmuscleblog.com/heart- ... ciousness/
http://www.therealessentials.com/followyourheart.html
http://www.universal-tao.com/article/heart.html
http://www.heartmath.com/personal-use/o ... anger.html

...which is of course essentially what the New Thought movement of the early 1900s was saying about the "solar plexus."

[catmoon]

One thing I can tell you from experience is that heart tissue looks very distinctive under the microscope. It is made of something called striated muscle tissue, and doesn't even look the same as regular muscle.

I have seen many micrographs of brain tissue, and I have never seen any that looked even remotely like heart tissue.

[padma norbu]

exactly. thank you for confirming what I knew was nonsense. I wish I could remember where I saw that.