Very intresting, nice post doc.

My guess would be, electromagnetic waves emmited by the brain.

The brain when emmiting a certain type of wave creates an electromagnetic current, which can control postively and negatively charge items, specifically metals.

A young russian girl, was shot during ww2, she went through some severe mood wings, and found out that she could control things with her mind, none of the lifting cars up etc, but able to move keys off a desk, slow someone sheart etc. The kgb investigated and proved she was manipulating magnetic currents with her brain waves. When her emotions were heightend, she could produce alot more brain waves.

This would fit in with the connection between couples etc. Though this would seem to prove, the brain can actually work outside the physical body, but we also can emit things such as heat etc.

Wether this proves our mind is independant of the brain i doubt it, but it's certainly intresting.

Its more than that, Spitfire,

We are all connected through consciousness.  When relaxed, we can tap into a larger connection, and through intention actually change what we know of as reality.

The brain is what we see when we dissect the human body.  Our consciousness exists both outside of reality and anchored to our brain as well.  Through intention, these experiments (done in a controlled manner at a major university) show that our will, our conscious intention can shape our reality.  Of course, all our wishes don't come through.  It appears that those who have a stronger effect on this shared reality do so in a relaxed meditative state.

Perhaps consciousness is the underlying force in the universe.


Matthew

Mathew said: Perhaps consciousness is the underlying force in the universe
____

agreed. didn't read this anywhere..but when I watched my arms and legs disappear and my consciousness was encased within an orb of light...I kind of got the point what I was...something like spirit, something totally free and able to fly, and something that was very glad my body was waiting for me when I returned and wasn't stiff   you do this a couple of times, and u begin to be glad you have a body, a life. you're not sure who to give your gratitude to, but when you are out there, the love is all around you.

of course it's my experience. can't share experiences, only write them down. everybody has to have their own. love, alysia

I want to here Dave's take too..he seems to be able to look at from two different viewpoints, one spiritual, one very scientific and bring them to some sort of cohesion. Dave?

An immodest footnote - on my site I have a fairly wordy multiply aspected cosmology model if you want to dig it up under the "things to read"  pages.

www.mind-body-spirit-hypnoclinic.com

I have suggested an experimental approach from a physics standpoint, but it isn't immediately practicable.

My spiritual take is that we are all One, and that the global human problem is not so much to prove this, but to stop feeling that we are Many. We discover our Oneness when we go into the Light at death. This is the common thread of most regression reports. Given Oneness, the next question is why we have so little ESP, as opposed to whether ESP exists.

dave

Hi Folks-
OK, Alycia, since you set me up for this, let me try to give feedback appropriate to the question, rather than the technical side. I'm sure that my thoughts aren't new, but they might rekindle some of your own experiences and memories. I begin with the assumption that everything is One. (You can verify this by meditation, much easier than trying to do it by logic.)

Starting with Oneness, a level at which we are experientially One, and at which we have all questions answered and all knowledge shared, we also have very little to do. In order to have something to talk about, we have to have divergent viewpoints.

To have divergent viewpoints, we also have to maintain a shared definition of the continuum in which we are collectively immersed. Speculative physicists like Gribben have suggested tht this reality, together with its fundamental constants, like the speed of light, Planck's constant etc, are all selected as a set out of a vast array of potential values, so that this specific set of terms can generate a stable material universe. (For example, just try to find another set of values that allows eg. the triple-alpha conversion of helium into carbon, and also provides for the creation of fluorine.)

So we diverge, generating new subjective realities as we do, much in the same manner as when we wake up we start with one thought, one idea, one viewpoint, and then as we get involved in the day we develop new viewpoints, ideas and perspectives. There's nothing new here.

Bringing this to the present level, we have a reality that is defined as individualistic and discontinuous. The experimental settings used in any good experiment must use a  separate and discontinuous definition of the experimental subjects, else they are "biased" in favor of the precise information that they purportedly seek. I suggest that this is why we find no more than a tiny effect.

If we start out by defining everything as One, and we place experimental subjects into that Oneness by hypnosis, meditation, Bruce's soul retrieval methods, my past life techniques, or anything similar, then we will get back a lot of data that overlap in nature and content, expressing the increasing commonality of viewpoints as they tend into Oneness. (This is why meditators can get into a very intimate union through meditation, and the proper practice of Tantric sexual meditation can produce a sense of unity of lovers at the point of Divine Creation.)

Now let's impose a definition set on each of our experimental subjects that says, "You are isolated, separated, have no way of contacting one another, and we have guarded against your doing it by telepathy, remote viewing or other non-experimental means."  Just as prayer allows the praying people to alter reality toward the direction of cure of a friend, the experimental conditions, of themselves, negate access to the effects soughrt. And we have tens of thousands of
experimentalists "praying" the materialistic state of separation in which there is no ability to make contact.

I was up late last night trying to come up with a better methodology. What I suggest is that we start with a contingent statement, "Given a continuum between Oneness and total diversity, there must be some attribute by which the location on the continuum is expressed." (By comparison, the attribute that expresses a person's love of eating might be their weight.) Then, we should be able to do a correlative study that associates the ability of a person to have "ESP" (meaning all psychic effects in this case) with the degree to which they
manifest the attribution associoated with Oneness.

The problem is that this is a circular definition, presuming the answer, and then looking for its conditions of occurrence. The result would be a statement that for those who accept this type of definition, we have one property that exrternally reflects their Oneness, and that correlates with their mutuality of mind such that they have a greater ESP tendency. The next thing would be for others to pick apart the contingencies, so that some kind of logical expression might be made that reflects everyday reality, rather than our foreknowledge.

Here's an example. For all the people on this site, how many have had an "ESP" experience, again using the term in the widest possible manner? Next, grade those experiences from 1 to 10, and correlate that with their sense of participation in Oneness.  (We'll ignore meditative skill and other instrumentation issues for a moment.) We'd find a high positive correlation at a very significant statistical level.

Looking at those data, do they mean that this is a commonly shared hallucination? Do they mean that because of those experiences they have decided to believe in a commonly shared delusion? FDo these number suggest tht peple will adapt their experiences to fit any available explanation, and thus we have a site based on neurotic compensation? Or is it all a matter of suggestion? Or could it all be true?That's the circularity problem.

So we enlarge the experiment to use a Greco-Latin Squares Analysis of Variance (when I taught methodology, I avoided this complexity whenever possible because of the hassles it entails) in which we classify people according to numerous beliefs, numerous traits, numerous beiefs, meditative skills, exotic experiences, and so on for as many traits as we can discover. Then we look for a common trend such that those traits asspociated with Oneness are also associated with "ESP".  Next, after we publish our findings we wold face a vast uproar. Then we'd have to prove to the millions of materialistic critics that every one of our initial criteria was actually associated with Oneness, which is equally as difficult as the initial search for "ESP". Back to square one.

The only thing I know of that makes sense in this whole area is that when we love deeply, we also share ideas, thoughts and awareness.  Mom "knows" when the kids are in trouble. Husbands phone their wives when the wife thinks, "I wish he'd phone me right now." But that makes for a really difficult
experimental design, because there's nothing objective, no control group, and only imperfect recollections as data.

So, Alycia, you know what I think?  - Of course you do.

love-
dave

so Dave my friend..you just took me in a magnificent circle as you seemed to promise you would

do u think it's true incarnation on this Earth can be condensed into an "experiment" as is suggested by The Gathering (focus 33 for reference) ?

I tend to sway in the direction that its an experiment just until you think it's not an experiment.

i agree it's all one fragmented into the many.

I agree consensus agreement makes a temporary physical reality for a reference point to have relationships.

at one point reading you, I was reminded of whether the tree that falls in the forest, whether it makes a sound if no one is there to hear it...
so if gravity is a reliable reference point, I think consensus agreement agrees it does make a sound.

what are u saying? it's all relative?
seem like we already said this together..

well, nothing absolute around here as only change is constant. but if I try to understand this thread, then I could just sum up that reality and beauty too, is in the eye of the beholder. nuff about that said for my part.

there is a class on Methodology? see how I learn things?  I assume it's a bunch of methods that people put into a box and try to figure out which one works better for an objective?

you said There's nothing new here. today I found your new post it's very satisfying for me at least. so thank you whoever you are, to me a