Return Home
It is currently Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:34 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:00 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:16 am
Posts: 4
Ted
I am really looking at entropy in a much more general way. Bear in mind that from my point of view negative or positive entities separate from people do not exist. Two examples of low entropy to higher entropy - the collapse of Rome in the West and the dark ages from 500 AD to 1000 AD, the ceasing of progress in China in the eighth century. On the assumption that in general these very long term entropy shifts have been analysed correctly by historians and not taking Napoleon who said "History is a set of lies agreed upon" seriously, the key factor in the move to higher entropy seems to me much more to do with freedom of thought than with love. In the case of the West, a collapse in the rule of law which meant that survival was far more important than ideas. In the case of China, the regime became so proscriptive that a poet could only write a poem within very narrow parameters as the regime sought to freeze progress.
So although I much prefer John Lennon to John Calvin, I am trying to see why love should be such a powerful force. And where are those societies built on love in history and operating today? I can’t see any.
Entropy interests me as a concept. David Aaranovitch has written a lot about conspiracy theory http://www.davidaaronovitch.com/html/vo ... ories.html . I tend to agree with his theory that people like conspiracy theories because the alternative is just random chaos. A good conspiracy theory has much less entropy than a meaningless disaster.
Patrick = thanks. Like your portrait. I am sadly off the booze (liked it too much).


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:45 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Atilla,

Part of our problem with agreement on entropy may simply be cross purposes of usage. Here Tom Campbell has a special use of the word entropy, based upon its normal usage in physics and engineering, but referring to the entropy within our actual beings as digital entities referred to as Individuated Units Of Consciousness or IUOCs. An IUOC in Tom's model is what we are at base as a mind existing within Consciousness Space, CS, or the Larger Consciousness System, LCS. Perhaps you might take the time to read a very compressed version of Tom Campbell's model here on the Wiki. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/In ... _MBT_Model This might help to bring our communications into better synchronization. This is not totally complete and needs many of the details of defining everything throughout common in Wikis. Any errors are mine and not Tom Campbell's. I am satisfied that it is Tom's model but it is my writeup. It is only about 20 pages versus the many involved in Tom's books and it goes more into pure mathematics as opposed to Tom's descriptions although these are things that Tom and I have discussed. It also lacks one last planned page.

While I recognized your meaning in referring to the Roman and the British empires and the Western cultures developed as being low entropy organizations, compared to simple barbarian chaos, I do not see them as being based upon low entropy citizens acting in what we would consider to be low entropy ways. Their citizens, their goals in terms of amassing wealth and organizing power, were typical of what occurs in the barbarian societies that preceded them. Our usage of entropy does not attribute low entropy to simple organization at a high level in terms of social organization and a developed hierarchy. This is a problem but for Tom in what he was describing regarding the quality of organization and functionality within a digital mind, there was no better choice of a word as only entropy really fits the concept. In this usage, low entropy does equate to love but this is love with a more expansive meaning than the typical usage in English which tends to concentrate upon eros as opposed to agape and other aspects as compassion, empathy, etc.

We are just 'exploring' each other and our concepts at the moment. Tom's comments upon the control approach to achieving lower entropy is that it is a self limiting approach. The opposite, and the apparent approach of the LCS or AUM as the Absolute Unbounded Manifold that is the present state of The One Consciousness, is the optimization of the free will of all entities. Not that they will not have it but that in general the greatest growth occurs when one interacts with the greatest regard for the free will of others but optimizes this by acting to protect the free will of those being subjected to control by others and are unable to protect themselves which means that you limit the free will of those aiming to control others. Free will is of great significance in Tom's model as a necessary component in the creation of Consciousness. In Tom's descriptions, free will as a necessity requires that those who approach entropy reduction based upon control must be permitted to do so. They must be allowed this approach to growth of Quality of Consciousness and lowering of entropy for free play of the evolutionary principle and full exploration of ideas. However it is considered to be of self limiting value because of the tendency to limit the free will of others. Thus the reference to curbing this approach to the extent that it incurs upon the free will of others. All approaches to development are allowed but there are limits in terms of optimizing the free will of all entities. I don't remember if you have clarified how much you have explored Tom's ideas as in reading his books versus watching his video seminars.

I will leave this for now and see if this advances our understanding of each other. Thank you for your attitude of polite exploration of concepts. It is greatly appreciated.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:44 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
atilla wrote:Ted
examples of low entropy to higher entropy - the collapse of Rome in the West and the dark ages from 500 AD to 1000 AD, the ceasing of progress in China in the eighth century. ze (liked it too much).
one my favorite theories along these lines is Wittfogel on hydrolic societies. The basic idea is that history ebbs and flows based on whether military technology is dominated by offensive or defensive technology, which sets up the cycle of relative peace vs war.

For example, the emergence of effective castles undermined the roman siege strategy, leading to the breakup of the empire into fiefdoms and the dark ages, but Arab artillery launched the later period of war and the emergence of the nation state, until the invention of nuclear weapons, which had a similar effect to castles, freezing everyone in place and launching an era of peace

Interestingly, Japan was one of the few Asian countries to follow the European model, based on the effectiveness of castles, which is dependent on reliable rainwater during siege.

Arab and Asian countries based on canals and irrigation, controlled by a central authority, did not go through this cycle of castles, a dark age, and reemergence, being hydraulic societies

I may not be representing the facts completely accurately, but you get the gist

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:09 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
atilla wrote:Ted

So although I much prefer John Lennon to John Calvin, I am trying to see why love should be such a powerful force. And where are those societies built on love in history and operating today?
Calvin represents the north European protestant cultural imbalance toward the mental intellectualism of the left hemisphere...the right hemispheric mysticism of the catholic church had evolved out of reach for the newly post pagan barbarians to the north, so they reworked the model to something they could understand, to take the next step

John Lennon represents the struggle of the American western middle classes to move beyond the structure of the 1950s Calvinism of the parents and incorporate right hemispheric perspectives

calvanism was a war on animal impulse, Lennon was a war on structure and ego

Where are these societies? At the time of Rome, the rich could purchase a prisoner, set them on a pedestal and burn them alive for amusement and light at a party, or the masses would gather to watch lions hunt and feed on christians.

Now, plant welfare is a serious topic of discussion

Beware of glass 1% empty syndrome

love is the word FWAUs assign to the occasionally glimpsed reality that we are all individuated bumps on the AUM manifold, and that this reality seeps into PMR as the system shakes itself and discovers efficiency, but this can be overdone as individuation and a starting point of ego are an essential part of the IUOCs learning process

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:53 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:16 am
Posts: 4
Yes Ted. I think I got the definition of entropy not quite right. Humanity sure has a long way to go. Very good of you to put such effort into your replies. MBT is good stuff. Kroeran the glass is 99% full.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:04 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Atilla,

That is why Tom asked me to be here. I have the time and am on assignment as Tom's assistant.

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:46 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:04 am
Posts: 21
he has a lot of good and proven work. that is all!


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
atilla wrote:Yes Ted. I think I got the definition of entropy not quite right. Humanity sure has a long way to go. Very good of you to put such effort into your replies. MBT is good stuff. Kroeran the glass is 99% full.
and even if you were in a 1% situation, I would argue that we should place all of our attention on the 1% and celebrate that

its like zero based existential budgeting - start with a presumption of zero, and then it is all uphill from there

like, even if you have 12 hours to live, and you are in pain, well, thats 12 hours of consciousness, which is technically impossible, so you celebrate that and focus on that

It appears that sometimes AUM has a sense of humour and does things like shoot a physicist into other dimensions, or insert a psychiatrist into a Nazi Death camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:41 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:24 am
Posts: 61
Location: Palma de Mallorca
Just in case somebody should stumble upon this thread some time in the future and ask himself, if there is really no scientific data about PSI phenomena available at all, I want to repeat the recommendation made in My Big TOE to read the following material:

- Russel Targ and Harold Puthoff: Mind-Reach - Scientists Look at Psychic Ability
- Dean I. Radin: The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena

A good place to start is also the Website of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program at: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
which among other things contains a list of 62 published scholarly papers (including bibliographical reference), most of them immediately downloadable as PDF documents.

Of course these three sources are just a small part of the available data, should someone be really interested in serious scientific publications covering this topic. But everybody should be able to recognize Princeton University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science as a reputable contributor to the scientific community.

Just my 2 cents...

Tronar

_________________
Always expect the unexpected...


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:22 pm 
msagansk wrote:The research is subjective!

It is verifiable and repeatable by yourself, if you're willing to work at it. But the experience is not objective and so the result won't be exactly the same for everyone. If you looked up the reference I provided, you would see it for yourself (you can use Google Books to search for specific sections of the trilogy). There is no physical "microscope" that can be used to collect non-physical data.

He actually goes on at length about this stuff in the books.

Some of Tom's explorer sessions with Bob Monroe are available at The Monroe Institute's web site. I don't think much else has been released by TMI but I could be wrong. Tom has admitted to using Seth's books as a starting point for research, because it was one of the few models of NPMR available at the time.

And again, in the trilogy, he recommends meditation as the starting point for your own research. He gives his reasons why which I'm not going to repeat here.

The useful result of all his research for us is his theory and model of reality.
I have not read Tom's 800 page book yet, and I don't have time to. Is it really necessary to read his book just to get a step by step methodology? Is the only methodology to "open your mind" and to "meditate"?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:02 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
rsi wrote:I have not read Tom's 800 page book yet, and I don't have time to. Is it really necessary to read his book just to get a step by step methodology? Is the only methodology to "open your mind" and to "meditate"?
Let me get this straight. You want to duplicate an experience or experiment of the past with the intent of confirming it but you cannot be bothered to take the time to study the field manual? Is that not like saying that I wish to do serious research in physics but I do not have time to bother to study and become a physicist in order to be qualified to do such research?

Ted


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:25 pm 
Ted Vollers wrote:
rsi wrote:I have not read Tom's 800 page book yet, and I don't have time to. Is it really necessary to read his book just to get a step by step methodology? Is the only methodology to "open your mind" and to "meditate"?
Let me get this straight. You want to duplicate an experience or experiment of the past with the intent of confirming it but you cannot be bothered to take the time to study the field manual? Is that not like saying that I wish to do serious research in physics but I do not have time to bother to study and become a physicist in order to be qualified to do such research?

Ted
No, I want to read it, but I don't have time to read his book which contains stories. It does not appear to be a field manual. And it does not read like a scientific article. It is a novel. It contains plenty of stories in the first person, and that is not what I am after. I am after sound methodologies. While I will take a look at his book in detail, I am after facts.

Can you list the methodologies? Please don't argue with me. I'm not here to attack anyone.

Thank you.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:32 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7231
Location: Ocala, FL
Only the first part of the book, where he tells his background, is told in first person. Tom does not believe in telling stories about his NPMR travels. Maybe you should read the book before you want to tell us what is in it.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:58 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 102
Hi Practical proof, if you dont have time for the books, check out Tom's videos on youtube regarding the seminars he had in various cities. During those sessions there are some exercises.
Cheers.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Scientific Evidence?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:01 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
PracticalProof wrote:Can you list the methodologies? Please don't argue with me. I'm not here to attack anyone.
I think that if you bother to read what I and others have posted in these threads accurately, you will find that I explained there that there were no recorded 'methodologies' from that early exploration by Tom, Dennis and Robert Monroe. This was really ground breaking research at that time and was so clearly described, including their strong reaction to the results as being very impressive to them, by Tom, Dennis and Robert in the records which we have which included a discussion recorded by Robert Monroe about his reaction and also what Tom has written about his reaction to these results in MBT.

I think that if you look at these transactions, it is rather you that is arguing with me (us) when we explain that what you want is not available. There are no such records available, or apparently kept, at what became TMI other than the generalizations that the two subjects, Tom and Dennis were in separate and fully sound proofed and electromagnetically shielded rooms lying on, I think, water beds to reduce physical stimuli. Robert Monroe was in a separate shielded room with the recording equipment which he controlled. Neither Tom nor Dennis could communicate directly with each other and only with Bob who switched between the two others. It is reported that Bob demonstrated switching back and forth between the recordings, playing them back to Tom and Dennis later, and showing them that their statements to him perfectly dove tailed with each other and confirmed their direct interaction while within the OOB state. But I was not there, I have only listened to that recording on line on the TMI site once, and there are apparently no records beyond this. If there were, the place to look for them would be among the publications of TMI itself.

Ted


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited