Just wanted to say a big Happy New year to everyone.

I hope we all have a good year and obviously that we are all here at the end of it ;)

I am minded to remember that kitchen accidents and the family car are still much more dangerous than the Mayans. Lets all have a nice safe and happy year and still be here to debate in 2013.

Big news today - the universal constancy of the speed of light looks threatened by something other than theory.

See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-enviro...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-enviro...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20...

This is going to be huge if it is confirmed.

I imagine this will be jumped on as another colossal mistake in science, but in the same vein as I agree'd about the hypocrisy in scepticism I would recommend caution to anyone tempted to use this that way - this could be much more exciting than just that.

Any temptation to suddenly declare the speed of light not the maximum universal speed, or not a constant, plays a game by forgetting all the thousands of different experiments that say it is. I guess this is why travel in different dimensions seems to be one of the main contenders for the possible answer. That explains both sets of data instead of opting to explain one at the expense of the other.

So have we just found our first objective evidence of travel in extra dimensions?

I thought I’d go with a provocative title, but don’t worry, it isn’t going to be that bad.

4 days ago the lack of a basis for understanding reality was bugging me, so I thought I’d have another crack at it. Then it bugged me some more…. Then it really bugged me.

Descartes was wrong. ‘I think therefore I exist’ looked like a good starting point, but a consciousness might be simulated – being able to think (or, more importantly, being able to think that you think) does not prove your own existence, though I think it does prove ‘existence’. I seem to be able to prove ‘existence’, but not my own... oops.

So anyway, it seems hard to prove reality if there isn’t even a definition of it. If we simulate consciousness in a computer, even if the simulation is perfect, is it real? Money is real, but it disappears if we do. Meanwhile mountains probably remain. Is an artificial consciousness real? If not, is it unreal only because it cannot exist outside of the computer, unreal because if we shut the computer of it no longer exists? Because it is a ‘simulation’? What is a ‘simulation’?; especially if it is perfect?

It seems that to use the word ‘simulation’ we are already making a value statement based on what is ‘reality’ – or real, and what is not, but we have not yet defined ‘reality’. Again, oops.

So, are we stuck?

Maybe not.... Maybe. It occurred to me this morning after waking up from a dream in which I was trapped in a burning building that if we can go as far as proving ‘existence’ because we feel we think then perhaps the existence of different experiences of consciousness provides grounding for building a definition of reality upon.

This still isn’t up to the standard of a perfect philosophical get out, and needs further thought, but perhaps the existence of waking and dreaming states provides a good initial step for that illusive definition of reality.

In Seth’s model it may be akin to separation of the telepathic link between our isolated spacetime bubbles, and then the freedom of the bubble to float and change more willy-nilly, yet throw quantum mechanics language back in and the telepathic connect is what collapses the individual bubbles back into a cohesive reality. Are people in coma’s broken from telepathic links and confined to their own reality? Is reality the collapse of all of our bubbles into one bubble and is that where the consistency of measurement comes from in the waking world? - without the consistency of measurement in the dreaming world?

Close mindedness becomes a way to investigate the barrier (and definition?) between an emergent reality while awake, and a non emergent (though still experienced) unreality while asleep. The mind is open while awake, collapsing experience into reality as our individual bubbles of reality touch each other (through telepathy or quantum mechanics or whatever), but while asleep our minds (or an important part of them) are closed and we roam free in our own worlds.

Hence the importance of the closed mind in the first step of a definition of reality.

As ever… From brain spew to page…. Hope everyone is well.

Pilfered from Wiki:

I have seen it said that we are all innately essentialist. A quick look inside myself throws up the possibility that this is tied to the 'I Am' occurring in my head describing me as a fixed entity in space and time and that from this instinctive feeling comes, once written down and discussed and re-written down, philosophical Essentialism.

Evolution seriously complicates this though.

Picking the example from the book that points this out:

Platonic Essentialism states that there is such a thing as a Rabbit, but goes further, there is a perfect Rabbit from which all other Rabbits derive their form. Rabbits are a shadow of the Perfect Rabbit, just like a triangle drawn on paper is a representation of the perfect triangle that exists only in mathematics (and can be approximated, but never perfectly, in the real world). Those Greeks sure loved their geometry hay!

So we have this concept that Rabbits exist somewhere else as well as here, and that Rabbits here reflect the Rabbits elsewhere. Or for humans; that a human here is some sort of shadow or reflection of a human 'idea' existence elsewhere.

Here is where evolution changes things though.

A Rabbit as seen today is not a rabbit from the past, or how rabbits will be in the future. The concept of a rabbit as seen today actually represents a statistical distribution of Rabbits. So we might study all Rabbits and graph their features. We would produce a bell shaped curve, where the peak is the quintessential Rabbit, the very essence of Rabbitness. Drawing a line down through the middle of the bell curve would give us the modern concept of Rabbitness. If we were to measure the Rabbit population for a million years though we would see its features shift across the graph and 'Rabbitness' would be lost. Our line down the middle of the graph is artificial.

Many people are now fine with this idea, but it sort of puts a spanner in the works for essentialism.

Some modern ideas that parallel Plato's realm of ideas involve ideas like a sea of consciousness from which we come, and eventually return to (and some just call it God), which isn't entirely essentialist I give you, but the notion that the defining charateristics of any species exist outside of the species (such as in a soul) has essentialist qualities.

I find this whole thing very interesting. Would a human soul stuck in an ant be human? Or do we just flat give up on strict essentialism? (for the soul?) - and is this as important as it seems given how innate it feels (especially in our younger years)?

I was just mulling on this. We've all heard a million stories about past lives and religions believing in reincarnation, but the linear nature of it is quite apparent.

Given the fun coming out of combinations of quantum mechanics and spirituality is this linear nature something that is going to become a bit of a throwback to our unimaginative past?

There's plenty of available interpretative space in QM to allow for non-linear reincarnation. Have people heard about future-life regression?

Do people believe we can have had one life 200 years ago, then the next in 1000 years time, then jump back to 12,000 years ago, then jump to now in this life? I see no problem with it conceptually.

I guess my question is has anybody read about this? If the prevalence of stories of reincarnation are linear past to present stories why do people think this might be so? Then from a more mundane point of view why might the brain be less able to conjure future life stories (i can't see why it might) if indeed it is conjuring past life ones or might it be the lack of imagination in those asking the questions? Are they just not asking about people’s future-lives?

There's plenty of content here addressing the subject of alien visitations. We've got government cover-ups, conspiracy, collapse of ancient civilisations, cut off's 12,000 years ago between alien influenced civilisations and poor old us, and attempts at understanding bizarre accounts of various alien activity (etc).

I'm feeling a little on the outside though as references are made to events that are obvious to others but difficult if you are not familiar with the history or stories.

What can people say to people that are not well versed in the history. Why is it obvious that China is covering up cataclysm 12,000 years ago? Why is it obvious that ancient civilisations had common alien origins? What technology shows up that is alien in history?

What would people say to someone uninitiated in all of this that goes beyond personal opinion and comment on the subject?

Just a quick question, to which i thought many of us would have different opinions and i'd be interested to see what other people thought.

Given many of the stances, assertions and defenses seen here and elsewhere a question comes to mind.

Where do people feel the line exists (and where it might merge) between science and philosophy (we can also throw in philosophies other child - religion, if we want)?

New BBC UK poll finds peoples belief in man made climate change dropped markedly over the recent climate stories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500...

Personally i think that figure might go back up once all the stories this will trigger are over.

I think this shows something more interesting though.

The rapid decrease shows that people do not want it to be true. Myself included, though i do think it is. It would be great to think that we're not doing enough harm to affect the climate, not forgetting that this isn't just about CO2. I think the sudden swing shows that the majority of people, while not wanting it to be true, were convinced by the reputation of the evidence bringers as much as by the evidence they understood (which is possibly the smaller component compared to the reputation of those supporting the evidence).

This might show to those trying to convince people of man made climate change that convincing people, as was previously believed to have been done in the UK, is only temporary against the background of what people want to be true. If this is the case the battle to save much more than just the atmosphere may always be uphill.

I just thought this was a little interesting as a conversation piece.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18...

Obviously we have the revelational religions and cults that claim specific knowledge, though looking at believers within each branch we can still see differences being overlain onto the God idea.

I personally overlay an idea of apophatism, mixed with some deism, mixed with a 'Grand Mover', mixed with some natural findings and supernatural possibilites to imply characteristics. All in a light hearted way, with apophatism being the central idea, in any attempt to describe the possibility of a deity or deities.

This is only myself reflecting on the rather nebulous principle of 'God' though.

Do we really just pour ourselves onto it, each revealing ourselves instead of any real knowledge of 'God'?

Hay all,
I've come across the Global Consciousness Project recently. Reading the website reminds me a little of being back at uni; its a headache, but a nice one. Feels like i need to print the site out and sit down with a coffee really.

I like the idea of the Global Consciousness Project. The use of random number generators is interesting.

In another blog post a member pointed me towards data showing an electromagnetic increase around the time of 9/11. Unfortunately i couldnt find any reference to it. If anyone has a link i would appreciate it (especially to any data). The trouble i have with using satellites to measure electromagnetism is that i'm not sure you wouldnt expect an electromagnetic increase then anyway. All those phones going crazy, tv's going on, power stations having to turn themselves up to meet demand etc. We are electromagnetic anyway so i dont know what it would show if an increase was measured that wasnt related to electronics (one very sensitive and confirmed as human activity). Perhaps like measuring an increase in heat in a room when a lion is released in a crowd of people, i dont think it could necessarily be used as an example of directly measuring consciousness even though it might be related to an increase in 'conscious activity', and especially not to claim that consciousness is 'quantum heat'!

Using random number generators is a fine way of getting around these problems. If what they are suggesting is true then i would be pretty gobsmacked. At the moment i am very suspicious though.

As you know, i would class myself as a natural/material atheist. I think quantum consciousness is a nice way of bringing 'new age' ideas into an accessible form to me. From the way many people talk you would think that the quantum world is immaterial, which obviously it isnt. It is funky, but we already knew the world was. To me bringing ideas of the soul into a quantum world is almost a way of taming them. I can also see how quantum consciousness isnt the savior of religious/spiritual folk either. There really isnt much difference from a naturalistic perspective between consciousness occurring naturally in the universe through evolution of the brains macroscopic neural structure and quantum consciousness occurring naturally in the universe through evolution of the brain and macroscopic neural structure. Especially since most spiritual adherents of quantum consciousness almost seem to consciously ignore the fact that macroscopic neural structure plays the most significant role in consciousness, preferring some sort of symbiotic theory rather than the quantum just being an aspect of consciousness, which is what i would suggest the best quantum evidence (ahem ;-) ) suggests.

I am not really including NDE's etc as evidence of quantum consciousness there as it isnt directly evidence of any particular scientific idea, rather evidence of experience after death etc.

Anyway i was wondering what people thought of the GCP, in particular about how people have disagreed with it.