Printable View
If anybody want's a multiple viewpoint movie on quantum physics, go see that movie.
The most important part that struck me was this:
There was a researcher who showed that water molecules change, when a message is taped onto a bottle with demineralized water.
If a message can do that to water, and we are 90% water, what can our thoughts do to us ?!?! :!: :!:
Regards,
Jeroen
which movie?
It's in the Topic title: What the Bleep do we know.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
I actually just watched this the second time on the weekend and picked up a lot of points that I missed the first time around. This is highly orientated around spirituality, philosophy and quantum physics. The movie is nicely coloured the way in which it is done too so it extends past being just a documentary.Quote:
The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things.
There are certainly some fundamental truths, many of which take more than one viewing and a lot of thought to sink in. It is almost certainly a movie that everyone should go and see at least once.
Warm Regards,
Sasha
If you look closely at this movie, understand that it is basically a plug for RSE. Ramtha school of enlightenment. The only one that makes any real sense out of the bunch is Dr. Joe Dispenza. Check him out. As far as the Ramtha stuff, I'd stay away from it.
Kevin
Much of the "science" in that movie is inaccurate or poorly done.
I never opted it as Quantum Physics bible, just as a good introduction, for anyone blank on the topic.
Other then that, I wouldn't know whetter the science is good or not, I'm not qualiffied to judge that.
regards,
Jeroen
How do I get to see it? is it on tv? cinema? Am I being dumb? :roll:
It's a new rental movie in the Netherlands, so it should be old in the US by now :) Probably every rental place around the corner has it :?:
Or I have it in .iso format :twisted: Which is 7.8 GB tho.
Regards,
Jeroen
The movie brings insight into many philosophical ideas that are overlooked a lot of the time. Many of the scientific premises that run through the movie are not established well enough, but I don't watch it for how scientifically valid it is, but rather for how much it makes you think.
I often disagree with people that are in the interviews, but the actual concepts that run through the movie are amazing. Few movies, apart from The Matrix have as much depth to them as What The Bleep does.
Btw I should have mentioned earlier that it is playing here in Australia at some cinemas and is available on DVD internationally. I've got it on ISO too but its one tenth that size and at DVD quality :shock:
Warm Regards,
Sasha
800 megs eh? I have that kind of bandwidth, if you get my drift.
There are plenty of places to download ISOs online. It's more like 700MB btw.
Warm Regards,
Sasha
knucklebrain got it right, this movie was writen, produced, and directed by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and many of its "experts" were actually just RSE members.
If you look carefully at the end of the movie, they tell you who everyone is...and the blond woman is clearly listed as Ramtha, the 30000 year old Atlantian, being channeled by JK Knight.
JK Knight, by the way, is the founder of RSE. Before making "what the bleap" she had already racked in millions off of the Ramtha cult. The movie was just one long commercial.
Also, beware the pseudo science. None of the experments that are showcased were performed double blind, and none of them have ever been reproduced. Also, the bit about the Islanders not seeing Columbuses ships was "channeled" information with no basis in historical record.
Honestly, I believe the basic thesis of this film. However I beleive that this film gives all New Age/Spiritualist movements a bad name.
If only Discovery Channel had made a movie on that idea instead...
Edit: I forgot to mention that one of the scientists that was interviewed wrote many letters to magizeens and such over having been grossly taken out of context. Apparently, the directors spliced the interview to twist what he was talking about. He was very clear in his letters that he does not support the conclusions that this movie came to.
I took this idea as more of a metaphor, as much of the film inclines one to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celeborn
Specifically, the fact that we don't see everything in front of us. The mind is conditioned by its present nature to perceive only a certain amount of information based on pre-judgement that already exists within it.
There has been a lot of research into this hypothesis outside of the context of What The Bleep. It has been stated in many sources that we only "see" 50% of what is actually in front of us. I would argue that it is actually much less then that.
It is interesting why some people claim to see alien spacecrafts when others do not, or when someone sees a spirit being but no-one else can see it.
This also applies to how we perceive information, not just physical sight. It all draws from one of the main conclusions in the movie of just how self-limiting human beings are in not realizing their full potential in the context of a quantum reality.
Warm Regards,
Sasha
Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celeborn
Regards,
Jeroen
Yes, I have also read that ships were not an unknown to the region prior to the arrival of Columbus. There was already an established sea going trade along the coastlines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celeborn
Is there a record of the same effect when a car or cycle or train was first seen and what would they have seen, a silhouette of the unknown object or it is transparent perhaps? :)
The silhouette effect is interesting as this seems to be what most people see when starting out practicing seeing auras. Auras, of course could be just another part of reality that is unseen because they are uncommon. This can be applied as a direct extension of the concepts in the film. Silhouettes and outlines of spirits and energies is another example.
This effect can be likened to one of those pictures that you can stare at for ages, but eventually you see something in the image and to see it again all you have to do is look at the same image and your mind automatically registers it.
It seems that the mind only pays attention to what it knows, and what it doesn't know is bucketed into a "category" of something like that which it knows until a better alternative is found.
I suppose the mind also works on multiple levels of sensory perception, so for example if it hears something it automatically logically thinks that there must be an object orientated with that sound. For example, movement along train tracks, causing it to see a train there. Or the ripples across the water, causing the ships to become visible.
Interestingly enough, another of the main conclusions in the movie suggests that all perception is externalized from within the self, contrary to the common supposition that all reality is an object of subjective perception. There is quite a kool portrayal of this as when the main character opens her eyes and a grid is formed and pieces of her reality fall into place in front of her eyes effectivly forming the world around her.
Warm Regards,
Sasha
So, does that mean that Dr. Alan Wolfe is not really a quantum phycisist? And Dr. Masaru Emoto really didn't get repeatable results with the water crystals? And that Dr. Candace Pert isn't the same neurochemist that discovered and mapped endorphins in the human body for the first time in the eighties?Quote:
".....and many of its "experts" were actually just RSE members.
If you look carefully at the end of the movie, they tell you who everyone is.."
It seems to me that if a film uses science to demonstrate spiritual theories,(even new-agey-channeled kinda stuff) the science in it shouldn't be automatically considered not valid.
Again, I agree with and personally believe in the thesis of the movie, but if something is going to claim to be science it must use the scientific method. Also information presented as fact must be backed up in some way. If you wish to argue that it is a good movie, this is fine. But it is not a good documentary. I hold the same opinion of the Michael Moore movies.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia on Mr Emoto:
So, no. Mr. Emoto did not get repeatable results because no one other then him has ever repeated it.Quote:
Masaru Emoto's work (The Hidden Messages in Water) plays a prominent role in a scene set in a subway tunnel, where the main character happens upon a presentation of displays showing images of water crystals. In the movie, "before" and "after" photographs of water are presented as evidence that specific words written on pieces of paper and affixed to different containers of water have the power to transform the water into beautiful crystalline shapes. Examples include "You make me sick", "Love and Gratitude", and "Merci". The procedure followed by Emoto can be found at this site. In the movie, it is claimed that "non-physical events" of "mental stimuli" are the cause of this transformation, but skeptics have pointed out that the "after" photographs are microscopic images of the water after being frozen (aka snowflakes)  a step not disclosed in the movie.
Additional problems arise when it becomes clear that Emoto's work is more artistic than scientific. For example, Emoto never submitted his work for peer review, and he did not utilise double blind methodology. If this had been the case, the individual providing the specimen (i.e., the person who selected the water sample, poured it into the container, labeled the container with a message, and froze it) would need to be a different person than the individual who later received the ice for analysis and photography. This second individual would also need to be unaware of what each specimen had been labelled. If the same person performed all of these tasks, this individual could easily select sections of the frozen water that matched what they wanted to see, perhaps unconsciously (a phenomenon otherwise known as confirmation bias). In other words, if the individual wanted to demonstrate that happy words produced aesthetically pleasing shapes, they only needed to find a section of the ice which was aesthetically pleasing. Conversely, if they wanted to demonstrate that angry words created aesthetically displeasing crystals, they again just needed to search until they found a section that did not look as good. Emoto also claims that polluted water does not crystallize. Depending on the properties of the pollutant, heavily polluted water will still form crystals, though the crystals may contain more crystallographic defects than pure water would. These changes in the way the crystals form can be readily explained using basic chemistry and physics.
Emoto essentially appears to have arbitrarily decided what constitutes a "brilliant crystal" and an "incomplete crystal", but in a movie claiming a scientific base grounded in quantum mechanics, a quantification of what defines such crystals is required.
And as for one of the other real experts:
Quote:
Dr. David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, speaks frequently throughout the movie. While it may appear as though he supports the ideas that are presented in the movie, according to a Popular Science article, he is "outraged at the final product." [4] The article states that Dr. Albert granted the filmmakers a near-four hour interview, which was then edited and incorporated into the film in such a way that misrepresented his views that quantum mechanics is not related to consciousness or spirituality. In the article, Dr. Albert also expresses his feelings of gullibility after having been "taken" by the filmmakers.
Nice read on water:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.blonnet.com/2003/07/21/stories/2003072101660500.htm
Ok, Celeborn, you're right- I guess I liked the movie more for it's artyness than anything else, and I thought that it made one think about the fluid nature of reality, and that's what I liked about it. But I still agree with Dr. Emoto's theory, and I don't know if it really can ever be scientifically proven- Do crystals ever form in a consistent way? (a question) but there are many groups doing more of these experiments as we speak. (I'm not sure but I think IONS was looking into some of the questions it raised.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
Quote:
Originally Posted by sash
These are interesting comments. I would be very interested in the exact data of the experiments because the above examples do not match my viewpoint of the average person. Perhaps the above posters could clarify their examples because I might be misunderstanding the statements. Personally I find it difficult to believe that an average person of even several thousand years ago would see a train as a silhouette or transparent. I agree they would not know what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet_Jeroen
Another comment about a person imagining a train just from the sound of a train sounds unlikely for the average person. Am I understanding the train example??? I can only speak from personal experience. I've spent decades with a video camera. On weekends I like to travel around videoing for my parents, family, and friends. Never in this time have I ever seen any material object that was not backed up by the videotape. For example, what if a person heard a noise that sounded exactly like a train coming and then turned around and saw a train. What if this person filmed it and then later on viewed the tape. Yet when viewing the tape they saw no train. Don't you think that person would think they are going insane? I would very very much question myself, but to date I have never seen any contradictions on my Hi-8 videotapes.
And the comment about the brain deleting incoming sensory data that doesn't match one's beliefs also seems unlikely for the average person. I agree that people put up blocks / defense mechanisms. For example, a person in a forum discussion may suddenly feel the urge (from emotions) to stop viewing a thread if concrete logical data is posted that will collapse their belief system.
Paul
Thoughts are everything...all this energy work is thought, right?
Not only that; aside from more official sources, Braniacs did a show where they asked the viewers to watch 2 breadboxes switch hands while a group of people was walking in a very small space, which made it hard to track the boxes. After the 'dance' was over, I knew exactly how many times each box had switched hands... then they showed that they also had a guy walk from screen to screen and back in a huge bird suit. I never saw it the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmlonline
They changed the clothes of the host a few times during the show..radically. Never saw that either.
It draws on the idear that the human brain is only able to process an 'X' ammount of data in the consious mind per second. So we only consiously see / percieve, that which we pay attention to.
On top of that, like in my quote and like you said, if someone doesnt want something to be true, they will ignore it till it smashes into them.
So, if someone 'knows' that everybody hates him/her, and he/she is only looking for proof of that, the'll only find proof of it. In the mean time they miss the other 70% of the people that ARE nice to them.
Or draw a strange figure on a paper, and tell people it's a figure made by a famous artist.. let them guess what the artist ment to make... the more people the more fun this is. There's only the strange thing you drew, but one sees a duck in it, the other a playing cat, another an office machine, etc. Yet, they all look at the same picture.
So what we hold true, what we think we see, what we think we know, is all subject to what you belief or hold true at your core level. Everything that doesnt match up, will shake your belief system and force you to reevaluate, which could be cause for a change in the system, which leads to new things that could be true and others that turn out false, due to the new rule set.
Regards,
Jeroen
I thought of the following article when reading the above. The effect of top down processing overiding the raw data is I think related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet_Jeroen
Source: The New York Times - USA
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/scien ... .html?8dpc
11-22-2005
This Is Your Brain Under Hypnosis
By Sandra Blakeslee
Below is a section of it.
---------------------------------------
Now, Dr. Posner and others said, new research on hypnosis and
suggestion is providing a new view into the cogs and wheels of
normal brain function.
One area that it may have illuminated is the processing of
sensory data. Information from the eyes, ears and body is
carried to primary sensory regions in the brain. From there, it
is carried to so-called higher regions where interpretation
occurs.
For example, photons bouncing off a flower first reach the eye,
where they are turned into a pattern that is sent to the primary
visual cortex. There, the rough shape of the flower is
recognized. The pattern is next sent to a higher - in terms of
function - region, where color is recognized, and then to a
higher region, where the flower's identity is encoded along with
other knowledge about the particular bloom.
The same processing stream, from lower to higher regions, exists
for sounds, touch and other sensory information. Researchers
call this direction of flow feedforward. As raw sensory data is
carried to a part of the brain that creates a comprehensible,
conscious impression, the data is moving from bottom to top.
Bundles of nerve cells dedicated to each sense carry sensory
information. The surprise is the amount of traffic the other
way, from top to bottom, called feedback. There are 10 times as
many nerve fibers carrying information down as there are
carrying it up.
These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what
people see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what
neuroscientists call "top down processing." What you see is not
always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework
built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw
information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.
The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of
reality has so much top-down processing, that would make sense
of the powers of placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel
better), nocebos (a witch doctor will make you ill), talk
therapy and meditation. If the top is convinced, the bottom
level of data will be overruled.
This brain structure would also explain hypnosis, which is all
about creating such formidable top-down processing that
suggestions overcome reality.
Planet_Jeroen,
From your last post, I think we're on the same page for the most part. There is a big difference between not seeing and seeing something. It is difficult for the mind to focus on multiple things that are happening. I agree that if numerous things are happening then a person may not see everything.
Also people have different interpretations of data, but if my eyes clearly see a square UFO and a square UFO doesn't match my beliefs then there is no way my brain is going to delete that sensory data. Therefore, perhaps we disagree ->
As mentioned, I cannot speak for other people, but I have never seen any such deleting of data in nearly 20 years of videoing. I would definitely notice something like that.Quote:
Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.
I think the part about your quote I don't agree with is the word "any." Surely everyone would agree that if numerous distracting events were happening at once then the person can't focus and see them all. Or if the object is too small, far away, moving or changing too fast, etc. Same goes with a camera. That is, if you take a picture of a fast moving object then even a common camera will record a blurred picture. As you know, in such a case of say a fast moving object, the mind may fill in the missing gaps. Lets say a fast moving insect whizzed by a persons face and just got a glimpse of it. The person saw some reddish orange colors and a huge head and narrow sharp tail. The person consciously knew the data was iffy. In the persons mind, he/she tried to recall the event and deducted that the head was the reddish orange part. The person is fairly confident that the head was the reddish orange part, but in reality it was not. In fact, the person may say, "I am 80% confident the head was reddish orange." Even though the person is 80% certain, he or she knows they are not certain and that the bug was a blur. Yet this is a totally different situation than say if a green ET with one eye, 3 mouths, antennas, one big arm coming out from the belly walked and stood right in front of a Christian. Given enough time for the Christian to focus on all the ET's parts then this data is not going to be deleted from the Christian. At least I hope not, lol. What a shock it would be for me to find this out about the average person.
Paul
mick,
I think the name of the game is amount of data. A person can glimpse at a flower or whatever and that's some weak data. The person may recall that visual experience in their mind and interpret as they wish, but the person still may know it is glimpse, not a close up analysis of the flower. If a person goes up close, views the flower from many angles, etc. then the data becomes more accurate. More time equals more accuracy.
Also we should probably acknowledge that modern material science doesn't even know what consciousness is. Consciousness of our Soul is not contained inside material brain or body. :) There's a difference between Brain, Mind, and Consciousness. The Mind is a complex energy system composed of matter that is in a realm far higher than the Astral realm. Consciousness is a flow of life energy that comes from the core of life / the Creative Point of All Things / God.
Paul
I think that the experimental studiy quoted suggests somewhat of a race condition when processing incoming sensory data whether the sensory input is fleeting or otherwise. It is the line at which people discard the sensory data in favour of the minds inrush of interpretive data which varies. The article I think relates this 'line' also to those susceptible or not to hypnotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmlonline
I think a feature of the study is the recognition of the volume of interpretive data from on high :) which is fed down during the process.
Modern science is expanding in this area and this study may well be part of that expansion, there are obviously physical processes involved for us physical types in that they can be measured (maybe what you are defining as the brain). But also I recall reading that areas of the brain are being isolated as being specific to consciousness, of course if using the label Consciousness of the Soul then this posits another adjunct to the overall scheme of things, I roll with the non locational mind idea quite frequently and indeed believe that I employ it frequently. But as to defining exactly what the whole system is I have that on hold, a bit like defining a universal God while sited in and only vaguely aware of a tiny spec of the universe... :shock:Quote:
Also we should probably acknowledge that modern material science doesn't even know what consciousness is. Consciousness of our Soul is not contained inside material brain or body. :) There's a difference between Brain, Mind, and Consciousness. The Mind is a complex energy system composed of matter that is in a realm far higher than the Astral realm.
Maybe. :)Quote:
Consciousness is a flow of life energy that comes from the core of life / the Creative Point of All Things / God.
One bottleneck with material science is a limitation of physical. They have no instruments that can peer into the astral and higher planes. So the scientist is trying to find consciousness and he narrows it to specific areas in the body. Yet that by no means is the end of the road. There's always a finer and more detailed picture of something. Take molecules for example. They are made of atoms. These atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Then they discovered that protons and neutrons were made of yet small particles, quarks. Is there an end to all things? I suspect it's endless relative to our level of comprehension. One day they will find the particles that electron is made of, which is of such a high vibration that it is in the Etheric plane, which is part of the physical realm. Then we have even finer particles in the astral, then mental, and on and on.
Often scientists want to study an average healthy person. So they know that certain chemicals can render this average person unconscious and they see parts of the brain activity changing. So basically they may conclude this part of the brain is consciousness. Yet in reality, there are people, superhumans, that can retain consciousness regardless what chemicals they are fed.
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
Quote:
Originally Posted by sash
I am still curious about the above quotes because I can only speak for myself as I have not experienced the above and find it difficult to believe any rational person would. Perhaps it depends on the condition. Under normal conditions, given proper time for the person to *see* the object, surely a normal persons brain would not delete incoming sensory data. If we're talking about a highly stressful situation where the person is scared to death and later on has difficulty recalling the situation then perhaps it is a change in the state of mind that causes a lack of memory recall. Such a person could have difficulty recalling anything regardless if it's an ET or an ice cream cone. Although, generally an ET causes far more shock and scare (change in consciousness) in a person than an ice cream cone, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet_Jeroen
If a person is in deep meditation and obtains Soul consciousness then the memory of that experience is only stored in the Soul and above, not the physical brain, UNLESS the mind (the focusing unit) downloads the experience into the brain. The download is performed when the mind goes over / recalls the experience over and over at the moment when physical consciousness is obtained. This is why it is important for the average OBE projector to lay absolutely still when they reenter the physical body and recall the OBE experience. The moment of recall / reliving the OBE experience is what downloads to the physical brain. In that case, the person is downloading memories / experiences that are of a higher vibration and consciousness, from the astral / emotion body to the physical body. If the person has an OBE in full consciousness yet that experience is not downloaded to the physical brain then the person will have no recollection of that OBE. Yet those memories still exist. To recall the experience the person could obtain astral consciousness and should be able to recall the experience and then download to the physical. Another method is to retain both physical and astral consciousness simultaneously.
Also, I am taught that memories are always present somewhere. The question is, can the person fetch the memories. I've learned there are many types / levels of memory. We have physical memory. Then there's astral memory. Then there's permanent memory, which the Soul contains. If a person meditates and reaches Soul consciousness then they may recall their past lives. Beyond Soul consciousness is Divine consciousness from our Divine self, the Divine spark within the Soul, which is linked to all other beings and contains the memories of all things in our Omniverse.
Paul
Exactly :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pmlonline
The peeling of the onion also occurs in the none physical activities (perhaps more so due to the fluid nature of some areas) and like scientists I think that there is a need to keep that exploration window open.
And the research is also finding a broader picture of how the wider body integrates and is possibly part of some brain functions.Quote:
So the scientist is trying to find consciousness and he narrows it to specific areas in the body.
Some of course would say 'of course it is'. 8)
I am tempted to ask for references in order to follow up this one. Peoples resistance certainly varies for a variety of reasons.Quote:
Yet in reality, there are people, superhumans, that can retain consciousness regardless what chemicals they are fed.
Paul
To clarify: I don't think that this 'blindness' through lack of prior knowledge occurs without as you say maybe with some concurrent trauma. Even if not understood something is seen. I was asking for contemporary evidence to the contrary. :)Quote:
mick wrote:
Is there a record of the same effect when a car or cycle or train was first seen and what would they have seen, a silhouette of the unknown object or it is transparent perhaps? Smile
However I do think that there is a version of this that occurs in some none physical activities due to a lack of terms of reference on occasion.
In my own case I do sometimes experience parallel views one being the mundane attempt at matching and a more direct view of strangeness.
We have previously had discussions hereabouts regarding how this 'interface' although somewhat of an analog view can still work in an interactive manner.
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=138
Perhaps it is time for this part of the topic to be moved to a more appropriate category.
Mick,
Yes, I believe you are correct ... this topic has changed from a movie topic to that of consciousness. I started another thread if it's ok with everyone in the OBE forum titled Consciousness here :
[broken link, might not exist]. Will be in the Psychic & Spiritual if it still does.
Paul
I think this is a great movie - if it's only worth is to get people to realize the power of thought.
Movie News
FYI
May be of interest to AD folk in the UK!
Best,
Stephen
[edited] 'From John Sleeman at Humanity's team London:
An exclusive screening next weekend Saturday 18th March 18.30 hrs of What the Bleep down the Rabbit Hole the Extended Directors cut. It is being held at the Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston road, NW12BJ and is organised by Lynne McTaggart who wrote 'The Field' - see full details below.
Order direct with Lynne at her website, by phone or just turn up.
I look forward to seeing you all there.
Information on the Humanity's Team Film club will be issued shortly - this was one of the films we were trying to get hold of.
namaste John
Join us for the Exclusive UK screening of:
What The Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole
The Extended Director's Cut
Followed by a Question & Answer Session with BLEEP spokesman Pavel Mikoloski and a surprise guest!
Down the Rabbit Hole contains stunning new experimental results that further support the mind-bending concepts contained in the original movie.
Want to get a sneak peek at the movie?
Down The Rabbit Hole
Date: Saturday 18th March
Venue: Friends Meeting House,
173 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BJ
Time: 6:30 pm (film length 156 minutes)
Please arrive no later than 6:15 pm
Tickets: £10.00
Tickets can be bought at the door or pre-booked online at:
http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/detail.a...&did=&Curr=GBP
Or call 0208 944 9555
After the Film meet some of the scientists who are putting the revolutionary ideas of the movie into practice right now!
THE ICONS OF THE FIELD Conference
Saturday and Sunday, 18 and 19 March
Friends Meeting House,
Euston, London
To find out more and book your last-minute place, click here: http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/nofl...OfTheField.asp
What do people have against the movie?
I always read people complaining that the movie abuses quantum physics. Does it really?
Are the studies the movie sites valid? (Ice formation experiment, lowering crime in D.C. experiment)
Some of the people appearing in the interviews feel they were quoted out of context. Although the movie tries to be neutral, it puts a metaphysical framing on the subject. Several of the more straight science types objected.
The biggest problem with people in my area of Washington state have with it was it made by Ramtha followers. Ramtha is supposedly a 35000 year old spirit canneled by JZ Knight. She lives and operates her "enlightenment school" about 15 minutes from where I'm currently living. A lot of the stuff in the movie is based on something valid and then slightly twisted,much like everything "Ramtha" says. I'm positive JZ Knight is a fraud, but if you search for her on the web you can decide yourself. She believes some pretty ridicoulos stuff.
I know the Ice formation is real stuff. Search anyting on Dr. Ymotto (I may have the spelling wrong there) I've looked through his book at a bookstore once. REALLY interesting stuff.
I think the movie is making a great leap at beggining the process of uniting science and metaphysics/spirituality. It is a step being taken by other people as well like the Dalai Lama (his new book the universe in a single atom is all about this)
I don't know much about the Ramtha stuff... I would probably be against a lot of what they say but the movie doesn't have any sort of manipulation or hidden messages to try and get people to join them so I don't have a problem with it! :p
Most movies will try to put an agenda of one kind or another accross, or at least tie each scene back to the theme of the movie. I think the film could have been more cohesive since some parts did not tie into each other as well as they could have.
For me it doesn't provide enough of a factual basis to believe in what it is saying, but it certainly does provide an observable basis (much of the themes such as "I create my reality" are portrayed beautifully and are observable without the need for supporting evidence, you are the evidence!).
I personally really loved the movie. But, it is true that some of the scientists involved were not happy with the editing of their comments. Some of the scientists, on the other hand, obviously like J.Z. Knight. I was scheduled to go on a cruise with her, Dr. Emoto, and one other (can't remember which) scientist portrayed in the movie, but the cruise was canceled due to the bad handling of it by the company who put the cruise together. The scientists can't all have been uspset with the movie or wouldn't have wanted to continue the association by being a speaker alongside J.Z. Knight.
I asked my parapsychology teacher about the movie after it first came out, as he teaches some of the things portrayed in the movie. He said that there were some things that were either not true or were portrayed differently than they happened. One example is the Native Americans not being able to see the ships. He said that there are first person accounts (eye witness) that are documented that prove there was no illusion of not being able to see the ships. Regardless, he still liked the movie and agreed with our ability to create or manifest for ourselves. I don't mean to keep harping on this, but for the sake of new members, if you wish further info on the validity of the parapsychologist making these claims, he is one of the world's leading parapsychologists. You can find info on him on his website http://www.mindreader.com. Click "Enter" and then scroll down to "Loyd Auerbach, Paranormal Investigator and Author". His credentials in the field are impeccable. So, don't argue with me, argue with him. :D
Oh, and the D.C. experiement is true and backed up by various similar experiments done all over the world. Not so sure about Dr. Emoto's water photos. I've heard pros and cons to his research from both sides. Unless you are a scientist and have access to his methods, I doubt if it can be proven one way or the other. Haven't heard of anyone being able to replicate his findings, but I'm going with the belief that we can influence the energies around us with our thoughts, based on my own experiences.
From what I understand, the film has been highly critisized and discredited because of the unsubstantial evidence being portrayed as facts, much like the praised work by Dr. Emoto which is generally viewed as pseudoscience from the lack of using the double blind methodology.
There were some aspects in the film that can be backed up by modern philosophy like reality perception, but in general, I thought the ideas were uneffectively executed. I do find it ironic, however, that the film had quantum mechanics for the base of the film yet there was only one scientist who had an expertise in quantum mechanics which he later claimed that his interview was badly edited and misrepresented his views. He allowed for his 4 hour interview to be used in the film, all of which did not relate to consciousness or spirituality.
What also concerns me about this film is that some of the "experts" studied at the school of Ramtha which creates an overwhelming bias.
"The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%"
If you want more information on the film, I do suggest a wikipedia search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_B ... Know%21%3F
Double-blind replications of Dr.Emoto's theories are currently being pursued.
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/
Plumes wrote:Actually this in not true. Fred Alan Wolfe is a Quantum Physicist, and he extrapolates what he knows into the metaphysics field.Quote:
yet there was only one scientist who had an expertise in quantum mechanics which he later claimed that his interview was badly edited and misrepresented his views. He allowed for his 4 hour interview to be used in the film, all of which did not relate to consciousness or spirituality.
I have seen a lot of people opine that the scientists that had a metaphysics bent were somehow not considered scientists. This is the sort of thing that make criticisms like that not valuable to me.
The fact that only the physicists that 'count' are the ones complaining because their findings were used to support metaphysical concepts make this a very suspect criticism.
Did the Ramtha people mess up by presenting their beliefs as scientific fact? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the scientists that came to the same beliefs or conclusions as the Ramtha people were wrong about their conclusions.
I've seen the movie & was quite impressed. The Quantum information wasn't new to me but I was stimulated by the way they brought it together with a world (universe?) view that makes sense.
Ineterestingly I haven't seen any criticism of the movie that suggested there was anything actually wrong with the info presented; just some people didn't seem to have realised they were going to be associated with something so metaphysical. The couple of people I have actually heard clips of complaining sounded more like they were concerned their pieces might cause them problems in the orthodox physics/cosmology community.
Bit like what happened to those who originally ran into Einstein when they were proposing Quantum Mechanics in the first instance.
Personally I think it's about time people put physics & cosmology into a more meaningful context. Showing how it could relate to things affecting the average person is a good thing, no matter which group decided to sponsor it.
And I am very religion-sensitive & my sensibilities weren't affected at all by what was being presented. No proselytizing, no dogma, no selling of their beliefs that I could see.
Hi Lordofthebunnies, very interesting, this is what the link you provided says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordofthebunnies
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/
Effects of distant intention on water crystals
Some people, when faced with claims like Dr. Emoto's "intention affects the formation of water cystals," immediately dismiss it as nonsense. Others uncritically accept the claim because it sounds nice. My first reaction is to try to replicate the claim to see it for myself. I conducted such a test with Dr. Emoto, where he and his staff were kept blind as to which bottles of water had been treated. The paper reporting the experiment has just come out. Here's the abstract:
DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION
The hypothesis that water “treated†with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.
Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.
A triple-blind replication of this effect is presently underway.
---------------------------
About Dean Radin, the author of the study:
Radin's Blog: http://beta.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280
Dean Radin
* Gender: Male
* Industry: Science
* Occupation: Research psychologist
* Location: California : United States
Dean Radin's curriculum vitae (some data about it):
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/dean.htm
Dean Radin is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in Petaluma, California. He also serves as adjunct faculty at Sonoma State University and as a member of the Distinguished Consulting Faculty at Saybrook Graduate School.
Dr. Radin earned advanced degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and electrical engineering and psychology from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Before joining the IONS research staff, he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories, GTE Laboratories, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and three Silicon Valley research labs. Author of nearly 200 popular and technical articles, Radin is also author of The Conscious Universe (1997, HarperCollins) and Entangled Minds (2006, Simon & Schuster).
Hi Blue Mage, some of the things described in the movie “What the bleep do we know?" have a lot to do with a document published by the USA Military titled “Teleportation Physics Study". I've included parts of that document in a post in this same thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Mage
- USA Military paper on "Psi", etc. Paradigm Shift?
[broken link, but it's in this same thread]
Take care. qbeac.
I've never seen this movie. Might have a ganders. The only things quantum I've read is this: [broken link]
and brian greene's 'fabric of the cosmos'
all really tough on the head, but the former is exceptionally detailed and....simple....for simple poeple
like me :P
Poor guy, sounds like he can't keep a job. :lol: Just kidding! :D His book "The Conscious Universe" is really good.Quote:
Dr. Radin earned advanced degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and electrical engineering and psychology from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Before joining the IONS research staff, he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories, GTE Laboratories, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and three Silicon Valley research labs.
"What the Bleep" is like the movie "The Secret". You can spend all day tearing apart and analyzing the science. You can spend all your time criticizing each little detail and make yourself feel real satisfied and self-important. My how intellectual we all are. :roll: But, if you choose to spend your time that way, you will miss the big picture and the important points. We aren't victims in our life. We can make changes and better our lives. Even if you can't change your actual circumstances, you certainly can change your attitude about them and create a life where you can be happy, evolve, and move forward in a positive way. Even if the science isn't perfect, some people were unhappy with the way they were portrayed, etc, etc, what does that mean to YOUR life? Does that give you a good, self-satisfied excuse to remain critical and miserable? The movies are both about changing your life for the better. They are flawed, just as EVERYTHING about being human is flawed. Who do you know that is perfect? The overall message is what's imortant to me. And, I found them both to be inspiring. If I had to guess, I'd say both movies made more positive impacts in the lives of people than negative.
If it wasn't so long I'd make this my sig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Painterhypnogirl
:lol: :D :lol: :D
Hehe! Just put a link to it as your sig. Hehe! Thanks for the compliment. I'm sure some grumbly-but is going to poke all kinds of holes in it and prove just how wrong I am. Fame is fleeting! :lol: