exchanges

me and martin

This began as a comment posted in response to this blog entry “What is happening and why it’s happening now?”  Martin, a member of The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project, has taken exception to the sources of what I posted and challenged me on it. The conversation starts at the bottom, with the most recent response on top.

4/6/12- keems:

i’d like to respond by posting a video series that is related to everything we have been discussing, but is a theory that sort of combines consciousness and measurable physical reality. I have seen this talk posted for a couple of weeks, but just got around to watching it. Please watch at least the first part to completion (it’s 50 min) and let me know your thoughts. This may be a way to combine the way each of us thinks of reality.

3/29/12- martin:

Dear Kimberley,

It seems that I am still following, at least the comment section of that post.

It is very nice of you, that you ask for my permission for the post to be moved, but in the end it is your blog. I’m happy that you think that my opinions are worth starting a new section. I only ask that you do not disclose my email for all the internet to see. If somebody does try to contact me through you, I will gladly receive the email and reply if possible. You are free to share this and every other mail that we will/have exchange(d).

—-

I have to apologize again for patronizing you, but some things you presented  in the last comment/post/email were based on very anecdotal evidence. I recommend that in the future if you find some wild claim about something (like free energy) try to:

1) google about the subject by using key-words “BS”, “sceptic”, “sceptisism”, “quack” and/or “quackery”.

2) Get some background information on the person/group providing the information (as in – do they have any monetary gains tied to the claims, a book perhaps, if not a direct scam).

3) Look for the direct/many different/as objective as possible sources (article/books) on the information – what experiments (if any) were conducted to validate the claims. (Are there another explanations for the outcomes of the experiments? Are the experiments conducted according to specific, reproducible protocols, that are published? Are the experiments repeated in different lab/by different people? etc.)

4) Avoid any claims that are backed up only by testimonials or persons claiming (their) bowls can fly (only) in their garage!

I also don’t believe in God/Spirits/Holy Ghosts or any other being(s) that created us and/or is(are) in control of our lives, one might even say that I am an atheist (I think that in U.S.A. it is used as a swear word). I can relate to the “spiritual beliefs” but I would word those beliefs differently: I believe in humanity. I believe that we are wonderful and miraculous species capable of so many things and I do hope that we will reach and surpass our capacity for greatness.

We ARE connected in a fundamental level, but in different way that you propose – We are all made from the star stuff (Carl Sagan). And going even further – we (the life on earth) all evolved together on this planet and consist of the same basic building blocks in many many different forms (DNA -> proteins -> cells). I think that the 3 billion (and going back even before the life to the big bang) year history is the most fundamental connection we have.

Consciousness – yes indeed we understand so little about it. But everyday scientists are working on figuring out more and more. (Un)Fortunately we still haven’t found any evidence for a soul or evidence that there is anything more to the brain than the physical/chemical/biological activities that it consist of.

For Nassim read: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html

For Lanza read: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/dr_lanza_and_biocentrism_time_to_get_out.php

AND

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

For the American Antigravity website and “Hutchison Effect” read: http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Hutchison/hutchison.html

AND

http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2005/05/the-discovery-channel-is-bogus-2/

For Quantum Correlation Between Distant Diamonds: Excerpt from the same (full text) article:

/…/

Once created, the entangled states of the optical phonon mode only survived for about 7 ps in room-temperature diamonds.

/…/

Although quantum mechanics provides a more fundamental description of nature, we normally see only classical behavior in our everyday world. Why is this the case? The microscopic systems used to create entanglement work because they have relatively few degrees of freedom for measurement outcomes (spin states might only point up or down), and in some cases, we can isolate the coherent coupling of these states from environmental effects. A macroscopic object like a roulette ball has a huge number of degrees of freedom created by its constituent atoms, and these states are usually strongly coupled with their environment rather than just to each other. At room temperature, thermal excitations also destroy coherence, all of which leads to our observation of classical measurement outcomes (the roulette balls cannot develop correlations in their states that would influence how they drop on the wheels)

/…/

7 ps =  0.000 000 000 007 seconds -> even if this effect did happen in macroscopic level the duration of the effect is too small to have any effect on the level that we conduct the business of living (signals in neurons travel in ms, proteins fold in microseconds and ion channels open for ns). So these effects are just noise to the living systems. Or at least that is what I conclude based on my limited knowledge – If you have proof to the contradictory, I would like to see it.

I admit that I am not a physicist – therefore I have limited understanding of quantum mechanics so I do not fully understand the article and the experiments in it. But I also don’t understand what you are trying to imply by citing the article about superfluorescent burst concept. As I understand these effects (again in ps scale) can be used (in the future) in quantum computing, but I do not grasp how it is relevant to the “unified consciousness” theory.

Morgan Freeman is doing what he does best – acting. He is not a scientist and discovery channel is not a science channel. Unfortunately most of the science is incomprehensible to the general population and therefore uninteresting. That means that if television shows would be conducted as science conferences, then there would be not enough people watching the shows. To add the “spice” the documentaries and “science” shows look for eccentric and whacky ideas and scientists that “look cool”, that doesn’t make these ideas true. It is unfortunate that people want/like flashy magic more than the dull reason.

So I looked all of the links you provided and I DO hear you loud and clear, but I still don’t understand why you believe such sleazy manipulators and take them at the face value.

If you have scientific background (as you mentioned earlier) then I recommend thinking (more) critically, but I think Carl Sagan nailed it when he said: “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.” So in some way it is good to have people with so great openness to new ideas to balance skeptics as myself and it is quite productive to have these discussions. For me it gave me a reason to surf the net for some information (a nice article I (re)discovered for example: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/wonder_and_skepticism/), I can only hope that you also gain some insight into the working of life, the universe and everything.

Best regards,

Martin

3/28/12 – keems:

Martin – I hope you haven’t unfollowed me yet! I’ve been wanting to respond to this and this is the first chance I got. First I would like to ask – can I post this discussion on a new section of my blog that I’m going to call “exchanges.” I like having differences of opinion on my site – that’s what generates interesting discussion and learning. I admire your commitment to 100% thru the channels peer reviewedness and welcome your criticism.

Your post definitely made me rethink some of my sources and your comment that “I continue to believe in things” when presented with evidence to the contrary is annoying – because I never said I was ignoring any links or info you gave me.

I would like to say that you definitely did not “hurt my feelings.” I am not a 12 year old school girl. And I prefer the term “spiritual beliefs” over religious beliefs. The word religion implies rules and exclusion/inclusion and set ways of doing things. Spiritual beliefs, like those of believing (I feel knowing) that we are creators and we are all connected, are individual and always evolving and completely expansive and inclusive. Religion does not equal spirituality. My personal sharing of my spirituality that has led me to immense happiness and fulfillment is just that – sharing to let others know that there’s a path out of feeling like your life is meaningless.

And while you believe the idea that we are connected at a fundamental level is a lot of hogwash, I think it has already been proven true and will continue to unfold over the next few years as the truth. It’s a theory and it’s a damn good one. But the reason you can’t buy it is that you can’t see it in numbers and charts and graphs. You can’t measure feelings and intent. And I feel that’s the key that has been left out of all of science – consciousness. We STILL don’t understand it, according to modern science. If you want to talk Occam’s Razor, it’s actually the simplest explanation there could be – there’s an ether (which is now being rediscovered if you keep up with physics) and that ether contains all matter and consciousness and it interacts. Our wills and intents shape this world – you can take it a surface value that of course we influence this world, and I can take it at the level of even deeper – that the more good energy I put out in the world (in actions AND thought), the better this world will be.

I would like to ask you to review a couple things and get your un-new age-pseudoscience corrupted mind’s opinion, if you felt like it:

A unified field theory that has been proposed by Nassim Haramein at The Resonance Project. His theory (in a nutshell) proposes that spin is the main creational force, and that all atoms, cells, and whole systems are is different amounts of spin and mass in the vaccuum (or ether, etc). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_QQjN4u1F0 It ends up being the most elegant, simple mathematical equation to explain the universe. Isn’t THAT Occam’s Razor in action? (Someone commented on the TZM social network when I posted it that his proton model is ridiculous b/c it says a proton has the mass of a black hole, but Haramein explains how he uses a scaler…something…to explain that).

Theory of how the universe went from 1 dimension to 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions…and what’s to come: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5WIsEPjkSE

Biocentrism – a theory purported by Robert Lanza, which is based on quantum physics. Basically, he says that because quantum physics says things don’t manifest in reality until we look at them, he says we are creating the universe as we look deeper and deeper into every corner. We will never not find anything if we keep looking. And of course the universe is set up for life – we look and create the facts that create our reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM

And speaking of quantum mechanics, the two studies I meant you to look at in my post about it were not the 100th monkey stuff. No, it was two other hard science stories of quantum effects at the macro level or levels unseen: Quantum Correlation Between Distant Diamonds http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1213.summary and Giant superfluorescent bursts from a semiconductor magneto-plasma http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n3/abs/nphys2207.html

Back to cymatics – you say it’s a respectable field. How do you feel about The Hutchison Effect? If you don’t know what that is, it’s a set of effects observed by John Hutchison while “studying the longitudinal waves of Tesla back in 1979.” http://www.world-mysteries.com/hutchison_e.htm. One of the most interesting effects he demonstrated was antigravity effects using resonant sound, on things like bowling balls, jugs of water, ice cream, etc. Bowling ball video here (with random death metal sound track) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RH_z-xx4U All his original footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3U0kLgKWoo&feature=player_embedded

The reason I ask you to look at these things is I believe they are not astonishing or pseudoscience – they are the next evolution of real, provable scientific theory. Theories have to come from some where, don’t they? Crazy, creative exceptional people have to dream of the next way to understand our world better. Some theories will be wrong. But some will upend everything we think. Don’t you think if anyone back in the 1700′s heard of a plane or the internet or tv or certain medicines they would have thought they were pseudoscience? Don’t you think people DID think relativity was pseudoscience? After all, at first most of it was just thought experiments!

Oh, another great video – Morgan Freeman hosts “Through the Wormhole” on the Science Channel, and is discussing morphic fields, esp and collective consciousness with a straight face. http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-sixth-sense/

Well, I hope you’re interested in looking at least some of the links I provided. I really really feel it’s important for people like you and me be able to discuss these things and share new ideas without fear of ridicule or derision. A resource based economy based on new and emerging info all the time cannot work if we refuse to hear others opinions and ideas.

*******

3/20/12 – martin:

Dear Kimberley,

Firstly – I apologize, if you felt that your feelings/religious beliefs were hurt. I started following your blog just recently after the post in The Zeitgeist Movement – “A day in the life of a Resource-Based Economy” and I really enjoyed the piece. I didn’t read all your previous posts, just browsed a little. Now I took the time and read through some of them – I’ll unfollow you and agree to disagree. Because obviously I chose the wrong place to offer my opinion.

Here is my answer to the points you made in your reply:

I understand fully that even science is in some ways a belief system, with its flaws, but it is better than any alternative that we can think of. The videos that I commented are against every common+scientific sense and logic. Full of pretty wording and colorful imagery, but what they are lacking is any thread of evidence or references to where those wild claims came from. You are probably familiar with the concept of Occam’s razor and the concept that if you make wild claims you should have at least as strong evidence as the theory you are trying to disprove.

Post about a quantum mechanics – bogus. (actually it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics).
Just google it:
http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/directory/top/hoaxes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
Here is a real story about quantum mechanics at macro level : http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27609/?ref=rss

About fractals: Yes life is to some point alike to itself – but you can’t devide it indefinetly. The smallest living thing is a cell. Even DNA is just a useless string of carbohydrates without the proteins that replicate it and the RNA-s that do so much other tasks and the membranes that keep all that action in different compartments. You said that we have all the information to make ourselves in our DNA – thats a common misconception. Our own DNA starts functioning (the information in it gets transcribed into mRNA) only after the first cell devision (http://dev.biologists.org/content/138/17/3699.full). You need your mothers mRNA (FIGLA and ZP1 for example) to even start the process. Fractals are very nice – but they are mathematical constructions, not a thing that exist in real world and not describing life even when there are some similarities and to some extent you can model life/nature with the help of these constructs.

DNA teleportation:
Here is a piece that takes together my opinions on the topic: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/the_nobel_disease_meets_dna_teleportatio.php. I have also done my share of PCR and believe me – there can be contamination. There can even be artefacts such as primer dimers. AND if you use primers specific to bacterial sequences then you can get amplification even from the purest water, because the polymerases (the enzymes that replicate DNA) are purified from bacteria and that means that small pieces of DNA can stick to them, even after very through purification.

Placebo effect: I know too little to make an toughly formulated comment on this one. We do know VERY little about how our brain really works and I am open to many points on positive effects of meditation and positivism. Yes there is such a thing, that is why we use double-blinded studies to evaluate anti depressants and other drugs. Please read this definition before you define it as the new miracle cure: http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html

Cymatics: Very nice visual effects. Thank you for these videos. Although I recommend to watch them without the comments. Cymatics is actually a very respectable research with strong theoretical background and practical applications (http://cymascope.com/cyma_research/history.html) I know by experience that you don’t even have to see the sounds to be changed by them – remember all the conversations that you had with your parents, teachers and friends? – that is the real magic of sound.

I totally agree that science is too divided and the reconnecting of different fields is already happening. For example the next generation sequencing could not happen without the crossing of informatics, chemistry, automation and biology. But the real fusion of all sciences within one human mind is impossible at the moment – we know too much. Leonardo could do it, but even in his time it took a great genius. I agree that In some ways we are connected (internet) and work as one mind/consciousness. But there doesn’t have to be some pseudo-scientific explanation for it – it is just human sociology and law of increasing gains.

You don’t have to be an accredited professor to do science. But you DO have to state your case in a manner that is clear and reproducible. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/kids-study-bees/)

I hope I am open enough and I do enjoy a good sci-fi book or movie. I know that some things in these “mind walks” are probably going to happen in the future, some of the things in them might be possible and that some things can never be. I do admit that I am constantly wrong on this point or that, but I learn, in the light of new evidence and shift the categories. You on the other hand might be too open – you BELIEVE in things that are probably not true, that come from unrecognized sources and without evidence. Furthermore, when evidence is presented to you that is contradictory to your beliefs, you refuse to change the beliefs and deny the facts.

Peace ( We really need it and NOW. Especially after the news today, about the new war that is probably going to happen)
Martin

3/19/12 – keems:

First of Martin, I do not need your pity. My feelings about the information presented in this video are my own feelings and beliefs, and they actually having nothing to do with RBE or Zeitgeist. I present them as separate topics, in case you haven’t taken the time to read the rest of my posts and see that for yourself. When I’m out promoting Zeitgeist, I don’t talk about 2012 or aliens or alignments.

I also realize many of the thing things stated in this and other new agey videos are as yet unverified. That doesn’t meant that they won’t be. And on top of that, there is nothing you or I or anyone can do to stop these larger world shifts if indeed they are happening, so it’s almost a moot point if I believe them or not. If they are going to happen or come to light, they will whether you like it or not. And if they don’t, no harm done.

No harm done, because as an RBE supporter, I am promoting what we CAN do – and we obviously agree on that because we are both RBE supporters. So no need for further discussion on that. Peer reviewed scientific method is fabulous. I worked at an Ivy League school in the research department for 10 years, so I don’t need to be lectured on what and where to look information up.

Have you read any of my other posts? I recommend that before you start talking about delusions and quackery coming from me. How about my article on quantum mechanics, which specifically references solid science experiments about the quantum effect becoming visible in the macro – https://keemseek.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/our-quantum-world-please-dont-not-open-this-post-because-it-has-the-word-quantum-in-it/

How about my article on fractals, which proves the idea that we are indeed all part of the same framework, and that is proven mathematically? https://keemseek.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/fractal-shmactal-pterodactyl/

How about this study, done by Luc Montigner (a nobel prize winning scientist) about DNA teleportation? https://keemseek.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/fractal-shmactal-pterodactyl/

How about the gigantic fuss being made now about the placebo effect? The fact that scientist are finding that anti depressants and placebo effects are having relative the same outcome? That right there is mind over matter and plays in heavily into the new age concepts I promote – love AND science to better our world.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind
http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/08/15/placebo-effect-among-antidepressants/1131.html

What about the videos I have in my post about cymatics? The visible effect sound has on matter and how I believe it can shape and change our world?
https://keemseek.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/cymatics-how-sound-manipulates-matter-or-why-love/

What seems odd to me is I’ve encountered a few Zeitgeist proponents that call any “new science” quackery. Don’t you think everyone thought Einstein was a quack at first? Didn’t Galileo get imprisoned for thinking the Earth revolved around the sun? I saw a direct quote by astrophysicist Brian Greene (who did the fabulous Fabric of the Cosmos Series) that if peer reviewers saw Einstein’s paper on relativity now, it would immediately get thrown in the quack pile. Hmmm. To me that sounds like there’s a lot of probably amazing new scientific discoveries that are thrown out simply b/c they don’t come from an accredited professor at some university.

And, it is my firm belief that what we’ve done to science, breaking it up into a zillion separate categories, has been great for advancing as far as we have. But the truly amazing things are going to start happening when we put it all back together again and combine consciousness with science.

You indicate I should be more of a skeptic; I indicate that you need to open your mind up a little bit more. What will happen when people do both will be amazing.

Peace.

3/19/12 – martin, in response to “What is happening and why it’s happening now?”

Dear Keem,

If you really belive in this new-age mythology then I feel sorry for you. And I am even more sorry, because you are associated with RBE, because the idea behind it is to figure out the real needs of the people by using science.

You should look up the definitions for following terms: DNA, transcription, translation, transcription factors, atom, molecule, synapse, nerve cell, electro magnetism, quantum mechanics and so on. Please use wikipedia instead of yahoo answers. It would be even better if you would take the time and study the theory behind the facts. Wikipedia has usually all the references needed to understand the subject, conveniently linked.

As for the phantom DNA effect – http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13634.

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/24/healthandwellbeing.radovankaradzic
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html

Why do you believe that the ancient people knew so much more of the reality when all the evidence is contradictory to that. Please read Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”, it’s a good start.

More importantly – please, for the love of Science, do not associate yourself with the RBE, The Zeitgeist Movement or The Venus Project before you have acquired some level of skepticism.

2 thoughts on “exchanges

  1. Pingback: “exchanges,” and Tom Campbell My Big TOE Theory « keemseek

  2. Dear Kimberley,

    It is nice to see that you have started this separate topic for discussions. However it is hard to call it a discussion when you fail to read the opinions of the other person. I mean specifically my advice about looking into the topic and the speaker before deciding to spread the idea.

    I’ll grant that unified theory of everything (a.k.a. TOE) is (one of) the holy grails of physics, but the thing that this Tom guy is preaching is not a theory in physics but rather in philosophy and calling it a TOE (deliberately) confuses people. Furthermore, using other physics terminology freely, such as quantum, placebo, energy, entropy, wave, etc. etc. and without realization of the meanings behind the words can mean only one thing – the person has no clue what he is rambling about or the guy is trying to sell something to easily manipulated people.

    It also means that my BS sensor started tingling from early on of the video. I really tried to view the video until the end, but I got as far as 15 min in when he started talking about visiting entities (that is the hallucinations that were caused by sensory deprivation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19829208) that I gave up.

    So lets quickly run through the steps:

    1)Tom and his followers are clever – as in they have done a good job in optimizing his page for search engines and it is hard to find any real information on him. But here are some critical forum discussions of him: http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/87f4e4f2cfcd5e9a?dmode=source; http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=25989&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a)

    2) Tom has no background whatsoever – the only credentials that I could find are the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Warren_Campbell probably written by himself) and his own homepage. He quotes that his TOE is based on scientific research and first hand experience – but there is no publications (in any journals – even some crappy ones), that means that everything is based on HIS experience (or what HE says he experienced). If you really think that your idea is a good one and you want to share it with the world AND you have time to write THREE books then why can’t you write one little article explaining your theories. Also he says that he is working for NASA , but he might as well be a janitor there. It is enough to just glimpse at the first page of his homepage (http://www.my-big-toe.com/) to see what this guy is after – Money (specifically 34-50$ of your money.)

    3) There is no evidence of the experiments conducted and there can be none. Yes, we might be a simulation living inside a computer network of highly advanced alien race or we might be the thoughts of a giant spaghetti monster – each statement is equally viable and equally useless, because it can not be tested and claiming that one of these statements is true does not make it so.

    4) He has no direct testimonials on his web page but he has gathered a following (or maybe he does this himself) that post in new age forums and so on to promote his books and web page.

    In conclusion I imagine that his books might even be fun to read ( and he is fun to look at :P). If he would have written them as books of philosophy or of personal journey not as books of revelations of THE BIG SECRET OF SCIENCE.

    So as they say: “If He Walks Like A Quack, Talks Like A Quack, & Acts Like A Quack, He’s A Quack!”

    Best wishes,

    Martin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s