pinchy misquotes physicist

[sire_012]

this from a list i'm on. daniel, what you think?

******

Pinchbeck quotes John Archibald Wheeler, a famous physicist:

"According to Princeton physcist John Archibald Wheeler, in the universe postulated by quantum mechanics, there can be no such thing as an observer.....that consciousness is embedded in the processes it percieves, continually changing them while it is changed by them, was an insught conveyed to me, and many others, during psychedelic trips."

Wheeler is in fact known to be anti-psi and anti quantum-mechanics-says-something-about consciousness-junk, and when he talks about "observers" he isn't talking about consciousness.

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-02/departments/letters/


John Wheeler responds: Andrei Linde is a great physicist and a deep thinker, but he and I do disagree on the role of consciousness in observation. The process whereby the macroscopic world reacts to a quantum event—the process that makes reality—can, in my view, be accomplished with inanimate matter. Following Niels Bohr, I like to call this process "registration" rather than observation (which too strongly suggests human involvement). Like David Schuller, I find it hard to draw a line between the conscious observer and the inanimate one.

(and he's says this all over the place, too, even in staright up phsycics books!)

But there is a deep psychic principle that Pinchbeck illustrates: we see and hear what we want to see and hear.

[Agent Smith]

i'm bumping this over the spammer's post.

and not because 'pinchy' is the name of homer simpson's lobster.

[zenchef]

But there is a deep psychic principle that Pinchbeck illustrates: we see and hear what we want to see and hear
Hmm, aren’t we somewhat rolled into that concept? From a basic standpoint of the human condition being severely affected and influenced by our own particular journey thru what we perceive to be consciousness? A great wormhole subject to noodle around in.

What if there were a classroom full of international college student sitting in a lab reading a book, when all of a sudden a man rushes in, screams out loud, and shoots the professor and runs out. An occurrence that takes only a matter of 10 seconds. Later, each student is polled as to their interpretation of the events that occurred. It would probably be that each student based on his background and individual life experiences, would relate differently the; Language, ethnicity, skin color, clothes being worn of and by the shooter. A crude example Im sure, but certainly would suggest that each “ observer: would relate what his/her conditioned psyche wanted them to witness, in order to maintain and validate the mentality that brought them to that very brief moment of observation. In the circles of some quantum theorist there is a suggestion that all matters of cellular and energetic activity are affected and conditioned by their surroundings, therefore maintaining their memory and preconceptions, without the tools afforded to humans in the bio-body suits, like eyes or ears etc. Observation or registration?? Is it the stored observations of the organic matter in a mushie or, in our brain that is released and relates the many visions while in a trance ecstatic state?

My question would be, does this mean there is no breaking from our conditioning to become a conscious observer, and to change, what we think we want to see and hear. Is trancing and psy-travel a way for us to deconstruct our cultural brain washings, taboos and inhibitions to allow the flow of neutral information. Or is it as Linde suggests, a matter of our “ Human Chauvinism” or worse yet , our ego’s?

My other question would be: wouldn’t it be somewhat to our advantage to see and hear what we want? Not from a closed minded preconditioned state, but from a, we have the power to consciously conceptualize an end result, and manifest it by stirring in our infinite emotional powers as Humans ( this is my own human chauvinism and bias coming thru) to create a position or a point in time.

By the way sire, Thanks for getting a new concept started!!! It was starting to look like the site might die at the hand of all the freaking spammers. And also for the link to the Viking Youth. Ive listened to like 10 shows already.

[sire_012]

My other question would be: wouldn’t it be somewhat to our advantage to see and hear what we want? Not from a closed minded preconditioned state, but from a, we have the power to consciously conceptualize an end result, and manifest it by stirring in our infinite emotional powers as Humans ( this is my own human chauvinism and bias coming thru) to create a position or a point in time. well, i think part of what needs to be made clear here is what you are speaking of is speculation based upon a hope as opposed to a seasoned and respected physicist presenting conclusions derived from test results.

and i think there's a huge difference between seeing/hearing a world and results that you want as opposed to designing permutations of desire within that domain. one seems to lead rather quickly to isolationism and potential social implications and the other seems to imply a kind of success and ability to move through certain rules.

is it possible to use the former to the effect of the latter? sure, but i think you'd find the long term sustainability of folks who chose such a route a little disturbing.

[zenchef]

Well, I think part of what needs to be made clear here is what you are speaking of is speculation based upon a hope as opposed to a seasoned and respected physicist presenting conclusions derived from test results I hear that. But then I would have to ask a few other possibilities. In the quantum realm there appears to be an unclear line of “exactness in the outcomes” due to the possibility that the outcomes of specific experiments or observations tend to revolve around the intentions of the conducted experiment and such. IT is often suggested that in these observations that if they want to study a wave then a wave is present and if they want to study a position than a position is present etc.. I am not trying to deny the existence of very provable physical possibilities based on conclusions derived from test results, however, isn’t it possible that these conclusions could be similar to the “seeing what we want to see” expressions. Probably splitting hairs here. There are obvious, or at least by our current conclusions, obvious conclusions in physics concerning tangible matter, but at the quantum level isn’t it possible that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes? Throughout history there have been plenty of scientific conclusions submitted by the genius of the times that were accepted by everyone until a new paradigm of thought was introduced, or perhaps more complex mathematics were discovered that allowed the continued evolution of a specific premise. Still, rendering the original idea inadequate or obsolete.

And I think there's a huge difference between seeing/hearing a world and results that you want as opposed to designing permutations of desire within that domain. One seems to lead rather quickly to isolationism and potential social implications and the other seems to imply a kind of success and ability to move through certain rules.

I dig this! And I would add that this might depend on the participant’s plateau of acceptance or desired results. Some might find that isolationism would move them thru the exponential chaos that might clutter and clog them up, while the success of moving thru certain rules holds validity again to the participant and their accepted reality. To the lay person who either chooses or is never exposed to the quantum or scientific world, yet still comes into “realization” of themselves thru whatever means the individuals journey has provided, then when their physical matter is returned to dust, they feel settled in their accomplishments in what they have observed.

Where does the real scientific proof lie that assumes, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that there is observation in our consciousness or not, or that an in-animate object maintains the potential for observation or just "is". I think that would ultimately be like justifying ones conscious about killing a bug because we believe it not to have feelings, or conciousness, again “Humanly chauvinistic” that no matter what experiments we conduct, we do not ultimately at this time have the language at our disposal to draw a complete and absolute conclusion.

Is it possible to use the former to the effect of the latter? Sure, but I think you'd find the long term sustainability of folks who chose such a route a little disturbing.

VERY COOL, however do we really need to hope for long term personal sustainability? Isn’t it usually the case that these folks provide a forum for stellar art, or mind provoking literature, weather they live to 10 or 100?

I don’t want a pickle, I just want to ride my moter-cickle
And I don’t wanna die, just wanna ride my moter-sigh-kle