What the #$*! Do We Know?!
What the #$*! Do We Know?!
So I caught this movie on TV some time ago, I’ve checked reviews and discussion on it and it appears they used faulty science. I know there are people here who know about science and I’m wondering if there is any truth about controlling the environment with your consciences?
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
here is an email i sent out after watching it:
The good:
* Good use of computer animation to present concepts (though some inaccuracies in the depictions of neuronal firing - the synaptic gaps between neurons don't transmit information with arcs of electricity like lightning - rather it's with neurotransmitters. Electrical impulses flow through the cell body, not between bodies, as far as I understand.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jeanpierre.gadbois/synapse.jpg
The metaphor of a thunderstorm is appropriate (and quite beautiful) however, if we consider the storm to be formed by the aggregate electrochemical activity of a large neuronal network.
* Progressive thinking about religion - expanding our ideas of god and morality beyond divine reward & punishment
* The presentation of information about how memories and emotions are associated with each other in intricate associative networks was good.
The bad:
* Complete abuse of quantum theory - not only did they present a highly biased sample of scientists, but some of the information presented was outrageous. The idea of quantum consciousness is over a decade old, and while interesting, is only one speculative interpretation of physics and mind. The way that Amit Goswami presented his ideas was, in my opinion, irresponsible. He claimed that the idea that consciousness affects reality is one that is accepted and proven within quantum physics. This is not so: first off, we don't have a consensual understanding of what consciousness actually is, if anything, and secondly, it is equally, if not more probable, that instead of some mysterious field of consciousness "infecting" the quantum field and collapsing the superimposed waveforms, the waveform collapses due to objective forces. When we observe something in the laboratory, we need to use our senses to observe it. In order to use our senses (usually visual), we need to bounce photons (light) off the thing we are observing. We know that these interferences cause the waveforms to collapse, so to say that it is "our consciousness" that does the collapsing is not well founded at all.
* Cells are the fundamental unit of consciousness? This is one of the most reductionistic interpretations of mind I have ever heard, and not well founded. Just because cells can act as an "observer" in that they can interact with chemicals doesn't make them conscious.
* Emoto's work, while probably not fraudulent, is shoddy science. It hasn't been peer reviewed, or replicated, and his studies aren't double blind, from what I can tell. This means that the person who is selecting samples of frozen water crystals already knew which ones were matched with different "love letters".
The whole Ramtha aspect was a bit off putting. Considering that three of the directors, and the interviewed chiropractor are Ramtha students, and that they seemed to harp heavily on the notion of being addicted to emotions, one wonders what the real message of this film is... Half the stuff she was talking about was a bit off the wall
* zero point energy - not proven, although there may be something to it
* anti grav magnets - see above
* holographically imprinted emotions - some clarification please??
And I'm sorry, but just because I've never seen or conceived of a ship before doesn't mean I'm not going to notice a strange set of objects when I look out into the waters - a pattern in a carpet yes, but the visual system is already "primed" to make out tangible objects with well defined boundaries, especially novel ones like a bunch of ships!
Oh, and just because I believe I can walk on water, or turn into a flying banana, doesn't mean that I can actualize that possibility. It just means I'm quite insane.
from the wikipedia link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know )
"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." [3] 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."
Anyway, glad I watched it - there was some good stuff in there.
The good:
* Good use of computer animation to present concepts (though some inaccuracies in the depictions of neuronal firing - the synaptic gaps between neurons don't transmit information with arcs of electricity like lightning - rather it's with neurotransmitters. Electrical impulses flow through the cell body, not between bodies, as far as I understand.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jeanpierre.gadbois/synapse.jpg
The metaphor of a thunderstorm is appropriate (and quite beautiful) however, if we consider the storm to be formed by the aggregate electrochemical activity of a large neuronal network.
* Progressive thinking about religion - expanding our ideas of god and morality beyond divine reward & punishment
* The presentation of information about how memories and emotions are associated with each other in intricate associative networks was good.
The bad:
* Complete abuse of quantum theory - not only did they present a highly biased sample of scientists, but some of the information presented was outrageous. The idea of quantum consciousness is over a decade old, and while interesting, is only one speculative interpretation of physics and mind. The way that Amit Goswami presented his ideas was, in my opinion, irresponsible. He claimed that the idea that consciousness affects reality is one that is accepted and proven within quantum physics. This is not so: first off, we don't have a consensual understanding of what consciousness actually is, if anything, and secondly, it is equally, if not more probable, that instead of some mysterious field of consciousness "infecting" the quantum field and collapsing the superimposed waveforms, the waveform collapses due to objective forces. When we observe something in the laboratory, we need to use our senses to observe it. In order to use our senses (usually visual), we need to bounce photons (light) off the thing we are observing. We know that these interferences cause the waveforms to collapse, so to say that it is "our consciousness" that does the collapsing is not well founded at all.
* Cells are the fundamental unit of consciousness? This is one of the most reductionistic interpretations of mind I have ever heard, and not well founded. Just because cells can act as an "observer" in that they can interact with chemicals doesn't make them conscious.
* Emoto's work, while probably not fraudulent, is shoddy science. It hasn't been peer reviewed, or replicated, and his studies aren't double blind, from what I can tell. This means that the person who is selecting samples of frozen water crystals already knew which ones were matched with different "love letters".
The whole Ramtha aspect was a bit off putting. Considering that three of the directors, and the interviewed chiropractor are Ramtha students, and that they seemed to harp heavily on the notion of being addicted to emotions, one wonders what the real message of this film is... Half the stuff she was talking about was a bit off the wall
* zero point energy - not proven, although there may be something to it
* anti grav magnets - see above
* holographically imprinted emotions - some clarification please??
And I'm sorry, but just because I've never seen or conceived of a ship before doesn't mean I'm not going to notice a strange set of objects when I look out into the waters - a pattern in a carpet yes, but the visual system is already "primed" to make out tangible objects with well defined boundaries, especially novel ones like a bunch of ships!
Oh, and just because I believe I can walk on water, or turn into a flying banana, doesn't mean that I can actualize that possibility. It just means I'm quite insane.
from the wikipedia link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know )
"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." [3] 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."
Anyway, glad I watched it - there was some good stuff in there.
