Comments on: Quantum Consciousness

By: Ras

Ras — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:59:34 +0000

Deepak,
I am happy you made an appearance at Caltech – the more you spoke the more you exposed yourself as a fraud. I am sorry to say I believe at this point you yourself believe all of the nonsense you espouse. Stick with trying to impress people like Oprah by merging and weaving bits and pieces of self-evident truths with a lot of woo woo and existential mysticism. To your credit you understand if you are 100% woo-woo, you can never be credible. If you throw in bits and pieces in your convoluted sentences with something people can see and understand and is easily accessible along with woo-woo — now then you will have a multi-million dollar enterprise that credulous blow-hards like Oprah will pay to try and pretend to go out on a voyage to discover.

By: Heinz Pütter

Heinz Pütter — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:51:06 +0000

Die Antike sah die Welt als ein Haus mit drei Stockwerken: oben der Himmel, die Wohnung Gottes und der Engel, unter Erde das Totenreich, und in der Mitte die Erde mit den Pflanzen, den Tieren und den Menschen. In einer solchen Weltsicht war die Bedeutung des Menschen ohne weiteres erkennbar.

Er stand zwischen der göttlichen und der erschaffenen Welt, er war gerufen, Mittler zwischen beiden zu sein. Die moderne Wissenschaft hat diese Sicht radikal verändert. Der Anspruch, den Menschen einen zentralen Platz in der Ordnung der Dinge zuzuweisen, scheint etwas Vermessenes, ja etwas Falsches an sich zu haben, seitdem dieser auf einem kleinen Planeten wie verloren ist, der sich wie Milliarden andere um einen Stern dreht, in einer mittleren Galaxis eines in ständiger Ausweitung begriffenen Alls.

Doch der Mensch erscheint als Mikrokosmos, der in all seinen körperlichen, geistigen und seelischen Kräften die Gesetzmäßigkeiten des gesamten Makro-Kosmos widerspiegelt. Was meine eigene Erfahrung war!

By: Rizal Affif

Rizal Affif — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:13:52 +0000

Nice one, Deepak. As always 🙂

I wonder why the materialists resist the quantum consciousness while it is unrefutable in physics. Guess materialistic science too has been a blinding dogma 🙂

By: Marco

Marco — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:07:23 +0000

Well, since the beggining of the debate Sam Harris showed his dogmatic aproach to things sayin that he “wanted to plant a flag” where consiousness entered the stage, because he himself was not going to deal with that… Is not at the end God… Pure Consiousness?… What a none sense and dogmatic behaviour?… Like a little kid who want to chaet and have advantage since the beginning, puting his own rules?… Nevertheless Sam Harris was always trying to dsimiss everything Deepak said and make dogma or absolute true what he himself was saying… Showing only his dogmatic, fanatic and short sighted way of seeing things…What a none sense is that saying that we are just the reaction of chemicals and electrical impulses?… That consiousness is a product of those things?… Sam Harris can not see the forest because the trees are an obstacle for him… What Sam Harris said that he could fill a room like that of people who could disagree Mr. Penrose satements?… Well he could do that, but that would not mean that they are right…
What made me laugh was his saying that Good has a future as a fiction character… Imagine this narrow minded guy, who himself skiped out of school when he used drugs at the beggining of his studies for ten years (To study with spiritual master’s, well at least that is what he says, not necessarily true) and to come back to study neurology, but in reality only as a technical of images of scans and MRI’S to tell the world the true “who was expecting him as a messaiah” that we are just a product of chemical reactions, that our consious self is just a product of that…
The only one who has a future as a fiction character is him… because he and his silly theories will not survive even the next few years…
His book the end of Faith, shows only the end of his own faith… And the new stage of the born of his ill ego where he himself is with the aid of a paper given by a school is trying to portait himself as the new god on earth… That makes me laugh…
Is this guy serious?, or just a lousy clown with a paper of a school?… laughs

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:51:02 +0000

Hi, I do like reading Deepaks articles. He is certainly a thinking man.
May I say here that he does not seem to understand the God of the universe. God is called ‘He who causes to become’ or in the Hebrew tetragrammaton JHWH, now commonly known as Jehovah in the english language. The bible shows us that God ‘is love’. And that in the last days people will beat their swords into powshares. And that ultimately the earth will be populated by the meek. We have been living in Satans, what I call ‘super imposed’ system. And that’s why life seems to be so bad. However, God’s universe, life, has not changed, hence, if we do what is right, everything will turn out well. God has the power over life and death and those who CHOOSE life will be able to have everlasting life.
I’m just bringing these thoughts up because this is a different understanding of the bible as to what those other so called ‘christian religions’ teach, or rather tell.

In love, Liz

By: Debbie Bridge

Debbie Bridge — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:54:43 +0000

Tune your ears to wisdom and concentrate on understanding.

By: Sara Victoria

Sara Victoria — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:15:30 +0000

I pray that these conversations expand into an ongoing, public event that will look back at the Nightline debate on “The Future Of God” (or FOG) as a mustard seed that grew into a tree of knowledge – a world tree that will provide shade and good fruit for the new world that is emerging. How I hope to see such a forum grow and expand and become a headliner event that draws increasing attenttion.. Let us intend a Quantum Reality Show that will be the ‘Must See TV’ of the coming years. Thank God, Bravo, Deep Bow and Much Love.
Sara Victoria

By: Taz

Taz — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:00:22 +0000

Hi Deepak,

I am glad that you are engaging with actual physicists on this matter, as it is always easier for an opponent in a debate to appeal to authority and claim that you were not a physicist (as Sam Harris did to avoid your argument).

I suggest you try and invite physicists Amit Goswami and Fred Alan Wolf in this as well as biologist Rupert Sheldrake for your next public discussion with the staunch materialists.

Good luck and looking forward to more future discussions on the scientific quest for the Numinous 🙂

Regards,
Taz

By: mieke

mieke — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:53:32 +0000

“The ORCH-OR definition of consciousness is a self-collapse of the wave function, including superposition and non-local entanglement.”

Although I am not a scientist I do understand this explanation intuitively.

To me it is just plain awareness when you are completely absorbed in the moment in what you are doing.

Only afterwards you can recognize such an awareness.

I wonder if this can be put into proper words or mathematics at all.