Reality and the Extended Mind

Reality and the Extended Mind

2011, Psychology  -   184 Comments
Ratings: 7.37/10 from 150 users.

Reality and the Extended MindFrom the author: The inspiration came from many years of personal research into a range of scientific fields including consciousness and psi research, psychology, biology, cosmology, quantum physics and philosophy of mind.

This documentary focuses on experiments exploring what is known by researchers as psi phenomena. These are anomalous extended properties of consciousness that have been measured under experimental conditions by highly qualified scientists.

Their existence signal far-reaching implications to our understanding of both consciousness and reality itself.

The Reality and the Extended Mind documentary is loosely based on a highly researched and in-depth book by the same title.

Directed by: Adrian Nelson

More great documentaries

184 Comments / User Reviews

  1. The Reality and the Extended Mind documentary is loosely based on The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain by Annie Murphy Paul

  2. Completely unconvincing. Well done.

    1. Completely missed the point. Well done.

    2. Yes I agree. John, you don't seem to be interested in this phenomena. I doubt you have any experience with psi. If you have, I would have hoped your ego may have shrunk a little.

  3. I have psi powers that would be hard to imagine by you mere mortals. So I won't go into it so as not to upset you. Just trust me on this, I'm better than you by a long shot. Have a nice day.

    1. Hi John, I don't quite understand your feeling of supériorité. Psi power is not intenses for that purpose or finality. Psi is contrat to ego.

  4. Great documentary. Thanks for uploading. But the background music is a bit too loud and intrusive.

  5. By the way the Admiral Byrd ESP experiment was conducted EVERY night at the same time. So they had a number of journal entries to compare.

  6. Back in the day there was a thing called ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). An ESP researcher pre arranged with Admiral Byrd, who was going on an expedition to Antarctica, to set aside 10 minutes (I think that was the amount) at a particular time to think about something and try to project those thoughts to the research who would try to receive them. They would both write down in a journal the thoughts. When Admiral Byrd returned the compared journals and supposedly they corresponded quite well. This was written in a book by the ESP researcher. I read about it some 30 years ago in his book which I cannot recall the name of. As someone said above. Just because you don't want to believe such things because the evidence, the journals are not in front of you, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that for an intelligent person it may be filed in the "unknown" file, waiting for more evidence. I certainly don't need to see more studies, nor this documentary to know first hand that ESP is real, having experienced it enough times myself. Along a street I've walked for years, the same street lights turning off most every time I walk by. I assume that these lamps have weak controller connections or something since I've read about individuals that shut down a whole row along a street. Maybe that whole row is on the same weak connector. If I actually TRY to make them go off, it doesn't work. So it isn't a frontal lobe phenomenon as the docu mentioned. I've experienced a few other types of ESP. Again, not something willed, just observed.

    I would imagine that most women would laugh at any man, like some of those above, who flat out deny PSI or ESP. What is intuition? What is the phenomenon between identical twins? Buckle your seat belt ladies but just because you were correct once with your intuition doesn't mean you are every time ...or any other time. Too many gals are creating hell on earth for their guy or family because they assume their intuition is correct when it was just projections of negative thoughts. ALWAYS be neutral about your thoughts and intuitions until you can confirm. Unless of course it is life threatening and you feel very strongly that your intuition is telling you to not take some mode of transport. (Or walk in front of a gun ;)

    To all the nay sayers and haters, who think they are superior because they don't believe in nonsensical things... you are the nonsensical thing. You have a self fulfilling prophesy or method of mental clamp down which prohibits experiencing many things. If I live in a windowless house and never go outside I can say there is no sun, etc. Whoever designed our minds did so to prevent the unenlightened (most all of us including myself) from having mental powers that we should not until ready. Somewhat similar as being of a certain age before allowed to get a driver's license. Would it be wise to hand out Gatling guns to 3 year olds? Or too much info about individuals to the govt and their helpers; like Gaggle me with a backhoe dude.

  7. PeSO821 - And exactly what do you attribute that placebo effect to if not to psi?

  8. This makes complete sense, sometimes when you randomly think of someone you haven't spoken to in a long time, then later come to find out they send you a random message or call you unexpected ( and this is someone you rarely even talk to ). So I do believe we can sense and send signals to each other, perhaps even in dreams we can reach out to to others but this has to be a high energy and without pausing or interacting with other energy's. The pathway has to be clear and not filled with other energies or thoughts to reach that one hit wonder and to be able to sense it. Like he said he used individuals who meditated and were brought to a state that was clear to catch the other persons signals. With enough practice, I believe we as humans will evolve even more by this very practice! very exciting. Maybe one day we will not even need phones anymore to communicate, maybe we will reach the level we always wanted to. LOL

  9. I want to know more about the Global Consciousness Projects observation of a spike BEFORE the 911 event. Whaddup?!

    1. Do a search....its on their website, its very interesting :)

  10. I just spent a good deal of time reaching these incredible studies, and unfortunately its all nonsense.

    The good news is we don't have to worry about someone inevitably building a global mind control machine.

    1. Its all real, only a tinfoil hat will protect you.(edit)Nevermind the hat, i did some research and the tinfoil might amplify the conductiveness of your brain waves.)(

    2. do you have better qualifications than Dean Emeritus at Princeton University?

    3. i havent seen the documentary, but you did mention global mind control.... global mind control is the internet... we all post our thoughts on a regular basis, most of us, whenever we talk to someone and even ourselves and there is something we dont know, we look it up online, as we google something we are typing our thoughts, or whats crossing in our heads at the moment, we start doing it more often until it becomes a habit, then we even start having "human interaction" through the web... everything we do, everything we think, everything we create, everything we are is the internet, and you are here telling us they are not building a global mind control machine?

    4. How is choosing to use the Internet anything like being controlled?

    5. How is the placebo effect nonsense?

  11. Brain waves are measured by their electrical impulses, the same as the heart. So it is possible that telepathy is just a transference of energy from one receiver to another, (one person to another). Furthermore, we are all made of the same biological components, and in that sense connected from a single source. Perhaps this genetic/biological link allows us to effect each other through Consciousness, much like in the quantum entanglement theory, where each particle is effected by the other regardless of locality.

  12. I was hoping for something about human relationships and interaction. But when they talk about predicting what a computer might do, it just turns into a load of rubbish. The methods they use to measure or details of the way they interpret data / results is not explained and therefore not valid. They say people know when they are being stared at about 50% of the time!!!!!! Not the same as guessing a flipped coin? I wish it were true, but the program demonstrates bad science / evidence only.

    1. IMHO: Not explained = questionable, not invalid.

  13. its unscientific b cos its religious superstition, but hey who cares its funny! autonomic haha weird word. automatic autonomous!!!

  14. This is a potentially rich discussion, so why is the sound accompaniment so profoundly irritating and distracting? why do so many aspiring documentary film-makers feel it is necessary to impose musical blandness, in conjunction with irrelevant stock imagery? Is it because the actual narrative is so inadequate it needs to be bulked out & "sweetened" with schmaltzy banality?

    A sensible production rule-of-thumb might be to generate content first in radio format (much cheaper and invariably more informative,) and then see if additional images & sound accompaniment augment or detract, so that such elaborate film components are sufficiently well justified in terms of cognitive & qualitative content.

    1. Right on David - Well said - Thanks!

  15. statistically significant...good luck with additional research

  16. Reminds me of a Darren Brown experiment where he simulates how religious experiences can be evoked under the right conditions. Interesting how convinced people are that the Mind/Soul is separate from the Brain. Can our individual, unique souls (thoughts, emotions, attitudes, memories, beliefs) be explained by physical brain structures? Am I who I am because my amygdala happened to store a certain memory or a certain interaction? There's sort of a sense of spirituality in networks of neurons and how beautifully intricate our minds are, so for me, the brain and the soul could be one and the same. But i guess religious belief in the idea that human beings possess a transcendent "soul" which can be reunited with its divine Creator would encourage a separation of the two (i.e. if my brain is merely an animate object that will someday die, then it can't be my soul, because my soul has an afterlife). So I can understand a specific rift between neuroscience and religion, but not the same conflict between science and spirituality in a wider sense. Humanity seems just as connected and sacred and meaningful when seen as a planet of incredibly complex organisms- organisms which don't necessarily transcend their material existence.

    whoa, this post just became an existential rant…my bad

    1. Interesting comment... Yes perhaps a bit of an existential rant, but interesting nonetheless.

      One thing comes to mind when I read your comment; it's that there's a running paradox in the perception of conscious experience and the 'brain connection', so to speak.

      And it's this:

      (I believe most scientists and media overlook or are ignorant of this).

      The totality of 'experience' is the conscious observation of the intrinsic reality that unfolds quantum mechanically. Quantum experiments run anomalies when observed. It has been commonplace for science to cast this off as an inevitable effect of placing energy emitting sensors that alter the state of experiments rather than the observer... A rightful argument... But it runs into a hole.

      Quanta are rightful placeholders of reality's makeup. Though reality's roots go beyond the study of quanta, it's at this level the universe actually distinguishes itself. The characteristics and the traits that provide the conditions to create the universe we live in, come from the scale of quantum mechanics. This being said, the act of observation itself requires a placeholder value. It is inconceivable to construct the act of observation from the excrement of quantum fields. This would be akin to a runtime error in computer programming. The contents of a window cannot possibly be displayed without having a window first. You can't possibly require a construct of quantum fields (i.e. the brain) in order to observe the quantum fields (i.e. the world around you). You in this case are requiring the contents to exist prior to their existence in order to observe their existence. Sorry, logical fallacy! cannot happen! Beyond the scope of reason!... Need I go on? And why does this work this way regardless of any argument? It's because an 'observation', by nature, is the 'act' of 'experience' of an external system.

      ***(And for all of you that would love to blast a rebuttal at this one, please read it from the top again first. In fact, read it 10x's and slowly, let it sink in, then let me know what you think).***

      As shown in this video, the effects of human minds is not substantial... Nor is it inexistent!...

      The force of gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the universe. It is weak - incredibly weak. Well, we're still searching for it at the quantum level so it goes to show how weak it really is (or misunderstood). It doesn't amount to much at the atomic, molecular or even human scales. Go beyond that scale and we begin to see what gravity amounts to in being central to the universe's capacity to exist. Though weak, the universe cannot exist without the force of gravity.

      ... In the same token, though weak - and even more fundamental to the core of existence in any respect - is the force of awareness. Now I'll be careful not to generalize and say consciousness - I specifically mean awareness. The 'window' to existence, so to speak. We're not talking about yours or my preconceptions here anymore. Only the concept of pre- anthropomorphic awareness. This, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and laid by the foundations of unequivocal logic, lies the Center to all existence. The force of all forces. The 'heart' of the 'matter', so to speak. Observation, the act of conscious experience, is not a matter of 'matter' coagulating in order to form an experience. Rather, it is the container to which all that exists, occurs. This doesn't mean you are the center of the universe; it means there is a force all conscious things share called 'awareness' that stands as the background for anything to fall on. Unlike the image of a typical container with its walls outside and its contents inside, like a flask or a beaker - the container I'm calling 'awareness' is more akin to a magnetic field where the container is central, and its contents suspended externally. Also... In order for something to be said to exist, an observation must occur to concur with that statement. Otherwise we run down the road of logical semantics and come to the same point.

    2. And then there's the whole Targeted Individual discussion and the prohibition of Radionix Machine manufacturing in the USA... and what exactly are those antennae on the top of the IBM building at 1301 K Street (across from Franklin Square) in DC actually for? (Personal observation circa 1994)

  17. The 1st experiment they discuss seems to be flawed. Sit someone down and show them a series of pics, some calm, some emotional. After a while, the person would start to get a feel for the experiment: how long each pic is shown, the nature of the pics, the spectrum of emotion that is portrayed in the pics. It would then be completely natural for the person to begin to anticipate the kind of pic that would be coming next and when it would come, no "psi" required. I definitely believe that there's much more to our minds and reality than what we can perceive, but this is more to do with trickery than actually probing the depths of our mind's capabilities.

    1. You're absolutely right, they do not mention the preliminary tests. As soon as the person sites down and is shown a picture of course they anticipate an emotional response to the picture shown. They counter act that by doing a series of tests - firstly by showing neutral pictures then others that strike different emotional patterns that are tested through BP, HR etc.

      For instance, a few neutral pictures are shown until they reach a picture that would trigger a sexual response, thereafter you would do a few more neutral ones and then show another picture that may portray violence. The monitors will show major differences in emotional response through these monitors. Therefore there is no way of know that the patient will know which type of picture will come next.

  18. Comfortably, the article is in reality the greatest on this noteworthy topic.

  19. I want to know more about these random number generators they speak of. The explanation was so vague. I want to believe them, but it all ends up smelling a little fishy when they fail to explain the basic design of their experiments.

    1. check the doc. "down the rabbithole" or "What the bleep to they know", I am not sure wich one, it explains experiences with random number generators on 2 specific historical moments with more detail...good luck !!

  20. I wish this narrator guy would speak up

  21. There are an infinite number of things that humans will never understand, about the nature of the universe and of time. Like how an fish will never understand how a computer works.

    1. Despite how much I like that comparison, we have the means to create tools that explain it for us, like we have done with most of our advanced science.
      A fish however does not have that capability.

  22. Sadly new ideas tend to be dismissed on the grounds that they are too vague, too lofty, too mystical. This is a natural reaction to anomalies in our worldview. The interesting thing is that usually when several anomalies show up in your theory it shows there's something missing. There are patterns in the data not predicted by your theory and this means your theory needs to change. The scientific theory of matter was pretty airtight around the days of Newton but now there are small leaks here and there where the theory fails to predict the data. Most likely the theory of matter is wrong. Most likely any theory we have at this point will undergo fundamental change in the coming centuries. It is unlikely that we could successfully predict all the factors in a complex system such as the universe at such an early stage of our scientific development. The problem is that the only alternative to scientific materialism is the cheesy new-age take on spirituality. It will probably take a lot more anomalies in the years to come before we can glimpse the contour of the emerging new paradigm.

  23. Okay, this was a somewhat interesting little amateur documentary, and I've been wading through a sea of comments by people debating what the researchers in the film are proposing. There seem to be two camps on the matter:

    1. Those who are standing behind lofty ideas such as "global consciousness" and some kind of mind/universe relationship, and ideas bordering on new-age spiritualism.

    2. Rational thinkers who are criticizing this kind of irrational thought, saying that the whole documentary is utter nonsense, the product of wishful thinking and well... new-age spiritualism.

    But I haven't seen any discussion on the actual data. Yes, the "researchers" in the film are making huge leaps of conclusion in the same breath as they say very disciplined statements as "incomplete scientific model." And I generally get the feeling that these people have no real scientific background and are simply speculating on an effect they are observing.

    But what is that effect? Can these so-called experiments be verified reliably? Critics have called the results of these statistical experiments flawed by selective reporting, but I would like to hear both sides of that argument as well, and I would like to know how this data was gathered, and if there were in fact negative tests that were discarded in favor of the tests that supported results. Forgetting for a moment what the proponents and critics are saying about each other, would it be possible to see some real science involving the data itself? Because if some kind of test like the ones described here were to really produce some kind of result under sharp and critical scrutiny, no matter how small that result may be, if it were verifiable and repeatable then it would indeed have absolutely amazing implications for our understanding of the universe.

    1. check the doc. "down the rabbithole" or "What the bleep to they know", I am not sure wich one, it explains experiences with random number generators on 2 specific historical moments with more detail...good luck !!

  24. This documentary is a good example of how we humans are less inclined towards cautious rational thinking than we're inclined to rationalize our thinking.
    Cognitive bias...
    Cognitive dissonance...
    Conflation of cause and effect and rediness to assign specific agency without the evidence to necessarily indicate such...
    Modelling way out on the mytical fringe... in the realm of wishful thinking.
    Go where the evidence leads. Use immagination as a vital tool, but not as a guide.

  25. The problem is in finding the words and concepts to explain these phenomena. Obviously, there is energy and frequencies that become harmonized when a large group of people feel the same way. Another obvious one is that people haven't have a clue of their intentions. This is a problem because there only think of the obvious and hardly understand it. Intention is the original frequency sent into the world/cosmos and will react with similar vibrations because they will find each other, being on the same plane.... Lots to learn here, most of all get rid of simplistic views such as these. The staring experiment is a joke btw.

  26. True science needs solid results and the ownership of what is being hypothesized, if "Psi Researcher" claims of some deeper process then I want them to come forward and explain it, true science is not made up of murky ideas & maybes, true science stands on the ground of logical explanation which can then be adapted or experienced in reality . This is the only reaon why higgs boson & quantum mechanics is not completely finished, they never claimed that negative energy particle is found, but what i know that they are still working on it. I feel many different things, and I see dreams which are beyond real world around me but one thing I know that just by doing Psi i can not make other people to provide me money for food & survival, only way I know is to do something real & not influence brains or minds of my managers :D

    1. I think the brain experiments that proved the human mind actually begins reacting to a stimuli before it happens, shows that there is more going on. I think your statement disenfranchises the double-slit experiment, if there was not "proof" of this strange under world of particles and probability then the double-slit particle / wave duality would not happen.

  27. There are lots of books on the subject I found helpful, Radin's Entangled Minds was one.

  28. I don't think there are such things as anomalies of consciousness. We are so unaware of ourselves sometimes that we think they are anomalies.

  29. I'd just like to throw out a critic towards the experiment about the psychic 'sending' of the image and the 32% (instead of the anticipated 25%) hit ratio.

    Certain Images are subconsciously simply more appealing than others, for example, in the case of the pictures shown on the documentary I recall one being of a very colorful blue hue, the one with the jellyfish. Blue is by far the most popular colour and the favorite colour of 40% of people. Many people will hence be allured to that picture.

    So really, the contents of a picture involve subconscious factors that will cause certain images to have a higher probability to get chosen, thereby skewing the results.

  30. Frustrating living in a world where I've been taking the subject matter of this program for granted since I was fairly young. No surprises in it for me & have experienced very many similar, plus identical events to those portrayed. Upon crossing a busy city street maybe 30 yrs ago & while concentrating on moving traffic, I unconsciously turned in a reflex type action to look upwards & behind... only to look directly into the eyes of someone staring at me. I then arrived safely other side of road & knew what happened wasn't some random coincidence. I later tried staring at people from a window when standing at one window among hundreds, 'willing' that individual to sense my presence... didn't always work but, sometimes the subject's head would turn just as my own did & our eyes would meet. There's no random scanning of windows until finally spot someone... head turns on 'auto' in one swift move until eye contact. So yes, our minds/consciousness work on levels/ways not generally accepted.

    Nice to hear the subject being discussed in rational open way...

    1. My experiences have been quite different. More like possession and then synchronistic events occurring as a result. Not being a writer I have not had the experience of this but I suspect writers know a great deal about it. I have been forced to become conscious of it for various reasons. Sometimes these so called anomalies are more like wake up calls for us to pay more attention to our interconnectedness and that we are affected by our connections to others. It is likely the person staring you in the face had been psychically aware of you and influenced your being where you were at the time. Maybe he saved your life. I have had so many incidents in which I could have died I know someone is intervening somewhere in someway. On the otherhand there have been other experiences in which I wish there were someone intervening. I recall Jung's story about the scarab beetle. I so deeply wanted to have an experience like it I think I actually influenced an event on the nearby campus in which a ladybug lit on my coat and I had, just days before that, written something about a person nicknamed "Lady Bug". I was quite surprised by the incident.

      The reason you didn't affect anyone by looking out the window is because you likely have no psychic connection to them. JW Dunne's book An Experiment with Time put me onto this Phenomena and then I read Dream Telepathy, Entangled Minds and Mind to Mind. I only read a short snippet of An Experiment with Time but I picked up on the implications in the parts I did read. I suspect Tibetan Monks and other cloistered people are far more aware and adept at this level of awareness than most of us in our noisy busy lives.

      I might add Shirley McClaine's book Out on a Limb was actually the first book I read on the subject and I also read Experiments in Mental Suggestion published in the 1920's.

      What the Bleep was also helpful. I never expected to find myself in the middle of someone's history. I was strongly influenced by the film Anger Management, when Nicholson's character, Rydell asks Buznik "who are you". At first I didn't get it but then it hit me what he was talking about. I had a had a clue about it but wasn't sure until I started digging further into my own personal experiences discovering what I thought had been present in our apartment where I grew up wasn't meaning I was seeing it but it wasn't there. I had denied any hallucinations on several visits to Psychiatrists because I didn't know it was an hallucination. I'm sparing you the details. Suffice it to say I was shocked when I made this discovery. Not to shun the importance of Shirley McClaines book or her film in my life, part of which I viewed sometime ago and shows up in Anger Management, but I had been through a great deal and on various medications that obviously disrupted my memory and what I had learned from both.

    2. Recently my boyfriend woke me up laying still beside me and staring at me. It was very startling. Before I had barely opened my eyes I told him to stop staring at me, and that he woke me up.

  31. I'm watching this video for more then 5 minutes and I have still no idea where this is going. bit vague if u ask me.

  32. good video

  33. of course a conscious observer affects the outcome.. without a conscious observer, there would be no outcome to affect!

    1. the tree does fall even if no one sees it, but thats not even what this video is talking about

  34. Supernatural, means rule + long live (not to die), therefore the nature of the human is every one of us to have these two thing, for example, when Satan and Adem with his wife hawa, met in the heaven (the paradise), Satan was older than Adem and Hawa, he told them that " if they eat the Satan's tree (zarkum) they will have the power to rule the others and the long live not dying for ever, while ALLAH ( the God, the Supernatural) forbidden eating that bad tree.

    the exact features to realize the existence of Allah's Supernaturality is; Allah created the whole with in six days plus one day holiday, THE GOD created the nature, environment, mountains, heavens, earth, sun, stars, rocks, the rain, the wind - Allah commands all of the nature. can we say, the nature is commanded by the people or something we can see - NO

    ALLAH created all of the Living things and Allah controls the death and live, Allah controls the CERTAINTY

    let me hear and see your feedback

  35. The music is annoying interference and I don't believe a word of it.

  36. When science ceases to look for explanations for those things we currently do not understand we give in to our need for certaintly that is the false preserve of religion

  37. People believe in "psi" or "soul" or things like that long before science, since dawn of human kind actually. It is the way our brain works. We naturally believe in supernatural
    on other hand - SCIENCE IS CONTRA INTUITIVE, we don't actually believe universe can really be strange wave functions in Nth dimension. Not even the brightest minds can actually imagine anything on quantum scale, they just know how to do mathematical equations - but have no clue how things really look like.
    And this documentary is taking advantage of those two facts. Human knowledge has gone so far nobody really understands it anymore, and we naturally want to believe.
    So all you need is a bit of ARROGANCE - scientists have no clue - but I know! and brain believes in supernatural again, and we all feel happy again.
    This documentary is nothing but another RELIGION, that takes advantage of the fact scientists do not have all the answers.

    1. whole lotta assumptions going on there don't cha? every scientific discovery was supernatural so to speak before it was proven. men on the moon? living cells? imagine describing a caveman a cell phone? invisible radio waves? how about gravity? can you see or smell it? don't try mixing things that don't fit in the conversation makes no sense to say people believe blah blah long before there is no correlation with the topic at hand. the topic at hand has to do with the current level of knowledge. only an individual that has never researched the thousands of published and unpublished papers on these phenomenon would think about it the way you is a recap of what you said "Not even the brightest minds can actually imagine anything on quantum scale" so all of a sudden you know how intelligent every person is and man's limit for understanding? ha speak for yourself "but have no clue how things really look like." same thing for that line sad really "Human knowledge has gone so far nobody really understands it anymore" oh look there it is again "So all you need is a bit of ARROGANCE " here you are displaying the very behavior your ranting about! "This documentary is nothing but another RELIGION, that takes advantage of the fact scientists do not have all the answers" who is acting arrogant ?point proven. how about actually studying these areas within the scientific community and the evidence , if you did you still might not accept it which is your right , but i'm quite sure you would be embarrassed to speak as you did above. if you put 2 hours of you precious effort into researching the topic you would have a completely different worldview (unless your operating in a closed system, not accepting new information) oh yeah forgot one more thing if the nature of reality WAS materialistic science WOULD have had ALL the answers by now BOOYAH SON.(im not really angry or disrespect you just goofin good to talk with you)

    2. "if the nature of reality was materialistic science would have had all the answers by now" - very good point, John!

    3. I do agree with you that "not even the brightest minds can actually imagine anything on quantum scale" - this is something those bright minds who explore the quantum world admit themselves. I can also agree that science is counter-intuitive as its outcomes rely on measurements and not on what a particular scientist feels about the subject of her/his research.

      But, with all due respect to your convictions, I beg to disagree on some other points. First, I don't think that you, or anybody else for that matter, including scientists, can call something 'supernatural' without any knowledge of what phenomena that we now usually call 'psi' are and how they come to be. We surely don't understand them, just as thunder was an act of god for our predecessors, but that certainly does not have to mean they are supernatural (as thunder turned out not to be).

      Second, by calling something supernatural you indirectly accept the idea of a god, or of a supernatural force that influences our makeup. And I suspect that this is exactly what you would like to avoid by simply denying the existence of some unexplained abilities some humans as a matter of fact display (and often in controlled environment according to scientific criteria).

      Third, accepting that a part of human nature may well be a part of that micro-cosmos, the quantum world, the scientists have detected but still do not understand and exploring the notion, is not arrogant but rather represents an openness that goes more toward science than religion. Religion implies an outside source, 'psi' phenomena appear to be something within us.

      Get rid of your fear that anything that we cannot explain at this stage is dangerous to admit as misterious because it potentially gives an upper hand to 'religies'. That kind of fear will only take you onto the backwards road in exploration of human potential. God is a human invention, what we are talking about is the Universe with unimaginable beauty and power, of which we are a part.

    4. "I do agree with you that "not even the brightest minds can actually imagine anything on quantum scale" - this is something those bright minds who explore the quantum world admit themselves" from what i can gather people only feel this way if they do not have an entire world view that is unified with every other discipline. ie-researching quantum level by itself. I use the term "supernatural" as slang for the anomalous "natural" things in which the mechanism is unkown.
      my personal belief is that all religion is simply incorrect,and impossible in the personification attached to things. there is no separate god , only unified consciousness

    5. @ John Jacquard,

      No ill-intention in my comment. Actually, I wasn't responding to anything you said, because I believe we are on the same line here. Although, I must say that I would truly like to meet someone who has the unified view of the entire world, which would include every single discipline humans have developed - that would encompass a lot of disciplines, apart from the quantum mechanics. I am sure such people exist, but I haven't met anyone like that.

      We certainly do agree that there is a unified consciousness - we just can't define it. And I definitely don't think this unified consciousness is what some organized religions profess.

    6. i hope i didnt come across as disrespecful either to you. i have a unified view, i think a unified view can be the most accurate as it accounts for every mechanism of the nature of reality. unlike the status quo which does not. good to talk with you

    7. i thought i'de bring this comment back to the top. I agree with this last paragraph as if i had written it myself.

    8. I'm about to watch the Doc. right now, but I thought I'd say 'Hi Azilda' first. I see your comments so much I'm starting to feel I know you.

    9. we cannot know for sure the imprints of our words
      since they get left behind in our past
      words that sometimes remain ahead of those
      who had to enjoy or suffer them

    10. we can write words down, then they stay permanent.

    11. I meant the feeling imprints. But yes written words are the proof of what was thought in the fleeting moment when the hand touched the paper.

  38. Science has completely explained how the brain works? Are you from the future? There is still alot about the brain that we do not know. There is probably more speculation as to how and why the brain works than there are proven facts.

    1. Thank you for making this comment. I was actually wondering whether anyone would notice the absurdity of such high confidence in the claim that the workings of the brain can be explained so simply :). Yet, this is what many take, without questioning, as the answer because any alternative would mean accepting that we are not purely material.

  39. I find the documentary interesting, just as I do any discussion that deals with the subject of the mind and our understanding/perception of our surroundings. The question of what is reality has always been very fascinating to me.

    First of all, I have come to the conclusion that any phenomenon that stems from our mind, or is related to it, should be deemed normal because these phenomena are the products of human brain. And the workings of our brains have been explained by the science.

    Since we are explained that electric impulses is what drives our brains and our consciousness (also our ability to understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics), there should be no reason why we would call certain phenomena our brains exhibit paranormal. In that line, the telekinesis or other unusual traits should be deemed quite normal.

    "Paranormal phenomena" is a misnomer as paranormal is understood as "outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation". However, since our science has explained to us the workings of the brain, these phenomena are not outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation and, therefore, are not paranormal.

  40. i'd rather be considered an atheist than one who believes in fairy tales like crist or the one god. do as the film suggests, seek a greater consciousness -- but I would seek this through leaders like Eckhart Tolle and the like. Believing in nonsense is just that, ie, JC; so sorry i can't respect the religious freaks, but i can, in my world, allow for those who don't agree with my beliefs -- unlike the xtians who would just kill the non-believers.

    Anyway, this doc isn't worth watching {because it isn't very good} other than the part noting that "if you can tell if someone else is watching you" that's is evidence that we all share an energy with each other & everything, which is god IMHO

    1. jesus crust pizza anyone?

  41. @Core Luminous...."reality exists a priory.." !!!

    Haha...You are assuming that "reality" exists in an objective manner, out there, on its own without any input from an observer, oh my, you have shot yourself, philosophically speaking, in the foot, that idea was abandoned many years ago by most serious physicists, pholosophers & so forth, its refutation has been done so many times that I rarely see this idea any more. Looks like it`s still alive n well ... BOO! ... Now that`s what ya call riefication...lmao.

    1. lol

  42. Just once id like to read a simple review of the video to see if i want to watch it or not. How bout everyone stop arguing about the always lingering religion topic and give people some info on the video at hand!

    1. The video consists of interviews with leading scientists who have studied the nature of consciousness and seek to understand its relationship to the physical world. It has nothing to do with religion at all. Rather, it raises questions about the adequacy of current scientific thinking to explain the nature of reality.

    2. This documentary is based on interviews with scientists who are looking to understand better the nature of consciousness. Taken together they represent an important piece of work that deserves attention. We live in a world in which conventional science fails to have all the answers.This documentary looks at evidence that suggests we may affect the world in which we live. If our consciousness is indeed a factor it fundementally challenges the conventional view of reality and argues for a rethinking of our position in the 'physical' world in which we live.

    3. If you look at the thousands of docs here, under every one of them you will read unfolding conversations on or off the subject, but most often surrounding the subject. I believe people enjoy exchanging opinions on a variety of thoughts the doc may bring out....and as you say many like to have arguments. Opinions on the quality of the doc is most welcome but those rarely get replies.
      My suggestion is that you tell us what you thought of the doc. If you make it interesting people will read and a few may reply....or as you say some may watch the doc because of your input.
      Kush as in kush the big green?

    4. i thought the doc was fantastic and excellent caliber

  43. 'NEW' Paradigm? I think not. Reality exists a priori. We can only describe reality (which is ever constant) or our illusions, delusions and presumptions, all of which vary. Life is intelligence. Intelligent behaviour is all that which nurtures life. That which is non-nurturant cannot be sustained indefinitely.

  44. This is a great video. Just because it challenges mainstream ideas and science does not make it wrong. What happened to the flat earth theory. We need to move on and accept we don't understand everything. And what has it to do with religion anyway?

  45. Thank you for the feedback and compliments. I made this film.

    I don't expect to convince anyone to alter their perspective on consciousness in 35 minutes. However, meta-analyses of every experiment presented here are associated with odds against chance between a thousand and several million to one.

    Its not a documentary about the existence of god, its a brief investigation about how modern empirical scientific research conducted by highly qualified scientists alludes to the necessity for a different model of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness may be derived by the physiology from a more fundamental order of reality is not a theological question.

    There is no evidence that the researchers interviewed are driven by religious motives. Indeed, knowing them personally I know that not to be the case.
    If you are interested in furthering your understanding of this subject there are a few great books out there.

    Unfortunately this is an area of research that is often misrepresented. However if you want a good scientific account of the emerging new paradigm in consciousness erupting from quantum physics, cosmology, philosophy of mind, biology and psi research, my book gives a much more in-depth analysis.

    1. thank you for your hard work a excellent film. and know there are many people coming to the same conclusions, as this new paradigm continues to emerge and account for the missing pieces that materialism can never account for. may you be successful in all your endeavors!

    2. I am a survivor of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which as you may know, inhibits brain functioning. Through personal experience of obtaining my masters in social work, completing jungian analysis and years of meditation, I developed a gift of psychic trance channeling (wrote a book about what I discovered "Within the Power of Universal Mind" Schiffer Publications and channeled for years on Shirley Maclaine's web site and participated in psychic experiments, was one of top 3), so yes, I completely agree with the information within this film.

  46. @ John Jacquard
    You are kind of killing conversation with your monologue.
    10 posts in a row - there should be a limit against that.

    1. sorry to bother you i was just trying to speak to multiple people (it's only in a row if you sort by newest first)

  47. atheism is a cop out and refusal to look at valid data from the last hundred years in every area and disciple. this statement is not a belief that I have it is the relationship between the atheist and his environment. we don't get to choose accept or deny the truth about reality it is what it is and we can only learn that and live appropriately. we have a habit of holding onto a belief and identifying with it so much that we don't update it with new information because we are afraid somewhere along the line we'll lose our self. do children lose themselves in this process or do they advance as they learn. so how about taking responsibility for knowing the truth, after all the difference between 2 worldviews can affect every aspect of who you are and what you do with your life.Imagine if your "sim" said screw this i'm nothing but pixels on a screen so i'm not going to take blurry sh*ts clean the house or paly that acoustic guitar anymore.

    1. atheist don't subscribe to an organized theology(religion) that doesn't mean they don't believe in god/spirituality/unexplained things/look at data or what ever your claiming they don't believe/do.

  48. look at the way quantum mechanics work (programming) and we have mechanistic bodies to detec the envirnment (character) and we have the universe(game environment) is there any reason to think we are not living in a "game" so to speak and consciousness is the controller that theory can fit with the unexpalined and psi everything really, but can materialism account for such things?what about big bang they say the universe expanded(into what)came from nothing the universe and laws of physics created itself now imagine programming such a simulation with algorithms to create itself (game designers do this save time graphics nodes etc.)

  49. A beautifully done film.
    Covers the same territory & similar studies that many docs here deal with..... I begin to wonder why bother repeating what's been presented so many times... by varied filmmakers ?
    I've had a fair amount of training in meditation & psychic techniques over the years so lab tests mean little to me .... though I often learn something from these things
    Another film dealing with paradigm changes in science shared this observation by Schopenhauer

    "Every truth passes through 3 stages before it is recognised."
    1 It is ridiculed
    2 It is opposed
    3 It is finally regarded as self evident

    argument -debate is futile, IMO... one either resonates with this based on their personal experience, or they reject it as fantasy-speculation-a hoax

  50. It is not uncommon for a single species with the same genetic make-up growing a brain that is statistically similar to others of that same species. Common thought. It is lso statistically possible that random number generators using the same methodology will become harmonic to each other and giving the human the desire to find meaning in patterns.
    But more importantly, this documentry was a bunch of people making specualtive assessments of their own research.
    Gain of salt, my friend...grain of salt.

    1. boo

  51. thank you all...i appreciate the commentary more than the documentary.....clearly demonstrates the flow on function of consciousness me thinks.

  52. @PeSO821, again. Machines DO NOT observe, there's no difference between an electron microscope & a microscope except one of sophistication, it takes a living being to observe ...

    You say things don't just appear, WRONG!, there are particles popping in and out of existence on the quantum level continuously ... don't play with science now, or you may get you're intellect burnt, a joke.

  53. @PeSO821. You think that a scientific experiments always gives the same results, oh dear, you are so wrong on this one! Just google, there's a mass of research papers showing otherwise.

    As for the Amazing Bumbling Randy, I would not give that trickster the time of day, his assumption is, if I can do it fraudulently they must be doing so as well.

    1. Physics can actually predict most of our world to almost scary accuracy.
      OK, there are few exceptions I agree, they have not figured out what happened few moments after big bang, have problems combining gravity and quantum physics, and so on... super extreme environments, we will not come across in our everyday life.
      There are also super complex problems, like weather patterns, consciousness, stock exchange ..., they are practically impossible to predict because of complexity of the problem, not because we would not know basic laws governing them.
      But in general - physical reality is extremely predictable. I know it sound boring, but that how it is.
      How do you think your computer works? By inventing new physical rules every time? No. it works like clockwork - so precise it is almost scary. You press few buttons on a keyboard, few moments later, I am reading your post thousands of kilometers away on different continent.

    2. I agree, physics is very predictive & mostly accurate in day to day situations, but physics is not the monolith peoply think of it, there is a standard view taught in universities (safe knowledge if you like) due to politics & money (plus reputations & careers) , but so much annomolous info is ignored by maintaining this illusion of knowledge.

      Parts of the brain are correlated to certain physiological functions, but they are not neurological correlates of consciousness (nccs),such has never been shown plus consciousness has many times shown to be more dispersed than previously envisioned.

      Drugs affect the mind but they too are not nccs, as for the soul, I don't believe in it, but mind, consciousness, awareness, yes...

      We just do not know the necessary & sufficient causes for consciousness, such being the case it's premature to to affirm something everybody knows that no one knows, I.e.mind=brain.

    3. yeah and anyone likes a backrub. so how does looking at that correlate with the topic on hand. lets take your analogy . say we have a computer and you been hired to fic it say the hard drive fried and you put a new video card in it and gave it back yeah thats great but you have to address the actual problem to have it fixed. no one ever said science had to change any approximation that is just don't want to (or don't have enough information)look at the pieces where materialism does not fit, hence this entire meaning of this video

  54. Very poorly executed experiments. The last one with complex imagery selection is specially bad. They should have a test group of a third person (not being near sender and receiver) that would select one image of 4 presented. I bet he would also have 32% luck like the receiver had.

    A simple explanation. If you are shown 4 images and 3 of them are un-interesting and one very appealing there is a strong chance that most of people will choose this one. No need for mind transfer between sender and receiver.

    Even a high school student could find this experiment un-scientific.

  55. What we perceive as reality is nothing but electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. We can all agree on that. But then who is to say that reality is something other than the four dimensional space-time that we observe. When a person hallucinates we declare that it is a hallucination because the majority so not see it. But the person did perceive it! He received the exact same electrical impulses that we all receive when we look at each other! Then just because the majority is unable to experience it doesn't mean that we get to label it as false.

    Conciousness is something that cannot be explained by the current laws of science. Maybe we will never be able to understand it but doesn't mean that it isn't there.

    New experiments in quantum mechanics are showing that reality really is subjective. Take the famous double slit experiment for example. Light behaves like particles when we are doing an experiment to see if it does but behaves like waves when we are looking for it to behave like waves!

    This isn't even something some mad scientist has declared this experiment has been repeated thousands of times all over the world.

    Why is it so hard to believe that conciousness is something that is real and everything else as unreal? Maybe the conciousness does create reality.

    1. Even the brain is perceived by what we interpret as a brain.
      A self revolving torus kind of thought.

    2. If consciousness does create reality - Why does reality behave in such a predictable way?
      Every time we make certain experiment results are the same - ok, in case of quantum physics - the probability of outcome is exactly the same - there is a limited array of options that can happen. (it is like throwing a dice: you don't know what is going to fall, but you do know it is a number between 1 and 6)
      The fact that things change when we observe them is a tricky one - there does not have to be a human observing object - a machine can observe it too, and change it. It is interaction between particles that creates physical reality. No consciousness needed.

      That is why everything works so well in our lives - thing don't just disappear, a car starts in the morning, your computer still has exactly same data on a hard drive as yesterday (unless it crashed).

      Unlike our minds, where things are not certain at all- we cannot rely well on our memories, our perception changes according to mood, sometimes we mix up what is real and what is not- imagine the world that would run like our consciousness: If you forgot where you parked your car - the car would simply disappear...
      It would be a very messy place indeed.

    3. anyone person that thinks they are nothing but matter is not taking responsibility for their life.

    4. your best bet is to assume there is more information out there. if your going to assume that is

  56. As much as I want to believe in this doc, the evidence it presents to support psi phenomena (the on-screen graphs, etc.) are just not clear enough for me to give this a thumbs up. Interesting concept though. Just still implausible to me at this juncture.

  57. I am an open minded skeptic. Many statements are made here without any proof of their veracity.

    While you are reading, if look up from your book and see someone staring at you, it is unnerving. Because we are hard wired to look for cause and effect, you will think that you felt that person staring. If you look up from your reading and no one is looking at you, you will return to your book, not thinking at all about why you interrupted your reading to look around. Just yesterday I was waiting in a parked car beside a beauty salon. I was surprised when I glanced at the salon window to see someone staring at me. It was momentarily unnerving, until I realized it was a dummy head with a wig. I could have sworn "I felt her looking at me". Under controlled conditions the being stared at phenomenon has never been repeatably demonstrated.

    In part two, during the Ganzfeld experiment, why is the receiver interviewed by the sender before concluding the experiment? This completely unnecessary step knowingly or unknowingly falsifies the result and renders the experiment useless.

    While playing spooky music, there are unenlightening charts and graphs shown with no attempt to explain how the data were collected.

    There many other claims I would poke holes in, but that would require more time than it took to watch the entire "documentary". I don't reject these things through a knee jerk reaction, but much more solid evidence must be provided for the extraordinary claims made. Apparently none is available to the producer.

    1. @#tomregit
      Your "beauty salon" example was a poor one. You looked at the window and were "suprised to see..." This has nothing to do with the conversation. It's when you look up *because* you expect to see someone. You "feel" it first, then reality confirms the feeling.
      This sort of misdirection is common with Skeptics [James Randi, anyone?] And how does one "control" for this? Emotion and intention seem to be a part of this. Cold, hard, science would be expected to fail.

    2. My example has much to do with the conversation.
      Your premise seems to be that I am confusing cause and effect. I don't believe people look up expecting to see someone; rather, when it occurs it is common to assume, incorrectly, that we felt their presence. The fact that there may be differing interpretations of phenomena does not mean there is misdirection and I'm not so foolish as to make that unfounded accusation about you.
      I do not put much stock in the assertions of "professional sceptics" "[James Randi anyone]"either since I question their motives.
      I'm not going to explain how to set up a controlled experiment because I think you understand the concept and if you don't it is simple enough for you to find out.

    3. there are so many thousands of these experiments performed over a 50 year period you can access that if you google a bit, but do you think all of those scientists where conspiring with each other? wasting there time and efforts knowing how society would treat them for working in that field all different backgrounds etc "yeah were going to slowy over a 50 year period fake these results and fool everyone!" meanwhile everyday being ridiculed and treated less than human for challenging the status quo?

    4. Are you really asking me that question? Feel free to disagree with me, but if you actually read my post, I'm sure you'll see that I said nothing like that. I ascribe no motive whatsoever to researchers but that does not mean they are correct.
      I'm not going to put words in your mouth or tell you how to think, but if you feel doing so builds a strong argument who am I to dissuade you.
      Your other posts are very confusing. "Atheism is a cop out. quantum mechanics is 'programing'. we're living in a game", ad nauseum. Your beliefs are "unique" and many intelligent people would disagree with them. That in itself does not make you wrong but you don't have all the answers and haven't cornered the market in logic.

    5. i can respect a statement like that, would be interesting to find any information at all that does not fit with my theory , i couldn't that is why i slowly over time arrived at it.please feel free to explain which answer i am missing it will help me further in my research. I am sure some intelligent person might disagree as it is their right but I would ask if their worldview is one that can unify all areas and disciplines, if not what basis to disagree on? also i'm not sure about anyone else but exchanging knowledge and communication never makes me queezy. I want to gather as clear of a picture as possible.grasping onto the dying beliefs of 18th century paradigm just isn't my thing. as for your confusion, I was making a correlation between a simulation with the nature of our reality to prove a point. feel free to pick any known information and explain to me how it would be impossible for us to be living in a simulation right now .

  58. Human brain the most complex thing we know. Billions and billions of cells need to work in perfect synch to achieve consciousness. If I fall asleep it s GONE...! if I hit myself in a head it is GONE. even if I take miniscule amounts of certain substances it is GONE!
    Consciousness is VERY FRAGILE. It is a miracle it exists at all - and can disappear in a moment's notice. Everything needs to be near perfect in order for it to exist.

    And here they say it is all around?

    Can a complexity (human consciousness or "psy" - the most complex thing we know) come before simplicity (elementary particles in physics - the simplest wave functions)?
    Anything that is complex can be broken down in to simple parts!
    "psy" concept has a problem with pure logic.

    1. You are assuming that consciousness originates in the brain. What if the brain only accesses consciousness, similar to a radio tuning into a station? What if consciousness is everywhere?

      You state: "Anything that is complex can be broken down in to simple parts!" Mathematicians and physicists would disagree. Ocean waves are a good example.

      My problem with Western science is that it would never, I believe, invent Acupuncture, for example. Western science places artificial limits on what can be considered "real". Also, it thinks we can study life by chopping it up, as though complex systems, such as living organisms, are "pieces" placed together to create a "whole", which is incorrect.

    2. Have you seen one of those documentaries, when they do operations on brain when patient is consciousness. They touch certain part of brain and patients consciousness changes accordingly. They can locate very specific functions of brain. Let's say patient speaks, and when they disrupt a center for speech, patient literally cannot speak any more. Or part that takes care of hearing an so on... That is how they know how much of tumor they can cut away, without damaging vital parts of brain.
      If consciousness does not originate in the brain - why this correlation? Why would soul pretend it is totally dependent on physical reality of brain?
      Or another example if you like - when you drink alcohol for instance - a super simple molecule C2H5OH - few simple atoms connected together - They interacts with the brain and have such a profound consequences.
      If soul is independent - why would it correlate to physical reality to such an extreme extend?

    3. throughout history science has adapted and it will again when people are ready for it .(if your just believing the dogmatic status quo instead of researching the thousands of papers on consciousness psi and other related material your self to come to a conclusion based off enough information)

    4. research scientific papers on consciousness from the 50's til now see what you think also look up digital physics,

  59. An interesting and thought-provoking doc.

    Debates around Psi (of the absense of it) cause folk to take hard positions pro and anti when I wonder what evidence any of us really has to be sure.

    A doc like this can open a space to discuss relevant experiences and learn from each other.

    I and many others have had experiences that are difficult to reconcile with classical physics - it could well be that all such events are "brain puns", mistakes, hallucinations, imagination, coincidence etc. - but if we don't share and discuss, how can we find out either way?

    Merely stating one's own beliefs and/or denying other's does not take us anywhere.

  60. Simple Simon,

    Watch the documentary on ants on here and you will find that ants communicate by leaving scent trails. The chemical response forces their action to do things. It's well understood how they communicate.

  61. I believe that we can since others staring at us more so when the person staring is feeling intense emotion about the person they are staring at. I believe this because I was watching a girl at work. She was cleaning something with a toothbrush. I thought it was ridiculous, but I felt no strong emotion on the matter until after about 20 mins when I took notice on the hilarity of how she was cleaning so precise on something that really didn't matter to be cleaned so well and with a toothbrush. She didn't turn to look at me until I was trying to hold back laughter.

  62. I can't recall the word "god" used once. correct me if I'm wrong please.

  63. Someday I hope for you sooner than later you will look upon such speculation, such conjecture and shake your head and laugh at what is known and what is. It will become evident that the process of evolution is that of allowing what is to be. Strain to make contact with your giant telescopes, petition the cosmos with satellites, when in fact the subtle dimensional shift reveals those beside you. You ain't seen nothing yet.

  64. This is all bull. There is no scientific evidence for any "psi" claims. Otherwise they'd have won James Randi's million dollar challenge. Case closed. Read a book. There is no god.

    1. Who used the word 'god' ??? . . Im not sure how I feel about the claims presented in this docu , but I certainly do not claim a monopoly on truth, but strangely you do?? . . Do you know something that we dont? please share.

    2. Mind closed. Read different books. James Randi makes a living fooling people who enjoy being fooled. Scientifically prove the non-existence of God.

    3. The only people James Randi's million dollar challenge is going to draw out are the scammers who are out there to earn a quick buck from fools. People with true supernatural powers have a lot more to risk when publicly disclosing themselves than just a million dollars.

      Also just because you really don't know or don't understand something, don't say it is "all bull" or that it must not exist. Science doesn't really understand what goes on inside a black hole where our known laws of physics break down, but still they have observed one in the center of our galaxy. No reputable scientist is going to publicly say that blackholes are "all bull" because we don't understand them. Or that alien life forms are "all bull" because we have not seen one.

      In summary, "don't know" does not necessarily imply that it "doesn't exist", despite the human comfort you feel, to believe so.

    4. @DarkSpirit:

      You say "people with true supernatural powers."

      Since you say that, you must know them, or know of them, please tell us who they are.

    5. I did not imply that I know people with true supernatural powers. Think for a minute, if you have true supernatural powers would you reveal it to the world, risking fear and paranoia against you or wind up in a dissecting table of a secret government organization to be exploited for military use? Of course not, if you know human history, and have half a brain to think for yourself.

      There is an old wise chinese saying that some things are not meant for humans to know about. But if the human race remains open minded, I am sure we would discover many of the mysteries one day.

    6. @Dark Spirit:

      Whoa, back up a minute, I was polite, why are you on the defensive? you were talking about people with true supernatural powers, when you talk about something like that the onus is on you to show proof of the supernatural/people whatever.

      If not, than you are just talking in the wind, and no, I have more than half a brain and am very capable of thinking for myself!

    7. I wasn't on the defensive, when I said "you", I don't mean you in particular. I meant "you" as in people like James Randi and his team. Nothing good would result from his commercialism.

      I have no onus to prove anything, since no one has proven that true supernatural powers cannot exist. Which means, as of our current knowledge, they can exist. As long as they can exist, then my point is made and there is nothing more for me to prove. In other words, I do not need to prove that they must exist in order for my point to be valid. Let us not make the common human mistake of appealing to ignorance. Just because we don't understand something does not automatically imply that it does or doesn't exist.

      What we currently think of as supernatural acts may just be common natural laws to more advanced beings. Just like many things that we do today would be considered supernatural to a caveman.

    8. @DarkSpirit:

      You are the one that brought it up, so yes, the onus is on you to prove your allegations, but since you cannot, again I say you are talking in the wind, and your post means squat.

      Since all we can do is banter back and forth, am finished with this conversation, unless someone else wants to pick it up.

    9. Don't think that just because we cannot prove true supernatural power exists, they must not exist. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    10. You are right, there is no final proof for anything.
      But if mere possibility of something existing is enough, than you can believe in anything. Why stop with supernatural? You can believe in evil snails that rule our planet, or rocks that can recite poems... I can believe that I can fly... but that could be tricky if I am standing on the edge of a cliff.

    11. Delayed choice and quantum eraser variations have implicitly shown that any observation even after the fact affects the outcome of the duality. the proof is here .consciousness affects the material science has once again changed our paradigm. this experiment has been preformed countless times even with buckyballs. materialists must not have done their homework or understand the implications of what the scientific method has shown. however proof is a subjective word and anyone can believe what they want and they do not have to look at all information in every discipline to see how it all fits before creating a world view. if you don't understand the implications matter should not react differently whether a human is involved or not( in a newtoinan obsolete i386 speed world view boo

    12. But an absence of evidence for x is good reason to suspend judgment pertaining to x. A negative can never be proven, e.g., the proposition "supernatural powers do not exist" (unless the terms are logically incompatible). That does not mean that it therefore makes sense to believe in the existence of supernatural powers. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts a positive claim, e.g., "supernatural powers exist."

    13. thanks dear friend how can you concluded that "supernatural power not exist" because this is also be hypothesis, without conforming you say this, before conforming this you can go yourself find out without knowing yourself(what you called yourself its really exist or not)

    14. Yes, your statement is very useful. "Supernatural" is just a word for something we don't understand. Once we have grafted it into what we already understand, it becomes "natural". Without a doubt the things that are common place today would be seen as magic in the middle ages. The same is sill true today with what will be understood in the future. Insulting and negative attitudes only retard progress through intimidation. It's a form of "intellectual terrorism". If some who comment on these sites were present when Einstein was first considering general relativity, they would have no doubt told him how foolish he was.
      Skepticism is important to prevent us from spending to much effort in an unprofitable direction. But it should not be fouled with bad manners because this hinders communication. And two heads are better than one.

  65. Thanks for the documentary. I believe we humans have more then five senses we consciously use and our mind can get trained in way more directions- it takes sensitivity for received information, some knowledge about universe, psychology and basic rules in nature. I guess humans should be graceful about a "higher" gift of understanding and USE it for good purpose.


  66. Yet would you like being an ant?

    1. Not sure, they are special though. Don't think I could handle the hive mind. Have you seen the swarms of little robots ? Did you manage to get away in the end ?

    2. Morning Lak, hows the wilderness ?

    3. Not a bad shot in the dark. Got back yesterday afternoon.

    4. Glad you're well, how was the trip ? Tell all ! :)

    5. Girlfriend (now ex-girlfriend) and I traveled throughout Eastern Oregon and Washington. Put 3000 miles on her car. Had the most extraordinary trip.

    6. Extraordinary how ? got much editing to do ? Bet you're at it already. (tactfully not mentioning the lady but I hope you're ok:))

    7. The lady and I are both fine. Didn't use the camera much, just enjoyed the trip.

    8. Glad glad glad :) New pic a sunlit cloud ? I like it, the blues are beautiful.

  67. Many moons ago i made sensors for my garden veg patch, using a CMOS 555 timer chip, i had a thermistor to sence the temp, this changed the frequency of the 555 timer with temp and i measured the pulse width to caculate the temp, i had 3 greenhouse and a cold frame, these 555 timers were read by my pc in the house and sounded an alarm should the temp drop, anyway they worked great, all except the one in the cold frame, that only run for a few hours, so i go down there and take the cover off, i made them myself, and what i found amazed me, ants had joined up there bodies to make a wire and shorted the timer out, i brushed all the bodies off, it worked fine, but everey few hours the ants repeated this, but what amazed me the most that by now the ants had learnt what pins to short on the 555 timer to deactivate it, so i changed the way i did it and every few mins turned it on using the very pin they used took 4 samples and turned it off, it seems they were not happy with this and carried on shorting it out, i could have covered it in silcone rubber, but thought no, this seems to realy upset them, so i took it out of the cold frame.

    Now my point is that ants cant write or talk, and the so called way people think they communicate now dont explain this behaviour, as a group they learnt to disable something they would never meet in nature, so ants communicate in ways we dont understand, i think this doc helps explain what is going on.

    Humans think to much of themselves, think you will get better results looking at all life.

    1. God I love ants. A lot :)

    2. Ants huddle around electricity because it provides warmth.

  68. Kind of surprised and disappointed that Stuart Hameroff wasn't in this doc.

  69. If you read real science articles, you know scientists actually want the physics to be wrong - this gives them more problems to work on. For instance most scientists would be much happier if Higgs particle would NOT be found - it would mean that nature is much more mysterious than it seems.

    With this crowd, I get a very strong feeling: we believe in something, it has to be like that! - now let's find data that demonstrates how we are right.. If their data would really be properly measured and repeated - real science would take it in to account - scientists are not stupid people as portrayed here.
    PLACEBO is very real problem in science! Be aware of it!

    1. Science is a very real problem with PLACEBOs. What is a placebo? It's anything that helps the body heal itself. One would think that scientists and doctors would be very interested in that. Nope. They try to make it go away. Why? Because they have a prior belief system, and "bodies healing themselves" goes against that belief system. Therefore, scientists have to "make the placebo go away" or re-evaluate their ingrained beliefs. They then go to great lengths to prove their prior beliefs correct while ignoring and ridiculing any evidence to the contrary. A shameful, non-scientific, practice.

    2. "Science is(sic)a very real problem with PLACEBOs." ---------------------
      No it doesn't. Were it not for science recognizing and testing for the "placebo effect" it would be unknown.

      "bodies healing themselves" goes against that belief system.-------
      Don't be absurd. It's obvious to scientists and laymen alike that the body heals itself. Have you ever had a cold? Cut your finger? Your body healed itself.

      "A shameful, non-scientific, practice."---------------------------------
      Yes, spouting your misinformation and disinformation is shameful.

      PickMyName ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Honestly, you don't want me to do that.