Interesting discussion you guys are having. For a long time we did not have any means of detecting nuclear radiation, in fact our bodies are not outfitted with organs designed for this purpose. However we have come up with geiger counters to measure it.
As stated earlier, my hypothesis is that spiritual entities, and energies correspond to at least a subset of dark matter and energy respectively. A problem with measuring dark/spiritual matter/energy is that it is non-baryonic by nature, it's not made of protons/neutrons the ordinary stuff. There are plenty of scientific studies validating remote-viewing, which is not affected by faraday-cage screen rooms, thus is provably non-baryonic (spiritual) Russell Targ has done a lot of scientific research on the matter, if you are interested can pick up his books. He is of course one of many researchers. Currently the best theories we have regarding detecting dark-matter is via certain quantum particles such as neutrino's or WIMP particles. One of the best methods we have for detecting neutrinos is to have a large vat of water, and then detecting when there are flashes of light within it. What is interesting is that most/all vertebrate animals I'm aware of have a similar "neutrino detector", a vat of water surrounded by rods and cones, it's called the pineal-gland or "third-eye". For instance frog pineal glands have rods and cones from-source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3158392 So as a vertebrate you are equiped with the sensor, though there is a chance it is calcified and thus inoperable -- reverse osmosis or rain water may help clearing it up if only early stages. Also it may lack practice in utilization, assuming it was available during infancy then your brain should still have some pathways, it may be possible to revitalize them with meditation. Though just as an arm or leg in a cast, after a while it tends to wither. I don't know how much neurobiology research goes into studying and reverse engineering pineal-glands, but my hunch is that it is a good bet for detecting dark(spiritual) matter/energy. Of course even after we have detectors for it, interpreting the results would likely be at least as hard as normal vision, quite possibly more difficult, since a bunch of minute flashes may have some significance, also we aren't really sure how the pineal-gland third-eye is "focused" or tuned onto some remote object. So in conclusion yes, I certainly believe we can make machines that can detect dark(spiritual) matter/energy, and that we are all born with such detectors, whether yours personally is in a workable or viable state is an open question. Can always try I guess. Happy meditating, Logan Streondj On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > justcamel, > > You may be right, but it's in the same sense that people of various > religious may be right. It's a completely untestable claim that you're > making. If we can't see it, can't touch it, can't experience it, can't > measure it, and it doesn't affect us in any way, then my question to you > is: Who Cares? Right or wrong, it's of no consequence to us and it's beyond > our capabilities. In that sense, you really are disconnected from reality > *even > if you are right*. This isn't a personal slam against you, so please > don't take it that way. I'm just explaining how I see it, and how (I think) > Mike sees it, too. > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:45 PM, justcamel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Erm? I wrote "Nothing *implemented within consciousness* can measure >> consciousness." >> >> You ARE consciousness ... you are not IMPLEMENTED within consciousness >> ... so you can experience and interact with consciousness on a more >> fundamental level than the implementational level. >> >> You are fundamentally different form an oscilloscope or your physical >> body ... both of which can _NOT_ experience or interact with consciousness >> outside of the implementational level as they are objects implemented >> within consciousness. >> >> I have posted about methods plenty of times ... "meditation" is a broad >> term. Everybody will find his/her very unique method. People on this >> mailing list generally feature an IQ of 2-3 STDs above median ... that's >> more than enough in order to experiment and to find methods that work best. >> >> On 22.10.2015 02:21, Aleks TK wrote: >> >> Nothing implemented within consciousness can measure consciousness. >> >> I think this statement is incorrect, or at the very least highly >> ambiguous. If there is no way to measure consciousness how can we talk >> about the concept to begin with? Or did you mean something else? >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
