Dagney Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 http://youtu.be/VjpCKZ7cEoY Yes, pseudoscience it is, to some degree, but I did find some of the points made interesting. Like the heart having it's own kind of mind, that kind of thing. Other than that, I understand the skepticism and have since grown a bit from this post.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 This is pseudoscience. Mind is not the only thing observing matter and causing change to it, every particle can observe another particle, hence non locality is so shortlived and happens regardless of human or any other conscience. Humans have been around for about 200k years, the Universe for about 13.72 billion years. Anything that regards human conscience as having any importance on the grand scheme of things, will sound like geocentrism to me.
Dagney Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 The key to talking to nature is to know its harmonic language. Language as information can travel at the speed of light and beyond, and yes, entangling itself with more subtle energies, causing it to be even more powerful as a consciousness, a collective energy, which could change things like a storm - to misdirect to another location - instead of geoengineering, say with chemicals - you would not be open to that?
FriendlyHacker Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 "Talking to nature" You mean like Seaman? "Entangling itself with more subtle energies causing to be more powerful than consciousness." I can't understand what that means, too ambiguous. "Collective energy that can change a storm" You use the term energy so loosely I have no idea what it means, but hey, if you bump your pinky into the living room table, it might initiate a chain of events that might cause a storm.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 You can talk with nature, that's not really an issue, but when the rocks and pebbles start talking back, let me know how you've done it.
Recommended Posts