What the Bleep Do We Know?, Anyone see it? Options

[Ben]

Has anyone seen the movie "What the bleep do we know?"? If so what was your general opinion? I didn't get a chance to see it before it was phased out and wanted to know if buying the dvd was worth it. Here's the site for anyone who hasn't heard of it http://www.whatthebleep.com/ .

[paige]

I havent heard anything, but i would like to know what the deal is with that movie as well. I saw it in blockbuster, and was tempted to invest. let me know too. I am interested.

[Trip like I do]

I've seen it!

[Hey Hey]

I heard a radio review that suggested it was very much for the non-scientist audience and that scientists from a range of disciplines would find it close to ridiculous. I might rent it though as I'm curious.

[Trip like I do]

I lost interest about half-way through.

[bluesfreefall]

It's a fairly interesting introduction to the idea that manifested thought determines reality. But the films interviewees are often quackish and there is a shallowness and glossiness about the film which is somewhat hard to stomach. Many of the people interviewed in the film have been appearing in pop culture lately as disseminators of "The Secret", which is more pop-New Age buzz about thought-manifestation, only this time it deals more overtly and shamelessly with getting rich. Still, it can't hurt for the general public to be informed about this phenomenon, no matter how hollow its presentation. And the presenters are right that the power elite in general would rather the mass public not be exposed to these ideas. If only they didn't adopt a similar style to the infomercial real-estate scams.

[Chip]

I enjoyed the film as I also enjoyed "The Secret." I personally don't see money as a measure of wealth and found the clarifications in "The Secret" to mention there needing to be genuine belief in what one wanted before it could be made manifest through the power of the mind. A scientist who appears to cater to these ideas is Dr. Stuart Hameroff and his web site is at http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" - Freeman Dyson

BTW, do you have better than just dial-up bandwidth? You could probably find a torrent of "What the Bleep..." as well as of "The Secret."

[lucid_dream]

I wouldn't buy it, and I would definitely not buy "The Secret" as this is almost definitely a scam. I would recommend renting or borrowing "What the Bleep..", if only to satisfy your curiousity. Don't expect any revelations though, as it is all New Age hype that you've probably heard before, except I don't think the Age of Aquarius is mentioned. I sympathize with Trip's reaction, and think there's a large probability that you will find the movie rather childish and naive, and consequently boring.

Time to manifest my thoughts and restructure myself at the cellular level!

[Hey Hey]

Richard Dawkins:

This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring - unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be - as many innocent dupes have stated - "life-changing". The one redeeming feature is the enigmatic charm of the deaf heroine, whose depressive journey down the rabbit hole of life is punctuated by gobbets of bogus sagacity from a dozen talking heads. But no amount of charm could redeem the unforgivable phoniness of the script.

Over-use of the word "paradigm" is a pretty good litmus for inclusion in the scientific equivalent of Pseud's Corner, and the film's "expert" talking heads score highly. Perhaps the leading one is "Ramtha", a dead warrior from Atlantis who addresses us (in a fake accent) through his "channeler", a woman called JZ (Judy) Knight, founder of the Ramtha Cult which sponsored the film. Thirty-five thousand years in the grave have not dulled Ramtha's business sense: he charges $1,000 per counselling session. Poor JZ has her work cut out.

The authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us. Not surprisingly, we get no enlightenment on either topic, nor on the alleged connection between them. Instead, we are told that indigenous peoples were "literally" unable to see early European vessels arriving off their shores - presumably because the ships lay outside their "paradigm". We are told that "All emotion is holographically imprinted chemicals"; that "Each cell has a consciousness"; and that "God is the superposition of all the spirits from all things".

What drives me to despair is not the dishonesty of the charlatans who peddle such tosh, but the dopey gullibility of the thousands of nice, well meaning people who flock to the cinema and believe it.

[Chip]

Guess I'm just a fooled dupe. I know enough to have seen many of the inconsistencies in the film which are listed in a wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Blee...We_Know!%3F .

I tend to see things in a fuzzy way. Particulars being inaccurate do not necessarily totally negate an hypothesis. Though I don't hold to the explanations behind the Urantia book, I do think there is some wisdom there too. I also am coming to a pretty strong idea that many if not a large majority of physicists cater to some far-fetched myths about universe basically by assuming that what we see is all there is. Their acceptance of some assumptions that cater to meaninglessness and purposelessness does seem to fit applied sociology which begs one to wonder, does general opinion drive what one observes? I think that is too often the case.

Gregory Bateson's attempt to deride "faith" with his alluding that if you can't see a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars it is best to not believe in it totally breaks down. Teapots on the surface of Earth are exactly that, on it and not it. So, often there is a teapot or more in orbit between Earth and Mars. Me thinks if you do not know everything, it is best to take an agnostic stance. It is what one applies, relatively speaking, that matters and we can do that without having to claim unshakable allegiance to any one opinion or another. Those who do claim to know enough to transgress the idea of "do no harm" I find to be worthy of containment. I begin to think that a major distasteful characteristic of self-centric general theories of universe is that they consider humans and even many animals as powerful and worthy of respect/preservation. That is counter to corporatism that I surmise generally finds the machine more worthy of reverence than living beings, forsaking pursuit of the consciousness singularity.

[maximus242]

Chip, I think I understand you a little better now. Everyone would like for the ideas in movies like The Secret to be true, but unfortunatly we live in a reality that works a little diffrently. I think, you forget for a while what you know about science and get caught up in the wave of hope and promise these theories offer. The Secret uses a few facts and distorts them with loads of fiction. This is no diffrent than the Da Vinci Code, and why did he have to name it Da Vinci? Couldnt it of been The Leonardo Code, now I have to hear layman say Da Vinci all day (which in Italian just means from Vinci).

Anyways, what the Da Vinci Code does is take historical compositions and make them appear exciting by finding any possible similarity. You know the so called sacred feminine on the last supper? That is also on the Burlington House cartoon by Leonardo, if you look for the triangular composition (very common compostion) then you can find half a dozen old master paintings that have the same symbol. The Rose Line doesnt even go through Rosyln Chapel, that is a diffrent line all together.

They take a few facts and distort them so its exciting yet it still seems believable. To those who can keep their thoughts clear, they very easily see that the facts have been widely changed. The Secret does the same thing as the Da Vinci Code, they take famous historical figures and wrap them up in Secrets and Mysteries..

In the end, its just good marketing.

The Secret uses the age old psychology of get rich quick schemes. Ever think about what The Secret promised you? Get money, fufill your hearts desires - just by thinking about them! No need to work for it, now you can get everything handed to you using our Secret technique that every famous person in history used. Only $50 and you can have everything youve ever wanted in life.

They dont make it obvious because they are good marketers, but that is what they promise you. Chip, many, many scientists have been duped by magicians into thinking they have magic powers, this is no diffrent. Your certainly not the first perons and definatly wont be the last.

[Chip]

Only $50 and you can have everything youve ever wanted in life.

They dont make it obvious because they are good marketers, but that is what they promise you. Chip, many, many scientists have been duped by magicians into thinking they have magic powers, this is no diffrent. Your certainly not the first perons and definatly wont be the last.

Hmmm, I missed the $50 dollar thing. Which movie is that from?

I know it is hard but does appear that many a valuable science has been suppressed by so-called scientists who are extremely enamored of the idea that there simply cannot be a "free lunch." Here is a movie about one of them which if you look into it definitely seems to be an honest to goodness conspiratorial suppression of very violent repercussions: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=22...LD+FUSION&hl=en The thing is, we exist in a most unique situation with energy bathing this planet and options that could give more than enough for all with an open ended freedom for all of humanity, no limit. The limits are those we impose upon ourselves often for the sake of some highly depraved individuals who are duped into considering themselves a part of an elite in control. There is no blame. We are just ignorant to accept a zero sum game as the only game in town.

[maximus242]

Chip, if this is so, then I would like for you to mentally make a monkey appear next to my computer. Or even better, make ten thousand dollars.

$50 thing is from The Secret, it might be $40, I didnt buy it but I see it for sale everywhere.

Chip, I think you want to believe, but a part of you knows that this theory is a big fake.

Im not against expanding ones understanding, I just dont support companies who prey on peoples hopes and dreams to turn a profit.

[lucid_dream]

How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go?!


http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html

(be sure to read the very last 4-5 paragraphs)

[Chip]

Chip, if this is so, then I would like for you to mentally make a monkey appear next to my computer. Or even better, make ten thousand dollars.

Hmm, doesn't look like a sincere request to me. In fact, I think you don't really want me to manifest such things. I guess, in some people's minds, honesty is not considered the best policy, not quite my major failing.

$50 thing is from The Secret, it might be $40, I didnt buy it but I see it for sale everywhere.

Hmm, you immediately contradict yourself. Looks to me like you are one confused individual. Well, can't say I am not. Welcome to the club, Homo sap. :~)

[maximus242]

I dont contradict myself, I did not buy the movie but I have seen it for sale. Thats not contradictory.

[Chip]

Thanks for the link, lucid_dream. Informative and interesting, especially the stuff about misrepresenting one of the so-called scientists.

When Hameroff gave his presentation at the "Beyond Belief" conference there was quite a stir and it appeared to me that the criticisms were quite empty though vehement. People are quite emotionally opposed to the idea of consciousness centered existence. It really seems to touch upon some nerves. Again, Hameroff's site is at http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

[Chip]

$50 thing is from The Secret, it might be $40

Me thinks you find being literal too much of a bother which makes virtually anything you say suspect. The grammar and spelling snafus, I guess you don't mind making them as you have gone back and done some editing without correcting them though they are quite obvious. It is really a waste of my time to continue with this. If you are not going to take your own communication attempts seriously, then why should I?

[maximus242]

$50 thing is from The Secret, it might be $40

Me thinks you find being literal too much of a bother which makes virtually anything you say suspect. The grammar and spelling snafus, I guess you don't mind making them as you have gone back and done some editing without correcting them though they are quite obvious. It is really a waste of my time to continue with this. If you are not going to take your own communication attempts seriously, then why should I?

I really do not understand what your getting at. It seems like you are trying a personal attack on me rather than discussing the ideas and theories put forward. Please remain mature and discuss the ideas rather than getting upset because someone does not agree with you.

I am watching the video you posted now, it looks intresting. Scientists definatly have a sheep mentality, and im sure they will change their ideas again 100 years from now. You dont understand that I genuinly would love to have such theories be viable, but they are very loose ended and full of contradictions. I would be very happy to find things like the Law of Attraction to be true, but im not going to go down a path of nonsense either.

[Chip]

Oh Heck. No personal attack intended. I am just basically disgusted with online forums. They get me into situations that are not peer-to-peer and misunderstanding seems all too easy. I apologize for any ill feelings that seem to be evident.

I see a lot of wisdom in some of what you say but I also see a great deal of naiveté and confusion. If there is any suggestion I might make is that you (and I too) spend a bit less time jaberwocking on a forum and go do some work, part of that 10,000 hours you speak of in another post. One of the things I want to manifest in the world is where hard useful work is handsomely rewarded. The problem is right now a lot of free-loaders with few ethics or morals rise to hold positions of great authority over you and me, limiting our capacity to find real lasting reward for valuable efforts. I have a lot of work to do mainly learning Python and creating an experimental P2P communication system that I believe may have greater positive potentials than an online forum. I should get on with it and leave this place alone.

[maximus242]

Indeed, sometimes misunderstandings do occur but I believe that this forum is benificial because it allows people from all over the world to get together and discuss ideas in a productive environment. Society often doesnt support asking such difficult questions and most people shy away. BrainMeta is a place where people will tackle the most difficult questions.

The cold fusion video was intresting, I may do a small experiment to see what the results are. I generally do not just take peoples word for it on, usually I conduct my own research before drawing conclusions, I find this is the most reliable method.

This forum is my home away from home, it is where I go to talk about diffrent insights and thoughts with people. Its difficult to do this in a regular conversation as few people are able to keep up with the concepts.

[Chip]

Okay. Please consider, though, there is a lot of misinformation being spread in this world and little assurance that an online forum gets you in touch with wisdom. I'm going to try not posting here altogethor for awhile and hit the books. Just got a current registration for a diesel car I own and I have a bit of work to do to it so it runs on used vegetable oil.

Since I was about 12 years old, about four decades ago, on my birthday I always wish the world had all happy people. Talk about unrealistic wishful thinking...

[maximus242]

The world does have all happy people, though they may not always be happy, they are from time to time inherintly happy. Chemically one has to experience at least some moments of happiness, thus people are not constantly happy, but they are nevertheless happy at times.

Guess your wish came true..

[Trip like I do]

if you look for the triangular composition (very common compostion) then you can find half a dozen old master paintings that have the same symbol. The Rose Line doesnt even go through Rosyln Chapel, that is a diffrent line all together.

.... the triangle, or the chevron, is also a signifier of homosexuality in some circles.

Geometric shapes have many codifications.

[maximus242]

Good point Trip.

[Trip like I do]

They also talk extensively about the chevron in the 'Lost Tomb of Jesus'.

[Hey Hey]

When Hameroff gave his presentation at the "Beyond Belief" conference there was quite a stir and it appeared to me that the criticisms were quite empty though vehement. People are quite emotionally opposed to the idea of consciousness centered existence. It really seems to touch upon some nerves

I would like to believe this approach, but first I have to understand much of it. I was particularly floored by the nature of his explanation of how mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe, as were many of the audience. I have read many of his (and Penrose's) papers and have learned a lot about cells biology (of which I thought I already knew a great deal) but his explanation in the BB2006 about the quantum effects seem insulting through his ignorance. Maybe the papers read better because of the influence of Penrose. I am sure that Hameroff is a great anaesthetist, and he makes a great impression during presentations, but to attempt to divert attention away from the real issues by throwing in "expertise" in all branches of science leaves him very exposed. And rather spoils what could still be a very valuable hypothesis (of the future).

[Chip]

I am sure that Hameroff is a great anaesthetist, and he makes a great impression during presentations, but to attempt to divert attention away from the real issues by throwing in "expertise" in all branches of science leaves him very exposed. And rather spoils what could still be a very valuable hypothesis (of the future).

Hmmm, usually reference to expertise is considered a reasonable way to bolster one's claims. I don't exactly understand how you find it to be otherwise.

Here is the BB session including Hameroff

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...=hameroff&hl=en

[kortikal]

I am just basically disgusted with online forums.

Then why are you here?

[Chip]

I am just basically disgusted with online forums.

Then why are you here?

I lack some self-discipline, me thinks. I've also long enjoyed seeing people squirm with cognitive dissonance. Thanks for the entertainment. :~)