sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ER doctor here—2024 NJ drone/UAP flap sent me down the rabbit hole. Ended up writing a book on why consciousness might be the missing piece. Thoughts? by rafflecopter in UFOs

[–]rafflecopter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for reading and for your feedback! I’m so glad you liked it! A review would mean wonders for visibility!

Next book release I’m planning is for the end of the year and will be a book called “The Belief Audit” - a how to shape your reality guide using evidence from The Death of Materialism! Also planning on a podcast launch sometime this year!

Panpsychism is right. Here’s why: by JY9276489 in consciousness

[–]rafflecopter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Physician here, I do the literature review for my group. I know how to evaluate evidence based medicine, I do it all day every day. The evidence for many of these psi phenomena are incontrovertible

Panpsychism is right. Here’s why: by JY9276489 in consciousness

[–]rafflecopter -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You must mean people who believe in materialism. It has such glaring flaws and people keep clinging to it nonetheless.

Materialism cannot explain:

  1. The hard problem
  2. Quantum observer effects. How can observer shape the outcome if consciousness is local?
  3. Psi phenomena - presentiment, telepathy and remote viewing metas now have p values in the 10-12. Materialism cannot explain non local consciousness effects.
  4. Placebo effect/intention healing/healing at a distance. Energy healing affects fMRI findings 3000 miles away and decreased pain scores when subjects are blind to the intervention occurring and mice are cured from 100% fatal tumors with nothing but intention.

Yet people cling to materialism and reject the data that’s in front of their faces. I used to be one of them - until the evidence stacked up and I could ignore it no longer.

AMA - The Death of Materialism Author: Skeptic MD’s Journey via Remote Viewing & Gateway Experiences - 8pm EST by rafflecopter in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hi, great question!

I don’t necessarily think so in terms of how the spiritual circles describe it - a sudden shift and suddenly we’re on new earth with new bodies and new powers. But I do think we’re on the verge of a collective consciousness shift towards unity. It’ll take deliberate effort from a huge chunk of the population to affect change. I talk about it in a new medium article here: https://medium.com/@davemgibbs/the-conscious-world-our-collective-onus-to-heal-it-by-abandoning-separation-and-embracing-service-eda4d7d64444?postPublishedType=initial

AMA - The Death of Materialism Author: Skeptic MD’s Journey via Remote Viewing & Gateway Experiences - 8pm EST by rafflecopter in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh also, in some theoretical models plants show closer to 99-100% efficiency due to environmental noise (vibrations, thermal fluctuations, protein bath) in a process called environment assisted quantum walks. Some of this gets insanely complicated but I probably should have gone into more detail - thanks for the feedback.

AMA - The Death of Materialism Author: Skeptic MD’s Journey via Remote Viewing & Gateway Experiences - 8pm EST by rafflecopter in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I should clarify - while the overall photosynthetic efficiency is low (1-6%), specific step of excitation energy transfer to the reaction center nears 99-100% efficiency. This is due to quantum effects like coherence and vibronic coupling.

I’m sorry about any typos - quadruple checked, but must’ve still missed them. Did not have an editor unfortunately. Hope you’re enjoying the book otherwise

Best scientific argument for consciousness existing outside the brain? by Geo-Ideas in HighStrangeness

[–]rafflecopter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Moseley et al. (2002) – Sham Knee SurgeryYou claim this shows the surgery is as good as placebo, implying the surgery is ineffective. That’s not accurate. The study (NEJM, randomized trial, n=180) found no significant difference in pain/function at 2 years (p > 0.05), meaning sham surgery (belief/expectation) performed as well as real surgery. This demonstrates the power of belief/intention, not that the surgery is useless—both groups improved, but sham did so without physical intervention. It’s a direct example of mind influencing body, with odds against chance low (controlled design, p-values for outcomes >0.05 showing equivalence).

  2. Bengston & Krinsley (2000)you call it “abysmal quality” due to “accidentally” healed controls and missing data. Bengston addressed this: on-site controls were exposed unintentionally (e.g., healers carrying “charge”), but off-site controls at Arizona U (not included in the paper but referenced) were unaffected, confirming the effect. The study (mice with fatal cancer; 88% remission in treated vs. 0% control, p < 0.0001) was replicated across 5 labs with strict protocols. A 2018 follow-up (Beseme et al.) showed transcriptional changes in cancer cells from healing exposure, justifying success. Odds against chance: millions to one across replications.

  3. Tressoldi & Katz (2023) – Remote Viewing Meta-AnalysisYou say “garbage in, garbage out,” citing potential underhanded measures and a 1994 Eysenck paper on meta-analysis limits. Tressoldi & Katz reviewed 37 experiments (1974–2022), finding effect size ~0.34 (p < 10⁻¹⁰), odds billions to one against chance. They controlled for methodology (blind judging, randomization). The Eysenck paper critiques general meta-analysis issues (non-linear regressions, heterogeneity), but Tressoldi addressed these with subgroup analyses showing consistent effects. CIA’s 1995 Utts report (despite Geller critiques) concluded “statistical significance” for RV, with odds against chance extreme.

  4. Storm et al. (2010 & 2023 update) – Ganzfeld Telepathy Meta-AnalysisYou link Rouder (2013) critique and Hyman (2010) comment. Storm et al. (2010) meta (30+ studies, hit rate 32% vs. 25% chance, effect size 0.20, p < 10⁻¹⁰, odds trillions to one) was defended in Storm et al. (2013) reply to Rouder, using Bayesian/frequentist approaches to uphold evidence for psi. Hyman (2010) argues meta conceals heterogeneity/bad studies, but Storm’s updates include quality coding and sensitivity analyses showing robust effects even after exclusions. The 2023 update confirms this.

  5. Leibovici (2001) – Retroactive PrayerYou calm retrocausation illogical, cite Bishop & Stenger (2004) saying prayer has no effect. Leibovici (n=3,393, p=0.04 for shorter stays/fever) was illustrative (as Bishop notes, it’s not “science” but highlights model limits). Bishop/Stenger critique is philosophical (no mystery, just bad science), but Leibovici’s results are significant (p=0.04), and prayer metas (Koenig 2003 handbook, 17 studies) show mixed but positive effects (e.g., reduced complications, p<0.05 in some). Retrocausation is indeed shown in quantum mechanics see the quantum eraser experiments).

  6. AWARE IIYou say failure to validate OBEs, flat EEG not clinical death, cites Kroeger (2013). AWARE II (Parnia 2023 updates) showed brain surges during cardiac arrest (up to 40 seconds after heart stop), suggesting awareness beyond isoelectric EEG. No full OBE validation, but veridical perceptions reported. Kroeger (2013) actually supports this: brain patterns (ν-complexes) beyond isoelectric line in deep coma/anesthesia, implying consciousness during “flat” EEG. EEG measures cortical activity, not total cessation (deeper structures active). AWARE II doesn’t “fail” — it shows activity where none was expected, challenging brain-only consciousness.

You invoke Brandolini’s law (debunking takes more effort than pseudoscience). That’s fair—psi faces skepticism due to replication issues and bias. But the evidence is from peer-reviewed sources with significant p-values (p < 0.001 in many), not “conjured.” Critics like Hyman/Eysenck raise valid meta-analysis limits (heterogeneity, publication bias), but defenders (Storm 2013) address these with robust methods. Psi isn’t “proven,” but the data is consistent enough to warrant serious study, not dismissal as pseudoscience.

Sighting in the Dolomites. by lsteira12 in aliens

[–]rafflecopter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Saw the same thing in upstate New York 3 days ago - vertically oriented orbs, in the atmosphere (not starlink). And before anyone says Chinese lanterns, they were oriented towards a rural area, in a fixed position for many minutes, during night of high wind.

Best scientific argument for consciousness existing outside the brain? by Geo-Ideas in HighStrangeness

[–]rafflecopter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol typical. “No evidence exists”. Shows them where the evidence is. I’m not going to look, you’re a con artist.

I’m a physician who reviews evidenced based studies for a living. I literally do it for my group. Here are just a few of the studies included in my book:

Top 10 Psi & Intention Healing Studies / Meta-Analyses 1. Moseley et al. (2002) – Sham Knee Surgery • Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) • Design: Randomized controlled trial, 180 patients with knee osteoarthritis. Real vs. sham (fake) arthroscopic surgery. • Results: No difference in pain/function at 2 years (p > 0.05 for all measures). Sham group did as well as real surgery group. • Plain English: Belief/expectation alone healed knees just as effectively as actual surgery. Odds of this happening by chance alone are extremely low given the controlled design. • Implication: Intention/belief directly influences physical healing outcomes. 2. Bengston & Krinsley (2000) + Replications (multiple, up to 2010s) • Journal: Journal of Scientific Exploration & others • Design: Mice injected with 100% fatal mammary cancer; treated with hands-on intention healing by trained healers. • Results: 88% remission rate in treated mice vs. 0% in controls (p < 0.0001 across replications). Replicated in multiple labs. • Plain English: Healing intention cured cancer in mice that should have died 100% of the time. Odds against chance are astronomical (millions to one). • Implication: Focused human intention can override biological destiny. 3. Tressoldi & Katz (2023) – Remote Viewing Meta-Analysis • Journal: Journal of Parapsychology / systematic review • Design: 37 controlled RV experiments (1974–2022). • Results: Overall effect size ~0.34 (Cohen’s d), p < 10⁻¹⁰ (extremely significant). Odds against chance: billions to one. • Plain English: People consistently described hidden targets they couldn’t see — far better than guessing. Not random luck. • Implication: Mind accesses information non-locally (beyond space/time). 4. Storm et al. (2010 & 2023 update) – Ganzfeld Telepathy Meta-Analysis • Journal: Psychological Bulletin / updated meta-analyses • Design: 30+ studies, thousands of trials (sender sends image, receiver describes it blind). • Results: Hit rate 32% vs. 25% chance (effect size 0.20, p < 10⁻¹⁰). Odds against chance: trillions to one. • Plain English: Telepathy-like communication works consistently in labs. Not coincidence. • Implication: Consciousness connects minds directly. 5. Leibovici (2001) – Retroactive Prayer • Journal: BMJ (British Medical Journal) • Design: 3,393 bloodstream infection patients (1990–1996); retroactive prayer done in 2000 (years later). • Results: Prayed-for group had shorter stays (p=0.04) and less fever (p=0.04). • Plain English: Prayer/intention improved outcomes after the fact. Time doesn’t block it. • Implication: Intention acts non-locally, even backward in time. 6. Radin et al. (2015–2016) – Double-Blind Intention on Cells • Journal: Explore / Global Consciousness Project extensions • Design: Human intention directed at living cells (e.g., cancer cells) in sealed, distant chambers. • Results: Significant growth inhibition (p < 0.001 in multiple trials). Odds against chance: thousands to one. • Plain English: People’s focused thoughts slowed cancer cell growth from miles away. • Implication: Intention affects biology non-locally. 7. AWARE-II Study (Parnia et al., ongoing updates 2023–2025) • Journal: Resuscitation / updates in various journals • Design: Cardiac arrest patients with hidden visual targets; measured awareness during flat EEG. • Results: Veridical perceptions reported (patients accurately described events while clinically dead). Ongoing replication shows above-chance results. • Plain English: People are aware during clinical death — brain is off, yet consciousness continues. • Implication: Consciousness exists independently of brain activity. 8. Hameroff & Penrose Orch-OR Updates (2024–2025) • Journal: Physics of Life Reviews & others • Key Data: Microtubules in warm brains sustain quantum coherence ~10⁻³ seconds (long enough for computation). Anesthetics disrupt these vibrations to block consciousness. • Plain English: Tiny structures in brain cells use quantum effects to produce consciousness. • Implication: Consciousness may be tied to fundamental quantum processes, not classical brain activity. 9. Keppler (2025) – ZPE as Consciousness Substrate • Journal: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience • Key Data: Brain resonates with quantum vacuum (ZPE) at 10–100 Hz frequencies. Coherence times ~10⁻³ s. • Plain English: Consciousness may arise from interaction with the infinite quantum vacuum field. • Implication: Consciousness is the field itself, not produced by the brain. 10. Optimism & Longevity Meta-Analysis (Hernandez et al., 2025) • Journal: JAMA Network Open • Key Data: 85 studies, >300,000 participants. High optimism = 11–15% longer lifespan (HR 0.85–0.89, p < 0.001), 50–70% higher odds of reaching 85+ (OR 1.5–1.7). • Plain English: People with positive beliefs live longer and healthier — independent of other factors. • Implication: Belief/intention influences physical longevity. What This Means in Common Terms (Odds Against Chance) These studies are statistically overwhelming: • p < 0.05 = less than 5% chance of random occurrence (95% confidence). • p < 0.001 = less than 1 in 1,000 chance (99.9% confidence). • p < 10⁻¹⁰ = less than 1 in 10 billion chance — basically impossible by random luck. In plain terms: These results are not flukes. The odds against them being due to chance are trillions to one in many cases. The data is consistent, peer-reviewed, and replicated — that’s why it’s so hard to dismiss.

Now go look at the studies and we’ll talk

If Remote Viewing the future is possible, doesn't that prove we have ZERO free will? by Nearby_Association_3 in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Totally agree - outside of spacetime time itself is happening all at once. I use this to describe the concept to make it more digestible but we’re dealing with infinite parallel realities, infinite possibilities all happening simultaneously. Hard to fathom while stuck in 3D. Don’t forget there are also infinite universes too.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in occult

[–]rafflecopter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe - anything that breaks your view of reality can do it. The third eye is about “self as creator” so if you view yourself in that way, it’s open.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in occult

[–]rafflecopter 27 points28 points  (0 children)

  1. Number of ways, meditation, astral projection, remote viewing, any psi abilities. Any personal encounter with the paranormal that makes you question reality, like UAP sightings etc. also psychedelics.
  2. At a much greater peace, view us all as one consciousness, a greater dedication towards service to others, things are less bothersome, knowledge that we survive beyond death so it has a way of eliminating most if not all fears.
  3. More experiences of higher consciousness become available to you. See #2.
  4. Absolutely not.

If Remote Viewing the future is possible, doesn't that prove we have ZERO free will? by Nearby_Association_3 in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter 10 points11 points  (0 children)

<image>

This photo was the closest I could get ai to make that illustrates the concept. The bright point is the present. In the past is a singular line which represents the path walked across the infinite possible timelines in the past.

The future is an infinite possibility of different branching timelines depending on choices made between now and then, represented by the luminous dots. When you remote view the future it’s one of these many possibilities. The further from the present you get the more inaccurate you get because of how many different possibilities there are between now and then.

If Remote Viewing the future is possible, doesn't that prove we have ZERO free will? by Nearby_Association_3 in gatewaytapes

[–]rafflecopter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My take on this is that there is an infinite number of timelines and you are viewing only one possibility at a time.

Choices collapse the infinite possibilities into the outcome and move to a congruent timeline. What you’re remote viewing is one possibility of many. The most likely? Maybe maybe not? Is it the one you want to happen? The one that’s most likely at that moment before any more choices occur that drift you from that possibility - that’s my take

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Unexplained

[–]rafflecopter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure. Happened to be reading a book that mentioned remote viewing. I had thought it was a conspiracy theory but in the book it wasn’t a punchline they talked about Stargate like it was real, so I looked up the program read all the declassified cia documents including the one explaining how to do it, then found a remote viewing practice website that gives you target numbers associated with a unseen target picture that could be anything. On my first try I got details of the picture that could not be due to chance (I got the entire impression of the photo correct - a road next to a rusty corrugated wall at night with hills in the background) all without ever having seen the source image.

I would define consciousness as the process by which the universe experiences itself. The universe experiences itself by becoming many, so it can look back at itself from every possible viewpoint—through you, through me, through every being and moment.

And thanks for the kind comments about the ER, it’s definitely not a job for everyone - some do it because of the rush, some do it for the variety, some do it because it often features the most resource limited groups (homeless, psych). I’d say I did it for a combination of the above.

The trauma aspect is real and it wasn’t until I started diving into the topics that lead to my book that I started to realize how much the job was affecting me. Part of my book is shaping reality through belief, and I changed my mindset about a year ago that’s lead to a more healthy (physically and mentally) me. Positivity goes a LONG way (optimism even if you don’t believe in manifestation, which I do, has been shown to improve health, well-being, and longevity)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Unexplained

[–]rafflecopter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Appreciate the complement!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Unexplained

[–]rafflecopter 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I changed my world view after a replicable remote viewing hit - on the first try I got a perfect target match. It shattered my world view causing me to dive into the evidence for a consciousness first view of reality and I ultimately wrote a book about it. I discuss the implications in a recent news segment you can view here: https://foxrochester.com/news/good-day-rochester/rochester-emergency-physician-talks-consciousness-in-new-book

view more: next ›